Planning and Development Committee

 

Agenda

 

5 February 2019

 

 

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 Tuesday, 5 February 2019.

 

 

Garry Styles

General Manager

 

For apologies please contact Administration on 6393 8218.

    

 


Planning and Development Committee                                               5 February 2019

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 and by the Western Joint Regional Planning Panel 5

2.2            Development Application DA 444/2018(2) - Subdivision - 20 George Weily Place and Lot 125 the Escort Way. 13

2.3            Development Application DA 448/2018(2) - Group Home, Community Facility and Hostel - 20 George Weily Place and Lot 125 The Escort Way. 515

2.4            Development Application DA 1/2019(1) - Animal Shelter - 36 Astill Drive. 685

2.5            Development Application DA 329/2015(3) - Hotel - 62 Byng Street and 77 Hill Street 717

 


Planning and Development Committee                                               5 February 2019

 

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                                              5 February 2019

 

 

2       General Reports

2.1     Items Approved Under the Delegated Authority of Council and by the Western Joint Regional Planning Panel

RECORD NUMBER:       2018/3035

AUTHOR:                       Paul Johnston, Manager Development Assessments    

 

 

EXECUTIVE Summary

Following is a list of development applications approved under the delegated authority of Council and or by the Western Joint Regional Planning Panel.

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 and by the Western Joint Regional Planning Panel.

 

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.

 

APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER THE DELEGATED AUTHORITY OF COUNCIL

 

Reference:

DA 379/2014(3)

Determination Date

2 January 2018

PR Number

PR27982

Applicant/s:

Taylor Made Buildings Pty Ltd

Owner/s:

Mr EJ Zell and Ms TS Schwartzman

Location:

Lot 302 DP 1239953 and Lot 3 DP 568571 – 21 and 23 Beasley Road, Lucknow

Proposal:

Modification of development consent – dwelling house and subdivision. The modified proposal allows the floor height to be raised by 1500mm above approved floor levels. It is proposed also to install a privacy blade wall along the western side of the rear deck, returning 1m along the northern (rear) side of the deck.

Value:

$229,926 (being $79,926 more than the original development)

 

 

Reference:

DA 212/2015(3)

Determination Date

15 January 2019

PR Number

PR8502

Applicant/s:

West Orange Self-Storage Pty Ltd

Owner/s:

West Orange Self-Storage Pty Ltd

Location:

Lot 1 DP 404614 – 58-64 Molong Road, Orange

Proposal:

Modification of development consent – self-storage units (alterations and additions), demolition and storage. The modification seeks to reduce the height of the proposed building such that the expansion of the self-storage premises will include a new attached building of one storey height as opposed to two storey height.

Value:

$550,000 (being the same value as the original development)

 

 

Reference:

DA 350/2016(2)

Determination Date

14 December 2018

PR Number

PR24302

Applicant/s:

Newstead Property Nominees Pty Ltd

Owner/s:

Newstead Property Nominees Pty Ltd

Location:

Lots 1, 2 and 3 DP 1127220, Lot 19 DP 1158710 and Lots 17 and 18 Sec 22 DP 758817 – 47-49 Hill Street, Orange

Proposal:

Modification of development consent - demolition (ancillary structures), subdivision (Torrens Title – four lot residential), dwellings (two dwellings), multi dwelling housing (seven dwellings) and subdivision (community title – eight lot residential). The modification involves altering the previously proposed and subsequently approved staging of the consent to effect an initial two lot subdivision to excise the Newstead Mansion onto a separate lot, with the balance created as a development lot.

Value:

$3,550,000 (being the same value as the original development)

 

 

Reference:

DA 431/2016(1)

Determination Date

7 December 2018

PR Number

PR10623

Applicant/s:

Hogan’s Pharmacy

Owner/s:

Mr GP Madafiglio and Ms FT Kinghorne

Location:

Lots 1 and 2 SP 21546 and Lot 3 Sec 16 DP 758817 – 123 Sale Street and 76 Prince Street, Orange

Proposal:

Neighbourhood shop (alterations and additions), medical centre, demolition (existing dwelling) and business identification signage

Value:

$385,000

 


 

 

Reference:

DA 229/2017(2)

Determination Date

23 November 2018

PR Number

PR28185

Applicant/s:

Orange MS Investments Pty Ltd

Owner/s:

Orange MS Investments Pty Ltd

Location:

Lot 18 DP 1246117 Tanika Street, Orange (previously known as 104 Lysterfield Road, Orange)

Proposal:

Modification of development consent - subdivision (24 lot Torrens title). The modified proposal will amend the approved subdivision pattern, by removing one proposed lot along Joseph Drive.

Value:

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

 

Reference:

DA 271/2017(3)

Determination Date

4 January 2019

PR Number

PR27941

Applicant/s:

Childcare Developments Group

Owner/s:

Whitmoro (Aust) Pty Ltd and Orange City Council

Location:

Lot 203 DP 1238394 - 19 William Maker Drive and Stevenson Way, Orange (formerly unregistered Lots 202, 203 and 204 in a subdivision of Lot 42 DP 1195966 – 41 William Maker Drive, Orange), and Lot 238 DP 1238394 - Stevenson Way, Orange

 

Proposal:

Modification of development consent - centre-based child care facility and business identification sign (pylon sign). The modification involves increased finished surface levels within the external playground; increased height of an approved masonry retaining wall along the rear western and southern side boundary; construction of an additional retaining wall along the southern side boundary; installation of landscaping along the southern and western walls.

Value:

$20,000 (being $20,000 more than the original development)

 

Reference:

DA 2/2018(2)

Determination Date

20 December 2018

PR Number

PR27600

Applicant/s:

Mr MD Miller

Owner/s:

Mr MD and Mrs WJ Miller

Location:

Lot 438 DP 1228050 – 1-3 Bligh Street, Orange (previously Lot 438 DP 1228050 – 24 Buckland Drive, Orange)

Proposal:

Modification of development consent – dual occupancy and subdivision dual occupancy subdivision. The modification involves amending the requirement for a 1.8m high perimeter fence to be erected along the northern and eastern boundaries of the subject site. As a result of this request, Condition 26 which outlines the general condition included on a notice for a 1.8m perimeter fence, will also be amended.

Value:

$585,000 (being the same value as the original development)

 


 

 

Reference:

DA 91/2018(2)

Determination Date

17 December 2018

PR Number

PR8832

Applicant/s:

Mr PR Gunn

Owner/s:

Mr PJ, Mrs CJ, Mr WT and Ms SJ Gunn

Location:

Lot 1 DP 38296 – 14 Moulder Street, Orange

Proposal:

Modification of development consent – subdivision (two lot residential), demolition (existing shed), dual occupancy and subdivision (three lot community title). The modification seeks to amend the finished floor levels of proposed Dwellings 1 and 2, as a result of a review of Council’s flood mapping.

Value:

$500,000 (being the same value as the original development)

 

Reference:

DA 129/2018(1)

Determination Date

10 January 2019

PR Number

PR1162

Applicant/s:

Mr A and Mrs D Harvey

Owner/s:

Mr MF and Mrs JM Rangott

Location:

Lots 43 and 44 DP 608334 and Lot 42 DP 532439 – 1, 5 and 7 Barrett Street, Orange

Proposal:

Demolition (existing former industrial building and trees), subdivision (boundary adjustment), subdivision (three lot Torrens), and dwelling houses (two buildings)

Value:

$400,000

 

Reference:

DA 244/2018(1)

Determination Date

14 December 2018

PR Number

PR25411

Applicant/s:

Toyota Material Handling Australia

Owner/s:

DFT Australia Pty Ltd

Location:

Lot 82 DP 1167633 – 78 Astill Drive, Orange

Proposal:

Business identification signage

Value:

$109,000

 

Reference:

DA 276/2018(1)

Determination Date

27 November 2018

PR Number

PR17910

Applicant/s:

Designs@M

Owner/s:

Kueb Pty Ltd

Location:

Lots 4 and 45 DP 1013849 – 62-64 Kearneys Drive, Orange

Proposal:

Dwelling houses (two dwellings), subdivision (three lot Torrens), multi dwelling housing (four dwellings) and subdivision (five lot Community)

Value:

$1,000,000

 


 

 

Reference:

DA 285/2018(1)

Determination Date

2 December 2018

PR Number

PR20233 and PR20234

Applicant/s:

Shed World

Owner/s:

Mr AL Gersbach

Location:

Lots 65 and 66 DP 1077737 – 70 and 72 Astill Drive, Orange

Proposal:

General industry (change of use) and warehouse or distribution centre

Value:

$560,000

 

Reference:

DA 290/2018(1)

Determination Date

21 December 2018

PR Number

PR26593

Applicant/s:

Mr A and Mrs VJ Wardle

Owner/s:

Mr AL and Mrs VJ Wardle

Location:

Lot 14 DP 1199865 – 176 Emu Swamp Road, Lucknow

Proposal:

Secondary dwelling, farm building, dwelling alterations and additions (awning/patio cover) and solar panels (secondary dwelling)

Value:

$250,000

 

Reference:

DA 292/2018(1)

Determination Date

21 January 2019

PR Number

PR1740

Applicant/s:

Twenty Eighteen Pty Ltd

Owner/s:

Twenty Eighteen Pty Ltd

Location:

Lot 27 Sec 2 DP 976979 – 15 Breen Street, Orange

Proposal:

Dual occupancy (attached) and subdivision (two lot residential)

Value:

$425,000

 

 

Reference:

DA 363/2018(1)

Determination Date

7 December 2018

PR Number

PR10021

Applicant/s:

Mr RT Young

Owner/s:

Mr MA Lindfield

Location:

Lot 12 DP 210766 – 753 Pinnacle Road, Orange

Proposal:

Outbuilding (shed/garage), solar energy system (photovoltaic electricity generating system), rainwater tanks (x 2), and removal of fuel tanks (x 3)

Value:

$110,000

 

Reference:

DA 367/2018(1)

Determination Date

15 January 2019

PR Number

PR4698

Applicant/s:

Ophir Tavern Business Pty Ltd

Owner/s:

Ophir Tavern Land Pty Ltd

Location:

Lot 3 DP 630463 – 84 Glenroi Avenue, Orange

Proposal:

Pub (external additions – children’s playground)

Value:

$250,000

 


 

 

Reference:

DA 377/2018(1)

Determination Date

26 November 2018

PR Number

PR20399

Applicant/s:

Dice Renascent

Owner/s:

Orange Aboriginal Corporation Health Service

Location:

Lot 14 DP 270446 – 16 Cameron Place, Orange

Proposal:

Community Health Services Facility

Value:

$1,000,000

 

Reference:

DA 378/2018(1)

Determination Date

19 December 2018

PR Number

PR6885

Applicant/s:

Essential Energy

Owner/s:

Essential Energy

Location:

Lot 62 DP 635440 – 15-41 Lords Place, Orange

Proposal:

Depot (security fence)

Value:

$44,687

 

Reference:

DA 383/2018(1)

Determination Date

18 December 2018

PR Number

PR1173

Applicant/s:

Mr A Nguyen

Owner/s:

Orange Fruitgrowers

Location:

Lot 57 DP 606629 – 14-16 Barrett Street, Orange

Proposal:

Solar energy system (photovoltaic electricity generating system)

Value:

$141,493

 

Reference:

DA 388/2018(1)

Determination Date

22 November 2018

PR Number

PR749

Applicant/s:

Ms K Trengrove

Owner/s:

Minebiz Reserve Pty Ltd

Location:

Lot 1 DP 799607 – 262 Anson Street, Orange

Proposal:

Business identification signage

Value:

$1,400

 

Reference:

DA 389/2018(1)

Determination Date

14 December 2018

PR Number

PR20434

Applicant/s:

Norman J Penhall

Owner/s:

Penbrook Holdings Pty Limited

Location:

Lot 1 DP 1076919 and Lot 1 DP 1111912 – 35 and 37 William Street, Orange

Proposal:

Subdivision (two lot boundary adjustment)

Value:

$0

 


 

 

Reference:

DA 393/2018(1)

Determination Date

18 December 2018

PR Number

PR11601

Applicant/s:

Mr SA Ellis

Owner/s:

Seniorsearch.com Pty Limited

Location:

Lot 1 DP 196052 and Lot C DP 402112 – 156 Summer Street, Orange

Proposal:

Shop (alterations to shopfront) and business identification signs

Value:

$20,000

 

Reference:

DA 400/2018(1)

Determination Date

18 December 2018

PR Number

PR25968

Applicant/s:

Mr PC and Mrs LG Isaacs

Owner/s:

Mr PC and Mrs LG Isaacs

Location:

Lot 96 DP 1180866 – 30 Colliers Avenue, Orange

Proposal:

Vehicle sales or hire premises (internal alterations – storeroom) and signage (pylon sign and wall sign)

Value:

$10,000

 

Reference:

DA 416/2018(1)

Determination Date

18 December 2018

PR Number

PR7483

Applicant/s:

Canobolas Locksmiths

Owner/s:

Mr IR Stapleton and Ms DA Thornberry

Location:

Lot 1 DP 797139 – 169 March Street, Orange

Proposal:

Demolition (existing building), hardware and building supplies, light industry and business identification signage

Value:

$110,000

 

Reference:

DA 432/2018(1)

Determination Date

2 January 2019

PR Number

PR8260

Applicant/s:

Inside Design Studio

Owner/s:

Mr BA and Mrs LA Parianos

Location:

Lot A DP 161732 – 146-148 McLachlan Street, Orange

Proposal:

Café (internal fitout and reconfiguration, external finishes)

Value:

$70,000

 

Reference:

DA 437/2018(1)

Determination Date

21 January 2019

PR Number

PR28072

Applicant/s:

B & J Flowers Pty Ltd

Owner/s:

Flowers Fund Management

Location:

Lot 1 DP 1244657 – 18 Geraldton Street, Orange

Proposal:

Dwelling house, temporary use as an exhibition home, and associated signage

Value:

$380,000

 


 

 

Reference:

DA 449/2018(1)

Determination Date

20 December 2018

PR Number

PR10242

Applicant/s:

Diadem

Owner/s:

The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW)

Location:

Lot 4 Sec 16 DP 758817 – 74 Prince Street, Orange

Proposal:

Business identification signage

Value:

$2,650

 

TOTAL NET* VALUE OF ALL DEVELOPMENTS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY  IN THIS PERIOD:                                                                                                                                $5,369,156.00

 

 

APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER THE WESTERN JOINT REGIONAL PLANNING PANEL

 

Reference:

DA 318/2018(1)

Determination Date

6 December 2018

PR Number

PR10203

Applicant/s:

Verde Property (Aust) Pty Ltd

Owner/s:

Orange City Council

Location:

Lot 500 DP 1249083 – 105 Prince Street, Orange

(formerly 84 Dalton Street, Orange – former Orange Base Hospital site)

Proposal:

Public administration building and commercial premises

Value:

$42,800,000

 

TOTAL NET* VALUE OF ALL DEVELOPMENTS APPROVED UNDER THE WESTERN JOINT REGIONAL PLANNING PANEL IN THIS PERIOD:                                                                                       $42,800,000.00

 

* 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                                              5 February 2019

 

2.2     Development Application DA 444/2018(2) - Subdivision - 20 George Weily Place and Lot 125 the Escort Way

RECORD NUMBER:       2019/86

AUTHOR:                       Summer Commins, Senior Planner    

 

 

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged

5 December 2018

Applicant/s

Orange City Council

Owner/s

Orange City Council

Land description

Lots 119 and 125 DP 1087517 - 20 George Weily Place and Lot 125 The Escort Way

Proposed land use

Subdivision (eight residential lots, one stormwater management lot and one residue lot)

Value of proposed development

Not applicable

Council's consent is sought for subdivision of land at 20 George Weily Place and Lot 125 The Escort Way, Orange (refer to locality plan below). The development site is comprised of undeveloped residential land in the western portion at the rear of George Weily Place, the alignment of the Northern Distributor Road (NDR) through the centre of the site, and public open space in the eastern portion.

Ten (10) lot Torrens subdivision of the land is proposed. The subdivision will create eight residential lots, one stormwater management lot and one residue lot. A new public road/cul-de-sac via George Weily Place will be constructed.

The subject land is located within Ploughmans Valley (Area 2). The proposed subdivision layout is generally in accordance with the Masterplan for Area 2, notwithstanding some variation to the cul-de-sac formation and some vehicular access to Forbes Road.

The development application was subject to public notice and exhibition. The issues raised in the submissions received relate to traffic amenity (congestion, safety, access, implications for the NDR), landscaping treatment and residential amenity (acoustic privacy and impacts on public open space).

The proposal has been assessed pursuant to Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (EPAA) 1979 and is considered to be suitable. Approval of the application is recommended, subject to conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.


 

 

Figure 1 - locality plan

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

The subject precinct has been included in Council’s statutory planning documents since 2004 (DCP 2004). This application proposes a residential subdivision that is reasonably consistent with the adopted DCP masterplan for the precinct. The key issues associated with the proposal relate to traffic arrangements, visual impacts and acoustic privacy. The issues may be addressed either by design or appropriate conditions. The end use of the proposed lots is not a manner for consideration in the determination of this application.

The DA was placed on public exhibition in conjunction with DA 448/2018(1) for a transitional group home, community facility and hostel on proposed Lot 204. A total of 112 submissions were received in relation to both applications. This reports considers issues applicable to the subdivision DA only. Submissions relating to DA 448/2018(1) are considered in the assessment of that DA.

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

It is noteworthy but not of planning relevance that the current owner of the subject land is Orange City Council.

Policy and Governance Implications

The subject site has been identified for further residential development by Orange DCP 2004. A conceptual masterplan layout outlined in DCP 2004 was included to illustrate how some additional lots may be provided within the location. This layout was indicative only in nature, but demonstrated further residential development within this location.

 

Recommendation

That Council resolves to consent to development application DA 444/2018(1) for Subdivision (eight residential lots, one stormwater management lot and one residue lot) at Lot 119 DP 1087517 and Lot 125 DP 1087517 - 20 George Weily Place and The Escort Way, Orange, pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.

 

further considerations

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


 

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

THE PROPOSAL

Council’s consent is sought for residential subdivision of land at 20 George Weily Place and Lot 125 The Escort Way.

The subdivision will create eight residential lots, one stormwater management lot and one residue lot. The proposed residential lots will be located to the east of George Weily Place and be accessed by a new public road/cul-de-sac via George Weily Place. The residue lot will contain the NDR and existing open space area. The proposed subdivision layout is depicted below (Figure 2).

Figure 2- proposed subdivision layout


 

The proposed lots will comprise the following areas and future uses, subject to further development consent where applicable:

Lot

Area

Future Use

201

908m2

Dwelling house

202

935m2

Dwelling house

203

1,926m2

Dwelling house

204

5,260m2

Proposed transitional group home, community facility and hostel

205

1,215.5m2

Dwelling house

206

1,265m2

Dwelling house

207

2,000m2

Dwelling house

208

1,009m2

Dwelling house

209

495m2

Stormwater detention basin

210

5.86ha

Residue parcel – NDR alignment and public open space

Council is considering a concurrent Development Application (DA) for a transitional group home, community facility and hostel on proposed Lot 204 (DA 448/2018(1)).

The proposed residential lots will be connected to urban utility services. Proposed access arrangements for the residential lots will be as follows:

·    proposed Lots 205, 206 and 207 will have frontage and access to the Escort Way;

·    proposed Lots 201 and 208 will have frontage and access to the proposed road/cul de sac;

·    proposed Lots 202 and 203 will have access to the proposed road via an access driveway and right-of-way (proposed Lot 203 will be a battleaxe lot).

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

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

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.

In consideration of this section, the proposed development is not likely to significantly affect a threatened species. An ecological assessment was submitted in support of the proposal (Flora Search 8 October 2018). The assessment concluded:

·    The proposed subdivision site is highly disturbed and dominated by introduced flora species and weeds.

·    No endangered ecological communities are present on the site, although one formerly occurred there.


 

·    No other threatened flora or fauna has potential to occur on the site owing to its high level of disturbance and poor habitat quality.

·    It is not considered necessary to conduct flora and fauna surveys of the subject site or undertake a formal impact assessment on account of threatened biodiversity.

Council’s Manager City Presentation concurred with the conclusions of the submitted ecological assessment.

Section 4.15 Evaluation

Section 4.15 requires Council to consider various matters in determining a development application, of which those relevant to the application are listed below.

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

Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011

Part 1 - Preliminary

Clause 1.2 Aims of Plan

The particular aims of Orange LEP 2011 relevant to the proposal include:

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

(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,

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

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

The application is considered to be consistent with the above objectives, as outlined in this report. The proposed subdivision will facilitate ongoing development of Ploughmans Valley. The proposal will maintain public open space areas and protect water quality downstream of the development site. The proposal will provide lots for additional housing stock and complementary community uses. The landscape values at the City entrance will be protected.

Clause 1.6 Consent Authority

Clause 1.6 is applicable and states:

The consent authority for the purposes of this Plan is (subject to the Act) the Council.


 

Clause 1.7 Mapping

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

Land Zoning Map:

Land zoned R2 Low Density Residential, SP2 Infrastructure and RE1 Public Recreation

Lot Size Map:

Minimum lot size 850m2 (applying to 20 George Weily Place only)

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:

High biodiversity sensitivity on the site

Groundwater Vulnerability Map:

Groundwater vulnerable

Drinking Water Catchment Map:

Not within the drinking water catchment

Watercourse Map:

Within 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

Clause 1.9A is applicable and states in part:

(1)     For the purpose of enabling development on land in any zone to be carried out in accordance with this Plan or with a consent granted under the Act, any agreement, covenant or other similar instrument that restricts the carrying out of that development does not apply to the extent necessary to serve that purpose.

(2)     This clause does not apply:

(a)     to a covenant imposed by the Council or that the Council requires to be imposed, or

(b)     to any prescribed instrument within the meaning of section 183A of the Crown Lands Act 1989, or

(c)     to any conservation agreement within the meaning of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, or

(d)     to any Trust agreement within the meaning of the Nature Conservation Trust Act 2001, or

(e)     to any property vegetation plan within the meaning of the Native Vegetation Act 2003, or

(f)      to any biobanking agreement within the meaning of Part 7A of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, or

(g)     to any planning agreement within the meaning of Division 6 of Part 4 of the Act.


 

In consideration of this clause, Council staff are not aware of the title of the subject property being affected by any of the above.

Notwithstanding the above, the deposited plan relating to the subject land outlines an easement to drain sewage to the south of the subject site. The easements also show that existing water mains traverse the site, and these have been recognised in the development layout.

Part 2 - Permitted or Prohibited Development

Clause 2.1 Land Use Zones

The subject land is zoned part R2 Low Density Residential, part SP2 Infrastructure and part RE1 Public Recreation (refer below).

Figure 3 - Orange LEP 2011 Land Zoning Map

The proposal is defined as ‘subdivision of land’ which means ‘the division of land into 2 or more parts that, after the division, would be obviously adapted for separate occupation, use or disposition (EPAA 1979 Clause 6.2).

Subdivision is permitted with Council’s consent pursuant to Clause 2.6 (see below).


 

Clause 2.3 Zone Objectives and Land Use Table

The objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone are:

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

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

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

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

The proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone. The proposed residential lots will be wholly located within that part of the development site zoned R2. The proposed subdivision will provide lots for additional dwelling stock to accommodate the housing needs of the community. The proposed residential lot sizes and layout will reasonably relate to the prevailing cadastre in the low density setting. Proposed larger Lot 204 will provide a parcel for complementary residential uses. The neighbourhood is accessible via public transport. The proposed lots will not have access to the NDR.

The objectives of the SP2 Infrastructure Zone are:

·    To provide for infrastructure and related uses.

·    To prevent development that is not compatible with or that may detract from the provision of infrastructure.

The proposed subdivision is not contrary to the objectives of the SP2 zone. Land zoned SP2 Infrastructure will be wholly located within proposed residue Lot 210. The proposed subdivision will have nil impact on the operation of the NDR. As outlined in this report, acoustic measures will be applied to protect the proposed lots from traffic noise along the NDR.

The objectives of the RE1 Public Recreation Zone are:

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

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

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

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

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

The proposed subdivision is not contrary to the objectives of the RE1 zone. Land zoned RE1 Infrastructure will be wholly located within proposed residue Lot 210. The proposed subdivision will have nil impact on continued use of the open space area for recreational, environmental and stormwater management purposes. Proposed Lot 210 will not have access to the NDR.


 

Clause 2.6 Subdivision - Consent Requirements

Clause 2.6 is applicable and states:

(1)     Land to which this Plan applies may be subdivided but only with development consent.

Consent is sought for Torrens subdivision in accordance with this clause.

Part 3 - Exempt and Complying Development

The application is not exempt or complying development.

Part 4 - Principal Development Standards

Clause 4.1 Minimum Subdivision Lot Size

Clause 4.1 applies and states in part:

(3)     The size of any lot resulting from a subdivision of land to which this clause applies is not to be less than the minimum size shown on the Lot Size Map in relation to that land.

Part of the land (20 George Weily Place) is subject to a minimum lot size of 850m2 (refer below).

Figure 4 - Orange LEP 2011 Lot Size Map

The proposed subdivision does not involve the creation of a lot below than the prescribed minimum area. A proposed road will be constructed over land affected by the minimum lot size.


 

Part 5 - Miscellaneous Provisions

The Part 5 provisions are not applicable to the subject land or proposed development.

Part 6 - Urban Release Area

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

Part 7 - Additional Local Provisions

Clause 7.1 Earthworks

Clause 7.1 applies. This clause states in part:

(3)     Before granting development consent for earthworks, the consent authority must consider the following matters:

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

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

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

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

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

(f)      the likelihood of disturbing relics,

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

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

Earthworks will be required in conjunction with civil and construction works to create the proposed lots. Furthermore, as outlined in the following sections of this report, an acoustic barrier will be required to protect the proposed residential lots from traffic noise. The acoustic barrier will incorporate (in part) an earth mound adjacent to the boundaries of those lots adjoining the NDR. Subject to conditions on the attached Notice of Approval (including engineering design for mounding, and sediment and erosion controls), the necessary earthworks are unlikely to impact on the natural environment, adjoining properties or the downstream catchment.

Clause 7.3 Stormwater Management

Clause 7.3 is applicable. This clause states in part:

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

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


 

(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 Development Engineer has recommended conditions on the attached Notice of Approval requiring stormwater detention within the subdivision, designed to limit peak stormwater outflows from the land to pre-existing natural outflows. The conditional stormwater design will not result in adverse discharge impacts for downstream parcels. Earth mounding to the part-site perimeter will be designed to manage overland flows, stormwater detention and runoff. The proposed development is consistent with the requirements of Clause 7.3.

Clause 7.4 Terrestrial Biodiversity

A portion of the subject land is identified as ‘High Biodiversity Sensitivity’ on the Terrestrial Biodiversity Map (see below).

Figure 5 - Orange LEP 2011 Terrestrial Biodiversity Map


 

Clause 7.4 is applicable and states in part:

(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:

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

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

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

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

In consideration of this clause, the biodiversity sensitive lands will be located within residue and open space Lot 210. The proposal does not involve any civil or construction works within or nearby to the mapped sensitive lands. The conclusions of the submitted ecological assessment above demonstrate that the proposed development will not have adverse impact on ecological values. The development is considered acceptable in the context of Clause 7.4.

Clause 7.5 Riparian Land and Watercourse

The subject land contains a ‘Sensitive Waterway’ pursuant to the Watercourse Map (see below).

Figure 6 - Orange LEP 2011 Watercourse Map


 

Clause 7.5 is applicable and states in part:

(3)     Before determining a development application to carry out development on land to which this clause applies, the consent authority must consider whether or not the development:

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

(i)      the water quality and flows within a watercourse,

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

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

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

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

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

In consideration of this clause, the proposal does not involve any civil or construction works within or nearby to the mapped watercourse that traverses the subject land. The development will not impact on the prescribed matters listed above.

Clause 7.6 Groundwater Vulnerability

The subject land is identified as ‘Groundwater Vulnerable’ on the Groundwater Vulnerability Map. Clause 7.6 applies. This clause states in part:

(3)     Before determining a development application for development on land to which this clause applies, the consent authority must consider:

(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.

In consideration of Clause 7.6, the proposed development is unlikely to cause groundwater contamination or effect groundwater dependent ecosystems. Urban residential subdivision does not involve processes or activities that would impact on groundwater resources. The proposed lots will be serviced by reticulated sewer.

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 onsite conservation,

(e)     suitable road access.

In consideration of this clause, the listed utility services are available to the land and adequate for the proposed subdivision. Conditions are included on the attached Notice of Approval requiring extension, augmentation and/or upgrading of urban utility services to the standards required to service the proposed urban lots.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 Remediation of Land

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.

In consideration of this clause, the proposed residential lots are zoned for urban residential purposes. The land is not known to have been used for a Table 1 purpose in the Managing Land Contamination Planning Guidelines document. The site is not identified on the NSW Environment Protection Authority’s register of contaminated lands, nor identified as being potentially contained on Council’s contamination register.

A preliminary site investigation/contamination assessment was submitted in support of the proposed subdivision (Geolyse November 2018). The supporting documentation noted that part of the subject site was identified as an informal materials staging area for machinery during the construction of the Northern Distributor Road. The assessment concludes:

Geolyse make the following conclusions regarding the potential for land contamination at the site, based on a desktop review of available information, a review of historical records, a site walkover reconnaissance and analytical results of collected soil samples:

-    Based on the review of historic operations at the site, the area of the site does not appear to have been utilised for any intensive purpose(s).

-    Land uses at the majority of the site have been generally limited to passive uses, based on previous title ownership.


 

-    No significant routes for exposure by receptors (current or future) to potential contamination sources have been identified, due to negligible impacts identified. Residual contamination risks, if identified, may be adequately managed by conducting works in accordance with appropriate construction industry standards.

Based on the foregoing, the subject land is considered suitable in its current form for the proposed development.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

The subject land has frontage to classified roads The Escort Way and Northern Distributor Road, and SEPP Infrastructure 2007 (Division 17 Roads and Traffic) applies. Clause 101 is applicable and states in part:

Clause 101 Development with frontage to a classified road

(2)     The consent authority must not grant consent to development on land that has a frontage to a classified road unless it is satisfied that:

(a)     where practicable, 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.

The following comments are made in consideration of Clause 101:

·    Vehicular access is provided to proposed Lots 201-204 and 208 via the proposed road from George Weily Place.

·    Access to proposed Lots 205-207 will be via The Escort Way, being a classified road. Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) has provided their concurrence to this arrangement, subject to a single crossing and driveway being constructed to service the lots, and appropriate easements for access created. Conditions are included on the attached Notice of Approval to formalise this arrangement.

·    Council’s Development Engineer and the RMS concur that the design and siting of the shared vehicular access to Lots 205-207 is unlikely to result in any reduction in the safety, efficiency and ongoing operation of The Escort Way.

·    Traffic generation associated with proposed Lots 205-207 will be imperceptible within the context of existing traffic volumes and frequency along The Escort Way.


 

·    The proposed subdivision involves the creation of residential lots with frontage to classified roads. Future dwellings on the proposed lots will be sensitive to traffic noise and vehicle emissions. A Noise Impact Assessment was submitted in support of the proposal (Assured Environmental 13/11/2018). As outlined in the following sections of this report, the Noise Impact Assessment confirms that the proposed lots and future dwellings on the lots will be provided with a high standard of acoustic amenity.

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

As outlined above, the subject site contains a number of mapped waterways in the eastern extent. These contain waterfront land. Section 91 of the Water Management Act 2000 provides that a controlled activity approval is required for any works consisting of a controlled activity that is carried out on waterfront land.

A controlled activity means:

(a)     the erection of a building or the carrying out of a work (within the meaning of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979), or

(b)     the removal of material (whether or not extractive material) or vegetation from land, whether by way of excavation or otherwise, or

(c)     the deposition of material (whether or not extractive material) on land, whether by way of landfill operations or otherwise, or

(d)     the carrying out of any other activity that affects the quantity or flow of water in a water source.

The proposal involves subdivision of land but does not propose any of the matters listed at (a) through (d) above in relation to defined waterfront land. All physical works are considerably more than 40m from the mapped waterfront land. On this basis, a controlled activity approval is not required and the development is therefore not integrated development pursuant to Section 4.46 EPAA 1979. In any event, by virtue of Clause 41 of the Water Management (General) Regulation 2018, public authorities are exempt from the need to gain a Controlled Activity Approval.


 

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

Development Control Plan 2004

The following parts of DCP 2004 are applicable to the proposed subdivision:

·    Part 2 - Natural Resource Management

·    Part 3 - General Considerations

·    Part 4 - Special Environmental Considerations

·    Part 5 - General Considerations for Zones and Development

·    Part 7 - Development in Residential Zones

The relevant matters in Parts 2, 3, 4 and 5 were considered in the foregoing assessment under Orange LEP 2011.

The proposal will satisfy the relevant planning outcomes and guidelines contained in Part 7 as outlined in the following assessment

DCP 2004-7.2-2 Residential Subdivision in Ploughmans Valley

The applicable Planning Outcomes at Part 7.2 are considered below.

·    The allotment layout is generally in accordance with the Conceptual Subdivision Layout …

The subject land is contained within Area 2 Ploughmans Valley. The DCP masterplan/ conceptual layout provides for subdivision of this parcel as shown below.

Figure 7 - Ploughmans Valley (part) Area 2 Conceptual Subdivision Layout


 

The proposed subdivision layout accords with the DCP as follows:

-    a new road via George Weily Place (noting that the cul-de-sac is now proposed one allotment to the south of the envisaged location);

-    cul-de-sac road formation;

-    residential lots adjoining existing residential lots in George Weily Place; and

-    public open space buffer to the NDR.

Contrary to the DCP layout, the proposed subdivision provides vehicular access to Forbes Road for Lots 205, 206 and 207. The proposed layout is considered suitable subject to a single vehicle crossing to Forbes Road and shared access for the lots (as outlined above and preferred by the RMS). Access to Forbes Road is consistent with other large lots nearby to the site, and will enable the frontage of future dwellings to address the main road and City entrance. This street presentation is favoured in this location over the alternative rear boundary fences. The proposed subdivision layout is considered reasonably consistent with the DCP masterplan.

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

Council’s Technical Services Division advises that the proposed subdivision deviates in part from Council’s Development and Subdivision Code. The additional allotments created by the proposed subdivision rely on access via an existing cul-de-sac served by the maximum number of allotments, and is close to the limit for maximum daily vehicle movements.

The Development and Subdivision Code limits residential cul-de-sacs to a maximum of 30 residential allotments. George Weily Place currently has 32 lots. The original DA approval for George Weily Place considered the 2 lots fronting Jonathon Road as accessing via Jonathon Road, hence complying with the 30 lot limit for the cul-de-sac.

The Development and Subdivision Code also limits residential cul-de-sacs to a maximum of 300 vehicle movements per day.

The proposed development will create the following situation in the residential cul-de-sac:

-    36 residential allotments (exceeding Council’s development standard by 6 lots or 20%); and

-    average daily vehicle movements of 344 (exceeding Council’s development standard by 44 vehicle movements or 15%).

There are numerous examples where this deviation from Council’s development code has been undertaken. Nicole Drive services 4 cul-de-sacs and 54 allotments, with 399 average daily vehicle movements. Glendale Crescent services 106 allotments and 784 average daily vehicle movements.

Table 4.6 of the RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Development (Roads and Traffic Authority 2002) sets out the recommended Environmental Capacity performance standards for roads. The peak hour volumes generated by the proposed lots and the existing development along George Weily Place will comprise a conservative 82 vehicles per hour and below the 100 maximum peak hour volume (vehicles per hour) for a local or collector street.


 

Council’s Technical Services Division advises that the following mitigating factors should be taken into consideration in determining the suitability of the proposed subdivision. These factors include the following:

-     The future development of this area beside the NDR has been identified on Council’s DCP since 2004. The DCP subdivision layout includes 8 residential lots. The current proposal is for only 5 lots with access from George Weily Place, with 3 lots being accessed via The Escort Way (a reduction of 37.5%);

-     The average daily vehicle movements within George Weily Place as a result of the 5 new residential lots will increase from 237 to 266. This complies with Council’s standard;

-     The average daily vehicle movements within George Weily Place as a result of the proposed new lots and the Group Home/Community Facility/Hostel will be 344. This is within 15% of the maximum permitted under Council’s Development and Subdivision Code, however, the increase in vehicle movements will be spread throughout the day and any peak traffic flows to and from the centre will be in an opposite direction to that of the local residents;

-     The allotments in George Weily Place are a generous size of 850m2 with 24m frontages which provides a low density traffic environment (as opposed to typical 15m wide lots or 62.5% increase in frontage);

-     The intersections of Johnathon Road / George Weily Place and George Weily Place / ‘The Orchard’ access will manage the predicted peak hour traffic volume without any significant treatment other than line marking on approaches to the intersections.

Based on the above analysis, Council’s Technical Services Division has recommended approval of the application subject to conditions. The attached Notice of Determination contains recommended conditions for Council’s consideration.

·    The allotment layout provides for transitional development of the Valley: In Area 2 … lots along Forbes Road and Cargo Road have a minimum area of 2,000m².

