Agenda of Sustainable Development Committee

Sustainable Development Committee 3 March 2015

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

TRIM REFERENCE: 2015/289

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.

Council, at the SDC meeting held on 3 February 2015, resolved to defer consideration of the subject application so as to allow for an onsite inspection of the premises to be carried out by Councillors. In accordance with the resolution, an onsite inspection of the premises was carried out on 12 February 2015. The applicant’s consultant also attended the meeting, as did several neighbours.

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

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

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

THE 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, D15/2961 ⇩

2 Plans, D15/1763 ⇩

3 Submissions, D15/2960 ⇩

Sustainable Development Committee 3 March 2015

2.3 Development Application DA 290/2014(1) - 2 Elizabeth Street

TRIM REFERENCE: 2015/454

AUTHOR: Andrew Crump, Town Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Council's consent is sought for the construction of a residential flat building on land described as Lot 1 DP 377484, known as 2 Elizabeth Street, Orange. The development comprises four two bedroom units and one three bedroom unit.

The design of the development is unique to the Orange area given the proposed “under croft” parking area; which is essentially underground or in this instance, part underground parking. The underground parking coupled with the topography of the land results in the building presenting at effective 1.5 storey scale in the front elevation, two storey in scale within the northern elevation and part of the eastern and western elevations. This results in potential privacy issues, increases the bulk of the built form and results in a development that is not consistent with the character of area. The subject lot is a corner allotment, which presents a number of compromising elements within the design.

The development has the potential to unreasonably impact upon the character of the area and detract from the amenity of the locality. This is due to the bulk of the building resultant from the under croft parking, the visual appearance of the building with minimal articulation in the front elevation, the minimal setback to Moad Street and extensive visual privacy impacts that need to be ameliorated with a number of conditions of consent.

Whilst the development is recommended for approval; given the extensive deficiencies identified with the design of the development, Council would have sufficient grounds to refuse the development.

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 grants consent to development application DA 290/2014(1) for Residential Flat Building at Lot 1 DP 377484 - 2 Elizabeth Street, Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

THE APPLICATION

THE PROPOSAL

The subject land is located on the north- eastern corner of the intersection of Elizabeth and Moad Streets. The proposal involves the construction of a residential flat building consisting of four two bedroom units and one three bedroom unit. Parking is provided in the form of under croft parking spaces with access to the under croft parking provided in the south-eastern corner of the site, along with a separate attached single garage.

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

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.

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

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,

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

Aims (a) and (e) as listed above, are of relevance to the assessment of the application. The application is not inconsistent with the relevant aims.

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. A sewer line traverses the eastern part of the site. This will have to be altered to construct the under croft parking area. Council’s Technical Services Division raises no objection to this.

Mapping

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

Land Zoning Map:	Land zoned R1 General Residential
Lot Size Map:	No Minimum Lot Size
Heritage Map:	Not a heritage item or conservation area
Height of Buildings Map:	No building height limit
Floor Space Ratio Map:	No floor space limit
Terrestrial Biodiversity Map:	No biodiversity sensitivity on the site
Groundwater Vulnerability Map:	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 located within the R1 General Residential zone. The proposed development is defined as a residential flat building under OLEP 2011. Pursuant to the dictionary contain within OLEP 2011 a residential flat building means:

a building containing 3 or more dwellings, but does not include an attached dwelling or multi dwelling housing.

Residential flat buildings are permissible with consent in the R1 General Residential zone with the consent of Council.

Clause 2.3 of LEP 2011 references the Objectives for each zone in LEP 2011. These objectives for land zoned R1 – General Residential are as follows:

1 - Objectives of the R1 General Residential Zone

· To provide for the housing needs of the community.

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

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

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

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

In relation to the first objective, the proposed development would act to provide additional housing stock within the City. In relation to the second objective, the proposed dwellings will provide a variation of housing type and density for the City. In relation to the third objective, the proposed development has no effect. In relation to the fourth objective, the subject site is within close proximity to routes used by public transport and is also in close proximity to shops and services. In relation to the last objective, the proposed development has no effect.

The proposed development is not inconsistent with the objectives of the zone.

Part 3 - Exempt and Complying Development

The application is not exempt or complying development.

Part 4 - Principal Development Standards

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

Despite the name of this clause, there are no standards within this clause relevant to the proposal. The development is not inconsistent with the above clause.

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 earthworks proposed in the application are extensive to facilitate the under croft parking; in the order of 1.4m along the southern portion of the parking area and reducing down to 0.6m along the northern part of the basement. Notwithstanding this, the extent of disruption to the drainage of the site is considered to be minor and will not detrimentally affect adjoining properties or receiving waterways.

The extent of the earthworks will not materially affect the potential future use or redevelopment of the site that may occur at the end of the proposed development's lifespan.

The site is not known to be contaminated, nor is the site known to contain any Aboriginal, European or archaeological relics. Previous known uses of the site do not suggest that any relics are likely to be uncovered. However, conditions are imposed to ensure that should site works uncover a potential relic or artefact, works will be halted to enable proper investigation by relevant authorities and the proponent required to seek relevant permits to either destroy or relocate the findings.

The earthworks will be appropriately supported onsite and the change in ground level is not substantial. Therefore the effect on the amenity of adjoining properties is considered to be minor.

The site is not in proximity to any waterway, drinking water catchment or sensitive area. Conditions are imposed to require a sediment control plan, including silt traps and other protective measures, to ensure that loose dirt and sediment does not escape the site boundaries.

7.2 - Flood Planning

This clause applies to land identified on the Flood Planning Map as a Flood Planning Area and requires that, before any consent is issued, Council must be satisfied that the proposal:

(a) is compatible with the flood hazard of the land, and

(b) is not likely to significantly adversely affect flood behaviour resulting in detrimental increases in the potential flood affectation of other development or properties, and

(c) incorporates appropriate measures to manage risk to life from flood, and

(d) is not likely to significantly adversely affect the environment or cause avoidable erosion, siltation, destruction of riparian vegetation or a reduction in the stability of river banks or watercourses, and

(e) is not likely to result in unsustainable social and economic costs to the community as a consequence of flooding.

The subject land is not identified on the flood planning maps as being subject to flood related development controls. Notwithstanding this, the land contains an extensive overland flowpath traversing the eastern quarter of the site. A condition is attached that requires an amendment to the design of the access handle. The amendment will affectively provide a hump in the driveway to reduce the flow of water into the under croft parking area and allow the flow of water to continue on within the street system.

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.

Council Technical Services Division advises that:

the applicant’s proposed stormwater detention basin will have minimal effect on the catchment as much of the property is located within the flood zone. A monetary contribution towards the provision of stormwater detention/improvements in the local catchment is preferred. A condition is attached to this affect.

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.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index BASIX) applies to the subject development. The applicant has submitted a BASIX certificate in support of the development which demonstrates compliance with the state Government Water and Thermal Efficiency targets. The application is consistent with the SEPP.

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land is applicable to the development. The subject land has a long history of being used for residential purposes, and as such there is little to suggest that the land may be contaminated. As such, the continued use of the land for residential purposes is considered acceptable.

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 0 - LEP 2011 and Part - 7 Development in Residential Areas). 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 2(a) Urban Residential (Orange LEP 2000) is zone R1 General Residential (Orange LEP 2011). As such, Orange DCP 2004-07 - Development in Residential Areas is relevant to this proposal. The provisions of Part 7 are considered below.

Part 7 - Design Elements for Residential Development

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcomes in regard to Urban Residential Development.

Neighbourhood Character

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

· Site layout and building design enables the:

- creation of attractive residential environments with clear character and identity

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

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

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

The character and identity of an area is defined by the combination of particular characteristics and qualities of the individual locality. Ideally, the design of infill development should be influenced by the established character of the area. This should be achieved through building designs that maintain a theme commensurate with the setting in terms of grain size, scale, setbacks, consistent use of materials, etc that is evident within the locality.

The character of the area is typically single storey detached dwellings of modest scale at the site frontage. There are two examples evident within the vicinity that are not typical of this built form or development pattern, those being a circa 1980s dual occupancy (single storey and detached) and a recent NSW Department of Housing development. In terms of the NSW Department of Housing development opposite the site, whilst consisting of a greater density than what is observed and considered typical of the area; appropriate design principles have resulted in the development presenting satisfactorily within the street.

The single storey and modest scale at the street frontage, coupled with extensive architectural detailing and visual relief results in a development that is complementary to the features and built form evident within the desired neighbourhood character.

The applicant is drawing on these two examples (the dual occupancy to the east and NSW Department of Housing development opposite) to suggest that the area is going through a transitional state away from the aforementioned character of the area.

The applicant states:

The surrounding locality is characterised by typically single dwelling developments on standard dwelling lots, the notable exception being the Department of Housing (DoH) development to the south west and a dual occupancy development to the east fronting Nunns Avenue. The DoH development is of significantly higher density than surrounding development, featuring 10 dwellings within a 3,200 square metre lot. This development has resulted in some transition of the historical (single dwelling) character of the area.

It is difficult to sustain the notion that the area is characterised as transitional in character relying on only two residential developments in the locality. This is particularly so given that the scale of dual occupancy (being detached dwellings at a single storey scale and open style frontages) presents for all intents and purposes as two single dwellings on separate lots. Aside from the identified DoH development, there is little to suggest that the proposed development is consistent with a transitioning character of a greater density.

It is considered that the proposal is not complementary to the relevant features and built form, including the scale and setbacks that are typical of the pattern of development and are identified as part of the desired neighbourhood character. Consequently, there are sufficient grounds to refuse the development.

Building Appearance

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

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

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

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

The building presents to the street in a rectilinear form with minimal articulation or visual relief in all elevations. The roof will take the form of a skillion style roof with expressed rafters. A single lean-to garage is proposed in the north-western corner attached to Unit 1. The under croft parking, although below the floor level of the building, has the effect of raising the overall wall height of the building. This in turn directly results in the building presenting at a greater height and scale than is typical of the scale and appearance of dwellings in the area, and is not complementary to the character of the area established above.

A mixed use of external materials is proposed comprising render and metal cladding, and masonry to the basement level.

Whilst not typical of the character of the area, and more commonly adopted on institutional style buildings such as schools and hospitals, the selected materials and finishes are generally acceptable within the context and setting. Notwithstanding this, a condition is attached to the Notice of Approval to ensure that the selected materials are acceptable.

Setbacks

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

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

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

A large amount of dialogue occurred between Council staff and the applicant’s planning consultant prior to lodgement, much of which centred around which frontage was the primary frontage, and leading on from that, what the required setback is under the DCP for the development.

The DCP requires that setbacks of new buildings in established residential areas be defined by the setbacks of development on adjoining land. The applicant submits that the primary setback is taken to be Moad Street and therefore the setback is established by the secondary setback of 1 Elizabeth Street and southernmost corner of the skewed dwelling at 1 Nunns Avenue.

The proposal has adopted a varied front setback to Moad Street of between 3m and 4.5m, relying on the 3m setback of the adjacent property at 1 Nunns Avenue. Council has a record of a survey of this property which indicates the setback to actually be 3.905m rather than the suggested 3m purported by the applicant. Given the angled siting of 1 Nunns Avenue, the setback is not as obvious as it ordinarily would be if the dwelling was square to Moad Street at that same setback. This has the effect of giving the feeling of a greater setback than the incorrect 3m setback suggested by the applicant. The average setback of this dwelling is about 6.6m. Therefore, the proposal not only projects forward of the point of the adjoining building by 0.9m, given the presentation of the dwelling at 1 Nunns Avenue, the encroachment will appear even greater.

Notwithstanding the guidelines that requires a setback relative to adjoining development which has been relied upon by the applicant, the fact that the design utilises the long boundary of the site fronting Moad Street and is a single building around 45m in length is at odds with the vast majority of setbacks in the immediate area.

The recommendation of Council’s Heritage and Urban Design Consultant to articulate the entrances of the dwellings to make the building present to the street more appropriately would conflict with the already minimal setback. The presentation of a development and how it integrates within the streetscape should not be compromised by maximising development of a site. The design of the development is disappointing given the minimal setback and poor presentation to the street. The design of the development responds only to maximising the development potential at the cost of maintaining the integrity of the streetscape. This is a key consideration in the determination of the application.

Fences and Walls

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcome in regard to fences and walls:

· Front fences and walls:

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

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

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

The applicant is proposing a solid 1.5m fence to the secondary boundary to provide visual privacy to the open space of Unit 1. This is truncated at the corner to improve sightlines for vehicles negotiating the intersection of Moad and Elizabeth Streets and to connect with the front fence.

The front fence along the Moad Street frontage is proposed at an overall height of 1.2m, comprising a masonry base to a height of 600mm and evenly spaced masonry posts to a height of 1.2m. Picket infill panels are proposed between the masonry posts and on top of the masonry bases at 600mm. Vegetation is proposed behind the picket sections to help soften the fence. The applicant is proposing two entry arbours incorporated into the controlled access gates. Council staff requested further justification outlining the purpose of the proposed arbour/archways. The applicant responded with the following:

The proposed arbour/archways serve to define the access point in line with the principles contained in the Crime Prevention through Environmental Design guidelines and provide effective access control and territorial reinforcement. The use of this style of entrance is common throughout Orange and is representative of the character of the broader residential landscape.

Council staff still question the purpose of these elements of the proposed fence other than adding to the overall scale of the fence at the street frontage, and disagree with the comments above in that these types of arbours or archways are not common in the area. To this end, it is recommended that they be deleted from the proposal. A condition is attached to this effect.

Pedestrian access from Moad Street to Units 2-5 is coherent and obvious as one access is centred between Units 2 and 3 and another access between Units 4 and 5. Access to Unit 1 from Moad Street is less obvious as there is no access in front of Unit 1. This raises doubt as to the primary frontage of Unit 1 as vehicular and pedestrian access is more clearly defined within Moad Street. This then raises the question as to which is the primary frontage of Unit 1. If the primary frontage is to be taken where the most obvious front access is to be taken, then this would mean that the private open space is forward of the front building line. To ensure that the Unit 1 frontage addresses Moad Street rather than Elizabeth Street, an additional gate is required in front of Unit 1. A condition is attached to this effect.

Internal fences will be required to delineate private open space between each unit. Relevant conditions are attached.

The applicant has submitted a second set of the same plans with additional detail relating to the fencing and landscaping notated on them for explanatory purposes. These plans are considered supplementary to the detailed drawings previously submitted by the applicant. The notations on these plans are hand-drawn and serve the intended purposes; however, it will be necessary for fully resolve detailed drawings to be submitted and approved reflecting the intentions of the hand notated drawings prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. The hand notations supersede the relevant elements of the computerised drawings.

