Agenda of Planning and Development Committee

Planning and Development Committee 2 April 2019

2.1 Items Approved Under the Delegated Authority of Council

RECORD NUMBER: 2019/383

AUTHOR: Paul Johnston, Manager Development Assessments

EXECUTIVE Summary

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

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

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

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

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

further considerations

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

Reference:	DA 173/2013(3)	Determination Date	19 February 2019
PR Number	PR27434
Applicant/s:	Peter Fitzpatrick Property and Land Development
Owner/s:	Trustees of Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Bathurst
Location:	Lot 25 DP 1221604 being land formerly part land described as Lot 22 DP 1175811 – William Maker Drive, Orange
Proposal:	Modification of development consent - subdivision (80 lot residential and open space). The modification will provide for an alternative layout for the as yet unfinished portion of the subdivision. Moreover, the previously completed stages of the subdivision (Stages 1 and 2) resulted in a reduced lot yield being built compared to the lot yield approved.
Value:	$0

Reference:	DA 339/2014(2)	Determination Date	1 March 2019
PR Number	PR26183
Applicant/s:	Mr GT Edwards
Owner/s:	Mrs JM Edwards
Location:	Lot 114 DP 1188122 – 29 Hughes Street, Orange
Proposal:	Modification of development consent – subdivision (two lot residential). The modification will remove condition number 14. The condition is requested to be removed as this lot is no longer identified within a bushfire zone and in perpetuity, the property does not need to be managed as an inner protection area.
Value:	$0 (being the same value as the original development)

Reference:	DA 146/2017(2)	Determination Date	28 February 2019
PR Number	PR26353
Applicant/s:	Bassman Drafting Services
Owner/s:	Sandy June Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 110 DP 1229500 – 48 Molong Road, Orange
Proposal:	Modification of development consent – demolition (garage), boarding house (2 boarding houses each containing 7 rooms) and subdivision (2 lot Strata). The modification will amend the wall cladding to the building exterior, and the size of bathroom windows. The revised cladding will reduce the external wall thickness and marginally increase the floor area of boarding and communal rooms.
Value:	$882,000 (being the same value as the original development)

Reference:	DA 347/2017(2)	Determination Date	12 March 2019
PR Number	PR8504
Applicant/s:	Hargreaves Property Group
Owner/s:	Mr J Stojanovic
Location:	Lot 1 DP 393543 – 68-74 Molong Road, Orange
Proposal:	Modification of development consent - service station; neighbourhood shop (two); business premises (car wash); category 1 remediation’ subdivision (two lot commercial); signage; demolition; and tree removal. The modification essentially involves the consolidation of the first two stages of the consent, namely the subdivision and demolition and the services stages. The consent currently restricts the issuance of the construction certificate required for the services station until such time as the subdivision is registered.
Value:	$3,000,000 (being the same value as the original development)

Reference:	DA 178/2018(2)	Determination Date	4 March 2019
PR Number	PR26723
Applicant/s:	Mr G Thornberry
Owner/s:	Mr GJ Thornberry
Location:	Lot 81 DP 1202584 and Lot 6 DP 1065578 – 386 Molong Road and Northern Distributor Road
Proposal:	Modification of development consent – subdivision (103 lots – comprising 96 residential lots, 6 open space lots and 1 residue lot). The modification seeks in part to introduce a staging plan, designed to initially divide the site up into three distinct parts so as to facilitate the orderly and economic development of the subdivision. Stage 2 in the modified consent will constitute the lot configuration as approved with minor amendments in the original consent.
Value:	$0 (being the same value as the original development)

Reference:	DA 181/2018(2)	Determination Date	15 February 2019
PR Number	PR25972
Applicant/s:	Fautari Properties Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Fautari Properties Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 100 DP 1180866 – 2 Trappit Place, Orange
Proposal:	Modification of development consent - freight transport facility. The modification involves increasing the GFA of the approved building from 557m²to 658.5m² (an increase of 18.22%), and it is also proposed to replace the cantilevered awning with a posted awning and increase the depth of the awning.
Value:	$525,500

Reference:	DA 241/2018(2)	Determination Date	25 February 2019
PR Number	PR26011
Applicant/s:	Mr K and Mrs SB Barber
Owner/s:	Mrs SB Barber
Location:	Lot 640 DP 1172022 – 17 Bowman Avenue, Orange
Proposal:	Modification of development consent - dual occupancy (one additional detached dwelling) and subdivision (two lot residential). The modification involves an amended floor plan building design for the approved additional dwelling on the subject land.
Value:	$340,000

