Agenda of Planning and Development Committee

Planning and Development Committee 2 June 2020

2.1 Items Approved Under the Delegated Authority of Council

RECORD NUMBER: 2020/728

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 340/2012(3)	Determination Date	30 April 2020
PR Number	PR4927
Applicant/s:	Mr RA Cummins
Owner/s:	Tipperary Investment Holdings Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 1 DP 770447 and Lot 1 DP 1146318 – 1 Hampden Avenue, and Lot 70 DP 873566 – 3 Hampden Avenue, Orange
Proposal:	Modification of development consent - office premises (change of use, car parking and fencing). The modified proposal involves two additional parking spaces in the existing car park at the rear of 3 Hampden Avenue. As such, the land to be developed will now include Lot 70 DP 873566 – 3 Hampden Avenue. The proposed new car spaces will service the office premises at 1 Hampden Avenue, and easements in favour will be created.
Value:	Not Applicable

Reference:	DA 55/2015(2)	Determination Date	14 May 2020
PR Number	PR12527
Applicant/s:	Mr SF Cheng
Owner/s:	Mr SF Cheng
Location:	Lot 1 DP 562838, and Lots 19 and 20 DP 22785 – 22 and 24 Wentworth Lane, Orange
Proposal:	Modification of development consent – subdivision (three lot residential boundary adjustment), demolition (ancillary structures) and two carports (one single, one double). The proposed amendment seeks to modify Condition (14) and delete Conditions (4) and (22). The amendment to Condition (14) seeks to remove the requirement to construct the battleaxe concrete driveway.
Value:	Not Applicable

Reference:	DA 16/2018(2)	Determination Date	12 May 2020
PR Number	PR17008
Applicant/s:	Mr RM Pitt
Owner/s:	Ms JO Pitt
Location:	Lot 100 DP 857135 – 38-40 Rosemary Lane, Orange
Proposal:	Modification of development consent – subdivision (two lot residential), demolition (tree removal), dwelling and attached garage and subdivision (two lot residential). The modification involves the adjustment of the boundaries between approved Lots 200 and 202 by straightening the dog‑legged boundary line; revision of design and layout of the approved new dwelling house on the rear lot; and associated changes to conditions of consent.
Value:	Not Applicable

Reference:	DA 372/2019(1)	Determination Date	24 April 2020
PR Number	PR2785
Applicant/s:	Mr RA and Mrs J Cutler
Owner/s:	Mr RA and Mrs J Cutler
Location:	Lot B DP 377280, Lot 1 DP 158411, Lot 2 DP 514361 - 40 Clinton Street, Orange
Proposal:	Demolition, subdivision, dwelling (alterations and additions)
Value:	$1,000,000

Reference:	DA 80/2020(1)	Determination Date	13 May 2020
PR Number	PR8704
Applicant/s:	Mr DS Tom
Owner/s:	Mr DS Tom
Location:	Lot 45 DP 702121 – 55 Moulder Street, Orange
Proposal:	Demolition (existing garage), dwelling alterations and additions (second storey addition and rear ground floor addition), and garage (new construction).
Value:	$400,000

Reference:	DA 104/2020(1)	Determination Date	30 April 2020
PR Number	PR17251
Applicant/s:	Godolphin Resources
Owner/s:	Dino and Michael Cunial
Location:	Lot 156 DP703305 - 11-19 William Street, Orange
Proposal:	Light industry (mining research and development) and alterations and additions to existing building
Value:	$50,000

Reference:	DA 115/2020(1)	Determination Date	18 May 2020
PR Number	PR18303
Applicant/s:	Sainsmac Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Mr RL and Mrs LD Sainsbury
Location:	Lot 100 DP 1035381 – 1A Cameron Place, Orange
Proposal:	Mixed Use Development (vehicle sales or hire premises and vehicle repair station)
Value:	$165,000

Reference:	DA 128/2020(1)	Determination Date	6 May 2020
PR Number	PR3626
Applicant/s:	Mr S P Arantz
Owner/s:	Mr S P Arantz
Location:	Lot 1 DP 799845 - 155 Edward Street, Orange
Proposal:	Subdivision (two lot residential)
Value:	Not Applicable

TOTAL NET* VALUE OF ALL DEVELOPMENTS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY IN THIS PERIOD: $1,615,000

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

Planning and Development Committee 2 June 2020

2.2 Planning Proposal to amend Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - rezoning of 185 Leeds Parade

RECORD NUMBER: 2020/750

AUTHOR: Craig Mortell, Senior Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Council has received a proposal to rezone part of Lot 4 DP 1185665, known as 185 Leeds Parade, situated on the intersection with the Northern Distributor Road. The site is currently a combination of IN2 Light Industrial and SP3 Tourist zones, and the proposal seeks to increase the extent of SP3 Tourist zone.

Figure 1 – locality plan

Development for a highway service centre (truckstop) has recently been approved (DA 332/2019(1)) within the existing SP3 Tourist zone, and the proponents are seeking to collocate similar and complementary forms of development over more of the site. This would consist of four fast food outlets along the NDR frontage with other forms of highway related development to occur into the future.

The nominated SP3 zone allows only limited forms of commercial development and is therefore not likely to impact upon the trading performance of the main CBD, but instead provides opportunity to recapture trade from passing through traffic while also extending the range of services available to North Orange residents.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

1 That Council resolve to support the planning proposal, enabling the matter to be progressed through to the Gateway process; with staff to forward the matter to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for assessment.

2 That the matter then proceed in accordance with any requirements or conditions of a Gateway Determination before being returned to Council once the public and agency consultations have been concluded.

3 That Council require the site to be subject to a Development Control Plan in the form of a masterplan that addresses:

· Urban design outcomes with respect to the presentation of the site to the frontages of Leeds Parade and the Northern Distributor Road.

· Measures to address potential acoustic impacts emanating from the site.

· Pedestrian and cyclist linkages and permeation of and through the site.

· Size, height and number limits on the extent of pylon signs, as well as appropriate and preferred locations for such signs.

4 That the proponent be advised of the need to prepare a masterplan addressing the above matters, to enable future development of the site to proceed in an orderly manner.

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Site Description and Context

Figure 2 – current extent of zones on the subject land

(purple is zone IN2 Light Industrial – yellow is zone SP3 Tourist)

The subject land is 12.2ha on the corner of the Northern Distributor Road and Leeds Parade. The western boundary is formed by the Great Western Railway corridor and the southern boundary adjoins the former alignment of Leeds Parade. The terrain is gently undulating with a fall towards to the south-western corner.

To the north, across the NDR, is the Bunnings Warehouse site. Northeast of the site is Hanrahan Place, which connects directly to the roundabout via a fifth leg exit, contains two existing highway service centres and leads to a logistics facility at the end of Hanrahan Place. Undeveloped residential land is to the east, across Leeds Parade. South of the site is undeveloped B6 Enterprise Corridor land and northwest of the site, across the railway corridor, is an industrial zoned site that contains an existing dwelling, beyond which are more residences.

STRATEGIC PLANNING CONTEXT

Consistency with the Blayney Cabonne Orange Sub-Regional Rural and Industrial Strategy is considered to be satisfactory. While the site is identified in that strategy as industrial rather than highway services, the overall intent is employment generation. In that sense this site has potential to recapture trade from highway travellers due to its exposure to the Northern Distributor Road, a factor that other industrial/employment lands cannot match. Therefore the opportunity for highway service related employment is not able to be pursued at other locations, whereas generic industrial employment can be attained at alternative sites.

Objectives of the Zone(s)

The objectives of the SP3 Tourist zone are:

· To provide for a variety of tourist-oriented development and related uses.

· To cater for the needs of the travelling public.

