Agenda of Council Meeting

Council Meeting 16 April 2019

5.3 Development Application - DA 372/2018(1) - 261 March Street (Dudley Private Hospital)

RECORD NUMBER: 2019/673

AUTHOR: Kelly Walker, Senior Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged	16 October 2018
Applicant/s	Ramsay Health Care Pty Ltd
Owner/s	HCOA Operations (Australia) Pty Limited
Land description	Lot 62 Pce C DP 877808, and Lots 1-5 SP 57262 – 261 March Street, Orange
Proposed land use	Hospital (alterations and additions)
Value of proposed development	$6,800,000

Council's consent is sought for alterations and additions to the existing Dudley Private Hospital on land described as Lot 62 Pce C DP 877808, and Lots 1-5 SP 57262, commonly known as 261 March Street, Orange (see Figure 1).

Figure 1 - locality plan

The proposal primarily involves the construction of an extension to the existing hospital building along the Wolsley Street frontage. The extension will provide 30 new single-bed rooms, and support areas including administration, consultation rooms, a group room, and patient dining/lounge/activity room. A small extension is also proposed to the existing dining room on the southern elevation near the existing front entrance (facing March Street).

The proposal will involve a new outdoor courtyard adjacent to the main extension, screening between the extension and Wolsley Street, new driveway access from Wolsley Street, an internal driveway, drop-off zone, truck loading zone, and ten additional parking spaces (giving an overall total of 85 spaces on the site).

Minor alterations to the existing hospital building are also proposed, which will convert shared rooms to single-bed rooms (overall net increase of 18 beds, and total of 79 beds), as well as moving the existing oxygen vessel compound within the site, and removing four (4) trees to facilitate the extension. Replacement trees are proposed.

The proposed development is permissible with the consent of Council. The following assessment demonstrates that the proposed development is acceptable in this instance, subject to recommended conditions of consent to ensure that the development proceeds in an acceptable manner, particularly in regards to noise, visual appearance, and privacy.

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 (LEP) – 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 (DCP) – 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

Council staff have carried out a detailed assessment of the application and have determined it to be acceptable subject to the adoption of the attached Notice of Determination. Potential impacts raised by neighbours and staff in relation to privacy, noise, tree removal, landscaping, and servicing can be sufficiently mitigated by conditions of consent, to ensure that the development is constructed and carried out in a reasonable manner.

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 372/2018(1) for Hospital (alterations and additions) at Lot 62 Pce C DP 877808 and Lots 1-5 SP 57262 - 261 March Street, 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

Council's consent is sought for alterations and additions to the existing Dudley Private Hospital on land described as Lot 62 Pce C DP 877808 and Lots 1-5 SP 57262, commonly known as 261 March Street, Orange (see Figure 1).

The proposal involves the construction of an extension to the existing hospital building along the Wolsley Street frontage (see Figure 2). The extension will provide 30 new single‑bed rooms, and support areas including administration, consultation rooms, a group room, and patient dining/lounge/activity room. The extension will be single-storey, and will continue along the existing building line and width of the existing hospital, with a similar roof line and finish. The proposed gutter and fascia height are to match the existing building. The extension will be constructed from brick, fibre cement, steel, and Colorbond roofing. A small extension is also proposed to the existing dining room on the southern elevation near the existing front entrance (see Figure 2), and will be constructed from rendered walls and sheet metal roofing to match the existing building.

Figure 2 – proposed site plan (as submitted, prepared by Health Projects International)

The proposal also involves a new outdoor courtyard adjacent to the main extension, which will be surrounded by concrete screening; aluminium slat fencing/screening between the main extension and Wolsley Street; a new driveway access from Wolsley Street; an internal driveway to link up with the additions to the existing car parking area; drop-off zone, truck loading zone; and 10 additional parking spaces (giving an overall total of 85 spaces on the site).

Minor alterations to the existing hospital building are also proposed, which will convert shared rooms to single-bed rooms (overall net increase of 18 beds, and total of 79 beds), and moving the existing oxygen vessel compound within the site to facilitate the extension. Four (4) trees also need to be removed to facilitate the development, and replacement trees are proposed.

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.

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

Section 4.15

Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) 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

The application is considered to be generally consistent with these aims, providing for improved health services for the local and regional 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 within a 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.

The land is burdened by a few covenants, including right of carriageway, easement for awning, and easement for services, as well as a restriction in regards to fencing and storage of equipment, and waste disposal, all between the lots near the March Street boundary. The proposal does not impact these easements or restrictions. Council staff are not aware of the title of the subject property being affected by any of the other above instruments.

Part 2 - Permitted or Prohibited Development

Clause 2.1 - Land Use Zones

The subject site is located within the R2 Low Density Residential zone. The proposed development is defined as alterations and additions to an existing ‘hospital’. While the LEP 2011 does not allow for hospitals in this zone, as a ‘health services facility’, they are permitted with consent in the R2 zone pursuant to Clause 57 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007.

Clause 2.3 - Zone Objectives and Land Use Table

The objectives for land zoned R2 Low Density Residential are as follows:

· 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 consistent with the objectives of the zone as follows:

· The extension to the hospital will provide for improved health services facilities for residents in the locality, as well as the wider Orange area and Central West region. Furthermore, health service facilities are a complementary landuse in the zone.

· The subject land is serviced by public transport.

· The site does not have frontage or access to the Southern Link Road.

Part 3 - Exempt and Complying Development

The application is not exempt or complying development.

Part 4 - Principal Development Standards

The Part 4 Principal Development Standards do not relate to the subject land or the proposed development.

Part 5 - Miscellaneous Provisions

The Part 5 Miscellaneous Provisions do not relate to the proposal.

Part 6 - Urban Release Area

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

Part 7 - Additional Local Provisions

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).

In consideration of this clause, the proposal is considered to be acceptable. Minor earthworks will be required to create level building pads; the new site access and vehicle areas; service connections and landscaping. The earthworks can be supported onsite with only minor changes to ground levels. Disruption to drainage is considered to be minor and will not detrimentally affect adjoining properties, subject to recommended conditions of consent in relation to sediment and erosion control during construction.

7.3 - Stormwater Management

Clause 7.3 is applicable and 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

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

(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.

In consideration of this clause, the proposal is acceptable. The development will require onsite stormwater detention to be provided, and relevant conditions of consent are recommended in relation to drainage works to satisfy the requirements of this clause.

7.6 - Groundwater Vulnerability

The subject land is identified as Groundwater Vulnerable on the Groundwater Vulnerability Map. Clause 7.6 applies, and 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.

In consideration of Clause 7.6, the proposal is acceptable. The subject land is connected to Council’s reticulated sewerage system, and the hospital has a current Liquid Trade Waste agreement with Council, which manages potential impacts of discharging from the site.

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, all utility services are available to the land and adequate for the proposal as follows:

· The subject land is connected to reticulated water supply.

· Electricity and telecommunications are available to the land. The site is connected to Council’s reticulated sewerage system.

· Conditions are recommended requiring stormwater management consistent with the Development and Subdivision Code.

· The subject land has direct frontage and access to March Street, and proposes new direct access to Wolsley Street.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

Subdivision 2 – Development likely to affect an electricity transmission or distribution network

The subject land is adjacent to an electricity substation and electricity infrastructure, and pursuant to Clause 45 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007.

Development carried out immediately adjacent to a substation and electricity infrastructure needs to be referred to the electricity supply authority, inviting comments about potential safety risks. Council wrote to Essential Energy, who responded that they have no comments to make in regards to potential safety risks, but makes the following generation comments:

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

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

· In addition, Essential Energy’s records indicate there is electricity infrastructure located within the property. Any activities within this location must be undertaken in accordance with the latest industry guideline currently known as ISSC 20 Guideline for the Management of Activities within Electricity Easements and Close to Infrastructure. Approval may be required from Essential Energy should activities within the property encroach on the electricity infrastructure.

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

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

It is recommended that these comments form an advisory note on the development consent.

Division 10 – Health services facilities

As noted earlier in this report, health services facilities are permitted with consent in the R2 zone pursuant to Clause 57 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007.

Schedule 3 – Traffic-generating development to be referred to Roads and Maritime Services

Hospitals with more than 200 beds (on a road that is not classified, or within 90m of a connection to a classified road) needs to be referred to the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) pursuant to Schedule 3 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. The proposal will increase the hospital to a total of 79 beds, therefore no RMS referral is necessary in this case. Traffic generation, car parking, and traffic impacts are discussed later in this report.

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 applicant submits that the potential for the land to be contaminated as a result of previous land use is considered minimal due to the following:

· “The subject land is well-established for the purposes of a hospital which has occupied the site since 1979. As such, the land comprises the main hospital building which has undergone a series of extensions over time; ancillary buildings; sealed vehicle areas; unsealed vehicle areas; landscaping and lawn areas. The north eastern section of the land has remained undeveloped due to its steeper terrain. It is grassed and comprises informal native trees and shrubs.

· Prior to the hospital being established, the land was understood to existed (sic) as vacant rural land on the fringe of the Orange urban area. The undeveloped northern and eastern fringes indicate the original state of the land prior to the establishment of the private hospital.

· Since the hospital has been established, the land is not known to have been used for a purpose listed in Table 1 of Managing Land Contamination Planning Guidelines SEPP 55 –Remediation of Land.

· As evidenced by the current site levels, the existing hospital has required significant cut earthworks to establish the buildings and vehicle areas. It is suggested that the considerable volume of material that would have been removed to establish the hospital would reduce the potential for any contamination that may have been caused by past activities to remain”.

Council staff concur with these statements, in that the potential for contamination on the land would be low. It is considered that further investigations as a precursor to further development is not warranted in this case.

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

State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017 (the Vegetation SEPP) applies to clearing of:

· Native vegetation above the Biodiversity Offset Scheme (BOS) threshold where a proponent will require an approval from the Native Vegetation Panel established under the Local Land Services Amendment Act 2016.

· Vegetation below the BOS threshold where a proponent will require a permit from Council if that vegetation is identified in the council’s DCP.

The BOS does not apply to non-native trees or vegetation. The proposal involves the removal of native vegetation below the BOS threshold. The trees that are to be removed are of a size and type that are subject to the provisions of the DCP, which has been assessed later in 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

DCP Transitional Provisions – Tree Preservation

The Transitional Provisions pertaining to tree preservation are relevant to the development. It is proposed to remove four (4) trees from the land to facilitate the construction of the main extension, and the consent of Council is required for their removal.

The following information has been provided by the applicant in response to the relevant Planning Outcomes:

· “The trees to be removed are shown in the photographs below.

· It is requested that Council not require advice from an arborist, on the basis that there is no debate concerning the health or condition of the trees and reasonable justification is provided below.

· The trees do not represent habitat for threatened or endangered species.

· The trees do contribute to the streetscape. However, retention of these trees is not possible due to the development layout. The trees occupy the most logical site for the proposed extension.

· The removal of the trees from the streetscape is ameliorated to some extent by the proposed additional landscaping along the Wolsley Street frontage of the site.

· The hospital site is well vegetated with mature trees, landscaping and extensive grassed areas. The loss of these trees is acceptable in this context”.

It is proposed to replace the trees on the site, near the northern boundary adjacent to number 22 Wolsley Street (see Figure 2). The applicant requests that further details of the replacements are provided at a later stage by way of a landscaping plan, required by condition of consent.

The proposal was referred to Council’s Manager City Presentation, who supports the removal of the trees on the basis that the tree indicated on the site plan as being retained shall have Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) fencing installed around it prior to construction; and that the replanting includes a minimum of four x 100 litre container size feature trees, attaining a minimum mature height of 12m to mitigate the lost amenity along the Wolsley Street frontage, rather than a row of trees along the northern boundary as proposed. Relevant conditions of consent are recommended to this effect.

Notwithstanding the comments above, it is considered that trees along the northern boundary are also favourable, to mitigate impacts to the adjacent neighbour. This matter is discussed in greater detail below.

DCP Chapter 7 - Development in Residential Areas

The planning outcomes in Chapter 7 of the DCP generally relate to new residential dwellings and associated uses. Although the proposal involves alterations and additions to the existing hospital, many of the planning outcomes are relevant to this application given the residential zoning of the land and the neighbouring properties contain residential dwellings. The relevant outcomes are discussed below.

Neighbourhood Character and Building Appearance

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcomes in regard to Neighbourhood Character and Building Appearance:

· 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.

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

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

· 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.

· The frontages of buildings and their entries face the street.

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

Surrounding development is predominately made up of modest dwelling houses on medium to large sized lots, along with mature landscaping and vegetation. The PCYC recreational building and netball courts are located to the south of the hospital, occupying a large area on March, Seymour, Byng, and Winter Streets.

The proposed development is considered satisfactory in terms of neighbourhood character and building appearance due to the following:

· A hospital is considered to be an appropriate landuse in a residential setting, providing health care services for the local and wider community.

· The proposed extensions will improve the function of the existing hospital.

· The proposed extensions will complement the existing built form of the existing hospital in respect of scale, building design, and external finishes.

· New screening is proposed between the main extension and Wolsley Street, as well as around the outdoor courtyard, which differs from the existing theme of front fences, however is considered necessary for privacy reasons. The courtyard screening has been architecturally designed to add interest to the street. The aluminium slats fronting Wolsley Street have been designed to complement the scale of the extension behind, contain gaps between the slats to provide some transparency, and landscaping can be used to soften them into the streetscape.

· The dining room extension facing March Street is minor, will be set back behind the main front building line, and will not be readily visible from the street.

· The proposed site layout takes into account the established neighbourhood character, allowing for ample circulation space and landscaping around the building footprint and car parking areas.

· Although trees near the street frontage of Wolsley Street will be removed to facilitate the development, they can be replaced to provide for an attractive streetscape. As discussed above, these should be replaced within the frontage, rather than along the boundary.