Reference:	DA 283/2018(1)	Determination Date	22 February 2019
PR Number	PR5209
Applicant/s:	Mr GD and Mrs HR White
Owner/s:	Mr GD and Mrs HR and Ms BJ White
Location:	Lot 6 DP 22199 – 110 Hill Street, Orange
Proposal:	Dual occupancy (attached)(alterations and additions)
Value:	$110,000

Reference:	DA 322/2018(1)	Determination Date	14 February 2019
PR Number	PR599
Applicant/s:	Andys Design and Drafting
Owner/s:	ASG One Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 12 DP 527396 – 175 Anson Street, Orange
Proposal:	Health consulting room (change of use from dwelling house and bed and breakfast accommodation)
Value:	$40,000

Reference:	DA 377/2018(2)	Determination Date	27 February 2019
PR Number	PR20399
Applicant/s:	Dice Renascent
Owner/s:	Orange Aboriginal Corporation Health Service
Location:	Lot 14 DP 270446 – 16 Cameron Place, Orange
Proposal:	Modification of development consent – community health services facility. The modified proposal will amend the approved car parking layout and amend the fence and gates.
Value:	$1,000,000 (being the same value as the original development)

Reference:	DA 409/2018(1)	Determination Date	21 February 2019
PR Number	PR28058
Applicant/s:	Willowdene Constructions Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Mr GJ and Mrs KL Stevenson
Location:	Lot 226 DP 1244057 – 16 William Maker Drive, Orange
Proposal:	Subdivision (two lot residential Torrens) and dwelling houses (two)
Value:	$460,000

Reference:	DA 446/2018(1)	Determination Date
PR Number	PR3107
Applicant/s:	Banks Family Pty Limited
Owner/s:	Banks Family Pty Limited
Location:	Lot 9 Sec 4 DP 2986 – 26 Cox Avenue, Orange
Proposal:	Demolition (garage and trees), multi dwelling housing (two additional dwellings), subdivision (two lot Torrens) and subdivision (three lot community)
Value:	$450,000

Reference:	DA 460/2018(1)	Determination Date	4 March 2019
PR Number	PR6647
Applicant/s:	Designs@m
Owner/s:	OLT Group Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 42 DP 255071 – 32 Leewood Drive, Orange
Proposal:	Mixed use development (vehicle sales or hire premises; vehicle body repair workshop, vehicle repair station) and business identification sign (wall sign)
Value:	$165,000

Reference:	DA 10/2019(1)	Determination Date	18 February 2019
PR Number	PR22203
Applicant/s:	Statspan Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Statspan Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 1 DP 1109351 – ‘Shop 2’, 120-122 Summer Street, Orange
Proposal:	Restaurant (change of use from office premises) and signage
Value:	$200,000

Reference:	DA 25/2019(1)	Determination Date	12 March 2019
PR Number	PR4927
Applicant/s:	Mr RA Cummins
Owner/s:	Tipperary Investment Holdings Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 1 DP 770447 – 1 Hampden Avenue Lot 1 DP 111535 – 261 Lords Place Lot 1 DP 195511 – 259 Lords Place Lot 1 DP 114618
Proposal:	Subdivision (four lot boundary adjustment)
Value:	$0

Reference:	DA 29/2019(1)	Determination Date	1 March 2019
PR Number	PR20239
Applicant/s:	Canobolas Diesel and Turbo
Owner/s:	Mr CB and Mrs KM Naveau
Location:	Lot 71 DP 1077737 - 57 Astill Drive
Proposal:	Vehicle repair station and business identification signage
Value:	$400,000

Reference:	DA 30/2019(1)	Determination Date	19 February 2019
PR Number	PR18701
Applicant/s:	Mr S Butt
Owner/s:	Division of Facilities Management
Location:	Lot 301 DP 1047282 – 364 Leeds Parade, Orange
Proposal:	Solar energy system (photovoltaic electricity generating system)
Value:	$1,333,415

Reference:	DA 43/2019(1)	Determination Date	19 March 2019
PR Number	PR18292
Applicant/s:	Mr A Pilcer
Owner/s:	Aldi Foods Pty Limited
Location:	Lot 500 DP 1033145 - 167-177 Peisley Street, Orange
Proposal:	Solar energy system (photovoltaic electricity generating system)
Value:	$68,100

TOTAL NET* VALUE OF ALL DEVELOPMENTS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY IN THIS PERIOD: $3,642,015.00

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

Planning and Development Committee 2 April 2019

2.2 Development Application DA 21/2019(1) - 4617 Mitchell Highway, Lucknow (Goldfields Tavern)

RECORD NUMBER: 2019/577

AUTHOR: Sophie Currenti, Student Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged	4 February 2019
Applicant/s	Ms GL Fardell
Owner/s	Ms GL Fardell
Land description	Lot 1 PCE C DP 82413 - 4617 Mitchell Highway, Lucknow
Proposed land use	Subdivision (two lot)
Value of proposed development	$0

Council's consent is sought to subdivide the land into two allotments at Lot 1 DP 82413 - 4617 Mitchell Highway, Lucknow.