Visual Bulk

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcome in regard to Visual Bulk:

· Built form accords with the desired neighbourhood character of the area with:

- side and rear setbacks progressively increased to reduce bulk and overshadowing

- site coverage that retains the relatively low density landscaped character of residential areas

- building form and siting that relates to landform, with minimal land shaping (cut and fill)

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

- building to the boundary where appropriate.

In consideration of the DCP Guidelines, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory, although the single building 45m in length is inconsistent with the visual bulk in the area.

Site Coverage

The building footprint totals 509m² and the subject land totals 1147m². As such the development equates to a site coverage of 44.4%. Hence the development is consistent with the 50% requirement for developments of this type.

Notwithstanding this, the above is distorted as the parking area is not included in the above calculations as it ordinarily would be for a development that had at-grade parking in the form of attached garages, for example. As a guide, the average dual occupancy occurs on 800m², resulting in a single dwelling on 400m² if later subdivided. For this development, based on the area of the existing lot being 1147m², an average area of only 229.4m²can be allocated per unit. This demonstrates an over development of the site when compared to the average dual occupancy development.

Walls and Boundaries

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

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

- the privacy of neighbouring dwellings and private open space

- the access to daylight reaching adjoining properties

- the impact of boundary walls on neighbours.

The building is sited to achieve the aim of fitting five units on the site and provides the minimum standard of residential amenity as a result of the extent of development. Additionally, whilst the development complies with the above (with the imposition of privacy treatment), it could easily be argued that the development represents an over development of the site and Council needs to consider this in its determination.

Daylight and Sunlight

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcome in regard to Daylight and Sunlight:

· Buildings are sited and designed to ensure:

- daylight to habitable rooms in adjacent dwellings is not significantly reduced

- overshadowing of neighbouring secluded open spaces or main living area windows is not significantly increased

- consideration of Council’s Energy Efficiency Code.

Shadow diagrams have been prepared in support of the proposed development. In consideration of the DCP Guidelines, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory as outlined below:

Overshadowing of Dwellings

According to the DCP Guidelines and Council’s Energy Efficiency Code, sunlight to at least 75% of north-facing living area windows within the development and on adjoining land is to be provided for a minimum of four hours on 21 June; or not further reduced than existing where already less.

The development is consistent with the above planning outcomes. Sunlight will be available to all north facing windows within the development and on adjoining land.

Overshadowing of Private Open Space

According to the DCP Guidelines and Council’s Energy Smart Homes Code, sunlight is to be available to at least 40% of required open space for dwellings within the development and on neighbouring properties for at least three hours between 9am and 3pm.

Whilst the development benefits from north orientated private open space, due to the configuration of the POS areas of Units 2-5 being rectilinear in shape with short north-south axes, the northern boundary fence extensively overshadows the open space of Units 2‑5. Notwithstanding this, the development complies with the relevant guidelines.

Views

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

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

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

The subject site is not within an important view corridor. The proposed dwellings will not unreasonably diminish views for other properties in the vicinity. No heritage items are visible from adjoining properties.

Visual Privacy

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcome in regard to Visual Privacy:

· Direct overlooking of principal living areas and private open spaces of other dwellings is minimised firstly by:

- building siting and layout

- location of windows and balconies

and secondly by:

- design of windows or use of screening devices and landscaping.

Due to the elevated floor levels as a result of the under croft parking, visual privacy becomes a critical issue given the potential to unreasonably impact upon the adjoining property to the north as well as the private open space of properties of adjoining units internally within the development.

The applicant originally proposed two rungs of fixed louvers along the windows in question that had the potential to overlook the adjoining property. The louvers initially proposed were situated at the eye level of an average person at seating level, and an average person at standing level. This was not considered a suitable option as it left a large portion of window exposed between these points. As such, Council staff wrote to the applicant requesting further consideration of more suitable methods of protecting privacy.

The applicant responded to this request via amended plans that showed translucent fill applied to the glazing to a height of 1.6m. Council staff again wrote to the applicant advising that this also was not acceptable as it had a greater potential to deteriorate over time or be peeled off.

The applicant responded to this by stating:

We consider that there are two valid options to respond to this [Council staff request for additional information]; both of which are amenable to the client. Option 1 involves the use of windows with integrated translucent film that cannot be removed. Option 2 involves the adoption of permanent louvres. Both options could be to a minimum height of 1.7m. We consider that this matter can be addressed via a condition of consent. As the final appearance would be determined at detailed design stage we would seek that the condition be worded to enable either option, thereby providing flexibility in the final approach.

The Land and Environment Court has established the following planning principle in relation to the treatment of visual privacy impact.

Apart from adequate separation, the most effective way to protect privacy is by the skewed arrangement of windows and the use of devices such as fixed louvres, high and/or deep sills and planter boxes. The use of obscure glass and privacy screens, while sometimes being the only solution, is less desirable.

In light of the above planning principle, it is considered that the most desirable option is the imposition of a condition that requires fixed louvers installed on all north facing glazing between finished floor level and 1.7m above finished floor level rather than allowing the requested flexibility.

The potential for impacts also exists when occupants traverse the landing and stairs between the internal and external spaces of each respective unit. The likelihood of occupants congregating on the landings is low due to their size, however the potential of unacceptable impacts exists and should be mitigated. The only practical way of mitigating this impact is to attach privacy screening to the outer edge of the external stairs for half the extent of the stairs and privacy screening to the outer edge of the other half of the landing. Privacy screening to the full extent of the stairs will result in a large screen and the fencing will begin to protect adjoining property approximately halfway down the stairs. This is explained diagrammatically below:

Diagrammatic explanation of privacy screening treatment to stairs and landing

on Units 2 and 3

The red lines represent the extent of screening. The screening should measure 1.7m above the finished floor level of the landing. This is to be repeated on Units 4 and 5 also. This requirement will reduce the available solar access to windows behind the privacy screening. However, the screening is considered necessary to mitigate an unacceptable impact upon the adjoining residence. This further highlights another deficiency in the design of the development.

Acoustic Privacy

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcome in regard to Acoustic Privacy:

· Site layout and building design:

- protect habitable rooms from excessively high levels of external noise

- minimise the entry of external noise to private open space for dwellings close to major noise sources

- minimise transmission of sound through a building to affect other dwellings.

In consideration of the DCP Guidelines the proposal is considered to be satisfactory. The site is located in an area where ambient noise levels are expected to be low due to the predominant residential land use pattern.

Security

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

· The site layout enhances personal safety and minimises the potential for crime, vandalism and fear.

· The design of dwellings enables residents to survey streets, communal areas and approaches to dwelling entrances.

The siting and design of the residential flat building is appropriate to maintain safety and minimise the potential for crime, vandalism and fear for residents. Habitable room windows will address public roads, thereby providing opportunities for natural surveillance. The proposed landscaping and fencing will not restrict sightlines to public areas and will provide territorial reinforcement and delineate public and private spaces. Internal site access will be available from the under croft parking area and proposed fencing will provide territorial reinforcement and delineation of public and private areas. Remote gates and garage access is also proposed to further enhance security of the development.

Circulation and Design

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcome in regard to Circulation and Design:

· Accessways and parking areas are designed to manage stormwater.

· Accessways, driveways and open parking areas are suitably landscaped to enhance amenity while providing security and accessibility to residents and visitors.

· The site layout allows people with a disability to travel to and within the site between car parks, buildings and communal open space.

Unit 1 will have separate access from Elizabeth Street, with a reverse manoeuvre required for egress, which is acceptable. The remaining four units will rely on parking within the under croft parking spaces which gain access from Moad Street on the eastern side of the building. The under croft area provides six off-street spaces.

The spaces comply with the relevant Australian Standard in terms of isle widths and dimensions of the spaces. Notwithstanding this, manoeuvring within the under croft space will be constrained given the space available and it is unlikely that vehicles will be able to enter each spaces in one turning movement, and exit each space in not more than two turning movements as required by the DCP. Council needs to ensure that the development will be practical and usable for the end user. Otherwise occupants may prefer to park on the street if the spaces are too difficult to negotiate.

For this reason a condition is attached that requires the six spaces in the under croft area to be widened and detail to be provided showing how the development can comply with the maximum vehicle movement requirements for entering and exiting each space.

Additionally, the first two spaces will be the most difficult to negotiate. As such, it is recommended that these be allocated as the visitor spaces as they will be used less frequently than the occupants of the building. Relevant conditions are attached in this regard.

Car Parking

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

· Parking facilities are provided, designed and located to:

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

- reduce the visual dominance of car parking areas and accessways.

· Car parking is provided with regard to the:

- the number and size of proposed dwellings

- requirements of people with limited mobility or disabilities.

The development consists of one x three bedroom unit and four x two bedroom units. The DCP requires parking at the rate of 1.5 spaces per three or more bedroom units, plus 1.2 spaces per two bedroom units, plus 0.2 spaces per unit for visitor parking. As such, the development requires 7.3 off-street parking spaces to be provided. The development provides 8 spaces, 6 spaces in the under croft parking area including 2 designated visitor spaces, plus 1 separate garage space adjacent to Unit 1 and one tandem space in front of the single garage.

The development is considered appropriate in terms of parking.

The development was initially proposed with a sliding gate across the vehicular access to the under croft parking at the site frontage. Council staff requested that this aspect of the design be revisited as it was impractical for visitors to gain access to the site, with no opportunity to practically provide an intercom system wholly within the subject land for visitors to enter the under croft space where the visitors parking is proposed to be located.

The applicant responded by deleting the auto sliding gate, providing a waiting space at the bottom of the access ramp and providing an intercom on the eastern boundary (driver’s side of vehicle). Although the vehicles of visitors will need to merge to the wrong side of the driveway to access the intercom system, given the small volume of traffic likely to be generated by the development, the width of the driveway and the addition of an informal waiting area, this arrangement is considered satisfactory.

Private Open Space

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

· Private open space is clearly defined for private use.

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

· Private open space is:

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

– accessible from a living area of the dwelling

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

– Orientated to optimise year round use.

The following table outlines the minimum requirement in terms of area of private open space.

Units	Living Area (ex. Garage, porches, patios etc)	Private Open Space Required by DCP	Private Open Space Provided
1	133m²	66.5m²	Greater than 66.5m²
2 -5	94m²	47m²	45.94m²

The private open space associated with Unit 1 complies in terms of the guidelines, and provided the issue of addressing the primary frontage of Unit 1 by way of an additional access gate as discussed above is resolved, the open space will be provided behind the front building line and provides an area of the required dimensions.

The southernmost area of open space associated with Unit 1 will be forward of the building alignment given the applicant’s argument that Unit 1 addresses Moad Street. Additionally, the 1.2m open style fence proposed along the front boundary and the truncated corner will not provide adequate privacy to the open space area.

As such, to address these two issues conditions are attached that require fencing as per the below diagram.

Diagram showing fencing requirements

Private open space associated with Units 2-5 appears to be deficient by approximately 1m² from the level of private open space required under the guidelines. This is only a minor departure from the guidelines and the allocated open space for these units would comply with the planning outcomes. The open space is provided at ground level, is behind the main building line and will provide reasonable amenity to the future occupants of the units.

As mentioned above, the adjoining units have the potential to overlook not only the adjoining property but also the POS areas of the other units. This will be addressed by the requirement for fixed louvres to the north facing glazing and patio areas.

The applicant has adequately demonstrated compliance with the Planning Outcomes for private open space.

Open Space and Landscaping

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

· The site layout provides open space and landscaped areas which:

– contribute to the character of the development by providing buildings in a landscaped setting

– provide for a range of uses and activities including stormwater management

– allow cost effective management.

· The landscape design specifies landscape themes consistent with the desired neighbourhood character; vegetation types and location, paving and lighting provided for access and security.

· Major existing trees are retained and protected in a viable condition whenever practicable through appropriate siting of buildings, accessways and parking areas.

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

A landscape plan has been submitted in support of the proposal, which includes plant species that will provide reasonable integration of the residential flat building. Extensive plantings within the frontage will assist in softening the overall design, but not to the extent that it would mitigate the impacts to the amenity of the area as detailed throughout this report. No degree of landscaping would ameliorate the merit issues identified in this report.

Additional landscaping can be provided in the south-western corner of the site on the street side of the fencing that returns to the south-western corner of the building as shown below. A condition is attached in this regard.

Diagram showing location of additional required landscaping

Stormwater

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

· On-site drainage systems are designed to consider:

– downstream capacity and need for on-site retention, detention and re-use

– scope for on-site infiltration of water

– safety and convenience of pedestrians and vehicles

– overland flow paths.

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

Relevant conditions of consent are attached to the Notice of Approval in relation to stormwater management of the site. As mentioned above, an amendment is required to the driveway within the main access such that the flow of water into the under croft parking area is reduced. This is to be achieved by altering the gradient of the accessway, effectively providing a hump that would restrict or reduce the flow of overland stormwater into the site and allow the water to continue within the street stormwater system.

Erosion and Sedimentation

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

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

An erosion and sediment control plan will be required to be prepared as part of the engineering design plans for the development. Attached is a condition of consent addressing this issue.

DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN 2012

The development has been assessed pursuant to Orange Development Contributions Plan 2012. The following table itemises the contributions payable for the development. A condition is attached to reflect the following requirements.

The payment of $27,825.36 is to be made to Council in accordance with section 94 of the Act and the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2012 (Remainder of LGA) towards the provision of the following public facilities:

Open Space and Recreation	@ $2,699.11 x 4 additional 2 bed dwellings	10,796.44
Community and Cultural	@ $460.42 x 4 additional 2 bed dwellings	1,841.68
Roads and Cycleways	@ $3,335.76 x 4 additional 2 be dwellings	13,343.04
Stormwater Drainage	@ $258.43 x 4 additional 2 bed dwellings	1,033.72
Local Area Facilities		--
Plan Preparation & Administration	@ $202.62 x 4 additional 2 bed dwellings	810.48
TOTAL:		$27,825.36

The contribution will be indexed quarterly in accordance with the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2012 (Remainder of LGA).

Section 64 Water and Sewer Headworks Charges

Section 64 water and sewer headwork charges are also applicable to the proposal. Such charges are calculated at the time of release of a Construction Certificate for the proposed development. Attached are draft conditions requiring the payment of the required contributions prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

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

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

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

Context and Setting

The subject land is located within an established residential area where the predominate pattern of development comprises single storey dwellings of modest scale with front setbacks complementary to the urban context. The one exception to the established character of the area evident in the locality is observed opposite the site where the Department of Housing recently completed a project which is described as an appropriate example of a design at a greater density that responds to the context and setting. This was self-approved by DoH.

