Agenda of Planning and Development Committee

Planning and Development Committee 5 April 2016

2.2 Development Application DA 329/2015(1) - 62 Byng Street and 77 Hill Street

TRIM REFERENCE: 2016/647

AUTHOR: Daniel Drum, Town Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged	22 September 2015
Applicant/s	Mayoh Architects Pty Ltd - PD Mayoh Pty Ltd
Owner/s	Denoc Holdings Pty Ltd
Land description	Lot 3 DP 758817, Lot 4 DP 1085463 and Lot 1 DP 956418 - 62 Byng Street and 77 Hill Street, Orange
Proposed land use	Hotel or Motel Accommodation
Value of proposed development	$5,200,000

Council’s consent is sought to establish a hotel on the land at 62 Byng Street and 77 Hill Street, Orange, being Lot 3 DP 758817, Lot 4 DP 1085463 and Lot 1 DP 956418 (the ‘subject property’). The subject property comprises a total area of 3,900m²(approximately) and is currently occupied by the Yallungah Mansion at 62 Byng Street and a single storey dwelling at 77 Hill Street. The Yallungah Mansion is a listed local heritage item.

Specifically, Council’s consent is sought for:

· the use and development of hotel or motel accommodation

· partial demolition of the Yallungah Mansion and the single storey dwelling

· structural changes to the interior of the mansion

· demolition of outbuildings

· removal of trees

The proposed hotel is intended to offer a 5 star boutique service to overnight stay guests, with a maximum capacity of 56 persons. Aside from accommodation, other facilities and services offered by the hotel will include:

· a conference room for up to 20 persons

· an a la carte breakfast meal service

· high tea service

The facilities and services offered by the hotel will only be available to overnight stay guests.

The proposed hotel would comprise:

· 28 double or twin bedroom suites with a typical internal floor area of 32m²

· breakfast room

· conference room

· lounges and sitting areas

· undercover and outdoor seating

· kitchen facilities

· office

· service and utility facilities

· manager’s residence

· 28 car parking spaces

The existing dwelling located at 77 Hill Street will be used as the Manager’s residence.

Works associated with the proposed hotel include:

· partial demolition of the rear portions of the Yallungah Mansion and single storey dwelling

· internal and external alterations to the mansion

· demolition of outbuildings

· removal of trees

· construction of a two storey extension and lower ground floor undercroft at the rear of the mansion to accommodate bedroom suites

· service and utility facilities

· internal accessways and car parking

· perimeter landscaping

The key issues for consideration include:

· impact on the significance of local heritage items and the Central Orange Heritage Conservation Area

· the visual bulk associated with the height, length, setbacks and architectural design of the proposed development

· impacts on residential amenity

· noise associated with the use of the proposed hotel

· car parking

· traffic impacts

Preservation and restoration of the key elements that distinguish the Yallungah Mansion as a heritage item are considered to be positive and desirable outcomes given its recent dilapidated condition and potential for complete loss of a prominent heritage item.

Notably, some works have already been undertaken onsite. Accordingly, the applicant is seeking consent to regularise those works. In accordance with Council’s standard procedure, matters in relation to carrying out works on the subject property without development consent are addressed under separate cover to avoid any confusion between the assessment of the development application and potential enforcement procedures.

25 submissions were received during the exhibition period. A further 26 submissions were received after that period ended, including five supporting submissions. It is noted that a number of people made multiple submissions. A copy of all submissions are attached to this report and the issues raised by submitters are addressed in the body of this report.

Council is the owner of 73A Hill Street, Orange which is the site of the Orange Regional Conservatorium. As the owner of a site which adjoins the subject development site, Council acknowledges that there may be perceived to be a conflict of interest. As the owner of the adjoining land and as the determining authority under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, Council cannot divest itself of the circumstances which give rise to the conflict of interest, and therefore the conflict requires to be managed.

The procedure which Council has put in place to manage the conflict of interest is to have the Development Assessment independently reviewed (peer review) by a Consultant Town Planner from outside the region, being Lindsay Fletcher, Consultant Town Planner. A copy of the peer review is attached for Council’s information and should be considered in conjunction with this report.

Council staff have taken on board the views of the peer reviewer, incorporating those changes into this report and the draft consent.

The changes arising from the peer review have not altered the general direction of the staff assessment, but have refined and added value to the assessment and conditions of the draft consent.

Notwithstanding the foregoing issues, the following assessment identifies that the proposed development can be supported within the framework of Councils’ planning regime and the NSW Environmental Planning & Assessment Act.

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

Council has been advised that as a council included in the NSW Government’s merger proposals under consideration by the Office of Local Government since referral on 6 January 2016, Council must comply with the merger proposal period guidelines issued under S23A of the Local Government Act 1993.

The guidelines instruct Council it should expend money in accordance with the detailed budget adopted for the purposes of implementing the Delivery/Operational Plan for the 2015/16 year.

Any expenditure outside the adopted budget requires the identification of clear and compelling grounds and must be approved by Council at a meeting that is open to the public. The guidelines indicate the resolution of Council for increased expenditure must specify the reasons why the expenditure is required and warranted.

If increased expenditure is greater than $250,000 or 1% of the Council’s revenue from rates in the preceding year, whichever is the greater, Council is required to exhibit the increase to the budget and consider comments received.

Council must also avoid entering into contracts or undertakings were expenditure or revenue is greater than $250,000 or 1% of the Council’s revenue from rates in the preceding year, whichever is the greater, unless the contract or undertaking is as a result of a decision or procurement process commenced prior to the merger proposal period or where entering into a contract or undertaking is reasonably necessary for the purposes of meeting the ongoing service delivery commitments of the Council or was previously approved in the Council’s Delivery/Operational Plan.

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

That Council consents to development application DA 329/2015(1) for Hotel or Motel Accommodation at Lot 3 DP 758817, Lot 4 DP 1085463 and Lot 1 DP 956418 – 62 Byng Street and 77 Hill Street, Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Determination.

further considerations

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

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

THE APPLICATION/PROPOSAL

Council’s consent is sought for the use and development of hotel or motel accommodation; partial demolition of the Yallungah Mansion and the single storey dwelling, structural changes to the interior of the mansion, demolition of outbuildings and removal of trees.

Use

The hotel is intended to offer a 5 star boutique service to overnight stay guests with a maximum capacity of 56 persons. Aside from accommodation, other facilities and services offered by the hotel will include a conference room for up to 20 persons, an a la carte breakfast service and high tea service. The applicant has indicated that additional meal services may be offered by special arrangement only.

The facilities and services offered by the hotel will be limited to overnight stay guests only and will not be available to the general public.

The hotel would employ four permanent staff and up to eight casual staff. The applicant has indicated that a chef and casual staff would commence work at 6am and finish at 11am typically, while housekeeping staff will commence at 9:30am and finish at 3pm. A receptionist would work between 7:30am and 10am and 4pm to 7pm, daily.

The applicant has forecast an average weekly occupancy rate of 70% (40 persons), with occupancy rates expected to peak on Fridays and Saturdays. The applicant also anticipates that the average nightly stay will be two nights over the weekend (ie Friday and Saturday) and one night on all other days.

Check-in and check-out times will be 3pm and 10am respectively however the applicant has indicated that the hotel will seek to meet the requirements of guests regarding check-in and check-out times.

Development

The proposed hotel would utilise the existing Yallungah Mansion, being a two storey dwelling with slate roof and return verandahs, and a modern two storey extension and lower ground floor undercroft adjoining the rear of the mansion.

The hotel would comprise 28 double bedroom suites with a typical internal floor area of 32m², a breakfast room, conference room, lounges and sitting areas, undercover and outdoor seating, kitchen facilities, office, service and utility facilities, manager’s residence and 28 car parking spaces.

Works associated with the hotel include partial demolition of the rear portions of the mansion and single dwelling, internal and external alterations to the mansion, construction of a two storey extension and lower ground floor undercroft at the rear of the mansion building to accommodate bedroom suites, service and utility facilities, internal accessways and car parking, and perimeter landscaping.

The proposed extension has been designed in a contemporary style which is distinguished from the proximate period dwellings and other buildings within the immediate vicinity of the subject property. The proposed extension comprises a predominately glazed transitional element at the rear of the existing mansion, creating a link to a more substantial and visually prominent two to three storey form that extends towards the rear of the subject property.

The proposed extension has been designed with the intent of presenting as three separate sections to the west and east through a combination of variable setbacks and separation of built form elements, articulation and disaggregation of building materials.

Key materials of the proposed extension include glazing, metal cladding with a charcoal finish, exposed steel with a charcoal finish, exposed timber, perforated metal screen with a dark bronze finish, fibre cement with a painted light grey finish, fibre cement cladding with a warm light grey finish, stone cladding and aluminium louvers.

The stepped and pitched roof elements will generally appear flat from the east and west, having a grade of 1-3^o.

Given the sloping nature of the property (ie a fall of 1.3m over a distance of 70m from north to south from the rear of the mansion), the proposed extension will vary in height, with a maximum height in the order of 9m towards the rear of the site and a minimum height of 6m towards the front of the site. The proposed extension has a length in the order of 69m when measured from the rear of the mansion.

The design of the proposed extension is illustrated in the attached architectural plans.

The existing conditions of the subject property and surrounding properties are illustrated in Figures 1-10 below.

Figure 1: 62 Byng Street - Yallungah Mansion (as viewed from Byng Street)

Figure 2: 62 Byng Street – Yallungah Mansion

(as viewed from the southern property boundary - height poles are visible along

the western property boundary)

Figure 3: 62 Byng Street - Yallungah Mansion

(as viewed from rear of mansion - height poles are visible along

the western property boundary)

Figure 4: 77 Hill Street (as viewed from Hill Street)

Figure 5: 77 Hill Street (as viewed from the common boundary with 62 Byng Street)

Figure 6: 79 Hill Street (as viewed from Hill Street)

Figure 7: 81 Hill Street (as viewed from Hill Street)

Figure 8: 85 Hill Street (as viewed from Hill Street)

Figure 9: 87 Hill Street - Hibernian Australasian Catholic Benefit Society Hall

(as viewed from Hill Street)

Figure 10: 60 Byng Street - Gallbally Mansion (as viewed from Byng Street)

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

Section 5A Assessment – Significant Effect on Threatened Species, Populations or Ecological Communities, or their Habitats

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

The development application has proposed the removal of a number of trees from the subject property, including a Box Elder, Nettle, Deodar and a number of smaller trees with a diameter at breast height of or (DBH) less than 300mm. No trees proposed to be removed are threatened species.