The proposed subdivision is subject to the provisions of Orange LEP 2011 and requires a Clause 4.6 variation of the LEP Minimum Lot Size (MLS) development standard. The minimum lot size requirement in this case is 1000m².

The proposed development is unlikely to generate any adverse impacts on nearby development or the amenity of the area. It is consistent with the zoning of the land and considered to be appropriate development in the context of the well-established land use pattern.

Council staff have advised that the removal of the metal garden shed shown in the Figure 3 plan (proposed subdivision) can be removed pursuant to Clause 5.10(3) (consent not required) of the Orange LEP. The reason for this request of removal was to allow the proposed subdivision boundary to comply with the 1.5m setback from the existing Motel Units 2 and 3.

The removal of the shed was considered to be minor and had little to no heritage significance within Lucknow HCA.

Figure 1 - locality plan

RECENT LEGISLATIVE CHANGES

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

DECISION FRAMEWORK

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

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

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

DIRECTOR’S COMMENT

This is a simple subdivision, albeit under the development standard and is supported by staff.

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 consents to development application DA 21/2019(1) for Subdivision (two lot) at Lot 1 DP 82413 - 4617 Mitchell Highway, Lucknow pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

The proposal involves the subdivision of the land into two allotments at Lot 1 DP 82413 - 4617 Mitchell Highway, Lucknow as follows:

LOT	AREA (subject to survey)	PURPOSE
100	918.8m²	To excise the Goldfields Tavern (Lucknow Pub) and its support areas including the outdoor seating area, garage and vehicle area.
101	434.5m²	To excise three (3) motel units (known as Goldfields Camp) and parking/support area.

The proposed new boundary follows the existing retaining wall that separates the pub use from the motel accommodation use.

Figure 2 – site plan

The proposed subdivision logically recognises the existing land uses, servicing, and physical characteristics of the site. In effect, the pub and motel will each continue to function as two independent entities.

The proposed lots will retain the existing access arrangements that serve the subject land. Proposed Lot 100, comprising the pub will continue to obtain principal vehicle and pedestrian access via its frontage to Mitchell Highway. Secondary pedestrian access will be provided via the frontage to Phoenix Mine Road. Proposed Lot 101, comprising the motel will continue to obtain pedestrian and vehicle access via its frontage to Phoenix Mine Road.

The proposed lots will retain the existing service arrangements that serve the subject land. In this regard, the sewer, stormwater and town water connections for the pub are via street mains located within the Mitchell Highway road reserve. The sewer, stormwater and town water connections for the motel are via street mains located in the Phoenix Mine Road reserve. The motel and pub are separately metered in terms of electricity supply.

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

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

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

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

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

Section 4.15

Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 requires Council to consider various matters, of which those pertaining to the application are listed below.

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

Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011

Part 1 - Preliminary

Clause 1.2 - Aims of Plan

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

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

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

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

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

Clause 1.6 - Consent Authority

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

Clause 1.7 - Mapping

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

Land Zoning Map:	Land zoned RU5 Village
Lot Size Map:	Minimum Lot Size 1000m²
Heritage Map:	Located within Lucknow Heritage Conservation Area
Height of Buildings Map:	No building height limit
Floor Space Ratio Map:	No floor space limit
Terrestrial Biodiversity Map:	No biodiversity sensitivity on the site
Groundwater Vulnerability Map:	Groundwater vulnerable
Drinking Water Catchment Map:	Within 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 RU5 Village zone. The proposed development is defined as subdivision of land under OLEP 2011 and is permitted with consent for this zone. Subdivision of land, is defined as:

The division of land into two or more parts that, after the division, would be obviously adapted for separate occupation, use or disposition (Section 6.2 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979)

Clause 2.3 - Zone Objectives

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

1 - Objectives of the RU5 Village Zone

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

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

There are no aspects of the proposed development that are adverse to the zone objectives. In this regard, the proposal maintains the range of land uses associated with the village of Lucknow. The proposed subdivision would result in lots that excise existing land uses. There would be no discernible change to the character of the village.