Proposed Lots 205 and 206 at The Escort Way/Forbes Road frontage comprise respective site areas of 1,215.5m2 and 1,265m2. As such, the lots depart from the DCP-prescribed minimum area of 2,000m2. The prevailing cadastre along Forbes Road to the east and west of the development site within Ploughmans Valley contains parcels with areas ranging between 1,616m2 and 5,142m2. The average lot size of the parcels is in the order of 2,000m2 consistent with the DCP requirement (refer figure below).


 

 

Figure 8 - large lots at Forbes Road

It should be noted that those parcels addressing Forbes Road are not subject to a minimum lot size under Orange LEP 2011. To this end the minimum allotment size in this case is a DCP control only. The proposed lots are therefore permitted subject to receiving development consent and Council being satisfied that a variation to the DCP is justifiable in this case.

Proposed Lots 205 and 206 will be the smallest parcels in terms of site area and frontage dimension along Forbes Road/The Escort Way. Whilst the RMS has provided concurrence to a single driveway arrangement onto The Escort Way with a right-of-way being provided across the frontage of Proposed Lot 206 to give access to Proposed Lot 207, it is considered that the lots should be consolidated to comprise a single parcel with an area of 2,480.5m2 to comply with the DCP in this case. Fewer lots at the Forbes Road frontage of the proposed subdivision is considered favourable for various reasons:

-    There will be fewer vehicles accessing the classified road, with associated improvements for the safety, efficiency and operation of the road.

-    There will be fewer dwellings required to be protected from road traffic noise, with reduced potential landuse conflicts and adverse amenity impacts.

-    There will be positive visual impacts within the streetscape view corridor associated with a consistent subdivision pattern and future dwelling massing and siting on the lots.

-    Large lots in this location are consistent with the intent of the DCP lot size to provide for transitional development of the valley.

-    The provision of a right-of-way along the frontage of proposed Lot 206 to provide access to Lot 207 is not ideal in terms of streetscape presentation of development in this locality.


 

On this basis, a condition is included on the attached Notice of Approval requiring Lots 205 and 206 to be consolidated on the final subdivision plan. It is noted that the consolidated parcel will be traversed by an easement for water supply associated with existing infrastructure. Notwithstanding, the easement will not preclude residential development of a consolidated parcel providing additional opportunity for other recreational facilities to compliment a dwelling including a tennis court or pool amongst other things.

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

-    In Area 2 … lots have a minimum allotment size of 850m2

-    In Area 2, lots adjoining the Distributor Road alignment have a minimum area of 2,000m2 and minimum frontage of 30m.

As discussed above, it is recommended that Lots 205 and 206 be consolidated. Subject to the adoption of that recommendation, site areas for the proposed lots will exceed the minimum lot sizes under the DCP.

·    The allotment layout maximises energy efficiency principles. Where practicable, lots are rectangular rather than splay shaped and oriented to provide the long axis within the range of N20oW to N30oE or E20oN to E30oS.

The proposed lots are within the acceptable range to maximise energy efficiency principles.

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

The western portion of the subject land does not contain significant landscape features or natural vegetation.

·    The road layout comprises a modified grid layout with restrained used of cul-de-sacs, generally in accordance with the Conceptual Subdivision Layout.

The proposed road layout reasonably accords with the Conceptual Subdivision Layout for Area 2 Ploughmans Valley.

·    Future road connections to adjoining land are provided and located generally in accordance with the Conceptual Subdivision Layout.

The proposed subdivision does not involve road connections to adjoining land, consistent with the Conceptual Subdivision Layout.

·    Lots have direct frontage or access to a public road.

All proposed lots will have direct frontage and/or access to a public road, compromising either the proposed new road or The Escort Way.

·    Lots adjoining the Distributor Road alignment do not have frontage or access to the Distributor Road. Access to lots is via internal streets.

The proposal does not involve access to proposed lots via the NDR.


 

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

·    Drainage systems are designed to consider catchment and downstream capacities, onsite retention and reuse and overland flowpaths.

Council’s Development Engineer has included conditions requiring interlot stormwater drainage and grated stormwater pits to the proposed lots. This drainage system will ensure that runoff from the site will be consistent with pre-development stormwater patterns.

·    All utility services are provided to the proposed lots.

Conditions are included on the attached Notice of Approval requiring the provision of urban services and access to the proposed lots.

·    Public open space linkages are provided across the subdivision …

The proposed subdivision will retain the existing public open space area within residue Lot 210. Further, the public open space buffer on the western side of the NDR will be provided within Lot 210. Open space within the proposed subdivision will be provided in a manner generally consistent with the DCP Conceptual Layout.

·    Allotments intended for dual occupancies are identified on DA plans. Dual occupancy lots range in area between 1,200m² and 1,450m².

The proposed subdivision does not nominate any lots for dual occupancy. Notwithstanding this, a number of the proposed lots exceed the minimum area required for dual occupancy. Further development consent will be required for dual occupancy development on the parcels.

It is noted that Lot 204 comprises a site area of 5,260m2 and is proposed for development of a transitional group home, community facility and hostel (concurrent DA 448/2018(1)). Should this development not proceed, further subdivision of Lot 204 may result in order to maximise development opportunities for this site. Alternatively, the site could be utilised for another complementary and non-residential landuse, subject to further development consent.

·    Development proposals shall demonstrate the appropriate retention of existing trees in order to protect the visual backdrop of the City.

The submitted ecological assessment (Flora Search 8 October 2018) confirms that only one tree, a silver wattle, remains onsite. The tree is not covered by a tree preservation order and may be removed without permit (pursuant to DCP 2004-0.4-2) in conjunction with subdivision civil works. Removal of the tree will have nil-negligible impact on the visual setting of the site.

Council’s Manager City Presentation advises that street trees on Forbes Road/The Escort Way may need to be removed to facilitate access to the proposed lots with frontage to Forbes Road. Tree removal should be undertaken in consultation with the Manager City Presentation. A condition is included on the attached Notice of Approval to this effect.


 

DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS

Section 7.11

In accordance with Section 7.11 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017 (Ploughmans Valley urban release area), a contribution towards the provision of public facilities is required. The contribution is based on six additional residential lots as Lots 205 and 206 are to be consolidated as required by conditions.

Open Space and Recreation

@ $3,938.56 x 6 additional residential lots

23,631.36

Community and Cultural

@ $1,142.17 x 6 additional residential lots

6,853.02

Roads and Traffic Management

@ $5,198.77 x 6 additional residential lots

31,192.62

Local Area Facilities

@ $8,891.37 x 6 additional residential lots

53,348.22

Plan Preparation & Administration

@ $575.12 x 6 additional residential lots

3,450.72

TOTAL

 

$118,475.94

The contribution will be indexed quarterly in accordance with the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017 (Ploughmans Valley urban release area). A condition is included on the attached Notice of Approval requiring payment of the contributions prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate.

Section 64 Headworks Charges

Section 64 water and sewer headworks charges are also applicable to the proposal. The contributions are based on 6 ETs for water supply headworks and 6 ETs for sewerage headworks. Such charges are calculated at the time of release of a Subdivision Certificate for the development. A condition is included on the attached Notice of Approval requiring payment of the contributions prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate.

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

Demolition of a Building (clause 92)

The proposal does not involve the demolition of a building.

Fire Safety Considerations (clause 93)

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

Buildings to be Upgraded (clause 94)

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

BASIX Commitments (clause 97A)

BASIX is not applicable to subdivision.


 

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

The likely impacts of the development have been considered in the foregoing assessment under Orange LEP 2011 and DCP 2004, except as provided below. It is considered that the likely impacts of the proposed development are acceptable and can be adequately managed via conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.

Traffic Impacts

A detailed assessment of traffic related impacts and a discussion on the suitability of the proposed access arrangements have been carried out elsewhere in this report. Council’s Technical Services Division has indicated support for the subject design and has advised that the traffic impacts of the development will be acceptable in this case.

Acoustic Impacts

A Noise Impact Assessment was submitted in support of the proposal (Assured Environmental 13/11/2018). In relation to the proposed subdivision layout, the report concluded:

Predictive noise modelling has been undertaken for the Northern Distributor Road and The Escort Way in accordance with the EPA’s Road Noise Policy. The model demonstrated that acceptable outdoor acoustic amenity is achieved at all lots based on the outdoor areas being located behind the proposed dwelling with the erection of a 2.5m barrier as presented in Figure 4.

Figure 9 - modelled acoustic barrier location (Source: Assured Environmental)

Council staff generally concur with the findings and recommendations of the submitted noise report.


 

As depicted in the figure above, it is noted that the acoustic barrier does not extend along the northern boundary of proposed Lot 203, ie return to the western boundary of the development site. The acoustic barrier should be provided to this boundary in order to enclose Lot 203 and provide reasonable acoustic privacy to the lot. A condition is included on the attached Notice of Approval requiring the acoustic barrier to be extended along the northern boundary of Lot 203.

It is further noted that the acoustic barrier extends to the Forbes Road frontage of proposed Lot 205 on the eastern boundary. This is contrary to side boundary fencing treatment permitted by the DCP for dwellings along Forbes Road, and will have adverse visual impacts in the streetscape view corridor. A condition is included on the attached Notice of Approval requiring the acoustic barrier to not encroach the DCP building line to Forbes Road of 15m.

The submitted Noise Impact Assessment is silent on the design and materials for the proposed acoustic barrier, excepting the height of 2.5m. In order that the acoustic barrier will have acceptable visual impacts in the NDR view corridor and relate to other fencing adjacent to this road, it is considered that the barrier should comprise a mix of earth mounding, fencing and landscaping (refer below). Conditions are included on the attached Notice of Approval requiring the acoustic barrier to comprise an earth mound with 1.8m high fencing atop; further, that plans/specifications of the acoustic barrier be submitted for Council’s approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

The approved acoustic barrier will be erected prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate. Alternatively, a Restriction-as-to-User will be created on the titles of the affected lots requiring construction of the approved acoustic barrier prior to issue of any Occupation Certificate for subsequent development of the lots. It is considered practical that the acoustic barrier be wholly constructed in conjunction with subdivision works. Notwithstanding, the option to defer the acoustic wall will be at the discretion of the developer.

It is acknowledged that incremental development of the proposed lots may occur. Standard residential fencing to other boundaries and separation between the lots and the roads will provide a suitable acoustic buffer pending development of other lots and full construction of the acoustic barrier.

The submitted Noise Impact Assessment also gives some consideration to future dwelling construction on the proposed lots:

Recommended façade construction details should be provided such that compliance with internal noise level requirements of SEPP [infrastructure 2007] can be achieved…. It is recommended that acoustic specifications for selected components are confirmed by suppliers prior to finalisation of the design.

A condition is included on the attached Notice of Approval requiring a Section 88B Restriction-as-to-User to be created on the title of residential lots requiring further acoustic assessment specific to a future dwelling, consistent with the conclusions of the Noise Impact Assessment (Assured Environmental 13/11/2018). It should be acknowledged that additional treatment within the building of any future dwellings on those lots fronting The Escort Way will be required in light of the recommendation to require the acoustic fence to be set back 15m from the front building alignment to address streetscape issues.


 

Council’s Manager Building and Environment has indicated no objections to this arrangement.

Visual Impacts

Council’s Manager City Presentation has recommended that landscaping be provided to the proposed subdivision to provide screening, beautification and integration of the development. He recommends that a detailed landscape plan be submitted including:

1        Street trees and spacings for the cul-de-sac linking to George Weily Place

2        Landscaping of the stormwater detention basin (proposed Lot 209) using species consistent with the stormwater retention basins in the eastern portion of the subject site (eastern side of NDR) known as Coogal Wetlands.

3        Landscape treatment and planting plan for the land adjoining the Northern Distributor Road corridor and linking to The Escort Way including the reinforcement of Orange’s Colour City Image, respecting the high profile exposure of the site within the Ploughmans Valley and to offer aesthetic amelioration to the proposed 2500mm acoustic barrier to the NDR.

Conditions are included on the attached Notice of Approval requiring preparation and implementation of a landscaping plan to address the above matters.

It is further required by conditions that the approved NDR road corridor landscaping (point 3 above) be installed prior to issue of a Subdivision Certificate OR a Restriction‑as‑to‑User be created on the titles of the affected lots requiring installation of the approved road corridor landscaping prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate for any subsequent development of the lots. While it is considered practical that the road corridor landscaping be wholly constructed in conjunction with subdivision works, the option to defer the landscaping will be at the discretion of the developer.

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

The foregoing assessment demonstrates that the subject land is suitable for the proposed development:

·    The development site is (partly) zoned for urban residential purposes and contained within the Ploughmans Valley urban release area.

·    The proposed subdivision is a permitted landuse in the zones.

·    The part-infrastructure (NDR) and public open space uses of the development site will be retained in their current form.

·    The proposed residential lots are of appropriate areas and dimensions for future residential development subject to further development consent.

·    All utility services are available and adequate, subject to augmentation, extension and upgrading.

·    Council’s Technical Services Division advises that the local road network is suitable to support the subject proposal.


 

·    The land is not subject to known natural hazards.

·    The contamination status of the land is suitable for residential landuse.

·    The site has no particular environmental values.

·    The site is not subject to known European or indigenous cultural values.

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

The proposed subdivision is not defined as "advertised development" pursuant to DCP 2004-5.3. Notwithstanding, the proposal was advertised as the development is considered to be in the public interest.

The DA was placed on public exhibition in conjunction with DA 448/2018(1) for a transitional group home, community facility and hostel on proposed Lot 204. A total of 112 submissions were received in relation to both applications. This reports considers issues applicable to the subdivision DA only. Submissions relating to DA 448/2018(1) are considered in the assessment of that DA.

The applications were advertised from Friday, 21 December 2018 until 5pm Friday, 25 January 2019. All submissions received prior to this deadline have been considered. Online comments were also provided on Council’s website. Whilst these comments are not formal submissions in relation to the development proposal, they have been reviewed and the comments accord with the formal submissions that have been lodged with Council.

The exhibition period should be extended

The exhibition period for the proposed development was initially from Tuesday, 18 December 2018 until Friday, 18 January 2019. The exhibition period was extended for an additional week to Friday 25 January 2019.

Traffic generated by the proposed lots will cause traffic generation in George Weily Place with associated safety implications

A detailed assessment of traffic related impacts and a discussion on the suitability of the proposed access arrangements have been carried out in previously. Council’s Technical Services Division has advised that the intersections of Jonathon Road/George Weily Place and George Weily Place/‘The Orchard’ access will manage the predicted peak hour traffic volume without any significant treatment other than line marking. Further, Council’s Technical Services Division has indicated support for the subject design and has advised that the traffic impacts of the development will be acceptable in this case.

The proposed subdivision will impact on the informal truck stop located along the NDR

The north-eastern portion of proposed Lot 204 is currently used by Council as an inert materials staging/stockpiling area. The site also has informal use for the standing of heavy vehicles, but does not comprise a designated truck rest area. The existing use of this portion of the development site will cease in conjunction with the proposed subdivision. Provision of a designated rest area for heavy vehicles is outside the scope of this DA.


 

The overland flowpaths through the subdivision should be retained as an open channel with reed filtration (consistent with the existing situation) in order to maintain downstream water quality

Stormwater from the development site (and beyond) is directed to the Coogal Wetlands, located on the western side of the NDR within proposed Lot 210. Council’s Development Engineer advises that piped stormwater infrastructure will be provided through the proposed subdivision, and incorporate erosion controls/scour protection at the outlet of the pipe/s. These measures are considered suitable to maintain downstream water quality in the Coogal Wetlands.

It is noted that Council’s Manager City Presentation has requested a landscape plan incorporating in part ‘landscaping of the stormwater detention basin (proposed Lot 209) using species consistent with the stormwater retention basins in the eastern portion of the subject site (eastern side of NDR) known as Coogal Wetlands.’ Similar landscaping adjacent to the pipe outlets should further assist to maintain downstream water quality. This requirement will be included in the landscaping plan condition on the attached Notice of Approval.

A landscaping plan should be prepared and implemented to minimise weed infestation and invasive species

As outlined in the foregoing sections of this report, conditions are included requiring submission of a landscape plan for Council’s approval, and implementation of same.

The impacts of the proposal on land zoned SP2 Infrastructure

The SP2 zoned corridor through the development site will be contained within proposed residue Lot 210. The proposed subdivision will have nil impact on the operation of the NDR and future connection of the NDR alignment to Ploughmans Lane.

The DA is silent on landscaping treatment within the buffer along the NDR

As outlined in the foregoing sections of this report, conditions are included requiring the submission of an NDR road corridor landscape plan for Council’s approval, and implementation of same.

The proximity of the proposed lots to the NDR will not allow for development that achieves the setback requirements in DCP 2004-7 (50m from the NDR centreline)

The NDR setback requirement is intended to mitigate traffic noise for lots adjacent to the NDR. As outlined above, a Noise Impact Assessment was submitted in support of the proposal (Assured Environmental 13/11/2018). The Assessment demonstrates that acoustic amenity (consistent with applicable standards) will be provided to the proposed lots and future dwellings, subject to a perimeter acoustic barrier (earth mound and fence) and façade treatment. Council staff concur with the findings and recommendations of the submitted noise report.


 

The proposed subdivision will impact on the future roundabout at the NDR/Ploughmans Lane intersection, including adjacent open space

Council’s Development Engineer advises that the proposed subdivision will not preclude design and construction of any future intersection for NDR/Ploughmans Lane, including a green space buffer from the intersection.

The proposed intersection/road connection to George Weily Place is unsuitable/dangerous

Council’s Development Engineer advises that the proposed intersection of George Weily Place and the new cul-de-sac is suitable. The proposed cul-de-sac will comprise a 9m wide carriageway to full urban standard and centrally located within existing Lot 119. The location of the intersection is not contrary to any design consideration contained in Council’s Development and Subdivision Code relating to sight lines, topography or road widths.

The proposal will generate unreasonable traffic volumes with associated congestion and safety implications

As outlined in previous sections of this report, existing and proposed traffic volumes in George Weily Place will not exceed prescribed environmental capacity performance standards for the local street.

The proposed subdivision should have access via The Escort Way or NDR

It is Council’s policy and practice to restrict vehicular access to The Escort Way and NDR. The concurrence of the RMS would be required in this circumstance; concurrence has not been sought or given (excepting access to proposed Lots 207 and consolidated Lot 205/206).

The proposed residential lots at the rear of George Weily Place would be better utilised as public open space

This portion of the development site has long been identified for urban residential lots within Ploughmans Valley (Area 2). Open space within the proposed subdivision will be provided consistent with the DCP Conceptual Layout. The proposed subdivision will retain the existing public open space area within residue Lot 210. Further, the public open space buffer on the western side of the NDR will be provided within Lot 210.

A formal biodiversity assessment is required in support of the DA pursuant to the EP&A 1979

As outlined earlier in this report, the proposed development is not likely to significantly affect a threatened species pursuant to the submitted ecological assessment (Flora Search 8 October 2018). Council’s Manager City Presentation concurred with the conclusions of the submitted assessment. Biodiversity assessment of the proposal is not required under State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017.

Access for Lots 205-207 via The Escort Way should be consistent with the requirements of the RMS

The RMS has granted concurrence to the shared access to the classified road for the affected lots. RMS conditions are included on the attached Notice of Approval.


 

The proposed lots could be developed for dual occupancy

The proposed subdivision does not nominate any lots for dual occupancy. Notwithstanding this, a number of the proposed lots exceed the minimum area required for dual occupancy. Further development consent will be required for dual occupancy development on the parcels.

What is the policy/procedure for the sale of Council land; will the other residential lots be purchased by Housing Plus?

The sale of Council land is managed by Council’s Corporate Services Division. The proposed residential lots will be sold on the open market.

The 2.5m high acoustic wall will have adverse visual impacts

As outlined in this report, the acoustic wall will comprise an earth mound with 1.8m fencing atop, with adjacent plantings in the NDR road corridor. Conditions are included on the attached Notice of Approval requiring details of the acoustic barrier and landscaping to be submitted to Council for approval, prior to issue of a Construction Certificate. It is considered that the earth mounding and landscaping will reduce the visual bulk and screen the wall, and assist to provide visual integration. The acoustic wall will be well-removed from the NDR road formation and will not visually encroach within the view corridor formed by the road. It is noted that various sections of the NDR have adjacent acoustic barriers. These are considered to be accepted visual elements and do not present adverse visual impacts.

What is the role of the Coogal Wetlands in the DA?

The Coogal Wetlands are located on proposed residue Lot 210. The proposed subdivision does not involve works to the wetlands/creek.

Does the proposed subdivision layout involve a lane way?

Proposed Lots 202 and 203 will have access to the new cul-de-sac via an access driveway and right-of-way (proposed Lot 203 will be a battleaxe lot).

The DA should be subject to independent assessment

DA 444/2018(1) and DA 448/2018(1) were prepared by independent consultants, assessed by Council staff and will be determined by Councillors. Furthermore, Keylan Consulting Pty Ltd has been engaged by Council to carry out a peer review of DA 448/2018(1).

Proposed Lot 204 could be utilised for multi dwelling housing, which is contrary to the neighbourhood character

Proposed Lot 204 comprises a site area of 5,260m2 and is proposed for development of a transitional group home, community facility and hostel (concurrent DA 448/2018(1)). Should this development not proceed, further subdivision of Lot 204 may result in order to maximise development opportunities for this site. Multi dwelling housing is not permitted in the R2 zone.


 

The pathway between Lots 121 and 122 George Weily Place should provide linkages to public open space

The concrete pathway provides a superfluous overland stormwater flowpath. Council’s Development Engineer has included a condition that the pathway be closed. Public open space linkages are provided elsewhere through Area 2 Ploughmans Valley.

Stormwater from the proposed subdivision should not impact on local water quality and flooding

Council’s Development Engineer has included conditions on the attached Notice of Approval requiring stormwater detention within the subdivision, designed to limit peak stormwater outflows from the land to pre-existing natural outflows. The conditional stormwater design will not result in adverse discharge impacts for downstream parcels. Earth mounding to the part-site perimeter will be designed to manage overland flows, stormwater detention and runoff.

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. The proposal involves the creation of new residential lots with the Ploughmans Valley, generally in accordance with the precinct masterplan.

SUMMARY

The proposed development is permissible with the consent of Council. The proposed development generally complies with the relevant aims, objectives and provisions of Orange LEP 2011 (as amended) and DCP 2004. Where a variation has been sought, a detailed discussion has been provided in the assessment. A section 4.15 assessment of the development indicates that the development is acceptable in this instance. Council’s Technical Services Division has indicated support for the subject design. 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, D19/5138

2          Plans, D19/5144

3          Submissions (1), D19/5073

4          Submissions (2), D19/5074

5          Submissions (3), D19/5076

  


Planning and Development Committee                                                        5 February 2019

2.2                       Development Application DA 444/2018(2) - Subdivision - 20 George Weily Place and Lot 125 the Escort Way

Attachment 1      Notice of Approval

 

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

 

Development Application No DA 444/2018(1)

 

NA19/                                                                  Container PR20570

 

 

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 4.18

 

Development Application

 

  Applicant Name:

Orange City Council

  Applicant Address:

C/- Geolyse

PO Box 1963

ORANGE  NSW  2800

  Owner’s Name:

Orange City Council

  Land to Be Developed:

Lot 119 DP 1087517 - 20 George Weily Place, Orange and

Lot 125 DP 1087517 -  The Escort Way, Orange

  Proposed Development:

Subdivision (eight residential lots, one stormwater management lot and one residue lot)

 

 

Building Code of Australia

 building classification:

 

Not applicable

 

 

Determination made under

  Section 4.16

 

  Made On:

5 February 2019

  Determination:

CONSENT GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:

 

 

Consent to Operate From:

6 February 2019

Consent to Lapse On:

6 February 2024

 

Terms of Approval

 

The reasons for the imposition of conditions are:

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

(2)      To maintain neighbourhood amenity and character.

(3)      To ensure compliance with relevant statutory requirements.

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

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

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

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

 


 

 

 

Conditions

 

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

 

(a)      Plan by Geolyse: Project No. 219059 Sheet No. C003 (1 sheet)

 

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

 

as amended in accordance with any conditions of this consent.

 

 

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

 

(2)      Lots 205 and 206 shall be consolidated into a single parcel. The consolidated lots shall be depicted on the engineering design plans for the development.

 

(3)      Design and details of the acoustic barrier (Figure 4 Noise Impact Assessment (Assured Environmental 13/11/2018)) shall be submitted for approval of Council’s Manager Development Assessments prior to issue of a construction certificate. The acoustic barrier shall incorporate earth mounding and 1.8m high solid fencing, with overall height of 2.5m.

 

(4)      The acoustic barrier (pursuant to Figure 4 of Noise Impact Assessment (Assured Environmental 13/11/2018)) shall be amended as follows:

The barrier shall extend along the northern boundary of proposed Lot 203; and

The barrier shall not encroach within the 15m building line setback to The Escort Way / Forbes Road.

 

(5)      A detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

The landscaping plan shall incorporate the following:

(a)      Street trees and spacings for the cul-de-sac linking to George Weily Place

(b)      Landscaping of the stormwater detention basin (proposed Lot 209) and outlet of new stormwater pipes using species consistent with the stormwater retention basins in the eastern portion of the subject site (eastern side of Northern Distributor Road) known as Coogal Wetlands.

(c)      Landscape treatment and planting plan for the land adjoining the Northern Distributor Road corridor and linking to The Escort Way including the reinforcement of Orange’s Colour City Image, respecting the high profile exposure of the site within the Ploughmans Valley and to offer aesthetic amelioration to the proposed 2500mm acoustic barrier to the Northern Distributor Road.

 

(6)      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.

 

(7)      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.

 

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


 

(9)      Existing stormwater pipes from George Weily Place shall be extended to the culvert under the NDR, where it is to be discharged through a standard headwall with appropriate scour protection. The existing table drain on Escort Way shall have underground drainage and grated surface inlets installed and extended to the NDR culvert. 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) prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

 

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

 

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

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

 

(12)    All vehicle access to Lot 207 and the consolidated area of Lots 205 and 206 from MR61 shall be via a single driveway. The driveway intersection with MR61 shall be provided with BAR/BAL treatments to the requirements of Roads and Maritime Services.

Any work undertaken within the MR61 road reserve shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of Roads and Maritime Services, and any necessary approvals obtained from Roads and Maritime Services prior to commencement.

 

 

PRIOR TO WORKS COMMENCING

 

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

 

(14)    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.

 

 

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

 

(15)    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.

 

(16)    Removal of street trees on Forbes Road / The Escort Way to provide vehicular access to proposed Lot 207 and consolidated Lot 205/206 shall be undertaken in consultation with Council’s Manager City Presentation.

 

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

 

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

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


 

(19)    The public road shall be constructed with a 9.0m wide carriageway to full urban standard and located centrally within existing Lot 119. Plans shall be prepared showing details of levels, cross falls of all pavements, proposed sealing materials and proposed drainage works and be in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.

 

(20)    A concrete kerb layback and footpath crossing is to be constructed for the access handle serving Lots 202 and 203. The footpath crossing shall be a minimum width of 4.5 metres wide and to the requirements and standards of the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.

 

(21)    A 6.0m wide concrete layback and footpath crossing shall be constructed for a combined access point serving Lot 207 and the consolidated area of Lots 205 and 206. The location of this access shall be centred on the common boundary of Lot 207 and the consolidated area of Lots 205 and 206.

 

(22)    The existing concrete pathway reserve adjacent to 16 George Weily Place shall be closed for public use.

 

(23)    All proposed residential lots adjacent to the stormwater overland flow path are to have a minimum freeboard above the 1-in-100-year flood level in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code and the Floodplain Risk Management Plan.

 

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

 

(25)    Water and sewer services, including mains construction, easements and all associated materials and works, are to be provided for the development at the cost of the developer.

 

(26)    An earth mound shall be constructed the full length of the boundary with the Northern Distributor Road. The mound shall have a minimum finished RL of 855.750m at cross section X-X as shown on the submitted plans. Engineering details of the required earth mound shall be submitted to Orange City Council for approval prior to construction.

 

 

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A SUBDIVISION CERTIFICATE

 

(27)    The payment of $118,475.94 is to be made to Council in accordance with Section 7.11 of the Act and the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017 (Ploughmans Valley urban release area) towards the provision of the following public facilities:

 

Open Space and Recreation

@ $3,938.56 x 6 additional residential lots

23,631.36

Community and Cultural

@ $1,142.17 x 6 additional residential lots

6,853.02

Roads and Traffic Management

@ $5,198.77 x 6 additional residential lots

31,192.62

Local Area Facilities

@ $8,891.37 x 6 additional residential lots

53,348.22

Plan Preparation & Administration

@ $575.12 x 6 additional residential lots

3,450.72

TOTAL

 

$118,475.94

 

The contribution will be indexed quarterly in accordance with the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017 (Ploughmans Valley urban release area). This Plan can be inspected at the Orange Civic Centre, Byng Street, Orange.

 

(28)    Landscaping (excepting Northern Distributor Road corridor plantings) shall be installed (and permanently maintained) in accordance with the approved landscaping plan to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager City Presentation, prior to issue of a subdivision certificate.


 

(29)    Landscaping to the Northern Distributor Road corridor shall be installed (and permanently maintained) in accordance with the approved landscaping plan to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager City Presentation, prior to the issue of a subdivision certificate.

Alternatively, a Section 88B Restriction-as-to-User shall be created on the titles of Lots 203, 204, 209 and consolidated Lot 205/206 requiring installation of landscaping to the Northern Distributor Road corridor in accordance with the approved landscaping plan, prior to issue of an occupation certificate for any subsequent development of the lots.

 

(30)    Prior to release of a Subdivision Certificate, a 2.5m high acoustic barrier (incorporating an earth mound with a maximum 1.8 metre high fence atop the mound) is to be erected in the location set out in Figure 4 of Noise Impact Assessment – 360 The Escort Way - prepared by Geolyse Pty Ltd (Project ID 11612 – R_2 – date of release 13/11/2018) and as varied by conditions of this consent.

OR ALTERNATIVELY

A Section 88B Restriction-as-to-User shall be imposed on Lots 203, 204 and the consolidated area of Lots 205 and 206, within the subdivision. The Section 88B Restriction-as-to-User shall be written to favour Orange City Council and shall be included with the documents for the subdivision certificate. The Restriction-as-to-User shall impose a requirement for any future dwelling house/domicile application on Lots 203, 204 and the consolidated area of Lots 205 and 206, to include the erection of a 2.5 metre high acoustic barrier (incorporating an earth mound with a maximum 1.8 metre high fence atop the mound) along the length of the individual allotment boundary located directly adjacent to the Northern Distributor Road. The Restriction-as-to-User shall utilise plain English wording and have as its primary aim that future owners be aware there may be restrictions of these allotments in terms of the requirement to erect a 2.5 metre high acoustic barrier along the length of the individual allotment boundary located directly adjacent to the Northern Distributor Road, prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

 

(31)    A Section 88B Restriction-as-to-User shall be imposed on Lots 201, 202, 203, 204, 207 and 208, and the consolidated area of Lots 205 and 206 within the subdivision. The Section 88B Restriction-as-to-User shall be written to favour Orange City Council and shall be included with the documents for the subdivision certificate. The Restriction-as-to-User shall impose a requirement for any future domicile/dwelling house application on those lots to be provided with a Noise Assessment Report and certification from an appropriately qualified acoustic consultant confirming that the design and location of any domicile/dwelling house on the aforementioned allotments complies with the relevant road noise standards applicable at the time of lodgement of that application. The Restriction-as-to-User shall utilise plain English wording and have as its primary aim that future owners be aware that there may be restrictions on these allotments in terms of location, height and building materials of houses/domiciles, due to the need to provide protection of internal areas of any dwelling to be constructed on the allotment, including any private open space areas, from noise effects of the Northern Distributor Road and The Escort Way.

 

(32)    Application shall be made for a Subdivision Certificate under Section 6.3(1)(d) of the Act.

 

(33)    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 6 ETs for water supply headworks and 6 ETs for sewerage headworks. A Certificate of Compliance, from Orange City Council in accordance with the Water Management Act 2000, will be issued upon payment of the contributions.

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

 

(34)    Evidence from a registered NATA laboratory is to be submitted prior to the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate stating that the filling of all low-lying areas has been carried out in accordance with Australian Standard 3798-2007.


 

(35)    Application is to be made to Telstra/NBN for infrastructure to be made available to each individual lot within the development. Either a Telecommunications Infrastructure Provisioning Confirmation or Certificate of Practical Completion is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority confirming that the specified lots have been declared ready for service prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate.

 

(36)    A Notice of Arrangement from Essential Energy stating arrangements have been made for the provision of electricity supply to the development, is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate.

 

(37)    A Restriction-as-to-User under section 88B of the NSW Conveyancing Act shall be created on the Deed of Title for proposed Lot 207 and the consolidated area of Lots 205 and 206 prohibiting the erection of any structure within 15 metres of the boundary of the Escort Way.

 

(38)    A Restriction-as-to-User under section 88B of the NSW Conveyancing Act shall be created on the Deed of Title on lots 203, 204 and the consolidated area of Lots 205 and 206 where vehicular access is to be denied to the Northern Distributor Road.

 

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

 

(40)    An easement for water supply and to provide Council access for maintenance a minimum of 4.0 metres wide is to be created over the existing water mains. The Principal Certifying Authority is to certify that the easement is in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code prior to the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate.

 

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

 

(42)    A Maintenance Security Deposit, in accordance with the provisions and requirements of the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code, is to be provided to Orange City Council prior to the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate.

A Certificate of Compliance, from Orange City Council, certifying that the maintenance security deposit has been paid, is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate.

 

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

 

(44)    Prior to the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate, a Road Naming Application form is to be completed and submitted with a plan of the whole development defining the stage being released - including future road extensions.

 

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


 

(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 a Subdivision Certificate, unless stated otherwise.

 

 

CONDITIONS FROM ROADS AND MARTIME SERVICES

 

(47)    Prior to release of a subdivision certificate, vehicle access from Escort Way, servicing proposed Lots 205-207 is to be via a single driveway constructed in accordance with Austroads Guide to Road Design and any relevant Roads and Maritime supplements including:

Part 4 Figure 7 (enclosed). The access is to be sealed a minimum of ten (10) metres from the edge of The Escort Way, match existing road and footpath levels and not interfere with existing road drainage.

 

(48)    Safe Intersection Sight Distance (SISD) requirements outlined in the Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 4A and relevant Roads and Maritime supplements is to be provided and maintained in each direction at the access to The Escort way (MR61). This location is a 60km/h speed environment, minimum SISD is 121 metres.

 

(49)    A basis right (BAR) turn treatment as shown in Figure A 28 of the Austroads Guide to Road Design: Part 4 (copy enclosed) is to be provided in The Escort Way at the vehicular access to Lots 205-207. The widened shoulder is to be sealed and built for a 60km/h speed environment to provide a reasonable level of safety for vehicles turning right into the site and allow following traffic an area to pass the right turning vehicle on the left hand side.

 

(50)    A basic left (BAL) turn treatment as shown in Figure 8.2 of the Austroads Guide to Road Design: Part 4 (copy enclosed) is to be provided in The Escort Way at the vehicular access to Lots 205-207. The BAL facility will also need to be sealed and built for a 60km/h speed environment.

 

(51)    To provide suitable storage capacity for the largest class of vehicle accessing the subject lots, any gate, grid of similar structure installed in the single driveway is to be setback no less than 15 metres form the edge of the road on The Escort Way.

 

(52)    Any onsite landscape and vegetation is not to interfere with driver or pedestrian sight lines when passing, entering or exiting the residences via the single driveway.

 

(53)    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 Escort Way. This agreement is necessary for works in which Roads and Maritime has a statutory interest. A WAD is to be executed prior to the issuance of a construction certificate.

 

(54)    Prior to commencement of construction works the proponent is to contact Roads and Maritime’s Field Traffic Manager on 1300 656 371 to determine if a Road Occupancy Licence (ROL) is required. In the event a ROL is required, the proponent is to obtain the ROL prior to works commencing within three (3) meters of the travels lanes of The Escort way (MR61).

 

(55)    Prior to the issuance of an occupation certificate, the developer must have completed all road works under the WAD to practical completion as determined by Roads and Maritime.

 


 

 

 

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:

 

6 February 2019

 


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator



Planning and Development Committee                                                                       5 February 2019

2.2                       Development Application DA 444/2018(2) - Subdivision - 20 George Weily Place and Lot 125 the Escort Way

Attachment 3      Submissions (1)

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


 

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


 

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                                                                       5 February 2019

2.2                       Development Application DA 444/2018(2) - Subdivision - 20 George Weily Place and Lot 125 the Escort Way

Attachment 4      Submissions (2)

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


 

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


 

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


 

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


 

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


 

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


 

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


 

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


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator



PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                       5 February 2019

2.2                       Development Application DA 444/2018(2) - Subdivision - 20 George Weily Place and Lot 125 the Escort Way

Attachment 5      Submissions (3)

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


 

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


 

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


 

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


 

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


 

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


 

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                                              5 February 2019

 

2.3     Development Application DA 448/2018(2) - Group Home, Community Facility and Hostel - 20 George Weily Place and Lot 125 The Escort Way

RECORD NUMBER:       2019/87

AUTHOR:                       Ella Wilkinson, Senior Planner    

 

 

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged

6 December 2018

Applicant/s

Housing Plus

Owner/s

Orange City Council

Land description

Proposed Lot 204 in the subdivision of Lots 119 and 125 DP 1087517 (pursuant to DA 444/2018(1) - 20 George Weily Place and Lot 125 The Escort Way, Orange

Proposed land use

Group Home (transitional), Community Facility and Hostel

Value of proposed development

$2,300,000

Council's consent is sought for a mixed use development comprising a community facility, hostel and transitional group home on proposed Lot 204 in the proposed subdivision of Lots 119 and 125 DP 1087517 (The Escort Way and George Weily Place).

