Agenda of Council Meeting - 17 November 2015

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

MINUTES OF THE

Ordinary Council Meeting

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

ON 3 November 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 R Turner, Cr J Whitton

General Manager, Director Development Services, Director Community, Recreation and Cultural Services, Director Technical Services, Manager Administration and Governance, Manager Corporate and Community Relations, Manager Financial Services, Operations Manager, Water and Sewerage Strategic Manager, Acting Manager Development Assessments (Johnston)

1.1 APOLOGIES

RESOLVED - 15/496 Cr C Gryllis/Cr J Hamling

That the apology be accepted from Cr G Taylor for the Council Meeting of Orange City Council on 3 November 2015.

1.3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

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

PDC Item 2.2 Development Application DA 38/2015(1) – 90-92 Bathurst Road

Cr A Brown declared a pecuniary interest in Item 2.2 as he has commercial dealings with the applicant.

CCL Item 5.3 Development Application DA 215/2015(1) – 118 Lysterfield Road

Cr A Brown declared a pecuniary interest in Item 5.3 as he has commercial dealings with the applicant.

THE MAYOR DECLARED THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ADJOURNED FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE OPEN FORUM AT 7.08PM

PDC Item 2.2 Development Application DA 38/2015(1) – 90-92 Bathurst Road

Ben Isaac

Mr Isaac spoke in support of the development application.

Richard Castine

Mr Castine raised concern in relation to traffic congestion.

PDC Item 2.4 Development Application DA 319/2015(1) – 1 Summer Street

Don Good

Mr Good spoke against demolition of the residence.

CCL Item 5.3 Development Application DA 215/2015(1) – 118 Lysterfield Road

Garry Smith

Mr Smith spoke against the development application.

THE OPEN FORUM CONCLUDED AT 7.28PM

2 Mayoral Minutes

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

TRIM Reference: 2015/2793

RESOLVED - 15/497 Cr J Davis/Cr N Jones

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

2 That Council investigate the acquisition of land with direct frontage to Suma Park Dam in the Sporting and Recreational Precinct.

3 Confirmation of Minutes of Previous Meeting

RESOLVED - 15/498 Cr J Hamling/Cr S Munro

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.

THE MAYOR DECLARED THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ADJOURNED FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE POLICY COMMITTEE MEETINGS AT 7.32PM

THE MAYOR DECLARED THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL RESUMED AT 9.03PM

4 Notices of Motion/Notices of Rescission

4.1 Orange City Medallion by Cr Gryllis

TRIM Reference: 2015/2795

RESOLVED - 15/527 Cr C Gryllis/Cr S Munro

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

5 General Reports

5.1 Consultation on Local Government Reform

TRIM Reference: 2015/2880

RESOLVED - 15/528 Cr K Duffy/Cr C Gryllis

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.

5.2 Section 94 Orange Development Contributions Plan 2015

TRIM Reference: 2015/2798

RESOLVED - 15/529 Cr R Turner/Cr S Munro

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.

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

TRIM Reference: 2015/2852

Cr A Brown declared a pecuniary interest in Item 5.3 as he has commercial dealings with the applicant, left the Chamber, and did not participate in the voting or debate on this item.

RESOLVED - 15/530 Cr R Gander/Cr S Munro

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.

Division of Voting
Voted For	Cr J Davis (Mayor), Cr K Duffy, Cr R Gander, Cr C Gryllis, Cr J Hamling, Cr S Munro, Cr R Turner, Cr J Whitton, Cr A Brown
Voted Against	Cr N Jones, Cr R Kidd
Absent	Cr G Taylor

6 Closed Meeting

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.

In response to a question from the Mayor, the General Manager advised that no written submissions had been received relating to any item listed for consideration by the Closed Meeting of Council.

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

RESOLVED - 15/531 Cr C Gryllis/Cr R Kidd

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

THE MAYOR DECLARED THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ADJOURNED FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE CLOSED MEETING AT 9.58PM

THE MAYOR DECLARED THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL RESUMED AT 10.04PM

7 Resolutions from Closed Meeting

The Manager Administration and Governance read out the following resolutions made in the Closed Meeting of Council.

6.1 Construction of New Emergency Helicopter Hangar - Tender

TRIM Reference: 2015/2559

RESOLVED - 15/532 Cr R Kidd/Cr C Gryllis

1 That subject to the execution of the Agreement to Lease as noted within this report, the contract for the “Construction of the New Emergency Helicopter Hangar at the Orange Airport” be awarded to Hines Constructions for the Lump Sum Price of $2,592,849 (GST Ex).

2 That permission be granted to affix the Common Seal on all relevant documents.

Division of Voting
Voted For	Cr J Davis (Mayor), Cr K Duffy, Cr R Gander, Cr C Gryllis, Cr J Hamling, Cr N Jones, Cr R Kidd, Cr S Munro, Cr R Turner, Cr J Whitton, Cr A Brown
Voted Against	Nil
Absent	Cr G Taylor

6.2 2015-2016 Sewer Rehabilitation Tender

TRIM Reference: 2015/2756

RESOLVED - 15/533 Cr R Kidd/Cr R Gander

1 That the contract for the 2015/16 Sewer Rehabilitation Program be awarded to Insituform Pacific Pty Ltd for the sum of $ 551,892.21 (GST included).

2 That permission be granted to affix the Council Seal on all relevant documents.

Division of Voting
Voted For	Cr J Davis (Mayor), Cr K Duffy, Cr R Gander, Cr C Gryllis, Cr J Hamling, Cr N Jones, Cr R Kidd, Cr S Munro, Cr R Turner, Cr J Whitton, Cr A Brown
Voted Against	Nil
Absent	Cr G Taylor

The Meeting Closed at 10.07PM

This is Page Number 10 and the Final Page of the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Orange City Council held on 3 November 2015.

Date of Meeting	Question	Responsible Staff Member	Action
3 Nov 2015	Cr Jones requested a time frame on when repairs commenced in Byng Street between Sale Street and Anson Street will be finished.	Works Manager	Hot mix asphalt repairs to the footpath have been programmed to follow on from the current work being undertaken on the NDR by Council’s contractors. Weather permitting this should be in the week commencing 16 November 2015.
20 Oct 2015	Cr Kidd requested information on when the Huntley Road Access to the new Hospital will be open.	Director Technical Services	The Huntley Road access to the Hospital is awaiting the reconstruction and realignment of existing roads in the Bloomfields precinct. A Development application is being prepared for this work, however resolution of some heritage matters have delayed the process. It is envisaged that subject to the approval of the Development application works will be completed by March 2016.
Cr Taylor requested a check of the play equipment in Newman Park and investigation into the possibility of installing additional equipment.	Manager City Presentation	Inspection to be completed.
Cr Hamling requested a report investigating the possibility of installing play equipment into Wentworth Reserve.	Manager City Presentation	Report to be provided.
6 Oct 2015	Cr Gryllis requested information on revenue generated at the Theatre by Orange Theatre Company performances.	Director Community Recreation and Cultural Services	Information to be circulated to Councillors.
15 Sept 2015	Cr Gander requested the ‘no stopping’ signage be reviewed in front of Bletchington School adjacent to the previous location of the pedestrian crossing.	Commercial and Emergency Services Manager	The area has been inspected and the “no stopping sign on the south east corner will repositioned.
1 Sept 2015	Cr Gander requested the parking limits in Edward Street in front of Electrolux be reviewed.	Commercial Emergency Services Manager	Parking limits to be reviewed. A report will be going to the next COTC recommending the timed parking be removed.
Cr Taylor requested the Parking Officers inspect the loading areas in the Anson Street carpark as cars appear to be parking in these areas.	Manager Development Assessments	Inspection completed. Appears to be the case occasionally so rangers and parking attendants will monitor and fine if necessary.
18 August 2015	Cr Taylor requested a report on the leash free area in Riawena Oval.	Manager Building and Environment	Information was reported to Companion Animals Community Committee Meeting of 19 October 2015 as an operational update.
4 August 2015	Cr Kidd requested an update on plans for landscaping the triangle section of land between the Northern Distributor Road and the Mitchell Highway	Director Technical Services	Information to be circulated to Councillors.
7 April 2015	Cr Taylor requested a review of Council’s process for determining requests to waive hire fees for the Orange Function Centre, and include a review of costs for making the Centre available.	Director Community, Recreation and Cultural Services	Information is currently being collated for consideration by Council.
17 Mar 2015	Cr Hamling requested a briefing to consider options for private cars for sale being parked on Council land, particularly on the Northern Distributor Rd and the Escort Way, and Jack Brabham Park.	Director Development Services	This item has been included on the Councillor Briefing Schedule.
2 Sept 2014	Cr Taylor requested consideration be given to further noise abatement issues at the residential properties in Anson Street adjacent to the Northern Distributor Road.	Director Technical Services	The design of a suitable sound mound has been completed. This project, including landscaping options and ongoing maintenance costs, will be reported to Council for consideration as an initiative for funding.
15 April 2014	Cr Taylor requested consideration be given to further noise abatement issues at the residential properties in Anson Street adjacent to the Northern Distributor Road.	Director Technical Services	The design of a suitable sound mound has been completed. This project, including landscaping options and ongoing maintenance costs, will be reported to Council for consideration as an initiative for funding.

