Agenda of Planning and Development Committee

Planning and Development Committee 3 December 2019

2.1 Items Approved Under the Delegated Authority of Council

RECORD NUMBER: 2019/2377

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 527/2003(4)	Determination Date	14 November 2019
PR Number	PR20410
Applicant/s:	Mr A Harvey
Owner/s:	Harvandi Pty Limited
Location:	Lot 102 DP 1084285 - 159A Sale Street, Orange
Proposal:	Modification of development consent - subdivision (3 lot residential), demolition (2 garages), medium density development (8 residential units) and strata subdivision (9 lots). The modification seeks to amend the design and detailing of the residential units.
Value:	$0

Reference:	DA 97/2016(2)	Determination Date	1 November 2019
PR Number	PR27048
Applicant/s:	Ms A Windsor
Owner/s:	Ms A M Windsor
Location:	Lot 100 DP 1204869 - 65 Sampson Street, Orange
Proposal:	Modification of development consent - dwelling (alterations and additions), garage (detached), swimming pool, demolition (shed) and ancillary works. The modified proposal involves a new (additional) ground floor bedroom, enclosure of a porch, internal reconfiguration of the kitchen and laundry, amendments to the proposed Dutch gable on the eastern elevation, a carport extension to the previously approved garage, the pool relocated 5m to the west, and a larger deck than was previously approved. New window and door configurations are also proposed.
Value:	$600,000

Reference:	DA 3/2018(2)	Determination Date	24 October 2019
PR Number	PR23353
Applicant/s:	Hardware Property TC Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Hardware Property TC Pty Limited
Location:	Lot 100 DP 1137137 - 253 McLachlan Street, Orange
Proposal:	Modification of development consent - hardware and building supplies (alterations and additions), business identification signage and demolition. The development as modified involves demolition of the outdoor display area and adjacent retail area; construction of a new display hall/retail addition; demolition of a mezzanine level; construction of new external stairs on the southern elevation; and relocation of the previously approved accessible amenities.
Value:	$700,000 (being the same value as the previous development)

Reference:	DA 367/2018(2)	Determination Date	14 November 2019
PR Number	PR4698
Applicant/s:	Ophir Tavern Business Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Ophir Tavern Business Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 3 DP 630463 - 84 Glenroi Avenue, Orange
Proposal:	Modification to development consent - pub (external additions - beer garden and children's playground). It is proposed to modify the approved landscape plan to remove trees from the electricity easement and provide an additional area of synthetic turf.
Value:	$0

Reference:	DA 450/2018(2)	Determination Date	12 November 2019
PR Number	PR8725
Applicant/s:	Mr M G and Ms B L Newham
Owner/s:	Mr M G and Ms B L Newham
Location:	Lot A DP 358457 - 81 Moulder Street, Orange
Proposal:	Modification of development consent - demolition, dwelling alterations and additions (rear and two storey additions), carport (attached) and fence (front boundary fence). The modified proposal seeks to delete the previously proposed window awnings and also reduce the extent of landscaping requirements that are required prior to Occupation Certificate given the current drought conditions.
Value:	$0

Reference:	DA 142/2019(2)	Determination Date	13 November 2019
PR Number	PR4698
Applicant/s:	Ophir Tavern Business Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Ophir Tavern Business Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 3 PCE C DP 630463 - 84 Glenroi Avenue, Orange
Proposal:	Modification to development consent - pub (alterations and additions - beer garden pergola). The modification is for the approved service bar at the rear of the building to be extended some 600mm into the opposing beer garden in order to be flush with the rear of the building.
Value:	$0

Reference:	DA 252/2019(1)	Determination Date	15 November 2019
PR Number	PR17021
Applicant/s:	Alarmed Self-Storage
Owner/s:	Mr JO and Mrs MEA Cook and Mr SM and Mrs MA Casey
Location:	Lot 100 DP 879603 - 1716 Forest Road, Orange
Proposal:	Self-storage units (additions to existing buildings)
Value:	$450,000

Reference:	DA 280/2019(1)	Determination Date	29 October 2019
PR Number	PR3693
Applicant/s:	Mr DR Davis and Ms AA Porch
Owner/s:	Mr DR Davis and Ms AA Porch
Location:	Lot 20 DP 632537 - 26 Edward Street, Orange
Proposal:	Subdivision (three lot Community title)
Value:	$0

Reference:	DA 291/2019(1)	Determination Date	31 October 2019
PR Number	PR1203
Applicant/s:	Mr B Akpinar
Owner/s:	Kasa Orange Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot1 DP 812539 - 68-72 Bathurst Road, Orange
Proposal:	Take away food and drink premises
Value:	$85,000

Reference:	DA 295/2019(1)	Determination Date	7 November 2019
PR Number	PR809
Applicant/s:	Ms J Pottie
Owner/s:	Mrs JL Pottie
Location:	Lot 8 SP 17153 – 8/182 Anson Street, Orange
Proposal:	Shop top housing
Value:	$0

Reference:	DA 330/2019(1)	Determination Date	5 November 2019
PR Number	PR11547
Applicant/s:	Anandmahi Pty Ltd AFT Ravivijay Unit Trust
Owner/s:	Anandmahi Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 4 DP 576169 - 312-324 Summer Street, Orange
Proposal:	Pub (alterations and additions)
Value:	$50,000

Reference:	DA 360/2019(1)	Determination Date	28 October 2019
PR Number	PR11580
Applicant/s:	CPRAM Investments Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Alceon Group Pty Limited
Location:	Lot 564 DP 776383 - 212-220 Summer Street, Orange
Proposal:	Shop (fit-out) and business identification signage (tenancy SV26 - Natural Fit Footwear)
Value:	$145,000

Reference:	DA 361/2019(1)	Determination Date	28 October 2019
PR Number	PR11580
Applicant/s:	CPRAM Investments Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Alceon Group Pty Limited
Location:	Lot 564 DP 776383 - 212-220 Summer Street, Orange
Proposal:	Commercial Premises (ancillary playground – first use and fit-out)
Value:	$140,000

Reference:	DA 370/2019(1)	Determination Date	4 November 2019
PR Number	PR11580
Applicant/s:	CPRAM Investments Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Alceon Group Pty Limited
Location:	Lot 564 DP 776383 - 212-220 Summer Street, Orange
Proposal:	Restaurant or cafe (first use and fit-out) and business identification signage (tenancy 42 - Subway)
Value:	$160,000

Reference:	DA 371/2019(1)	Determination Date	6 November 2019
PR Number	PR11580
Applicant/s:	JNS Project Solution Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Alceon Group Pty Limited
Location:	Lot 564 DP 776383 – 212-220 Summer Street, Orange
Proposal:	Shop (fit-out) and business identification signage (tenancy 27 – Prouds Jewellers)
Value:	$80,000

TOTAL NET* VALUE OF ALL DEVELOPMENTS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY IN THIS PERIOD: $1,110,000.00

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

Planning and Development Committee 3 December 2019

2.2 Development Application - DA 91/2019(1) - 5 Lily Pilly Place

RECORD NUMBER: 2019/2536

AUTHOR: Summer Commins, Senior Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged	3 April 2019
Applicant/s	Mr I Y Zhang
Owner/s	I J Zhang Pty Limited
Land description	Lot 100 DP 1248945 - 5 Lily Pilly Place, Orange
Proposed land use	Multi Dwelling Housing (four dwellings) and Subdivision (one lot Torrens title and four lot Community title)
Value of proposed development	$720,000.00

This development application was considered by Council at its meeting of 16 June 2019.

The original proposal involved construction of six dwellings on the subject land and subdivision to excise each dwelling on a separate lot. Five submissions were received in response to the exhibition of the original proposal. The submissions generally related to overdevelopment of the site, and the associated impacts on the neighbourhood (traffic, servicing and character).

In consideration of the original proposal, the Council resolved:

That the item be deferred and discussions take place with the applicant as to a potential redesign.

Favourable discussions were held with the proponent, and an amended proposal has been submitted. The amended proposal is the subject of this assessment report. The development will now comprise four single storey detached dwellings, each on a separate Torrens or Community Lot.

The amended proposal comprises advertised development pursuant to Development Control Plan (DCP) 2004-5.3. At the completion of the second public notice and exhibition period, one submission had been received in relation to the development. The submission raised concerns in relation to overlooking of the adjoining residential property to the west from the proposed development.

The amended proposal does not contravene the planning regime that applies to the land. Impacts of the development are considered to be within reasonable limit, consistent with applicable standards and addressed by appropriate conditions of development consent. Approval of the application is recommended.

Figure 1 - locality plan

DECISION FRAMEWORK

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

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

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

DIRECTOR’S COMMENT

The original development proposal involved construction of six dwellings on the subject land and subdivision to excise each dwelling on a separate lot. Following extensive feedback from neighbours, who were concerned that the proposal represented an overdevelopment of the site, Council resolved:

That the item be deferred and discussions take place with the applicant as to a potential redesign.

The proponent has taken on board the concerns of residents and amended the proposal. The amended proposal now involves the construction of 4 x 3 bedroom dwellings. One additional submission was received during the re-exhibition of the application. The matters raised have been addressed via recommended conditions of consent. The amended design satisfies the requirements of Council’s DCP and it is recommended that the matter be supported by Council.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

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

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

That Council resolves to issue consent to development application DA 91/2019(1) for Multi Dwelling Housing (four dwellings) and Subdivision (one lot Torrens title and four lot Community title) at Lot 100 DP 1248945 - 5 Lily Pilly Place, Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

HISTORY/BACKGROUND

The following circumstances are relevant to the proposed development:

· Subject Lot 100 comprises a recent consolidation of Lots 12 and 13 DP 1244657.

Figure 2 - land consolidation: parent Lots 12 and 13 and child Lot 100

· Dual occupancy (two dwellings) was permitted on both parent Lots 12 and 13, as the lots exceeded 800m². As such, four dwellings could be constructed on the subject land.

· Land consolidation of the adjoining Lots 12 and 13 was undertaken by the proponent in order that the consolidated parcel would satisfy the minimum lot size development standard for multi dwelling housing (1250m² for three or more dwellings), and thereby enable a higher density residential development on the land.

· Six dwellings were proposed in the original application. In consideration of public submissions and Council resolution, the proponent has modified the proposal to comprise four dwellings, being the maximum number that was originally contemplated for parent Lots 12 and 13.

· The prevailing development pattern in the Waratah urban release area is comprised of single and multi-dwellings. The proposal will not be contrary to the neighbourhood character.

THE PROPOSAL

Consent is sought for residential development of land at 5 Lily Pilly Place, comprising four new dwellings and Torrens or Community title subdivision.

The proposed dwellings will be single storey and detached. Each dwelling will contain three or four bedrooms, two bathrooms, open-plan kitchen/dining/living zone and attached double garage. Separate private open space will be provided for each dwelling.

External finishes for the dwellings will comprise face brick walls; Colorbond roof sheeting and roller doors; and aluminium-framed glazing. Perimeter and internal fencing will be erected and site landscaping installed.

Proposed Dwellings 1 and 2 will present to Lily Pilly Place as depicted below (refer Figure 3).

Figure 3 - proposed Dwellings 1 and 2 presentation to Lily Pilly Place

Proposed Dwellings 1 and 2 will present to Lily Pilly Place, with Dwellings 3 and 4 located at the rear of the site. Separate access will be provided to Dwelling 1, with shared access for Dwellings 2-4. The proposed site layout is depicted below (refer Figure 4).

Figure 4 – proposed site layout

Subdivision of the development site will proceed following part-construction of each dwelling (floor slabs and service connections). Each dwelling will be excised on a separate Torrens or Community lot, as follows:

Proposed Lot	Improvements	Site Area
Torrens Lot 101	Dwelling 1	404m²
Community Lot 1	Community property – vehicle and landscaped areas	291.8m²
Community Lot 2	Dwelling 2	322.6m²
Communty Lot 3	Dwelling 3	278.8m²
Community Lot 4	Dwelling 4	308.8m²
Community Lot 5	Dwelling 6	209m²

The proposed subdivision layout is depicted below (refer Figure 5).

Figure 5 - proposed subdivision layout

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979

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

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

There are three applicable triggers in the Orange LGA known to insert a development within the Biodiversity Offset Scheme, and thereby require submission of a Biodiversity Development Assessment Report (BDAR):

1. Development occurs within land mapped on the Biodiversity Values Map.

The subject land is not identified as biodiversity sensitive on the Orange LEP 2011 Terrestrial Biodiversity Map.

2. Development involves clearing/disturbance of native vegetation above prescribed threshold.

The prescribed clearing threshold for the site is 0.25ha (based on minimum lot size for the subject land of less than 1ha ((Cl. 7.2 Biodiversity Conservation Regulation 2017). There are no trees within the site and the predominant surface cover is grass/dirt. The proposal does not involve clearing or disturbance of native vegetation.

3. Development is likely to affect a threatened species.

The subject land is contained within a developing urban residential subdivision. The development site does not contain mapped biodiversity sensitive lands, and is well-removed from mapped biodiversity lands to the south (refer Figure 6 below).

Figure 6 – mapped biodiversity sensitive lands shown red, Orange LEP 2011

There are no trees within the site and the predominant surface cover is grass/dirt. The natural state of the site and surrounding area has been highly modified by the urban landuse pattern and original subdivision works. It is considered that the proposed development will not adversely affect a threatened species.

Based on the foregoing consideration, a BDAR is not required and the proposal suitably satisfies the relevant matters at Clause 1.7 EPAA 1979.

Section 4.15

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

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

Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011

Part 1 - Preliminary

Clause 1.2 - Aims of Plan

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

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

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

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

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

The application is considered to be consistent with the above objectives as outlined below and in the following sections in this report:

· there are no aspects of the proposal that would adversely impact on the character of Orange as a major regional centre. Indeed, ongoing development of residential lands will contribute to the role of the City as a major centre (General Aim (a))

· there are no aspects of the proposal that would compromise the principles of ecologically sustainable development (General Aim (b))

· the proposal will contribute to the City’s range and supply of housing choices (General Aim (e))

· the proposal will not adversely affect the value of heritage, landscape and scenic features of the city (General Aim (f)).

Clause 1.6 - Consent Authority

Clause 1.6 is applicable and states:

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

Clause 1.7 - Mapping

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

Land Zoning Map:	Land zoned R1 General Residential
Lot Size Map:	No minimum lot size
Heritage Map:	Not a heritage item or conservation area
Height of Buildings Map:	No building height limit
Floor Space Ratio Map:	No floor space limit
Terrestrial Biodiversity Map:	No biodiversity sensitivity on the site
Groundwater Vulnerability Map:	Groundwater vulnerable
Drinking Water Catchment Map:	Not within the drinking water catchment
Watercourse Map:	Not within or affecting a defined watercourse
Urban Release Area Map:	Not within an urban release area
Obstacle Limitation Surface Map:	No restriction on building siting or construction
Additional Permitted Uses Map:	No additional permitted use applies
Flood Planning Map:	Not within a flood planning area

Those matters that are of relevance are addressed in detail in the body of this report.

Clause 1.9A - Suspension of Covenants, Agreements and Instruments

Clause 1.9A is applicable and states in part:

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

(2) This clause does not apply:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A portion of the land at the site frontage is affected by an easement to drain sewer. The proposed dwellings will be located outside of the easement and will not impact on the operation of the easements.

The land is subject to Restrictions-as-to-User which require timber paling fencing to the east boundary to William Maker Drive and south boundary to the public reserve; and prohibit access to the subject land via William Maker Drive. The proposed development will not be contrary to the restrictions, either by design or conditions of consent.