The development will comprise an administration building which will operate as a community facility and hostel. The building will provide offices, counselling areas, staff amenities, staff sleeping quarters and emergency sleepover accommodation, supported by a common room and shared kitchen/bathroom/laundry facilities. The building will have a footprint of 515.8m2.

The transitional group homes will be accommodated in three separate attached duplexes. The duplexes will be capable of being occupied by a single household of domestic violence victims. Each unit is fully self-contained, with designated private open space. The duplexes will be an adaptable design with lockable fire doors so that adjacent units can be used as:

-     2x 2 bedroom units;

-     1x 1 bedroom unit and 1x 3 bedroom unit; and

-     a single 4 bedroom unit.

The proposed transitional group home units will have the following building footprints:

-     Units 1 and 2 (with attached ancillary salon) = 213.7m2;

-     Units 3 and 4 = 180.6 m2; and

-     Units 5 and 6 = 180.6 m2.

The transitional group homes will occupy a total area of 574.9m2

The proposal also outlines off street parking, site landscaping, communal open space areas, garden shed, ancillary salon and a playground.


 

The proposal has received considerable public interest, with multiple submissions provided to Council during the public exhibition period. The issues raised in these submissions have been summarised in further detail in the body of this report; however, the main objection to the proposal is that it is not appropriate in a residential area.

The proposed hostel and transitional group home uses are defined under the parent term “residential accommodation” in OLEP 2011. Hostels, transitional group homes and community facilities are uses permitted with consent in the R2 Low Density Residential zone under OLEP 2011. Further, the test for permissibility of transitional group homes in the R2 Low Density Residential zone is covered by SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. Despite the definition of a transitional group home in OLEP 2011 as “a dwelling”, the State policy does not concern itself with the number of buildings, where consent is required.

The State policy further prevents the consent authority from viewing a proposal for a transitional group home as anything other than a normal residential development. The State policy prevents a consent authority from applying conditions of consent to a proposal of this nature that would not ordinarily be applied to a standard residence.

One concern raised by submitters is that a proposal for a transitional group home may be altered to accommodate future, permissible uses, such as “temporary accommodation for the relief or rehabilitation of people with a disability or for drug or alcohol rehabilitation purposes, or that is used to provide half-way accommodation for persons formerly living in institutions”. To address this concern, a condition of consent has been recommended that restricts the proposal to domestic violence victims and their children, and that any change in focus for the centre beyond domestic violence be subject to an application to modify the development consent, enabling Council to consider an assessment for the community need for such services as per clause 46 (1)(a). This is discussed in greater detail throughout the body of this report.

Other issues raised have highlighted traffic, noise and safety impacts of the development. These issued have also been addressed throughout the body of this report.


 

 

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 deals with a domestic violence facility, which is permissible via Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 and SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

Staff have assessed the development against Orange’s statutory planning instruments, including the LEP and DCP, and concluded that the development can meet the goals and objectives laid out in those adopted documents. Some of these issues have been the subject of redesign or have been addressed via recommended conditions of consent.

The DA was placed on public exhibition in conjunction with DA 444/2018(1) for a ten lot subdivision. A total of 112 submissions were received in relation to both applications. This reports considers issues applicable to the domestic violence facility DA only. Submissions relating to DA 444/2018(1) are considered in the assessment of that DA.

The submissions raised numerous issues. Many of those issues do not relate strictly to planning matters and have been handed to the applicant to address. Council must base its determination on planning matters alone. One key issue raised in submissions is that in the future there could be a change of use of the facility into uses such as “halfway houses” and other transitory accommodation purposes. A condition has been included on the Notice to prevent this occurring without further consideration by Council.

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

It is noteworthy but not of planning relevance that the current owner of the subject land is Orange City Council.

Policy and Governance Implications

The subject site has been identified for further residential development by Orange DCP 2004. A conceptual masterplan layout outlined in DCP 2004 was included to illustrate how some additional lots may be provided within the location. This layout was indicative only in nature, but demonstrated further residential development within this location.

Further, under Orange LEP 2011 the site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential, and as previously outlined the proposed use is permissible in this zone.


 

 

 

Recommendation

That Council resolves to consent to development application DA 448/2018(1) for Group Home (transitional), Community Facility and Hostel at Proposed Lot 204 in the subdivision of Lots 119 and 125 DP 1087517 - 20 George Weily Place and The Escort Way, Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.

 

further considerations

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

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

THE APPLICATION

Council's consent is sought for a mixed use development comprising a community facility, hostel and transitional group home on proposed Lot 204 in the proposed subdivision of Lots 119 and 125 DP 1087517 (The Escort Way and George Weily Place).

Proposed Lot 204 in the proposed subdivision of Lots 119 and 125 DP 1087517 (The Escort Way and George Weily Place) will have an area of approximately 5,260m2 (subject to survey). The site is an irregular shape, with the northern half of the site tapering to a point (see Figure 2).

Figure 2 - shape of subject site


 

The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential and is east of the existing Ploughmans Hill residential estate.

The site itself adjoins seven proposed standard residential lots, three to the south and four to the west, and one lot for use for stormwater management to the southeast. These lots are proposed as part of the concurrent subdivision DA that will establish the subdivision pattern for this proposal. A cul-de-sac is also proposed to provide access to the site, which will adjoin George Weily Place.

The eastern boundary will adjoin the Northern Distributor Road road reserve.

Currently the subject site is vacant and clear of any native trees. The site is highly disturbed and degraded, with no native vegetation of significance. An overland flow path affects the southern portion of the subject site, traversing the site in an east-west direction. Orange City Council’s 450mm non-potable and 300mm potable water mains affect the eastern section of the site.

The Coogal Wetlands (Council wetlands) are located to the east of the subject site, across the Northern Distributor Road.

THE PROPOSAL

The proposal involves the construction of an administration building, which will adopt a contemporary domestic architectural style with:

-    skillion roof lines;

-    face brick external walls;

-    selected sections of vertical groove fibrous cement wall sheeting;

-    Colorbond roof sheeting; and

-    powder coated aluminium door and window frames.

The administration building will have a building footprint of 515.8m2.

The southern section of the administration building will be used as a community facility. It will comprise:

-    an entry vestibule;

-    waiting rooms;

-    office space;

-    counselling rooms;

-    multi function rooms;

-    staff bedrooms, staff kitchenette, staff bathroom and staff WCs – so that a staff member can remain onsite at all times.


 

The community facility will provide services to domestic violence victims, such as:

-    arrangement of emergency and transitional accommodation;

-    case management for high needs victims;

-    arrange transport for safety;

-    provide brokerage for emergency needs such as food and sanitary items;

-    safety planning;

-    assistance with victims compensation; and

-    ongoing information, advocacy, support and referral.

The northern section of the administration building will be used as a hostel, providing emergency short-stay accommodation for victims until other accommodation arrangements can be made to address individual circumstances. Two sleepover rooms will be provided in the northern section of the floorplan, with shared bathrooms, laundry, kitchen, healing room, crèche and common area.

Occupants of the hostel, customers accessing the services of the community centre and staff of the Domestic Violence Centre will have access to off-street parking located to the south of the proposed administration building. Access to communal open space areas and the playground will also be provided onsite.

The transitional group homes will be accommodated in three separate attached duplexes and will comprise a total building footprint of 574.9m2.

The duplexes will be capable of being occupied by victims of domestic violence as a single household. Each unit is fully self-contained, with designated private open space. The duplexes will be an adaptable design with lockable fire doors so that adjacent units can be used as:

-    2x 2 bedroom units;

-    1x 1 bedroom unit and 1x 3 bedroom unit; and

-    a single 4 bedroom unit.

The transitional group homes are proposed to be a contemporary residential design, consistent with the design of the administration building. The proposed duplexes will have:

-     skillion roof lines’

-     a mix of face brick or rendered and painted brick walls;

-     selected sections of vertical groove fibrous cement wall sheeting;

-     Colorbond roof sheeting;

-     and powder coated aluminium window and door frames.

Internal 1.5m high fencing is proposed for the transitional group home.


 

The units will provide transitional accommodation for victims of domestic violence. Occupant stays will generally be short term, until longer term housing solutions can be located for victims. It is estimated that the occupancy rates and length of stay will be as outlined below:

-    The 3 transitional group homes, comprised of up to 6 units, would cater for approximately 72 families per year (an average of 6 families per month).

-    Family sizes may range from a single person household to a family requiring a four bedroom unit; hence the proposal to install lockable fire doors to accommodate flexibility in the duplex layout depending on individual circumstances and requirements.

-    There will be times when all units may be occupied or only some units are occupied at any given time.

Occupants of the transitional group home will also access the proposed off street parking to the south of the administration building, and no separate car parking spaces will be provided outside the units themselves.

In addition, the proposal requests consent for:

-    the construction of off-street car parking for 20 cars (as previously mentioned);

-    playground, communal open space and BBQ areas;

-    construction of an ancillary salon adjoining the three transitional group homes comprising six units, to provide space for a hairdresser from a local business to attend onsite and provide services to the occupants of the facility;

-    site landscaping;

-    construction of a storage/maintenance shed of steel frame construction and cladding, and equivalent to a single car garage in size;

-    retaining wall along the western boundary (as required);

-    fencing of the perimeter comprising:

·   2.1m high timber paling fence adjacent to part of the cul-de-sac

·   2.1m high palisade fence and gate at the entrance of the facility;

·   2.1m high Colorbond panels along the western boundary (common with the access arm of proposed Lot 203 and common with proposed Lot 208) and southern boundary (common with proposed Lots 205, 206 and 207); and

·   2.5m high acoustic barrier (incorporating earth mound and fence) to the Northern Distributor Road.

-     internal fencing of Units 1 to 6 of Colorbond at 1.5m high.


 

The facility will be staffed 24 hours a day by approximately eight (8) workers, with 5-6 of these based onsite at any one time during normal business hours. It is possible, due to the nature of the proposed use, victims and staff may need to attend the centre outside of normal business hours. Staff quarters have been provided within the administration building (community facility and hostel), so that a staff member can remain onsite overnight to respond to needs of occupants as they arise.

In addition, external services may visit the site to provide additional support, such as a child support worker, or a hairdresser from a local salon to assist clients in preparing for important appointments. The proposal outlines that it is unlikely that these activities will occur at the same time.

The proposal outlines that some aspects will overlap with the concurrent subdivision proposal relating to this site. These include:

-    public road access and utility service mains;

-    earthworks and land shaping;

-    construction of the 2.5m high acoustic barrier (incorporating earth mound and fence) along the eastern boundary of the subject site and adjoining lots that are the subject of the subdivision proposal.

The application outlines that due to the concurrent proposal lodged to approve the subdivision, the proposed servicing arrangements and finished levels for the proposed development are indicative only at this stage and will be subject to final design of the subdivision.

It is proposed to stage the development in two stages as follows:

Stage 1

-    administration building (community facility/hostel);

-    transitional group home buildings comprising Units 1 to 4; and

-    site works.

Stage 2

-    Units 5 and 6.

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

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

Development Applications lodged on or after 25 February 2018

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

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


 

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

In this instance, site inspection reveals that the subject property has no biodiversity or habitat value and is a cleared, vacant 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

The provisions applicable to the proposal in relation to the OLEP 2011 have been considered below. It should be noted that only those matters considered applicable have been addressed.

Part 1 - Preliminary

Clause 1.2 Aims of Plan

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

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

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

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

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

The application is considered to be broadly consistent with these aims as:

·    The proposal will encourage development that will contribute to the character of a regional centre by providing a facility in an LGA where domestic violence incidents have been outlined by the application to be double the State average. According to the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) data recorded October 2017 to September 2018, Orange is ranked 26 in the State in regard to the number of recorded domestic violence related assault incidents, with 245 incidents reported at a rate of 592 incidents per 100,000 population.

·    The proposal will provide for additional residential accommodation that contributes to the social resources of Orange.


 

·    The proposal will provide additional housing choices. The proposed location is in a planned residential subdivision, and transitional group homes and hostels are a form of residential accommodation. The Applicant states that Orange has double the State average of domestic violence incidents. BOCSAR data recorded October 2017 to September 2018 indicates that Orange is ranked 26 in the State in regard to the number of recorded domestic violence related assault incidents, with 245 incidents reported at a rate of 592 incidents per 100,000 population. This demonstrates a need for crisis accommodation within the community.

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 R2 Low Density Residential

Lot Size Map:

No Minimum Lot Size

Heritage Map:

Not a heritage item or conservation area

Height of Buildings Map:

No building height limit

Floor Space Ratio Map:

No floor space limit

Terrestrial Biodiversity Map:

No biodiversity sensitivity on the site

Groundwater Vulnerability Map:

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.

The deposited plan relating to the subject site outlines an easement to drain sewage to the south of the subject site. This easement is not located on proposed Lot 204 in existing Lot 125 DP 1087517, which is being subdivided under DA 444/2018 (1) (Figure 3).

The associated Section 88B Instrument that relates to the land establishes a number of terms of restriction on the use of land within the vicinity of the subject site, however the subject site itself is not burdened by these restrictions. It should be noted that Lot 119 (20 George Weily Place) is burdened by these restriction, however this is not land that is the subject of this application and will be dealt with under the concurrent subdivision proposal.

Figure 3 - deposited plan

The application outlines that existing water mains traverse the eastern end of the subject site, and these have been recognised in the development layout, with buildings sited so as to remain clear of any future easement about these water mains. The application outlines that a majority of the “affected area” will sit within the proposed communal open space.


 

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 R2 Low Density Residential zone. The proposed development is defined as a mixed use development comprising a transitional group home, community facility and hostel under OLEP 2011. All proposed uses are permitted with consent for this zone. This application is seeking consent.

A mixed use development is defined in the OLEP 2011 as “a building or place comprising 2 or more different land uses”. The definition is a descriptive term where two or more land uses are proposed in one development on one lot of land. It is not a formal land use as outlined in the land use table.

A transitional group home is a defined use under the parent term residential accommodation in OLEP 2011. Residential accommodation is defined as “a building or place used predominantly as a place of residence”.

Specific definitions relating to the proposed use of the development are outlined below.

group home(transitional) or transitional group home means a dwelling:

(a)     that is occupied by persons as a single household with or without paid supervision or care and whether or not those persons are related or payment for board and lodging is required, and

(b)     that is used to provide temporary accommodation for the relief or rehabilitation of people with a disability or for drug or alcohol rehabilitation purposes, or that is used to provide half-way accommodation for persons formerly living in institutions or temporary accommodation comprising refuges for men, women or young people,

but does not include development to which State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 applies.

Further discussion relating to the test for permissibility of a transitional group home in the R2 Low Density Residential zone is covered under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 section of this report.

The application outlines the development satisfies this definition as:

-    The duplexes are capable of being a dwelling that is occupied as a single household with supervision and care provided by the staff onsite.

-    The proposed transitional group homes comprised of six (6) units will be used as temporary accommodation comprising refuges until such time as more permanent accommodation can be located for the occupants.

The proposed salon is considered to be ancillary to the operations of the wider use of the site as it does not comprise more than 10 per cent of the total floor area of the transitional group homes.


 

The Department of Planning and Environment Planning Circular (PS 13-001) How to characterise development states:

“An ancillary use is a use that is subordinate or subservient to the dominant purpose”.

Notwithstanding, a condition of consent has been included requiring the salon to only be used by internal occupants of the facility. The salon will not be permitted to operate as a service to wider external customers.

A community facility is defined in OLEP 2011 as:

community facility means a building or place:

(a)     owned or controlled by a public authority or non-profit community organisation, and

(b)     used for the physical, social, cultural or intellectual development or welfare of the community,

but does not include an educational establishment, hospital, retail premises, place of public worship or residential accommodation.

The application outlines that the development satisfies this definition as

-    the development will be managed by a non-profit community organisation; and

-    the use of the southern section of the main building for services such as: arrangement of emergency and transitional accommodation; case management for high needs victims; arranging transport for safety; providing brokerage for emergency needs such as food and sanitary items; safety planning; assistance with victims compensation; ongoing information, advocacy, support and referral; is for the physical and social welfare of the community.

The application, however, does not address the use of the salon.

A hostel is a defined use under the parent term residential accommodation in OLEP 2011:

hostel means premises that are generally staffed by social workers or support providers and at which:

(a)     residential accommodation is provided in dormitories, or on a single or shared basis, or by a combination of them, and

(b)     cooking, dining, laundering, cleaning and other facilities are provided on a shared basis.

The application outlines that the development satisfies this definition due to:

-    the use of the northern section of the building as a hostel to provide emergency short term accommodation on a shared basis (plan DA 03 outlines two beds per sleepover room) until other arrangements are made to address the circumstance(s) of the occupant(s); and

-    cooking, common area (dining/lounge room), laundering, cleaning and other facilities (healing room, crèche) will be provided on a shared basis.


 

Whilst the definition of hostel under the LEP does not discuss domestic violence directly, it is clear that the intent of the hostel accommodation is to supplement the services of the domestic violence centre.

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

1 - Objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone

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

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

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

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

The proposal is considered to meet the objectives of these aims as:

·   The Applicant states that Orange has double the State average of Domestic Violence incidents. According to BOCSAR, Orange is ranked 26 in the State in regard to the number of recorded domestic violence related assault incidents, with 245 incidents reported at a rate of 592 incidents per 100,000 population. This demonstrates a need for crisis accommodation within the community. Transitional group homes and hostels are forms of residential accommodation that meet this need.

·   The proposed community facility, along with ancillary services and facilities under this community facility use, will meet the day-to-day needs of occupants residing in the transitional group homes and hostel.

·   The application document states that the area is serviced by public bus routes and is also within reasonable taxi range. The development is proposed to be in walking distance of Bus Stop 53 (within approximately 400 metres walking distance) and in proximity to Bus Stop 54 of route 535A Bel-air (via Calare and Ploughman’s Hill East), which run to the CBD from 7:24am to 5:26pm on weekdays and 8:16am and 10:36pm on weekends (at the time of writing) (see Figure 4).

·   The proposal is not in proximity to the Southern Link Road. The proposal does adjoin land that would provide linkage to the Southern Link Road from the Northern Distributor Road, however Council’s Technical Services Department advises that the future design requirements of the intersection have been taken into consideration as part of this proposal.


 

 

Figure 4 - Bus Route 535A

Part 3 - Exempt and Complying Development

The application is not exempt or complying development, and as such the provisions of this part are not applicable to this proposal.

Part 4 - Principal Development Standards

As demonstrated in Clause 1.7 – Mapping, the provisions of part 4 are not applicable to this proposal.

Part 5 - Miscellaneous Provisions

As demonstrated in Clause 1.7 – Mapping, the provisions of part 5 are not applicable to this proposal.

Part 6 - Urban Release Area

As demonstrated in Clause 1.7 – Mapping, the provisions of part 6 are not relevant to the application. The subject site is not located in an Urban Release Area.


 

Part 7 - Additional Local Provisions

Clause 7.1 Earthworks

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

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

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

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

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

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

(f)     the likelihood of disturbing relics

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

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

The earthworks proposed in the application are limited to the extent of cutting and filling required for the proposed building or structure. The extent of disruption to the drainage of the site is considered to be minor and will not detrimentally affect adjoining properties or receiving waterways. The application states that earthworks required to level the site will be conducted as part of the subdivision proposal. This arrangement has been reviewed and is supported by Council’s Technical Service Division.

A retaining wall is proposed to be erected behind the proposed landscape setback and along the western boundary of the lot, as required. The height and requirement of this retaining wall will be determined by earthworks that will be undertaken to level the site as part of the concurrent subdivision proposal.

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

The site is not known to be contaminated. A Preliminary Site Investigation Contamination Assessment conducted as part of the supporting subdivision proposal (DA 444/2018(1)). Findings of this report are discussed in greater detail in the State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land section of this report. Materials will be reused onsite as far as possible, and conditions may be imposed to require that surplus materials will disposed of to an appropriate destination.

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


 

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

Clause 7.2 Flood Planning

An overland flowpath is situated on the southern boundary of the subject site. Despite the prevalence of this flowpath on the subject site, the provisions of Clause 7.2 Flood Planning are not applicable to the proposal as the subject site does not contain land identified as “Flood planning area” on the Flood Planning Map. As such, the provisions are not applicable to the proposal.

Clause 7.3 Stormwater Management

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

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

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

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

The proposal has been designed to include permeable surfaces and includes retention of stormwater through the use of an adjoining detention basin. It is therefore considered that the post development runoff levels will not exceed the predevelopment levels. Conditions are recommended to this effect.

Clause 7.6 Groundwater Vulnerability

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

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

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


 

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

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

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

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

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

Clause 7.11 Essential Services

Clause 7.11 applies and states:

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

(a)     the supply of water,

(b)     the supply of electricity,

(c)     the disposal and management of sewage,

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

(e)     suitable road access.

In consideration of this clause, all utility services can be made available to the land through the processes covered in the concurrent subdivision proposal, and adequate arrangements can be made to service this proposal.

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.

In a report prepared by Geolyse to support the concurrent subdivision proposal, part of the subject site is identified as an informal materials staging area for machinery during the construction of the Northern Distributor Road (Figure 4). A machinery staging area is not a use listed in Table 1 of the Managing Land Contamination Planning Guidelines document.

Figure 5 - Preliminary Site Investigation Site Layout (source: Geolyse)

Further, the site is not identified on the NSW Environment Protection Authority’s register of contaminated lands.

In January 2018, the Department of Planning and Environment released an Explanation of Intended Effect (EIE) 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.

As is displayed in Figure 5, no sites adjoin the subject site that are considered to be potentially contaminated on Council’s contamination register. Further, the subject site itself is not identified as being potentially contaminated on Council’s contamination register.

The report prepared by Geolyse was submitted as additional information by the Applicant to support the proposal. The report is dated November 2018.


 

The application states that no significant routes for exposure by receptors (future residents) from potential contamination sources chemicals of potential concern (COPC) have been identified on the site relating to the proposed subdivision (which includes the subject site). The report states:

“Based on the findings of this preliminary contamination investigation, Geolyse considers that residual contamination risks may be adequately managed by conducting works in accordance with construction industry standards, specifically:

-    Any excavation that identifies the presence of buried building rubble should be assessed for the presence of asbestos in accordance with applicable SafeWork NSW guidelines and codes of practice, and managed accordingly.

-    Avoiding skin contact with soil that is discoloured, malodourous, containing foreign matter and/or generally inconsistent with virgin top soil; and

-    No entry permitted into confined spaces and excavations.

-    Excavation and stockpiling works should be conducted in a manner that avoids off-site migration of dust and sediments.”

The report concludes that Geolyse “make the following conclusions regarding the potential for land contamination at the site, based on a desktop review of available information, a review of historical records, a site walkover reconnaissance, and analytical results of collected soil samples.

-    Based on the review of historic operations at the site, the area of the site does not appear to have been utilised for any intensive purpose(s).

-    Land uses at the majority of the site have been generally limited to passive uses, based on previous title ownership.

-    No significant routes for exposure by receptors (current of future) to potential contamination sources have been identified, due to negligible impacts identified. Residual contamination risks, if identified, may be adequately managed by conducting works in accordance with appropriate construction industry standards” (as outlined above).

Notwithstanding, a standard condition requiring work to cease onsite in the case of an unexpected find during site works has been recommended.

Further, a condition has been recommended requiring a water and soil control plan to be submitted to Orange City Council or an Accredited Certifier for approval prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.


 

Figure 6 - No sites are identified on Council’s Contamination Register that adjoin the subject site

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 is applicable. Pursuant to Division 7 Group Homes. Clause 43 Development in prescribed zones states:

(1)     Development for the purpose of a permanent group home or a transitional group home on land in a prescribed zone may be carried out:

(a)     Without consent if the development does not result in more than 10 bedrooms being within one or more group homes on a site and the development is carried out by or on behalf of a public authority, or

(b)     With consent in any other case.

(2)     Division 1 of Part 2 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 applies in respect of development carried out by or on behalf of a public authority under subclause (1) and, in the application of that Division, any reference in that Division to that Policy is taken to be a reference to this clause.

The test for permissibility of a transitional group home in the R2 Low Density Residential zone is covered by SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. The State policy is not concerned with the number of buildings in situations where consent is required.

Zone R2 Low Density Residential is defined as a prescribed zone in clause 42 of Division 7.


 

In relation to subclause 1(a), a total of twelve (12) bedrooms are proposed as part of the proposal for the transitional group home, accommodated within the six (6) proposed units. An additional two (2) bedrooms are proposed to be accommodated within the administration building, comprising a community facility and hostel. Further, the proposal will not be carried out by or on behalf of a public authority. Therefore, in relation to subclause 1(b), as the proposed group home will result in more than 10 bedrooms and the proposal is not to be carried out by or on behalf of a public authority, the proposal requires consent. This application is seeking consent.

The provisions of subclause 2 are not applicable to the proposal as the development is not being carried out by or on behalf of a public authority.

Clause 45 outlines that a development for the purpose of a group home is complying development if:

(a)     the development does not result in more than 10 bedrooms being within one or more group homes on a site

As previously mentioned, a total of twelve (12) bedrooms are proposed as part of the proposal for the transitional group home, accommodated within the six (6) proposed units. An additional two (2) bedrooms are proposed to be accommodated within the administration building, comprising a community facility and hostel. Therefore, the proposal is not considered complying development under this policy.

As such, clause 46 is applicable to the proposal and states:

(1)     A consent authority must not:

(a)     refuse consent to development for the purpose of a group home unless the consent authority has made an assessment of the community need for the group home, or

(b)     impose a condition on any consent for a group home only for the reason that the development is for the purpose of a group home.

(2)     This clause applies to development for the purpose of a group home that is permissible with consent under this or any other environmental planning instrument.

In relation to subclause 1(a), an assessment of the community need for the group home has not been undertaken. However, given advice supplied by the Applicant and the data recorded between October 2017 and September 2018 by BOCSAR regarding the domestic violence statistics in the Orange LGA, there is a prima facie case demonstrating the need for the proposal. The absence of a purpose built facility for assisting domestic violence victims in Orange limits the options for people in need of crisis accommodation, with the potential in some cases for victims to be forced to relocate outside of Orange, causing additional disruption to their daily lives, employment prospects, participation in the broader community and ability to maintain social networks with friends and family. Provision of a facility such as the proposed development would therefore reduce the stress and anxiety involved and may enable more people to seek help by reducing actual and perceived barriers.


 

In relation to subclause 1(b), an assessment pertaining to a transitional group home is to be undertaken as an assessment for a regular residence. Therefore, State policy prevents the consent authority from viewing a proposal for a transitional group home as any other form of development and applying conditions of consent to a proposal of this nature that would not ordinarily be applied to a standard residence. Notwithstanding this, it is common practice to require a development to be consistent with the plans and supporting information supplied in the application. The nature of this transitional group home as has been portrayed to Council is for domestic violence victims and their children, rather than the other types of clientele described in the definition of transitional group homes. As described above, there is a prima facie case to support a domestic violence centre in Orange, but this has not been articulated in respect of other types of transitional group homes. Accordingly, a condition is recommended that restricts the proposal to domestic violence victims and their children, and that any change in focus for the centre beyond domestic violence be subject to an application to modify the development consent, enabling Council to consider an assessment for the community need for such services as per clause 46 (1)(a) of the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

It must be noted that, pursuant to clause 46(1)(a), should Council decide to refuse the proposed development, a needs based assessment will be required to be completed. Should this occur, it is requested that Council request a further report to be prepared by staff.

Further assessment in relation to the proposed residential use of the subject site is undertaken in following sections of this report.

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 7). An assessment of the proposed development against the relevant Planning Outcomes will be undertaken below.

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

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


 

The corresponding zone to zones 2a Urban Residential and 2d Urban Transition (Orange LEP 2000) is zone R2 Low Density Residential (Orange LEP 2011). As such, Orange DCP 2004 – Chapter 7 is relevant to this proposal. The provisions of Part 7 are considered below.

Given that the subject site is located in the Ploughmans Valley Release Area (known as Area 2 in the Ploughmans Valley Release Area) and adjacent to the Northern Distributor Road, the provisions of Orange DCP 2004 Chapter 0 - Transitional Provisions are also applicable to the proposal.

Further, as the Northern Distributor Road is zoned SP2 Distributor Road, the provisions of Orange DCP 2004 Chapter 10 – Special Uses and Roads Zones also apply.

Applicable planning outcomes contained in the chapters outlined above are addressed below.

Chapter 0 – Transitional Provisions

PO 0.4-4 Interim Planning Outcomes - Ploughmans Valley

·    Subdivisions establish large lots adjoining arterial roads and along the western boundary of the R2 zone in the vicinity of the western ridge.

Whilst the proposal is located within the Ploughmans Valley Release Area (identified as Area 2 on the Ploughmans Valley Release Area maps contained in Orange DCP 2004), the proposal does not request consent for subdivision. The provisions of this clause will be dealt with in the concurrent subdivision proposal (DA 444/2018(1).

PO 0.4-11 Interim Planning Outcomes - Transport Routes

·    The development provides a high standard of visual appeal to motorists, cyclists and pedestrians as well as adjoining property owners.

·    The visual appearance of the development, including any signage, lighting or other ancillary element, must not generate a distraction to motorists.

·    Any signage must not be animated whether by movement of flashing lights.

·    Where land has more than one street frontage the street with the lower volume of traffic is to provide the principal access to the development, subject to safety considerations.

·    Where access is provided onto an arterial road, distributor road or major collector road, the access point must have appropriate safe sight distances for the prevailing speed limit and clear and unimpeded entrance/exit signage must be displayed.

·    Where on-site customer parking is provided that is not immediately visible from a public road clear and unimpeded directional signage must be displayed.

·    Where the proposal is residential, or another noise sensitive form, appropriate noise mitigation measures to limit the development from traffic noise must be demonstrated.


 

A Noise Impact Assessment (NIA), prepared to support the concurrent subdivision proposal and submitted to support this proposal, outlines an assessment of the proposed subdivision with consideration to building siting and construction requirements that are appropriate to achieve compliance with internal and external noise limit criteria. The NIA assumes that future buildings on proposed Lot 204 would be of a single storey and located as generally outlined by this application. The NIA concludes that:

-    compliance with the internal noise level requirements can be achieved subject to façade treatments recommended as part of the NIA; and

-    that acceptable external acoustic amenity can be achieved, provided a 2.5m high acoustic barrier (incorporating earth mound and fence) is erected along the Northern Distributor Road boundary.

Plans provided to support the proposal outline recommended construction treatments as outlined in the NIA. The Applicant requests that, at the DA stage, Council not require a greater level of detail in relation to construction treatments. This is because conversations between the Applicant and Acoustic Engineer for the project, Nic Hall (Wilkinson Murray Pty Ltd) indicate that there is no merit in providing further appraisal of these construction treatment components at this stage. The Applicant suggests as an alternate approach that Council could adopt the internal noise criteria as outlined in Table 12 of the NIA, and have the Acoustic Engineer for the project provide an appraisal/certification of the final selected materials prior to finalisation of the Construction Certificate drawings and issuing of the Construction Certificate.

A referral was made to Council’s Environmental Health and Building Surveyor, who outlined that between the concurrent subdivision proposal and the development of the mixed use development comprising a community facility, hostel and transitional group home, there is some uncertainty in relation to when the acoustic barrier will be constructed. However, conditions have been recommended that provide options for likely construction scenarios; for example, if the acoustic barrier is built at the subdivision stage as opposed to the Applicant being required to erect the noise barrier.

The conditions state that:

-    Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate for any domiciles/dwellings, the Applicant shall provide the principal certifying authority with a Noise Assessment Report and certification from any appropriately qualified acoustic consultant confirming that the design and location of the domiciles/dwellings to which the application relates complies with relevant road noise standards applicable at the time of lodgement of that application.

-    Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate, all noise attenuation measures required by the approved Noise Impact Assessment Report relating to the residential buildings on the site shall be installed.

An Advisory Note has been included outlining that:

-    There is a Restriction-as-to-User on this site which includes road noise attenuation measures which must be considered on this allotment.

It is therefore considered that appropriate noise mitigation measures to limit the development from traffic noise have been demonstrated.

CHAPTER 7 - DEVELOPMENT IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS

7.5 - Merit-Based Approach to Residential Development in Orange

PO 7.5-1 Planning Outcomes for New Dwellings

·    All residential development demonstrates that the principles and objectives of each design element as outlined in section 7.7 are achieved.

An assessment against the design elements as outlined in section 7.7 has been undertaken below.

·    Development applications for multiple-unit development (dual occupancies and residential unit developments) include site analyses and supporting information showing how design element outcomes have been addressed in the design in accordance with sections 7.6 and 7.7.

The proposal does not request consent for multiple-unit development in the form of dual occupancies or multi dwelling housing. However, it is accepted that the proposal does propose three (3) transitional group homes with six (6) units in a higher density than is seen within the residential area surrounding the site. The permissibility of this is grounded in the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 as previously discussed. The Statement of Environmental Effects, site and floor plans provide analysis demonstrating how design element outcomes have been addressed in the design in accordance with sections 7.6 and 7.7. This has been assessed in the proceeding sections below.

·    Development applications for two-storey houses or houses proposing encroachments within usual setbacks include site analyses and supporting information showing how design element outcomes have been addressed in the design in accordance with sections 7.6 and 7.7.

The application does not propose two storey dwellings, and the proposed buildings do not propose encroachments within the usual setbacks. However, it must be noted that the proposal does not comply with the requirement for a 50m setback from the centreline of the Northern Distributor Road. The 50m setback as identified in Orange DCP 2004 is required to mitigate noise impacts from the Northern Distributor Road. A Noise Impact Assessment prepared to support the concurrent subdivision proposal and submitted as supporting documentation to this proposal indicated that compliance with the internal noise level requirements could be achieved subject to façade treatments recommended as part of the NIA; and that acceptable external acoustic amenity can be achieved, provided a 2.5m high acoustic barrier (incorporating earth mound and fence) is erected along the Northern Distributor Road boundary.

Further, site analyses and supporting information has been provided to demonstrate how design element outcomes have been addressed in lieu of compliance with this requirement. This is discussed in greater detail in the proceeding section.


 

7.6 SITE ANALYSIS

The Site:

Site Dimensions

The site is an irregular shape, with an area of approximately 5,260m2 (subject to survey). The site adjoins the following land uses:

-    R2 Low Density Residential to the west (adjoining a proposed right of accessway and residential lots as part of the concurrent subdivision proposal. Established residential dwellings within the Ploughmans Valley area exist further east).

-    SP2 Infrastructure (Northern Distributor Road) immediately to the east and RE1 Public Recreation (Coogal Wetlands) adjoining the SP2 zone.

-    R2 Low Density Residential to the south (residential lots proposed as part of the concurrent subdivision proposal) and SP2 Infrastructure adjoining this R2 Low Density Residential zone to the south (The Escort Way).

-    R2 Low Density Residential to the north (residential lots proposed as part of the concurrent subdivision proposal).

The southern half of the subject site is reasonably proportioned in terms of the east to west and north to south dimensions, however tapers to a point at the northern end. The site has frontage to a proposed cul-de-sac (subject to the concurrent subdivision proposal), which is accessed via George Weily Place.

Topography

The site slopes gently toward the Coogal Wetlands, which are situated to the south of the site, adjoining the Northern Distributor Road.

Services

An overland flow affects the southern section of the land in the east-west direction. Council’s 450mm non-potable and 300mm potable water mains affect the eastern part of the site.

Existing Vegetation

The subject land is vacant and devoid of any trees. The application outlines that the predominant surface cover is introduced grasses.

Location of Buildings

The application states that the buildings have been designed and sited to be clear of the services outlined above. The drainage line relating to the overland flowpath will affect the southern fringe of the proposed car parking area and will remain separated from the proposed buildings.

Buildings have been sited on the land so as to remain clear of any future easement about the 450mm non-potable and 300mm potable water mains. The majority of the area that may be affected by any future easement will sit within the proposed communal (open) space.

The Surrounding Area:

Built Form and Character

The character of the surrounding area is predominantly low density residential estates. Residential estates exist to the north, south, east and west of the subject site, albeit separated by the Northern Distributor Road and Coogal Wetlands to the east and The Escort Way to the south. The houses are of a contemporary design, and whilst the residential lots (subject to the concurrent subdivision proposal) are currently undeveloped, the residential estate adjoining these lots are well established.

Heritage Features

There are no identified heritage items in the immediate vicinity of the subject site. The closest heritage item is well separated from the site, situated approximately 783m to the southeast.

The subject site is not located within an identified Heritage Conservation Area.

Neighbouring Buildings

Currently the site does not adjoin any neighbouring buildings. However, it can be assumed that the adjacent lots (proposed as part of the concurrent subdivision proposal) will be constructed to integrate with the existing residential housing stock that exists in the established residential subdivision to the west, this being predominantly single storey structures constructed from brick materials and Colorbond roofs.

Privacy

Due to the slope of the land there will be some encroachment on the existing views and privacy for existing residential lots adjoining the wider subject site that is the subject of the concurrent subdivision proposal. However, these impacts will need to be addressed by this concurrent proposal, as well as any future proposals for development on these sites. In regard to this proposal, privacy into and out of the site will be relatively well maintained as a result of proposed fencing, landscaping and siting of buildings. This is discussed in greater detail in proceeding sections of this report.