Clause 2.6 - Subdivision - Consent Requirements

Clause 2.6 is applicable and states:

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

Consent is sought for a two lot Torrens Title subdivision of the subject land in accordance with this Clause.

Part 3 - Exempt and Complying Development

The application is not exempt or complying development.

Part 4 - Principal Development Standards

Clause 4.1 - Minimum Subdivision Lot Size

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

In relation to this site, the map nominates a minimum lot size of 1000m². The lot sizes proposed by the application are 918.8m² and 434.5m², for Lots 100 and 101 respectively.

The proposed lots do not satisfy the minimum lot size of 1000m². Therefore requiring a Clause 4.6 – exception to the development standard of Minimum Lot Size.

- Proposed Lot 100 with an area of 918.8m² seeks to vary the MLS by 8.12%.

- Proposed Lot 101 with an area of 434.5m² seeks to vary the MLS by 56.55%.

Clause 4.6 - Exceptions to Development Standards

This clause is applicable as the subdivision component of the proposed development which is proposed on an allotment is smaller than the required minimum size. Clause 4.1 sets out minimum subdivision lot sizes, which relevantly states:

(1) The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a) to ensure that new subdivisions reflect existing lot sizes and patterns in the surrounding locality,

(b) to ensure that lot sizes have a practical and efficient layout to meet intended use,

(c) to ensure that lot sizes do not undermine the land’s capability to support rural development,

(d) to prevent the fragmentation of rural lands,

(e) to provide for a range of lot sizes reflecting the ability of services available to the area,

(f) to encourage subdivision designs that promote a high level of pedestrian and cyclist connectivity and accommodate public transport vehicles.

(2) This clause applies to a subdivision of any land shown on the Lot Size Map that requires development consent and that is carried out after the commencement of this Plan.

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

(4) This clause does not apply in relation to the subdivision of individual lots in a strata plan or community title scheme.

The Lot Size Map then specifies a minimum allotment size of 1000m², which the proposed lot sizes of this development do not meet. It is noted that the total area of the subject property is close to the minimum required, at 1,353.3 m².

Clause 4.6 is intended to achieve the following objectives:

(a) provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards

(b) achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances.

At its core, a Clause 4.6 variation may be supported where it can be shown that the objectives of the standard are unreasonable and/or unnecessary to apply in this particular case, and where it can be shown that the objectives of both the plan and the clause to be varied are achieved notwithstanding the non-compliance with the numerical value of the standard.

Clause 4.6 may not be used to routinely seek variation to a standard and may not be used in such a way as to render a development contrary to the intent of the standard or the plan that it relates to. Clause 4.6 may also not be used as a de facto rezoning tool, and cannot be used to bypass permissibility issues that a particular proposal may have.

There are set procedures outlined in guidelines published by the NSW Department of Planning encapsulated in a circular published in 2008, and quite strongly supported and upheld in the Land and Environment Court. For obvious reasons the Department advises all Councils to allow variations only where exceptional circumstances exist and where certain other criteria can be shown to be achieved.

The Clause 4.6 variation submitted with the application generally achieves those outcomes and the procedures outlined in the Department’s circulars; and the principals established by the Courts. The main basis for justification advanced in the submission is that each existing site already operates as if it were in two separate lots. The proposed lots logically recognise the existing land uses, function, servicing, and physical characteristics of the site.

Matters to Address in an Application

When applicants lodge development applications and associated requests to vary a development standard, they must give grounds of objection to the development standard. Variation of a development standard may be justified where it is consistent with the objectives that the relevant environmental planning instrument is attempting to achieve.

The application must address:

(i) whether strict compliance with the standard, in the particular case, would be unreasonable or unnecessary and why,

and

(ii) demonstrate that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard

The applicant has argued that the minimum lot size is unnecessary and unreasonable in this instance on the basis that each site already operates as if it were in two separate lots. The proposed lots logically recognise the existing land uses, function, servicing, and physical characteristics of the site. In this regard:

· The motel site is well elevated above the pub site. The change in ground level is addressed by a masonry retaining wall which is significant enough to prevent any practical, physical or functional link between the pub and the motel. Further, there is a chain wire and steel post fence along the retaining wall that divides the two uses.

· Subdivision of the land as proposed would not affect the continued operation of each land use. The operation of the motel does not rely on any land or elements within proposed Lot 100, just as the pub does not rely on any land or elements within proposed Lot 101.