· The proposal involves a new vehicular access off Wolsley Street, however it will not diminish the street’s function for pedestrian access and use, where vehicles can enter and exit the site in a forward direction. Furthermore, a permit will be required for the new driveway crossover, ensuring its safety and adequacy.

· The entrance to the main extension does not front the street, but has been located to the side, which is considered more appropriate in this case for patient privacy. The car parking areas are located to the rear of the extension, therefore will not dominate the streetscape.

Setbacks

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcomes in regard to Setbacks:

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

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

Street setbacks for the proposed main extension match the established setback along Wolsley Street, which is considered adequate. The scale and roof form has been designed to complement the existing built form. As discussed above, the dining room extension facing March Street is minor, will be set back behind the main front building line along this frontage, and will not be readily visible from the street.

Visual Bulk

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcome in regard to 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 landform, with minimal land shaping (cut and fill)

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

- building to the boundary where appropriate.

In consideration of the DCP Guidelines, the proposal is satisfactory as follows:

· The extensions are single storey in height, are set well back from the site boundaries, and will be contained within the DCP-prescribed visual bulk envelope (VBE) planes.

· Site coverage is considered acceptable, where ample space is being retained for onsite circulation, landscaping, and stormwater management.

· The extensions will complement the bulk, height and scale of the existing hospital buildings, and harmonise with the general neighbouring residential setting.

· Negligible earthworks and land shaping will be required for the proposed development, where the proposal takes into account the existing landform.

Daylight and Sunlight

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcome in regard to 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 not significantly increased

- consideration of Council’s Energy Efficiency Code.

Shadow diagrams have been prepared in support of the proposed development. In consideration of the DCP Guidelines, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory, as sunlight will not be reduced to neighbouring properties’ areas of private open space or northern living room windows between 9am and 3pm (on the winter solstice) due to the orientation of the site and the location of the extensions. Most winter shadows will fall within the site, or towards Wolsley Street, which is considered acceptable.

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 applicant makes the following comments in regards to visual privacy to the immediate neighbour to the north of the site at 22 Wolsley Street:

· “Reasonable physical separation will be provided between the dwelling and the new elements of the development. In this regard:

- A distance of some 10m will be provided between the northern edge of the proposed driveway and the dwelling.

- A distance of some 16m will be provided between the proposed courtyard and the dwelling.

- A distance of some 29m will be provided between the main entrance (which is below the awning) and the dwelling.

· The southern boundary of 22 Wolsley Street comprises a well-established hedge and fencing which may filter views between that property and the hospital. However, it is proposed to establish additional landscaping in the area between the proposed new driveway and the common boundary so as to improve this situation in terms of privacy.

· It is acknowledged that the first floor windows in the southern wall of the existing dwelling, and the elevated rear yard would overlook the proposed alterations and additions. Little can be done to improve the privacy of this situation. However, it is reasonable to suggest that the privacy level would not change significantly as the windows and rear yard are well elevated and have overlooked the hospital site for many years in its current state (noting that this section of the hospital presently comprises a car park and service/utility area).

· The proposed privacy screen along the northern side of the proposed courtyard will assist to maintain privacy between this element and the existing dwelling”.

The other closest northern neighbour at number 2 Mount Lindsay Drive is considered less sensitive to potential privacy impacts, and the applicant makes the following comments:

· “The dwelling is set back some 30m from the common boundary and some 60m from the development site; and the intervening area is well-established with reasonably mature vegetation which may assist to filter views to and from the hospital site.

· The southern boundary of 2 Mount Lindsay Drive comprises a well-established hedge and fencing which appears to offer reasonable privacy between that property and the hospital.

· It is reasonable to suggest that the privacy level of 2 Mount Lindsay Drive would not change significantly as it already overlooks the hospital site in its current state (noting that this section of the hospital presently comprises a car park and service/utility area)”.

In regard to the neighbours to the west on the opposite side of Wolsley Street, the applicant makes the following comments:

· “The western edge of the hospital will remain relatively inactive given that there are no building entrances, parking areas and the like that face west.

· The proposed privacy fence along the western elevation of the building and the privacy wall around the courtyard will prevent direct overlooking between the hospital additions and the dwellings.

· The continuation of landscaping along the Wolsley Street frontage of the site will assist to maintain privacy between the hospital and the dwellings to the west”.

Council staff generally concur with these statements, where acceptable visual privacy will be achieved to most neighbours as the proposed extensions are well-separated from the site boundaries and existing residential windows. Furthermore, the site layout, building design, and screening will minimise the potential for overlooking from adjoining dwellings into hospital rooms, communal areas, and outdoor areas. In particular, proposed hospital windows along Wolsley Street will be screened to protect the privacy of patients occupying those rooms, thus limiting overlooking into the street and towards residential dwellings on the other (western) side of the street. Screening around the perimeter of the proposed courtyard will protect the privacy of patients using that space, and also negate overlooking to the street or to neighbouring dwellings.

The new access and driveway off Wolsley Street will be adjacent to an existing dwelling house at number 22 Wolsley Street. Existing boundary fencing with this neighbour only comprises 1.5m high mesh, which does not afford much privacy between the properties, particularly with regard to vehicles entering and exiting the site. It is considered that new solid fencing at a height of 1.8m is required to maintain privacy to this neighbour. It is noted that a maximum height of 1.2m is necessary within the frontage to maintain vehicular sightlines. A condition of consent is recommended to this effect, to ensure adequate privacy can be provided between the hospital and neighbouring dwelling house.

Acoustic Privacy

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcome in regard to 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.

The proposal involves a sizeable extension, which will be nearer to neighbours to the north and west than the existing hospital. Full details of required plant and equipment have not been worked up as of yet, however the applicant has provided a Noise Impact Assessment, prepared by Wilkinson Murray (numbered 18434 Version A, and dated February 2019). The assessment estimates the potential noise impacts associated with the proposal in accordance with the Noise Policy for Industry 2017 (the NPfI). The assessment considers the existing hospital to be part of the existing noise environment, and focuses on new and significantly modified noise sources, and activities introduced by the proposal. The major noise sources associated with the proposal are considered to be:

· car park movements (including accessing the new entrance via Wolsley Street)

· new air conditioning units (the detailed design of the mechanical plant is yet to be completed, therefore it was assumed that each of the 23 new rooms would have a dedicated air conditioning unit)

· the oxygen delivery truck accessing the new vessel location via the new Wolsely Street entrance.

To establish existing background noise levels at the most potentially affected residential receivers, noise monitoring was conducted at 23 Lucas Street between 7 and 18 December 2018. Figure 3-1 of the assessment indicates the noise monitoring location, as well as the most sensitive receivers that were considered (see Figure 3-1 from Wilkinson Murray below).

The assessment notes that “during the data analysis, it was discovered that the majority of data from the daytime and evening periods was affected by extraneous noise from insects and that the RBL could not be established in these periods. The night time data was not affected by extraneous noise”. The assessment therefore relies on guidance provided by the NPfI and the night time data. It concludes that the proposal can comply with relevant noise trigger levels, and that it is unlikely that the overall operation of the hospital would affect the acoustic amenity of nearby receivers.

Council’s Manager Building and Environment, and Environmental Health and Building Surveyor have reviewed the submitted assessment, and make the following recommendation:

· Noise emissions from the proposed development shall not exceed 35dB(A) between the hours of 6pm and 7am or 40dB(A) between the hours of 7am and 6pm. Notwithstanding the above noise criteria, noise associated with the activity of refilling the oxygen vessel is permitted to exceed the nominated criteria but only up to a maximum of 47dB(A) and only during day time operations which shall be limited a maximum of 20 minutes per day.

Neighbouring residents to the north have concerns about the noise of vehicles coming and going from the new entrance, particularly late at night and early in the morning, and heavy service vehicles using the new entrance. They request that the gate is closed outside of visiting hours, and that servicing only takes place using the existing March Street entrance.

The proposal does not involve a gate on the new entrance, and it is considered that the installation of a gate has the potential to create adverse visual, traffic, and noise impacts, such as vehicles not being able to enter or exit and having to reverse back into the street, and noisy gate mechanisms. It is not considered reasonable or necessary to install a gate in this case. Although the proposed new Wolsley Street access introduces a new noise source from the coming and going of vehicles at this location, the potential noise impacts are not considered unreasonable. Vehicle movement at this location is unlikely to generate significant noise over and above the noise that may be generated by traffic movement along Wolsley Street and from vehicles coming and going from the hospital site. Although servicing of the site, such as waste collection, oxygen vessel refilling, and deliveries, may use the new access, noise generated from these existing activities will be reasonable. Furthermore, servicing will be undertaken by unreasonably large vehicles, and will mostly take place during daytime hours. Notwithstanding this, a condition of consent is recommended that the Wolsley Street access is not used by service vehicles during the evening and night time period, being 6pm and 7am, to protect the amenity of the nearest residential neighbours to the north and west.

The use of the proposed outdoor courtyard is located at least 16.1m from the nearest neighbouring dwelling, and is not expected to generate unacceptable noise impacts over and above a residential area of outdoor space. The proposed screening surrounding the courtyard will provide acoustic attenuation. Apart from the courtyard and new access, the remainder of the western side of the site will be relatively inactive, where there are no major entrances or openings that face the existing residential dwellings to the west. The proposed drop-off zone, new building entrance, and new car parking area are not expected to cause unacceptable noise impacts to neighbouring residents as they are well set back from the boundaries of the site, the movement of people is not expected to generate excessive noise, and activity in this area would typically be reduced in the evening and night time periods when background noise levels are lower. It is noted that visiting hours end by 8.30pm, and the proposed entrance will be secondary and dedicated to a specific ward in the hospital, and not subject to the level of activity that is associated with the existing main entrance in March Street.

The applicant and their acoustic consultant note that details of all mechanical plant and equipment associated with the alterations and additions have not been prepared as of yet, therefore noise emission from those items cannot be assessed in detail at this stage. There are a range of measures available to mitigate noise from mechanical services, and there is no acoustic reason why the required plant and equipment cannot be made to comply with appropriate criteria, through siting, design and/or acoustically screening to minimise potential noise impacts.

The recommendations made by Council’s Environmental Health and Building Surveyor, as discussed above, will ensure that works carried out will meet the relevant noise criteria set out by the NPfI. Conditions of consent are recommended to this effect, as well as an additional condition requiring no service vehicle access off Wolsley Street during evening and night time periods, also discussed above.

Security

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcomes in regard to 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.

The proposal development is considered satisfactory in terms in surveillance, territorial enforcement and access control as follows:

· The corner location of the site and building offers effective surveillance opportunities around the hospital in general, and clear sightlines will be available between building frontages to entrances and car parking areas.

· The car park, drop-off zone, building entrance, and other external areas will be illuminated where appropriate (and in accordance with the relevant standards ensuring minimal glare).

· Landscaping can be designed to limit opportunities for concealment.

· The new vehicle and building access points are clearly identified in the development design such as driveway crossovers identifying the accesses, awnings at the drop-off zone, and paving or markings will be provided to encourage/channel people from the new car park to the new building entrance.

· Whilst the street frontages of the site will not be fenced, territorial reinforcement is achieved through building setbacks to clearly delineate the hospital site, well defined public areas, and the screened patient/private courtyard.

· As discussed in above, replacement plantings along the frontage and northern boundary, and a new solid fencing along the northern boundary, are recommended to provide for privacy, and will also assist in territorial reinforcement and security.

· Regular maintenance of the site, lighting, and buildings.

Circulation and Design

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcome in regard to Circulation and 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 proposed development is considered suitable in respect of the planning outcomes:

· Conditions are recommended in relation to stormwater management for the proposed development.

· The existing access and onsite circulation arrangements that have served the hospital will remain largely unaffected by the proposal, however the internal driveway system will link the existing vehicle areas at the March Street side of the site to the proposed new vehicle areas and the new Wolsley Street access at the northern end of the site, facilitating traffic flow in both directions through the site for service vehicles, as well as vehicles entering and exiting the site in forward gear.

· Conditions are recommended in regards to replacement landscaping, which can be designed in a way to facilitate good circulation within the site and soften hard standing areas.

· The proposed drop-off zone will allow for easy travel distances for patients or visitors with access needs, and disabled parking spaces will be provided in accordance with the BCA.

Open Space and Landscaping

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcomes in regard to 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; vegetation types and location, paving and lighting 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.

Existing landscaping areas will remain largely unchanged, however four trees need to be removed to facilitate the development, as discussed earlier in this report. It is considered that replacement plantings are required along the Wolsley Street frontage to ensure adequate streetscape appearance, as well as along the northern boundary to provide a buffer between the hospital and neighbouring dwelling. A landscape plan has not been submitted as part of the application, however can be submitted for further assessment and approval at a later stage. A condition of consent to this effect is recommended to ensure adequate landscaping will be provided as part of the development.

Stormwater

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcomes in regard to Stormwater:

· Onsite drainage systems are designed to consider:

- downstream capacity and need for onsite retention, detention and re-use

- scope for onsite infiltration of water

- safety and convenience of pedestrians and vehicles

- overland flowpaths.

· Provision is made for onsite drainage which does not cause damage or nuisance flows to adjoining properties.

As discussed earlier in this report, conditions are recommended in relation to stormwater management of the site.

Erosion and Sedimentation

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcome in regard to Erosion and Sedimentation:

· Measures implemented during construction to ensure that the landform is stabilised and erosion is controlled.

An erosion and sediment control plan will be required in conjunction with the engineering design plans for the development. A condition is recommended in relation to this matter.

DCP Chapter 15 - Car Parking

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcomes in regards to 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:

- the number and size of proposed dwellings

- requirements of people with limited mobility or disabilities.