Change in Levels

Due to the concurrent subdivision proposal, exact levels of the subject site are difficult to ascertain as site works will be required to be undertaken as part of the subdivision proposal. Therefore, final levels are subject to change.

Street Features

The proposed cul-de-sac which will provide access to the subject site is yet to be constructed as it is part of the considerations of the concurrent subdivision proposal. Therefore it is difficult to comment on the street features of the proposed cu-de-sac.

The wider street features of George Weily Place, the street that will provide access to the cul-de-sac are as follows:

-    No footpaths are currently established along the street.


 

-    A footpath connecting to the wider pedestrian walking paths accessing the Coogal Wetlands exists at the northern end of the George Weily Place cul-de-sac.

-    An additional public footpath exists between 14 and 16 George Weily Place, connecting to the subject site. The footpath concludes at the subject site.

-    Some street trees have been planted in the road reserve.

Direction and Distance to Local Facilities

The subject site is approximately 3km (as the crow flies), or 10 minute drive from the Orange Post Office, and approximately 4km (as the crow flies), or  7 minute drive from the North Orange Shopping Complex.

Access

Access is proposed via a yet-to-be constructed cul-de-sac, which is the subject of the concurrent subdivision proposal.

Adjacent Land Features

The Coogal Wetlands exist to the east of the subject site, adjacent to the Northern Distributor Road. This area is zone RE1 Public Recreation. A small section of the site adjoining the Northern Distributor Road adjacent to this site is identified as High Biodiversity on the OLEP 2011 Terrestrial Biodiversity Map, however, this is not identified on the subject site itself.

 

Figure 7 - Site Analysis


 

7.7 DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STREETSCAPE

PO 7.7-1 Planning Outcomes - Neighbourhood Character

·    Site layout and building design enables the:

-    creation of attractive residential environments with clear character and identity;

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

The application outlines that the proposal meets these requirements for the following reasons:

-    The proposed development does not impact on important views vegetation or landmarks.

This justification is accepted.

-    Despite the expected increase in traffic that will be generated, the proposal will not unreasonably affect the function of the new access road (subject to a concurrent subdivision proposal) or George Weily Place for pedestrian access and use. Vehicles associated with the development are able to enter and exit in a forward direction and adequate driver and pedestrian sightlines will be achieved so that vehicles entering and exiting the site are visible to pedestrians and vice versa.

In assessment of this justification, it is considered that the neighbourhood character of the existing area, particularly along the existing George Weily Place cul-de-sac, will be altered in some capacity. George Weily Place is an existing residential cul-de-sac with only local traffic.

In line with internal Council assessment processes, the proposal was referred to Council’s Technical Services Division to review the assumptions as outlined in the application (and above) relating to the impact of the development on the environmental capacity of the road network.

The Technical Services division reviewed the assessment undertaken by the application and outlined that the proposed development will create the following situation in the cul-de-sac:

-    35 residential lots and 1 lot for a mixed use development comprising a community facility, hostel and transitional group home (exceeding Council’s development standard by 6 lots OR 20%); and

-    average daily vehicle movements of 344 (exceeding Council’s development standard by 44 vehicle movements OR 15%).

There are numerous examples where this deviation from Council’s development code has been undertaken. Nicole Drive services 4 cul-de-sacs and 54 allotments, 399 average daily vehicle movements; and Glendale Crescent services 106 allotments, 784 average daily vehicle movements.

The referral outlined that these issues could be mitigated as follows:

-    The future development of this area beside the Northern Distributor Road has been identified on Council’s DCP since 2004. The DCP subdivision layout includes 8 residential lots. The current subdivision proposal is for only 5 lots with access from George Weily Place, with 3 lots being accessed via The Escort Way (a reduction of 37.5% from the DCP).

-    The average daily vehicle movements within George Weily Place as a result of the 5 new lots and mixed use development comprising a community facility, hostel and transitional group home will be 344. This is within 15% of the maximum permitted under Council’s Development and Subdivision Code; however, the increase in vehicle movements will be spread throughout the day and any peak traffic flows to and from the centre will be in an opposite direction to that of the local residents.

-    The allotments in George Weily Place are a generous size of 850m2 with 24m frontages, which provides a low density traffic environment (as opposed to typical 15m wide lots or 62.5% increase in frontage).

-    The intersections of Jonathon Road/George Weily Place and George Weily Place/‘The Orchard’ access will manage the predicted peak hour traffic volume without any significant treatment other than line-marking on approaches to the intersections.

-    There would be minimal change to the George Weily Place/Jonathon Road intersection level of service with the additional development as per Austroads Guide to Traffic Management Part 3.

Therefore, the proposal was recommended for approval by Technical Services, provided recommended conditions of consent were included in the Notice. These conditions have been included in the Notice.

Notwithstanding, it is recommended that footpaths be installed along this road reserve to provide alternatives for pedestrians to the roadway as part of separate consideration by Council, in order to maintain the existing residential character and provide safe pedestrian linkages to the wider walking paths of the area, albeit in a more formalised arrangement.

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

The application outlines that the proposal meets these requirements for the following reasons:

-    The building design maintains a common theme and consistent use of materials. In particular, the proposed buildings will be of a single storey scale and the building footprints and elevations are not so large that they are uncharacteristic of the area.

-    The skillion roof profiles are reflective of modern residential architectural forms.

-    The proposed wall finishes are reflective of domestic finishes found across the broader neighbourhood.

-    A minimal expanse of hard driveway surface is proposed at the street frontage.

These justifications are accepted.

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

This is previously discussed in greater detail above. As such, the provisions of this requirement are considered to have been addressed.


 

PO 7.7-2 Planning Outcomes - Building Appearance

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

As previously noted, the application outlines that the proposed materials, skillion roof profiles and single storey scale of the proposed buildings are appropriate in the existing neighbourhood character of the area.

This is accepted in this instance.

·    The frontage of buildings and their entries address the street.

The application states that the administration building (community facility and hostel), will be appropriate in regard to presentation to the public street (proposed cul-de-sac) as:

-    Some windows will be incorporated on the western elevation.

-    The roof line will be varied.

-    A mix of external wall finishes will be incorporated into the design.

A small section of the western elevation will present to the street, with both the front fencing designed to allow a small section of the administration building (community facility and hostel) to present to the cul-de-sac. However, the application outlines that due to the proposed use and the nature of the activities, the entrance to building will be provided at the southern side of the building, from within the site.

The application proposes landscaping of the front setback of the community/hostel building and to minimise hard surface driveway areas. The application states that the proposed car parking area will not be easily visible from the streetscape.

The application further outlines that it is considered unnecessary to address the Northern Distributor Road by way of buildings “fronting” this road as the principal access will be provided from the proposed cul-de-sac. The proposal provides for open space areas along the section of the site that adjoins the Northern Distributor Road and maintains a bulk, height and scale of modest appearance, and will not “crowd” the Northern Distributor Road.

The application contends that the presentation of the development to the Northern Distributor Road will not be uncharacteristic of other nearby development that is already established along this corridor. These points are generally accepted. It is further considered that the requirement for a 2.5m high acoustic barrier (incorporating earth mound and fence) will impact on the ability of the development to address this frontage, and improving the amenity of the Northern Distributor Road will be a matter dealt with as part of the concurrent subdivision proposal. Internal landscaping is proposed along this wall to soften the impact on occupants of the administration building and the transitional group homes. The internal landscaping of the site is discussed in further detail in proceeding sections of this report.


 

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

There are no garages proposed as part of the proposal. A garden shed, the size of a single car garage is proposed onsite, however, this does not face the street.

PO 7.7-4 Planning Outcomes - Setbacks

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

The proposal meets the required setback of 4.5m from the public street boundary (proposed cul-de-sac) along the street frontage for new development. It is accepted that the wider residential estate is not technically “new development”, however the proposed subdivision surrounding the subject site is vacant land, and as such new development. The proposed development along the street frontage sits behind the required 4.5m setback.

However, in residential areas development would normally address the street, with the frontage of the building oriented to the street frontage to maintain the neighbourhood character. This is not achieved due to the nature of the proposed use. A proposed retaining wall (as required) sits behind the proposed vegetated setback (see Figure 7) and is proposed just within the 4.5m required setback. However, all relevant buildings are maintained behind this setback, meeting this requirement.

Figure 8 - site plan

Further, the proposal does not meet the recommended requirement for a 50m setback from the centreline of the Northern Distributor Road. The application states that, due to the proposed subdivision pattern (subject to concurrent subdivision proposal), the subject site would be significantly constrained if this requirement was to be enforced.


 

The application outlines that visual amenity to the site from the Northern Distributor Road can still be maintained despite not meeting the 50m setback requirement, and the setback is considered unnecessary in ameliorating noise impact given the comments outlined in the Noise Impact Assessment (dated 13/11/2018). The Noise Impact Assessment, which was provided as additional information to this proposal and prepared to support the concurrent subdivision proposal, provides an assessment of the proposed subdivision, with consideration given to the building siting and construction requirements that are needed to achieve internal and external noise limit criteria. This report concludes that internal noise level requirements can be achieved, subject to recommended façade construction details. The report further outlines that acceptable outdoor acoustic amenity can be achieved by erecting a 2.5m high acoustic barrier (incorporating earth mound and fence) along the Northern Distributor Road.

A referral was made to Council’s Environmental Health and Building Surveyor (EHBS) who outlined that, between the concurrent subdivision proposal and the development of the mixed use development comprising a community facility, hostel and transitional group home, there is some uncertainty in relation to when the acoustic barrier will be constructed. However, conditions have been recommended that provide options for likely construction scenarios; for example, if the acoustic barrier is built at the subdivision stage as opposed to the Applicant being required to erect the noise barrier. This will cover both outcomes and provide flexibility in the approach, while ensuring that the noise amelioration requirements are put in place prior to residential occupation.

The recommended conditions state that:

-    Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate for any domiciles/dwellings, the Applicant shall provide the principal certifying authority with a Noise Assessment Report and certification from any appropriately qualified acoustic consultant confirming that the design and location of the domiciles/dwellings to which the application relates complies with relevant road noise standards applicable at the time of lodgement of that application.

-    Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate, all noise attenuation measures required by the approved Noise Impact Assessment Report relating to the residential buildings on the site shall be installed.

-    There is a Restriction-as-to-User on this site which includes road noise attenuation measures which must be considered on this allotment.

Therefore, it is accepted that in this instance the 50m setback from the centreline of the Northern Distributor Road is not required, provided the above recommendations are put in place prior to occupation of the development.

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

As previously stated above, the street setback is proposed to be landscaped. This is deemed acceptable, provided the landscaping creates an attractive, diverse setting that presents appropriately to the street. Further discussion in relation to appropriate landscaping has been discussed in detail under the PO 7.7-16 Planning Outcomes – Private Open Space.


 

In this regard, the departure from the standard residential setbacks and presentation to the street will be acceptable, and the scale for the street is deemed appropriate in this instance.

PO 7.7-5 Planning Outcomes - Fences and Walls

·    Front fences and walls:

-    assist in highlighting entrances and creating a sense of identity within the streetscape

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

-    provide for facilities in the street frontage area such as mail boxes.

The Statement of Environmental Effects has not addressed this requirement specifically, however does state the height and proposed materials for fencing along the front of the development. The site plan also provides further indication of the proposed materials and location of fencing.

A 2.1m high palisade fence and gate is proposed to form the entrance to the development. This fence is proposed to extend from the western boundary, across the proposed driveway accessible to the south of the cul-de-sac, and conclude in line with the proposed administration building (see Figure 7). A 2.1m high timber paling fence will commence from approximately the middle of the cul-de-sac and will run the length of the cul-de-sac.

The proposed timber paling fence will have prominence and visibility from the streetscape. The DCP guidelines state that front fences and walls are to be designed to use similar or compatible materials used in the locality to positively contribute to the streetscape. Due to the prominence of the timber paling fence along the cul-de-sac frontage, it is considered that palisade fencing should be erected along the frontage of the cul-de-sac, to provide continuity in the streetscape and integrate with the fencing that is proposed to be erected at the entrance to the facility.

Further, the proposed fencing height of 2.1m along the western boundary and the southern boundary is in excess of the recommended 1.2m guideline for front fences (as identified in Orange DCP 2004) and 1.8m high fence generally requested as part of boundary fencing for residential development. It is accepted that the proposed use of the development and the privacy and safety requirements of the proposed facility require a slight departure from this standard. However, the 2.1m high fence at both the front setback and along the western and southern boundaries is not considered acceptable. Discussions with the Applicant in regard to the proposed fencing has indicated that a maximum height of 1.8m for fencing along these boundaries is acceptable in this circumstance. Finally, to improve presentation to the streetscape for users of the proposed cul-de-sac, the proposed boundary fence between the subject site and proposed Lot 208 forward of the proposed palisade gate should not exceed 1.2m in height.

In regard to fencing along the shared boundary with the proposed retention basin, to facilitate management of the proposed retention basin by Orange City Council, fencing of the shared boundary between the subject lot and proposed adjoining basin (proposed Lot 209 in the concurrent subdivision proposal) shall be deferred until the location and timing of the acoustic barrier has been finalised.

Therefore in relation to front fencing, a condition of consent has been included requiring the following:

The site plan is to be amended prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate demonstrating:

-    a maximum 1.8m high palisade fence is to be erected along the front setback of the development along George Weily Place. A maximum 1.8m palisade gate is to be incorporated into the driveway setback, to be accommodated to the southeast of the proposed cul-de-sac.

-    a maximum 1.8m high Colorbond fence along the western boundary shared with proposed Lot 208. Any part of the fence in front of the gate line is to have a maximum height of 1.2m.

-    a maximum 1.8m high Colorbond fence along the western boundary, shared with the proposed right-of-way (burdening proposed Lot 203 and benefitting proposed Lot 202).

-   

Once the amended site plan has been approved and Construction Certificate issued, fencing will be required to be erected in line with this amended site plan.

Energy Efficiency

Council’s DCP 2004 states that the Energy Smart Homes Code principles include consideration of solar design in terms of site analysis, thermal design, landscaping and heating systems. These elements have been covered throughout the various sections and assessment contained in this report, namely, PO 7.7-8 Planning Outcomes – Daylight and Sunlight and BASIX Commitments below.

Bulk and Scale

PO 7.7-6 Planning Outcomes - Visual Bulk

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

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

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

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

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

-    building to the boundary where appropriate.


 

The application states that the proposal satisfies planning outcomes relating to visual bulk as:

-    The proposed buildings will be single storey with reasonable setbacks from side and rear boundaries, and will complement the bulk, height and scale of dwellings in the broader residential neighbourhood.

-    Due to the setback from the boundaries, the buildings will be contained within the visual bulk envelope (VBE), generated by planes projected at 45° over the site, commencing 2.5 metres above existing ground level from each side and rear boundary.

-    The development complies with the DCP maximum site coverage. The proposed buildings comprise a total footprint area of 1,090.7m2. The subject site has an area of approximately 5,260m2 (subject to survey). As such, site coverage will be in the order of 21 per cent.

-    In relation to building siting and landform, the bulk earthworks and land shaping will be undertaken as part of the concurrent subdivision proposal, resulting in Lot 204 being provided a relatively unconstrained site.

The reasons outlined above are accepted and compliance with the objectives of visual bulk are considered to have been addressed.

PO 7.7-7 Planning Outcomes - Walls and Boundaries

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

-    the privacy of neighbouring dwellings and private open space;

-    the access to daylight reaching adjoining properties;

-    the impact of boundary walls on neighbours.

The application states that building to the boundary is considered unnecessary in this case as the proposed buildings will not unreasonably reduce the amount of daylight that reaches adjoining properties or unreasonably impact upon their privacy. Matters relating to access to daylight and sunlight, and privacy are discussed in further detail in following sections of this report.

PO 7.7-8 Planning Outcomes - Daylight and Sunlight

·    Buildings are sited and designed to ensure:

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

-    overshadowing of neighbouring secluded open spaces or main living-area windows is no significantly increased;

-    consideration of Council’s Energy Efficiency Code.


 

According to guidelines outlined in Council’s DCP 2004, sunlight is to be available to at least 40 per cent of required open space for each residential building within the development for at least 3 hours between 9:00am and 3:00pm on the winter solstice (21 June). The application argues that, in this case this planning outcome relates to the transitional group homes (Units 1 to 6). This is disputed as a hostel is considered a residential use, evidenced by the inclusion of the hostel definition under the parent term “residential accommodation”. However, given that the proposed hostel will be used for emergency accommodation only (described as sleepover rooms on the plans), it is considered that these will only be used for a short period of time (eg overnight stays only) before occupants will either be transferred into other accommodation - either the transitional group homes onsite or off-site facilities. Further, occupants of the hostel will have access to the open space provided in the grounds, albeit not in a private setting. As such it is not considered that the hostel will require private open space in line with the requirements of Orange DCP 2004.

In regard to the transitional group homes, the application states that the shadow diagrams demonstrate that the proposed development would not generate adverse impacts on future residential development that may occur to the west and south (see Table 1 below). The main impact to adjoining properties would be from the 1.8m high boundary fence along the western boundary. However, this impact would be absorbed mainly by the proposed right of access to the west of the subject site (proposed as part of the concurrent subdivision proposal) that would provide access to residential properties to the north of the proposed cul-de-sac. In regard to the impact on proposed Lot 208, which is the subject of the concurrent subdivision proposal, a future dwelling on this site could be designed and sited to reduce the impact to primary living areas and private open space. Further, the impact from the 1.8m high fence would be felt regardless of the proposed residential use of the land. Therefore the overshadowing to adjoining properties is considered satisfactory in this instance.

Table 1 – Overshadowing to POS

Unit

GFA (m2)

POS required (m2)

Unshaded POS required (m2)

Solar Access to POS Performance in min. 3-hour period

1

79.1 m2

39.55 m2

15.82m2

Complies. 27.5m2 to 73.3m2 of unshaded POS between 9am and 3pm.

2

79.1 m2

39.55 m2

15.82m2

Complies. 15.9m2 to 46.9m2 of unshaded POS between 9am and 3pm.

3

79.1 m2

39.55 m2

15.82m2

Complies. 17.5m2 to 50m2 of unshaded POS between 9am and 3pm.

4

79.1 m2

39.55 m2

15.82m2

Complies. 18.2m2 to 59.3m2 of unshaded POS between 9am and 3pm.


 

Table 1 – Overshadowing to POS

Unit

GFA (m2)

POS required (m2)

Unshaded POS required (m2)

Solar Access to POS Performance in min. 3-hour period

5

79.1 m2

39.55 m2

15.82m2

Complies. 60.7m2 to 107.9m2 of unshaded POS between 9am and 3pm.

6

79.1 m2

39.55 m2

15.82m2

Complies. 24.7m2 to 72.9m2 of unshaded POS between 9am and 3pm.

Orange DCP 2004 and Council’s Energy Efficiency Code state that sunlight to at least 75 per cent of north-facing living-area windows or residential buildings within the development and on adjoining land is to be provided for a minimum of 4 hours on 21 June; or not further reduced than existing where already less.

The application states that the shadow diagrams demonstrate that:

-    The north facing living room windows of proposed Units 1 to 6 remain largely unaffected by shadows.

-    The proposed development would not generate adverse impacts on future residential development that may occur on the adjoining land to the west and south.

The shadow diagrams provided to support the proposal indicate that Units 2, 4 and 6 achieve adequate sunlight to at least 75 per cent of north facing living-area windows between 9am and 3pm. The shadow diagrams show that Unit 5 achieves adequate sunlight to its north facing window between 12pm and 3pm, and due to the location of this window, it is reasonable to assume that this will continue to 4pm, meeting this requirement.

The shadow diagrams for Units 1 and 3 show that adequate sunlight to north facing windows can be achieved between 9am and 12pm. Due to the design of the transitional group homes, with Units 1 and 3 situated on the south of each of the transitional group homes, and the location of the proposed windows, it is reasonable to assume that these windows will be able to achieve an adequate amount of sunlight from 8am, meeting this requirement.

As previously stated, the overshadowing to adjoining properties is considered satisfactory in this instance as the main impact is not from the proposed buildings but the fencing, and this impact is absorbed by the right-of-way adjoining the western boundary to the north of the proposed cul-de-sac; and impacts can be managed to the adjoining residential lot on the western boundary to the south of the proposed cul-de-sac.

PO 7.7-9 Planning Outcomes - Views

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

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


 

The application states that the subject site is not located within an important view corridor and the proposed buildings would not unreasonably diminish views for other properties in the vicinity. It is accepted that the proposal is not located within an important view corridor, being located in close proximity to two busy roadways - The Escort Way and the Northern Distributor Road. Further, the proposal maintains a single storey structure and consistent fencing heights that are found in the surrounding residential area. The requirement for the 2.5m high acoustic boundary fence (with incorporated earth mound) is a noise attenuation requirement for the subdivision and is required by the concurrent subdivision proposal. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal will not substantially impact on views.

Privacy and Security

PO 7.7-10 Planning Outcomes - Visual Privacy

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

-    building siting and layout;

-    location of windows and balconies;

and secondly by:

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

The application states that the proposal is unlikely to impact on the privacy on adjoining lots, due mainly due to the proposed fencing and landscaping proposed on the perimeter of the lot. Specifically, in relation to visual privacy it is considered that:

-    The proposed development is contained within the boundaries of proposed Lot 204 with appropriate setbacks.

-    “Active” areas of the development are focused inwards.

-    The eastern boundary of the site adjoins the Northern Distributor Road and the proposed retention basin lot. As such, the interface is not considered sensitive in terms of potential privacy impacts. Further, the 2.5m proposed acoustic barrier (incorporating earth mound and fence) coupled with the proposed landscaping would limit the potential for overlooking.

-    The majority of the western boundary to the north of the cul-de-sac will adjoin a right of access driveway that will serve adjoining lots subject to the concurrent subdivision proposal. The proposed site fencing and landscaping along this western boundary will maintain privacy between the subject site and adjoining properties by limiting sight lines into the subject site.

-    The western boundary to the south of the cul-de-sac adjoins proposed Lot 208 in the concurrent subdivision proposal. This section of the site is occupied by the proposed car park. The proposed site fencing and landscaping will maintain privacy to adjoining neighbours.


 

-    The southern boundary of the site adjoins proposed Lots 205, 206 and 207 in the concurrent subdivision proposal. The proposed fencing and landscaping along that section of the boundary will assist to maintain privacy between the proposed car park for the development and the proposed adjoining residential properties.

In regard to potential privacy impacts to adjoining residential properties, it is considered that the perimeter fencing and acoustic barrier will prevent overlooking of any private open space and primary living areas with the development. These justifications are accepted.

In regard to privacy impacts in relation to the internal arrangements onsite, the application states:

-    The proposed structure of the development aims to encourage a sense of community among the occupants of the facility. However, it has been recognised that there is a need to maintain a reasonable level of privacy for occupants. As such:

·   The private open space area pertaining to each unit are to be fenced up to 1.5m in height, so that privacy is afforded to occupants of the external private open space areas within each unit.

·   The principal living area windows for each unit are focussed on that unit’s private open space.

·   Key windows of each unit do not directly oppose each other.

·   The front doors are reasonably separated and do not face each other, allowing occupants to enter and exit with a degree of privacy.

·   Proposed landscaping will assist to filter views through the site.

In relation to the above, the following comments are made:

-    The proposed 1.5m high fencing between the private open space of each unit is appropriate and complies with Councils DCP 2004 guidelines.

-    Private open space for each unit is provided off principal living areas of each unit and on opposite sides of the proposed transitional group homes, in such a way that the windows in each unit do not overlook adjoining private open space or principal living areas of other units.

-    Units are oriented to face inwards to the site, complying with passive surveillance requirements.

-    The adequacy of the proposed landscaping treatments are discussed in detail in proceeding sections of this report.

As previously discussed, private open space is not provided for occupants of the hostel situated within the administration building. Despite this being a residential use, this is proposed to be utilised as “emergency short term accommodation” until other arrangements are made to address the circumstances of the occupant(s). It is considered that, given the short term nature of the proposed hostel, a private open space area is not required in this instance. Further, occupants have access to the public open space areas provided on the grounds, which is deemed adequate for short term occupants of this accommodation.


 

PO 7.7-11 Planning Outcomes - Acoustic Privacy

·    Site layout and building design:

-    protect habitable rooms from excessively high levels of external noise;

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

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

A Noise Impact Assessment (NIA), prepared to support the proposed subdivision proposal and submitted to support this proposal, outlines an assessment of the proposed subdivision with consideration to building siting and construction requirements that are appropriate to achieve compliance with internal and external noise limit criteria. The NIA assumes that future buildings on proposed Lot 204 would be of a single storey and located as generally outlined by this application. The NIA concludes that:

-    compliance with the internal noise level requirements can be achieved subject to façade treatments recommended as part of the NIA; and

-    acceptable external acoustic amenity can be achieved, provided a 2.5m high acoustic barrier (incorporating earth mound and fence) is erected along the Northern Distributor Road boundary.

Plans provided to support the proposal outline recommended construction treatments as outlined in the NIA. The Applicant requests that at the DA stage, Council not require a greater level of detail in relation to construction treatments. This is because conversations between the Applicant and Acoustic Engineer for the project (Nic Hall - Wilkinson Murray Pty Ltd) indicate that there is no merit in providing further appraisal of these construction treatment components at this stage. The Applicant suggests, as an alternative approach, that Council could adopt the internal noise criteria as outlined in Table 12 of the NIA, and have the Acoustic Engineer for the project provide an appraisal/certification of the final selected materials prior to finalisation of the Construction Certificate drawings and issuing of the Construction Certificate.

A referral was made to Council’s Environmental Health and Building Surveyor (EHBS) who outlined that, between the concurrent subdivision proposal and the development of the mixed use development comprising a community facility, hostel and transitional group home, there is some uncertainty in relation to when the acoustic barrier will be constructed. However, conditions have been recommended that provide options for likely construction scenarios; for example if the acoustic barrier is built at the subdivision stage as opposed to the Applicant being required to erect the noise barrier. This will cover both outcomes and provide flexibility in the approach, while ensuring that the noise amelioration requirements are put in place prior to residential occupation.


 

The recommended conditions state that:

-    Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate for any domiciles/dwellings, the Applicant shall provide the principal certifying authority with a Noise Assessment Report and certification from any appropriately qualified acoustic consultant confirming that the design and location of the domiciles/dwellings to which the application relates, complies with relevant road noise standards applicable at the time of lodgement of that application.

-    Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate, all noise attenuation measures required by the approved Noise Impact Assessment Report relating to the residential buildings on the site shall be installed.

-    There is a Restriction-as-to-User on this site which includes road noise attenuation measures which must be considered on this allotment.

In the event that the acoustic barrier (incorporating earth mound and fencing) is not constructed as part of the subdivision works, the applicant shall provide details of the proposed acoustic barrier fencing prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. In this case, the Applicant shall provide for the erection prior to occupation certification. The acoustic barrier shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the noise report.

Therefore, it is considered that noise impacts from the Northern Distributor Road can be mitigated to support residential development on this site.

Further, the application states that noise impacts from adjoining units will be mitigated by a fire rated and sound insulated wall erected between the units within the transitional group homes, with the lockable door provided as a solid core fire door (providing sound insulation qualities).

The separation of the units will further limit the potential for noise transfer from each building.

The provisions relating to acoustic amenity are therefore considered to have been addressed.

PO 7.7-12 Planning Outcomes - Security

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

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

In relation to the matter of security, a letter provided to Council by the applicant to support the proposal states:


 

Feedback from other facilities including in Bathurst and Forbes indicate there are very few incidents, both stating they have had no serious issues that affected the neighbours or others in the community. Perpetrators of domestic violence come from all walks of life and socioeconomic groups. They seek to control their partner/ex-partner emotionally, mentally, spiritually and/or physically. The controlling behaviours are generally directed to their partner and many perpetrators otherwise lead a ‘normal life’.  They may not have any other interaction with Police or the legal system. Some men do attempt to contact their partners after they have left the relationship but they are solely focused on the victim and our staff have strict procedures and extensive training in dealing with such matters swiftly and decisively.

The experience of other similar centres and refuges in other regional cities and towns are that security systems that include fencing that obstructs vision in to the Orchard, surveillance cameras for, and as well as 24 hour staff act as a deterrent for Perpetrators, leading to minimal or no incidents. This in combination with a suite of procedures for staff at the facility, as well as the use of Apprehended Violence Orders to prevent them approaching (failure to do so would result in arrest imprisonment), is the best way to deter perpetrators from trying to visit the families staying at the Orchard.”

Notwithstanding, in line with the requirements of Planning Outcome 7.7-12, the proposal was referred to the NSW Police Force to review the proposed safety measures and provide any recommendations in relation to improving or strengthening the safety of the proposed facility.

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) is a crime prevention strategy that focuses on planning, design and structure of cities and neighbourhoods to reduce opportunities for crime. This is achieved by using design and place management principles to reduce the likelihood of essential crime ingredients from intersecting. The security requirements in relation to CCTV and lighting at night, outlined below, are a product of recommendations provided by the NSW Police Force and the assessment against the CPTED Treatment Principles to discourage perpetrators. The nature of the inclusion of these strategies is to mitigate against any potential risks, rather than respond to them.

The application outlines that the following CPTED principles have been considered and adopted when designing the proposal:

-    A secure perimeter with a single controlled access point to the site.

-    Building entrance points are not to be obvious in relation to the street.

-    Clarity to be provided between public and non-public areas within the site.

-    Potential for the development to be easily viewed or exposed to the public will be limited, but reasonable passive surveillance will maintained within the site itself.

In regard to surveillance, the application states reasonable passive surveillance will be provided as follows:

-    The community/hostel building has windows that offer sight lines towards the cul‑de‑sac, site entrance, Northern Distributor Road boundary of the site, communal space, playground and pathways to the transitional group homes (Units 1 to 6).

-    The transitional group homes (Units 1 to 6) offer sight lines towards the communal open areas between them, the central pathway and their segment of external boundary of the site.

-    Reasonable sight lines will be provided between the eastern communal space and the car park.

-    The external areas of the site will be illuminated and sensor lighting will be strategically located.

-    Surveillance cameras will be provided for each unit, the main building and all the grounds and surrounding paths, as well as assembled on the gate, with a view to the driveway and a section of the cul-de-sac.

-    Car registration recognition equipment.

In regard to access, the application states that effective access control would be achieved as follows:

-    A single point of entry to the site, which is gate controlled and adjacent to the administration (community facility/hostel) building to enable entry and exit to be monitored.

-    Vehicle access does not extend beyond the car park.

-    Once within the site, the main building entrance is clearly depicted.

-    The boundaries will be fenced to delineate private and public property.

-    A gate and fencing are proposed to secure the car park and premises at night.

In regard to territorial reinforcement and space management, the application states that the development would be managed so as to contribute to this principle as follows:

-    Site boundaries secured by fencing.

-    Private open space in Units 1 to 6 accommodated in the transitional group homes secured by fencing.

-    Public access areas are well defined.

-    The active nature of the car park, playground and communal spaces may facilitate easy detection of potential offenders.

-    The site and buildings will be illuminated and sensor lighting will be strategically placed.

-    Surveillance cameras will be provided for each unit, the main building and all the grounds and surrounding paths, as well as assembled on the gate, with a view to the driveway and a section of the cul-de-sac.

-    Maintenance of the buildings and external areas will be ongoing.

Further, the application notes that residents surrounding the proposal may raise concerns in relation to safety concerns. The application outlines that:


 

“Based on current Housing Plus experience in Orange and other centres, perpetrators are largely deterred because in many cases they have been interviewed by the Police, are in custody and some may have Orders in place to prevent them approaching (which if ignored may result in arrest/imprisonment.”

-     The application notes that certain approaches will be adopted in regard to the management of the facility to deter perpetrators from attending the site, including:

-    Fencing to obstruct vision into the site.

-    Surveillance cameras will be provided for each unit, the main building and all the grounds and surrounding paths, as well as assembled on the gate, with a view to the driveway and a section of the cul-de-sac.

-    Car registration recognition equipment.

-    24 hour staffing of the centre.

The application and associated documents were reviewed by a representative of the NSW Police Force at the Central West Police District, Orange Police Station in relation to the Crime Prevention Guidelines a Crime Risk Assessment (CRA) framework. A number of conditions were recommended as part of the comments to mitigate impacts of the proposed development.

Comments from this referral indicate that identified crime risks that may impact upon the premises are, Break, Enter and Steal, Assault, Steal from Motor Vehicle, Malicious Damage and Intimidation.

In relation to these risks, the Central West Police District comments outline that:

“predatory offenders often make cost-benefit assessments of potential victims and locations before committing a crime. CPTED aims to create the reality (or perception) that the costs of committing crime are greater than the likely benefits”.

To mitigate against these risks and discourage perpetrators from attempting to visit the centre, social and environmental conditions should be created that:

-    maximise risk to offenders (increasing the likelihood of detection, challenge and apprehension);

-    maximise the effort required to commit the crime (increasing time, energy and resources to commit crime);

-    minimise the actual and perceived benefits of crime (removing, minimising or concealing crime attractors and rewards), and

-    minimise excuse-making opportunities (removing conditions that encourage/facilitate rationalisation of inappropriate behaviour.

To this end, a number of recommendations have been made to achieve the above objectives under the various principles outlined by the CPTED treatments, including surveillance, access control, territorial re-enforcement, and space and activity management to reduce opportunities. These are outlined in Table 2 below and recommended conditions have been included in the consent. It should be noted that the recommendations contained in Table 2 are not a guarantee that all risks have been identified, or that the area assessed will be free from criminal activity if the recommendations are followed.

In review of the planning outcomes and assessment and incorporation of CPTED principles, it is considered that the site layout and design of dwellings enables residents to survey communal areas and approaches to dwelling entrances. Dwellings are specifically designed to not survey streets - due to the nature of the proposed use there is a need for a level of privacy for victims to deter perpetrators from accessing the site. The incorporation of certain security measures and technologies as outlined by both the proposal and the NSW Police referral will assist the development in meeting the CPTED requirements and deterring perpetrators from attempting to access the site.

However, in any society there is potential for crime and a requirement to mitigate against these crimes. Domestic violence crimes are no different, and a centre of this nature will assist victims to seek shelter from potential perpetrators. The Applicant has outlined that there is a demonstrated need for this proposal, with Orange reporting double the State average of domestic violence incidents. Data obtained from BOCSAR indicates that between October 2017 and September 2018, Orange was ranked 26 in the State in regard to the number of recorded domestic violence related assault incidents, with 245 incidents reported at a rate of 592 incidents per 100,000 population. Transitional group homes and hostels are forms of residential accommodation that respond to this need. Naturally, any proposed response to one problem has the potential to impact on other issues. Design responses must therefore be included to avoid, minimise and mitigate such unintended effects. The application has been designed in accordance with Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design principles and reviewed by the NSW Police, and conditions recommended to mitigate the risks, just as with any other development.

Denying approval of a facility of this nature, that has incorporated all reasonable design responses and meets the objectives and planning outcomes as outlined in OLEP 2011, State policy and Orange DCP 2004, based on a concern for other safety risks, could be regarded as prioritising the victims of other crimes over victims of domestic violence. While the potential for all types of crime still exists, it is considered that the proposal will be developed in such a way that the risks are mitigated and responded to, to encourage safety of the occupants of the domestic violence facility, and also surrounding and adjoining neighbours.


 

Table 2 - Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) Treatment Principles

Principle

Description

Objectives

Recommended Conditions

Surveillance

Achieved when users of the space can see or be seen. Generally people involved in antisocial or criminal behaviour do not like to have their activities monitored. Therefore, layout of space, orientation and location, the strategic use of design can make it difficult for criminals to operate with ease. Surveillance should be a by-product of a well planned, well designed and well used space to help reduce opportunities for crime by increasing surveillance opportunities.

(a) Ensure that there is good surveillance to and from the development to reduce opportunities for crime.

(b) Ensure that there is good surveillance throughout the development to reduce opportunities for crime.

(c) Ensure that lighting in and around the development complies with the Australian standard – Lighting to increase surveillance opportunities during hours of darkness.

(d) Ensure that lighting in and around the development is commensurate with the closed circuit television requirements.

-    CCTV to be used in common and public areas. The quality should be of a quality that allows an offender to be identified by their face and should be able to be viewed onsite. The CCTV monitor and recording equipment should be out of view of the public.

-    CCTV footage should be recorded in high quality digital format and the images should be kept for a minimum of 28 days.

-    Lighting should be installed in all outdoor common areas and sensors should be used after dark. Lighting should be positioned so it enhances the function of installed CCTV.


 

Table 2 - Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) Treatment Principles

Principle

Description

Objectives

Recommended Conditions

Access Control

Access control should restrict, channel and encourage people and vehicles into, out of and throughout areas. It can be used to increase the time and effort required to commit a crime and to increase the risk to people involve in antisocial and criminal behaviour. With this in mind, the tactical use of design features including building configuration, security hardware, pathways, landscaping, fencing, gardens and onsite guardians can control access and help to reduce opportunities for antisocial or criminal behaviour.

(a) Ensure that access to the property is controlled to reduce opportunities for crime.

(b) Ensure that access to restricted areas within the property is controlled to reduce opportunities for crime.