Part 2 - Permitted or Prohibited Development

Clause 2.1 - Land Use Zones

The subject site is located within the R1 General Residential Zone. The proposed development is defined as multi dwelling housing and subdivision.

The proposed development is permitted in the R1 zone.

Clause 2.3 - Zone Objectives and Land Use Table

The objectives for land zoned R1 General Residential are:

· To provide for the housing needs of the community.

· To provide for a variety of housing types and densities.

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

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

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

The proposal is not contrary to the relevant R1 zone objectives:

· the proposed development will provide additional housing stock to accommodate the housing needs of the community;

· the development will contribute to the variety of housing types and densities in the North Orange/Waratah precinct, and complement the developing neighbouring residential density;

· the proposal involves residential land use only;

· the North Orange residential area is serviced by public transport;

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

Clause 2.6 - Subdivision - Consent Requirements

Clause 2.6 is applicable and states:

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

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

Part 3 - Exempt and Complying Development

The application is not exempt or complying development.

Part 4 - Principal Development Standards

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

Clause 4.1B applies and states in part:

(2) Development consent may be granted to development on a lot in a zone shown in Column 2 of the Table to this clause for a purpose shown in Column 1 of the Table opposite that zone, if the area of the lot is equal to or greater that the area specified for that purpose and shown in Column 3 of the Table.

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3

Multi dwelling housing R1 General Residential 1250m²

In consideration of this clause, the proposed development is situated on land zoned R1 General Residential. The subject land comprises site area of 1,606m², and exceeds the minimum area of 1,250m² required for a multi dwelling housing.

Part 5 - Miscellaneous Provisions

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

Part 6 - Urban Release Area

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

Part 7 - Additional Local Provisions

Clause 7.1 - Earthworks

Clause 7.1 applies. This clause states in part:

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

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

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

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

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

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

(f) the likelihood of disturbing relics,

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

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

In consideration of this clause, the proposal is considered to be acceptable.

Appropriate drainage infrastructure will be provided within the development to ensure earthworks and finished levels will not impact on adjoining properties or receiving waterways.

The site is not known to be contaminated, nor is the site known to contain any Aboriginal, European or archaeological relics. The site is not in proximity to any waterway, drinking water catchment or sensitive area. Conditions are imposed that require sediment control measures to be implemented onsite prior to works commencing to ensure that loose dirt and sediment does not escape the site boundaries.

Clause 7.3 - Stormwater Management

Clause 7.3 is applicable. This clause states in part:

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

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

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

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

Council’s Development Engineer has recommended conditions to satisfy the requirements of Clause 7.3. Stormwater from the development will be directed to Lily Pilly Place.

Clause 7.6 Groundwater Vulnerability

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

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

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

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

In consideration of Clause 7.6, there are no aspects of the proposed residential development that will impact on groundwater and related ecosystems.

Clause 7.11 - Essential Services

Clause 7.11 applies and states:

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

(a) the supply of water,

(b) the supply of electricity,

(c) the disposal and management of sewage,

(d) storm water drainage or onsite conservation,

(e) suitable road access.

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

The site frontage to Lily Pilly Place will not accommodate the kerbside placement and collection of waste, recycling and organic bins for all of the proposed dwellings. Conditions are included on the attached Notice of Approval requiring a shared onsite waste storage facility (bin bay) be provided on the subject land to service rear Dwellings 2-4, and a run‑cost agreement be entered into with a waste collection contractor. Kerbside placement of bins for Dwelling 1 at the site frontage of Lot 101 will be acceptable.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 Remediation of Land

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

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

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

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

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

In consideration of this clause, contamination investigation was undertaken in conjunction with subdivision of the land. Since its creation as a residential allotment, the subject land has remained vacant. Further investigation as a precursor to site remediation is considered unnecessary in conjunction with the current proposal.

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

State Environmental Planning Policy Draft Remediation of Land

Draft Remediation of Land SEPP is applicable. The Draft SEPP requires in part that consideration be given to potential contamination on nearby or neighbouring properties and groundwater. Land adjoining the site is not identified or considered to be contaminated. The contamination status of neighbouring residential lands will not impact on the proposed development.

Draft Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 (Amendment 21)

Draft Amendment 24 has recently completed public exhibition (26 July – 26 August 2019). The Draft Plan involves various administrative amendments to the LEP including updated maps, and new and amended clauses. The proposed development is not contrary to any matter contained in the Draft Amendment.

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

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

· Part 2 - Natural Resource Management

· Part 3 - General Considerations

· Part 4 - Special Environmental Considerations

· Part 5 - General Considerations for Zones and Development

· Part 7 – Development in Residential Zones.

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

The relevant matters in Part 5 are addressed below (refer Any Submissions).

The proposal will reasonably satisfy the relevant planning outcomes in Part 7 as outlined in the following assessment.

DCP 2004-7.2 Residential Subdivision

The DCP sets the following (applicable) Planning Outcomes in regard to urban residential subdivision:

· lots below 500m² indicate a mandatory side setback to provide for solar access and privacy

· lots below 350m² indicate existing or planned house layouts, which identify how privacy, solar access, vehicular access and private open space needs are to be achieved

· lots are fully serviced and have direct frontage and access to a public road

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

The proposal will satisfy the above planning outcomes as follows:

- The subject land will be subdivided to excise each dwelling on a separate Torrens or Community lot (refer Figure 4 above). The residential lots will range in area between 278.8m² and 404m². As demonstrated in the following sections of this report, the proposed lots will be of sufficient area to provide a reasonable standard of residential amenity to the proposed dwellings, in compliance with the DCP (Part 7.5 - Merit-Based Approach to Residential Development in Orange).

- The proposed development will be connected to urban utility services. The proposed lots will have direct street frontage and legal and practical access to Lily Pilly Place. Separate access via Lily Pilly Place will be provided for Dwelling 1 at the site frontage, with shared access via the public road for other dwellings within the development.

- The subdivision design and construction will comply with the Orange Development and Subdivision Code, as required by conditions.

DCP 2004-7.7 Design Elements for Residential Development

Neighbourhood Character

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

Site layout and building design enables the:

· creation of attractive residential environments with clear character and identity

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

· 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 particular residential precinct is defined by contemporary single storey, brick veneer dwelling houses circa 2018. The proposed development involves a higher density residential development than prevails in the immediate neighbourhood. Notwithstanding, dual occupancies and multi dwelling housing do feature in the Waratah subdivision, and nearby to the site (23-27 William Maker Drive).

The development satisfies the R1 zone objectives to provide a variety of housing types and densities. Multi- dwelling housing is a permitted and complementary land use in the zone. It is considered that the development is sited and designed to reasonably integrate in this setting, without adversely impacting on the neighbourhood character or function.

The proposed dwellings will adopt a building form and finish typical to the neighbourhood, with use of design elements consistent with the prevailing development form including:

· detached configuration

· skillion roof profiles

· contemporary finishes

· front elevation garages and dwelling entrances

· landscaped front setbacks.

The proposal will not adversely impact on pedestrian access associated with the residential street. Excepting Dwelling 1, vehicles associated with the development will enter and exit the site in a forward direction. Sight lines within Lily Pilly Place are appropriate to avoid conflict with pedestrians.

Building Appearance

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

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

· 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.

The design and detailing for the proposed dwellings are appropriate in this neighbourhood and will complement recent dwellings on adjoining lands.

The footprint and massing for the proposed dwellings will relate to other dwellings in Lily Pilly Place. Furthermore, the detached configuration of the dwellings and presentation of Dwellings 1 and 2 at the site frontage will complement the developing streetscape built form. In order to further achieve appropriate integration of the dwellings in this setting, a condition is included on the attached Notice of Approval requiring submission of external colours and finishes.

Front elevation garages for Dwellings 1 and 2 will satisfy the DCP guidelines in respect of design, siting and width. Garages for other dwellings within the development will be located at the rear of the site and will not present to Lily Pilly Place.

Heritage

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

· heritage buildings and structures are efficiently re-used

· new development complements and enhances the significance of a heritage item or place of heritage significance listed in the Orange Heritage Study

· significant landscape features are retained including original period fences and period gardens.

The subject land does not contain or adjoin a heritage item and is not located within a heritage conservation area.

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.

Proposed Dwellings 1 and 2 will have frontage to the Lily Pilly Place cul-de-sac. The dwellings will be sited a minimum 6.6m from the street frontage, and complement the siting of the adjoining dwelling to the west at 4 Lily Pilly Place. Tandem parking forward of the double garages for Dwellings 1 and 2 will be wholly contained within the subject land.

A minimum setback of 900mm will be provided for Dwelling 4 to the William Maker Drive (rear) boundary. Visual encroachment impacts on the public road are not anticipated, notwithstanding the minimum setback. The dwellings will be cut into the site and have a finished floor level lower than the footpath; and perimeter fencing will provided to the rear boundary.

Front Fences and Walls

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcomes in regard to Fences and Walls:

· Front fences and walls:

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

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

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

The proposal does not involve the erection of front fencing to Lily Pilly Place. The open front setback will complement those for nearby dwellings in the streetscape.

The rear boundary of the subject land presents to William Maker Drive. The presentation of the site to William Maker Drive was considered in the subdivision of the parent parcel (DA 122/2014 (amended)). Condition 29 of DA 122/2014 (amended) states:

(29) A Restriction-as-to-User under Section 88B of the NSW Conveyancing Act 1979 shall be registered on the Deed of Title on Lots 12 and 13 [now consolidated Lot 100] that requires the rear boundary fencing of these lots to be lapped and capped timber fencing only. Additionally, the southern boundary of Lot 13 [now consolidated Lot 100] that is shared with the open space shall also be lapped and capped timber fencing only.

In order to ensure consistency with the subdivision DA and improve the presentation of the site in the William Maker Drive view corridor, conditions are included on the attached Notice of Approval requiring erection of rear and side fencing consistent with Condition 29 above.

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.

The site slopes towards Lily Pilly Place, with overall cross fall in the order of 3m. Substantial earthworks (cut) will be required to create level building pads for the proposed dwellings and open space areas. Retaining walls will be constructed to the rear and side boundaries and between the dwellings to achieve same. Finished floor levels for the proposed dwellings will range between 886.40 (Dwelling 1) and 888.75 (Dwelling 4) and be slightly above natural ground level. It is assessed that visual bulk encroachment impacts will be within reasonable limit for dwellings within the site. Furthermore, Dwelling 2 will be constructed at almost ground level and will not unreasonably visually encroach upon adjoining 4 Lily Pilly Place to the west.

The proposed dwellings will be single-storey, with reasonable setbacks from side and rear boundaries. The dwellings will complement the bulk and scale of dwellings nearby to the site in Lily Place Pilly Place. The proposed dwellings will be contained within the DCP‑prescribed visual bulk envelope plane (excepting gutter encroachment for Dwellings 1 and 2), as demonstrated in the submitted elevation drawings.

The proposed dwellings will comprise a total building footprint of 621.92m². Based on a site area of 1,606m² the development will have site coverage of 38.7%, in compliance with the maximum 50% prescribed for multi dwelling housing development.

Walls and Boundaries

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcome in regard to Walls and Boundaries:

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

- the privacy of neighbouring dwellings and private open space

- the access to daylight reaching adjoining properties

- the impact of boundary walls on neighbours.

The proposal does not involve the construction of buildings on the boundary. As outlined in this report, the site layout and building design will not adversely impact on adjoining dwellings in respect of privacy, solar access or visual bulk.

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.

Overshadowing of Private Open Space

Pursuant to the DCP Guidelines:

Sunlight is to be available to at least 40% of required open space for dwellings within the development and those on adjoining lands for at least three hours between 9am and 3pm.

Shadow diagrams were submitted in support of the proposal. The building designer confirms that shadows were cast from proposed floor levels and retaining wall heights, as set by civil engineering design.

As demonstrated in the submitted shadow diagrams and as outlined in the following table, on-ground solar access will be provided to the proposed dwellings, consistent with the DCP Guidelines.

Dwelling	GFA / POS required (m²)	40% POS (m²)	Solar access	DCP Compliance
Dwelling 1	150.04 / 75.02	30	11am:45.9 12pm:54.1 1pm: 60.3 2pm:60.6	Yes
Dwelling 2	112.78 / 56.39	22.56	11am: 45.4 12pm: 45.7 1pm: 43.1 2pm:39.4	Yes
Dwelling 3	106.23 / 53.12	21.25	11am: 29.1 12pm: 24.2 1pm: 24.2 2pm: 21.7	Yes
Dwelling 4	111.54 / 55.78	22.31	11am: 47.7 12pm: 61.8 1pm: 72.1 2pm: 66.3	Yes

The proposed dwellings will not result in shadowing of private open spaces for adjoining dwellings beyond the development site. Shadows cast will be wholly located within the subject land, or overshadow the adjoining public reserve to the south.

Overshadowing of Dwellings

Pursuant to the DCP Guidelines:

Sunlight to at least 75% of north-facing living area windows within the development and on adjoining land is to be provided for a minimum of four hours on 21 June; or not further reduced than existing where already less.

The proposed dwellings will each contain north-facing living room window/s. The submitted window shadow elevations demonstrate that solar access will be provided to those openings consistent with the DCP Guidelines (refer Drawing D19 in the attached plan set).

The proposed dwellings will not cause overshadowing of northern living rooms windows for adjoining dwellings beyond the development site.

Views

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

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

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

The rear boundary of the subject land presents to William Maker Drive. This matter was acknowledged in the subdivision of the parent parcel (DA 122/2014 (amended)) as follows:

The [subdivision] will result in Lots 12 and 13 [now consolidated Lot 100] having rear boundaries presenting to William Maker Drive. Requiring a vegetated buffer to the rear of these lots is not considered necessary as the presence of the open space [adjoining to the south] will assist in softening the corner of William Maker Drive and the Northern Distributor Road.

Condition 29 of DA 122/2014 (amended) states:

(29) A Restriction-as-to-User under Section 88B of the NSW Conveyancing Act 1979 shall be registered on the Deed of Title on Lots 12 and 13 [now consolidated Lot 100] that requires the rear boundary fencing of these lots to be lapped and capped timber fencing only. Additionally, the southern boundary of Lot 13 [now consolidated Lot 100] that is shared with the open space shall also be lapped and capped timber fencing only.

The proposed dwellings will have acceptable visual impacts within the view corridor formed by Lily Pilly Place. The proposed dwellings will be compatible with dwellings on adjoining land in terms of massing, design and siting.

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 proposed site layout and building design will provide acceptable visual privacy for dwellings within the development and those on adjoining parcels due to the following:

· The proposed dwellings will overlook their associated private open space areas.

· There will be nil-negligible interface between living room windows and opposing open space areas within the development.

· Perimeter and internal fencing will be installed.

· Living room windows within the development will be well set back from internal and perimeter boundaries.

· Dwelling 2 openings opposing the adjoining dwelling at 4 Lily Pilly Place will comprise bedroom and bathroom only. Notwithstanding the non-habitable internal spaces within Dwelling 2, the finished ground and floor levels for Dwelling 2 render it appropriate to require 2.1m perimeter fencing to be installed on the common boundary with 4 Lily Pilly Place. A condition is included on the attached Notice of Approval to this effect.

· Finished ground and floor levels will not result in overlooking.