The DCP requires parking for hospitals to be provided at the following rate:

1 space for every three beds

+ 1 space for each resident doctor and

1 space for every two visiting doctors

+ 1 space for every two employees

Based on information provided by the applicant, the parking demand for the hospital is calculated as follows:

Hospital Component	DCP Parking Rate	Spaces Required
79 Beds	1 space per three beds	26.3
No Resident Doctor	1 space per resident doctor	0
10 Visiting Doctors (any one time)	1 space per two doctors	5
70 Staff (any one time)	1 space per two employees	35
TOTAL		66.3 (67 spaces)

The submitted site plan indicates that the site can accommodate a total of 85 off-street parking spaces, including the proposed new parking area. As such, the proposed onsite parking resources will exceed the minimum requirements set out in the DCP, which is considered adequate. Site circulation and landscaping has already been discussed in detail above.

SECTION 64 WATER AND SEWER HEADWORKS CHARGES

Section 64 water and sewer headwork charges are applicable to the proposed development.

The contributions for water, sewer and drainage works apply to the additional hospitals bedrooms and bathrooms, and are based on 12.6 ETs for water supply headworks and 19.8 ETs for sewerage headworks. Conditions of consent are recommended requiring payment of contributions prior to issuing of a Construction 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)

Council’s Environmental Health and Building Surveyor notes that the new additions appear to be designed as a separate fire compartment. The plans for the Construction Certificate (CC) will need to show how this will comply with the BCA, particularly how egress from the existing building will be maintained, and how separation between the different fire compartments will be achieved. Relevant conditions of consent are recommended.

Buildings to be Upgraded (clause 94)

Council’s Environmental Health and Building Surveyor notes that upgrades to the existing building may be required, and more detail will be required at the CC stage. Relevant conditions of consent are recommended.

BASIX Commitments (clause 97A)

BASIX is not applicable to the proposed development. A Section J Energy Efficiency Statement will be required with the CC application.

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

Visual Impacts

As discussed in the DCP assessment earlier in this report, visual impacts associated with the proposal are unlikely as follows:

· The proposed extensions will complement the existing built form of the existing hospital in respect of scale, building design, roof profile, building footprint, and external finishes.

· The proposed extension to Wolsley Street will make a positive contribution to the streetscape, utilising a modern design, raised skillion roof, defined side entry, and articulated fenestrations and screening, all contributing to and adding interest to the street and neighbourhood.

· The proposed dining room extension facing March Street is minor, will be set back behind the main front building line, and will not be readily visible from the street.

· The proposed new car parking area is located to the rear of the extension, therefore will not dominate the streetscape.

· The proposal will not conflict with or dominate adjoining residential elements including bulk, massing, height, and site coverage, which will be of a residential scale; and the building will be separated from adjoining dwellings by vehicle areas and landscaping.

· While the proposed privacy screening is not a typical element in a residential streetscape, it relates to a well-established non-residential land use in this neighbourhood, and have been architecturally designed using textured concrete panels with metal screen infills, and aluminium slats to add interest to the street. Additional landscaping along the Wolsley Street frontage can be used to further soften the screens.

· A reasonable level of landscaping and replacement trees can be provided, and will be subject to a detailed landscape plan by way of condition of consent. Planting locations and species can be selected to provide appropriate integration of the proposed development into the setting.

Neighbourhood Amenity

The proposed development is unlikely to have adverse impacts on neighbourhood amenity as follows:

· The proposal seeks to improve the functionality of the existing hospital, which is considered an appropriate landuse in this spatial setting.

· The design of the proposed extensions will complement the existing neighbourhood as discussed in Visual Impacts above and in the DCP assessment.

· The proposed development will not adversely impact on amenity for neighbouring residential dwellings in respect of privacy, visual bulk, overshadowing, etc. due to site layout, building scale, orientation, separation from boundaries, etc. and conditions of consent requiring new solid fencing and additional landscaping as discussed in the DCP assessment earlier in this report.

· Illumination can be provided so as to not cause light scatter upon adjoining properties or the public streets, and in accordance with the relevant standards for outdoor lighting.

Noise Impacts

As discussed in the DCP assessment earlier in this report, adverse noise impacts of the development are unlikely due to the following:

· The submitted noise assessment by an acoustic engineer concludes that the hospital operations are unlikely to impact on the residential setting, including noise from vehicle movements, plant and equipment, and oxygen vessel refilling.

· Use of the proposed courtyard is not expected to generate unacceptable noise impacts, and the screening will provide for acoustic shielding.

· The proposed drop-off zone, new building entrance and new car parking area are well set back from the boundaries of the site, the movement of people in these areas is not expected to generate excessive noise, and activity in these areas would typically be minimal in the evening and night time period when background noise levels are lower.

· Visiting hours end by 8.30pm, and the new Wolsley Street entrance will be secondary and dedicated to a specific ward that will not be subject to the level of activity that is associated with the existing main March Street entrance.

· Mechanical plant and equipment associated with the proposal can be sited, designed and/or acoustically screened to minimise potential impacts.

· Conditions of consent are recommended in relation to noise levels, not using the Wolsely Street access for servicing during evening and night time periods, refilling the oxygen vessel on site during day time periods only, new solid boundary fencing, and checking noise levels of the completed development by way of a commissioning report and possible further noise attenuation works.

Traffic Impacts

The proposal is unlikely to have adverse traffic impacts due to the following:

· The proposal will increase the number of beds by 18, which will only result in a minor increase in traffic, and the capacity of the local road network is sufficient to accommodate additional localised traffic generated by the development.

· The proposal does not require referral to the RMS as a “traffic generating development” as it involves less than 200 beds.

· Typical traffic will be cars associated with patients and staff, occasional ambulance vehicles, and light commercial and small service vehicles (vans, small rigid trucks, etc.), which can all be accommodated using the existing and proposed access, new drop-off zone, and internal driveways. Existing and proposed manoeuvring arrangements will allow for forward direction ingress and egress for all vehicles associated with the site.

· Patient and visitor related traffic is spread throughout the day with an afternoon and evening peak, oxygen vessel refilling truck will service the site fortnightly, and staff shift changes generate an arrival and departure peak at 7am, 3pm and 11pm, all of which are considered reasonable.

· The new proposed access off Wolsley Street will not conflict with existing intersections with neighbouring streets or accesses to neighbouring properties, and adequate sightlines can be maintained to prevent vehicle conflicts when entering or existing the site.

· No changes are proposed to the existing March Street access points, which are considered adequate.

· Parking resources for the existing and proposed development will be consistent with the requirements of the DCP 2004 as discussed earlier in this report.

Waste Management

Waste management is considered adequate, and is unlikely to generate adverse impacts as follows:

· Operational waste generated by the proposed alterations and additions will be addressed via the existing waste management arrangements that serve the hospital, which are considered adequate.

· Construction waste will be subject to a waste management plan.

Security Impacts

Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) seeks to influence the design of buildings and places to reduce crime opportunities. CPTED involves principles in surveillance, access control, territorial reinforcement, and space management.

These matters were discussed in the DCP assessment section of this report, where it was considered that adverse security impacts are unlikely due to the following:

· Site and building layout offers effective surveillance opportunities and clear sightlines.

· The car park, drop-off zone, building entrance, and other external areas will be illuminated where appropriate (and in accordance with the relevant standards ensuring minimal glare).

· Landscaping can be designed to limit opportunities for concealment.

· New vehicle and building access points are clearly identified.

· Territorial reinforcement is achieved through building setbacks, well defined public areas, and screening.

· Replacement plantings along the frontage and northern boundary, and a new solid fence along the northern boundary are recommended for privacy, territorial reinforcement, and security.

Environmental Impacts

Adverse environmental impacts are unlikely due to the following:

· The subject land is contained within a developed residential precinct, where significant vegetation, threatened species or ecological endangered communities or their habitats are unlikely to be present.

· The site is not in proximity to any waterway, drinking water catchment or sensitive area, and sediment control measures, as recommended by conditions of consent, will prevent loose dirt and sediment escaping the site and polluting downstream waterways.

· The development does not involve processes or activities that would impact on air or water quality.

· Stormwater management conditions are recommended.

· In respect of waste management, clinical and general waste will be stored in appropriate receptacles and collected by approved contractors.

· The hospital has an existing Trade Waste Contract with Council.

Cumulative Impacts

The development will contribute to the diversity of health facility landuse in the local and wider area in a manner that is consistent with the desired neighbourhood character. Adverse cumulative impacts are unlikely.

Social and Economic Impacts

The proposed development is unlikely to generate negative social or economic impacts within the locality. The proposal will enhance health care services within the City and wider Central West region, generate employment opportunities during and post construction, and complement and enhance the role of Orange as a major regional business and service centre.

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

The subject land is suitable for the development due to the following:

· Hospitals are permitted in the R2 zone pursuant to Clause 57 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007, and the proposal is an extension to an existing hospital.

· The proposal will improve the existing hospital facilities on the land, which will benefit the wider community and region.

· The site is of sufficient area and dimensions to accommodate the extensions, new access, and car parking area.

· Relevant conditions of consent can ensure that a reasonable standard of residential amenity can be maintained for adjoining dwellings in terms of noise, traffic, and privacy.

· There is no known contamination on the land.

· All utility services are available and adequate.

· The site is not subject to natural hazards.

· The subject land has no biodiversity or habitat value.

· The site is not in proximity to any waterway, drinking water catchment or sensitive area.

· The site is not known to contain any Aboriginal, European or archaeological relics.

· The site has direct frontage and access to a public road.

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

The proposed development is not defined as “advertised development” under the provisions of the DCP, however, Council advertised the development in the interest of the public, and notified neighbours of the proposal for the prescribed period of 14 days. No submissions were received during the exhibition period, however two late submissions were received from one adjacent neighbour at number 22 Wolsley Street. A summary of issues raised and staff comments are below.

Noise Pollution

Concerns about noise from the installation of 23 new air conditioning units in addition to the existing 12 units, which currently cause noise pollution. Concerns that the submitted Noise Impact Assessment does not use adequate data, did not measure noise within their property, and relies on predicted noise levels. Concerns that heavy servicing vehicles will use the new access rather than the existing March Street access. It is requested that acoustic screening/mitigation is installed, and servicing takes place using the March Street entrance.

Staff comments: Noise has been discussed earlier in the DCP and “Likely Impacts” section of this report. It is considered that adverse noise impacts are unlikely, as the proposal can be sited and designed to comply with the relevant noise criteria. Conditions of consent are recommended in regards to noise levels, no servicing to occur from the new access during evening and night time periods, refilling the oxygen vessel on site is limited to day time operations, new solid northern boundary fencing, and a commissioning report to assess actual noise levels with potential additional noise attenuation will ensure potential impacts are minimised to an acceptable level. Existing noise issues are outside of the scope of this assessment, and are being investigated under separate cover by Council’s Environmental Health officers.

Privacy Impacts

Concerns about overlooking to and from residential windows. Concerns that existing cyclone mesh fencing and small plants between the properties does not mitigate impacts. Concerns that the proposed trees along the boundary will not mitigate privacy impacts. It is requested that a thicker screening of plants and new solid fence is installed.

Staff comments: Privacy has been discussed earlier in the DCP and “Likely Impacts” sections of this report, where impacts are considered unlikely subject to new solid boundary fencing and additional landscaping on the northern boundary. Conditions of consent are recommended to address this matter.

Traffic Impacts

Concerns that traffic coming and going from the new Wolsley Street access at 11pm and 7am change of shifts impacting bedrooms (noise and light glare). It is requested that the gate on Wolsley Street is shut outside of visiting hours, and better fencing and more screening trees are installed.

Staff comments: Traffic has been discussed earlier in the “Likely Impacts” section of this report. It is considered that adverse traffic impacts are unlikely, subject to conditions of consent regarding solid fencing, no service vehicle access off Wolsley Street during evening and night time periods, and lighting to be in accordance with the relevant outdoor lighting standards.

Light Glare

Currently there is a problem with security lights, and it is requested that new lighting be more considerately placed.

Staff comments: Lighting has been discussed earlier in the “Likely Impacts” section of this report. Conditions of consent are recommended in regards to outdoor lighting complying with the relevant standards to mitigate potential adverse impacts. Existing lighting issues are outside of the scope of this assessment, and shall be investigated as a separate matter.

Security Impacts

Concerns that existing fencing is only 1.5m cyclone mesh and not “man-proof”, and a more secure and solid fence is requested.

Staff comments: Security has been discussed earlier in the DCP and “Likely Impacts” sections of this report, and conditions of consent are recommended in regards to solid fencing, lighting, and additional landscaping to mitigate potential adverse security impacts.

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 Council’s Manager City Presentation, and Council’s Environmental Health and Building Surveyor and Development Engineer are included in the attached Notice of Approval.

Attachments

1 Notice of Approval, D19/20968 ⇩

2 Plans, D19/20433 ⇩

3 Submissions, D19/20444 ⇩

Council Meeting 16 April 2019

5.3 Development Application - DA 372/2018(1) - 261 March Street (Dudley Private Hospital)

Attachment 1 Notice of Approval

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

Development Application No DA 372/2018(1)

NA19/ Container PR16982

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 4.18

Development Application
Applicant Name:	Ramsay Health Care Pty Ltd
Applicant Address:	C/- Peter Basha Planning and Development PO Box 1827 ORANGE NSW 2800
Owner’s Name:	HCOA Operations (Australia) Pty Limited
Land to Be Developed:	Lot 62 Pce C DP 877808; and Lots 1-5 in SP 57262 - 261 March Street, Orange
Proposed Development:	Hospital (alterations and additions)

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

Determination made under Section 4.16
Made On:	16 April 2019
Determination:	CONSENT GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:

Consent to Operate From:	17 April 2019
Consent to Lapse On:	17 April 2024

Terms of Approval

The reasons for the imposition of conditions are:

(1) To maintain neighbourhood amenity and character.

