ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

Ordinary Council Meeting

 

Agenda

 

3 November 2015

 

 

Notice is hereby given, in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 that a Ordinary meeting of ORANGE CITY COUNCIL will be held in the Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Byng Street, Orange on Tuesday, 3 November 2015 commencing at 7.00pm.

 

 

Garry Styles

General Manager

 

For apologies please contact Michelle Catlin on 6393 8246.

    

 


Council Meeting                                                                                       3 November 2015

Agenda

EVACUATION PROCEDURE

In the event of an emergency, the building may be evacuated. You will be required to vacate the building by the rear entrance and gather at the entrance to the car park. This is Council's designated emergency muster point.

Under no circumstances is anyone permitted to re-enter the building until the all clear has been given and the area deemed safe by authorised personnel.

In the event of an evacuation, a member of Council staff will assist any member of the public with a disability to vacate the building

  

1                Introduction.. 3

1.1            Apologies and Leave of Absence. 3

1.2            Opening Prayer. 3

1.3            Acknowledgement of Country. 3

1.4            Declaration of pecuniary interests, significant non-pecuniary interests and less than significant non-pecuniary interests. 3

2                Mayoral Minutes. 4

2.1            Passive Recreation Uses for Spring Creek Dam and Suma Park Dam.. 4

COUNCIL MEETING ADJOURNS FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE OPEN FORUM

COUNCIL MEETING RESUMES

3                Confirmation of Minutes of Previous Meeting.. 5

3.1            Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Orange City Council held on 20 October 2015  6

COUNCIL MEETING ADJOURNS FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE POLICY COMMITTEES

COUNCIL MEETING RESUMES

4                Notices of Motion/Notices of Rescission.. 13

4.1            Orange City Medallion by Cr Gryllis. 13

5                General Reports. 14

5.1            Consultation on Local Government Reform.. 14

5.2            Section 94 Orange Development Contributions Plan 2015. 21

5.3            Development Application DA 218/2015(1) - 118 Lysterfield Road. 23

6                Closed Meeting - See Closed Agenda.. 84

6.1            Construction of New Emergency Helicopter Hangar - Tender. 85

6.2            2015-2016 Sewer Rehabilitation Tender. 86

7                Resolutions from closed meeting.. 87

 


Council Meeting                                                                                       3 November 2015

1       Introduction

1.1     Apologies and Leave of Absence

1.2     Opening Prayer

1.3     Acknowledgement of Country

I would like to acknowledge the Wiradjuri people who are the Traditional Custodians of the Land. I would also like to pay respect to the Elders both past and present of the Wiradjuri Nation and extend that respect to other Aboriginal Australians who are present.

1.4     Declaration of pecuniary interests, significant non-pecuniary interests and less than significant non-pecuniary interests

The provisions of Chapter 14 of the Local Government Act, 1993 (the Act) regulate the way in which Councillors and designated staff of Council conduct themselves to ensure that there is no conflict between their private interests and their public role.

The Act prescribes that where a member of Council (or a Committee of Council) has a direct or indirect financial (pecuniary) interest in a matter to be considered at a meeting of the Council (or Committee), that interest must be disclosed as soon as practicable after the start of the meeting and the reasons given for declaring such interest.

As members are aware, the provisions of the Local Government Act restrict any member who has declared a pecuniary interest in any matter from participating in the discussion or voting on that matter, and requires that member to vacate the Chamber.

Council’s Code of Conduct provides that if members have a non-pecuniary conflict of interest, the nature of the conflict must be disclosed. The Code of Conduct also provides for a number of ways in which a member may manage non pecuniary conflicts of interest.

Recommendation

It is recommended that Councillors now disclose any conflicts of interest in matters under consideration by the Council at this meeting.

 

 


Council Meeting                                                                                       3 November 2015

 

 

2       Mayoral Minutes

2.1     Passive Recreation Uses for Spring Creek Dam and Suma Park Dam

TRIM REFERENCE:        2015/2793

 

 

Mayoral Minute

There is an opportunity to investigate the use of the Spring Creek Reservoir and Suma Park Dam for passive recreation.

 

Recommendation

That Council investigate passive recreation uses for the Spring Creek Dam and Suma Park Dam.

 

 

 

John Davis
Mayor

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

These are significant Council resources on the edge of the City that could be a great addition to the City’s passive recreation areas. While there was some controversy around rowing on Spring Creek Dam, it now proceeds without issue.

STAFF COMMENT

A preliminary investigation would look at issues around what consent might be required, water quality, access, impacts on neighbours, security, workplace, health and safety and the management of variable water levels on recreational uses. 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

If the opportunity for passive recreation on these dams is feasible a further report would come to Council detailing future assessment works and potential capital works and the costs of that work.

 

 

         


Council Meeting                                                                                       3 November 2015

 

 

3       Confirmation of Minutes of Previous Meeting

RECOMMENDATION

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Orange City Council held on 20 October 2015 (copies of which were circulated to all members) be and are hereby confirmed as a true and accurate record of the proceedings of the Council meeting held on 20 October 2015.

 

Attachments

1        Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Orange City Council held on 20 October 2015



ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

 

MINUTES OF THE

Ordinary Council Meeting

HELD IN Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Byng Street, Orange

ON 20 October 2015

COMMENCING AT 7.00pm


 1      Introduction

Attendance

Cr J Davis OAM (Mayor), Cr C Gryllis (Deputy Mayor), Cr A Brown, Cr K Duffy, Cr R Gander, Cr J Hamling, Cr N Jones, Cr R Kidd, Cr S Munro, Cr G Taylor, Cr J Whitton

General Manager, Director Corporate and Commercial Services, Director Development Services, Director Community, Recreation and Cultural Services, Director Technical Services,  Manager Administration and Governance, Manager Corporate and Community Relations, Works Manager, Transport Asset Engineer

 

 

RESOLVED - 15/478                                                                            Cr C Gryllis/Cr R Gander

That Council allow the meeting to be recorded by WIN Television.

 

 

1.1     APOLOGIES

 

RESOLVED - 15/479                                                                            Cr J Hamling/Cr C Gryllis

That the apologies be accepted from Cr R Turner for the Council Meeting of Orange City Council on 20 October 2015.

 

1.2     OPENING PRAYER

Garry McKeown of St Mary and St Joseph Church led the Council in prayer.

 

1.3     ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY


 

 

1.4     Declaration of pecuniary interests, significant non-pecuniary interests and less than significant non-pecuniary interests

Item 4.1 Support of Regional News Services by CR Gryllis

Cr J Hamling declared pecuniary interest in Item 4.1 as an employee of WIN Television.

Item 4.3 Rail-Coach – Local Bus Interchange by Cr Jones

Cr K Duffy declared a significant non-pecuniary interest in Item 4.3 as an employee of Orange Buslines.

 

2       Mayoral Minutes

RESOLVED - 15/480                                                                           Cr R Gander/Cr S Munro

That Late Item 2.1 Fit for the Future be dealt with as a matter of urgency.

 

 

 

2.1     Fit for the Future

TRIM Reference:        2015/2782

RESOLVED - 15/481                                                                                 Cr J Davis/Cr C Gryllis

That Orange City Council

1        Confirms it is prepared to consider merger opportunities, and that urgent discussions be held with the NSW State Government, neighbouring councils and other perspective merger partners.

2        Prepares a submission on the IPART report on Fit for the Future.

 

   

 

3       Confirmation of Minutes of Previous Meeting

RESOLVED - 15/482                                                                           Cr R Gander/Cr S Munro

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Orange City Council held on 6 October 2015 (copies of which were circulated to all members) be and are hereby confirmed as a true and accurate record of the proceedings of the Council meeting held on 6 October 2015.

 

 


 

 

4       Notices of Motion/Notices of Rescission

4.1     Support for Regional News Services by Cr Gryllis

TRIM Reference:        2015/2561

Cr J Hamling declared a pecuniary interest in Item 4.1 as an employee of WIN Television, left the Chamber, and did not participate in the voting or debate on this item.

RESOLVED - 15/483                                                                             Cr C Gryllis/Cr S Munro

That Orange City Council writes to Prime Minister The Hon Malcolm Turnbull, Minister for Communications Senator The Hon Mitch Fifield and Member for Calare The Hon John Cobb MP backing media reform that gives greater support to regional news services.

 

 

 

4.2     Community Use - NSW Lands Office by Cr Jones

TRIM Reference:        2015/2668

RESOLVED - 15/484                                                                                  Cr N Jones/Cr J Davis

That Orange City Council prepare a proposal for community use of the NSW Lands Office in Kite Street should the NSW Government decide at some time in the future to relocate current services, thereby leaving the building vacant.

 

 

 

4.3     Rail-Coach-Local Bus Interchange by Cr Jones

TRIM Reference:        2015/2669

Cr K Duffy declared a significant non-pecuniary interest in Item 4.3 as an employee of Orange Buslines, left the Chamber, and did not participate in the voting or debate on this item.

RESOLVED - 15/485                                                                               Cr N Jones/Cr C Gryllis

That Orange City Council

1          Seeks a meeting with Member for Orange, Mr Andrew Gee and CEO of NSW TrainLink, Mr Robert Mason, to investigate the opportunity to progress the previously announced upgrade of the Orange Railway Station to a “transport interchange”

2          Explores the concept of including the local bus service in this upgraded interchange.

 

 


 

 

5       General Reports

5.1     Statement of Investments - September 2015

TRIM Reference:        2015/2619

RESOLVED - 15/486                                                                              Cr K Duffy/Cr R Gander

1        That Council receives the Statement of Investments as at 30 September 2015.

2        That Council receives and adopts the certification of the Responsible Accounting Officer.

 

 

 

5.2     Recommendations and Resolutions from Policy Committees

TRIM Reference:        2015/2623

RESOLVED - 15/487                                                                             Cr C Gryllis/Cr S Munro

1        That the resolutions made by the Planning and Development Committee at its meeting held on 6 October 2015 be noted.

2        That the resolutions made by the Employment and Economic Development Policy Committee at its meeting held 6 October 2015 be noted.

3        That the resolutions made by the Infrastructure Policy Committee at its meeting held on 6 October 2015 be noted.

4        That the resolutions made by the Sport and Recreation Policy Committee at its meeting held on 6 October 2015 be noted.

5        That the resolutions made by the Environmental Sustainability Policy Committee at its meeting held on 6 October 2015 be noted.

6        That the resolutions made by the Finance Policy Committee at its meeting held on 6 October 2015 be noted.

7        That the resolutions made by the Services Policy Committee at its meeting held on 6 October 2015 be noted.

 

 

 

5.3     Outstanding Questions Taken on Notice

TRIM Reference:        2015/2624

RESOLVED - 15/488                                                                           Cr J Whitton/Cr S Munro

That the information provided in the report by the Manager Administration and Governance on Questions Taken on Notice be acknowledged.

 

 


 

 

QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE                                                                                                  

Cr Hamling requested a report investigating the possibility of installing play equipment into Wentworth Reserve.

Cr Kidd requested maintenance of the swings and BBQ area at Lake Canobolas be undertaken. This will be entered as a works request.

Cr Taylor requested a check of the play equipment in Newman Park and investigation into the possibility of installing additional equipment.

Cr Kidd requested information on when the Huntley Road access to the new Hospital will be open.

 

 

5.4     Request For Financial Assistance

TRIM Reference:        2015/2629

RESOLVED - 15/489                                                                               Cr K Duffy/Cr S Munro

1        That Council’s contribution to TEDxOrange of $2,500 to be funded from the Major Promotions budget, leaving a remaining balance of $381 for the remainder of 2015/16 financial year.

2        That the waiver of Aquatic Centre fees to ODEEP $280, and Orange Local Ability Links $500, be funded as a reduction to the Aquatic Centre income, as the General Donations budget has been fully expended.

3        That the reduction of Function Centre venue hire fees of $650 to the Rotary Club of Orange – Daybreak, be funded as a reduction to the Function Centre income, as the General Donations budget has been fully expended.