Council Meeting 17 November 2015

5.11 Development Application DA 325/2015(1) - Lot 100 March Street (aka 83 Spring Street)

TRIM REFERENCE: 2015/2952

AUTHOR: Andrew Crump, Senior Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

This application is going before Council rather than the Planning and Development Policy Committee as the applicant requested that the development be determined as soon as practicable so that tenders could be arranged; and timing did not align with the deadlines associated with the 3 December 2015.

Application lodged	18 September 2015
Applicant/s	Havenhand & Mather Architects Pty Ltd
Owner/s	United Protestant Association of NSW Limited
Land description	Lot 100 DP 1209880 - March Street Orange (aka 83 Spring Street, Orange)
Proposed land use	Residential Care Facility (expansion to existing and alterations and additions), Demolition (two dwellings and trees) and Solar Energy System
Value of proposed development	$7,200,000

Council's consent is sought for the construction of a 28 bed expansion of the existing residential care facility on the land (a total of 16 additional beds), alteration and additions to an existing building on the land and various ancillary buildings on land described as Lot 100 DP 1209880, known as Lot 100 March Street (also known as 83 Spring Street, Orange). In order to facilitate the expansion two dwellings are required to be demolished within Spring Street and a number of trees are also proposed to be removed. In addition to the above, application is also made for a solar energy system to be installed on the roofs of existing and proposed buildings on the land.

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 325/2015(1) for Residential Care Facility (expansion to existing and alterations and additions), Demolition (two dwellings and trees) and Solar Energy System at Lot 100 DP 1209880 - March Street, Orange (aka 83 Spring Street, 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

By way of further explanation, Westcott Lodge is currently used for accommodation as a residential care facility; however as part of this development it is being converted to respite day care being ancillary to the dominant use of the land. So whilst there are 28 beds being constructed on the new dementia care cottages, 12 beds are being removed from Westcott Lodge, resulting in a net increase of 16 beds at the completion of the development.

In addition to the above, the development involves alterations and additions to Westcott Lodge, a minor addition to Waratah Lodge, archive storage building, general storage building, upgrade of existing car park and mini-bus bay; along with filling of site and associated retaining walls; and landscaping.

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

Section 5A Assessment

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

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

Section 79C

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

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

Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011

Part 1 - Preliminary

Clause 1.2 - Aims of Plan

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

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

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

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

The application is considered to be consistent with aims (a), (b) 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 Local Environmental Plan (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 R1 General Residential
Lot Size Map:	No Minimum Lot Size
Heritage Map:	Not a heritage item or conservation area
Height of Buildings Map:	No building height limit
Floor Space Ratio Map:	No floor space limit
Terrestrial Biodiversity Map:	No biodiversity sensitivity on the site
Groundwater Vulnerability Map:	Ground water vulnerable
Drinking Water Catchment Map:	Not within the drinking water catchment
Watercourse Map:	Not within or affecting a defined watercourse
Urban Release Area Map:	Not within an urban release area
Obstacle Limitation Surface Map:	No restriction on building siting or construction
Additional Permitted Uses Map:	No additional permitted use applies

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

Part 2 - Permitted or Prohibited Development

Land Use Zones

The subject site is located within the R1 General Residential zone. The proposed development is defined as a residential care facility, demolition and solar energy system (defined under SEPP (Infrastructure) below) under OLEP 2011 which means:

residential care facility means accommodation for seniors or people with a disability that includes:

(a) meals and cleaning services, and

(b) personal care or nursing care, or both, and

(c) appropriate staffing, furniture, furnishings and equipment for the provision of that accommodation and care,

but does not include a dwelling, hostel, hospital or psychiatric facility.

Demolition and the solar energy system are addressed below.

Residential care facilities are permitted with consent in the R1 General Residential zone.

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

1 - Objectives of the R1 General Residential Zone

· To provide for the housing needs of the community.

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

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

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

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

The development is not antipathetic to the objectives of the R1 General Residential zone.

Clause 2.7 - Demolition Requires Development Consent

This clause triggers the need for development consent in relation to a building or work. This requirement does not apply to any demolition that is defined as exempt development.

The proposal involves demolition and the applicant is seeking the consent of council. The demolition works relate to two existing dwellings within Spring Street identified as 85 and 87 Spring Street (prior to these lots being consolidated into the UPA site). The dwelling at 85 Spring Street is a circa 1965 orange brick and tiled roof dwelling of modest size; the dwelling at 87 Spring Street is circa 1950s period, described as a simple weatherboard and iron roof dwelling. Neither dwelling comprises any heritage or streetscape significance. The purpose of their demolition is to further expand the existing facilities on the land. Whilst the dwelling have been consolidated with the adjoining lot containing the existing facility which comprises a heritage item, the two dwellings in question were not identified as heritage items prior to their consolidation.

As such, the demolition works proposed will have no significant impact on adjoining lands, streetscape or public realm. Conditions are imposed in respect of hours of operation, dust suppression and the need to investigate for, and appropriately manage the presence of any materials containing asbestos.

The definition of demolition pursuant to OLEP 2011 is as follows:

in relation to a heritage item or an Aboriginal object, or a building, work, relic or tree within a heritage conservation area, means wholly or partly destroy, dismantle or deface the heritage item, Aboriginal object or building, work, relic or tree.

As the subject land is identified as a heritage item, the removal of trees from a heritage item is considered demolition pursuant to the LEP.

In addition to the demolition works associated with the dwellings, the applicant is also seeking consent to demolish or remove a number of significant trees from the subject land (this involves the removal of eight trees as shown on plan no: Dwg. No. 15/331/LD-01 dated 28.08.15.). Two trees in particular are considered significant; one is within close proximity to the heritage item located in the south-western corner of the site and the other is an ironbark in the south-eastern corner of the site.

The applicant has submitted the following in support of the removal of the Lombardy Poplar:

It is proposed to remove a tall tree in the south-west corner of the site. The subject tree was inspected by the undersigned on 7 August

This tree is a Lombardy Poplar (Populus nigra ‘Italica’) that stands approximately 35m high with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of 1,800mm. Like many species of the Populus genus these trees are not particularly long lived (60 – 80 years) and this specimen would be in the latter stages of this life expectancy. The species has long been favored for avenue plantings in many parts of the world, but is generally considered too large and aggressive (in its root development) for more “urbanized” situations.

This particular specimen is immediately adjacent to overhead power lines (running along Nile Street) and its surface roots are causing ongoing “trip hazard” risks on the adjacent footpaths. This risk is heightened for residents of Ascott Gardens, who frequent the footpaths as part of their therapy, as their “situational awareness” to the risks is not as heightened as that of the general population.

Council’s Manager City Presentation reviewed the above information and inspected the site (see below for his comments). In addition to the removal of the Lombardy Poplar, Council’s Manager City Presentation was also asked to provide comment in relation to the removal of the Ironbark in the south-eastern corner of the site.

Eucalyptus sideroxylon (Ironbark) Spring Street frontage towards south east corner of property. This tree does not appear to have any structural issues of concern and should be retained. An arborist’s report should be submitted should the property owner wish to substantiate reasoning for its removal. The tree is located a significant distance from the building on the subject site and should pose no structural issues to the building or concrete pathways in this vicinity.

Populus nigra ‘Italica’ (Lombardy Poplar) I have carefully considered the submission provided by Mark McCrone (17 September 2015) and whilst his comments are valid for this species in heavily urbanised environments, the subject tree is not within a confined urban area.There is green space to the north and east (what appears to be a redundant tennis court where the turf surface does not appear, from a precursory view, to be affected by tree roots) providing ample growing environment for the specimen. On the March Street frontage there is no formed. The subject tree is significant within the streetscape and is healthy and shows good form and vigour.

Recommendation: the Populous nigra ‘Italica’ be retained.

The above advice was reverted to the applicant who responded with the below further justification:

Ironbark Tree (Eucalyptus sideroxylon)

The subject tree does not have conservation value, primarily due to its age (it is still a relatively young specimen) and the species. It is proposed to remove the tree because of its limited amenity value and long term management issues. The species will grow to a large tree (25 to 30m high) and is very close to an existing Spring Street street tree (another Liquidambar styraciflua). These two trees already “share” canopy space, with the Ironbark tree “leaning” to the south & west because of this (see Figures 1 – 3).

Removing the Ironbark tree will mean little loss of amenity, especially from the Spring Street view (see Figure 1). Furthermore, the proposed extension of Westcott Lodge to the east will encroach further on the tree, and would require pruning of its already “distorted” crown (see Figures 2 & 3).