(2) To ensure compliance with relevant statutory requirements.

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

(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) 18036DA, prepared by Peter Basha Planning and Development, and dated 13.09.2018 (3 sheets);

Architectural Plans labelled DUD-X-G issue 1, DUD-P-SITE issue 3, DUD-P-G issue 3, DUD-P-R issue 3, DUD-E-2 issue 3, DUD-E-3 issue 3, DUD-SE-1 issue 3, and DUD-SHADOWS issue 3, prepared by Health Projects International, and dated 06’18.

(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

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

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

(4) A detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate. The plan shall detail at least four (4) x 100 litre container size feature trees, attaining a minimum mature height of 12 metres along the Wolsley Street frontage; and buffer/screening landscaping between the subject site and the neighbouring property at number 22 Wolsley Street to maintain privacy.

(5) 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.

(6) 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.

(7) 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 12.6 ETs for water supply headworks and 19.8 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.

(8) 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.

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

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

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

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

· tabulation detailing the elevation, storage volume and discharge relationships

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

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

(10) 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.

(11) A Road Opening Permit (ROP) in accordance with Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 must be approved by Orange City Council prior to a Construction Certificate being issued or any intrusive works being carried out within the public road or footpath reserve. Works covered by a ROP includes:

- Installation, maintenance, repairs/replacement or upgrading of utilities (water, gas, electricity or telecommunications).

- Any type of stormwater or sewer connection works and repairs.

- Construction of any temporary/permanent driveway access to a property for residential or construction vehicle access. Replacement of redundant driveways with new footpaths.

- Upgrading the road, kerb & gutter associated with a development site approved by the Orange City Council.

A Road Opening Permit Certificate of Compliance is to be issued for the works by Orange City Council prior to any Occupation/ Final Certificate being issued for the development.

Subject to Council’s approval of a Road Opening Permit, a Development Security Bond is required to be lodged in accordance with Orange City Council Development Security Bond Policy as per Council’s current Fees and Charges. A bond is to be provided to Orange City Council prior to the issuing of any Construction Certificate for the development.

PRIOR TO WORKS COMMENCING

(12) Trees adjacent to the approved works indicated on the site plan as being retained shall have Tree Protection Zone Fencing installed prior to any works commencing, in accordance with as per Australian Standard 4970 – 2009.

(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.

(15) 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.

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

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

(19) 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.

(20) A 6.0m wide 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 and Road Opening Permit.

(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.

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

(22) Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to the issuing of an Occupation Certificate, and shall be permanently maintained to the satisfaction of Council's Manager Development Assessments.

(23) A total of 85 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) Prior to the issuing of an Occupation Certificate, a 1.8m high solid fence shall be installed along the northern boundary of the development site and the neighbouring property at number 22 Wolsley Street, excluding the frontage, which is limited to a height of 1.2m high. The height of the fence shall be measured from the highest finished ground level adjacent to each part of that fence.

(25) 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.

(26) 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.

(27) 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.

(28) 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.

(29) 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.

(30) 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.

(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) 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.

(33) 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

(34) All outdoor lighting shall be in accordance with the Australian Standard 4282-1997 Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting.

(35) The Wolsley Street access hereby approved must not be used by service vehicles (including oxygen vessel refilling, waste collection, deliveries, etc.) between the hours of 6.00pm and 7.00am. Arrangements with the hospital’s servicing contractors must be in accordance with this condition.

(36) 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.

(37) Noise emissions from the proposed development shall not exceed 35dB(A) between the hours of 6.00pm and 7.00am or 40dB(A) between the hours of 7.00am and 6.00pm. Notwithstanding the above noise criteria, noise associated with the activity of refilling the oxygen vessel is permitted to exceed the nominated criteria but only up to a maximum of 47dB(A) and only during day time operations which shall be limited a maximum of 20 minutes per day.

(38) The applicant shall obtain a Commissioning Report which assesses actual noise emissions from all operations of the development, including all air conditioning units running at the same time, within 3 months of the issue of an Occupation Certificate. Where the report requires additional noise attenuation works to be carried out, these works shall be undertaken within 28 days from the date of the Commissioning Report.

(39) The applicant shall provide Council with a copy of the Commissioning Report within 4 months from the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

(40) The maximum number of beds within the hospital is capped at 79. Additional water and sewer headworks charges will apply for any increase in bed numbers over 79.

ADVISORY NOTES

(1) The proposal involves works adjacent to an electricity substation and electricity infrastructure, and Essential Energy advises the following:

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

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

· Any activities within the vicinity of electricity infrastructure must be undertaken in accordance with the latest industry guideline, currently known as ISSC 20 Guideline for the Management of Activities within Electricity Easements and Close to Infrastructure. Approval may be required from Essential Energy should activities within the property encroach on the electricity infrastructure.

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

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:	17 April 2019

Council Meeting 16 April 2019

5.4 Development Application DA 42/2019(1) - 3 Redmond Place

RECORD NUMBER: 2019/684

AUTHOR: Ella Wilkinson, Senior Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged	21 February 2019
Applicant/s	Mr E Newton
Owner/s	Orange City Council
Land description	Lot 6 DP 1031236 - 3 Redmond Place, Orange
Proposed land use	Vehicle Repair Station, Warehouse or Distribution Centre
Value of proposed development	$0

Council's consent is sought for a change of use to accommodate a mixed use development comprising a Vehicle Repair Station and Warehouse or Distribution Centre. The site is currently approved for use as a Warehouse or Distribution Centre, pursuant to DA 12/2018 (1).

The proposal will accommodate the following as per the two proposed uses:

Vehicle repair station to accommodate:

- one truck tyre fitting bay inside the existing facility

- one car tyre fitting bay inside the existing facility

- tyre storage area for new tyres inside the existing facility

- tyre storage area for old tyres awaiting recycling inside the existing facility.

Warehouse or distribution centre to accommodate:

- car storage area (up to 6 vehicles) inside the existing facility;

- one truck parking space inside the existing facility; and

- one truck parking space externally of the existing facility on the former helipad.

The operating hours proposed are Monday to Friday 8.30am to 5.30pm and Saturday 8.30am to 12.00pm (midday).

It should be noted that the plans demonstrate a bunded fuel tank and substation. The plans note these have been removed. The plan used to request the change of use is a plan previously prepared for another development application on the same site. The bunded fuel station and substation have been removed from the site, as demonstrated by Figures 1 and 2.

Figure 1 shows the previous location of the bunded above ground fuel tank, which was removed when the NSW Ambulance Medical Retrieval Service relocated to the Orange Airport. There is no information in relation to this removal. The implications of this are discussed in greater detail in the body of this report.

Figure 1 – previous location of bunded above ground fuel tank

Figure 2 – previous location of substation

The existing occupant, who is currently operating the existing business on the site under this previous approval, has requested the change of use. The intent is to expand the approved uses onsite to accommodate a Warehouse or Distribution Centre and Vehicle Repair Station.

No physical works are required to support the proposal. The existing structure, constructed to support the operations of a Careflight Operations Base as a Helicopter Landing Site, will be utilised to support both proposed uses. The Retrieval Service moved to the Orange Airport in 2017, and the proposed Warehouse or Distribution Centre was determined to be an appropriate re-use of an existing building in 2018, which may have otherwise been left vacant.

A 4.15 evaluation of the application indicates that the development is acceptable. It is recommended that Council adopts the recommended Notice of Determination.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Following the receipt of DA 42/2019(1), this application, a complaint was lodged with Council, raising potential illegal occupation of the facility as residential accommodation, and illegal development in relation to the commencement of a Vehicle Repair Premises without consent.

The report from a member of the public stating that the occupant is residing in the facility is considered illegal works. It must be noted that, under previous approvals relating to the operation of the facility as a Helicopter Landing Site, ancillary sleeping quarters were approved in order to accommodate on call workers as part of this use. A formal letter was provided to the landowner to escalate the concerns raised by the complaint, and outline that no approval had been granted to allow residential accommodation of the building under the current consent, and that residential accommodation is a prohibited use in the zone.

Whilst infrastructure may exist in the facility that could potentially support overnight accommodation, no approval has been sought in relation to ancillary residential or temporary accommodation to support either the existing or proposed uses. A request for ancillary accommodation would be unlikely to be recommended to be supported given the need for such accommodation is not considered appropriate or necessary in light of the requested uses. Further, residential accommodation and tourist and visitor accommodation are both prohibited uses in the B5 Business Development zone. A hand drawn floor plan and Fire Plan submitted to support the application indicated that no residential uses were proposed as part of this application.

Therefore, it is recommended that a condition of consent be recommended, prohibiting occupation of the facility for any form of temporary overnight accommodation or residential accommodation. Further, a condition requiring the removal of cooking facilities in the kitchens has been recommended in the consent. The reason for this is two-fold, to render the facility uninhabitable, and to protect against a potential fire hazard.

In relation to the matter relating to the commencement of a Vehicle Repair Station without approval, correspondence between the Assessing Officer and the applicant outlined to the applicant that no operations were to commence relating to the operations of a Vehicle Repair Premises, until appropriate assessment has been undertaken and approval granted. The applicant indicated that the equipment to support the business had been purchased and was stored at the premises in the event an approval is granted. The storage of these items is considered to be in line with the approved Warehouse or Distribution Centre use previously approved on the site, the applicant is permitted to store or handle items pending their sale, but is not permitted to undertake retail sales from the premises.

Notwithstanding, Council officers have reason to believe that the occupant is operating the Vehicle Repair Station without consent. The website for the company indicates that the tyre fitting business is located at the subject site. Further, business identification signage, which has not been applied for as part of this request, has been erected at the premises, indicating the business is currently operating without consent.

The location of the proposal is depicted in Figure 1. The proposed operation of the site is outlined in Figure 4.

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 Plan2011 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 assessment of the application by staff indicates that the proposed development is acceptable. Matters in relation to parking, noise, contamination and land use have been adequately addressed. It is recommended that the development is approved subject to the adoption of the attached Notice of Determination. Matters in relation to alleged residential use of the premises will be further investigated and monitored.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

That Council consents to development application DA 42/2019(1) for Vehicle Repair Station, Warehouse or Distribution Centre at Lot 6 DP 1031236 - 3 Redmond Place, 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 SUBJECT SITE

The subject site is located on the eastern fringe of the town of Orange, at the eastern gateway entrance. The lot is set back from the Mitchell Highway and does not have direct access or frontage to this classified road.

Whilst zoned B5 Business Development, the site is situated in an environment protection zone and is identified as drinking water catchment.

Figure 3 - Locality Plan

THE APPLICATION

Council's consent is sought for a mixed-use development comprising a Vehicle Repair Station and Warehouse or Distribution Centre. The current facility is approved for use as a Warehouse or Distribution Centre only. The aim of the proposal is to allow the current occupant to expand the current permissible activities, under the approval for a Warehouse or Distribution Centre on the site, to accommodate a tyre fitting business within the curtilage of the existing building. Both proposed uses are permissible in the zone.

No building works are proposed as part of the current application. The Statement of Environmental Effects provided to support the proposal indicates that the two uses can be accommodated in the current built form, and no amendments to this built form are required for the two uses.

Figure 4 – proposed operation

THE PROPOSAL

The proposal involves the use of the existing facility to accommodate a Vehicle Repair Station and Warehouse or Distribution Centre.

The proposal will accommodate the following as per the two proposed uses:

Vehicle Repair Station to accommodate:

- one truck tyre fitting bay inside the existing facility

- one car tyre fitting bay inside the existing facility

- tyre storage area for new tyres inside the existing facility

- tyre storage area for old tyres awaiting recycling inside the existing facility.

Warehouse or Distribution Centre to accommodate:

- car storage area (up to six vehicles) inside the existing facility

- one truck parking space inside the existing facility

- one truck parking space externally of the existing facility on the former helipad.

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 (BC Act) and Part 7A of the Fisheries Management Act 1994 have effect in connection with terrestrial and aquatic environments.

Per s7.17 of the BC Act, applications for a modified consent are subject to biodiversity assessment and offsets as required under Part 7 of that Act.

There are four triggers known to insert a development into the Biodiversity Offset Scheme (BOS): development occurs in land mapped on the Biodiversity Values Map (OEH) (cl. 7.1 of BC Regulation 2017), development involves clearing/disturbance of native vegetation above a certain area threshold (cls. 7.1 & 7.2 of BC Regulation 2017), or development is otherwise likely to significantly affect threatened species (ss 7.2 & 7.3 of BC Act 2016). The fourth trigger (development proposed to occur in an Area of Outstanding Biodiversity Value – s7.2 of BC Act 2016) is generally not applicable to the Orange LGA, as no such areas are known to occur in the LGA. No further comments will be made against the fourth trigger.

TRIGGER 1

The site does not occur within land mapped on the Biodiversity Values Map (https://www.lmbc.nsw.gov.au/Maps/index.html?viewer=BOSETMap).

TRIGGER 2

With regard to the relevant provisions outlined in cl 7.1 and 7.2 of the BC Regulation 2017, 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. The subject property comprises two distinct portions, the developed section of the site, which comprises the existing building, car parking and “concrete apron”, which supports the two helipads, and a cleared paddock, which comprises the helicopter landing site (see Figure 3).

As can be seen from the aerial picture in Figure 3, the development site is largely cleared and the proposed change of use would not result in the requirement to alter or disturb any potential biodiversity on the site that may be established, as no physical works are proposed to be undertaken on the site. The two proposed uses can be maintained within the curtilage of the existing built form and as such, no additional disturbance will occur to vegetation that currently exists to the south of the development site.