In the Orange context the SP3 zone has been deployed at limited sites along the Northern Distributor Road specifically to enable proposals that service the highway/through traffic. Such traffic uses the NDR to avoid navigating the central areas of Orange, which is of benefit to local traffic conditions, but also reduces the economic benefits to the local economy from these travellers. By enabling specific sites along the NDR to cater to the needs of travellers this economic potential can be recaptured without undermining the performance of the CBD.

· The objectives of the IN2 Light Industrial zone are:

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

· To encourage employment opportunities and to support the viability of centres.

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

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

· To support and protect industrial land for industrial uses.

The IN2 zone on the site is derived from the historical industrial zoning of the entire zone under the former LEP 2000. This was selected over the IN1 zone when LEP 2011 was drafted in recognition that general industry would not be well suited adjacent to a successful development in the SP3 zone.

The current split of IN2 and SP3 was created without the benefit of a specific concept plan in place, and both the configuration and ratio were therefore always subject to adjustment.

Fundamentally the strategic intent for this site has always been for employment generating purposes. The nature of the jobs to be created at the site (industrial versus service oriented) is not considered to be a significant factor in this case as there is a clear need to recapture trade from through traffic, and such facilities are also able to expand the range of services to the local North Orange/Waratah population.

TRANSPORT AND TRAFFIC

Northern Distributor Road

Council’s Technical Services Division have reviewed the planning proposal and raised no objections. The internal road linking the site from Leeds Parade to the Northern Distributor Road has also been considered during assessment of the truckstop (DA 332/2019(1)). The approved internal road through the site from Leeds Parade would include a left-in left-out connection to the NDR, reducing the extent of traffic turning at the roundabout. The traffic impact assessment states that the cumulative development of the site is anticipated to generate 544 and 798 vehicle trips per hour in the morning and evening peak periods respectively, with an estimate of 50% being passer-by trips; and modelling indicates that the proposed access points will operate well.

Local Traffic

While the proposal is fundamentally aimed at servicing through traffic, local traffic flows past and around the site are a significant factor. This consists of traffic between the city centre and Charles Sturt University Campus, as well as traffic drawn to the Bunnings site on the other side of the NDR. East-west local traffic flows are related to the North Orange Shopping centre and Waratahs sporting complex, both accessed via Telopea Way.

The majority of vehicle movements into and out of this site are likely to be derived from existing traffic flows rather than the site becoming an attractor in its own right. To the extent that the development does attract new traffic, a substantial amount would come from the south along Leeds Parade and therefore have limited impact on the operation of the NDR. North Orange residents would be the exception, and this may result in an increase in the number of east-bound NDR vehicles opting to turn right at the NDR/Leeds Parade roundabout. Such vehicles leaving the site would use the internal road connection with the NDR and thus not impact on the roundabout.

Public Transport

The internal road connecting Leeds Parade to the NDR provides a suitable option for bus and taxi operators that removes them from the broader traffic flows along the NDR/Leeds Parade. As such, it is considered that the site can be readily served by public transport options.

Cycle and Pedestrian Movement

A public footpath exists along the entire frontage of the property, both the NDR and Leeds Parade. The slope of Leeds Parade in this area is likely to discourage pedestrian usage. However, the permeability of the site, due to the approved internal road between Leeds Parade and the NDR, would provide an improved connection for pedestrians and cyclists between the city and North Orange.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

General

The site is not considered to be at risk of bushfire, landslip or erosion. The site is not known to be contaminated from past uses and there is no significant flora or fauna on the site due to its history of grazing.

Noise Impacts

The site is located alongside and to the east of the rail corridor. While the proposal itself relates to non-residential development, building forms will need to be set back from the corridor to reduce any potential for rail vibrations to impact on the structures. Beyond this there are residences further to the west of the rail corridor, as well as undeveloped residential land to the east of the site across Leeds Parade.

The setbacks from the rail corridor can also serve to protect residents to the west, and future development of the site could include screen landscaping to assist in this regard. Residential land to the east is buffered by the width of Leeds Parade itself, as well as the front setbacks that would be anticipated. The generous size of the site enables a wide range of design responses.

It should be noted that the employment land status of the site is long established, and both current and future residents would have anticipated that some industrial or highway type of development would eventuate. The proposal, in seeking to increase the tourism zone, is reducing the potential industrial developments that could otherwise have occurred, and this may lead to a modest reduction in potential noise generated.

The likely hours of operation of the takeaway food and drink premises mean that the timing of noise emissions, rather than the absolute volume, could be a concern for residents. Preliminary site designs have sought to respond to this concern by facing activity inwards towards the internal road corridor (approved under the truck stop application). This would allow the building forms to act as sound barriers and can be supplemented by perimeter sound mounds and landscaping as needed.

A more detailed assessment of, and response to acoustic impacts would be expected during the subsequent DA, but it is evident that there is scope within the site to respond well to this constraint.

Stormwater Management

The planning proposal has reserved the south-western corner of the site for a potential detention basin. This would be scaled to suit the development as required during a DA process. The presence of the NDR to the north acts to limit the catchment effectively to the site itself. This enables the future development to be designed with confidence as to the extent of runoff and detention required.

Land or Site Contamination

The historic use of the site and a site inspection have not revealed any potential for land contamination. The zone being sought is not of a residential nature and is likely to have extensive sealing. Accordingly, contamination is not considered to be a concern for this proposal. More investigation can be required at the DA stage to confirm this view.

Flooding

Council conducted the Blackmans Swamp Creek and Ploughmans Creek Flood Study in 2019 to inform its planning and land management obligations. The study introduced and mapped overland flow flooding, in addition to riverine flooding, to the areas mapped for flood planning controls.

As indicated in the aerial image below, a modest dam exists in the north-western corner of the site, overflow from which feeds into a drainage path extending north-south toward the western third of the site, which in turn leads to a larger depression in the south-western corner of the site. From there water flows into drainage lines alongside the rail corridor.

The concept plan submitted in support of the proposal has allowed space for a detention basin in the southwest corner of the site which can be scaled to suit the extent of potential development.

Figure 3 – flood status of the subject land as per the

Blackmans Swamp Creek and Ploughmans Creek Flood Study

URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

The concept plan layout is preliminary and indicative only. It shows the likely pattern of creating clustered buildings either side of the internal access road. This suggests that the built form will be oriented to face inward, which will reduce potential noise impacts to surrounding areas but risks presenting extensive amounts of back-of-house building bulk to the NDR/Leeds Parade frontages.

The commercial nature of the site and its exposure to the NDR is likely to see additional advertising and signage form part of the development. Given the difference in elevations between the NDR and the subject land, this could result in pylon signs of significant height in order to appear at an appropriate level when viewed from the NDR. The visibility of such signage would extend well beyond the immediate area and potentially impact on the views of residents even some distance from the site.

Accordingly, a Site specific Development Control Plan should be considered prior to any additional development applications on the site. Such a DCP would enable the visual bulk and presentation of the site, and the advertising and signage requirements to be properly integrated into the development. The DCP would also be able to ensure that pedestrian and cyclist permeability is catered for up front as the internal access road is likely to be regarded as a short cut to North Orange by many people.

ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

Potential to Conflict with the CBD

Council has a long standing position of seeking to protect and enhance the trading performance of the CBD. Avoiding fragmentation, particularly of retail premises, helps to consolidate trade in the CBD, which draws more shoppers from further afield than would otherwise be the case. This approach keeps our CBD as an important regional centre and a greater range and number of businesses to be viable than would normally be supportable by just the local population.

Employment Land

The site has long been identified for employment generating uses; prior to Orange LEP 2011 the site was industrially zoned. When LEP 2011 was prepared the NDR was nearing completion and the site was identified as a suitable location to serve highway and through traffic. Consequently the SP3 Tourist zone was adopted for a portion of the site in anticipation of demand for highway service centre style development.

SOCIAL AND CULTURAL CONSIDERATIONS

The site is not known to contain any Aboriginal or European archaeological or heritage values.