Based on an inspection of the subject property and taking into consideration its urban context, it is considered that removal of the trees:

· is unlikely to have an adverse effect on the life cycle of a threatened species or endangered population such that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction

· is unlikely to have an adverse effect on the extent, or substantially and adversely modify the composition of an endangered or critically ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction

· is unlikely to effect the extent, fragment or isolate the habitat of a threatened species, population or ecological community

· is unlikely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat

Council officers are not aware of any applicable recovery plan or threat abatement plan. The removal of the trees would not constitute a key threatening process.

Section 79C - Evaluation

Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 sets out the matters that the consent authority is to take into consideration in determining a development application.

These matters are addressed in the body of this report.

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 aims of Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 relevant to the application include:

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

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

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

The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the relevant aims of the Orange LEP 2011.

The relevant matters are discussed throughout the body of this report.

Clause 1.6 - Consent Authority

Clause 1.6 establishes that Council is the consent authority for the purposes of Orange LEP 2011.

Clause 1.9A - Suspension of Covenants, Agreements and Instruments

Clause 1.9A provides that any agreement, covenant or other similar instrument that restricts the carrying out of development does not apply to the extent necessary to serve that purpose, with the exception of:

· A covenant imposed by Council or that Council requires to be imposed;

· Any prescribed instrument within the meaning of Section 138A of the Crown Lands Act 1989; or

· Any conservation agreement under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974;

· Any Trust agreement within the meaning of the Nature Conservation Trust Act 2001;

· Any property vegetation plan within the meaning of the Native Vegetation Act 2003;

· Any biobanking agreement under Part 7A of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995; or

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

This clause does not affect the rights or interests of any public authority under any registered instrument.

A search of Council’s records identifies that the subject property is not affected by any of the foregoing covenants, instruments, agreements or plans.

A sewer main does, however, traverse the southern portion of the subject property. Accordingly, Council’s Engineering Department has recommended a condition of consent requiring that that the sewer main be relocated clear of the proposed building.

Clause 1.7 Mapping

The subject property 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:	Heritage item (62 Byng Street, adjacent to 60 Byng Street and 87 Hill Street) and within the Central Orange 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

The relevant matters are addressed in detail in the body of this report.

Part 2 - Permitted or Prohibited Development

Clause 2.1 - Land Use Zones and Clause 2.3 – Zone Objectives and Land Use Table

The subject property is zoned R1 General Residential zone (Figure 11).

Figure 11: Zone Context Plan - R1 General Residential Zone

(subject property identified by heavy red line)

The proposed use and development is defined as hotel or motel accommodation under the Orange Local Environmental Plan, which means:

… a building or place (whether or not licensed premises under the Liquor Act 2007) that provides temporary or short-term accommodation on a commercial basis and that:

(a) comprises rooms or self-contained suites, and

(b) may provide meals to guests or the general public and facilities for the parking of guests’ vehicles,

But does not include backpackers’ accommodation, a boarding house, bed and breakfast accommodation, a boarding house, bed and breakfast accommodation or farm stay accommodation.

Note. Hotel or motel accommodation is a type of tourist and visitor accommodation.

Tourist and visitor accommodation is permissible within the R1 General Residential Zone with the consent of Council.

The objectives of the R1 General Residential zone are:

· To provide for the housing needs of the community.

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

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

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

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

The objectives of the R1 General Residential zone focus on providing for the housing needs of the community, and services and facilities to meet the day-to-day needs of residents.

It is considered that the proposed hotel is consistent with the objectives of the R1 General Residential zone as it would provide a form of short term residential accommodation. Short term residential accommodation would meet the housing needs of some segments of the community, particularly those travelling to and seeking short term accommodation within the Orange region.

Furthermore, it is noted that the subject property is located at the periphery of the Orange Central Business District, with Hill Street and the northern boundary of 72 Hill Street forming the extent of the B3 Commercial Core zone.

Properties within the immediate vicinity of the subject property that are zoned R1 General Residential and that comprise non-residential uses, include the Orange Conservatorium of Music at 73A Hill Street, Chiropractic Centre at 85 Hill Street, Osteopath at 81 Hill Street, the Gladstone Hotel at 69 Byng Street and St Joseph’s Church at 71-85 Byng Street.

Clause 2.7 - Demolition requires development consent

Clause 2.7 identifies that demolition of a building or work may be carried out only with development consent, unless it is identified as exempt development.

Orange LEP 2011 identifies that demolition means:

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

The proposed development involves the demolition of the rear portions of the Yallungah Mansion and single storey dwelling, demolition of outbuildings and removal of trees.

As some of these works have already been undertaken, the applicant is seeking consent to regularise these works.

In accordance with Council’s standard procedure, matters in relation to carrying out works on the subject property without development consent are addressed under separate cover to avoid any confusion between the assessment of the development application and potential enforcement procedures.

Part 5 - Miscellaneous Provisions

Clause 5.9 - Preservation of Trees or Vegetation

Clause 5.9 seeks to preserve the amenity of the area, including biodiversity values, through the preservation of trees and other vegetation.

A person must not ringbark, cut down, top, lop, remove, injure or wilfully destroy any tree or other vegetation to which a development control plan applies without the authority conferred by a development consent or a permit granted by Council.

Despite the foregoing, a permit cannot be issued under Clause 5.9 in relation to a tree that is or forms part of a heritage item or that is within a heritage conservation area unless the Council is satisfied that the proposed activity is of a minor nature or is for the maintenance of the heritage item or heritage conservation area, and would not adversely affect the heritage significance of the heritage item or heritage conservation area.

Accordingly, the removal of trees is addressed under Section 5.10, below.

Clause 5.10 - Heritage Conservation

Clause 5.10 seeks to conserve the environmental heritage of Orange, the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas, including associated fabric, settings and views, to conserve archaeological sites, and to conserve Aboriginal objects and Aboriginal places of heritage significance.

The subject property comprises a heritage item, being the Yallungah Mansion (heritage item 36), and adjoins the Galbally Mansion heritage item at 60 Byng Street (heritage item I35) and the Hibernian Australasian Catholic Benefit Society (H.A.C.B.S) Hall heritage item at 87 Hill Street (heritage item I27). The subject property is also located adjacent to the Gladstone Hotel heritage item (I33) at 69 Byng Street. These properties are located within the Central Orange Heritage Conservation Area (Figure 12).

Heritage Item I198 is also shown adjacent to the subject property on Figure 12. However, based on Schedule 5 of Orange LEP 2011, I198 relates to brass footpath inlays in the pavement of Summer Street. Accordingly, this is considered to be an error in the mapping.

Figure 12: Heritage Context Plan (subject property identified by heavy red line)

Pursuant to Clause 5.10(2) development consent is required to:

· demolish the rear portions of the mansion, single storey dwelling and two outbuildings

· alter the exterior of the mansion

· alter the existing mansion by making structural changes to its interior

· erect a building on land in which a heritage item is located

· demolish trees within the garden area

Before granting consent, the consent authority must consider the effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the item or area concerned.

Council has been made aware of works that may have been undertaken onsite without development consent. The applicant has previously indicated to Council that these works include:

· demolition of a ground floor fibro addition on the southern side of the mansion

· removal of the first floor verandah, with rotten timber joists removed and replaced

· partial removal of ground floor verandah to expose rotten bearers

· removal of north-eastern verandah post and brick work to enable verandah post to be restraightened

· removal of the north-western verandah post and rebuilt to replace rotten timber

· removal of iron roof above ground floor verandah to enable scaffolding to be erected to repair roof

· new ceiling in bedrooms

· removal of upper level fire places

An inspection of the subject property also identifies that:

· some original brick brickwork has been removed from the ground level Byng Street façade to provide for a new doorway from the verandah

· an outbuilding has been demolished

· some trees may have been removed from within the garden area

Accordingly, if development consent is granted it will regularise these works.

However, Council officers consider some works to have been undertaken for the maintenance of the heritage item and for which development consent was not required.

Matters in relation to carrying out works on the subject property without development consent will be addressed under a separate report at a later date, as is Council’s usual practice.

A background to adaptive reuse of heritage items, a summary of the significance of each of the relevant heritage items and the conservation area, the comments of Council’s appointed Heritage Advisor and an assessment of the effect of the proposed development are set out below.

Adaptive Reuse

The proposed use and development is accurately characterised as an “adaptive reuse” in accordance with the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) publication “New uses for heritage places: Guidelines for the adaption of historic buildings and sites”.

The OEH defines adaptive reuse as:

“The modification of a heritage place to a new use that conserves its heritage values. Adaption may involve the introduction of new services, or a new use, or changes to safeguard a heritage item. A good adaption is one that is sympathetic to the existing building and its historic context, and inserts new work, or makes changes that enhance and complement the heritage values of the heritage item”.

The OEH identifies that the best way to conserve a heritage building, structure or site is to use it. Adaption or adaptive reuse offers new uses for old places. The new use needs to be compatible with the building, retain is historic character and conserve significant fabric, but it can still introduce new services, as well as modifications and additions.

The OEH goes on to indicate that as with all infill development, adaption can accommodate a rich variety of interpretation and expressions. Some designers may adopt a more traditional or vernacular approach, others may wish to explore a highly contemporary solution. Both are valid. It is the quality of the response that is the key and the relationship between the old and the new – a respect for the old and the inspiration it provides for the new work.

The OEH identifies that in order to achieve successful adaption; new work must be appropriate and accord with the following seven principles:

1 Understand the significance of the place

2 Find a use which is appropriate to the heritage significance of the place

3 Determine a level of change which is appropriate to the significance of the place

4 Provide for the change to be reversed and for the place’s future conservation

5 Conserve the relationship between the setting and preserve significant views to and from the heritage place

6 Provide for the long-term management and viability of the heritage place

7 Reveal and interpret the heritage significance of the place as an integral and meaningful part of the adaption project

Summary of Significance of Heritage Items and Heritage Conservation Area

Yallungah Mansion (I36)

The Orange City Council Heritage Inventory (Orange City Council Heritage Study 2012, David Scobie Architects Pty Ltd) describes the Yallungah Mansion as:

“A substantial home of two storeys with unusual verandah treatment, incorporation curved render work to ground level, plain timber to first floor and a large lattice balustrade. The walls are constructed of local brick, with contrasting colour to pointed window heads. The roof is slate. The building is enhanced by the substantial garden.”

The Statement of Significance for the Yallungah Mansion sets out the following:

“The two storey face brick residence with slate roof and distinctive return verandahs is rare within Orange as one of the collection of mansion type houses and it complements the streetscape while contributing to the Conservation Area as a heritage item”

Galbally Mansion (I36)

The Orange City Council Heritage Inventory describes the Galbally Mansion as:

“An imposing wide fronted two storey house with ground and first floor verandahs, returning on east. Verandah probably constructed approximately six months after construction of house was completed.”