-    Entrance gate should be controlled by an intercom and gate should be able to be operated remotely from within administration building.

-    Master keys for all buildings should be locked away from public view and a log of keys issued should be kept. Locks should be changed when keys are unaccounted for.

-    Non-public areas should be secured, such as sheds.

-    Quality dead locks should be installed on entry doors and shared doors (such those between 1 and 2, 3 and 4, and 5 and 6).


 

Table 2 - Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) Treatment Principles

Principle

Description

Objectives

Recommended Conditions

Territorial Reinforcement

Territorial reinforcement is about ownership, who owns the space, who manages the space, and who cares for the space. Criminals are more likely to be deterred by the presence of people who are connected with and protective of a space than by people who are just passing through. It employs actual and symbolic boundary markers, spatial legibility and environmental cues to ‘connect’ people with space, to encourage community responsibility for the space, and to communicate to people where they should and should not be and what activities are appropriate.

(a) Ensure that the boundaries of the development are clearly defined to reduce excuse making and crime opportunities.

(b) Ensure that signage is displayed to provide guidance to users of the development and reduce excuse making opportunities.

-     Staff areas should be separated from public areas and signage clearly defining the space separation.

 

Space and Activity Management

Space and activity management involves the control, supervision, and care of space. All space, even well planned and well designed areas, need to be effectively used and maintained to maximise community safety. Places that are infrequently used are commonly abused. Space and activity management strategies are an important means of developing and maintaining natural community control.

(a) Ensure that management are aware of their obligations under the Work, Health & Safety Act & Regulations.

(b) Ensure that staff are aware of their obligations under the Work, Health & Safety Act & Regulations.

(c)  Ensure that management are aware of their obligations in relation to fire safety.

-     Fire Safety plans should be displayed in all units and admin buildings and clients should be advised of evacuation procedures.


 

It should be further noted that the requirement for lighting to be installed in all outdoor common areas and sensors to be used after dark and positioned so they enhance the function of installed CCTV as outlined above, will be required to be installed and managed in accordance with AS4282-1997 Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting, to ensure that this lighting does not cause undue impacts to external residential properties.

Further, the proposed location of lighting and CCTV cameras will be required to be demonstrated on a plan that is submitted to Council’s Manager Development Assessments for approval prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

Site Access and Circulation

PO 7.7-13 Planning Outcomes - Public Transport

·    Residential unit development is accessible to public transport.

As previously stated, bus route 535A is accessible from the site, with bus stop 53 and bus stop 54 in close proximity to this service, which runs to the CBD from 7:24am to 5:26pm on weekdays and 8:16am and 10:36pm (see Figure 4). Taxis are also accessible to the site. The proposal also states that the Applicant offers a transport service.

PO 7.7-14 Planning Outcomes - Circulation Design

·    Accessways and parking areas are designed to manage stormwater.

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

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

The application states that the proposal satisfies the above planning outcomes as follows:

-    The preliminary servicing design shows that the stormwater from the car park and driveway will be managed appropriately.

-    The site plan shows that vehicle areas will be suitably landscaped.

-    Accessible paths of travel will be provided between the car park, administration building (community facility and hostel) and communal areas.

Forward ingress and egress and two-way passing of vehicles that are likely to access the facility (cars, utilities, small vans and small rigid vehicles) will be supported on the site.

The application states that the proposed use is not expected to generate the need for larger service vehicles to enter the site, and garbage, recycling and greenwaste will be stored in 240 litre mobile bins within the site and then collected via Council’s kerbside service.

All matters raised above are concurred with, except the proposal to store 240 litre mobile bins onsite and then have these collected via Council’s kerbside service. This is because the proposal will require a large number of bins to service all activities/uses onsite, and the placement of these overnight on the kerbside prior to collection will impact accessibility of the footpath.


 

Therefore, in keeping with Council’s standard procedure for dealing with garbage bins for residential developments that have limited street frontage, an on-\site bin storage area (for collection days only) and a run-cost agreement with Council’s waste contractor are requested as part of the conditions of consent, and are to be accommodated on an amended site plan. The bins are to be stored in this location on collection days only. As mentioned above, a condition is imposed to ensure that the beneficiary of the consent has made arrangements to enter into a contract with a waste contractor to have the bins collected from the temporary storage area, emptied into the garbage collection vehicle and then the bins returned to the storage area.

PO 7.7-15 Planning Outcomes - Car Parking

·    Parking facilities are provided, designed and located to:

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

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

·    Car parking is provided with regard to the:

-    number and size of proposed dwellings;

-    requirements of people with limited mobility or disabilities.

The application prepared to support the proposal outlines the following in relation to car parking:

-    Orange DCP 2004 does not outline a specific parking rate for:

·   a group home;

·   community facility; or

·   hostel.

As such, the proposal for:

-    The transitional group home is considered to represent a 2 bedroom dwelling, equating to:

·   1.2 spaces/2 bedroom dwelling

·   0.2 visitor parking spaces.

-    The community facility/hostel is considered to have an administration/office/service/consultation function, and a parking rate of 1 space/40m² (in keeping with an office and business premises identified in DCP 2004).

These rates are accepted in lieu of a specific parking rate.


 

Therefore the proposal generates the need for 20 spaces, which is calculated as follows:

Transitional Group Home

6 x 1.2 = 7.2

6 x 0.2 = 1.2

7.2 + 1.2 = 8.4 spaces

Administration Building (Community Facility and Hostel)

465.5m²/40 = 11.64

Combined total

8.4 + 11.6 = 20 spaces

A total of 20 spaces are shown on the plan, and as such it is considered that the proposal complies with this planning outcome. A condition requiring a total of 20 spaces to be provided onsite has been recommended in the Notice.

Open Space and Landscaping

PO 7.7-16 Planning Outcomes - Private Open Space

·    Private open space is clearly defined for private use.

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

·    Private open space is:

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

-    accessible from a living area of the dwelling;

-    located to take advantage of outlooks and to reduce adverse impacts of overshadowing;

-    orientated to optimise year-round use.

The DCP outlines that private open space for residential buildings must:

-    be provided at a rate of at least 50 per cent of the gross floor space of each dwelling;

-    have a minimum dimension of 3m;

-    include at least one area with minimum dimensions of 5m x 5m directly accessible to a living area, preferably orientated to the north or east of the dwelling;

-    be adjacent to dwellings located behind the primary front wall of the dwelling; and

-    be allocated to individual dwellings where practicable to minimise the need for management and maintenance of communal open space.


 

The application states that:

-    The site plan identifies areas of private open space allocated to each unit that achieves the minimum dimension of 3m and will provide an area of 5m x 5m.

-    The internal living area for each unit is connected to the area of private open space.

-    Each private open space area will be secured by a 1.5m high fence.

-    Given that units do not face the street, it is not necessary to locate private open space behind the primary front wall.

-    All units achieve the required area of private open space, with each private open space area exceeding the required amount as outlined by the DCP and as previously outlined, and achieving the required amount of solar access as outlined above.

These statements are accepted, and as such it is considered that the proposal meets the requirements of this planning outcome.

PO 7.7-17 Planning Outcomes - Open Space and Landscaping

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

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

-    provide for a range of uses and activities including stormwater management;

-    allow cost-effective management.

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

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

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

A landscape plan was prepared and submitted to support the proposal. This landscape plan was referred to Council’s Manager City Presentations, who reviewed the proposed landscaping. This was determined to not be appropriate for a site of this size and scale as:

-    There was a lack of plant species variety.

-    The trees chosen for communal open space were not visually aesthetic and appealing in a lot of this size. There is an opportunity to plant large feature trees with a minimum height of 20m.

-    No trees should be planted within 5m of constructed stormwater or sewer lines, or existing potable and non-potable water supply lines bisecting the subject site. Evergreen Alders (Alunus jorullensis) are a known issue with water pipes and a more appropriate species should be selected for planting by these locations.

-    The use of a single row and single species of hedging plant to screen the internal side of the boundary walls is limited in appeal and aesthetics for internal views of the subject site.

-    Landscaping consisting of shade trees to the car park area on the southern are of the admin building is desired.

-    The landscaping at the front setback of the proposal will be a considerable asset to the streetscape presentation of the development to the residential neighbourhood, given the proposal is unusual in its presentation with entrances not being orientated to the street. The proposed landscape plan does not adequately address this presentation. The submitted landscape plan shows a single species of shrub planting to break the consistency of the wall, with strappy leaved ground covers attaining heights of 500mm or less in front of the screen planting.

An amended plan was submitted to Council to support this proposal, and this too was reviewed by the Manager City Presentation, who deemed the amended landscaping inappropriate.

As such, a condition of consent has been included requiring a landscape plan drawn by a suitably qualified landscape architect to be submitted to the Manager Development Assessments for approval, prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate. The amended landscape plan shall incorporate the following requirements:

-    ensure that no trees will be planted within 5m of ‘stormwater lines as shown on the plan’.

-    The proposed silver birch in the amended landscape plan to be replaced with Tulip Tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), Pin Oak (Quercus pilustris) or Lime Tree (Tilia x europaea) as the Silver Birch is not recommended due to climate variability and poor performance of this species across Orange due to high temperatures and irregular precipitation.

-    Provision of greater variety of species of trees, including a variation of species and height (eg mix of 20m high trees and smaller trees growing 10m to 12m) in the communal area and surrounding the playground to enhance the aesthetics and functionality. Other smaller trees that could be interspersed with the proposed 20m trees include: Chinese Elm (Ulumus parvifolia), Red Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and Silver Maple (Acer saccharinum).

-    A heavier screen planting is to be planted in the front boundary setback along the street frontage to screen the proposed 1.8m high boundary fence and to provide a privacy screen to conceal the wider operations occurring on the site from the street. A mixture of species is to be proposed to provide articulation of this landscaping to the frontage of the building and assist in improving presentation to the street. Recommended species include: Magnolia grandiflora Little Gem, Banksia marginate, Hakea salicifoli – Willow leafed Hakea, Protea SP and Lagerstroemia SP.

Once the amended landscaping plan has been submitted and approved prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, landscaping will be required to be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the Manager Development Assessments prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.


 

In regard to landscaping along the shared boundary with the proposed retention basin, to facilitate management of the proposed retention basin by Orange City Council, landscaping of the shared boundary between the subject lot and proposed adjoining basin (proposed Lot 209 in the concurrent subdivision proposal) shall be deferred until the location and timing of the acoustic barrier has been finalised. This has been included as a condition of consent.

Water and Soil Management

PO 7.7-18 Planning Outcomes - Stormwater

·    On-site drainage systems are designed to consider:

-    downstream capacity and the need for on-site stormwater retention, detention and re-use;

-    scope for on-site infiltration of water;

-    safety and convenience of pedestrians and vehicles;

-    overland flow paths.

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

The proposal has been reviewed by Council’s Technical Services Division, with various recommendations made relating to the management of stormwater on the site. Provided the conditions included in the consent are followed, this requirement is considered to have been addressed.

A condition has been recommended requiring a water and soil control plan to be submitted to Orange City Council or an Accredited Certifier for approval prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

PO 7.7-19 Planning Outcomes - Erosion and Sediment Control

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

The proposal was reviewed by Council Environmental Health and Building Surveyor, and conditions of consent recommended in relation to erosion and sediment control during construction. Provided these conditions are followed, this requirement is considered to have been addressed.

Chapter 10 – Special Uses and Roads Zones

PO 10.2-1 Planning Outcomes - Development Affecting Distributor Road Routes

·    Development is located an adequate distance from distributor roads, taking into account reasonable road impacts (particularly road noise).

Road impacts have been taken into consideration as part of the assessment of this proposal. In particular, road noise has been taken into account when assessing this proposal. This has been discussed in detail in preceding sections of this report.


 

·    Any development carried out within distributor road land prior to acquisition may be removed at reasonable cost when required.

This provision is not applicable to this proposal.

·    New access to distributor roads comprise a small number of collector roads only, located so as to optimise the function of the distributor road.

No access is proposed onto the Northern Distributor Road from the subject site.

·    Distributor road land is acquired according to staging priorities.

This provision is not applicable to the proposal.

PO 10.3-1 Planning Outcomes – Development Near Major Roads

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

The proposed development form and visual impact have been determined to be appropriate in this instance. Notwithstanding, the impact of the proposal on the Northern Distributor Road and the amenity and landscaping of this road reserve are the subject of the concurrent subdivision proposal.

·    Residential buildings address potential noise impacts in design from adjacent main roads.

The noise impacts have been reviewed and assessed and deemed acceptable, provided recommendations in the conditions of consent are met.

·    Direct access to major roads is limited and is constructed to the requirements of the relevant roads authority.

This outcome is not relevant as the proposal will not have direct access to the Northern Distributor Road.

·    Residential lots are setback from planned distributor roads to provide reasonable separation between future roads and residential land.

This planning outcome is relevant to the concurrent subdivision proposal and does not relate to this request.

·    Where direct access to a main or arterial road is denied by the Roads Authority and comprises residential subdivision, any rear or side fences are setback and screened with dense landscaping.

No direct access to a main or arterial road is proposed as part of this proposal.


 

·    Commercial buildings adjoining a distributor road are setback from the property boundary by at least 10m.

Hostels and Transitional Group Homes are defined as residential accommodation under Orange LEP 2011 and are not considered commercial buildings. The application outlines that, while the community facility is not strictly a commercial building, it maintains the setback of 10m from the Northern Distributor Road.

·    Lighting and signage visible from the distributor road is not animated and is designed so as not to distract motorists beyond glance recognition.

There is no signage proposed by this proposal.

The application outlines that the lighting system for the proposed development will be designed to provide effective illumination of the site without causing light scatter or distraction to motorists. Further, a condition has been included requiring the proposal to comply with AS4282-1997 Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting.

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

Demolition of a Building (clause 92)

The proposal does not involve the demolition of a building.

Fire Safety Considerations (clause 93)

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

Buildings to be Upgraded (clause 94)

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

BASIX Commitments (clause 97A)

A BASIX Certificate has been submitted in support of the proposed development which confirms that the proposed development will meet the NSW government’s requirements for sustainability, if it is built in accordance with the commitments set out in the BASIX Certificate documents. A separate BASIX Certificate has been provided for the transitional group homes, Units 1-6 and the hostel component of the administration building.

These have been reviewed by Council’s EHBS and are considered acceptable.

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

Amenity

Streetscape

It is considered that the neighbourhood character of the existing area, particularly along the existing George Weily Place cul-de-sac, will be altered in some capacity. However, it is considered that, based on the Technical Services assessment of the proposed impacts in relation to traffic, the increase in traffic on George Weily Place is acceptable.


 

The request to amend the landscaping plan to provide better articulation to the streetscape will further soften the impact of the anomalies of the development, namely that the proposed built form is not oriented to, nor accessible from the street, while still maintaining privacy for victims.

Boundary fencing has been recommended to provide better integration to the surrounding residential area, while still maintaining privacy for occupants accessing the facility.

Lighting

A requirement for lighting to be installed in all outdoor common areas and for sensors to be used after dark and positioned so they enhance the function of installed CCTV, has been included on the consent. To ensure that this lighting does not cause undue impacts to external residential properties, lighting will be required to be installed and managed in accordance with AS4282-1997 Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting.

Traffic

Using the most appropriate figures to the proposed uses as part of this development proposal, obtained from RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Development (Roads and Traffic Authority 2002), the application states that the proposed development will generate the following in relation to traffic:

-    Units 1 to 6 will generate approximately 24 to 30 daily vehicle trips, and 2 to 3 weekday peak hour vehicle trips.

-    The community facility and hostel building will generate approximately 47vehicle trips per day.

The application states that surrounding development, including lots proposed as part of the concurrent subdivision proposal and existing development in George Weily Place, would generate the following:

-    Proposed Lots 201, 202, 203 and 208 will generate approximately 30 daily vehicle trips, and 5 to 7 weekday peak hour vehicle trips.

-    Existing development on George Weily Place will generate approximately 237 daily vehicle trips and 25 weekday peak hour vehicle trips.

The application states that from the above data:

-    the proposed Domestic and Family Violence Centre may represent approximately 23 per cent of the overall predicted traffic generation for the immediate precinct, based on existing and proposed development;

-    the existing development along George Weily Place may account for approximately 69% of the overall predicted traffic generation; and

-    proposed Lots 201, 202, 203 and 208 may account for approximately 8% of the overall predicted traffic generation.


 

The application states that according to Table 4.6 of the RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Development (Roads and Traffic Authority 2002), which sets out the recommended Environmental Capacity performance standards, the peak hour volumes generated from the proposal, the proposed lots (subject to the concurrent subdivision) and the existing development along George Weily Place, is at a conservative 82 vehicles per hour and below the 100 maximum peak hour volume (vehicles per hour) for a local or collector street.

In line with internal Council assessment processes, the proposal was referred to Council’s Technical Services Division to review the assumptions as outlined in the application (and above) relating to the impact of the development on the environmental capacity of the road network.

The Technical Services division reviewed the assessment undertaken by the application and outlined that the proposed development will create the following situation in the cul-de-sac:

-    35 residential lots and 1 lot for a mixed use development comprising a community facility, hostel and transitional group home (exceeding Council’s development standard by 6 lots OR 20%); and

-    average daily vehicle movements of 344 (exceeding Council’s development standard by 44 vehicle movements OR 15%).

There are numerous examples where this deviation from Council’s development code has been undertaken. Nicole Drive services 4 cul-de-sacs and 54 allotments, 399 average daily vehicle movements; and Glendale Crescent services 106 allotments, 784 average daily vehicle movements.

The referral outlined that these issues could be mitigated as follows:

-    The future development of this area beside the Northern Distributor Road has been identified on Council’s DCP since 2004. The DCP subdivision layout includes 8 residential lots. The current subdivision proposal is for only 5 lots with access from George Weily Place, with 3 lots being accessed via The Escort Way (a reduction of 37.5% from the DCP).

-    The average daily vehicle movements within George Weily Place as a result of the 5 new lots and mixed use development comprising a community facility, hostel and transitional group home will be 344. This is within 15% of the maximum permitted under Council’s Development and Subdivision Code; however, the increase in vehicle movements will be spread throughout the day and any peak traffic flows to and from the centre will be in an opposite direction to that of the local residents.

-    The allotments in George Weily Place are a generous size of 850m2 with 24m frontages, which provides a low density traffic environment (as opposed to typical 15m wide lots or 62.5% increase in frontage).

-    The intersections of Jonathon Road/George Weily Place and George Weily Place/‘The Orchard’ access will manage the predicted peak hour traffic volume without any significant treatment other than line-marking on approaches to the intersections.

-    There would be minimal change to the George Weily Place/Jonathon Road intersection level of service with the additional development as per Austroads Guide to Traffic Management Part 3.

Therefore, the proposal was recommended for approval by Technical Services, provided recommended conditions of consent were included in the Notice. These conditions have been included in the Notice.

Noise

A referral was made to Council’s Environmental Health and Building Surveyor who outlined that, between the concurrent subdivision proposal and the development of the mixed use development comprising a community facility, hostel and transitional group home, there is some uncertainty in relation to when the acoustic barrier will be constructed. However, conditions have been recommended that provide options for likely construction scenarios, for example if the acoustic barrier is built at the subdivision stage as opposed to the Applicant being required to erect the noise barrier.

The conditions state that:

-    Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate for any domiciles/dwellings, the Applicant shall provide the principal certifying authority with a Noise Assessment Report and certification from any appropriately qualified acoustic consultant confirming that the design and location of the domiciles/dwellings to which the application relates, complies with relevant road noise standards applicable at the time of lodgement of that application.

-    Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate, all noise attenuation measures required by the approved Noise Impact Assessment Report relating to the residential buildings on the site shall be installed.

An Advisory Note has been included as part of this referral which outlines the Restriction‑as‑to‑User on the site, which includes road noise attenuation measures which must be considered on this allotment. This is the result of the concurrent subdivision proposal for this subject land.

Waste Management

The proposal to store 240 litre mobile bins onsite and then have these collected via Council’s kerbside service, was not deemed appropriate as part of this assessment, as the proposal will require a large number of bins to service all activities/uses onsite and the placement of these overnight in the kerbside prior to collection will impact accessibility of the footpath. Therefore, in keeping with Council’s standard procedure for dealing with garbage bins for residential developments that have limited street frontage, an onsite bin storage area (for collection days only) and a run-cost agreement with Council’s waste contractor is requested as part of the conditions of consent, and is to be accommodated on an amended site plan. The bins are to be stored in this location on collection days only. As mentioned above, a condition is imposed to ensure that the beneficiary of the consent has made arrangements to enter into a contract with a waste contractor to have the bins collected from the temporary storage area, emptied into the garbage collection vehicle and then the bins returned to the storage area.


 

Residential Character of Surrounding Areas

Community Facilities and Hostels are permissible uses in the R2 Low Density Residential zone. The test for permissibility of a transitional group home in the R2 Low Density Residential zone is covered by SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. Transitional Group R2 Low Density Residential is defined as a prescribed zone under this State policy.

The nature of this transitional group home as has been portrayed to Council is for domestic violence victims and their children across all social strata, rather than the other types of clientele described in the definition of transitional group homes. Accordingly, a condition is recommended that restricts the proposal to domestic violence victims and their children and that any change in focus for the centre beyond domestic violence be subject to an application to modify the development consent, enabling Council to consider an assessment for the community need for such services as per clause 46 (1)(a) of the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

Social

An assessment of the community need for the group home has not been undertaken. However, given advice supplied by the Applicant regarding the domestic violence statistics in the Orange LGA, there is a prima facie case demonstrating the need for the proposal.

In relation to safety of the facility and surrounding residents, in review of the planning outcomes and assessment and incorporation of CPTED principles, it is considered that the site layout and design of dwellings enables residents to survey communal areas and approaches to dwelling entrances. Dwellings are specifically designed to not survey streets - due to the nature of the proposed use there is a need for a level of privacy for victims to deter perpetrators from accessing the site. The incorporation of certain security measures and technologies as outlined by both the proposal and the NSW Police referral will assist the development in meeting the CPTED requirements and deterring perpetrators from attempting to access the site.

However, in any society there is potential for crime and a requirement to mitigate against these crimes. Domestic violence crimes are no different, and a centre of this nature will assist victims to seek shelter from potential perpetrators. The Applicant has outlined that there is a demonstrated need for this proposal, with Orange reporting double the State average of domestic violence incidents. Transitional group homes and hostels are forms of residential accommodation that respond to this need. Naturally, any proposed response to one problem has the potential to impact on other issues. Design responses must therefore be included to avoid, minimise and mitigate such unintended effects. The application has been designed in accordance with Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design principles and reviewed by the NSW Police, and conditions recommended to mitigate the risks, just as with any other development.

By denying approval of a facility of this nature, that has incorporated all reasonable design responses and meets the objectives and planning outcomes as outlined in OLEP 2011, State policy and Orange DCP 2004, based on a concern for other safety risks, could be regarded as prioritising the victims of other crimes over victims of domestic violence. While the potential for all types of crime still exists, it is considered that the proposal will be developed in such a way that the risks are mitigated and responded to, to encourage safety of the occupants of the domestic violence facility, but also surrounding and adjoining neighbours.

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

The site is suitable for the proposed development in that the proposal is permissible in the R2 Low Density zone. The mixed use development comprising a community facility, hostel and transitional group home are all permissible uses in the R2 Low Density Residential zone. Further, the test for permissibility of a transitional group home in the R2 Low Density Residential zone is covered by SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing 2009. The State policy outlines that transitional group homes are permissible in this zone in “one or more” buildings, hence the proposed structure of the three transitional group homes on one lot of land.

Further, advice supplied by the Applicant regarding the domestic violence statistics in the Orange LGA, coupled with the data recorded by BOCSAR between October 2017 and September 2018, indicate that there is a prima facie case demonstrating the need for the proposal. Despite State policy preventing the consent authority from viewing a proposal for a transitional group home as any other form of development other than residential, it is common practice to require a development to be consistent with the plans and supporting information supplied in the application. The nature of this transitional group home as has been portrayed to Council is for domestic violence victims and their children, rather than the other types of clientele described in the definition of transitional group homes. As described above, there is a prima facie case to support a domestic violence centre in Orange, but this has not been articulated in respect of other types of transitional group homes. Accordingly, a condition is recommended restricting the proposal to domestic violence victims and their children, and that any change in focus for the centre beyond domestic violence be subject to an application to modify the development consent.

As noted, it has been acknowledged that the proposal will result in an impact on the existing residential character and identity of the surrounding area, in particular existing dwellings on George Weily Place. However, the proposed impacts on the road network have been reviewed and supported by Council’s Technical Services Division and mitigating factors identified.

In relation to safety, a letter provided to Council by the applicant to support the proposal states:

Feedback from other facilities including in Bathurst and Forbes indicate there are very few incidents, both stating they have had no serious issues that affected the neighbours or others in the community. Perpetrators of domestic violence come from all walks of life and socioeconomic groups. They seek to control their partner/ex-partner emotionally, mentally, spiritually and/or physically. The controlling behaviours are generally directed to their partner and many perpetrators otherwise lead a ‘normal life’.  They may not have any other interaction with Police or the legal system. Some men do attempt to contact their partners after they have left the relationship but they are solely focused on the victim and our staff have strict procedures and extensive training in dealing with such matters swiftly and decisively.


 

The experience of other similar centres and refuges in other regional cities and towns are that security systems that include fencing that obstructs vision in to the Orchard, surveillance cameras for, and as well as 24 hour staff act as a deterrent for Perpetrators, leading to minimal or no incidents. This in combination with a suite of procedures for staff at the facility, as well as the use of Apprehended Violence Orders to prevent them approaching (failure to do so would result in arrest imprisonment), is the best way to deter perpetrators from trying to visit the families staying at the Orchard.”

However, due to the nature of the proposed facility, it is accepted that the application requires the implementation of safety measures in line with the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design requirements. These mitigating factors include intercom controlled security gate, CCTV cameras and safety lighting. These requirements are to afford safety to the occupants of the facility and act as a deterrent to pursuers, in turn maintaining safety of surrounding residents.

Further, the location of the subject site adjacent to the Northern Distributor Road, is noted in regard to noise impacts generated from the road. However, the proposed noise attenuation arrangements have been reviewed by Council’s EHBS representative and conditions of consent recommended and included in the Notice to achieve appropriate outcomes in relation to the impact of road noise.

Other environmental impacts, including but not limited to waste management, landscaping and lighting, have been assessed and mitigated through the process of this report.

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 and was advertised concurrently alongside DA 444/2018 (1). This report considers issues applicable to DA 448/2018(1). The application was advertised from Friday, 21 December 2018 until 5pm Friday, 25 January 2019. Any submissions that were received prior to this deadline have been considered and summarised below. A total of 112 submissions were received in relation to both applications (submissions are attached as pages 61 to 513 of Item 2.2 of this agenda).

Online comments were also provided on Council’s website. Whilst these comments are not formal submissions in relation to the development proposal, they have been reviewed; and the comments accord with the formal submissions that have been lodged with Council.

Comments made in objection

Exhibition

Extension of timeframe for public exhibition period

The exhibition period was extended to conclude on Friday, 25 January 2019.

Timing of the exhibition period

The application was received by Council on Thursday, 6 December 2018. A letter provided to Council by the Applicant, dated 11 January 2019, states that the timing of lodgement of the application was connected to funding that was received by the Applicant and the timing of the obligations connected to that funding.


 

Pursuant to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation, the approval body is to give written notice of the application and publish the notice in a local newspaper as soon as practicable after a development application for advertised development is lodged. Advertising for the proposal was arranged the week following the lodgement and the application was advertised in the Central Western Daily on Monday, 17 December 2018 and Orange City Life on Thursday, 20 December 2018. Additionally, the proposal was re-advertised in the Central Western Daily on Friday, 18 January 2019 – with this advertisement including the details of the extension of the public exhibition period. The exhibition period ran from Monday, 17 December 2018 until Friday, 25 January 2019.

Council did not provide enough consultation or information regarding the development proposal

As outlined above, the application was placed on public exhibition as soon as practicable following lodgement of the proposal. The proposal was exhibited in two local papers and written notice was provided to people who appeared to Council to own or occupy the land adjoining the land to which the application relates. Due to the nature of the proposal, the notification area was extended to incorporate properties within a wider area (see Figure 9).

Notification letters were distributed to this same area when the exhibition period was extended by an additional week (see Figure 10).

The application documents were made available on Council’s website, as well as hard copy documents made available at Council offices. Council officers were available during the exhibition to speak with the community. The exhibition period was further extended by an additional week. In line with the provisions of the EP&A Act and EP&A Regulations, the specific requirements relating to exhibition, notification and consultation of the community were met.

Figure 9 - Notification Map (dated 14 December 2018)


 

 

Figure 10 - Notification Map (dated 15 January 2019)

Comments left on Council’s website have been edited and deleted

This is a separate matter which Council’s Corporate Services Division manages. Comments that were judged to be offensive or that could attract legal action were not approved to be published on the website. Further, whilst these comments are not formal submissions in relation to the development proposal, they have been reviewed; and the comments accord with the formal submissions that have been lodged with Council.

Did not receive notification of the proposal from Council

As outlined above, written notice was provided to people who appeared to Council to own or occupy the land adjoining the land to which the application relates, in line with the provisions of the EP&A Regulations. Due to the nature of the proposal, the notification area was extended to incorporate properties within a wider area (see Figure 9).

Notification letters were distributed to this same area when the exhibition period was extended by an additional week (see Figure 10).

As outlined above, advertising for the proposal was arranged the week following lodgement of the application and the application was advertised in the Central Western Daily on Monday, 17 December 2018 and Orange City Life on Thursday, 20 December 2018. Additionally, the proposal was re-advertised in the Central Western Daily on Friday, 18 January 2019 – with this advertisement including the details of the extension of the public exhibition period. The exhibition period ran from Monday, 17 December 2018 until Friday, 25 January 2019.


 

Council did not provide information in regard to the development application on Section 10.7 Planning Certificate (previously Section 149)

One submitter stated that during the purchase of their own private property, which is in close proximity to the proposal, Council did not provide information regarding this development application. A planning certificate will only provide details relating to the property for which the certificate is requested. Notwithstanding this point, at the time of the request for the planning certificate the application was yet to be lodged, and therefore there was no information that could be advised in relation to this matter at that time.

Traffic and Access

Impact on the local road network from proposed traffic as a result of the proposal - comments from engineering regarding traffic

In line with internal Council assessment processes, the proposal was referred to Council’s Technical Services Division to review the assumptions as outlined in the application relating to the impact of the development on the environmental capacity of the road network.

Using the most appropriate figures to the proposed uses as part of this development proposal, obtained from RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Development (Roads and Traffic Authority 2002), the application states that the proposed development will generate the following in relation to traffic:

-    Units 1 to 6 will generate approximately 24 to 30 daily vehicle trips, and 2 to 3 weekday peak hour vehicle trips.

-    The community facility and hostel building will generate approximately 47vehicle trips per day.

The application states that surrounding development, including lots proposed as part of the concurrent subdivision proposal and existing development in George Weily Place, would generate the following:

-    Proposed Lots 201, 202, 203 and 208 will generate approximately 30 daily vehicle trips, and 5 to 7 weekday peak hour vehicle trips.

-    Existing development on George Weily Place will generate approximately 237 daily vehicle trips and 25 weekday peak hour vehicle trips.

The application states that from the above data:

-    the proposed Domestic and Family Violence Centre may represent approximately 23 per cent of the overall predicted traffic generation for the immediate precinct, based on existing and proposed development;

-    the existing development along George Weily Place may account for approximately 69% of the overall predicted traffic generation; and

-    proposed Lots 201, 202, 203 and 208 may account for approximately 8% of the overall predicted traffic generation.


 

The application states that according to Table 4.6 of the RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Development (Roads and Traffic Authority 2002), which sets out the recommended Environmental Capacity performance standards, the peak hour volumes generated from the proposal, the proposed lots (subject to the concurrent subdivision) and the existing development along George Weily Place, is at a conservative 82 vehicles per hour and below the 100 maximum peak hour volume (vehicles per hour) for a local or collector street.

In line with internal Council assessment processes, the proposal was referred to Council’s Technical Services Division to review the assumptions as outlined in the application (and above) relating to the impact of the development on the environmental capacity of the road network.

The Technical Services division reviewed the assessment undertaken by the application and outlined that the proposed development will create the following situation in the cul-de-sac:

-    35 residential lots and 1 lot for a mixed use development comprising a community facility, hostel and transitional group home (exceeding Council’s development standard by 6 lots OR 20%); and

-    average daily vehicle movements of 344 (exceeding Council’s development standard by 44 vehicle movements OR 15%).

There are numerous examples where this deviation from Council’s development code has been undertaken. Nicole Drive services 4 cul-de-sacs and 54 allotments, 399 average daily vehicle movements; and Glendale Crescent services 106 allotments, 784 average daily vehicle movements.

The referral outlined that these issues could be mitigated as follows:

-    The future development of this area beside the Northern Distributor Road has been identified on Council’s DCP since 2004. The DCP subdivision layout includes 8 residential lots. The current subdivision proposal is for only 5 lots with access from George Weily Place, with 3 lots being accessed via The Escort Way (a reduction of 37.5% from the DCP).

-    The average daily vehicle movements within George Weily Place as a result of the 5 new lots and mixed use development comprising a community facility, hostel and transitional group home will be 344. This is within 15% of the maximum permitted under Council’s Development and Subdivision Code; however, the increase in vehicle movements will be spread throughout the day and any peak traffic flows to and from the centre will be in an opposite direction to that of the local residents.

-    The allotments in George Weily Place are a generous size of 850m2 with 24m frontages, which provides a low density traffic environment (as opposed to typical 15m wide lots or 62.5% increase in frontage).

-    The intersections of Jonathon Road/George Weily Place and George Weily Place/‘The Orchard’ access will manage the predicted peak hour traffic volume without any significant treatment other than line-marking on approaches to the intersections.


 

-    There would be minimal change to the George Weily Place/Jonathon Road intersection level of service with the additional development as per Austroads Guide to Traffic Management Part 3.

Therefore, the proposal was recommended for approval by Technical Services, provided recommended conditions of consent were included in the Notice. These conditions have been included in the Notice.

Why is the entrance to the facility not provided from the Northern Distributor Road or The Escort Way?

The location of the proposed cul-de-sac is a matter that has been dealt with as part of the concurrent subdivision proposal. The proposal for access to the domestic violence centre from the proposed cul-de-sac has been assessed by Council’s Technical Services Division and is determined to be acceptable in this instance.

Will there be parking restrictions along George Weily Place?

The new cul-de-sac will be built to the same width and cul-de-sac bowl dimensions as George Weily Place. George Weily Place is constructed to the minimum dimensions in Council’s Development and Subdivision Code for cul-de-sacs serving up to 30 allotments.

Parking restrictions are not proposed to be introduced within George Weily Place adjoining the entrance to the new cul-de-sac. Although the average daily traffic numbers as a result of the development will be in excess of the design limits in Council’s Development and Subdivision Code it is considered that normal road parking rules prohibiting parking within 10m of an intersecting road are sufficient.

Will large vehicles such as trucks have access and be able to safely turn into the proposed cul-de-sac?

The new cul-de-sac will be constructed to Council’s Development and Subdivision Code standards, which cater for the expected service vehicles (garbage trucks etc).

Safety for pedestrians in George Weily Place

As previously outlined, the proposal was reviewed by Council’s Technical Services Division, which reviewed the traffic assessment above and the assumptions outlined by the proposal. Technical Services determined that the assessment of the proposed impacts in relation to traffic and the increase in traffic on George Weily Place are acceptable. However, it would be recommended that footpaths be provided in George Weily Place to allow for pedestrian connectivity.

Safety for occupants residing in the Domestic Violence Centre trying to cross The Escort Way or The Northern Distributor Road

These concerns are noted, however it should be raised that there a number of pedestrian walking tracks that provide thoroughfare under the Northern Distributor Road that connect to the Coogal Wetlands walking track, which provide access to the opposite side of the Northern Distributor Road and are accessible from the proposed entry to the site.


 

The entry to the proposal is also focused into an existing residential area, with a 2.5m high acoustic barrier (earth mound and fencing) to be erected along the Northern Distributor Road, thus limiting access to this intersection and discouraging occupants from attempting to cross the Northern Distributor Road.

Loss of land for the construction of the roundabout located at the intersection of the Northern Distributor Road and The Escort Way, and impact on the Southern Feeder Road

The proposal does adjoin land that would provide linkage to the Southern Feeder Road from the Northern Distributor Road, however Council’s Technical Services Division advises that the future design requirements of the intersection have been taken into consideration as part of this proposal.

Parking on the site will be inadequate

A submission raised the issue that the documents did not take into account the number of staff and vehicles attending the site, nor the number or amount of emergency service vehicles that may access the site.

Parking is based on the parking requirements, as outlined in Orange DCP 2004. Due to the proposed uses not being specifically listed in this table, the applicant chose the closest use from the table to calculate the required amount of car parking onsite. This assessment can be found in PO 7.7-15 Planning Outcomes - Car Parking.

This assessment was reviewed by Council staff and the 20 car parking spaces were determined to be appropriate.

In relation to parking for emergency service vehicles, these vehicles respond to emergencies that require a quick response and appropriate access to the emergency, however this may be deemed appropriate at the time. Council cannot make provisions for emergency services in relation to parking as this would be inappropriate and may potentially hinder response times.