TRIGGER 3

With regard to the third trigger, the test for determining whether proposed development is likely to significantly affect threatened species is listed in the BC Act 2016, under s7.3:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The development footprint of the area to which the application relates occurs towards the north of the site, surrounded by an existing local road (Redmond Place) to the north, Mitchell Highway to the east and a vacant cleared paddock to the south. No native flora disturbance will result from the proposal as no change is proposed to the existing built form. In short, the development site to which the application relates is not likely to contain threatened species/ecological communities, endangered ecological communities, or critically endangered ecological communities.

SUMMARY

As the proposal does not trigger any of the four requirements for insertion into the BOS, a Biodiversity Development Assessment Report is not required to be lodged with the application for development consent. No other comments are warranted under this section.

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,

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

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

The application is considered to be broadly consistent with the above objectives, as outlined in this report.

Clause 1.6 - Consent Authority

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

Clause 1.7 - Mapping

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

Land Zoning Map:	Land zoned B5 Business Development
Lot Size Map:	No Minimum Lot Size
Heritage Map:	Not a heritage item or conservation area
Height of Buildings Map:	No building height limit
Floor Space Ratio Map:	No floor space limit
Terrestrial Biodiversity Map:	No biodiversity sensitivity on the site
Groundwater Vulnerability Map:	Groundwater vulnerable
Drinking Water Catchment Map:	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

The subject site is located within the B5 Business Development zone. The proposed development is defined as a ‘Vehicle Repair Station’ and ‘Warehouse or Distribution Centre’ under OLEP 2011. The combination of uses on the site represents a “mixed use development” which is defined under OLEP 2011 as “a building or place comprising two 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.

The two land uses proposed comprise the following:

Vehicle repair station means a building or place used for the purpose of carrying out repairs to, or the selling and fitting of accessories to, vehicles or agricultural machinery and the like, whether or not accessories are sold or displayed there.

Warehouse or distribution centre means a building or place used mainly or exclusively for storing or handling items (whether goods or materials) pending their sale, but from which no retail sales are made, and includes local distribution premises.

Vehicle Repair Station will accommodate:

- one truck tyre fitting bay inside the existing facility

- one car tyre fitting bay inside the existing facility

- tyre storage area for new tyres inside the existing facility

- tyre storage area for old tyres awaiting recycling inside the existing facility.

Warehouse or Distribution Centre will accommodate:

- car storage area (up to six vehicles) inside the existing facility

- one truck parking space inside the existing facility

- one truck parking space externally of the existing facility on the former helipad.

Vehicle Repair Station and Warehouse or Distribution Centre are permitted with consent in the B5 Business Development zone. This zone is an open zone, which outlines any other development not specified as permitted without consent, or prohibited, is permitted in the zone with consent. Neither of the proposed uses are listed as permitted without consent or prohibited and as such, are permitted with consent for this zone. This application is seeking consent.

On a separate but related matter it should be noted that on receipt of the application for the change of use, a complaint was formally lodged with Council from a member of the public, which stated that the facility was being used illegally. The complaint detailed that the current occupant of the facility was residing in the premises and that the proposed tyre business was operating without consent.

As previously stated, residential accommodation and tourist and visitor accommodation are both prohibited uses in the B5 zone. Ancillary residential accommodation was approved as per a previous consent on the site, which allowed on call emergency helicopter workers to sleep in overnight accommodation within the facility when the facility was approved for use as a Helicopter Landing Site. It appears that when the previous use of the facility for a Warehouse or Distribution Centre was approved, the facilities that could potentially accommodate residential accommodation were not required to be removed as part of this consent.

Whilst infrastructure may exist in the facility that could potentially support overnight accommodation, no approval has been sought in relation to ancillary residential or temporary accommodation to support either the existing or proposed uses. A request for ancillary accommodation would be unlikely to be supported, given the need for such accommodation is not considered appropriate or necessary in light of the requested uses. Further, the change of use to Warehouse or Distribution Centre under the consent for DA12/2018(1) waived the existing use rights, which could have potentially applied to the approved use as a Helicopter Landing Site. Hand drawn floor plans of the ground floor submitted to support the application indicated that no residential uses are proposed as part of this application and that the subject area would be used as offices in association with the operation of the subject business.

In light of the above, it is recommended that a condition of consent be recommended, prohibiting occupation of the facility for any form of temporary overnight accommodation or residential accommodation. Further, a condition requiring the removal of cooking facilities in the kitchens has been recommended in the consent. The reason for this is two‑fold:

· to render the facility uninhabitable

· to protect against a potential fire hazard.

Clause 2.3 - Zone Objectives

These objectives for land zoned Business Development are as follows:

1 - Objectives of the B5 Business Development Zone

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

The proposal satisfies the objectives of the Business Development zone as it provides the services and facilities to support a tyre fitting business and a warehouse or distribution centre, which both require a large floor area. The proposed re-use of this is an appropriate re-use of the former hangar building which may otherwise be vacant.

Notwithstanding, despite the hangar having previously being approved for ancillary residential accommodation as per a previous consent on the site, allowing on call emergency helicopter workers to sleep in overnight accommodation within the facility when the facility was approved for use as a Helicopter Landing Site there is no approval of such for this component of the development to be used for residential purposes in association with any other use. It should be noted that when the previous use of the facility for a Warehouse or Distribution centre was approved, this part of the building was excluded from the approval.

Further, the change of use to Warehouse or Distribution Centre under the consent for DA12/2018(1) waived the existing use rights which could have potentially applied to the approved use as a Helicopter Landing Site. Hand drawn floor plans submitted to support the application indicated that no residential uses are proposed as part of this application. Further, the applicant has indicated that vacant areas within the hangar will be utilised for storage to support the wider operations of the tyre fitting business and the car carrying business.

· to render the facility uninhabitable

· to protect against a potential fire hazard.

Part 3 - Exempt and Complying Development

The application is not exempt or complying development.

Part 4 - Principal Development Standards

Part 4 is not applicable to the proposal.

Part 5 - Miscellaneous Provisions

Part 4 is not applicable to the proposal.

Part 6 - Urban Release Area

Part 6 is not relevant to the application. The subject site is not located in an Urban Release Area.

Part 7 - Additional Local Provisions

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

The proposal does not make any alterations to the existing stormwater arrangements on the site. The existing built form will not be altered in any way to support the additional proposed use. As such, no change to the existing stormwater management on the site will result. Therefore, Council is satisfied in this instance that the proposal meets the requirements on this 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:

(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 cause any groundwater contamination or have any adverse effect on groundwater dependent ecosystems. The proposal does not involve the discharge of toxic or noxious substances. The proposal does not involve extraction of groundwater and will therefore not contribute to groundwater depletion. The design and siting of the proposal avoids impacts on groundwater and is therefore considered acceptable.

7.7 - Drinking Water Catchments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The subject land is located within the Drinking Water Catchment. In consideration of this clause, the proposal will not generate unacceptable impacts upon the drinking water catchment due to the following:

- The subject site is located approximately 700m to the north of the subject site. A waterway, identified as a “sensitive waterway” on the watercourse map, is located approximately 1 kilometre to the south east of the subject site. As such, the subject site is not considered to be in close proximity with any waterway.

- The lot is connected to reticulated sewer.

- The proposed tyre storage will be located wholly within the curtilage of the existing hangar building. The approximately 300kg of waste tyres will be collected every fortnight by Tyrecycle Pty Ltd, an Environmental Protection Authority Approved recycling company, who will deliver the waste tyres to Clean Earth Tyre Recycling in St Marys NSW. The collection coincides with Tyrecycle’s normal collection run to Orange every fortnight.

- The proposal does not alter the existing stormwater drainage arrangements that serve the subject land.

As such, the proposal is considered to meet the requirements of the above provision.

Clause 7.11 - Essential Services

Clause 7.11 applies and states:

(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, 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

A previous assessment completed to approve the warehouse or distribution centre use on the site noted that:

“It is considered that while the subject property has recently been used for a potentially contaminating land use (ie the Helicopter Landing Site), given its recent construction and above ground storage of fuel, it is unlikely that the subject property would be contaminated.”

The plans provided to support the proposal demonstrate a bunded above ground fuel tank and substation. The plans note these have been removed. The plan used to request the change of use is a plan previously prepared for another development application on the same site. The bunded fuel station and substation have been removed from the site, as demonstrated by Figures 1 and 2 (outlined above). Of specific importance to SEPP 55 - Remediation of Land, Figure 1 shows the previous location of the bunded above ground fuel tank, which was removed when the NSW Ambulance Medical Retrieval Service relocated to the Orange Airport. There is no information in relation to this removal.

The current proposal does not request consent to utilise this area to support the proposed uses. As such, no disturbance of this section of the site will result from this proposed change of use. Notwithstanding, removing a fuel tank without a proper decommissioning process should have implications for any future development that may disturb this area.

Under SEPP 55, areas identified as groundwater vulnerable and drinking water catchment require Category 1 remediation works, as it is considered environment protection area under Clause (9) (e) (iv) of SEPP 55. As such, it is recommended that the subject site be identified as potentially contaminated on Council’s potentially contaminated register to highlight the potential for contamination relating to the previous use. This would in turn require adequate investigation of the area in question and remediation measures to be undertaken in the case of future development that may disturb this area of the site, which was previously occupied by the above ground fuel tank. An advisory note outlining this has been included in the consent to this affect.

A further condition has been included on the consent outlining that no activities in relation to the proposed uses are to be undertaken within the proximity of the location of the former above ground fuel tank. The tank is separated from where the proposed activities will be undertaken and compliance can be undertaken without restricting the use of the site.

As such, while contamination may be present on the site, it is localised in a specific location and can be managed by way of conditions of consent, restricting the operations of the approved use in the area of suspected contamination. Therefore, despite the potential for contamination, in line with subclause (1) (a) outlined above, the land is suitable in its contaminated state for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out.

State Environmental Planning Policy 33 – Hazardous and Offensive Development

(2) This Policy aims:

(a) to amend the definitions of hazardous and offensive industries where used in environmental planning instruments

(b) to render ineffective a provision of any environmental planning instrument that prohibits development for the purpose of a storage facility on the ground that the facility is hazardous or offensive if it is not a hazardous or offensive storage establishment as defined in this Policy

(c) to require development consent for hazardous or offensive development proposed to be carried out in the Western Division

(d) to ensure that in determining whether a development is a hazardous or offensive industry, any measures proposed to be employed to reduce the impact of the development are taken into account

(e) to ensure that in considering any application to carry out potentially hazardous or offensive development, the consent authority has sufficient information to assess whether the development is hazardous or offensive and to impose conditions to reduce or minimise any adverse impact

(f) to require the advertising of applications to carry out any such development.

The proposal requests consent for a tyre fitting business, which would involve the storage of rubber tyres. Schedule 3 – Designated Development of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 outlines the following thresholds in relation to the storage of tyres:

(j) rubber industries or works:

(i) that manufacture more than 2,000 tonnes per year of synthetic rubber, or

(ii) that manufacture, retread or recycle more than 5,000 tonnes per year of rubber products or rubber tyres, or

(iii) that dump or store (otherwise than in a building) more than 10 tonnes of used rubber tyres.

The applicant has indicated that approximately 300kg of waste tyres will be stored internally within the hangar building. An Environmental Protection Authority Approved recycling company, Tyrecycle Pty Ltd, will dispose of the tyres appropriately by way of a fortnightly collection. A condition, requiring the fortnightly collection by an EPA approved tyre company, has been recommended in the ongoing conditions of consent.

Further, the applicant has outlined that new tyres will be stored on the mezzanine levels of the hangar building. As such, no tyres will be stored externally of the building. Further, the proposed quantities are not envisaged to exceed the Schedule 3 thresholds, highlighted above. Notwithstanding, a condition has been included in the consent requiring all tyre storage to be accommodated internally of the building. No tyres are permitted to be stored anywhere externally of the building by way of this consent.

As such, the proposal is not considered to be a potentially hazardous or offensive development as defined under this policy or under the definitions as outlined under the Orange LEP 2011.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure)

(1) The objectives of this clause are:

(a) to ensure that new development does not compromise the effective and ongoing operation and function of classified roads, and

(b) to prevent or reduce the potential impact of traffic noise and vehicle emission on development adjacent to classified roads.

(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.

In consideration of Clause 101, the subject site does not have legal access to the Mitchell Highway. Access to the subject site is provided from Redmond Place, which connects to the Mitchell Highway to the north east of the subject site. No change is proposed to this existing access arrangement. As such, the development will have nil impact on the safety, efficiency and ongoing operation of the Mitchell Highway. The proposed use is not considered sensitive to traffic noise or vehicle emissions.

State Environmental Planning Policy 64 - Advertising and Signage

No information has been provided in relation to proposed business identification signage. As such, no assessment can be undertaken, pursuant to the requirements of the SEPP 64 – Advertising and Signage. A condition has been included on the consent restricting to applicant to the provisions outlined under State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008. Should any other signage be required that does not meet these provisions, a separate application must be lodged seeking consent.

PROVISIONS OF ANY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT THAT HAS BEEN PLACED ON EXHIBITION 4.15(1)(a)(ii)

There are no draft environmental planning instruments that apply to the subject land or proposed development.

DESIGNATED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development is not designated development.

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development is not integrated development.

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

Development Control Plan 2004

Development Control Plan 2004 (“the DCP”) applies to the subject land (Part 8 Development in Business Zones). An assessment of the proposed development against the relevant Planning Outcomes will be undertaken below.

0.4-11 - Interim Planning Outcomes - Transport Routes

Clause 0.4-11 Interim Planning Outcomes - Transport Routes identifies that development alongside roads that convey a high volume of traffic needs to be appropriately designed and managed to ensure that the safe and efficient operation of the local road network is not compromised. Additionally, the visual treatment of development alongside arterial and other important roads plays a significant role in the impression that residents and visitors have of the area.