Aside from the example sited opposite the site, the development the subject of this application is not complementary to the setting of the locality and makes little effort to relate to the urban context. The massing of the building resultant from the under croft parking and the linear form, coupled with the minimal setback of 3m being 0.9m forward of the dwelling to the east, will result in a development that unreasonably detracts from the amenity of the area. The dwelling to the east is placed at an angle to the Moad Street frontage. The minimum setback is 3.9m but the average setback is approximately 6.6m.

Urban Design

Council staff sought the advice of Council’s Heritage and Urban Design consultant in relation to the urban design of the development. Council’s consultant provided the following advice:

Urban Design Commentary

*Design Criteria*	*Existing Context*	*Proposal*
Character	Contemporary single storey suburban dwellings with front and rear gardens and open site frontages. Newer development has attached single storey development with enclosed site fencing. Street trees in the roadside verge to some streets.	Multiple single storey building with 5 dwellings in a block east west across the site using a contemporary skillion roof pitched down to Moad Street and up to the north. Site levels used to provide parking under building via south eastern access off Moad Street. Skillion roofs articulated into five planes to model roof form. Floor level raised nominally 1m above Natural ground level along Moad Street to achieve parking below.

Scale

Single storey dwellings with pitched roofs. A two storey approval exists in the vicinity.

Use of parking below and skillion roofs increases building height to nominal 5500mm in comparison with 3500-4000mm for surrounding dwellings. Raised decks and terraces to north side due to design issues lead to increased scale and overlooking. Increased ceiling height to north side internal living spaces produce dominant glazing and height to northern elevations. Additional shading devices, verandahs/pergolas may be required for compliance or for future retro-fitting by occupiers

Form

Domestic dwellings with typical rectilinear forms, extended front fenestration broken by front porches and verandahs. Heights are consistent and respond to terrain

The form proposed is unlike others in the streetscape or vicinity. The skillion roofs are not consistent with either hipped or gabled roofs. The roofs have been divided into five separate planes to model the length of the single built form. The street elevation steps inwards twice at entrances and models the street elevation

Siting

Dwellings run east west with frontages to Elizabeth Street. On Moad Street dwellings follow similar pattern with frontages to Street and forms occupy front portion with rear yards to north parts of blocks.

Moad Street curb altered to direct traffic flow around Maxwell Avenue leaving triangular verge in front of subject site. Minimal planting with feature trees to lawns.

The siting responds to the brief to accommodate the five dwellings and low level parking on to the linear site. Open space for recreation and suburban landscaped character is that which remains in contrast to the traditional dwellings in the vicinity. Planting is shown in elements which appear to protrude into the street verge on Moad Street otherwise the planting indications appear nominal and not functional. The built form and fenestration take advantage of the northern orientation and illustrates extensive northern glazing and water tanks are located in the rear yards. Basement parking is located in part excavated area.

Materials and Colour

Generally brick external walls with dark grey steel roofs and feature fencing to contemporary dwellings and earlier houses with pale sheet cladding, feature chimneys and lighter grey roofs, open gardens without fencing

External walls are finished in render and metal cladding while the basement is clad in some form of masonry. The fenestration to Moad Street is generally traditional in vertical proportions while the north elevation is linear. The rafters are expressed beneath the skillion eaves of the steel roofing. The Moad Street elevation utilises both render and metal cladding to provide a variation

Detailing

Earlier dwellings include hipped roofs with some brick chimneys, contrasting window framing and feature porch and verandahs. Contemporary dwellings use gabled roof features, dark brickwork and elaborate fencing in brick and panel infill

The skillion roofs use expressed rafters. There are no signs of flues, vents or rooflights. Expressed shading in the form of an awning appears on the west elevation only. A skillion or lean-to garage is attached to the north west corner of the building of Elizabeth Street. The dwelling entries have contemporary doors and all require stairs for the front entry and rear access to yards.

Conclusions

The proposal makes minimal concession to the setting and local character and adopts a simple inexpensive design language used on industrial and school buildings in the form of skillion roofs and metal cladding. The scheme responds well to the northern orientation using extensive glazing and double height space to living areas. However this causes immediate impacts for the vicinity in terms of scale and overlooking while also not fully addressing summer and winter conditions.

In specific terms of urban design the following issues are not yet adequately addressed:

· Building height to the northern portion

· Insufficient planting for privacy, to complement the setting and passive environment

· Insufficient detailing for defining dwelling character and specifically the building entries and the boundary entry points.

· Insufficient material articulation on the Moad Street façade for complementing the setting

· Insufficient articulation to the perimeter fencing and entries for complementing the setting

Recommendations

The following are for consideration in addressing the issues raised above:

· Venting rooflights to the double height living spaces will assist environmentally and model the roofscape

· Replace the rendered walls to the exteriors with materials which give greater colour, texture and character to complement the surroundings

· Provide Articulation to the fencing to complement the setting and to create interest at the dwelling entrances

· Articulate the entrances to each dwelling with porches or verandahs to articulate the steps and entries into key elements

· Develop an approach to sunshading structures for the north, east and west elevations which responds to solar needs and articulates the building elevations

· Produce a landscape plan which documents planting types and a dominant soft landscape complementing the setting

· Reduce the building height by 1m by increasing the excavation, using alternate roof forms or similar

· Assist Council in developing a landscape design for the triangular verge space in the road reserve to model the streetscape and improve the setting.

The above advice was provided to the applicant to consider incorporating into the design. The below table incorporates both the response from the applicant and comments from Council staff.

Heritage Recommendations	Response from Applicant	Council Staff Response
· Venting rooflights to the double height living spaces will assist environmentally and model the roofscape.	We consider these issues are more logically addresses as an element of detailed design and could be addressed via conditions of consent.	Noted and relevant conditions attached.
· Replace the rendered walls to the exteriors with materials which give greater colour, texture and character to complement the surroundings.	We are of the view that there are sufficient range of render finishes that would provide an adequate range of colour, texture and character to complement the surroundings. We anticipate that further detail on these finishes could be addressed via conditions of consent and details supplied prior to release of CC. However, should it be necessary prior to determination of DA it would be provided on request under separate cover.	Conditions are attached that require details of the external finishes and materials to be submitted.
· Provide Articulation to the fencing to complement the setting and to create interest at the dwelling entrances.	Landscaping planter boxes adequately articulate the fence and further refinement is considered necessary – refer drawings A07 – A09.	Noted
· Articulate the entrances to each dwelling with porches or verandahs to articulate the steps and entries into key elements.	We consider these issues are more logically addresses as an issue of detailed design and could be addressed via conditions of consent, with detail supplied prior to the release of CC. However, should it be necessary prior to determination of DA it would be provided on request under separate cover.	Despite the offer to submit a design under separate cover, the applicant has not proposed this as part of the application at this stage. Attaching conditions requiring this level of detail becomes cumbersome and can result in Council being removed from the assessment of this important aspect of the design if a Private Certifier is engaged to issue the construction certificate. Regardless of this, it is noted that requiring the addition of articulated entryways or porches to the front elevation would result in the development encroaching further upon the front setback. This confliction clearly highlights the deficiencies in the design of the development.

· Develop an approach to sunshading structures for the north, east and west elevations which responds to solar needs and articulates the building elevations.

We consider these issues are more logically addresses as an issue of detailed design and could be addressed via conditions of consent, with detail supplied prior to the release of CC. However, should it be necessary prior to determination of DA it would be provided on request under separate cover.

This recommendation for shading to the north facing windows could conflict with Council solar access requirements.

Notwithstanding this, it is considered in the Orange climate that sun shading could be incorporated into the design, particularly to the western elevation to shade the harsher summer afternoon sun. Doing so would also assist in providing some visual interest to the western elevation within Moad Street.

Despite the fact that Council could be removed from the design of this aspect of the development, shade treatment to the western windows will benefit the design of the building. As such, a condition is attached to this affect.

· Produce a landscape plan which documents planting types and a dominant soft landscape complementing the setting.

This is provided – refer Drawings A07 – A09.

Noted

· Reduce the building height by 1m by increasing the excavation, using alternate roof forms or similar.

This recommendation fails to account for the adoption of the Council supplied finished floor level to ensure that development is above the overland water flow levels. Increasing excavation is therefore not an option. Given the need to adopt this level, the use of a shallow pitched roof is justified to ensure overall height does not become excessive and inconsistent with heights in the surrounding locality. No change to the roof plan is therefore proposed.

Should Council consider it appropriate to require an alternate roof form, it would be necessary to attach an appropriate condition.

· Assist Council in developing a landscape design for the triangular verge space in the road reserve to model the streetscape and improve the setting.

The applicant has no objection to participate in a Council led improvement of this area, We would be happy to integrate our landscaping design plan with this area. We would take Council’s advice on how this is best achieved.

The applicant’s agreement to this is noted, but is considered overly complex in planning terms to achieve. The applicant would have to agree to a form of planning agreement for this to occur, with over all benefit to the public being very minor.

Traffic Impacts

The capacity of the road network in the vicinity of the site is sufficient to accommodate additional localised traffic generated by the development. Council’s Technical Services Division advises that the proposed driveway will be appropriately sited so as to prevent vehicle conflicts. As previously indicated, the proposed parking and manoeuvring arrangements will ensure that vehicles enter and leave the under croft parking in a forward direction.

Cumulative Impacts

The proposed development will not reduce the open space or solar access to neighbouring properties; and similarly, the site layout and building design will provide a reasonable standard of residential amenity for the proposed dwellings in terms of open space and solar access.

Despite this, as outlined above, the development presents a number of deficiencies in the design which are likely to result in unacceptable cumulative impacts in the locality. This is primarily a result of the accumulation of the following deficiencies in the design of the development:

· the development is contrary to the desired neighbourhood character of the area

· the appearance of the development is inconsistent with the context and setting of the locality, is incompatible with the scale of built form in the area and provides limited visual interest to the street

· under croft parking directly results in an increase in the bulk and mass of the building

· the nominated front setback of the development and the orientation of the building maximise the available area of development, but show little concession given to the adjoining context and have the potential to detrimentally impact upon the amenity of the area

· visual privacy impacts that need to be addressed with the fixed louvring system.

The aggregate cumulative effect of the above points will result in an unsatisfactory development. Council would have sufficient grounds to refuse the development.

Environmental Impacts

The subject land has been recently subdivided and works have been undertaken to create a residential site. As a result, significant vegetation, threatened species or ecological endangered communities or their habitats are unlikely. The proposed development will not impact upon the locality in terms of environmental impacts.

Existing and Future Amenity of the Neighbourhood

As mentioned above, the development has the potential to impact upon the immediate adjoining property to the north by way of privacy impacts. These impacts have been addressed via the imposition of a condition that requires fixed louvers to be attached to all north facing glazing between finished floor level and a height of 1.7m above finished floor level. The development will not directly impact upon any other immediately adjoining properties.

The development, however, does have the potential to unreasonably impact upon the wider area for the reasons articulated in this report; namely, inconsistencies with the character of the area, inconsistency with the context and setting of the area and inconsistencies with setback requirements.

If Council is of the view that there is sufficient merit to refuse the application based on the above listed reasons, a Notice of Refusal will need to be tabled for Council’s consideration at the next available meeting.

Soil Erosion

Provided that adequate measures are implemented during the construction phase, the proposed development would not generate adverse impacts in terms of soil erosion. Attached are recommended conditions of consent addressing this issue.

Waste Collection

As the development does not involve subdivision, waste services can be shared across the site and managed by residents. The application provides for screening of two bins within the front setback, and whilst it is not appropriate to store bins in this fashion, there is limited opportunity to practically store the bins in any other arrangement.

Council’s Manager Waste Services and Technical Support provides advice that garbage collection can occur from within Elizabeth street for Unit 1 and in Moad Street for the remaining units. Additionally, two or three organic bins can be shared amongst the residents and be stored in the under croft parking until collection days.

Waste collection and storage are considered acceptable.

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

Servicing

Council’s Technical Services Division advises that all utility services are available to the site and adequate for the proposal. The proposed development will be connected to Council’s sewer, town water and stormwater reticulations in accordance with normal requirements. Power, telephone and natural gas services will be connected to the units in accordance with the requirements of the relevant supply authority. Attached is a condition of consent addressing this issue.

Physical Attributes

The subject site is considered to be suitable for the proposed development for the purposes of a residential flat building. The subject land is subject to an overland flowpath which the applicant and Technical Services staff have discussed prior to lodging the application, with minimum finished floor levels agreed to. Council’s Technical Services Division has attached a condition that requires an amendment of the access of the under croft parking such that stormwater is prevented from inundating the under croft space. Council staff are not aware of any other physical attributes within the site that would unreasonably constrain the development.

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

The proposed development is defined as "advertised development" under the provisions of the LEP. The application was advertised for the prescribed period of 14 days and at the end of that period one submission was received. The submission primarily raises concerns relating to privacy and states:

It is acknowledged that the elevated building may be a result of groundwater vulnerability identified under Orange LEP 2011. However, then subsequently raised height of the building results in the living area windows of four dwellings directly overlooking the adjoining LAHC property. This will result in a loss of privacy, despite the provision of louvres as indicated on the applicants submitted plans and documentation, in lieu of redesigning the building to be more contextually compatible, and to better respond to the impediments of the site, it is considered reasonable that Council consider screening on the property boundary to further mitigate the loss of privacy to the adjoining dwelling.

In relation to the above comments, the elevated building is a result of the desire to provide the parking below the floor level of the building rather than relating to ground water vulnerability. The loss of privacy correctly identified and a legitimate concern of the adjoining property owner is a direct result of the location of parking and the elevated floor levels.

Council staff acknowledge the concerns of the submitter and have attached an appropriate condition to mitigate the likely visual privacy impacts. The request of the submitter to further protect privacy by screening at the property boundary is impractical given the elevated floor level. To achieve any real protection, the screening would need to extend above 3m from finished ground level. The relevant condition that requires fixed louvers to the relevant glazing will achieve a reasonable planning outcome. Additional treatment is required to the external rear landings and stairs for Units 2-5.

The legitimate concerns of the submitter further highlight the deficiencies in the design of the development.

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 development is permissible with the consent of Council. The proposed development is considered to be inconsistent in terms of compatibility with the established character of the area, presents unsatisfactorily in terms of setbacks and will present unacceptable privacy impacts which need to be addressed via conditions of consent.