Social Impact

Is there a social impact assessment that has been completed for this proposal and demonstrates the need for a facility of this nature?

The applicant states that Orange has double the State average of Domestic Violence incidents. According to BOCSAR, Orange is ranked 26 in the State in regard to the number of recorded domestic violence related assault incidents, with 245 incidents reported at a rate of 592 incidents per 100,000 population. This demonstrates a need for crisis accommodation within the community.

The proposal will have an adverse impact on the safety of the community

The proposal outlines that the facility is proposed to accommodate and support victims of domestic violence who come from a range of socio-economic groups. The occupants are the victims, not the perpetrators of crime or anti-social behaviour.


 

A letter provided to Council by the applicant to support the proposal states:

Feedback from other facilities including in Bathurst and Forbes indicate there are very few incidents, both stating they have had no serious issues that affected the neighbours or others in the community. Perpetrators of domestic violence come from all walks of life and socioeconomic groups. They seek to control their partner/ex-partner emotionally, mentally, spiritually and/or physically. The controlling behaviours are generally directed to their partner and many perpetrators otherwise lead a ‘normal life’.  They may not have any other interaction with Police or the legal system. Some men do attempt to contact their partners after they have left the relationship but they are solely focused on the victim and our staff have strict procedures and extensive training in dealing with such matters swiftly and decisively.

The experience of other similar centres and refuges in other regional cities and towns are that security systems that include fencing that obstructs vision in to the Orchard, surveillance cameras for, and as well as 24 hour staff act as a deterrent for Perpetrators, leading to minimal or no incidents. This in combination with a suite of procedures for staff at the facility, as well as the use of Apprehended Violence Orders to prevent them approaching (failure to do so would result in arrest imprisonment), is the best way to deter perpetrators from trying to visit the families staying at the Orchard.”

Conditions have been included in the consent requiring certain safety measures to ensure that the proposal complies with the recommendations of the NSW Police Force outlined in the submission from the Central West Police District, formulated using the NSW Police Safer by Design Evaluation process.

In review of the planning outcomes and assessment and incorporation of CPTED principles, it is considered that the site layout and design of dwellings enables residents to survey communal areas and approaches to dwelling entrances. Dwellings are specifically designed to not survey streets - due to the nature of the proposed use there is a need for a level of privacy for victims to deter perpetrators from accessing the site. The incorporation of certain security measures and technologies as outlined by both the proposal and the NSW Police referral will assist the development in meeting the CPTED requirements and deterring perpetrators from attempting to access the site.

However, in any society there is potential for crime and a requirement to mitigate against these crimes. Domestic violence crimes are no different, and a centre of this nature will assist victims to seek shelter from potential perpetrators. The Applicant has outlined that there is a demonstrated need for this proposal, with Orange reporting double the State average of domestic violence incidents. Transitional group homes and hostels are forms of residential accommodation that respond to this need. Naturally, any proposed response to one problem has the potential to impact on other issues. Design responses must therefore be included to avoid, minimise and mitigate such unintended effects. The application has been designed in accordance with Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design principles and reviewed by the NSW Police, and conditions recommended to mitigate the risks, just as with any other development.


 

By denying approval of a facility of this nature, that has incorporated all reasonable design responses and meets the objectives and planning outcomes as outlined in OLEP 2011, State policy and Orange DCP 2004, based on a concern for other safety risks, could be regarded as prioritising the victims of other crimes over victims of domestic violence. While the potential for all types of crime still exists, it is considered that the proposal will be developed in such a way that the risks are mitigated and responded to, to encourage safety of the occupants of the domestic violence facility, but also surrounding and adjoining neighbours.

The proposal will have secure high fences, lighting at night, CCTV and number plate recognition for entry into the facility, doesn’t this indicate that the Applicant knows that perpetrators will visit the site?

A letter provided by the applicant to support the proposal indicates that consultation with other, similar centres was undertaken to inform this proposal. The letter outlined that this consultation indicated that:

Feedback from other facilities including in Bathurst and Forbes indicate there are very few incidents, both stating they have had no serious issues that affected the neighbours or others in the community. Perpetrators of domestic violence come from all walks of life and socioeconomic groups. They seek to control their partner/ex-partner emotionally, mentally, spiritually and/or physically. The controlling behaviours are generally directed to their partner and many perpetrators otherwise lead a ‘normal life’.  They may not have any other interaction with Police or the legal system. Some men do attempt to contact their partners after they have left the relationship but they are solely focused on the victim and our staff have strict procedures and extensive training in dealing with such matters swiftly and decisively.

The experience of other similar centres and refuges in other regional cities and towns are that security systems that include fencing that obstructs vision in to the Orchard, surveillance cameras for, and as well as 24 hour staff act as a deterrent for Perpetrators, leading to minimal or no incidents. This in combination with a suite of procedures for staff at the facility, as well as the use of Apprehended Violence Orders to prevent them approaching (failure to do so would result in arrest imprisonment), is the best way to deter perpetrators from trying to visit the families staying at the Orchard.”

However, due to the nature of the proposed facility, Council is required to take into consideration Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) requirements.

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) is a crime prevention strategy that focuses on planning, design and structure of cities and neighbourhoods to reduce opportunities for crime. This is achieved by using design and place management principles to reduce the likelihood of essential crime ingredients from intersecting. The security requirements in relation to CCTV and lighting at night are a product of recommendations provided by the NSW Police Force and the assessment against the CPTED Treatment Principles to discourage perpetrators. The nature of the inclusion of these strategies is to mitigate against any potential risks, rather than respond to them.

Further, boundary fencing has been reduced to a maximum height of 1.8m so as to be more conducive to the surrounding residential area. Conditions are recommended in relation to safety by design and fencing.

No protection will be afforded to residents against perpetrators of domestic violence pursuing victims

The information that has been provided to Council to support the application outlines that the potential for perpetrators to attend the site will be managed using the following measures:

·    Fencing to obstruct vision into the site;

·    Surveillance cameras for each unit, the main building and all the grounds and surrounding paths and streets,

·    Car registration recognition equipment;

·    24 hour staffing of the centre.

A letter provided to Council by the Applicant, dated 11 January 2019, states that:

1        Housing Plus consulted extensively with organisations with similar facilities in Western NSW and Victoria, as well as our own domestic violence experts and local Police to gain a thorough understanding of the risks in relation to perpetrators pursuing victims and how to deter them.

Feedback from other facilities including in Bathurst and Forbes indicate there are very few incidents, both stating they have had no serious issues that affected the neighbours or others in the community. Perpetrators of domestic violence come from all walks of life and socioeconomic groups. They seek to control their partner/ex-partner emotionally, mentally, spiritually and/or physically. The controlling behaviours are generally directed to their partner and many perpetrators otherwise lead a ‘normal life’.  They may not have any other interaction with Police or the legal system. Some men do attempt to contact their partners after they have left the relationship but they are solely focused on the victim and our staff have strict procedures and extensive training in dealing with such matters swiftly and decisively.

2        The experience of other similar centres and refuges in other regional cities and towns are that security systems that include fencing that obstructs vision in to the Orchard, surveillance cameras for, and as well as 24 hour staff act as a deterrent for Perpetrators, leading to minimal or no incidents. This in combination with a suite of procedures for staff at the facility, as well as the use of Apprehended Violence Orders to prevent them approaching (failure to do so would result in arrest imprisonment), is the best way to deter perpetrators from trying to visit the families staying at the Orchard.

The proposed location has not maintained privacy from the public

Submissions stated that due to the public interest in the proposal, the proposed facility will not be as effective as people know where it is. This is a matter for the applicant to manage. Council has a responsibility to exhibit a proposal in line with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, which was completed. There was considerable public interest in this proposal resulting from this public exhibition. The responsibility of the privacy of the occupants and the management of the facility will lie with the applicant.


 

Crime rates in the area will increase

A letter provided by the applicant to support the proposal indicates that consultation with other, similar centres was undertaken to inform this proposal. The letter outlined that this consultation indicated that:

Feedback from other facilities including in Bathurst and Forbes indicate there are very few incidents, both stating they have had no serious issues that affected the neighbours or others in the community. Perpetrators of domestic violence come from all walks of life and socioeconomic groups. They seek to control their partner/ex-partner emotionally, mentally, spiritually and/or physically. The controlling behaviours are generally directed to their partner and many perpetrators otherwise lead a ‘normal life’.  They may not have any other interaction with Police or the legal system. Some men do attempt to contact their partners after they have left the relationship but they are solely focused on the victim and our staff have strict procedures and extensive training in dealing with such matters swiftly and decisively.

The experience of other similar centres and refuges in other regional cities and towns are that security systems that include fencing that obstructs vision in to the Orchard, surveillance cameras for, and as well as 24 hour staff act as a deterrent for Perpetrators, leading to minimal or no incidents. This in combination with a suite of procedures for staff at the facility, as well as the use of Apprehended Violence Orders to prevent them approaching (failure to do so would result in arrest imprisonment), is the best way to deter perpetrators from trying to visit the families staying at the Orchard.”

However, due to the nature of the proposed facility, Council is required to take into consideration Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) requirements.

As previously stated, in review of the planning outcomes and assessment and incorporation of CPTED principles, it is considered that the site layout and design of dwellings enables residents to survey communal areas and approaches to dwelling entrances. Dwellings are specifically designed to not survey streets - due to the nature of the proposed use there is a need for a level of privacy for victims to deter perpetrators from accessing the site. The incorporation of certain security measures and technologies as outlined by both the proposal and the NSW Police referral will assist the development in meeting the CPTED requirements and deterring perpetrators from attempting to access the site.

However, in any society there is potential for crime and a requirement to mitigate against these crimes. Domestic violence crimes are no different, and a centre of this nature will assist victims to seek shelter from potential perpetrators. The Applicant has outlined that there is a demonstrated need for this proposal, with Orange reporting double the State average of domestic violence incidents. Transitional group homes and hostels are forms of residential accommodation that respond to this need. Naturally, any proposed response to one problem has the potential to impact on other issues. Design responses must therefore be included to avoid, minimise and mitigate such unintended effects. The application has been designed in accordance with Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design principles and reviewed by the NSW Police, and conditions recommended to mitigate the risks, just as with any other development.

By denying approval of a facility of this nature, that has incorporated all reasonable design responses and meets the objectives and planning outcomes as outlined in OLEP 2011, State policy and Orange DCP 2004, based on a concern for other safety risks, could be regarded as prioritising the victims of other crimes over victims of domestic violence. While the potential for all types of crime still exists, it is considered that the proposal will be developed in such a way that the risks are mitigated and responded to, to encourage safety of the occupants of the domestic violence facility, but also surrounding and adjoining neighbours.

Proposal to house vulnerable women from violent situations next to people released from prison is inappropriate

The information that has been provided to Council to support the application does not indicate that the facility will be used to house domestic violence victims and post parole offenders in the same facility.

The proposal provided to Council and being considered requests consent for a mixed use development comprising a transitional group home, community facility and hostel to be operated as a Domestic and Family Violence Centre.

A letter provided to Council by the Applicant, dated 11 January 2019, states that the Applicant:

“… has received funding from the Federal and State Governments to establish The Orchard. These funding arrangements require it to be run for Domestic Violence victims.”

“The Orchard is purpose designed for women and children escaping domestic violence. It is a much needed facility and it will only be used for this purpose now and in the future”.

Submissions raised various alternative locations as options for the centre

Council does not have a role in deciding an appropriate location for a development once the land has been purchased and the development application has been lodged. Council’s role is to assess the proposed development on the proposed site.

A response in regard to the decision making process for this land has been summarised below.

Unsuitable location as:

·    proposal should not be located in a residential area;

·    proposal should be located in close proximity to the CBD, North Orange Shopping Precinct to access services/

·    proposal should be located near the hospital precinct to access medical services;

·    proposal should be located near reliable public transport;

·    proposal should be located near the Police Station;

·    proposed site is obvious externally, impacting the safety of the occupants;


 

·    no other areas were considered (where are victims of domestic violence currently being housed? Why can’t these current facilities housing victims be upgraded or expanded?);

·    it is close to childcare centres and schools; and

·    it does not provide privacy or homely environment to the occupants.

In regard to the proposed location in relation to the NSW planning legislation, the proposed mixed use development is permissible in the R2 Low Density Residential zone as community facilities, hostels and transitional group homes are permissible with consent in the zone.

The test for permissibility of a transitional group home in the R2 Low Density Residential zone is further covered by SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. The State policy outlines that transitional group homes are permissible in this zone in “one or more” buildings, hence the proposed structure of the three transitional group homes on one lot of land.

It should be noted that both hostels and transitional group homes are defined under the parent term “residential accommodation” in OLEP 2011.

A letter provided to Council by the Applicant dated 11 January 2019, states that consultation with similar facilities in NSW and Victoria, as well as the Applicant’s own experience working and supporting women and children who have experienced domestic violence:

“… indicates that women and children recovering from domestic and family violence are best placed in a residential environment that does not have an institutional setting, instead in residential areas that promote normality, and communities that model positive and healthy relationships”.

In relation to comments regarding the location of the proposal in close proximity to services, hospitals, public transport and Police Station, the nature of the sale of the land in an open market means the purchaser has the ability to buy the land and make decisions in relation to the specific requirements they may need in relation to the proposal. Council does not have control over the private sector decision to situate a proposal in a particular area, except for zoning provisions, which are outlined above.

In regard to the comment that no other areas had been considered and the proposed site is obvious externally, impacting the safety of the occupants, a letter provided to Council by the, dated 11 January 2019, states that the Applicant convened a roundtable of Applicant representatives across State and Local Government which explored options such as the Bloomfield district and existing dwellings in residential areas. An agent was also commissioned to seek out affordable and appropriate land options throughout Orange. The letter states:

“No other option met the criteria for a safe, affordable residential area where we could provide a state of the art facility”.

In regard to the comments raising concerns with the proposed facility in close proximity to child care centres and schools, the proposed facility will house victims of domestic violence and their children who may require these types of services.


 

Economic Impact:

Negative economic impact of proposal on house prices

In consideration of the requirements of clause 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, which establishes the matters that must be taken into account when determining an application, clause 1(a) states that the consent authority must take into account the likely impacts, of the development, the suitability of the site, the public interest and any submissions made in accordance with the Act.

Concerns raised in regard to the impact on the value of individual property prices are noted. However, as demonstrated throughout the body of this report, the application has noted the need for development, and as such the public interest and social benefits for the community as a result of the proposal. Further, according to the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) data recorded October 2017 to September 2018, Orange is ranked 26 in the State in regard to the number of recorded domestic violence related assault incidents, with 245 incidents reported at a rate of 592 incidents per 100,000 population. The suitability of the proposed site has been demonstrated, namely that the proposed uses have permissibility based in both local and State policy.

The economic impact on house prices in the locality is somewhat unsubstantiated in this case, however the beneficial social impacts of the development have been demonstrated.

Further, the impact of the proposal on housing prices is outside the scope of a 4.15 assessment as outlined by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Process

Residential blocks surrounding proposal to be sold to Housing Plus

The sale of Council land is a separate issue which Council’s Corporate Services Division manages. Council’s Corporate Services Division has indicated that the residential lots surrounding the domestic violence centre will be sold on the open market.

Consultation with residents during the sale of the subject site

The sale of Council land is a separate issue which Council’s Corporate Services Division manages. Council’s Corporate Services Division has indicated that there is no obligation for Council to discuss sale of land with residents nor any other developer. The nature of sale of land on the open market means that any party has the opportunity to purchase the land. Any potential use identified in the land use table for the applicable zone is permissible, providing appropriate processes are undertaken to approve that use in line with relevant legislation. In this instance, the proposed use of the land requires the consent of the consent authority (Council). This application is seeking consent. As such, the proposal was exhibited in line with the requirements of the EP&A Act and EP&A Regulation, as previously outlined.

Process of the assessment of the proposal (conflict of interest)

In order to provide a degree of independent assessment, Keylan Consulting Pty Ltd has been engaged by Council to carry out a peer review of the report. A copy of the peer review is attached under separate cover.


 

Planning

Permissibility of the proposed development - why are residents not allowed to develop units but this development will include units?

The test for permissibility of a transitional group home in the R2 Low Density Residential zone is covered by SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. The State policy outlines that transitional group homes are permissible in this zone in “one or more” buildings, hence the proposed structure of the transitional group homes, accommodating six units on one lot of land.

Therefore, the LEP prohibition on “multi dwelling housing” in the R2 zone is not material to this application because: (a) the application is not seeking Multi Dwelling Housing and (b) because the State policy establishes its own permissibility test, which the application satisfies. However, should a future proposal request consent to convert the use to “multi dwelling housing”, this would not be supported under the current controls as outlined in OLEP 2011.

Impact on streetscape

It is accepted that the presentation to the streetscape of this facility is not in keeping with the usual presentation, in that it does not present an entry to the building from the cul‑de‑sac.

However, the proposed fencing is a security measure to discourage external access to the site and require all access to be directed to the single entry and exit gate.

Conditions of consent have been included in the Notice requiring certain landscaping and fencing treatments to soften the impact of the proposal on the existing streetscape and assist in integrating the front entrance into the existing residential neighbourhood.

Further landscaping treatments internally of the site are also requested in line with the comments from Council’s Manager City Presentation.

In relation to the proposed 2.5m high acoustic barrier (incorporating earth mound and fence), this is a requirement placed on the proposal by the related subdivision proposal (DA 444/2018(1)) to ensure that appropriate noise attenuation measures are in place. Required landscaping of this wall will be undertaken as part of the subdivision DA and is not considered relevant to this proposal as the required landscaping falls beyond the boundaries of this subject site.

No guarantee of future use (eg expansion of services on the subject site to house other occupants - such as early parole post release offenders, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, rapists, homeless, paedophiles)

As previously stated, the information that has been provided to Council to support the application does not indicate that the facility will be used to house any occupants other than victims of domestic violence.

The proposal provided to Council and being considered requests consent for a mixed use development comprising a transitional group home, community facility and hostel to be operated as a Domestic and Family Violence Centre.


 

A letter provided to Council by the Applicant, dated 11 January 2019, states that the applicant

“… has received funding from the Federal and State Governments to establish The Orchard. These funding arrangements require it to be run for Domestic Violence victims.”

“The Orchard is purpose designed for women and children escaping domestic violence. It is a much needed facility and it will only be used for this purpose now and in the future”.

Further, a condition has been included in the consent restricting the proposal to domestic violence victims and their children, and that any change in focus for the centre beyond domestic violence be subject to an application to modify the development consent enabling Council to consider an assessment for the community need for such services as per clause 46(1)(a) of the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

No assessment completed in the supporting documentation against State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

This submission was noted and the Applicant requested to address this State policy by way of an additional information request. An assessment of the relevant provisions of the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 has been included in the body of this report.

Waste management, particularly garbage collection

As discussed in the PO 7.7-14 Planning Outcomes – Circulation Design, in keeping with Council’s standard procedure for dealing with garbage bins for residential developments that have limited street frontage, an onsite bin storage area (for collection days only) and a run‑cost agreement with Council’s waste contractor are requested as part of the conditions of consent, and is to be accommodated on an amended site plan. The bins are to be stored in this location on collection days only. As mentioned above, a condition is imposed to ensure that the beneficiary of the consent has made arrangements to enter into a contract with a waste contractor to have the bins collected from the temporary storage area, emptied into the garbage collection vehicle and then the bins returned to the storage area.

Proposal does not meet the DCP requirement for a 50m setback from the centreline of the Northern Distributor Road

The 50m setback as identified in Orange DCP 2004 is required to mitigate noise impacts from the Northern Distributor Road. A Noise Impact Assessment prepared to support the concurrent subdivision proposal and submitted as supporting documentation to this proposal indicated that compliance with the internal noise level requirements could be achieved subject to façade treatments recommended as part of the NIA; and that acceptable external acoustic amenity can be achieved, provided a 2.5m high acoustic barrier (incorporating earth mound and fence) is erected along the Northern Distributor Road boundary.

Council’s EHBS representative reviewed these arrangements and conditions of consent have been included to ensure that the proposal meets noise attenuation requirements.


 

Noise from the intersection of The Escort Way and the Northern Distributor Road will cause undue impacts on proposed residents of the centre

As stated, the proposal has been reviewed Council’s EHBS representative and conditions of consent have been included to ensure that the proposal meets noise attenuation requirements.

The proposal will result in increased noise in the surrounding area.

The subject site has been identified for further residential development by Orange DCP 2004.

The proposal is a use defined under the parent term “residential accommodation” in OLEP 2011. The use, transitional group home, is identified as permissible in the R2 Low Density Residential zone under the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

Proposed residential development in this area has been identified by DCP 2004, and any increase in noise in relation to this development will not be over and above any other permissible residential development.

Impact of lighting on surrounding neighbours

All lighting requested as part of the proposal is required to comply with the Australian Standard AS4282-1997 Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting to mitigate impacts externally of the site.

Further, the proposed location of lighting and CCTV cameras will be required to be demonstrated on a plan that is submitted to Council’s Manager Development Assessments for approval prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

Site should be retained for green space

The conceptual layout in DCP 2004 was only ever for illustrative purposes as to how some additional lots may be provided within the location. The small lots of public space identified in the DCP are not of a size that would be conducive to sportsfields or similar uses. There is alternative open space in the area which has been provided that is of a size that can be used for a range of activities and purposes.

This was considered during the rezoning of the area under Orange LEP 2011, and retaining these small sections of the open space identified in the vicinity of George Weily Place was not considered valuable in the wider context.

Further, Orange LEP 2011 holds higher statutory weight than Council’s DCP 2004. Under Orange LEP 2011 the site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential and as previously outlined, the proposed use is permissible in this zone.

Object to the rezoning of the land

The application does not propose the rezoning of land. The current land use, R2 Low Density Residential, will remain unchanged. The proposed use, a mixed use development comprising a community facility, hostel and transitional group home, is permissible with consent pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and OLEP 2011.

Other Issues

Reporting in the media was unfair

This is a separate matter which is outside of Council’s control. The reports undertaken by the media are entirely the responsibility of the outlet that reported the story. Concerns raised in regard to this matter should be taken to the media outlet directly.

People opposing the proposal were labelled inappropriately by the local media outlets

This is a separate matter which is outside of Council’s control. The reports undertaken by the media are entirely the responsibility of the outlet that reported the story. Concerns raised in regard to this matter should be taken to the media outlet directly.

The applicant did not try to address residents in the lead up to the lodgement of the application and during the assessment process

This is a separate matter which is outside of Council’s control. Council does not play a role in the engagement of residents prior to the lodgement of a development application. However, it should be noted that the applicant arranged two drop-in sessions on Monday, 21 January and Wednesday, 23 January 2019 for residents to attend.

The applicant advertised a job relating to the construction of the centre and outlined on its website that construction would commence in February 2019, before an approval had been granted

This is a separate matter which is outside of Council’s control. The applicant’s decision to advertise a job in relation to the development and outline an expected commencement date of construction is their decision alone, and does not impact on Council’s assessment of the proposal.

Comments made by the applicant in the letter provided to residents are disputed

This is a separate matter which is outside of Council’s control. The applicant arranged for the letterbox drop in response to the community concerns that were raised in public forums. The content of the letter is not Council’s responsibility. Any issues raised with this letter should be discussed with the author of the letter.

The applicant has breached their Code of Ethics and Client Charter

This is a separate matter which is outside of Council’s control. Further, the applicant’s Code of Ethics and Client Charter is not a consideration required under clause 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

The letter prepared by the applicant was not delivered to my address

This is a separate matter which is outside of Council’s control. The applicant arranged for the letterbox drop in response to the community concerns that were raised in public forums. The addresses chosen were not decided by Council. Any issues raised with the delivery area of this letter should be discussed with the author of the letter.


 

Can the applicant guarantee that the facility will be managed to maintain landscaping and prevent dilapidation of the facility?

This is a separate matter which is outside of Council’s control. The management of the facility will be the responsibility of the landowner, just as is the case with privately owned residential properties.

Comments made in support

Urgent need for a centre that provides accommodation and support for women and children affected by domestic and family violence

This comment is noted.

Victims and families who will access this service are the victims not the perpetrators, requiring support from staff at The Orchard, other agencies involved in their care and the Orange community

This comment is noted.

Full support for the construction of the proposed facility

This comment is noted.

Lack of resources in the community and region to keep victims at home rather than relocating for services

This comment is noted.

Women in violent situations may stay in these situations if there are no alternative options available

This comment is noted

Important to support and maintain family units to enhance possible rehabilitation/ restoration of family

This comment is noted.

There is currently no safe, purpose built accommodation for women and children escaping violence in Orange

This comment is noted.

Proposal is appropriately planned and much needed for the community

This comment is noted.

Victims should not be stereotyped to a particular socio-economic background

This comment is noted.

Any delay for this facility will result in further delays for victims who need help immediately

This comment is noted.


 

The proposal will make a positive difference to the community

This comment is noted.

Living in places with people from varied backgrounds and with varied needs is part of living in a community

This comment is noted.

Concerns regarding the centre being near children are illogical - there will be children living at the centre

This comment is noted.

Residential areas are an appropriate location for this proposal

This comment is noted.

PUBLIC INTEREST s4.15(1)(e)

Council has received a number of submissions both in objection and in favour of the subject development. The Applicant has suitably demonstrated that a facility of the type proposed is required for the Orange community. The comments both in favour and against are acknowledged.

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), State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and DCP 2004. A section 4.15 assessment of the development indicates that the development is acceptable in this instance. A number of submissions have been received which Council is required to consider in determining this proposal. 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, D19/5115

2          Plans, D19/4522

3          Noise Report, D19/5051

4          Contamination Report, D19/5046

5          Additional Information Letter, IC19/59

6          Letter from Housing Plus, D19/5053

7          Submissions (1), D19/5073 (Refer to pages 61 to 118 of report 2.2))

8          Submissions (2), D19/5074 (Refer to pages 119 to 359 of report 2.2)

9          Submissions (3), D19/5076 (Refer to pages 360 to 513 of report 2.2)

  


Planning and Development Committee                                                        5 February 2019

2.3                       Development Application DA 448/2018(2) - Group Home, Community Facility and Hostel - 20 George Weily Place and Lot 125 The Escort Way

Attachment 1      Notice of Approval

 

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

 

Development Application No DA 448/2018(1)

 

NA19/                                                                Container PR20570

 

 

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 4.18

 

Development Application

 

  Applicant Name:

Housing Plus

  Applicant Address:

C/- Peter Basha Planning & Development

PO Box 1827

ORANGE NSW 2800

  Owner’s Name:

Orange City Council

  Land to Be Developed:

Proposed Lot 204 in the subdivision of Lot 119 DP 1087517 - 20 George Weily Place, Orange and Lot 125 DP 1087517 - The Escort Way, Orange

  Proposed Development:

Group Home (transitional), Community Facility and Hostel

 

 

Building Code of Australia

 building classification:

 

As determined by certifier

 

 

Determination made under

 Section 4.16

 

  Made On:

5 February 2019

  Determination:

CONSENT GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:

 

 

Consent to Operate From:

6 February 2019

Consent to Lapse On:

6 February 2024

 

Terms of Approval

The reasons for the imposition of conditions are:

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

(2)      To maintain neighbourhood amenity and character.

(3)      To ensure compliance with relevant statutory requirements.

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

Conditions

 

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

 

(a)      Plan/s numbered Job No. 16002: Drg No. DA01 - Issue A, Drg No. DA02 - Issue C,
Drg No. DA 03, Drg No. DA04 - Issue A, Drg No. DA05 - Issue A, Drg No. DA06 - Issue A,
Drg No. DA07 - Issue A, Drg No. DA08 - Issue A, Drg No. DA09 - Issue A (9 sheet/s)


 

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

 

as amended in accordance with any conditions of this consent.

 

 

PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

(i)       the name and the licence number of the principal contractor, and

(ii)      the name of the insurer by which the work is insured under Part 6 of that Act,

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

(i)       the name of the owner-builder, and

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 


 

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

 

(7)      The site plan is to be amended to demonstrate:

-     a maximum 1.8m high palisade fence to be erected along the front setback of the development along George Weily Place. A maximum 1.8m palisade gate is to be incorporated into the driveway setback, to be accommodated to the southeast of the proposed cul-de-sac.

-     a maximum 1.8m high Colorbond fence along the western boundary shared with proposed Lot 208. Any part of the fence in front of the gate line is to have a maximum height of 1.2m.

-     a maximum 1.8m high Colorbond fence along the western boundary, shared with the proposed right-of-way (burdening proposed Lot 203 and benefitting proposed Lot 202).

-     1.5m high Colorbond fencing between proposed Units 1 to 6.

-     location of an onsite bin storage area (for collection days only) to accommodate all bins on the subject site. To accommodate the onsite bin storage area, the proposed car parking layout may require amendment. Should this be required, a total of 20 car parking spaces are to be incorporated into the amended design. The amended car parking layout is to meet all relevant Australian Standards.

The amended site plan is to be approved by the Manager of Development Assessments, prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate

 

(8)      In the event that the acoustic barrier (incorporating earth mound and fencing) is not constructed as part of the subdivision works, the applicant shall provide details of the proposed acoustic barrier fencing. Details of the fencing along the Northern Distributor Road shall be submitted to the Manager Development Assessments for approval prior to Construction Certificate. To facilitate management by Orange City Council of the proposed retention basin, adjoining the subject lot, fencing of the shared boundary between the subject lot and proposed adjoining basin (proposed Lot 209 in concurrent subdivision proposal) shall be deferred until the location and timing of the acoustic barrier has been finalised.

 

(9)      An amended landscape plan is to be drawn by a suitably qualified landscape architect. The amended landscape plan will:

-     Ensure no trees will be planted within 5 metres of ‘stormwater lines as shown on the plan’.

-     Replace proposed silver birch with Tulip Tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), Pin Oak (Quercus pilustris) or Lime Tree (Tilia x europaea) as the Silver Birch is not recommended due to climate variability and poor performance of this species across Orange due to high temperatures and irregular precipitation.

-     Provide a greater variety of species of trees, including a variation of species and height (eg. mix of 20m high trees and smaller trees growing 10 to 12 metres) in the communal area and surrounding the playground to enhance the aesthetics and functionality. Other smaller trees that could be interspersed with the proposed 20m trees include, Chinese Elm (Ulumus parvifolia), Red Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and Silver Maple (Acer saccharinum).

-     Incorporate heavier screen planting in the front boundary setback along the street frontage to screen the proposed 1.8m high boundary fence to provide a privacy screen to conceal the wider operations occurring on the site, from the street. A mixture of species is to be proposed to provide articulation of this landscaping to the frontage of the building and assist in improving presentation to the street. Recommended species include, Magnolia grandiflora Little Gem, Banksia marginate, Hakea salicifoli – Willow leafed Hakea, Protea SP and Lagerstroemia SP.

-     To facilitate management of the proposed retention basin by Orange City Council adjoining the subject lot, landscaping of the shared boundary between the subject lot and proposed adjoining basin (proposed Lot 209 in concurrent subdivision proposal) shall be deferred until the location and timing of the acoustic barrier has been finalised.

The amended landscape plan shall be submitted to the Manager Development Assessments for approval, prior to issuing of a construction certificate.


 

(10)    Prior to issue of a Construction Certificate a plan, outlining arrangements for required CCTV and lighting shall be provided to the Manager Development Assessments for approval. The plan shall demonstrate requirements as demonstrated by the Crime Prevention through Environmental Design principles and all lighting is to comply with Australian Standard 4282-1997 Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting.

 

(11)    Prior to issue of a Construction Certificate for any domiciles/dwellings, the applicant shall provide the PCA with a Noise Assessment Report and certification from an appropriately qualified acoustic consultant confirming that the design and location of the domiciles/dwellings to which the application relates, complies with the relevant road noise standards applicable at the time of lodgement of that application.

 

(12)    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.

 

(13)    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.

 

(14)    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.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

(16)    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.


 

(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 6.75 ETs for water supply headworks and 9.59 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)    A Road Opening Permit in accordance with Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 must be approved by Council prior to a Construction Certificate being issued or any intrusive works being carried out within the public road or footpath reserve. 

 

 

PRIOR TO WORKS COMMENCING

 

(19)    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.

 

(20)    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.

 

(21)    The location and depth of the sewer junction/connection to Council’s sewerage system is to be determined to ensure that adequate fall to the sewer is available.

 

 

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

 

(22)    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.

 

(23)    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.

 

(24)    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.

 

(25)    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.

 

(26)    No portion of the building - including footings, eaves, overhang and service pipes - shall encroach into any easement.

 

(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)    A heavy-duty concrete kerb and gutter layback and footpath crossing is to be constructed in the position shown on the plan submitted with the Construction Certificate application. The works are to be carried out to the requirements of the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.

 

(31)    The existing water mains that cross the site are to be accurately located. Where any main is positioned adjacent to any proposed building work, measures are to be taken in accordance with Orange City Council Policy - Building over and/or adjacent to sewers ST009.

 

 

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

 

(32)    Fencing is to be installed in line with the approved site plan, prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, pursuant to the amended site plan to be prepared in condition no. 7.

 

(33)    A total of 20 off-street car parking spaces are to be provided upon the site in accordance with the approved plans and the provisions of Development Control Plan 2004. The parking spaces are to be constructed in accordance with the requirements of Council’s Development and Subdivision code, prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate. Note, car parking may require adjustment with recourse to condition no. 7 in relation to the amended site plan.

 

(34)    Prior to the issue of an Occupation certificate the applicant shall provide evidence that the subject land has been formally registered as a lot at the Land and Property Information Centre.

(35)    A run-cost agreement with Council’s waste contractor is required to be arranged. The bins are to be stored in the bin storage area (to be identified on an amended site plan) on collection days only. The beneficiary of this consent is to make arrangements to enter into a contract with a waste contractor to have the bins collected from the temporary storage area, emptied into the garbage collection vehicle and then the bins returned to the storage area.

 

(36)    Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans (condition no. 9) and shall be permanently maintained to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager Development Assessments.

 

(37)    In the event that the acoustic barrier (incorporating earth mound and fencing) is not constructed as part of the subdivision works, the applicant shall provide for those arrangements prior to occupation certification. The acoustic barrier shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the noise report.

 

(38)    Prior to issue of an Occupation Certificate, all noise attenuation measures required by the approved Noise Assessment Report relating to the residential buildings on the site shall be installed.

 

(39)    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.

 

(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)    The cut and fill is to be retained and/or adequately battered and stabilised (within the allotment) prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

 

(43)    Where stormwater crosses land outside the lot it favours, an easement to drain water is to be created over the works. A Restriction-as-to-User under section 88B of the NSW Conveyancing Act 1919 is to be created on the title of the burdened Lot requiring that no structures are to be placed on the site, or landscaping or site works carried out on the site, in a manner that affects the continued operation of the stormwater drainage system. The minimum dimensions of the easement is to be as required in the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code. The easement shall provide access for Orange City Council. The easement shall be registered prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

 

(44)    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.

 

(45)    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.

 

(46)    A Road Opening Permit Certificate of Compliance is to be issued for the works by Council prior to any Occupation/Final Certificate being issued for the development.

 

(47)    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

 

(48)    The proposal will be restricted to accommodate domestic violence victims and their children. Any change in focus for the centre beyond domestic violence will be subject to an application to modify the development consent, enabling Council to consider an assessment for the community need for such services pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

 

(49)    Outdoor lighting must be in accordance with the Australian Standard 4282-1997 Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting.

 

(50)    The ancillary salon, identified on the plans for the proposal, shall only be used by internal occupants of the facility. The salon will not be permitted to operate as a service to wider external customers.

 

(51)    The following measures are to be implemented to ensure safe management of the facility in line with the Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) treatments:

-     CCTV is to be used in common and public areas. The quality should be of that so it allows an offender to be identified by their face and should be able to be viewed onsite. The CCTV monitor and recording equipment should be out of view of the public.

-     CCTV footage should be recorded in high quality digital format and the images should be kept for a minimum of 28 days.

-     Lighting should be installed in all outdoor common areas and sensors should be used after dark. Lighting should be positioned so it enhances the function of installed CCTV.

-     The entrance gate should be controlled by an intercom and gate should be able to be operated remotely from within administration building.

-     Master keys for all buildings should be locked away from public view and a log of keys issued should be kept. Locks should be changed when keys are unaccounted for.

-     Non-public areas, such as sheds, are to be secured.

-     Quality dead locks should be installed on entry doors and shared doors (such those between 1 and 2, 3 and 4, and 5 and 6).

-     Staff areas should be separated from public areas and signage clearly defining the space separation.

-     Fire Safety plans should be displayed in all units and admin buildings and clients should be advised of evacuation procedures.

 

(52)    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.

 

 

ADVISORY NOTE

 

There is a Restriction-as-to-User on this site which includes road noise attenuation measures which must be considered on this allotment.