· The motel and pub are serviced separately from each other. In this regard:

- the sewer, stormwater and town water connections for the pub are via street mains located within the Mitchell Highway road reserve

- the sewer, stormwater and town water connections for the motel are via street mains located in the Phoenix Mine Road reserve

- the motel and pub are separately metered in terms of the electricity supply.

· The motel and pub are accessed independently of each other. In this regard:

- the pub has principal vehicle and pedestrian access provided via its frontage to Mitchell Highway, and secondary pedestrian access provided via its frontage to Phoenix Mine Road

- the motel has its pedestrian and vehicle access provided via its frontage to Phoenix Mine Road

- as mentioned earlier, the difference in levels, the retaining wall and internal fence prevents any physical link between the pub and motel within the site.

Clause 4.1(4) of the LEP would actually permit the subdivision either as a community title or strata subdivision. However, it is considered that a subdivision of the land as proposed by this application is more appropriate given that the land effectively operates as two separate lots as explained above.

There are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify a variation of the minimum lot size development standard. These are as follows:

· A variation of the development standard is justified in this case because it can be demonstrated that the proposal satisfies the objectives of the RU5 Village Zone and the objectives of the MLS.

· The proposal does not introduce lot sizes that cannot be found elsewhere within the RU5 Zone at Lucknow. In this case, the appropriateness of lot size is more to do with the physical characteristics, function and servicing of this particular site.

· Clause 4.1(4) of the LEP would actually permit the subdivision either as a community title or strata subdivision. However, it is considered that subdivision of the land as proposed by this application is more appropriate given that the land effectively operates as two separate lots and there are no common elements that are to be shared.

· The Statement of Environmental Effects demonstrates that non-compliance with the standard does not generate unacceptable impacts in the locality.

Written applications to vary development standards need to not only address the above matters, but may also address matters set out in the ‘five part test’ established by the NSW Land and Environment Court. The NSW Department of Planning strongly advises Councils to apply the Five Part Test in their assessments of Clause 4.6 matters.

The Five Part Test

The Five Part Test is anchored in Land and Environment Court Planning Principles. The Department of Planning recommends that consent authorities apply the test in their assessment of Clause 4.6 variations.

The five part test embodies the following:

1 the objectives of the standard are achieved notwithstanding noncompliance with the standard;

2 the underlying objective or purpose of the standard is not relevant to the development and therefore compliance is unnecessary;

3 the underlying object or purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required and therefore compliance is unreasonable;

4 the development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by the council’s own actions in granting consents departing from the standard and hence compliance with the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable;

5 the compliance with development standard is unreasonable or inappropriate due to existing use of land and current environmental character of the particular parcel of land. That is, the particular parcel of land should not have been included in the zone.

With regard to point (1), a clear aim of Clause 4.6 is for flexibility in the application of a planning control where it can be demonstrated that strict compliance is unreasonable and unnecessary. This proposal relies on such flexibility to have the development approved at the lot sizes proposed in the DA. Flexibility in this matter would result in a better outcome for and from the development for the reasons outlined below.

With regard to point (2), a variation of the minimum lot size is a development standard that may be considered within the ambit and operation of this clause.

Minimum lot size requirements are a blunt assessment tool aimed at achieving good design outcomes, whilst at the same time making efficient use of the land at densities likely to achieve a reasonable return for the development; and at the same time ensuring that village character and amenity is not excessively compromised.

It is considered that justification for the variation can be found in the comparable lot sizes in the locality, where several existing allotments are well below the minimum lot size. The proposal does not introduce lot sizes that cannot be found elsewhere within the RU5 Zone at Lucknow. In this case, the appropriateness of lot size is more to do with the physical characteristics, function and servicing of this particular site.

With regard to point (3), it is considered that strict compliance with the 1,000m² MLS would not necessarily defeat or thwart the underlying objective or purpose of the development standard. However, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the development standard.

With regard to point (4), Council has not demonstrated a general abandonment of this clause in its previous decisions for development in the village of Lucknow under OLEP 2011. The development standard cannot be said to be abandoned. However, there are several existing allotments in the Lucknow village (which is subject to the same MLS) that are well below 1,000m² in size.

With regard to point (5), the subdivision of the land as proposed would not affect the continued operation of each land use. The operation of the motel does not rely on any land or elements within proposed Lot 100; just as the pub does not rely on any land or elements within proposed Lot 101. The minimal effect that the proposal has on the subject site signifies that the proposed development need not to comply with the numerical standard in order to achieve the intent behind the development standard. It is considered that insistence on full compliance with Clause 4.1 for this site is unreasonable, and unnecessary in this case.