The Statement of Significance for the Galbally Mansion sets out the following:

“One of seven houses of significance built in or around Orange by the Dalton family, this being the last and one which retains the traditional character, complements the streetscape and contributes to the Conservation Area as a heritage item.”

Hibernian Australasian Catholic Benefit Society (H.A.C.B.S) Hall (I27)

The Orange City Council Heritage Inventory describes the H.A.C.B.S Hall as:

“An imposing Federation building displaying simple contrasts of form and decoration and fine workmanship. Contrast of smooth render, running cornices and roughcast finish. Fabulous fringing. Bullseye windows and projecting piers add to the strong symmetrical design, emphasising the brick arched doorway. Leadlight glass to bullseye windows with elaborate plaster labelling below. Entrance hood on double shaped brackets. The front façade has a slightly projecting doorway with round headed 2 leaved doors, with arched brick lintel, sheltered by narrow bracketed timber awning. Above are 2 block bollard features, a corner and a parapet with the inscription HABCS 1917. String courses extend the sides of the building. Internally, the ceilings are pressed metal. On the property boundary, originally there was a decorative timber fence, with wrought iron panels and gates, which existed in 1987.”

The Statement of Significance for the H.A.C.B.S Hall sets out the following:

“A prominent and unusually designed Hall, of social and historic significance in relation to the Hibernian Society and now to St. Vincent de Paul, the building complements the streetscape and contributes to the Conservation Area as a heritage item.”

Gladstone Hotel

The Orange City Council Heritage Inventory describes the Gladstone Hotel as:

“A single storey mid-Victorian hotel with splayed corner entry and steep pitched hipped roof on street alignment. Six pane double hung sash windows and solid panel doors, evenly spaced along frontage. Brickwork ion English bond.”

The Statement of Significance for the Gladstone Hotel sets out the following:

“The Hotel has remained in use for over 100 years, has retained the key distinctive elements of the original character, complements the streetscape in a prominent corner location and contributes to the Conservation Area as a heritage item.”

Central Orange Heritage Conservation Area

The Statement of Significance for the Central Orange Heritage Conservation Area identifies that it consists of a range of buildings dating from the latter part of the nineteenth century and early part of the twentieth century, and that some have historical importance for reflecting the development and prosperity of Orange during that period.

The statement also identifies that the conservation area exhibits several fine examples of different architectural styles and that the building materials, mature street trees and fine parklands help to bring the area together as an aesthetically pleasing whole and as a townscape of importance.

Key characteristics of the residential areas within the Central Orange Heritage Conservation Area include:

· An important spread of Victorian buildings, especially public and ecclesiastical buildings, and many buildings from the turn of the century with late Victorian and Edwardian features which are of particular significance because of their concentration and general good condition

· Some significant Federation houses and bungalows of the twenties and thirties which make up a major element of the housing stock

· Significant common features, including the use of the vernacular ‘buff brown’ brick, corrugated iron roofs and consistent front verandah elements

Heritage Advisor Comments

The Development Application has been reviewed by Council’s appointed Heritage Advisor. A final report has been prepared by the Heritage Advisor to provide a consolidated summary of the heritage significance of the affected heritage items and Central Orange Heritage Conservation Area; details of the proposed use and development; the Heritage Advisor’s involvement in the assessment process; and the conclusions of the Heritage Advisor with regard to the requirements of Clause 5.10. The contents of the final report are reproduced below:

“The project has been the subject of a site visit, reviews of documents and advice on a number of occasions in relation to heritage matters. The following summary covers the principles and strategies presented to the Applicant and the Architect. These were discussed and presented to all the parties including Council, in order that the heritage significance of the site and setting within the Conservation Are were clearly understood and appreciated. The Heritage Advisor is an experienced Heritage Advisor and Architect and the following report covers both the assessment process and the engagement with the Applicant and the Architect in achieving an acceptable outcome related to the heritage matters.

Significance

· The site has heritage significance in relation to the Conservation Area location and as a Heritage item on the LEP. In relation to the assessment of heritage impacts, the key matters of consideration were the loss of original fabric within the building, the changes to the landscape, views to and from the heritage building and views within the vicinity of the Conservation Area of the building and the extension.

Proposal

· The proposal includes the provision of hotel accommodation within the adapted existing building and a new two storey building to the rear. Car parking is provided and a vehicle entry located on Byng Street at the existing entry and an exit to Hill Street.

· The works include landscape treatments with the planting of trees and shrubs and a range of appropriate pavements.

· The proposal was illustrated in appropriate black and white and coloured drawings and perspectives and height poles were erected in several locations to further clarify the visual impacts of the rear wing when viewed from the east.

Comments

· The project has been the subject of heritage advice which is available in the form of the original reports. The sequence included an initial site visit to establish the heritage listing and significance of materials and details, a pre-DA submission, a meeting, a formal DA submission and final revised drawings and written submission;

· At each of the stages of engagements with the Applicant and their Architect there was an exchange of information in the form of drawings and written documentation. This was assessed by the Heritage Advisor and comments and recommendations provided in response;

· The documentation submitted with the Development Application included a Statement of Environmental Effects and the heritage impact issues were addressed within the statement;

· At each stage of the process, the impact of the proposal was reviewed by the Heritage Advisor in relation to the heritage item and the conservation area. The general view was the scheme had the capacity for providing a scheme which would result in acceptable heritage impacts on the building, the setting and the Conservation Area provided a series of modifications; were made to the proposal;

· A Heritage Impact Statement (HIS) was provided by a local Heritage Architect in consultation with members of the community. The issues raised were based on a range of objections to the proposal. The statement covered the more general impacts of the proposal on the heritage building and the Conservation Area. The Heritage Advisor noted the commentary and issues raised within the HIS Report. Changes to the east and west elevations of the new rear wing were discussed with Council and a set of recommendations provided as a result of these considerations. Council adopted the recommendation for a screen consistent with a traditional verandah to the west elevation and supported the use of a privacy film on the east elevation.

Summary

· The Heritage Advisor elected not to request a Heritage Impact Statement or a Conservation Management Plan from the applicant and their Architect as the issues were dealt with according to the principles within the LEP and the DCP and consistent with the guidelines provided by the NSW Heritage Office for Statements of Heritage Impact and ‘Design in Context Guidelines for infill development in the historic environment. In addition the Applicant and the Architect adopted a flexible approach during the assessment period and a range of changes were offered in relation to the issues raised.

· In preparing the final assessment of the heritage impact however, there were outstanding matters relating to the heritage impact which were not addressed in the drawings. The advisor therefore prepared recommendations and these were put to Council planning staff to be provided by Council as Conditions of Consent, should Council choose to approve the project.

The primary issues were the retention and reinstatement of fireplaces within the listed building, the provision of an external steel structure interpreting a verandah on the west elevation to provide sunshading and privacy and an appropriate traditional character within the setting and the retention of elements from the original timber staircase.

Conclusions

1 It is the view of the Heritage Advisor that the proposal will have impacts on the heritage significance of the item and the conservation area which are acceptable. There are both positive and negative impacts for consideration. The positive impacts are related to the retention of the house and its conservation and adaptive re-use and interpretation while the negative impacts are the losses of fabric including the original timber staircase and the original rear lean to service portion. The rear extension is substantial in length and height however it is treated in a contemporary style so to distinguish it from the highly detailed original building, has a recessed junction at the meeting point and the roof line remains well below the pitched roof of the original. The general approach taken with the east and west elevations, which are minimal and glazed to reflect the surrounds and trees, is a preferred option against adopting a style modelled on the existing heritage building.

2 The Heritage Advisor has taken the view that the current documentation in conjunction with the proposed conditions and additional submissions for colours and materials and appropriate certification during construction will provide the essential controls for ensuring that the heritage significance of the item and Conservation Area will be protected. Therefore an additional Conservation Management Plan document would not be required as the objectives for conserving and protecting heritage significance would be achieved with the current regime.

3 The Heritage Advisor is of the view that a Heritage Conservation Management Plan would not achieve further protection or enhancement of the heritage significance of the item or the Conservation Area beyond what is envisaged with the current recommendations.

Provided the Proposal is carried out in accordance with the documentation and the relevant Conditions in relation to heritage matters, and is constructed and certified accordingly, the Heritage Advisor is satisfied that the development will prove to be acceptable in regard to Orange LEP 2011 Clauses 5.10 (4) – Heritage significance, (5) Heritage assessment, and (6) heritage conservation management plan

David Scobie

Heritage Advisor to Orange City Council

Thursday, 10 March 2016”

The Heritage Advisor has provided Council with recommendations to ensure that the proposed works enhance and complement the heritage significance of the listed site and significance of the remaining building, landscape and streetscape, and the wider setting and context of the conservation area.

The Heritage Advisor has identified that there are losses of original material and original landscape which require mitigation. The loss is appreciated in terms of achieving the accommodation, which is otherwise considered to meet the general planning requirements.

Based on the amended plans provided by the applicant, the Heritage Advisor has provided the following comments. The comments have been integrated where the Heritage Advisor has provided advice on separate occasions. A Council officer response is provided below each comment.

1 Confirm the nature of the fence as it is subsumed in the hedge. A suitable timber round top picket/paling timber fence and similar gates is appropriate in either terms of restoration or reinstatement where the materials are not capable of re-use. Front fence and gates subject to additional detail at CC stage - this detail will need to be supplied to the assessing officer at the time for approval prior to construction.

Officer response: Supported.

The applicant has indicated a willingness to restore or rebuild the front fence and gates to match the existing.

It is considered that this can be addressed by a condition of consent.

2 Timber lapped and capped side fences at 1800mm high are suitable to side boundaries in conjunction with the planting.

Officer response: Supported.

The submitted plans show a 2m high lapped and capped timber fence. It is noted that in previous advice, the Heritage Advisor had required a 2.4m fence. On this basis it is considered that a 2m fence will be acceptable. It is considered that this can be addressed by a condition of consent.

3 The median grass in the driveway is not traditional in these building types, adds complexity to the landscape and is not supported.

The median grass strip in the drive is not supported given the traditional character of the house and setting where gravel was standard.

Officer response: Supported.

It is considered that this can be addressed by a condition of consent.

4 A traditional gravel seal road surface in the parking and road areas is recommended. Check the specifications for the Statewide Bitumen Company and their heritage surfaces using a selected local gravel finish.

Officer response: Supported.

The amended architectural plans indicate a bitumen surface with resin-bonded sealed gravel overlay.