 

 

 

 

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:

 

6 February 2019

 


Planning and Development Committee                                                        5 February 2019

2.3                       Development Application DA 448/2018(2) - Group Home, Community Facility and Hostel - 20 George Weily Place and Lot 125 The Escort Way

Attachment 2      Plans

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator



Planning and Development Committee                                                                       5 February 2019

2.3                       Development Application DA 448/2018(2) - Group Home, Community Facility and Hostel - 20 George Weily Place and Lot 125 The Escort Way

Attachment 3      Noise Report

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


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                       5 February 2019

2.3                       Development Application DA 448/2018(2) - Group Home, Community Facility and Hostel - 20 George Weily Place and Lot 125 The Escort Way

Attachment 4      Contamination Report

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


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                       5 February 2019

2.3                       Development Application DA 448/2018(2) - Group Home, Community Facility and Hostel - 20 George Weily Place and Lot 125 The Escort Way

Attachment 5      Additional Information Letter

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                       5 February 2019

2.3                       Development Application DA 448/2018(2) - Group Home, Community Facility and Hostel - 20 George Weily Place and Lot 125 The Escort Way

Attachment 6      Letter from Housing Plus

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                              5 February 2019

 

2.4     Development Application DA 1/2019(1) - Animal Shelter - 36 Astill Drive

RECORD NUMBER:       2019/85

AUTHOR:                       Andrew Crump, Senior Planner    

 

 

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged

2 January 2019

Applicant/s

Orange City Council

Owner/s

Orange City Council

Land description

Lot 804 DP 1240445 - 36 Astill Drive, Orange

Proposed land use

Animal Shelter

Value of proposed development

$1,400,000.00

Council's consent is sought to construct an industrial style building to be used for the purposes of Council’s Animal Shelter for the temporary shelter of stray animals, impounding of seized animals and also the re-homing of domesticated animals. The subject land is legally described as Lot 804 DP 1240445, known as 36 Astill Drive Orange (shown below Figure 1).

Figure 1 - locality plan

The development comprises the construction of a prefabricated metal shed which will be fitted out to provide the capacity to house up to 20 dogs/cats, office space, storage area for Council’s Rangers, 4–5 publically accessible drop-off cages, a small set of cattle yards and 5 parking spaces (including an accessible space).

The proposed land-use being an Animal Shelter operated by the Council does not fit within the confines of the existing defined land-uses within the Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011.


 

As such, the development is considered an innominate use for the purposes of characterisation. The proposal is rendered permissible as the IN1 General Industrial zoning (zoning applicable to the subject land) zoning table is an open zone which allows for “any other development not specifically listed in Item 2 (permitted without consent) or Item 4 (prohibited)”. Given Animal Shelters are not nominately listed in Items 2 or 4 of the IN1 General Industrial zone land-use table, the development can be considered as a permissible innominate use.

The development is considered to be consistent with Council’s relevant planning provisions and is recommended for approval.

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 application involves the construction of a large shed typical of those found in the Narrambla Estate. The location of the shed at the back of the Estate minimises potential impacts.


 

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 consent to development application DA 1/2019(1) for Animal Shelter at Lot 804 DP 1240445 - 36 Astill Drive, 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 LAND

The subject land is located in the Narrambla industrial precinct at the cessation of the southern arm of Astill Drive. The land is described as Lot 804 DP 1240445, known as 36 Astill Drive, Orange. It adjoins vacant land to the north, a concrete batching plant to the south, and existing industrial development to the west, and Council’s quarry to the east.

THE APPLICATION/PROPOSAL

The application seeks Council’s consent to construct a building and associated structures and improvements to be used for the purposes of Council’s Animal Shelter.

The proposal involves the construction of a 30m by 21m industrial style shed, which will then be fitted out with office and staff amenities, animal enclosures, and veterinarian treatment area, indoor and outdoor animal exercise space, ranger animal drop-off area, areas for animal segregation and storage area.

Externally, the facility will be provided with 4-5 public drop-off cages, small area for sized livestock, 5 off-street parking spaces, vehicle access-ways (not accessible to the public) and extensive front landscaping.

The site will be fortified with the installation of security fencing and automatic gates. The front fence will comprise palisade style, while the balance will be chain-link style.


 

The facility will be managed by three staff and operate during typical business hours. Noting that the facility will occasionally be attended by the public (to place an animal in the public drop-off cages) or by a Council Ranger to impound a seized animal.

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

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

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

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

A site inspection reveals that the subject property has no biodiversity or habitat value.

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,

The application is considered to be consistent with aims (a), (b) and (c) as listed above.

Clause 1.6 - Consent Authority

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


 

Clause 1.7 - Mapping The subject site is identified on the LEP maps in the following manner:

Land Zoning Map:

Land zoned IN1 General Industrial

Lot Size Map:

No Minimum Lot Size 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:

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 IN1 General Industrial zone. It is not possible to define or characterise the proposed development under any of the available terms within OLEP 2011. Accordingly, the development is considered an innominate use for the purposes of characterisation. It would appear that Broken Hill LGA encountered a similar scenario for the Council run Animal Shelter, however that circumstance was slightly different as the innominate use was not permissible and as such another approved use (APU) within Schedule 1 of their LEP and define the land use as follows:


 

animal pound means a building or place owned or controlled by a public authority or non-profit community organisation that is used for the keeping or caring of animals (other than for the agistment of horses), and includes any associated ancillary veterinary hospital.

The land use table for the IN1 General Industrial Zone under the Orange LEP is an open zone, which in other words mean that any other use not listed in Item 2 or 4 of the LEP is rendered as permissible.

Clause 2.3 of LEP 2011 references the Land Use Table and Objectives for each zone in LEP 2011. These objectives for land zoned IN1 General Industrial are as follows:

1 - Objectives of the IN1 General Industrial Zone

·    To provide a wide range of industrial and warehouse land uses.

·    To encourage employment opportunities.

·    To minimise any adverse effect of industry on other land uses.

·    To support and protect industrial land for industrial uses.

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

The development is not fundamentally incongruous with the above objects of the IN1 zone; and while the land-use is not industrial in nature, given the potential noise impacts which a facility such as this could generate; a facility of this type, is best suited in an area of the city where noise generating activities are expected and planned for.

Part 3 - Exempt and Complying Development

The application is not exempt or complying development.

Part 6 - Urban Release Area

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

Part 7 - Additional Local Provisions

7.1 - Earthworks

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

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

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

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

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

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

(f)     the likelihood of disturbing relics

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

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


 

The site comprises a relatively level portion at the front of the site and a steep embankment toward the rear of the site. To combat the slope a retaining wall is required along a portion of the north and south edges of the site; and a batter at the rear of the building.

The level of cut and retaining will, at the deepest point, be approximately 2m, relating to the rear portion of the retaining on the northern boundary. The natural topography and the adjusted levels conveniently provides a ramp connecting to the yards for the livestock.

The extent of disruption to the drainage of the site is considered to be minor and will not detrimentally affect adjoining properties or receiving waterways.

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

The site is not known to be contaminated and conditions may be imposed requiring the use of verified clean fill only.

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

The site is not known to contain any Aboriginal, European or Archaeological relics. Previous known uses of the site do not suggest that any relics are likely to be uncovered. However, conditions are imposed to ensure that should site works uncover a potential relic or artefact, works will be halted to enable proper investigation by relevant authorities and the proponent required to seek relevant permits to either destroy or relocate the findings.

The site is not in proximity to any waterway, drinking water catchment or sensitive area. However, conditions are imposed to require a sediment control to be implemented for the duration of the construction phase of the development.

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 not raised any objections to the proposal and relevant conditions are attached to the notice of approval in relation to stormwater.

7.6 - Groundwater Vulnerability

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


 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clause 7.11 - Essential Services

Clause 7.11 applies and states:

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

(a)     the supply of water,

(b)     the supply of electricity,

(c)     the disposal and management of sewage,

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

(e)     suitable road access.

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

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land (SEPP 55) 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.

The subject land was recently created as part of a 9 lot industrial subdivision and remains a vacant parcel of land at the moment. During that assessment the likelihood of the land being contaminated was considered and the land found suitable for industrial purposes.

Notwithstanding this, Council’s standard unexpected finds condition is attached which details the process to be followed in the event contamination is found within the site.

PROVISIONS OF ANY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT THAT HAS BEEN PLACED ON EXHIBITION 4.15(1)(a)(ii)

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

DESIGNATED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development is not designated development.

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development is not integrated development.

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

Development Control Plan 2004

Development Control Plan 2004 (“the DCP”) applies to the subject land (Chapter 0 – LEP 2011, Chapter 2 – Natural Resources, Chapter 3 – General Considerations, Chapter 4 – special environmental considerations and Chapter 9 – Development in industrial and employment zone). An assessment of the proposed development against the relevant Planning Outcomes will be undertaken below.

Chapter 0 – LEP 2011

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

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

The corresponding zone to zone 4 Industry and Employment zone (Orange LEP 2000) is zone IN1 General Industrial zone (Orange LEP 2011). As such, Orange DCP 2004 – Chapter 9 – Development in Industry and Employment Zone is relevant to this proposal and in addition to other relevant section is addressed below.

Chapter 0 – residential proximity

·    The design of industrial and commercial development is consistent or compatible with nearby residential areas in terms of design, siting and landscaping.


 

The development is proposed on a parcel of land that is well separated from nearby residential properties to the west and sits behind other industrial land that provides a buffer between the development site and nearby residential land. As such, the design, siting and landscaping of the site is less crucial in the circumstances, but nonetheless is considered acceptable. The development in terms of its design is not considered to be incompatible with the nearby residential area.

·    The hours of operation, traffic and noise generation do not interfere with reasonable expectations of residential amenity.

The development is proposed to operate during normal business hours, however owing to the nature of the development, the facility will function 24 hours a day given their will be animals at the shelter for short, but continuous periods; and on-call rangers will attend the site to drop off an impounded animals collected outside of regular business hours.

That being said, the land the subject of this application, is well separated from the residential land to the west such that the operation of the development will not unreasonably impact upon the reasonable expectations of the residents of the nearby residential land.

·    Noise-generating activities are contained within the building where practicable.

The impounded animals (save for out of hours public drop offs and the odd occasion where livestock will be temporarily housed at the facility) will remain within the confines of the building.

·    Industrial air conditioning compressors are shielded to direct noise away from residential development.

The land is separated from residential properties such that mechanical plant associated with the development is unlikely to result in any adverse impacts upon nearby residential properties.

·    Car park and security lighting is positioned and shielded to prevent direct light spill onto residential properties.

Again as mentioned above, the separation distance will mean that the development will not directly impact upon nearby residential properties; notwithstanding this, standard conditions are attached in relation light spill.

·    Measures to prevent dust, odour and chemical spray from reaching or affecting residential properties must be demonstrated.

The development is unlikely to give rise to any dust or chemical spray issues impacting nearby residents. In terms of odour, animal welfare standards that the facility will abide by will ensure the site is kept free of odour through regular cleaning of the facility.

·    The design must demonstrate how residential privacy and solar access will be maintained.

The development will not result in any privacy or solar access impacts given the separation distances to residential properties.


 

Chapter 2 – Natural Resource Management

Chapter 2 – Natural Resource Management provides planning outcomes for stormwater quality, groundwater quality, soil resource management, vegetation management and flora and fauna management; all of which have been considered above under the heading Orange LEP 2011 (stormwater, groundwater) or Section 1.7 of the Act.

Chapter 3 – General Considerations

Chapter 3 provides planning outcomes of a general nature. Those of relevance to this assessment relate to cumulative impacts, scenic landscape, urban areas and energy efficiency. These are all addressed elsewhere within this report. Cumulative impacts are addressed below under the heading “Likely Impacts” and energy efficiency (Section J requirements) are addressed under BCA condition of the notice of approval.

Chapter 9 – Development in Industry and Employment zone

·    Buildings are set back a minimum of 10m from front boundaries (5m to a secondary boundary on a corner lot) for lots greater than 1,000m² or 5m for lots less than 1,000m² or otherwise to a setback consistent with existing setbacks in established areas. A 10m setback applies to lots that have frontage to Clergate Road.

The subject land comprises an area greater than 1000m2 and as such a 10m setback is required.

The submitted plans indicate that the setback at the closest point to the street will be well in excess of 10m to the building proper and therefore complies with the above planning outcome.

·    Buildings cover up to 50% of the site area (excluding the area of accessways for battleaxe lots).

The development results in a site coverage of 16.4% and thus compliant with the above planning outcome.

·    Landscaping is provided along boundaries fronting roads including trees with an expected mature height at least comparable to the height of buildings on the site. 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 landscape bed at the site frontage is sufficient to accommodate the spread of plantings that meet the abovementioned outcomes but, where practicable, a minimum depth of 3.5m 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.

A landscape plan has been submitted in support of the application. The plan shows two acer x freemanii and a Parrotia perscia, with hedging behind on the northern side of the driveway.

The selected trees will have mature heights of well in excess of the overall height of the building.


 

The landscaping is considered acceptable. It will provide softening of the proposed building as well as provide a degree of shading to the car parking area in the warmer months.

·    Architectural features are provided to the front building façade to provide relief using such elements as verandahs, display windows, indented walls, etc.

The proposed building will present quite simply to the street comprising a sloping awning above the main entry doors, three sets of small windows and two other set of doors as shown below:

Figure 2 - front (west) elevation

Notwithstanding the simplistic architectural features of the proposed building, the presentation is considered acceptable. The wedged shape site frontage reduces how much of the building will be visible and this coupled with generous landscaping at the site frontage will result in a satisfactory outcome.

It should also be noted that the adjoining land comprises a building that presents similarly to the one proposed under this application (refer below).

IMG_5034

Figure 3 - adjoining development to the south of the subject land

·    External materials consist of non-reflective materials.

A condition is attached requiring all external materials to be non-reflective.


 

·    Adequate parking and onsite manoeuvring is provided.

The DCP does not specifically provide a car parking rate for an Animal Shelter. The applicant has adopted a one space per staff, totalling 3 spaces, leaving two available for a non-staff member of the public that would attend the premises to potentially adopt an animal from the shelter. Rangers, when attending the site would more than likely park their vehicle in the loading area on the eastern side of the building. Council staff raise no objection to the extent of onsite parking provided. It should be noted that the hardstand area would provide for additional overflow parking without impacting on the operations of the site.

·    Advertising involves business-identification signs within the front façade and/or by a pole sign comparable to the relative height to the main building on the site.

No advertising is proposed.

·    Security fencing is located or designed in a manner that does not dominate the visual setting of the area.

Palisade style fencing is proposed behind the landscaping area at the front of the site with access provided by automated gates. The balance of the site behind the landscape area will consist of chain wire fencing.

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

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

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

Context and Setting

The subject land is located at the rear of the Narrambla Industrial precinct and is bound by a concrete batching plant to the south, vacant land to the north, a quarry to the east and industrial developments to the east.

The development is considered appropriate in the context and setting.

Visual Impacts

The development will not present any unsatisfactory visual impacts. While the presentation of the proposed building is quite simple, this will be offset by the limited front/exposure to the street and extensive landscaping that will provide the necessary level of visual relief. Moreover, it is notated that the building associated with the adjoining concrete batching plant

Traffic Impacts

Traffic levels associated with the development are expected to be quite modest. Traffic to and from the site will consist of three staff members, rangers dropping off seized animals and occasionally members of the public looking to adopt an animal.

There are driveways on either side of the proposed building. One driveway provides access to the ranger drop-off area at the rear of the building; the other provide access to the livestock unloading area. These two driveways will not conflict with the parking area.


 

All vehicles will be able to leave the site in forward direction.

The land is located at the cessation of the southern arm of Astill Drive which links directly with the NDR. The surrounding road network will easily meet the traffic demands generated by the facility.

Noise Impacts

Whilst the application does not include a formalised Noise Assessment Report, relying on the experience of the Manager Building and Environment with both noise assessment and pound operations, predictions of noise emissions from the development can adequately be undertaken. An assessment of noise is provided below:

On average, the noise level of a barking dog is around 100dB(a). The Development Application proposes the construction of the main dog shelter area to hold up to 24 dogs. There are areas for the keeping of dogs elsewhere in the development (Ranger drop off; sick/isolation and also public drop off). It is considered that the number of animals in these other areas and the length of time in which animals are kept in the isolation and drop off areas is limited and therefore would not cause dogs to bark.

In terms of predicted noise levels from the main pound area, it is considered unlikely that if the pound area was full with 24 dogs, that they would not be all barking at the same time. Calculation has been carried out allowing for up to 10 dogs barking at once. This would give a noise level of 127dB(A) at 1m away.

The nearest residential receivers to the proposed development are in Phillip Street to the south and also Honeyman Drive to the west. The closest residence is 700m from the proposed development site.

Council noise studies of Narrambla in 2012 identified that the Background noise of this Estate is 41dB(A) in the day; 40dB(A) in the evening and 35dB(A) at night time.

It is estimated that due to the distance of the development to the residential receivers (700m+) there would be a reduction of 63dB(A) in the noise level reaching the receivers. This would give a noise level at the façade of the closest residential receiver without attenuation of 64dB(A). It is estimated that a reduction of 20dB(A) could be readily achieved at the animal shelter shed with the use of acoustic construction (insulation and acoustic louvres). Further, allowing for a reduction of 10dB(A) into the house of the receiver it is predicted that the noise level inside the nearest residential receiver would be around 34dB(A). This level is well below the minimum noise goal of 40dB(A) (35 background + 5dB(A)). Therefore it can be concluded that the proposed development would comply with the requirements of the NSW Noise Policy for Industry and as such would not adversely impact on the closest residential receivers.

Notwithstanding this, as the application does not include a detailed acoustic report it is considered reasonable to apply a little more conservative assessment and require by condition of approval the enclosure of the 24 dog kennels of the main pound area. This would provide an additional level of protection to residential receivers, nearby industrial users and also staff working within the shelter. A condition of approval reflecting this is recommended and included below.


 

Additionally, it is recommended that an Acoustic Commissioning Report be obtained within six months of the operation of the facility. This will ensure that the noise emissions from the development are as predicted and is consistent with the approach applied to other industrial developments within the vicinity.

With the inclusion of these two conditions of consent, the Manager Building and Environment is satisfied that the proposed development would comply and therefore no objection to the proposed development is raised by the Manager.

Environmental Impacts

The subject land does not comprise any significant vegetation; accordingly the development is not likely to impact upon any endanger ecological communities, threatened species or habitat.

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts of a development can arise under four typical scenarios, namely:

·    time crowded effects where individual impacts occur so close in time that the initial impact is not dispersed before the proceeding occurs

·    space crowded where impacts are felt because they occur so close in space they have a tendency to overlap

·    nibbling effects occur where small, often minor impacts, act together to erode the environmental condition of a locality and

·    synergistic effects, where a mix of heterogeneous impacts interact such that the combined impacts are greater than the sum of the separate effects.

It is possible that one or more of the above scenarios could occur as a result of the development, such as every dog within the facility barking in unison which could lead to noise impacts. However, prevention of such scenarios occurring has been addressed by relevant conditions of consent specifying the acoustic measures to be incorporated into the facility.

The development is thus considered satisfactory in terms of cumulative impacts.

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

The site is considered suitable for the proposed development, the proposed development is permissible in the zone as an innominate permissible use.

Council staff are not aware of the subject land being affected by any natural, physical or technological hazard that would unreasonably constrain the development from occurring in a satisfactory manner. It is noted that the land is located in an area where soil is identified as containing naturally occurring asbestos, relevant conditions are attached in this regard.

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 Act. The application was advertised for the prescribed period of 14 days and at the end of that period no submissions were received.


 

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          Plans, D19/4257

2          Notice of Approval, D19/4733

  


Planning and Development Committee                                                            5 February 2019

2.4                       Development Application DA 1/2019(1) - Animal Shelter - 36 Astill Drive

Attachment 1      Plans

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator



Planning and Development Committee                                                            5 February 2019

2.4                       Development Application DA 1/2019(1) - Animal Shelter - 36 Astill Drive

Attachment 2      Notice of Approval

 

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

 

Development Application No DA 1/2019(1)

 

NA19/                                                                    Container PR27987

 

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 4.18

 

Development Application

 

  Applicant Name:

Orange City Council

  Applicant Address:

PO Box 35

ORANGE  NSW  2800

  Owner’s Name:

Orange City Council

  Land to Be Developed:

Lot 804 DP 1240445 - 36 Astill Drive, Orange

  Proposed Development:

Animal Shelter

 

 

Building Code of Australia

 building classification:

 

As determined by Certifier

 

 

Determination made under

  Section 4.16

 

  Made On:

5 February 2019

  Determination:

CONSENT GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:

 

 

Consent to Operate From:

6 February 2019

Consent to Lapse On:

6 February 2024

 

Terms of Approval

 

The reasons for the imposition of conditions are:

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

(2)      To maintain neighbourhood amenity and character.

(3)      To ensure compliance with relevant statutory requirements.

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

Conditions

 

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

 

(a)      Plans by GHDWOODHEAD - Drawing nos. 22-19964-A001 Rev B; 22-19964-A003 Rev B; 22‑19964-A004 Rev B; 22-19964-A005 Rev B (4 sheets).

one unnumbered landscape plan (1 sheet)

 

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

 

as amended in accordance with any conditions of this consent.

 

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)      The main 24 dog kennels within the shelter shed shall be enclosed by a smaller shed type structure which utilises acoustic attenuation construction methods, such as insulation and acoustic louvres.  The enclosure may include dividing walls to separate one row of kennels from the other, so as to reduce the likelihood of dogs in one row exciting/encouraging the other row to bark.  Plans shall be amended to include the enclosure prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

(6)      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.

 

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

 

(8)      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.

 

(9)      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.

 

(10)    A Road Opening Permit in accordance with Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 must be approved by Council prior to a Construction Certificate being issued or any intrusive works being carried out within the public road or footpath reserve. 


 

PRIOR TO WORKS COMMENCING

 

(11)    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.

 

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

 

(13)    The location and depth of the sewer junction/connection to Council’s sewerage system is to be determined to ensure that adequate fall to the sewer is available.

 

 

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

 

(14)    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.

 

(15)    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.

 

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

 

(17)    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.

 

(18)    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

 

(19)    All services (water, sewer and stormwater) shall be laid outside the easement unless there is a direct connection to the main within that easement.

 

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

 

(21)    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.


 

(22)    A heavy-duty concrete kerb and gutter layback and footpath crossing is to be constructed in the position shown on the plan submitted with the Construction Certificate application. The works are to be carried out to the requirements of the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.

 

 

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

 

(23)    A total of 5 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.

 

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

 

(25)    All external lighting shall accord with Australian Standard AS 4282 – 1997 – Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting.

 

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

 

(27)    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.

 

(28)    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.

 

(29)    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.

 

(30)    The cut and fill is to be retained and/or adequately battered and stabilised (within the allotment) prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

 

(31)    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.

 

(32)    A Road Opening Permit Certificate of Compliance is to be issued for the works by Council prior to any Occupation/Final Certificate being issued for the development.

 

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

 

(34)    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

 

(35)    The applicant shall provide Council with a Noise Commissioning Report confirming that noise from the development complies with the requirements of the NSW Noise Policy for Industry.  A report shall be provided to Council within six (6) months of the issue of an Occupation Certificate.


 

(36)    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.

 

(37)    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.

 

          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:

 

6 February 2019

 


Planning and Development Committee                                              5 February 2019

2.5     Development Application DA 329/2015(3) - Hotel - 62 Byng Street and 77 Hill Street

RECORD NUMBER:       2019/109

AUTHOR:                       Andrew Crump, Senior Planner    

 

 

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged

26 October 2018

Applicant/s

Mayoh Architects Pty Ltd - PD Mayoh Pty Ltd

Owner/s

Denoc Holdings Pty Ltd

Land description

Lot 100 DP 1212419 (previously described as Lot 3 Sec 21 DP 758817, Lot 4 DP 1085463 and Lot 1 DP 956418) - 62 Byng Street and 77 Hill Street, Orange

Proposed land use

Hotel or Motel Accommodation (alterations to an existing heritage mansion to provide boutique hotel accommodation, conference room, kitchen and dining facilities, onsite car parking and landscaping)

Value of proposed development

$6,200,000

Application has been made to modify development consent DA 329/2015(2) which was initially issued by the Land and Environment Court (and subsequently modified previously). The development consent relates to boutique hotel accommodation on land described as Lot 100 DP 1212419 (previously described as Lot 3 Sec 21 DP 758817, Lot 4 DP 1085463 and Lot 1 DP 956418); known as 62 Byng Street and 77 Hill Street, Orange. The land is shown in the below figure.

Figure 1: locality plan


 

The modification effectively comprises four parts as follows:

·    an adjustment to the louvre screens on the west facing ground level guest room windows

·    deletion of a condition that required windows in the western elevation to be fixed pane glazing to address potential noise impacts

·    a request to revisit the condition requiring the western boundary fence to be constructed from hardwood

·    minor changes to the first floor verandah balustrade and the original internal staircase to meet BCA compliance.

The application was previously tabled for consideration by the Planning and Development Committee meeting in December 2018, with a recommendation to increase the depth of the privacy louvres on the ground floor guest rooms. However, prior to the meeting the applicant requested the report be removed from consideration by the committee to allow the applicant sufficient time to respond to the requirement to adjust the subject louvres. This is explained in more detail in the body of the report.

In brief, Council staff have assessed the proposed modification and concluded the following:

·    The proposed privacy screening devices are considered acceptable in terms of their appearance, and their effectiveness in providing privacy protection to the neighbour.

·    An acoustic report has been submitted to support the proposition to allow the west facing guest room windows to be operable. Council staff concur with the report and confirm that the development complies in this regard, and accordingly the condition has been deleted.

·    The previous position of the Court, and most recently the Council, is maintained and the condition requiring a hardwood fence along the western boundary of the site continues to apply.

·    The proposed changes to the verandah balustrade and internal staircase are acceptable.

The development is recommended for approval (save for the element of the application relating to the western boundary fence) subject to the recommended changes to the amended Notice of Approval.

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 seeks to change four conditions on the court approved 62 Byng Street ‘boutique’ hotel. The BCA related matters proposed louvres and fixed windows are not disputed by neighbours or staff, and will add positively to the outcomes required. The applicant wishes to maintain the fence on the western side which has been constructed contra to Court conditions which sought a hardwood fence. Based on the deteriorating condition of the constructed fence the neighbour now objects to the condition being modified, rather seeks that the Court ordered hardwood fence be constructed.

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 modify development application DA 329/2015(2) for alterations to an existing heritage mansion to provide boutique hotel accommodation, conference room, kitchen and dining facilities, onsite car parking and landscaping and demolition (tree removal) at Lot 100 DP 1212419 (previously known as Lot 3 Sec 21 DP 758817, Lot 4 DP 1085463 and Lot 1 DP 956418) – 62 Byng Street and 77 Hill Street, Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached amended 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 LAND

At the time of lodging the application, the land was known as Lot 3 Sec 21 DP 758817, Lot 4 DP 1085463 and Lot 1 DP 956418, known as 62 Byng Street and 77 Hill Street, Orange. However, since this time the previous three lots have been consolidated as per the consent and thus the land is now legally described as Lot 100 DP 1212410. The land is located within a residential area in close proximity to the fringe of the CBD and in close proximity to other non-residential land-uses. The land is one of a cluster of listed heritage items.

THE APPLICATION/PROPOSAL

The proposal involves a modification of the consent which can be simply summarised into the following four parts:

·    amendment to the previously conditioned privacy screens/louvres attached to the west facing guest room windows on the ground and first floor

·    a request to delete the condition imposed in relation the western facing windows being non-operable

·    a request to revisit the materials used in the construction of the western boundary fence

·    minor changes to the first floor verandah balustrade and the original internal staircase to meet BCA compliance.

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

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

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

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

 

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

Section 4.56 - Modification by consent authorities of consents granted by the Court

(1)     A consent authority may, on application being made by the applicant or any other person entitled to act on a consent granted by the Court and subject to and in accordance with the regulations, modify the development 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 the consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all), and

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

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

(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

(c)     it has notified, or made reasonable attempts to notify, each person who made a submission in respect of the relevant development application of the proposed modification by sending written notice to the last address known to the consent authority of the objector or other person, and

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

In respect to the above, Council staff consider the application to be substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted by the Court. The overall use does not change, and the overall scale of the development in terms of the number or rooms, types of facilities, number of staff and the like does not change from the original approval. In a qualitative sense, only relatively minor changes are proposed to the development, save for the issue of the western boundary fence.

In relation to the above listed notification requirements, Council has advertised and notified the application in accordance with the Regulations and made all reasonable attempts to notify those persons who made a submission previously.

All submissions received have been addressed below.

(1A)   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.

Consideration of the relevant parts of Section 4.15(1) are detailed below.

Section 4.15

Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 requires Council to consider various matters, of which those pertaining to the application are listed below.

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

Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011

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 (a), (b), (c) and (f) as listed above.

Clause 1.6 - Consent Authority

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

Clause 1.7 - Mapping

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

Land Zoning Map:

Land zoned R1 General Residential

Lot Size Map:

No Minimum Lot Size

Heritage Map:

Heritage item and 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 R1 General Residential zone. The proposed development continues to be characterised as hotel or motel accommodation which remains permissible in the zone with consent.

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

1 - Objectives of the R1 General Residential Zone

·    To provide for the housing needs of the community.

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

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

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

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

There are no aspects of the development as modified that would create an inconsistency with the zone objectives.

Part 5 - Miscellaneous Provisions

5.10 - Heritage Conservation

The land is identified as a heritage item pursuant to Schedule 5 of the LEP and is located within the Central Heritage Conservation Area. The land is also within the vicinity of a number of other heritage items.


 

Three of the four aspects of the modification require heritage assessment. Those being the appearance of the screening structures, the materials used in the construction of the fence (on the western boundary) and the augmented verandah and internal staircase. Whether the windows are operable or not does not impact upon the heritage significance of the place. The following therefore relates to those two aspects as detailed above.

(1)     Objectives

          The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a)     to conserve the environmental heritage of Orange,

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

(c)     to conserve archaeological sites,

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

The proposed modifications will not result in a modified development that is fundamentally averse to the objects of the clause.

(2)     Requirement for Consent

          Development consent is required for any of the following:

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

(e)     erecting a building on land:

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

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

The development as modified involves works as described above, and as such consent is required.

(4)     Effect of Proposed Development on Heritage Significance

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

The operability of windows does not alter the level of heritage compatibility that the development has within the setting, and as such the following assessment relates only to the privacy screening and the material of the western boundary fence.


 

Privacy Screens

The privacy screens will be integrated as part of the building and have been previously nominated to be Colorbond “monument” in colour which is a dark grey colour so they are recessive. There are no objections the screens from a heritage point of view.

Western Boundary Fence

Background

The Court required a particular style of boundary fence as part of the Court issued consent.

The western boundary fence was required to be constructed using hardwood timber. The fence has subsequently been constructed using treated pine timber as opposed to hardwood.

The applicant, as part of the last application to modify the consent, sought to regularise the inconsistency with the consent requirements, requesting that Council agree to amend the condition to allow the western boundary fence as constructed (ie in treated pine).

As part of Council’s assessment on the adequacy of the fence, Council staff received a submission from the adjoining neighbour which identified a number of inadequacies with the way in which the fence was constructed.

The adjoining neighbour at the time of the assessment somewhat begrudgingly agreed that the fence was acceptable as constructed, provided certain rectification works occurred to the fence. These were included as conditions of consent in the draft Notice of Approval (amended) that went before the Planning and Development Committee.

At the time of determining the application, the Committee determined that the Court imposed condition should remain as this was the will of the Court, and as such the condition requiring the fence to be constructed with hard wood timber remained in place.

The applicant is asking Council to reconsider the fence materials stating that:

Condition (47) was previously approved with the requirements as mentioned above. A treated pine fence has been constructed on the common boundary between 60 and 62 Byng Street on the North/South axis. It was requested that this condition be amended to allow the fence to be ‘treated pine’ rather than ‘hard wood’. We note that the Council Officers report supported this amendment and it also was accepted by the neighbour in principle.

Our submission was supported by our Heritage Consultant:

‘It is considered that the treated pine fence will have the same effect in Heritage terms as the original approval, given that it is a ‘like for like replacement’, as stated in the letter prepared by the Heritage Architect. There is no mention of hard wood fencing in the Judgement of the Court or in the Joint Heritage Witness Statement prepared as part of the Court proceedings. It is therefore considered that the treated pine fencing will have no further environmental or heritage effect than the original consent’.

We therefore request this condition be amended to reflect our previous submission.


 

Subsequent additional supporting information was submitted to Council by the applicant purporting that treated pine timber is a superior product to hard wood timber in Orange’s climate. The information submitted is based on the Forest and Wood Products Australia Limited document titled ‘Timber service life design: Design guide for durability’.

In response to the submitted justification, the premise of the justification is that treated pine would have a greater lifecycle than hardwood timber, however as observed in the below photograph, the structural horizontal rails that the palings are fixed to is H2 structural blue pine. According to manufactures of H2 structural blue pine, the product is treated for bores and termites and is specifically used indoors, undercover and where no wetting would occur. The minimum standard that should have been used, if treated pine were allowed to be used under the relevant condition, is H3 treated pine or above. Hardwood timber would be far superior to H2 treated pine.

IMAG1036

Figure 2: horizontal fence rail – note the H2 stamp

Council staff at the time of the assessment of the first modification recommended that the fence as erected be allowed to remain, but only on the proviso that certain works be undertaken to the fence to address its poor construction and its deteriorating condition. Not being fully aware of the inadequate timber having been used, the position staff took on this matter previously was predicated on the agreement brokered between the parties that share the common boundary (ie the developer and the owner of the adjoining property at 60 Byng Street); and the terms of that agreement were enshrined as a draft Condition of Consent. However, this condition was superfluous based on the Council resolution and was subsequently removed from the issued Notice of Approval (amended).

In the intervening period between Council’s determination of the first modification and this point in time, the adjoining owners have withdrawn their agreement on the boundary fence, and as such Council staff recommend that the status quo remain in this case (that the fence be constructed as per the Court issued consent) as this was the will of the Court and, subsequently, the will of Council. The condition therefore remains in place.

Verandah balustrade and internal staircase balustrade

This aspect of the modification relates to very minor changes to the existing first floor verandah balustrade and the balustrade of the existing internal stairs to meet BCA compliance.


 

 

Figure 3: front verandah balustrade detail for BCA compliance

Figure 4: origianl staircase (internal) balustrade detail for BCA compliance

It is not uncommon for buildings such as Yallungah to require upgrades of the certain parts of the building to conform with today’s building codes.

Council’s heritage advisor has reviewed plans showing the proposed works and has not raised any objections.


 

Accordingly, the proposed changes to the verandah balustrade and balustrade on the internal stairs within the former mansion are considered acceptable.

It is noted that the treatment to the front verandah balustrade was shown on the plans approved by the Court, so the plans submitted with this application amend that previously approved detail.

In relation to the internal stair case the following two conditions were applied by the court:

(65)     An additional handrail is to be provided above the existing timber handrail on the heritage stairs in the existing mansion. The additional handrail may be wood, brass or stainless steel material and is to be approved by Orange City Council. The new handrail can be supported off the existing handrail or off the side of the balustrade with appropriate brackets. The new handrail is to be located at a height of at least 865mm above the nosings of the stair and landing.

(66)     The gaps in the stair balustrade are to be addressed by installing glass sheets on the outside of the balustrade, fixed to the existing balustrade by appropriate fittings. The height of the glazing is to be a minimum of 865mm above the nosing of the stairs and 1000mm above the floor level of the landing.

The amended detail is compliant with Condition (65), however, the plans propose an alternate treatment for reducing the gaps in the up-rights of the handrail. Instead of glass applied to the outside of the handrail, the approach now, which has been endorsed by Council’s heritage advisor (from a heritage point of view), is to install vertical rods to reduce gaps between original balustrade members. The overall condition requiring the development to be BCA compliant applies and it would be the responsibility of the private certifier to ensure the stairs and front verandah comply with the building code. Condition (66) has been amended to the following:

(66)   The gaps in the stair balustrade are to be addressed as per the detail shown on plan titled ‘A214 miscellaneous details – sheet 5 revision P1’ dated 7 January 2019 and be compliant with the Building Code of Australia.

(5)     Heritage Assessment

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

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

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

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

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

Given the relatively minor nature of the proposed modification, a heritage management document is not considered warranted. However, a brief heritage impact statement from John Oultram Heritage and Design was submitted in support of the previous modification; an excerpt of which is submitted with this application in support of the request to reconsider the western boundary fence.


 

(6)     Heritage Conservation Management Plans

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

A conservation management plan was not required by the Court, and there is nothing within this application to modify the Court issued consent that would require one to be prepared now.

(7)     Archaeological Sites

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

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

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

The Court did not identify the subject land as being an archaeological site.

(8)     Aboriginal Places of Heritage Significance

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

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

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

The Court did not identify the land as being an Aboriginal Place of Heritage Significance.

(9)     Demolition of Nominated State Heritage Items

          The consent authority must, before granting consent under this clause for the demolition of a nominated State heritage item:

(a)     notify the Heritage Council about the application, and

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

The land is not identified as a Nominated State Heritage Item

Part 6 - Urban Release Area

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


 

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

There are no State Environmental Planning Policies that are of relevance to the assessment of the application to modify the consent.

PROVISIONS OF ANY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT THAT HAS BEEN PLACED ON EXHIBITION 4.15(1)(a)(ii)

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

DESIGNATED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development is not designated development.

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development is not integrated development.

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

Development Control Plan 2004

Development Control Plan 2004 (“the DCP”) applies to the subject land. Chapters of the DCP relevant to the proposed use and development include:

·    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 13 - Heritage

and have been previously considered by the Court.

Those matters that are of relevance to the modification relate primarily to visual privacy and heritage considerations, and are addressed below.

Visual Privacy

The DCP sets the following planning outcome in regard to visual privacy:

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

-      building siting and layout

-      location of windows and balconies

and secondly by:

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


 

The consent issued by the Court required visual privacy screening to all upper level west facing windows and Rooms 9-12 on the ground floor (noting that these rooms had a balcony when the court considered the DA).