Council may grant consent only if the concurrence of the Director General of the Department of Planning has been obtained and Council is satisfied that:

· the written request has adequately addressed the above, and

· the proposed development will be in the public interest because of:

- consistency with the objectives of the particular standard, and

- consistency with the objectives of the zone applying to the site.

The written request adequately addresses the variation criteria of the clause. Matters pertaining to the Director Generals concurrence is addressed below.

Department Of Planning’s Circular

This circular sets out the circumstance and criteria for applying Council’s assumed concurrence to the determination of development standards under Clause 4.6. Council has assumed concurrence to assess and process Clause 4.6 variations of this nature. In the event that the variation sought does not exceed 10% of the development standard the concurrence issued by the Department may extend to a delegate of the Council. Where the variation sought exceeds 10% of the development standard the matter is required to be determined by Council hence the reason that this matter has been referred to the Sustainable Development Committee for consideration.

In accordance with the requirements of the circular, Council has quarterly reporting obligations as to the number of times it has used Clause 4.6 and for what purposes. The Department wants to keep check on the over use of Clause 4.6 to discourage inappropriate use of the clause on a routine basis. Despite some use of the clause for development in the Orange City LGA, there has been no expressions of concern from the Department about the overuse of the clause.

There are some circumstances where Clause 4.6 is prohibited from being used, but this particular situation is not one of those circumstances.

The land is within the RU5 Village zone which has the following objectives:

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

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

The proposed development with its non-compliance to Clause 4.1 is not contrary to any of the objectives for the zone; neither does the proposed development significantly contravene the DCP’s planning outcomes.

Overall, it is considered that the proposed development does not result in any adverse impact on the operation of the LEP or the DCP, and would not result in any significant adverse impact.

It is considered that the proposal, including the variation sought, is consistent with the above objectives.

Part 5 - Miscellaneous Provisions

5.10 - Heritage Conservation

(1) Objectives

The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a) to conserve the environmental heritage of Orange,

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

(c) to conserve archaeological sites,

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

(4) Effect of Proposed Development on Heritage Significance

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

The proposal is not adverse to the Heritage Conservation objectives outlined in the Orange LEP. The effects of the proposed development on heritage significance are outlined under The Likely Impacts of the Development (s4.15(1)(b)), where the potential impacts of the development upon the heritage conservation area and the nearby identified heritage item are assessed by considering the development according to the NSW Heritage Office publication Statement of Heritage Impact Guidelines.

Part 6 - Urban Release Area

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

Part 7 - Additional Local Provisions

7.3 - Stormwater Management

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

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

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

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

The proposed subdivision has no impact on the existing stormwater drainage arrangements that serve the subject land.

7.6 - Groundwater Vulnerability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are no aspects of the proposal that would cause adverse impact on groundwater resources.

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.

In consideration of this clause, the proposed subdivision will not generate unacceptable impacts upon the drinking water catchment due to the following:

· The proposed subdivision does not alter the existing land uses within the subject land or introduce any new uses that would represent a threat to groundwater resources.

· Each proposed lot is connected to reticulated sewer.

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

Clause 7.11 - Essential Services

Clause 7.11 applies and states:

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

(a) the supply of water,

(b) the supply of electricity,

(c) the disposal and management of sewage,

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

(e) suitable road access.

The proposed development satisfies this clause as there is no change to the existing servicing and access arrangements that serve the subject land.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 Remediation of Land

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land (SEPP 55) is applicable. Pursuant to Clause 7 Contamination and remediation to be considered in determining development application:

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

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

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

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

A contamination assessment was undertaken when the existing motel was approved pursuant to DA 04/0608. The assessment concluded that the subject land was satisfactory in terms of potential soil contamination and that no further investigation is required.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

Given that the subject land has frontage to a classified road (Mitchell Highway), Clause 101 of State Environmental Planning Policy Infrastructure 2007 is applicable and provides as follows:

(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 unsatisfied 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 the result of:

(c) The design of the vehicular access to the land, or

(i) The emission of smoke or dust from the development, or

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

(d) 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.

Whilst the SEPP is technically applicable, there are no implications for the proposed development. The proposed subdivision does not alter the existing access arrangements that serve the subject land and it is not identified as traffic generating development pursuant to Schedule 3 of the SEPP.

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

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

DESIGNATED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development is not designated development.

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development is not integrated development.