 

 

 

5.5     Exhibition of Local and Regional Artists

TRIM Reference:        2015/2726

RESOLVED - 15/490                                                                             Cr C Gryllis/Cr S Munro

1        That Council acknowledge the information contained in the report.

2        That a local artist exhibition be held 11 June to 3 July 2016 in Alan Sisley Gallery.

 

 


 

 

5.6     Mission Australia

TRIM Reference:        2015/2595

RESOLVED - 15/491                                                                           Cr G Taylor/Cr J Whitton

That Council provide $30,000 to Mission Australia’s Benjamin Short Grove Aged Facility, to be funded from the Jobs Creation Budget.

 

 

 

5.7     Classification of Land - 230 Phillip Street

TRIM Reference:        2015/2628

RESOLVED - 15/492                                                                            Cr R Gander/Cr C Gryllis

1        That Council re-classify 230 Phillip Street (Lot 24 DP 1035913) from Operational Land to Community land, in accordance with Section 33 of the Local Government Act 1993

2        That Council prepare an amendment to Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 to re-classify 230 Phillip Street (Lot 24 DP 1035913) from Community Land to Operational Land, to include the specific provision that on commencement of the Plan the land ceases to be a Public Reserve in accordance with Section 30 the Local Government Act 1993.

 

 

5.8     Lords Place Line-Marked Parking Spaces

TRIM Reference:        2015/866

RESOLVED - 15/493                                                                                  Cr K Duffy/Cr R Kidd

1        That Council retain the line marking of rear to kerb parking spaces and existing signage in that area of Lords Place between Summer Street and Kite Street.

2        That Council’s parking attendants not issue penalty notices for the offence “Not parking wholly within the parking bay” in the area of Lords Place between Summer Street and Kite Street.

 

 

MATTER ARISING

RESOLVED - 15/494                                                                                 Cr R Kidd/Cr C Gryllis

That a report be provided investigating the removal of the concrete tree guards in Lords Place between Summer Street and Kite Street.

 

 


 

 

5.9     Proposed Accelerated Roads Program

TRIM Reference:        2015/2392

RESOLVED - 15/495                                                                             Cr S Munro/Cr C Gryllis

That, in conjunction with the existing road upgrading programs for the 2015/16 and 2016/17 financial years, Council implements an additional $4.93M expanded roads program over the same two year period funded from the Asset Renewal Reserve, Section 94 Recoupment and a reallocation of $3.0m of an existing loan for works on the Southern Feeder Road to Improvements to the road surface on the Northern Distributor Road.

 

 

6       Closed Meeting

Nil

The Meeting Closed at 9.07pm

This is Page Number 7 and the Final Page of the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Orange City Council held on 20 October 2015.

     


Council Meeting                                                                                       3 November 2015

 

 

4       Notices of Motion/Notices of Rescission

4.1     Orange City Medallion by Cr Gryllis

TRIM REFERENCE:        2015/2795

 

 

I, CR Chris Gryllis wish to move the following Notice of Motion at the Council Meeting of 3 November 2015:

 

Motion

That Council invite designers, artists and students to participate in a competition to design a Medallion for the City of Orange.

 

Background

It is proposed that the medallion would feature the Orange City logo on one side and a representation of the spirit and culture of Orange on the other side.

The medallion could fulfil a number of functions including recognition of significant achievements by residents or as gifts for visiting dignitaries.

A panel could be established to judge the entries and finalise the design prior to minting.

A prize of $2000 would be awarded to the winning design

 

Signed Cr Chris Gryllis

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There would be some costs associated with administering the competition but it would be principally in staff time.

Council may need some assistance in establishing a design brief for the competition to ensure entries meet specifications that could be used for a medallion.

The $2,000 could be sourced from the advertising budget. The production costs will need to be determined and budgeted as part of the process to inform Council of the costs.

Once a final design is selected a report will be brought back to Council on the costs of creating the medallion.

Council should consider the issues associated with the NSW Government’s Fit for the Future reform process as the logo and Council name could possibly change should the NSW Government determine a merger is to occur. The design process could be deferred until early 2016 given the Minister for Local Government has identified the NSW Government will determine the merger issues by the end of 2015.

 

 

   


Council Meeting                                                                                       3 November 2015

 

 

5       General Reports

5.1     Consultation on Local Government Reform

TRIM REFERENCE:        2015/2880

AUTHOR:                       Garry Styles, General Manager    

 

 

EXECUTIVE Summary

Council is aware that the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) report was released on 20 October 2015, in relation to the NSW Government’s reform agenda for local government under the Fit for the Future banner.

A response to the report must be lodged by 18 November and this report seeks Council’s response to the findings of the report and a determination of the nature of a response if one is to be prepared.

In considering the next steps for Council,  the position the NSW Government has presented on its reform process in worth noting.  It is clear that local government reform process is a key focus of the Premier and the Minister for Local Government. 

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “1.2 Our City - Information and advice provided for the decision-making process will be succinct, reasoned, accurate, timely and balanced”.

Financial Implications

Council is aware of the level of risk associated with possible mergers from information provided in briefings and in reports to Council.  The most recent briefing on 26 October 2015 raised the sorts of issues Council is considering and the options discussed at that briefing have been used to inform the recommendations in this report.

The issues Council has been briefed on revolve around the need to have accurate information to inform a full due diligent assessment of the impact of mergers.  Any assessment remains compromised due to the need to rely on information that has been formulated on different assumptions and with varying levels of completeness particularly relating to assets conditions and levels of services. 

However,  within the context of the NSW Government’s clear agenda for reform,  it is recommended that Council consider its options. 

It is further recommended that with any new submission,  Council continues to highlight the concerns of “surprises” arising post-merger and the need for the State’s assistance in achieving the completeness of a  due diligence based assessment of merging partners. 

The NSW Government has made it clear that its funding package for merging councils will only be available to councils that agree to merge.  The merger package announced is as follows:

·    Stronger Communities Fund of $5m for two councils or $10m if three or more councils merge for community infrastructure projects

·    Merger costs funding of $5m.

Orange City Council has been identified by IPART as achieving all the financial assessment criteria but failing the scale and capacity component of the Fit for Future assessment.  This labels Council “unfit”. 

The IPART report identified that Council fails the scale and capacity component as it did not demonstrate the standalone position was equal to or better than the position recommended by the Independent Local Government Panel (ILGP) for Orange and Cabonne to merge. 

The IPART report estimated a $27M saving over 20 years if Cabonne/Orange merger were to occur.  The estimated benefits determined in the Morrison Low report jointly commissioned by Cabonne and Orange as submitted with the Fit for Future report in June 2015 only considered the required 10 year period and estimated savings of up to $5.4M. Notably the Morrison Low report also identified that it was unlikely many of the benefits would be realised by Orange.

The assessment that Council is “unfit” because it hasn’t proposed a merger has future implications including being denied access to processes and funding opportunities the NSW Government is including in the ongoing reform processes outside the Fit for Future reform process.  This includes access to reduced interest financing programs and funding/grant schemes. 

Policy and Governance Implications

Council has been advised by the Premier, the Hon Mike Baird MP and the Minister for Local Government, the Hon Paul Toole MP, of a final period of consultation on the IPART assessment of Council.  This consultation will close on 18 November 2015 and a template has been provided for completion.

 

 

Recommendation

1        That Orange City Council submits a response to the IPART report by the 18 November 2015

2          That Council note the risks raised in the report relating to the inability to access NSW Government funding packages within the Fit for Future reform process and to ongoing funding/financial assistance packages and operational programs unless councils agree to merge

3        That Council continues to negotiate with Blayney Shire Council and Cabonne Council advising of a willingness to merge.

 


 

further considerations

The recommendation of this report has been assessed against Council’s other key risk categories and the following comments are provided:

 

Service Delivery

Issues of costs are directly related to service delivery. A process to fully evaluate the impacts of varying levels of service of a merged entity will be required should any merger proceed. Council has identified that substantial work is required to fully assess the assessment of assets as this issue is a critical matter to realise service and cost management improvements.

Employees

Council has previously been advised of the Local Government Act 1993 clauses regarding the preservation of positions in towns of less than 5,000 persons in merger situations. The Act also includes protection for staff for three years relating to forced redundancies.

Stakeholders

The NSW Government’s reform agenda has created stakeholders in this process that include the State, other councils across the Centroc area (relating to the Joint Organisation proposal to replace the region of councils), County Councils and the community.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Council at its meeting held on 20 October 2015, resolved:

 

RESOLVED                                                                                                Cr J Davis/Cr C Gryllis

That Orange City Council

1        Confirms it is prepared to consider merger opportunities, and that urgent discussions be held with the NSW State Government, neighbouring councils and other perspective merger partners.

2        Prepares a submission on the IPART report on Fit for the Future.

 

 

The Independent Local Government Review Panel (ILGRP) recommended Orange merge with Cabonne and/or Blayney.”

 

Following the release of the IPART report the NSW Government stated:

 

“For councils that are assessed as being not fit due to scale and capacity, or who neighbour a council that was not fit due to scale and capacity, the Government would also like to know, through the online portal, the merger preferences of these councils.  Funding is available for mergers agreed to by councils and the NSW Government.”

 

And

 

“27 of our regional councils that were found not fit had a viable merger proposal that they did not act on. There is now an opportunity for these councils to reconsider the benefits of merging.”

In relation to Orange City Council, IPART found the following:

 

Fit for the Future – NOT FIT

·    The council does not satisfy the scale and capacity criterion.

·    The council satisfies the financial criteria overall. It satisfies the sustainability, infrastructure and service management and efficiency criteria.

·    Scale and capacity is a threshold criterion which councils must satisfy to be Fit for the Future (FFTF), therefore the council is not fit.

 

Scale and capacity – does not satisfy

·    The council did not demonstrate that its proposal to stand alone would be as good as or better than the ILGRP preferred merger. The efficiency improvements in the council’s proposal can be realised under the merger option. In addition the merger option would provide significant further benefits.

·    Based on the business case submitted by Orange on a merger with Cabonne, our analysis suggests the merger could produce benefits of $27m over 20 years (including the Government grant). Morrison Low noted that the inclusion of Blayney in this merger would be expected to generate even higher benefits, although it did not research this option.

·    Our analysis is consistent with the ILGRP’s preferred option for Orange to merge.

 

Sustainability – satisfies

·    The council satisfies the criterion for sustainability based on its forecast to meet the benchmarks for the operating performance ratio and the own source revenue ratio by 2019-20.

·    We estimate that adjusting the operating performance ratio by removing interest income on section 94 Reserves would reduce the ratio by approximately 1.9 percentage points to -0.8% in 2019-20, which is below the benchmark. However, we consider the council has sufficient scope to adjust its revenue strategy to meet the benchmark.

·    The council has forecast its building and infrastructure asset renewal ratio will be 60.3% by 2019-20, which is below the benchmark. We consider this is acceptable in the context of its performance against the other ratios.

 

Infrastructure and service management – satisfies

·    The council satisfies the criterion for infrastructure and service management based on its forecast to meet the benchmarks for the infrastructure backlog, the asset maintenance ratio and the debt service ratio by 2019-20.

 

Efficiency – satisfies

·    The council meets the criterion for efficiency based on its forecast for declining real opex per capita over the period to 2019-20.

 

The IPART report noted that the only option open to Orange was a standalone submission as Blayney and Cabonne had already resolved to standalone.

IPART found that Blayney was not fit as it did not satisfy the scale and capacity criterion principally as the population is forecast to be 7,800 by 2031, which is below the 10,000 threshold. The IPART report said Blayney “satisfies the financial criteria overall. It satisfies the sustainability, infrastructure and service management and efficiency criteria.

IPART found that Cabonne was not fit as it did not satisfy the scale and capacity criterion as it did not demonstrate its proposal was at least as good as the ILGRP preferred merger option. “When compared to the merger, the council’s forecast population of 16,450 in

2031 means it is unlikely to provide services cost-effectively to the local communities, advocate credibly and partner effectively with government.” The IPART report said Cabonne “satisfies the financial criteria overall. It satisfies the sustainability, infrastructure and service management and efficiency criteria.”