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 subject land is located in proximity to the intersection of William Maker Drive and Northern Distributor Road and may be subject to traffic noise. Council’s Acting Director Development Services advises as follows in relation to this matter:

Using the noise data from the NDR – William Maker Roundabout Review of Environmental Factors (Assured Environmental, dated 5/9/19) I am satisfied that the applicant does not require any further noise assessment reporting, as the noise assessment for this REF adequately considers the development of 5 Lily Pilly. Further, the AE data indicates that the NDR and future roundabout would achieve noise compliance with the proposed units without any further attenuation. I therefore have no objection or additional requirements for this development. I note that the applicant has proposed attenuation works nonetheless which is ideal.

Conditions are included on the attached Notice of Approval requiring noise attenuation (double glazing) to the openings on the south elevation of Dwellings 1 and 4.

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 is considered acceptable in in regard to safety and security as follows:

· the design of the dwellings will offer reasonable opportunities for surveillance of Lily Pilly Place, the internal driveway, front yards and private open space areas

· the site has reasonable access control due to internal garages and perimeter and internal fencing

· the landscape design will not restrict sight lines.

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.

Proposed Dwelling 1 will have direct frontage and separate access to Lily Pilly Place. Reverse egress to the street will be required for Dwelling 1, consistent with manoeuvring arrangements for single dwellings throughout the City.

Access to proposed Dwellings 2-4 will be via a shared private roadway from Lily Pilly Place. Council’s Assistant Development Engineer advises as follows in relation to the shared access:

The proposed 4.5m wide vehicle footpath crossing is considered adequate for the multi dwelling development as the driveway is located at the end of a cul-de-sac, sight distance for vehicles entering and exiting is completely unobstructed (opposing vehicles have the length of the street as sight distance) and a passing bay is located immediately within the property boundary.

Sufficient manoeuvring area will be available within the internal roadway to permit a reverse manoeuvre from garages, onsite turning and forward direction egress to Lily Pilly Place.

The design of internal roadway will comply with the Orange Development and Subdivision Code. Internal roadways for residential development of this scale are not required to accommodate access and manoeuvring for service vehicles (eg. emergency services or waste collection).

Landscaping of the common vehicle areas is proposed. The plantings are considered suitable to provide softening of extensive hardstand vehicle areas.

Car Parking

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcomes in regard to Car Parking:

· Parking facilities are provided, designed and located to:

- enable the efficient and convenient use of car spaces and access ways within the site

- reduce the visual dominance of car parking areas and access ways.

· Car parking is provided with regard to the:

- the number and size of proposed dwellings

- requirements of people with limited mobility or disabilities.

Pursuant to DCP 2004, onsite parking is required for 3+ bedroom dwellings at a rate of 1.5 spaces per dwelling; with visitor parking required at a rate of 0.2 space per dwelling. Based on 4 dwellings, the proposed development will require 6.8 (ie 7) car parking spaces.

Eleven (11) parking spaces will be provided for the development, in compliance with the DCP as follows:

· four double garages for each of Dwellings 1-4

· two tandem spaces adjacent to the double garage for Dwelling 1

· one onsite visitor parking space between Dwellings 2 and 3.

Private Open Space

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcomes in regard to Private Open Space:

Private open space is clearly defined for private use.

· Private open space areas are of a size, shape and slope to suit the reasonable requirements of residents including some outdoor recreational needs and service functions.

· Private open space is:

- capable of being an extension of the dwelling for outdoor living, entertainment and recreation

- accessible from a living area of the dwelling

- located to take advantage of outlooks; and to reduce adverse impacts of overshadowing or privacy from adjoining buildings

- orientated to optimise year round use.

Private open space for the proposed dwellings will generally comply with the DCP Guidelines:

· Each of the proposed dwellings will be provided with open space that complies with the minimum requirement in terms of area (ie. 50% of the gross floor area of the dwelling):

Dwelling	GFA (m²)	POS Required (m²)	POS Provided (m²)	DCP Compliance
Dwelling 1	150.04	75.02	77.6	Yes
Dwelling 2	112.78	56.39	88.0	Yes
Dwelling 3	106.23	53.12	68.0	Yes
Dwelling 4	111.54	55.77	90.1	Yes

· Private open space for each dwelling will have a minimum dimension of 3m.

· Private open space for each dwelling will accommodate an area of 5m x 5m.

· Private open space for the dwellings will be located behind the building line and be provided with a northerly aspect.

· As outlined previously, the solar access to each area of private open space on the winter solstice is considered satisfactory.

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, access ways and parking areas

· paving is applied sparingly and integrated in the landscape design.

A landscape plan has been submitted in support of the proposal. The plan is considered generally suitable to provide integration of the dwellings in the streetscape, softening of hardstand vehicle areas and internal privacy screening. A condition is included on the attached Notice of Approval requiring an additional advanced tree be provided in the rear yard for each dwelling.

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 flow paths.

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

Conditions are recommended in relation to stormwater management of the development.

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.

DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS

Section 7.11 Development Contributions & Section 64 Headworks Charges

Development contributions are applicable to the proposed development, pursuant to Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017 (Waratah Contributions Area) as follows:

Open Space and Recreation	Four x 3+ bedroom dwellings @ $3876.55 less 2 x standard lots @ $3,876.55	$7,753.10
Community and Cultural	Four x 3+ bedroom dwellings @ $1124.18 less 2 x standard lots @ $1124.18	$2,248.36
Roads and Traffic Management	Four x 3+ bedroom dwellings @ $5,116.91 less 2 x standard lots @ $5,116.91	$10,233.82
Local Area Facilities	Four x 3+ bedroom dwellings @ $9,299.83 less 2 x standard lots @ $9,299.83	$18,599.66
Plan Preparation & Administration	Four x 3+ bedroom dwellings @ $582.53 less 2 x standard lots @ $582.53	$1,165.06
TOTAL:		$40,000

Headworks charges for water supply, sewerage and stormwater will also apply to the proposal. The contributions are based on four x 3 bedroom dwellings (the existing allotment has a credit the equivalent of two standard lots which will be applied at the time of payment).

Conditions are included on the attached Notice of Approval requiring payment of development contributions.

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

Demolition of a Building (clause 92)

The proposal does not involve the demolition of a building.

Fire Safety Considerations (clause 93)

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

Buildings to be Upgraded (clause 94)

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

BASIX Commitments (clause 97A)

A satisfactory BASIX certificate has been submitted with the application.

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

Neighbourhood Amenity

The proposal will provide and retain a reasonable standard of residential amenity for the proposed dwellings and those on adjoining lands in respect of solar access, privacy etc. The proposed development will provide for a continuation of residential land use, albeit in a more compact form, and will not alter the function of the neighbourhood. The development will not have adverse impacts on neighbourhood amenity.

Visual Impacts

The visual impacts of the proposed site layout and building design are considered acceptable, as outlined in the foregoing sections of this report.

A shared waste storage facility/bin bay will be provided on the subject land (via condition of consent) for Dwellings 2-4, to preclude the need for kerbside collection. Conditions are included that the bin bay be located on the shared driveway behind the Dwellings 1 and 2 front building line, in order that the facility will not be visually prominent in the streetscape.

Traffic Impacts

The proposal is considered to be satisfactory in terms of traffic impacts. Council’s Assistant Development Engineer advises that the anticipated traffic volume increase is well within the existing road capacity and will not impact on pedestrian safety.

As outlined previously, site accesses and onsite manoeuvring areas are appropriate and will accommodate standard vehicles associated with the development. Onsite car parking will comply with the requirements of DCP 2004.

Cumulative Impacts

The proposal is considered to be satisfactory in terms of cumulative impact. The proposed dwellings will complement the neighbourhood built form in respect of bulk, design features and external finishes. The proposed development will not reduce the open space, solar access or privacy afforded to neighbouring properties. Similarly, the site layout and building design will provide a reasonable standard of residential amenity for the proposed dwellings in terms of open space, solar access and privacy. The development will contribute to the diversity of housing forms in the precinct in a manner that is consistent with the neighbourhood character.

Environmental Impacts

The subject land is contained within a developing residential precinct and comprises vacant, cleared land. 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. Sediment control measures, as required by conditions, will prevent loose dirt and sediment escaping the site and polluting downstream waterways.

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

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

· the proposal is permitted on the subject land R1 General Residential zoning

· the site is of sufficient area and dimensions to accommodate multi dwelling housing and provide a suitable standard of residential amenity

· the site has direct frontage and access to public streets

· 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.

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

Council resolved to request the applicant to consider redesign. The applicant subsequently redesigned the proposal by reducing the number of units to 4 units. The amended units comprised three bedrooms each.

The proposed development is defined as "advertised development" pursuant to DCP 2004-5.3. The amended application was advertised for the prescribed period of 14 days and at the end of that period one (1) submission had been received.

The submission was received from the adjoining owner to the west (at 4 Lily Pilly Place) and requested additional privacy measures to prevent overlooking from Dwelling 2 to 4 Lily Pilly Place.

Proposed Dwelling 2 will be constructed slightly above natural ground level, and opposing openings to the west will comprise wet areas and bedroom only. The privacy situation between the dwellings is considered largely typical of a suburban setting. Notwithstanding, conditions are included on the attached Notice of Approval requiring additional screen planting on the common boundary in the rear yard of Dwelling 2; a 2.1m common boundary fence; and opaque glazing to wet area openings on the west elevation.

PUBLIC INTEREST s4.15(1)(e)

The proposal is not inconsistent with any relevant policy statements, planning studies, guidelines etc. that have not been considered in this assessment.

SUMMARY

As a consequence of neighbour objection and Council resolution, the development has been amended to a less intense form of residential development. The amended development is consistent with the planning provisions that apply to the subject land and particular land use. Impacts of the development are considered to be within reasonable limit, consistent with applicable standards and addressed by appropriate conditions of development consent. Approval of the application is recommended

Attached is a draft Notice of Approval outlining a range of conditions considered appropriate to ensure that the development proceeds in an acceptable manner.

Attachments

1 Notice of Approval, D19/70664 ⇩

2 Plans, D19/70702 ⇩

3 Submissions, D19/70672 ⇩

Planning and Development Committee 3 December 2019

Attachment 1 Notice of Approval

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

Development Application No DA 91/2019(1)

NA19/ Container PR28319

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 4.18

Development Application
Applicant Name:	Mr I Y Zhang
Applicant Address:	38 Farrell Road ORANGE NSW 2800
Owner’s Name:	I J Zhang Pty Limited
Land to Be Developed:	Lot 100 DP 1248945 - 5 Lily Pilly Place, Orange
Proposed Development:	Multi Dwelling Housing (four dwellings) and Subdivision (one lot Torrens title and four lot Community title)

Building Code of Australia building classification:	Class as determined by certifier

Determination made under Section 4.16
Made On:	3 December 2019
Determination:	CONSENT GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:

Consent to Operate From:	4 December 2019
Consent to Lapse On:	4 December 2024

Terms of Approval

The reasons for the imposition of conditions are:

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

(2) To maintain neighbourhood amenity and character.

(3) To ensure compliance with relevant statutory requirements.

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

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

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

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

Conditions

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

(a) Drawings by designs@m. Job No. 17-051 - Sheets Nos. DA01-DA05 Rev. A, DA06-DA11 and DA20 (13 sheets)

BASIX Certificate No. 1006104M_02

(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.

(4) In the case of residential building work for which the Home Building Act 1989 requires there to be a contract of insurance in force in accordance with Part 6 of the Act, evidence that such a contract of insurance is in force is to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority before any building work authorised to be carried out by the consent commences.

(5) Residential building work within the meaning of the Home Building Act 1989 must not be carried out unless the principal certifying authority for the development to which the work relates (not being the council) has given the council written notice of the following information:

(a) in the case of work for which a principal contractor is required to be appointed:

(i) the name and the licence number of the principal contractor, and

(ii) the name of the insurer by which the work is insured under Part 6 of that Act,

(b) in the case of work to be done by an owner-builder:

(i) the name of the owner-builder, and

(ii) if the owner-builder is required to hold an owner-builder permit under that Act, the number of the owner-builder permit.

If arrangements for doing the residential building work are changed while the work is in progress so that the information under this condition becomes out of date, further work must not be carried out unless the principal certifying authority for the development to which the work relates (not being the council) has given the council written notice of the updated information.

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

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

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

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

STAGE 1- MULTI-DWELLING HOUSING (FOUR DWELLINGS)

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

(7) 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.

(8) The payment of $40,000 is to be made to Council in accordance with Section 7.11 of the Act and the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017 (Waratah Contributions Area) towards the provision of the following public facilities:

Open Space and Recreation	Four x 3+ bedroom dwellings @ $3876.55 less 2 x standard lots @ $3,876.55	7,753.10
Community and Cultural	Four x 3+ bedroom dwellings @ $1124.18 less 2 x standard lots @ $1124.18	2,248.36
Roads and Traffic Management	Four x 3+ bedroom dwellings @ $5,116.91 less 2 x standard lots @ $5,116.91	10,233.82
Local Area Facilities	Four x 3+ bedroom dwellings @ $9,299.83 less 2 x standard lots @ $9,299.83	18,599.66
Plan Preparation & Administration	Four x 3+ bedroom dwellings @ $582.53 less 2 x standard lots @ $582.53	1,165.06
TOTAL:		$40,000

The contribution will be indexed quarterly in accordance with the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017 (Waratah Contributions Area). This Plan can be inspected at the Orange Civic Centre, Byng Street, Orange.

(9) Full details of external colours and finishes (dwellings, fences, retaining walls and hardstand surfaces) shall be submitted to, and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments prior to issue of a Construction Certificate. External colours and finishes shall relate to nearby dwellings in Lily Pilly Place and Bluebell Way.

(10) An onsite waste storage facility (bin bay) for shall be provided for Dwellings 2-4. The facility shall be centrally located within the site adjacent to the internal driveway, and behind the front building line for proposed Dwellings 1 and 2. The waste storage facility shall be shown on the Construction Certificate plans to the satisfaction of the Manager of Development Assessments.

(11) An amended landscape plan shall be submitted for the approval of Council’s Manager Development Assessments. The plan shall incorporate plantings shown on approved Drawing DA03 as amended below and including:

· Large trees in the front setback to Lily Pilly Place, with a minimum 70L container size at planting;

· A large tree in the rear private open space area for each dwelling, with a minimum 70L container size at planting; and

· A hedge in the rear yard of Dwelling 2 on the common boundary with Lot 11 DP 1244659 – 4 Lily Pilly Place, extending from the Dwelling 2 rear building façade to the rear boundary.

(12) Openings to the south elevations of Dwellings 1 and 4 shall be double glazed.

Wet area openings on the west elevation of Dwelling 2 shall comprise opaque glazing.

Details shall be provided on the construction certificate drawings.

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

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

(15) 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.

(16) Grated stormwater pits are to be provided in the central driveway and to each dwelling within the individual yard areas of the multi-dwelling development. All stormwater from the site is to be collected and piped to:

· the kerb and gutter in Lily Pilly Place where the stormwater discharge quantity from the development is less than 20 litres per sec; OR

· to Council’s existing piped stormwater system in Lily Pilly Place where the stormwater discharge quantity from the development is greater than 20 litres per sec.

Dwelling 1 may discharge directly to the kerb in Lily Pilly Place.

Prior to a Construction Certificate being issued engineering plans for this stormwater system are to be submitted to and approved by Orange City Council.

(17) A 150mm-diameter sewer main is to be constructed from Council’s existing main to serve the proposed Lot 101 and the multi-dwelling development. Prior to a Construction Certificate being issued engineering plans for this sewerage system are to be submitted to and approved by Orange City Council.

Internal sewer lines servicing the multi-dwelling development from the sewer junction shall be constructed as private sewer mains.