It is noted that Council’s Engineering Department requires all driveway and parking areas to be sealed with bitumen, hotmix or concrete and be designed for all expected loading conditions. The attached Notice of Determination includes a condition addressing this matter.

5 Retaining stair markings on walls is generally acknowledged by the architects but requires large scale design documentation.

The significant original timber staircase has been removed. It is standard practice to interpret removed significant fabric to mitigate that loss. This is highly recommended within the new space within the heritage building where the stair has been removed. There are no practical restrictions in providing these details within the space.

Officer response: Supported.

The applicant has indicated that while the markings of the stair could be incorporated into the design, it does not believe it to be consistent with the quality of interiors of newly renovated space.

Council officers are aware of similar proposals for adaptive reuse of heritage items where the markings of original features, such as stairs, have been retained and successfully integrated with an otherwise modern finish. It is considered that retention of these markings provides an important reference to the historic use, appearance and layout of the heritage item.

It is considered that this can be addressed by a condition of consent.

6 The re-use of original timber from the stairs on walls is required as mitigation for the loss of the original fabric to be demolished and requires further design documentation.

Timber elements of the original stair are to be re-used within the space as mitigation for the loss of this highly significant item. It is not arguable that an original stair could not be fundamental to understanding a two storey residence. Detailed drawings are required at the CC stage for approval relating to the incorporation of original timber in the walls of the subject area.

Officer response: Supported

The applicant has indicated that the stair is not considered to be significant and that its removal has facilitated the inclusion of new wider lobbies on both the ground and first floors, which increases the vistas of the restored interiors.

Further, the applicant also considers that there is not any scope to reuse the timber of the existing stair as the proposed location of the timber will be inappropriate in the new extension and is not considered to be consistent with the quality of interiors of the renovated space within the mansion.

Given that the stair has not previously been removed from the mansion and that the timber appears to be in relatively good condition, it is considered appropriate that it be used in an interpretive form within the renovated mansion.

It is considered that this can be addressed by a condition of consent.

7 Fireplaces are significant despite their demolition and are to be reinstated in their original locations to a suitable design and materials. All fireplaces and surrounds are equally significant and are to be conserved and reinstated to all fireplace locations and chimneys. Where these have been removed, this is unfortunate and requires a suitable redress given the significance.

There is no practical implication on the accommodation for this occur and they will enhance the heritage credentials of the project. Detailed drawings are to be provided at the CC stage.

Officer response: Supported.

The applicant has indicated that the layout of rooms suitable for a boutique hotel should override the requirement to reinstate the already demolished fireplaces, given that the original fireplaces have been retained on the ground floor in the public areas, and that the main heritage features of the house have been reinstated and restored.

Notwithstanding the applicant’s submission, it remains desirable that the original elements of the Yallungah Mansion be retained and restored to maintain its heritage significance. The former fire places are considered to be a significant aspect of the layout and design of the first floor of the building and no undue constraint on the operation will be produced by their reinstatement. Attached is a recommended condition to this effect.

8 Interpretation may consist of text and photographs from historic sources to professional graphic standards and authorship of external and internal walls and areas.

Officer response: Supported.

The applicant has previously agreed to prepare an interpretation study, including provision of history plaques within the grounds; historical photos, drawings and news articles within public areas and website.

It is considered that this can be addressed by a condition of consent.

9 While louvres provided on the revised west elevation may deal with the over-looking issue, it does not deal with the intent from former advice which sought to interpret the traditional screening verandah to modify the visual impact of the large rear extension on the setting and oblique views from the adjoining property and streetscapes.

The treatment of the west elevation – drawing 02 on A.150. A change to the proposal is essential on a range of aspects. The current contemporary treatment is consistent with louvres on demountable school classrooms but not with the character of a boutique hotel adjoining a significant property and conservation area location. A two storey steel frame which supports steel screens or louvres on the alignment of the lower balustrade is recommended. This should provide details which respect the heritage character of the adjoining property. It reduces overlooking, it prevents heat gain and glare in summer, it complements the character of the new building and it supplements the amenity of the associated accommodation.

Officer response: Supported.

In relation to this matter, the Heritage Advisor had previously made the following recommendation:

“An external independent dark grey steel framed horizontal louvered screen is to be provided to the west elevation of the guest lounge area to modify the scale and character of the glass expanse and to benefit the amenity and sunshading while retaining the benefit of the all glass design.”

The applicant has identified that the primary purpose of the louvres on the western facade is to prevent overlooking until the landscaping along the boundary has been established. The privacy screen will not be seen together with the original house given the oblique angles of the site, and this issue is therefore not considered relevant in heritage terms.

It is recommended that a condition of consent be applied requiring that amended plans be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments showing a redesigned louvre system that is consistent with the recommendations of the Heritage Advisor.

10 The use of the tree to modify the impact of the fully glazed two storey glass wall in reception is accepted in heritage terms without further screening.

Officer response: Supported.

11 The use of a stone panel in place of the ceramic at the entry in conjunction with a cor‑ten or similar steel tree symbol could be acceptable subject to detail design documentation.

Officer response: Supported.

It is considered that this can be addressed by a condition of consent.

12 A combination of the maximum possible tree planting for screening without the loss of car spaces and the gravel finish will be acceptable in heritage terms.

Officer response: Supported.

Council’s Manager City Presentation has advised that the landscape plan submitted with the development application is satisfactory.

While not specifically required by Council’s appointed Heritage Advisor or Manager City Presentation, given the prominent location of the subject property and characteristics of the adjoining properties it is considered appropriate that all proposed trees be planted semi-mature.

It is considered that this can be addressed by a condition of consent.

13 Prepare a modification to the east elevation which would include a louvre system to the upper portion of each glazed bay on the ground floor below the expressed beam and similarly on the first floor, consistent with Council requirements to limit overlooking and to provide solar control and set within an expressed steel framework related to each bay.

Officer response: Not supported.

The intent of recommendation No. 13 has been further clarified with Council’s appointed Heritage Advisor. Specifically, the Heritage Advisor has indicated that the primary purpose of recommending a louvre system on the eastern façade was to prevent overlooking and provide solar control through an architectural treatment suitable to the heritage significance of the subject property and surrounding area.

In this regard, it is noted that the louvre system is not necessarily required on the eastern façade for heritage reasons.

The applicant has also identified that this recommendation relates to planning matters and not heritage matters.

Notwithstanding, the applicant has provided further analysis of the potential for overlooking of the Hill Street properties. In particular, the applicant has stated that:

The juxtaposition of the two commercially operated buildings at 81 and 85 Hill Street, so close to the rear boundary, reduces any overlooking from the first floor to virtually nil. (sections 2 & 3).

The space between these buildings (Section 3) is predominately used for car parking on hard surface. Proposed landscaping on the boundary would satisfactorily screen any future usage of these properties.

The proposal already as the architectural treatment of a perforated metal screen to the central section of the eastern façade.

The commercially operated guest house at 79 Hill Street is shown on Section 1. It is acknowledged that initially the rear lawn would be overlooked but in time the landscape would screen the views from the upper levels of the corridor adjacent to the four most southern rooms.

A solution, which we would propose, would be to screen the upper level corridor glass with an obscure film to the glass up to 1700mm, to the southernmost section of the addition.

We would then request removal of this film, when the landscape had provided suitable screening, to the councils discretion. We consider that this could be suitably conditioned.

Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 referred to above are shown in Figures 13, 14 and 15 below.

Figure 13: Sections 1 and 2 - views to Hill Street neighbours

Figure 14: Sections 2 and 3 - views to Hill Street neighbours

Figure 15: Key Plan to Sections

This suggestion is supported and it is considered that it can be addressed via a condition of consent. However, as landscaping is not typically taken to be an appropriate form of screening, there is no in-principle agreement that Council may support removal of the obscure film in the future. Council’s appointed Heritage Advisor has not raised any fundamental concerns regarding the use of obscure film rather than a louvre system.

Further, given the possibility that both 81 and 85 Hill Street may be re-used as dwellings in the future, it is considered that the obscure film should be incorporated along the entire upper level of the eastern elevation of the proposed extension.

It is considered that this can be addressed by a condition of consent.

Notably, a number of adjoining and proximate neighbours commissioned a local architect to prepare a Heritage Impact Statement (HIS) in relation to the proposed use and development of the hotel. The HIS was received in late January 2016, well outside the public exhibition period which concluded in October 2015.

A copy of the HIS is attached to this report with all other submissions. The key issues raised by the HIS include:

· The proposal does not take any cues from the context. The additions connect to the heritage item and involve demolition of two single storey wings

· There is no breakdown of scale and volume to match the residential character and no respect for the context of a very important heritage intersection within the town. The proposed additions are completely foreign to the heritage item, the surrounding precinct and the central Conservation Area of the town

· The proposal involves significant demolition of important fabric elements within the heritage item

· The statements accompanying the application base their defence on the building not being seen from the street, which only considers the Conservation Area. The need to protect the heritage item from incompatible development is not addressed

· The change of use of the building strips it of its main heritage value, that is of no connection with the architect and original owner, William Lamrock. The new function changes the relationships of the spaces, making it impossible to read how it was used as a residence. The building must remain as a single residence to protect this association and permit the building to demonstrate this association

· The main stair within the building is a rare example of a wreathed handrail in a late Victorian building

· Changes to the first floor will remove any legibility in understanding Lamrock’s design of the upper floor

· Removal of the skillion wings and connection of a new wing directly to the historic building does not respect the curtilage of the historic building and will greatly impact its appreciation

· The demolition of many original fabric elements will cheapen the interior, especially since the building has survived with a high level of intactness to the present day

· The precinct around Yallungah is one of the most densely packed with heritage items in Orange. It is of particular value in contributing to the sense of place that residents and visitors have of Orange. The proposal has a large incompatible form that will be visible from the street and will degrade the value of the precinct

· The density of the development is excessive given the context of the heritage item and surrounding area

· The proposal makes no attempt to relate to the scale, footprint, volumes, or the landscaped setting of the context. Instead it breaks with the overwhelming character of its surrounds with a large building that competes for attention and results in a wholly incompatible structure

Council’s appointed Heritage Advisor has reviewed the HIS and revised his previous recommendations regarding the eastern and western elevations accordingly.

The applicant has been provided with a copy of the HIS, however no formal response has been received by Council.

Effect of the Proposed Development

Yallungah Mansion

The Statement of Significance for the Yallungah Mansion emphasises its two storey form, face brick construction, slate roof and distinctive return verandah as the key elements that define it as an example of the rare collection of mansion type houses within Orange. The statement also acknowledges the contribution of the mansion to the streetscape and wider Central Orange Heritage Conservation Area.