The site coverage of the proposal is only 44%, which is well within the 50% requirement of the DCP. However, this is achieved by the provision of undercover parking. As outlined above, the resultant increase in height of the building presents a number of these unsatisfactory outcomes. One of the major deficiencies of the proposal is the minimal setback from Moad Street of only 3.0m which the applicants attempt to justify by the reliance on the minimum setback of the adjacent dwelling to the east. The average setback of this dwelling is 6.6m. The predominate character of this neighbourhood is single dwellings with generous setbacks and generous ratios of building and space between those buildings that set a low density residential character. The reliance by the applicant to use the adjoining dwelling to establish the setback and the nearby Department of Housing development to establish neighbourhood character and the like, do not justify a development that proposes a built form which includes a building width of 45m fronting Moad Street which is contrary to the established neighbourhood character.

Whilst the development complies with all other relevant aims, objectives and provisions of the LEP, given the development is likely to unreasonably impact upon the character of the neighbourhood and detract from the amenity of locality; Council, should it be of the view that the development is unacceptable as proposed, would have sufficient grounds to refuse the development. Attached is a draft Notice of Approval outlining a range of conditions considered appropriate to ensure that the impacts resultant from the development are reduced as far as possible.

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, D15/4692 ⇩

2 Plans, D15/4691 ⇩

3 Submission, D15/4608 ⇩

Sustainable Development Committee 3 March 2015

2.3 Development Application DA 290/2014(1) - 2 Elizabeth Street

Attachment 1 Notice of Approval

leaflogo

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

Development Application No DA 290/2014(1)

NA15/ Container PR3720

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 81(1)

Development Application
Applicant Name:	Dolly's Construction Pty Ltd
Applicant Address:	C/- Geolyse PO Box 1963 ORANGE NSW 2800
Owner’s Name:	Dolly's Construction Pty Ltd
Land to Be Developed:	Lot 1 DP 377484 - 2 Elizabeth Street, Orange
Proposed Development:	Residential Flat Building

Building Code of Australia building classification:	As determined by Certifier

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conditions

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

(a) Plan/s numbered Plans drawn by Geolyse Architecture dated 16.12.2014 - sheets A01 - A16 - all revision D (16 sheets)

Additional supplementary set of revision D plans submitted 12.02.2015 showing hand notated detail including 2 additional plans identified as SK-01 and SK-02. Dated 22.012015 (9 sheets)

Note: The hand notated details of the supplementary plans supersede the computerised drawings only to the effect of the notations shown on those plans; and all 25 sheets should be considered as one bundle of drawings

(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.

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

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

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

1 the name of the licence number of the principal contractor, and

2 the name of the insurer by which the work is insured under Part 6 of that Act,

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

1 the name of the owner-builder, and

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

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

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

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

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

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

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

(7) The payment of $27,825.36 is to be made to Council in accordance with section 94 of the Act and the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2012 (Remainder of LGA) towards the provision of the following public facilities:

Open Space and Recreation	@ $2,699.11 x 4 additional 2 bed dwellings	10,796.44
Community and Cultural	@ $460.42 x 4 additional 2 bed dwellings	1,841.68
Roads and Cycleways	@ $3,335.76 x 4 additional 2 be dwellings	13,343.04
Stormwater Drainage	@ $258.43 x 4 additional 2 bed dwellings	1,033.72
Local Area Facilities		--
Plan Preparation & Administration	@ $202.62 x 4 additional 2 bed dwellings	810.48
TOTAL:		$27,825.36

The contribution will be indexed quarterly in accordance with the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2012 (Remainder of LGA). This Plan can be inspected at the Orange Civic Centre, Byng Street, Orange.

(8) 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.

(9) The arch ways/arbours within the front fence over the access gates shall be deleted from the proposal. Also, an additional pedestrian access gate in the same style as the other two proposed gates shall be included in the front fence and be centrally located in front of unit 1. Plans showing this amended detail shall be submitted to, and approved by, Council’s Manager Development Assessments prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

(10) Privacy screening shall be attached to the rear landing and stairs for units 2 to 5. For units 2 and 4 the privacy screening shall be installed on the edge of the landing starting at the westernmost corner adjacent to the external door and extend for half the length of the landing. A further screen shall be attached to the outer edge of the stairs starting at the top of the stairs and extend along the outer edge of the stairs for half the length of the stairs. All screens shall be a minimum height of 1.7m above finished floor level.

For units 3 and 5 the privacy screening shall be installed on the edge of the landing starting at the easternmost corner adjacent to the external door and extend for half the length of the landing. A further screen shall be attached to the outer edge of the stairs starting at the top of the stairs and extend along the outer edge of the stairs for half the length of the stairs. All screens shall be a minimum height of 1.7m above finished floor level.

Details of the privacy screen shall be submitted to and approved by the Manager Development Assessments prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

(11) Fixed louvers shall be installed on all north facing windows for the full extent of the window up to a height of 1.7m above finished floor level and remain attached to the building in perpetuity. The louvers shall be designed in a manner that will allow solar access into the building and will prevent visual penetration through the window to the adjoining property to the north and adjoining private open space internally within the development. Plans showing this detailed shall be submitted to and approved by the Manager Development Assessments prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

Note: The translucent film shown on the submitted plans is not approved under this consent.

(12) Additional landscaping shall be provided in the south western corner of the site on the street side of the returned fencing. A mix of small shrubs and ground covers shall be provided within the subject landscape bed. An amended landscape plan showing this detail shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

(13) Venting roof lights shall be provided to the double height living spaces. Details of the venting roof lights shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

(14) A porch shall be provided over the external door and westernmost window within the western elevation to provide shading to the window and additional articulation and visual relief to the western elevation. The porch shall reflect the pitch of the main roofline and be consistent with the style of the proposed building. Details of the porch shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

(15) The two visitor spaces in the under croft area shall be relocated to be the two easternmost spaces within the under croft area and be appropriately identified as visitor spaces.

(16) All six off-street parking spaces in the under croft area shall be widened to allow vehicles to enter each space in a single turning movement and exit each space in not more than two turning movements. Details showing how this is achieved using industry recognised swept path software shall be submitted to and approved by the Manager Development Assessments prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

(17) A 1.8m high fence shall be provided around the northern and eastern boundaries ceasing at the front building alignment of the building on each respective boundary. Fencing shall be provided to the front and secondary boundaries in accordance with the approved plans excepting the truncated corner in the south west corner of the site. Instead of the truncated corner, the fence along the southern boundary shall cease in line with the south western corner of the building and return to join the south western corner of the building at 1.2m in height. The solid 1.5m fence in Elizabeth Street shall not project south of the south western corner of the building and shall return to the south western corner of the building. A 1.5m high fence shall be provided along the shared boundaries of each of the private open space areas of each unit. The height of the fence shall be measured from the highest finished ground level adjacent to each part of that fence.

Amended plans showing this detail shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

Note: Where any existing fencing at the perimeter of the site is to be retained, any additional fencing must be in similar materials and colours, or complementary colours, to the existing fencing, and shall be erected prior to the issuing of the Occupation Certificate, to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager Development Assessments.

(18) 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.

(19) An approval under Section 68 of the Local Government Act is to be sought from Orange City Council, as the Water and Sewer Authority, for water, sewer and stormwater connection. Details concerning the proposed backflow prevention between the nominated water tank supply and the potable system is to be provided. No plumbing and drainage is to commence until approval is granted.

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

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

(22) A payment of $2,867.50 shall be paid to Council, prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate, for the construction of an off-site stormwater retention basin. Payments are indexed in accordance with Councils Management Plan current at the time of issue of a Construction Certificate.

(23) Engineering plans providing complete details of the proposed driveway and car-parking areas is to be submitted to Orange City Council or an Accredited Certifier (Categories B1, C3, C4, C6) upon application for a Construction Certificate. These plans are to provide details of levels, cross falls of all pavements, proposed sealing materials and proposed drainage works and be in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.

The basement carpark is to be constructed to prevent the ingress of floodwater up to RL 875.70 AHD.

(24) Stormwater from the site is to be piped to the adjacent stormwater drainage system. Engineering plans of this drainage system are to be approved by Orange City Council or by an Accredited Certifier (Categories B1, C3, C4, C6) prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

(25) The existing 150mm-diameter sewer main is to be terminated at the northern property boundary with a maintenance shaft. Orange City Council or an Accredited Certifier (Categories B1, C3, C4, C6), prior to issuing a Construction Certificate, is to approve engineering plans for this sewerage system.

(26) Payment of contributions for water, sewer and drainage works is required to be made at the contribution rate applicable at the time that the payment is made. The contributions are based on 2.66 ETs for water supply headworks and 2.66 ETs for sewerage headworks. A Certificate of Compliance, from Orange City Council in accordance with the Water Management Act 2000, will be issued upon payment of the contributions.

This Certificate of Compliance is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

PRIOR TO WORKS COMMENCING

(27) 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.

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

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

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

(30) If Aboriginal objects, relics, or other historical items or the like are located during development works, all works in the area of the identified object, relic or item shall cease, and the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, and representatives from the Orange LALC shall be notified. Where required, further archaeological investigation shall be undertaken. Development works in the area of the find(s) may recommence if and when outlined by the management strategy, developed in consultation with and approved by the OEH.

(31) 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.

(32) All construction works are to be strictly in accordance with the Reduced Levels (RLs) as shown on the approved plans.

(33) 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.

(34) No obstruction is to be caused to pedestrian use of Council's footpath or to vehicular use of any public roadway during construction. These areas are to be maintained in a safe condition at all times.

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

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

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

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

(38) Heavy-duty concrete kerb and gutter laybacks and footpath crossings are to be constructed for the entrances to the proposed development. The location and construction of the laybacks and footpath crossings are to be as required by the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

(39) Fencing shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to the issue of an occupation certificate.

(40) Off-street car parking shall be provided upon the site in accordance with the approved plans, the provisions of Development Control Plan 2004, and be constructed in accordance with the requirements of Council's Development and Subdivision Code prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

(41) Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans and shall be permanently maintained.

(42) 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.

(43) Where Orange City Council is not the Principal Certifying Authority, a final inspection of water connection, sewer and stormwater drainage shall be undertaken by Orange City Council and a Final Notice of Inspection issued, prior to the issue of either an interim or a final Occupation Certificate.

(44) Certification from Orange City Council is required to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate stating that all works relating to connection of the development to Council assets, works on Public Land, stormwater, sewer and water reticulation mains and footpaths have been carried out in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code and the foregoing conditions.

(45) 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 March 2015

Sustainable Development Committee 3 March 2015

2.4 Development Application DA 348/2014(1) - 21 and 23-25 Peisley Street

TRIM REFERENCE: 2015/291

AUTHOR: Paul Johnston, Planning Team Leader

EXECUTIVE Summary

The proposal seeks development consent for the following:

· Proposed Change of Use - the existing industrial building at the site frontage has development consent for a motor showroom (pursuant to DA 439/2002 approved on 5 March 2003) but requires development consent for current use.

· New Industrial Buildings - The proposal involves demolition of the existing shed adjacent to the rear (western) boundary and construction of three industrial buildings adjacent to the southern and western boundaries of the site.

A Section 79C assessment of the development indicates that the development is acceptable. Attached is a Notice of Approval for Council’s consideration.

It is recommended that Council supports the subject proposal.

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 348/2014(1) for Warehouse or Distribution Centre, Hardware and Building Supplies, General Industry, Vehicle Sales or Hire Premises, Vehicle Repair Station and Advertisement at Lot 16 Sec 11 DP 6662 and Lot 52 DP 541772 – 21 and 23-25 Peisley Street, Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

THE APPLICATION/PROPOSAL

The development relates to industrial land at 21 and 23-25 Peisley Street, Orange. The proposal seeks development consent for the following:

Proposed Change of Use

The existing industrial building at the site frontage has development consent for a motor showroom (pursuant to DA 439/2002 approved on 5 March 2003). This building is currently occupied by Hertz Rentals and Pedders Suspension.

In order to formalise the use of the building by the current tenants, the proposal involves change of building use to part vehicle sales or hire premises (for Hertz Rentals) and part vehicle repair station (for Pedders Suspension).

The submitted plans show that Hertz will utilise the showroom component of the building at the site frontage, as depicted on Sheet 7. Hire vehicles are proposed to be stored on the grassed area between the dual site accesses. The showroom will be utilised for office and administration functions associated with the business.

Hours of operation for Hertz will be 8am to 5pm Monday to Friday, 8.30am to 1pm Saturdays and by appointment on Sundays. Two staff will be in attendance at any one time.

The proposal also seeks consent to formalise an advertisement for Hertz. The proposed advertising will comprise a flush wall sign on the eastern (Peisley Street) façade of the showroom, sited on the fascia above the shopfront glazing. The proposed sign will have dimensions of 10.7m x 0.6m. Advertising content will comprise the business name, activities and phone number.

The workshop component of the existing building will be used as a vehicle repair station for Orange Wheel Alignment Specialists and Pedders Suspension. Typical business activities will involve wheel alignments, suspension fitting and repairs, and associated activities.

Hours of operation will be 7am to 7pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 1pm Saturdays. Approximately 4-5 staff will be in attendance at any one time.

Business identification signage is also proposed. The proposed signage will comprise a flush wall sign on the eastern façade of the workshop building addressing Peisley Street, with dimensions of 2.5m x 5.0m. Advertising content will comprise the business name and logo. The proposed signage will replace an existing unapproved Hertz sign in this location and is exempt development.

New Industrial Buildings

The proposal involves demolition of an existing shed adjacent to the rear (western) boundary and construction of three industrial buildings adjacent to the southern and western boundaries of the site.

The new buildings will have total gross floor area of 2,626.7m² and contain five separate tenancies. Proposed Tenancy 1 will comprise a warehouse and distribution centre, with Tenancy 2 to be used for hardware and building supplies. Consent is sought for use of Tenancies 3-5 for general industry. Tenants have not been secured for the individual tenancies at this time.

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

Section 5A Assessment

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

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,

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

In consideration of aim (a), there are no aspects of the proposal that detract from the character of Orange as a major regional centre.

In consideration of aim (b), the proposal would have a neutral to positive effect in terms of the social, economic and environmental resources of the City.

In consideration of aim (f), there are no aspects of the proposal that would adversely affect the value of heritage, landscape and scenic features of the City.

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.