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

Development Control Plan 2004

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

Transitional Provisions – Lucknow

1. A geotechnical report, prepared by a suitably qualified specialist, is provided to Council.

A geotechnical assessment was undertaken when the existing motel was approved pursuant to DA 04/0608. In summary, the assessment found no evidence to “suggest that the site may experience geological subsidence in the future”. As a precaution, it is recommended an assessment of the subsurface conditions to provide a classification for footing design in accordance with AS 2870-1999 Residential Slabs and Footings (which occurred as part of the Construction Certificate process for the motel).

The proposed subdivision only seeks to excise existing buildings on separate allotments. There are no construction works required as part of the proposed subdivision.

2. The geotechnical report addresses:

· The suitability of the land for the development, taking into account the effect of the proposal upon mine shafts, mine spoil and other mining relics;

· The potential of mine subsidence or land contamination to effect the development; and

· Whether the development has the potential to adversely affect the cultural and heritage values represented by former mining activity and associated relics.

In consideration of the above matters:

· The geotechnical report confirms that the subject land is not constrained by mine shafts, mine spoil or other mining relics.

· The geotechnical report confirms that the subject land is not affected by subsidence.

· The potential for land contamination to affect the development was considered via a separate assessment which found the land to be satisfactory in this regard.

· The proposed subdivision only seeks to excise existing buildings on separate allotments. As such, the proposed development would not adversely affect the cultural and heritage values represented by former mining activity and associated relics.

3. The geotechnical report must make recommendations on whether the development is safe to proceed and include suggested measures to lessen the potential risks to the development.

The supplied geotechnical report satisfies this planning outcome.

7.13 - Development in the Village of Lucknow

The certain planning outcomes for Development in the Village of Lucknow are considered not applicable, as follows:

· The proposal does not involve new buildings or works.

· The proposal does not involve works that will disturb the land. In any event, a contamination assessment was submitted as part of a previous development within the subject land and it found the land to be satisfactory in this regard.

· The proposal only involves the subdivision of existing commercial development, with no new buildings or signage proposed.

· No new works or buildings proposed therefore the potential to disturb mining relics is considered minimal.

· The proposal does not involve disturbance to mine spoil areas.

· The proposal does not impact upon heritage mine sites.

· The proposal does not involve the creation of residential allotments.

· The existing buildings are already connected to Council’s sewerage and town water systems. The existing connections will be retained for the proposed lots.

13 - Heritage

Orange DCP 2004 – 13 Heritage sets the following planning outcomes:

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

2. Development conforms with recognised conservation principles.

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

The proposal is not adverse to the Heritage planning outcomes outlined in the DCP. The heritage impacts of the proposal are outlined under The Likely Impacts of the Development (s4.15(1)(b)).

Transitional Provisions – Transport Routes

The certain planning outcomes for Transitional Provisions – Transport Routes are considered not applicable as follows:

· The proposal involves the subdivision of existing building onto new allotments without new works or buildings. As such, there is no change to the appearance of the site.

· There are no visual impacts of the proposed subdivision that would generate a distraction to motorists.

· There is no signage proposed.

· The proposed lots will obtain access via the approved existing arrangements that serve the site.

· The existing access onto Mitchell Highway will be retained. This access point is long standing and provides satisfactory sight distance, noting that the subject land lies within a 60km/h speed zone.

· The proposal does not alter the existing parking arrangements that serve the site.

· The proposal involves the subdivision of the subject land and does not alter the existing land uses.

INFILL GUIDELINES

The proposal is not contrary to the Infill Guidelines.

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

Demolition of a Building (clause 92)

The proposal does not involve the demolition of a building.

Fire Safety Considerations (clause 93)

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

Buildings to be Upgraded (clause 94)

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

BASIX Commitments (clause 97A)

BASIX is not applicable to the proposed development.

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

Visual Amenity

The proposal is to subdivide the subject land to excise the existing buildings on separate allotments. There are no new works or buildings proposed. As such the development will not generate any visual impacts.

Traffic Impacts

The proposed subdivision does not generate traffic impacts due to the following:

· There is no change to land use or traffic generation.

· The proposal does not involve the creation of new access points onto the public road.

· There is no change to vehicle paths to and from the site.

· There is no change to the existing parking arrangements.

Heritage Impacts

The subject land is within the Lucknow Heritage Conservation Area but is not listed as a heritage item.

The only heritage item in the vicinity of the subject land is the “Mamhead” dwelling at 4622 Mitchell Highway. It is located just to the north of the subject land on the opposite side of the highway. This building is referenced in Schedule 5 of the LEP as having Local Significance.