This clause applies to all land adjoining an arterial road, distributor road, major collector roads and Cadia Road.

Specific objectives and planning outcomes include the following:

Objectives

1 To ensure the continued safe and efficient operation of arterial and other important road corridors.

2 To alleviate traffic flows on high volume routes whenever feasible.

3 To promote a high level of urban design on land exposed to significant volumes of traffic, cyclists and pedestrians.

Planning Outcomes

1 The development provides a high standard of visual appeal to motorists, cyclists and pedestrians as well as adjoining properties.

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

3 Any signage must not be animated whether by movement or flashing lights.

4 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.

5 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.

6 Where onsite customer parking is provided that is not immediately visible from a public road clear and unimpeded directional signage must be displayed.

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

Given that the proposal involves a change of use only, it is considered that that there will be no material impact on the existing appearance of the subject property.

No further consideration of the foregoing objectives or outcomes is required.

Chapter 3 - General Considerations

Section 3.1 - Cumulative Impacts

Section 3.1 - Cumulative Impacts identifies that Council will consider not only the direct impacts of a particular development but also whether the development, when carried out in conjunction with other development in the locality, has a more significant environmental impact.

Specific planning outcomes regarding cumulative impact include:

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

2 The introduction of new development into a locality maintains environmental impacts within existing or community accepted levels.

3 Water conservation measures are implemented.

The proposed development is generally consistent with the intended use of land insofar as it provides for uses which are permissible within the B5 Business Development zone.

CHAPTER 8 - DEVELOPMENT IN BUSINESS ZONES

Section 8.2 - Shops in Zone 3(b)

Section 8.2 - Shops in Zone 3(b) identified under previous plans that retailing was restricted in the business zones beyond the CBD in order to reinforce the primary role of the existing retail precinct and associated public provision of off-street parking infrastructure.

As such, Section 8.2 identifies that applications for shops in Zone 3(b) must demonstrate that the development is appropriate and will not detract from the main role of the CBD. To achieve this, Section 8.2 identifies that shops should be small scale, having a maximum area of 400m². This is discussed in greater detail under 8.4-1 Planning Outcomes – Eastern Gateway Bulk Retail Area, specifically item 1, below.

8.4-1 Planning Outcomes – Eastern Gateway Bulk Retail Area

Given the proposal requests consent to change the use applied to the site, but does not propose any amendment to the existing built form, only those matters of relevance as outlined in the Chapter 8 of the DCP have been considered below:

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

The application has not provided any information in relation to this requirement. Notwithstanding, the proposal is not considered to detract from the role of the CBD as a regional centre. Whilst the vehicle repair premises provides for the sale of goods (e.g. selling and fitting of accessories to), it is considered that the sale of accessories would be limited to tyres and as such, this sale would be largely ancillary to the wider operations of the tyre fitting business. Further, both proposed uses are appropriately located within an existing Business Development zone, as they require a large floor area to facilitate the proposed operations. Both uses require a certain degree of separation from residential areas, as noise arising from the proposed activities, such as the movement of vehicles and the fitting of tyres, are not considered to be conducive to a residential environment. As such, whilst the proposal has not specifically addressed this requirement, and retail sales will result from the proposed tyre fitting business, it is considered that the development will not detract from the role of the CBD as a regional centre. Notwithstanding, a condition of consent has been included on the consent, limiting retail sales to those resulting from, and ancillary to, the tyre fitting business (vehicle repair station). In line with the definition for Warehouse or Distribution Centre outlined in the Orange LEP 2011 and included above, no retail sales are permitted by way of this consent for any activities resulting from the car carrying business.

2 Adequate onsite parking, manoeuvring and loading facilities are provided.

Onsite parking is addressed below, under Section 15.4 Parking Requirements. The existing onsite manoeuvring and loading facilities were reviewed by Council’s Engineering Team and determined to be appropriate to support the mixed use development comprising Vehicle Repair Station and Warehouse or Distribution Centre. As such, the onsite manoeuvring and loading is considered adequate and meet the requirements of this provision.

Advertising is limited to flush-wall signs wholly contained within the elevation of the building, with signage comprising up to 25% of the façade area. There are no additional pole signs fronting the Mitchell Highway.

Matters relating to advertising and signage have been discussed under the section State Environmental Planning Policy 64 - Advertising and Signage above. As such, no further assessment is considered appropriate pursuant to the requirements established by the DCP.

3 Appropriate measures are taken to protect the adjacent water-supply catchment from pollution.

Specific requirements in relation to environmental protection zones applied to the land have been discussed in the preceding sections of this report. As such, no further assessment is considered appropriate pursuant to the requirements established by the DCP.

15.4 Parking Requirements

The DCP outlines the following car parking requirements for industries and trade services:

Industries and Warehouses (Note: parking requirements are the same for these uses to facilitate change of use)

One (1) space per 100m² gross floor area (GFA) or one (1) space for every two employees whichever is the greater. Employee numbers are calculated on the proposed number to operate for the peak shift.

Vehicle Repair Station

Three (3) spaces per work bay or

Three (3) spaces for every 100m² GFA whichever is the greater plus a designated area for vehicles required to be kept on the premises for more than one working day

Under the Orange DCP 2004 the parking requirements for a vehicle repair station is three (3) spaces per work bay or three (3) spaces for every 100m² gross floor area (GFA) whichever is the greater plus a designated area for vehicles required to be kept on the premises for more than one working day.

In this instance, the GFA of the hangar, 598m² (based on approved calculations 26m x 23m outlined in Planning Report prepared for DA99/768) will be utilised by two separate uses. Due to the nature of the correspondence relating to the approval pathway of the mezzanine (Trim Reference (D10/8821)), it is taken that the development was deemed exempt development. No information in relation to the total floor space is provided to inform the total GFA of these additional areas. As such, given the mezzanine will be utilised as new tyre storage, as demonstrated by submitted plans, but no known dimensions are available for this section of the hangar, it is deemed appropriate to apply the three (3) spaces per work bay for the Vehicle Repair Station component. In relation to The Warehouse or Distribution Centre, the rate of one (1) space per 100m²will be applied based on50% of the known GFA of the hangar. As such a total of nine (9) spaces are required, as outlined by the following calculations:

Warehouse or Distribution Centre: 299m²/100m²= 2.99 spaces

Vehicle Repair Station: Two work bays = 6 spaces

Total = 8.99 spaces

The plans provided demonstrate that a total of eight (8) spaces can be provided at the entrance of the facility, providing visitor car parking, which is one (1) space short of the requirement outlined above. However, the plans demonstrate that, in addition, car parking spaces can be provided on existing Helipad 2, for staff parking and overnight parking for cars that are required to be kept on the premises overnight.

To determine the size of this helipad and as such, the number of car parking spaces that can be accommodated on the helipad, the original development application was again reviewed. The approved helipad is approximately 10m x 10m in size. Dividing the width of this helipad by the standard width of a car parking spaces (approximately 2.3m) equates to approximately four (4) spaces.

As such, a total of twelve (12) spaces can be provided on the site. Notwithstanding, it is considered appropriate for safety reasons only employees are to access any cars parked on the helipad. In the event a customer car is parked on the helipad, as it has been required to be kept overnight, staff are to drive the cars to the entrance of the facility and park in the public car parking area for customer collection. This has been included by way of a condition of consent. Signage clearly delineating staff only access to the helipad and concrete apron, has also been recommended.

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 involves a change of building use for an existing building. Council is satisfied that the fire protection and structural capacity of the building are appropriate for the proposed new building use. The building is to comply with the Category 1 fire safety provisions. Pursuant to assessment outlined above, the building is not to be utilised for residential or overnight accommodation. If used in line with this approval and conditions of consent are met, the existing fire services will be adequate for safe evacuation of the building as occupation is only through office/working hours. A final fire safety certificate will be required prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate to ensure all fire services are in working order.

Buildings to be Upgraded (clause 94)

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

BASIX Commitments (clause 97A)

BASIX is not applicable to the proposed development.

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

Contamination

In line with the assessment outlined above, the area surrounding the former above ground fuel tank is considered to be potentially contaminated. Notwithstanding, as no work or use of this section of the site is proposed as part of this change of use, remediation of this section of the site is not considered to be required as part of this proposal. Notwithstanding, given no information has been provided in relation to the decommissioning of this above ground fuel tank, the site should be identified on Council’s potentially contaminated register, to provide information to an Assessing Officer in future, should this section of the site be identified for redevelopment.

Noise

The proposed use of the existing hangar is not considered to be of a type that will generate excessive noise that may impact residential uses located approximately 300m to the west. The vehicle movements in relation to the Warehouse or Distribution Centre are not envisaged to increase from the existing consent, given part of the floor space will be utilised by the other proposed use on the site. The Vehicle Repair Station will be established internally of the building, limiting the potential noise to this residential area. A condition requiring all tyre fitting to be undertaken internally of the building has been included on the consent.

Further, the hangar building is sited so the opening is angled away from the residential uses, with the closest receiver potentially affected by this siting approximately 500m away. The proposed uses are not envisaged to exceed the noise emissions produced when the hangar was used as a helicopter landing site. As such, the impacts arising from the proposed uses relating to noise are considered acceptable.

The operating hours, previously mentioned in preceding sections of this report, are considered appropriate in regard to operation of the proposed development. A condition of consent has been included restricting the premises to these hours.

Access and Parking

Provided the conditions relating to the separation of visitor and staff parking are followed, and no visitor access is provided to the helipad, with staff only permitted to access this area, the proposed parking arrangements are deemed appropriate in this instance.

Access arrangements are not proposed to change as part of this development and no direct impact is envisaged to the Mitchell Highway, pursuant to the assessment undertaken above against the requirements of Clause 101 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure).

Fire Safety

As previously stated, no overnight or residential accommodation is permitted or approved in the facility. Infrastructure that may have supported this type of occupation of the building under previous approvals must be removed prior to the occupation of the facility under this consent. As such, cooking facilities must be removed to render the facility uninhabitable and reduce the fire risk. Further, a final fire safety certificate is required prior to occupation of the facility.

An ongoing condition has further been included, requiring that the facility is not to be occupied for overnight or residential accommodation.

Waste Management

Provided tyres are stored internally within the building, the proposal is not considered to trigger any requirements under the thresholds identified by Schedule 3 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000. A condition restricting the storage and fitting of tyres within the building has been recommended.

A review of the proposal by Council’s Technical Services indicates that no Trade Waste agreement is required as part of the proposal.

As such, provided the conditions in relation to storage and collection of waste is met, the proposal is considered to meet appropriate waste management standards. A condition requiring storage of tyres only internally of the building has been included by way of an ongoing condition of consent.

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

The site is considered suitable for the proposed use, provided all conditions on the consent are followed. Providing these conditions are followed, the site is considered suitable as:

· The location of the proposed uses are appropriate as they are separated from residential uses, and are not considered to cause undue impacts in relation to noise.

· The proposal will not detract from the role of the Central Business District.

· Storage and disposal of tyres will be carried out responsibly in line with legislative requirements.

· The fire risk will be mitigated as overnight or residential accommodation will not be supported within the facility and potential fire hazards will be removed prior to occupation. Further, a Fire Safety Certificate will be obtained, prior to occupation.

· Provided no activities are undertaken in proximity to the former above ground fuel tank in relation to the proposed uses, the land is suitable in its contaminated state for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out.

It is considered that the physical attributes of the site and availability of services are suitable for the proposed use and development, subject to the recommended conditions of consent discussed in the body of this report.

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

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

PUBLIC INTEREST s4.15(1)(e)

The proposed development is considered to be of minor interest to the wider public due to the relatively localised nature of potential impacts. The proposal is not inconsistent with any relevant policy statements, planning studies, guidelines etc that have not been considered in this assessment.

SUMMARY

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, D19/21187 ⇩

2 Plans, D19/20730 ⇩

Council Meeting 16 April 2019

5.5 Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Planning Proposal Amendment 26 - To rezone land at 1517 Forest Road from R1 General Residential to B2 Local Centre zone.

RECORD NUMBER: 2019/551

AUTHOR: Craig Mortell, Senior Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Council is in receipt of a planning proposal that is seeking to provide retail facilities that will be needed in South Orange, however it could be regarded as being in conflict or competition with existing B2 zoned land at 1471 Forest Road, which is part of the broader DPI Agricultural Research Station. Despite being rezoned some years ago it is unclear whether the State Government intends to ever take up the use of the site for its zoned purposes.

The proposal seeks to rezone precinct 1 of a private hospital site located at 1517 Forest Road. The overall property at 1517 Forest Road has a concept approval under the former Part 3A provisions of the Act. That approval divides the site into 4 precincts. Precinct 1 has an existing project approval for Health Facilities and Retail and is the subject of this Planning Proposal.

Precinct 1 currently allows health facilities such as pathology, medical imaging, medical suites, chemist and the like as well as minor retail activities including a convenience store, newsagent, hairdresser, shops, restaurant and takeaway food and drink premises.

The proposal seeks to alter the above to focus the land on retail activities. The health facilities would be incorporated into the private hospital building itself so that the retail component of precinct 1 could be increased.

Under the proposal, Precinct 1 would initially be developed for a supermarket of 1,649m², one mini-major outlet of 416m² and a further 845m² of specialty retail – likely to be a dozen or so shops. It is envisaged that a future ‘Stage 2’ planning proposal would seek to expand on this to allow the supermarket to grow to 3,000m² supported by an additional mini-major outlet of 936m² and 856m² of specialty retail. That expansion would absorb some of the Stage 1 retail space so that the overall centre at the conclusion of Stage 2 would contain 4,800m² of space. This would be equivalent in scale to the North Orange Shopping Centre.

