Agenda of Planning and Development Committee

Planning and Development Committee 1 December 2015

2.1 Items Approved Under the Delegated Authority of Council

TRIM REFERENCE: 2015/2827

AUTHOR: David Waddell, Director Development Services

EXECUTIVE Summary

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

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

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

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

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

further considerations

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

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Reference:	DA 404/2008(4)	Determination Date	10 November 2015
PR Number	PR19361
Applicant/s:	Fenlor Group Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Fenlor Group Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 158 DP 1207987 - Tilston Way, Orange (residue lot of historic Lots 7 and 8 DP 1065578 - 384 and 386 Molong Road)
Proposal:	Modification of development consent – subdivision (78 lot residential, one residue lot) (Community and Torrens Title). The modification involves deleting condition (25) which required a geotechnical investigation to be carried out within each proposed building envelope; and correcting an error in the description of the proposal (should have been “78 lot residential”, not “80 lot residential).
Value:	$0
Reference:	DA 278/2010(2)	Determination Date	30 October 2015
PR Number	PR19629
Applicant/s:	Mr DE and Mrs TN Davies
Owner/s:	Mr DE and Mrs TN Davies
Location:	Lot 103 DP 1069672 and Lot 22 DP 1011975 – 163 and 205 Berrilee Road, Springside
Proposal:	Modification of development consent – subdivision (two lot rural boundary adjustment). The modification involves altering the location of the new lot so that it fronts Berrilee Road and relocating to the access driveway to run along the eastern boundary. The proposed building envelope will be closer to Berrilee Road.
Value:	$0

Reference:	DA 283/2014(1)	Determination Date	13 November 2015
PR Number	PR27170
Applicant/s:	Mr SP and Mrs KA Romano
Owner/s:	Mr SP and Mrs KA Romano
Location:	Lot 21 DP 1212446 – 104 Lysterfield Road, Orange
Proposal:	Subdivision (two lots)
Value:	$0

Reference:	DA 336/2014(1)	Determination Date	9 November 2015
PR Number	PR958
Applicant/s:	Twice Around
Owner/s:	Mr GJ and Mr AJ Vangestel
Location:	Lot 121 DP 549276 – 390 Clergate Road, Orange
Proposal:	Resource recovery facility
Value:	$50,000

Reference:	DA 116/2015(2)	Determination Date	22 October 2015
PR Number	PR26819
Applicant/s:	NSW Rural Fire Service
Owner/s:	Verga Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 11 DP 1206162 – Orchard Road, Springside
Proposal:	Modification of development consent – emergency services facility and rainwater tank (110,000 litre). The modification involves moving the approved rural fire station building 5m to the north, and also moving the adjacent water tank to the north to remain next to the building.
Value:	$265,000

Reference:	DA 280/2015(1)	Determination Date	28 October 2015
PR Number	PR22539
Applicant/s:	Hibbard Homes
Owner/s:	Hibbards Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 26 DP 1122907 – 3 Begonia Place, Orange
Proposal:	Dual occupancy and subdivision (two lot residential)
Value:	$440,000

Reference:	DA 292/2015(1)	Determination Date	19 October 2015
PR Number	PR13472
Applicant/s:	McKinnon Design
Owner/s:	Ms RE Payne
Location:	Lot 26 DP 826452 – 131 March Street, Orange
Proposal:	Dual occupancy
Value:	$310,000

Reference:	DA 298/2015(1)	Determination Date	4 November 2015
PR Number	PR27109
Applicant/s:	Mr M Mustac
Owner/s:	Mr M Mustac
Location:	Lot 421 DP 1210576 – 67 Glasson Drive, Orange
Proposal:	Dual occupancy and subdivision (two lot residential)
Value:	$400,000

Reference:	DA 326/2015(1)	Determination Date	17 November 2015
PR Number	PR27026
Applicant/s:	GJ Gardner Homes Orange
Owner/s:	Develop Orange Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 144 DP 1207987 – 16 Tilston Way, Orange
Proposal:	Exhibition home and business identification signage
Value:	$320,000

Reference:	DA 334/2015(1)	Determination Date	17 November 2015
PR Number	PR15703
Applicant/s:	Ms D Maguire
Owner/s:	Birrang Enterprise Development Company Limited
Location:	Lot 11 DP 844802 and Lot 32 DP 1035913 – 7 and 9 Colliers Avenue, Orange
Proposal:	Depot (alterations and additions to existing approved workshop and training establishment)
Value:	$11,400

Reference:	DA 345/2015(1)	Determination Date	17 November 2015
PR Number	PR26735
Applicant/s:	BT Homes
Owner/s:	B & J Flowers Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 303 DP 1201019 – 90 William Maker Drive, Orange
Proposal:	Exhibition home and business identification signage
Value:	$320,000

Reference:	DA 349/2015(1)	Determination Date	29 October 2015
PR Number	PR620
Applicant/s:	Mr T Cheney
Owner/s:	Mrs JA Shillington and Mrs CM Cheney
Location:	Lot 11 DP 701366 – 263 Anson Street, Orange
Proposal:	Community facility (change of use from dwelling)
Value:	$0

Reference:	DA 359/2015(1)	Determination Date	21 October 2015
PR Number	PR592
Applicant/s:	Mr TJ Zinga and Ms AP Watson
Owner/s:	Orange City Council
Location:	Lot 1 DP 341650 – former netball courts – Moulder Park, Anson Street, Orange
Proposal:	Kiosk and business identification signage
Value:	$2,500

Reference:	DA 370/2015(1)	Determination Date	17 November 2015
PR Number	PR11977
Applicant/s:	Mr RJ and Mrs PS Mages
Owner/s:	Mr RJ and Mrs PS Mages
Location:	Lot 1 DP 630700 – 82 Thompson Road, Orange
Proposal:	Dwelling and attached carport
Value:	$490,000

TOTAL NET* VALUE OF ALL DEVELOPMENTS APPROVED IN THIS PERIOD: $2,608.900

* Net value relates to the value of modifications. If modifications are the same value as the original DA, then nil is added. If there is a plus/minus difference, this difference is added or taken out.

Planning and Development Committee 1 December 2015

2.2 Lucknow Scoping Study Outcomes

TRIM REFERENCE: 2015/3062

AUTHOR: David Waddell, Director Development Services

EXECUTIVE Summary

A Scoping Study was prepared in 2015 by the Consultant Oculus on behalf of Orange City Council that sought to assess the potential of the Village for growth and uplift given it is the entrance or ‘Gateway’ to Orange.

Lucknow is a Village steeped in history and heritage significance with the capacity to continue as is or to become a vibrant village with a population critical mass that can sustain growth and provide the lift the Village needs.

The scoping study was based on a consideration of opportunities and constraints across the Village including:

· previous mining activities and legacy impacts

· slope and surface water flows

· highway issues

· potential future residential zonings

· key views

· existing character

· significant vegetation

· connectivity

· an understanding of elements required to create a greater ‘sense of place’ and support a village.

The Scoping Study was subsequently placed on exhibition for public comment. This report presents the main issues raised, responses to those issues and outlines the next steps in the process.

On 2 June 2015, Council resolved:

RESOLVED -15/211 Cr J Hamling/Cr J Davis

That Council exhibits the Lucknow Scoping Study for a period of 28 days.

Exhibition was held from 9 June to 6 July 2015. Submissions were received from 14 authors and the issues raised in those submissions have been reviewed internally. As a result amendments to the Scoping Study are now recommended in order to address some of the concerns raised while maintaining the overall vision for the Village as an enhanced gateway to Orange.

Council is asked to formally adopt the Scoping Study and to resolve that a Masterplan and accompanying Planning Proposal for any rezoning be drafted and brought back to a future Council meeting for consideration and public exhibition.

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

1 That Council notes the report by the Director Development Services on the Lucknow Scoping Study exhibition process and adopts the Scoping Study with amendment ‘principles’ as detailed.

2 That Council resolves that a Masterplan, Infrastructure Plan and accompanying Planning Proposal for any rezonings be drafted and brought back to a future Council meeting for consideration and public exhibition.

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

14 submissions were received following public exhibition via various means. In addition the Scoping Study attracted significant interest and staff met with several interested residents over the period.

The issues raised will be used to now develop a Masterplan and accompanying Planning Proposal. It should be noted that the Scoping Study document itself will not be changed rather an addendum will be attached to it which outlines the amendment principles that will be adopted in pursuing the Masterplan.

Issues RAISED AND PRELIMINARY responseS

Consultation

Several submissions expressed disappointment at the level of consultation during the Scoping Study. The scoping study is based on a consideration of opportunities and constraints across the Village including previous mining activities and legacy impacts, slope and surface water flows, Mitchell Highway issues, potential future residential zonings, key views, existing character, significant vegetation, connectivity and an understanding of elements required to create a greater ‘sense of place’ and support a Village. It is not a study typically where fine grain detail is dealt with and thus a decision was made to allow the consultant to look at the Village without preconceived bias. It is acknowledged that minimal consultation has occurred with landowners or commercial operators to date– this was done by way of exhibition and the next steps will see a more concentrated effort.

Heritage

Some submissions expressed disappointment that the Scoping Study fails to take into account the high heritage significance of the Village, particularly its mining past.

The Scoping Study was based on a consideration of opportunities and constraints across the Village rather than by a single issue alone such as heritage, including:

· previous mining activities and legacy impacts

· slope and surface water flows

· highway issues

· potential future residential zonings

· key views

· existing character

· significant vegetation

· connectivity

· an understanding of elements required to create a greater ‘sense of place’ and support a Village.

Historical overlays were presented in the Study document. It needs to be understood that the heritage value of Lucknow has been severely degraded over the last decades and this will continue unless action is taken to arrest the decline. This cannot be done without funding sources. Lucknow, a ‘gateway’ to Orange, is a Village steeped in history and heritage significance with the capacity to either remain as is or to become a vibrant village with a population critical mass that can sustain growth and provide the lift the village needs. A purist heritage view that only looks at that aspect alone may not be enough to succeed given the paucity of funding available. The privately owned new reform mine site is an example. In order to incorporate this in the overall Masterplan, Council will need to negotiate to either purchase or financially assist the owner in any uplift. It would be naive to think that a private owner would contribute extensively. Nonetheless the point is taken and the preparation of the Masterplan and rezoning phase will now take the project to the fine grain detail that will address many of the concerns raised.

One enthusiastic resident has taken the time to canvass support for a heritage focus and summarises the general view as follows:

· Lucknow has national historical significance for its mining past, we have lost sight of the value of this

· Any Lucknow works present an opportunity to make more of its historical significance, and to leverage that for the region

· The streetscape must help with wayfinding and the interpretation of the unique identity rendered by the Village’s past

· Growth and refreshment is good where it provides a vehicle for being able to present the history of the Village

· Lucknow cannot end up looking like Berry or Kiama; it must relate to the gold mining history

· Take cues from Sovereign Hill in Ballarat for style and opportunities

· Re-colonialization of the street-scape will increase appeal to tourists

· The presentation of the village is vitally important as it must encourage people to stop

· Tourist signage before the village needs to indicate amenity available in town (there is no brown tourist sign indicating Lucknow as an historic village, an application process is involved, which should be investigated for the implications on development)

· Remove ugly/unhelpful signage

· Incorporate a colonial theme into look and feel

· A wayfinding strategy is required to ensure visitors can locate basic amenity such as parking, toilets, food, plus historic information

· Lucknow is the historical gateway to Orange

· Increase visual links between the village and the city through tree planting

· Create cycle link (tourist bicycle route Lucknow/Orange/Spring Hill/Millthorpe)

· Links between the Orange Regional Museum and Lucknow

· Gold miners tourist loop need to be elevated to incorporate the village, not just Wentworth Mine

· Tourism/funding potential leveraging ongoing Yr. 5/6 School Curriculum about Gold mining history

The suggestions raised fall under two areas of Council’s operation; that of heritage and that of planning. Many of these suggested heritage initiatives can be addressed through the various Heritage Office grant programs available and can be pursued separately to the Masterplan and will be investigated by staff as the fine grain detail work is undertaken. In addition the Masterplan will need to come up with detailed guidance on issues such as uniform fencing, signage and materiality to address these issues.

Location of residential growth

Submissions were mixed in terms of the additional residential areas shown in the Scoping Study and these views will be taken into account at the master planning stage.

The proposed infill around Chapel Hill Lane was supported by some residents and opposed by others and will need to be re-assessed in detail.

Residents on Phoenix Mine Road generally did not see additional subdivision as something they would like to see and raised traffic issues at the same time given the sight lines and topography in that locale. Given the sentiment the Masterplan will need to concentrate on other areas in the short to medium term. Staging of residential growth will be a key part of the Masterplan to address both sentiment and infrastructure staging.

A landowner on Beaumah Road expressed a desire to allow subdivision from 108 acres to 40 or 20 acres which will need to be further assessed along with other surrounding areas of minimal agricultural potential.

One landowner to the north of the Highway where substantial additional housing was shown in the Scoping Study states “the aim of this submission is to support Council’s work in promoting growth in and around Lucknow and a vision for its character and land uses.” The landowner is supportive of the potential residential growth area and suggests further changes to the layouts and density which will be the subject of further discussion during the master planning stages. Combined with some reticence to see further infill on the southern side, this area may provide the best opportunity for growth in the Village as it also would link to the Village centre via the open space network.

Beautification of the Village commercial centre

There was very little opposition to the concept of Village beautification. Comments such as “as a long term resident of Lucknow, I agree that the village itself on the highway does need beautification and maybe in and around the village, owners of the property will be allowed to subdivide to residential blocks” were typical.

A key landowner in the Village commercial zone stated that he was ‘pleased to see a plan for the future of our village. Lucknow is an historical treasure that deserves attention and preservation but with respect for the rights of owners to develop land as we determine, within Council guidelines’. Indeed the Scoping Study is the first part of establishing those guidelines. This submitter goes into some detail on how the Village Centre expansion would affect their land adversely and there will need to be close consultation to find a compromise during the master planning stage. Any plans to clean up the creek and open space areas were welcomed.

The issue of truck and vehicle parking and associated Highway safety is a critical one and raised by several submitters and will need to be addressed in consultation with the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) in future work. Truck parking was another common issue raised.

The master planning stage will need to carefully look lot by lot at the ownership issue involved and negotiate with individual owners in order to arrive at a common goal of beautification. Council does not own a great deal of property in the Village so the overall success of the beautification will be a function of the level of cooperation that can be achieved.

Privacy

One submitter expressed serious concern over privacy issues associated with proposed connection pathways and this will be considered in the master planning stages. Other submitters expressed a desire for Lucknow to be left as is with its inherent privacy and Village feel.

Infrastructure

Some submissions raised the cost of infrastructure costs. Typically infrastructure in the form of road upgrades, footpaths, water and sewer is paid for by a combination of grant funding and developer contributions. The scoping of residential growth in Lucknow, whilst unpopular with some submitters is critical to raising funds to pay for beautification and infrastructure works. This is the problem faced – without growth there may not be the opportunity to fund the projects required to achieve the plan.

Nonetheless the Scoping Study provides an indication on the level of infrastructure upgrades required.

Subsidence and Contamination

Submitters pointed out the issue of subsidence, historical mining activity and its potential to restrict development. Council is aware of much of the subsidence and is currently preparing a report on historical mine activity and contamination to feed into the Masterplan. It is correct to say that it is a critical issue that will guide development into the future.

amendment principles

The amendment principles that will be adopted in pursuing the Masterplan are presented below and will be used to guide staff in the next stages.

Aspect	Amendment Principle
Heritage	Address in fine detail the heritage of Lucknow with particular reference to the Jack, Winkworth and Somerville reports and Heritage NSW guidelines. Work with the goldmining theme
Location of residential growth	Concentrate further residential growth firstly in areas where residents are generally supportive. Look at staging. Further look at larger lot subdivision.
Beautification of the Village commercial centre	Work with individual landowners to arrive at the common goal which is a revitalised Village Centre.
Privacy	Look closer at connection and pathway impacts on residents. Seek to preserve the intimacy of Lucknow.
Infrastructure	Look closely at highway safety and cost effective infrastructure staging
Subsistence and contamination	The next stages should address contamination and subsidence in more detail

Attachments

1 Lucknow Scoping Study Post Exhibition Report - Submissions, D15/46178 ⇩

Planning and Development Committee 1 December 2015

2.3 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

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 residential accommodation comprising a secondary dwelling and alterations and additions to a dwelling house under OLEP 2011.

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.

Dwelling house is defined under the LEP as:

a building containing only one dwelling. Dwelling in turn means a room or suite of rooms occupied or used or so constructed or adapted as to be capable of being occupied or used as a separate domicile.

A dwelling house is a form of development permissible in the R1 zone.

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 located within a conservation area, but is not identified in the adopted heritage inventory.

(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 adjoining along the eastern 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 shed located at the rear of northernmost side neighbour, 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 the significance of the conservation area, or on any of the nearby and adjoining heritage items in the locality.

Heritage Assessment

This clause enables Council, where deemed appropriate, to require the submission of an overarching management statement to permit a more complete assessment of the extent to which the carrying out of the proposed development would affect the heritage significance of the heritage item or heritage conservation area concerned. In this case a heritage management statement is not considered warranted. 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

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. It is considered that the proposal will complement the pattern of development that characterises the Central Conservation Area. The 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 less sympathetic, and their current location forward of the adjacent laneway setback will expose that structure unnecessarily and detrimentally to view. 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.

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 opportunity 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. 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.

· 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.

· 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 Manager Engineering Development are included in the attached Notice of Approval.

Attachments

1 Notice of Approval, D15/45330 ⇩

2 Plans, D15/44684 ⇩

3 Submissions, D15/44688 ⇩

Planning and Development Committee 1 December 2015

2.3 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:	1 December 2015
Determination:	CONSENT GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:

Consent to Operate From:	2 December 2015
Consent to Lapse On:	2 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:	2 December 2015

Planning and Development Committee 1 December 2015

2.4 Development Application DA 342/2015(1) - Lot 16 Woodward Street

TRIM REFERENCE: 2015/3145

AUTHOR: Andrew Crump, Senior Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged	29 September 2015
Applicant/s	Metasite
Owner/s	Orange Golf Club Limited
Land description	Lot 16 DP 1120534 - Duntryleague - Woodward Street, Orange
Proposed land use	Telecommunications facility (30m monopole, antennas and shelter)
Value of proposed development	$180,000

Council's consent is sought for the installation of a telecommunications facility on land described as Lot 16 DP 1120534, known as Duntryleague Golf Club. The facility involves the installation of a 30m monopole, antenna on top of the monopole, shelter and fenced compound.

The major consideration with this application is the visual impact and the cumulative effect of a second facility in the locality.

The development is consistent with Council’s relevant planning provisions is recommended for approval.

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 342/2015(1) for Telecommunications Facility (30m monopole, antennas and shelter) at Lot 16 DP 1120534 - Woodward Street, Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

THE APPLICATION/PROPOSAL

Council's consent is sought for the installation of a telecommunications facility on land described as Lot 16 DP 1120534, known as Duntryleague Golf Club. The development involves the installation of a 30m monopole, associated antennas and shelter and fenced compound. The facility is proposed approximately 50m east of the existing Telstra facility.

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

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

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

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

Section 5A Assessment

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

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

Section 79C

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

Heritage Act - Section 57(2)

The subject land is identified as a State registered heritage item. The applicant has obtained a section 57(2) exemption pursuant to the Heritage Act. As such, there are no other requirements or functions that Council is obligated to carry out under the Heritage Act.

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,

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

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

Clause 1.6 - Consent Authority

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

Clause 1.9A - Suspension of Covenants, Agreements and Instruments

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

· covenants imposed or required by Council

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

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

· any trust agreement under the Nature Conservation Trust Act 2001

· any property vegetation plan under the Native Vegetation Act 2003

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

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

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

Mapping

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

Land Zoning Map:	Land zoned RE2 Private Recreation
Lot Size Map:	No Minimum Lot Size
Heritage Map:	State listed heritage item
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 land is zoned RE2 Private Recreation. The proposed development is defined as a telecommunications facility under OLEP 2011. Pursuant to OLEP 2011 a telecommunications facility means:

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

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

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

Telecommunications Facilities are not specifically listed as permissible in the RE2 Private Recreation zone under OLEP 2011 and are thus prohibited. However, State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) applies to the State, and under Clause 115 development for the purposes of telecommunications facilities may be carried out by any person with consent on any land. The SEPP overrides the provisions of Orange LEP 2011 and therefore has the effect of rendering the proposed development permissible on any land with the consent of Council.

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

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

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

Clause 2.3 of LEP 2011 references the Land Use Table and Objectives for each zone in LEP 2011. These objectives for land zoned RE2 Private Recreation are as follows:

1 - Objectives of the RE2 Private Recreation Zone

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part 3 - Exempt and Complying Development

The application is not exempt or complying development.

Part 5 - Miscellaneous Provisions

5.10 - Heritage Conservation

The subject land is identified as a Local heritage item and as an item on the State Heritage Register. The relevant heritage inventory sheets provide the following statement of significance for Duntryleague:

This two storey house, with tower like chapel above, is significant for the display of wealth and confidence following, and partly the result of, the gold rush to the surrounding fields.

The property now known as Duntryleague was part of one of the first land grants in the Orange area in 1834, located adjacent to the later gazetted township of Orange and comprising a full square mile. The property was grazed for many years by various owners and tenants, but William Sampson, the first grantee who was himself an absent land owner with interests in the Mudgee area, also established his early property called Campdale on the land. The property also included other early buildings important in the history of Orange such as John Peisley's the Coach and Horses which is regarded as the first inn in the Blackman's Swamp (Orange) area.

James Dalton, the prominent Orange merchant, purchased sections of the land from 187205 to establish a substantial family estate of 311 acres that he named Duntryleague after his birthplace in Ireland. In 1876 he commissioned the design and construction of a mansion located on a prominent ridge of the property from Sydney architect Benjamin Backhouse.

The house is a splendid example of mid Victorian splendour designed in the Victorian Filigree style with a richness of detail befitting the man of wealth and influence that James had become by that time. The estate included two gatehouses, an ornate entrance and gates, a stables, a dairy, 2-3 workers' cottages, a fern house, orchards, vegetable gardens for the household and extensive pastures for grazing.

James initially assisted his father in their first shop in Orange after arriving from Ireland at the age of 15. In 1853 he set up his own store at the corner of Post Office Lane which he later managed with his brother Thomas who arrived in Australia in 1858. His father went on to manage the well known Daniel O'Connell Inn in Orange. The Dalton Bros. business grew to become the largest wholesale merchant business west of the Blue Mountains with interests throughout the Central West, eastwards to Sydney and northwards to the Queensland border at the height of their success in the late 1800s. The store building that James built in Summer Street was significantly added to over the years and was to become one of the landmark buildings in town. The Sydney side of the business was managed by Thomas who lived at Wheatleigh in North Sydney and the company was notable in the city for Dalton House in Pitt Street and the Dalton Wharf at Millers Point.

Over the years up to 1925 in Orange the family have been associated with a large number of significant homes and also owned and managed a number of extensive pastoral properties. Many of these buildings remain today as testimony to the importance of the family in the region.

The Dalton family was among New South Wales' most influential and wealthy Catholic families. The Irish-Catholic community in Orange was relatively large and particularly wealthy enough to play a dominant role in politics and the social and spiritual development of the town. The Daltons were instrumental in the financing of St. Joseph's Catholic Church in Orange and James Dalton had built Australia Hall in Lord's Place to provide the controversial venue for a group of visiting Irish Nationalists in 1883. James may also have provided funds and leadership for the Irish Nationalist Movement in NSW. Some of the Dalton children later studied in Ireland and returned to Australia to work.

The Dalton family were involved in the early civic development of Orange. Some stood on local Council (James Dalton Mayor 1869, Michael Francis Dalton Councillor from 1906 for many years). In 1877 James was awarded the rare honour of being made a Papal Knight by Pope Gregory for his services to the Catholic Church and the large stained glass window in the hall of Duntryleague commemorates his investiture.

After James' death the house and grounds were retained briefly in family ownership and also used as a large convalescent hospital run by the Red Cross. The property was then purchased by the Orange Golf Club in 1935 as a home for the Club, which had originally been established in Orange in 1909, but had outgrown earlier Club premises. James Dalton had in fact opened the Club in 1901.

The Club has made some alterations to the house and grounds over the years but both still retain significant aspects of their history that are still able to demonstrate the original design and use of the once splendid property. The Club has established itself at Duntryleague over the past 70 years as an important golf club in NSW with an exceptional setting for its courses and attracting local, state and international players and visitors (Christo Aitken & Associates, 2003, 66-67).

Duntryleague property has strong historic associations with prominent merchant, pastoralist and townsman, James Dalton, and architect Benjamin Backhouse, its designer, R Scott & JJ McMurtrie, stone masons. Duntryleague has aesthetic significance with its prominent hilltop location, extensive grounds now a golf course, fine collection of magnificent mature trees, original estate elements including an axial entry driveway with gate keeper's lodge, notable house, terraced former gardens and tennis courts.

Duntryleague contains a house of mid Victorian splendour, a good example of Victorian Filigree style by virtue of its ornate cast iron work to the portico and verandahs. It displays high standards of construction and high quality craftsmanship in its joinery an ironwork.

Gate Keeper's Lodge

This simple building is relieved by its decorative traceried bargeboards. It is of additional interest for its association with the wealthy and influential Dalton family, former owners of the Duntryleague property.

(Register of the National Estate, modified Read, S., 8/2005)

Estate

Duntryleague's grounds while modified into a notable golf course have considerable historic, aesthetic and social significance. They have historic associations with the Dalton family, the Orange Golf Club and a series of gardeners, golf course and landscape designers notable within NSW, including Andrew Alfred Patterson, John Irving, Richard Apperly & Ilmar Berzins. The grounds have a considerable collection of mature exotic trees.

The main entrance drive off Woodward Street in particular is richly planted from the gate house up to the mansion, as is the area around the mansion, with a mixture of conifers, evergreen and deciduous trees (Stuart Read, pers.comm., Aitken, 2002, 465, Christo Aitken, 2003).

(1) Objectives

The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a) to conserve the environmental heritage of Orange,

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

(c) to conserve archaeological sites,

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

The area of the subject land to which the application relates is well separated from the elements identified in the above statement of significance, and as such the development is not likely to impact upon the identified significance. This position is agreed to by NSW Heritage given that a standard exemption has been provided by NSW Heritage.

Part 6 - Urban Release Area

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

Part 7 - Additional Local Provisions

7.6 - Groundwater Vulnerability

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

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

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

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

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

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

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

Clause 2 - Aim of Policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clause 115 - Development Permitted with Consent

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

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

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

This provision has the effect of imposing any assessment guidelines imposed by the Director General (Department of Planning). The relevant guideline applicable in NSW for the consideration of development of this type is entitled "NSW Telecommunications Facilities Guideline Including Broadband". The guideline has the effect under clause 1.6 of applying as a design tool in all zones of an LEP.

Section 2.2 of the policy sets up the design principles that should be followed. The guidelines are organised under the heading of "Principles". Detailed consideration of how the development fits into the landscape will, however, remain an important element for consideration under the guidelines. The site is an important visual landscape on the entrance into the City from the west.

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

Principle 1 - A telecommunications facility is to be designed and sited to minimise visual impact

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

The development relates to a new structure. As such the above is not applicable. The applicant’s justification against co-location is provided below.

(b) The visual impact of telecommunications facilities should be minimised, visual clutter is to be reduced particularly on tops of buildings, and their physical dimensions (including support mounts) should be sympathetic to the scale and height of the building to which it is to be attached, and sympathetic to adjacent buildings.

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

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

The proposed telecommunications facility is a stand-alone structure. The proposed structure will protrude above the exiting stand of mature trees in close proximity to the facility when viewed from a large area of the western section of the City, particularly from The Escort Way, Dalton Street, Sieben Drive and Prince Street. A detailed assessment of the visual impacts of the development has been provided below under the heading “Likely Impacts of the Development”. It is considered appropriate in this case to impose a condition requiring the structure to be “shale grey” in colour as suggested. A condition to that effect is included.

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

In this case, the ground based structures will be located immediately around the base of the structure. Existing vegetation will serve to screen the ancillary structures. No additional landscaping is considered warranted.

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

Not applicable - the proposed development is located within a highly urbanised area and not a rural setting.

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

The subject land is identified as a State registered heritage item. The applicant has obtained a section 57(2) heritage exemption from NSW Heritage. As such no further heritage assessment is required.

(g) A telecommunication facility should be located and designed so as to respond appropriately to its landscape setting.

The proposed facility is to be located within a large area of private open space in amongst an area of mature stands. A detailed assessment of the visual impact of the development and its impact on the landscape setting has been provided below under the heading “Likely Impacts of the Development’.

(h) The relevant local government authority must be consulted where the pruning, lopping, or removal of any tree or other vegetation would contravene a Tree Preservation Order applying to the land or where a permit or development consent is required.

A condition is attached in relation to where pruning, lopping or removing a tree is concerned.

(i) A telecommunications facility that is no longer required is to be removed and the site restored, to a condition that is similar to its condition before the facility was constructed.

A relevant condition is attached in this regard.

(j) The siting and design of telecommunications facilities should be in accordance with any relevant Industry Design Guides.

A relevant condition is attached in this regard.

Principle 2 - Co-location

Council staff expressed to the applicant prior to lodgement that co-location should be explored in detail as an option given that there exists a facility within 50m of the proposed facility. The applicant submits that co-location is not feasible for the following reasons:

Due to reservations for future upgrades by Telstra below its existing equipment, it doesn’t offer Optus the sufficient height to co-locate their equipment on the pole to meet the coverage objectives. Furthermore the trees would interfere with the signal as the equipment would need to be above the tree canopy. Therefore it was discounted from a radio frequency and design perspective.

Whilst it would be ideal if the proposed facility was co-located upon the existing Telstra facility so as to reduce the amount visual clutter within the landscape, there is no mechanism for Council to force Telstra to allow Optus to use their facility; and whilst this would be the ideal situation, as established throughout this report the visual impacts associated with the development are considered to be within acceptable parameters.

Principle 3 - Health Standards

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

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

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

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

Furthermore, the ARPANSA suggests:

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

A report titled ‘Environmental EME Report Woodward Street, Orange NSW 2800’ indicates:

The maximum EME level calculated for the proposed system at this site is 2.94V/m; equivalent to 22.94mW/m²or 0.34% of the public exposure limit.

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

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

The submitted EME report only accounts for the proposed structure and does not take into account the cumulative effects of EME levels considering the existing structure in close proximity. Council staff wrote to the applicant and raised this issue. The applicant responded with the following:

The sites have different entries on the Radio Frequency National Site Archive (RFNSA) website (see screenshot below) as they are different base stations and different carriers. I have attached the EME report for both the Telstra site and the Optus site. Both sites comply with Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) standards and both are less than 1% where 100% is acceptable. The sites are within 50m of each other. The maximum EME levels being radiated from the Optus site between 0 – 50m are 0.061% and 0.062% for the Telstra site as demonstrated on page two of each report attached.

As these are two different sites and different carriers (Optus & Telstra) it is not possible to calculate a cumulative EME level, however, from the information above (and attached) even if it was on the same site, the level(s) would still be extremely low and well within the ARPANSA standards.

It should be noted that the same EME levels would be experienced if co-location was a viable option, which can happen as low impact exempt development.

Council staff are satisfied from the information provided that the cumulative effects of the two nearby facilities will be within acceptable levels.

Principle 4 - Minimise Disturbance

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

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

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 (Chapter 0 - OLEP 2011, Chapter 11 - Land Used for Open Space and Recreation and Chapter 13 - Heritage). 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 6 Open Space and Recreation (Orange LEP 2000) is zone RE2 Private Recreation (Orange LEP 2011). As such, Orange DCP 2004 – Chapter 11 - Land Used for Open Space is of primary relevance to this proposal. The provisions of Chapter 11 and other applicable chapters are considered below.

Part 11 - Land Used for Open Space and Recreation

Part 11 of the DCP states in part:

For the purposes of the plan private recreation land refers to the following:

· Orange Golf Club.

It is considered that the development is consistent with the provisions of Part 11 of the DPC.

Part 13 - Heritage

As outlined above, the development is not likely to impact on the significance of the heritage item “Duntryleague” and is therefore not considered to be inconsistent with the planning requirements of Part 13 of the DCP.

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

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

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

Context and Setting

Duntryleague golf course represents a very high quality and large landscape item within an established urban setting which is flanked on two sides by major roads. The location of the facility is on a shallow ridgeline. It is considered that the facility will project above the horizon when viewed from a substantial proportion of the surrounding residential areas, particularly from the east and west. From much of these areas there is no backdrop behind the facility; and even considering the slimline nature of the facility, with the absence of any backdrop the facility will be quite prominent. This is further exacerbated by the clean lines of the upper structure against the irregular canopy of the surrounding landscape. This is observed with the existing facility 50m from this proposed facility. However, as established below the existing vegetation serves to screen the development when observed from close to the facility and the effects of visual perspective mean that the development is less obtrusive and less visible from afar where vegetation stops to serve as screening.

Visual Impacts

The development will be a visible element within the landscape from various vantage points on the western side of the City and will add an additional structure within the landscape to the existing Telstra facility 50m from the proposed facility.

Notwithstanding the above, the situation with this particular site is such that the closer the observer gets to the structure the less visible the structure is by virtue of the existing vegetation; and the further away the observer gets to the structure the more of the structure the observer will be able to see. However, given that the observer is a considerable distance away, with the effects of visual perspective the object appears quiet small and far less objectionable then if it were visible from a considerably closer distance. This is what has been experienced with the existing Telstra facility. The above principle applies in the most part except for the example shown in plate 4 below.

It should be noted that the selected site will result in the structure being more visible than the Telstra facility on the land (refer plate 4 below), however not to the point where the development would be unacceptable. The following photomontages demonstrate how the proposed facility will sit within the landscape.

Plate 1 - looking generally south towards facility in Burrendong Way

Plate 2 - looking generally south towards the development from Molong Road

Plate 3 - looking southeast towards development in Sieben Drive

Plate 4 -looking generally west towards the facility within Forbes Road

Plate 4 demonstrates where the development will be the most visible. Notwithdstanding the above photomontage, the development will be acceptable given the existing mature vegetation which will assist to shield the development, the open landscape characteristics of the location, the requirement on the light grey resessive colour and the existing built form in the proximity such as the large advertising sign at West Orange Motors all resulting in the development being acceptable in the location.

In addition to the above, it is noted that these types of structures are becoming more and more common place within the urban landscape and Council needs to give weight not only to the level of visual impact likely as a result from the development but also couter balance that with the public benefit derived from these types of facilities. On balance the development is considered acceptable.

During pre-lodgement meetings onsite, Council staff suggested that an alternate location be explored further within the site on the other side of the adjacent fairway. However, this option was discounted by the owner of the land and not listed as a viable option for the applicant. Little would be gained from moving the structure slightly in either direction and for the reasons outlined above the development is considered acceptable in terms of visual impacts.

Cumulative Impacts

The likely cumulative impacts associated with the development relate to the cumulative visual impacts and the cumulative EME. In relation to the former, the visual impacts have been addressed above and are considered to be acceptable. In relation to the latter, the combined EME levels of the existing facility on the land and the proposed facility are considered to be well below the required threshold levels, and as such are acceptable.

The cumulative impacts associated with the development are not unacceptable.

Construction Management

The submitted plans show a craning location within the highway. Relevant traffic management plans and permits from the road authority will be required for the temporary road closure. An alternate crane point could be sought internally within the site to avoid such requirements. The applicant also submits that the existing gates will be removed to allow site access and then reinstated at the completion of the development. Relevant conditions are attached to ensure that this occurs in an acceptable manner. A Section 68 hoarding application may also be required if the applicant requires the closing of the footpath.

Noise Impacts

The construction stage would generate a certain level of noise attributed to the construction work. Conditions are attached in regards to hours during which construction may be carried out onsite.

Traffic Impacts

Given the location of the development within the confines of the Orange Golf Club it is not likely to present any adverse traffic impacts. The Orange Golf club is well serviced by public roads. Submitted plans indicate access to the site from Forbes Road. However, the Statement of Environmental Effects does not make mention of the proposed access indicated on the plan.

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

The site comprises a large area of private recreation land with extensive vegetation to act as screening within the property, and is considered suitable for the proposed development. Moreover, Council staff are not aware of any natural, technological or physical hazard that may constrain the development from occurring in an acceptable manner.

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

The proposed development is not defined as advertised development under the provisions of the LEP, and as such no formal exhibition of the application was required. However, consistent with Council’s approach with these types of developments across the City, the development was notified. No submissions have been received in relation to this application.

PUBLIC INTEREST s79C(1)(e)

The proposed development is considered to be of minor to moderate interest to the wider public due to the potential for visual impacts. Notwithstanding this, 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 complies with the relevant aims, objectives and provisions of both the Orange LEP and SEPP (Infrastructure). A section 79C assessment of the development indicates that the development will have a visual impact, but nonetheless will be within acceptable levels.

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

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

It is recommended that Council supports the development.

COMMENTS

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

Attachments

1 Notice of Approval, D15/45745 ⇩

2 Plans, D15/45751 ⇩

Planning and Development Committee 1 December 2015

2.4 Development Application DA 342/2015(1) - Lot 16 Woodward Street

Attachment 1 Notice of Approval

leaflogo

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

Development Application No DA 342/2015(1)

NA15/ Container PR22661

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 81(1)

Development Application
Applicant Name:	Metasite
Applicant Address:	Attention: Timothy Brosnan PO Box 31 CROWS NEST NSW 1585
Owner’s Name:	Orange Golf Club Limited
Land to Be Developed:	Lot 16 DP 1120534 - Woodward Street, Orange
Proposed Development:	Telecommunications Facility (30m monopole, antennas and shelter)

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

Determination
Made On:	23 November 2015
Determination:	CONSENT GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:

Consent to Operate From:	23 November 2015
Consent to Lapse On:	23 November 2020

Terms of Approval

The reasons for the imposition of conditions are:

(1) To ensure compliance with relevant statutory requirements.

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

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

(4) To maintain neighbourhood amenity and character.

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

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

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

Conditions

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

(a) Plan/s numbered Drawing Nos. S2308B-P1 Rev 04; S2308B-P2 Rev 04 Plans by Sureline Geomatics Drawing no. SG15131 Sheets 1 and 2 (4 sheets)

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

as amended in accordance with any conditions of this consent.

PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

(4) The monopole shall be shale grey in colour. This detail shall be shown on the detailed construction drawings prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

(5) The design and siting of the facility shall be carried out in accordance with any relevant industry design guidelines.

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

PRIOR TO WORKS COMMENCING

(7) Any pruning or lopping of any trees needing to be undertaken to facilitate the development shall be identified prior to works commencing and shall only be undertaken in consultation with a suitably qualified arborist. This consent does not provide approval to remove any trees.

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

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

(9) 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.

(10) 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.

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

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

(13) 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.

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

(13) The cost of repairing any damage caused to Council or other Public Authority’s assets adjoining the subject site as a result of construction works associated with the approved development, shall be met in full by the applicant prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

(14) The fence and access gates on the common boundary shall be reinstated to the same condition prevailing prior to them being removed; this shall occur prior to the issue of an occupation certificate.

(15) 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.

(16) 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

(17) In the event that the facility is no longer required or used, all structures shall be removed from the site and the site shall be returned to the same state immediately prevailing prior to the installation of the facility.

ADVISORY NOTES

(1) Where any public land is obstructed during the construction phase of the development, a section 68 Hoarding Application shall be made to Council. Where any road closure is required, whether partial or otherwise, the relevant authority shall be obtained to do so.

Other Approvals

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

Nil

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

Nil

Right of Appeal

*Disability Discrimination* Act 1992:	This application has been assessed in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. No guarantee is given that the proposal complies with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. The applicant/owner is responsible to ensure compliance with this and other anti-discrimination legislation. The Disability Discrimination Act covers disabilities not catered for in the minimum standards called up in the Building Code of Australia which references AS1428.1 - "Design for Access and Mobility". AS1428 Parts 2, 3 and 4 provides the most comprehensive technical guidance under the Disability Discrimination Act currently available in Australia.

Disclaimer - S88B Restrictions on the Use of Land:	The applicant should note that there could be covenants in favour of persons other than Council restricting what may be built or done upon the subject land. The applicant is advised to check the position before commencing any work.

Signed:	On behalf of the consent authority ORANGE CITY COUNCIL
Signature:
Name:	DAVID WADDELL - DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Date:	23 November 2015