(18) 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 water supply headworks and sewerage headworks for 4 x three bedroom dwellings (the existing allotment has a credit for two x 3 bedroom dwellings which will be applied at the time of payment). 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.

(19) Dwellings 2 to 4 shall be served by single potable and non-potable water meters located within the proposed common Lot. Internal water lines servicing the multi-dwelling development from the meters shall be constructed as private water mains. Engineering plans of the meter location and size shall be submitted to Orange City Council for approval prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

Dwelling 1 water services shall be located on the frontage of proposed Lot 101.

Unused water services shall be capped off at the main. Water service connections shall be located clear of driveway / footpath crossings.

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

PRIOR TO WORKS COMMENCING

(21) 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.

(22) 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.

(23) The location and depth of the sewer junction/connection to Council’s sewerage system is to be determined to ensure that adequate fall to the sewer is available.

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

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

(25) All materials 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.

(26) All services (water, sewer and stormwater) shall be laid outside the easement unless there is a direct connection to the main within that easement.

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

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

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

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

(30) Heavy-duty concrete kerb and gutter laybacks and footpath crossings are 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 the Road Opening Permit.

A minimum 4.5m wide concrete kerb and gutter layback and footpath crossing is to be constructed to serve Dwellings 2 to 4.

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

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

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

(33) Timber paling fencing, 1.8m high, shall be provided to the rear (east) boundary to William Maker Drive and side (south) boundary to the public reserve.

Fencing on the common boundary with Lot 11 DP 1244659 – 4 Lily Pilly Place shall comprise 2.1m high Colorbond rails and panels.

Internal fencing shall be provided to the development site in accordance with the approved plans.

The height of fencing shall be measured from the highest finished ground level adjacent to each part of that fence.

(34) Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved landscaping plan and shall be permanently maintained to the satisfaction of Council's Manager Development Assessment.

(35) The proponent shall enter into a private service agreement with a waste contractor for the collection of garage, recycling and organic waste associated with Dwellings 2-4. Details of the service agreement shall be provided to Council prior to issue of an Occupation Certificate.

(36) 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.

(37) 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.

(38) 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.

(39) 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.

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

(41) 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.

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

(43) 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 or Subdivision Certificate, unless stated otherwise.

MATTERS FOR THE ONGOING PERFORMANCE AND OPERATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT

(44) Waste bins for Dwellings 2-4 shall be placed in the shared onsite waste storage facility on collection days only, for collection by private contractor. At other times, bins shall be stored with the respective dwellings. Kerbside placement of bins in Lily Pilly Place for Dwellings 2-4 is not permitted. Kerbside placement of bins for Dwelling1 is permitted.

STAGE 2 - SUBDIVISION (ONE LOT TORRENS TITLE)

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

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

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A SUBDIVISION CERTIFICATE

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

(47) 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 Lots comply in respect to the distances of walls from boundaries.

(48) Prior to the issue of a subdivision certificate evidence shall be provided of the payment of water and sewer headworks charges and s711 contributions for the multi dwelling development.

(49) 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.

(50) 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.

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

(52) 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.

(53) All engineering conditions of this development consent relating to the servicing of each dwelling are to be completed prior to the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate.

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

(55) 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.

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

STAGE 3 - SUBDIVISION (FOUR LOT COMMUNITY TITLE)

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

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

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A SUBDIVISION CERTIFICATE

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

(59) 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 Lots comply in respect to the distances of walls from boundaries.

(60) 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.

(61) 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.

(62) 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.

(63) All engineering conditions of this development consent relating to the servicing of each dwelling are to be completed prior to the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate.

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

(65) Prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate the following conditions ‘a’ to ‘e’ must be included in the Community Title Management statement:

a water and sewer mains constructed as private services by the developer must accord with at least the National Plumbing Code standards; and

b Orange City Council makes no representation that the private water and sewer related services provided to the development are suitable; and

c if a request is made at any time in the future by the developer or future owner to Orange City Council to extend the private services for any reason, then such extension shall be at Orange City Council standards including appropriate easements and must be constructed, funded and transferred by the applicant; and

d Orange City Council will not provide maintenance services to the private services; and

e clauses a-e shall not be deleted, varied or modified without the written consent of Orange City Council.

(66) The private service agreement for the collection of garbage, recycling and organic waste associated with Dwellings 2-4 shall be incorporated into the Community Management Statement. The waste service agreement shall not be amended or deleted without the agreement of Orange City Council.

(67) 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.

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:	4 December 2019

Planning and Development Committee 3 December 2019

2.3 Development Application DA 308/2019(1) - 185-191 Byng Street

RECORD NUMBER: 2019/2563

AUTHOR: Kelly Walker, Senior Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged	13 September 2019
Applicant/s	Ms S J McPaul
Owner/s	Sturgeon and Flowers Pty Limited
Land description	Lot 12 DP 1047837 - 191 Byng Street, Orange
Proposed land use	Recreation Facility (indoor) (change of use)
Value of proposed development	$0

Council's consent is sought to change the use of an existing vacant industrial unit at tenancy 5, 185-191 Byng Street, Orange (see Figure 1) to a small scale gym for personal training (indoor recreation).

Figure 1 - locality plan

The tenancy was previously used for industrial storage/warehouse and it is proposed to use the main space for one-on-one training sessions and small group classes up to six (6) people, as well as the existing ancillary office and toilet facilities. No works are proposed.

Proposed hours of operation are 5am to 8pm Monday to Friday, and 6am to 9am on Saturdays. It is proposed that the business will be run by the owner-operator with no staff.

Parking is available on the site, which is shared between the five tenancies, with right-of-way vehicular access through the Tradelink site at the front of the subject land off Byng Street. Staff have raised concerns that the proposed gym, which has a much higher demand for parking than the existing industrial use, would need to rely on some of the parking spaces shared with neighbouring tenancies. The site is located within the Car Parking Contribution area, and as such, car parking contributions can be levied in lieu of parking being provided on the site/any shortfall in car parking in accordance with the Orange Car Parking Contribution Plan 2015.

Whilst not explicitly requesting a waiver in car parking contributions, the applicant states that there is no shortfall in parking and thus no contributions are payable. Council staff do not concur with the arguments put forward by the applicant, where the proposal cannot provide sufficient parking on the site based on the car parking requirements of the Orange Development Control Plan 2004 (DCP). This matter is discussed in detail in the DCP assessment section of this report. It is recommended that Council supports the application, subject to the payment of a contribution for the shortfall in car parking on the site.

DECISION FRAMEWORK

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.

DIRECTOR’S COMMENT

This application for a small gym in an existing industrial unit development is generally compliant. One issue that has arisen for the applicant is a result of gradual changes to occupancies within the industrial units over the years is parking.

The development is within the parking contribution area. It could be argued that previous changes to the use of the other industrial units has already used up all additional parking spaces and therefore this development should be responsible for full contributions. However staff have considered the impacts of such and appreciate the financial hardship that this would cause for such a small business along with the actual likely environmental impacts of the proposal.

A liberal/practical approach to the parking has been applied by staff in accordance with Council policy, whereby the development is charged only for a short fall of 3.3 spaces instead of 9. The applicant did submit an argument not to apply any parking contributions, however it is considered that this would be inappropriate and some contribution is required. Approval of the development application with a condition requiring the reduced level of parking contribution is recommended.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

That Council consents to development application DA 308/2019(1) for Recreation Facility (indoor) (change of use) at Lot 12 DP 1047837 - 191 Byng Street, Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

THE PROPOSAL

The proposal involves changing the use of the previous industrial storage/warehouse to a recreation facility (indoor) for one-on-one training sessions and small group classes up to 6 people, as well as use of the existing ancillary office and toilet facilities. No internal or external works are proposed.

Proposed hours of operation are 5am to 8pm Monday to Friday, and 6am to 9am on Saturdays. It is proposed that the business will be run by the owner-operator with no other staff. Generally there will be 3 morning classes and 3 evening classes during the week, where classes will run for 45mins with at least a 15min break between each class.

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 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.

There are four triggers known to insert a development into the Biodiversity Offset Scheme (ie the need for a BDAR to be submitted with a DA):

· Trigger 1: development occurs in land mapped on the Biodiversity Values Map (OEH) (clause 7.1 of BC Regulation 2017);

· Trigger 2: development involves clearing/disturbance of native vegetation above a certain area threshold (clauses 7.1 and 7.2 of BC Regulation 2017); or

· Trigger 3: development is otherwise likely to significantly affect threatened species (clauses 7.2 and 7.3 of BC Act 2016).

The fourth trigger (development proposed to occur in an Area of Outstanding Biodiversity Value (clause 7.2 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.

In consideration of the above, the site is not within land mapped on the Biodiversity Values Map; the proposal does not involve clearing or disturbance of vegetation; is unlikely to significantly affect threatened species is listed in the BC Act 2016; and is not within an Area of Outstanding Biodiversity Value (clause 7.2 of BC Act 2016). As such, 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,

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

The application is considered to be consistent with these 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 IN1 General Industrial
Lot Size Map:	Minimum Lot Size 800m²
Heritage Map:	Not a heritage item or conservation area (but located directly adjacent to 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 subject land is affected by Rights of Access, and relies on rights of way and easements over the adjacent land to the south for access and servicing to and from Byng Street. The proposal does not impact on any of these rights. 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 and

The subject site is located within the IN1 General Industrial zone. The proposed gym is defined as a “recreation facility (indoor)” under the LEP 2011, which means:

a building or place used predominantly for indoor recreation, whether or not operated for the purposes of gain, including a squash court, indoor swimming pool, gymnasium, table tennis centre, health studio, bowling alley, ice rink or any other building or place of a like character used for indoor recreation, but does not include an entertainment facility, a recreation facility (major) or a registered club.

A recreation facility (indoor) is permitted with consent in this zone, and this application is seeking consent.

Clause 2.3 - Zone Objectives and Land Use Table

Clause 2.3 of LEP 2011 references the Land Use Table and Objectives for each zone in LEP 2011. These objectives for land zoned IN1 General Industrial are as follows:

· To provide a wide range of industrial and warehouse land uses.

· To encourage employment opportunities.

· To minimise any adverse effect of industry on other land uses.

· To support and protect industrial land for industrial uses.

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

The proposed gym is not generally consistent with the objectives for this zone as it is not an industrial use. However, no physical changes are proposed to the unit/tenancy, and thus the proposal will not impact on the potential future use of the unit for industrial purposes. Furthermore, the gym can be used by the surrounding industrial and residential uses, thereby being compatible with the zone. Concerns have been raised in relation to whether the proposal can provide sufficient car parking without adversely impacting on the other industrial uses in the complex and in the surrounds. This is discussed in detail in the DCP assessment section of this report.

Part 3 - Exempt and Complying Development

The application is not exempt or complying development.

Part 4 - Principal Development Standards

Not relevant to this application.

Part 5 - Miscellaneous Provisions

Not relevant to this application.

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

The building is connected to the existing stormwater system and no changes are proposed to the building. Therefore, post-development runoff levels will not exceed the pre‑development levels.

7.6 - Groundwater Vulnerability

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

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

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

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

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

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

The proposal is not anticipated to involve the discharge of toxic or noxious substances and is therefore unlikely to contaminate the groundwater or related ecosystems. The proposal does not involve extraction of groundwater and will therefore not contribute to groundwater depletion.

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

The proposal involves a change of use from an industrial premises to a commercial type of premises, and was most recently used for storage for a painter’s business. Council records have flagged up that the painting business could have been storing chemicals, but is not aware of any contamination on the land. Council’s Environmental Health officer notes that given the history of use of the land, and the fact that the building has a modern concrete slab floor, it is unlikely to be contaminated. Further contamination investigation is therefore considered unnecessary in this case.

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

From 31 January to13 April 2018 the Department of Planning and Environment publically exhibited an Explanation of Intended Effect (EIE) and Draft Planning Guidelines for the proposed Remediation of Land SEPP, which will repeal and replace State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land (SEPP 55). Of particular note, the Draft Planning Guidelines state:

“In undertaking an initial evaluation, a planning authority should consider whether there is any known or potential contamination on nearby or neighbouring properties, or in nearby groundwater, and whether that contamination needs to be considered in the assessment and decision making process.”

“If the planning authority knows that contamination of nearby land is present but has not yet been investigated, it may require further information from the applicant to demonstrate that the contamination on nearby land will not adversely affect the subject land having regard to the proposed use.” (Proposed Remediation of Lands SEPP - Draft Planning Guidelines, Page 10).

Council is not aware of any contamination of adjoining or nearby land, however, some neighbouring land has recently been or is currently being used by potentially contaminating activities. As noted in the SEPP 55 assessment above, given the subject building has a modern concrete slab floor, contamination from neighbouring properties is unlikely to be an issue, and further investigation is considered unnecessary in this case.

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.

Chapter 9 - Development in the Industry and Employment Zone (PO 9.3-1)

The Planning Outcomes for Industrial Site Development include:

· Buildings are set back a minimum 10m from front boundaries for lots greater than 1000m2 and 5m for lots less than 1000m².

· Buildings cover up to 50% of the site area.

· Landscaping is provided along boundaries fronting roads including trees with an expected mature height at least comparable to the height of buildings on the site. All sites to contain an element of landscaping. Plantings are designed to provide shade for parking areas, to break up large areas of bitumen, to enhance building presentation and to screen against noise.

· Architectural features are provided to the front building façade to provide relief using such elements as verandahs, display windows, indented walls, etc.

· External materials are non-reflective.

· Adequate parking and onsite manoeuvring is provided.

· Advertising involves business identification signs within the front building façade and/or by a pole sign comparable to the relative height to the main building on the site.

· Security fencing is located or designed in a manner that does not dominate the visual setting of the area.

With the exception of parking, these planning outcomes are not relevant to the proposal as the subject premises is located within an existing industrial complex with no external changes to the building. As such, the proposal will have no visual impacts on the adjacent heritage conservation area. The application does not seek consent for signage changes, which do not need consent if they meet the requirements of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Except and Complying Development Codes) 2008. The complex was approved under development consent 03/046 DA on 20 August 2003. A detailed assessment on car parking has been carried out in “Chapter 15 - Car Parking” below.

Chapter 9 – Industries Near Residential Areas (PO 9.6-1)

The Planning Outcomes for Industries Near Residential Areas include:

· Applications for development which has the potential to impact on residential areas in the vicinity, identify likely impacts and outline reasonable mitigation measures.

· Industries with potentially significant off site impacts are located well away from areas zoned residential or rural residential and take into account the proximity to existing houses.

· Impacts from existing developments affected by industrial "control area" provisions under LEP 2000 are contained within the control area.

The subject site is a battleaxe parcel located on the northern side of Byng Street. Land on the southern side of Byng Street comprises residential dwellings, and there are also some residential dwellings on William Street to the west. While the proposed use of the premises for a gym is not technically an industrial activity, it is considered that noise emissions will be generated from the coming and going of vehicles, and from classes (such as movement, vibration, amplified music, amplified microphone, etc.). It is expected that most noise will be contained within the building, other than traffic movements, which will be similar to other vehicles coming and going from the site, albeit a much higher volume than at present, as the proposal will result in more traffic movements. The early morning classes (5am and 6am) and evening classes (7pm) will generally be run outside of normal business hours, but will also be during the evening and night time periods in terms of noise criteria. Background noise levels are lower in these periods, and noise has a greater chance of impacting nearby residential properties. Council’s Environmental Health and Building officer recommends conditions of consent that the activity complies with the relevant noise standards (i.e. background noise levels), and that the roller door remains closed.