While not zoned for or including any specific public open space, it is likely that in the near to mid term much of the site will remain undeveloped. In the longer term the south-western corner of the site will in all likelihood be retained as a stormwater detention basin, and could therefore be designed to serve a dual purpose of drainage and open space.

Social and cultural impacts are considered to be negligible as there are no existing residences on the site. The vacant nature of the site and the absence of significant flora and fauna mean that the site is not likely to have become highly valued by the broader community.

Stakeholder engagement will be undertaken in accordance with Gateway requirements and is likely to include consultation with John Holland Rail and Transport for NSW. General public engagement will include the public exhibition process in due course.

INFRASTRUCTURE CONSIDERATIONS

Council’s engineering section have raised no objection to the planning proposal.

CONSISTENCY WITH STATE PLANS AND POLICIES

Section 9.1 Ministerial Directions

1.1 Business and Industrial Zones

This direction applies when a planning proposal will affect land within an existing or proposed business or industrial zone.

The intent is to encourage employment growth in suitable locations, protect employment land and support the viability of identified centres.

When the direction applies a planning proposal must:

(a) give effect to the objectives of this direction;

(b) retain the areas and locations of existing business and industrial zones;

(d) not reduce the total potential floor space area for industrial uses in industrial zones; and

(e) ensure that proposed new employment areas are in accordance with a strategy that is approved by the Secretary of the Department of Planning, Industry Environment.

However, a planning proposal may be inconsistent with the direction where justified by a relevant strategy, study, Regional or Sub-regional plan, or if the inconsistency is demonstrated to be of minor significance.

Comment: The proposal retains the land for employment generation. The nature of the employment to be generated may be different, but this is due to the site specific potential to serve the tourist, passing highway traffic which is not attainable at other sites. It should be noted that the Blayney, Cabonne Orange Sub-regional Strategy is currently being reviewed and has not indicated that Orange is lacking in industrial land supply.

Therefore to the extent that this proposal will remove a portion of an industrial zone it is considered to be of minor consequence as it will be replaced by another employment generating zone.

3.4 Integrating Land Use and Transport

This direction applies when a planning proposal will create, alter or remove a zone or provision related to urban land for residential, business, industrial, village or tourist purposes.

The intent is to improve access to housing, jobs and services by walking, cycling and public transport; increase the choice of available transport and reduce dependency on cars; reduce travel demand; support efficient and viable public transport services; and provide for the efficient movement of freight.

When the direction applies a planning proposal must locate zones for urban purposes and include provisions that give effect to the aims, objectives and principles of:

(a) Improving Transport Choice – Guidelines for planning and development (DUAP 2001); and

(b) The Right Place for Business and Services – Planning Policy (DUAP 2001).

However, a planning proposal may be inconsistent with the direction where justified by a relevant strategy, study, Regional or Sub-regional plan or if the inconsistency is demonstrated to be of minor significance.

Comment: The planning proposal is considered to be consistent with this direction

4.3 Flood Prone Land

This direction applies when a planning proposal will create, remove or alter a zone or provision that affects flood prone land.

The intent is to ensure that development of flood prone land is consistent with the NSW Government’s Flood Prone Land Policy and the principles of the Floodplain Development Manual 2005, and ensure that the provisions of an LEP on flood prone land is commensurate with the flood hazard both on and off the subject land.

When the direction applies a planning proposal must

(a) include provisions that give effect to the Flood Prone Land Policy and associated Floodplain Development Manual;

(b) not rezone land from special use, special purpose, recreation, rural or environmental protection zones to residential, business, industrial or special use/special purpose zones;

(c) permit development in floodway areas, or that will result in significant flood impacts to other properties, or permit a significant increase in the development of that land, or be likely to result in a substantially increased requirement for government spending on flood mitigation, or permit development without consent except for agriculture, roads or other exempt development;

(d) not impose flood related controls on residential development without adequate justification; and

(e) not set or determine a flood planning level inconsistent with the Floodplain Development Manual 2005 without adequate justification.

However, a planning proposal may be inconsistent with the direction where the proposal is shown to be in accordance with a floodplain risk management plan or otherwise justified by a relevant strategy, study, Regional or Sub-regional plan or if the inconsistency is demonstrated to be of minor significance.

Comment: The extent of flooding identified in the recent flood study is minor and reflects the topography of the site from an overland flow perspective. The concept plan reflects the pattern of overland flow occurring on the site, and has provided space for a detention basin in the south-western corner of the site consistent with the anticipated flooding behaviour. Additionally, the proposal is not seeking to establish new or additional employment lands, but rather to adjust the nature of already zoned land.

5.10 Implementation of Regional Plans

This direction applies to all planning proposals. The intent is to give legal effect to the vision, land use strategy, goals, directions and actions contained in Regional Plans.

When the direction applies a planning proposal must be consistent with the relevant Regional Plan.

Comment: The planning proposal is consistent with the Central West and Orana Regional Plan.

6.3 Site Specific Provisions

This direction applies when a planning proposal will allow a particular development to be carried out. The intent is to discourage unnecessarily restrictive site specific planning controls.

When the direction applies a planning proposal must allow the intended use to be carried out in the zone the land is situated on, or rezone the site, or allow the land use on the relevant land without imposing any development standards or requirements other than those already applying to the land or zone concerned. Additionally, a planning proposal must not contain or refer to drawings that show details of the development proposal.

Comment: The planning proposal is consistent with this direction. A site specific Development Control Plan is considered appropriate to allow for urban design outcomes to be clearly articulated and expressed to help inform the design of built form across the site. Such a DCP should not be viewed as adding site specific provision in this sense, but rather serve to clarify the expectations of the community that are already required under DCP 2004.

SEPP 64 Advertising and Signage

Subsequent development of the site for commercial land uses, allowed under the SP3 Tourist zone, is likely to include prominent advertising and signage. Because the NDR is not a classified road, consultation with Transport for NSW (formerly RMS) would not be triggered. However, as traffic volumes on the NDR continue to rise it is likely that the NDR may become a classified road at some future point. Therefore the provisions of schedule 1 of the SEPP, which provide a useful set of criteria to evaluate signs, should be considered during subsequent DAs.

SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007

The SEPP contains requirements to consult with the rail authority where certain development is to occur within or adjacent to a rail corridor. While it is unlikely that the subsequent DA would trigger these requirements, the rezoning would have that potential. Therefore it is anticipated that a Gateway Determination would include a requirement to consult with the rail authority.

The SEPP also contains provisions relating to Traffic Generating Development. Essentially this consists of a set of trigger points, such as traffic volumes or parking spaces for different forms of development. If triggered by a DA the matter needs to be referred to Transport for NSW (formerly RMS) for consideration. While it cannot be determined during the planning proposal stage, there is a distinct potential for the site to reach those thresholds. Consequently it is anticipated that a Gateway Determination would include a requirement to consult with Transport for NSW.

ANTICIPATED PROJECT TIMELINE

Gateway Process

Should Council resolve to proceed, the planning proposal and associated documents will be supplied to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for evaluation under the Gateway process. This typically takes 4–8 weeks, but can vary considerably in both direction. Once issued the Gateway Determination will outline the remainder of the process. This typically includes:

· Whether the Minister will delegate the power to make the plan to Council or withhold such delegation (typically in cases where the Council has a direct interest in the site or matter concerned).

· Any additional information or changes to the planning proposal required before consultation and exhibition can proceed.

· A list of government departments and agencies that are to be consulted.

· The public consultation and exhibition periods (typically 28 days).

· Whether a public hearing is required (typically only applies to reclassification of Council owned or controlled land under the Local Government Act 1993).

· Formal drafting of the amendment through Parliamentary Counsel.

· Finalisation of the amendment by publishing the change on the legislation website.

Agency Consultation

Given the site location and nature of the planning proposal, it is anticipated that the Gateway Determination may require consultation with Transport for NSW (formerly RMS) and John Holland Rail.

Community Consultation

Typically a 28 day public exhibition period is required. All materials will be made available on Council’s website and at the Civic centre for inspection during the required period.

Post Exhibition Evaluation

Once the exhibition period has concluded, all submissions received (from both the community and agencies) will be collated and reviewed. Issues identified in the submissions are then evaluated for significance, and where appropriate the proponent will be invited to respond, which may include relevant changes.

Report and Finalisation

Once all submissions have been reviewed, a further report to Council will be prepared to outline the response of agencies and the community, as well as any suggested adjustments. Council retains the option to reject a planning proposal at any time up to and including the final report. However, if endorsed the matter is then finalised, either by the CEO under delegation from Council or by the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment in cases where the Gateway Determination withheld delegations from Council.

Attachments

1 Planning Proposal - 185 Leeds Parade - December 2019, D20/27717 ⇩

2 Planning Proposal - Site and Context Plans, D20/27718 ⇩

3 Planning Proposal - Concept and Zone Plan, D20/27719 ⇩

4 Planning Proposal - Traffic Impact Assessment, D20/27720 ⇩

5 Planning Proposal - Acoustic Assessment, D20/27721 ⇩

6 Planning Proposal - Environmental Site Assessment, D20/27722 ⇩

Planning and Development Committee 2 June 2020

2.3 Development Application DA 54/2020(1) - 153-157 Peisley Street, Orange

RECORD NUMBER: 2020/818

AUTHOR: Kelly Walker, Senior Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged	14 February 2020
Applicant/s	Mr D Quarmby
Owner/s	Mr JH Swain
Land description	Lot 2 DP 535024 - 153-157 Peisley Street, Orange
Proposed land use	Recreation Facility (indoor) (change of use)
Value of proposed development	$25,000

Council's consent is sought to change the use of an existing vacant commercial unit at tenancy 1, 153-157 Peisley Street, Orange (Lot 2 DP 53502 - see Figure 1) to a gym for martial arts and boxing classes (indoor recreation).

Figure 1 - locality plan

The proposal involves using part of the building for martial arts, boxing, and self-defence classes, from individual tuition to classes for 15-20 participants. Students may consist of children, students, adults, families and/or groups. No construction or building works are proposed. The applicant intends to replace existing business identification signage, which does not require consent if within the exempt provisions. It is noted that the other tenancy of the building is also currently vacant, and no works or change of use is proposed for that tenancy.

Proposed hours of operation are Monday to Friday 6am to 9am and 4pm to 9pm; and Saturdays 7am to 1pm. Proposed staff numbers include one (1) full time equivalent (ie the operator of the business). No parking is, or can be provided on the site, and the changed use of the building results in an increased demand in car parking from its previous/historical commercial use. The tenancy benefits from a car parking credit of 18 spaces, and the proposal results in a shortfall of 3.5 spaces, using the recommended RMS rate for gymnasiums. The site is within the Orange Car Parking Contributions Plan 2015 mapped area, which allows for the payment of contributions in lieu of providing parking on site. Based on the parking contribution rates to 31 August 2020, this would result in a payable contribution of $26,052.53.

The applicant requests a waiver for this contribution, as set out in the DCP assessment later in this report. The DCP assessment provides consideration to the issue of waiving development contributions in this case. It is recommended that the contribution be waived on the basis of a condition of consent that limits the intensity of the proposed class to be held at 4.00-4.30pm where car parking is considered to be at a premium at that time of day. The use of the building outside of these peak times is unlikely to adversely impact on car parking in the surrounding area as there is ample availability of spaces after hours and on the weekends.

Being an application with a request to waive contributions over $20,000, delegation falls to the Planning and Development Committee.

Overall it is considered that the proposal meets the relevant planning provisions, and approval of the application is recommended.

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

Council's consent is sought to change the use of an existing vacant commercial unit at tenancy 1, 153-157 Peisley Street, Orange to a gymnasium. The main issue for consideration in this application relates to traffic and car parking demand.

The development has a shortfall of 3.5 spaces pursuant to Council’s planning controls which would result in a payable contribution of $26,052.53. The applicant has requested a waiver of this contribution. The financial impacts on a small start-up business is acknowledged. Consideration is to be given to the actual environmental impacts. Given there is no increase in floor area, waiver of the contribution is supported on the basis that a condition is attached that restricts numbers of occupants during the key afternoon period, this approach would assist a small business commence operations without adversely impacting on existing neighbouring businesses.

Approval of the application is recommended.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

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

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

That Council consents to development application DA 54/2020(1) for Recreation Facility (indoor) (change of use) at Lot 2 DP 535024 - 153-157 Peisley Street, Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

THE PROPOSAL

The proposal involves using part of the building for martial arts, boxing, and self-defence classes. Two recreation areas are proposed, one at the front and one at the rear of the tenancy. Two storage areas are proposed, one downstairs and one on the mezzanine level. A reception area, retail area and staff room are also proposed on the mezzanine level.

The proposed use ranges from individual tuition to classes with between 15-20 participants. Students may consist of children, students, adults, families and/or groups. Proposed hours of operation are Monday to Friday 6am to 9am and 4pm to 9pm, and Saturdays 7am to 1pm. Proposed staff numbers include one (1) full time equivalent (ie the operator of the business).

No construction or building works are proposed. The applicant intends to replace existing business identification signage, which does not require consent if within the exempt provisions.

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).

· Trigger 4: development proposed to occur in an Area of Outstanding Biodiversity Value (clause 7.2 of BC Act 2016). This is not applicable to Orange, as no such areas are known to occur in the area. As such, 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; is located in a highly disturbed area of the CBD; the proposal does not involve clearing or disturbance of vegetation; and is unlikely to significantly affect threatened species listed in the 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,

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

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

The application is considered to be consistent with 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 B3 Commercial Core
Lot Size Map:	No Minimum Lot Size
Heritage Map:	Adjacent to a heritage listed item and located in a heritage conservation area
Height of Buildings Map:	Building height limit 16m
Floor Space Ratio Map:	Floor space limit 2:1
Terrestrial Biodiversity Map:	No biodiversity sensitivity on the site
Groundwater Vulnerability Map:	Groundwater vulnerable
Drinking Water Catchment Map:	Not within the drinking water catchment
Watercourse Map:	Not within or affecting a defined watercourse
Urban Release Area Map:	Not within an urban release area
Obstacle Limitation Surface Map:	No restriction on building siting or construction
Additional Permitted Uses Map:	No additional permitted use applies
Flood Planning Map:	Not within a flood planning area

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

Clause 1.9A - Suspension of Covenants, Agreements and Instruments

This clause provides that covenants, agreements and other instruments which seek to restrict the carrying out of development do not apply with the following exceptions.

· covenants imposed or required by Council

· prescribed instruments under Section 183A of the Crown Lands Act 1989

· any conservation agreement under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974

· any trust agreement under the Nature Conservation Trust Act 2001

· any property vegetation plan under the Native Vegetation Act 2003

· any biobanking agreement under Part 7A of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995

· any planning agreement under Division 6 of Part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Council staff are not aware of the title of the subject property being affected by any of the above.

Part 2 - Permitted or Prohibited Development

Clause 2.1 - Land Use Zones

The subject site is located within the B3 Commercial Core zone. The proposed gym use is defined as a “recreation facility (indoor)” under the LEP 2011, which means:

recreation facility (indoor) 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

Clause 2.3 of LEP 2011 references the Land Use Table and Objectives for each zone in LEP 2011. These objectives for land zoned B3 Commercial Core are as follows:

· To provide a wide range of retail, business, office, entertainment, community and other suitable land uses that serve the needs of the local and wider community.

· To encourage appropriate employment opportunities in accessible locations.

· To maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.

· To promote development that contributes to the role of the Orange CBD as the primary retail and business centre in the City and region.

The proposed development is not inconsistent with the objects of the zone. Specifically, the development involves a permissible land use which will be complementary and supportive to the main role of the CBD for retail and business. The proposal will reuse an existing vacant commercial building and may provide opportunities for employment. It is considered that the subject land is in a location that promotes walking, cycling and public transport.

Part 3 - Exempt and Complying Development

The application is not exempt or complying development.

Part 4 - Principal Development Standards

Clause 4.3 - Height of Buildings

This clause limits the height of buildings (HoB) on land identified on the LEP Height of Buildings Map. The subject land is identified on the Map as having a HoB limit of 16m. The proposal does not seek to alter the existing dimensions or height of the building.

Clause 4.4 - Floor Space Ratio

This clause limits the floor space ratio (FSR) permitted on land identified on the LEP Floor Space Ratio Map. The subject land is identified on the Map as having an FSR of 2:1. The proposal does not seek to alter or increase the existing floor area of the building.

Part 5 - Miscellaneous Provisions

5.10 - Heritage Conservation

Cause 5.10 applies to the subject proposal as the land is located within a heritage conservation area, and is adjacent to and nearby to state and local heritage listed items. Clause 5.10 states in part:

(1) Objectives

The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a) to conserve the environmental heritage of Orange,

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

(c) to conserve archaeological sites,

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

(4) Effect of Proposed Development on Heritage Significance

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

The adjacent and nearby heritage listed items include the following:

· Second Chance Collectables and Canobolas Locksmiths (former) - 149-151 Peisley Street (corner of Kite Street) – an unusual Victorian commercial premises which retains a large portion of the original fabric, including the stepped rendered parapet and early shopfronts, which enhances the streetscape and contributes to the Conservation Area as a locally listed heritage item.

· Great Western Hotel - 145-147 Peisley Street – established in 1852 the Hotel is one of the earliest licensed premises, recorded in 1879, and associated with the completion of the Railway Station opposite, has retained the traditional built form, complements the streetscape and contributes to the Conservation Area as a locally listed heritage item.

· Orange Railway Precinct - Peisley Street - state significant heritage listed for its historic, aesthetic, and rarity values (listing includes station buildings, sheds, signal box, depot, Station Master’s residence, footbridge, crane, and other structures and items).

The proposal does not involve any alterations to the exterior of the existing building or site, other than replacement signage (which is not part of this application). As there are no changes to the fabric of the building or the site, it is considered that the proposal will have negligible impact on the immediate or wider heritage conservation area, or adjacent and nearby heritage listed items. Furthermore, Council encourages the reuse of existing older buildings in the CBD and heritage conservation areas.

Part 6 - Urban Release Area

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

Part 7 - Additional Local Provisions

7.3 - Stormwater Management

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

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

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

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

The building is connected to the existing stormwater system and no changes are proposed to the building. Thus 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:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clause 7.11 - Essential Services

Clause 7.11 applies and states:

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

(a) the supply of water,

(b) the supply of electricity,

(c) the disposal and management of sewage,

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

(e) suitable road access.

In consideration of this clause, all utility services are available to the land and adequate for the proposal.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land

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

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

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

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

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

The land has been used for a variety of uses, including boarding house, warehouse, leisure centre, commercial/retail shops, residential flats, industrial premises, motorcycle show room, and light industry (assembly and manufacture of trailers). Although previous business uses could have involved the storing of chemicals, Council is not aware of any contamination on the land. Council’s Environmental Health officer notes that given the building has a concrete slab floor the potential for contamination is low. 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. As noted in the SEPP 55 assessment above, given the subject building has a concrete slab floor contamination on the site and 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 8 – Development in Business Zones – PO 8.1-1 Central Business District

· Buildings have a high level of urban design to contribute to the regional status of the City’s Central Business District with attention given to façade features, external materials, colour and advertising.

· Urban design demonstrates a clear reference to the CBD Strategic Action Plan.

· Land use complements the role of the CBD as a regional centre for commerce and services.

· The reinstatement of verandahs on posts over footpaths is encouraged.

· Where possible, new buildings or external alterations in the CBD include an element of landscaping.

The proposal does not make any changes to the external building or site, nor the existing awning over the footpath. Landscaping is not considered appropriate in this case as the existing building comes directly up to the public footpath. The proposed development would not detract from the role or viability of the Orange CBD as a regional centre, and would reuse a vacant commercial CBD building, thus supporting business.

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

Fire safety, access, and the BCA are discussed in the Regulations section later in this report.

· Car parking is provided to meet demand either as on-site parking areas or through contributions towards public parking in and adjacent to the CBD.

· Loading areas are provided for developments requiring access by large trucks in a manner that doesn’t reduce active frontages for important pedestrian pathways.

Car parking and servicing are discussed in the Chapter 15 assessment below.

· Advertising comprise business identification signs in accordance with SEPP 64

No new signage is proposed. Existing lawful signage can be replaced under the State exempt provisions.

Chapter 15 - Car Parking

Pursuant to the DCP, onsite parking is required for recreational ‘gymnasiums/health and fitness centres’ at a rate of 7.5 spaces per 100m² of GFA. The RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Development has the equivalent rate noted as the desirable provision, but also contains an alternative lower rate of 4.5 spaces per 100m².

Based on a GFA of 468m²(including the floor area of the ancillary reception/retail area on the mezzanine level, but excluding the storage areas and staff room), the proposed development will generate a demand for 35.1 spaces based on the higher DCP rate (7.5 space per 100m²), or 21.0 spaces based the lower RMS guide rate (4.5 spaces per 100m²).

It is noted that the applicant has incorrectly applied different parking demand rates for different parts of the building, such as the business premises rate to the reception area, and industrial storage rates to the storage rooms. It is considered that the reception area is ancillary to the main use, and is not a separate commercial use, therefore the same gym rate applies to this floor area, as calculated above. The area between the recreation areas (ie under the mezzanine) has also been counted as GFA as it is likely this will be used for circulation, access, waiting, spectating etc in conjunction with the main use and cannot be discounted as ‘unused’ space. The staff room and storage areas are also ancillary to the main use, but as they do not generate any demand for parking they have not been counted as GFA in this case. The applicant has also incorrectly applied the health and community services gym and health centre rate (ie gym attached to a hospital, medical centre etc) to the proposal, rather than the recreation gym rate, which applies in this case as a commercial recreational activity. As such, the parking demand calculated by Council staff is higher than that calculated by the applicant.

There is no car parking on the site, and parking cannot be provided given the building occupies the greater portion of the site. Previous uses of the site have relied on on-street parking and public car parks in the surrounding area; and the subject property benefits from a car parking credit from its former uses of 18 spaces. For a change of use, the DCP requires parking to be provided for the net increase in demand. In this case, the net increase is either 35.1 demand less 18 space credit = 17.1 spaces (higher DCP rate), or 21.06 demand less 18 space credit = 3.6 spaces (lower RMS rate). As this additional parking demand cannot be provided on the site, the proposed development would result in a shortfall of parking of 17.1 or 3.6 spaces. Given the nature of the use, it is considered that the lower parking rate of 4.5 spaces per 100m² is more appropriate in this circumstance, as this is not a full-scale gym where patrons are coming and going during opening hours, but rather implements structured timetabled and booked classes. As such, the proposal results in a theoretical shortfall of 3.6 spaces.

The site is located within the mapped car parking contributions area, and Orange Car Parking Contributions Plan 2015 allows for the payment of contributions in lieu of providing parking onsite (ie to make up any shortfall on the site by financially contributing to the purchasing of land and ongoing maintenance for public car parking in the CBD). Based on the change of use car parking contribution rates to 31 August 2020 (quarterly indexing applies), this would result in a payable contribution of $26,052.53 (based on the lower RMS rate of 3.5 space shortfall).

The applicant seeks a waiver of this contribution, and provides the following request and justification:

“The Applicant requests consideration for the waiver of Development Contributions based on this proposal only. It is acknowledged that any waiver of contributions would apply only to this DA. Should the site be used by another party in the future, further consideration of development contributions for an intended future use could be applied by Council.

It is acknowledged that the DCP provisions for carparking are not specifically applicable based on the intended land use Recreation Facility (indoor) for martial arts classes. As such, the RMS rate tends to be applied. This is a consistent approach that has been applied by Council for a range of recreational type activities.

Based on the RMS rate of 4.5 spaces per 100m² of floor area, the proposed development has a short fall of 3.5 car spaces. The site has a credit of 18 car spaces.

The proposal is for the re-use of an existing commercial space within the commercial core of Orange.

Proposed hours of operation are Monday to Friday 6:00am to 9:00am and 4:00pm to 9:00pm and Saturdays 7:00am to 1:00pm. No opening hours on Sundays or Public Holidays.

After further discussions with the Applicant, intended hours of operation in the afternoon will not commence prior to 4:30pm.

Due to the site’s location within the Orange CBD, patrons and staff have access to additional parking options in proximity to this site. This includes Council owned public car parking facilities in Peisley Street, corner Lords Place & Kite Street, McNamara Lane, Peisley Street at the Railway Station as well as availability of options for on-street parking in Kite Street (in proximity to Factory Expresso), Peisley Street between Kite Street and Summer Street, Peisley Street south of the Kite Street intersection. These Council car park areas are shown below in Figures 7, 8, and 9 of the submitted SoEE report.

Based on the Applicants intended hours of operation, the conflict for peaking parking demand relates to the proposed early morning classes between 6:00am and 9:00am and the afternoon class that commences at 4.30pm Monday to Friday. Whilst it is recognised that this afternoon class is within the core commercial hours, it is only one (1) of several classes that are to be offered by the Recreational Facility (for martial arts classes). It is considered that the one afternoon class proposed to operate within the core business hours will not have as adverse environmental impact due to the small shortfall of parking spaces and the option for alternate short term parking options in the locality for both drop off and pick up. The early morning class have parking availability with classes ceasing prior to 9:00am peak parking period. The remainder of the classes propose to operate outside peak operational hours in the late afternoon, evening and on Saturday morning. By operating outside of these peak operational hours, there is negligible environmental impact for either the site or the locality and ample availability and parking options for participants of the operation.

As the development and recreation use promotes families and sibling participation, many of the students and participants travel to and from the site together which allows for a reduction in the traffic movements generated to and from the site.

It is considered that any shortfall in onsite parking based on the RMS rate is not likely to have an unacceptable environmental impact in the locality due to proposed operational hours and significant availability of on street parking in the area (in close proximity to the subject site).

Consideration of the proposal in post COVID-19 times, with an emerging business trying to establish a recreation operation within Orange which allows for physical activity and participation for improved mental and physical wellbeing. The Applicants are not only providing a service for individual, families and children, the operation provides for diversity within the commercial, a new business, and the tenancy of another vacant building. The proposal supports the local community and furthermore offers future employment opportunities to the locality once the business is established. The encouragement of new businesses post COVID-19 should be encouraged and supported by the Council. The imposition of development contributions, is a large economic impost for an emerging business to absorb and it is requested that Council take these circumstances into consideration in their decision making.

In conclusion, there is no increase in footprint; the proposal relates to the re-use of an existing vacant building within the commercial core, there are alternate options for on street parking in both Peisley and Kite Streets; there are alternate parking options in nearby Council car parks; the sites physical limitation to provide onsite parking and consideration of the proposed hours of operation which limits conflict for parking during traditional core business hours between 8.30am and 5:00pm. By allowing this variation, it is considered that the site and locality would have negligible environmental impact by the shortfall of 3.5 car spaces.

As such, it is requested that Council consider varying the imposition of development contributions as required by the contributions plan in these circumstances. The Applicants would be very grateful for the cost to be varied which would allow them to commence operation post COVID-19”.

Council staff generally agree with these points. There is ample car parking availability in the surrounding streets and public car parks outside of peak CBD business hours (ie before 9am and after 5pm Monday to Friday), which is when the proposed activity intends to mostly operate. The ‘after-hours’ classes are considered to have little adverse impact on on-street and public car parking. The exception is the 4/4.30pm class, which is a time where the CBD is busy and car parking demand in the surrounding area is high. During this class time there is likely to be conflict between additional demand generated by this proposed activity and usual parking demand in the area, and car parking would become more difficult to come by.

Furthermore, future use of the building and site for this purpose by a different operator may result in hours of operation during core business times, which may also conflict with peak parking in the surrounds. Both scenarios would result in adverse car parking impacts on this area of the CBD. Public and on-street parking needs to be fairly accessed by all surrounding business, where most of the long-standing businesses and buildings in this area of the CBD have little or no parking, and have historical parking credits in a similar manner as the subject site.

It is considered that these impacts could be minimised by limiting the intensity of the use of the site only during peak/core CBD business hours (ie 9am to 5pm). A maximum of 18 at any one time (including staff and patrons) would be a reasonable limit in this case as this number matches the car parking credit that applies to the site, which takes into account the established parking demand the subject building has in the surrounds. The applicant states that these afternoon classes are usually for children, and thus parents and siblings could be in addition to the maximum number if they have travelled together in the same vehicle. That is, the class could contain 17 children, 1 trainer, and any number of siblings, with any number of parents/carers spectating, and still only generate a car parking demand of 18 spaces, for which there is a car parking credit for the site. A condition of consent is recommended to this effect, and could be used in lieu of charging a car parking contribution. Subject to this condition of consent, there would not be a need to limit the parking contribution waiver to just this applicant, and any future user of the site could also operate within the terms of the consent (ie maximum 18 during peak hours, no limit outside of these hours).

Loading and servicing currently uses the rear roller door accessed from a shared laneway off Kite Street, and it is proposed to retain this arrangement. It is considered that the proposed use will not require regular servicing or deliveries by vehicles other than minor amounts of waste collection, which can utilise the current arrangements.

INFILL GUIDELINES

Heritage impacts have been discussed in the LEP Clause 5.10 assessment earlier in this report, where it was concluded that impacts are likely to be negligible as the proposal does not involve any physical changes to the exterior of the existing building or site.

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

Demolition of a Building (clause 92)

The proposal does not involve the demolition of a building.

Fire Safety Considerations (clause 93)

The proposal involves a change of building use for an existing building. Council is satisfied that the fire protection and structural capacity of the building are appropriate for the proposed new building use. Relevant conditions are attached.

Buildings to be Upgraded (clause 94)

Upgrading of the building will be required to ensure the existing building is brought into partial or total conformity with the Building Code of Australia. Conditions are attached in relation to the required upgrading works.

BASIX Commitments (clause 97A)

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

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

Neighbourhood Impacts

The subject land is located near a busy roundabout among commercial businesses in Peisley Street, which mostly carry out retail, food, and office activities. The proposed development will occupy one tenancy of the existing building as an indoor ‘recreation facility’, which is permitted with consent in the zone and will be a compatible use that will provide convenient access to a fitness facility for people who live and work in the vicinity. The development can be managed in a way whereby any possible impacts arising will be within acceptable levels, as discussed in the main body of this report. As such, the development is generally consistent with the context and setting of the locality, and neighbourhood impacts are likely to be minor.

Visual and Heritage Impacts

The development is unlikely to result in any unacceptable visual or heritage impacts, as no changes are proposed to the exterior of the building or the site. As such, the existing heritage setting will remain unaffected.

Noise Impacts

Gymnasiums have the potential to cause unreasonable noise impacts in a locality when not properly managed or suitably mitigated. It is considered that there is reasonable separation between the site and existing residential dwellings, where the nearest residential neighbourhood is more than 250m to the east and 325m to the southwest of the site.

The intervening area comprises other commercial and industrial buildings, as well as the railway line. Activities will be confined entirely within the building, and will mostly be carried out during daytime hours when background noise levels are higher. It is noted that the proposed early opening between 6-7am is considered ‘night time’, and after 7pm is considered ‘evening’, where background noise levels are typically lower than during the day. Conditions of consent are recommended requiring that all doors remain in a closed position before 7am and after 7pm to mitigate early morning and evening noise impacts.

Traffic and Parking Impacts

Existing access, traffic, and servicing arrangements will be maintained and are considered acceptable. Providing the proposed development operates with a limited intensity during core CBD hours (as outlined in the DCP car parking assessment), adverse car parking impacts are unlikely. This limit will ensure that there will be no net increase in car parking demand during peak/core CBD hours as the subject site benefits from a historical car parking credit. Operation outside of core hours would not need to be limited, and although there is technically a shortfall of 3.5 car parking spaces, the existing and additional demand can utilise the ample car parking availability in the surrounding streets. Council staff support the applicant’s request to waive car parking contributions for this shortfall, subject to conditions of consent limiting peak hour intensity.

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

Environmental Impacts

The development is not likely to give rise to any unsatisfactory impacts upon the built or natural environment as discussed in the main body of this report.

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts of a development can arise under four typical scenarios, namely:

· time crowded effects where individual impacts occur so close in time that the initial impact is not dispersed before the proceeding occurs;

· space crowded where impacts are felt because they occur so close in space they have a tendency to overlap;

· nibbling effects occur where small, often minor impacts act together to erode the environmental condition of a locality; and

· synergistic effects, where a mix of heterogeneous impacts interact such that the combined impacts are greater than the sum of the separate effects.

The likelihood of the development causing a cumulative impact under any of the above scenarios has been reduced to acceptable levels through the imposition of conditions controlling the operation of the development, such as the conditions limiting the maximum number of people during peak CBD hours, and a requirement to have all doors closed during early morning and evening classes.

Overall the development is considered acceptable in regards to cumulative impacts.

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 B3 Commercial Core zone with consent, and complement the main use of the CBD for retail and business;

· the proposed gym can be operated in a way that will be compatible with surrounding uses, subject to intensity limitations discussed in this report;

· no external changes to the building or site are proposed; and

· utility services are available to the site

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

The proposed development is not defined as advertised development under the provisions of the Regulation or Council’s Community Participation Plan, and as such no formal exhibition of the application was required. No submissions have been received in relation to this application.

PUBLIC INTEREST s4.15(1)(e)

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

SUMMARY

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

COMMENTS

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

Attachments

1 Notice of Approval, D20/29633 ⇩

2 Plans, D20/29618 ⇩

3 Fire Safety Schedule, D20/29593 ⇩

Planning and Development Committee 2 June 2020

Attachment 1 Notice of Approval

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

Development Application No DA 54/2020(1)

NA20/ Container PR9680

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 4.18

Development Application
Applicant Name:	Mr D Quarmby
Applicant Address:	C/- Planning Potential PO Box 2512 ORANGE NSW 2800
Owner’s Name:	Mr JH Swain
Land to Be Developed:	Lot 2 DP 535024 - 153-157 Peisley Street, Orange
Proposed Development:	Recreation Facility (indoor) (change of use)

Building Code of Australia building classification:	Class 9

Determination made under Section 4.16
Made On:	2 June 2020
Determination:	CONSENT GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:

Consent to Operate From:	3 June 2020
Consent to Lapse On:	3 June 2025

Terms of Approval

The reasons for the imposition of conditions are:

(1) To maintain neighbourhood amenity and character.

(2) To ensure compliance with relevant statutory requirements.

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

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

Conditions

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

(a) Plan/s numbered Floor Plans by Sam Morgan Designs, unnumbered, and dated 29/1/2020 (2 sheets).

Fire Safety Schedule by Orange City Council, ref: D20/29593, and dated 21 May 2020.

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

as amended in accordance with any conditions of this consent.

PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS

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

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

(3) The gas meter is to be relocated clear of the required rear exit in accordance with D2.7 Installations in exits and paths of travel - Building Code of Australia 2019.

(4) The internal stair, balustrade and handrail to the mezzanine area is to be upgraded to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia 2019:

· Stairs - risers are not have any openings that would allow a 125 mm sphere to pass through between the treads.

(5) The rear door must swing in the direction of egress and be provided with an external bollard to ensure that the exit door cannot be blocked.

The rear door forming part of a required exit must be readily openable without a key from the side that faces a person seeking egress, by a single hand downward action on a single device which is located between 900 mm and 1.1 m from the floor.

The front doors may remain inward swinging and must be fitted with a device for holding it in the open position.

(6) Directional illuminated exit signage is to be provided to indicate egress from the upper mezzanine level.

(7) 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 AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

(8) 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.

(9) The owner of the building/s must cause the Council to be given a Final Fire Safety Certificate on completion of the building in relation to essential fire or other safety measures included in the schedule attached to this approval.

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

MATTERS FOR THE ONGOING PERFORMANCE AND OPERATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT

(11) The hours of operation of the premises shall not exceed Monday to Friday 6:00am to 9:00pm and Saturday 7:00am to 5:00pm.

(12) During the hours of Monday to Friday 9:00am to 5:00pm, the use of the tenancy is limited to a maximum intensity of 18 persons (including patrons, staff, trainers and the like) on-site at any one time. Notwithstanding this, classes catering for children or persons with additional needs can have siblings, parents, carers, and the likes in addition to this number. The scheduling of classes during these hours shall have at least a 15 minute period between each class to allow for car parking turnover. Operation of the facility outside the period Monday to Friday 9:00am to 5:00pm shall be consistent with Condition (11) of this consent and the details submitted with the development application.

(13) All doors are to be kept in the closed position during early morning classes before 7:00am and evening classes after 7:00pm, and at any time during classes and sessions where music is being played and/or an amplified microphone is being used.

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

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

Other Approvals

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

Nil

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

Nil

Right of Appeal

If you are dissatisfied with this decision, Section 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 gives you the right to appeal to the Land and Environment Court. Pursuant to Section 8.10, an applicant may only appeal within 6 months after the date the decision is notified.

*Disability Discrimination* Act 1992:	This application has been assessed in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. No guarantee is given that the proposal complies with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. The applicant/owner is responsible to ensure compliance with this and other anti-discrimination legislation. The Disability Discrimination Act covers disabilities not catered for in the minimum standards called up in the Building Code of Australia which references AS1428.1 - "Design for Access and Mobility". AS1428 Parts 2, 3 and 4 provides the most comprehensive technical guidance under the Disability Discrimination Act currently available in Australia.

*Disclaimer - S88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919 -* Restrictions on the Use of Land:**	The applicant should note that there could be covenants in favour of persons other than Council restricting what may be built or done upon the subject land. The applicant is advised to check the position before commencing any work.

Signed:	On behalf of the consent authority ORANGE CITY COUNCIL
Signature:
Name:	PAUL JOHNSTON - MANAGER DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENTS
Date:	3 June 2020

Planning and Development Committee 2 June 2020

2.4 Heritage Study Review

RECORD NUMBER: 2020/819

AUTHOR: Andrew Crump, Senior Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Council has a statutory responsibility to list and manage heritage items and areas within its local government area. The Community Based Heritage Study was adopted by Council in 2012, with 1,151 properties being identified as significant to Orange’s heritage, and 355 of these items listed in Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 (the ‘LEP’).

To ensure that the Heritage Study remains relevant and up to date, in 2019 Council engaged Heritage Consultants David Scobie Architects and local firm, Adaptive Architects (the consultants) to carry out a review of the existing Community Based Heritage Study.

Following two separate community workshops and an invitation to the community to share their views on the existing heritage items and areas within the city, a draft report has been prepared by the consultants (See attached).

The report recommends three new heritage conservation areas (Bletchington, Blackman’s Swamp and Newman Park HCAs), expansions to the Central, Duration Cottages and Glenroi Heritage Conservation Areas (proposed to be become the East Orange HCA) and a number of new heritage items. The report also recommends certain properties to be further investigated and a series of already listed items that could potentially be redescribed/remapped to allow other types of approvals on the less significant parts of the listed site (e.g. Kinross Wolaroi School – Former Wolaroi Mansion and landscaped entrance being the more significant elements than other parts of the site; or the former Myer site where the original portion in Summer Street is the main interest and not the internal shops in the City Centre). These areas will be further scoped and assessed during the exhibition phase and will form part of the formal recommendations and report to Council following the exhibition period.

Additionally, the consultants have recommended renaming the existing conservation areas to either better reflect their location within the LGA or to better describe the significance attached to the area.

The project is now at a point where the consultant’s report and recommendations have been received by Council; and Council now needs to put the report on public exhibition to garner public comment.

As such, this report recommends progressing the project to the formal community consultation stage.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

Financial Implications

The heritage study review is listed within Council’s operational delivery plan. There is a financial implication with respect to the preparation of the required planning proposal that updates the Local Environmental Plan (LEP) to reflect any adopted heritage changes.

Policy and Governance Implications

It will be necessary to amend Orange LEP 2011 following Council adoption of the Final Report from the consultants.

Recommendation

That the Draft Heritage Study Review May 2020 prepared by David Scobie Architects and Adaptive Architects be placed on public exhibition for a period of 40 days.

further considerations

DIRECTOR’S NOTE

Council is now receipt of a draft heritage study from Council’s consultants. The draft study recommends the creation of three new heritage areas, an expansion of others together with the individual listing of an additional 36 properties. It is recommended that Council resolves to commence formal public exhibition of the draft Heritage Strategy in order to obtain the community’s views on the Strategy. Following this, the Strategy would be reported back to Council for consideration and adoption.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Hughes Trueman Ludlow completed the City’s first heritage study in 1986 which identified the majority of the conservation areas we have today along with approximately a third of the heritage items still listed today.

In 2010 David Scobie Architects were engaged to undertake a Community Based Heritage Study. The study was adopted in 2012 and was incorporated into the LEP as part of Amendment 1 in 2014.

In line with Council’s obligations to carry out periodic reviews and updates of Council’s Planning strategies and policies, in mid-2019 Council engaged David Scobie of David Scobie Architects and also James Nicholson of Adaptive Architects to carry out a periodic review of the study.

The purpose of the review is to determine if the existing mapped heritage areas and listed heritage items are adequate and capture everything that is deemed to carry heritage significance; or if not, identify the areas that should be expanded or recalibrated; or whether new areas need to be included along with whether or not additional items need to be included. Additionally, the review includes an exploration of existing heritage items where sites of certain items are typically quite large; the review is to explore if such sites could be re-defined / re-mapped to allow more generous approval pathways (i.e. complying development certificates) on the less significant parts of a site.

Council staff hosted two inception workshops which the public was invited to. In addition to the general public, Council staff invited the members of the Cultural Heritage Community Committee along with members of the community who have showed an interest in heritage conservation within the City.

At the same time as the inception workshops, Council invited the community to send in their thoughts and views of the existing heritage conservation areas and items within the City.

The submissions received during this period formed the basis of the consultant’s initial study areas.

Toward the end of last year, a workshop was held with the community members who attended the initial inception meetings and/or those who made submission. The purpose of the workshop was to gather more input from the community and to fine tune the study areas.

Following on from the last workshop, the consultants have carried out their detailed assessments of significance of the various areas in line with Heritage NSW Guidelines.

The conclusions of those various assessments underpin the recommendations in the attached draft report and mapping.

In summary, the report recommends the following:

1 Three new heritage conservation areas – Bletchington, Blackmans Swamp and Newman Park Conservation Areas.

2 Expansions to the Central, Duration Cottages and Glenroi Conservation Areas.

3 New Heritage items including:

(a) 117 Sampson Street

(b) 49 Prince Street

(d) 171 Margaret Street

(e) 110 Matthews Avenue

(f) 125 Prince Street

(g) 112 Dalton Street

(h) 125 Dalton Street

(i) 121 Gardiner Road

(j) 123 Gardiner Road

(k) 102 Gardiner Road

(l) 104 Gardiner Road

(m) 106 Gardiner Road

(n) 108 Gardiner Road

(o) 21 Spring Street

(p) 23 Spring Street

(q) 25 Spring Street

(r) 105 Spring Street

(s) 5 Hawkins Lane

(t) 7 Hawkins Lane

(u) 9 Hawkins Lane

(v) 11 Hawkins Lane

(w) 3 Hawkins Lane

(x) 6 Hawkins Lane

(y) 4 Hawkins Lane

(z) 2 Hawkins Lane

(aa) 20 Nile Street

(bb) 22 Nile Street

(cc) 24 Nile Street

(dd) 26 Nile Street

(ee) 15 Capps Lane, Huntley*

(ff) 1 Capps Lane, Huntley*

(gg) 38 Kinghorn Lane, Huntley*

(hh) 23 Blunt Road, Huntley*

(ii) ‘Waverton’ 76 Blunt Road, Huntley*

(jj) ‘Homeleigh’ 359 Phoenix Mine Road, Huntley*.

*subject to further detailed investigation and access to the site.

4 Rebranding of the existing heritage conservation areas to either better describe their location within the LGA, or to better describe the attributed significance. For example; it is recommended that the Central Heritage Conservation Area be renamed the “Dalton Heritage Conservation Area” as a reference to the importance the Dalton Family has had on the progression and prosperity of Orange during an important period of growth; particularly during the second half of the 19th century and the start of the 20th Century.

A summary of the proposed redescribed Heritage Conservation Areas is provided below:

*Current Name*	*Proposed Name*
Central HCA	Dalton HCA (recommended additional area shown in Red on the study map)
Duration Cottages HCA	Glenroi “Duration Cottages” HCA (recommended additional area shown Amber on the study map)
Glenroi HCA	East Orange HCA (recommended additional area shown purple on the study map)
East Orange HCA	Bowen HCA (no changes other than name)
**	Blackman’s Swamp HCA (yellow study map)
**	Newman Park HCA (Orange study map)
**	Bletchington HCA (Blue study map)

5. A shortlist of existing heritage items has been compiled where the consultants will explore the heritage significance of the respective sites with a view to investigate the possibility of re-defining / re-mapping the heritage curtilage for each site.

With Council now in receipt of the consultant’s report and recommendations, the project has progressed where Council can place the report on public exhibition and garner the community’s views on the recommended changes.

As such, this report recommends placing the attached report by the consultants on public exhibition for a period of 40 days (allowing for additional time under current circumstances relating to Covid-19).

In completing this process of community consultation, all owners effected by the recommended changes would be personally written to, as well as place advertisements in the local newspaper and on Council’s website to advise the broader community. For the matters requiring further investigation, separate correspondence will be furnished to those owner’s requesting an on-site meeting take place.

Following the conclusion of the impending exhibition period and the conclusion of the matters involving further investigation, the consultants will review all submissions received, make any necessary amendments to the draft report and provide that to Council as the Final Report for consideration. Following this, the process to planning proposal process to amend the Orange LEP to include the adopted recommendations would commence.

Attachments

1 Draft Heritage Study Review, IC20/10873 ⇩

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
Exit signs	BCA Clause E4.5, E4.6 & E4.8	AS 2293.1 (2005)	X	X
Hose reel systems	BCA Clause E1.4	AS 2441 (1988)	X
Portable fire extinguishers	BCA Clause E1.6	AS 2444 (2001)	X