In accordance with Council’s resolution of 20 October 2015 to hold discussions with neighbours, Council wrote to Cabonne and Blayney councils to seek meetings. 

An initial meeting has been held with Blayney Council.  Blayney Shire Council’s next council meeting is on 9 November 2015.

Cabonne Council responded it wanted to meet after it had held its own meeting which occurred on 27 October.  At that meeting Cabonne Council has advised the Council resolved as follows:

 

1    Maintain its stand alone stance on mergers;

2    Does not put in any merger preferences as it is a rural council with ten adjoining neighbouring councils;

3    Authorise the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and General Manager to act in the best interest of council and an extraordinary meeting be called if needed;

4    Informs its community of this decision;

5    Indicate that it believes it meets Scale & Capacity because of projected growth figures and population size; and

6    Meets with any adjoining councils, as good neighbours do

 

Wellington Council has independently approached Orange City Council and has met with the Mayor and General Manager. 

 

Risks

Positive risks from the Fit for Future process: The NSW Government has identified that involvement in voluntary mergers and being deemed to be “fit” offers a range of opportunities for councils. These include the opportunity to participate in regional approaches to land use planning and for heightened opportunities for communities of interest to achieve their ambitions and operate in a cost effective manner.   Access to funding via prioritised processes is also identified.


 

Funding in Fit for Future reform process:  Materials from the Office of Local Government indicate while that in order to have access to funding offered in the Fit for Future reform process, all councils must agree to a merger. There seems to be a significant issue  of including preferences in the response to the IPART report that identify partners who don’t agree given the risks of not having access to up to $15M in funding.

Funding outside the Fit for Future process: The NSW Government has identified that ‘fit” councils will have access to additional financial programs including reduced interest rate loans and priority access to funding/grant schemes.  Streamlined state based processes and reduced “red tape” has also been identified as an advantage arising for “fit” councils, particularly relating to assessment of rate variations.

Operational risks: Throughout the Fit for Future process, Council has continually flagged the need for a higher level of analysis on the status of assets across any merged entity.  Council has spent the last 3 years honing a detailed assets management system which is integrated into the long term financial plan over the next 10 years.  Council has therefore strengthened its understanding of its assets conditions and the analysis and decision making processes around determining the level of service and required maintenance and asset renewal funding.  A similar level of information is required from all merger partners to ensure all parties are fully aware of the condition of current assets, how future needs have been determined and planned for, what levels of service are currently delivered,  how future levels of service have been determined,  and the costs and funding solutions associated with maintenance and renewal of assets needed to deliver the services the community needs.  IN order to avoid “surprises”, the accuracy of information is essential to complete a due diligence assessment of merging partners.

 

Options 

 

Council has a number of options available.   These have been derived from the Councillor briefing held on 26 October 2015:

 

A.   Council pursues a merger with both Blayney Shire Council and Cabonne Council.  This is countenanced in the ILGP report. The option is supported only if both councils provide their agreement.  The risks identified in this report if not all parties agree to a merger are too significant to propose an outcome in the response to the IPART report that does not have the consent of the neighbouring councils. While Cabonne has established its position as detailed in this report, a meeting may facilitate a discussion on the risks for all parties of various options.  Blayney has indicated it is also in discussions with Bathurst.  The need for completeness in the due diligence assessment of the merger impacts should continue to be made in all submissions Council makes to highlight possible impacts arising as greater awareness of operating and financial positions is developed.

 

B.   Council could submit a merger option with either Blayney Shire Council or Cabonne Council rather than both.  This would also need to be subject to either agreeing to a merger as per the above reasoning.

 

C.   Continue to take the stand alone stance - If Council was of a view to standalone this would involve not lodging a submission on the IPART report.  The view in local government circles and matched by NSW Government rhetoric is that reform in the shape of mergers is highly likely. Additionally a standalone submission could put at risk financial incentives of up to $15 million in merger funding.  This is not supported given the clear message from the NSW Government on the need for reform

 

If the recommendation of this report is supported, Orange City Council’s submission on the IPART report will continue to make the point that Orange residents and Orange City Council should not be financially punished for a decision of a neighbouring council over which this Council has no influence.  The need for full assessment of assets information should also be reiterated in any further submission.

The NSW Upper House inquiry results have been published on the same day this report was authored (29 October 2015).  The report contains recommendations for the Fit for Future process and raises some concerns on the analysis of councils’ sustainability. Further investigation and assessment of this report will be undertaken and provided to Council.

 

 

 

  


Council Meeting                                                                                       3 November 2015

 

 

5.2     Section 94 Orange Development Contributions Plan 2015

TRIM REFERENCE:        2015/2798

AUTHOR:                       Michael McFadden, Manager Engineering Services    

 

 

EXECUTIVE Summary

Council, at its meeting held on 1 September 2015, resolved to exhibit the draft Section 94 Orange Development Contributions Plan 2015 and draft Orange Car Parking Development Contributions Plan 2015.

It is recommended that the Plans be adopted and that a review be carried out on the submission received on the Section 94 Orange Development Contributions Plan 2015 given the advice that there may be changes which will have no impact on contribution rates. Any alterations proposed for the Plan would be subject to a further report to Council should it be required.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “1.3 Our City - Ensure a robust framework that supports the community’s and Council’s current and evolving activities, services and functions”.

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

The Contribution Plans have been developed in accordance with section 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act 1979.

 

Recommendation

1        That Council adopt the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2015 and Orange Car Parking Development Contributions Plan 2015 as at 3 November 2015.

 

2        That Council review the submission from Heath Consulting Engineers regarding potential changes to the Section 94 Orange Development Contributions Plan 2015, with a subsequent report to Council to be prepared if required.

 

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

 

Council, at its meeting held on 1 September 2015, resolved:

 

RESOLVED – 15/394                                                                              Cr K Duffy/Cr R Gander

1        That Council review and update Orange Development Contributions Plan 2012.

2        That the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2015 and Orange Car Parking Development Contributions Plan 2015 be placed on exhibition for 28 days.

3        That Council develop a Stormwater Developer Servicing Plan (DSP) for stormwater within the Orange Local Government area and provide a further report to Council on the implementation of that DSP.

4        That relevant consultants and developers who undertake development work in Orange be advised that the Draft Orange Development Contributions Plans 2015 and Orange Car Parking Development Contributions Plan 2015 will be on exhibition and invite comments on the draft Plans.

 

Relevant developers and consultants were advised by letter and the plans were advertised from 12 September 2015. Submissions closed on 9 October 2015.

There were no submissions received for the Orange Car Parking Development Contributions Plan 2015.

One submission was received for the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2015 from Heath Consulting Engineers. The submission received is comprehensive but is not expected to substantially alter any contribution rates.

The submission has been referred to Council’s consultant Greg New of GLN Planning and he has advised:

“There are several changes suggested by Roger Heath, and which I agree with, that should be made to the plan but which would not materially affect contribution rates.”

Greg has advised that a review of the submission would take between three to four weeks and he could commence work on the review in early November.

It is recommended that the plans be adopted and that a review be carried out on the submission. Any impacts on the Section 94 Orange Development Contributions Plan 2015 may be subject to a report after the review of the submission has been complete should  changes be required.

 

 

  


Council Meeting                                                                                       3 November 2015

 

 

5.3     Development Application DA 218/2015(1) - 118 Lysterfield Road

TRIM REFERENCE:        2015/2852

AUTHOR:                       Paul Johnston, Planning Team Leader    

 

 

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged

30 June 2015

Applicant/s

Robert R Wilson & Associates

Owner/s

Roy Mammone Developments Pty Ltd

Land description

Lot 100 DP 1204145 – 118 Lysterfield Road, Orange

Proposed land use

Subdivision (204 lot residential) and demolition (existing dwelling and shed)

Value of proposed development

$6,344,000

Council was initially in receipt of a development application which sought consent for a 208 lot residential subdivision of land described as Lot 100 DP 1204145 known as 118 Lysterfield Road, Orange. The proposal also involved the demolition of a dwelling house and several structures.

In order to respond to issues associated with the Hawke Lane Dam exclusion zone referenced within the Shiralee Development Control Plan (DCP), a formal request from the applicant to amend the development application in accordance with Clause 55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations was received by Council on 26 October 2015. The amended application involved a reduction in the number of lots proposed from 208 lots to 204 lots in order to provide for an additional 12.6m of road width adjacent to Hawke Lane. The additional road width is proposed along Hawke Lane to allow for the construction of a future levy bank/vegetation mound along the southern boundary of the subject development, designed to alleviate the potential for flooding in the event of Hawke Lane Dam Failure. The above works are proposed to be undertaken prior to the issue of a subdivision certificate for Stages 2-6. Council’s Technical Services Department however have advised that the required works will be required to be undertaken prior to the issue of a subdivision certificate for Stages 1-6.

The design of the proposed subdivision has had regard to the Shiralee Masterplan. A detailed assessment of the application has revealed that some of the lots do not comply with the Shiralee Development Control Plan (DCP) in terms of width to depth ratio. As such, this application seeks a departure to those controls.

Proposed Lots 79-92 are also affected by a dual minimum allotment size requirement under the recently adopted LEP mapping layer contained within the LEP. The applicant has requested a variation to the minimum lot size requirement for these lots pursuant to the provisions of Clause 4.6 of Orange LEP 2011.

The majority of the proposed subdivision is affected by the Hawke Lane Dam exclusion zone. Council’s DCP for Shiralee specifies that lots within the subdivision may not be developed until such time that the dam has been decommissioned or appropriate works are undertaken to safely convey discharges from the dam into the downstream watercourse or drainage system in such a manner so as to ensure no adverse flood risk is presented to downstream properties.

A dam break assessment commissioned by Council has been undertaken by Entura that indicates that a drainage diversion structure can be located in the proposed Hawke Lane road widening to cater for any significant overflows resulting from the failure of the farm dam located to the south of the site. Surface stormwater flows will be required to be diverted towards the swale drain in “Green Street” to the west of the subdivision. A condition relating to the design and construction of the stormwater diversion structure is included in the Notice of Approval (Conditions 9 and 42).

A Section 79C assessment of the development indicates that the development is acceptable. Attached is modified 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 218/2015(1) for Subdivision (204 lot residential) and Demolition (existing dwelling and shed) at Lot 100 DP 1204145 – 118 Lysterfield Road, 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/PROPOSAL

Council is in receipt of a development application which seeks consent for a 204 lot residential subdivision of land described as Lot 100 DP 1204145, known as 118 Lysterfield Road, Orange. The proposal also involves the demolition of a dwelling house and several structures within the subject site and filling of farm dams.


 

The subdivision is proposed to be undertaken in six stages as follows:

Stage 1 - Lots 1 to 32 and construction of part Road 1, Road 2, part Roads 3, 4 and 5;

Stage 2 - Lots 33 to 50 and construction of parts Road 1B, 4 and 5;

Stage 3 - Lots 51 to 76 and construction of part Roads 1B and 6;

Stage 4 - Lots 77 to 108 and construction of part Roads 1B, 3, 6 and 7;

Stage 5 - Lots 109 to 135 and construction of part Roads 1B, 3, 8, 11 and 12; and

Stage 6 - Lots 136 to 204 and construction of part Roads 1B, 3, 9, 10, 11 and 12.

The lots range in size from 288.5m² to 826m².

The majority of the proposed subdivision is affected by the Hawke Lane Dam exclusion zone. Council’s DCP specifies that lots within the subdivision may not be developed until such time that the dam has been decommissioned or appropriate works are undertaken to safely convey discharges from the dam into the downstream watercourse or drainage system in such a manner so as to ensure no adverse flood risk is presented to downstream properties. A dam break assessment commissioned by Council has been undertaken by Entura that indicates that a drainage diversion structure can be located in the proposed Hawke Lane Road widening to cater for any significant overflows/failure of the farm dam located to the south of the site. Surface stormwater flows will be required to be diverted west towards the swale drain in “Green Street”.

The above described mitigation works are proposed to be undertaken prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate for Stages 2-6. Council’s Technical Services Division has however advised that the required works will be required to be undertaken prior to the issue of a subdivision certificate for Stages 1-6.

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 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,

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

The application is considered to be consistent with aims (a), (e) and (f) listed above.

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 Part R1 General Residential and Part RE1 Public Recreation

Lot Size Map:

Minimum Lot Size applies (see mapping)

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:

Low 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 partly located within the R1 General Residential zone and partly within the RE1 Public Recreation zone.

Shiralee1


 

The proposed development is defined as subdivision of land under OLEP 2011. 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.

The proposal also involves demolition of several buildings. Subdivision and demolition of buildings are permissible in both the R1 General Residential zone and RE1 Public Recreation zone with the consent of Council.

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 is not inconsistent with the objectives of the zone. The development will provide additional opportunity for residential housing stock in a variety of land sizes. The proposed subdivision design is considered to be generally consistent with the adopted master planning for the Shiralee locality.

The objectives for land zoned RE1 Public Recreation are as follows:

·    To enable land to be used for public open space or recreational purposes.

·    To provide a range of recreational settings and activities and compatible land uses.

·    To protect and enhance the natural environment for recreational purposes.

·    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 alternative access.

The proposed development provides for two areas of public reserve. The subject areas accord with the adopted master planning for the development of the Shiralee area. The proposed subdivision is therefore considered to be 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.


 

Clause 2.7 - Demolition requires development consent

The demolition of a building or work may be carried out only with development consent. The proposal involves the demolition of the dwelling and several outbuildings. Demolition of the subject buildings is required to facilitate the planned subdivision works. Demolition of buildings will be required to be carried out in accordance with relevant Australian Standards. Attached to the Notice of Approval are conditions of consent addressing matters in relation to the proposed demolition.

Part 3 - Exempt and Complying Development

The application is not exempt or complying development. Pursuant to Clause 2.6 the application is seeking development consent.

Part 4 - Principal Development Standards

Clause 4.1 - Minimum Subdivision Lot Size

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

shiralee

The submitted plan generally accords with the minimum allotment size mapping adopted for the Shiralee area with the exception of proposed Lots 79-92 which are affected by a dual minimum allotment size requirement under the recently adopted LEP mapping layer contained within the LEP. The applicant has requested a variation to the minimum lot size requirement for these lots pursuant to the provisions of Clause 4.6 of Orange LEP 2011. A detailed assessment of the variation sought is provided below under the heading “Clause 4.6 - Exceptions to Development Standards”.


 

Clause 4.6 - Exceptions to Development Standards

This clause establishes the process by which development standards may, in exceptional circumstances, be varied. Before granting a variation under this clause Council must consider a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating:

·    that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

·    that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

Council may grant consent only if the concurrence of the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure has been obtained and Council is satisfied that

·    the written request has adequately addressed the above, and

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

-   consistency with the objectives of the particular standard, and

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

Council has been issued the concurrence of the Secretary for variations of the type proposed. The applicant has argued that the provision to be varied is unnecessary and unreasonable in this instance on the basis that the proposed development will provide for a more effective and appropriate subdivision pattern, which ultimately remains compliant with the intended development direction and lot density envisaged by the DCP and Masterplan for this locality.

The submitted plan generally accords with the minimum allotment size mapping adopted for the Shiralee area, with the exception of proposed Lots 79-92 which are affected by a dual minimum allotment size requirement under the recently adopted LEP mapping layer contained within the LEP. In the present circumstances, it appears the lots are approximately 75% in the minimum 200m² area and 25% in the minimum 700m² area.

The anomaly has largely come about due to the finalisation of the lot design and detailed survey work. It is apparent that the minimum lot size map was intended to give effect to the Shiralee DCP Masterplan layout. The Masterplan indicates a row of compact lots with a minimum lot size of 200m² in this area. The submitted design provides this outcome but has slightly altered the alignment of the road, and consequently the placement of compact lots fronting the road.

Lots 79 to 92 are only 30m deep and reducing them by 25% would mean that lots would be 22.5m deep, which is not a desirable depth. Furthermore, as discussed above, the minimum lot size map reflects the intended site density. The precise location of the east‑west roads, including the amended design for Hawke Lane following detailed survey, may have a bearing on the development to the east in ensuring that intersections remain functional. This is not anticipated to affect the lot yield on the property to the immediate east but may have minor implications for exact lot sizes.

The identified environmental planning grounds associated with the subdivision are considered to be sufficient to justify contravening the minimum lot size standard in clause 4.1(2) of the LEP.

The objectives of provision to be varied are as follows:

(a)     to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development, and

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

The proposed variation to Clause 4.1 is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the exception clause. In this regard, given the specific circumstances of the site a better and more appropriate outcome for the proposed subdivision is achieved by allowing flexibility to the development standard.

In this regard the proposal, including the variation sought, is seen to be consistent with the above on the basis that the overall layout and lot density proposed is consistent with the intended development direction envisaged in the Shiralee Masterplan DCP.

Part 6 - Urban Release Area

The Shiralee urban area was initially defined as an Urban Release Area under the provisions of Orange LEP. This essentially meant that development of the land was restricted until such time that master planning and servicing arrangements had been resolved. Council has since prepared the Shiralee Masterplan DCP for the locality and has recently adopted Amendment No 4 to Orange LEP 2011 which sought to rationalise zoning and minimum allotment size provisions for this locality.

Clause 6.1 of the LEP required satisfactory arrangements to be made with the Director-General for a contribution to designated State public infrastructure. Council is in receipt of advice from NSW Planning and Environment confirming that satisfactory arrangements for State Infrastructure have now been resolved for the purposes of Clause6.1(2) of the Orange LEP for the Shiralee Urban Release Area.

Amendment No 4 to Orange LEP 2011 has also removed the Urban Release Area classification from the Shiralee area, reflecting the fact that the Shiralee Masterplan DCP and Section 94 contribution plan have now been finalised. Accordingly development throughout Shiralee can now be considered and assessed against conventional planning provisions.

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 associated with creating the subdivision. Whilst the subdivision will ultimately change the existing landscape, the extent of disruption to the drainage of the site will be managed through detailed engineering design.

A dam break assessment commissioned by Council has been undertaken by Entura that indicates that a drainage diversion structure will be required to be located in the Hawke Lane road widening to cater for any significant overflows/failure of the farm dam located to the south of the site to eliminate the risk. The subject land will be required to be shaped to ensure that surface stormwater flows are diverted west towards the swale drain in “Green Street”. A condition relating to the timing, design and construction of the stormwater diversion structure and associated subdivision works is included in the Notice of Approval.

The remaining works envisaged to be carried out to construct the subdivision are considered to be typical for residential development and are not likely to detrimentally affect adjoining properties or receiving waterways.

The preliminary hazard analysis has identified a small stockpile area of building material within Stage 1 that will require further investigation and remediation. Conditions are attached that require further testing and validation reporting to ensure that the site is suitable for residential development. General residue testing of the remainder of the site is also required by condition due to the previous use of the land for various agricultural pursuits.

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. 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.

Conditions are imposed to require a sediment control plan to be implemented onsite during construction.

7.3 - Stormwater Management

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

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

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

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

The requirements of Council’s Technical Services Division with respect to stormwater management have been included in the attached Notice of Determination. A detailed assessment of matters pertaining to the Hawke Lane Dam and its effect on drainage matters, and the ability and timing of the site to be developed have been addressed later in this report.

7.4 - Terrestrial Biodiversity

This clause seeks to maintain terrestrial biodiversity and requires that consent must not be issued unless the application demonstrates whether or not the proposal:

(a)     is likely to have any adverse impact on the condition, ecological value and significance of the fauna and flora on the land

(b)     is likely to have any adverse impact on the importance of the vegetation on the land to the habitat and survival of native fauna

(c)     has any potential to fragment, disturb or diminish the biodiversity structure, function and composition of the land, and

(d)     is likely to have any adverse impact on the habitat elements providing connectivity on the land.

Additionally this clause prevents consent being 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, or

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

The proposal is located on land that has not been identified on the Terrestrial Biodiversity Map as comprising “High Biodiversity Sensitivity” land.

7.6 - Groundwater Vulnerability

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

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

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


 

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

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

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

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

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. The design and construction of the proposal will be required to take into account the hydrology of this locality. A detailed engineering design for the subdivision will be required to be submitted for approval prior to the commencement of work.

7.11 - Essential Services

Clause 7.11 - Essential Services provides that 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.

Essential services include the supply of water; the supply of electricity; the disposal and management of sewage; stormwater drainage or onsite conservation; and suitable road access.

The applicant advises that reticulated water, sewerage, electricity and telephone services are available to the site and will be provided to each lot proposed to the satisfaction of the relevant authorities. The attached Notice of Determination contains relevant conditions in relation to the provision of essential services.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of land

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land is relevant to the proposal.

Clause 7 of the SEPP provides:

7        Contamination and remediation to be considered in determining development application

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

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

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


 

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

A preliminary contamination assessment/site investigation has been submitted in support of the development application which identifies most of the site as being free from contamination, with the exception of a stockpile of building demolition material that is located in the area proposed to be Stage 1 of the subdivision. The stockpile has been identified as having elevated levels of lead and asbestos material present. The preliminary site investigation has recommended that the wastes be further characterised as part of the subdivision process. A condition has been included in the attached Notice of Approval requiring such work to be carried out prior to the issue of the Subdivision Certificate for Stage 1 of the Subdivision. The condition also requires a verification report to be provided demonstrating that the land is suitable for residential use.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

Clause 104 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (ISEPP) relates to traffic generating developments.

The proposal involves a residential subdivision of 200 plus residential lots. On this basis the development is captured within the provisions of Clause 104, and therefore results in a referral to Roads and Maritime Services (RMS).

Council is in receipt of formal advice from the RMS regarding this matter. The requirements of the RMS have been evaluated by Council’s Technical Services Division. An assessment of the traffic impacts associated with the proposal has been undertaken below under the heading “Traffic Impacts”.

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. Chapters of the DCP relevant to the proposed use and development include:

·    Chapter 0 - Transitional Provisions;

·    Chapter 2 - Natural Resource Management;

·    Chapter 3 - General Considerations;

·    Chapter 4 - Special Environmental Considerations;

·    Chapter 5 - General Considerations for Zones and Development;

·    Shiralee DCP


 

Chapter 0 - Transitional Provisions

Part 0 - LEP 2011

Part 0.2 of Orange DCP 2004 establishes a conversation table for old zones under OLEP 2000 to new zones under LEP 2011, and in turn provides which chapters of the DCP are applicable in instances of new zonings under LEP 2011. This is pertinent given the subject land's new zoning, being part R1 General Residential and part RE1 Public Recreation. Part 0.2 provides that Part 7 and 11 of Orange DCP 2004 are applicable to these zones.

Chapter 2 - Natural Resource Management

Section 2.1 - Water Quality

Section 2.1 - Water Quality identifies that development that concentrates, redirects flows, increases flow rates or disturbs land in close proximity to creeks has the potential to affect waterways with associated erosion, sedimentation and release of nutrients, which combine to affect downstream water quality. Section 2.1 also identifies that development involving groundwater extraction and/or onsite wastewater disposal is deemed to affect groundwater resources.

Specific planning outcomes for stormwater quality include:

·    Development is carried out in a manner that does not contribute to downstream erosion or sedimentation of waterways.

·    Development complies with the Water and Soil Erosion Control requirements of the Development and Subdivision Code.

·    On-site detention is carried out in accordance with the Development and Subdivision Code for all developments comprising buildings with a site coverage greater than 50m2 or where site coverage exceeds the “percentage impervious” level listed in the Code applicable to that development.

·    Where on-site detention is not appropriate, contributions are made towards retarding basins and/or GPTs and associated drainage under the Contribution Plan that applies to the land.

·    Development in the vicinity of natural watercourses is positioned away from the waterway and includes measures to minimise the impact of the development on the waterway such as the establishment of creekside buffer zones and planting of native trees in a manner that enhances streambank stability.

Specific planning outcomes for groundwater quality include:

·    Development applications for development (excluding dwelling houses) that proposes to extract groundwater or involve on-site wastewater disposal identify potential risks to, and management of, groundwater resources.

·    Development is carried out in a manner that does not adversely affect groundwater resources.

·    Development considered by Council to have the potential to significantly affect groundwater quality incorporates a monitoring program and provides test results from a NATA-accredited laboratory to Council for review and for inclusion in the City SoE Reports.

These matters have previously been addressed in detail under the headings “7.3 - Stormwater” and “7.6 - Groundwater Vulnerability.

Section 2.3 - Vegetation and Section 2.4 - Flora and Fauna, Biodiversity

Section 2.3 - Vegetation and Section 2.4 - Flora and Fauna, Biodiversity identify that the natural environment of the Orange LGA has been heavily modified as a consequence of land clearing for various uses, including agriculture, plantation forests, mining and urban development; and that clearing of native vegetation has significantly affected native habitats.

Specific planning outcomes for vegetation and flora, fauna and biodiversity include:

Vegetation

·    Compliance with the Native Vegetation Conservation Act 1997.

·    Development is designed and constructed in a way that minimises the impact on existing vegetation.

·    Particular attention is given to the effect of rural or urban residential release development on existing vegetation and scenic areas.

·    Development applications indicate on plans the location of all significant trees affected by or in the vicinity of development.

·    Applications demonstrate to Council’s satisfaction that all practical measures have been made to retain trees that contribute to and embellish the Orange landscape.

Flora, Fauna and Biodiversity

·    Where there is a likely impact of development on native habitats, that impact is addressed in the development application.

·    A Species Impact Statement is prepared for development that is likely to significantly affect habitats of threatened species. The statement is submitted with a development application and indicates how threatened species will be managed with the development.

·    Development affecting all or part of significant water bodies or remnant woodland areas with the potential to comprise habitats of threatened species incorporates the protection and conservation of these areas where deemed reasonable by Council.

·    Threatened species, populations and ecological communities are managed in conjunction with development in accordance with the Threatened Species Conservation Act.

These matters have previously been addressed under the heading “Section 5A Assessment”.


 

Chapter 3 - General Considerations

Section 3.1 - Cumulative Impacts

Section 3.1 - Cumulative Impacts identifies that Council will consider not only the direct impacts of a particular development but also whether the development, when carried out in conjunction with other development in the locality, has a more significant environmental impact.

The proposed development is generally consistent with the intended development insofar as it provides for residential subdivision in a manner generally in accordance with the Shiralee DCP.

Given that the proposed subdivision generally accords with the conceptual subdivision layout for this locality, it is not considered that the proposed development will have a cumulative or significant environmental impact.

Chapter 4 - Special Environmental Considerations

Section 4.1 - Sewage Disposal

Section 4.1 specifies that urban development must be connected to a sewerage system approved by Orange City Council.

Specific planning outcomes for sewage disposal include:

·    Development within the urban area of Orange as defined above is connected to sewerage facilities or arrangements to the satisfaction of Council have been made for the provision of sewerage services prior to occupation.

Reticulated sewer will be made available as a component of this development. A condition of consent addressing matters in relation to sewerage facilities is attached to the Notice of Approval.

Section 4.3 - Land Shaping

Section 4.3 - Land Shaping identifies that substantial land shaping, including filling or excavating land, has the potential to generate significant environmental impacts, and that land shaping should not adversely affect land in the vicinity as a result of drainage, erosion or sedimentation or as a result of leachate entering surface or groundwater.

The DCP sets the following planning outcomes with regard to land shaping:

·    Applications include details on the existing and proposed landform, watercourses and vegetation.

·    Applications are accompanied by a soil-erosion control plan for implementation prior to and upon commencement of the work.

·    Landfilling comprises inert material only and does not include putrescible waste, vegetation, or other material that may decompose.

·    Landfill is compacted to the required standard and evidence of compaction rates are provided upon completion of the work or otherwise as directed by Council.

These matters have previously been addressed under the heading “7.1 - Earthworks”.


 

Chapter 5 - General Consideration for Zones and Development

Section 5.3 - Advertised Development

Section 5.3 - Advertised Development identifies that Council will give written and published notice of applications for advertised development as required by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations. Subdivision of land is not declared advertised development. Accordingly, the development application was not advertised.

Section 5.7 - Subdivision

Section 5.7 - Subdivision requires all works to be undertaken in accordance with Council’s adopted standards as outlined in the Orange City Development and subdivision Code. Council’s Technical Services Division has recommended conditions of consent in relation to this matter.

SHIRALEE DCP

The Shiralee Development Control Plan provides a series of development controls for the residential development of this locality. Some controls are land use based and generic, whilst others are detailed and sometimes site specific. It is considered that the proposed subdivision is generally consistent with the requirements of the DCP, except for the lot width-to-depth ratio and orientation of certain lots, for which the applicant has requested Council consider a departure to the DCP.

Section 1 - Introduction

This section of the DCP provides the context of the DCP and general information required in compiling a development application. This section also contains the stated objectives of the Shiralee “Development Control Plan” which are as follows:

·    To guide the urban expansion of Shiralee, south of the existing Orange urban area

·    To promote a high quality urban environment with a diversity of housing and recreation opportunities

·    To encourage alternative modes of transport and healthy lifestyles

·    To reduce traffic congestion by providing for the day to day needs of residents within the precinct.

The submitted plans demonstrate that the development has been designed to generally accord with the relevant conceptual subdivision layout contained within the DCP. The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the DCP.

The Shiralee Masterplan through a series of maps identifies:

•    a range of lot typologies

•    a range of street typologies

•    an overall transport movement hierarchy

•    an open space and recreation network

•    an overall landscape structure

•    a strategy for street trees.

These maps present an over-arching structure to the precinct. The development application has been assessed against these maps and the provisions of the DCP. A detailed assessment of each of the above requirements has been provided below.

Section 2 - Desired Future Character

This section provides the statement of how the subdivision will retain the character of the area. The Shiralee Masterplan has been developed on the following principles

·    Has a distinct, separate identity to Orange whilst maintaining the best themes of Orange

·    Is anchored by a hill-top mixed use village

·    Provides housing choice that promotes a diverse community

·    Provides community infrastructure to create a viable community

·    Responds to existing site conditions, including natural features and man-made elements including the street grid

·    Retains and enhance the unique character of the place

·    Ensures development has regard to the fabric and character of each area in scale, proportion, street alignment, materials and finishes and reinforces distinctive attributes and qualities of built form

·    Conserves and protect historic items and their settings

·    Maintains a high level of daylight access to streets, lanes, parks and other public domain spaces

·    Encourages active street frontages to the public domain

·    Conserves, maintains and enhances existing views and vistas to buildings and places of historic and aesthetic significance.

It is considered that the proposed subdivision is in keeping with the character of the area and the DCP outcomes for lot sizes, densities, roads, etc and the above described principles. LEP Amendment No 4 to Orange LEP 2011 has been recently gazetted to reflect this outcome.

Part 2.4 of the DCP provides the following subdivision controls for the development of the Shiralee locality.

·    Subdivision is to be consistent generally in accordance with the Masterplan design and intent per the DCP. Legislative requirements and DCP written controls take precedence over the Masterplan.

The development is generally in accordance with the Masterplan design and intent of the DCP, with only a few alterations proposed. The applicant was requested to justify the changes proposed. In particular, proposed Lots 153 and 134 under the Masterplan were required to be designed to address Road Number 8 as opposed to Road No 12, and similarly proposed Lots 167 and 168 were required to be orientated towards the proposed open space area.


 

It is assumed that the design intention envisaged in the Masterplan was to ensure that future dwellings in this locality be designed to address the higher order status of Road No 8 as opposed to the lower order status of Road No 12. Orientation of the subject parcels to Road No 12 has the potential to present side fencing of 1.8m height along much of the street frontage between Road No 18 and Road No 12 under the current configuration.

The applicant submits that future side fencing along Lots 134 and 135 would be approximately 30m long, and that the orientation of these lots would be acceptable having regard to the requirement under Clause 5.1 which requires corner lot homes to address both street frontages. Given that these particular lots are not square and are on a slight angle. it is recommended that the lot configuration proposed with respect to proposed Lots 134 and 135 be supported.

Additionally, proposed Lots 167 and 168 under the Masterplan were required to be orientated such that future dwellings would address the proposed public open space. It is acknowledged that re-orientation of these lots may in turn affect the overall design of other lots in the precinct.

The applicant has acknowledged that whilst it would be ideal for these lots to front the open space (proposed Lot 166), they have requested that Council support the configuration as proposed on the basis that they will still address rural land and the lot shape allows greater opportunity for northerly solar access into the rear private open space areas of these lots. The applicant estimates that fencing of Lot 167 would only be for some 25m, which is considered reasonable given the fact that other lots within Road No 12 have been designed to front the park so as to comply with the principals of CPTED.

On a separate matter the proposed additional road widening requirements adjacent to Hawke Lane to accommodate dam break mitigation works may slightly alter the road connection point with the adjoining property to the immediate east. This adjustment is not anticipated to affect the overall lot yield potential of that property and can be addressed when and if an application is made for that land.

It is recommended in this case that the Council supports the proposed departures to the DCP conceptual subdivision layout.

·    Lot sizes are to be consistent with or greater than the adopted minimum lot size for the land under the LEP zoning map.

Amendment No 4 to Orange LEP 2011 relating to the minimum lot size mapping for Shiralee has recently been gazetted. An assessment of the proposed subdivision design against the LEP lot size mapping indicates that proposed Lots 79-92 straddle the minimum lot size map. This is related to the alignment of the road being moved slightly to the south compared to the Shiralee Masterplan. It is noted that Lots 79-92 will provide the row of compact lots that the Masterplan envisaged, albeit in a slightly different location.

The applicant has requested that Council consider a departure to the LEP lot size controls for the lots pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the LEP. Clause 4.6 provides for the Council to grant development consent for a development that would contravene a development standard. A detailed assessment of matters pertaining to Clause 4.6 has been provided above under the heading “Clause 4.6 - Exceptions to Development Standards”.


 

·    Where an oversized lot is proposed (substantially greater than the adopted minimum lot size), plans are to nominate a building envelope.

Each of the proposed lots generally accord with the lot size mapping requirements. There are no allotments within the subdivision that warrant a requirement for the applicant to nominate a building envelope.

·    Building envelopes on oversized lots are to be positioned in a manner that clearly enables future subdivision of the lot to a pattern consistent with the masterplan layout and adopted minimum lot size for the land.

There are no allotments within the subdivision that warrant a requirement for the applicant to nominate a building envelope. This subdivision control is therefore not relevant in the determination of this application.

·    Except for corner lots and where indicated otherwise on the Large Lot Classification Table, all residential lots are to have a width to depth ratio of between 1:4 and 1:2.75 with the shorter boundary being the street frontage.

·    Residential corner lots are to have greater width with a ratio of between 1:3.25 and 1:2.5 to allow more opportunity for the subsequent dwelling to address both frontages.

The submitted plans and accompanying documentation indicate that a number of lots do not comply with the width-to-depth ratio required by the DCP. The table below provides a summary of those lots that are non-compliant.

Lot

Lot size (m²)

Width (m)

Depth (m)

Ratio

Compliance (variation %)

15

367.5

6.875 (corner lot) 12.83 at the rear

30

1:4.36-2.33

Partial compliance

16

422.7

12.5

33.81

1:2.7

No (1.81%)

29

701.2

18.85

37.2

1:1.97

No (28.36%)

54

410.9

13.7

30

1:2.18

No (20.72%)

64

483.1

16

30.2

1:1.88

No (31.63%)

68

744

20

37.2

1:1.86

No (32.36%)

78

532.4

12.5

30

1:2.4

No (12.72%)

79

374.9

12.5

30

1:2.4

No (12.72%)

96

539.9

12.6 (corner lot)

30

1:2.38

No (4.80%)

97

503.9

15

33.6

1:2.24

No (18.54%)

122

504

15

33.6

1:2.24

No (18.54%)

123

450

15

30

1:2

No (27.27%)

126

551.9

13 (corner lot)

30

1:2.3

No (8.00%)

127

482.9

16.1

30

1:1.86

No (32.36%)

134

532.9

13 (corner lot)

29

1:2.23

No (10.80%)

135

524.8

13 (corner lot)

29.44

1:2.26

No (9.60%)

136

476.7

13.08 (corner lot

30.15

1:2.3

No (8.00%)

153

470

16

29.76

1:1.86

No (32.36%)

170

417.2

13.3

31.36

1:2.35

No (14.54%)

171

452.2

9 (corner lot)

31.36

1:3.48

No (7.07%)


 

The intent of a width-to-depth ratio is to ensure that the lots created will have reasonable development potential without requiring excessive impact upon neighbouring lots or depriving the future occupants of the property of appropriate design options. In this regard the ratio becomes more important the smaller the overall lot size. It is apparent from the above table that variations are only related to medium and standard lots -  all compact lots proposed are compliant.

The applicant has submitted a series of plans which provide detail of how each of the lots that do not comply with the width-to-depth ratio can still be developed with a dwelling. An assessment of the indicative plans submitted in support of the application demonstrates that a dwelling can be constructed to meet the objectives relating to the requirements of the DCP for each of the lots affected.

This level of detail is not ordinarily required at the subdivision stage. It is considered appropriate in this case to demonstrate a reasonable level of certainty that future dwelling designs can comply with the building controls. This demonstrates that the proposed lots can be reasonably developed and therefore satisfy the intent of the width-to-depth ratio provision. All future dwellings will, however, be the subject of a separate approval process, and each dwelling design will need to demonstrate compliance with planning controls applicable to the site at that time.

The applicant has respectfully requested that Council consider a departure to the DCP width-to-depth requirements for certain lots within the subdivision. Based on the fact that the applicant has demonstrated that each of the lots affected can still accommodate a reasonable residential design in a manner generally consistent with the requirements of the DCP, it is recommended that Council support the departure to the DCP in this case.

·    Roads identified for Bus Routes:

Ø Intersections where the bus route turns are to be designed to accommodate full size coaches.

Ø At nominated bus stop locations the road reserve is to be increased by an addition 0.5m to allow for passenger congregation and future street furniture. The front building setbacks of affected lots may be reduced by 0.25m to help preserve the pattern and rhythm of development.

Council’s Technical Services Division has evaluated the plans and advises that the planned layout will address the above described requirements.

Part 2.5 - Lot Typologies of the DCP provides the following subdivision controls for the development of the “Shiralee” urban release area.

·    Lot typologies and minimum sizes are to be consistent with the Masterplan, DCP and LEP zoning map.

The submitted plan generally accords with the minimum allotment size mapping adopted for the Shiralee area, with the exception of Proposed Lots 79-92 which are affected by a dual minimum allotment size requirement under the recently adopted LEP mapping layer contained within the LEP. The applicant has requested a variation to the minimum lot size requirement for these lots pursuant to the provisions of Clause 4.6 of Orange LEP 2011.


 

The submitted plans and accompanying documentation also indicate that a number of lots do not comply with the width-to-depth ratio required by the DCP. An assessment of the width-to-depth ratios for each of the lots affected has been assessed above.

·    Any subdivision which creates more than 3 lots must not have any oversized lots. Oversized lots are lots that do not fit within the designated categories.

The proposed development is generally compliant with this planning outcome.

·    Specific requirements for large lots within the Precinct are to be consistent with the Large Lot Classification Diagram and Large Lot Classification Table.

The proposed development does not involve the creation of large lots.

·    Where subdivision involves the creation of a lot greater than the maximum for the lot typology, a building envelope is to be established on the title of the new lot. The dimensions of the building envelope are to be no greater than:

Ø Compact Lots: the width of the lot minus 1.2m (to provide for 0.6m side setbacks) by the depth of the lot minus the front and rear setbacks.

Ø Medium Lots: the width of the lot minus 2m (to provide for 1.1m side setbacks) by the depth of the lot minus the front and rear setbacks.

As discussed above, there are no allotments within the subdivision that warrant a requirement for the applicant to nominate a building envelope. This subdivision control is therefore not relevant in the determination of this application.

·    The building envelope is to be positioned consistent with the front and rear setbacks otherwise specified for the lot typology in this DCP.

Not applicable in this case.

·    The building envelope is to be positioned consistent with the front and rear setbacks otherwise specified for the lot typology in this DCP.

Not applicable in this case.

·    All lots must have a direct street frontage to ensure good access and property amenity. Lots 3,000m² and larger are excepted.

The submitted plans show that the development complies with this requirement.

·    Lots without a street frontage are to have a minimum size of 3000m² providing that boundary landscaping is provided with any new development.

Not applicable in this case.

·    Corner lots are to achieve high quality street frontages on the primary and secondary street.

A detailed assessment of matters in relation to lot orientation and width-to-depth ratios has been discussed above within this section of the report. The proposed size and configuration of lots largely accords with the adopted Masterplan. Future dwellings for corner lots will be required to be designed having reference to Part 5.1 of the DCP.

·    All compact, medium and standard lots need to achieve a solar orientation where the long axis of the lot is

Ø For north-south oriented lots between 20 degrees west of north or 30 degrees east of north, or

Ø For east-west oriented lots between 20 degrees north of east or 30 degrees south of east.

The proposed development is compliant with respect to the above requirement.

Section 3 - Local Infrastructure

Part 3.1 - Infrastructure Provision

Clause 7.11 of the Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 establishes that development is required to be provided with essential services including:

1        the supply of water

2        the supply of electricity

3        the supply of gas

4        the supply of telecommunications infrastructure

5        the disposal and management of sewage

6        stormwater drainage or on-site conservation

7        access

Provision of all essential local infrastructure will be required to be provided at the developer’s cost. Attached to the Notice of Determination is a condition of consent requiring all essential services to be provided in accordance with the relevant supply authorities. All power lines are to be located underground.

The applicant proposes to carry out the subdivision in stages, and therefore it is important that the required infrastructure is in place as the stages are constructed.

Part 3.2 - Ground levels and Excavation

The earthworks proposed in the application are limited to the extent associated with creating the subdivision. The subdivision will ultimately change the existing landscape, and the extent of cut and fill across the subdivision will be managed through a detailed engineering design. The proposed development is not inconsistent with the DCP planning outcomes pertaining to ground levels and excavation. Attached are relevant conditions of consent addressing engineering issues.

Part 3.3 - Public Domain

·    Land identified for the RE1 Public Recreation Zone is to be dedicated to Council as public open space upon subdivision of the parent lot

·    Compensation for the dedicated land is to be in accordance with the relevant Section 94 Development Contribution Plan.


 

The submitted plans show a local park being provided in the south-western corner of the subject land and a further small area of land being proposed to link drainage systems in the northwest corner of the subject land with the adjoining land to the north. The configuration and eventual design of the finished ground levels within the local park (known as Lot 166) will need to take into account the engineering design requirements associated with alleviating the flood risk associated with the Hawke Lane Dam.

In accordance with the Section 94 Contributions Plan, the applicant will be entitled to be compensated for the provision of the proposed open space. The allocated open space has a total area of 6,768.60m², of which 6,077.8m² (proposed Lot 166) is considered unencumbered land for the purposes of this assessment, with the remaining area being compensated on the basis of it being classified as encumbered. The applicable rate of compensation for unencumbered land is $30 per square metre and the rate applicable to encumbered land is $12 per square metre. On this basis the applicant is entitled to $190,623.60 in compensation for the proposed open space areas. Attached is a condition of consent addressing matters in relation to Section 94 Contributions.

Part 3.4 – Staging and dealing with storm water/dam

·    The Hawke Lane Dam exclusion zone may not be subdivided or otherwise developed until the dam has been decommissioned or appropriate works are undertaken to safely convey discharges from the dam into the downstream watercourse or drainage system, in such a manner so as to ensure no adverse flood risk is presented to downstream properties.

Stormwater drainage design needs to be undertaken in accordance with Council’s standard subdivision design code requirements. In particular adequate provision must be made for all potential overland flows within the subdivision and their safe discharge onto downstream properties. Overland flows can be accommodated within road reserves or drainage reserves utilising minor/major drainage design approach.

The southern boundary of the land that adjoins Hawke Lane and immediately adjoining the southern side of Hawke Lane is Lot A DP 154249, which contains a large dam known as “Hawke Lane Dam”. The objective of the control appears to be to ensure the safe and orderly development of the precinct. In particular, the DCP specifies that the lots within the subdivision may not be developed until such time that the dam has been decommissioned or appropriate works are undertaken to safely convey discharges from the dam into the downstream watercourse or drainage system in such a manner so as to ensure no adverse flood risk is presented to downstream properties. There is no figure or map within the Shiralee DCP that specifically identifies the “Hawke Lane Dam Exclusion Zone”. However, there was a map in the May 2014 draft version of the DCP that went on public exhibition, described as “Figure 12 The Hawke Lane Dam Exclusion Zone.”

In order to more accurately determine the extent of the area potentially affected by a dam break, Council engaged the services of Entura as a component of this assessment to provide an indication of what engineering works could be undertaken within the subject land to safely convey discharges from a dam break scenario in the event that decommissioning works on the dam itself are not undertaken at this time.


 

Based on the recommendations of the investigation, Council’s Technical Services Division advises that a drainage diversion structure can be located in the area now proposed to be dedicated as road widening within Hawke Lane to cater for any significant overflows/failure of the farm dam that is located to the south of the site so as to eliminate the risk. The subject land will be required to be shaped to ensure that surface stormwater flows are diverted west towards the swale drain in “Green Street.

The required mitigation works are proposed to be undertaken prior to the issue of a subdivision certificate for Stages 2-6. Council’s Technical Services Department however have advised that the required works will be required to be undertaken prior to the issue of a subdivision certificate for Stages 1-6.  Based on the advice of Council’s Technical Services Division, Council can be satisfied that appropriate engineering works can be undertaken within the subject land to safely convey discharges from the dam into the downstream watercourse or drainage system in such a manner so as to ensure no adverse flood risk is presented to downstream properties. A condition relating to the timing, design and construction of the stormwater diversion structure and associated subdivision works are included in the Notice of Approval.

The applicant has raised the issue of potential compensation for the dedication of the of the extra land. This matter will be negotiated separately.

Section 4 - Village Centre

This section of the DCP relates to village centre and is not relevant in the determination of the application for subdivision.

Section 5 - Residential Building

This section relates to dwelling design. This section of the DCP is not relevant in the determination of the application for subdivision.

Section 6 - Private Domain Landscape

This section of the DCP relates to private domain landscape and is not relevant in the determination of the application for subdivision.

Section 7  Public Domain

Part 7.1 - Passive and Active Recreation Network

·    Open spaces and streets facing open spaces must be provided according to the Masterplan.

A conceptual landscape plan has been submitted in support of the development application. The attached Notice of Determination includes a condition requiring the submission of a detailed landscaping plan that is consistent with the planning outcomes of the Shiralee Masterplan prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.


 

Part 7.2 - Landscape

The following planning outcomes pertaining to landscaping apply:

·    Eco link streets are to have an understory planting layer of native species including shrubs, groundcovers and grasses of maximum mature height of 1.5m with planting plans to be submitted for approval by Council.

·    Streets with medians are to have an understory planting layer of species responding to the tree planting within the median, including shrubs, groundcovers and grasses of generally maximum mature height of 1.5m and of 1m within 5m of an intersection.

·    Footpath verges within residential areas are to be planted with cool climate turf species, as approved by Council

·    Footpath verges and tree planting zones within the village centre, may be planted with robust groundcover and grass species in keeping with a high quality street environment and as approved by Council

·    A developer shall construct all footpaths, turf all verges and provide all road infrastructure planting prior to sale of building blocks

·    Maximum verge cross-fall from property boundary to kerb is to be 2%

·    Longitudinal gradient of verge is to match the gradient of the adjacent kerb.

A conceptual landscape plan has been submitted in support of the development application. Landscaping of the precinct is required to be established in accordance with the planning outcomes and recommended species envisaged within the Shiralee Masterplan DCP. In order to ensure that landscaping of the precinct is of high quality and generally consistent with the intent of the Masterplan and the above described planning outcomes, it is recommended that a condition of consent be attached to the Notice of Determination requiring the submission of a detailed landscaping plan that is consistent with the planning outcomes prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, with all approved landscaping being undertaken prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate.

Final finished longitudinal gradients and verge cross-falls will be the subject of a detailed engineering plan.

Section 8 - Environmental Management

Part 8.2 - Stream Classification

The land is affected by a Class 1 stream under the NSW Office of Water Guidelines and may require a Controlled Activity Approval under Section 91 of the Water Management Act 2000. The applicant has not sought an Integrated Development approval under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and will therefore need to seek relevant approval under separate legislation prior to carrying out works on site. Attached is a condition of consent addressing this requirement.

Part 8.3 - Stormwater and Water Sensitive

The applicant has suitably demonstrated that the proposed lots have been designed in accordance with the DCP and generally have a northerly aspect. In respect of “Water Sensitive Urban Design” (WSUD), the subdivision has carefully considered water quality aspects (refer to submitted plans).

Section 9 - Movement Network

Section 9 addresses the requirements for providing an efficient and effective road network to service the new community. The proposed subdivision and road design is considered to be consistent with the adopted road hierarchy and is therefore considered to be acceptable.

SECTION 94 DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS

The submitted plans show 204 allotments, and includes a local park being provided in the south-western corner (proposed Lot 166) of the subject land and a further small area of open space (unnumbered) being proposed to link drainage systems in the north-western corner of the subject land with the adjoining land to the north.

In accordance with the Section 94 Contributions Plan, the applicant will be entitled to be compensated for the provision of the proposed open space. The allocated open space has a total area of 6,768.60m² of which 6,077.8m² (proposed Lot 166) is considered unencumbered land for the purposes of this assessment, with the remaining area being compensated on the basis of it being classified as encumbered. The applicable rate of compensation for unencumbered land is $30 per square metre and the rate applicable to encumbered land is $12 per square metre. On this basis the applicant is entitled to $190,623.60 in compensation.

The proposed development will ultimately result in the provision of 202 additional allotments for residential purposes. The value of compensation for the proposed areas of open space may be deducted from the Section 94 Contributions applicable to the land.

In accordance with Section 94 of the Act and Orange Development Contributions Plan 2015 (Shiralee Urban Release Area) a contribution towards the provision of the following public facilities will be required:

Open Space and Recreation

@ $725.81 x 202 additional lots

146,613.62

Community and Cultural

@ $146.18 x 202 additional lots

29,528.36

Roads and Cycleways

@ $1,119.84 x 202 additional lots

226,207.68

Stormwater Drainage

@ $67.74 x 202 additional lots

13,683.48

Local Area Facilities

@ $17,760.90 x 202 additional lots

3,587,701.80

Plan Preparation & Administration

@ $179.53 x 202 additional lots

36,265.06

Sub Total

 

4,040,000.00

Compensation for open space

 

190,623.60

TOTAL

 

$3,849,376.40

The contribution will be indexed quarterly in accordance with the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2015 (Shiralee Urban Release Area). Attached to the Notice of Determination is a condition of consent addressing matters in relation to Section 94.

SECTION 64 - WATER AND SEWER HEADWORKS CHARGES

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

Traffic Impacts

The potential impacts of traffic on the surrounding road system are addressed below. The proposal detailed in the application involves a residential subdivision yielding 204 allotments accessed from Lysterfield Road. The applicant has submitted a study in accordance with the aims and objectives of State Environmental Planning Policy Infrastructure 2007 and in accordance with the guidelines and procedures for traffic generating developments as prepared by the RMS and with reference to with the provisions of the Shiralee DCP.

The report addressed the following matters

·    the subdivision and road layouts;

·    cycleway and pedestrian access;

·    public transport provisions;

·    traffic generation;

·    vehicular access; and

·    future traffic impacts.

The subdivision layout has been designed to be generally in accord with AMCORD Guidelines and the requirements of the Shiralee DCP. Road widths proposed generally accord with requirements of the Shiralee DCP, and Council’s Technical Services Division has included conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval to address matters in relation to road design.

A hierarchical road network is essential to maximise road safety, residential amenity and legibility. Each local access road in the subdivision will serve a distinct set of residential functions and has been designed accordingly.

The RMS recommended traffic generation per freestanding residential household is between 8 and 9 movements per day. The peak period is normally 0.9 movements per dwelling per hour, and the AM peak period represents only 7% of the daily total. Based on the above (recommended) RMS rates, it is anticipated that the future traffic generation levels for 203 residential allotments would be as follows:

·    daily vehicle trips (203 dwelling houses x 9) = 1827 trips daily

·    weekday peak hour vehicle trips (203 dwelling houses x 0.9) = 182.7 trips (3.11 per minute).

The RMS Guidelines also suggest that a distribution of peak hour arrival and departure journeys be undertaken to evaluate the traffic impacts on the adjoining road system - normally as 80% outbound in the AM peak and 20% inbound, and the reciprocal in the PM peak.


 

Given the limited access to Lysterfield Road, it is assumed that all future traffic will enter and exit the area from Shiralee Road and via Collector Roads (planned). The peak hour distribution of traffic to/from the site will be ultimately influenced by future traffic conditions, levels of service and vehicle origins/destinations regionally.

Currently Lysterfield Road and Shiralee Road are under-utilised, low volume, local access roads. Future development of the subject and adjoining land will increase both daily and peak hour traffic volumes. However, they are not expected to diminish the level of service.

It is considered that the subdivision proposal represents an appropriate use of the site from both a traffic planning and road safety viewpoint. The design of the subdivision largely accords with the adopted master planning for the site. Council’s adopted Section 94 plan highlights the need for certain road upgrades over time to facilitate the orderly development of the precinct.

As indicated above, the full development of all allotments is likely to result in an additional 182 peak hour trips. These 182 vehicle movements represent a significant increase over existing low volumes during the AM/PM peak hour. However, combined future traffic volumes (ie existing plus projected for this precinct) are likely to result in two-way totals of around 300-vehicles per hour, which is in keeping with the recommended RMS threshold for collector roads. The RMS has advised of no objections to the planned development.

Council’s Technical Services Division has also indicated no objections to the planned development and has included several conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Determination to address access requirements, having reference to the desired road hierarchy and design envisaged by the Shiralee DCP.

Visual Amenity

The subject property is located in a new urban residential release area that is currently dominated by rural residential lots. The subject property has been identified and accordingly rezoned for residential purposes. The subject property will be transformed over the years from a low density area to a more urban environment. The development of the land for a variety of residential allotment sizes is in accordance with the zoning of the land under the provisions of LEP 2011 (as amended).

Future dwellings or buildings within the proposed lots will be required to meet the Planning Outcomes contained with Orange Development Control Plan 2004 - 7 Development in Residential Areas, the corresponding chapter within the DCP relating to development within the Shiralee locality and/or the requirements of the NSW Housing Code if they apply.

The subject development represents the first development within the Shiralee locality. Residential development of the land will certainly impact upon the visual amenity of the locality. The design of the Shiralee locality has, however, been the subject of considerable public consultation, and the overall layout of the development largely accords with the adopted master planning for this locality. The visual impacts of the development are therefore considered to be acceptable in this case.


 

Effect on Threatened Species, Populations, or Ecological Communities, or Their Habitats

In considering relevant matters under Section 79C (1) of the Act, it is also necessary to take into account certain factors under Section 5A of the Act which relate to the potential for the development to affect threatened species, populations, or ecological communities or their habitats. In this regard the applicant submits the following:

·    The natural state of the site and surrounding area has been highly modified by the urban (residential) land use pattern.

·    The subject land is largely established with introduced tree species. As such, the potential for the site to attract less common native fauna is considered minimal. Habitat potential is low and the site does not have realistic potential to re-establish easily into providing habitats of value.

It is considered that the proposed development is unlikely to have a significant effect upon threatened species, populations, ecological communities or their habitats.

Water Quality

Stormwater from the site is to be connected to Council’s urban stormwater drainage system in accordance with Council’s normal requirements. Construction of the proposed services and driveways for the subdivision has the potential to generate impacts upon water quality. It is recommended that the following measures to mitigate potential impacts be implemented:

·    Erosion and sediment control devices should be placed during the construction phase. Retention of existing vegetation around disturbed areas where practical would reduce mass movement of sediment.

·    Immediately after construction works have been completed the exposed areas should be re-sown with appropriate grass species. The erosion and sediment control devices installed at the construction phase should remain in place until revegetation of the exposed areas has occurred.

·    Prior to any earthworks or development, an erosion and sediment control plan should be prepared. The plan is to cover all aspects of erosion and sediment control during the construction and post-construction phases of the development.

The above measures are considered to be acceptable for the proposed development. Attached is a condition of consent which requires the preparation of a soil and erosion control plan, to be implemented during construction.

Soil Contamination

In accordance with Council’s normal requirements for subdivision, soil investigations are required to be undertaken prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate to demonstrate that the proposed lots are suitable for residential development. A detailed assessment of contamination issues has been addressed above under the heading “State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land”. Attached are conditions of consent addressing these requirements.


 

Social and Economic Effect

The applicant submits that proposed subdivision has the potential to generate positive social and economic effects due to the following:

·    Increases the range and supply of low density residential land;

·    Facilitate the development of the Shiralee residential area;

·    Contributes to the social and economic sustainability of Orange as a major regional centre.

The development is not likely to result in any adverse social and economic impacts within the locality. The proposed lots will facilitate the range and supply of low density residential living opportunities.

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

Physical Attributes and Hazards

The subject land is located within the Shiralee locality. The proposed subdivision layout is considered to be consistent with the adopted Masterplan for this locality and is generally conducive to the existing landform and topography. The site is not subject to known natural hazards.

The land has previously been used for farming and grazing purposes. Matters in relation to the potential for contamination have been addressed above under the heading State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land. Conditions are attached requiring soil sampling and testing for contamination.

Utility Services

As outlined above, all utility services are available to the proposed lots and adequate for the proposal. The proposed lots will be provided with sewer, reticulated water, telecommunications, electricity and gas.

The subject site does not contain any significant landscape features or vegetation, and the physical attributes of the site will not constrain development. All utility services are available to the site and adequate for the proposal. As discussed above, the proposed lots are of sufficient area and dimension to provide a reasonable standard of residential amenity.

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.

It should be noted that whist the proposed subdivision is generally consistent with the adopted Shiralee Masterplan, a nearby landowner objected to the density of development permitted on the subject land during the exhibition of the Masterplan. As such, these concerns were considered again during this assessment. The principle issues in relation to lot size and density were resolved by Council in adopting the current Masterplan for this locality. The subdivision does not compound these issues.


 

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 design of the proposed subdivision has had regard to the Shiralee Masterplan. A detailed assessment of the application has revealed that some of the lots do not comply with the Shiralee Development Control Plan (DCP) in terms of width-to-depth ratio. As discussed in the body of this report, this application seeks a departure to those controls.

Proposed Lots 79-92 are also affected by a dual minimum allotment size requirement under the recently adopted LEP mapping layer contained within the LEP. The applicant has also requested a variation to the minimum lot size requirement for these lots pursuant to the provisions of Clause 4.6 of Orange LEP 2011.

A detailed assessment of matters pertaining to the “Hawke Lane Dam” and its effect on drainage matters and the ability and timing of the site to be developed has been addressed in the body of this report.

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, D15/41411

2          Plans, D15/41406

  


Council Meeting                                                                                                3 November 2015

5.3                       Development Application DA 218/2015(1) - 118 Lysterfield Road

Attachment 1      Notice of Approval

 

leaflogo

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

 

Development Application No DA 218/2015(1)

 

NA15/                                                                                             Container PR26862

 

 

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 81(1)

 

Development Application

 

  Applicant Name:

Robert R Wilson & Associates

  Applicant Address:

PO BOX 525

NARELLAN  NSW  2567

  Owner’s Name:

Roy Mammone Developments Pty Ltd

  Land to Be Developed:

Lot 100 DP 1204145 - 118 Lysterfield Road, Orange

  Proposed Development:

Subdivision (204 lot residential) and Demolition (existing dwelling and shed)

 

 

Building Code of Australia

  building classification:

 

Not applicable

 

 

Determination

 

  Made On:

3 November 2015

  Determination:

CONSENT GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:

 

 

Consent to Operate From:

4 November 2015

Consent to Lapse On:

4 November 2020

 

 

Terms of Approval

 

The reasons for the imposition of conditions are:

 

(1)      To ensure compliance with relevant statutory requirements.

 

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

 

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

 

(4)      To maintain neighbourhood amenity and character.

 

(5)      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 - Job reference number: F13269_DA:

          DA_01 SITE PLAN dated 6/05/2015; DA_02 Rev A dated 21/10/2015;

          DA_03 dated 20/05/2015; DA_04 dated 20/06/2015; DA_05 dated 20/06/2015;

          DA_06 dated 16/06/2015; DA_07 dated 16/06/2015; DA_08A Rev A dated 21/10/2015;

          DA_09 dated 20/05/2015; DA_10 dated 20/05/2015;

          Draft Road Layout Rev A dated 21/10/2015

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

 

(3)      A detailed amended plan showing landscaping for the proposed subdivision is to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager of Development Assessments prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. The amended landscape plan shall indicate the proposed landscaping of all road reserves in accordance with the following:

(i)       Street verges are to be fully turfed with cool climate species,

(ii)      Median strips are to be landscaped with trees and understory plantings (shrubs, groundcovers and grasses) with a general maximum height of 1.5m, reduced to a 1m height for areas within 5m of an intersection.

          The landscape design shall have regard to the landscaping principles contained within the Shiralee Urban release Masterplan.

 

(4)      The street lighting system shall be designed having regard to the relevant lighting controls contained within the Shiralee DCP. The applicant shall submit details of the street lighting system for approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

(5)      The applicant shall provide evidence to the Principle Certifying Authority indicating that a Controlled Activity approval has been obtained under the Water Management Act 2000 prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. In the event that NSW Office of Water determine that a controlled Activity Approval is not required for the proposed works the applicant shall provide written confirmation of such from that department prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 


 

Prior to the issue of a construction certificate (cont)

 

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

 

(7)      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.

 

(8)      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.

 

(9)      Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate engineering plans shall be prepared for a stormwater diversion structure to be constructed and contained within the proposed Hawke Lane road widening. The structure shall be designed to ensure that stormwater inundation from flows originating to the south of Hawke Lane are diverted into the Green Street drainage swale. The location and design of the drainage control structure is to be approved by Orange City Council’s Director of Technical Services.

 

(10)    Proposed lots are to be provided with interlot stormwater drainage, including those lots abutting public land, where the surface of the entire lot cannot be drained to the kerb and gutter at the lot frontage. A grated stormwater pit is to be constructed within each lot provided with interlot stormwater drainage. Engineering plans for this drainage system are to be approved by Orange City Council or an Accredited Certifier (Categories B1, C3, C4, C6) prior to the issuing a Construction Certificate.

 

(11)    Stormwater from the site is to be piped to the adjacent watercourse, where it is to be discharged through a standard headwall with appropriate scour protection. Engineering plans of this required drainage system are to be approved by Orange City Council or by an Accredited Certifier (Categories B1, C3, C4, C6) and a licence from the Department of Planning Infrastructure and Natural Resources for work within 20 metres of the watercourse is to be submitted prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

 

(12)    Minimum 150mm-diameter sewer mains are to be constructed from Council’s existing Shiralee Road sewer pump station to serve the proposed lots. Orange City Council is to approve engineering plans for this sewerage system prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

 

(13)    A water reticulation analysis is to be carried out by Orange City Council on any proposed water-reticulation system for the development. Engineering plans are to be submitted to Orange City Council for approval prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

 

The reticulation system is to be designed to supply a peak instantaneous demand by gravity of 0.15 L/s/tenement at a minimum residual head of 200kPa.

 

 

PRIOR TO WORKS COMMENCING

 

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

 

(15)    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.

 

(16)    Prior to works commencing on any demolition works, the applicant is to submit a waste management plan that describes the nature of wastes to be removed, the wastes to be recycled, the destination of all wastes and the route to be taken by vehicles transporting wastes to disposal sites. All wastes from the demolition phase of this project are to be deposited at a licenced or approved waste disposal site.

 


 

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

 

(17)    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.

 

(18)    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.

 

(19)    Building demolition is to be carried out in accordance with Australian Standard 2601:2001 - The Demolition of Structures and the requirements of the NSW WorkCover Authority.

 

(20)    Asbestos cement sheeting must be removed in accordance with the requirements of the WorkCover Authority.

 

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

 

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

 

(23)    Lysterfield Road and Road 1B are to be constructed as half road width for the full frontage of the proposed development. This work is to include road pavement and pavement surfacing to the centreline / far side of median island, kerb and gutter construction and earth-formed footpath on the development side of the road. Boxing out and pavement construction of the roadway on the opposite side of the development including transitions to the existing formation is to also be carried out.

 

          Hawke Lane and Road 3 are to be constructed full road width for the full frontage of the proposed development.

 

          Lysterfield Road, Hawke Lane and Roads 1 to 12 are to be constructed in accordance with Orange City Councils Shiralee Engineering Requirements and Additional Information (D15/40462).

 

(24)    All proposed residential lots adjacent to stormwater overland flow paths are to have a minimum freeboard above the 1-in-100-year flood level in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code and the Floodplain Risk Management Plan.

 

(25)    Water and sewer services, including mains construction, pumping station construction, easements and all associated materials and works, are to be provided for the development at the cost of the developer.

 

(26)    Concrete footpaths are to be constructed in accordance with the Shiralee DCP, Orange City Councils Shiralee Engineering Requirements and Additional Information (D15/40462).

 

Construction work is to be to the requirements and standards of the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.

 


 

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A SUBDIVISION CERTIFICATE

 

(27)    Application shall be made for a Subdivision Certificate under Section 109(C)(1)(d) of the Act.

 

(28)    The payment of $3,849,376.40 is to be made to Council in accordance with section 94 of the Act and the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2015 (Shiralee) towards the provision of the following public facilities:

 

Open Space and Recreation

@ $725.81 x 202 additional lots

146,613.62

Community and Cultural

@ $146.18 x 202 additional lots

29,528.36

Roads and Cycleways

@ $1,119.84 x 202 additional lots

226,207.68

Stormwater Drainage

@ $67.74 x 202 additional lots

13,683.48

Local Area Facilities

@ $17,760.90 x 202 additional lots

3,587,701.80

Plan Preparation & Administration

@ $179.53 x 202 additional lots

36,265.06

Sub Total

 

4,040,000.00

Compensation for open space

 

190,623.60

TOTAL

 

$3,849,376.40

 

The contribution will be indexed quarterly in accordance with the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2015 (Shiralee).  This Plan can be inspected at the Orange Civic Centre, Byng Street, Orange.

 

(29)    Soil sampling for analysing chemical residue is to be carried out within the proposed Lots in a manner and frequency as determined by an appropriately qualified and experienced consultant giving consideration to previous specific uses and on-site characteristics of the site. A NATA registered laboratory is to carry out such testing. Reference is to be made to the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 and State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - “Remediation of Land”. The results of the testing are to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and are to demonstrate that the land is suitable for residential use, to enable a Subdivision Certificate to be issued.

 

(30)    Prior to the issue of the Subdivision Certificate for Stage 1 of the proposal, the contaminated stockpile of building demolition material is to be further characterised in accordance with the recommendations of the Preliminary Site Investigation Report by Environmental Earth Sciences NSW (Report No. 415012) dated April 2015. A verification report is to be submitted to Council demonstrating that all contamination has been removed and that the land where the stockpile was located is now suitable for residential use.

 

(31)    Prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate all landscaping relevant to each stage of subdivision shall be carried out in accordance with the approved landscaping plan.

 

(32)    Prior to the issue of a subdivision certificate, application shall be made to Council for road naming and numbering for the proposed lots. All costs associated with this process shall be the responsibility of the developer.

 

(33)    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 203 ETs for water supply headworks and 203 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 Subdivision Certificate.

 

(34)    Evidence from a registered NATA laboratory is to be submitted prior to the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate stating that the filling of all dams and low-lying areas has been carried out in accordance with Australian Standard 3798-2007.

 

(35)    Certification from Telstra, stating that telecommunication systems comply with Australian Standards, is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate.

 


 

Prior to the issue of a subdivision certificate (cont)

 

(36)    Certification from Essential Energy, stating that electricity and street lighting systems comply with Essential Energy’s Networks Division Customer Connection Policy NP11.1, is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issuing of a Subdivision 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. The Principal Certifying Authority is to certify that the easement is in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code prior to the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate.

 

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

 

(39)    A Maintenance Security Deposit, in accordance with the provisions and requirements of the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code, is to be provided to Orange City Council prior to the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate.

 

A Certificate of Compliance, from Orange City Council, certifying that the maintenance security deposit has been paid, is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate.

 

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

 

(41)    The existing septic tank is to be accurately located and indicated on the submitted engineering plans. The septic tank is to be excavated and disposed of at a licensed landfill and the absorption trench is to be drained and the voids limed and backfilled with clean compacted material.

 

Evidence of such work is to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate.

 

(42)    Prior to the issue of a subdivision certificate the stormwater diversion structure contained within the proposed Hawke Lane road widening and flow path along the Green Street shall be completed and approved by Orange City Council’s Director of Technical Services.

 

(43)    All of the foregoing conditions are to be at the full cost of the developer and to the requirements and standards of the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code, unless specifically stated otherwise. All work required by the foregoing conditions is to be completed prior to the issuing of a Subdivision 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 November 2015


Council Meeting                                                                                                3 November 2015

5.3                       Development Application DA 218/2015(1) - 118 Lysterfield Road

Attachment 2      Plans











   


Council Meeting                                                                                       3 November 2015

 

 

6     Closed Meeting - See Closed Agenda

The General Manager will advise the Council if any written submissions have been received relating to any item advertised for consideration by a closed meeting of Orange City Council.

The Mayor will extend an invitation to any member of the public present at the meeting to make a representation to Council as to whether the meeting should be closed for a particular item.

 In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, and the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, in the opinion of the General Manager, the following business is of a kind as referred to in Section 10A(2) of the Act, and should be dealt with in a Confidential Session of the Council meeting closed to the press and public.

Recommendation

That Council adjourn into a Closed Meeting and members of the press and public be excluded from the Closed Meeting, and access to the correspondence and reports relating to the items considered during the course of the Closed Meeting be withheld unless declassified by separate resolution. This action is taken in accordance with Section 10A(2) of the Local Government Act, 1993 as the items listed come within the following provisions:

6.1     Construction of New Emergency Helicopter Hangar - Tender

This item is classified CONFIDENTIAL under the provisions of Section 10A(2) of the Local Government Act 1993, which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to (c) information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

6.2     2015-2016 Sewer Rehabilitation Tender

This item is classified CONFIDENTIAL under the provisions of Section 10A(2) of the Local Government Act 1993, which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to (c) information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

 

 


Council Meeting                                                                                       3 November 2015

 

 

6.1     Construction of New Emergency Helicopter Hangar - Tender

TRIM REFERENCE:        2015/2559

AUTHOR:                       Robin Edwards, Contracts Officer    

Reason for Confidentiality

This item is classified CONFIDENTIAL under the provisions of Section 10A(2) of the Local Government Act 1993, which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to (c) information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

 

 


Council Meeting                                                                                       3 November 2015

 

 

6.2     2015-2016 Sewer Rehabilitation Tender

TRIM REFERENCE:        2015/2756

AUTHOR:                       Joshua Barnes, Water and Sewer Engineer    

Reason for Confidentiality

This item is classified CONFIDENTIAL under the provisions of Section 10A(2) of the Local Government Act 1993, which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to (c) information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

 

  


Council Meeting                                                                                       3 November 2015

 

 

7       Resolutions from closed meeting