Mapping

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

Land Zoning Map:	Land zoned INI General Industrial
Lot Size Map:	Minimum Lot Size 1000m²
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 located within the IN1 General Industrial zone. Pursuant to Orange LEP 2011, the proposed development is defined as general industry, hardware and building supplies, vehicle repair station, vehicle sales or hire premises and a warehouse or distribution centre. Each of the above described land uses are defined under the LEP Dictionary as follows:

general industry means a building or place (other than a heavy industry or light industry) that is used to carry out an industrial activity.

hardware and building supplies means a building or place the principal purpose of which is the sale or hire of goods or materials, such as household fixtures, timber, tools, paint, wallpaper, plumbing supplies and the like, that are used in the construction and maintenance of buildings and adjacent outdoor areas.

vehicle repair station means a building or place used for the purpose of carrying out repairs to, or the selling and fitting of accessories to, vehicles or agricultural machinery, but does not include a vehicle body repair workshop or vehicle sales or hire premises.

vehicle sales or hire premises means a building or place used for the display, sale or hire of motor vehicles, caravans, boats, trailers, agricultural machinery and the like, whether or not accessories are sold or displayed there.

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

advertisement has the same meaning as in the Act.

Note. The term is defined as a sign, notice, device or representation in the nature of an advertisement visible from any public place or public reserve or from any navigable water.

signage means any sign, notice, device, representation or advertisement that advertises or promotes any goods, services or events and any structure or vessel that is principally designed for, or that is used for, the display of signage, and includes any of the following:

(a) an advertising structure,

(b) a building identification sign,

but does not include a traffic sign or traffic control facilities.

In accordance with the Land Use Table in Part 2 of the LEP, the proposed development is permitted with consent in the IN1 zone.

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

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

· To encourage employment opportunities.

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

· To support and protect industrial land for industrial uses.

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

The proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the zone.

Clause 2.7 - Demolition Requires Development Consent

The proposal involves demolition of the existing shed adjacent the rear (western) boundary and the applicant is seeking the consent of council. The demolition works proposed will have no significant impact on adjoining lands, streetscape or public realm.

Part 3 - Exempt and Complying Development

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 site slopes around 2.5m from front to rear. The earthworks proposed in the application are limited to the extent of cutting and filling required for the proposed building or structure although the submitted plans do not show this detail. The extent of disruption to the drainage of the site is considered to be minor and will not detrimentally affect adjoining properties or receiving waterways.

The extent of the earthworks will not materially affect the potential future use or redevelopment of the site that may occur at the end of the proposed development's lifespan.

The earthworks will be appropriately supported onsite and the change in ground level is not substantial. Therefore the effect on the amenity of adjoining properties is considered to be minor.

The site is not known to contain any Aboriginal, European or archaeological relics. Previous known uses of the site do not suggest that any relics are likely to be uncovered.

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

Council’s Technical; Services Depart advise that the site can be suitably drained. The attached Notice of Approval contains a condition of consent requiring the applicant to design the development such that post development runoff levels will not exceed the predevelopment levels.

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.

Clause 7.11 - Essential Services

In accordance with the requirements of Clause 7.11, development consent must not be granted to development unless the consent authority is satisfied that any of the following services that are essential for the proposed development are available or that adequate arrangements have been made to make them available when required:

(a) the supply of water,

(b) the supply of electricity,

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

(e) suitable road access.

The applicant has advised that the subject land and premises are connected to available urban utilities. Council’s Technical Services Division advises that any adjustment or augmentation of existing service connections will be required to be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the relevant supply authority.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

State Environmental Planning Policy Infrastructure 2007

The proposed development is not traffic generating development pursuant to Clause 104 and Schedule 3 of SEPP Infrastructure 2007. In this regard:

· Pursuant to Column 2, the capacity of the proposed development is below the threshold of 20,000m² for industry with access to any road.

· Pursuant to Column 3, the capacity of the proposed development is below the threshold of 5,000m² for industry with access to a classified road (ie Peisley Street).

As such, the development is not considered to be traffic generating and consultation with Roads and Maritime Services was not required.

State Environmental Planning Policy 64 - Advertising and Signage

State Environmental Planning Policy 64 - Advertising and Signage applies to the subject development. The applicant is proposing the following signage:

· A flush wall sign on the eastern (Peisley Street) façade of the Hertz showroom. The proposed sign will be sited on the fascia above the shopfront glazing and have dimensions of 10.7m x 0.6m. Advertising content will comprise the business name, activities and phone number.

· Business identification signage on the eastern (Peisley Street) façade of the Orange Wheel Alignment Specialists and Pedders Suspension workshop. The proposed signage will comprise a flush wall comprising dimensions of 2.5m x 5.0m. Advertising content will comprise the business name and logo.

3 - Aims, Objectives etc

(1) This Policy aims:

(a) to ensure that signage (including advertising):

(i) is compatible with the desired amenity and visual character of an area, and

(ii) provides effective communication in suitable locations, and

(iii) is of high quality design and finish, and

(b) to regulate signage (but not content) under Part 4 of the Act, and

(c) to provide time-limited consents for the display of certain advertisements, and

(d) to regulate the display of advertisements in transport corridors, and

(e) to ensure that public benefits may be derived from advertising in and adjacent to transport corridors.

(2) This Policy does not regulate the content of signage and does not require consent for a change in the content of signage.

The subject signage is consistent with the aims, objectives etc. listed above.

4 - Definitions

Pursuant to clause 4 the proposed signage consists of advertisements to which Part 3 of the SEPP relates, and business identification signage. The definition of signage as outlined above under OLEP 2011 consideration includes business identification signage.

The Hertz signage as described above is considered to be an advertisement for which Part 3 of the SEPP applies due to a telephone number of the business being displayed thereon. The proposed Pedders sign will replace an existing Hertz sign in this location. This is considered to be a business identification sign and will satisfy the exempt development requirements therefore not requiring any formal approval. A detailed assessment of the proposed signage against the assessment criteria contained within SEPP 64 is provided below.

6 - Signage to Which this Policy applies

(1) This Policy applies to all signage:

(a) that, under another environmental planning instrument that applies to the signage, can be displayed with or without development consent, and

(b) is visible from any public place or public reserve,

except as provided by this Policy.

(2) This Policy does not apply to signage that, or the display of which, is exempt development under an environmental planning instrument that applies to it, or that is exempt development under this Policy.

Development consent is sought for the proposed signage.

Signage to Which Part 3 of the SEPP Relates

11 - Requirement for Consent

Clause 11 states:

A person must not display an advertisement, except with the consent of the consent authority or except as otherwise provided by this Policy.

The applicant is applying for consent through this application.

13 - Matters for Consideration

(1) A consent authority (other than in a case to which subclause (2) applies) must not grant consent to an application to display an advertisement to which this Policy applies unless the advertisement or the advertising structure, as the case requires:

(a) is consistent with the objectives of this Policy as set out in clause 3 (1) (a), and

(b) has been assessed by the consent authority in accordance with the assessment criteria in Schedule 1 and the consent authority is satisfied that the proposal is acceptable in terms of its impacts, and

(c) satisfies any other relevant requirements of this Policy.

A detailed assessment of the proposed signage against the assessment criteria contained within Schedule 1 of the SEPP is provided below.

14 - Duration of Consents

(1) A consent granted under this Part ceases to be in force:

(a) on the expiration of 15 years after the date on which the consent becomes effective and operates in accordance with section 83 of the Act, or

(b) if a lesser period is specified by the consent authority, on the expiration of the lesser period.

A condition is attached in this regard.

19 Advertising Display Area Greater than 45 Square Metres

The consent authority must not grant consent to the display of an advertisement with an advertising display area greater than 45 square metres unless:

(a) a development control plan is in force that has been prepared on the basis of an advertising design analysis for the relevant area or precinct, or

(b) in the case of the display of an advertisement on transport corridor land, the consent authority is satisfied that the advertisement is consistent with the Guidelines.

The proposed signage is below 45m² in area.

Schedule 1 Assessment

Character of the Area

· Is the proposal compatible with the existing or desired future character of the area or locality in which it is proposed to be located?

· Is the proposal consistent with a particular theme for outdoor advertising in the area or locality?

Advertising along the Peisley Street precinct comprises a mix of pylon/pole signs at site frontages and flush wall and fascia signs on the buildings. The proposed signage will be consistent with the theme for outdoor advertising and will complement the visual character of this commercial and industrial precinct.

2 - Special Areas

· Does the proposal detract from the amenity or visual quality of any environmentally sensitive areas, heritage areas, natural or other conservation areas, open space areas, waterways, rural landscapes or residential areas?

The subject site does not contain or adjoin a special area. The proposed signage will not detract from the amenity or visual quality of any environmentally sensitive areas, natural areas, open space areas, waterways, rural landscapes or residential areas.

Given that the site is not located within a special area, advertising content is not restricted to business identification or building identification only. There are no planning objections to the proposed signage.

3 - Views and Vistas

· Does the proposal obscure or compromise important views?

· Does the proposal dominate the skyline and reduce the quality of vistas?

· Does the proposal respect the viewing rights of other advertisers?

The proposed signage is positioned in a manner that will not obscure views or compromise viewing rights of other advertisers or businesses in the precinct.

4 - Streetscape, Setting or Landscape

· Is the scale, proportion and form of the proposal appropriate for the streetscape, setting or landscape?

· Does the proposal contribute to the visual interest of the streetscape, setting or landscape?

· Does the proposal reduce clutter by rationalising and simplifying existing advertising?

· Does the proposal screen unsightliness?

· Does the proposal protrude above buildings, structures or tree canopies in the area or locality?

· Does the proposal require ongoing vegetation management?

The site is contained within an established business and industrial area. The advertisement in the form proposed will generally complement the streetscape and setting. Overall it is considered that the signage proposal will add visual interest within the street.

5 - Site and Building

· Is the proposal compatible with the scale, proportion and other characteristics of the site or building, or both, on which the proposed signage is to be located?

· Does the proposal respect important features of the site or building, or both?

· Does the proposal show innovation and imagination in its relationship to the site or building, or both?

The proposed signage will be generally compatible with the scale, proportions and other characteristics of the subject building and remain consistent with the theme of signage in the area. The wall sign is proposed to be affixed to the building facade and despite its size will not dominate the building which has relatively large elevations that present to Peisley Street. The advertisement is considered to be of an acceptable size in compliance with the requirements of the SEPP. Further, the sign will not protrude above the eaves, extend over a window or opening, or obscure architectural building elements.

The proposed signage reasonably depicts the corporate scheme for Hertz. Corporate signage is not an unexpected element in industrial and business precincts. No signage is proposed on the new buildings.

6 - Associated Devices and Logos with Advertisements and Advertising Structures

· Have any safety devices, platforms, lighting devices or logos been designed as an integral part of the signage or structure on which it is to be displayed?

The signage does not include any safety devices, platforms, lighting devices or logos that form an integral part of the signage or structure on which it is to be displayed.

7- Illumination

· Would illumination result in unacceptable glare?

· Would illumination affect safety for pedestrians, vehicles or aircraft?

· Would illumination detract from the amenity of any residence or other form of accommodation?

· Can the intensity of the illumination be adjusted, if necessary?

· Is the illumination subject to a curfew?

The applicant advises that the proposed wall signs may be illuminated. There are no objections to the illumination of the subject signage. The proposed illumination of signage in this location will be will have minimal visual impacts in the context of the adjacent industrial premises and public street lighting. Ancillary light fittings will be shielded or mounted in a position to minimise glare to adjoining properties and public areas. Attached is a condition addressing this matter.

8 - Safety

· Would the proposal reduce the safety for any public road?

· Would the proposal reduce the safety for pedestrians or bicyclists?

· Would the proposal reduce the safety for pedestrians, particularly children, by obscuring sightlines from public areas?

The subject signage will be appropriately sited such that it will not cause safety issues for vehicles, cyclists or pedestrians.

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.

DESIGNATED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development is not designated 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 - Development within the Industry and Employment Zone). 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 (Orange LEP 2000) is zone IN1 General Industrial (Orange LEP 2011). As such, Orange DCP 2004 - Chapter 9 -Development within the Industry and Employment Zone is relevant to this proposal. The DCP sets the following Planning Outcomes for Industrial Site Development.

· Buildings are setback a minimum of 10 metres from front boundaries (5 metres to a secondary boundary on a corner lot) for lots greater than 1000m² or 5 metres for lots less than 1,000m² or otherwise to a setback consistent with existing setbacks in established areas.

The subject land comprises an area in excess of 1,000m² and therefore the applicable setback requirement in this case is 10m. There is no proposal to alter the front setback for the existing industrial building. Building 1 is proposed to be sited 17m from the Peisley Street frontage of the land, in compliance with the DCP requirements. An adequate area is proposed to be provided between the building and the front boundary for parking spaces and landscaping.

· Buildings cover up to 50% of the site area (excluding the area of accessways for battleaxe lots)

The submitted plans show that the existing building and proposed buildings will comprise a total building footprint area of 3,444.2m². Based on the site area of 7,861m² the development will have a site coverage of 43.8% in compliance with DCP requirements.

· Landscaping is provided along boundaries fronting roads including trees with an expected mature height at least comparable to the height of buildings on the site. All sites contain an element of landscaping…

The proposal does not seek to alter existing plantings adjacent to the existing industrial building. The submitted plans show that landscaping will be provided along the Peisley Street frontage adjacent to the new buildings within a minimum landscape bed of 4.6m in width. The proposed landscaping will incorporate plantings that are commensurate with the height of the proposed buildings as well as plantings that offer some screening at an intermediate level. It is considered that the proposed landscaping at maturity will provide adequate visual relief to the proposed building and site generally. Additional landscaping is recommended directly in front of the Hertz rental business. The submitted plans show a car display area in the front setback area. Opportunity exists to provide a 3.5m wide landscape bed in front of the display area consistent with the approach to landscaping along the frontage of the southern part of the subject site. Attached is a condition of consent requiring an amended landscape plan addressing this matter.

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

In order to provide some visual relief and integration of the front building façade within the street the applicant has proposed the following building elements:

· shopfront glazing with verandah treatment

· modern parapet design.

The verandah is proposed to be only 1.4m in depth and is considered to be a token effort to provide architectural features to the Peisley Street façade of the building. It is considered that to provide meaningful relief to the otherwise simplistic façade that the verandah should be widened to be at least 2.4m. This can be achieved by reducing the vehicle aisle width of the adjacent car parking area at the frontage of the site and reducing the length of proposed Building 1. Condition of consent to this effect is attached to the Notice of Approval.

· External materials consist of non-reflective materials.

External finishes for the proposed building are depicted on the submitted elevation drawings. The selected finishes will be non-reflective as encouraged by the DCP.