While the development would present a substantial departure from the former and existing character of the heritage item, those elements that have been identified as being significant would be preserved in their original or a restored form. In particular:

· Face brick: has been preserved and/or restored where required.

It is noted that some original brickwork has been removed from the ground level, Byng Street façade to provide for a new doorway from the verandah. The detailing of the new doorway is consistent with the original character of the mansion and will not detract from its significance.

· Slate roof: has been restored and/or replaced where required.

The applicant has noted that the original slate roof was required to be replaced to prevent further structure damage to the interior of the mansion. The new slate roof is considered to be consistent with the original character of the mansion and will not detract from its significance.

· Return verandah: will be restored to maintain the existing timber structure.

While a new glass balustrade will be installed within the upper level balcony, it will have a negligible impact on the appearance of Yallungah Mansion from Byng Street and will not detract from its significance.

Preservation and restoration of the key elements that distinguish the Yallungah Mansion as a heritage item are considered to be a positive and desirable outcome given its recent dilapidated condition and potential for complete loss of a prominent heritage item.

The most recognisable effect of the development will occur at the rear of Yallungah Mansion where the original garden, a fibro addition and timber/fibro/metal garden shed have previously been demolished and two brick additions to the rear of the mansion are proposed to be demolished to provide for the extension.

The applicant contends that the additions and garden shed were not original elements of the Yallungah Mansion, however Councils appointed Heritage Advisor indicates that the two brick skillion elements were probably likely to have contained a laundry and kitchen. It is noted that the brick additions are evident on an historic drainage plan held in Council’s records.

Removal of the substantial garden from the rear of the subject property has detracted from the original setting of the Yallungah Mansion. However, it is acknowledged that the garden was not identified as a key element of the Yallungah Mansion as a heritage item and that removal of the garden does not require development consent, with the exception of trees.

An arborist’s statement provided with the development application identifies that development consent is required for the removal of three trees from the rear of the subject property, being a Box Elder, Nettle and Deodar, each having a diameter at breast height (DBH) greater than 300mm. It is noted, however, that under Clause 5.10, development consent is required to demolish any tree which forms part of a heritage item or is located within a heritage conservation area. This is in contrast with the provisions of Clause 5.9 which, with reference to the Tree Preservation Order at Clause 0.4-2 Interim Planning Outcomes - Tree Preservation of DCP 2004, identifies that development consent is typically only required to demolish trees with a DBH greater than 300mm. Accordingly, development consent is required to demolish all trees identified to be removed from the subject property. In addition to those discussed above, these are identified as including Nettle, Pistachio and Birch species.

The arborist statement has sought to justify the removal of the larger trees on the basis of safety (Box Elder), not being an original planting of the garden (Nettle) and the compensatory effect of proposed landscaping (Deodar).

Further to the arborist statement, Council’s Manager City Presentation has undertaken an inspection of the subject property. The Manager City Presentation noted the Deodar as the only tree of significance proposed to be removed and provided the following commentary:

“Located within the rear yard of 77 Hill Street is mature Deodar cedar. This tree, although the trunk is leaning to the east before straightening vertically, appears to be in sound health and vigour. The Deodar is located centrally within the rear yard of the property and its retention would impact significantly on the proposal’s development of this area for car parking. It is regretful that such a tree should be removed as its life expectancy is considerable; however to retain and ensure it remains a viable and healthy tree a 4.35 metre radius (from trunk centre, ie 8.7 metre diameter) TPZ would be required. The proposal identifies that soil level changes (up to 500mm of fill) will be required to link the two properties for car parking; this importation of fill itself is sufficient to damage the tree’s root system and ensure the slow decline in health of the tree. As such it is regretfully agreed that this specimen should be permitted to be removed.”

Further to the arborist statement and commentary provided by Council’s Manager City Presentation, it is noted that all trees to be removed are located at the rear of 62 Byng Street and 77 Hill Street and do not contribute to the appearance of the Yallungah Mansion when viewed from Byng Street. Accordingly, it is considered acceptable that the trees be removed in this instance to facilitate the construction of the car park at the rear of the property.

Council has previously issued a permit for the removal of a Golden Elm from within the Byng Street frontage of the subject property on the basis that it was considered to be structurally compromised and posed a risk.

A Council officer has also previously undertaken an inspection of a Liquid Amber on the subject property, describing it as majorly disfigured, having no lateral branch structure and marginally alive. However, there are no Council records of a permit being issued for the removal of the tree. It is unclear whether any other trees have been removed without Council consent.

The extension will be sited entirely at the rear of the Yallungah Mansion within the space formerly occupied by the rear extensions, garden sheds and garden, and currently partially occupied by the two brick additions to the rear of the mansion. The extension has been designed to preserve the commanding presence of the mansion within the Byng Street streetscape. In particular, the design has incorporated a maximum roof height that will sit below the ridgeline of the central, western and eastern gables and has ensured that all new built form elements which protrude beyond existing side setbacks of the mansion will be set back in the order of 9m from the rear of the altered mansion building and 40m from the street frontage.

As such, the extension will be a recessive form when viewed in the context of the Yallungah Mansion and will only be visible from acute angles when viewed from within Byng Street.

Alterations to the front façade of the mansion, including installation of a new doorway to the ground level verandah and the proposed installation of two new doorways to the upper level verandah, will be consistent with the existing character of the building.

It is also considered that the contemporary architectural design of the proposed extension, including its scale, form, siting, colours and materials, are suitably sympathetic to the Yallungah Mansion, subject to meeting the recommendations of Council’s appointed Heritage Advisor.

Less recognisable from the public realm but of equal significance are the internal alterations to the Yallungah Mansion, including the previous removal of original fire places from upper level rooms, proposed removal of the original stair case and altered layout of internal walls.

The applicant has generally asserted that these works are required to successfully facilitate the adaptive reuse of the Yallungah Mansion. While this is accepted, it is considered that further works should be undertaken to retain and interpret some of these original internal features. This has been discussed in detail under the heading “Heritage Advisor Comments”.

It is considered that these works are appropriate and will not detract from the heritage significance of Yallungah Mansion, subject to meeting the recommendations of Council’s appointed Heritage Advisor.

Galbally Mansion

The Statement of Significance for Galbally Mansion identifies that it is significant for being the last of seven houses of significance built in and around Orange by the Dalton family that retains its traditional character.

While the statement does not highlight any key elements that define Galbally Mansion as a heritage item, the physical description of the property identifies it as a wide fronted, two storey house with ground floor and first floor verandahs.

As outlined in the foregoing assessment, the proposed extension will be sited at the rear of the Yallungah Mansion and has been designed to maintain the existing appearance of the Byng Street streetscape, including the appearance of Gallbally Mansion.

The proposed extension will, however, present a new 69m long, predominantly two storey form adjacent to the common boundary of 60 Byng Street. While this scale and form is not characteristic of either property, it is noted that its visual effect will generally be limited to the substantial rear garden of Galbally Mansion.

The scale and form of the proposed extension will be offset and softened by a variable setback of 2 to 5m from the common boundary at the ground level, 4 to 5.8m setback from the common boundary at the upper level, screening provided by existing trees and proposed perimeter landscaping. A 2m high timber fence is also proposed along the common boundary.

While it is considered that the architectural design and materials of the proposed extension generally achieve a suitable response to Gallbally Mansion, Council’s appointed Heritage Advisor does not consider that the louvres as currently proposed provide an adequate interpretation of the traditional screening verandah to modify the visual impact of the large rear extension on the setting and oblique views from the adjoining property and streetscape.

While the applicant has submitted amended plans to increase the level of screening of the adjoining property, it is recommended that a condition of consent be applied requiring that amended plans be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments showing a redesigned louvre system that is consistent with the recommendations of the Heritage Advisor.

Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed extension will not detract from the significance of Galbally Mansion, particularly as it is experienced from within Byng Street, subject to meeting the relevant conditions of consent.

Hibernian Australasian Catholic Benefit Society (H.A.C.B.S) Hall

The Statement of Significance for the H.A.C.B.S Hall emphasises its prominence and unusual design as the key elements that define it as a heritage item, aside from its social significance.

While the proposed extension to the Yallungah Mansion would be clearly visible in the backdrop of the H.A.C.B.S Hall, the extension will generally appear as a recessive form and will not detract from the appearance of the hall to Hill Street. In particular, the main new building element located behind the H.A.C.B.S Hall will be the predominantly glazed transition linking the Yallungah Mansion to the balance of the proposed extension. The glazed transition will not be visible above the roof line of the hall when viewed from Byng Street.

Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed extension will not significantly detract from the H.A.C.B.S Hall, particularly as it is experienced from within Hill Street.

Gladstone Hotel

Given the limited changes to the Byng Street frontage of the subject property, it is considered that the proposed use and development would not affect the significance of the Gladstone Hotel.

Central Orange Heritage Conservation Area

The Statement of Significance for the Central Orange Heritage Conservation Area identifies the spread, concentration, general good condition and significant common features of Victorian, Federation, twenties and thirties bungalows and dwellings as the key characteristic of residential areas within the conservation area.

As previously addressed, the proposed development has been designed to maintain the existing appearance of the Yallungah Mansion and the Byng Street streetscape. Accordingly, the effect of the proposed extension on the Central Orange Heritage Conservation area will be limited to its visibility between the buildings on Hill Street.

The western side of Hill Street, between Summer Street and Byng Street, comprises a mix of period dwellings and the H.A.C.B.S Hall, of which the hall and dwellings located at 79, 81, 85 and 87 Hill Street and 64 Byng Street are immediately adjacent to the subject property. Currently, the visible backdrop to these properties is the substantial trees located along the common boundary of the subject property and 60 Byng Street.

The predominately two storey form of the proposed extension will be visually prominent behind and between those buildings immediately adjacent to and proximate to the subject property, with the height of the proposed extension above existing ground level increasing from north to south.

The scale of the proposed extension in relation to these buildings is demonstrated in the 3D Fly over, 2D Elevation and 3D perspective recently provided by the applicant.

In relation to this matter, Council’s appointed Heritage Advisor has advised that:

The two storey elevation of the proposed wing remains modulated and will be improved through adoption of following modifications. It remains subservient / substantially lower than that on the significant heritage building. In relation to the Hill Street properties external to the subject site, should a second storey addition be proposed in the future to these properties, then similar guidance would be applied given their location within the Conservation Area.

In relation to the contemporary character proposed for the additional wing, it is noted that the scale, modulated bays, recessed junction to the heritage building, landscape planting and materials are sufficient to complement the heritage significance of the existing building and will not detract from the character of conservation area in this location.

Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed development would have an acceptable impact on the Hill Street streetscape and the significance of the Central Orange Heritage Conservation Area.’

Notably, the modification referred to in the first paragraph of the above quote is identified as Recommendation No 13 under the heading “Heritage Advisor Comments”. That recommendation has not been supported on the basis that it does not specifically relate to heritage matters and that the applicant has advanced a suitable alternative.

Part 7 - Additional Local Provisions

7.1 - Earthworks

Clause 7.1 seeks to ensure that earthworks for which development consent is required will not have a detrimental impact on environmental functions and processes, neighbouring uses, cultural or heritage items or features of the surrounding land; and to allow earthworks of a minor nature without requiring development consent.

Development consent is required for earthworks, unless:

(a) The earthworks are exempt development under this Plan or another applicable environmental planning instrument; or

(b) The earthworks are ancillary to other development for which development consent has been given.

Before granting development consent for earthworks, the consent authority must consider the following matters:

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

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

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

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

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

(f) The likelihood of disturbing relics;

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

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

Architectural plans submitted with the development application indicate that the extent of earthworks associated with the proposed development are in the order of 1m of cut and 0.5m of fill from the Existing Ground Level (EGL). These works are required in order to level some areas and accommodate an undercroft towards the rear of the proposed building extension.

The earthworks are considered minor and ancillary to the proposed development and do not require further assessment.

Council’s Engineering Department has, however, identified that in order for stormwater to discharge to the Hill Street kerb as proposed, it will be necessary to increase the level of the car park at the rear of 77 Hill Street in the order of 0.5m to achieve an appropriate grade.

Amended plans submitted by the applicant in relation to this matter indicate that between 250 and 665mm of fill will be required along the southern boundary of the subject property. Given that the architectural plans provide for a 2m boundary fence, it is considered more appropriate that the fence along the southern boundary, common to 75 Hill Street be reduced to 1.8m above the Finished Ground Level in order to minimise the height of the fence as experienced from the private open space of 75 Hill Street. Based on the levels indicated by the applicant, the fence would have a maximum height of 2.465 above the Existing Ground Level of the common boundary with 75 Hill Street.

Further, it is noted that the requirement for a 1.8m fence along the side of the car park and driveway adjacent to 75 Hill Street is consistent with the recommendations of the Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) prepared in support of the development application. This is discussed in further detail in the body of this report.

While it is noted that the proposed fill will increase the extent of overshadowing of the rear private open space of 75 Hill Street than what is shown on the shadow diagrams provided by the applicant, it is not considered that this increase would be significant.

It is unlikely that there are other detrimental impacts associated with the proposed earthworks.

7.3 - Stormwater Management

Clause 7.3 seeks to minimise the impacts of urban stormwater on the land to which the development applies and on adjoining downstream properties, native bushland and receiving waters.

Development consent must not be granted to development on land to which Clause 7.3 applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that the development:

(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 proposed development has been designed to minimise the impacts of stormwater on the subject property and adjoining properties.

The proposed development incorporates a system to collect stormwater from impermeable surfaces via surface inlet pits which discharge to the kerb and gutter of Hill Street. Furthermore, surface levels are to be set to ensure overland flows from hard surfaces discharge to Hill Street.

The proposed development also incorporates three 10,000 litre rainwater tanks within the lower ground floor level to capture rainwater off the roof. The stored rainwater will be used for garden irrigation and flushing of toilets. Excess rainwater will be discharged to the stormwater system.

The proposed methods of minimising the impacts of stormwater are considered suitable by Council’s Engineering Department. The attached Notice of Determination includes a condition that addresses stormwater management of the development.

7.6 - Groundwater Vulnerability

Clause 7.6 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 proposed development is not anticipated to involve the discharge of toxic or noxious substances and is unlikely to cause groundwater contamination or have an adverse effect on groundwater dependant ecosystems. The proposed development is considered unlikely to have a detrimental impact on groundwater.

7.11 Essential Services

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

Essential services are available to the subject site including electricity, sewerage, stormwater drainage and road access.

Council’s Engineering Department has advised that all necessary services are available to the property and that any requirements for services to be upgraded can be achieved, but will be at the cost of the applicant.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

State Environmental Planning Policy - Remediation of Land (SEPP 55)

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land (SEPP 55) requires that a consent authority must not consent to the carrying out of development of land unless it has considered whether the land is contaminated, is satisfied that the land is suitable in its contaminated state for which the development is proposed, and if the land requires remediation to be made suitable for the proposed development.

Furthermore, SEPP 55 requires that before determining an application to carry out development that would involve a change of use of land (specified in subclause 4), the consent authority must consider a preliminary investigation of the land concerned.

As the subject property has a long history of residential use, it is not considered likely that it would be contaminated or unsuitable for the proposed development.

It is acknowledged that asbestos materials associated with recent additions to the Yallungah Mansion may be present on the subject property. Council’s Building Surveyor has recommended a condition of consent requiring that demolition is to be carried out in accordance with the applicable Australian Standard and the requirements of SafeWork NSW.

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

· Chapter 0 - Transitional Provisions;

· Chapter 2 - Natural Resource Management;

· Chapter 3 - General Considerations;

· Chapter 4 - Special Environmental Considerations;

· Chapter 5 - General Considerations for Zones and Development;

· Chapter 7 - Development in Residential Areas;

· Chapter 13 - Heritage

· Chapter 15 - Car Parking

CHAPTER 0 - TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

Section 0.2 - General Translation of Zones

Section 0.2 - General Translation of Zones provides that any reference to a zone under Orange Local Environmental Plan 2000 is to be a reference to the corresponding zones in the zone conversion table.

The table identifies that the R1 General residential zone corresponds with the 2a Urban Residential and 2d Urban Transition zones for the purposes of the DCP.

Section 0.4-2 - Interim Planning Outcomes - Tree Preservation

Section 0.4-2 Interim Planning Outcomes - Tree Preservation seeks to prescribe the kinds of trees and other vegetation that are subject to Clause 5.9 of Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 and to establish the activities that must not occur.

Tree preservation has previously been addressed in detail under the headings “Clause 5.9 Preservation of Trees or Vegetation” and “5.10 Heritage Conservation”.

It is considered that the requirements of the DCP have been adequately addressed.

Chapter 2 - Natural Resource Management

Section2.1 - Water Quality

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

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

It is considered that the requirements of the DCP have been adequately addressed.

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

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

These matters have generally been addressed under the heading “Section 5A Assessment- Significant Effect on Threatened Species, Populations or Ecological Communities, or their Habitats” and throughout the body of this report.

Furthermore, Council’s Manager City Presentation has undertaken an inspection of the subject property to ascertain the likely impact of the proposed development on vegetation identified for retention and development of conditions of consent to ensure the retention of safe and viable trees in the long term. The Manager of City Presentation provided the following commentary:

“On the western boundary of 62 Byng Street and the adjoining neighbour are 3 trees of particular note:

· A Beech (fagus sp) located on the subject property

· A Box Elder (Acer negundo) located on the boundary, predominately on the property of 60 Byng Street, but the trunk is deflecting the common boundary wire fence.

· An Elm tree (Ulmus sp.) located on the boundary, predominately on the property of 60 Byng Street, but the trunk is deflecting the common boundary timber paling fence.

The trees are mature specimens, with their health varying from sound to moderate, and trunk diameters in the order of 600mm to 800+mm in diameter (approximated). With reference to the Australia Standard 4970-2009 each tree should have a Tree protection Zone (TPZ) erected prior to and maintained throughout construction works. The AS calls for a TPZ in the order of 7.2 to 9.6 metres in radius with the shape or weighting of the TPZ relevant to the canopy of the subject tree, level of tree maturity and aboricultural needs. As the proposed development has minor encroachments to the TPZ and proposed construction works are outside of the Structural Root Zone (SRZ) the TPZ area can be compensated for elsewhere, that being within 60 Byng Street.

The Beech tree has been impacted by past building infrastructure which at the time of this inspection has been removed. This built infrastructure would have precluded important root growth and therefore modifications to the TPZ is considered appropriate. Given the location of the trees, a significant amount of TPZ for each tree is available on the adjoining property and will not be impacted by the proposed works.

For each tree identified as being retained on the subject property, including those along the western boundary that are situated either on or immediately beyond the existing boundary fence, TPZs shall be established in line with the following clause:

· Each tree on the western side of the subject property (62 Byng Street) and those located immediately adjacent to the common boundary of 62 and 60 Byng Street shall have a Tree Protection Zone established to isolate the tree from the impact of construction disturbance including the stockpiling or storage of materials, so that the tree remains viable.

o For tree along the western boundary – the TPZ shall be erected at a minimum 4.5metres in radius from the centre of each tree and connect to the western boundary fence.

o Liquidambar – TPZ shall be 7.2 metres in diameter

Trees included:

Liquidambar – north eastern corner of 62 Byng Street

Elm – north western corner of 62 Byng Street

Beech – western boundary

Box Elder – western boundary on or immediately beyond

Elm (2) western boundary on or immediately beyond

It is noted that pruning will be required to remove branches encroaching within the building envelope. The following clause shall apply:

· All pruning work shall be undertaken to AS4373-2007 Pruning of amenity trees by a qualified arborist under the supervision of Council’s Manager City Presentation.”

It is considered that the requirements of the DCP have been adequately addressed.

CHAPTER 3 - GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

Section 3.1 - Cumulative Impacts

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

Cumulative impacts of the proposed development are addressed under the heading “Likely Impacts of the Development”.

Section 3.2 – Scenic, Landscape and Urban Areas

Section 3.2 -Scenic, Landscape and Urban Areas identifies that in urban areas consideration should be given to the character of the locality, whether that locality is recognised as having heritage character with formal plantings of exotic trees or whether the locality comprises areas developed as suburban release areas where informal native planting is common.

While the original garden has been removed from the rear of the Yallungah Mansion, detracting from its setting, the existing garden located within the Byng Street frontage will generally be retained and enhanced by the proposed development.

Further, it is noted that the Heritage Advisor has indicated the following:

“In relation to the contemporary character proposed for the additional wing, it is noted that the scale, modulated bays, recessed junction to the heritage building, landscape planting and materials are sufficient to complement the heritage significance of the existing building and will not detract from the character of the conservation area in this location.”

Council’s Manager City Presentation has advised that the landscape plan submitted with the development application is satisfactory, and that the tree species selected to be planted along the eastern boundary should not impact upon neighbouring properties.

However, it is has been recommended that the proposed Silver Birch (Betula pendula) is replaced with specimens that require less watering and which maintain good foliage density when in leaf, such as Columnare (Acer platanoides), Capital (Pyrus calleryana) or Pringreen (Quercus palustris).

