Agenda of Council Meeting - 15 December 2015

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

MINUTES OF THE

Ordinary Council Meeting

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

ON 1 December 2015

COMMENCING AT 7.00pm

1 Introduction

Attendance

Cr J Davis OAM (Mayor), Cr C Gryllis (Deputy Mayor), Cr A Brown, Cr K Duffy, Cr R Gander, Cr J Hamling, Cr N Jones, Cr R Kidd, Cr S Munro, Cr G Taylor (7.35pm), Cr R Turner, Cr J Whitton

Acting General Manager (Devitt), Director Development Services, Director Community, Recreation and Cultural Services, Acting Director Technical Services (Gailey), Manager Administration and Governance, Manager Corporate and Community Relations, Manager Financial Services, Acting Manager Development Assessments (Johnston)

1.1 APOLOGIES

RESOLVED - 15/550 Cr J Hamling/Cr S Munro

That the apology for lateness be accepted from Cr Taylor for the Council Meeting of Orange City Council on 1 December 2015.

1.2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

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

Planning and Development Committee Item 2.1 Items Approved Under the Delegated Authority of Council (DA 283/2014(1) – 104 Lysterfield Road, Orange)

Cr R Kidd declared a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in Item 2.1 (DA 283/2014(1)) . Cr Kidd did not specify the reason.

Planning and Development Committee Item 2.2 Lucknow Scoping Study Outcomes

Cr C Gryllis declared a pecuniary interest in Item 2.2 as a real estate agent managing properties in Lucknow.

Planning and Development Committee Item 2.4 Development Application DA 342/2015(1) - Lot 16 Woodward Street

Cr R Kidd declared a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in Item 2.4 as a member of Duntryleague Golf Club.

Cr J Whitton declared a pecuniary interest in Item 2.4 as he has business partnerships with Telstra.

Council Item 6.1 Land Sale at Narrambla Estate

Cr C Gryllis declared pecuniary interest in Item 6.1 as the real estate agent acting in this matter.

Council Item 6.3 Shiralee Water and Sewer Infrastructure Contract

Cr A Brown declared a pecuniary interest in Item 6.3 as a real estate agent acting in the area.

THE MAYOR DECLARED THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ADJOURNED FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE OPEN FORUM AT 7.03PM

Planning and Development Committee Item 2.2 Lucknow Scoping Study Outcomes

Andrew Napier

Mr Napier spoke on behalf of Craig Jones, a land owner in Lucknow. Mr Napier supported the vision for the village, and advised Mr Jones would be prepared to consider a range of options for development.

Natalie Selwood

Ms Selwood outlined her support for the study, but identified that development should not be to the detriment of existing land owners.

Daniel Taurins

Mr Taurins outlined his support for the study, but requested consideration be given to existing land owners and that issues of traffic and noise be addressed.

THE OPEN FORUM CONCLUDED AT 7.14PM

2 Mayoral Minutes

2.1 Support for Averkin Family

TRIM Reference: 2015/3133

RESOLVED - 15/551 Cr J Hamling/Cr S Munro

That Council provide $5,000 to the Averkin family funeral fund.

MATTER ARISING

MOTION Cr K Duffy/Cr R Gander

That a report be prepared on the support provided to families struggling to meet funeral expenses.

THE MOTION ON BEING PUT TO THE MEETING WAS LOST

3 Confirmation of Minutes of Previous Meeting

RESOLVED - 15/552 Cr S Munro/Cr C Gryllis

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Orange City Council held on 17 November 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 17 November 2015, noting that Crs Jones, Taylor and Whitton voted against decision 2.1 Fit for the Future.

THE MAYOR DECLARED THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ADJOURNED FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE POLICY COMMITTEE MEETINGS AT 7.25PM

THE MAYOR DECLARED THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL RESUMED AT 8.08PM

4 Notices of Motion/Notices of Rescission

Nil

5 General Reports

5.1 Lease of Hangar M at Orange Airport

TRIM Reference: 2015/2993

RESOLVED - 15/580 Cr J Whitton/Cr C Gryllis

1 That Council enter into a ten year lease (with a further ten year option) to Rovest Holdings Pty Limited for Hangar M at the Orange Airport.

2 That permission be granted to use the Council Seal on all necessary documentation.

5.2 Leeds Parade Road Construction in Conjunction with Bunnings

TRIM Reference: 2015/3194

RESOLVED - 15/581 Cr R Turner/Cr S Munro

1 That in accordance with Section 55(3)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993, due to extenuating circumstances being:

a the potential for Council to create a significant commercial impact on another entity and

b delivery of value for money for the community may be compromised

Council not call tenders to undertake road upgrade works on Leeds Parade north of the Northern Distributor Road and utilise the contractor previously engaged by Bunnings to undertake these works, Hamcon Civil, at the same rates as previously negotiated between these two parties.

2 That permission be granted for the use of the Council Seal on all relevant documents.

5.3 COUNCIL FOLDER

TRIM Reference: 2015/3236

Letter from The Hon John Cobb MP congratulating Orange on recently receiving the Overall Regional Sustainability Award at the Keep NSW Beautiful Blue Star Sustainability (Regional) Award ceremony in Gloucester.

RESOLVED - 15/582 Cr C Gryllis/Cr J Davis

That the contents of the Council Folder be noted.

MATTER ARISING

RESOLVED - 15/583 Cr C Gryllis/Cr S Munro

That Council promote the NSW Blue Star Award win on suitable stationery, signage and other materials.

6 Closed Meeting

In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, and the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, in the opinion of the Acting 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 Acting 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 - 15/584 Cr S Munro/Cr R Gander

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 Land Sale at Narrambla Estate

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 NetWaste Tender for Collection and Recycling of Waste Tyres

6.3 Shiralee Water and Sewer Infrastructure Contract

THE MAYOR DECLARED THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ADJOURNED FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE CLOSED MEETING AT 8.16PM

THE MAYOR DECLARED THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL RESUMED AT 8.28PM

7 Resolutions from Closed Meeting

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

6.1 Land Sale at Narrambla Estate

TRIM Reference: 2015/2440

Cr C Gryllis declared pecuniary interest in Item 6.1 as the real estate agent acting in this matter, left the Chamber, and did not participate in the voting or debate on this item.

RESOLVED - 15/585 Cr J Whitton/Cr S Munro

That Council proceed with the sale of Part Lot 101 DP 1198640 Astill Drive, and the proceeds applied to the Land Development Reserve.

QUESTION TAKEN ON NOTICE

Cr Turner requested an update report on the old saleyards site.

6.2 NetWaste Tender for Collection and Recycling of Waste Tyres

TRIM Reference: 2015/3006

RESOLVED - 15/586 Cr C Gryllis/Cr S Munro

1 That Orange City Council accepts the tender submitted by JLW Services Pty Ltd dated 6 October 2015 for the initial two year term and authorise the General Manager to sign the required contract documentation

2 That the resolution regarding this tender remains confidential to the Council until the last meeting of the participating NetWaste Councils is held.

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 G Taylor, Cr R Turner, Cr J Whitton, Cr A Brown
Voted Against	Nil
Absent	Nil

6.3 Shiralee Water and Sewer Infrastructure Contract

TRIM Reference: 2015/3075

Cr A Brown declared pecuniary interest in Item 6.3 as a real estate agent acting in the area , left the Chamber, and did not participate in the voting or debate on this item.

RESOLVED - 15/587 Cr S Munro/Cr J Whitton

That Council notes the termination of the contract with Josa Constructions for the reasons outlined in this report.

The Meeting Closed at 8.28PM

This is Page Number 7 and the Final Page of the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Orange City Council held on 1 December 2015.

Council Meeting 15 December 2015

5 General Reports

5.1 Development Application DA 308/2015(1) - 98 Dalton Street

TRIM REFERENCE: 2015/3076

AUTHOR: Michael Glenn, Senior Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged	11 September 2015
Applicant/s	BT Homes
Owner/s	Mrs JM Granger
Land description	Lot 6 DP 1932 - 98 Dalton Street, Orange
Proposed land use	Secondary Dwelling
Value of proposed development	$119,164

Council's consent is sought for the creation of a secondary dwelling in the rear yard of the site. The application has attracted four individual submissions from nearby and adjoining property owners raising various issues. Most of the issues relate to the prior poor management of the premises as a rental property which, whilst understood, has only limited relevance to the assessment of this application.

Some of the issues raised by neighbours do have some relevance resulting in the imposition of conditions that increase the setback from the rear southern boundary, require new boundary fencing, the establishment of better landscaped treatments and the establishment of separate private open space areas for each dwelling.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

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

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

That Council grants consent to development application DA 308/2015(1) for Secondary Dwelling at Lot 6 DP 1932 - 98 Dalton 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

Council's consent is sought for a secondary dwelling at Lot 6 DP 1932 - 98 Dalton Street Orange. The proposal can be summarised in the following table:

Dwelling	Land Area	Total Floor Area (excluding garage, alfresco and porch )	% of Principal	Site Coverage	Description
Principal	-	120.02m²	n/a	n/a	Existing dwelling
(Garaging etc)		30.2m²	n/a	n/a	Garages verandahs and entrance
Secondary	-	59.99m²	50%	n/a	One bedroom dwelling with store, living, separate bath and kitchenette
Total	676m²	210.21m²	n/a	31.09%	-

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

Section 5A Assessment

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

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

Section 79C

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

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

Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011

Part 1 - Preliminary

Clause 1.2 - Aims of Plan

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

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

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

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

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

With regard to (a), it is noted that the streetscape provides significant value in terms of heritage character. It is important to ensure that the integrity and context of the nearby heritage items is not compromised or placed too far out of context by unsympathetic materials or design for the new building. With regard to (b), the proposed development seeks to provide low scale accommodation, as well as some relatively minor alterations and additions to the existing dwelling. There are no significant issues arising from the changed land use patterns or densities arising. With regard to (c), the proposed development will have a slight increase in demand for water services, but otherwise have no impact. In relation to (e), the basic proposal is to provide a secondary dwelling that inherently is of different characteristics to the more traditional housing forms evident in the street. There are general demographic trends that suggest smaller household sizes, family members staying longer in the family home, or older members of a family being provided with separate onsite accommodation. In relation to (f), the subject application proposes minimal changes to the visible parts of the site. This represents tangible and positive management of the site in terms of the heritage, landscape and scenic contribution of the site to the City.

Clause 1.6 - Consent Authority

This clause establishes that, subject to the Act, Council is the consent authority for applications made under the LEP.

Clause 1.9A - Suspension of Covenants, Agreements and Instruments

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

· covenants imposed or required by Council

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

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

· any trust agreement under the Nature Conservation Trust Act 2001

· any property vegetation plan under the Native Vegetation Act 2003

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

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

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

Mapping

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

Land Zoning Map:	Land zoned R1 General Residential
Lot Size Map:	No Minimum Lot Size
Heritage Map:	Located in a heritage 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 Secondary Dwelling comprising an existing principal dwelling, to which a detached, smaller Secondary Dwelling is proposed to be added..

All elements of the proposed development are permissible in the zone. Residential accommodation is a group term of the LEP, covering a range of development types. Secondary dwelling is defined in the LEP as self-contained dwelling that:

(a) is established in conjunction with another dwelling (the principal dwelling), and

(b) is on the same lot of land as the principal dwelling, and

(c) is located within, or is attached to, or is separate from, the principal dwelling

Proposals for secondary dwellings must also comply or meet the development standards contained in clause 5.4 of the LEP. The proposed development is fully compliant with the relevant standards and further is consistent with the definition parameters set out above.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) (the SEPP) has provisions that act to override or replace the development standards of the LEP where inconsistencies arise between the SEPP and the LEP. In this case, however, there are no inconsistencies between the LEP and the SEPP. The proposed development is permissible in its own right to the definitions and standards of the LEP.

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 provides facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

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

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

In relation to the first and second dot points, the proposed secondary dwelling is consistent with this objective. In relation to the third dot point, the proposed development is for the continuation and intensification of the residential use of the site. Consideration of alternative land uses is, in this instance, not relevant to the assessment.

In relation to the fourth dot point, the proposed development seeks approval for a modest intensification of the residential use of the site. This has the potential to increase the demand for public transport, particularly given the style of housing proposed and its location on a main road, close to bus stops and in close proximity to the CBD. In relation to the last dot point, the proposed development has no relevance to the objective.

Part 5 - Miscellaneous Provisions

Clause 5.4 - Controls Relating to Miscellaneous Permissible Uses

This clause contains specific provisions for a secondary dwelling that by reason of the structure of the LEP go to the definition of the proposed development. Because of that, the provisions of Clause 5.4 have been considered elsewhere in this report.

5.10 - Heritage Conservation

The subject property is not located within a conservation area, but is adjacent to a row of identified heritage listed buildings to the west.

(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,

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

In relation to (a), the proposed development does not alter the fabric or form of the existing dwelling, and seeks permission to add a relatively low scale structure to the rear of the site. The impacts on the environmental heritage of this site and its surroundings are considered to be minor. In relation to (b), it is noted that there are three listed items of environmental heritage adjoining along the western side boundary of the premises. The impacts of the proposed development on the heritage significance of these buildings is considered limited, subject to the setback of the development from the side access lane being increased to bring it into better alignment with the setback of the shed located at the rear of 332 Lords Place, and also subject to certain restrictions on materials selection aimed at limiting the visual impacts. In relation to (c), there is no obvious indication that the site is a potential archaeological site. In relation to (d), there is no obvious evidence of Aboriginal heritage on the site.

Requirement for Consent

The applicant is seeking consent in accordance with the requirements of the LEP.

Effect of Proposed Development on Heritage Significance

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

The proposed development is considered unlikely to have a significant impact on any of the nearby and adjoining heritage items in the locality.

Heritage Assessment

This Council, may, before granting consent to any development on land that is within the vicinity of land containing a heritage item or adjacent a conservation area, require a heritage management document to be prepared that assesses the extent to which the carrying out of the proposed works would have on the heritage significance of the heritage item or heritage conservation area> In this case the scale of the work, the contrasts of design, the relative lack of visibility suggest that it is unnecessary to require a heritage management statement in this case. Advice was, however, sought from Council's Heritage Adviser, who has provided the following advice with respect to this proposal:

Significance:

· The site is within the Conservation area (Planners Note; this is incorrect)

Issues:

· The granny flat is located to the rear garden.

· The selected materials should be sympathetic to the garden setting.

Recommendations:

· The roof to be Colorbond Woodland Grey

· All flashings to be traditional rolled type

· Gutters to be traditional smooth unperforated Woodland Grey

· Downpipes to be circular and painted to match the wall colour

· Walls to be weathertex board cladding painted in Dulux Stone

· Watertank to be acquaplate steel in an acceptable colorbond colour such as Windspray or Woodland Grey

· A landscape planting plan to be provided to illustrate two trees with a mature height of 6m – one to each side at a suitable distance from the building".

Clauses 5.10(6), (7), (8), (9) and (10) have been considered, but are not relevant to this assessment.

Part 7 - Additional Local Provisions

7.3 - Stormwater Management

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

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

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

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

The proposal can be provided with adequate infrastructure for the collection and disposal of surface runoff. Appropriate conditions to that effect are included in the attached consent. It is 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

Affordable Rental housing SEPP (ARH)

The ARH is applicable to this site and development type. The aims of this Policy are as follows:

(a) to provide a consistent planning regime for the provision of affordable rental housing,

(b) to facilitate the effective delivery of new affordable rental housing by providing incentives by way of expanded zoning permissibility, floor space ratio bonuses and non-discretionary development standards,

(c) to facilitate the retention and mitigate the loss of existing affordable rental housing,

(d) to employ a balanced approach between obligations for retaining and mitigating the loss of existing affordable rental housing, and incentives for the development of new affordable rental housing,

(e) to facilitate an expanded role for not-for-profit-providers of affordable rental housing,

(f) to support local business centres by providing affordable rental housing for workers close to places of work,

(g) to facilitate the development of housing for the homeless and other disadvantaged people who may require support services, including group homes and supportive accommodation.

The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the ARH.

Division 2 9, Clauses 19-24 set out the provisions relating to secondary dwellings.

Clause 19 of the SEPP sets out the definition criteria for secondary dwellings. It defines a secondary dwelling as

"development for the purposes of a secondary dwelling includes the following:

(a) the erection of, or alterations or additions to, a secondary dwelling,

(b) alterations or additions to a principal dwelling for the purposes of a secondary dwelling.

Note The standard instrument defines secondary dwelling as follows:

secondary dwelling means a self-contained dwelling that:

(a) is established in conjunction with another dwelling (the principal dwelling), and

(b) is on the same lot of land (not being an individual lot in a strata plan or community title scheme) as the principal dwelling, and

(c) is located within, or is attached to, or is separate from, the principal dwelling"

Clause 20 establishes the zones of LEP 2011 in which the ARH SEPP is applicable. It includes the R1 General Residential zone, in which the subject property is located.

Clause 21 establishes the types of development to which the policy applies. The subject application, being consistent with the definition of secondary dwelling, can have the ARH applied to it.

Clause 22 serves to clarify and define those instances where development consent is required and applies certain development standards, or instances where council may not grant consent under the ARH.

Subclause (1) establishes that development to which the division is applicable may be carried out with consent.

Subclause (2) does not permit the application of the secondary dwelling clauses where there is more than the principal dwelling and secondary dwelling on the subject property.

Subclause (3) applies certain standards that prevent Council from granting consent if exceeded. Part (a) limits the total floor area of the principal dwelling to the maximum permissible for a dwelling house on the land under another environmental planning instrument (EPI). There are no such standards under another EPI, however there is a site coverage limit contained in Council’s DCP 2004 (a DCP by definition is not an EPI). The proposed development does not exceed the standards set out in DCP 2004 with respect to site coverage. Part (b) of subclause (3) restricts the total floor area of the secondary dwelling is no more than 60m² or, if a greater floor area is permitted in respect of a secondary dwelling on the land under another EPI, that greater floor area. In this case LEP 2011 has an additional provision that allows the secondary dwelling to be no more than 50% of the principal dwelling’s floor area. In this case the proposed dwelling is both under 60m² and also less than 50% of the area of the principal dwelling.

Subclause (4) has an important function in that it sets up the parameters in which Council may not refuse an application for a secondary dwelling. Part (a) of this subclause sets standards with respect to site area. For a secondary dwelling that is attached or located within the principal dwelling, approval may not be refused on the basis of site area if the site area is 450m² or greater. In this instance, the proposed secondary dwelling is detached from the main dwelling; however the site area is considerably greater than 450m².

Part (b) prevents Council from refusing an application if no additional parking is to be provided on the site. This clause does not obviate other requirements for a parking assessment, such as is called up by DCP 2004 and required as a matter for consideration under Section 79C(1)(A)(iii) of the Act. Where alternatives exist for parking to be provided, whilst Council cannot refuse such an application on the basis of parking, it can require by amended plan, or condition, parking to achieve better outcomes in terms of the Section 79 assessment.

Clause 23 sets up the parameters for complying development, and calls into effect the provisions of the SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development Codes). Under Clause 1.19, an application for a secondary dwelling may not be assessed as complying development if the subject land is within a conservation area.

Clause 24 prevents any subdivision of a lot on which a secondary dwelling is proposed or has been approved.

SEPP (Building Sustainability Index BASIX)

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

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

There are no draft amendments to LEP 2011 applicable to the proposed development.

DESIGNATED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development is not designated development.

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

Development Control Plan 2004

Development Control Plan 2004 (“the DCP”) applies to the subject land (Part 0 - LEP 2011 and Part - 7 Development in Residential Areas). An assessment of the proposed development against the relevant Planning Outcomes will be undertaken below.

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

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

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

Part 7 - Design Elements for Residential Development

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcomes in regard to urban residential development.

Neighbourhood Character

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

· Site layout and building design enables the:

- creation of attractive residential environments with clear character and identity

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

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

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

The character and identity of the development are influenced by building design that maintains a common theme and consistent use of materials. Whilst it needs to be clearly understood that the subject property is not part of a Conservation Area it is located adjacent a number of listed heritage items of the LEP to the west. Council's heritage study identifies the key elements of this area as consisting of a range of buildings dating from the latter part of the 19th century, with historical importance for the development and prosperity of Orange during this period. There are several examples of architectural styles that include the elements of the Edwardian style exhibited in the main dwelling of the proposed development. The proposed structures behind the main dwelling, being the secondary dwelling, are simple and low scaled, with generally low visual impact. However, their current location forward of the adjacent laneway setback will expose that structure unnecessarily and detrimentally to the character issue of this locality. The issue is addressed by a condition that requires the building to be set back to a line closer to match that of adjoining development that faces the rear lane.

Building Appearance

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

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

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

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

Council’s Heritage Adviser has recommended conditions relating to finishes which are incorporated into the Notice of Approval.

Setbacks

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

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

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

In this case the appropriate setback to apply is against the rear lane on the southern side of the site. An increased rear setback is considered justified to provide better integration with existing adjacent development, and better define and delineate the areas of open space on the site for each dwelling.

Visual Bulk

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

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

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

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

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

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

- building to the boundary where appropriate.

In consideration of the DCP Guidelines, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory. The proposed building is single storey, consistent with the established development form of residential development in the locality.

The DCP requires dwellings to be contained within the prescribed envelopes generated by planes projected at 45^o over the site commencing 2.5m above existing ground level from each side and rear boundary. The development will be contained within these planes and is considered acceptable.

Site Coverage

Site coverage (including both the existing principal dwelling and its component parts) and the proposed secondary dwelling is 31.09%, which is well within the specified limits of the DCP.

Walls and Boundaries

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

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

- the privacy of neighbouring dwellings and private open space

- the access to daylight reaching adjoining properties

- the impact of boundary walls on neighbours.

The proposed development does not propose building any structures other than fences along any boundaries.

Daylight and Sunlight

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

· Buildings are sited and designed to ensure:

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

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

- consideration of Council’s Energy Efficiency Code.

Shadow diagrams have not been prepared in support of the proposed development. The applicant advises in the Statement of Environmental Effects that diagrams are not required in this case to establish whether the proposed development is satisfactory. This position is generally agreed with.

Both the existing principal dwelling and the proposed secondary dwelling will have adequate solar access and little or no effect on the solar access of adjoining residential development.

Views

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

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

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

The subject site is not within an important view corridor. It will, however, be visible from a verandah of the western neighbour and will, to a degree, have a level of visibility from Lords Place. As a form of residential architecture, it is noted that the proposed development is low scale, of small size and simple design. These are design elements consistent with Burra Charter principals. However, notwithstanding, it is considered that the inadequate rear setback does increase the level of exposure and visibility of the proposed development. The problem can be addressed in a relatively simple fashion simply by requiring an increased rear setback of not less than 8m. This will pull the new dwelling into a setback alignment consistent with the approved shed located to the west.

Visual Privacy

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

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

- building siting and layout

- location of windows and balconies

and secondly by:

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

In this case the proposed development is for a shared open space area between the principal and secondary dwellings. For secondary dwellings, where the secondary dwelling is to be occupied by an unrelated person, shared open space areas are considered unsatisfactory. It is considered appropriate where the occupants are unrelated (such as is the case for this application) for each dwelling to have a separately fenced off area and clearly designated private open space area for each dwelling. A condition requiring separation of the open spaces is included in the consent.

Acoustic Privacy

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

· Site layout and building design:

- protect habitable rooms from excessively high levels of external noise

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

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

It is considered that the proposed development will not have an excessive or unreasonable effect on acoustic privacy, and will not itself suffer excessively from existing intrusive noise levels.

This is the basis of the applicant's submission on this issue. The Statement of Environmental Effects makes the following observations:

· The proposed secondary dwelling is set back as far as possible from Summer Street and thus would not be as affected by traffic noise.

· Residential occupation is not typically a noise generating use. As such the proposed secondary dwelling is unlikely to cause noise impacts upon surrounding residential properties.

In terms of the Planning Outcomes, it is considered that the new dwelling is proposed to be located in the most suitable location. In terms of entry and exit to the new dwelling, there are no onsite vehicle arrangements made within the application for the secondary dwelling. It is considered that such arrangements are unnecessary given the modest size of the secondary dwelling; and as a result noise intrusions from entry and egress will also not be significantly intrusive. In relation to the last planning outcome, it is considered that this provision is relevant to dwellings that are attached to another dwelling in some way. In this case there is no attachment, and consequently the opportunities for internal sound transmission between dwellings is considered to be very minor.

Security

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

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

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

A condition is included requiring the provision of a 1.5m high internal dividing fence between the two dwellings for the purpose of achieving privacy between those dwellings, given the two dwelling will be occupied by unrelated persons.

Circulation and Design

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

· Accessways and parking areas are designed to manage stormwater.

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

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

No changes are proposed for the existing access and no changes are proposed to landscaping on the site. However, it is likely that some tree removal is likely as a result of the development. To improve the presentation and amenity of the site, it is considered appropriate to impose conditions requiring the submission of a landscaping condition, and further, to require full implementation and retention of those landscaped areas.

Car Parking

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

· Parking facilities are provided, designed and located to:

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

- reduce the visual dominance of car parking areas and access ways.

· Car parking is provided with regard to the:

- the number and size of proposed dwellings

- requirements of people with limited mobility or disabilities.

No changes are proposed for the existing dwelling, which has some provision for off-street parking accessed by a driveway off Dalton Street. Given that no real changes are proposed for this dwelling, it would seem reasonable to not require additional parking for this dwelling under the current proposed development.

With respect to the proposed dwelling, the applicant is proposing no parking to be provided. Whilst the ARH SEPP provisions do not allow Council to refuse an application lodged under the provisions of that instrument on the basis of parking, in this case the applicant has not specified that the application is lodged under the provisions of the LEP or the SEPP. Moreover, whilst outright refusal is problematic, Council does have the ability to require parking where such parking is considered reasonable and achievable.

The imposition of a setback as is elsewhere required for this development will make it possible to park in the rear yard of the site, though no requirement is considered warranted as a condition of consent for a formalised parking area.

Private Open Space

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

· Private open space is clearly defined for private use.

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

· Private open space is:

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

– accessible from a living area of the dwelling

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

– Orientated to optimise year round use.

The applicant has not delineated the private open space area for each dwelling, but it is clear that each dwelling can be provided with the requisite 5m x 5m main area, and for each dwelling 50% of the dwelling size as open space. A condition is included requiring the delineation and provision of private open space according to the above requirements to be shown a plan that is part of the Construction Certificate.

Open Space and Landscaping

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

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

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

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

– allow cost effective management.

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

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

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

It is apparent from site inspection and perusal of the plans that open space and landscaping is already, or can be provided for each dwelling. The existing dwelling already has landscaping and open space that clearly meets the DCP requirements. The proposed dwelling (after application of the setback elsewhere discussed in this report is applied) can also comply, but this needs to be clearly shown in the Construction Certificate. It is considered appropriate to require a landscaping plan for the new dwelling and implementation of that plan as part of the site works.

Stormwater

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

· Onsite drainage systems are designed to consider:

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

– scope for on-site infiltration of water

– safety and convenience of pedestrians and vehicles

– overland flowpaths.

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

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

Erosion and Sedimentation

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

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

Erosion and sediment control measures will be required to be implemented during construction. Attached is a condition of consent addressing this issue.

DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN 2015

Orange Development Contributions Plan 2015 is relevant to the proposal. The following table provides the relevant charges under the contributions plan

The payment of $5,660.92 is to be made to Council in accordance with section 94 of the Act and the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2015 (Development in LGA Remainder) towards the provision of the following public facilities:

Open Space and Recreation	@ $1,920.59 x 1 additional 2 bedroom dwelling	1,920.59
Community and Cultural	@ $386.82 x 1 additional 2 bedroom dwelling	386.82
Roads and Cycleways	@ $3,010.07 x 1 additional 2 bedroom dwelling	3,010.07
Stormwater Drainage	@ $179.52 x 1 additional 2 bedroom dwelling	179.52
Local Area Facilities	-	-
Plan Preparation & Admin	@ $163.92 x 1 additional 2 bedroom dwelling	163.92
TOTAL:		$5,660.92

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

Section 64 Water and Sewer Headworks Charges

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

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

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

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

Traffic Impacts

The capacity of the road network in the vicinity of the site is sufficient to accommodate additional localised traffic generated by the development. The proposed driveways will be appropriately sited so as to prevent vehicle conflicts. As previously considered (see “DCP 2004”), proposed parking and manoeuvring arrangements comply with the provisions of the DCP.

Neighbourhood Amenity

The proposed development will provide and retain a reasonable standard of residential amenity for the dwellings on the site and development on adjoining lands in respect of solar access, privacy etc. The proposed development will provide for a continuation of residential land use and will not alter the function of the neighbourhood. The development will not have adverse impacts on neighbourhood amenity.

Cumulative Impacts

The proposal is considered to be satisfactory in terms of cumulative impact. Whilst there are few examples of secondary dwellings visible or prominent in the street, there are older style flats and the like that are very similar in their impact to a secondary dwelling. The proposal has compatible impacts on the streetscape and will maintain the pattern of detached dwelling houses of one and two storey forms. The siting of the secondary dwelling will have minor visual impacts, largely because it is not easily visible from the street. Generally, those elements of the proposed development that are visible from the street are respectful of the unique and important character of the street and the heritage setting into which it is placed.

The proposed development will not reduce the open space, solar access or privacy afforded to neighbouring properties. Similarly, the site layout and building design will provide a reasonable standard of residential amenity for both the principal dwelling and proposed secondary dwelling in terms of open space, solar access and privacy.

Environmental Impacts

The subject land is located within an established residential area. As a result, significant vegetation, threatened species or ecological endangered communities or their habitats are unlikely to occur on the subject land. The proposed development will not impact upon the locality in terms of environmental impacts.

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

Servicing

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

Physical Attributes

The land does not present any significant constraints to render the proposed development as unsuitable.

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 four submissions had been received, summarised and commented upon as follows:

Lee and David Bell - 332 Lords Place

· The "secondary dwelling" is more accurately described as "affordable rental accommodation".

The residents are concerned that various issues associated with the use of the existing residence as a "rental" will be magnified and exacerbated if a second rental style dwelling is constructed on the site. There are no records of serious amenity issues for this site recorded in Council's property information system. Moreover, issues relating to bad tenancies are not a matter for Council to deal with; rather they are matters for the property manager and the owner to address on receipt of complaints; or in extreme cases, in the situation of litigation about an issue. In this case, it is not a relevant matter for consideration in the assessment of the proposed secondary dwelling. The legislation does not draw in the concern that the occupants may not necessarily be an owner of the premises.

· Building appearance - the setback from the lane is insufficient to hide the secondary dwelling from view.

The recommendation contained in this report is for the proposed dwelling to be provided with an increased setback so that more of the secondary dwelling will not be visible. It is agreed that the proposed structure is unremarkable in its appearance. This is to be addressed in the conditions relating to finishes for the proposed dwelling and the overall simplicity of the design, for which Council Heritage Consultant made several recommendations (and for which conditions are made in the notice of approval). Whilst it is conceded the proposed development is very simple and of indifferent appearance, it is also considered that this is preferable to presenting a design that is excessively ornate and attention seeking. "Mock Federation" or "Mock Edwardian" would be of greater harm to the streetscape than a low scale, simple design, such as is being proposed in this instance.

· Heritage - the proposed secondary will adversely affect the importance and value of the heritage conservation area.

The submission raises objection to the overall poor quality of materials, design and construction of the proposed development. There is little doubt that the proposed development is for a low cost structure, however this is juxtaposed against its low scale and relative levels of obscurity. The proposed dwelling will not have a significant presence in terms of its visibility. It is largely masked by existing development, except in regard to glimpses that will be possible from the rear lane and from the neighbours’ verandah located to the west. This degree of visibility will be further reduced by the required increased setback. Council's Heritage Consultant has made recommendations to improve the external appearance of the building , which are included in the conditions of consent.

· Setbacks - the rear setback needs to be a minimum of 8 metres.

This concern is considered justified, however it can be addressed by condition. The consent as currently recommended requires an increase in setback along the lines suggested by these residents.

· Fences and walls - are currently inadequate.

Site inspection shows the existing condition of fencing to be inadequate, or even non-existent. It is generally standard requirement to require new development, where a need for replacement fencing to be provided is required, to impose a condition to require that replacement or new fencing by the proponent. In this case a new fence is considered a justifiable requirement for consent.

· Landscaping -needs replacement for vegetation that will be necessary to remove as a result of the development.

The consent includes a condition for a landscaping plan to be developed and for that landscaping to be implemented prior to occupation. It is a further requirement that such required landscaping be maintained to a reasonable standard.

· Colour

Council's Heritage Adviser has provided advice on finishes and colours for the proposed building, and this advice is included as conditions in the attached notice of approval. .

· Fire rating - setbacks from the shared boundary are inadequate.

The proposed development will comply with the Building Code of Australia and does not present any issues with respect to setbacks from the boundary.

Lisa Marie Smith - 131 Prince Street

· Was not notified of proposed development.

Council's records show that a letter was sent to the objector’s address on 2 October 2015.

· Is concerned about the permissibility of secondary dwellings in a Heritage Conservation Area.

Both Council's LEP and the State Government legislation list secondary dwellings as permissible development with consent in this zone. Secondary dwellings represent one response to the urban consolidation challenges facing city development, whereby densities are to be increased in existing areas, with minimal disturbance to existing built forms, housing stock and streetscapes, which are often valued for reasons such as heritage. If it is accepted, as it inevitably must, that on the one hand higher densities are needed in established areas whilst trying to conserve the best parts of the existing fabric, the secondary dwelling provisions provide a low impact and least invasive solution. Secondary dwellings are predicated on the retention of existing housing as opposed to wholesale urban renewal, which would be very invasive to the value of conservation areas.

It is also noted that within the immediate area there are multiple examples of multi dwelling housing, including near equivalents to secondary dwellings.

· Has the construction of the proposed dwelling (building appearance/heritage style) and materials been taken into consideration?

The proposed development has been referred to Council's Heritage Adviser. Subject to certain specific conditions relating to landscaping, materials selection and colours, no significant objection is raised to the proposed development.

· Will the premises be owner occupied?

The proposed development is unlikely to be owner occupied, particularly given that the development would result in two dwellings on the one lot.

The objector is concerned that construction as rental accommodation would result in social behaviour problems. There are apparently prior issues relating to bad behaviour by previous tenants of the main dwelling. As previously reported, there is not a history recorded in Council's files to support or refute that problems existed previously for this site. However, on the basis that some behavioural problems were manifested previously, that is not reason to affect the assessment of the application. Misbehaviour by tenants should be a matter taken up by the site manager and/or the landowner. Legal recourse is available to a neighbour suffering nuisance as a result of poor site management. Within the parameters of the development type (ie secondary dwelling) there is nothing to suggest about this application that it would lead to social or environmental issues. As an exercise in built form there are some concerns relating to setback, finishes, landscaping and fencing, all of which can be addressed by conditions of consent. The subject application after its establishment as a permissible land use in the zone is principally an exercise in urban design. Good urban design does have a role in discouraging good or poor social behaviour, but in itself cannot act as a substitute for proper rental management.

· Proposed development compromises privacy and rear lane access.

The conditions of consent incorporate increased setbacks, landscaping and fencing for both internal and external boundaries. It is further noted that the proposed development seeks consent for a single storey dwelling only, in which fencing can have a significant ameliorating effect on intrusions to visual privacy. It is considered that the conditions imposed in the attached notice will maintain privacy for surrounding development. With regard to rear lane access, the proposed development does not propose rear lane access, and Council's consent does not require it. The rear lane is not constructed to a satisfactory standard. However, the rear lane is a public lane, and has been so since at least 1914. It would be beyond Council's authority to deny access for the subject land to this lane.

Barbara Woodley - 334 Lords Place

· Boundary fencing inadequate.

A condition requiring standard boundary fencing is included. In other respects, the objector raises similar issues to those already summarised and commented upon.

CA Carroll and FM Towns - 100 Dalton Street

· There is an agreement between the previous owners of 98 and 100 Dalton Street which resulted in a driveway being constructed for shared use. The driveway has been fenced off preventing access for 100 Dalton Street, and the existing garage built so as to straddle the boundary.

The proposed development relates to a secondary dwelling with no additional parking proposed. The issue raised by this objector is not relevant to the proposed development. The survey data available to Council does not suggest any encroachment of buildings fences or driveways with the eastern neighbour. Issues of encroachment would only have relevance if subdivision or development along the shared boundary were proposed.

This is a matter more appropriately resolved between the parties.

PUBLIC INTEREST s79C(1)(e)

The proposed development is considered to have some interest to neighbours as outlined in this report. However it is considered that the planning related concerns raised by the neighbours can be addressed as conditions of consent.

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. The concerns of adjoining landowners are acknowledged and have resulted in conditions being included in the notice of determination. 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 Manager are included in the attached Notice of Approval.

Attachments

1 Notice of Approval, D15/45330 ⇩

2 Plans, D15/44684 ⇩

3 Submissions, D15/44688 ⇩

Council Meeting 15 December 2015

5.1 Development Application DA 308/2015(1) - 98 Dalton Street

Attachment 1 Notice of Approval

leaflogo

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

Development Application No DA 308/2015(1)

NA15/ Container PR3298

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 81(1)

Development Application
Applicant Name:	BT Homes
Applicant Address:	PO Box 2155 ORANGE NSW 2800
Owner’s Name:	Mrs J M Granger
Land to Be Developed:	Lot 6 DP 1932 - 98 Dalton Street, Orange
Proposed Development:	Secondary Dwelling

Building Code of Australia building classification:	As determined by Certifier

Determination
Made On:	15 December 2015
Determination:	CONSENT GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:

Consent to Operate From:	16 December 2015
Consent to Lapse On:	16 December 2020

Terms of Approval

The reasons for the imposition of conditions are:

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

(2) To maintain neighbourhood amenity and character.

(3) To ensure compliance with relevant statutory requirements.

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

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

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

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

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

Conditions

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

(a) Plan/s numbered Plans By BT Homes dated 10 September 2015 numbered 2/3 and 3/3 (2 sheets)

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

as amended in accordance with any conditions of this consent.

PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 the name of the owner-builder, and

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

(condition (5) continued over the page

(5) (cont)

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

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

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

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

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

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

(7) Full details of external colours and finishes of external materials are to be submitted and approved by Councils Director Environmental Services prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. The materials and finishes are required to specify the following:

· the roof to be Colorbond Woodland Grey

· all flashings to be traditional rolled type

· gutters to be traditional smooth unperforated Woodland Grey

· downpipes to be circular and painted to match the wall colour

· walls to be weathertex board cladding painted in Dulux Stone

· water tank to be acquaplate steel in an acceptable Colorbond colour such as Windspray or Woodland Grey

(8) A detailed plan showing landscaping shall be submitted to and approved by Councils Manager Development Assessments prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. The revised landscaping plan shall incorporate at least two trees with a mature height of 6m – one to each side of the secondary dwelling at a suitable distance from the building.

(9) An amended plan is required that is to the satisfaction of the Director Development Services that increases the setback from the rear, southern boundary to not less than 8m.

(10) The payment of $5,660.92 is to be made to Council in accordance with section 94 of the Act and the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2015 (Development in LGA Remainder) towards the provision of the following public facilities:

Open Space and Recreation	@ $1,920.59 x 1 additional 2 bedroom dwelling	1,920.59
Community and Cultural	@ $386.82 x 1 additional 2 bedroom dwelling	386.82
Roads and Cycleways	@ $3,010.07 x 1 additional 2 bedroom dwelling	3,010.07
Stormwater Drainage	@ $179.52 x 1 additional 2 bedroom dwelling	179.52
Local Area Facilities	-	-
Plan Preparation & Admin	@ $163.92 x 1 additional 2 bedroom dwelling	163.92
TOTAL:		$5,660.92

The contribution will be indexed quarterly in accordance with Orange Development Contributions Plan 2015 (Development in LGA Remainder).

(11) 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.

(12) 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.

(13) 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.

Alternatively a payment of $448.20 shall be paid to Council, prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate, for the construction of an off-site stormwater retention basin. Payments are indexed in accordance with Councils Management Plan current at the time of issue of a Construction Certificate.

(14) 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 0.66 ETs for water supply headworks and 0.66 ETs for sewerage headworks. A Certificate of Compliance, from Orange City Council in accordance with the Water Management Act 2000, will be issued upon payment of the contributions.

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

PRIOR TO WORKS COMMENCING

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

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

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

(17) No existing street trees (of any height) or site trees (higher than 8m) shall be removed without Council approval. Where such approval is granted, the trees shall be replaced at full cost by the applicant with super advanced trees of a species nominated by Council's relevant officer.

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

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

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

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

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

(22) 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.

(23) All stormwater from the roof of the dwelling and/or rainwater tank overflow is to be collected and piped to the Dalton Street kerb and gutter.

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

(24) Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans to the satisfaction of Council's Director Environmental Services.

(25) 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.

(26) Finished ground levels are to be graded away from the buildings and adjoining properties and must achieve natural drainage. The concentrated flows are to be dispersed down slope or collected and discharged to the stormwater drainage system.

(27) 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.

(28) 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.

(29) A 1.8m high solid fence is to be provided from the rear of the existing dwelling facing 98 Dalton Street to the rear boundary, along the western side of the property. This fence shall be constructed to replace the existing timber fence and shall also provide a fence along the western side of the property where currently there is no fence. A 1.5m high solid fence shall also be provided between each dwelling.

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

MATTERS FOR THE ONGOING PERFORMANCE AND OPERATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT

(31) Landscaping shall be permanently maintained to the satisfaction of Council's Director Environmental Services.

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:	16 December 2015

Council Meeting 15 December 2015

5.2 Development Application DA 217/2014(1) - Northern Distributor Road and 386 Molong Road

TRIM REFERENCE: 2015/1973

AUTHOR: Michael Glenn, Senior Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged	21 July 2014
Applicant/s	Fenlor Group Pty Limited
Owner/s	Mr GJ Thornberry
Land description	Lot 6 DP 1065578 and Lot 81 DP 1202584 - Northern Distributor Road and 386 Molong Road, Orange
Proposed land use	Subdivision (61 residential lots, one residue lot and three open space lots)
Value of proposed development	$0

Council's consent is sought for a subdivision of the subject land into 61 lots ranging in size from 1,000m²to 1,632m². A further development lot, proposed Lot 62, is also proposed, with no direct access off the Northern Distributor Road (NDR) or Molong Road.

The principal environmental issues for consideration in this application are:

1 The noise and odour impacts between the proposed subdivision and the sewer pump station located at the northern extremity of the site, and the security in the tenure of this structure and the infrastructure, as well as the arrangements for access to that piece of infrastructure

2 The noise impacts arising from the NDR and Molong Road

3 The protection of the riparian corridor that will require the setting aside of land and its ongoing conservation and management as per NSW Office of Water requirements.

One particular element of this application necessitates a comment from the broader strategic perspective of Council as a planning authority, as a manager of public land and provider of public open space.

This relates to the proposed large amount of open space associated with the two watercourses which traverse the land in question and proposals put forward by the developer and supported in a late submission by Environmentally Concerned Citizens of Orange (ECCO) that all the suggested land be acquired by Council. The amount of land is well above Council’s requirements for public purposes and is able to be held in private ownership for conservation purposes as it has been for many years. The following plan shows the land offered by the Applicant in the original submission (IC14/9646 Sheet 3).

The developer wishes that Council acquire the land at typical open space rates under Council’s Development Contributions Plan. This would exceed the ability of Council’s Development Contributions Plan to meet the open space costs by in excess of $200,000. Council made a conscious strategic planning decision not to lift developer contributions above the $20,000 threshold when it resolved the Development Contributions Plan in 2015, for good reason, that is concerns about the cost of housing for residents trying to build houses in Orange and the competitiveness of opportunities in Orange.

Equally, from a Council purse perspective, Council has assigned its priorities in its multi-year budget, with this priority not otherwise raised. Council went through an extensive priority setting process leaving out many worthy projects. Consideration of the surplus land matter arising from this application ought not be a way to step around the proper priority setting processes of Council.

The amount of open space for public and Council purposes is properly identified in the Development Contributions Plan. The additional open space proposed in this application is not required for public and Council purposes and can be held for conservation purposes privately as is vast amounts of land in NSW and in Orange. It is simply that the developer wishes to release themselves of land that is not of a financial purpose to them, having had the benefit of subdividing the profitable land, that the land is being offered for sale at contributions plan rates to Council. This circumstance could well arise in other future subdivisions.

Given the surplus nature of the land to the developer and the surplus nature of the land for public and Council purposes, it is held that were it offered, it ought to be offered at heavily discounted rates and be offered like any other parcel of land not required by Council for a specific planning purpose under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act that a landowner wishes to divest, that is through a separate negotiation process.

Through such a process, Council can ensure thorough and diligent consideration of its priorities, understand the operating costs of the potential asset and the opportunity cost of the asset. As such the offer of acquisition of the surplus land ought not be dealt with under the development application and the recommended condition relating to the conservation of the extra watercourse land is appropriate. Going forward the developer has the opportunity to enter into discussions, should they wish with Council, under a proper process for the consideration of the surplus land.

It is recommended that Council supports the subject proposal subject to the conditions attached.

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 217/2014(1) for Subdivision (61 residential lots, one residue lot and three open space lots) at Lot 6 DP 1065578 and Lot 81 DP 1202584 - Northern Distributor Road and 386 Molong Road, Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

THE APPLICATION

Council's consent is sought for subdivision (61 residential lots, one residue lot and three open space lots) at Lot 81 DP 1202584 and Lot 6 DP 1065578 - 386 Molong Road and land adjacent to the Northern Distributor Road, Orange.

THE PROPOSAL

The proposal involves a 61 lot subdivision and also the creation of an additional development lot. It is further proposed that riparian corridors on the site be dedicated as open space, as well as open space lots adjacent to the NDR. It is also proposed to establish easements on which the sewer pump station is to be located. Easements across the creek are proposed to facilitate access to the development lot (Lot 61). No direct access from a road to Lot 61 is proposed. The proposed subdivision is to be provided with a single access vehicular point off the NDR.

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

The Relevant Objectives

The proposed development as configured is an appropriate response to the demands of the various zone objectives of the LEP. The riparian corridors with their (mostly) E2 (Environmental Conservation) zoning have objectives that seek to:

protect, manage and restore areas of high ecological, scientific, cultural or aesthetic values, and prevent development that could destroy, damage or otherwise have an adverse effect on those values.

With regards to the R2 (Low Density Residential) zone the stated objectives of the zone are:

To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment, enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents, and ensure development is ordered in such a way as to maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling in close proximity to settlement.

Figure 1 - the subject property and the developing open space corridor network

to the north and south of the site

The principal environmental issues for consideration in this application are:

2 The noise impacts arising from the NDR and Molong Road

3 The protection of the riparian corridor that will require the setting aside of land and its ongoing conservation and management as per NSW Office of Water requirements.

Council needs to consider in its determination whether the condition of the riparian corridor as it currently exists is capable of absorbing the key threatening processes presented by the subdivision in the condition that it exists at the present, or whether some level of rehabilitation will be required to avoid further deterioration of the environment.

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. Similar provisions are contained in the Fisheries Management Act for land located within a riparian corridor and affected by potential fish habitats. 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 case, threatened fish habitats are also relevant as this section of Ploughmans Creek is listed by NSW Fisheries (now a part of the NSW Department of Primary Industries) as significant fish habitat. This listing basically places the waterway and its riparian zone within the same level of environmental land management terrestrial components of the riparian vegetation.

In this case, the terrestrial elements of the site have some isolated tree stands associated with the Box Gum Grassy Woodland; however, the vegetation does not constitute a viable vegetation community and is not serving a purpose as a waypoint or linkage to more significant stands elsewhere (it lacks connectivity). These tree stands offer some habitat value as seed banks but do not fill the criteria or even have potential to fill the criteria of being a viable woodland area or vegetated corridor to other more substantial vegetation communities nearby.

With regard to the areas adjacent to the creek, co-approval is required for the proposed development within these areas of riparian significance as controlled activities will be required within the riparian zone of the creek areas, and rehabilitation of the riparian areas is a reasonable outcome to require as a consequence of this development.

These areas constitute highly degraded riparian systems at present, however there is potential for these areas to be worked into the developing riparian network further upstream. Creek systems for native species are very important; they provide water supply, better opportunities for connectivity and safe havens for many species, as well as the obvious benefits to the open space system. Preservation and rehabilitation of the creek lines and their riparian vegetation areas is critical to retaining some level of viability for the urban bushland areas of the City and its surrounds.

The applicant has included in the proposal some corridor land adjacent to the two creek systems that traverse the site. Whilst this land has little or no value for subdivision purposes, it is of significance from the standpoint of developing the riparian open space network, which has a further spinoff value of making allowance for riparian biodiversity. The amenity of the West Orange suburban areas has benefitted from this approach in recent years, as has the retention of some habitat viability along these pathways.

Waterbodies and Riparian Zones

The subject sites boundaries are shown in the relevant survey as follows:

Figure 2 - extract of cadastral survey Lot 81 DP 1202584, Lot 6 DP 1065578 dated 2011

The abovementioned survey shows that the principal lot (Lot 81) does not include the watercourse itself - it is Crown land, with the western boundary of Lot 81 being the edge of the creek itself. This is an imprecise boundary definition.

The site is traversed by two separate waterbodies (one being Ploughmans Creek) that merge into a single higher order stream after this merge of the two streams.

Stream ordering is important because it affects the width of the riparian corridor adjacent and also impacts on the significance of streams as potential fisheries. The order ranking of a stream determines whether that stream is subject to the controlled activity provisions of the Water Management Act 2000. A stream above a certain classification will generally require a controlled activity permit and this, in turn, requires co-approval from the NSW Office of Water (NoW) pursuant to the Integrated Development provisions of the Act.

On 1 July 2012, NoW introduced new rules regarding controlled activities within riparian corridors. The new rules amend the riparian corridor widths that apply to watercourses, providing more flexibility in how riparian corridors can be used and making it easier for applicants to determine the Office of Water controlled activity approval requirements. Key aspects of the changes include:

· provision of greater flexibility in the allowable uses and works permitted within riparian corridors

· the core riparian zone and vegetated buffer have been combined into a single vegetated riparian zone (VRZ)

· the width of the VRZ within the riparian corridor has been pre-determined and standardised for first, second, third and fourth order and greater watercourses

· where suitable, applicants may undertake non-riparian corridor works or development within the outer 50 per cent of a VRZ, as long as they offset this activity by connecting an equivalent area to the riparian corridor within the development site

· a new riparian corridors matrix enables applicants to determine what activities can be considered in riparian corridors.

Riparian Corridor Widths

The Office of Water recommends a VRZ width based on watercourse order as classified under the Strahler System of ordering watercourses and using current 1:25 000 topographic maps (see Figure 4 and Table 1). The width of the VRZ should be measured from the top of the highest bank on both sides of the watercourse.

Figure 3 - the Strahler System for stream ordering

Watercourse type	VRZ width (each side of watercourse)	Total RC width
1st order	10 m	20m + channel width
2nd order	20m	40m + channel width
3rd Order	30m	60m + channel width
4th Order or greater	40m	80m + channel width

Table 1 - recommended riparian corridor (RC) widths

The riparian corridor consists of the channel which comprises the bed and banks of the watercourse (to the highest bank) and the vegetated riparian zone (VRZ) adjoining the channel.

Figure 4 - the riparian corridor

The subject property has, on the basis of Strahler, a category 2 stream (being the more eastern water body that runs into Ploughmans Creek. Ploughmans Creek is a category 3 stream below the junction.

The new regulations make the primary determinant of stream order the responsibility of NoW. In this regard, the advice of NoW was sought. NoW has provided the following advice:

I refer to your enquiry regarding the Office of Water's determination of what order stream Ploughmans creek is on the subject development site. I have had a brief look and attached a map which identifies the stream order in accordance with the Strahler Stream Ordering System that the Office of Water uses.

You will note that Ploughmans Creek on the southern boundary is a 2nd order, once the unnamed 2nd order creek drops into Ploughmans Creek opposite Lot 208//1018862, it becomes a 3rd order.

A 20 m buffer from the high bank of the creek is required for the 2nd order and a 30 m buffer from the high bank of the creek for the 3rd order in accordance with the attached Office of Water guidelines for riparian corridors. There is some flexibility to vary the setbacks in some cases however this will of course have to also be in line with council's requirements.

These comments relate to establishing an appropriate riparian corridor based on the Department’s guidelines that were issued in July 2012. Any activities within the riparian zone of a prescribed stream (of which Ploughmans Creek is one) triggers a need for a "controlled activity" assessment, and hence for this application an Integrated Development assessment.

As a result of those comments, the applicant was contacted with a view to amending the proposal to widen or change the riparian corridors so as to meet statutory requirements. Amended plans were received and were referred to NoW seeking its General Terms of Approval. NoW provided a reply dated 26 June 2015 providing their General Terms of Approval, which are included in the attached development consent.

As discussed in this report however this riparian zone will be in the ownership of both Council and the Applicant.

Key Threatening Processes (KTPs) for Riparian Land

A riparian corridor forms a transition zone between the land, also known as the terrestrial environment, and the river or watercourse or aquatic environment. Riparian corridors perform a range of important environmental functions such as:

· providing bed and bank stability and reducing bank and channel erosion

· protecting water quality by trapping sediment, nutrients and other contaminants

· providing diversity of habitat for terrestrial, riparian and aquatic plants (flora) and animals (fauna)

· providing connectivity between wildlife habitats

· conveying flood flows and controlling the direction of flood flows

· providing an interface or buffer between developments and waterways

· providing passive recreational uses.

The protection, restoration or rehabilitation of vegetated riparian corridors is important for maintaining or improving the water quality, stability (or geomorphic form) and ecological functions of a watercourse. It also has implications under the Fisheries Management Act and the protection of waterways as fish or aquatic habitats. It is further noted that the controlled activity aspects of the proposed development trigger a need for a co-approval from NoW, and the co-approval conditions they have provided already address many of the potential harmful impacts that could arise from the subdivision.

Subdivision is identified of itself to incorporate Key Threatening Processes (KTPs), and the existing riparian corridors are unlikely to be sufficient to address those increased threats. The KTPs that can be attributed to the subdivision include the following:

· weed infestation

· fragmentation and lack of connectivity

· feral predation and feral infestation (such as Willow and European Carp

· changes to stream hydraulics (either inundation or water deprivation

· nutrient control and biological oxygen demand (BOD)

· water quality, particularly turbidity, but also toxic pollution from sprays, insecticides and the like

· erosion arising from concentration of flows

The subject creek is known as a potential platypus habitat, and according to advice provided by officers of the Local Land Service (LLS), this riparian system could be expected to provide habitat for the following if its environmental health was restored to acceptable levels:

· Trout Cod

· Macquarie Perch

· Silver Perch

· Eel Tailed Catfish

· Purple Spotted Gudgeon

LLS advise that in their opinion "the proposal would be likely to involve increased pressure/threats on the waterway (increased area of imperviousness etc). LLS suggests that the water balance and flow regime be maintained at pre-development levels through keeping water in the landscape. This will also avoid erosion and sediment issues. This will require development that uses “water sensitive urban design principles". These suggestions are incorporated already in the NoW co-approval General Terms Of Approval and certain conditions imposed by Council's Technical Services assessment.

Appropriate responses to the potential KTPs posed by the proposed subdivision are considered to be adequately addressed in the co-approval conditions provided by the NoW.

Aboriginal Heritage

There is no obvious evidence of Aboriginal archaeology on the site. Notwithstanding, as a green fields site it is considered appropriate to impose a precautionary condition placing a responsibility on the client to stop work and seek the necessary Section 90 (National Parks and Wildlife Act) Permits if such evidence is uncovered during the site preparation phases. This provision already applies under that legislation; however, such provision can appropriately be applied as a condition of consent for clarity.

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 Environmental Heritage (OEH), and representatives from the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council 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.

Riparian Corridors

The subject property is intersected by Ploughmans Creek and Somerset Creek, which flow from the urban areas to the south. These creek-based corridors exist up to the NDR which forms the southern boundary of the subject land, and have been developed by Council over time for open space, environmental protection and recreational purposes. The development in the form submitted proposes that these riparian areas of the site be incorporated into the existing networks that are a key facet of the residential subdivisions that have occurred for approximately the last 30 years in north and west Orange.

This network will terminate within this subdivision as the creek system downstream (north) of the development becomes very steep, making further extension of these open space corridors impossible.

This application raises issues in relation to riparian corridors and the provision of open space. A detailed analysis of these issues is provided in this report.

Planning history of the site

The subject land was zoned 1(c) Rural Residential at the gazettal date of Orange Local Environmental Plan 2000 (LEP 2000), however over the lifetime of the previous LEP the land underwent various zoning changes aimed at increasing the urbanised development potential of the site. In 2009 when a development application for an 18 lot subdivision was approved the land was zoned part 2(a) Urban Residential, part 2(d) Urban Transition, part 5(b) Distributor Road and part 6 Open Space and Recreation under LEP 2000 (as amended). The open space affectation was along the creek. When the new LEP 2011 was being adopted, the most appropriate equivalent zone for the riparian corridor was considered to be E2 Environmental Conservation since this zone was considered to best capture both the open space and conservation constraints of the land in question. The residential component of the site was rationalised to R2 Low Density Residential. The minimum allotment size for the site was established as 1000 m² from the gazettal of LEP 2011.

Amendment 1 of LEP 2011 incorporated the subject property along with an adjoining lot newly rezoned (to R2) into an Urban Release Area as of March 2014. This Urban Release Area classification has no impact on the subject property as the minimum lot sizes are not reduced under the amendment for this site, but it does affect the north-eastern neighbour. The Urban Release Area status is reflective of one of the main constraints affecting the subject land, being its relative isolation. As an Urban Release Area the expectation is that a fully worked-up master plan would be prepared prior to any further subdivision (similar to the recent "Shiralee" master planning).

This is fully the case for the north-eastern neighbour, however for the site that is the subject of this application, a master plan is not required on a technical basis, since a master plan is only required if the lot size minimums are reduced (under the LEP). In this case, no such reduction in lot sizes has occurred (for the subject site, the minimum lot size was 1000m²both before and after the LEP changes). Nevertheless, the implication of placing this site within a release area is clear; it is considered a master plan to overcome the pedestrian linkages, access and open space needs for this site (and the north-eastern neighbour) is of great importance in achieving satisfactory land use outcomes.

At the time the 4000m² standard was applicable Council approved an 18 lot subdivision which included provisions for the acquisition of riparian corridors for open space and pedestrian link ways consistent with the preceding discussion, albeit under a previous Development Contributions Plan.

Constraints

As suggested above, the site is constrained by its relative isolation. It is bounded on two sides by the NDR and Molong Road, making access to the site more difficult except by car. Pedestrian links are in the process of being developed to the south with the subdivision of "Ribbon Gums Estate" - the pedestrian links developed along the waterways of that subdivision are clearly designed to be extended under the NDR to this site, and an underpass has been provided under the NDR, making the completion of a pedestrian linkage along the creek lines for this site a logical progression and in some respects a critical element of the subdivision planning for this site.

The Section 94 contribution rates for services can be applied using the "North West" locality contribution rates. The 2015 Contributions Plan provides conceptual acquisition plans for this site indicating noise and visual buffers for the Northern Distributor Road and corridors for open space adjacent or within the defined riparian corridors. A maximum allocation of 9000m² is applicable under the 2015 plan. It is not lawful to draw from the Section 94 contributions funds to pay for land dedications not identified in the plan as part of the Open Space network under that plan. The applicable rate for open space included in the contribution plans acquisition plan is $10 per square metre.

The applicant has configured and stated in his application that he is offering some of the land as open space. This offer exceeds the plan allocations in terms of area the limits imposed under the S-94 plan.

The riparian and NDR corridors are not suitable for dwelling houses, neither is it practicable to expect this land to be used for extensive agriculture. As either public or privately managed E2 land it will still be critical from an environmental perspective to maintain the corridors (albeit as private space). To achieve this outcome, it will be necessary as private land to vest the relevant parts of the site to a specific lot, so that a specific land owner has responsibility of care, control and management of that land.

As a result of the financial constraints discussed above, Council is confined to the purchase of up to 9000m2 in total under the S94 plan which will in any case allow the purchase of a contiguous strip of riparian land but not all of the riparian zone.

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,

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

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

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

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

In relation to (a), the proposed development will detract from or decrease the rural character of the locality, but will be consistent with and increase the residential character of the more urban areas nearby. The subject property is zoned R2 Low Density Residential and E2 Environmental Conservation along the riparian corridor adjacent to Ploughmans Creek. Adjoining land to the north is substantially zoned rural, whilst land to the east, south and west is zoned residential. On the basis of its zoning, the lot sizes and layout appear to be appropriate development for the site.

In acknowledgement of the competing demands of rural residential and residential character affecting the subject site, it is considered appropriate to impose a range of conditions aimed at achieving a better relationship with these competing characters. In summary, the conditions will:

1 Require all subdivision fencing adjoining rural land (to the north) to be rural style fencing (post and wire, no barbed wire).

2 Impose a Section 88B Restrictions-as-to-User under the Conveyancing Act 1979 requiring such rural fencing to be retained and maintained, and prohibiting the replacement of such fencing except with like materials and the approval of Council and the adjoining owner (as per the general principals of the Dividing Fences Act).

With regard to (b), the proposed development does increase the stock of housing lots that, in some perspective, adds to the development opportunities of the City. Adding to the housing stock increases the potential for population growth that, in turn, suggests that the needs of the workforce will be met.

With regard to (c), the proposed development would not have any significant effect on the resources of the Orange City water supply.

With regard to (d), it is acknowledged that the current use of the site is mostly for grazing. Such activities have a limited contribution to the local economy, whilst the proximity of farming land close to the suburban areas of the City provides a degree of ambience and amenity for those properties. Conversion of the land to residential lots will subtract that land from the agricultural stock of land and make some areas closer to the City less connected to the rural surroundings of the City. Such effects are accepted as part of the normal expansion and increase in residential land stocks for the City.

With regard to (e), the proposed development does not include housing; however, it does increase the supply of residential allotments. This will produce the conditions needed to provide additional housing opportunities.

With regard to (f), it is recognised that the changes in zoning that occurred under LEP 2011 will result in some adverse effects on the surrounding landscape. However, within the context of the general provisions, the zoning, the other objectives of the LEP and the recognised primary view corridors and the like, it is considered that this is appropriate development for the site.

Clause 1.6 - Consent Authority

This clause establishes that, subject to the Act, Council is the consent authority for applications made under the LEP.

Clause 1.9A - Suspension of Covenants, Agreements and Instruments

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

· covenants imposed or required by Council

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

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

· any trust agreement under the Nature Conservation Trust Act 2001

· any property vegetation plan under the Native Vegetation Act 2003

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

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

Council staff are not aware of the title of the subject property being affected by any of the above easements. There is, however, sewer related infrastructure (sewer mains and sewer pump station) constructed on the site. The application includes proposed easements for the existing sewer mains and sewer pump station on the site.

Figure 5 - utilities mapping

Mapping

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

Land Zoning Map:	Land zoned R2 Low Density Residential and E2 Environmental Conservation
Lot Size Map:	Minimum Lot Size 1000 m²(applicable to both zones)
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:	Some high biodiversity sensitivity on the site
Groundwater Vulnerability Map:	ground water vulnerable
Drinking Water Catchment Map:	Not within the drinking water catchment
Watercourse Map:	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 following is an extract from the LEP, showing the applicable zones.

Figure 6 - extract of zoning Map 1

The subject site is principally located within the R2 Low Density Residential zone. Parts of the riparian zone adjacent to the creek are zoned E2 Environmental Management. The creek bed itself (to the top of the bank) is zoned RE1 Open Space, but in general this land is not part of the subject property . However, it is noted that, unlike property boundaries based on creek lines (which can move), zone boundaries do not move. It is entirely possible that parts of the property now contain RE1 zoned land because of the shifts in creek position that have occurred over time. The creek itself does not form part of the subject property but its riparian zones do. In the south-western corner (near the intersection of the NDR and Molong Road), part of the site is zoned SP2 Infrastructure, but as a result of a re-survey of the site undertaken in 2014, this land is no longer part of the subject property. It equates to land required for road widening purposes.

The proposed development is defined as a subdivision under OLEP 2011. Subdivision of land under LEP 2011 has the same meaning as defined in the Act. Pursuant to clause 4B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, subdivision of land means:

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

Subdivision of land is permissible in the R2 Low Density Residential zone with the consent of Council pursuant to Clause 2.6.

With regard to the E2 component of the subject property which equates to its Riparian corridors, subdivision is only proposed to the extent of excising that land from the R2 zoned land also on the subject property.

Subdivision of land is permissible the E2 Environmental Management zone with the consent of Council pursuant to Clause 2.6.

Clause 2.3 of LEP 2011 references the Land Use Table and Objectives for each zone in LEP 2011. These objectives for land zoned R2 Low Density Residential and E2 Environmental Management are as follows:

1 - Objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone

· To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.

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

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

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

In relation to the first objective, the proposed development would provide additional lots on land on which housing stock within the City can be provided. It will provide these additional lots at a scale consistent with typical low density development. In terms of lot yield and lot sizes, the proposed subdivision is consistent with the relevant controls. In relation to the second objective, the proposed subdivision would not impede the provision of other land to provide facilities and services should such a need ever arise in the future. In relation to the third objective, the subject site is within close proximity to routes used by public transport.

Further, the configuration of the proposed development with open space along the creek lines is consistent with the zone objectives in that it would facilitate the provision of walking and cycling opportunities to, through and from the site. In relation to the last objective, the proposed development has no effect. The proposed development is not inconsistent with the objectives of the zone.

2 - Objectives of the E2 Environmental Conservation Zone

· To protect, manage and restore areas of high ecological, scientific, cultural or aesthetic values.

· To prevent development that could destroy, damage or otherwise have an adverse effect on those values.

The E2 Environmental Conservation zone has a limited range of permissible land uses, which reflects the physical constraints that often affect such land. In urban situations the range of uses that are permissible are effectively restricting such land to public open space activities in most cases.

Achievement of the objectives contained in the first dot point is the responsibility of the landowner.

With regard to the second dot point of the objectives, it is considered that as private land the range of permissible uses is limited in an urban context. It cannot, for example, be used as a component of residential development. As land in private ownership, but with no viable or realistic purpose, it is considered highly likely that the land might not be managed or maintained responsibly. This part of the riparian corridor land not purchased under the S94 plan shall be incorporated into the residual lot 62 and developed in accordance with a plan of management that is to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and consistent with the E2 zoning.

Clause 2.6 - Subdivision - Consent Requirements

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

Part 4 - Principal Development Standards

Clause 4.1 - Minimum Subdivision Lot Size

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

In relation to this site, the map nominates a minimum lot size of 1,000m². The smallest lot proposed by the application is 1,000m². The subject lots satisfy the minimum area requirements.

Part 5 - Miscellaneous Provisions

5.9 - Preservation of Trees or Vegetation

The provision of the LEP is linked to certain provisions of DCP 2004, which define the sizes and types of tree that require development consent for their removal. Trees that do not fit the criteria set out in the DCP do not require consent for their removal.

"Google Maps" street view (see images below) provides the best impressions of the vegetation that exists on the site.

Figure 7 - site at its eastern end as viewed from the NDR Road

Figure 8 - site at the western end (east of the creek)

adjacent to Molong Road and Ploughmans Creek

With regard to the terrestrial vegetation shown above in Figure 8, it is proposed to remove this vegetation. It is acknowledged this vegetation is highly visible from the NDR but it is not a good example of remnant vegetation, and whilst important as a visual element, is not considered to be of vital importance to the character of Orange in the way some other stands of native vegetation can be viewed.

It is considered appropriate to require offset vegetation along the creek lines. The creek lines, as shown in Figure 9, are a highly degraded feature of the landscape, but their rehabilitation is critical from an ecological management point of view at the very least. It is possible to retain, conserve and enhance this riparian area with little cost to the site yields of the development. As indicated in this report, it is considered that the ideal outcome would be for the riparian land of both stream systems that converge on the site to be developed as an open space link in the overall network.

Part 6 - Urban Release Areas

Clause 6.1 - State Public Infrastructure

The subject land is located in a designated Urban Release Area of the LEP. The objective of this clause is to require satisfactory arrangements to be made for the provision of designated State public infrastructure before the subdivision of land in an Urban Release Area to satisfy needs that arise from development on the land, but only if the land is developed intensively for urban purposes.

Development consent cannot be granted for the subdivision of land in an Urban Release Area if the subdivision would create a lot smaller than the minimum lot size permitted on the land immediately before the land became, or became part of, an Urban Release Area, unless the Director-General has certified in writing to the consent authority that satisfactory arrangements have been made to contribute to the provision of designated State public infrastructure in relation to that lot. In this case for the subject lot, the minimum lot sizes applicable were the same before and after the imposition of the Urban Release Area on the subject land.

Clause 6.2 - Public Utility Infrastructure

Council is prevented from granting consent on the subject land because of its Urban Release Area affectation unless public utility infrastructure (essentially defined as water, sewer and electricity) is available, or adequate arrangements have been made to make that infrastructure available when it is required. This clause does not apply to development for the purpose of providing, extending, augmenting, maintaining or repairing any public utility infrastructure.

Council's Technical Services Division advises that such utilities are available to the site.

Clause 6.3 - Development Control Plan

This clause sets out the requirements for any detailed master planning to be contained in a DCP. Subclause (2) works to prevent Council from granting consent to a subdivision except where such a master plan is prepared in accordance with the requirements of subclause (3). Subclause (4) sets out the instances where such detailed master planning is not required, with part (b) specifying a subdivision if any of the lots to be created are to be dedicated for public roads, public open space, public place or environmental protection purposes. In this case, land is proposed to be dedicated as a public road; and it is also proposed to dedicate three of the lots as open space. It is considered that the roads dedication element of this proposal does not meet the exemption requirements of this clause; however the public open space dedications proposed do enable an exemption of the DCP to be applied.

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).

As well as bulk earthworks that would normally be associated with preparation of green fields land for urban residential subdivision, the earthworks proposed in the application during Stage 2 of the proposed development are limited to the extent of cutting and filling required for the construction of Road Nos 1, 2 and 3. The extent of disruption to the drainage of the site is considered to have a potential significant effect on the creek system due to adverse effect on the quality of runoff. Conditions are included to address the issue of erosion and sediment control and the quality of the runoff from the site. As a referral to the NoW as Integrated Development under the Water Management Act, Council has sought advice from an external government agency entrusted to set the standards for protection of the State’s waterways. NoW has indicated in their reply to Council that they do not have any objections to the proposed development.

The likely extent of the earthworks will not materially affect the potential future use or redevelopment of the site that may occur at the end of the proposed development’s lifespan. The site is not known to be contaminated. 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.

As indicated above, the site is within proximity to a prescribed waterway, also noted as potential fish habitat by the NSW Department of Primary Industries.

7.2 - Flood Planning

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

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

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

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

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

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

The site is not identified as being affected by flood hazard on the Flood Hazard Mapping layer of the LEP; however, the site is nevertheless known to contain some level of hazard from flood near the creek areas of the site. This is on the basis of flood analysis undertaken by the applicant. This study is further reflected in the subdivision planning as shown on the submitted plans, which set aside those areas of the site likely to be inundated by flood.

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

With regard to (a) and (b), the proposed development is for subdivision of an existing two lot holding into moderate and large-sized residential lots. The future development of the 61 lots will likely consist of standard residential housing, with some multi dwelling houses also fed into the mix. Council has controls with respect to site coverage that will ensure that extensive parts of each allotment will have permeable spaces suitable for onsite detention. The future surface runoff for each lot could be directed to flow into Council’s stormwater reticulation system as an alternative method to installing water tanks for onsite detention. It is not anticipated that the proposed development will lead to future development unsuited to the capabilities of either onsite detention or the stormwater reticulation system.

With regard to (c), there will be some impacts arising with stormwater runoff for water quantity and water quality. Quantities can be expected to rise as hard surfaces like roads are installed. Flow rates into the creek system will need to be controlled to within certain specified limits to avoid events such as flash flooding during peak events. With regard to water quality, collection and increase in particulate content and nutrients is likely for a residential subdivision, although contamination from toxic or dangerous chemicals is considered minimal. Nutrient and particulate control is recommended under Water Sensitive Urban Design principals (WSUD) and can be worked into the detailed stormwater plans that are required in the conditions of this consent. It is noted that this particular runoff area is not part of the Council stormwater harvesting catchment, and therefore receives no benefit from the water quality improvement systems included in that scheme. All such water quality controls will need to be incorporated into the onsite systems.

7.4 - Terrestrial Biodiversity

Subclause (3) of this clause requires that prior to determining a development application for development on land to which this clause applies, the consent authority must consider whether or not the development:

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

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

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

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

Isolated patches of high value biodiversity are shown on the relevant LEP mapping layer adjacent to Ploughmans Creek; however, it is considered that the conditions on the ground suggest a highly degraded ecosystem. Riparian systems are vital in conservation issues as they act as nodal points for species propagation. Managed responsibly, they can work to allow the propagation of beneficial species supportive and reinforcing of the natural environment. If the river systems of a locality are poorly managed, the health of the ecosystem - both locally and in a wider sense - will be degraded.

The NSW Planning Institute (PIA) has a written position statement concerning riparian corridors. PIA is the peak non-government professional body for planners in Australia. They state that:

Riparian corridors in urban areas are important components of a city’s open space system. Riparian corridors provide hydrological, ecological, landscape and recreational functions. The corridors can contribute towards flood mitigation, water table lowering, geomorphic stabilisation of watercourses, maintenance of terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity.

Provision of biodiversity corridors offer a buffer to nutrient and polluted runoff and act as an interface between urban development and watercourses. The courses can contribute towards pedestrian and cycle movement corridors and an urban environment’s aesthetic amenity. Conservation and rehabilitation of riparian corridors offer a magnifying effect on conservation initiatives as species propagation and habitat opportunities (both floral and faunal) are magnified many times by the good management of those corridors. Stream systems identified as potential fish habitats (and Ploughmans Creek below the Molong Road Bridge has been identified by NSW Fisheries as an important potential fish nursery) are heavily dependent upon the health of the surrounding corridor vegetation to achieve productive outcomes in terms of water quality and propagation of native fish species.

The proposal, as submitted, sets up appropriate riparian corridors as part of the layout. As discussed elsewhere in this report, it is considered highly desirable to meet the objectives of the E2 zone around the Ploughman’s Creek.

7.5 - Riparian Land and Watercourses

This clause seeks to preserve both water quality and riparian ecological health. The clause applies to land identified as a “Sensitive Waterway” on the Watercourse Map. The subject land contains such a waterway and therefore Council must consider whether or not the proposal:

(a) is likely to have any adverse impact on the following:

(i) the water quality and flows within a watercourse

(ii) aquatic and riparian species, habitats and ecosystems of the watercourse

(iii) the stability of the bed and banks of the watercourse

(iv) the free passage of fish and other aquatic organisms within or along the watercourse

(v) any future rehabilitation of the watercourse and its riparian areas, and

(b) is likely to increase water extraction from the watercourse.

Additionally, consent may not be granted until Council is satisfied that:

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

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

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

The proposal has been designed to incorporate appropriate riparian corridors to allow mitigation of the impacts as outlined above. It will be necessary to confer the open space lots into a parent lot of some description. The most logical lot for this amalgamation is considered to be Lot 62, the proposed development lot.

Overall, while there will always remain a risk to the waterway under extreme circumstances such as record storms and the like, it is considered that the risk of adverse impact can be appropriately managed to an acceptable level. In the event that the applicant does not wish to dedicate riparian areas free of cost to council, this part of the riparian corridor land shall be incorporated into the residual lot 62 and developed in accordance with a plan of management that is to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services and consistent with the E2 zoning.

7.6 - Groundwater Vulnerability

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

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

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

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

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

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

There are no State Environmental Planning Policies that apply to the subject development.

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

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

DESIGNATED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development is not designated development.

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

Development Control Plan 2004

Development Control Plan 2004 (“the DCP”) applies to the subject land (Part 7). An assessment of the proposed development against the relevant Planning Outcomes will be undertaken below.

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

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

The subject property was zoned 1(C) Rural Residential under LEP 2000 but, with the adoption of LEP 2011, the subject property was rezoned to R2 Low Density Residential. The equivalent zones under LEP 2000 are the residential zones. It is therefore appropriate to apply such parts of Chapter 7 of the DCP as are applicable to the subdivision in the assessment. Additionally, the general provisions of Chapters 3 (General Considerations) has relevance with respect to cumulative impacts and scenic landscape issues, whilst Chapter 4 (Special Environmental Considerations) has some relevance with regard to possible site contamination.

Whilst the subject property has been rezoned, it has not undergone any master planning under the DCP. As a result, only the general subdivision provisions as provided under Chapters 3 and 4 and Planning Outcome 7.2-1 can be applied. There are no specific provisions for open space or subdivision layouts contained in the DCP that can be applied to this land.

Chapter 3 - General Considerations

PO 3.1.1 - Cumulative Impact

· Applications for Development demonstrate how the development relates to the character and use of land in the vicinity.

There is a mixed character for the locality. General residential development exists to the south and land of a similar zoning to the subject land exists to the east and west of the site. Land to the north is rural in character. The creek lines at the western end of the site are a significant element of the landscape.

The minimum lot size applicable to this land is 1,000m². The proposed development is compliant with that standard. It follows that future development on these sites is likely to be consistent with the objectives of the zone and compatible with the densities and built form already evident to the south of the site.

In relation to the lower density development located to the north of the site (2ha minimum lot sizes), the zoning of the site makes it inherent that future development will be of a different density to the rural land that adjoins the site. There will always be a certain level of disconnectedness between these two zones. It is considered that the proposed subdivision layout is likely to lead to development typical of the R2 zone and that such development will, to a degree, be mismatched to the rural or large lot land that adjoins it. However, such conflict is not likely to be more than, or unusual for such a zone interface.

· The introduction of new development into a locality maintains environmental impacts within existing or community accepted levels.

The proposed subdivision is intended to lead to further residential development, similar in scale and density to the existing development that exists to the south of the site. This suggests no change to the development patterns already occurring in the locality.

From the juxtaposition of the rural land to the north, the likely further development of the subject land as low density residential development will lead to erosion of rural landscapes and character. Given that the subdivision is consistent with zoning standards that are applicable; this is considered an acceptable change. In terms of environmental impacts, the direct impacts on issues such as water quality, biodiversity and scenic quality are all considered to be acceptable and unlikely to generate significant adverse impacts.

· Water Conservation measures are implemented.

The opportunities for water conservation within this subdivision are limited, however the size and shape of the lots do not preclude or inhibit future initiatives by householders as new dwellings are constructed.

In addition, Orange City Council favours a centralised water re-use scheme for surface runoff. Under the scheme, water is collected and given limited cleaning treatment before being returned to the householders for use on gardens and non-potable purposes. The proposed subdivision will be connected to that scheme (although not for water collection), with some of the works needed in that scheme being completed as part of this subdivision.

PO 3.2.1 - Scenic Landscape and Urban Areas

· Development incorporates landscaping that enhances the landscaped setting of the locality.

There is no provision for landscaping on the lots at this stage. It is impractical to require landscaping on the lots prior to the development for those lots being known.

With regard to street tree planting, Council's Section 94 contributions plans will levy funds needed for on-street landscaping. It would be unreasonable in this case to levy such funds and also require landscaping to be undertaken by the proponent within the riparian zone.

Chapter 4 - Special Environmental Considerations

PO 4.3-1 - Planning Outcomes - Land Shaping

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

The proposed development as submitted does not include details on the extent of cut and fill to be undertaken. The site has an undulating land form with low to moderate slope. In terms of land form and slope it is considered to have similarities to the southern neighbour, now known as "Ribbon Gums" estate.

It can be expected that the works needed to carry out the subdivision will be considerable. Roads, sewer and water infrastructure will need to be constructed, and parts of the site will need to be levelled and filled. The consent will require implementation of erosion and sediment control measures and the design of a stormwater management system. These elements of the subdivision can all be expected to significantly alter the landform of the site.

In regards to land shaping, nearly all forms of residential subdivision require extensive land shaping to render the land suitable for standard residential development. Further, such changes will affect drainage patterns and the scenic appearance of a locality in fairly dramatic ways.

It does not follow, however, that such changes are prohibitively adverse in their overall effect, and such effects need to be weighed against the benefits of releasing further land for residential growth. In this regard, it is considered that the subject application is a satisfactory solution. The anticipated earthworks are expected to be significant, with scenic appearance and character expected to change substantially. However, such changes will not generate a significant or exceptional change to amenity or have a significant adverse effect on visual character.

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

The application as submitted does not include an erosion and sediment control (ESC) plan. However, in common with other recent similar subdivision applications, conditions are included in the consent to address this issue.

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

There are no details with regard to this planning outcome. It appears that the planning outcome seeks to avoid the placing of decomposing organic matter as part of any landfill on new subdivisions.

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

This issue is normally attended to during the construction phase of the subdivision.

Chapter 7 - Development in Residential Areas

Dual Occupancy and Unit Sites

The DCP identifies early identification of dual occupancy sites as a matter for consideration under the DCP, given the long known opposition to the siting and proliferation of dual occupancies in some areas of the City, to enable better informed decisions by future lot owners.

In this case it is noted that the site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential and that the lot sizes proposed are not sufficiently large as to allow further subdivision. Medium density housing is restricted on R2 land, and as a result the adverse effects of uncontrolled dual occupancy developments is considered a low probability for this site. However, the applicant has not identified future possible dual occupancy sites within the development.

PO7.2-1 - Planning Outcomes for Urban Residential Subdivision

· Subdivision layouts in areas zoned Urban Residential prior to this plan are generally in accordance with the applicable plan maps in Appendix 1.

There is no applicable master plan that can be applied to this site.

· Lots are orientated to optimise energy-efficiency principles.

The energy efficiency principles of the DCP relate to orientation of boundaries along north-south and east-west axes so as to encourage solar design of houses. Lots with frontages that face east or west are recommended to be wider in the DCP guidelines.

The proposed layout is relatively neutral with regard to the energy efficiency guidelines. Lots have a variety of sizes and orientations, but those with frontages facing east and west are somewhat wider, which assists in achieving better solar access for future development. All of the lots are quite large, which will also assist in achieving good levels of solar access.

· New roads are planned according to modified grid layouts with restrained use of cul-de-sac roads in new developments according to the UDAS Urban Form principles for Orange.

The proposed layout is consistent with this planning outcome

· Local open space is provided along creek corridors to create open space linkages for environmental conservation and social interaction. Release areas removed from creeks provide for open-space links incorporating substantial stands of native vegetation.

The proposed development as submitted to Council is consistent with this planning outcome in that adequate areas are set aside in the proposal to protect riparian areas, and these reservations are offered to Council under the application as open space.

As discussed above however Council is only offering compensation on the Somerset Creek component so management of the Ploughman’s Creek area will be as Private Open Space and thus the responsibility of the current and future land owner(s) under various legislative mechanisms consistent with the E2 zoning.

· Up to 25% of new subdivisions comprise small lots in dispersed locations.

It is not possible to provide small lots for this land as a minimum lot size of 1000m² is applicable.

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

The lots proposed in this subdivision will be fully serviced with water, sewer and electricity before release of the Subdivision Certificate. Similarly, release of the Subdivision Certificate will be deferred pending the completion of roads, and where appropriate, kerb and gutter and footpaths within the subdivision. Access to piped gas is also feasible, but not an impediment to the release of the Subdivision Certificate.

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

The proposed development is consistent with the code.

· Corner lots provide for a house to front one street.

The corner lots of the proposed subdivision can be developed in the manner specified under this outcome.

· Battleaxe lots provide an adequate accessway width for the number of dwellings proposed to be served in order to allow for vehicle and pedestrian access and location of services.

There are no battleaxe allotments proposed in this application.

· Lots proposed to be used specifically for dual occupancy or units in new residential areas are identified on development application plans to inform prospective purchasers of the mixed residential form of the area and measures are outlined on how prospective residents are to be informed of these identified sites prior to purchasing land.

None of the lots shown in the plans have been identified for dual occupancy. As land zoned R2 Low Density Residential, dual occupancy is permissible with consent; however, subdivision would not be possible given the minimum lot sizes applicable to the land. This is different to the situation in North Orange with dual occupancy where the subdivision was permissible via no minimum lot size.

It is considered that the instance of dual occupancy occurring on this land, where potential for subdivision does not exist, will result in dual occupancy being a relatively infrequent form of development.

Subdivision Layout

The DCP includes the above matter as a head of consideration and has some discussion contained therein, however the specific planning outcomes have been addressed above. Additional discussion are included in the preamble of the DCP that are worthy of note in this particular assessment and retain relevance as a general discussion matter under the DCP.

The Department of Planning's Urban Design Advisory Service Publication on Urban Form uses Orange as a case study and concludes that:

…the city is well contained within a multiple of the original square mile grid and no significant subdivision has occurred along the roads into the city.

Major subdivisions have occurred around the periphery of the City, including developments abutting major arterial roads entering the City. The subject proposal is an example of residential development on the fringe of the City limits. There are issues such as isolation from amenities and services (including open space). For the fringe outer areas of the City containing these new subdivisions, the design approach has, up to this point, been to provide pedestrian linkages to improve amenity and connectivity to these outer localities.

The Urban Design Guidelines identify the following issues for future development (of which, the subject application is an example):

· The open space system along the creek lines are the most important features of the city's identity.

This issue is previously discussed in the Planning Outcomes for PO7.2-1.

The bridge under the NDR has been designed and constructed so that a pathway and/or cycleway can be provided under the road, thereby providing a continuation of the pathway and open space already provided.

A separate underpass is constructed under the NDR to allow pedestrian access to the Somerset Park Creek system, which then runs through the subject land. Completion of this link will enable connection between the existing pathway system of the Somerset Park Creek system. The pathway/cycleway construction in the underpass would enable connection to the Somerset Park Creek system that is proposed under this application.

SECTION 94 DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS

Riparian Land and NDR Corridor Land

The 2015 contributions plan includes a conceptual acquisitions plan for the subject property. The proposed development as submitted incorporates dedications along the entire length of both creek systems of the site, which are not envisaged in the contributions plan, as well as provision of a buffer adjacent to the NDR. As currently configured, the conceptual acquisition plan allows for acquisition of land adjacent to Somerset Creek, and that part of Ploughmans creek north of the junction of Ploughmans and Somerset creeks. This represents the optimum outcome in terms of achieving the LEP objectives and environmental outcomes of allied legislation, but results in a compensation package that exceeds the maximum allowed for under the Contributions Plan.

The applicable compensation rates for open space involving the NDR is $10 per square metre.

The land to which the proposed subdivision relates has two starting allotments and the resulting yield from the proposed subdivision is 62 lots on which dwellings can be constructed. However, one of the starting allotments is not of sufficient size to support an Equivalent Tenement (ET). Consequently, the existing development of the site has a credit of 1ET, and the net yield of the proposed development is 61 lots.

Pursuant to Orange Development Contributions Plan 2015, the following contributions have been levied for the subject development and are attached as a condition of consent.

The payment of contributions as per the following shall be made to Council in accordance with Section 94 of the Act and the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2015 (development in North West Urban Release Area) towards the provision of the following public facilities:

Open Space and Recreation	@ $3,300.99 x 61 additional lots	201,360.39
Community and Cultural	@ $664.84 x 61 additional lots	40,555.24
Roads and Cycleways	@ $5,117.13 x 61 additional lots	312,144.93
Stormwater Drainage	@ $308.55 x 61 additional lots	18,821.55
Local Area Facilities	@ $5,615.43 additional lots	342541.23
Plan Preparation & Administration	@ $449.99 x 61 additional lots	27,449.39
Subtotals		942,872.73
Compensation for Internal Open Space	@$10 per m² x 9,000m²	(-)90,000.00
TOTAL (subtotal less compensation):		$852,872.73

The contribution will be indexed quarterly in accordance with the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2015 (development in North West Urban Release Area).

With regard to open space contributions, the contributions levied for this application will provide funding for an extensive and ambitious program of projects. There are no funds available for acquisitions that don’t form part of the acquisition plan.

Section 64 Water and Sewer Headwork Charges

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

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

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

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

Traffic

The capacity of the road network in the vicinity of the site is sufficient to accommodate additional localised traffic generated by the development, or the likely additional traffic that future developments on the subdivided lots are likely to generate. Council’s Technical Services Division advises that the proposed road layout is satisfactory, allows adjoining land to be developed and is generally in accordance with the DCP.

Conditions are considered necessary and are included in the attached consent preventing access for the individual lots directly onto either the NDR or Molong Road.

Noise

There are two possible areas of noise conflict for the use of the site as a residential estate. Noise arises from the adjacent NDR Road and a further noise source arises from the operation of the sewer pump station located on the northern part of the site.

The applicant has undertaken a noise assessment as part of the submission to Council. This assessment has been referred to Council's Manager Building and Environment.

Noise Considerations from NDR

The Interim Guidelines by the NSW government are relevant to the assessment of this application. They are titled Development Near Rail Corridors And Busy Roads and have been prepared by the NSW Department of Planning. The Infrastructure SEPP (I-SEPP) refers to guidelines which must be taken into account where development is proposed in, or adjacent to Classified Roads under clauses 98-104 of the I-SEPP. The Northern Distributor is not listed as a "Classified Road" under the RMS classification system. Molong Road, whilst listed as a Classified Road, has no additional lots proposed along the shared frontage.

Notwithstanding this, it is appropriate to apply the noise performance criteria called up by clause 102 of the State Environmental Planning Policy - Infrastructure (I-SEPP). This clause requires that prior to determining a development application for development to which this clause applies, the consent authority must take into consideration any guidelines that are issued by the Director-General for the purposes of this clause and published in the Gazette. The abovementioned guidelines fall within that category.

Therefore, as the proposed development is a residential subdivision, Council must not grant consent to the development unless it is satisfied that appropriate measures will be taken to ensure that the following noise levels are not exceeded:

(a) in any bedroom in the building - 35 dB(A) at any time between 10 pm and 7 am,

(b) anywhere else in the building (other than a garage, kitchen, bathroom or hallway) - 40 dB(A) at any time.

The development application included an Acoustic Report by Blackett Acoustics dated September 2013. Unlike other subdivisions that adjoin the NDR, the report does not rely on the developer providing either an increased setback of houses from the road or physical barriers (sound walls and fencing) to mitigate road noise emissions. Instead, the Acoustic report recommends passing this responsibility onto any future residents.

The Acoustic Report recommends that each individual house be required to undertake their own noise assessment and to include any identified attenuation measures within the houses themselves. The Report suggests that by using specific acoustic building materials and management practices (closing of windows in the houses fronting the NDR between 10pm and 7am), noise levels within the dwellings can comply with the current requirements provided in State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure SEPP) and the Department of Planning’s “Development near Rail Corridors and Busy Roads - Interim Guideline”.

Whilst from a purely science point of view, by restricting the activities of residents within the houses (ie requiring windows to be closed at night) and also requiring the houses to be constructed using certain materials, compliance with the State Policies would technically be achieved. These restrictions have the potential to impact on the amenity of future residents of the houses. The treatment of noise at the individual house is therefore the least favoured of the options available. Further to this, as the subdivision is a ‘green fields’ site, it is difficult to justify that matters such as constraints of the site (eg. topography, or the lack of available land) result in the need to pass the responsibility to manage noise fully onto future residents. This view reflects previous legal advice that Council has obtained, which suggested that in non-metropolitan areas, it is considered unreasonable to reduce the amenity of future residents when other measures to attenuate noise at a subdivision scale are available.

The draft consent document attached to this report includes the following conditions:

1 The applicant shall submit for Council approval a revised acoustic report from a qualified acoustic engineer detailing measures required to be implemented as part of the construction of this subdivision, including heights, materials, design and placement of barriers so as to ensure that future residential development for lots affected by noise from the Northern Distributor and Molong Road have noise intrusion minimised.

2 Noise attenuation measures shall be provided adjacent to the Northern Distributor Road and Molong Road, such as earth mounding acoustic barriers or the like during the construction of the subdivision so that the noise criteria specified in Table 3.1 of the 'Development Near Rail Corridors and Busy Roads – Interim Guidelines" are achieved at the nearest residential building likely to be constructed at each point along those roads. Details of the proposed attenuation measures shall be provided to Council prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Note: Physical noise attenuation measures may be provided in future dwellings to supplement subdivision scale measures where it is not physically practicable to meet the standards referred to above, such as at road openings and the like.

Further conditions have been included to require that where the relevant noise criteria cannot be practicably met by the works carried out in association with the construction or the like, shall be required under a restriction as to user under Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act.

Sewer Pump Station

There is a Sewer Pump Station located in the northern corner of the site. Allowance has been made for this asset by the inclusion of a right-of-carriageway to allow access to the asset. It does not address the issue of tenure for this structure beyond that point. The right of that structure to be on the site does not appear to be protected by any formal agreement reached between the landowner and Council, although there is some form of understanding as to its continued location on the site.

Councils Technical Services Division advises that it is intended to eventually relocate the pump station, however for the moment it would be preferred if the pump station were retained on the site.

It is considered that the following issues arise from the operation of the pump station

Noise

Council's Manager Building and Environment has provided the following comment:

A noise report dated 6 July 2012 was submitted with the Development Application for this subdivision. The noise report can be only used as a guide and may not represent actual noise levels from the sewer pump station. The reason for this is the type of emergency generator proposed to be used was unknown during the assessment and therefore the report highlighted the need for further acoustic reporting by the pump station operator once this is known (Council is the operator of the pump station). This therefore represents a slight risk to the operator of the pump station that assumptions only have been made and they will be required to ensure they achieve compliance with those assumptions once a specific generator is selected.

Assessment of general operation of the pump station noise was also considered with the consultants noise report. The report assumed a background noise of 32dB(A), which is considered reasonable for this area. Therefore a noise goal of 37dB(A) applies to the pump station. The SLR Report identifies the 37dB(A) contour extends 80-100m from the station if no noise mitigation works are carried out on the pump station. Following the installation of mitigation measures, the SLR Report predicts that the 37 dB(A) contour would be reduced to a minor part of the three closest residential allotments (Lots 35‑37). Provided dwellings are not located within the 37dB(A) contour without mitigation, I have no objection to the proposed subdivision.

Odour Assessment of Sewer Pump Station

Review of the SLR Odour Impact Assessment dated 12 July 2012 has been undertaken. The report predicts that the maximum odour criterion would not be exceeded provided mitigation works are undertaken to the pump station. It is of interest to note that the whole of the proposed residential subdivision will be the subject of some odour from the pump station. There is a risk to the pump station operator (Council) that, should any variance to the predicted odour levels occur (exceedance), odour complaints would arise.

It is recommended that a condition of consent be applied to the development that requires the remediation works identified in the SLR report to be undertaken prior to the commencement of the construction of any residential development on Lots 28-43 and Lot 57. Specifically these works are to include:

· sealing of the wet well cover;

· sealing of the concrete channel housing electrical cables to the pump house; and

· installation of buffers (vegetated) between residences and the pump station.

This work will necessarily need to be undertaken by Council. An alternative does exist for the pump station to be removed or relocated away from the site. Two conditions are considered necessary to address the issue. The first prevents the issue of Subdivision Certificates for the 17 affected lots until the recommended works have been completed. The second condition withholds the release of the subdivision for Lots 36 and 37 until the pump station has been relocated.

Cumulative Impacts

The proliferation of low density residential development on the fringe of the City is a reflection of the urban growth of Orange, which is currently being achieved by an expansion of the residential land into the surrounding lower density rural and non-urban land. A continuation of green field residential subdivisions satisfies the market demand but is likely to result in community isolation from transport facilities and services due to the increase in distance from employment areas and the CBD. Because of the distances, a continuation on motor vehicle reliance is likely to be reinforced by developments such as the subject application.

On the other hand, the development of a new estate creates opportunities for home ownership, improves housing stock quality from an aesthetic point of view and promotes economic activity in the building industry.

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

The subject property has one significant natural feature, being the waterways that cross the site. These are adequately allowed for in the subdivision design.

The subject property will be significantly reliant on motor vehicles for access to most facilities and amenities, and this should be seen as a negative to the overall amenity and ambience the site will generate. To achieve satisfactory levels of amenity it is considered highly desirable to provide pedestrian linkages to the open space network.

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

The proposed development is defined as "advertised development" by reason of the Integrated Development provisions of the Act. The application was advertised for the prescribed period of 30 days and, at the end of that period one submission had been received. A further late submission has also been made by the Environmentally Concerned Citizens of Orange (ECCO).

The first submission is from the owner of the "Robar" site at 426 Mitchell Highway (the buildings of which are located 220m from the proposed subdivision). The basis of the submission to Council is that a line of sight exists between the subject site and the Robar commercial site. The concern is that the future development of the property at 386 Molong Road for residential development could impede the development of the Robar site for commercial purposes at some point in the future.

The objection is not well founded and not supported as a basis for imposing conditions, refusing or modifying the proposed development. Should Robar be the subject of a future development proposal, it is incumbent on the applicant for that future application to seek solutions appropriate to protecting the amenity of all its neighbours. It would be a misuse of the planning system to impose burdens on the current application to address issues that are not related to its future development.

The submission from ECCO raises no objection to the proposed subdivision layout, but stresses that the open space corridors within the riparian corridors are important to be acquired as open space on the following grounds:

· Both Creeks are in the Murray Darling catchment. Every effort needs to be made to ensure water quality.

· Creation of green corridors is consistent with the aims and objectives of the LEP and the DCP.

· OCC has an obligation to protect and enhance all waterways.

· The recreational and lifestyle benefits in the provision of a continuous walking/cycling track would be increased through the linkage of the land to the already excellent tracks developed by council along both creek lines thus linking Ploughmans Valley and Somerset tracks to the Ammerdown riparian public open space.

· A plan for revegetation for this area will provide an opportunity for community involvement through planting programs, to be carried out by community and volunteer groups leading to a sense of local ownership and appreciation of the value of the natural environment.

With regard to the dot points listed above, the following comments are provided:

With respect to the first dot point, Council officers concur with the position taken by ECCO. However, it needs to be pointed out that the environmental responses built into the notice of approval and canvassed in the report, represent a reasonable response to those challenges.

With regard to the second dot point, the outcomes prescribed by the attached consent are consistent with LEP and DCP objectives and requirements, as well as relevant state legislation. Financial constraints limit the amount of land that can be acquired under compensation, but where land is not to be acquired, conditions are included for the appropriate management of that land that is remain in private ownership.

With regard to the third dot point, Council has responsibility to ensure development is carried out without significant adverse environmental effect. There are obligations on Council to undertake its assessments in accordance with certain procedures and standards that are set out in legislation. These have been done for this application. However, such responsibilities do not require that all land that is environmentally constrained be vested in Councils direct care control and management. Such a position is financially beyond the means available to Council. Where direct acquisition is not to occur, the environmental constraints have otherwise been satisfactorily addressed. There is not likely to be significant adverse environmental effect arising from an approval for this development.

With regard to the fourth dot point, the consent as now envisaged and conditioned can provide linkages and connectivity in the open space network.

With regard to the fifth dot point there will be opportunities for volunteer groups such as Landcare or Conservation Volunteers to undertake rehabilitation work within the riparian corridor and open space, as Council will acquire a minimum of 9000m² of open space including land along the creek systems, and will leave the option of free dedication to Council at the applicants discretion of other land as considered appropriate, or alternatively place that land under the controls of a plan of management. It is entirely possible that the conservation volunteers could be invited to undertake rehabilitation work within that privately managed area at some point.

The ECCO submission goes on to state:

the best way to ensure that the appropriate environmental outcomes are achieved is for the land in question to be placed under the control of Council.

This has been discussed extensively in this report.

The submission by ECCO is relevant to the riparian issue raised by this application. The benefits supporting acquisition are fairly well summarised in this submission and deserving of some consideration by Council. The ‘complete Council purchase’ option advocated by ECCO is however unlawful if funded from the S94 plan as discussed in this report.

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, D15/45486 ⇩

2 Plans, D15/45260 ⇩

3 Submissions, D15/41058 ⇩

Council Meeting 15 December 2015

5.2 Development Application DA 217/2014(1) - Northern Distributor Road and 386 Molong Road

Attachment 1 Notice of Approval

leaflogo

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

Development Application No DA 217/2014(1)

NA15/ Container PR19362

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 81(1)

Development Application
Applicant Name:	Fenlor Group Pty Limited
Applicant Address:	1 Borrodell Drive ORANGE NSW 2800
Owner’s Name:	Mr GJ Thornberry
Land to Be Developed:	Lot 81 DP 1202584 and Lot 6 DP 1065578 - Northern Distributor Road and 386 Molong Road, Orange
Proposed Development:	Subdivision (61 residential lots, one residue lot and three open space lots)

Building Code of Australia building classification:	Not applicable

Determination
Made On:	15 December 2015
Determination:	CONSENT GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:

Consent to Operate From:	16 December 2015
Consent to Lapse On:	16 December 2020

Terms of Approval

The reasons for the imposition of conditions are:

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

(2) To maintain neighbourhood amenity and character.

(3) To ensure compliance with relevant statutory requirements.

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

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

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

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

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

Conditions

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

(a) Plans by Heath Consulting numbered 07_066 sheets 1 and 2 dated April 2015 titled "Area Breakdown" and "Proposed Subdivision" (both Rev A), as amended by the further plan submitted by the applicant, drawn by Heath Consulting Engineers titled Proposed Subdivision" (Rev N) (3 sheets)

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

as amended in accordance with any conditions of this consent.

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

(2) A comprehensive landscaping plan to screen the area around the pump station, as recommended in the odour Assessment report submitted with the application is required to be prepared by the applicant and approved by Councils Director – Development Services to provide effective screening around this facility.

(3) The submission of a landscaping plan incorporating appropriate levels of earth mounding, native species selection, weed matting or suppression, plant density is to be submitted to Council for the noise buffer areas adjacent to Northern Distributor Road (shown on the approved plans as Lots 63 and 64). The plan shall be to the satisfaction of the Councils Director – Development Services. The developer is responsible for regular maintenance and establishment of this landscape, including regular watering and weeding of these areas, until handover has been accepted. All landscaping shall be well established prior to handover to Council.

(4) 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.

(5) 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.

(6) Engineering plans, showing details of the proposed road works, access and traffic management works on the Northern Distributor Road (NDR), are to be submitted to Orange City Council for approval prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

(7) 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.

condition (7) continued over the page

(7) (cont)

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;

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

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

(10) A 150mm-diameter sewer main is to be constructed from Council’s existing main to serve the proposed lots. Orange City Council, prior to issuing a Construction Certificate, is to approve engineering plans for this sewerage system.

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

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

(12) The applicant shall submit for Council approval a revised acoustic report from a qualified acoustic engineer detailing measures required to be implemented as part of the construction of this subdivision, including heights, materials, design and placement of barriers so as to ensure that future residential development for lots affected by noise from the Northern Distributor and Molong Road have noise intrusion minimised.

(13) Noise attenuation measures shall be provided adjacent to the Northern Distributor Road and Molong Road, such as earth mounding acoustic barriers or the like during the construction of the subdivision so that the noise criteria specified in Table 3.1 of the 'Development Near Rail Corridors and Busy Roads – Interim Guidelines" are achieved at the nearest residential building likely to be constructed at each point along those roads. Details of the proposed attenuation measures shall be provided to Council prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

(Note Physical Noise attenuation measures may be provided in future dwellings to supplement subdivision scale measures where it is not physically practicable to meet the standards referred to above, such as at road openings and the like.

(14) A plan of management for the riparian corridors adjacent to Ploughmans Creek and consistent with the E2 zoning shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Director Development Services, establishing this area as an area of private open space.

PRIOR TO WORKS COMMENCING

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

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

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

(17) 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.

(18) Concrete pathways are to be constructed to the widths and standards stated in the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.

(19) Land contained within the boundaries of the proposed lot 65 shall be restored to its predevelopment state, with banks to be grassed and stabilised, armoured with rock where required to minimise or prevent erosion and/or scouring from increased stormwater flow rates and all sediment within this lot arising from the development works being removed from the riparian zone and the waterbody. Work required or carried out in the riparian corridor shall also be fully in accordance with the required management plan and any other requirements specified under this consent.

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

(21) Dual water and sewerage reticulation is to be provided to every lot in the proposed residential subdivision in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.

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

(23) A right-of-way is to be created over the riparian corridors as shown in the approved plans, to provide access to Lot 62 from the internal roads system. A sealed access road is to be constructed in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code, as well as any requirements listed or required by the controlled activity approval. This right of way shall also incorporate rights of access contained within the S-88B instrument that permits access for pedestrians and cyclists using the adjacent open space corridors, without impediment.

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A SUBDIVISION CERTIFICATE

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

(25) This approval requires the dedication of a minimum of 9000 m² of the land for open space as set out in the 2015 Contributions Plan. Such allocation of land to Council shall incorporate the buffers adjacent to the Northern Distributor Road, and a riparian corridor adjacent to Somerset Creek that is contiguous to the pedestrian underpass under the Northern Distributor Road. Compensation for this land dedication shall be in accordance with the Contributions Plan and shall be to a maximum value of $90,000, and a minimum dedication of 9000m². An amended plan that is to the satisfaction of the Director Development Services is required to reflect these requirements prior to issue of a Subdivision Certificate. In the event that the applicant does not wish to dedicate the remainder of the riparian corridor to Council without charge, this part of the riparian corridor land shall be incorporated into the residual lot 62 and developed in accordance with a plan of management, that is also to the satisfaction of the Director, and also required to be submitted to Council prior to issue of the Subdivision Certificate. The Management Plan shall be consistent with the provisions and objectives of clause 7.5 of Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011. Additionally, the Riparian Corridor contained within the E2 Environmental Conservation Zone (adjacent Ploughmans Creek) shall be written and implemented in a manner consistent with the objectives for that zone.

(26) The payment of contributions as per the following shall be made to Council in accordance with Section 94 of the Act and the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2015 (development in North West Urban Release Area) towards the provision of the following public facilities:

Open Space and Recreation	@ $3,300.99 x 61 additional lots	201,360.39
Community and Cultural	@ $664.84 x 61 additional lots	40,555.24
Roads and Cycleways	@ $5,117.13 x 61 additional lots	312,144.93
Stormwater Drainage	@ $308.55 x 61 additional lots	18,821.55
Local Area Facilities	@ $5,615.43 additional lots	342541.23
Plan Preparation & Administration	@ $449.99 x 61 additional lots	27,449.39
Subtotals		942,872.73
Compensation for Internal Open Space	@$10 per m² x 9,000m²	(-)90,000.00
TOTAL (subtotal less compensation):		$852,872.73

The contribution will be indexed quarterly in accordance with the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2015 (development in North West Urban Release Area).

(27) The landscaping plans required for the areas shown as Lots 63 and 64 (adjacent to the Northern Distributor) shall be fully completed to the satisfaction of the Director - Development Services. Council will only accept the landscaping as satisfactory if it is well established and maintained at the time of subdivision release.

(28) Landscaping around the pump station shall be completed in accordance with the approved plan, to the satisfaction of the Director Development Services prior to the issue of a subdivision certificate. .

(29) Lots 28-33, 34-37, 38-43, 56 and 57, as depicted on the Drawing Number 07_006NOISEODOUR prepared by Heath Consulting dated March 2012 and submitted with the application shall not be released until and unless all mitigation recommendations as set out in the report titled "Appendix B -N01 Odour Assessment by SLR (referenced Report Number 610.11488, dated July 2012) as outlined in Section 8.2.1 of the report have been fully implemented to the satisfaction of Council's Manager Development Assessments who shall also be advised accordingly.

(30) The provision of the following with respect to boundary fencing:

i) Fencing adjoining rural land (to the north) is required as rural style fencing (post and wire, no barbed wire), as per the requirements of DCP-2004. .

ii) A Section 88B Restrictions-as-to-User under the Conveyancing Act 1979 shall require such rural fencing (or any replacement) to be maintained in the same style.

(31) Where the noise criteria referred to in Table 3.1 of the 'Development Near Rail Corridors and Busy Roads – Interim Guidelines" cannot be achieved to any lot solely by the construction of the noise attenuation measures of the subdivision in the revised acoustic report, as required by condition (12) of this consent, such lots shall be identified in that report and shall have a restriction as to user pursuant to S-88B of the Conveyancing Act imposed on the title requiring future dwelling construction in accordance with the specifications detailed in the revised acoustic report by Blackett and Associates.

(32) Completion of all noise attenuation works required by this consent or any acoustic report recommendations required by this consent shall be fully completed.

(33) Noise Considerations from Sewer Pump Station

A noise goal of 37dB(A) applies to lots affected by noise from the pump station. To be suitable for dwelling construction, mitigation of background noise levels to below 37dBa is required. Release of those allotments within the 37DBa contour is not permitted under this consent until all measures to mitigate noise from the pump station have been implemented and a further noise report by a qualified Acoustics engineer has been provided corroborating the target noise levels has been achieved to satisfaction of council has been submitted.

(34) 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 62 ETs for water supply headworks and 62 ETs for sewerage headworks. A Certificate of Compliance, from Orange City Council in accordance with the Water Management Act 2000, will be issued upon payment of the contributions.

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

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

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

(37) Certification from Essential Energy, stating that electricity and street lighting systems comply with Essential Energy’s Networks Division Customer Connection Policy NP11.1, is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate.

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

(39) An easement to drain sewage and to provide Council access for maintenance of sewerage works a minimum of 2.0 metres wide is to be created over the proposed sewerage works and all existing sewer mains. The Principal Certifying Authority is to certify that the easement is in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code prior to the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate.

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

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

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

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

(43) A Subdivision Certificate creating Lots 36 and 37 shall not be issued until the sewer pump station is removed.

(44) A Restriction-as-to-User under section 88B of the NSW Conveyancing Act 1979 is to be created on the title of lots containing riparian corridor land, and lots adjacent to riparian corridor land prohibiting the planting nurturing or propagation of invasive weed species on these lots.

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

MATTERS FOR THE ONGOING PERFORMANCE AND OPERATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT

(46) The area of private open space adjacent to Ploughmans Creek will be maintained in accordance with the Plan of Management to the satisfaction of the Director Development Services.

(47) 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.

GENERAL TERMS OF APPROVAL - NSW OFFICE OF WATER
Plans, standards and guidelines
1	These General Terms of Approval (GTA) only apply to the controlled activities described in the plans and associated documentation relating to 2014/217 (1) and provided by Council. Any amendments or modifications to the proposed controlled activities may render these GTA invalid. If the proposed controlled activities are amended or modified the NSW Office of Water must be notified to determine if any variations to these GTA will be required.
2	Prior to the commencement of any controlled activity (works) on waterfront land, the consent holder must obtain a Controlled Activity Approval (CAA) under the Water Management Act from the NSW Office of Water. Waterfront land for the purposes of this DA is land and material in or within 40 metres of the top of the bank or shore of the river identified.

3	The consent holder must prepare or commission the preparation of: (i) Vegetation Management Plan (ii) Works Schedule (iii) Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (iv) Soil and Water Management Plan (v) Design Plans
4	All plans must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and submitted to the NSW Office of Water for approval prior to any controlled activity commencing. The following plans must be prepared in accordance with the NSW Office of Water's guidelines located at http://www.water.nsw.gov.au/water-licensing/approvals/controlled-activity (i) Vegetation Management Plans (ii) Laying pipes and cables in watercourses (iii) Riparian Corridors (iv) In-stream works (v) Outlet structures
5	The consent holder must (i) carry out any controlled activity in accordance with approved plans and (ii) construct and/or implement any controlled activity by or under the direct supervision of a suitably qualified professional and (iii) when required, provide a certificate of completion to the NSW Office of Water.
Rehabilitation and maintenance
6	The consent holder must carry out a maintenance period of two (2) years after practical completion of all controlled activities, rehabilitation and vegetation management in accordance with a plan approved by the NSW Office of Water.
7	The consent holder must reinstate waterfront land affected by the carrying out of any controlled activity in accordance with a plan or design approved by the NSW Office of Water.
Reporting requirements
8	The consent holder must use a suitably qualified person to monitor the progress, completion, performance of works, rehabilitation and maintenance and report to the NSW Office of Water as required.
9-11	N/A
Disposal
14	The consent holder must ensure that no materials or cleared vegetation that may (i) obstruct flow, (ii) wash into the water body, or (iii) cause damage to river banks; are left on waterfront land other than in accordance with a plan approved by the NSW Office of Water.
Drainage and stormwater
15	The consent holder is to ensure that all drainage works (i) capture and convey runoffs, discharges and flood flows to low flow water level in accordance with a plan approved by the NSW Office of Water; and (ii) do not obstruct the flow of water other than in accordance with a plan approved by the NSW Office of Water.
16	The consent holder must stabilise drain discharge points to prevent erosion in accordance with a plan approved by the NSW Office of Water.
Erosion control
17	The consent holder must establish all erosion and sediment control works and water diversion structures in accordance with a plan approved by the NSW Office of Water. These works and structures must be inspected and maintained throughout the working period and must not be removed until the site has been fully stabilised.
Excavation
18	N/A
19	The consent holder must ensure that any excavation does not result in (i) diversion of any river (ii) bed or bank instability or (iii) damage to native vegetation within the area where a controlled activity has been authorised, other than in accordance with a plan approved by the NSW Office of Water.

Maintaining river
20	The consent holder must ensure that (i) river diversion, realignment or alteration does not result from any controlled activity work and (ii) bank control or protection works maintain the existing river hydraulic and geomorphic functions, and (iii) bed control structures do not result in river degradation other than in accordance with a plan approved by the NSW Office of Water.
21	N/A
22	The consent holder must protect and maintain a riparian corridor on the unnamed watercourse and Ploughmans Creek in accordance with the NSW Office of Water Guidelines for Riparian Corridors. The riparian corridor must be measured horizontally landward from the highbank of each watercourse for the length of the site directly affected by the controlled activity.
23	The consent holder must establish a riparian corridor along the unnamed Creek and Ploughmans Creek in accordance with a plan approved by the NSW Office of Water.
24-28	N/A
END OF CONDITIONS

Other Approvals

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

Nil

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

Nil

Right of Appeal

Disability Discrimination Act 1992:

The applicant/owner is responsible to ensure compliance with this and other anti-discrimination legislation.

Disclaimer - SECTION 88B 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:	16 December 2015

	30/11/2015	31/10/2015
General Fund	49,677,408.92	50,987,614.15
Sewer Local Fund	34,267,279.59	31,711,087.69
Water Supply Local Fund	30,953,098.84	32,177,151.30
Orange CBD Special Rate	2,197,907.22	2,134,294.84
	117,095,694.57	117,010,147.98

Externally Restricted	30/11/2015	31/10/2015
General Fund	19,723,825.32	23,502,297.27
Water Fund	30,953,098.84	32,177,151.30
Sewer Fund	34,267,279.59	31,711,087.69
CBD Fund	2,197,907.22	2,134,294.84
Auspiced	1,403,672.92	1,403,672.92
Internally Restricted	16,854,622.53	15,778,487.77
Unrestricted	11,695,288.15	10,303,156.19
	117,095,694.57	117,010,147.98

Term to Maturity Allocation	Maximum	Holdings	Capacity
0 - 3 Months	100.00%	11.22%	88.78%
3 - 12 Months	100.00%	54.65%	45.35%
1 - 2 Years	70.00%	7.48%	62.52%
2 - 5 Years	50.00%	26.65%	23.35%
5+ Years	25.00%	0.00%	25.00%

	Maximum	Holding	Capacity
AAA	100.00%	0.00%	100.00%
AA	100.00%	28.78%	71.22%
A	60.00%	43.71%	16.29%
BBB & NR	40.00%	27.50%	12.50%
Below BBB	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Date of Meeting	Question	Responsible Staff Member	Action
1 Dec 2015	Cr Turner requested an update report on the old saleyards site.	Director Corporate and Commercial Services	Report to be provided.
1 Dec 2015	Cr Gryllis requested an inspection for the Museum be arranged for interested Councillors.	Director Community, Recreation and Cultural Services	Inspection proposed for 11 December.
17 Nov 2015	Cr Gander requested a Councillor briefing on the RSPCA.	Manager Building and Environment	Briefing to be scheduled.
	Cr Jones requested an update on the status of Kurim shops.	Manager Building and Environment	Council's Manager of Building and Environment carried out an inspection of the site on Tuesday 17/11/15 contacted the owner of the Kurim Shops site. The owner agreed to again secure the site (it was found that vandals had removed part of an iron clad wall at the rear of the building in order to gain access). The owner has agreed to have the grass cut.
	Cr Turner requested a Councillor briefing on the status of the old hospital site and adjacent nurses quarters.	Director Development Services	Briefing to be scheduled.
	The Mayor requested a report identifying Council’s resolved position on the requirement for footpaths to be installed in new/existing areas.	Manager Administration and Governance	Report to be provided.
20 Oct 2015	Cr Taylor requested a check of the play equipment in Newman Park and investigation into the possibility of installing additional equipment.	Manager City Presentation	The equipment provided at Newman Park is considered to be in reasonable condition. Council could give consideration to the addition of a swing set to increase the variety of play experiences. A swing set will cost in the order of $4,500 to $6,000 if installed at a time when other play equipment is being installed within Orange. Council could consider allocating $6,000 in the 2016/2017 Delivery Plan.
20 Oct 2015	Cr Hamling requested a report investigating the possibility of installing play equipment into Wentworth Reserve.	Manager City Presentation	A notice of motion from Cr Hamling is listed for Council’s meeting of 15 December 2015.
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 “No Stopping” sign has repositioned.
16 June 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.
17 Mar 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 provided to Councillors by memo.
2 Sept 2014	Cr Hamling requested a briefing to consider options for private cars for sale being parked on Council land, particularly on the Northern Distributor Road and the Escort Way, and Jack Brabham Park.	Director Development Services	This item has been included on the Councillor Briefing Schedule.
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 included for consideration for funding in the 2016/17 Delivery Plan.

Program	Adopted Budget	Actual/Committed	Remaining balance
General Donations	111,674	116,674*	Nil
Major Promotions	30,900	29,519	1,381
Sports Participant	10,900	5,850	5,050
Sports Facility	50,000	50,000	Nil

Required information	Comment
Total number of Code of Conduct complaints made about Councillors and the General Manager under the Code of Conduct in the year to September	2 complaints made and finalised in the year
Number of Code of Conduct complaints referred to a Conduct Reviewer	2
Number of Code of Conduct complaints finalised by a Conduct Reviewer at the Preliminary Assessment stage and the outcome of those complaints	1 complaint. This complaint contained 24 allegations and was referred to a Conduct Reviewer. The Reviewer determined to take no action on all but one matter, which has been resolved by the General Manager and which had been acted upon prior to complaint.
Number of Code of Conduct complaints investigated by a Conduct Reviewer	0
Number of Code of Conduct complaints investigated by a Conduct Review Committee	1
Without identifying particular matters, the outcome of Code of Conduct complaints investigated by a Conduct Reviewer or Conduct Review Committee under the Procedures	Panel found breaches. Reported to Council in February 2015 and finalised in April 2015. The matter was resolved by public apologies.
Number of matters reviewed by the Office, and without identifying particular matters, the outcome of the reviews	0
The total cost of dealing with Code of Conduct complaints made about Councillors and the General Manager in the year to September, including staff costs.	$86,450

Architectural fee for DA/CC drawings	$15,000
Structural fee for construction drawings	$920
	$15,920

Service Delivery	No public amenity is available in Robertson Park.
Image and Reputation	Council has received criticism in relation to the lack of public amenities in Robertson Park, particularly at times of major events held in the Park.


Image and Reputation	Opportunity for the creation of goodwill with the broad engagement of the community.
Stakeholders	Council has been working with the Spring Hill community for many years and it is through the Community Committee that Council has primarily developed the Master Plan to reflect the desires of the community and to provide a plan for future long term growth.