· Adequate parking and onsite manoeuvring is provided.

The proposed development is subject to the provisions of Orange DCP 2004 - Chapter 15 - Car Parking. The proposed development will generate a car parking requirement of 55.13 spaces as outlined in the tabled below:

Tenancy	Land Use	Car Parking Requirement	GFA	Car Parking Spaces Required
Hertz	Vehicle sales or hire premises	1 space/40m²	215m²	5.4
Pedders	Vehicle repair station	3 spaces/workbay	485m² 4 workbays	12
1	Warehouse and distribution centre	1 space/50m² GFA	659m²	13.18
2	Hardware and building supplies	1 space/50m² GFA	513.3m²	10.3
3	General industry	1 space/100m² GFA	513m²	5.13
4	General industry	1 space/100m² GFA	456.4m²	4.56
5	General industry	1 space/100m² GFA	456.4m²	4.56
TOTAL				55.13

The applicant submits that the business activities of Hertz are more typical of a business premises than a motor showroom. By its very nature, demand for car parking for this aspect of the development is considered to be less than for a typical motor showroom. The applicant has advised Council that the Orange Hertz business operates approximately 45 hire cars and that it would be necessary to store a maximum of six to eight vehicles within the site at any one time. Council is further advised that the typical operation of the business is that the rental cars are on the road, or at the airport, or on the site. The applicant submits that vehicle turnover is very high to the extent that there is almost a shortage in cars for hire.

It is understood from the applicant’s submission that there are only a few occasions when it would be necessary to store ten to twelve vehicles within the site at any one time (usually over the Christmas/New Year period). The cars that need to be stored on the site can be contained within the grassed display area at the front (approximately six to eight cars) or within the building itself (six to eight cars). Given the availability of the shed space and the display area at the front of the site to park rental vehicles, it is recommended that the car parking rate applicable to a business premises be used as a guide to assess this aspect of the proposed development.

The car parking requirement for a warehouse or distribution centre under the DCP is one space per 100m² of GFA. Whilst a specific tenant is not known at this stage, the applicant has offered a higher parking requirement than would ordinarily be required for development of this type. The applicant has assessed this aspect of the development based on the bulk retail rate of one space per 50m². There are no objections to the application of this rate in this circumstance.

The submitted plans show that a total of 56 onsite car parking spaces (including five spaces for disabled persons) will be provided for the development, in compliance with the DCP. There is an emerging practice for workers to park on Peisley Street. It is important that all vehicles associated with a business park onsite so as to not interfere with the flow of traffic along Peisley Street, which is a main road of significant importance. In view of this a condition has been attached that requires all vehicles associated with the business to park on the site, including workers’ vehicles.

The applicant has provided a turn path analysis in support of the proposal. The turn path analysis demonstrates that the site layout and building design will accommodate the forward ingress, egress and manoeuvring of a 19m semi-trailer. The internal driveway system will provide for onsite passing of vehicles. All vehicles likely to be associated with the site are able to enter and exit in a forward direction. The submitted plans also demonstrate that a large rigid truck (12.5m) will be able to reverse into the warehouse section of each tenancy in the proposed buildings if required, and leave in a forward direction to exit the facility. There are no planning objections to the proposed parking and manoeuvring arrangements.

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

Matters in relation to signage have been addressed above under the heading “State Environmental Planning Policy 64 - Advertising and Signage”. A separate development application will be required for any signage associated with Tenancies 1-5 that is not defined as exempt development.

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

Existing palisade fencing on the front boundary to Peisley Street will be retained, together with security fencing on side boundaries.

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)

Traffic Impacts

The potential for traffic impacts relates mainly to the capacity of the local road network to accommodate an increase in traffic levels and the ability for vehicles to enter, exit and use the site without disruption to traffic flow along Peisley Street. The proposed development is not defined as traffic generating development under the SEPP (Infrastructure).

The subject land is an existing industrial site. The site, whilst underdeveloped at this time, has a certain level of traffic already attributed to it due to its present use by Hertz and Pedders. There are no aspects of the road network that would indicate it would not be able to accommodate traffic generated by the proposed development. Carriageway widths, trafficable lanes, and intersection controls within Peisley Street appear satisfactory to carry traffic associated with this precinct.

Whilst there is no proposal to alter the existing access arrangements that currently serve the site Council’s Technical Services Department advise that heavy duty concrete crossings will be required to be constructed for the entrances.

A turn path analysis submitted in support of the development demonstrates that the site layout and building design will accommodate the forward ingress, egress and manoeuvring of a 19.0m semi-trailer. The submitted plans also demonstrate that a large rigid truck (12.5m) will be able to reverse into the warehouse section of each tenancy in the proposed buildings if required, and leave in a forward direction to exit the facility. There are no planning objections to the proposed parking and manoeuvring arrangements. All vehicles associated with the site will be able to enter and exit the site in a forward direction.

Sufficient onsite car parking will be provided to meet the parking requirements associated with the existing uses and the proposed development.

Visual Amenity

The proposed buildings will be of comparable bulk, scale and height with industrial premises on adjoining sites to the north and south, and indeed in this streetscape. The proposed building design however has limited architectural features and it is recommended in this case that the proposed verandah be widened to provide meaningful relief to the street. It is considered that to provide meaningful relief to the otherwise simplistic façade that the verandah should be widened to be at least 2.4m. As discussed above, this can be achieved by reducing the vehicle aisle width of the adjacent car parking area at the frontage of the site and reducing the length of proposed Building 1. The proposed materials, revised verandah treatment and shopfront glazing will facilitate a commercial appearance when viewed from Peisley Street which is considered to be complimentary to the built form in this precinct. Condition of consent addressing matters in relation to the size of the verandah is attached to the Notice of Approval.

The proposed landscaping will assist to a degree in screening and softening the visual impact of the development. Landscaping in front of proposed building No 1 along the site frontage is considered to be acceptable and in compliance with the DCP. Tree selection includes species that are commensurate with the height of proposed Building 1.

As discussed above, additional landscaping is recommended directly in front of the Hertz rental business. The submitted plans show a car display area in the front setback area. Opportunity exists to provide a 3.5m wide landscape bed in front of the display area consistent with the approach to landscaping along the frontage of the southern part of the subject site. Attached is a condition of consent requiring an amended landscape plan addressing this matter.

Subject to the implementation of the recommended conditions of consent, the visual impacts of the development will be acceptable.

Noise

Generally, the ambient noise levels of the locality would be typical of an industrial situation. Sources of background noise can be mostly attributed to traffic along the road network and from activity on other industrial sites within the precinct. The applicant submits that the following measures may serve to mitigate potential noise impacts:

· The site is well separated from dwellings. The nearest residential neighbourhood is some 400 metres to the north of the site in Gardiner Road and Peisley Street.

· The concrete tilt panel construction for the proposed building offers noise attenuation qualities.

· Manufacturing/workshop activities associated with Tenancies 3-5 will be confined entirely within the building.

· The workshop openings address the internal vehicle areas to the east and north and therefore not directly towards the adjacent (albeit industrial) land uses to the west.

· Manufacturing/workshop activities associated with Tenancies 3-5 will operate during the daytime period when background noise levels are typically higher.

· Council may impose a condition to limit the hours of operation for the development to 7.00am to 10.00pm (i.e. no operation involving potential noise-making activities within the night time period 10.00pm to 7.00am as defined by the NSW Industrial Noise Policy unless an acoustic assessment is undertaken to assess potential noise impacts).

The anticipated noise impact from the development is considered to be acceptable. The attached Notice of Approval includes conditions which limit noise generation from the subject site and places controls on the hours of operation.

Waste Management

The applicant advises that waste management for the site will entail the following:

· storage in bins for recycling or for disposal via Council’s normal service

· material unable to be recycled or disposed of via Orange City Council’s waste management depot may be stored in appropriate receptacles for collection by approved contractors for disposal or recycling elsewhere

· should a future use generate liquid trade waste, the operator will be required to enter into a trade waste agreement with Council

No specific detail of where storage bins for each tenancy will be located on the site has been submitted with the application. Attached is a condition of consent that requires the preparation of a Waste Management Plan for site. A condition is also attached that prohibits storage of waste containers on parking spaces and driveways.

Social and Economic Impacts

The proposed development has the potential to generate positive social and economic effects. The proposal has the potential to increase the supply of, and expand choices of industrial premises within the City of Orange and increase employment opportunities both during the construction period and, more importantly, once the proposed tenancies are operational.

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

There are no aspects of the site to indicate that it is not suitable for the proposed development. The proposed development will be connected to the existing sewer, town water and stormwater mains in accordance with Council’s normal requirements. The slope of the land allows drainage to sewer and stormwater infrastructure without the need for additional easements. Power, gas and telecommunication services are available. The extension of these services for the proposed development would be to the requirements of the relevant supply authorities.

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. 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 the LEP. A section 79C assessment of the development indicates that the development is acceptable in this instance. Attached is a draft Notice of Approval outlining a range of conditions considered appropriate to ensure that the development proceeds in an acceptable manner.

COMMENTS

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

Attachments

1 Notice of Approval, D15/4393 ⇩

2 Plans, D15/4017 ⇩

Sustainable Development Committee 3 March 2015

2.4 Development Application DA 348/2014(1) - 21 and 23-25 Peisley Street

Attachment 1 Notice of Approval

leaflogo

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

Development Application No DA 348/2014(1)

NA15/ Container PR9635

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 81(1)

Development Application
Applicant Name:	Mr FC Brooking
Applicant Address:	C/- Peter Basha Planning & Development PO Box 1827 ORANGE NSW 2800
Owner’s Name:	Mr FC Brooking and Fred & May Pty Ltd
Land to Be Developed:	Lot 16 SEC 11 DP 6662 and Lot 52 DP 541772 - 21 and 23-25 Peisley Street, Orange
Proposed Development:	Warehouse or Distribution Centre, Hardware and Building Supplies, General Industry, Vehicle Repair Station, Vehicle Sales or Hire Premises, and Signage

Building Code of Australia building classification:	As determined by Certifier

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conditions

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

(a) Plans by Peter Basha Planning & Development: 14063DA (sheets 1 and 2);

Plans by HRP Design Pty Ltd: BROK09DA (sheets 1-7)

(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.

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

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

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

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

(5) Landscaping of the site shall incorporate a 3.5m wide landscaped area along the frontage of the site immediately in front of the proposed vehicle display area for the Hertz vehicle sales or hire premises. The landscaping shall include a mix of trees and understorey plantings similar to that proposed for the landscaping in front of Building 1. The proposed trees shall at maturity have a comparable height to the height of the buildings in existence on the subject site. An amended detailed plan showing landscaping shall be submitted to and approved by Councils Manager Development Assessments prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

(6) The applicant shall submit amended plans with a Construction Certificate application indicating a verandah width of 2.4m on the façade of proposed Building 1. The increase width of the verandah may be achieved by reducing the width of the aisle within the carpark and shortening proposed Building 1. The width of the aisle shall comply with the requirements of AS 2890.1:2004.

(7) A Waste management plan shall shall be submitted to and approved by Councils Manager Development Assessments prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. The Waste Management Plan shall show the location of all waste storage facilities within the site.

(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) An approval under Section 68 of the Local Government Act is to be sought from Orange City Council, as the Water and Sewer Authority, for water, sewer and stormwater connection. No plumbing and drainage is to commence until approval is granted.

(10) 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.

(11) Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate for the construction of the buildings, the applicant is to provide proof of lodgement of consolidation from Land and Property Information for the proposed consolidation of the two allotments known as Lot 52 DP541772 and Lot 16 DP6662.

(12) Engineering plans providing complete details of the proposed driveway and car-parking areas is to be submitted to Orange City Council or an Accredited Certifier (Categories B1, C3, C4, C6) upon application for a Construction Certificate. These plans are to provide details of levels, cross falls of all pavements, proposed sealing materials and proposed drainage works and be in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.

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

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

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

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

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

· tabulation detailing the elevation, storage volume and discharge relationships; and

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

together with copies of the data files for the model and engineering design plans of the required drainage system are to be submitted and approved by Orange City Council or an Accredited Certifier (Categories B1, C3, C4, C6) prior to the issue a Construction Certificate.

(15) Backflow Prevention Devices are to be installed to AS3500 and in accordance with Orange City Council Backflow Protection Guidelines. Details of the Backflow Prevention Devices are to be submitted to Orange City Council prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

PRIOR TO WORKS COMMENCING

(16) 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.

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

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

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

(19) 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.

(20) 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.

(21) 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.

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

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

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

The car parking and vehicle manoeuvring areas may be constructed in stages as follows:

Stage 1 – area generally defined as parking spaces 1 to 35 and adjacent manoeuvring areas contained between the buildings. The remaining vehicle manoeuvring area is to consist of gravel hardstand as a minimum standard;

Stage 2 – area generally defined as parking spaces 36 to 42 and adjacent manoeuvring areas. The remaining vehicle manoeuvring area is to consist of gravel hardstand as a minimum standard;

Stage 3 - area generally defined as parking spaces 43 to 56 and remaining manoeuvring area.

(25) The existing kerb and gutter layback that is not proposed to be used is to be replaced with standard concrete kerb and gutter and the footpath area reinstated to the requirements of the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.

(26) Heavy-duty concrete kerb and gutter laybacks and footpath crossings are to be constructed for the entrances to the proposed development as part of stage 1. The construction of the laybacks and footpath crossings are to be as required by the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.

(27) The existing 150mm diameter sewer main that crosses the site is to be accurately located. Where the main is positioned under any proposed building work, measures are to be taken in accordance with Orange City Council Policy - Building over and/or adjacent to sewers ST009.

(28) The existing water and sewerage services serving Lots 16 and 52 are to be consolidated into single sewer and water connections serving the consolidated allotment. Where existing connections are not proposed to be used as part of this development, are to be sealed off at their respective Council mains.

(29) All parking areas are to have hard standing all-weather surfaces and be in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

(30) Off-street car parking spaces shall be provided upon the site in accordance with the approved plans, the provisions of Development Control Plan 2004, and be constructed in accordance with the requirements of Council's Development and Subdivision Code prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

(31) Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans.

(32) The hours of operation shall be limited to 7.00am to 7.00pm Monday to Friday and 8.00am to 1.00pm Saturdays.

(33) All signage attached to the front security fence addressing Peisley Street shall be removed prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

(34) 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.

(35) 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.