Key issues arising from this planning proposal include:

· Economic impact on the CBD

· Traffic and Parking

· Implications for 1471 Forest Road and Agricultural Research Institute

· Timing and control of Stage 2

· Overall direction and vision of the broader Forest Road area

The planning proposal is accompanied by a conceptual design layout. The layout is provided for illustrative purposes only. Technical aspects of the design would need further refinement and assessment as part of a normal development application. The focus of the planning proposal is to determine the appropriate range and scale of uses that should be permitted on the site so that more detailed design work can follow.

With respect to the impacts on the CBD from this rezoning, Council should consider that the Staged approach has been analysed and endorsed by Leyshon consulting, (Councils retail advisor) and that the public exhibition process will allow submissions to be made by the wider Orange Community including retailers.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “12.4 Prosper - Partner with key stakeholders to enhance opportunities for local business to grow and prosper”.

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

That Council resolve to support the planning proposal to amend Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 in relation to 1517 Forest Road (Lot 1 DP 549856 and Lot 100 DP 1147525) as follows:

· That the area of land known as precinct 1 be rezoned from R1 General Residential to B2 Local Centre

· That the area of land known as precinct 1 be mapped under the Floor Space Ratio map with a value of 0.185:1 to provide for 2923m² of retail floor space

· That an Additional Permitted Use mechanism be negotiated with the Department of Planning and Environment to allow for other non-retail uses on the site as normally permitted in the B2 zone. With the intended effect that the FSR above should only apply to retail forms of development.

· That the proponent be advised that any future expansion, such as the foreshadowed Stage 2, will be dependent upon the primary trade area catchment achieving a residential population level of at least 7,000 people, with evaluation of the catchment population to be determined with reference to Census and other ABS data only.

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

1517 Forest Road has an existing concept approval under the former Part 3A provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. A concept approval essentially creates a localised planning framework for a specific site against which Project Approvals could be sought that are roughly equivalent to Development Applications.

The Concept Approval divides the site into four precincts. Precincts 1 and 2 also have Project Approvals in accordance with the Part 3A process while precincts 3 and 4 do not have Project Approvals at this time.

The draft planning proposal seeks to amend the Orange LEP 2011 in relation to precinct 1 only. This precinct has a project approval (MP 08_0232) for Heath Facilities and Retail encompassing facilities such as pathology, medical imaging, medical suites, chemist and the like as well as retail activities including a convenience store; newsagent; hairdresser; shops; restaurant and takeaway food and drink premises. The Planning Proposal seeks to rezone the precinct 1 land from R1 General Residential to B2 Local Centre and establish a Floor Space Ratio control that would enable a supermarket and supporting retail.

Intended over two stages, the first would enable consideration of a small supermarket of approximately 1,650m² which would be expanded in the second stage to 3,000m². The planning proposal only seeks to achieve Stage 1 at this time. Information regarding Stage 2 is therefore provided only for illustrative purposes and to foreshadow the overall intent of the precinct.

It is anticipated that Stage 2 would be sought via a separate planning proposal once the resident population of the primary catchment area has grown to approximately 7,000 people, anticipated to be in the timeframe of about 2024 – 2025.

Key issues arising from this planning proposal include:

· Economic impact on the trading performance of the CBD

· Traffic implications for Forest Road

· Implications for the existing B2 zoned land in south Orange at 1471 Forest Road

· Timing and mechanism for controlling the release of Stage 2

· Overall direction and intent of the Forest Road area in general

Economic Impact Assessment

As the Shiralee population grows the viability of a retail centre in Forest Road would improve. However the timing of any expansion should be balanced against maintaining the trading performance of the CBD. The Economic Impact Assessment (EIA) prepared by Location IQ on behalf of the proponent has been peer reviewed by Leyshon Consulting on behalf of Council.

Leyshon notes that although the methodology of the EIA is generally sound the trade area depicted in the EIA could be questioned. The EIA describes the catchment as the Main Trade Area (MTA) which is then divided into a Primary Trade Area (PTA) and two secondary trade areas – Secondary North and Secondary South.

Leyshon argues that ‘Secondary North’ residents, which are closer to the CBD than the subject site will be more likely to travel ‘inwards’ to the CBD to access retail facilities. This reflects the stronger trading performance and diversity of offerings that the CBD provides.

The estimated 2018 population of the entire MTA is 17,440 people, however only 5,510 were residents of the PTA. Secondary North population was estimated at 6,890 people accounting for approximately 40% of the overall figure.

Future growth within the PTA is dependent on the rate of development in Shiralee but has also assumed the development of 550 dwellings on the DPI land. With an average household size of 2.4 people the 550 dwellings would equate to some 1,320 people which may, or may not, eventuate.

The EIA estimates the Stage 1 impact on the CBD sales to be in the order of -3.2% with a similar impact on Blayney. Other centres such as North Orange are estimated to be impacted by less than -1% in 2021. Impacts of this scale are classified as a ‘very low’ impact and therefore the proposed development appears unlikely to detrimentally impact the trading performance of the centres affected. The EIA has not considered the impact on 1471 Forest Road, being the other B2 zoned land in South Orange (discussed below).

Leyshon cautions that if a supermarket is developed on the subject land as part of Stage 1 it is unlikely that a centre on the DPI land could also attract a supermarket tenant, limiting its role to small scale retail and commercial services, making it a secondary role compared to the subject site, at least in the short to medium term.

Leyshon notes that the EIA page 48 refers to the second stage:

“A full line supermarket of 3,000m2 would likely be supportable by 2024/25 when the primary sector population is projected to reach around 7,000”

Combined with the workforce population and some passing trade that population figure would probably be sufficient to support such a store. Although the Stage 2 expansion is not part of this planning proposal the intent has been foreshadowed. Accordingly if Council supports the proposal Leyshon recommends a clear condition be attached to link Stage 2 to the prior achievement of a primary residential population of at least 7,000 people. Leyshon further states that without such a condition:

“there is a risk that a full-line supermarket could be developed on the site before there is sufficient population in the immediate catchment to support such a store. Such an outcome could be expected to have a detrimental impact on the performance of supermarkets in the Orange CBD.”

The 2021 Census will produce data in late 2022 and early 2023. This combined with annual estimated resident population figures from the ABS should provide reliable and impartial guidance as to whether and when this threshold is achieved.

Ultimately Leyshon concludes that a convenience-type centre containing a supermarket will be needed in South Orange however further population growth will be required to justify the provision of a full-line supermarket. The proposal for Stage 1 is therefore supportable but a clear signal should be sent to the proponent with respect to the timing and population thresholds required before Stage 2 could be considered.

The proponent is keen to be able to establish the full extent of built form for both stages, acknowledging that the extent of retail floor space should not exceed the Stage 1 components. In this regard it may be possible to seek an Additional Permitted Use (APU) listing in Schedule 1 of the LEP that would enable other non-retail uses to be allowed over and above the FSR limitation. While an unconventional approach to the APU mechanism it is considered to be potentially viable, subject to the Department of Planning and Environment and the Parliamentary Counsels Office being able to agree on the precise formulation of the APU listing.

Traffic and Parking

Roads and Maritime Service have not been directly consulted at this stage. It is anticipated that any gateway determination would require such consultation, however previous advice from RMS in relation to Forest Road has indicated a strong preference to limit the number of access points on the western side, potential intersection and access constraints. Councils engineering staff have advised of several concerns relating to the conceptual site plan associated with this proposal, namely:

· The separate service entry, along the northern boundary, was never envisioned as part of this development with the construction of the traffic lights and Forrest Road upgrade. RMS will be the referral agency, as the proposed service road is within the influence zone of the traffic lights under the care control and maintenance of RMS. Previously, Woolworths North Orange were precluded from such an arrangement, as was McDonald’s North Orange.

This would not be supported in its current form and RMS will need a more detailed proposal including traffic report for their referral. They may give conditional approval subject to these details, only for it not to be allowed once the details are provided or limited to a left in left out or one way left out only proposal. A number of scenarios could be speculated on and the developer would need to provide further details as to the number of vehicle movements and types of service vehicles etc.

· The staging line for parking is unworkable with no circulating road to access the Stage 1 parks to the North.

· There is no Council/Public parking facility to accommodate overflow parking as such it is suggested that the parking to be provided must at least be equivalent to the retail demand calculations, rather than pay parking contributions for parking not provided. While not shown it is assumed there will be a mixed retail/café/restaurant usage so, in the absence of more details as to the real mix of uses proposed, car parking demand would be calculated on worst case scenario.

Accordingly, if the planning proposal is supported and the land rezoned, the above matters would need to be more appropriately resolved during the DA process.

Existing B2 Zoned Land

Prior to the 2011 election the former Labour Government rezoned much of the research station for urban development. Overall the concept plan included 550 residential lots between Shiralee and Forest Road (behind the subject site) and an area of B2 Local Centre Zone land that has an FSR of 0.0421:1 which equates to 1500m² of floor space in total. Since the 2011 election and the change in government the DPI site has essentially been dormant. Notwithstanding this, the DPI site remains zoned and therefore able to be developed and must therefore be considered as part of the residential and commercial land supply.

More recently, the Orange Blayney and Cabonne Regional Economic Development Strategy, 2018 - 2022 (REDS) has been developed which implies that the DPI land has a role to play in the regional action plan, namely to “develop agriculture, agricultural processing, agri‑technology and manufacturing” which appears to be inconsistent with subdivision for a residential estate.

This report is being prepared and finalised prior to the State Election on 23 March 2019. While the election result should be known by the time this report is formally considered, it is unlikely that the State Government’s position (whoever is elected) would be immediately apparent. If the political landscape changes then the State’s intentions with respect to the DPI site may also change. The size of the DPI site and its position between Forest Road and Shiralee mean that whatever role for the site emerges will be an important factor for the planning of Forest Road.

Due to proximity, the proposal at 1517 Forest Road has potential to conflict or compete with 1471 Forest Road. Should both proceed, and assuming that Stage 2 as foreshadowed in the proposal also proceeds, the total amount of retail floor space generated in this precinct would be approximately 6,300m². This is significantly larger than the initial development of the North Orange Shopping Centre which had a more substantial resident population in its primary catchment when it was created.

Notwithstanding the above, 1517 Forest Road is in private ownership and the owners entitled to seek consideration of their planning proposal in a timely fashion. Therefore the less than certain future of 1471 Forest Road, while a factor, should not preclude consideration of the best and most appropriate role for 1517 Forest Road.

In contrast to 1471 Forest Road, the location of this site is more convenient to the workforce and visitors of the Orange Health Service, the private hospital and the Allity aged care facility. It is also closer to other activities further north on Forest Road such as the TAFE and Wangarang. Additionally, events at Jack Brabham Park can attract significant attendance, some of whom would presumably access any retail facilities that may emerge in Forest Road.

Conversely 1471 Forest Road is at the very fringe of the urban area. Land further south is within the water catchment area and therefore unlikely to be rezoned and developed for urban purposes within the foreseeable future. Retail facilities at 1471 Forest Road would therefore be the less accessible location.

For example, Jack Brabham Park is 700m from 1517 Forest Road and 1.13km from 1471 Forest Road. In planning terms, “walking distance” is typically regarded as being 400m – 800m depending on factors such as the slope of the land, number of intersections to be crossed, availability of pedestrian infrastructure such as paths and lighting and so forth. Consequently crowds attending an event at Jack Brabham Park may be willing to walk to the subject site but more inclined to drive to 1471 Forest Road. 400m and 800m distances of both sites are illustrated below.

Staging Options

The planning proposal seeks to create a retail centre in association with the private hospital through a staged approach.

The existing Project Approval on the site already allows for:

· Health Facilities: 3,062m²

· Retail Space: 1,498m²

· Restaurant: 293m²

Total approved floor space: 4853m² most of which is not retail.

· Stage 1 requires a retail FSR of 0.185:1

o A small supermarket of 1,649m²

o One mini-major tenant of 416m²

o Specialty retail space of 845m²

Total retail floor space: 2,910m² = 1,119m² more retail than the existing approval

· Stage 2 subject to a future planning proposal requires a retail FSR of 0.304:1

o Expansion of supermarket to 3,000m²

o A mini-major tenant of 936m²

o Specialty retail space of 856m²

Total retail floor space 4,792m²

This approach tacitly acknowledges that catchment area for the site does not currently have a resident population that would sustain the development. However given the emerging role of Forest Road, discussed below, the first stage would initially be focussed on serving the workforce population as well as visitors to the hospital. It could also be argued that such facilities may to some extent mitigate traffic flows along Forest Road - Peisley Street as the existing Forest Road workforce could access retail facilities without needing to return to the main CBD.

It is also apparent from the above figures that the overall extent of built form both stages would be comparable, if slightly less than the existing project approval allows for. Consequently urban design outcomes, bulk and scale, visual presentation and streetscape and the like would be expected to be of an equivalent level.

Emerging Role of Forest Road

Forest Road is emerging as a key medical and allied services precinct with regional significance. The success of the Orange Health Service on the other side of Forest Road has spurred other developments including the private hospital and aged care facility to the south. The current planning and zone pattern in the area was established before the extent of the new hospitals impact could be fully appreciated.

It should now be anticipated that this cluster of activity is likely to continue to draw further interest and activity such that development along this corridor is likely to intensify further over time. This has ongoing implications for traffic, infrastructure and associated services that Council will need to manage into the future. The political situation in relation to the DPI land creates a level of uncertainty but it should nonetheless be anticipated that South Orange overall will increase in population and workforce numbers which justify a moderate level of retail facilities if only to alleviate traffic and parking pressures in the CBD.

The subject site is relatively central to this Forest Road corridor and, if the DPI site does not proceed, would make a reasonable alternative. If both proceed then the extent of floor space sought under Stage 1 is considered to be low enough to not harm the overall performance and role of the CBD, although the effect may impact on some retailers more strongly than others.