It is considered that this can be addressed by a condition of consent.

It is considered that the requirements of the DCP have been adequately addressed.

Section 3.4 - Waste Generation

Section 3.4 - Waste Generation requires that applications involving demolition indicate measures that will be implemented for reuse and recycling of waste, and that development involving demolition is carried out in a manner that optimises reuse and recycling of waste materials consistent with waste-minimisation principles.

A Waste Management Plan was submitted with the development application. The plan indicates that waste will typically be transported to the Orange City Resource Recovery Centre.

It is considered that the requirements of the DCP have been adequately addressed.

CHAPTER 4 - SPECIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

Section 4.3 - Land Shaping

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

The relevant matters have previously been addressed under the heading “7.1 – Earthworks”.

It is considered that the requirements of the DCP have been adequately addressed.

Section 4.4 - Contaminated Land

Section 4.4 - Contaminated Land identifies that contaminated land can pose a risk to human health and the environment. Contaminants can be released into waterways and humans exposed when contaminated land is disturbed as a consequence of development.

The relevant matters have previously been addressed under the heading State “Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land”.

It is considered that the requirements of the DCP have been adequately addressed.

CHAPTER 5 - GENERAL CONSIDERATION FOR ZONES AND DEVELOPMENT

Section 5.3 - Advertised Development

Section 5.3 - Advertised Development identifies that Council will give written and published notice of applications for advertised development as required by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations.

Hotel or motel accommodation in a residential zone is identified as advertised development. Accordingly, the development application was advertised on Wednesday, 7 October 2015 and exhibited between Wednesday, 7 October and Tuesday, 20 October 2015.

At the end of that period 25 submissions were received. A further 26 submissions were received after that period ended, including five supporting submissions. It is noted that some submitters made multiple submissions. Any submissions made after this report is completed will be provided under separate cover.

A detailed assessment of the issues raised by the submitters is provided under the heading “Any Submissions Made in Accordance with the Act”.

Council’s Declaration of Planning and Development Assessment Procedures and Protocols identifies that upon receipt of at least five submissions objecting to a development application and where those issues are considered by Council to be reasonably capable of negotiation, a meeting will be offered to all parties in an attempt to resolve issues and find compromise prior to the matter being determined by the relevant authority.

Given the volume of submitters and range of issues identified, this requirement was addressed via an onsite meeting between the applicant, Councillors and interested parties. Interested parties were considered to be those people who were an owner of a property adjoining the subject property or had previously made a submission to Council in relation to the development application.

During the onsite meeting the applicant was invited to make a presentation regarding the proposed development while three members of the public were invited to present the concerns of the interested parties.

No substantial amendments to the proposed development were made following the onsite meeting.

CHAPTER 7 - DEVELOPMENT IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS

Section 7.7 Design Elements for Residential Development

Section 7.7 - Design Elements for Residential Development sets out the objectives and planning outcomes for residential development.

While the proposed development is defined as hotel or motel accommodation, the objectives and planning outcomes outlined in Section 7.7 are relevant considerations given that the subject property and immediate area is zoned R1 General Residential and that a number of adjoining and proximate properties contain dwellings.

Streetscape Objectives

The DCP sets out overarching objectives with regard to streetscape, including:

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

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

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

· To develop a sense of place with attractive street frontages.

· To encourage visually appealing cohesive streetscapes.

· To create a safe and secure environment.

· To provide consistent design elements that protect private investment.

The streetscape objectives are addressed by the following planning outcomes regarding neighbourhood character, building appearance, heritage, setbacks, and front fences and walls.

Neighbourhood Character

The DCP sets out 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 proposed development has been designed in accordance with the outcomes for neighbourhood character. In particular, the proposed development has been designed to maintain the existing appearance of the Yallungah Mansion and the Byng Street streetscape, with the main impact on neighbourhood character being limited to Hill Street. In this regard, it is noted that Council’s appointed Heritage Advisor has advised that the scale, modulated bays, recessed junction, landscape planting and materials will not detract from the character of the conservation area.

While original garden has been removed from the rear of the Yallungah Mansion and a number of trees are proposed to be removed, the existing garden located within the Byng Street frontage will generally be retained and enhanced by the proposed development. Further, it is noted that Council’s Manager City Presentation has advised that the landscape plan submitted with the development application is satisfactory, subject to the proposed Silver Birch trees being replaced with a more appropriate species.

It is not considered that the impact of the proposed development on the streetscape would have any impact on current pedestrian access and use.

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.

As noted above, the proposed development has been designed to maintain the existing appearance of the Yallungah Mansion and the Byng Street streetscape, with the main impact on neighbourhood character being limited to Hill Street.

Council’s appointed Heritage Advisor has advised that the scale, modulated bays, recessed junction, landscape planting and materials will not detract from the character of the conservation area.

The car park proposed to be located at the rear of the subject property will be entirely located behind the existing dwelling at 77 Hill Street and will have a negligible impact on the Hill Street streetscape.

Heritage

The DCP sets the following planning outcomes in regard to heritage:

· Heritage buildings and structures are efficiently re-used.

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

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

Heritage has previously been addressed in detail under the heading “5.10 - Heritage Conservation”. The proposed development has been designed in accordance with the outcomes for heritage.

In particular, the proposal provides for the adaptive re-use of an existing heritage item, subject to various alterations, which is considered to be a positive and desirable outcome given its recent dilapidated condition and potential for complete loss.

With regard to the significance of Yallungah Mansion, other adjoining heritage items and the Central Orange Heritage Conservation Area, Council’s appointed Heritage Advisor has stated the following, subject to meeting recommendations:

Setbacks

The DCP sets out the following planning outcomes with regard to setbacks:

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

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

The proposed development will retain the existing setback of the Yallungah Mansion from Byng Street.

Front Fences and Walls

The DCP sets out the following planning outcomes with regard to fences and walls:

· Front fences and walls:

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

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

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

Council’s appointed Heritage Advisor has recommended that the applicant confirm the nature of the Byng Street fence as it is currently subsumed in the hedge, and has indicated that a suitable timber round top picket/paling timber fence and similar gates is appropriate in terms of either restoration or reinstatement where materials are not capable of re-use.

The applicant has indicated a commitment to either restore or rebuild the existing front fence and gates to match the existing.

It is considered that these requirements of the DCP have been adequately addressed and that this matter can be addressed by a condition of consent.

Bulk and Scale Objectives

The DCP sets out overarching objectives with regard to bulk and scale, including:

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

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

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

The bulk and scale objectives are addressed by the following planning outcomes regarding visual bulk, walls and boundaries, daylight and sunlight, and views.

Visual Bulk

The DCP sets out the following planning outcome with regard to visual bulk:

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

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

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

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

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

- building to the boundary where appropriate.

The DCP identifies that appropriate visual bulk is achieved by containing buildings within an envelope generated by planes projected over the site at 45^o,commencing at 2.5m above existing ground level from each side and rear boundary and by having a site coverage not greater than 50%.

The proposed extension would generally meet these requirements, except for the middle section which would encroach up to 1m (approximately) outside of the western plane of the required building envelope. However, given that the encroachment would only be experienced from the substantial rear garden of Galbally Mansion at 60 Byng Street and that the encroachment would not detrimentally affect the amenity of that property, it is considered acceptable in this instance. The submitted plans show that the proposed development, including existing buildings, would have site coverage in the order of 35%.

While not directly addressed by the DCP, it is acknowledged that the 69m length of the proposed extension will further contribute to its sense of visual bulk as experienced from 60 Byng Street, the adjoining properties located in Hill Street and from within the Hill Street public realm. In particular, it is noted that the Hill Street properties that adjoin the subject property typically have very shallow rear gardens that would provide little visual relief.

A number of written submissions received have expressed concern regarding the overall visual bulk and height of the proposed extension and the potential impact upon the Central Orange Heritage Conservation Area. As discussed above, Council’s appointed Heritage Advisor has evaluated the submitted plans and has advised that the scale, modulated bays, recessed junction, landscape plantings and materials will not detract from the character of the conservation area, subject to meeting the Heritage Advisor’s recommendations.

There will be no change to the height of the Yallungah Mansion as it presents to the Byng Street frontage of the subject property.

The proposed development generally relates to the landform of the subject property by utilising the lower portion of 62 Byng Street for the purpose of an undercroft level and requiring negligible cut and fill. However, it is noted that the height of the proposed extension will increase towards the rear of the subject property as it slopes from north to south.

It is considered that the overall design and presentation of the development is acceptable given its relative compliance with the DCP, with the exception of the western elevation.

Walls and Boundaries

The DCP sets out the following planning outcome with 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.

All side and rear setbacks are consistent with the requirements of the DCP. No walls will be built to boundary of the subject property.

Daylight and Sunlight

The DCP sets out 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.

The DCP guidelines and Council’s Energy Smart Home Code require sunlight to be available to at least 40% of required open space for dwellings on neighbouring properties for at least three hours between 9am and 3pm and is not further reduced where existing overshadowing exceeds this requirement, and that sunlight to at least 75% of north facing living- area windows within development and on adjoining land is provided for a minimum of four hours on 21 June and is not further reduced where already less.

Shadow diagrams have been prepared in support of the proposed development. These diagrams demonstrate that due to the north-south orientation of the subject property the proposed development will generally have a minimal impact on the majority of adjoining properties. Notably, the applicant has recently advised Council that shadow diagrams have been modelled on a 1.8m fence rather than a 2m fence as proposed. While the shadow diagrams are inaccurate in this regard, it not considered that the increase in overshadowing would be significant.

While the proposed development will cause some additional overshadowing of the property at 60 Byng Street on 21 June, the extent of additional overshadowing is considered negligible given the substantial size of the private open space located to the rear of that dwelling.

The proposed development will have an increased shadow impact on the properties located at 79, 81 and 85 Hill Street. These properties are currently used for the purpose of short stay accommodation, an Osteopath and Chiropractic Centre, respectively. However, the owners of these properties have all expressed an intention to use these properties as their principal dwelling in the future.

Based on the shadow diagrams provided by the applicant, it is evident that each of these properties, including private open space, are partially overshadowed throughout the day due to the siting and height of adjacent buildings and fence lines.

While the shadow diagrams indicate that the proposed development would cause some additional overshadowing of each of these properties, this would be limited to between 2pm and 3pm.

The greatest impact of the proposed development would be on the rear private open space of the dwelling at 79 Hill Street, which is currently used for the purpose of short stay accommodation. Notwithstanding the impact, it is considered that approximately 40% of the private open space of this property would continue to receive sunlight between 11am and 2pm, in accordance with the DCP.