Chapter 15 - Car Parking

Existing onsite car parking has been provided for the industrial complex in accordance with the former requirements for industrial land use (i.e. 1 space per 90m² for gross floor area (GFA) pursuant to DCP 11). Sixteen (16) shared onsite parking spaces were required for the subject complex when this land and the adjoining Tradelink complex were subdivided in 2002 (DA 02/001). Based on the floor area of Unit 5 of 264m², 2.9 spaces are available to accommodate the parking demands generated by the existing industrial use of the unit.

Pursuant to the current DCP, the rate for gymnasiums/health and fitness centres applies, where 4.5 spaces are required for every 100m² of GFA0.

This rate is supported by the car parking demands researched by Roads and Maritime Services (RMS), although they recommend applying a higher desirable rate of 7.5 spaces. Council staff consider that the higher rate is not reasonable in this case, given the gym runs small classes and personal training.

The lower DCP rate of 4.5 spaces/100 m² results in a demand of 11.88 spaces. As only 2.9 spaces are available for use by this tenancy, the proposed gym falls short by 8.98 spaces. Twenty (20) onsite parking spaces are available on the subject land to accommodate the parking requirements associated with the site, which are to be shared by all tenants of the complex. Car parking is not formally allocated to individual units and is thereby self‑regulating. It is noted that parking has been provided in excess of what was previously required, with four (4) additional spaces. Having said this Council subsequently approved a dance studio within Unit 3 in 2015 which while not explicitly indicated in the former assessment ultimately used up the 4 additional spaces provided on the land at that time. To be fair if the five (5) tenancies on the land shared the overflow spaces, it would result in an additional 0.8 spaces being available to the subject tenancy. Thus the shortfall in this case would be reduced to 8.18 spaces.

Ongoing discussions have been held with the applicant in respect of the proposal and parking requirements. The applicant argues that these shared spaces are currently under‑utilised, and therefore can be used by the proposed gym. However, it is not considered reasonable or acceptable to use spaces allocated to other tenants in the complex. While other tenants might not use all of their parking spaces at present, they may in the future. Furthermore, the uses of the neighbouring tenancies are likely to change over time, with or without the need for development consent, and thus their parking needs will fluctuate over time.

The applicant also argues that there is ample available car parking on the adjoining Tradelink site, which can provide for overflow parking for the proposed gym. However, there is no formal or legal arrangement to use this parking, which has been provided to accommodate the parking requirements of that use. The adjoining car park is a private car park that is not intended or required to supplement parking for neighbouring land uses.

Although car parking cannot be provided on the site in accordance with the rate in the DCP, mitigating factors exist due to the characteristics of the proposed business, as well as the operational and parking requirements of neighbouring tenants, including:

· Timetables for classes are not generally back-to-back, with 15 minute gaps between to allow for car parking changeover.

· Staff and student numbers are low (max. 6), and half of the classes are held outside of usual business hours of neighbouring tenants, being early mornings and evenings, and on Saturdays, when there is a high parking vacancy rate on the site.

Notwithstanding these mitigating factors, the classes that will be held during usual business hours have the potential to adversely impact on traffic and parking arrangements within the complex by utilising parking spaces intended for adjoining tenants. In the longer-term, if all spaces become utilised, overspill parking will impact on the availability of on-street parking on Byng Street. No other parking can be provided without affecting access arrangements, manoeuvring, and the legal Rights of Access on the site. The Orange Car Parking Contributions Plan 2015 (the Plan) allows for the payment of contributions in lieu of providing parking onsite, and the subject site is within the mapped contributions area.

The Plan states that all development within the CBD (i.e. mapped area) is required to make adequate arrangements for parking related to the development, and anticipates demand that arises from developments that cannot provide sufficient onsite parking. The contributions are made towards the provision, extension, or augmentation of public car parking facilities where development is likely to require the provision of or increase the demand of those facilities.

It is considered that during peak use and within usual business hours, the proposal is likely to result in overspill of parking into neighbouring tenancies parking spaces; onto the adjoining site (unlawfully); and from the site into the street if all tenancies use their parking allocations. Although the applicant notes that this is not the current scenario, the assessment of the proposed gym, which has a much higher demand for parking that the former and exiting uses of the industrial complex, needs to take into account worse-case-scenario use of the site. Staff have looked at different ways to mitigate parking impacts, such as limiting classes to only be outside of normal business hours, or limiting intensity/numbers within the parking allocation – being only three (3) patrons including staff. None of these mitigating measures are considered reasonable to allow for the viable operation of the proposed business. As such, given that the land is now included in the car parking contributions area it is recommended that a contribution is levied towards the shortfall in parking, and the intensity of the business is limited to that proposed in the application, being six (6) patrons and one (1) staff member (i.e. seven (7) persons at any one time).

On this basis, an argument could be made reducing the demand of parking, thus reducing the shortfall, and reducing the contribution payable. The following parking calculations are recommended by staff:

Max. persons/peak demand à 7 spaces, less existing allocation 3.7 spaces = increased demand of 3.3 spaces

This brings the parking shortfall down to 3.3 spaces (opposed to the DCP rate of 8.18 space shortfall). Based on the current contribution rate for a change of use (1 December 2019 – 29 February 2020) of $7,369.72, the shortfall requires a payment of $24,320.08 (opposed to a contribution of $60,284.31 based on the DCP rate shortfall).

The applicant states that there is no parking shortfall, and that parking contributions should not apply in this case. It appears the applicant is implicitly seeking a waiver to contributions on the basis that:

· ample car parking is available on the subject land by using neighbouring tenancies currently unused spaces

· ample car parking is available on adjoining land by using the neighbouring business’ spaces

· the nearest public car parks are too far away to be of benefit to the proposed business/site, and no public car parks are currently proposed nearby.

Staff do not agree with the arguments put forward by the applicant. Firstly the proposal increases the need and demand for car parking for the tenancy compared with the existing use, and as this additional demand cannot be provided on the site, there is a shortfall in parking. Secondly, no alternative mitigating factors have been offered by the applicant in regards to the impacts arising from the increased demand and shortfall.

Lastly, the proposed gym is not generally consistent with the objectives for the IN1 zone as it is not an industrial use. As such, it needs to be demonstrated that the the proposal can provide sufficient car parking without adversely impacting on the other industrial uses in the complex and in the surrounds.

Overall, it is considered that car parking and traffic impacts can be adequately minimised through conditions of consent limiting the intensity of the use, and requiring a contribution payable at the lowest calculated demand.

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 structural capacity of the building and the proposed fire safety measures are appropriate for the proposed new building use. Relevant conditions are attached.

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)

Neighbourhood Impacts

The subject building is located at the rear of land fronting Byng Street, and is directly surrounded by uses of an industrial or commercial nature. Residential properties are located nearby. The subject land is located in an industrial zone, and although the proposed gym is a recreational use, it is considered to be compatible with this zoning, subject to conditions of consent ensuring noise and parking impacts are minimised, as discussed in the DCP assessment section of this report. In particular, that noise levels at residential boundaries are maintained at an acceptable level, and that the roller door remain closed during classes.

Overall, subject to the recommended conditions of consent, neighbourhood impacts are likely to be minor.

Parking and Traffic Impacts

As discussed in the DCP assessment section of this report, the proposed development cannot meet the parking requirements set out in the DCP. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that the nature of the gym can be limited to numbers proposed in the application (i.e. max. 7 persons, including staff), thus reducing the demand for car parking, and reducing the shortfall in parking on the site. It is considered that during peak demand and business hours, the proposal is likely to impact on the availability of parking on the site (which should be shared with other tenancies), parking on the neighbouring site (which would be carried out unlawfully), and ultimately on-street parking in Byng Street.

A car parking contribution is recommended in lieu of the increased parking demand, which will help mitigate traffic, parking, and cumulative impacts.

Overall, subject to the recommended conditions of consent, traffic and parking impacts are likely to be minor.

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

The subject site is suitable for the proposed development due to the following:

· recreational facilities (indoor) are permitted in the IN1 General Industrial zone

· the proposed gym can be carried out in a way that will be compatible with surrounding uses, subject to conditions of consent discussed in this report

· no external changes to the building or site are proposed

· the proposal increased the demand of parking on the site, however, additional parking cannot be provided given site constraints. The shortfall in car parking can be mitigated through limiting the intensity of the use, and through the payment of a car parking contribution

· utility services are available to the site.

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

The proposed development is defined as "advertised development" under the provisions of the DCP. The application was advertised for the prescribed period of 14 days and at the end of that period no submissions were received.

PUBLIC INTEREST s4.15(1)(e)

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

SUMMARY

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

COMMENTS

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

Attachments

1 Notice of Approval, D19/71001 ⇩

2 Plans, D19/70521 ⇩

Planning and Development Committee 3 December 2019

2.4 Orange LEP 2011 - Amendment 13 - Rosedale Gardens - Post Exhibition Report

RECORD NUMBER: 2019/2528

AUTHOR: Craig Mortell, Senior Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

On 1 March 2016 Council first considered a report for a planning proposal to rezone the former abattoir site in Leeds Parade and associated farmland to the north of the abattoir to allow for a potential residential lifestyle estate of approximately 450 lots, mainly 1 acre (4000m²) with some 2 acre (8000m²) lots. Originally called Clergate Hills by the proponent the project has subsequently been renamed ‘Rosedale Gardens’.

It must be noted that the gateway determination, issued 10 June 2016, withheld delegation for plan making due to inconsistency with the Blayney Cabonne Orange Rural and Industrial Land Strategy 2008 (BCO). Accordingly the power to formally ‘make’ the plan and rezone the land rests with the Department of Planning Industry and Environment (DPIE). A Council resolution on this matter will therefore not be determinative but will guide the (DPIE) as to whether Council supports, with or without qualification, or opposes the proposal.

The delay in progressing this proposal has been due to a range of issues raised by the (DPIE), as well as neighbouring Councils Blayney and Cabonne Shire. Specifically in terms of how the proposal relates to the Blayney Cabonne Orange subregional rural and industrial strategy (BCO) adopted in 2008 and this was further complicated by the proposal to rezone land around Orange Airport for employment purposes.

Essentially the Rosedale Gardens proposal sought to remove some industrial land from the strategy, while the (now abandoned) airport proposal sought to provide additional industrial land. Initially DPIE sought to have roughly the western third of the land, identified in the BCO for industrial land, removed from the proposal. However, a key argument in favour of the proposal was to remove the potential for an industrial-residential interface, to reduce likely land use conflict, staff and the proponent reiterated Councils adopted position. DPIE subsequently required that an addendum to the BCO to articulate the strategic logic of the proposal at a sub-regional level.

Blayney and Cabonne Councils, as partners in the BCO, were provided with the addendum for review and comment. Initial reluctance from neighbouring Councils was linked to a preference for the matter to be deferred pending a comprehensive review and update of the BCO, although no site or proposal specific concerns were raised.

A review and update of the BCO strategy has now commenced, again in partnership with Blayney, Cabonne and DPIE. Given the likely timeframe to progress such a strategy it was ultimately agreed with DPIE that this proposal should be allowed to proceed to public exhibition, supported by the BCO addendum.

The planning proposal was ultimately placed on public exhibition from 4 October 2019 to 1 November 2019 and received a total of four public submissions. An earlier period of consultation from public agencies from 12 July 2019 to 5 August 2019 received a total of six responses. Matters raised in all submissions are addressed in this report.

If supported and finalised by the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment the area will be given an Urban Release Area (URA) designation. This will prevent development applications for subdivision from being allowed until a site Specific Development Control Plan, and accompanying Development Contributions Plan, has been prepared and adopted.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

The proposal has been contingent upon an addendum to the Blayney Cabonne Orange Sub-Regional Rural and Industrial lands strategy, adopted in 2008. In turn this has resulted in the three Councils and the Department of Planning Industry and Environment commencing a comprehensive review and update to the strategy, which is currently being progressed by Elton Consulting. While that review is a work in progress it acknowledges and responds to the intent of LEP Amendment 13.

Recommendation

That Council resolves:

1 That Council advise the Department of Planning, Infrastructure and Environment of support for the planning proposal subject to the following matters arising from the consultation process being resolved.

2 That staff forward the matter to the Department of Planning, Infrastructure and Environment for final determination, on the basis that the site becomes an Urban Release Area requiring a site specific Development Control Plan and Development Contributions Plan.

3 That the proponent be advised of the requirement for a site specific Development Control Plan, that addresses all matters within section 6.3 of the LEP as well as:

· A plan that identifies elevated sites and steeply sloping sites to be subject to additional privacy controls, including land at or above an elevation of 874m AHD.

· A staging plan that provides for such elevated land in the north-eastern corner of the site to be developed last.

· A landscaping plan that establishes vegetative screens to provide a visual screen for elevated properties to obscure views from future dwellings.

· That land east of the ridge be required to have building envelopes nominated on the lots, providing space for appropriate screen landscaping between the dwellings and the orchard east of the site.

· Urban design controls for elevated or sloping sites that ensure landscaping provides a visual screen obscure views below the horizontal visual plane for a standing adult on the uppermost floor of the respective dwelling.

· A requirement that the visual screen landscaping for lots in the final stage be planted out as part of the first stage – providing time for such plantings to mature, specifically all plantings in the public realm as well as plantings within the proposed lots but outside of the building envelopes.

· Identification of appropriate trigger points that would need to be met before subsequent stages can be developed or released, including Riparian corridor and public realm landscaping being established.

· Stormwater harvesting being designed to ensure that post development runoff levels are no greater than predevelopment runoff, and along the north-eastern boundary adjoining Lot 26 DP 668540 that the post development runoff is no less than predevelopment levels and of equal or improved water quality to predevelopment flows.

· That additional access and egress connections be identified to connect the estate to Clergate Road, designed and constructed in consultation with RMS and John Holland Rail, suitable for emergency vehicles and with all upgrade costs at the developers expense.

· A revised conceptual layout being provided that responds to all of the above and meets or exceeds the Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 requirements

4 That the proponent be advised of the requirement of a site specific Development Contributions Plan that provides for the following:

· Sewer and water headworks charges

· Open space and recreation

· Community and Cultural

· Roads and traffic management

· Local Area facilities

· Plan preparation and administration

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Gateway Determination

The original gateway determination was issued 10 June 2016. This required that approximately one third of the site, consisting of the abattoir land and the westernmost section of farmland be removed from the proposal as it was inconsistent with the Blayney Cabonne Orange Rural and Industrial Lands Strategy 2008 (BCO). The BCO had identified the relevant sections as current and future industrial land supply. This change was substantial and inconsistent with the Council resolution supporting the proposal and would have resulted in an extensive interface between industrial and residential lands. Removal of that interface was a key consideration in the original report to Council in March 2016. Additionally the proponent objected to the change as it would fundamentally alter the character of the estate impacting upon the viability of the project.

Following a review of the gateway determination an altered determination was issued. This replaced the need to remove land from the proposal and instead required an addendum to the Blayney Cabonne Orange Rural and Industrial Lands Strategy 2008 to be prepared that explained the strategic context and justification for the inconsistency. That version of the determination required that the addendum be approved by the neighbouring Councils of Blayney and Cabonne, as the strategy relates to all three Councils. Attempts were made to secure the support of Blayney and Cabonne however the stated position of each was that the matter should be deferred until a comprehensive review of the overall strategy could be done.