(36) Where Orange City Council is not the Principal Certifying Authority, a final inspection of water connection, sewer and stormwater drainage shall be undertaken by Orange City Council and a Final Notice of Inspection issued, prior to the issue of either an interim or a final Occupation Certificate.

(37) An easement, to drain sewage and to provide Council access for maintenance of sewerage works, a minimum of 2.0 metres wide is to be created over the proposed sewerage works. Evidence that the easement has been registered is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to issuing of an Occupation Certificate.

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

(39) Certification from Orange City Council is required to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate stating that all works relating to connection of the development to Council assets, works on Public Land, stormwater, sewer and water reticulation mains and footpaths have been carried out in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code and the foregoing conditions.

(40) Prior to the issue of either an interim or final occupation certificate for stage 1 evidence shall be provided to demonstrate that the plan of subdivision to consolidate Lots 16 DP 6662 and Lot 52 DP 541772 has been lodged with NSW Land and Property Information.

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

MATTERS FOR THE ONGOING PERFORMANCE AND OPERATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT

(42) The “Hertz” signage to which Part 3 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Advertising and Signage) applies shall be limited to a period of not more than 15 years. The applicant shall either remove the subject sign following the expiration of 15 years from the date of this notice or alternatively seek further development consent.

(43) All vehicles including workers vehicles associated with any business carried out on the site shall park on the subject land.

(44) The storage of waste containers on parking spaces and driveways is prohibited.

(45) Landscaping shall be permanently maintained to the satisfaction of Council's Manager Development Assessments.

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

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

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

*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 March 2015

Sustainable Development Committee 3 March 2015

2.5 Development Application DA 369/2014(1) - 2 Japonica Place

TRIM REFERENCE: 2015/398

AUTHOR: Kelly Walker, Town Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Council's consent is sought for the construction of a dual occupancy on the vacant site at Lot 187 DP 1201168, known as 2 Japonica Place, Orange. The single storey dwellings will contain two-three bedrooms, two bathrooms, open plan living, kitchen and dining areas, a separate living room and attached double garage.

The proposal also involves a two lot Torrens subdivision of the land. The proposed lots are defined as "Cottage Lots" (350-500m²) under Orange Development Control Plan (DCP) 2004. Proposed Lot 1 will have primary frontage and access off Japonica Place and secondary frontage to Botanic Way. Proposed Lot 2 will have frontage and access to Botanic Way.

The following assessment raises concerns in relation to adverse daylighting and overshadowing impacts. The slope of the site and the alteration to the existing levels to create building pads for each dwelling results in Dwelling 2 being 1.53m higher than Dwelling 1. The orientation and siting of the dwellings close to one another will result in the principal living and outdoor areas of Dwelling 1 being ‘boxed in’ without adequate sunlight.

Also Dwelling 1 has insufficient setback from the street, and as no eave has been provided along the northern elevation, it has a discordant design that impacts on the streetscape.

It is noted that the submitted drawings and shadow diagrams are incorrect in terms of scales and dimensions, and the impacts are greater than they show. These impacts demonstrate that the proposed dual occupancy is an over-development for this site. Should Council consider these impacts to be unacceptable, then Council should refuse the application. Nevertheless, attached is a draft Notice of Approval which includes a range of conditions to ensure that the development operates in a responsible manner and impacts are minimised as far as possible.

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 369/2014(1) for Dual Occupancy and Subdivision (two lot residential) at Lot 187 DP 1201168 - 2 Japonica Place, 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 the construction of two dwellings as a dual occupancy and a two lot subdivision at Lot 187 DP 1201168 - 2 Japonica Place, Orange, as described in the proposal below.

THE PROPOSAL

The proposal involves construction of two dwellings as a dual occupancy and a two lot subdivision. The proposal can be summarised in the following table:

STAGE 1			STAGE 2
Dual Occupancy			Subdivision
Dwelling	Gross Floor Area	Description	Lot	Area
1	160.4m²	2 bedroom dwelling	1	416.6²
2	168.7m²	3 bedroom dwelling	2	388.3²

Dwellings

The single storey dwellings will contain two-three bedrooms, two bathrooms, open plan living, kitchen and dining areas, a separate living room, and attached double garage. External finishes include brick walls, Colorbond roof sheeting, aluminium windows and panel lift garage doors. Landscaping will be provided to the street frontages, and Colorbond and timber paling fencing will be used.

Torrens Subdivision

The applicant is proposing a two lot Torrens subdivision "Cottage Lots" (350-500m²). Proposed Lot 1 will have primary frontage and access off Japonica Place and secondary frontage to Botanic Way. Proposed Lot 2 will have frontage and access to Botanic Way.

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

Section 5A Assessment

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

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,

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

The application is considered to be consistent with the relevant aims of the LEP 2011.

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 land contains easements in the form of sewer drains; however, the proposed development will not affect the continued operation of those easements. Council staff are not aware of the title of the subject property being affected by any of the other restrictions above.

Mapping

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

Land Zoning Map:	Land zoned R1 General Residential
Lot Size Map:	No Minimum Lot Size
Heritage Map:	Not a heritage item or conservation area
Height of Buildings Map:	No building height limit
Floor Space Ratio Map:	No floor space limit
Terrestrial Biodiversity Map:	No biodiversity sensitivity on the site
Groundwater Vulnerability Map:	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 located within the R1 General Residential zone. The proposed development is defined as a dual occupancy and subdivision under OLEP 2011. A dual occupancy (detached) means:

two detached dwellings on one lot of land, but does not include a secondary dwelling.

Pursuant to section 4B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act subdivision of land means:

the division of land into two or more parts that, after the division, would be obviously adapted for separate occupation, use or disposition.

Dual occupancies and subdivision are permissible in the R1 General Residential zone with the consent of Council. This application is seeking consent.

Clause 2.3 of LEP 2011 references the Objectives for each zone in LEP 2011. The objectives for land zoned R1 General Residential are as follows:

· To provide for the housing needs of the community.

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

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

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

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

The proposed development would act to provide additional housing stock and variation in housing types and density within the City. The subject site is within close proximity to routes used by public transport and is also in close proximity to shops and services. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the zone.

Clause 2.6 - Subdivision - Consent Requirements

Application has been made for the subdivision of the subject land. Clause 2.6 of OLEP 2011 permits the subdivision of the subject land only with development consent.

Part 4 - Principal Development Standards

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

This clause establishes the minimum lot size required for dual occupancies and multi dwelling housing in the R1, R2 and R3 zones. The proposed dual occupancy is situated on land within the R1 General Residential zone, and this clause requires the site to have a minimum area of 800m².

The subject land is 804.9m² and therefore consistent with this clause.

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 earthworks proposed in the application are limited to the extent of cutting and filling required for the dwellings. The extent of disruption to the drainage of the site is considered to be relatively minor and will not detrimentally affect adjoining properties or receiving waterways.

The extent of the earthworks will not materially affect the potential future use or redevelopment of the site that may occur at the end of the proposed development's lifespan. The site is not in proximity to any waterway, drinking water catchment or sensitive area. Conditions may be imposed to require a sediment control plan, including silt traps and other protective measures, to ensure that loose dirt and sediment does not escape the site boundaries.

The earthworks can be appropriately supported onsite, however the change in levels and resulting finished floor levels of dwellings is considered to impact on the visual amenity and overshadowing of adjoining properties. This issue is addressed in detail in Development Control Plan 2004 Part 7 - Design Elements for Residential Development.

7.3 - Stormwater Management

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

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

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

The proposal has been designed to include permeable surfaces and will be connected to the existing stormwater mains. It is therefore considered that the post development runoff levels will be acceptable.

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.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index BASIX) applies to the subject development. The applicant has submitted a BASIX certificate in support of the development which demonstrates compliance with the State Government Water and Thermal efficiency targets. The application is consistent with the SEPP.

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 7 - Development in Residential Areas). 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.

PART 7 - RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION

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

· Lots are orientated to optimise energy-efficient principles.

The proposed lots will have a north-west to south-east orientation. The proposed development complies with the requirements of BASIX and has a ABSA Building Energy Efficiency Certificate. In particular, living room windows face north and east for solar access, private open space is orientated to the north, rooms all have natural light, and landscaping will have low water demand. That said, the slope of the site and required cut and fill will result in both dwellings being overshadowed by their boundary retaining walls and fences, and Dwelling 2 will overshadow Dwelling 1. This is covered in detail in Part 7 - Design Elements for Residential Development.

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

The proposal involves Torrens subdivision of the subject land to create the following parcels:

Proposed Lot	Site Area
1	416.6m²
2	388.3m²

The proposed lots are defined as "Cottage Lots" (350-500m²) pursuant to DCP 2004. Sufficient daylighting cannot be provided to the living rooms and private open space areas, and a detailed assessment of solar access and privacy for each lot has been carried out below under the heading Part 7 - Design Elements for Residential Development.

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

The proposed lots will be fully serviced and have direct frontage and access to Japonica Place or Botanic Way. Council’s Technical Services Division has raised no objections to the planned development and has attached relevant conditions in relation to servicing of the site.

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

The subdivision design and construction will be required to comply with the Orange Development and Subdivision Code. A condition of consent is required to ensure compliance.

PART 7 - DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

The DCP sets out Planning Outcomes in regard to Urban Residential Development, which are addressed in detail below. It is noted that submitted plans and diagrams are incorrect in terms of scale and dimensions, and this matter is discussed in the relevant sections below.

Neighbourhood Character

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

· Site layout and building design enables the:

- creation of attractive residential environments with clear character and identity

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

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

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

It is considered that the proposal will be reasonably consistent with the pattern of development that will characterise the “Northwest Orange” residential neighbourhood once all of the vacant blocks are developed, that being contemporary, single storey detached dwellings at the site frontage. The proposal will provide for a continuation of residential land use, albeit in a more compact form. Whilst the scale of the proposed dwellings is slightly smaller than typical residential development in the Gardens Estate area, they will appropriately relate to recently consented to dwellings in nearby streets. The proposed landscaping will provide integration of the dwellings in the developing streetscape and improve the visual impact of hardstand vehicle areas. The character and identity of the development are influenced by the building design, which maintains a common theme and consistent use of materials.

Building Appearance

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

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

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

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

The external finishes are considered appropriate in this neighbourhood. The building design and detailing will complement dwellings recently consented to, and currently being constructed in this locality. Proposed Dwelling 1 will address Japonica Place, with kitchen, living room and bedroom windows facing the street, and landscaping in the front garden on both the Japonica Place and Botanic Way frontages. The attached double garage for Dwelling 1 will be set back slightly behind the main front dwelling façade, which is satisfactory. However the northern (side) elevation of the garage does not have an eave, which results in a design which is discordant with the dwelling and future neighbouring dwellings.

Proposed Dwelling 2 will address Botanic Way, with living room and bedroom windows facing the street, and landscaping in the front garden. The attached double garage for Dwelling 2 will not be set back behind the main front dwelling façade, which is contrary to DCP requirements. However, when both dwellings are viewed in context of one another and the curve of the street is taken into account, the garage of Dwelling 2 is set behind the side building line of Dwelling 1 and in line with the stepping design of the front building line of Dwelling 2. Both garages will comprise less than 50% of the dwellings’ frontages, in compliance with the DCP requirements.

Setbacks

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

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

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

The dimensions of the setbacks shown on the submitted plans are incorrect, and the plans were not submitted printed to scale. When measured off the scaled drawings, proposed Dwelling 1 will have a front setback from Japonica Place of 4.1m from the front porch, and 4.4m to the main frontage, with the attached garage set back 5.4m. The DCP guidelines specify a minimum setback of 4.5m for new dwellings, and once all the dwellings in the street are completed, Dwelling 1 will be closer to the street, and as such will have adverse visual impacts on the streetscape and neighbourhood character. The secondary setbacks to Botanic Way are considered satisfactory.

Proposed Dwelling 2 will have a front setback of 5.2m from the front porch and 4.95m to the closest point on the front façade. As established above, the garage is forward of the building line with a setback of 5.6m. The proposed front setbacks are considered satisfactory for Dwelling 2.

It is considered that the development is inconsistent with the planning outcomes for setbacks, and a condition of consent is attached which requires an amended design with Dwelling 1 set back at least 4.5m to comply with the development standards.

Fences and Walls

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcome in regard to fences and walls:

· Front fences and walls:

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

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

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

The applicant is proposing retaining walls around each of the dwellings and fences of 1.8m. No detail has been given as to exact location of these fences, but it is assumed that fences of this height are not proposed at the frontages, as fences set forward of the front building line will be inconsistent with DCP guidelines. A condition of consent is required to ensure no fences are placed forward of the building lines.

Visual Bulk

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcome in regard to Visual Bulk:

· Built form accords with the desired neighbourhood character of the area with:

- side and rear setbacks progressively increased to reduce bulk and overshadowing

- site coverage that retains the relatively low density landscaped character of residential areas

- building form and siting that relates to landform, with minimal land shaping (cut and fill)

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

- building to the boundary where appropriate.

The proposed dual occupancy will be single storey, which is consistent with the emerging development form of residential development in the locality. The total site area is 804.9m², with a total building area footprint of 362.6m²; which gives a site coverage of 45%. This complies with the 50% maximum site coverage requirement in the DCP. However, the site slopes 4m from north to south and will require cut and fill and retaining walls surrounding Dwelling 1 to achieve the building platforms required for the slab design of the dwellings. This slope, coupled with the orientation of the site and dwellings, will result in the floor level of Dwelling 2 being 1.53m higher than the floor level of Dwelling 1.

The DCP requires dwellings to be contained within the prescribed envelopes generated by planes projected at 45^o over the site commencing 2.5m above existing ground level from each side and rear boundary. The development will not be contained within these planes as Dwelling 2 is located too near the western and northern boundaries. The applicant justifies this encroachment by stating that it will not have an impact as it is only the eaves and gutters that do not comply. When taking into account the alteration to existing site levels and the resulting difference in floor levels between the dwellings, it is considered that this non-compliance will create adverse visual dominance impacts to dwelling 1.

The planning outcome requires that side setbacks are progressively increased to reduce bulk and overshadowing. However, the entire length of the side elevation of Dwelling 2 is set very close to the boundary with Dwelling 1, and with a much higher ground and floor level. It is considered that the building form and siting of the dwellings do not relate to the landform of the site, and that more than minor cut and fill is required to obtain the building pads for each dwelling. Furthermore, the retaining walls and fences will also create adverse visual bulk and overshadowing impacts, which are discussed in more detail in Walls and Boundaries and Daylight and Sunlight below.