Lombardy Poplar (Populus nigra ‘Italica’)

This tree stands approximately 35m high with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of 1,800mm. While the tree is generally currently sound, the principle concern is with its limited remaining life. Like many species of the Populus genus these trees are not particularly long lived (60 – 80 years) and this specimen would be in the latter stages of this life expectancy. The species has long been favored for avenue plantings in many parts of the world, but is generally considered too large and aggressive (in its root development) for more “urbanized” situations. As shown in Figures 4 – 5, this particular specimen is immediately adjacent to overhead power lines (running along Nile Street) and its surface roots are causing ongoing “trip hazard” risks on the adjacent footpaths. This risk is heightened for residents of Ascott Gardens, who frequent the footpaths as part of their therapy, as their “situational awareness” to the risks is not as heightened as that of the general population.

Council’s Manager City Presentation reviewed the above additional information, reinspected the subject trees and provided the following:

Lombardy Poplar - whilst the author of the report states that ‘this specimen would be in the later stages of this life expectancy’ the subject specimen is currently in a healthy condition and showing little sign of senescence (minor deadwood is present in the canopy). It’s anticipated life expectancy could be between 10 and 20 years.

E. sideroxylon (Ironbark) - the author’s comments are noted, however in my opinion there is no requirement to remove the subject tree as it will have little impact or be subjected to little impact from the proposed construction works should an appropriate Tree Protection Zone be established. There is sufficient pervious surfacing (soft landscape) to ensure continued support for the growth of a stable and healthy specimen. The impacts of the Euc on the street tree are noted but not a significant factor warranting the Euc’s removal.

Council staff are relying on the advice of the Manger City Presentation, and as such the removal of the two trees is not supported and conditions are attached requiring their retention.

Part 3 - Exempt and Complying Development

The application is not exempt or complying development.

Part 5 - Miscellaneous Provisions

5.10 - Heritage Conservation

The subject land contains a heritage item identified as “Buena Vista”. The relevant heritage inventory sheet provides the following statement of significance:

A fine rendered and painted masonry residence in the Gothic style which has retained the distinctive original features including the verandah, slate roof, chimneys and decorative mouldings. It is a rare building type and style, complements the streetscape and contributes to Orange as a Heritage item.

(1) Objectives

The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a) to conserve the environmental heritage of Orange,

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

(c) to conserve archaeological sites,

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

Whilst a heritage item exists on the land, the land has undergone a significant amount of change over time with the construction of modern buildings within the vicinity of the item. Except for two ancillary buildings to the north of the item and a minor extension to the outer eastern and western walls of Westcott Lodge to the east of the item, the majority of works are occurring to the north of the site and are well removed from the item and the curtilage of the item.

The proposed development is not likely to generate any adverse impacts upon the significance of the heritage item.

No solar panels are proposed on the heritage item. The solar panels attached to the north facing roofs of the other buildings on the land are not likely to generate an adverse impact. The solar panels will not be visible from the heritage item.

The removal of trees from a heritage item requires consent pursuant to this clause. This has been addressed above under the demolition considerations.

Part 6 - Urban Release Area

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

Part 7 - Additional Local Provisions

7.1 - Earthworks

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

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

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

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

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

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

(f) the likelihood of disturbing relics

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

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

The applicant is proposing to fill a significant portion of the northern extent of the site, nominally between 1.25m and 0.8m. The applicant submits the following support of the proposed fill:

A critical part of our design brief from UPA is to avoid ramps and steps for the following reasons:

· Level changes are a safety risk to aged residents with limited mobility

· The day to day use of trolleys and mobile equipment in the building requires level access

· Services such as catering and laundry involve loaded trolleys and any ramps increase the risk of injury for staff

For the above reasons, the new dementia cottages and the secure gardens to the north which will be used daily are designed link at the existing aged care facility which requires fill.

The extent of disruption to the drainage of the site is considered to be within acceptable levels and will not detrimentally affect adjoining properties or receiving waterways.

The site is not known to be contaminated, and conditions are imposed requiring the use of verified clean fill only.

The earthworks will be appropriately supported onsite with the construction of a retaining wall along part of the northern boundary and part of the eastern boundary. The change in ground level is not substantial. Therefore the effect on the amenity of adjoining properties is considered to be within acceptable levels.

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.

The site is not in proximity to any waterway, drinking water catchment or sensitive area. Conditions are imposed in relation to the requirement for a sediment control plan for the development.

Whilst a change to the existing situation will occur as a result of the proposed development, the extent of earthworks is not considered excessive and will not unreasonably impact upon adjoining properties.

7.3 - Stormwater Management

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

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

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

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

The proposal has been designed to include permeable surfaces and includes onsite retention of stormwater through the use of detention basins. It is therefore considered that the post-development runoff levels will not exceed the pre-development levels.

7.6 - Groundwater Vulnerability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The proposal is not anticipated to involve the discharge of toxic or noxious substances and is therefore unlikely to contaminate the groundwater or related ecosystems. The proposal does not involve extraction of groundwater and will therefore not contribute to groundwater depletion. The design and siting of the proposal avoids impacts on groundwater and is therefore considered acceptable.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004

State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 applies to the subject development. As such, the following is provided in consideration of the development.

2 - Aims of Policy

(1) This Policy aims to encourage the provision of housing (including residential care facilities) that will:

(a) increase the supply and diversity of residences that meet the needs of seniors or people with a disability, and

(b) make efficient use of existing infrastructure and services, and

(c) be of good design.

(2) These aims will be achieved by:

(a) setting aside local planning controls that would prevent the development of housing for seniors or people with a disability that meets the development criteria and standards specified in this Policy, and

(b) setting out design principles that should be followed to achieve built form that responds to the characteristics of its site and form, and

(c) ensuring that applicants provide support services for seniors or people with a disability for developments on land adjoining land zoned primarily for urban purposes.

With consideration of the conditions of consent it is determined that the development is consistent with the aims of the policy.

4 - Land to Which Policy Applies

1 - General

This Policy applies to land within New South Wales that is land zoned primarily for urban purposes or land that adjoins land zoned primarily for urban purposes, but only if:

(a) development for the purpose of any of the following is permitted on the land:

(i) dwelling-houses,

(ii) residential flat buildings,

(iii) hospitals,

(iv) development of a kind identified in respect of land zoned as special uses, including (but not limited to) churches, convents, educational establishments, schools and seminaries, or

(b) the land is being used for the purposes of an existing registered club.

The land is zoned R1 General Residential Pursuant to Orange LEP 2011. The objectives of the zone indicate that the land is zoned primarily for urban purposes and is consistent with the identified purposes listed in 1(a) above.

Chapter 2 - Key Concepts

8 - Seniors

In this Policy, seniors are any of the following:

(a) people aged 55 or more years,

(b) people who are resident at a facility at which residential care (within the meaning of the Aged Care Act 1997 of the Commonwealth) is provided,

(c) people who have been assessed as being eligible to occupy housing for aged persons provided by a social housing provider.

9 - People with a Disability

In this Policy, people with a disability are people of any age who have, either permanently or for an extended period, one or more impairments, limitations or activity restrictions that substantially affect their capacity to participate in everyday life.

10 - Seniors Housing

In this Policy, seniors housing is residential accommodation that is, or is intended to be, used permanently for seniors or people with a disability consisting of:

(a) a residential care facility, or

(b) a hostel, or

(c) a group of self-contained dwellings, or

(d) a combination of these,

but does not include a hospital.

Note. The concept of seniors housing is intended to be a shorthand phrase encompassing both housing for seniors and for people with a disability. This Policy deals with both kinds of housing.

Accommodation provided by seniors housing does not have to be limited to seniors or people with a disability. Clause 18 provides that seniors housing may be used for the accommodation of the following:

(a) seniors or people who have a disability,

(b) people who live within the same household with seniors or people who have a disability,

(c) staff employed to assist in the administration of and provision of services to housing provided under this Policy.

10 - Seniors Housing

Relevant classifications in the Building Code of Australia for the different types of residential accommodation are as follows:

(a) Class 3, 9a or 9c in relation to residential care facilities,

(b) Class 1b or 3 in relation to hostels,

(c) Class 1a or 2 in relation to self contained dwellings.

11 - Residential Care Facilities

In this Policy, a residential care facility is residential accommodation for seniors or people with a disability that includes:

(a) meals and cleaning services, and

(b) personal care or nursing care, or both, and

(c) appropriate staffing, furniture, furnishings and equipment for the provision of that accommodation and care,

not being a dwelling, hostel, hospital or psychiatric facility.

Note. The Aged Care Act 1997 of the Commonwealth requires residential care facilities to which that Act applies to meet certain requirements.

The proposed development is consistent with the above key concepts.

Part 2 - Site-Related Requirements

26 - Location and Access to Facilities

(1) A consent authority must not consent to a development application made pursuant to this Chapter unless the consent authority is satisfied, by written evidence, that residents of the proposed development will have access that complies with subclause (2) to:

(a) shops, bank service providers and other retail and commercial services that residents may reasonably require, and

(b) community services and recreation facilities, and

(c) the practice of a general medical practitioner.

(2) Access complies with this clause if:

(a) the facilities and services referred to in subclause (1) are located at a distance of not more than 400 metres from the site of the proposed development that is a distance accessible by means of a suitable access pathway and the overall average gradient for the pathway is no more than 1:14, although the following gradients along the pathway are also acceptable:

(i) a gradient of no more than 1:12 for slopes for a maximum of 15 metres at a time,

(ii) a gradient of no more than 1:10 for a maximum length of 5 metres at a time,

(iii) a gradient of no more than 1:8 for distances of no more than 1.5 metres at a time, or

(c) in the case of a proposed development on land in a local government area that is not within the Sydney Statistical Division - there is a transport service available to the residents who will occupy the proposed development:

(i) that is located at a distance of not more than 400 metres from the site of the proposed development and the distance is accessible by means of a suitable access pathway, and

(ii) that will take those residents to a place that is located at a distance of not more than 400 metres from the facilities and services referred to in subclause (1), and

(iii) that is available both to and from the proposed development during daylight hours at least once each day from Monday to Friday (both days inclusive), and the gradient along the pathway from the site to the public transport services (and from the transport services to the facilities and services referred to in subclause (1)) complies with subclause (3).

In relation to the above, the subject land is located outside of the central business district. The development represents an expansion of a well-established and long standing residential care facility. In response to the above clause the applicant submits that:

... the residents of Ascott Gardens have access to the facilities listed in 26.1 (a, b and c) as provided and arranged by UPA.

There is access from within the buildings to UPA minibus or taxi service at the Spring Street entrance and the Nile Street car Park.

Council staff are satisfied that the development achieves the above clause.

(3) For the purposes of subclause (2) (b) and (c), the overall average gradient along a pathway from the site of the proposed development to the public transport services (and from the transport services to the facilities and services referred to in subclause (1)) is to be no more than 1:14, although the following gradients along the pathway are also acceptable:

(i) a gradient of no more than 1:12 for slopes for a maximum of 15 metres at a time,

(ii) a gradient of no more than 1:10 for a maximum length of 5 metres at a time,

(iii) a gradient of no more than 1:8 for distances of no more than 1.5 metres at a time.

The applicant submits that this is achieved.

(4) For the purposes of subclause (2):

(a) a suitable access pathway is a path of travel by means of a sealed footpath or other similar and safe means that is suitable for access by means of an electric wheelchair, motorised cart or the like, and

(b) distances that are specified for the purposes of that subclause are to be measured by reference to the length of any such pathway.

Noted.

(5) In this clause:

bank service provider means any bank, credit union or building society or any post office that provides banking services.

Noted.

28 - Water and Sewer

(1) A consent authority must not consent to a development application made pursuant to this Chapter unless the consent authority is satisfied, by written evidence, that the housing will be connected to a reticulated water system and have adequate facilities for the removal or disposal of sewage.

(2) If the water and sewerage services referred to in subclause (1) will be provided by a person other than the consent authority, the consent authority must consider the suitability of the site with regard to the availability of reticulated water and sewerage infrastructure. In locations where reticulated services cannot be made available, the consent authority must satisfy all relevant regulators that the provision of water and sewerage infrastructure, including environmental and operational considerations, are satisfactory for the proposed development.

Adequate provisions have been made in terms of water and sewer. Relevant conditions are attached.

29 - Consent Authority to Consider Certain Site Compatibility Criteria for Development Applications to Which Clause 24 Does Not Apply

(1) This clause applies to a development application made pursuant to this Chapter in respect of development for the purposes of seniors housing (other than dual occupancy) to which clause 24 does not apply.

Note. Clause 24 (1) sets out the development applications to which that clause applies.

(2) A consent authority, in determining a development application to which this clause applies, must take into consideration the criteria referred to in clause 25(5)(b)(i),(iii) and (v).

25 - Application for Site Compatibility Certificate

(5) The Director-General must not issue a site compatibility certificate unless the Director-General:

(b) is of the opinion that the proposed development is compatible with the surrounding land uses having regard to (at least) the following criteria:

(i) the natural environment (including known significant environmental values, resources or hazards) and the existing uses and approved uses of land in the vicinity of the proposed development,

(iii) the services and infrastructure that are or will be available to meet the demands arising from the proposed development (particularly, retail, community, medical and transport services having regard to the location and access requirements set out in clause 26) and any proposed financial arrangements for infrastructure provision

(v) without limiting any other criteria, the impact that the bulk, scale, built form and character of the proposed development is likely to have on the existing uses, approved uses and future uses of land in the vicinity of the development.

In relation to 25(5)(b)(i) above, the development site is not subject to known natural resources, hazards or significant environmental value in terms of flora and fauna. The development is considered to have significant heritage value. This is discussed in detail above. The site is essentially a continuation of the existing use of the land, with a minor intensification resultant of an additional sixteen beds. It is considered that the existing use is compatible and non-conflicting with the adjoining residential uses.

In relation to 25(5)(b)(iii) above, given the location of the development in a highly urbanised area and the minor intensification of the existing use, it is considered that the existing infrastructure and services will be adequate to meet the needs of the development.

In relation to 25(5)(b)(v) above, this is discussed extensively under the headings DCP 2004 and the likely impacts of the development; and it is appropriate to do so given clause 3 below. Appropriate conditions are attached in response to those considerations.

(3) Nothing in this clause limits the matters to which a consent authority may or must have regard (or of which a consent authority must be satisfied under another provision of this Policy) in determining a development application to which this clause applies.

Further matters outside of this clause are considered within the report.

Division 1 - General

30 - Site Analysis

(1) A consent authority must not consent to a development application made pursuant to this Chapter unless the consent authority is satisfied that the applicant has taken into account a site analysis prepared by the applicant in accordance with this clause.

A suitable site analysis plan has been submitted in support of the application.

Division 2 - Design Principles

33 - Neighbourhood Amenity and Streetscape

The proposed development should:

(a) recognise the desirable elements of the location’s current character (or, in the case of precincts undergoing a transition, where described in local planning controls, the desired future character) so that new buildings contribute to the quality and identity of the area, and

The area is characterised as an established residential precinct. Predominately, the theme of residential development in the locality is characterised as single storey detached dwellings presenting to the street with varied front setbacks. The style and period of dwellings in the locality is also varied; however, in the most part dwellings comprise masonry or weatherboard exterior walls and hip roofs with corrugated iron or tiles. The proposed development continues the pattern of single storey development of a residential scale. The proposed buildings will not adversely impact upon the quality and identity of the area.

(b) retain, complement and sensitively harmonise with any Heritage Conservation Areas in the vicinity and any relevant heritage items that are identified in a local environmental plan, and

The subject land contains a heritage item. The relationship with the heritage item and the location of the building works is such that the two are well separated. This results in minimal impacts upon the heritage item and the associated curtilage; and as such there is likely to be minimal impact upon the significance of the heritage item located on the land.

(c) maintain reasonable neighbourhood amenity and appropriate residential character by:

(i) providing building setbacks to reduce bulk and overshadowing, and

The proposed building is appropriately separated from the adjoining neighbours to the north such that it will present acceptably in terms of visual bulk and overshadowing.

(ii) using building form and siting that relates to the site’s land form, and

The extent of fill is addressed above, and the siting and design of the buildings are considered acceptable.

(iii) adopting building heights at the street frontage that are compatible in scale with adjacent development, and

The development adopts a single storey design, which is consistent with the prevailing development pattern of the area.

(iv) considering, where buildings are located on the boundary, the impact of the boundary walls on neighbours, and

The only buildings located close to the boundary relate to the WCs, tool sheds and chicken coops (these buildings are set-off the boundary by virtue of the 600mm wide overland flow channel along part of the northern boundary). These buildings are not incongruous with the residential character of the area. The chicken coop that adjoins 89 Spring Street has been addressed below under the submissions section.

(d) be designed so that the front building of the development is set back in sympathy with, but not necessarily the same as, the existing building line, and

Setbacks are addressed in detail below.

(e) embody planting that is in sympathy with, but not necessarily the same as, other planting in the streetscape, and

A landscape master plan has been submitted in support of the application showing the extent of both hard and soft landscape areas both internally within the site and at the site frontage within Spring Street. The concept plans and accompanying documentation are generally acceptable. A detailed landscape plan will be required to be submitted prior to the release of a Construction Certificate that incorporates the landscape strategy submitted with the application. Relevant conditions are attached.

(f) retain, wherever reasonable, major existing trees, and

A number of trees in the northern portion of the site are required to be removed to facilitate the development. Council staff raise no objections to these trees being removed. Two other trees proposed to be removed as part of this application have been addressed above.

(g) be designed so that no building is constructed in a riparian zone.

The subject land is not in the vicinity of a riparian zone.

34 - Visual and Acoustic Privacy

The proposed development should consider the visual and acoustic privacy of neighbours in the vicinity and residents by:

(a) appropriate site planning, the location and design of windows and balconies, the use of screening devices and landscaping, and

(b) ensuring acceptable noise levels in bedrooms of new dwellings by locating them away from driveways, parking areas and paths.

Note. The Australian and New Zealand Standard entitled AS/NZS 2107–2000, Acoustics - Recommended design sound levels and reverberation times for building interiors and the Australian Standard entitled" AS 3671 - 1989, Acoustics - Road traffic noise intrusion - Building siting and construction, published by Standards Australia, should be referred to in establishing acceptable noise levels.

As discussed below, the development is considered acceptable in terms of visual privacy. The proposal is single storey and well separated from adjoining neighbours to the north by approximately 11m (nominally); and the 1.5m solid fencing (with additional 300mm privacy slats) adjacent to the northern boundary (recessed retaining wall to accommodate overland flow channel) will provide adequate privacy to and from the subject land.

The development is located in a residential environment away from busy roads and rail corridors where background noise levels are typically quite low. As such, it is not likely that the development will be unreasonably impacted upon by high noise sources in the locality.

35 - Solar Access and Design for Climate

The proposed development should:

(a) ensure adequate daylight to the main living areas of neighbours in the vicinity and residents and adequate sunlight to substantial areas of private open space, and

(b) involve site planning, dwelling design and landscaping that reduces energy use and makes the best practicable use of natural ventilation solar heating and lighting by locating the windows of living and dining areas in a northerly direction.

Note. AMCORD: A National Resource Document for Residential Development, 1995, may be referred to in establishing adequate solar access and dwelling orientation appropriate to the climatic conditions.

The design approach includes a long building axis facing north which maximises the northern exposure of the development. The landscape concept provides for shade trees within the areas of private open space.

The development includes the installation of a solar energy system on north facing roofs within the development, reducing energy use consistent with environmentally sustainable developments principles and the above clause.

36 - Stormwater

The proposed development should:

(a) control and minimise the disturbance and impacts of stormwater runoff on adjoining properties and receiving waters by, for example, finishing driveway surfaces with semi-pervious material, minimising the width of paths and minimising paved areas, and

(b) include, where practical, on-site stormwater detention or re-use for second quality water uses.

Suitable arrangements and conditions have been considered and attached in relation to stormwater.

37 - Crime Prevention

The proposed development should provide personal property security for residents and visitors and encourage crime prevention by:

(a) site planning that allows observation of the approaches to a dwelling entry from inside each dwelling and general observation of public areas, driveways and streets from a dwelling that adjoins any such area, driveway or street, and

(b) where shared entries are required, providing shared entries that serve a small number of dwellings and that are able to be locked, and

(c) providing dwellings designed to allow residents to see who approaches their dwellings without the need to open the front door.

There are three key principles of crime prevention through environmental design: territoriality, surveillance and access control.

The applicant submits that the design is acceptable in terms of crime prevention through:

· Main entry points to the building are located close to staff areas for surveillance of access.

· Minimum of high structures in courtyards and car parks to minimise potential hiding places for intruders.

· Lighting of car parks, gardens and pathways at night will be provided.

· Perimeter garden fence to be provided with secure gates on access control system.

· Access control and intercom system will provide for night access via external gates and doors.

Council staff agree with the above. The development is considered satisfactory in terms of safer by design principles. External lighting providing for security within the site needs to be balanced against not creating nuisance to adjoining sensitive receivers. Relevantly, a condition is attached that requires external lighting to be consistent with the relevant Australian Standard.

38 - Accessibility

The proposed development should:

(a) have obvious and safe pedestrian links from the site that provide access to public transport services or local facilities, and

(b) provide attractive, yet safe, environments for pedestrians and motorists with convenient access and parking for residents and visitors.

As established above, the applicant submits that the provisions relating to accessibility both inside and outside of the site are achieved.

39 - Waste Management

The proposed development should be provided with waste facilities that maximise recycling by the provision of appropriate facilities.

The applicant submits that existing arrangements will be maintained in terms of the disposal and collection of waste.

Division 1 - General

40 - Development Standards - Minimum Sizes and Building Height

(1) - General

A consent authority must not consent to a development application made pursuant to this Chapter unless the proposed development complies with the standards specified in this clause.

(2) - Site Size

The size of the site must be at least 1,000 square metres.

The applicant submits that whilst this clause does not apply by virtue of clause 40(5), the subject site is 22,787m²and thus complies with the above.

(3) - Site Frontage

The site frontage must be at least 20 metres wide measured at the building line.

The subject land incorporates almost an entire residential block, and as such the land comprises a frontage greater than 20m.

48 - Standards that Cannot be Used to Refuse Development Consent for Residential Care Facilities

A consent authority must not refuse consent to a development application made pursuant to this Chapter for the carrying out of development for the purpose of a residential care facility on any of the following grounds:

(a) building height: if all proposed buildings are 8 metres or less in height (and regardless of any other standard specified by another environmental planning instrument limiting development to 2 storeys), or

The development is single storey and comprises a maximum height of 6.8m.

(b) density and scale: if the density and scale of the buildings when expressed as a floor space ratio is 1:1 or less,

The site area comprises 22,787m²and the total building foot print for the site equates to 8,028m²; resulting in a ratio of 0.35:1 As such, the development will be well below the above floor space ratio.

(c) landscaped area: if a minimum of 25 square metres of landscaped area per residential care facility bed is provided,

The applicant submits that at the completion of the development the allocation of landscaped area per resident will be well above the 25m²requirement at 68m² per resident.

(d) parking for residents and visitors: if at least the following is provided:

(i) 1 parking space for each 10 beds in the residential care facility (or 1 parking space for each 15 beds if the facility provides care only for persons with dementia), and

(ii) 1 parking space for each 2 persons to be employed in connection with the development and on duty at any one time, and

(iii) 1 parking space suitable for an ambulance.

Note. The provisions of this clause do not impose any limitations on the grounds on which a consent authority may grant development consent.

In relation to onsite car parking the development generates the following onsite parking requirements:

8 spaces attributed to the 78 residential care beds,

7 spaces for the total of 14 staff

Total 15 spaces

The applicant submits that 26 existing onsite parking spaces are provided within the parking area in March Street, with additional parking for staff provided within existing parking areas in Nile Street and Spring Street, thereby resulting in a surplus of onsite parking spaces. The development is considered satisfactory in relation to parking.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure)

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) applies to the development as the applicant is seeking consent to install a solar energy system.

The SEPP defines a solar energy system as meaning

any of the following systems:

(a) a photovoltaic electricity generating system,

(b) a solar hot water system,

(c) a solar air heating system.

The development relates to (a) above and is permitted in the R1 General Residential with consent provided the capacity of the system does exceed 100kw.

The applicant has amended the proposal and reduced the number of solar panels to comply with the above. As such, the development now involves a system with a capacity of 98.5KW, which is consistent with the relevant development standard.

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land applies to the subject land, specifically clause 7 which states:

7 - Contamination and remediation to be considered in determining development application

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

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

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

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

The development has had a long history being used for residential purposes dating back to circa 1950 or earlier. There is nothing to suggest that the site is contaminated; nor is there any evidence to suggest that the site should not continue to be used for such purposes.

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

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

DESIGNATED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development is not designated development.

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

Development Control Plan 2004

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

PART 0 LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2011

Part 0.2 General Translation of Zones

Part 0.2 of DCP 2004 establishes a conversion 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 R1 General Residential. The conversion table therefore establishes that Part 7 of Orange DCP 2004 is applicable to the zone.

Tree Preservation (LEP 2011 Clause 5.9)

Pursuant to LEP 2011 a tree preservation order exists on the subject land. Notwithstanding this, as the land is a heritage item the relevant heritage provisions prevail, and as such are addressed under the LEP considerations.

PART 7 - DEVELOPMENT IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS

Design Elements For Residential Development

Streetscape

Objectives:

· To ensure that the development fits into its setting and environmental features of the locality;

· To ensure that the appearance of housing is of a high visual quality, enhances the streetscape and complements good quality surrounding development;

· To ensure that new development complements places with heritage significance and their settings in a contemporary way.

· To develop a sense of place with attractive street frontages

· To encourage visually appealing cohesive streetscapes

· To create a safe and secure environment

· To provide consistent design elements that protect private investment

An assessment of how the development responds to the applicable streetscape objectives is considered below.

Neighbourhood Character and Building Appearance

The character and identity of a particular area are influenced by the intricate interrelationship of the public and private realms, taking into account the qualitative interplay of built form, vegetation and topographic characteristics; all of which contribute to creating a unique neighbourhood character.

The neighbourhood is characterised by an established residential precinct considered to be of a reasonable level of residential amenity. Predominately, the scale of development within the locality comprises single storey detached dwellings on average sized residential parcels. The proposed development is consistent with the scale of development, albeit a much larger building than a typical dwelling in the area. Notwithstanding this, the shorter axis of the building presents to Spring Street in a similar fashion to a single dwelling situation. The development is not incongruous with the established neighbourhood character.

In terms of the proposed buildings, external finishes, materials and colour palette are consistent with the existing UPA building on the land.

Heritage

· Heritage buildings and structures are efficiently re-used.

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

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

A detailed assessment pertaining to heritage consideration has been provided above.

Setbacks

The DCP requires setbacks in established areas to be calculated with reference to the setbacks on adjoining land. The proposed building is located in the northern portion of the site and sited 3.296m from the front boundary. The subject land comprises almost the entire extent of a residential block, except for the row of dwellings fronting Olver Street, one dwelling to the south of the dwelling on the corner of Olver and Spring Street which immediately adjoins the land the subject of this development application, and three dwellings returning around the corner from Olver Street in Nile Street.

A detailed streetscape analysis was undertaken which identified that the precinct comprises a variation of front setbacks. The setback line for the subject land is reasonably complex to establish given the large area of the site and the built form that already exists within the site. The dwelling to the immediate north of the subject land comprises an existing setback of approximately 7m. The dwelling to the north of that dwelling comprises a setback of 2m (acknowledging that this is the dwelling’s secondary setback).

Plate 1 - annotated site plan showing setback line through the site

(created by assessment staff – similar to what was submitted by applicant)

Council staff indicated concerns during a pre-lodgement meeting in relation to the setback proposed however the applicant pursued the setbacks as discussed at that meeting. Once the application was made Council staff wrote to the applicant requesting additional justification of the proposed setback.

The applicant responded with following in support of the proposed setback of the new dementia Cottage B.

In addition to the above information and in response to Council’s concerns, we have included the diagrams below to demonstrate the proposed effect of the setback on the neighbour in comparison to the existing situation. Also provided is a detail of the garden retaining wall in the north-east corner of the development (refer attached) and information on the reasons behind the extent of fill proposed.

SEPP Seniors defines “Streetscape” as follows:

“streetscape means the character of a locality (whether it is a street or precinct) defined by the spatial arrangement and visual appearance of built and landscape features when viewed from the street.”

In the comments below we focus on the street viewpoint however we have also made some comments on the view from the neighbouring dwelling to the street as it relates to setback.

Setback Diagrams

The proposed new dementia wing that faces Spring Street (Cottage B) is setback 3.2m from the boundary at its closest part with other parts of the wall setback further. As shown on Figure 1 below the setback of the new wing (Cottage B) is similar to the existing setback of the existing wings to the south (Magnolia Cottage and Waratah Lodge) and the repeated domestic form along Spring Street will strengthen the existing streetscape.

In terms of visual outlook to the street, the dwelling at No. 89 Spring Street is the one dwelling that will be affected by the proposed new dementia wing (Cottage B). Figure 3 below shows that the street outlook to the south from No. 89 will be similar to the current outlook to the north. Figure 2 below shows that the affect in terms of outlook on number 89 will be better by comparison to the existing dwelling at Number 85 if considered as a precedent.

Plate 2 - table provided by applicant

Plate 3 - table provided by applicant

Plate 4 - table provided by applicant

The existing development pattern within the western side of Spring Street has been determined as a result of the historical approvals on the subject land. Aside from the existing dwelling at 89 Spring Street, two of the three existing buildings within the site that address Spring Street comprise a setback less than the setback proposed under this development. The applicant has adopted a similar setback to the prevailing development pattern within the site.

Whilst it would be ideal if the building was set back further from the street such that it responded more appropriately to the adjoining dwelling to the north, the siting and design of the building is such that it will integrate reasonably well into the streetscape and adopts a similar (slightly greater) setback to the existing building within the site immediately to the east, and also to the building on the southern side of the car park.

Moreover, the development is not antipathetic to the relevant streetscape objectives under the DCP, notably:

to ensure that the development fits into its setting and environmental features of the locality; to ensure that the appearance of housing is of a high visual quality, enhances the streetscape and complements good quality surrounding development; and to encourage visually appealing cohesive streetscapes.

The subject building will fit reasonably well into the street when considering the context and setting of the subject land. Additionally, the design and appearance of the building will result in a high quality design that is consistent with the existing built form within the subject land and will continue the development pattern within the site, resulting in an appealing cohesive streetscape.

The development is considered satisfactory in terms of setbacks. Notwithstanding the above assessment of setbacks, should Council have contrary view to the above, it would be necessary for Council to resolve that a redesign of the development is undertaken with a view to increasing the setback of the proposed Dementia Cottage.

Fences and Walls

The applicant submits that a similar open style, tubular fence will be installed within the Spring Street frontage. As mentioned above, the applicant is proposing to fill the northern portion of the site, which as a result will require retaining within the street frontage for approximately 13m. Council staff requested that the retaining wall be recessed to allow landscaping between the boundary and retaining wall to soften the retaining wall within the street. The applicant submitted an amended plan showing this detail which is considered acceptable. Relevant conditions are attached to ensure that this amendment to design occurs.

The below Plate 5 also shows an appropriate fencing arrangement for the transition of solid fencing to open style fencing, and responds to the front building line of the adjoining dwelling to the north. This basically means that the solid fencing along the northern boundary will transition to open style fencing at the front building line of the adjoining dwelling to the north. This is considered an acceptable design outcome in terms of integration of the fencing within the street.

Plate 5 – north-eastern corner of subject land

Notwithstanding the above, the subject plan from which Plate 5 excerpt is taken shows the front fence to be 1800mm tubular fencing. Council staff measured the existing front fencing which is 1500mm to 1600mm in height. As such, a condition is attached requiring the proposed front fencing to be generally consistent (given the existing variation in height) with the height and style of the existing front fencing within Spring Street.

Bulk and Scale

Objectives:

· To allow flexibility in siting buildings and to ensure that the bulk and scale of new development reasonably protects the amenity of neighbouring properties and maintains appropriate neighbourhood character.

· To allow adequate daylight, sunlight and ventilation to living areas and private open spaces of new and neighbouring developments.

· To encourage the sharing of views, while considering the reasonable development of the site.

An assessment of how the development responds to the applicable bulk and scale objectives is considered below.

Visual Bulk

The applicant is proposing to fill the northern portion of the site and construct a 600mm wide overland flow drainage system along the boundary similar to the existing drainage system between the existing facility and the dwelling (proposed to be demolished) at 85 Spring Street (see below). This has the effect of pushing the fencing and outbuildings proposed along the northern boundary off the boundary, rather than retaining walls and fencing right on the boundary; and also helps to break up the bulk of the combined retaining wall and fencing.

Plate 6 - existing overland flow channel - looking west from Spring Street.

Plate 7 – section of northern boundary

It is acknowledged that the importation of fill, the construction of fencing on top of the retaining wall, and the location of the proposed outbuildings on the boundary will alter the existing situation and increase the bulk of built form at the interface of the subject land and the adjoining properties to the north. Notwithstanding this, the development is considered acceptable in this regard due to the following:

· With the exception of 89 Spring Street, the extent of added bulk at the boundary by virtue of the fill, fencing and outbuildings is limited to the rear yards of 2-8 Olver Street, with a number of these lots comprising existing outbuildings and other ancillary development on their respective rear boundaries that would result in the proposed retaining walls being less visible, and thereby creating less impact. Additionally, less impact is created as a result of being the rear yards, well separated from the dwelling and main areas of private open space.

· In respect of 89 Spring Street, it is acknowledged that the development will have the largest degree of impact upon this dwelling given that the lot runs east-west, being parallel to the subject land. This is coupled with the south-eastern corner of the site being one of the lowest points within the site; meaning that the retaining wall is at the height of 1.25m where it adjoins the dwelling.

Notwithstanding this, the development, including the ancillary outbuildings and fencing, will be contained within Council’s prescribed visual bulk envelope requirements. Secondly, being the northern boundary of the land the subject of this application means that the extent of fill and associated retaining wall (and higher than typical fencing) will not impact on any north facing windows of the adjoining dwelling. Furthermore, the siting of the dwelling at 89 Spring Street is such that it relates to the side of the house in an area that would not be typically used as open space. Additionally, the major element of built form is well separated from the dwelling at 89 Spring Street.

The proposed development is single storey, consistent with the scale of development within the locality and well set back from adjoining neighbours such that the built form will not unreasonably impact upon adjoining residents. The development is considered satisfactory in relation to visual bulk.

Walls and Boundaries

The proposed development is consistent with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia in terms of distances from boundaries.

Daylight and Sunlight

The development will not impact upon any adjoining properties by way of overshadowing due to the area of development occurring to the south of adjoining residential properties. An assessment of solar access within the proposed facility is addressed above within the SEPP Seniors Housing considerations.

Views

The development is not likely to affect any prominent or significant views for adjoining or adjacent properties.

Privacy and Security

Objectives:

· To ensure that the siting and design of buildings provide privacy for residents and neighbours in their dwellings and principal private open space.

Visual Privacy

The development is single storey and will relate to the proposed finished surface levels, therefore there is no visual privacy impacts expected from with the proposed building. Notwithstanding this, as the applicant is proposing to fill the site little benefit will be derived from the existing boundary fencing. As such, there will be the potential for visual privacy impacts to occur from with the courtyard area of the subject land and to the open space of adjoining development.

The applicant originally proposed open style fencing with a vegetation screening along the northern boundary. Council staff wrote to the applicant and indicated that this was not an acceptable means of providing privacy, as established by the principle set by Super Studio v Waverley Council.

As such, the applicant amended the proposal such that solid lapped and capped timber fencing will be provided on top of the retaining wall recessed from the northern boundary, which is considered acceptable.

The development is considered satisfactory in regards to visual privacy.

Security

Suitable arrangements are proposed in terms of the security of the residents within the site. Consideration has been given to the Crime Prevention through Environmental Design model and the measures taken are considered appropriate. This is discussed further in response to the SEPP provisions above.

Site Access and Circulation

Objectives:

· To provide convenient and safe access and parking that meets the needs of all residents and visitors.

· To encourage the integrated design of access and parking facilities to minimise visual and environmental impacts.

An assessment of how the development responds to the applicable site access and circulation objectives is considered below.

Public Transport

An assessment of public transport considerations has been undertaken above pursuant to the requirements of the SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) refer to the assessment of the requirements of that SEPP for onsite parking.

Circulation Design

An assessment of circulation design has been undertaken above pursuant to the requirements of the SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) refer to the assessment of the requirements of that SEPP for onsite parking.

Car Parking

An assessment of the onsite parking requirements has been undertaken above pursuant to the requirements of the SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) refer to the assessment of the requirements of that SEPP for onsite parking.

Stormwater

Adequate provision for stormwater is proposed. Relevant draft conditions are attached.

Erosion and Sediment Control

A draft condition is attached requiring a copy of the soil and water management plan to be kept onsite at all times and made available to Council officers on request.

PART 13 - HERITAGE

Relevant heritage considerations are addressed in detail throughout the report.

PART 15 - CAR PARKING

Refer to the SEPP (Housing for Seniors of People with a Disability) 2004 discussion on car parking.

ORANGE DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN 2015

Clause 2.6.1 of Orange Development Contributions Plan 2015 provides the following:

The following types of development, or components of development, will be exempted from a requirement to make contributions under this Plan:

Development for the purposes of any form of seniors housing as defined in State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 that is provided by a social housing provider as defined in that Policy.

The SEPP defines a social housing provider as:

social housing provider means any of the following:

(a) the New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation,

(b) the Department of Housing,

(c) a community housing organisation registered with the Office of Community Housing of the Department of Housing,

(d) the Aboriginal Housing Office,

(e) a registered Aboriginal housing organisation within the meaning of the Aboriginal Housing Act 1998,

(f) the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care,

(g) a local government authority that provides affordable housing,

(h) a not-for-profit organisation that is a direct provider of rental housing to tenants.

The applicant submits that:

UPA is a not-for-profit organisation and is the owner of the site. On this site UPA provides housing (Sunset Villas) direct to elderly financially disadvantaged tenants as well as the residential aged care facility (Ascott Gardens) under licence of the Commonwealth Department of Human Services.

We believe that as a not-for-profit organisation UPA providing housing fit the definition under SEPP Seniors Chapter 1, Clause 3 (h).

Also, UPA as a provider of residential aged care services under licence of the Commonwealth may fit the definition SEPP Seniors Chapter 1, Clause 3 (h).

Council staff are of the view that the development is exempt from the requirement for contributions as the development achieves the requirements of a social housing provider under the SEPP. As such, contributions are not applicable for the development.

Section 64 Water and Sewer Headworks Charges

Pursuant to section 64 of the Local Government Act Council has the ability to require a monetary contribution for water and sewer headworks charges for any additional equivalent tenements. The development results in an addition 2.8 ETs for water and 5.2 ETs for sewer. Relevant conditions are attached in relation to Section 64 charges.

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

Demolition of a Building (clause 92)

The proposal involves the demolition of two dwellings. A condition is attached requiring the demolition to be carried out in accordance with Australian Standard AS2601 - 1991: The Demolition of Structures.

Fire Safety Considerations (clause 93)

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

Buildings to be Upgraded (clause 94)

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

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

Context and Setting

The subject site is located in a well-established residential precinct. The site encompasses almost the entirety of a residential block. The site is bound by Nile Street to the west, March Street to the south and Spring Street to the east. Newman Park is located opposite the site to the west, Orange East Public School is located to the south, dwellings exist opposite the site to the east and a row of dwellings adjoin the site to the north.

A heritage item exists on the site however the proposed expansion is well separated from the heritage item.

The development represents a continuation of the long standing residential use of the land and is proposed at a scale that is commensurate with the predominate scale of the locality.

The development is not antipathetic to the context and setting of the locality.

Residential Amenity

As mentioned above, the applicant is proposing to fill the northern portion of the site to facilitate finished floor levels and finished surface levels that relate to the existing situation over the already developed area of the site (ie the existing facility). The extent of fill proposed is 1.25m in the north-eastern corner of the site and varies along the northern boundary.

The extent of fill along the northern boundary and its relationship with 2-8 Olver Street is such that the extent of fill relates to the rear boundaries of those properties and will not result in any adverse impacts through visual bulk of the fencing and retaining walls, or any adverse overshadowing resulting from the higher then typical fencing as a result of the retaining wall.

The relationship of 89 Spring Street to the existing ground levels results in the retaining wall being at its highest point at the front of 89 Spring Street; tapers down to approximately 700mm in line with the rear of the dwelling and then increasing to 1.25m again at the rear of 89 Spring Street as the ground level changes. However, the extent of the retaining wall will not be visible for the most part (except where the existing fencing is open style) as the existing boundary fencing will obscure the retaining wall as the wall is set back from the boundary.

It is unclear from the plans what the proposed materials for the retaining wall are intended to be. In order for the development to present acceptably to the street and adjoining land, a condition is attached requiring that the retaining wall within the front of the site be constructed of the same brick intended to be used in the construction of the proposed building on the land. Further to this, a requirement is imposed that the retaining wall forward of the dwelling at 89 Spring Street must also be of the same brick as used in the construction of the building on the land.

It is noted that existing established landscaping exists along the southern boundary of 89 Spring Street. Regard shall be had to protecting the existing landscaping within the adjoining property. Relevant conditions are attached.

Visual Impacts

The proposed building will present similarly to existing buildings on the land in terms of size and appearance. As such, the development is not likely to present any unsatisfactory visual impacts in the locality.

The other development occurring within the site including the archive storage and general stores to the west of the site, the extensions to the Westcott lodge and extension to waratah Lodge will not create any visual impacts. The archive storage and general stores are located behind the existing administration building in Nile Street and will be largely obscured from view within Nile Street. Similar situation exists in relation to the extension to Waratah Lodge. The extension to Westcott lodge is considered minor and will not create any visual impacts within Spring or March Streets. The extension to the south of Westcott Lodge will comprise and open pergola structure which will be reasonably well setback from March Street and present acceptably within the street.

Traffic Impacts

The development is not expected to result in any adverse traffic impact. Sufficient parking exists onsite and no new access points are proposed. A new mini-bus drop off area is proposed in Spring Street. Council’s Technical Services advise of no objections to the proposed new mini-bus bay in Spring Street. The health of the street tree adjacent to the new mini-bus area is of critical concern.

The development was referred to Council’s Manager City Presentation to provide comment on this aspect of the development. The comment provided raised no objections to the mini-bus bay provided specific tree protection zone conditions were attached. Relevant conditions are attached.

Environmental Impacts

The subject site has a long history of being used for residential purposes and comprises virtually zero significant vegetation, threatened species, endangered ecological communities or their habitats. As such, the development is considered satisfactory in terms of environmental impacts.

Construction Impacts

Given the proximity of the development to the street and the residential character of the area, it is considered appropriate to require a traffic management plan to be prepared for the development. The traffic management plan must outline how construction vehicles will be managed for the duration of the construction phase of the development such that they do not adversely impact upon the residential properties in the locality and the operation of the nearby school zone.

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

The site is located in a residential zone and will continue to be used for residential purposes. Council staff are not aware of any physical, natural or technological hazards that may constrain the development from occurring in a satisfactory manner.

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

The proposed development is defined as "advertised development" under the provisions of the LEP. The application was advertised for the prescribed period of 14 days and at the end of that period no submissions were received. One submission was received outside of the exhibition period which is addressed below.

Submission - 89 Spring Street

A submission was received in relation to the location of the proposed chicken coop adjacent to the dwelling on the land at 89 Spring Street, citing odour and noise as potential impacts arising.

Council staff considered the points raised to be legitimate concerns. As such, to overcome the potential impacts a condition is attached that requires the chicken coop to be relocated to where the tool shed is shown on the approved plans. This will separate the dwelling from the chicken coop such that the potential impacts are reduced to acceptable levels. Additionally, a further condition is attached that requires the chicken coop to be permanently maintained in a clean and tidy manner. With the imposition of these two conditions the location of the subject chicken coop is considered acceptable.

PUBLIC INTEREST s79C(1)(e)

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

SUMMARY

The proposed development is permissible with the consent of Council. The proposed development complies with the relevant aims, objectives and provisions of the LEP. A section 79C assessment of the development indicates that the development is acceptable in this instance. Attached is a draft Notice of Approval outlining a range of conditions considered appropriate to ensure that the development proceeds in an acceptable manner.

COMMENTS

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

Attachments

1 Notice of Approval, D15/42991 ⇩

2 Plans, D15/42906 ⇩

3 Submission, D15/42909 ⇩

Council Meeting 17 November 2015

5.11 Development Application DA 325/2015(1) - Lot 100 March Street (aka 83 Spring Street)

Attachment 1 Notice of Approval

leaflogo

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

Development Application No DA 325/2015(1)

NA15/ Container PR27165

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 81(1)

Development Application
Applicant Name:	Havenhand & Mather Architects Pty Ltd
Applicant Address:	PO Box 208 BATHURST NSW 2795
Owner’s Name:	United Protestant Association of NSW Limited
Land to Be Developed:	Lot 100 DP 1209880 - March Street, Orange
Proposed Development:	Residential Care Facility (expansion to existing and alterations and additions), Demolition (two dwellings and trees) and Solar Energy System

Building Code of Australia building classification:	Class As determined by Certifier

Determination
Made On:	17 November 2015
Determination:	CONSENT GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:

Consent to Operate From:	17 November 2015
Consent to Lapse On:	17 November 2020

Terms of Approval

The reasons for the imposition of conditions are:

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

(2) To maintain neighbourhood amenity and character.

(3) To ensure compliance with relevant statutory requirements.

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

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

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

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

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

Conditions

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

(a) Plans prepared by Havenhand & Mather

Job No. 1415, dated 17.09.15

Plan no. DA.01; DA.02; DA.03; DA.04; DA05; DA.06; DA.08; DA.09; (8 sheet/s)

Plans prepared by Havenhand & Mather

Job No. 1415, dated 28.09.15 Plan No. DA.11 Rev. 1 (1 sheet)

Revised Detail Plan prepared by Havenhand & Mather

“Revised detail 7”, dated 22/10/15

Landscape Master Plan prepared by Mark D. McCrone Landscape Architect

Drawing no. 15/331/LD-01

“Plan Detail north east corner”, dated 22.10.15

Plan by Towards Tomorrow Energy

“Preliminary PV Rooftop Proposal”, dated October 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.

(2) This consent does not provide approval for the removal of the Lombardy Poplar in the south western corner of the site or the E. sideroxylon (Ironbark) located in the south eastern corner of the site adjacent to the Westcott Lodge.

PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS

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

(4) 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

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

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

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

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

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

(6) A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, Council’s Manager Development Assessments prior to the issue of a construction certificate. The amended landscape plan shall be consistent with the landscape master plan and incorporate the plants identified in the landscape strategy. Additionally, provision shall be made for landscaping within the Spring Street frontage adjacent to the proposed brick retaining wall and the boundary.

(7) The retaining wall within the north eastern corner of the site shall be consistent with the approved plan identified as ‘Plan detail north east corner’ dated 22.10.15. The detailed construction plans shall be amended such that they show the retaining wall in the location shown on the plan identified as ‘Plan detail north east corner’ dated 22.10.15 prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

(8) The retaining wall within the Spring Street frontage shall be constructed from the same type of brick used in the construction of the buildings on the land. The retaining wall along the northern boundary where it extends forward of the front building line of the dwelling at 89 Spring Street shall also be constructed of the same type of brick used in the construction of the buildings on the land. This detail shall be shown on the detailed construction drawings submitted at construction certificate stage.

(9) The proposed chook yard in the north eastern corner of the site shall be relocated such that it is in the location of the eastern most tool shed as shown on the approved plan. The tool shed may be relocated to the location of where the chook yard was previously located on the plans and shall be located behind the front building line of the adjoining dwelling to the north. This shall be shown on the detailed drawings prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

(10) A Traffic Management Plan shall be prepared and implemented for the duration of the construction phase of the development. The Traffic Management Plan shall outline how construction vehicles associated with the development will be managed so that they do not impact upon adjoining residential properties and nearby school zone. The plan shall be submitted for approval prior to the release of a construction certificate.

(11) Front fencing within the Spring Street frontage shall be generally consistent in terms of style, colour and height with the existing fencing within the Spring Street frontage of the subject land. This detail shall be shown on the detailed drawings submitted prior to the release of a construction certificate.

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

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

(14) A Waste Management Plan is to be submitted to, and approved by Council/Accredited Certifier, prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

(15) 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.

(16) 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(18) The existing 150mm-diameter sewer main is to be terminated at a sewer manhole adjacent to the northern property boundary, clear of buildings and drainage structures. Prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate, Orange City Council is to approve engineering plans for this sewerage system.

(19) Payment of contributions for water, sewer and drainage works is required to be made at the contribution rate applicable at the time that the payment is made. The contributions are based on 2.8 ETs for water supply headworks and 5.2 ETs for sewerage headworks. A Certificate of Compliance, from Orange City Council in accordance with the Water Management Act 2000, will be issued upon payment of the contributions.

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

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

PRIOR TO WORKS COMMENCING

(21) 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.

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

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

(23) Only clean verified fill shall be imported onto the site.

(24) 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.

(25) During any demolition or construction works along the common boundary of 89 Spring Street, regard and care shall be taken so as not to disturb the adjoining land.

(26) No excavation or construction works shall occur within the Tree Protection Zone as per AS4970-2009 for the Liquidambar styraciflua street tree adjacent to the proposed bus bay within Spring Street. Trunk and bark protection and ground protection measures consistent with Clause 4.5 of the Australian Standard shall be implemented for the duration of the demolition and construction phases of the development.

(27) 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.

(28) 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.

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

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

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

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

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

(33) The existing kerb and gutter laybacks that are not proposed to be used are to be replaced with standard concrete kerb and gutter and the concrete footpath reinstated to the requirements in the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.

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

(35) The water and sewerage services to the existing dwellings, where they are not proposed to be used as part of this development, are to be sealed off at their respective Council mains.

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

(36) Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan prior to the issue of an occupation certificate.

(37) Fencing along the northern boundary shall be consistent with the detail shown on the approved plans identified as ‘revised detail 7’ dated 22/10/15 and ‘plan detail north east corner’ dated 22.10.15 and shall be installed prior to the issue of an occupation certificate.

(38) No person is to use or occupy the building or alteration that is the subject of this approval without the prior issuing of an Occupation Certificate.

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

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

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

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

(43) Certificates for testable Backflow Prevention Devices are to be submitted to Orange City Council by a plumber with backflow qualifications prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

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

(45) Off-street parking spaces shall be provided upon the site in accordance with the approved plans and the provision of Development Control Plan 2004. The parking spaces are to be constructed in accordance with the requirements of Council’s Development and Subdivision Code, prior to the issue of an occupation certificate.

MATTERS FOR THE ONGOING PERFORMANCE AND OPERATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT

(46) All external lighting shall be installed and maintained in a manner that is consistent with Australian Standard AS 4282-1997 – control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting.

(47) The chook yards / chicken coop shall be permanently kept in a clean and tidy manner.

(48) The capacity of the solar energy system shall not exceed 100KW.

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

Other Approvals

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

Nil

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

Nil

Right of Appeal

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:	17 November 2015

	31/10/2015	30/09/2015
General Fund	50,987,614.15	53,845,005.28
Sewer Local Fund	31,711,087.69	33,068,449.85
Water Supply Local Fund	32,177,151.30	31,761,986.14
Orange CBD Special Rate	2,134,294.84	2,128,486.66
	117,010,147.98	120,803,927.93

Externally Restricted	31/10/2015	30/09/2015
General Fund	23,502,297.27	22,965,190.72
Water Fund	32,177,151.30	31,761,986.14
Sewer Fund	31,711,087.69	33,068,449.85
CBD Fund	2,134,294.84	2,128,486.66
Auspiced	1,403,672.92	1,409,738.30
Internally Restricted	15,778,487.77	14,930,187.44
Unrestricted	10,303,156.19	14,539,888.82
	117,010,147.98	120,803,927.93

Term to Maturity Allocation	Maximum	Holdings	Capacity
0 - 3 Months	100.00%	2.37%	97.63%
3 - 12 Months	100.00%	61.11%	38.89%
1 - 2 Years	70.00%	8.54%	61.46%
2 - 5 Years	50.00%	27.98%	22.02%
5+ Years	25.00%	0.00%	25.00%

	Maximum	Holding	Capacity
AAA	100.00%	0.00%	100.00%
AA	100.00%	28.93%	71.07%
A	60.00%	43.95%	16.05%
BBB & NR	40.00%	27.12%	12.88%
Below BBB	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Year	Payee	Amount
2011	Simon John Events	$28,000
2012	McCormack Barber Real Estate	$31,000
2013	McCormack Barber Real Estate	$30,000
2014	Manning Public Relations	$30,000

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.

Image and Reputation	Council has been working with the Orange Rifle Club to identify a new location for the Rifle Range. Ultimately, it will be up to the Club to secure another location, or merge with an existing range.
Health and Safety	The key concern in relation to the proposed licence agreement will be to ensure the safe operation of the Rifle Range on Council owned land.
Stakeholders	Attempts have been made to secure a meeting with the Orange Rifle Club to discuss the licence agreement and future of the Rifle Range given the impending development of the Southern Feeder Road. Council is currently awaiting confirmation from the Rifle Club of the meeting details.