The proposal would result in 1,119m² more retail space than the existing project approval. This compares to the 1500m² of retail floor space already allowed on the DPI site at 1471 Forest Road. It could be argued that consolidating the retail activity to the subject site would either remove pressure to develop a retail centre on the DPI land and/or enable the existing B2 zoned land at 1471 Forest Road to be re-purposed for another function that complements the emerging role of this section of Forest Road.

Attachments

1 Draft Planning Proposal - rezone precinct 1 Bloomfield Private Hospital from R1 to B2, D19/13259 ⇩

2 Draft Planning Proposal - Site context maps, D19/13271 ⇩

3 Draft Planning Proposal - Site Masterplan, D19/13266 ⇩

4 Draft Planning Proposal - Proposed Rezoning and FSR Maps, D19/13270 ⇩

5 Draft Planning Proposal - Economic Impact Assessment, D19/13261 ⇩

6 Draft Planning Proposal - Traffic and Parking Analysis, D19/13264 ⇩

7 Review of Economic Impact Assessment, D19/9219 ⇩

8 Proponents Response to Initial Issues, D19/18218 ⇩

Council Meeting 16 April 2019

5.7 Traffic generated by the Southern Feeder Road

RECORD NUMBER: 2019/619

AUTHOR: Jason Theakstone, Manager Engineering Services

EXECUTIVE Summary

The Infrastructure Policy Committee at its 5 March 2019 meeting resolved “that Council be provided a report including an overlay map of the traffic routes linking the city with the proposed Southern Feeder Road and also a staging update and traffic counts.”

This report serves to provide the requested report and rename the Southern Feeder Road, Blowes Road, Park Road and Dairy Creek Road to Blowes Road.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “9.1 Preserve - Construct and maintain a road network meets the community’s transport and infrastructure needs”.

Financial Implications

There are negligible financial implications associated to this recommendation.

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

That Council resolves:

That the body of the report on Traffic Generated by the Southern Feeder Road be noted and on completion of each stage of the Southern Feeder Road, the Road be named “Blowes Road” in accordance with Section 162 of the Roads Act 1993.

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

This report serves to provide the requested report and rename the Southern Feeder Road, Blowes Road, Park Road and Dairy Creek Road to Blowes Road.

Council may remember in June-July 2018 a consultant for the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) undertook a traffic survey by means of fixing cameras and traffic classifiers (traffic counters) throughout the city. Using the traffic survey, existing traffic survey data, development trends and census data, a City of Orange traffic model was developed. This model forms the major strategic plans regarding traffic in/out and throughout Orange.

The City of Orange Traffic model is a complex model that shows AM and PM peak hour data for each segment of road throughout the city in 2018 and for a projected 2028. The 2028 model relies on the Southern Feeder Road (SFR) being built. This model allows Council to see the effect of building the SFR on traffic throughout the city. Council should be mindful the data is projected at the year 2028.

It has been found using a multiplier of 5.73 times the sum of the AM and PM peak gives an approximate Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) for each segment of the road network throughout Orange. For the ease of understanding this data several maps have been generated below for each segment of the Southern Feeder Road.

Stage 1

Council would be aware Stage 1 of the SFR was completed in 2015. On the map below showing Stage 1 of the SFR (Anson to Huntley) is a green pin showing the 2018 AADT and a red pin showing the 2028 AADT. This shows in 2018 the City of Orange Traffic Model predicted 2824 vehicles used Stage 1 of the SFR on a daily basis (this is approximately correct) and in 2028, once all stages of the SFR are constructed, 7661 vehicles will use Stage 1 of the SFR on a daily basis. The map also shows 2018 and 2028 AADT for the intersection streets with the SFR.

Status

Completed and in service: This section was completed with a mix of funds from Council, Section 94 fund, VPA’s (Voluntary Planning Agreements) with Cadia and the Public Hospital, together with $800,000 from the State Government. Council’s asset management staff have been monitoring the performance of the pavement post construction.

RMS periodically review the phasing of the traffic signals at the Forest Road / SFR intersection.

Figure 1: Stage 1 of the SFR (Anson to Huntley)

Stage 2

Council would be aware that Stage 2 of the SFR (Huntley to Elsham) is currently under construction. Stage 2 of the SFR also involves the extension of Edward Street though the old saleyards to the SFR. Council should note the following in relation to Stage 2,

1. The SFR and Edward Street 2018 traffic volumes are 0 vehicles per day because there is no existing road;

2. The northern arm of Elsham Avenue will be closed with a cul-de-sac; and

3. The current AADT of Edward Street near the existing DPI building is 2286 vehicles per day.

Status

Construction commenced: Contractors have started construction of Stage 2 and anticipate having the project finished early 2020.

Fully funded: Stage 2 of the SFR $18,431,000 has been funded via:

· Federal Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Programme ($3,454,000);

· State Congestion and Safety Programme ($2,000,000);

· State Fixing Country Roads (Restart NSW) programme ($6,825,000);

· Industry - Council’s Section 94 plan ($5,752,000); and

· Council funding ($400,000).

Figure 2: Stage 2 of the SFR (Huntley to Elsham)

Stage 3

Council may also be aware both the State and Federal Government have now funded the construction of Stage 3 of the SFR. Stage 3 of the SFR involves the reconstruction of the deteriorated pavements of Blowes Road and Dairy Creek Road plus the construction of a new road through Council owned land east of Calton Road to form a “seagull” intersection with the Mitchell Highway.

The location of the SFR and Mitchell Highway intersection has been carefully chosen as:

1. It allows for an appropriate intersection treatment requested by the RMS that has safe sight distances;

2. It facilitates development along the section of new road subject to rezoning within the LEP; and

3. It is opposite Council owned land on the northern side of Mitchell Highway.

Council should note the construction of this segment requires the removal of several old radiata pine trees along Blowes Road, some Hawthorn bushes that may have some historical significance and possibly one Diodar Cedar tree and several Poplar trees at the intersection of Mitchell Highway.

Status

Finalising Design: Geometric design is at 80% and requires a peer review as per the conditions of the RMS Works Authorisation Deed. Geotechnical investigations started on 1 April 2019 with Benkelman Beam testing already completed. The Review of Environmental Factors and landscape design are currently being undertaken.

Procurement: Targeting Tenders in August September 2019, with construction completion in mid-2020.

Fully Funded: The $6M project has been 100% funded by a combination of Federal Government ($3M or 50% - Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Programme) and NSW State Government ($3M or 50% - Growing Local Economies) funding.

Figure 3: Stage 3 of the SFR (Elsham to Mitchell Highway)

Stage 4

Stage 4 of the SFR is near “shovel ready” for construction with a design nearing 100% completed and a Review of Environmental factors being currently undertaken. The project is 50% funded by the State Government.

Stage 4 of the SFR involves the reconstruction of Park Road and the construction of a new road at either end of Park Road. A two lane roundabout has been designed at the intersection of Shiralee Road and the SFR (Park Road).

Council should note the following with Stage 4 of the SFR:

1. Cecil Road Bridge is due to be upgraded by John Holland Rail in approximately 2021;

2. Council is currently exploring funding opportunities to upgrade the Woodward Street rail level crossing from a signalised crossing to a boom gate controlled crossing;

3. Woodward Road will enjoy an increase of traffic from 412 AADT to 5506 AADT in 2028;

4. The traffic volumes along the SFR reduce from 6772 AADT to 1386 AADT west of the Shiralee Road roundabout; and

5. The road bisects Shiralee.

Status

Finalising Design: Geometric design is nearing 100% completion with Geotech and pavement design complete.

Review of Environmental Factors and land acquisitions are currently being undertaken.

50% Funded: Council is currently seeking funding for a level crossing upgrade on Woodward Street and any opportunities that may be available for the balance of funding through the Federal Government. We were unsuccessful with our Building Better Regions funding application.

The estimated cost is $9.2M with 50% funding secured from NSW State Government (Restart NSW).

Figure 4: Stage 4 of the SFR (Pinnacle to Anson)

Stage 5

Stage 5 of the SFR requires the construction of a new road south of the racecourse and upgrade of Ploughmans Lane from James Road to the Canobolas Road.

Council should note the 2028 modelled traffic is significantly lower than other sections of the SFR. This makes the construction of this road less lucrative in terms of time travelled savings for motorists, hence the upgrade of Pinnacle Road and Canobolas Road a possible lower cost option to be investigated to keep the BCR up.

Status

Unfunded and concept only: The cost is strategically estimated at $3M, however further investigations are needed to firm this estimate. This figure was used with approaches to both major parties prior to the State Government election in March 2019.

Figure 5: Stage 5 of the SFR (Canobolas to Pinnacle) Diagrammatic only – the new alignment will not affect the existing race track and 1000m starting gate position.

Stage 6

Stage 6 of the SFR requires an upgrade to Ploughmans Lane between Cargo Road and Canobolas Road.

Status

Unfunded and concept only: The cost is strategically estimated at $2M, however further investigations are needed to firm this estimate. This figure was used with approaches to both major parties prior to the State Government election in March 2019.

Figure 6: Stage 6 of the SFR (Cargo to Canobolas)

Stage 7

Stage 7 of the SFR requires an intersection treatment to be constructed at the intersection of Ploughmans Lane and Cargo Road. For the purpose of visualising the treatment, a roundabout has been drawn on the map below, however a set of traffic signals or a formalised staggered T intersection may be a more appropriate treatment due to the existing geometry and topography of the intersection.

Status

Unfunded, however Preliminary designs commenced: Council’s Engineering Department has undertaken traffic counts and geotechnical investigation.

Dependant on the intersection treatment the cost could vary from $2.5M to $5M. $2.5M was used with approaches to both major parties prior to the State Government election in March 2019.

Figure 7: Stage 7 of the SFR (Cargo Road intersection)

Stage 8

Stage 8 of the Southern Feeder Road involves the upgrade of Ploughmans Lane between The Escort Way and Cargo Road. This section of the road has several geometric and geological constraints, being the avenue planting of poplar trees and Ploughmans Creek, plus extremely poor subgrade conditions beneath the existing road.

Status

Unfunded, however Preliminary designs commenced: Council’s Engineering Department has undertaken traffic counts and geotechnical. Land acquisition is underway.

The cost is strategically estimated at $3M, subject to design.

Figure 8: Stage 8 of the SFR (Escort to Cargo) Diagrammatic Only with the new alignment to follow the existing Ploughmans Lane alignment but for the northern and southern roundabouts.

Stage 9

Stage 9 of the SFR requires a roundabout to be constructed at the intersection of The Escort Way, Ploughmans Lane and the Northern Distributor Road.

Status

Unfunded, however Preliminary designs commenced: Council is currently undertaking land acquisitions to facilitate the roundabout.

Geotech and RMS Works Authorisation Deed have been completed.

Pavement design is currently being undertaken.

Geometric design is to be done after the pavement design.

The cost is strategically estimated at $3.5M, subject to design. This figure was used with approaches to both major parties prior to the State Government election in March 2019.

Figure 9: Stage 9 of the SFR (The Escort Way intersection)

Council should understand the complexities of having one road (The Southern Feeder Road) made up of numerous other roads such as, Dairy Creek Road, Blowes Road, Park Road and Ploughmans Lane.

It is recommended that as each stage of the Southern Feeder Road is constructed / upgraded the subject segment of road be renamed “Blowes Road” under the provisions of Section 162 (1) of the Roads Act 1993.

The completion of Stage 4, subject to $4.6M additional funding, will open up Shiralee subdivision and links through to Woodward Road and the Mitchell Highway North. The completion of the balance of the Southern Feeder Road (stages 5-9), via Ploughmans Lane and subject to concept estimates of $14M additional funding, together with the NDR will create a ring road around Orange. An effective rim around the hub and spoke city road network.

Division of Voting
Voted For	Cr R Kidd (Mayor), Cr S Romano (Deputy Mayor), Cr K Duffy, Cr J Hamling, Cr J McRae, Cr T Mileto, Cr S Munro, Cr S Nugent, Cr M Previtera, , Cr G Taylor, Cr R Turner
Voted Against	Nil
Absent	Cr J Whitton

	31/03/2019	28/02/2019
General Fund	65,740,474.99	63,804,542.84
Water Fund	49,575,547.86	48,983,600.15
Sewer Fund	45,254,690.46	45,551,418.50

Total Funds	$160,570,713.31	$158,339,561.49

Externally Restricted	31/03/2019	28/02/2019
General Fund	25,644,351.22	26,260,043.68
Water Fund	49,575,547.86	48,983,600.15
Sewer Fund	45,254,690.46	45,551,418.50
Auspiced	1,846,252.38	1,858,862.80
Internally Restricted	13,816,060.76	15,236,533.18
Unrestricted	24,433,810.63	20,449,103.18
Total Funds	$160,570,713.31	$158,339,561.49

Term to Maturity Allocation	Maximum	Holding	Remaining Capacity
0 - 3 Months	100.00%	36.05%	63.95%
3 - 12 Months	100.00%	44.04%	55.96%
1 - 2 Years	70.00%	8.55%	61.45%
2 - 5 Years	50.00%	11.35%	38.65%
5+ Years	25.00%	0.00%	25.00%

Credit Rating	Maximum	Holding	Remaining Capacity	Value	Return on Investment
Bank Accounts	100.00%	7.22%	92.78%	$11,630,713.31	1.50%
AAA	100.00%	0.00%	100.00%	N/A	N/A
AA	100.00%	39.73%	60.27%	$63,500,000.00	2.78%
A	60.00%	24.34%	35.66%	$39,200,000.00	2.97%
BBB & NR	40.00%	28.71%	11.29%	$46,240,000.00	3.03%
Below BBB	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	N/A	N/A