As previously considered under the last modification, with the benefit now of understanding the finished floor levels, the full extent of the visual privacy can now be observed.

Since the determination of the Court, the applicant has sought additional privacy screening to all guest rooms with west facing windows (both ground and first level rooms) within the new addition. This is considered to be a much more positive outcome for all parties than what would have been achieved by the Court imposed requirements.

The proposed screening comprises eleven 150mm deep horizontally fixed blades, spaced 25mm apart. The screening is to commence 1.2m from the finished floor level and up to a height of 1.6m above finished floor level. The details of the screening are shown below.

Figure 5: section of the proposed louvres

The applicant invited Council staff and the adjoining owner to observe a prototype of the proposed screening structure. The prototype was not an exact match of the screen proposed. The prototype was further off the ground than proposed and positioned on the inside face of the building rather than the location on the outside of the building.


 

Having observed the prototype in the incorrect position, Council staff were of the view that in order to provide sufficient privacy to the western neighbour, the depth of the individual fixed blades should be increased from the proposed 150mm to a depth of 250mm. This would further prevent the potential for the observer from being able to look down into the backyard of the adjoining owner.

This was the recommendation to Council for the planning report prepared for the December 2018 PDC meeting, however the applicant requested that the application be withdrawn from that meeting to allow sufficient time to demonstrate that the proposed screen devices would provide a sufficient level of visual privacy for the adjoining neighbour.

Since then, the applicant installed the prototype in the proposed location and provided Council staff with a further opportunity to observe effectiveness of the screening device. During this time is was agreed by that the screening devices will provide an effective level of privacy protection for the adjoining owner.

The development as modified is therefore considered acceptable in terms of visual privacy. Acoustic privacy is addressed below under the heading “Noise Impacts”.

Heritage

The DCP sets the following planning outcomes in regard to heritage:

·    Heritage buildings and structures are efficiently re-used.

·    New development complements and enhances the significance of a heritage item or place of heritage significance listed in the Orange Heritage Study.

·    Significant landscape features are retained including original period fences and period gardens.

Heritage has previously been addressed in detail under the heading “5.10 - Heritage Conservation”. The proposed development has been designed in accordance with the outcomes for heritage and is considered acceptable.

INFILL GUIDELINES

As established under the Heading “5.10 - Heritage Conservation”, there are no aspects of the application to modify the consent that would result in unsatisfactory impacts upon the heritage significance of the place.

The development as modified will not be incongruous with the character of the locality.

The development as modified will not dramatically alter the previously approved scale and form of the development.

The previously approved siting of the development does not change as a result of the development as modified.

The materials and colours, and the detailing of the modified design are appropriate save for the western boundary fence as described above.

The development as modified is not inconsistent with the relevant heads of consideration under the Infill Guidelines and remains consistent with the intent of the Court approved development.


 

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

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

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

Residential Amenity

Visual Privacy

The impacts associated with the visual privacy of the development with consideration to the revised privacy screens are addressed above under the DCP considerations.

Noise Impacts

The consideration of noise impacts relates only to the condition Council previously imposed that required windows on the western elevation to be fixed pane and non-operable windows. The intent was to manage noise associated with the deletion of balconies. At the time of previously considering this issue the applicant did not provide sufficient information to satisfy Council staff that operable windows would be satisfactory, thus the condition was imposed.

The applicant has now submitted in support of this application, an acoustic report which demonstrates that the development can operate with operable windows across all rooms within the western elevation. The Manager of Building and Environment has assessed the report and agreed that the development will be acceptable with operable windows.

It is recommended that the relevant condition be deleted.

The development will not give rise to unacceptable impacts as a result of noise associated with guest rooms.

Heritage

Heritage considerations are addressed above under the heading “Clause 5.10 - Heritage Conservation” under the LEP consideration.

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

The site continues to remain suitable for the development as modified.

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 Act. The application was advertised for the prescribed period of 14 days and at the end of that period nine submissions had been received (including a submission from the owner of 60 Byng Street outside of the exhibition period).

Submissions 1, 2 and 3 - Resident of 60 Byng Street

Submission 1

In relation to the louvres, the submitter indicates that they have no objection to the louvres being fixed and horizontal rather than being angled, but the submitter states that “the position of the louvres, distance from the windows and widths of the louvres will have a bearing on whether they are appropriate”.


 

In relation to the treated pine timber fence along the boundary, the submitter articulates their version of what has transpired between themselves and the adjoining owner. The submitter concludes that as no further work has been carried out to the fence which was the basis for the agreed position previously, and that the fence condition has deteriorated further since the initial agreement. The submitter has indicated that their previous conditional agreement is thus withdrawn.

In relation to the operable windows, the submitter indicates no objection provided that the acoustic considerations have been assessed by Council staff.

Submission 2

Submission 2 is a subsequent submission from the adjoining owner. The submission details what the adjoining owner indicated at the site meeting to observe the prototype privacy screening. The submitter confirmed that he agreed to the proposed method of privacy screening and also that he had no objections to the operable windows given that Council staff has reviewed the submitted acoustic report and it was deemed satisfactory.

Council staff response

Submissions 1 and 2 are authored by the same person and are addressed below.

In relation to the above, Council staff have independently assessed the level of privacy and now consider the proposed screening devices appropriate. This matter is addressed under the visual privacy section of this report.

In relation to the boundary fence, the position of Council staff on this matter is detailed above. It is recommended that the status quo of the consent remain (ie that being the position initially held by the Court and subsequently by Council) and the request to allow the treated pine fence not be supported.

In relation to the operable windows, as mentioned above the applicant has submitted an acoustic report in support of the development which indicates that the development with operable windows would be acceptable. This has been reviewed by the Manager Building and Environment and confirmed as acceptable.

Submission 3

A further submission has been received from the adjoining owner at 60 Byng Street. The submission outlines further dialogue that has occurred between the two parties in relation to the boundary fence, raises doubts over some of the comments made by the applicant in a letter to Council dated 9 January 2019, references/provides a copy of Submission 9 of this report and provides additional photographs.

Council staff response

As detailed above, Council staff position on fence material remains consistent with the Court and the previous resolution of the Council. The condition is to remain as is i.e. require a hardwood fence.

Submission 4 - Resident of 75 Hill Street

The submission raises concerns in relation to the western boundary fence in terms of its adequacy in its construction and the materials it has been constructed from.


 

Council staff response

In relation to the boundary fence, the position of Council staff on this matter is detailed above. It is recommended that the status quo of the consent remain (ie that being the position initially held by the Court and subsequently by Council) and the request to allow the treated pine fence not be supported.

Submission 5 - Resident of 82 Clinton Street

The submitter raises concerns in relation to the operable western windows and the fencing materials.

Council staff response

The allowance of operable windows is addressed in detail above. The applicant has submitted an acoustic report in support of allowing the operable windows and this is considered to be acceptable.

In relation to the boundary fence, the position of Council staff on this matter is detailed above. It is recommended that the status quo of the consent remain (ie that being the position initially held by the Court and subsequently by Council) and the request to allow the treated pine fence not be supported.

Submission 6 - Residents of 59 Byng Street

The submitter raises concerns in relation to the western boundary in respect of its adequacy and the materials used in breach of the consent condition.

Council staff response

In relation to the boundary fence, the position of Council staff on this matter is detailed above. It is recommended that the status quo of the consent remain (ie that being the position initially held by the Court and subsequently by Council) and the request to allow the treated pine fence not be supported.

Submission 7 - 57 Byng Street

The submitter raises concerns in relation to the operable windows and the western boundary fence in terms of the material used, which was contrary to the consent. The submitter also mentions the illegal developments that have allegedly occur at the property, citing discussions at a Council meeting in 2016, and requests that the developer be penalised.

Council staff response

The allowance of operable windows is addressed in detail above. The applicant has submitted an acoustic report in support of allowing the operable windows and this is considered to be acceptable.

In relation to the boundary fence, the position of Council staff on this matter is detailed above. It is recommended that the status quo of the consent remain (ie that being the position initially held by the Court and subsequently by Council) and the request to allow the treated pine fence not be supported.

In relation to the illegal works, this a separate matter which has been reported to Council previously.


 

Submission 8 - owners of 85 Hill Street

The submitters raise concerns in relation to the applicant’s request to amend the screening and seek to allow operable windows. The submitters have also referenced the western boundary fence stating “it looks flimsy and in poor condition” and suggest that the fence should be replaced as per the Court imposed condition.

Council staff response

The privacy considerations are addressed above and it has been determined that the fixed louvres should be increased in depth to allow a greater level of privacy.

In relation to the operable windows, as indicated above the applicant has submitted an acoustic report in support of the operable windows which is considered to be acceptable.

In relation to the boundary fence, the position of Council staff on this matter is detailed above. It is recommended that the status quo of the consent remain (ie that being the position initially held by the Court and subsequently by Council) and the request to allow the treated pine fence not be supported.

Submission 9 - Resident of 234 March Street

The submission objects to the request to allow the constructed pine fence to remain. The author of the submission outlines various technical construction factors that they allege the applicant has not considered when constructing the fence - stating these for the reasons that the fence is in a poor condition.

Council staff response

In relation to the boundary fence, the position of Council staff on this matter is detailed above. It is recommended that the status quo of the consent remain (ie that being the position initially held by the Court and subsequently by Council) and the request to allow the treated pine fence not be supported.

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 development as modified remains permissible with the consent of Council. The proposed development is not inconsistent 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 save for the matter pertaining to the materials used for the western boundary fence. The applicant has requested that Council give further consideration to allowing the treated pine fence that has been recently constructed along the western boundary as opposed to the current requirement for the fence to be a timber hardwood fence. It is open for Council to reconsider its position of this matter. Attached is a draft amended 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 amended Notice of Approval.

 

 

Attachments

1          Notice of Approval, D19/4769

2          Plans, D19/4458

3          Submissions, D19/4542

  


Planning and Development Committee                                                              5 February 2019

2.5                       Development Application DA 329/2015(3) - Hotel - 62 Byng Street and 77 Hill Street

Attachment 1      Notice of Approval

 

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

 

Development Application No DA 329/2015(3)

 

NA19/                                                                     Container PR2111

 

 

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:

Mayoh Architects Pty Ltd - PD Mayoh Pty Ltd

  Applicant Address:

(Attention Melodie Kaplan)

60 Strathallen Avenue

NORTHBRIDGE  NSW  2063

  Owner’s Name:

Denoc Holdings Pty Ltd

  Land to Be Developed:

Lot 100 DP 1212419 (previously described as Lot 3 Sec 21 DP 758817, Lot 4 DP 1085463 and Lot 1 DP 956418) 62 Byng Street and 77 Hill Street, Orange.

  Proposed Development:

Alterations and extension to an existing heritage mansion to provide boutique hotel accommodation, conference room, kitchen and dining facilities, on-site car parking and landscaping

 

 

Building Code of Australia

 building classification:

 

To be determined by certifier

 

 

Determination made under

  Section 4.16

Development consent was initially granted by the Land and Environment Court on 1 June 2017 – Appeal Number 2016/183468.

  Made On:

5 February 2019 – Determination date of the modification application

  Determination:

CONSENT GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:

 

 

Consent to Operate From:

1 June 2017

Consent to Lapse On:

1 June 2022

 

 

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.

 


 

SCHEDULE B – OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS

 

(1)      The development must be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and documentation except where amended by another Condition of this consent (including a deferred commencement condition).

·    Cover Sheet prepared by PD Mayoh Pty Ltd Drawing Nos. A001, Issue E dated 21 June 2017

·    Tree Removal Plan prepared by PD Mayoh Pty Ltd Drawing No. A090, Issue C, dated 21 June 2017;

·    Lower Ground Floor Plan prepared by PD Mayoh Pty Ltd, Drawing No. A100, Issue W, dated 21 June 2017;

·    Site Plan and Ground Floor Plan prepared by PD Mayoh Pty Ltd Drawing No. A101, Issue X, dated 21 June 2017;

·    First Floor Plan prepared by PD Mayoh Pty Ltd Drawing No. A102, Issue Q , dated 21 June 2017;

·    Roof Plan prepared by PD Mayoh Pty Ltd Drawing No. A103, Issue K, dated 21 June 2017;

·    East, West, North and South Elevations prepared by PD Mayoh Pty Ltd, Drawing No. A150, Issue I , dated 21 June 2017;

·    Sections CC and DD prepared by PD Mayoh Pty Ltd Drawing No. 161, Issue E, dated 21 June 2017;

·    Section EE prepared by PD Mayoh Pty Ltd, Drawing No. A162, Issue B, dated 21 June 2017;

·    Section HH, prepared by PD Mayoh Pty Ltd Drawing No. A163, Issue C dated 21 June 2017

·    Landscaping Concept Plans prepared by Christopher Nicholas Garden Design Issue 4 dated 21 June 2017;

·    Acoustic Report prepared by Acoustic Logic, dated 20 June 2017

 

Amending plans by Mayoh Architects job No. 1444

Dawning nos.

·    S4.56_A090 Site Plan - Rev P6 Date 18 July 2018

·    S4.56_A100 Lower Ground Floor Plan - Rev P10 Date 21 June 2018

·    S4.56_A101a Ground Floor Plan – New Extension – Rev P11 Date 17 July 2018

·    S4.56_A101b Ground Floor Plan Existing – Rev P14 Date 18 July 2018

·    S4.56_A102a First Floor Plan – New Extension – Rev P10 Date 21 June 2018

·    S4.56_A102b Frist Floor Plan  - Existing – Rev P10 Date 21 June 2018

·    S4.56_A103a Roof Plan – New Extension – Rev P4 Date 17 July 2018

·    S4.56_A103b Roof Plan – Existing – Rev P3 Date 1 June 2018

·    S4.56_A150 Elevations (E, W, N, S) – Rev P4 Date 17 July 2018

·    S4.56_A160 Sections AA and BB – Rev P5 Date 17 July 2018

·    S4.56_A211 Miscellaneous Details Sheet 2 – Rev P5 Date 17 July 2018

·    S4.56_A212 Miscellaneous Details Sheet 3 – Rev P6 Date 18 July 2018

·    S4.56_A214 Miscellaneous Details Sheet 5 – Rev P2 Date 18 July 2018

 

Amending plans by Mayoh Architects job No. 1444

Dawning nos.

·    A204 Privacy Louvre Detail Rev 1 Dated 25 October 2018

·    A214 Miscellaneous Details Rev P1 – sheet 5 Dated 7 January 2019


 

Where there is inconsistency between the above plans and a Condition of this Consent, the Condition is to prevail to the extent of any inconsistency.

 

 

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 persons own expense:

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

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

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

 

 

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

 

(5)        An interpretation plan must be submitted to, and be approved by, Council’s Manager Development Assessments prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate. The interpretation plan must be consistent with the guidelines produced by the NSW Heritage Office and must be prepared for the property by an experienced heritage consultant. The interpretation plan must recommend interpretive devices both internal and extern al to the building and within the significant portions of the building sufficient to interpret the relevant aspects of its cultural heritage significance.

Where required, a separate development application must be lodged for any works associated with the installation of interpretation devices.

 

(6)        The approved landscape plan is to be amended to replace the Hornbeam (Carpinus betulus Pendula Pleached) with Carpinus betulus (Pleached) to ensure that the canopy formed does not impact on the use of the driveway or affect the neighbouring property through encroachment over the boundary. The approved landscape plan identifies Leightons Green Conifer (Cupressocyparis x leylandii) planted along the eastern boundary of the site. This plant obtains a mature height of over 10 metres and is likely overshadow properties along Hill Street. The Leightons Green Conifers to be planted along the eastern boundary are to be restricted to a maximum height of 5 metres to ensure that there is no overshadowing impact. The eastern boundary trees are not to be evergreen trees.

 

(7)        An approval under Section 68 of the Local Government Act is to be obtained from Orange City Council, as the Water and Sewer Authority, for water, sewer and stormwater connection. No plumbing and drainage in connection with this development is to commence until approval is granted.

 

(8)        Detailed plans and specification are to be submitted with an application for Construction Certificate specifying the proposed fit-out of the food preparation and storage areas 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.


 

(9)        Detailed plans and specification are to be submitted with an application for Construction Certificate that indicate all fire safety measures for the existing site and/or proposed building. The plans and specifications shall be designed by a suitably qualified person. The specification is to include all hydraulic calculations for any required hydrants, hose reels, fire water mains. Any modifications required to the existing house under this condition are to be approved by Orange City Council’s Heritage Advisor.

 

(10)      The applicant shall provide the Principal Certifying Authority and Council with a report from a qualified Acoustic Consultant that confirms all mechanical equipment to be installed within the development will comply with the noise goals and the Management techniques proposed in the Noise Impact Assessment prepared by Acoustic Logic Revision 4 dated 20June 2017.

 

(11)      Engineering plans providing complete details of the proposed footpath crossing, driveway and car-parking areas is to be submitted to Orange City Council or an Accredited Certifier (Categories B1, C3, C4, C6) and approved prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

These plans are to provide details of levels, cross falls of all pavements, proposed sealing materials and proposed drainage works and be in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.

 

(12)      A raised concrete median is to be constructed in Byng Street to prevent in and out right turns. The concrete median is to extend 30m from the end of the existing roundabout traffic island. A double barrier line is to be painted on Byng Street from the end of the median extending 20m west. The concrete median is to be a minimum 600 millimetres wide and designed and constructed in accordance with Parts 3 and 4A of Austroads Guide to Road Design. The eastbound traffic lanes in Byng Street are to maintain their existing width.

Engineering plans, showing details of the raised concrete median, signage, linemarking and construction traffic control plan, are to be submitted to Orange City Council or an Accredited Certifier (Categories B1, C3, C4, C6) and approved prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Separate approval under section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 will be required for work on public roads prior to any work being undertaken on or over a public road.

 

(13)      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 soil erosion 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.

 

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

 

(15)      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.

 

(16)      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 6.1 ETs for water supply headworks and 9.4 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.

 

(17)      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 for approval prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.


 

(18)      An acoustic report is to be prepared by a suitably qualified acoustical consultant and submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority demonstrating that the noise emission from the proposed mechanical plant will not exceed an Leq noise level of 5 dB above the L90 background noise level measured at the nearest affected residence.

 

(19)   Compliance with Clause 3.2.4, Figure 3.2 and Figure 3.3 of AS2890.1 2004 in relation to sight lines to both pedestrians on the footpath and to vehicles approaching along Byng Street for drivers of vehicles emerging from the proposed driveway shall be certified by and experienced and qualified traffic engineer prior to the issue of a construction certificate. This will in particular require:

a.       a 2m by 2.5m sight triangle to pedestrians for emerging vehicles provided at the widened gate location by an open fence form, low level landscaping (below 0.6m height) and at-grade paving and certification of adequate sight line for emerging drivers to pedestrians on the adjacent public footpath.

 

(20)      The internal car park and access to the car park is to be certified by an experienced and certified traffic engineer to comply with AS2890.1-2004, AS2890.6-2009 and AS2890.2-2002 (relating to the Small Rigid Vehicle, being the maximum permitted service vehicle on- site other than fire appliance vehicles). Certification must confirm that the car park and access is fully compliant with the dimensional manoeuvring, gradient and travel height requirements of the design vehicles. The hydrant located between STAFF car parking space numbers 22 and 23 is to be confirmed as being flush with the parking pavement level such that those spaces can be lengthened to comply with Figure 2.5 of AS2890.1-2004.

 

(21)      The hedge (Cherry Laurel (prunus laurocerasus)) at the front of the property on the northern boundary is to be retained. Removal of any part of the hedge may only occur to accommodate any new gate or fence that may be approved under the Conditions of this Consent.

 

(22)      The Beech Tree to the north of the site is to be retained.

 

(23)      The accessible path of travel between the disabled parking spaces and the foyer of the approved development is to be certified as acceptable by an accessibility expert.

 

(24)      An acoustic report shall be prepared prior to the construction certificate that details how the alterations and additions are proposed to meet Part F5 of the Building Code of Australia, including, but not limited to:

(a)    Acoustic separation of common walls and floors between sole occupancy units in accordance with Part F5.4 and F5.5 of the BCA.

(b)    Acoustic separation of common floor/ceiling between sole occupancy units on the first floor and the ground floor of the existing residence in accordance with Part F5.4 of the BCA.

(c)   Acoustic separation of internal services in accordance with Part F5.6 of the BCA.

 

(24A)    A separate schedule of finishes, colours, swatches and materials is to be provided in a sample board to Orange City Council for the work approved under this consent. This includes a sample of the Central Lobby Screen in the proposed colour, no smaller than 600 x 600mm. The proposed external finishes are to be generally in accordance with the plan External Finishes Legend Drawing A 105 Revision H and the Central Lobby Screen Detailis to be generally in accordance with Appendix E to the Joint Heritage Report dated 21 April 2017 and filed in Land and Environment Court Proceedings 2016/183468 Denoc Holdings Pty Ltd v Orange City Council. The use of the warm pale orange to render finishes is not appropriate. The proposed finishes, colours, materials and swatches are to be approved by Orange City Council prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

(24B)    (deleted)

 

(24C)    A notation must be provided on the plans submitted with a Construction Certificate confirming that all outdoor lighting has been designed and will be installed in accordance with Australian Standard AS 4282-1997 - Control of the Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting.


 

(24D)    Louvre screens are to be fixed to the ground floor windows of guest rooms 1-12, and the upper level windows on the western elevation of the approved extension, except for the western glazing to the main entry foyer as per the approved plans.

The angle of the louvres attached to all required windows shall be positioned to prevent direct overlooking of the adjoining property at 60 Byng Street. Details of the louvres to all required windows on the western elevation of the approved extension shall be submitted to Council’s manager Development Assessments for approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

(24E)   A screen is to be constructed and is to remain at the rear of the three easternmost spaces (car spaces 14, 15 and 16) in front (north) of the proposed landscaping to act as a barrier to light spill in addition to the boundary fencing and landscaping. This screen is to be in the form of a perforated metal screen to a height of 3 metres. The colour and material of the screen is to be provided to Orange City Council for approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. Details of the screen are to be noted on the plans submitted with a Construction Certificate.

 

(24F)    The booster valveor equivalent infrastructure shown on Plan A.101 is to be located outside of the Structural Root Zone (SRZ) of the Liquid Amber tree located towards the north eastern corner of 62 Byng Street. All excavation or trenching works associated with the installation of this infrastructure must be located outside of the SRZ of the Liquid Amber tree.

 

(24G)    The original fireplaces, or an equivalent fireplace to be approved by Council’s Heritage Advisor, are to be reinstated in their original location within rooms 20 and 22.

 

(24H)    Specifications are required for the glazing on the east and west elevations of the approved extension shown on Plan A.150. Glazing must be set inwards of the framing so as to modulate the bulk and minimise the apparent extent of glazing on each elevation. Glazing must rely on body tint or similar without any external reflective coating. The specifications for the glazing are required to be shown on the plans submitted with the Construction Certificate.

 

(24I)    Full details of the restoration or rebuilding of the front fence and gate to 62 Byng Street must be submitted to Orange City Council prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Details of the condition of the existing fence and gate must be provided to Council. Where it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager of Developments Assessments that the existing materials are incapable of restoration, the existing fence must be replaced by fence to match the original fence style of chain wire and timber posts, consistent with the heritage character of the subject property and Central Orange Heritage Conservation Area. The selected hedge plants behind the fence are to be advanced plants.

 

(24J)     An amended stormwater design is to be submitted with the application for a Construction Certificate 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 DRAINS rainfall-runoff hydrologic model or an approved equivalent capable of assessing runoff volumes and their temporal distribution as well as peak flow rates. The model is to be used to calculate the flow rates for the existing and post-development conditions. The developed flows are to be routed through the proposed storage within the model so that the outflows obtained are no greater than the flows obtained for the pre-existing natural flows. A report detailing the results of the analysis, which includes:

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

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

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

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


 

together with copies of the data files for the model and engineering design plans of the required drainage system are to be submitted and approved by Orange City Council.

All stormwater from the site is to be collected and piped to Councils existing stormwater system in Hill Street. Engineering plans, showing details of the proposed stormwater drainage system, are to be submitted to, and approved by Orange City Council prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

The existing 150mm-diameter sewer main is to be relocated clear of the proposed building. Engineering plans, showing details of the proposed sewer main relocation works, are to be submitted to, and approved by Orange City Council prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

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 for approval prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

 

(24K)    (deleted)

 

(24L)     The acoustic fence and acoustic screening shall be in accordance with the acoustic report by Acoustik report reference 1708.001 Report.3.

 

(24M)    (deleted)

 

 

PRIOR TO WORKS COMMENCING

 

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

 

(26)    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.

 

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

 

(28)     The applicant shall supply Orange City Council with a dilapidation report for the adjoining properties at 75, 79, 81, 85 and 87 Hill Street as well as 60 and 64 Byng Street, Orange which documents and photographs the conditions of buildings and improvements on those properties prior to commencement of works. A copy of the report must be provided to Council and the owners of the nominated properties. Council shall be provided with a list of owners to whom a copy of the report has been provided.

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

(29)      A Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) as detailed in AS 4970 2009 shall be established on the development site for each tree to be retained on the western side of 62 Byng Street and the eastern side of 60 Byng Street. The Tree Protection Zone shall be erected a minimum of 4.5 metres in radius from the centre of each tree along the western boundary fence of 62 Byng Street. The Tree Protection Zone must be connected to the western boundary fence of 62 Byng Street.

 

(30)      A Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) as detailed in AS 4970 2009 shall be established around the Liquidambar tree in the North east corner of 62 Byng Street. The Tree Protection Zone shall be erected a minimum of 2.2 metres to the east of the tree, a minimum of 3.6m to the south, west and north of the tree.

Note:  The trees affected by Condition (27) and (28) include the Liquidambar in the north east corner of 62 Byng Street, the Elm in the north west corner of 62 Byng Street, the Beech on western boundary of 62 Byng Street, the Box Elder on or immediately beyond western boundary of 62 Byng Street and the Elm (2) on or immediately beyond western boundary of 62 Byng Street.

 

 

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

 

(31)     The applicant shall ensure that the Tree Protection zones for those trees identified to be retained are observed and maintained during construction.


 

(32)      The entrance path, immediately to the west of the Liquidambar located in the north east corner of 62 Byng Street shall be constructed in such a way that it does not impact on the soft landscape zone existing within the TPZ. ie. porous pavement or a bridging of the Structural Root Zone shall be undertaken to minimise root damage. To ensure protection of the SRZ (SRZ = trees stability) no excavation or fill material shall be permitted within a radius of 2200mm of the centre of the trees trunk.

 

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

 

(34)      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.

 

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

 

(36)      Where asbestos material is removed or disturbed as a result of any proposed demolition, alterations or additions, all work must be carried out by a person licensed under Chapter 10 of the Occupational Health & Safety Regulation 2001 and undertaken in accordance with the requirements of clause 29 of the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005. All asbestos to be removed must be disposed of at a tip recommended by the NSW Environment Protection Authority and under no circumstances shall it be reused or sold.

 

(37)      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".

 

(38)      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.

 

(39)    All driveway and parking areas are to be sealed with bitumen, hot mix, cobblestones, pavers 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.

 

(40)      All pruning works shall be undertaken to AS4373-2007 Pruning of amenity trees by a qualified arborist under the supervision of Council’s Manger City Presentation.

 

(41)      A heavy-duty concrete kerb and gutter layback and footpath crossing is to be constructed for the entrance to the proposed development on Byng Street. The existing gutter bridge is to be removed and the bitumen footpath and roadway reinstated. The construction of the layback and footpath crossing are to be as required by the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.

 

(42)      The existing basalt (bluestone) kerb and gutter in Byng Street is to be retained . Where bluestone exists in the location of the proposed new driveway, the bluestone gutter is to be retained and incorporated into the new vehicular layback. Any kerb stones removed as a result of the works are to be firstly used as kerb stones in the areas of reinstated kerb and any leftover stones returned to Council.


 

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

 

(44)      All floors of rooms 20, 21 and 22 within the existing dwelling are to be upgraded to achieve an airborne sound insulation of not less than 50 and impact sound insulation rating of not more than 62.

 

(45)      Walls separating rooms 20, 21 and 22 from each other, a stairway, public corridor, public lobby or the like are to be upgraded achieve an airborne sound insulation of not less than 50 and extend to the underside of the roof, or to a ceiling that provides the sound insulation required for the wall.

 

(46)      The wall separating the bathroom of room 21 from room 22 shall be upgraded to be discontinuous; and achieve an airborne sound insulation of not less than 50; and an impact sound insulation rating of not more than 62.

 

 

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

 

(47)    A 2m high lapped and capped hardwood timber fence must be constructed around the perimeter of the development, excluding the frontages to 62 Byng Street and 77 Hill Street, the common boundary to 75 Hill Street, the common boundary between 77 Hill Street and 60 Byng Street and the common boundary between 77 Hill Street and 79 Hill Street prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

Along the common boundary between 77 Hill Street and 60 Byng Street, the existing fence must be retained. Along the eastern boundary of 62 Byng Street, the fence must taper to a maximum height of 1.8m forward of the front building line of the building at 64 Byng Street.

Along the western boundary of 62 Byng Street, the fence must taper to a maximum height of 1.8m forward of the front building line of the building at 62 Byng Street. The height of the fence must be taken from the highest Finished Surface Level adjacent to each part of that fence.

 

(48)      A 2m high lapped and capped hard wood timber fence must be constructed along the common boundary of 75 Hill Street prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

The fence must taper to maximum height of 1.2m where it is forward of the front building line of the building at 75 Hill Street.

The height of the fence must be taken from the highest finished ground level adjacent to each part of that fence.

The existing fence on the common boundary between 77 and 79 Hill Street is to be retained and is not to be modified as part of this approval.

 

(48A)        A screen is to be constructed and is to remain at the rear of the three easternmost spaces (car spaces 14, 15 and 16) in front (north) of the proposed landscaping to act as a barrier to light spill in addition to the boundary fencing and landscaping. This screen is to be in the form of a perforated metal screen to a height of 3 metres.

 

(49)      Landscaping must be planted prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate, consistent with the approved amended landscape plan.

All trees to be planted must be semi mature and have a minimum pot size of at least 55 Litres.

 

(50)      Works associated with the installation of interpretative devices recommended by the interpretation plan must be installed prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

 

(52)      A total of 27 off-street car parking spaces and one service bay are to be provided upon the site in accordance with approved plans and the provisions of Development Control Plan 2004. The parking spaces are to be constructed in accordance with the requirements of Council’s Development and Subdivision Code, prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.


 

(53)      Prior to an Occupation Certificate being issued plans and/or details of the operation of the garbage collection, including a private service agreement with Orange City Council’s waste contractor, are to be submitted to and approved by the Orange City Council Waste Services Manager. This is to include a Waste Management Plan.

The plans and/or details of garbage collection and the private service agreement must provide for garbage to be stored in two skip bins located in an enclosure within the lower ground level undercroft. The private service agreement shall be written so as to obligate the waste contractor to service the development with a small truck with a tare weight of not more than 4.1 tonnes with the waste delivery vehicle to enter and leave the premises in a forward direction. The plans and/or details of garbage collection and private service agreement must specify that garbage collection shall be between the hours of 10am and 2pm Monday to Friday. Kerbside collection of waste is not permitted and garbage is to be collected a maximum of twice per week.

The waste management details are to specify maximum truck length, garbage bin lifting mechanism type, frequency of collection and prohibited hours of garbage and grease truck collection. Detail on how the grease trap and general waste will be collected, the time of day for collection and truck collection point must also be included.

Any agreement in relation to the waste management arrangements shall only be varied with the prior approval of the Director of Development Services and is to be complied with at all times.

 

(54)      No person is to use or occupy Yallungah Mansion or its extension that are the subject of this approval without the prior issue of an Occupation Certificate.

 

(55)      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.

 

(56)      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.

 

(57)      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.

 

(58)      (deleted)

 

(59)      An easement, to drain sewage and to provide Council access for maintenance of sewerage works, a minimum of 2.0 metres wide is to be created over the 150mm diameter sewer main. Evidence that the easement has been registered is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to issuing of an Occupation Certificate.

 

(60)      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.

 

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

 

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


 

(63)      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.

 

(64)      Prior to the issuing of an Occupation Certificate Lot 3 Sec 21 DP 758817, Lot 4 DP 1085463 and Lot 1 DP 956418 shall be consolidated into one lot. Evidence must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority confirming that the applicable plan of consolidation has been registered by Land and Property Information.

 

(65)      An additional handrail is to be provided above the existing timber handrail on the heritage stairs in the existing mansion. The additional handrail may be wood, brass or stainless steel material and is to be approved by Orange City Council. The new handrail can be supported off the existing handrail or off the side of the balustrade with appropriate brackets. The new handrail is to be located at a height of at least 865mm above the nosings of the stair and landing.

 

(66)      The gaps in the stair balustrade are to be addressed as per the detail shown on plan titled ‘A214 miscellaneous details – sheet 5 revision P1’ dated 7 January 2019 and be compliant with the Building Code of Australia.

 

(66A)    Prior to the issue of any occupation certificate, the common boundary fence between the development and the rear of 60 Byng Street shall be lapped on the development side of the existing fence using hardwood palings.

 

 

MATTERS FOR THE ONGOING PERFORMANCE AND OPERATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT

 

(67)    Access to all services and facilities within the hotel shall be limited to overnight stay guests only. The conference room, breakfast room and coffee bar are to be used by overnight stay hotel guests only. These areas are not permitted to be used by the general public. There is to be no advertisement for use of the conference room, breakfast room and coffee bar by the general public.

 

(68)    The development shall be operated in accordance with the approved Operational Management Plan, Noise Management Plan and the Waste Management Plan.

 

(69)   Waste collection from the development shall be carried out to the satisfaction of Council's Waste Services Manager and in accordance with the agreement entered into with the waste management contractor engaged to service the development and the Conditions of this Consent.

 

(70)   Outdoor lighting must be in accordance with Australian Standard Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting AS 4282-1997.

 

(71)    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.

 

(72)    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.

 

(73)    The area of the site identified as Formal Lawn High Teaon Plan A.101 shall not be used for high tea events and functions between the hours of 10.00pm and 7.00am. Any high tea events are to be restricted to attendance by overnight hotel guests only.

 

(74)    All vehicle access to the land from Byng Street is to be left in/left out only. All vehicle movements to and from the land are to be in a forward direction.


 

(75)    Gates located at the street frontage to Byng Street (relating to the vehicular entrance) must be permanently maintained in an open position with the gates orientated into the property. The gates associated with the electrical substation must remain closed at all times, except for when the electrical supply authority is conducting maintenance, repairs, upgrades or the like.

 

(76)    Leq noise emission from the premises shall not exceed 5 dB above background noise level measured at the nearest affected residence. The operation of the development is to comply with the recommendations of the Noise Impact Assessment prepared by Acoustic Logic revision 4 dated 20 June 2017.

 

(77)    There is to be a maximum of eight (8) staff on the site at any one time.

 

(78)  The maximum permitted service vehicle on-site is a 6.4m long Small Rigid Vehicle in accordance with AS2890.2-2002.

 

(79)    This consent does not permit any signage to be fixed to the heritage item or to be placed anywhere within the front setting of the house.

 

(80)    No external face brickwork is to be painted, sealed or coated.

(81)    No tourist coaches are permitted on the site.

(82)    The use of the loading dock is to be limited to daytime hours (7am-6pm) only.

 

(83)    (deleted

 

(84)    Loading and delivery to the site is to be managed as follows:

(i)       A small rigid vehicle will deliver food during normal operation hours (and not before 7am) at a maximum of twice per week.

(ii)      Laundry delivery and pick up will occur every second day after 10am and no later than 5pm.

(iii)     Garbage is to be collected a maximum of twice a week after 10am and before 6pm.

(iv)     No delivery to the site is to occur on the weekend.

 

(85)    The operation of the approved development is to be undertaken at all times in accordance with the approved Plan of Management (annexed to this consent and marked A) except where that plan is inconsistent with a condition of this Consent. The applicant shall provide Council with an Operational Management Plan to be submitted and approved by Council’s Manager of Development Assessment, relating to the hotel operations. The Operational Management Plan shall include measures to mitigate odours and fumes that could be emitted from the kitchen or waste storage area.

In particular, the operational management plan shall stipulate that the temporary bin on the western side of Yallungah is to be returned to the main bin enclosure at the rear of the facility at the same time as the kitchen closes each day. Additionally, odours within the enclosure at to be managed appropriately.

Any proposed amendments to the approved Plan of Management or Operational Management Plan are to be notified to and approved by Orange City Council.

 

(86)    The Leightons Green Conifers to be planted along the eastern boundary are to be restricted to a maximum height of 5 metres to ensure that there is no overshadowing impact on adjoining properties.

 

(87)    The temporary bin area adjacent to the kitchen on the western side of Yallungah shall not be used at any time between 10.00pm and 7.00am daily.


 

 

 

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:

 

6 February 2019

 



Planning and Development Committee                                                              5 February 2019

2.5                       Development Application DA 329/2015(3) - Hotel - 62 Byng Street and 77 Hill Street

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator




Planning and Development Committee                                                                       5 February 2019

2.5                       Development Application DA 329/2015(3) - Hotel - 62 Byng Street and 77 Hill Street

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


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator