Agenda of Sustainable Development Committee

Sustainable Development Committee 3 February 2015

2.1 Items Approved Under the Delegated Authority of Council

TRIM REFERENCE: 2015/190

AUTHOR: Allan Renike, Manager Development Assessments

EXECUTIVE Summary

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

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “13.4 Our Environment – Monitor and enforce regulations relating to City amenity”.

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

That the information provided in the report by the Manager Development Assessments on Items Approved Under the Delegated Authority of Council be acknowledged.

further considerations

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

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Reference:	DA 180/2014(1)	Determination Date	16 December 2014
PR Number	PR26474
Applicant/s:	Mr D Bouffler
Owner/s:	Mr DW Bouffler
Location:	Lot 310 DP 1192977 - 33 Emmaville Street, Orange
Proposal:	Dwelling, subdivision (two lot residential) and dwelling
Value:	$350,000

Reference:	DA 312/2014(1)	Determination Date	16 December 2014
PR Number	PR3458
Applicant/s:	Mr J Levi
Owner/s:	Mr JA and Mrs RS Levi
Location:	Lot 7 Sec 7 DP 5265 - 71 Dalton Street, Orange
Proposal:	Medical centre (alterations and additions to existing building)
Value:	$500,000

Reference:	DA 328/2014(1)	Determination Date	8 December 2014
PR Number	PR16902
Applicant/s:	Mr IL and Mrs DM Berryman
Owner/s:	Mr IL and Mrs DM Berryman
Location:	Lot 60 DP 875321 - 13-15 Peisley Street, Orange
Proposal:	Demolition (existing sheds), subdivision (three lot industrial) and general industry
Value:	$300,000

Reference:	DA 332/2014(1)	Determination Date	2 December 2014
PR Number	PR26746
Applicant/s:	Mr M Mustac
Owner/s:	Eastern Developments (NSW) Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 314 DP 1201019 - 14 Dimboola Way, Orange
Proposal:	Dual occupancy and subdivision (two lot residential)
Value:	$360,000

Reference:	DA 333/2014(1)	Determination Date	22 December 2014
PR Number	PR11502
Applicant/s:	Mrs M and Mr TJ Nagle
Owner/s:	Mr CLC and Mrs YM Powell
Location:	Lot 4 DP 711877 - 187 Summer Street, Orange
Proposal:	Retail premises (shop)
Value:	$10,000

Reference:	DA 334/2014(1)	Determination Date	11 December 2014
PR Number	PR14312
Applicant/s:	Mr H Brown
Owner/s:	Mr H Brown
Location:	Lot 71 DP 832376 - 22-24 Leewood Drive, Orange
Proposal:	Industry (alterations and additions to existing shed)
Value:	$40,000

Reference:	DA 346/2014(1)	Determination Date	12 December 2014
PR Number	PR15494
Applicant/s:	Tony Leahey Motor Group Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Mr AR and Mrs LJ Leahey
Location:	Lot 574 DP 836044 - 25 Cameron Place, Orange
Proposal:	Vehicle repair station, vehicle sales or hire premises (extension of existing servicing building and workshop) and demolition (two existing buildings)
Value:	$800,000

Reference:	DA 367/2014(1)	Determination Date	22 December 2014
PR Number	PR26771
Applicant/s:	Mr S and Mrs AA Atkinson
Owner/s:	Mr SJ and Mrs AA Atkinson
Location:	Lot 7 DP 1202010 - 3 Jazz Place, Orange
Proposal:	Dual occupancy and subdivision (two lot residential)
Value:	$475,000

Reference:	DA 373/2014(1)	Determination Date	16 December 2014
PR Number	PR14163
Applicant/s:	Mr IJ Parker
Owner/s:	Erolwren Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 102 DP 562456, Lot 1 DP 392443, Lots 1 and 2 DP 213505 - 85-107 Glenroi Avenue, Orange
Proposal:	Subdivision (three lots) (consolidation and boundary adjustment)
Value:	$0

Reference:	DA 379/2014(1)	Determination Date	13 January 2015
PR Number	PR3
Applicant/s:	Mr E Zell
Owner/s:	Mrs SA Zell
Location:	Lot 3 DP 568571 - 23 Beasley Road, Lucknow
Proposal:	Subdivision (two lot residential) and dwelling house
Value:	$150,000

Reference:	DA 386/2014(1)	Determination Date	8 January 2015
PR Number	PR17472
Applicant/s:	Sentinel Orange Homemaker Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Sentinel Orange Homemaker Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 5 DP 270204 - Unit 7, Orange Grove Homemakers Centre - Mitchell Highway, Orange
Proposal:	Bulky goods premises
Value:	$100,000

Reference:	DA 411/2014(1)	Determination Date	20 January 2015
PR Number	PR1961
Applicant/s:	Mr G Tanos
Owner/s:	Central Development Enterprises Pty Limited
Location:	Lot 50 DP 576317 – 113 Byng Street, Orange
Proposal:	Restaurant or café (alterations and additions)
Value:	$5,000

TOTAL NET* VALUE OF ALL DEVELOPMENTS APPROVED IN THIS PERIOD: $3,090,000

* 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.

Sustainable Development Committee 3 February 2015

2.2 Development Application DA 181/2014(1) - 454 The Escort Way

TRIM REFERENCE: 2015/192

AUTHOR: Paul Johnston, Planning Team Leader

EXECUTIVE Summary

Council’s consent is sought to construct a telecommunications facility, described by the applicant as a new mobile phone base station, at 454 The Escort Way, Orange. The proposed structure is located on the western ridgeline of Ploughmans Valley within the scenic protection area as defined by Council’s Development Control Plan.

A section 79C assessment of the proposed development has been undertaken by Council staff. It is considered that the proposed development will have a significant visual impact upon the immediate surrounding residential locality. The proposal is, however, considered acceptable in this case subject to the implementation of several recommended conditions of consent. Having said this, given the significance of the western ridgeline of the City it would be open for Council to form an alternative view should the visual impact of the development in this location be considered unacceptable.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “13.4 Our Environment – Monitor and enforce regulations relating to City amenity”.

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

That Council approves development application DA 181/2014(1) for Telecommunications Facility (mobile phone base station with 40m high monopole and equipment shelter) at Lot 100 DP 1035863 - 454 The Escort Way, Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

THE APPLICATION

Council’s consent is sought to construct a telecommunications facility (mobile phone base station) at 454 The Escort Way, Orange, being Lot 100 in DP 1035863.

THE PROPOSAL

Telstra propose to install a new mobile phone base station at 454 The Escort Way, Orange. The applicant has summarised the proposal as follows:

· installation of a new 40m high monopole with a triangular head frame mounted at a centreline elevation of 40m

· six panel antennas (2.6m long) mounted on the headframe at the centreline elevation of 40m, giving a total elevation of 41.3m

· six future panel antennas (2.6m long) mounted on the headframe at a centreline elevation 40m, giving a total elevation of 41.3m

· installation of six remote radio units and nine tower mounted amplifiers in proximity to the antennas

· one equipment shelter 2.28 (width) x 3.28m (length) x 2.95m (height) with associated piers located at the base of the monopole

· ancillary cabling and cable ladder and

· landscaping.

The proposal will be incorporated into the existing network via existing fibre optic cable.

Once operational, the facility will function on a continuously unstaffed basis and will typically only require maintenance works once a year.

The proposed development will comprise the installation of a 41.3m high monopole fitted with antennas and equipment housing. The radio equipment is proposed to be housed within a shelter which will be located in close proximity to the base of the monopole. The surrounding locality comprises predominantly residential development to the immediate east and undeveloped large lot residential land to the west.

Council received two written submissions in regards to the proposed telecommunications facility. Council’s responses to both submissions are detailed within the report.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT 1997

Telstra is a licenced telecommunications carrier and is required to operate under the provisions of the Telecommunications Act 1997 and the Telecommunications Code of Practice 1997.

The 1997 Act and Telecommunications (Low-impact Facilities) Determination 1997 (as amended) establish the criteria for ‘low impact’ telecommunications facilities. The proposed development is not defined as a ‘’low-impact facility” under the Telecommunications Act and is therefore subject to the provisions of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and, accordingly, the provisions of Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011.

The Telecommunications Code of Practice 1997 sets out the design, planning and installation requirements for carriers to ensure that the installation of facilities is in accordance with industry “best practice”. The applicant advises that the design and siting of the proposed communications facility has been undertaken in accordance with Section 3 (Planning and Siting) of the Australian Standard , Siting of Radio Communications Facilities (AS3516.2).

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 requires Council to consider various matters, of which those pertaining to the application are listed below.

Section 5A Assessment

In the administration of sections 78A, 79B, 79C, 111 and 112, the provisions of Section 5A must be taken into account for every development application in deciding whether there is likely to be a significant effect on threatened species, populations or ecological communities or their habitats. This section includes a requirement to consider any adopted assessment guidelines, which means assessment guidelines issued and in force under section 94A of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. Assessment guidelines are in force (see DECC-W “Threatened Species Assessment Guidelines - The Assessment of Significance”) which requires consent authority to adopt the precautionary principle in its assessment.

The subject property provides some habitat suitable for certain threatened or endangered species on a limited basis. However, with the exception of the Regent Honeyeater (for which this site is not suitable), there are no fauna species above the category of vulnerable that occur in this locality. The tests listed in the Assessment of Significance only apply to Threatened, Endangered or Critically Endangered Species as they appear in the NPWS Wildlife Atlas. Species listed as vulnerable or below have importance when assessing the value of vegetation communities, but are not individually protected themselves under the seven part test provisions.

In this case the vegetation on the subject land (but not the site of the proposed facility) is characterised by a number of over mature Eucalypts, but more significantly by planted vegetation around the site. There is a naturally occurring Box Gum Grassy Woodland (BGGW) on the western side of the site (see map below) that is noteworthy and of some significance, deserving of conservation. A number of vulnerable species are likely to utilise this vegetation for connectivity purposes to link to areas of greater, more significant biomass to the west and south of the subject site. The conservation of that vegetation remnant is important for that reason, but the proposed development has no impact in that respect. The scattered over mature eucalypts on the site are significant for seed banking purposes and also as waypoints for migrating immature avian species.

The proposed development has no impact in terms of the supporting vegetation and therefore a detailed supporting assessment so as to complete the seven part assessment of significance as called up by the Act is not necessary.

The LEP also has provisions that are additional and separate to the Act that apply in areas mapped under the LEP as an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA). In this case the attached LEP map extract demonstrates that whist parts of the lot are considered an ESA, the part of the lot where the proposed development is to be sited is not a sensitive area and has only limited connectivity to those areas. The various dams and waterways on the site are not considered overly sensitive, and as explained above do not support species that in themselves are protected under the TSC or EP&A Act. Whilst it is acknowledged that rare species may frequent the site, it is unlikely that they have a critical dependence on the site, even applying the Department guidelines of local occurrence and local conservation. It is considered the threat posed by the proposed development is minor. It is further noted that the proposed development does not constitute a Key Threatening Process (KTP) under the abovementioned OEH guidelines.

There is no significant risk arising under either the Assessment of Significance prescribed by Section 5A, or under the local LEP controls.

PROVISIONS OF ANY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT s79C(1)(a)(i)

Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011

Part 1 - Preliminary

This part of the plan is largely administrative in nature and has minimal implications for the proposal.

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 the needs of present and future generations to be met by implementing the principles of 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 aims (a) and (b) as listed above. In relation to aim (f), it is considered that the proposal will have a significant impact upon the landscape and scenic features of the western ridgeline of Ploughmans Valley. A detailed assessment of the likely impacts of the development and in particular the impact that the development will have on the landscape and scenic features of the City has been provided below under the heading “Likely Impacts of the Development”.

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 1.9A - Suspension of Covenants, Agreements and Instruments

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

· covenants imposed or required by Council

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

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

· any trust agreement under the Nature Conservation Trust Act 2001

· any property vegetation plan under the Native Vegetation Act 2003

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

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

The subject site does not appear to be affected by any of the above. The subject allotment is burdened by an electricity easement. The proposed development will not have a detrimental effect on the easement.

Mapping

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

Land Zoning Map:	Land zoned R5 Large Lot Residential
Lot Size Map:	Minimum Lot Size 2ha
Heritage Map:	Not a heritage item or conservation area.
Height of Buildings Map:	No building height limit
Floor Space Ratio Map:	No floor space limit
Terrestrial Biodiversity Map:	Biodiversity sensitivity on the site
Groundwater Vulnerability Map:	Ground water vulnerable
Drinking Water Catchment Map:	Not located 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

Those matters that are considered to be of relevance to the development application are addressed in detail in the body of this report.

Part 2 - Permitted or Prohibited Development

Land Use Zones

The subject site is zoned R5 Large Lot Residential. The proposed development is defined as a Telecommunications Facility under OLEP 2011. Pursuant to OLEP 2011 a telecommunications facility means:

(a) any part of the infrastructure of a telecommunications network, or

(b) any line, cable, optical fibre, fibre access node, interconnect point equipment, apparatus, tower, mast, antenna, dish, tunnel, duct, hole, pit, pole or other structure in connection with a telecommunications network, or

(c) any other thing used in or in connection with a telecommunications network.

Telecommunications Facilities are not specifically listed as permissible in the R5 Large Lot Residential zone under OLEP 2011 and are thus prohibited. However, State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) applies to the State and under Clause 116 development for the purposes of telecommunications facilities may be carried out by any person with consent on any land. The SEPP overrides the provisions of Orange LEP 2011 and therefore has the effect of rendering the proposed development permissible on any land with the consent of Council.

In accordance with Clause 115(3) of SEPP (Infrastructure), Council in determining this matter must take into consideration any guidelines concerning site selection, design, construction or operating principles for telecommunications facilities that are issued by the Director-General for the purposes of this clause and published in the Gazette.

This provision has the effect of imposing any assessment guidelines imposed by the Director General (Department Of Planning). The Department has a design guideline, entitled "NSW Telecommunications Facilities Guideline Including Broadband" which applies in this case.

A detailed assessment of how the development responds to these guidelines has been provided below under the heading of "State Environmental Planning Policies".

Clause 2.3 of OLEP 2011 references the Objectives for each zone in OLEP 2011. These objectives for land zoned R5 Large Lot Residential are as follows:

· To provide residential housing in a rural setting while preserving, and minimising impacts on, environmentally sensitive locations and scenic quality.

· To ensure that large residential lots do not hinder the proper and orderly development of urban areas in the future.

· To ensure that development in the area does not unreasonably increase the demand for public services or public facilities.

· To minimise conflict between land uses within this zone and land uses within adjoining zones.

· To provide for student housing in close proximity to the Charles Sturt University.

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

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

The objectives of the zone are not considered to be of relevance to the proposed development.

Part 3 - Exempt and Complying Development

Telstra is a licenced telecommunications carrier and is required to operate under the provisions of the Telecommunications Act 1997 and the telecommunications Code of Practice 1997. The 1997 Act and Telecommunications (Low-impact Facilities) Determination 1997 (as amended) establish the criteria for ‘low impact’ telecommunications facilities. The proposed development is not defined as a ‘’low-impact facility” under the Telecommunications Act and is therefore subject to the provisions of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and, accordingly, the provisions of Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011.

The application is not exempt or complying development.

Part 4 - Principal Development Standards

Not relevant to the application.

Part 5 - Miscellaneous Provisions

5.9 - Preservation of Trees or Vegetation

This clause seeks to maintain and preserve the amenity of the area, including biodiversity values, through the preservation of trees and other vegetation.

(3) A person must not ringbark, cut down, top, lop, remove, injure or wilfully destroy any tree or other vegetation to which any such development control plan applies without the authority conferred by:

(a) development consent, or

(b) a permit granted by the Council.

The construction of the telecommunications facility makes use of an existing cleared paddock and no clearing of any significant trees or vegetation is required to facilitate the proposed development.

Part 6 - Urban Release Area

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

Part 7 - Additional Local Provisions

7.1 - Earthworks

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

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

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

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

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

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

(f) the likelihood of disturbing relics

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

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

The proposed earthworks will consist of site testing, excavation and construction of foundations. The proposed earthworks will not involve the removal of any trees with the subject land already highly disturbed from past farming practices. The proposed development is not expected to have a detrimental effect on the water catchment area.

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.

DESIGNATED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development is not designated development.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 ("the SEPP") applies to the subject development.

Clause 2 - Aim of Policy

The aim of this policy is to facilitate the effective delivery of infrastructure across the state by:

(a) improving regulatory certainty and efficiency through a consistent planning regime for infrastructure and the provision of services, and

(b) providing greater flexibility in the location of infrastructure and service facilities, and

(c) allowing for efficient development, redevelopment or disposal of surplus government owned land, and

(d) identifying the environmental assessment category into which different types of infrastructure and services development fall (including identifying certain development of minimal environmental impact as exempt development), and

(e) identifying matters to be considered in the assessment of development adjacent to particular types of infrastructure development, and

(f) providing for consultation with relevant public authorities about certain development during the assessment process or prior to development commencing.

The development is not inconsistent with the aims of the SEPP.

Clause 115 - Development Permitted with Consent

(1) Development for the purposes of telecommunications facilities, other than development in clause 114 or development that is exempt development under clause 20 or 116, may be carried out by any person with consent on any land.

The SEPP has the effect of rendering the proposed development permissible on any land with the consent of Council.

(3) Before determining a development application for development to which this clause applies, the consent authority must take into consideration any guidelines concerning site selection, design, construction or operating principles for telecommunications facilities that are issued by the Director-General for the purposes of this clause and published in the Gazette.

This provision has the effect of imposing any assessment guidelines imposed by the Director General (Department Of Planning). The relevant guideline applicable in NSW for the consideration of development of this type is entitled "NSW Telecommunications Facilities Guideline Including Broadband".

The guideline has the effect under clause 1.6 of applying as a design tool in all zones of an LEP.

Section 2.2 of the policy sets up the design principles that should be followed. The guidelines are organised under "Principles" headings. Many of the principles are not relevant because they relate to fully urbanised landscapes. In this case the landscape and setting are not fully urbanised. Detailed consideration of how the development fits into the landscape will however remain an important element for consideration under the guidelines. The ridge upon which the structure is proposed forms the skyline to large areas of the City.

Those principles that are called up in the policy and which are relevant to the assessment of visual impact are set out below:

Principle 1 - Design and Siting to Minimise Visual Impact

· As far as practical, a telecommunications facility that is to be mounted on an existing building or structure should be integrated with the design and appearance of the building or structure.

The applicant has advised that the area was analysed using desktop and onsite investigations during the site selection process. The applicant has indicated that when investigating sites the preference for selection is firstly for colocation on existing infrastructure, secondly low impact facilities (as defined by the Telecommunications (Low impact Facilities Determination 1997) and lastly “greenfield sites”. Four candidate sites were investigated in the context of the above. These include:

· Candidate A: 454 The Escort Way, Orange (proposed site)

· Candidate B: 448 The Escort Way, Orange

· Candidate C: Lot 1 DP 581736 Gorman Road, Orange

· Candidate D: 7 Borrodell Drive, Orange

These candidate sites are shown in the attached aerial photo:

Candidate A: 454 The Escort Way, Orange (proposed site)

The applicant advises that this site provided the radio coverage required of a facility in this area. The site has no design or construction constraints. The property owner was willing to enter into a land tenure agreement with Telstra.

Candidate B: 448 The Escort Way, Orange

The applicant advises that this site provided the radio coverage required of a facility in this area. The site was discounted as the property owner was unwilling to enter into a land tenure agreement with Telstra.

Candidate C: Lot 1 DP 581736 Gorman Road, Orange

The site was discounted as the property owner was unwilling to enter into a land tenure agreement with Telstra. The applicant has advised that the proposed facility in this location was not able to meet the radio coverage objectives for this site without utilising a heightened tower structure.

Candidate D: 7 Borrodell Drive, Orange

The site was discounted as the property owner was unwilling to enter into a land tenure agreement with Telstra. The site would require extensive earthworks in order to construct a graded access track. The applicant has advised that the proposed facility in this location was not able to meet the radio coverage objectives for this site without utilising a heightened tower structure.

· The visual impact of telecommunications facilities should be minimised, visual clutter is to be reduced

As a new structure designed to meet technical specifications, there appear to be few opportunities to modify or reduce the intrusive nature of the monopole and the array to be placed on top of the pole.

· Where telecommunications facilities protrude from a building or structure and are predominantly backgrounded against the sky, the facility and their support mounts should be either the same as the prevailing colour of the host building or structure, or a neutral colour such as grey should be used.

The proposed telecommunications facility is a stand-alone structure. The proposed structure will protrude above the ridgeline when viewed from a large area of the City and from The Escort Way. A detailed assessment of the visual impacts of the development has been provided below under the heading “Likely impacts of the Development”. It is considered appropriate in this case to impose a condition requiring the structure to be painted a “shale grey” colour as suggested. A condition to that effect is included.

· Ancillary facilities associated with the telecommunications facility should be screened or housed, using the same colour as the prevailing background to reduce its visibility, including the use of existing vegetation where available, or new landscaping where possible and practical.

In this case the ground based structures will be located immediately around the base of the structure. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan in support of the proposal. It is considered that the proposed landscaping at maturity will adequately screen the ancillary structures. Attached is a condition in relation to this matter.

· A telecommunications facility should be located and designed to respond appropriately to its rural landscape setting.

In this case the setting behind (to the west) of the site dictates the character and setting of the structure. As discussed above the facility will project above the skyline, and whilst some landscaping exists along the ridge, the development is proposed to be located on a relatively exposed part of the ridge. Landscaping requirements are considered essential to this proposal, and are discussed in more detail elsewhere in this report.

· A telecommunications facility located on, or adjacent to, a State or local heritage item or within a heritage conservation area, should be sited and designed with external colours, finishes and scale sympathetic to those of the heritage item or conservation area.

Council’s records indicate that subject site is not located within a heritage conservation area and is not located adjacent to listed State or Local heritage items.

· "A telecommunication facility should be located and designed so as to respond appropriately to its landscape setting".

A detailed assessment of the visual impact of the development and its impact on the landscape setting has been provided below under the heading “Likely Impacts of the Development’.

Principle 2 - Colocation

As indicated in the above discussion, colocation was not considered a practical option.

Principle 3 - Health Standards

The applicant has submitted technical specifications and discussion in their Statement of Environmental Effects, attesting that the proposed structure when in operation will comply with relevant health standards, particularly relating to electromagnetic emissions standards.

Whilst there are currently wide-ranging and contentious views on the health impacts associated with electromagnetic energy (EME), with large volumes of discourse related to the study, there is currently no definitive evidence or conclusive findings one way or another of the effects of EME on humans. Council is therefore largely reliant on the studies of recognised health organisations and the submitted report on the summary of Estimated RF (radiofrequency) EME (electromagnetic energy) in determining the likely health impacts associated with the development.

The Australian Government’s Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency cite the World Health Organisation’s advice stating:

None of the recent reviews have concluded that exposure to RF fields from mobile phones and their base stations cause any adverse health consequences” (ARPANSA).

Furthermore, the ARPANSA suggests:

the balance of evidence does not indicate a risk to the health of people, including children, living in the vicinity of base stations where exposure levels are only small fractions of the ARPANSA standard.

A report titled Summary of Estimated RF and EME Levels Around The Proposed Wireless Base Station…’ indicates:

RF EME levels have been estimated from the proposed antennas at 354 Cadia Road, Springside. The maximum cumulative EME level at 1.5m above ground level and 274.1m from the antennas is estimated to be 0.026% of the ARPANSA public exposure limits.

As mentioned above, Council is largely reliant on the reports submitted in the application and studies of recognised health agencies in determining the likely health impacts associated with the development.

In light of the above, it is considered that the development is not likely to result in adverse health impacts as a result of human exposure.

Principle 4 - Minimise Disturbance

This principle is mainly concerned with the impact that the development may have on other telecommunication facilities in the locality, particularly those relating to airport operations. It is considered unlikely that the proposed structure will have any significant impact in this regard.

PROVISIONS OF ANY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT THAT HAS BEEN PLACED ON EXHIBITION s79C(1)(a)(ii)

Council is not aware of any draft Environmental Planning Instruments that have been placed on public exhibition that affect the proposed development.

PROVISIONS OF ANY DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN s79C(1)(a)(iii)

Development Control Plan 2004

Development Control Plan 2004 (“the DCP”) applies to the subject land (Part 0LEP 2011, Part 6 Rural Development). An assessment of the proposed development against the relevant Planning Outcomes will be undertaken below.

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

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

The corresponding zone to zone 1(c) Rural Residential (Orange LEP 2000) is zone R5 Large Lot Residential (Orange LEP 2011). As such, Orange DCP 2004 - Chapter 6 - Rural Development represents the corresponding set of controls for consideration. The proposed development is not inconsistent with any provisions under this section of the DCP.

Pursuant to Planning Outcome 0.4-1 Interim Planning Outcomes – Scenic Areas:

· Development blends into the landscape through the use of appropriate siting, design, external materials and colours, retention of trees including remnant vegetation, establishing of new trees, and enhancing the skyline when viewed either from the urban area of Orange or from public places in the vicinity of the land.

While Telstra’s proposed facility will introduce a new vertical element in the skyline, it should be viewed in conjunction with other elements in the surrounding area and within the ‘Scenic Area’ itself. The applicant submits that these elements range from power and street lighting poles in the near and immediate vicinity, to existing telecommunications facilities in the distance. It can be suitably argued that these vertical elements, considered essential infrastructure, are commonplace within today’s landscapes, be it in the urban built environment, rural settings, or the growing outskirts of townships such as Orange.

Following an evaluation of the documentation submitted in support of the development application, it is understood that the proposed facility has been sited as far back from The Escort Way (Forbes Road) as is practically and technically feasible. Council is advised that while this location is near the crest of the land marked as ‘Scenic Area’, it allows the facility to be the smallest possible structure to achieve the required coverage objectives of a site in this area. The applicant argues that the proposed facility’s visual impact is further lessened by the existing vegetation that is found surrounding the site location. The applicant’s submission is accompanied by a detailed landscape plan. Telstra’s proposal involves the establishment of a number of additional trees and shrubs that will assist to screen the lower portion of the proposed facility. The external colours and materials used to finish the proposed facility can also be suited to blend into the landscape. Attached to the draft Notice are conditions of consent that address these issues.

Whilst the assessment has highlighted that the proposed development will have a significant visual impact when viewed from surrounding residential properties and while travelling in both directions along The Escort Way, the proposal is considered acceptable in this case subject to the implementation of several recommended conditions of consent. Having said this, given the significance of the western ridgeline of the City and the fact that the proposed structure will be readily viewed from a number of residential properties and road corridors in the general locality, it would be open for Council to form an alternative view should the visual impact of the proposed development be considered unacceptable.

PROVISIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE REGULATIONS s79C(1)(a)(iv)

The proposed development is not inconsistent with the provisions prescribed by the regulations.

THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT s79C(1)(b)

Context and Setting

Council is advised that Telstra is required by law to carefully consider many factors before deciding on the location and the design of a base station. It is understood that these factors include:

· service objectives (radio coverage requirements)

· physical characteristics of the site - such as height and terrain

· ability to connect with the rest of the network

· planning constraints such as zonings

· colocation opportunities

· minimising public exposure to EME

· cost factors

· the ability to obtain a suitable lease

· proximity to community sensitive locations and

· minimising the visual impact on the existing environment.

As demand grows on mobile telecommunications networks, the applicant advises that additional investment is required to match capacity to demand. In the case of the service provided by Telstra to Orange, Council is advised that investments have been made to increase the capacity of surrounding facilities and install additional facilities, including those at Beech Crescent, Calare, and at the Duntryleague Golf Club on Woodward Street. Telstra has also been able to utilise additional radio channels, sectorisation or cell splitting and spreading the load over all the different frequency bands that are available to Telstra under its Telecommunications Carrier Licence. The applicant advises that the proposed development represents the next step to providing vital infrastructure that will facilitate enhanced services to customers, providing improved coverage to areas that are currently experiencing limited reception.

The facility is proposed to be sited on a privately owned large lot residential allotment approximately midway along the eastern boundary of the lot at 454 The Escort Way. The subject land provides some screening utilising existing vegetation on the lot. A landscape plan has been submitted in support of the subject development. This additional landscaping will, over time, provide a level of screening for the lower section of the monopole and the equipment at ground level.

Design

Whilst it is not uncommon for telecommunications facilities to be sited in close proximity to residential development, Telstra has acknowledged that the facility needs to be sensitive to its environment.

The applicant advises that taking advantage of local topography has allowed the use of a 40m structure in this location, thereby avoiding the need to install a lattice type structure or taller monopole which would represent a significantly less desirable visual outcome. Council is advised that the 40m high monopole is the minimum height required for the facility to project over the trees to the surrounding area and provide the level of coverage necessary to make a sustainable contribution to coverage and service issues.

In order to reduce the long term visual impact of the proposed development it is recommended in the event that Council is of the view to support the proposed development, that the structure be painted in a “shale grey” colour and the applicant be required to implement the landscape plan submitted in support of the proposed development. Council’s Urban Design Advisor has also recommended that this colour be utilised. The equipment shelter will not be visible externally due to existing private and public vegetation in the surrounding area. The landscape concept plan submitted incorporates eleven Populus Canadensis evergreen trees and ten Pittosporum James Stirling located around the proposed structure, which will at maturity screen the lower section of the tower. The proposed trees will have a mature height of approximately 20m. The attached Notice of Approval contains conditions in relation to these matters.

The applicant submits that the development will have an acceptable visual impact and that the facility will provide vital infrastructure that will provide enhanced services to customers, providing improved coverage to areas that are currently experiencing limited reception.

Visual Impacts

The proposed structure is located on the western ridgeline of Ploughmans Valley within the scenic protection area as defined by Council’s Development Control Plan. The subject land comprises large lot residential and is located adjacent to residential areas within the Ploughmans Valley. The ridgeline that forms just to the west of the subject land comprises the backdrop to large parts of the City including Westlea, Belair and parts to the north of those areas. Landscape elements are concentrated to the south but further north are mostly devoid of landscape elements.

The proposed development is likely to result in various levels of visual impact given its location in relation to residential areas to the north, east and south and the height of the proposed monopole (41.3m). Visual impact is often a significant issue with respect to the installation of mobile phone base stations. In order to provide adequate clearance above buildings, trees and the topography of the land it is virtually impossible for these facilities to be completely hidden.

The subject land provides some low level screening utilising existing vegetation on the lot. A landscape plan has been submitted in support of the subject development. The proposed landscaping will, over time, provide a level of screening of the lower section of the monopole and the equipment at ground level.

The applicant submits that the proposed location of the telecommunications tower provides for maximum separation distance between the facility and the majority of residential development. The applicant advises that the siting of the proposed structure any further west would not meet the radio coverage objectives for the site. It is understood that the height of the proposed monopole is the minimum required height to adequately meet the objectives of a site in this location. Council staff requested the applicant to consider what opportunity there was for establishing the development on alternative sites and whether or not it was possible to reduce the overall height of the structure. The applicant has since advised Council that they were unable to secure legal tenure over the alternative sites identified during the site selection process and that a lower facility would not provide the ‘relief’ to surrounding sites.

A detailed assessment of the likely impacts of the structure has been undertaken by staff to determine whether or not the development is acceptable in this location. To this end some commentary on the likely visual impact of the development from certain vantage points around the City is provided below.

Adjoining rural residential lots to the east and west both contain dwellings with some screening opportunities from existing vegetation onsite. An evaluation of the site indicates that dwellings in the immediate vicinity of the subject site are oriented generally away from the proposed facility. However, as Council would be aware the surrounding area is currently within a transitional phase of development and opportunity for additional dwellings to be established within proximity to the facility in the near future. The following extract from the applicant's Statement of Environmental Effects depicts the context of the existing surrounding area:

Untitled

Surrounding area (source - applicants Statement of Environmental Effects)

Due to existing public and private vegetation, as well as the additional landscaping proposed (a row of eleven Evergreen Poplars, and a row of ten James Stirling surrounding the facility) the applicant submits that the upper portion of the facility only will be exposed intermittently in all directions surrounding the facility.

Council staff met with representatives from Aurecon and Telstra to discuss matters in relation to the likely visual impact of the proposal. A tower platform was raised and lifted to a height of 40m to roughly depict the proposed telecommunications facility, and provide an indication of the height required. A number of vantage points were visited by both Council staff and the applicant, with photomontages being created to assist in this assessment. This exercise was undertaken to accurately determine height and location of the proposed development, to overcome difficulties in relying on photomontages and to avoid criticism that questions the legitimacy of the photomontages.

The applicant has since provided further analysis of the visual impact of the development from various vantage points and provided additional photomontages of the proposed development for Council’s consideration. The additional photomontages have been taken with a 50mm focal length lens. However it is understood that with the sensor size of the cameras used by the applicant and Council staff that the correct focal length that represents the human field of view and focal length is actually 32mm. Notwithstanding this these photomontages are considered to present a greater sense of impact than what would have been presented with a focal length of 32mm.

Land to the north of the facility is currently vacant land. Given the undulating nature of the land the proposed facility is likely to be seen from along Silverdown Way some 550m from site. Due to distance and separation the facility is not likely to be a bulky structure when viewed from this vantage point. The applicant submits that the facility will be further mitigated by existing vertical structures in the area including electricity poles, existing telecommunications lattice towers in the distance and mature vegetation.

View towards the proposed site location from Silverdown Way

(north of proposed site location)

(source - applicant's Statement of Environmental Effects)

When viewed from further north over 1km from the proposed site location, it is considered that the facility will have limited visual impact. The applicant argues that whilst the top half of the facility will be visible it will not be a dominant feature of the landscape on the basis that it will appear as only a thin protrusion into the skyline. The applicant further argues that views from the north would also encompass existing telecommunications facilities at Nashdale and Mount Canobolas, as well as existing vertical protrusions such as lighting and electricity poles.

When viewed from the northeast and east in the predominately residential areas of Calare, the proposed facility is considered to be more visible. The applicant submits that the visual impacts of the development from this area will be mitigated through the existing mature vegetation in the area surrounding the proposed site location and the implementation of the proposed landscaping. Views of the facility from the immediate south will be limited due to the elevation of the road reserve along the northern boundary of The Escort Way. The applicant submits that vegetation along this reserve will also aid to a degree in partly obscuring the facility from view.

When viewed from the east and west at distances beyond 1km, the facility will be visible to the greatest degree due to the topography of the surrounding land. The proposed structure will be located on the western ridgeline of Ploughmans Valley, which forms the natural backdrop to parts of the City mentioned above. Whilst there are some landscape elements located on the ridge to the south of the subject site there are very few landscape features north of the site. The proposed tower will protrude well above the skyline when viewed from various vantage points along The Escort Way when travelling east and west of the subject site, the residential areas to the north, east and south and from the rural areas to the north, south and west.

The western ridgeline has been identified as a significant visual backdrop to the City and any element that protrudes above the ridgeline has the potential to affect the visual amenity of this locality. The applicant has consistently argued that the visual impact of the development will be mitigated by existing and proposed landscaping and the fact that there are other vertical elements such as electricity and lighting poles in this locality.

Whilst this may be the case, it is obvious that by the nature of this facility being a precisely defined 41.3m high vertical element located on the western ridgeline to a large area of the City that the tower structure will create a significant visual impact from parts of the City. As would be expected the significance of the visual impact would diminish the further the viewer is away from the tower. However, it needs to be acknowledged that the visual impact of the tower structure will be significant from the areas in close proximity to the tower, particularly from the adjoining rural residential properties (see submissions below).

Figure 5.11 View towards proposed site location from Forbes Road

(approximately 1.1km east of proposed site location)

(source - applicant's Statement of Environmental Effects)

The applicant submits that a photomontage of the proposed facility as seen from Riawena Oval on Kooronga Avenue demonstrates that while the upper portion of the monopole will be visible, the lower sections are completely shrouded. This argument is acknowledged and it is agreed that the visual impact of the development from this vantage point is reduced given the separation distance that exists between the oval and the subject site. The facility will not be visually significant from these distant areas.

View towards proposed site location from across Riawena Oval on Kooronga Avenue

(approximately 1.1km south-east of proposed site location)

(source – Council staff)

Whilst the facility will have a visual presence within the surrounding area when viewed from the west at varying degrees, it is considered that the impact will be less given the semi-rural nature of the land. The topography is undulating further west of the proposal, and with the presence of mature vegetation in the landscape along The Escort Way it is expected that the visual impact of the proposed facility from that vantage point will be minimal.

View towards proposed site location from service road off Escort Way

(approximately 300m west of proposed site location)

(source - applicants Statement of Environmental Effects)

The predominant land use directly east of the proposed site is residential development. The development when viewed from Lisbon Circuit as shown below (approximately 400m east of the proposed site location) will have the greatest impact. The immediate adjoining neighbours will experience the greatest visual impact. There is no hiding a structure of this type in the location proposed. The implementation of landscaping and controls over the colour of the proposed structure are the only practical measures that can be implemented which will, over time, lessen the visual impact of the facility to a degree. The proposed development when viewed from these vantage points will nonetheless have a significant visual impact.

Again, the applicant submits that the degree of visual impact will be mitigated by existing vegetation and the topography of the land. Further, the applicant argues that this view corridor towards the facility from these areas is not the predominant view direction from nearby properties. Whilst this may be the case, it is reasonable to also argue that the western ridgeline of Ploughmans Valley forms an important landscape feature for the City as evidenced by the scenic protection provisions contained within Council’s DCP, and is therefore worthy of protection from development that may impact upon the scenic qualities of the locality.

There is no doubting that the facility will be readily viewed from those properties to the immediate east of the subject site. Development of this type, however, is fast becoming a typical element within urban environments as the demand for better and more efficient mobile phone coverage grows. Council therefore, in its consideration of this matter balance the visual impact of the proposed development against the demand and need for such infrastructure within the City in this location. Whilst other sites were initially investigated, Council has been advised by the applicant that Telstra was unsuccessful in obtaining the required legal tenure from those property owners whose land was of initial interest.

View towards proposed site location from Lisbon Circuit

(approximately 500m east of proposed site location)

(source - applicant's Statement of Environmental Effects)

In summary, the development is proposed to be located on what is considered to be a significant ridgeline forming a backdrop to parts of the City. Having said this, the site is considered to be acceptable in this case subject to the implementation of several recommended conditions of consent. However, as discussed previously within this report, given the significance of the western ridgeline of the City and the fact that the development will be highly visible from many areas in the surrounding locality, it would be open for Council to form an alternative view should the visual impact of the development in this location be considered unacceptable. Should Council form the view that the development will have an unacceptable impact, particularly in relation to the impact that will be experienced by those property owners in the immediate vicinity of the development, it would be necessary to refuse the subject development.

Noise Impacts

The majority of noise and vibration emissions associated with the proposed facility will be limited to the construction phase. There will be some low level noise from the ongoing operation of the air conditioning equipment associated with the equipment units. As outlined within the applicant's SoEE, the noise emanating from the outdoor cabinet air conditioning system is at a comparable level to a domestic air conditioning installation, and will generally accord with the background noise levels prescribed by Australian Standard AS1055.

Traffic Impacts

Access to the telecommunications facility will be via the existing access serving the subject site. After the construction period the only traffic generated by the base station will be that associated with maintenance vehicles. Accordingly, the facility will only generate one visit per year for the maintenance, with the facility being vacant for the rest of the year. The traffic generation will therefore be minimal and not sufficient to create any adverse impacts.

Social and Economic Impacts

The applicant has advised that the proposed development will facilitate the provision of vital infrastructure so as to improve mobile phone coverage to areas that are currently experiencing limited reception within Orange. The wider social and economic benefits of the proposal will result in a positive impact for the City.

THE SUITABILITY OF THE SITE s79C(1)(c)

The subject site is located within the scenic protection area as defined under the provisions of DCP 2004. Such provisions previously were included in Orange LEP 2000 but because Council were unable to incorporate them into Orange LEP 2011 because of the Standard Instrument provisions it was decided by Council to include them into the DCP. The inclusion of these provisions in the DCP does reflect the importance that Council gives to planning within the scenic protection areas. This particular ridgeline forms a visual backdrop from parts of the urban environment of Orange. The surrounding locality comprises predominantly residential development to the immediate east and mostly undeveloped large lot residential land to the west. This proposal therefore has the ability to influence the visual amenity of many parts of the City well beyond the immediate area.

The assessment of the proposal has highlighted the fact that the proposed development will have a visual impact upon the immediate surrounding residential locality. Council in determining the suitability of the subject site will need to balance the visual impact of the proposed development against the demand and need for such infrastructure within the City. Infrastructure of this type is fast becoming a common element within urban environments. Whilst other sites were initially investigated, Council has been advised by the applicant that Telstra was unsuccessful in obtaining the required tenure from those property owners whose land was of initial interest.

Whilst the development is proposed to be located on what is considered to be a significant ridgeline forming a backdrop to parts of the City, the site is considered to be acceptable in this case subject to the implementation of several conditions of consent. However, as discussed previously within this report, given the significance of the western ridgeline of the City and the fact that the development will be seen from many vantage points in the surrounding locality, it would be open for Council to form an alternative view should the visual impact of the development in this location be considered unacceptable. Should Council form the view that the development will have an unacceptable impact it may wish to refuse the development.

ANY SUBMISSIONS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT s79C(1)(d)

The proposed development is not defined as advertised development under the provisions of the LEP, however given the nature of and locality of the development the application was advertised for a period of 14 days. At the end of that period two submissions had been received objecting to the proposed development.

In summary, the objections are expressing opposition to the visual impact that the proposed telecommunications facility will have on the surrounding amenity. The specific issues raised by Submissions 1 and 2 (being the owners of the same property located at 448 The Escort Way which immediately adjoins the subject site) are summarised and commented upon as follows:

· The visual impact on the surrounding rural amenity.

The submissions raise strong objection to the establishment of a 40m high monopole on the western ridgeline of Ploughmans Valley. The submissions indicate that the proposed development will have a significant visual impact upon large areas of western Orange and, in particular, their property at 448 The Escort Way. The submitters question why a structure of this type can be located within this area given that the area is subject to planning controls that seek to protect the western ridgeline of the City.

Under the former planning provisions contained within Orange LEP 2000 the subject land was subject to scenic protection planning controls. At the Direction of the Department of Planning such controls were not allowed to be carried through with the adoption of Orange LEP 2011. Rather, the Department insisted that such controls be included within a DCP. Given that a DCP is not defined as a formal Environmental Planning Instrument, the determinative weight given to matters within a DCP is less than if such provisions remained within the LEP.

The immediate adjoining neighbours will experience the greatest visual impact. There is no hiding a structure of this type in the location proposed. The implementation of landscaping and controls over the colour of the proposed structure may serve to reduce the impact of the development to a degree from distant locations but will do little to reduce the visual impact when viewed from those properties immediately adjoining and adjacent to the subject site. The proposed development when viewed from the adjoining property will have a significant visual impact.

The issue of visual impact of the proposed development has been further addressed under the “Visual Impacts” section under “Likely Impacts of the Development s79C(1)(b)”.

· Devaluation of property.

The submission received in relation to this issue included no evidence to suggest that the proposed development would have a negative impact upon the resale value of property. In any event, the resale value of adjoining and adjacent properties as a result of this development proceeding is not a relevant planning consideration under the provisions of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

· Traffic impacts.

The issue of traffic impact of the proposed development has been outlined under the “Traffic Impacts” section under “Likely Impacts of the Development s79C(1)(b)”.

· The tower would impact upon the flight path of flying foxes and the migration of Black Duck, Ibis Snipe and other migratory birds.

The submission received in relation to this issue has included no evidence to suggest that the proposed development would have a negative impact upon endangered animals. An assessment of whether there is likely to be a significant effect on threatened species, populations or ecological communities or their habitats has been undertaken above under the heading “Part 5A Assessment”.

PUBLIC INTEREST s79C(1)(e)

The proposed development is considered to be of some public interest. In a localised sense there are significant adverse visual impacts, which have been discussed in some detail in this report. Conversely there are public benefits to the wider community (which should be considered a public interest) relating to improved telecommunications coverage.

The public interest in this case is considered a central issue. On the one hand there are serious but localised adverse visual impacts. On the other hand there are benefits to the wider community in terms of enhanced communications.

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 both the Orange LEP and SEPP (Infrastructure). A section 79C assessment of the development indicates that the development will have a significant visual impact. The implementation of landscaping and controls over the colour of the proposed structure may serve to reduce the impact of the development to a degree from distant locations, but will do little to reduce the visual impact when viewed from those properties adjoining and near the subject site as well as large areas of the City and the travelling public along the Escort Way.

Infrastructure of this type is fast becoming a common element within urban environments. Council will therefore need to determine the application having regard to the overall visual impact that the structure will have on surrounding land against the overall public benefit that may result from facilitating improved mobile phone coverage in this locality.

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

It is recommended that Council supports the development.

COMMENTS

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

Attachments

1 Notice of Approval, D15/1958 ⇩

2 Plans, D15/2122 ⇩

3 Submissions, D15/1764 ⇩

Sustainable Development Committee 3 February 2015

2.3 Development Application DA 353/2014(1) - 1635 Forest Road

TRIM REFERENCE: 2015/174

AUTHOR: Michael Glenn, Senior Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Council's consent is sought for the construction of a new mobile phone base station at 1635 Forest Road, Orange behind the Wangarang Industries buildings at the rear boundary of the property. The construction incorporates a number of aspects, but most significantly includes a 40m high monopole. It is considered that the pole has some visual impacts.

A section 79C assessment of the proposed development has been undertaken by Council staff. Whilst the assessment acknowledges the adverse visual effects this facility generates, in this case the immediate visual impacts are considered relatively acceptable. The impact on surrounding residential amenity is considered limited due to the masking effect of existing vegetation located on the northern side of the Southern Distributor Road and the buildings and landscaping fronting Forest Road. To the west and south existing mature landscaping will also limit the visual impacts of the tower. It is impossible to completely eliminate the visual impacts, and it should also be acknowledged that even under the most optimistic of assessments, the adverse impacts on scenic quality need to be acknowledged. However in this instance the adverse effects are considered to be acceptable.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “13.4 Our Environment – Monitor and enforce regulations relating to City amenity”.

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

That Council consents to development application DA 353/2014(1) for Telecommunications Facility (mobile phone base station with 40m high monopole and equipment shelter) at Lot 150 DP 750401 - 1635 Forest Road, Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

THE APPLICATION

Council's consent is sought for mobile phone base station with 40m high monopole and equipment shelter at Lot 150 DP 750401 - 1635 Forest Road, Orange.

THE PROPOSAL

The proposal involves the installation of a new mobile phone base station at 1635 Forest Road, Orange, being the Wangarang industries site. Telstra proposes to install a 40m high monopole with a triangular headframe. A new equipment shelter would also be installed adjacent to the base of the monopole.

The Telstra proposal comprises the following:

· installation of a new 40m high monopole with a triangular head frame mounted at a centreline elevation of 40m

· installation of six panel antennas (2.53m long) mounted on the headframe at a centreline elevation of 40m, total elevation 41.3m

· installation of six panel antennas (2.53m long) for future use, mounted on the headframe at a centreline elevation of 40m, total elevation 41.3m

· installation of six remote radio units (RRUs) and nine tower mounted amplifiers (TMA’s) below antennas

· installation of six remote radio units (RRUs) for future use below antennas

· one equipment shelter 2.28m (width) x 3.28m (length) x 2.95m (height), with associated piers located at the base of the monopole

· ancillary cabling and cable ladder

· proposed access track to the site location.

The proposed facility will be incorporated into the existing network via fibre optic cable connecting to the existing telecommunications conduits running down Forest Rd.

The proposed development is defined as a telecommunications facility pursuant to Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 (OLEP11). OLEP 2011 permits the erection of these facilities in the IN2 Light Industrial land zoning applicable to the site, and it is considered that the industrial zoning and relative isolation render this site a better option than land closer to more residential zones or within more important scenic locations. The proposed development is also permitted development through the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007.

Council received one written submission in regards to the proposed telecommunications facility. Council’s response to the submission is detailed within the report. Council sought a response from the proponent in relation to the submission received, which is from a State Government agency. This is also discussed in the body of the report,

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

Telecommunications Act 1997

Telstra is a licenced telecommunications carrier and is required to operate under the provisions of the Telecommunications Act 1997 and the Telecommunications Code of Practice 1997.

The 1997 Act and Telecommunications (Low-impact Facilities) Determination 1997 (as amended) establish the criteria for ‘low impact’ telecommunications facilities. The proposed development is not defined as a ‘’low-impact facility” under the Telecommunications Act and is therefore subject to the provisions of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and, accordingly, the provisions of Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011.

The Telecommunications Code of Practice 1997 sets out the design, planning and installation requirements for carriers to ensure that the installation of facilities is in accordance with industry “best practice”. The applicant advises that the design and siting of the proposed communications facility has been taken in accordance with Section 3 (Planning and Siting) of the Australian Standard, Siting of Radio Communications Facilities. (AS3516.2)

Section 5A Assessment

The proposed development will have a small effect in terms of the matters for consideration under the seven part test. The land is not identified as high biodiversity value in Council's LEP mapping layer (which is also confirmed by site inspection). However, it has dense landscaping (including mature native species on the TAFE site behind it) that offers some reinforcing biomass to a mapped Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) on the western side of the TAFE, generally within the Rifle Range site. This area of ESA has high value and importance because of its size, condition and connectivity to other surviving remnants of the locality. As a high value element of surviving native bushland it is currently under considerable threat due to development pressures emerging around it. The elements of landscaping that surround it, such as the TAFE landscaping serve, as biomass enhancers and wildlife corridors to the core high value bushland in the vicinity.

In this case the access track and clearing that may arise as a result of the construction are not considered significant threats to surrounding ESAs. The proposed development does not pose a serious risk to connectivity per se. Landscape details will be required, and in order to avoid risks from the use and propagation of weed species in landscaping, including trees classified as weeds (OEH have identified more than 30 tree species regularly used in landscaping that are a serious risk to native bushland areas, of which, about seven are used regularly in the Orange LGA for landscaping purposes), such details will need to be submitted to Council prior to implementation.

A condition of consent to that effect is included in the attached notice of approval. It is considered that, subject to the implementation of a suitable landscape plan, the net overall effect arising from this development in terms of biodiversity threats and benefits is relatively neutral.

ESA Mapping provided by CMAs and incorporated into Orange LEP-2011.

The value of these ESAs is enhanced by a number of corridors that themselves are not listed as significant, but are significant because of the connectivity value they provide.

Section 5A requires the application of an Assessment of Significance (a seven part test) to ascertain the likelihood of significant adverse effect arising from a development, action or activity, including secondary or likely flow-on effects that may arise. In this case it is considered that the site itself has no major biodiversity value. However, as also indicated above, mismanagement of the site (in terms of inappropriate landscaping) is a potential Key Threatening Process for the nearby ESA, which needs to be considered in the assessment.

The subject property is not listed as having high risk of bushfire and does not have any natural watercourses on the site.

Bushfire hazard mapping for the locality

The site is not included in the OEH register of Aboriginal sites (AHIMS) and is not thought likely from the previous land uses topography and physical characteristics to have a likelihood of Aboriginal heritage or archaeology existing on the site.

Section 79C

Section 79C 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 s79C(1)(a)(i)

Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011

Part 1 - Preliminary

Clause 1.2 - Aims of Plan

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

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

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

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

(d) to manage rural land as an environmental resource that provides economic and social benefits for Orange,

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

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

In relation to (a), it is noted that the subject property is located within a light industrial zone. However, the height and form of the proposed structure are likely to have significant impacts on the visual amenity and character of the City. In relation to (b), the application is considered to be consistent with the LEP.

In relation to (c), (d) and (e), the proposed development would have no impact.

In relation to (f), it is considered that the proposal will have some impact upon the landscape and scenic features of the southern areas of Orange. In particular, the proposed development would be visible from and impact on views for the existing residential development located to the north and northeast; and also have some impact for the new release areas in Shiralee and the Part 3(a) rezoning to the west and south. The tower would have its most significant impact from Forest Road. The subject site is not located within a scenic protection area as defined under the provisions of Development Control Plan 2004 and is not in close proximity to any residential areas. Slight glimpses are also possible from Anson Street. Further from the site, the proposed development will be visible from many points in the City and will influence or change views of Mount Canobolas from many parts of Orange.

There is a low spine ridge running roughly north to south and slightly to the west of the site. This ridge provides some diminution of the more distant visual impacts arising from the proposed development. This proposal therefore has some ability to influence the visual amenity of many parts of the City well beyond the immediate area.

In order to reduce the long term visual impact of the proposed development the attached consent includes a condition for extensive landscaping around the base of the monopole The function of this development as a transmitter and receiver of electromagnetic (EM) wave communications prevents landscaping that would fully mask the visual impacts of the monopole (since EM can only travel as a line of sight wave), however dense landscaping at the base of the pole can reduce the impacts of the supporting structure.

There is no doubting that the proposed structure will be significantly visible from other parts of the City. In certain light conditions the structure would appear more visually intrusive (such as early mornings or before sunset), as witnessed with similar existing structures in the city. However, mobile base stations such as these are integral to providing phone services that many people and businesses find indispensable. They are unattractive and intrusive structures, but are essential to providing critical services for modern living. On this basis they are an emerging feature of the landscape and part of the urban form, the question then being is if the dis-benefits arising outweigh the benefits. The general phrasing of the legislation underpinning these facilities suggest that Council's ability to give greater weight to the visual effects is less than the need to provide the infrastructure. However there may be instances where Council and the community form the view that the location and design of such structures are not appropriate.

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 1.9A - 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. There is a water main running parallel to and close to the northern boundary of the site, however this line is not protected by an easement. It would not be affected by the proposed development.

Mapping

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

Land Zoning Map:	Land zoned IN-2 Light Industrial
Lot Size Map:	Minimum Lot Size 100ha
Heritage Map:	Not a heritage item or conservation area
Height of Buildings Map:	No building height limit
Floor Space Ratio Map:	No floor space limit
Terrestrial Biodiversity Map:	No biodiversity sensitivity on the site
Groundwater Vulnerability Map:	ground water 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

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

Part 2 - Permitted or Prohibited Development

Land Use Zones

The subject site is zoned Light Industrial IN2. The proposed development is defined as a telecommunications facility under OLEP 2011. The IN2 land use table is structured so as to allow any defined land use not specifically listed as prohibited development. Item 3 (Matters Permitted with Consent) of the land use table allows any use not otherwise listed in items 2 (Permitted without Consent), or 4 (Prohibited Development). Telecommunications facilities are not specifically listed in either items 2 or 4, and therefore they are a land use permitted with consent under item 2 of the land use table.

Additionally, it is noted that telecommunications facilities are permissible with consent under the provisions of the SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 as discussed below.

Pursuant to OLEP 2011 a telecommunications facility means:

(a) any part of the infrastructure of a telecommunications network, or

(c) any other thing used in or in connection with a telecommunications network.

Clause 2.3 of LEP 2011 references the Land Use Table and Objectives for each zone in LEP 2011. These objectives for land zoned IN2 Light Industrial are as follows:

· 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 development is not adverse to the zone objectives.

Part 3 - Exempt and Complying Development

Telstra is a licenced telecommunications carrier and is required to operate under the provisions of the Telecommunications Act 1997 and the Telecommunications Code of Practice 1997. The 1997 Act and Telecommunications (Low-impact Facilities) Determination 1997 (as amended) establish the criteria for ‘low impact’ telecommunications facilities. The proposed development is not defined as a ‘’low-impact facility” under the Telecommunications Act and is therefore subject to the provisions of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and, accordingly, the provisions of Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011.

The application is not exempt or complying development.

Part 7 - Additional Local Provisions

7.1 - Earthworks

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

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

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

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

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

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

(f) the likelihood of disturbing relics

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

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

The proposed earthworks will consist of site testing, excavation and construction of foundations. The proposed earthworks are considered minimal and unlikely to have any significant impacts.

7.3 - Stormwater Management

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

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

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

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

The proposal will have little or no impact on surface runoff to or from the site.

7.6 - Groundwater Vulnerability

(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.

DESIGNATED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development is not designated development.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 ("the I-SEPP") applies to the subject development. In this case, telecommunications facilities are permissible with consent under OLEP 2011. However the SEPP has some additional provisions relating to design criteria that need to be considered in the assessment.

Clause 2 - Aim of Policy

The aim of this policy is to facilitate the effective delivery of infrastructure across the state by:

(a) improving regulatory certainty and efficiency through a consistent planning regime for infrastructure and the provision of services, and

(b) providing greater flexibility in the location of infrastructure and service facilities, and

(c) allowing for efficient development, redevelopment or disposal of surplus government owned land, and

(e) identifying matters to be considered in the assessment of development adjacent to particular types of infrastructure development, and

(f) providing for consultation with relevant public authorities about certain development during the assessment process or prior to development commencing.

The development is not inconsistent with the aims of the SEPP.

Clause 8 - Relationship to Other Environmental Planning Instruments

The SEPP has precedence over the LEP (and most other environmental planning instruments), to the extent of any inconsistency between the two instruments. In effect this means that where an LEP does not permit a telecommunication facility in that zone, the ISEPP works to override that prohibition and make the development permissible. However the SEPP still serves to operate even in this situation (where the proposed development is permissible in this zone under the LEP), and applies assessment guidelines that may be called up by the ISEPP.

Clause 115 - Development Permitted with Consent

The SEPP has the effect of rendering the proposed development permissible on any land with the consent of Council.

This provision has the effect of imposing any assessment guidelines imposed by the Director General (Department Of Planning). NSW has a design guideline, entitled "NSW Telecommunications Facilities Guideline Including Broadband". The guideline has the effect under its clause 1.6 of applying as a design tool in all zones of an LEP.

Section 2.2 of the policy sets up the design principles that should be followed. The guidelines are organised under "Principles" headings. Many of the principles are not relevant because they relate to fully urbanised landscapes. In this case, the landscape and setting are not fully urbanised, which makes the impacts of landscaping the most important element to consider. For this particular site there are also some iconic views to the southwest of the site, which also need to be considered under the guidelines.

In terms of the detailed assessment under these guidelines, it is considered more appropriate to place such detailed analysis under the heading of "Likely Impacts" of this report.

PROVISIONS OF ANY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT THAT HAS BEEN PLACED ON EXHIBITION s79C(1)(a)(ii)

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

PROVISIONS OF ANY DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN s79C(1)(a)(iii)

Development Control Plan 2004

Development Control Plan 2004 (“the DCP”) applies to the subject land (Part 9). An assessment of the proposed development against the relevant Planning Outcomes will be undertaken below.

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

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

The corresponding zone to zone 4 (Industry and Employment Zone (Orange LEP 2000) is zone IN2 Light Industrial (Orange LEP 2011). As such, Orange DCP 2004 – Chapter 9 (Development in the Industry and Employment Zone) is nominally relevant to this proposal.

Whilst the DCP has nominal applicability for all development in the IN2 zone, in this case the provisions of the DCP are not relevant to the proposal. Its provisions are not geared to assessment of telecommunication facilities. It is considered more appropriate to assess the impacts of the proposed structure as a general matter under the "Likely Impacts of the Development".

PROVISIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE REGULATIONS s79C(1)(a)(iv)

Demolition of a Building (clause 92)

The proposal does not involve the demolition of a building.

Fire Safety Considerations (clause 93)

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

Buildings to be Upgraded (clause 94)

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

THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT s79C(1)(b)

NSW Telecommunications Facilities Guidelines

These guidelines are applicable to the assessment as a result of being called up by clause 115(3) of the ISEPP. As previously stated, the guidelines are clearly concerned with minimising visual impacts. Unfortunately, many of the provisions made with regard to masking the obvious deleterious visual effects relate to or can only apply to fully urban situations. There are, however, some provisions that relate to non-urban or rural situations, such as exist on this site. There are also provisions designed to minimise and protect iconic views, of which the views of Mt Canobolas to the southwest have to be included.

Those principles that are called up in the policy and which are relevant to the assessment are set out below.

Principle 1 - Design and Siting to Minimise Visual Impact

· As far as practical, a telecommunications facility that is to be mounted on an existing building or structure should be integrated with the design and appearance of the building or structure.

The applicant investigated four colocation options for colocation of the facility. These are shown in the attached aerial photo:

Each of these sites was investigated by the applicant and rejected, as summarised below:

Option A: TAFE Western Institute

A suitable location, however TAFE are not willing to agree to a tenure agreement.

Option B - Water Reservoir off Sharp Road

The structure does not offer sufficient height to meet coverage requirements. Monopole extension on top of the water tank possible, but more likely to affect residential development to the north.

Option C - Lot 223 and 224 via Sharp Road

Owners of this site are unwilling to enter an agreement for the structure on their land.

Option D - 1635 Forest Road

The subject site that is subject of the current assessment. However the proposal is not a co‑location option. It is a new structure of relatively high visual impact. Its advantages are that the owner is willing to enter a leasing agreement with Telstra and it has relative isolation from other development in the locality.

· The visual impact of telecommunications facilities should be minimised, visual clutter is to be reduced

The monopole is a stand-alone structure; however it also will have a backdrop of the sky when viewed from many parts of the city particularly from Forest Road. It is considered appropriate to impose a condition requiring the structure to be painted a neutral grey colour as suggested. A condition to that effect is included.

In this case the ground based structures should be coloured a predominantly green colour that matches the hues located to the west of them. Again, a condition is included to that effect.

· A telecommunications facility should be located and designed to respond appropriately to its rural landscape setting.

In this case the setting behind (to the west) of the site dictates the character and setting of the structure. This landscaping is essentially a semi-native landscape with predominantly native species incorporated (many of them associated with BGGW type vegetation). Landscaping requirements are considered essential to this proposal, and are discussed in more detail elsewhere in this report.

A state listed heritage item (the Bloomfield Hospital site), and a locally significant item (the airfield markings on the Sir Jack Brabham Park playing fields site) are located within relatively close proximity of the site. It is considered that these sites are sufficiently removed from the site as to not suffer any excessive adverse impacts.

· "A telecommunication facility should be located and designed so as to respond appropriately to its landscape setting".

In this case the setting of the site is generally low density industrial development and open space with a strong flavour of native bushland accentuated by the native plantings evident in the backdrop landscaping on the TAFE site and in the area generally.

It is considered appropriate as an outcome that landscaping be provided with an expected mature height at least 50% of the height of the proposed structure (ie in this case 20m). In this case, it is impossible to achieve landscaping of the same height as the monopole (ie 41m), however landscape buffers of approximately 20m height with species selection compatible and able to blend with the native landscaping further to the west is readily achievable and a desirable outcome. The landscaping plan to be effective needs to be a comprehensive plan, incorporating ground covers, mid-storey and top cover, and for the over storey trees, utilising planting stock with a minimum pot size of 25l. The applicant has not provided any landscaping in their proposed development, however conditions to achieve the above outcome are included in the notice of approval. It is not considered unreasonable to have landscaping expectations of that magnitude.

To have any effect on the visual intrusion generated by the proposed structure, a landscape width aimed at achieving the abovementioned outcomes is considered highly desirable. This means allowing for trees with a mature height of around 20m, a depth of landscaping capable of achieving a blended appearance, and species selection that augments and reinforces the natural native based landscaping behind the site, rather than acting in conflict with it.

To achieve a reasonable landscaped outcome, the bed width will need to accommodate trees with a spread of at least 10m, and accommodate at least a double row of plantings of these large trees. This suggests a minimum landscaped area of around 400m² and a bed width of around 20m to achieve effective screening. It is readily accepted that landscaping cannot eliminate all of the adverse visual effects that the proposed development is likely to cause, however it will reduce them.

The plans submitted with the application indicate a level of landscaping graphically, however the applicant explains that such illustrative licence on the plans is depicting vegetation from the adjoining property. This is inconsistent with site inspections, which show a separation from the landscaping on the western side of at least 20m. The applicant in various post lodgement communications with assessment staff has suggested limited single row landscaping more of a shrub and low scale type that is considered inadequate for this site. They are not opposed to the imposition of conditions that require a greater level of landscaping to be provided.

The following series of photos demonstrate the visual characteristics of the site.

(1) Photo taken from behind the Wangarang Industries main building

This photo shows the predominantly native vegetation landscaping of the TAFE site. There is a 30m setback for this vegetation to the boundary of the development site.

(2) View from the TAFE site looking northeast

(3) Applicant’s photomontage of appearance of monopole

viewed from Forest Road

It is considered that in order to blend in with the existing native landscaping evident on the TAFE site behind the monopole, and as previously indicated to avoid risk of invasive infestations of nearby high value ESAs, species selection needs to of native origin commonly associated with the BGGW. A condition to that effect is included in the attached consent.

Principle 2 - Colocation

As indicated in the above discussion, colocation was considered for at least one of the alternative sites, but does not appear practical according to the applicant.

Principle 3 - Health Standards

The applicant has submitted technical specifications and discussion in their Statement of Environmental Effects attesting that the proposed structure when in operation will comply with relevant health standards, particularly relating to electromagnetic emissions standards.

The Australian Government’s Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency cite the World Health Organisation’s advice stating:

None of the recent reviews have concluded that exposure to RF fields from mobile phones and their base stations cause any adverse health consequences” (ARPANSA).

Furthermore, the ARPANSA suggests:

A report titled Summary of Estimated RF and EME Levels Around The Proposed Wireless Base Station…’ indicate:

In light of the above, it is considered that the development is not likely to result in adverse health impacts as a result of human exposure.

Principle 4 - Minimise Disturbance

This principle in its details is mainly concerned with interference with other telecommunication, particularly those relating to airport operations. It is considered unlikely the proposed structure will have any significant impact in this regard.

Other View lines

The visual impacts from the principal viewing points of the site have been included in the submission to Council and are shown in the following photographic impressions.

View from the northeast near the intersection of Huntly Road and Forest Road

View from the east

(shot taken on the western (distant) side of Sir Jack Brabham Park)

View from the southwest (shot taken from Forest Road)

View taken from the car park of TAFE Western

located on the western side of the proposed development

View east towards the site location

(shot taken from corner of Cecil Road and Park Street

approximately 1km west of the site)

Typical view from the residential areas to the north

(shot was taken from Sharp Road)

The abovementioned visual analysis indicates some significant visual impacts. Landscaping around the base of the structure will reduce visual impacts to the east, particularly from Forest Road and Sir Jack Brabham Park.

Overall Visual Impact Analysis

The proposed development can be described in its most basic terms as a high 40m pole, plus the height of the array to be placed at its apex, creating an overall height of 41.3m above ground level. The ground level on which it is erected is already elevated relative to its general surroundings, except to the west, which will create an impression of even greater height and impact. Of particular relevance is the backdrop that will accentuate the silhouette of the tower.

Inherently, the function of the monopole as a transmitter and receiving device, makes it essential the structure have a high visibility and line of sight to surrounding development. There are some options to mask the structure in urban environments, but these options generally aren’t applied to stand alone monopoles erected in rural or non-urban settings.

The visual impacts of the structure are considered significant, and poor in their integration with surrounding development. The tower necessarily will be highly visible and intrusive to the landscape. These are all aspects of the design that are cause for concern. The ability to mask or limit these impacts are limited, involving a high level of dense and high landscaping and selection of colours. These are admittedly inadequate, but offsetting the obvious adverse visual impacts of the tower are the benefits arising from enhanced telecommunication coverage.

Noise Impacts

Traffic Impacts

Access to the telecommunications facility will be via the existing access serving the subject site. After the construction period the only traffic generated by the base station will be that associated with maintenance vehicles. Accordingly, the facility will only generate one visit per year for maintenance, with the facility being vacant for the rest of the year. The traffic generation will therefore be minimal and not sufficient to create any adverse impacts.

Protection of Airspace

A government circular (139-08(0)) – Reporting of Tall Structures; has been issued by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) in 2005 that recommends for structures of this height to be the subject of the following conditions (these conditions are also recommended in the Department of Planning guidelines)

"Prior to the release of a construction certificate, a report must be submitted to Council that certifies and shows evidence of consultation with the Civil Aviation Authority (CASA) has taken place and that also demonstrates compliance with height requirements specified by CASA Regulations 1988 and the Airports (Protection of Airspace Regulations 1996) of the Commonwealth"

"Prior to the release of a construction certificate a report must be submitted to Council that demonstrates the structure does not penetrate any obstacle limitation surface shown on any relevant Obstacle Limitation Surface Plan that has been prepared by any operator of an aerodrome (in this case also an operator of helicopter landing facilities, including the nearby Base Hospital) within 30km of the proposed development (in this case, Council will require such consultations to demonstrate that consideration has included consideration of the Orange Airport, the Orange Base Hospital emergency helicopter arrangements and any other rotary wing operations being undertaken within the specified radius on a regular basis)."

These conditions are included in the attached Notice Of Approval.

Social and Economic Impacts

Council is advised that the proposed development will facilitate the provision of vital infrastructure so as to improve mobile phone coverage to areas that are currently experiencing limited reception within Orange. The wider social and economic benefits of the proposal will result in a positive impact for the City.

THE SUITABILITY OF THE SITE s79C(1)(c)

The assessment of the proposal has highlighted the fact that the proposed development will have a visual impact. Council in determining the suitability of the proposed development will need to balance the visual impact of the proposed development against the demand and need for such infrastructure within the City. Infrastructure of this type is considered essential to modern lifestyles, and in many respects the visual impacts need to be accepted to achieve satisfactory outcomes in other respects (such as better internet and mobile phone coverage). One important question to be answered is whether the proposed site tends to magnify the adverse effects likely to arise, or remain about the same as could be expected from other options. The foregoing analysis suggests that the site has some advantages (principally its relative isolation, particularly with respect to residential development).

Whilst the development can be somewhat mitigated by landscaping, this cannot eliminate the adverse visual effects completely. The upper parts of the array must, necessarily, remain fully visible, which in turn has inevitable adverse general visual effects, and in this case will have an adverse effect on significant views of Mt Canobolas to the southwest of the site.

This report recommends approval on the basis the proposed structure is permissible on the land and the site is relatively removed from surrounding current development. It would be open for Council to form an alternative view should the visual impact of the development in this location be considered unacceptable.

ANY SUBMISSIONS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT s79C(1)(d)

The proposed development is not defined as advertised development under the provisions of the LEP, however given the type and locality of the development the application was notified to adjoining owners for a period of 14 days. At the end of that period one submission had been received objecting to the proposed development.

The objection is from the administrators of TAFE Western to the immediate west of the site. They have lodged a non-specific objection to the proposal, summarised in the following extract from their submission:

"The Department of Education adopts a policy of prudent avoidance in relation to the installation of mobile telecommunications facilities within TAFE colleges. The department has a preference for a distance of at least 500m from the boundary of the department's property and I am therefore requesting the location of the tower be reconsidered.”

There are no reasons given in the correspondence submitted outlining the reasons for this position. The submission does not specify that their opposition arises from health concerns, visual intrusion or any other reason, other than it is contrary to their policy on this issue.

It is apparent in the applicant’s submission they have considered alternative sites, including the objectors’ site. The Department of Education's internal policy has no statutory weight in terms of undertaking a merits based assessment under Section 79C of the Act. It is considered that significant levels of screening between the active teaching areas of the TAFE and the proposed development are achieved by the existing landscape buffers around the TAFE.

PUBLIC INTEREST s79C(1)(e)

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

SUMMARY

The proposed development is permissible under the LEP with the consent of Council, and there are provisions with regard to the SEPP (Infrastructure) that are also applicable to the proposed development. The proposed development complies with the relevant aims, objectives and provisions of the LEP. A section 79C assessment of the development indicates that the development is acceptable in this instance, though the dis-benefits have also been noted. 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, D15/1933 ⇩

2 Submission, D15/1648 ⇩

3 Plans, D15/1727 ⇩

Sustainable Development Committee 3 February 2015

2.3 Development Application DA 353/2014(1) - 1635 Forest Road

Attachment 1 Notice of Approval

leaflogo

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

Development Application No DA 353/2014(1)

NA15/ Container PR4069

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 81(1)

Development Application
Applicant Name:	Aurecon for Telstra
Applicant Address:	Attention: Vanessa Davies PO Box 538 NEUTRAL BAY NSW 2089
Owner’s Name:	Wangarang Industries
Land to Be Developed:	Lot 150 DP 750401 - 1635 Forest Road, Orange
Proposed Development:	Telecommunications Facility (mobile phone base station with 40m high monopole and equipment shelter)

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

Determination
Made On:	3 February 2015
Determination:	CONSENT GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:

Consent to Operate From:	4 February 2015
Consent to Lapse On:	4 February 2020

Terms of Approval

The reasons for the imposition of conditions are:

(1) To ensure compliance with relevant statutory requirements.

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

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

(4) To maintain neighbourhood amenity and character.

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

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

Conditions

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

(a) Plan/s numbered Drawings Numbered N109784, sheets S1 and S3 dated 24.03.2014, drawn By Aurecon (2 sheets)

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

as amended in accordance with any conditions of this consent.

PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS

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

(3) A sign is to be erected in a prominent position on any site on which building work, subdivision work or demolition work is being carried out:

a. showing the name, address and telephone number of the principal certifying authority for the work, and

b. showing the name of the principal contractor (if any) for any building work and a telephone number on which that person may be contacted outside working hours, and

c. stating that unauthorised entry to the site is prohibited.

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

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

(4) The tower shall be finished in a neutral grey and the equipment shelter in a blending grey green colour to match surrounding vegetation. Details of these colours shall be submitted and approved by Councils Manager Development Assessments prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

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

The plan shall achieve a landscape outcome that blends the vegetation to the species located further to the west of the site, incorporating native species associated with the Box Gum Grassy Woodland and including top cover over storey species with an expected mature height of 18m minimum. A minimum buffer distance from the tower of 20m is required at ground level with comprehensive species selection to achieve effective ground cover, mid storey and top cover on maturity that blends the landscape to its surroundings, and provides screening and relief to the structures from surrounding areas.

(6) A Construction Certificate application is required to be submitted to, and issued by, Council/Accredited Certifier prior to any excavation or building works being carried out on site.

(7) A report must be submitted to Council that certifies and shows evidence of consultation with the Civil Aviation Authority (CASA) has taken place and that also demonstrates compliance with height requirements specified by CASA Regulations 1988 and the Airports (Protection of Airspace Regulations 1996) of the Commonwealth"

The report must demonstrates the structure does not penetrate any obstacle limitation surface shown on any relevant Obstacle Limitation Surface Plan that has been prepared by any operator of an aerodrome (in this case also an operator of helicopter landing facilities, including the nearby Base Hospital) within 30km of the proposed development (in this case, Council will require such consultations to demonstrate that consideration has included consideration of the Orange Airport, the Orange Base Hospital emergency helicopter arrangements and any other rotary wing operations being undertaken within the specified radius on a regular basis).

PRIOR TO WORKS COMMENCING

(8) A temporary onsite toilet is to be provided and must remain throughout the project or until an alternative facility meeting Council’s requirements is available onsite.

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

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

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

(11) A Registered Surveyor’s certificate identifying the location of the building on the site must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the pouring of the slab or footings.

(12) All materials onsite or being delivered to the site are to be contained within the site. The requirements of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 are to be complied with when placing/stockpiling loose material or when disposing of waste products or during any other activities likely to pollute drains or watercourses.

(13) Storage of materials including stockpiles is not permitted on the public footpath area or roadway unless a hoarding is provided and approval granted.

(14) 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

(15) Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans and shall be permanently maintained to the satisfaction of Council's Manager Development Assessments.

(16) 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.

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

Other Approvals

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

Nil

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

Nil

Right of Appeal

If you are dissatisfied with this decision, section 97 of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 gives you the right to appeal to the Land and Environment Court within 6 months after the date on which you receive this notice.

* Section 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 does not apply to the determination of a development application for State significant development or local designated development that has been the subject of a Commission of Inquiry.

*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 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:	ALLAN RENIKE – MANAGER DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENTS
Date:	4 February 2015

Sustainable Development Committee 3 February 2015

2.4 Development Application DA 355/2014(2) - 72 Hill Street

TRIM REFERENCE: 2015/175

AUTHOR: Andrew Crump, Town Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application has been made to modify development consent DA 355/2014(1) which relates to the De Russie Suites motel at 72 Hill Street Orange. The original application sought consent to remove the existing swimming pool and replace it with an additional one bedroom unit to be used as a bridal suite. This generated a net increase in the demand for parking of one space under the requirements of the DCP. As there was no ability to provide the additional space onsite Council staff applied the provisions of the Orange Development Contributions Plan and levied a contribution in lieu of the physical space.

The applicant is now seeking to have the condition relating to parking contributions for the amount of $13,594.51 removed from the consent. Council staff are of the view, as they were at the time of the assessment of the original application, that there is limited justification in allowing a concession for the required space and not apply a contribution. As such, it is recommended that Council not support the application to modify the consent and a Notice of Refusal is attached accordingly. Should Council agree with this recommendation, the original consent including the condition relating to parking contributions continues to apply to the land as the applicable consent.

It is recommended that Council refuse the application to modify the consent relating to DA 355/2014(1).

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “13.4 Our Environment – Monitor and enforce regulations relating to City amenity”.

Financial Implications

In accordance with Council’s Development Contributions Plan, in circumstances where the physical provision of parking onsite applicable to the development is unable to be provided, a contribution in lieu of the physical provision of parking is required to be paid. Should Council agree to support the application and not charge the contribution, doing so would be inconsistent with Council’s Contributions Plan and place a financial burden upon Council to provide the equivalent financial contribution to cover the shortfall of parking as public spaces. Council would have to identify $13,594.51 to fund this which given the deficit budget position will need to be identified and reallocated from other projects.

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

That Council refuses the application to modify consent DA 355/2014(2) for Hotel or Motel Accommodation (alterations and additions) at Lot 100 DP 1103216 - 72 Hill Street, Orange pursuant to the reasons outlined in the attached Notice of Refusal.

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

THE APPLICATION/THE PROPOSAL

Application has been made to modify development consent DA 355/2014(1). The applicant is seeking to have a condition removed from the consent that relates to the requirement to pay a contribution for the amount of $13,594.51 in lieu of the provision of a physical space for the additional unit.

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

Section 96(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPAA) states:

A consent authority may…modify the consent if:

(a) it is satisfied that the proposed modification is of minimal environmental impact, and

(b) it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all), and

(c) it has notified the application in accordance with:

(i) the regulations, if the regulations so require, or

(ii) a development control plan, if the consent authority is a council that has made a development control plan under section 72 that requires the notification or advertising of applications for modification of a development consent, and

(d) it has considered any submissions made concerning the proposed modification within any period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development control plan, as the case may be.

Pursuant to section 96(3) of the EPAA 1979:

In determining an application for modification of a consent under this section, the consent authority must take into consideration such of the matters referred to in section 79C(1) as are of relevance to the development the subject of the application.

The development is considered substantially the same development for which development consent was originally granted and the relevant matters are considered below.

PROVISIONS OF ANY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT s79C(1)(a)(i)

Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011

The initial development was approved under the provisions of Orange LEP 2011. The subject land is zoned B3 Commercial Core. The proposed development is defined as hotel or motel accommodation under OLEP 2011, which is permitted with consent in this zone.

Pursuant to the dictionary contained within LEP 2011, the following definition relates:

a building or place (whether or not licensed premises under the Liquor Act 2007) that provides temporary or short-term accommodation on a commercial basis and that:

(a) comprises rooms or self-contained suites, and

(b) may provide meals to guests or the general public and facilities for the parking of guests’ vehicles,

but does not include backpackers’ accommodation, a boarding house, bed and breakfast accommodation or farm stay accommodation.

The proposed development (relating to car parking requirements) remains ancillary to the principal land use approved in the original consent. It is considered that the overall land use of the site does not alter as a result of the proposed modification of consent. The proposed development remains permissible subject to receiving the development consent of Council.

The matters pertaining to the LEP have previously been considered in the assessment of the original application. The development as modified does not alter any of the proposed development's basic fundamentals, and as such further assessment of the development as modified under the LEP is not required.

PROVISIONS OF ANY DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN s79C(1)(a)(iii)

Development Control Plan 2004

Development Control Plan 2004 (“the DCP”) applies to the subject land. The relevant planning outcomes were considered as part of the assessment of the original development application. An assessment of the proposed development against the relevant Planning Outcomes that affect the proposal to modify the consent will be undertaken below.

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

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

The corresponding zone to zone 3a (Orange LEP 2000) is zone B3 Commercial Core (Orange LEP 2011). As the application relates only to parking, chapter 15 - Car Parking is the sole chapter of relevance to the assessment of this application.

Part 15 - Car Parking

Background

When the motel was originally approved in 2006, the development generated the need for 25 spaces, at which time 24 were proposed to be provided. Conditional consent was granted with a condition therein requiring three spaces to be deleted as they were deemed unsatisfactory and as such a contribution was levied in lieu of the four spaces not provided onsite (one for the space not provided onsite in the proposal and three for the spaces that were to be deleted). The applicant later sought to modify that consent, justifying that two of the three spaces required to be deleted were satisfactory. Council agreed to this, reducing the required contributions levied to the equivalent of two spaces. As such, with the provision of 23 spaces onsite and the contributions paid for two spaces; 25 spaces are recognised for the development, which satisfied Council’s parking requirement.

As indicated above and in the previous assessment, the additional unit creates a net increase in the demand for parking of one space. As such, Council’s Development Contribution Plan requires a contribution to be levied where a physical space cannot be provided onsite. As there is no ability to provide a space onsite, a condition was attached to the previous consent (being DA 355/2014(1)) that required a contribution to be paid.

The applicant now seeks to have that condition removed and presents the following to support the argument that contributions should not be levied:

The DCP states :

Adequate off-street parking is required to supplement on-street parking and thereby maintain the existing levels of service and safety of the road network. It is recognised that even where off-street parking is provided, on-street parking will still occur in designated areas.

On-street parking can also provide pedestrians with a feeling of safety from passing traffic by creating a barrier between the footpath and passing traffic. Parking requirements set out in section 15.4 below reflect the peak-parking demand anticipated. In certain circumstances, such as with small extensions to existing developments, consideration might be given to reducing the on-site parking required because of the availability of convenient on-street parking. The onus is on the applicant to prove that such a concession is appropriate, with a report submitted by a qualified town planner or traffic engineer.

Any issues associated with parking assessment associated with the rationalisation of the main office or retail areas will be assessed as part of the application under a GFA (Gross floor area) approach.

*BUSINESS OR RETAIL ACTIVITIES*
Office or business premises including banks	1 space per 40m²GFA
Bulk Retail	1 Space per 50sqm GFA
Shops and Shopping center	0-10,000m² GLFA

No additional parking is considered warranted by the proposed use given the ample availability for parking at the western section of Summer Street and Hill Street and additional public parking at the rear of the premises, particularly during its busiest times after 6pm.

We have observed the eastern parking area on site - 3 spaces are never used day or night and therefore are ideal for use for the proposed motel unit. This is considered suitable grounds for practical concession in this instance given the collected peak data below.

Onsite parking data has been monitored as follows throughout December

Main Carport [sic](21)	15/12	17/12	20/12	22/12	23/12
7pm	17	21	18	20	18
3pm	5	4	3	6	3
7pm	20	21	18	17	19
Rear Carport [sic] (3) (Adjacent to new unit)	0	1	0	1	0

The above demonstrates that the main car park is not fully utilised during peak periods. The rear car park is only occasionally used by a staff member and is situated next to the proposed unit (existing pool).

The owner has advised that 30% of business are Rex passengers that utilise taxi's therefore parking needs are less than one space per room. This observation is supported by the above parking levels.

The DCP section on Off Street Parking relates to peak demand and the ability to recognise parking in the locality. Whilst there may be opportunity to park in the Little Summer Street car park and on the street in Hill Street, the focus of our consideration relates to actual demand in peak periods and the availability of three unused parking spaces immediately adjacent to the subject proposed motel unit (currently pool building).

On this basis the 'nexus' between parking demand and utilising public parking in the vicinity is not appropriate given the availability of parking within the property based on peak parking demand. We therefore submit that a contribution cannot be justified based on the availability of parking on site.

Further the applicant has raised the previous Council decision to waive parking and allow for overlap allowances between the Quest Apartment project in the interests of tourism development in the City. It is requested that the single space contribution be waived in a similar light. This however is a separate consideration to the excess supply available on site discussed above.

The following is provided in response the applicant’s comments above:

In relation to the comments made regarding the content of the DCP, whilst it is correct that the DCP states the following:

In certain circumstances, such as with small extensions to existing developments, consideration might be given to reducing the on-site parking required because of the availability of convenient on-street parking.

In this circumstance, the development is not considered a small extension as the development results in a requirement of an additional car parking space. Also, Council has previously agreed to a reduced number of the required physical spaces for the site and levied a contribution accordingly. Therefore the demand on on-street parking in the vicinity of the site is already higher than it ordinarily would be; not charging a contribution would further exacerbate the demand and place additional demand on Council to provide the shortfall of parking as public spaces. Council has already provided a public car park (the Little Summer Street Car Park) immediately to the rear of the subject premises (to which a pedestrian gate has been provided), therefore Council is able to recoup the funds spent in providing that car park.

In relation to the above survey of parking, the underutilisation shown in the sample provided can be attributed to two factors. Firstly, the location of the three easternmost spaces may be unknown to guests as they are located to the rear of the property with a separate access required to access them; or are difficult or impractical to get to and from certain rooms within the facility and therefore not used by guests. Secondly, the survey does not recognise those guests, manager or staff that may be parked on the street at the time of the survey, thereby distorting the actual demand of the development at that point in time. As such, the above survey does not adequately support the claim that the development has a lower parking demand than required by the DCP.

In relation to the point regarding 30% of guests travel by aircraft, the DCP provisions are based on the RTA (now RMS) Guidelines to Traffic Generating Development of which the rate of provisions contained in those guidelines were established based on surveys and empirical research that accounts for these types of occurrences. The parking requirements would also allow for situations that may arise where guests have two cars for one room for example. In order for Council to recognise this as a concession in the parking requirements for this type of development, it would be necessary to amend the DCP to allow this. This is not recommended as it would place the DCP at odds with the RTA Guidelines.

In relation to the comments made regarding the Quest development, this is simply incorrect as the requirements for parking associated with that development were not waived. A certain number were intended to be provided within a basement within the site and a certain number of spaces were to be provided on the adjoining Summer Centre land via a legal agreement as the Summer Centre development had a surplus of parking.

As can be demonstrated above, there are limited grounds to allow a concession and not apply a contribution. Doing so would jeopardise the integrity of Council’s contributions plan and set a dangerous precedent for similar developments in the future.

PROVISIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE REGULATIONS s79C(1)(a)(iv)

The proposed development is not inconstant with any provisions prescribed by Regulation.

THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT s79C(1)(b)

An assessment of the relevant impacts associated with the development was considered as part of the initial assessment of the development application. The potential impacts of the development as modified are identified below.

Environmental Impacts

Should Council agree to support the application to modify the consent and in doing so not charge a contribution, the shortage in parking onsite will be shifted to elsewhere within the CBD without the ability to recoup the cost associated with the additional demand.

THE SUITABILITY OF THE SITE s79C(1)(c)

Council has previously determined that the site is suitable for the proposed development There are no aspects of the site to indicate that it would be unsuitable to accommodate the modified development.

ANY SUBMISSIONS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT s79C(1)(d)

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

PUBLIC INTEREST s79C(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.

SUMMARY

The proposed modification is inconsistent with Council’s Development Control Plan and Council’s Development Contributions Plan. As such the application is recommended for refusal.

COMMENTS

There were no requirements of the Environmental Health and Building Surveyor and the Engineering Development Section relevant to the proposal.

Attachments

1 Notice of Refusal, D15/1781 ⇩

Sustainable Development Committee 3 February 2015

2.5 Development Application DA 368/2014(2) - Duntryleague - Lot 16 Woodward Street

TRIM REFERENCE: 2015/151

AUTHOR: Kelly Walker, Town Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

The applicant seeks to modify development consent DA 368/2013(1) for the erection of a golf cart shed at Duntryleague. It is proposed to remove a condition that requires plans to be submitted to reduce the overall height of the development by 1.5m, so to keep the shed at the original level, but reduce the footprint.

The approved footprint was 21.8m x 7.6m, and it is now proposed to reduce the footprint to 18.25m x 7.6m, thus increasing the setback from the rear southern boundary from 6.6m to 10.2m. The increased setback aims to lessen the visual impact to neighbouring properties, while retaining the original building platform and building height. However this proposal does not address the matter of the fill that has been placed in this location to create a building pad for the shed, which is causing adverse impacts to neighbouring properties.

It is recommended that Council approve the application to modify the consent, but to require the removal of the fill on the southern side of the site that is not required for the shed’s building platform and its immediate surrounds, as well as provide landscaping to screen the shed from neighbouring properties.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “13.4 Our Environment – Monitor and enforce regulations relating to City amenity”.

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

That Council modifies development consent DA 368/2013(2) for Recreation Facility (outdoor) (ancillary storage facility) at Lot 16 DP 1120534 - Woodward Street, Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached modified Notice of Approval.

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

BACKGROUND

This application was first considered by the Sustainable Development Committee at its meeting on 1 July 2014, with a recommendation for approval, subject to conditions requiring landscaping to screen the shed from neighbours, and erosion control to stabilise the fill. It was resolved that a site inspection for Councillors be undertaken. This inspection was carried out on 12 July 2014.

The application was reconsidered at the Sustainable Development Committee meeting on 5 August 2014, where it was resolved to approve the proposal subject to an additional condition to reduce the height of the development by 1.5m, thereby reducing much of the unlawful fill, and improving views and outlook from neighbouring properties.

THE APPLICATION

This application seeks to modify DA 368/2013(1) for the erection of a golf cart storage shed at Duntryleague, at Lot 16 DP 1120534 - Woodward Street, Orange. It is proposed to remove condition (14) as required by the SDC as follows:

(4) Plans submitted with the Construction Certificate shall be amended to the satisfaction of the Manager Development Assessments that reduce the overall height of the development by 1.5m.

The applicant justifies the deletion of the condition on the following grounds:

· they do not wish to undertake earthworks as the alteration to ground levels will reduce the functionality of vehicle manoeuvring in and out of the shed

· the reduction of height will lessen the cohesiveness of built form comprised of the existing two golf cart sheds and

· views from the adjacent dwellings will not be improved by reducing the height.

A revised proposal has been put to Council as set out below.

THE PROPOSAL

The proposal involves the construction of a golf cart shed immediately adjacent to the existing sheds. The approved footprint was 21.8m x 7.6m, with a wall height of 2.4m and ridge height of 3.2m. It is now proposed to reduce the footprint to 18.25m x 7.6m, thus increasing the setback from the rear southern boundary to 10.2m. Approved plans show that this setback was originally 6.6m. As with the original application, the golf cart shed will be of steel frame construction with Colorbond wall and roof sheeting, a roller door for vehicular access and personal access doors on the front and rear. It will match the two existing sheds in this location.

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

Section 96(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPAA) states:

A consent authority may…modify the consent if:

(a) it is satisfied that the proposed modification is of minimal environmental impact, and

(c) it has notified the application in accordance with:

(i) the regulations, if the regulations so require, or

(d) it has considered any submissions made concerning the proposed modification within any period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development control plan, as the case may be.

Pursuant to section 96(3) of the EPAA 1979:

The development is considered to be substantially the same development for which development consent was originally granted. The relevant matters are considered below.

PROVISIONS OF ANY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT s79C(1)(a)(i)

Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011

The initial development was approved under the provisions of Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011. The subject land is zoned RE2 Private Recreation. The proposed development is defined as a "recreation facility (outdoor)" under OLEP 2011, which means:

Recreation facility (outdoor) means a building or place (other than a recreation area) used predominantly for outdoor recreation, whether or not operated for the purposes of gain, including a golf course, golf driving range, mini-golf centre, tennis court, paint-ball centre, lawn bowling green, outdoor swimming pool, equestrian centre, skate board ramp, go-kart track, rifle range, water-ski centre or any other building or place of a like character used for outdoor recreation (including any ancillary buildings), but does not include an entertainment facility or a recreation facility (major).

The proposed development is permitted with consent in the RE2 Zone.

Part 5.10 - Heritage Conservation

Duntryleague is heritage listed, including the mansion, gateway, gatekeeper's lodge, entry avenue and stables (but excludes the golf course layout), with State significance pursuant to the LEP and as a historical landscape on the State Heritage Register. As set out in the original application, the proposed development is considered to be minor in its likely impacts and generally not contrary to the Heritage Objectives of this clause.

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT

The original development was integrated development with Heritage NSW, however co‑approval is not required for this modification. The original conditions from Heritage NSW will still apply, as modified by this application.

PROVISIONS OF ANY DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN s79C(1)(a)(iii)

Development Control Plan 2004

Development Control Plan 2004 (“the DCP”) applies to the subject land. The development as modified will not alter the previous assessment. The development as modified remains consistent with the relevant planning outcomes of DCP 2004.

PROVISIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE REGULATIONS s79C(1)(a)(iv)

The proposed development is not inconsistent with any provisions prescribed by the Regulations.

THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT s79C(1)(b)

Visual Impacts

Council in its consideration of the original application was mindful of the concerns raised by the objectors in relation to the loss of views and outlook from neighbouring properties, as well as the visual impact of the combined bulk of the existing fill and the proposed shed. The condition to reduce the overall height of the development by 1.5m sought to minimise these impacts, and reflected the objections put forward by the adjoining landowners.

The applicant justifies retaining the height of the building platform and proposed building height by reducing the shed footprint and increasing the setback from the neighbouring property to the south-west. It was considered that the impacts of the approved shed at a reduced height would be very minor, limited to loss of outlook and change in view, which would be improved by the use of screening landscaping between the shed and neighbouring properties. It is considered that the impacts of the modified proposal would be similar to the approved development. The reduced footprint and increased setback ensures that there will be no loss of daylight or sunlight to neighbours, and the minor loss of outlook and altered view can still be improved by screening the shed by landscaping.

While this proposal will improve the impact of the visual bulk caused by the building, it does not consider the increased height of ground level as a result of the fill. The fill used to create the building platform, which was placed without Council’s approval, also impacts on neighbouring properties. In particular, the fill has been placed very close to the neighbouring property to the south-west, and is high with a steep edge, creating adverse visual bulk impacts (see Figure 1).

IMAG0745

Figure 1: Extensive fill at south-western boundary, directly adjacent to neighbouring property at 23 Rowan Street.

This has also been raised as a matter of concern by Council’s Development Engineers and by objections have been received from neighbouring properties. As it is proposed to reduce the building footprint, the extent of the fill can also be reduced and setback from the neighbouring property to the south-west, therefore minimising the visual impact through the improvement of outlook. Accordingly, new conditions of consent are recommended to excavate the areas of the building platform (fill) not required for the shed, particularly at the site boundaries, which will reduce the visual bulk as well as to stabilise the soil so that runoff will not impact on neighbouring properties, which is addressed in further detail below. Good standards of landscaping between the shed and the south-eastern and south-western boundaries of the site are still required to provide screening of the building and its platform from neighbouring properties.

Soil Erosion and Stormwater

The fill used to create the building platform is loose and has been located very near to the south-western boundary (see Figure 2). As it has a steep gradient and it has not been stabilised, there is a very high risk that this will shift and move across the boundary into the neighbouring property. A recent site visit shows evidence that erosion is occurring. Stormwater runoff is also likely to move into the neighbouring property. Given that it is proposed to reduce the building footprint of the shed, it is recommended that a condition of consent be imposed which reduces the extent of the fill, as well as stabilises it. Council’s Development Engineers recommend that it be excavated back to 2m from the shed walls, with a 1 in 4 gradient, which will move it further from neighbouring properties as well as stabilise the loose fill.

IMAG0749

Figure 2: Unstable and steep fill at south-western boundary, directly adjacent to neighbouring property at 23 Rowan Street.

THE SUITABILITY OF THE SITE s79C(1)(c)

Council has previously determined that the site is suitable for the proposed development subject to conditions to address visual impacts from the fill on the site. Amendments to conditions are required to address the impacts as set out above. There are no other aspects of the site to indicate that it would be unsuitable to accommodate the modified development.

ANY SUBMISSIONS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT s79C(1)(d)

The proposed development is not defined as "advertised development" under the provisions of the LEP, however adjacent neighbours were notified of the application. Two submissions were received from adjoining owners, who both also made submissions in regards to the original application. These submissions raise the following relevant issues:

- The proposal fails to address the impact of the fill.

- The proposal fails to address obstruction of view, reduction of sun and loss of outlook.

These matters have been addressed in the assessment above, and conditions are included to reduce the bulk of the fill as well as stabilise it, and provide screening landscaping to minimise impacts to these and other neighbouring residential properties.

PUBLIC INTEREST s79C(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.

SUMMARY

The proposed application as modified 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. The application to modify the consent is consistent with the provisions of section 96(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. A section 79C assessment of the proposal indicates that the development is acceptable with additional conditions. A modified Notice of Approval is attached.

Should the Council not accept the modified application subject to the recommendation and conditions set out in this report and the attached notice, then the Council should refuse the application.

COMMENTS

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

Attachments

1 Notice of Approval, D15/1715 ⇩

2 Plans, D15/2114 ⇩

3 Submissions, D15/1031 ⇩

Sustainable Development Committee 3 February 2015

2.5 Development Application DA 368/2014(2) - Duntryleague - Lot 16 Woodward Street

Attachment 1 Notice of Approval

leaflogo

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

Development Application No DA 368/2013(2)

NA15/1715 Container PR22661

OTICE OF DETERMINATION

OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

(AS MODIFIED)

issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 81(1)

Development Application
Applicant Name:	Orange Golf Club trading as Duntryleague
Applicant Address:	C/- Peter Basha Planning & Development PO Box 1827 ORANGE NSW 2800
Owner’s Name:	Orange Golf Club Limited
Land to Be Developed:	Lot 16 DP 1120534 - Woodward Street, Orange
Proposed Development:	Recreation Facility (outdoor) (ancillary storage facility)

Building Code of Australia building classification:	As determined by Certifier

Determination
Made On:	3 February 2015
Determination:	CONSENT GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:

Consent to Operate From:	6 August 2014
Consent to Lapse On:	6 August 2019

Terms of Approval

The reasons for the imposition of conditions are:

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

(2) To maintain neighbourhood amenity and character.

(3) To ensure compliance with relevant statutory requirements.

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

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

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

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

Conditions

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

(a) Amending plans by Peter Basha, numbered 04118D7 dated 27.11.2014 (5 sheets)

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

as amended in accordance with any conditions of this consent.

PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS

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

(3) A sign is to be erected in a prominent position on any site on which building work, subdivision work or demolition work is being carried out:

a. showing the name, address and telephone number of the principal certifying authority for the work, and

b. showing the name of the principal contractor (if any) for any building work and a telephone number on which that person may be contacted outside working hours, and

c. stating that unauthorised entry to the site is prohibited.

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

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

(4) Excavation is required of the existing fill that is not essential to the building platform needed for the shed, as modified by this consent. A detailed plan showing excavation and stabilisation of the existing fill to 2m from the shed walls, with a gradient of 1 in 4 shall be submitted to and approved by Councils Manager Development Assessments prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

(5) A motion activated security lighting, booted and directed so as to not shine directly on any surrounding residence is required.

(6) Full details of external colours and finishes of external materials are to be submitted and approved by Councils Manager Development Assessments prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

(7) A detailed plan showing landscaping to screen the development from neighbouring residential properties to the east, south and south-west, as well as provide stabilisation of the batter shall be submitted to and approved by Councils Manager Development Assessments prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

(8) A Construction Certificate application is required to be submitted to, and issued by, Council/Accredited Certifier prior to any excavation or building works being carried out on site.

(9) A Fire Safety Schedule specifying the fire-safety measures (both current and/or proposed) to be implemented in the building is to be submitted with the Construction Certificate application, in accordance with Part 9 Clause 168 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

(10) Plans and specifications are to be provided indicating all details in relation to the energy efficiency of the building in accordance with Section J (Energy Efficiency) of the Building Code of Australia.

PRIOR TO WORKS COMMENCING

(11) A temporary onsite toilet is to be provided and must remain throughout the project or until an alternative facility meeting Council’s requirements is available onsite.

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

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

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

(14) All plumbing and drainage (stormwater drainage) is to comply with the Local Government (Water, Sewerage and Drainage) Regulation 1998, the NSW Code of Practice - Plumbing & Drainage and Australian Standard AS3500 - National Plumbing and Drainage Code. Such work is to be installed by a licensed plumber and is to be inspected and approved by Council prior to concealment.

(15) 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

(16) Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans and shall be permanently maintained to the satisfaction of Council's Manager Development Assessments.

(17) 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.

(18) 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.

(19) 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.

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT – CO-APPROVAL CONDITIONS

(20) All work must be carried out in accordance with the following documents (except where amended by conditions below);

(a) Development Application Report for Proposed Car Shed Orange Golf Club – Duntryleague prepared by Peter Basha Planning and Development in November 2013; and amended Modification Application Report prepared by Peter Basha dated December 2014

(b) Location Plan Drawing No. 04118DA dated 7/11/2013 prepared by Peter Basha Planning and Development; and amended plans by Peter Basha, numbered 04118D7 dated 27.11.2014 (5 sheets)

(c) Architectural Drawing Proposed Floor Plan and Elevations No. 04118DA dated 7/11/2013 prepared by Peter Basha Planning and Development; and amended plans by Peter Basha, numbered 04118D7 dated 27.11.2014 (5 sheets)

(d) Email from Peter Basha dated 12/02/2014 detailing proposed excavation works and modifications to existing driveway.

Archaeology:

(21) All excavation works at the site are to be monitored by an archaeologist. At the Section 60 stage, the applicant is to nominate a suitably qualified and experienced excavation director with experience on State Heritage Register sites.

(22) The Applicant must ensure that the approved Excavation Director takes adequate steps to record in detail relics, structures and features discovered on the site during the archaeological works in accordance with current best practice. This work must be undertaken in accordance with relevant Heritage Council guidelines.

(23) The Applicant must ensure that a report on the archaeological fieldwork is written by the approved Excavation Director to publication standard, within one (1) year of the completion of the field based archaeological activity unless an extension of time or other variation is approved by the Heritage Council of NSW in accordance with section 144 or 65A of the Heritage Act, 1977.

(24) The Applicant must ensure that if substantial intact archaeological deposits and/or State significant relics are discovered, work must cease in the affected area(s) and the Heritage Council of NSW must be notified. Additional assessment and approval may be required prior to works continuing in the affected area(s) based on the nature of the discovery.

(25) Should any Aboriginal ‘objects’ be uncovered by the work, excavation or disturbance of the area is to stop immediately. The Excavation Director must inform the Office of Environment and Heritage in accordance with Section 89A of the National Parks and Wildlife Act, 1974 (as amended). Works affecting Aboriginal ‘objects’ on the site must not continue until the Office of Environment and Heritage has been informed. Aboriginal ‘objects’ must be managed in accordance with the National Parks and Wildlife Act, 1974.

Compliance:

(26) An application under section 60 of the NSW Heritage Act must be submitted and approved by the NSW Heritage Council prior to work commencing.

Other Approvals

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

Stormwater

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

Nil

Right of Appeal

*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 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:	ALLAN RENIKE - MANAGER DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENTS
Date:	4 February 2015

Development Application
Applicant Name:	Telstra
Applicant Address:	C/- Aurecon PO Box 538 NEUTRAL BAY NSW 2089
Owner’s Name:	Mr JA and Mrs AM Spencer
Land to Be Developed:	Lot 100 DP 1035863 - 454 The Escort Way, Orange
Proposed Development:	Telecommunications Facility (mobile phone base station with 40m high monopole and equipment shelter)

Building Code of Australia building classification:	As determined by Certifier

Determination
Made On:	3 February 2015
Determination:	CONSENT GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:

Consent to Operate From:	4 February 2015
Consent to Lapse On:	4 February 2020

Development Application
Applicant Name:	Mrs JL Player & Mr D Player
Applicant Address:	72 Hill Street ORANGE NSW 2800
Land to Be Developed:	Lot 100 DP 1103216 - 72 Hill Street, Orange
Proposed Development:	Hotel or Motel Accommodation (alterations and additions)

Building Code of Australia Building Classification:	As determined by Certifier
Determination
Made On:	3 February 2015
Determination:	APPLICATION REFUSED

Reason(s) for Refusal:	1 The application to modify development consent DA 355/2014(1) is inconsistent with Chapter 15 of Council’s Development Control Plan 2004. 2 The application to modify development consent DA 355/2014(1) is inconsistent with Council’s Development Contributions Plan 2012.
	The consent previously granted continues to have affect without amendments.
Right of Appeal:	Applicant: If you are dissatisfied with this decision, Section 97 of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 gives you the right to appeal to the Land and Environment Court within 6 months after the date on which you receive this notice. * Section 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 does not apply to the determination of a development application for State significant development or local designated development that has been the subject of a Commission of Inquiry. Objector: The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 does not give a right of appeal against this determination to an objector.

Signed:	On behalf of the consent authority:
Signature:
Name:	ALLAN RENIKE - MANAGER DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENTS
Date:	4 February 2015