The potential impacts of the development upon the heritage conservation area and the heritage item is assessed by considering the development according to the NSW Heritage Office publication Statement of Heritage Impact Guidelines. The applicable questions and answers are outlined below.

The following aspects of the proposal respect or enhance the heritage significance of the item or conservation area for the following reasons:

The proposed subdivision seeks to subdivide the existing land uses within the site onto separate allotments. There is no historical nexus or curtilage that would justify retention of the site as a single allotment.

The proposed subdivision will not change the spatial or visual relationship between the subject land and the identified heritage item. In any event, any relationship between the subject land and the identified heritage item is diminished by the relative position of the buildings and the intervening Mitchell Highway road reserve.

There are no aspects of the proposed subdivision that would interrupt views to the identified heritage item or diminish public appreciation of the identified heritage item.

The following aspects of the proposal could detrimentally impact on heritage significance. The reasons are explained as well as the measures to be taken to minimise impacts:

For the reasons outlined above, the proposal has minimal potential to adversely affect the heritage significance of the nearby item or the conservation area.

The following sympathetic solutions have been considered and discounted for the following reasons:

There are no aspects of the proposal that are considered unsympathetic with the conservation area or nearby heritage items.

Subdivision

· How is the proposed curtilage allowed around the heritage item appropriate?

· Could future development that results from this subdivision compromise the significance of the heritage item? How has this been minimised?

· Could future development that results from this subdivision affect views, to and from, the heritage item? How are negative impacts to be minimised?

These questions have been answered in the considerations above.

Water Quality

The proposed subdivision would not generate impacts on water quality due to the following:

· Completion of the subdivision will not involve earth disturbances. As such, it will not cause erosion or sedimentation.

· The proposed subdivision does not change the existing land uses or activities that are carried out within the subject land.

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

In terms of its physical attributes the site is considered to be suitable for the proposed subdivision.

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

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

PUBLIC INTEREST s4.15(1)(e)

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

SUMMARY

The proposed development is permissible with the consent of Council. The proposed development complies with the relevant aims, objectives and provisions of Orange LEP 2011 (as amended) and DCP 2004. A Section 4.15 assessment of the development indicates that the development is acceptable in this instance. Attached is a draft Notice of Approval outlining a range of conditions considered appropriate to ensure that the development proceeds in an acceptable manner.

COMMENTS

The requirements of the Environmental Health and Building Surveyor and the Engineering Development Section are included in the attached Notice of Approval.

Attachments

1 Notice of Approval, D19/18394 ⇩

2 Plans, D19/18387 ⇩

Planning and Development Committee 2 April 2019

2.2 Development Application DA 21/2019(1) - 4617 Mitchell Highway, Lucknow (Goldfields Tavern)

Attachment 1 Notice of Approval

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

Development Application No DA 21/2019(1)

NA19/ Container PR77

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 4.18

Development Application
Applicant Name:	Ms GL Fardell
Applicant Address:	C/- Peter Basha Planning and Development PO Box 1827 ORANGE NSW 2800
Owner’s Name:	Ms GL Fardell
Land to Be Developed:	Lot 1 PCE C DP 82413 - 4617 Mitchell Highway, Lucknow
Proposed Development:	Subdivision (two lot)

Building Code of Australia building classification:	Not applicable

Determination made under Section 4.16
Made On:	2 April 2019
Determination:	CONSENT GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:

Consent to Operate From:	3 April 2019
Consent to Lapse On:	3 April 2024

Terms of Approval

The reasons for the imposition of conditions are:

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

(2) To ensure compliance with relevant statutory requirements.

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

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

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

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

Conditions

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

(a) Amended Plans dated 12.03.2019 by Peter Basha Planning and Development, Figures 3 and 4 (2 sheets)

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

as amended in accordance with any conditions of this consent.

PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS

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

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

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

(4) 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 both lots from Council’s existing infrastructure. The developer is to be responsible for gaining access over adjoining land for services where necessary and easements are to be created about all water, sewer and drainage mains within and outside the lots they serve.

(5) Individual water and sewerage connections shall be provided to both lots in the proposed subdivision in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.

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

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A SUBDIVISION CERTIFICATE

(7) Prior to the issuing of the Subdivision Certificate, a Surveyor’s Certificate or written statement is to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority, stating that the buildings within the boundaries of the proposed Lot 101 comply in respect to the distances of walls from boundaries.

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

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

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

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

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

(13) 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.

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:	3 April 2019