This issue was discussed with Council’s Development Engineers as to whether floor levels and ground level could be amended; that is, to reduce the difference in levels between the dwellings to achieve compliance and reduce the adverse impacts. However, the proposed levels for Dwelling 2 achieve natural drainage to the street, and if this dwelling was to be lowered an interlot drain would need to be provided on the lot with a 2m easement running through Lot 1.

This would require a complete redesign of Lot 1, including setting Dwelling 1 away from its northern boundary and a revised layout and footprint of the dwelling to comply with front and side setbacks whilst maintaining sufficient private outdoor space and landscaping to the frontage. In its current form, the proposed dual occupancy is considered to be an overdevelopment of the site.

Walls and Boundaries

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

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

- the privacy of neighbouring dwellings and private open space

- the access to daylight reaching adjoining properties

- the impact of boundary walls on neighbours.

The retaining wall on the boundary between Dwellings 1 and 2 is between 0.9 and 1.1m in height and will have a 1.8m Colorbond fence sitting on top of it, giving a total height of between 2.7 and 2.9m. When considering the visual bulk envelope being 2.5m projecting 45^o, the fence being up to 2.9m in height on the boundary represents a significant encroachment on Dwelling 1. This high fence will be the outlook from the living room windows and private open space areas of Dwelling 1, creating a ‘boxed in’ feeling, which is not considered acceptable. Dwelling 2 will also have a poor outlook of its own fence on top of a retaining wall. Dwelling 2 will sit higher than the neighbouring site to the north, however due to the site orientation, it is unlikely to impact upon the future neighbouring dwelling.

It is considered that the proposed dual occupancy is inconsistent with the planning outcomes for walls and boundaries, and will create visual bulk and overshadowing impacts to both dwellings. The suggestion earlier to alter levels would minimise the impacts to Dwelling 1, but would be unlikely to improve the outlook for Dwelling 2 due to the slope of the land.

Daylight and Sunlight

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcome in regard to Daylight and Sunlight:

· Buildings are sited and designed to ensure:

- daylight to habitable rooms in adjacent dwellings is not significantly reduced

- overshadowing of neighbouring secluded open spaces or main living area windows is not significantly increased

- consideration of Council’s Energy Efficiency Code.

Overshadowing of Dwellings

The applicant has submitted shadow diagrams, however they do not demonstrate whether the development will comply with the above planning outcome. Based on the slope of the site, and the orientation and layout of the dwellings, Dwelling 1 is unlikely to receive much sunlight, and Dwelling 2 will only receive some midday sunlight to its living room windows.

Overshadowing of Private Open Space

In order to provide open space that the occupant can use and enjoy, the DCP requires sunlight to be available to at least 40% of the main area of open space for both dwellings within the development and on neighbouring properties for at least three hours between 9am and 3pm. The submitted shadowing diagrams are inaccurate as they do not allow for the change in slope, ridgelines of the dwellings, and retaining walls and boundary fences, therefore they do not provide the correct shadow lengths. This is magnified by scale errors on the drawings. Dwelling 1 will not comply with the guidelines, and compliance for Dwelling 2 is unlikely.

As a result of not being able to comply with the guidelines for daylight and sunlight to living areas and private open space areas, there will be significant overshadowing impacts to both dwellings, particularly for Dwelling 1 which will be ‘boxed in’ as discussed previously in this report. While alteration of levels would help to provide more sunlight and daylight to Dwelling 1, it would be unlikely to improve light levels for Dwelling 2.

Views

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

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

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

The subject site is not within an important view corridor, however it does have views toward Mount Canobolas to the southwest. Due to the slope of the land and the siting of the dwellings, these views will be shared with each dwelling and with other dwellings.

Visual Privacy

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcome in regard to Visual Privacy:

· Direct overlooking of principal living areas and private open spaces of other dwellings is minimised firstly by:

- building siting and layout

- location of windows and balconies

and secondly by:

- design of windows or use of screening devices and landscaping.

Due to the slope of the land and the proposed cut and fill to facilitate the dwellings on level sites, there is the potential for visual privacy impacts between Dwelling 1 and Dwelling 2. It is considered that perimeter fencing will assist in minimising privacy impacts between the dwellings.

Acoustic Privacy

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcome in regard to Acoustic Privacy:

· Site layout and building design:

- protect habitable rooms from excessively high levels of external noise

- minimise the entry of external noise to private open space for dwellings close to major noise sources

- minimise transmission of sound through a building to affect other dwellings.

It is noted that the site adjoins Hill Street, which is a major connector road that links the established urban area to the south with the developing area in the Waratah precinct. The Council reserve between Hill Street and the site will create some separation to Dwelling 2, and the boundary fencing will help to reduce noise levels to its bedrooms. As discussed with Council’s Manager Building and Environment, this is considered acceptable.

Security

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

· The site layout enhances personal safety and minimises the potential for crime, vandalism and fear.

· The design of dwellings enables residents to survey streets, communal areas and approaches to dwelling entrances.

The siting and design of both dwellings are appropriate to maintain safety and minimise the potential for crime, vandalism and fear for residents. Habitable room windows will address public roads, thereby providing opportunities for natural surveillance. The proposed landscaping and fencing will not restrict sightlines, will provide territorial reinforcement and delineate public and private spaces. Internal access to the dwellings will be available through the garages.

Circulation and Design

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcome in regard to Circulation and Design:

· Accessways and parking areas are designed to manage stormwater.

· Accessways, driveways and open parking areas are suitably landscaped to enhance amenity while providing security and accessibility to residents and visitors.

· The site layout allows people with a disability to travel to and within the site between car parks, buildings and communal open space.

Dwellings 1 and 2 have direct street frontages to Japonica Place and Botanic Way respectively. Separate access will be provided to the proposed lots via vehicle crossings and driveways. The proposed driveways are well separated from the intersections of Japonica Place, Botanic Way and Hill Street. Reverse egress will be required for both dwellings, consistent with vehicle manoeuvring arrangements for single dwellings throughout the City.

Car Parking

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

· Parking facilities are provided, designed and located to:

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

- reduce the visual dominance of car parking areas and accessways.

· Car parking is provided with regard to the:

- the number and size of proposed dwellings

- requirements of people with limited mobility or disabilities.

In consideration of the DCP Guidelines, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory. According to the car parking table in the DCP, the development generates a parking requirement of 2.7 off-street spaces (based on 1.2 spaces for each two bedroom dwelling and 1.5 spaces for each three bedroom dwelling).

The submitted plans show provision for eight off-street parking spaces in the form of an attached double garage for each dwelling and two tandem spaces in front of the garage of each dwelling.

Private Open Space

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

· Private open space is clearly defined for private use.

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

· Private open space is:

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

– accessible from a living area of the dwelling

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

– Orientated to optimise year round use.

The following table demonstrates that each of the proposed dwellings is provided with open space that complies with the minimum requirement in terms of area.

Dwelling	Living Area (excluding garage, porches, etc)	Private Open Space Required by DCP	Private Open Space Provided	Compliance
1	123.69m²	61.8m²	64.6m²	yes
2	135.01m²	67.5m²	66.5m²	yes

All private open space is provided behind the front building line. The site plan confirms that the private open space for each residential unit will have a minimum dimension of 3m and the yards are able to provide an area of at least 5m x 5m orientated to the north, consistent with the requirements of the DCP. The internal living area for each dwelling will connect to its respective area of private open space via glass sliding doors. However, as noted previously in this report, there will be significant overshadowing impacts to the private open space area of Dwelling 1, and overshadowing impacts to the private open space area of Dwelling 2 are likely. The slope, required cut and fill and boundary retaining walls and fences will result in a poor outlook for both dwellings, particularly Dwelling 1.

Open Space and Landscaping

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

· The site layout provides open space and landscaped areas which:

– contribute to the character of the development by providing buildings in a landscaped setting

– provide for a range of uses and activities including stormwater management

– allow cost effective management.

· The landscape design specifies landscape themes consistent with the desired neighbourhood character; vegetation types and location, paving and lighting provided for access and security.

· Major existing trees are retained and protected in a viable condition whenever practicable through appropriate siting of buildings, accessways and parking areas.

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

An acceptable landscape plan has been submitted in support of the proposal, which includes plant species that will provide integration of the dwellings and driveways within the site. The proposed landscaping will include species that are considered to be suitable to the Orange area, in particular native shrubs and groundcovers, as well as hedging and trees.

Stormwater

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

· On-site drainage systems are designed to consider:

– downstream capacity and need for on-site retention, detention and re-use

– scope for on-site infiltration of water

– safety and convenience of pedestrians and vehicles

– overland flow paths.

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

Relevant conditions of consent are attached to the notice in relation to stormwater management of the site.

Erosion and Sedimentation

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

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

Cut and fill is proposed on the site, and as such an erosion and sediment control plan will be required to be prepared as part of the engineering design plans for the development. Attached is a condition of consent addressing this issue.

DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN 2012

Section 94 Development Contributions

The development has been assessed pursuant to Orange Development Contributions Plan 2012. The following table itemises the contributions payable for the proposed development. The development includes a new three bedroom dwelling and new two bedroom dwelling, and the lot has a credit for one three bedroom dwelling. As such the contribution is calculated on the basis of one new two-bed dwelling.

It is noted that Dwelling 1 contains a media room that has the potential to be converted into a bedroom. If this room were to be used as a bedroom, it would generate additional contributions. A condition has been placed on the consent prohibiting the use of the media room as a bedroom without modification of this consent.

The payment of $10,463.39 is to be made to Council in accordance with section 94 of the Act and the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2012 (North West Orange Urban Release Area) towards the provision of the following public facilities:

Open Space and Recreation	@ $2,693.71 x 1 additional 2 bed dwelling	2,693.71
Community and Cultural	@ $459.50 x 1 additional 2 bed dwelling	459.50
Roads and Cycleways	@ $3,329.11 x 1 additional 2 bed dwelling	3,329.11
Stormwater Drainage	@ $257.90 x 1 additional 2 bed dwelling	257.90
Local Area Facilities	@ $3,418.42 x 1 additional 2 bed dwelling	3,418.42
Plan Preparation and Administration	@ $304.75 x 1 additional 2 bed dwelling	304.75
TOTAL:		$10,463.39

The contribution will be indexed quarterly in accordance with the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2012 (North West Orange Urban Release Area).

Section 64 Water and Sewer Headworks Charges

Section 64 water and sewer headwork charges are also applicable to the proposal. Such charges are calculated at the time of release of a Construction Certificate for the proposed dual occupancy development. Attached are draft conditions requiring the payment of the required contributions prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

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

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

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

Neighbourhood Amenity

The proposed development will provide for a continuation of residential landuse, albeit in a more compact form, and will complement the function of the neighbourhood. The lack of eaves on the northern elevation of Dwelling 1, as well as its lack of setback from the street, will create a discordant design, which will have adverse impacts on the streetscape and neighbourhood amenity. A condition of consent is required to ensure that front setbacks comply for Dwelling 1 so to retain a reasonable standard of residential amenity in terms of building appearance and neighbourhood character.

Visual Impacts

It its current form, the proposed dual occupancy will have adverse visual impacts on the streetscape. In particular, Dwelling 1 is set too close to the street, not maintaining minimum setbacks, and Dwelling 2 is 1.53m higher than Dwelling 1, which makes it over dominant and causes poor outlook, visual bulk and overshadowing impacts. Retaining walls and fences also cause adverse visual bulk and overshadowing impacts to both dwellings. Furthermore, the lack of eaves on the northern elevation of Dwelling 1 will impact on the visual appearance from the street.

It is considered that the condition of consent to ensure that front setbacks comply for Dwelling 1 will improve visual amenity to the streetscape. However, most of the visual bulk impacts and the overshadowing impacts cannot be minimised unless a redesign of the proposal is undertaken to change the siting of the dwellings, the ground and floor levels, and drainage arrangements.

Traffic Impacts

The capacity of the road network in the vicinity of the site is sufficient to accommodate additional localised traffic generated by the development. As considered above, proposed parking and manoeuvring arrangements will ensure that vehicles enter and leave the site in a forward direction.

Environmental Impacts

Soil Erosion

Cumulative Impacts

The proposal is considered to be unsatisfactory in terms of cumulative impact. The siting and design of the proposed dwellings, in particular the lack of setback and lack of eaves on the side elevation of Dwelling 1, will impact on the streetscape. This is a prominent corner site where the dwellings will be visible from three streets, and due to the slope of the site and estate, they will be highly visible from the surrounding area.

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

Servicing

Council’s Technical Services Division advises that all utility services are available to the site and adequate for the proposal. The proposed development will be connected to Council’s sewer, town water and stormwater reticulations in accordance with normal requirements. Power, telephone and natural gas services will be connected to the dwellings in accordance with the requirements of the relevant supply authority. Attached is a condition of consent addressing this issue.

Physical Attributes

In its current form, the subject site is not considered to be suitable for the proposed development. In particular, the slope of the site constrains the development, and the extent of cut and fill required to create building pads for a dual occupancy results in non‑compliance with numerous guidelines in the DCP, which in turn causes adverse visual bulk, outlook and overshadowing impacts for the streetscape, the subject dwellings, and neighbouring properties.

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

PUBLIC INTEREST s79C(1)(e)

SUMMARY

The proposed development is permissible with the consent of Council. 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 not acceptable in this instance. Should Council find the impacts to the subject dwellings, neighbouring properties, and the streetscape to be adverse, then Council should refuse the application.

Attached is a draft Notice of Approval outlining a range of conditions to ensure that the development proceeds in an acceptable manner, as well as conditions which attempt to render the development more suitable and have less of an impact on neighbouring properties and the neighbourhood.

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, D15/4460 ⇩

2 Plans, D15/3874 ⇩

Sustainable Development Committee 3 March 2015

2.5 Development Application DA 369/2014(1) - 2 Japonica Place

Attachment 1 Notice of Approval

leaflogo

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

Development Application No DA 369/2014(1)

NA15/ Container PR26697

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 81(1)

Development Application
Applicant Name:	Mr I Zhang
Applicant Address:	C/- Peter Basha Planning & Development PO Box 1827 ORANGE NSW 2800
Owner’s Name:	Dinkum Exporting and Importing Pty Limited
Land to Be Developed:	Lot 187 DP 1201168 - 2 Japonica Place, Orange
Proposed Development:	Dual Occupancy and Subdivision (two lot residential)

Building Code of Australia building classification:	As determined by Certifier

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conditions

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

(a) Plans by Peter Basha, reference 14067DA, dated 29.10.2014 (4 sheets)

Drawings by designs@m reference 14-010, drawing numbers DA01-12, dated September 2014