Council has, together with Blayney, Cabonne and the Department of Planning Infrastructure and Environment commenced the process of a comprehensive review of the sub-regional strategy. Given the timeframe involved to complete the original strategy, the time since this planning proposal was lodged and that neither Blayney nor Cabonne have articulated any particular objection to the proposal beyond not being within the scope of the current strategy a further amendment to the gateway determination was sought. As a result the addendum was required to be provided to Blayney and Cabonne for comment, rather than approval. The submissions of both neighbouring Councils have been attached to this report and are discussed in the submissions section below.

The Department authorised Council to proceed to agency consultation in July 2019 and community consultation was enabled late September 2019. During these phases a total of five agencies responded and there were four public submissions. Matters raised are detailed in the submission section of this report.

Gateway Conditions (as amended)

1. An addendum to the Blayney Cabonne Orange Rural and Industrial Lands Strategy 2008 is to be prepared to recognise the removal of the Clergate Hills Land from the strategy and outcomes on projected industrial land supply and demand.

Blayney and Cabonne Council are to be provided with a copy of the draft addendum and Planning Proposal, and given at least 21 days to comment on these matters.

Council is to provide the Department a copy of the draft addendum for approval to progress to community consultation.

Comment: Condition 1 originally required the removal of Lots 2, 3 and 15 DP 6694 pending a review of the BCO strategy; this was likely to reinstate the industrial-residential interface that Council was seeking to avoid. This was altered to require an addendum which initially required endorsement from Blayney and Cabonne Shires, this was reduced to consultation with the neighbouring shires.

The addendum was prepared by the proponent in consultation with Council staff and underwent several iterations. The addendum was provided to both Blayney and Cabonne in late 2017 and their responses are addressed in the submission section of this report.

2. The planning proposal is to be amended to include:

a. The allocation of land use zones over the subject site being proposed zone R5 Large Lot Residential, RE1 Public Recreation and E4 Environmental Living clearly identified.

b. An Urban Release Area Map to ensure that the provisions can be made for designated State public infrastructure when the land is developed.

c. Amended lot size map(s) to reflect recommended buffer distances to facilitate separation from identified contaminated land and zone RU1 Primary Production land.

d. Maps prepared in accordance with the Department’s Standard Technical Requirements for Spatial Datasets and Maps and included with the planning proposal along with an explanation of the inclusion for the purposes of community consultation.

Comment: The maps associated with the planning proposal were duly amended and submitted to the Department in accordance with condition 7. Once approved the maps formed part of the community consultation.

3. The amended planning proposal is to be submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment for approval prior to the commencement of community consultation.

Comment: The amended planning proposal was submitted to the Department and approval to proceed to community consultation was received 27 September 2019

4. Community consultation is required under sections 56(2)(c) and 57 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as follows

a. The planning proposal and draft Blayney Cabonne Orange Rural and Industrial Lands Strategy 2008 addendum must be publicly available for a minimum of 28 days; and

b. The relevant planning authority must comply with the notice requirements for public exhibition of planning proposals and the specifications for material that must be made publicly available along with planning proposals as identified in section 5.5.2 of A Guide to Preparing LEPs (Department of Planning & Environment 2016).

Comment: Community consultation was undertaken from 4 October 2019 to 1 November 2019 and a total of 4 public submissions were received. The matters raised in the submissions are addressed in the submission section of this report.

5. Consultation is required with the following public authorities under section 56(2)(d) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and to comply with the requirements of the relevant section 117 Directions:

a. NSW Rural Fire Service

b. Department of Primary Industries – Water

c. Office of Environment and Heritage

d. Transport for NSW and Roads and Maritime Services

e. NSW Fire and Rescue

f. Local Land Services Central West

g. Department of Primary Industries – Agriculture

h. Essential Energy / Transgrid

i. ARTC – John Holland

Each public authority is to be provided with a copy of the planning proposal and any supporting material, and given at least 21 days to comment on the planning proposal prior to community consultation

Comment: Formal agency consultation was authorised by the Department on 3 July 2019. The above agencies were duly notified and a total of 6 submission were received. The matters raised in submissions are addressed in the submission section of this report.

6. A public hearing is not required to be held into the matter by any person or body under section 56(2)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. This does not discharge Council from any obligation it may otherwise have to conduct a public hearing (for example, in response to a submission or if reclassifying land).

Comment: A public hearing was not required and there are no known obligations to conduct a public hearing. Accordingly no public hearing has been held.

7. Prior to submission of the planning proposal under section 59 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the LEP maps must be prepared and be compliant with the Department’s Standard Technical Requirements for Spatial Datasets and Maps.

Comment: The LEP maps were vetted by the Department prior to being authorised to proceed to community consultation. Accordingly it is believed the maps are compliant with the Departments requirements.

8. Prior to the submission of the Planning Proposal under section 59 of the Act, the relevant planning authority must submit the finalised Blayney Cabonne Orange Rural and Industrial Lands Strategy 2008 addendum for the Department endorsement.

Comment: The final version of the addendum was provided to the Department prior to the authorisation to proceed to community consultation. Notwithstanding this it is possible, though considered unlikely, that the Department may require further adjustments to the addendum. i.e. the addendum has not been formally endorsed at this time.

9. The LEP is to be completed by 17 December 2019.

Comment: The finalisation processes are a matter for the Department and Parliamentary Counsel’s Office. This is likely to extend beyond the stated deadline and a request for a further extension has been submitted to the Department.

Urban Release Area (URA)

To ensure the orderly and efficient development of land and to confirm the delivery of appropriate utility services and infrastructure it will be necessary to prepare a site specific Development Contributions Plan to accompany the site specific Development Control Plan. The former will examine the cost implications for roads, footpaths and cycleways, including any necessary upgrades of Leeds Parade and/or additional connections to and upgrades of Pearce Lane and/or Clergate Road and reasonable apportionment of such costs. The contributions plan will also examine and establish appropriate contributions in terms of open space and recreation (having regard for the extent of open space intended to be provided in the conceptual plan) community and cultural facilities and local area facilities. This is consistent with the approach taken to other greenfield subdivisions throughout Orange.

The site specific Development Control Plan is a requirement of section 6.3 of the Orange Local Environmental Plan and is required to address:

(a) a staging plan for the timely and efficient release of urban land, making provision for necessary infrastructure and sequencing,

(b) an overall transport movement hierarchy showing the major circulation routes and connections to achieve a simple and safe movement system for private vehicles, public transport, pedestrians and cyclists,

(c) an overall landscaping strategy for the protection and enhancement of riparian areas and remnant vegetation, including visually prominent locations, and detailed landscaping requirements for both the public and private domain,

(d) a network of passive and active recreational areas,

(e) stormwater and water quality management controls,

(f) amelioration of natural and environmental hazards, including bush fire, flooding and site contamination and, in relation to natural hazards, the safe occupation of, and the evacuation from, any land so affected,

(g) detailed urban design controls for significant development sites,

(h) measures to encourage higher density living around transport, open space and service nodes,

(i) measures to accommodate and control appropriate neighbourhood commercial and retail uses,

(j) suitably located public facilities and services, including provision for appropriate traffic management facilities and parking.

Some of the issues raised in submissions will be able to be addressed via the above DCP requirements. The DCP will also respond to the historical usage of the site and any potential site contamination issues present. The potential for contamination from the former abattoir is more fully explored in the LES Contamination report attached to the planning proposal.

Submissions

6 Agency responses and 4 public submissions were received during the respective consultation periods. The proponent was afforded an opportunity to respond to matters raised in submissions and their comments have been attached to this report.

Buffer zones

One land owner is surrounded by the proposed estate on three sides. Due to the agricultural background of this area the placement of buildings on this land had not anticipated neighbouring residences in close proximity. As such there is only a minimal setback to the western boundary of Lot 500 DP 1248395. The land owner has therefore requested that a buffer or building restriction be considered for the lots adjacent to them, particularly along their western boundary.

Comment: It can be reasonably assumed that buyers of the neighbouring lots would also prefer to establish appropriate privacy between themselves and the land owner. As such a 10m building exclusion buffer is recommended as this will provide room for landscaping to be established on the new lots.

Another landowner with an established orchard adjoins the north-eastern edge of the subject site. Concern has been expressed that if passed the proposal will result in a number of residences being positioned with a ‘grand-stand’ view over the orchard and that this is likely to create ongoing complaints in terms of spray drift, machinery noise and the like.

The orchardist advises that routine operations of the orchard may require early morning (pre-sunrise) spraying to avoid windy conditions and that due to the slope of the land there is a high probability of future residents objecting and complaining about his operations, potentially constraining the viability of the orchard into the future.

Additionally the orchardist has expressed concern that the proposed stormwater harvesting aspect of the development may reduce the amount of runoff that reaches his trees and dams from the same slope of land.

Comment: Should the proposal proceed the land will first be designated within an Urban Release Area (URA) which requires that a site-specific Development Control Plan (DCP) be developed prior to any subdivision or related development can occur. Such a DCP will be required to address a range of matters outlined in the above section under the heading Urban Release Area.

With regard to the neighbouring orchard it is considered that the staging plan and landscaping strategy items (a) and (c) can be required to respond to the issues raised. Specifically the DCP can outline that the north-eastern portion of the site is to be deferred to the last stage of the project and that appropriate screen landscaping sufficient to establish a windbreak be located along the north-eastern boundary to protect residents from potential spray drift. Additionally lots in the elevated sloping land in the north-eastern corner of the site, being visually prominent, can be required to be landscaped downslope of each dwelling with species that mature to a height that would obscure views below the horizontal.

One approach could be to require houses on elevated or steeply sloping land to establish a landscape screen where the height of the dwelling, distance to the screen and slope of the land combine to determine the required height of the landscape screen. The intent would be to restrict views below the horizontal plane measured from the eyeline of a tall standing adult. Appropriate species selection and placement would then protect privacy in both directions while also allowing the more expansive views above the horizontal plane as illustrated below.

The above site photo illustrates that trees planted downslope of the buildings could still provide an effective screen at maturity provided they mature to a reasonable height.

In terms of the reduction stormwater runoff available to the orchardist there is scope for this matter to be evaluated during preparation of a site specific DCP that will be required for the estate prior to subdivision occurring. Ordinarily Council requires that greenfield subdivisions incorporate appropriate detention and retention basins sized and designed to ensure that post development runoff is no greater than pre-development (a.k.a. natural) levels. However it would be equally appropriate to require that the stormwater harvesting system is designed to ensure that post-development run off is no less than pre-development levels, allowing for a minor margin of error. Such design would also be expected to ensure that runoff is of a similar pre-development quality through the use of settlement ponds and reed filters and the like.

Visual impact to valley

One submission expressed disappointment that the rural character of the valley was likely to be impacted upon by the establishment of a large lot residential estate on prominent elevated terrain. Due to the elevation of the land built form would be visible from a significant distance.

Comment: The valley has been identified in the Blayney Cabonne Orange Rural and Industrial Lands Strategy for large lot residential development. The character and scenic presentation of the valley will therefore change. Experience has shown that the extent and appearance of landscaping on lifestyle blocks is affected by the size of the blocks involved. Somewhat counterintuitively 5 acre blocks often appear less landscaped than smaller 1 to 2 acre blocks. A good example of this pattern can be observed in three adjoining cul-de-sacs coming off Ophir Road.

1 acre lots in Girrahween Place are much more densely landscaped than the 5 acre lots in Daydawn Place, while ½ acre lots in Dairy Hill Place are also strongly landscaped but due to their smaller size the built form is more readily apparent. That 5 acre lots have a less intensively landscaped appearance is simply a reflection of the increased area of land involved. That is the same amount landscaping investment is spread over a much broader area resulting in significantly less dense landscaping.

The planning proposal seeks lot sizes of predominantly 1 acre in size with some steeper sites increased to 2 acres. It is therefore anticipated that, over time, the estate would achieve a highly landscaped appearance. While in the short to medium term the appearance is likely to have an increased urban appearance it is anticipated that at maturity the estate will regain a strongly landscaped and scenic appearance overall.

It should be noted that as the area will be subject to an urban release area designation actual development will not occur until a development control plan for the estate is adopted. Such a DCP would be required to include an overall landscaping strategy and detailed urban design controls to guide both the subdivision and design of the resultant dwellings. As described in the comment on orchard buffers the DCP could include landscape screening requirements for elevated or steeply sloping land. This would also result in the hillside taking on a more natural and vegetated appearance when viewed from the rest of the valley back towards the site.

The DCP would also be expected to include a staging plan which would allow Council to require that the elevated land in the north east be designated as the final stage of development and require that planting out of screen landscaping for the elevated land be commenced as part of stage 1. This would provide time for trees to mature and lessen the visual impact to both the immediate neighbour and the valley more generally.

Competition with other large lot areas

Submissions from land owners in west orange have questioned the potential impact on property prices for other large lot areas due to increasing the supply of such land compared to that recommended in the BCO sub-regional strategy, one such submission also expressed concern that to proceed with the proposal may undermine the remainder of the strategy.

Comment: Both the BCO (adopted in 2008) and Council’s current housing strategy, the sustainable settlement strategy (adopted 2004) are in the process of being reviewed and updated. This reflects the stronger than expected growth following the initial Cadia mine expansion as well as the new hospital which has seen faster take up of land than projected in the respective strategies. Additionally the intent of land use strategies is to identify appropriate land to provide for growth and development of the city, rather than to act as any protection or assurance of land values.

That the proposal is inconsistent with the BCO vision is acknowledged and has also been the catalyst for the BCO review. Notwithstanding this the proposal is regarded as allowing Council to remove a potential source of ongoing land use conflicts that would otherwise result from a lengthy industrial-residential interface.

Traffic Impacts

The RMS submission expressed concern that all traffic will be directed through Leeds Parade, which would add to traffic volumes along the NDR between the Leeds Parade and Telopea Way intersections. RMS favour providing additional connection points, either via Pearce Lane to the north or utilising existing rail crossing points to link with Clergate Road to the west. This would enable some of the traffic flows to navigate to the North Orange shopping precinct without the need to use the NDR. RMS submission also notes that additional access points would be beneficial in terms of planning for bushfire by enabling more egress options.

Comment: The RMS concern for traffic volumes impacting upon the NDR is noted. It is considered that a more detailed and updated traffic study can be required to inform preparation of the site specific DCP. Specifically the DCP will more closely evaluate the potential for additional westward connections.

With regard to planning for bushfire protection this matter can also be more fully explored in the DCP and will need to provide a satisfactory solution as part of the DA assessment.

Alternative connections

The following image indicates the approximate location of rail crossings.

1: Pearce Lane, existing crossing with boom gates.

May need upgrading to accommodate any significant increase in traffic volumes.

2: existing private level crossing Lot DP would need substantial upgrade works,

probable boom gates and lights to provide for any significant traffic volume

3: approach to underpass at 352 Clergate Road and sightlines at point of intersection

with Clergate Road. This land is in the same ownership as the subject site owner.

Comment: With the exception of Pearce Lane the crossings indicated are not in current usage and would previously have only experienced minimal volumes. Consequently to open these crossing points and connect them into the estate would require a more detailed traffic study and further consultation with John Holland Rail. The underpass (3) is narrow and would probably only be able to provide for a single lane of traffic. This would require a stop/giveway sign on one direction and as such would likely deter usage such that it would only provide a minimal amount of traffic relief, particularly given that the underpass is located at the southern end of the subject site

Planning for Bushfire Protection

The NSW Rural Fire Service submission is critical of the proposal for not providing sufficient information in relation to the hazard influencing the proposal. They seek further information in relation to the existing and proposed vegetation in public open spaces and riparian corridors and any grassland hazard on adjacent lands. An amended bushfire assessment report is sought.

Comment: The RFS submission has inferred that the matter is a subdivision rather than a rezoning proposal. Accordingly there comments are noted and these matters can be addressed by way of appropriate provisions in the site specific DCP that will be required before any subdivision application can be lodged. To address the various matters raised in submissions the DCP will require an updated conceptual layout to be provided. Council may require that the layout be redesigned to incorporate the provisions of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006, including:

· Establishing an inner protection area bounded by a perimeter road, potentially including part of Pearce Lane.

· Establishing an outer protection area

· Provision for two-way access roads that link to permitter roads.

· Provision for adequate water supply for firefighting purposes.

· Minimise the perimeter of land interfacing the hazard

· Provide controls on placement of combustible materials within the inner protection area.

Transmission Line

Transgrid requested that the transmission line corridor should not be zoned residential nor included in the yards of any of the proposed lots. Their concern relates to public safety as well as ongoing access to the transmission line and associated infrastructure.

Comment: Other transmission line corridors are zoned as either public open space or included in the same zone and property boundaries of adjoining lands with an appropriate easement to restrict building within the transmission corridor. If the corridor were to be zoned as open space it may raise expectations within the community that the land be used for passive recreation, such as cycle paths or the like, however the corridor traverses somewhat steep land that is unlikely to be suitable to such uses. Additionally an open space zone may lead to Council being required or expected to acquire and then maintain the land adding an ongoing expense to Council and ratepayers.

Alternatively if the transmission corridor is zoned SP2 Infrastructure “Electricity Infrastructure” it would more accurately reflect the usage of the land and may instead lead to Transgrid either acquiring or being required to provide for the maintenance of the land.

Rail Corridor

John Holland Rail made a submission that notes the site is adjacent to rail corridor land. JHR have no objections to the Planning Proposal provided that issues noted in their submission are appropriate considered. These include:

· sewerage servicing, should a sewer main cross the rail corridor JHR would require an application and a licence for the installation of sewer works, an annual licence fee and certain safety requirements.

· Council to provide JHR with a concept stormwater design including information as to whether and how stomwater runoff from the site is to be discharged into rail corridor land and if that will have any impact on the rail corridor

· JHR have no record of consultation in relation to the electricity transmission line.

· Impacts on level crossing and overbridge. No information is provided in relation to the level crossing (Pearce Lane) or the overbridge / underpass Lot 15 DP 6694.

· JHR have no record that the private level crossing in use at Lot 3 DP 255983 is allowed to be so used, if the development changes the use of the crossing the development is to bear all costs associated with any upgrades required.

· The bridge is on the Higher Mass Limit (HML) network and limited to 26 tonnes, vehicle over this limit will need an Over Size Over Mass (OSOM) permit from JHR. JHR request that Council impose conditions related to the need for permits if relevant.

Comment: The JHR submission is in response to the planning proposal in the form it was provided to them in August. Any alterations to the concept plan, such as additional westward connections would require further consultation and discussion. Notwithstanding this the above points illustrate that JHR have contemplated the potential for the developer to approach them with a view to upgrading one or more of the connection points mentioned (despite not being suggested within the concept plan documents) and it should be noted that these possibilities have not been explicitly ruled out.

The stormwater remarks are a logical position for a rail authority to take, concentration of water near rail corridors has the potential to saturate the soil which may lead to further settling or subsidence of the rail infrastructure. However the intention with the proposal is to direct stormwater via a chain of ponds in the existing drainage corridors generally flowing away from the rail corridor to the east. As such it is not anticipated that any significant runoff would be directed toward the rail corridor. Notwithstanding this appropriate stormwater provisions would form part of the site specific DCP.

Sewer servicing is not envisaged to require access into rail corridor land, however this matter would be addressed more fully during a DA assessment and be at the developers cost.

The transmission line comments appear to have misinterpreted the planning proposal. The transmission line already exists and does not cross the rail corridor land. It is assumed that these remarks were provided pre-emptively in case the proposal was looking to establish a new transmission line. There is no intention to do so.

Local Land Services

Responded purely to advise they have no issues with the proposed development.

Comment: Noted.

The matters raised in submissions were provided to the proponent for consideration and response. While not legally required to respond they have advised

· that the proposed development will be subject to an Urban Release Area, meaning that a site specific DCP must be prepared prior to the DA stage and that this can include appropriate measures to address the matters raised by neighbours.

· Stormwater harvesting proposed in the concept is consistent with the existing stormwater harvesting systems already operational in Orange.

· Impacts on other strategically identified residential land are addressed via the BCO addendum, which resulted from issues with the current BCO strategy and the pace of development that occurred after its adoption. They note that other strategically identified areas will still be required to come forward over the life of the strategy.

The proponent’s full response is attached to this report.

Attachments

1 Gateway Determination (Original), IC16/8762 ⇩

2 Gateway Alteration - 6 February 2017, D19/70252 ⇩

3 Gateway Advisory Letter - 23 November 2017 - condition 1 not met, IC17/23688 ⇩

4 Gateway Extension - to 17 December 2018, IC18/12515 ⇩

5 Gateway Extension - to 17 December 2019, IC19/146 ⇩

6 Council Submissions - Cabonne and Blayney, D19/70994 ⇩

7 Gateway Advisory Letter - 3 July 2019 - Proceed to Agency Consultation, D19/70254 ⇩

8 Agency Submissions, D19/70995 ⇩

9 Gateway Advisory Letter - 27 September 2019 - Proceed to Community Consultation, D19/70262 ⇩

10 Public Submissions, D19/70996 ⇩

11 Proponent response to submissions, D19/70344 ⇩

12 Planning Proposal - updated following gateway determination, D19/70742 ⇩

13 Planning Proposal - Attachment 1 - Local Environmental Study (LES), D19/70744 ⇩

14 LES - Appendix A - Contamination Report, D19/70745 ⇩

15 LES - Appendix B - Ecology Report, D19/70748 ⇩

16 LES - Appendix C - Heritage Report, D19/70749 ⇩

17 LES - Appendix D - Servicing Report, D19/70750 ⇩

18 LES - Appendix E - Traffic Report, D19/70751 ⇩

19 LES - Appendix F - Bushfire Report, D19/70752 ⇩

20 LES - Appendix G - Land Use Analysis, D19/70754 ⇩

21 LES - Appendix H - Land Use Conflict Assessment, D19/70756 ⇩

22 Draft LEP Urban Release Area Map tile 006, D19/70768 ⇩

23 Draft LEP Urban Release Area Map tile 007C, D19/70771 ⇩

24 Draft LEP Land Zone Map tile 006, D19/70764 ⇩

25 Draft LEP Land Zone Map tile 007C, D19/70766 ⇩

26 Draft LEP Lot Size Map tile 006, D19/70759 ⇩

27 Draft LEP Lot Size Map tile 007C, D19/70762 ⇩

28 Addendum to the Blayney Cabonne Orange Subregional Rural and Industrial Lands Strategy, D19/70741 ⇩

Planning and Development Committee 3 December 2019

Attachment 28 Addendum to the Blayney Cabonne Orange Subregional Rural and Industrial Lands Strategy

Background

The proposed Amendment to the Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 (LEP) is framed by the Blayney Cabonne Orange Rural and Industrial Sub-Regional Strategy (BCO). The BCO was adopted by the Councils of Blayney, Cabonne and Orange in 2008. The BCO is informed by two earlier documents, the Local Profile Paper (2006) and Issues Paper (2006). The BCO was prepared by GHD under the guidance of a steering committee consisting of staff from the three Councils as well as officers from the (then) Department of Planning.

This Addendum to the BCO (Addendum) has been prepared in response to Condition 1 of the altered Gateway decision issued by the Department Planning & Environment (DPE) in relation to Amendment 13 of the LEP, dated 6 February 2017. Condition 1 of the altered Gateway approval states:

1. An Addendum to the Blayney Cabonne Orange Rural and Industrial Lands Strategy 2008 is to be prepared to recognise the removal of the Clergate Hills land from the strategy and outcomes on projected industrial land supply and demand.

Blayney and Cabonne Shire Council are to be provided with a copy of the draft Addendum and Planning Proposal, and given at least 21 days to comment on these matters.

Council is to provide the Department a copy of the draft Addendum for approval to progress to community consultation.

In parallel to the preparation of this addendum, the three Councils, together with the DPE, have engaged a consultant to complete a comprehensive review of the BCO. The stated objectives of the comprehensive review are:

· The focus of the project is to produce a 30-year Strategy, focusing on employment-generating development on rural and industrial land and promoting the region as a key location for primary production, value adding and industrial development.

· The strategy will capitalise on the interconnected nature of the three Councils; a strong combined economy, development opportunities and common issues.

· The Central West and Orana Regional Plan 2036 will provide the guiding principles for the preparation of the strategy.

· The project will be used by the Department as an example of an innovative approach to sub-regional strategic planning that can be applied elsewhere in NSW.

The focus of the comprehensive review is on agricultural and industrial land uses. Large lot residential land uses are to be addressed in individual Sustainable Settlement Strategies for each Council area that will also address general and low-density residential land development.

Subject Land

The land affected by Amendment 13 and this addendum is in the northern extent of the Orange Local Government Area (LGA), is formed of five separate lots and has an area of 293 hectares. The majority of the affected land is contained within two strategic areas identified by the original BCO. The eastern extent of the land is within the future large lot residential SA 2 – University area (182.5 ha, or 62% of the site). The western extent is within future industrial SA B – Orange (75.5 ha or 26%). The remaining 35 ha (12%) is currently zoned IN1 –General Industrial and is therefore not within a BCO strategy area.

The land the subject of the rezoning is formed of separate land parcels. Their current size, current zoning and strategic designation by reference to the BCO is provided in Table 1.

Table 1 – Affected Land
Lot/DP	Size	Current Zoning	Strategic Designation via the BCO
15/DP6694 (former abattoir)	35.3 hectares	IN1 – General Industrial	None
2/DP255983	34.8 hectares	RU1 – Primary Production	SA B – Future Industrial
3/DP255982	40.5 hectares	RU1 – Primary Production	SA B – Future Industrial
14/DP6694	90.5 hectares	RU1 – Primary Production	SA 2 – Future large lot residential
25/DP6694	90.1 hectares	RU1 – Primary Production	SA 2 – Future large lot residential
TOTAL	291.2 hectares

Source: LPI Spatial Services Cadastral Data

Appendix A. provides several images (Plates 1 – 6) that depict the subject site.

Appendix B. to the addendum provides a plan of the subject site showing it in the context of current land use zoning as well as the two BCO strategic areas.

The subject site hosts the former Orange abattoir buildings in the southern extent of the site, on land zoned IN1 (Lot 15). Historically, the remainder of the site was utilised for irrigation of waste water generated by the abattoir operations and irrigation of waste water from the now defunct Wooltop scouring plant, located on unrelated land to the west of the site.

The Main Western Railway (MWR) is located along the western boundary of the subject site in a north-south alignment and adjacent to Clergate Road.

The Proposed Rezoning

The proposed future subdivision of land at Clergate Hills is conceptually intended to generate approximately 450 large lot residential lots with the majority being 4,000m² in size (1 acre), with those lots on steeper land having a minimum lot size of 8,000m². Lots are designed to achieve solar passive design and proposed roads would be designed to accommodate extensive street plantings to match with the Orange rural aesthetic. Natural waterway corridors would feature plantings of local native species to support and enhance the existing native vegetation on site.

All lots would be fully serviced with reticulated water, sewer, gas, telecommunications and electricity. The development would incorporate suitable buffers to adjacent rural zoned land as well as to the nearby and internal infrastructure (rail and electricity).

Whilst to been zoned large lot residential in essence, the proposed lot sizes and fully serviced nature of the proposal means this is more of an urban addition to Orange City rather than more traditional 5 acre large lot residential lots such as those occurring in the outer lying LGAs (such as those near to Spring Hill (Cabonne) and Forest Reefs (Blayney)).

Outcomes of the rezoning

Proceeding with Amendment 13 would result in the following key outcomes:

1. The release of an additional 75.3 ha of large lot residential land over and above the land identified within the original BCO, noting this is not a typical large lot residential release due to the lot size and servicing;

2. A reduction in future industrial land of 75.3 ha through re-allocation for large lot residential purposes; and

3. A reduction in current zoned industrial land 35.3 ha through re-allocation for large lot residential purposes.

These three points are discussed in the following sections.

Release of additional large lot residential land

The BCO Local Profile (GHD, 2006) identified demand for large lot residential housing allotments across the sub-region was expected to be 55 per year (or 1,653 over the life of the strategy) – an extract from the BCO Local Profile showing the demand analysis behind these figures is provided in Appendix C.. This estimation was determined by adopting growth figures for each of three LGA’s based on a review of Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) demographic data for the period 2001-2011.

The table below shows population growth within the three Council areas for this 2001-2011 period, as cited in the original BCO, and has also been updated to reflect 2016 data.

LGA	2001	2006	2011	2016	Average Annual Change 2001-2011 (original BCO)	Average Annual Change 2001-2016	Average Annual Change 2006-2016
Orange	35,446	35,338	38,057	40,344	0.74%	0.92%	1.42%
Blayney	6,312	6,593	6,985	7,257	1.07%	0.99%	1.01%
Cabonne	12,128	12,396	12,821	13,386	0.57%	0.69%	0.80%
Combined	53,886	54,327	57863	60,987	0.74%	0.88%	1.23%

Table 1: Demographic data 2001-2016 (ABS, 2018 and GHD 2008)

Notably and significantly, population growth rates increased for both Orange and Cabonne across both the 2001-2016 period by comparison to the BCO data as well as across the 2006-2016 period, with growth in Blayney effectively stable. The combined figures show the sub-region has positively responded despite a number of negative events such as operational changes at Cadia mine and closure of the Electrolux factory in Orange. Notably, the average annual change for Orange for the 2006-2016 is double the growth figure for the 2001-2011 period used in preparation of the BCO.

With the increased pace of population growth demand for housing, both urban and large lot residential, can also be expected to have firmed considerably.

Figure 1. Sub-regional commuter zone within 30 minutes of Orange and ABS census districts

An updated prediction of demand for large lot residential housing has been prepared utilising the 2016 ABS data and DPE project population growth data – refer Appendix D.. The DPE data provides low, main and high projections for LGA’s across NSW. All three rates of change have been incorporated for the purposes of the revised demand analysis. The areas assessed are consistent with the ABS rural areas adopted in the original BCO, updated by reference to 2016 ABS mesh block data. This is explained in further detail in the notes to Appendix D.

Appendix D demonstrates that there has been a significant increase in demand for large lot residential forms of housing, particularly in the Orange ‘commuter zone’. The commuter zone is defined as areas within 30 minutes drive of Orange – refer Figure 1.

The updated estimation figures in Appendix D demonstrate the following demand across the low, main and high growth rates

· Low – 1,380 dwellings required to 2037, or 69 per year

· Main – 1674 dwellings required to 2037, or 83.7 per year

· High – 1,886 dwellings required to 2037, or 94.3 per year.

In all three scenarios, an increase in the projected per year demand figures of 55 dwellings year as per the original BCO are identified.

It is noted that the original BCO adopted growth figures for the rural areas by reference to a combination of the DPE projected growth figures from 2006 combined with analysis of ABS population data for the specific rural localities. In preparing the Local Profile Paper (2006), it was noted:

As illustrated in Section 2.1 of this Local Profile, there is considerable difference between the official population projections published by the Department of Planning and the actual population growth rates over the past 15 years. As such, the estimated rural population for the Sub-Region has been determined having regard to both the official population projections and historical rates of change.

Therefore, adopting the DPE LGA population rate growth figures for the rural areas rather than having regard to a combination of this figure and historic rates of change provide a conservative assessment of project growth. Even adopting this conservative approach, it is demonstrated that demand has increased over the figures identified via the original BCO.

Over the same period, supply levels have increased. A review of supply availability across the sub-region up to 2019 is summarised in Appendices E and F demonstrating approximately 661 existing and potential large lot residential lots, located within zoned and un-zoned (but strategically identified) lots. This includes the land which Blayney Shire recommended for back zoning via the BCO, which has since been zoned R5. Mapping demonstrating where vacant and potentially developable land for the purposes of the above is provided in Appendix F.

By reference to supply versus demand, it is conservatively identified that there is a likely shortfall over the life of the strategy of between 719 (DPE low growth scenario), 1,013 (DPE main growth scenario) and 1,225 lots (DPE high growth scenario) that must be addressed. Amendment 13 provides for up to 450 fully serviced large lot residential lots that would in part address this shortfall.

Another key point is that particular focus needs to be given to the supply and demand of serviced large lot residential allotments in locations proximal to Orange (referred to in the BCO Local Issues paper as the commuter zone), as this is considered to represent the growth housing area in the sub-region. It is also recognises the different markets that exist within the sub-region for large lot residential housing forms, noting that un-serviced forms of this housing are more common in the Council areas of Cabonne and Blayney (i.e., outside the Orange commuter zone) while serviced lots tend to be located within the commuter zone

Similar scale and serviced allotments in the west of Orange have been in high demand and this confirms this market is strong and requires servicing. Equally, it shows that such development is unlikely to draw activity away from large lot residential markets in Cabonne and Blayney, which are typically developed around the populated centres of those LGAs and feature larger (2-5ha) un-serviced allotments. The two housing types inhabit different markets.

Providing smaller serviced large lot residential lots provides other benefits. Diversification of the market assists people seeking more space than a traditional urban lot at a different price point to conventional 2ha lots. As a result of supplying a “mid-range” product those seeking 2ha lots encounter less competition as would those seeking upper range urban properties. In short diversified markets are more efficient at matching buyers and sellers. Additionally the higher yield of mid-range lots, compared to conventional 2ha lots, helps to reduce the rate of sprawl and thereby slows the spread of urban/residential development into agricultural areas.

A reduction in future industrial land

To determine the impact of a reduction in future industrial land of the proposal, it is necessary to consider industrial demand within the sub-region. The BCO Issues Paper (2006) identifies historic demand for industrial land across the sub-region as:

· Orange – on average (based on data from the 1970’s), 2-3 hectares of industrial land is required per year (rising to 6-8 hectares in periods of high demand);

· Blayney – 2 hectares per year;

· Cabonne – no historic strategic demand.

It should be noted that the above is considered to represent strategic demand and is over and above the development occurring within existing industrial zoned land.

Therefore, over the life of the BCO (30 years) demand levels across the sub-region would be expected to be 120-150 hectares of land (60-90 hectares in Orange and 60 hectares for Blayney). Assuming a consistent surge in demand to the higher level of 6-8 hectares per year in Orange would generate the need for 180-240 hectares over the life of the strategy for the Orange LGA, or a sub-region demand level of 240-300 hectares.

Noting that 10 years have passed since the BCO was adopted, demand over the remaining life of the strategy across the sub-region for the life of the strategy is therefore between 80 hectares (low estimate) and 200 hectares (high estimate), which is split across Orange and Blayney at 40-160 (Orange) and 40 hectares (Blayney). Realistically, demand is likely to be closer to 60 hectares across the strategy life, accounting for historic fluctuations and periods of high buoyancy.

No more up to date data is available of industrial demand across the sub-region. It is considered necessary for a more robust assessment to be completed to validate this data. This should be completed as a component of the comprehensive BCO review.

As this addendum focuses on the Orange LGA, the available supply of zoned, undeveloped industrial land within the Orange LGA only has been quantified through an analysis of existing vacant land parcels of zoned IN1 and IN2 land. This has been completed via a review of aerial photography (Nearmap) and site inspections to confirm current status and limitations.

This analysis reveals 69 zoned undeveloped lots across the City of Orange, with a total size of 113 hectares. The smallest of these lots has a size of approximately 800 m² and the largest lot has a size of 26 hectares.

A summary of vacant lots and their lot sizes is provided in Appendix G and a range of maps depicting the vacant lots are provided in Appendix H. From a simplistic perspective this equates to between 38-57 years of supply based on demand of 2-3 hectares per year. Assuming demand of 6-8 hectares per year (high growth scenario as per the BCO Issues Paper (2006)) results in supply of 14 - 19 years of supply in Orange. However, this simplistic measure ignores that these holdings are existing, of variable size and generally disconnected. A developer may not be able to purchase several small available lots and combine these to create a lot of desired size due to their being disconnected. Many of them are also in remnant historic industrial areas that are now more constrained due to being close to residential zoned land. They may be less desirable for this reason.

A summary of available lots by area is summarised as follows and depicted in the table and plans at Appendices F and G:

Area within Orange LGA	Vacant/undeveloped zoned IN1 land (no. of lots)	Total Land area (ha)
Leewood	9	12.01
Narrambla	18	9.28
Clergate Road	25	66.82
Edward St (inc former saleyards)	7	15.55
Kenna Street-Barrett’s Street area	1	0.14
McLachlan Street	4	0.9
Peisley Street-Lords Place	4	0.64
Leeds Parade*	1	7.61
TOTAL	69	112.95

* Leeds Parade land is zoned IN2 – Light Industrial

In summary, based on the land available as outlined in the above table and by reference to a very high demand level within Orange (6-8 hectares per year), it is considered that a minimum of 14-19 year supply of zoned industrial land exists within the Orange LGA. This does not account for any pending or granted approvals that may apply to these sites.

For the avoidance of doubt, the above summary excludes the zoned industrial land at the former Orange abattoir site on the basis that it is affected by this BCO addendum.

In addition to the above zoned but undeveloped land, there is a fluctuating and unquantified amount of zoned, developed and vacant industrial land across the city.

A reduction in current industrial land

The outcome of this addendum would support Amendment 13, which would have the effect of zoning 35 hectares of land at the former abattoir for large lot residential purposes.

This 35 hectares has not been a factor of the Orange industrial land supply calculation for some time due to its derelict nature and isolation from connective services, and is not reflected in the above listed industrial land supply.

Additionally, the proposal would not directly impact on broader available current zoned industrial land across the sub-region.

Implications of not proceeding with Amendment 13

Not proceeding with Amendment 13 would result in the land remaining strategically identified for a mix of future industrial and large lot residential land, and with the former abattoir site remaining zoned for industrial purposes. As identified in the map in Appendix B, this outcome would result in a direct interface between future large lot residential land in SA 2 and future and existing industrial land (SA B and the former abattoir site). This is considered undesirable for the following reasons:

· Conflict between non-complimentary land use zones due to noise and other impacts generated from industrial land uses impacting on the amenity of residential receivers;

· Limitations on the capacity for industrial land to be developed for industrial purposes due to proximity to sensitive receivers;

· Conflicts between road users accessing the two forms of land use via the same single access road (Leeds Parade);

· Conflict at the rail corridor in the event an alternate access to industrial land was proposed across the MWR.

By proceeding with Amendment 13, the zone interface would be relocated to the western edge of the subject land, which is considered a preferred outcome from a land use planning perspective for the following reasons:

· The MWR in conjunction with Clergate Road is an existing geographical feature that provides a logical land use boundary between the two forms of land use;

· In this location, adjacent to Clergate Road, the proposed buffer consists of the width of the rail corridor (30 m), the width of the Clergate Road corridor (20 m), the proposed setback line identified in the Clergate Hills master plan to the rear of housing in this area (40 m) and the proposed setback line to the front of future industrial buildings in the event the western extent of SA B were developed as industrial land (10 m as per the DCP). This is depicted in the sketch in Figure 2. This combined width is 100 metres and provides a logical transition between the two forms of land use. No usable land is lost via this approach.

Figure 2: Composition of recommended buffer area

· Conversely, providing a buffer between the two land use zones in the middle of the site (as proposed via the BCO) would need to be provided by either zoning a buffer strip between the zones (and accepting the loss of usable land) or accepting a minimal buffer, such as may be established by a single road reserve. The latter approach has been adopted historically to the south-east between urban and industrial land and Council do not now support this approach in other areas due to its minimalistic nature and poor outcomes for residential receivers.

· Guidelines exist to manage the interface of noisy rail corridors with residential development. No such guidelines exist for a direct industrial/residential interface. Reliance would be placed on the Noise Policy for Industry (2017), however this only provides flexibility for modifying existing industrial land uses in close proximity to existing residential. No concessions exist for developing new forms of industry.

Implications of proceeding

Proceeding with Amendment 13 would not impact on the currently available supply of industrial land, as outlined on page 6. The proposal would reduce the future supply of industrial land via the reallocation of land at Clergate Hills from future industrial to large lot residential purposes.

Whilst it is recognised that the proposal impacts on the overall supply of future industrial land in the sub-region, this reduction in supply is temporary and is is considered acceptable on the basis that:

(a) The three councils and DPE are currently in the process of conducting a broader review of the sub-regional strategy to identify and confirm suitable supply of employment generating land across the sub-region, due to be completed in 2019, and therefore any impact is temporary,

(b) As previously discussed, the subject land does not contribute to the current supply of industrial land due to its current use for grazing purposes, its proximity to emerging residential land development areas, its disconnected nature from other industrial land, distance to town, constrained access (one road in and out only) and the costs associated with demolishing the former abattoir buildings.

Summary and recommendations

By reference to the Orange LGA there is enough vacant undeveloped, zoned industrial land supply for at least the next 14-19 years, based on predicted and historic demand levels, and supply availability. The removal of the current and future industrial land at the subject site for large lot residential purposes would not impact that conclusion.

After that time, there is the potential for a shortfall of industrial land in the Orange LGA that must be met, either in Orange or elsewhere in the LGA.

Given the high demand and predicted shortfall of large lot residential housing over the life of the strategy, this addendum supports the reallocation of the eastern portion of BCO Strategy Area B to Strategy Area 2 and its use for large lot residential purposes.

This BCO Addendum to the BCO Sub-Regional Strategy relates principally to the OCC LGA and the performance and outcomes of the strategy experienced within Orange. References to the other member Councils, Blayney Shire and Cabonne Shire, and their respective communities have been made in the context of the original strategy and are not intended as an evaluation of the performance and outcomes experienced by those Councils and their communities. Accordingly, the recommendations of this BCO Addendum are made within the context of the original strategy and directed at the Orange LGA only, and specifically in relation to Amendment 13 to the Orange LEP.

The following recommendations are referenced against the original BCO recommendations.

Industrial Recommendations

· Industrial land is to be considered one component of employment lands (Industrial, Commercial, Business).

· Exclude the eastern extent of SA B (the portion of SA B east of the Main Western Railway Line) for the purposes of future employment generating land uses and re-allocate this area to SA 2 – see Appendix I;

· Complete a comprehensive review of the BCO to determine the availability of, and demand for, industrial land across the sub-region;

· Complete a detailed review of the western portion of SA B via the comprehensive BCO review to determine its suitability for use of industrial development

Residential and Rural Subdivision Recommendations

· Orange LGA should focus on urban forms of residential development (i.e., serviced);

· Where large lot residential development is considered in Orange preference should be given to the smaller sizes (1/2 acre to 1 hectare) with larger options being appropriate in surrounding shires.

· Re-allocate the eastern area of BCO Strategic Area B into Strategic Area 2 for the purposes of large lot residential land use – see Appendix I.

Appendix A: Subject site plates

Plate 1: View north from the southern extent of the site

Plate 2: Former abattoir buildings (now vacant) effluent lagoon in foreground

Plate 3: View south from the NE corner of the site

Plate 4: Woodland community in the western extent of the site

Plate 5: Existing vegetation buffer on the western boundary adjacent to railway line

Plate 6: Water feature in the northern extent of the site – to be retained in future subdivision

Appendix B: Current zoning and BCO Strategy Areas

Appendix C: BCO Local Profile large lot residential housing demand analysis (Source: GHD Blayney, Cabonne, and Orange Sub-Regional Rural and Industrial Land Use Strategy (2008): Large lot residential Update 2012.)

Appendix C

Appendix D: Updated large lot residential housing demand*

* Prepared by Geolyse by reference to DPE population projected data and the original BCO methodology – Appendix C, BCO Issues Paper (2006)

Appendix E: Large Lot Residential Land Supply

			Vacant lots >5 acres		Vacant lots (5 acre)		Vacant lots 1 ha		Vacant lots 1 acre		Vacant lots 1500 m2		Total
			2012	2019	2012	2019	2012	2019	2012	2019	2012	2019	2012	2019
Orange City Council	Clifton Grove	Subdivided or approved	0	0	8	1	0	0	0	0	0	2	8	3
	Clifton Grove	Potential	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	27	0	27	0
	North West Orange	Subdivided or approved	0	12	40	1	0	1	8	1	0	18	48	33
	North West Orange	Potential	0	0	39	5	0	0	0	0	0	119	39	124
	Towac Road Racecourse	Subdivided or approved	0	0	4	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	4	1
		Potential	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Land between Mitchell Highway Road and Burrendong Way (north of NDR)	Subdivided or approved	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1
		Potential	0	0	0	16	0	0	0	0	0	3	0	19
	Ophir Road (east and west)	Subdivided or approved	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
		Potential	0	0	0	63	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	63
Blayney Shire Council	Millthorpe	Subdivided or approved	0	0	14	4	0	0	0	0	0	1	14	5
Blayney Shire Council	Millthorpe	Potential	0	0	0	226	0	0	0	109	0	0	0	335
Cabonne Council	Spring Hill	Subdivided or approved	16	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	16	0
	Spring Hill	Potential	0	0	0	30	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	30
	Mullion Creek	Subdivided or approved	0	0	15	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	15	0
	Mullion Creek	Potential	0	0	0	18	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	18
	Winderra	Subdivided or approved	0	0	20	3	0	2	0	0	0	0	20	5
	Winderra	Potential	0	0	0	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	4
	Weemilah/Strathnook Lane	Subdivided or approved	4	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	4	1
	Weemilah/Strathnook Lane	Potential	0	0	0	0	0	6	0	0	0	0	0	6
	Summer Hill Estate	Subdivided or approved	0	13	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	13
	Summer Hill Estate	Potential	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Orange		0	12	91	87	0	1	8	2	27	142	126	244
	Blayney		0	0	14	230	0	0	0	109	0	1	14	340
	Cabonne		20	13	35	56	0	8	0	0	0	0	55	77
	Total		20	25	140	373	0	9	8	111	27	143	195	661

Fire Safety Measure	Design/Installation Standard	Minimum Standard of Performance (To be specified in the fire safety statement)	Existing Installation	Proposed Installation
Emergency lighting	BCA Clauses E4.2 & E4.4	AS 2293.1 (2005)	X	X
Exit signs	BCA Clause E4.5, E4.6 & E4.8	AS 2293.1 (2005)	X	X
Portable fire extinguishers	BCA Clause E1.6	AS 2444 (2001)	X	X
Hose reel systems	BCA Clause E1.4	AS 2441 (1988)	X
Fire hydrant systems	BCA Clause E1.3	AS 2419.1 (1994)	X