In addition, it is noted that the proposed fill required for the car park to drain to Hill Street will increase the extent of overshadowing of the rear private open space of 75 Hill Street by increasing the height of the boundary fence. This has not been shown on the shadow diagrams provided by the applicant. However, a detailed assessment allowing for this has been undertaken by staff and it is considered that this increase would not be significant.

Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed development would not significantly reduce the availability of daylight to habitable rooms or significantly increase overshadowing of main living-area windows or the private open space of the adjoining properties.

It is considered that these requirements of the DCP have been adequately addressed.

Views

The DCP sets the following planning outcomes with 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 proposed development will not affect views to any significant landmarks such as Mount Canobolas, Suma Park, Mount Bulga, the framing views north of Clifton Grove or the Mullion Ranges.

The proposed development will, however, affect the view of the Yallungah Mansion from the rear of the Hill Street properties. Notably, while the mansion is currently clearly visible from these properties, the historical experience of Yallungah from these properties would have been that of a garden setting.

In this regard it is considered that the proposed perimeter landscaping will partially reinstate the original garden setting and screen the Yallungah Mansion from view. However, despite the perimeter landscaping the proposed extension to the mansion will be a clearly visible and prominent form when viewed from the rear of the Hill Street properties.

The existing views of Yallungah Mansion from the public domain, particularly within Byng Street and proximate to the intersection of Byng Street and Hill Street, will be maintained.

Privacy and Security Objective

The DCP sets the following planning outcome in regard to privacy and security:

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

The privacy and security objective is addressed by the following planning outcomes regarding visual privacy, acoustic privacy and security.

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.

The proposed development has generally been designed to avoid any direct or close views into the windows or private open space of adjoining dwellings.

In particular, the eastern facade of the proposed development has been set back in excess of 9m from the properties located at 75, 79, 81 and 85 Hill Street, mitigating any potential overlooking impacts. While the proposed development is located within 6m of the property at 87 Hill Street, this property contains the H.A.C.B.S Hall which is used for the purpose of a food and drink premises and is not sensitive to overlooking.

In addition, it is noted that the floor layout of the proposed development generally only provides for corridors and some lounge/sitting areas on the eastern side of the building, with the main lounge/sitting area to be screened by a perforated metal screen.

Despite the foregoing, the applicant has recently suggested to Council that the upper level corridor within the southernmost section of the proposed extension could be screened with an obscure film to a height of 1700mm above the Finished Floor Level, preventing any opportunity for overlooking of the rear private open space of the property at 79 Hill Street, which is currently used for short term accommodation. The applicant has also indicated that a modification of the development may be sought in the future to remove the film once perimeter landscaping is established.

While a number of written submissions received raised concerns regarding privacy impacts, particularly on the Hill Street properties to the east, it is considered that with the recommended privacy measures there are no unreasonable opportunities for direct and close views from the proposed development to the residential properties to the east.

A greater potential for overlooking exists on the western side of the proposed development, with all bedroom suites orientated to the west and setback between 2 and 5.8 metres from the common boundary with the residential property at 60 Byng Street. A new lounge area for Suite 26 within the existing mansion also has an outlook to the west. A conference room and public lounge area are also located on the ground floor on the western side of the building.

On the upper level, the architectural plans indicate that views from bedroom suites would be obscured by fixed aluminium louvres. While not specified on the plans, it is considered that the louvres must prevent direct and close views of 60 Byng Street (i.e. louvres must restrict view planes to horizontal or above). No form of screening has been shown for the new lounge area associated with Suite 26. However, it is considered that as these windows are set back in the order of 8.5m from the common boundary and would be screened by the existing Beech Tree, potential overlooking would be limited.

The applicant contends that the ground level of the proposed development would not result in a loss of visual privacy to the adjoining property given the relative level, setback, and existing and proposed landscape screen between the properties.

Based on the survey and architectural plans submitted with the development application, it is evident that the Finished Floor Level (FFL) of the ground floor level units at 880.220 is higher than the Existing Ground Level (EGL) along the common boundary of the two properties. Specifically the NGL reduces from 879.35 (approximately) adjacent to the northern most ground floor unit to 878.08 (approximately) adjacent to the southernmost ground floor unit.

Accordingly, it is considered that in order to adequately prevent overlooking from the ground flood units to the secluded private open space of 60 Byng Street, it is necessary to require either a perimeter fence that has a height of 1.8m when measured from the FFL of the ground floor units, or a louvre system similar to that shown for the upper level.

Given that the requirement for a 1.8m fence when measured from the FFL of the ground floor units would require construction of a fence varying in height between 2.67m (approximately) to 3.94m (approximately) above Existing Ground Level, it is considered that a louvre system would achieve a more appropriate design outcome.

As previously discussed, Council’s appointed Heritage Advisor has identified that the proposed louvre system does not interpret the traditional screening verandah to modify the visual impact of the large rear extension on the setting and oblique views from the adjoining property and streetscapes.

Accordingly, it is recommended that a condition of consent be applied requiring that amended plans be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments showing a redesigned louvre system that is consistent with the recommendations of the Heritage Advisor and which prevents overlooking.

Further, given that the public lounge is located on the ground floor level, is set back 9m from the common boundary of 60 Byng Street and will be screened by a substantial mature tree and perimeter fencing, it is not considered that it would provide for overlooking of the adjoining property.

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.

Several written submissions were received raising concerns regarding potential noise impacts associated with the proposed hotel. In order to address this issue, Council requested that the applicant provide a Noise Impact Assessment (NIA).

NIA prepared by Acoustic Logic has now been received in support of the development application. The NIA identifies that the primary noise sources associated with the proposed use and development include use of the car park located at the rear of the site and associated driveway and the operation of mechanical equipment, including supply/exhaust fans, minor plant and condenser equipment.

In response to the assessment, the NIA recommends the installation of an acoustic treatment screen constructed of solid material, such as a lapped and capped timber fence, to a minimum height of 1.8m along the side of the car park and driveway adjacent to 75 Hill Street.

The NIA concludes that the noise emissions associated with the proposed use and development will achieve compliance with the relevant criteria subject to the recommendations being implemented.

Council’s Manager Building and Environment has reviewed the NIA and concluded that the proposal would not adversely impact on the adjoining residential receivers of the area, subject to meeting the conditions contained with the attached Notice of Determination.

Council’s Manager Building and Environment has also indicated that noise from the servicing of garbage bins on the site and from patrons walking into and out of the site at night can also be managed through the development and implementation of an Operational Management Plan for the site and also the Protection of the Environment Operations Act.

Noise from outdoor activities in the front yard of the site can be adequately managed with a condition that would restrict these activities to between the hours of 7.00am and 10pm.

It is considered that the requirements of the DCP have been adequately addressed.

Security

The DCP sets the following planning outcomes in regard to security:

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

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

The proposed hotel has generally been designed in accordance with the key principles of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED). In particular:

· Territoriality: The private space of the proposed hotel would be clearly delineated from the public spaces of the surrounding street network through the use of boundary fencing and security gates;

· Surveillance: The hotel grounds would be monitored by security cameras and will benefit from natural surveillance of guests and employees;

· Access Control: Access to the hotel would be restricted by gates and boundary fencing;

· Target hardening: While not specifically addressed by the applicant, it is reasonable to assume that internal access to the hotel would be restricted and appropriate security measures in place.

In this regard, it is not considered that the proposed use or development would detract from personal safety or increase the potential for crime, vandalism or fear.

Site Access and Circulation Objectives

The DCP sets out the following objectives in regard to site access and circulation:

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

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

The site access and circulation objectives are addressed by the following planning outcomes regarding public transport, circulation and design and car parking.

Public Transport

· Residential unit development is accessible to public transport.

While the outcome regarding public transport is not applicable to the proposed development, it is noted that the subject property is centrally located to the Orange CBD and accessible to many services and facilities.

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.

A traffic assessment prepared by Terraffic Pty Ltd was submitted with the development application.

The traffic assessment identifies that the proposed off-street car park has been designed to satisfy Australian Standard AS/NZS2890.1:2004. However, the assessment identifies that the width of the access roadway that links the car park with Hill Street is deficient by 230mm. Terraffic Pty Ltd has sought to justify the variation from the standard on the basis that:

· The access driveway is existing and cannot be widened;

· A generous turning area has been provided prior to entering the roadway in order for vehicles to be virtually parallel with the fence line before entering the corridor; and

· The largest delivery vehicle to access the site will be the 6.4m long Small Rigid Vehicle that has an overall width of 2.33m. This vehicle will have a clearance of approximately 500mm either side when travelling toward Hill Street.

A swept path analysis has also been provided with the traffic assessment in accordance with AS2890.2:2002. The swept path analysis and assessment seeks to demonstrate the ability of a 6.4m long Small Rigid Vehicle (SRV) and B99 vehicle to manoeuvre within the site and exit via the 3.37m wide corridor to Hill Street, with a 300mm clearance achieved to wall and fence.

Notably, the assessment identifies that the SRV would overhang the carpark access aisle by approximately 1m when parked within the service bay, however it is asserted that no car parking spaces would be obstructed by the parked SRV.

Council’s Engineer has reviewed the assessment and considers that car park layout, including the ingress and egress are satisfactory.

As previously addressed, the proposed development, including the car park and accessway, have been designed to manage stormwater via surface inlet pits which discharge to the kerb and gutter of Hill Street and surface levels set to ensure that overland flows from hard surfaces discharge to Hill Street.

Council’s Manager City Presentation has advised that the landscape plan submitted with the development application is satisfactory.

Disabled access is addressed at the Construction Certificate stage.

It is considered that the requirements of the DCP have been adequately addressed.

Car Parking

The DCP sets out the following planning outcomes in regard to car parking:

· Parking facilities are provided, designed and located to:

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

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

· Car parking is provided with regard to the:

- the number and size of proposed dwellings

- requirements of people with limited mobility or disabilities.

Car parking is addressed in detail below under the heading “Section 15.4 - Parking Requirements”.

Open Space and Landscaping Objectives

The DCP sets the following objectives in regard to open space and landscaping:

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

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

The open space and landscaping objectives are addressed by the following planning outcomes regarding private open space and open space and landscaping. It is noted that the open space and landscaping objectives of the DCP relate to access and car parking facilities rather than open space or landscaping.

Private Open Space

The DCP sets out 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 foregoing objectives are specific to residential dwellings and are not applicable to the proposed hotel development.

Open Space and Landscaping

The DCP sets the following planning outcomes in regard to open space and landscaping:

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

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

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

- allow cost effective management.

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

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

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

A detailed landscape plan has been submitted in support of the proposed development. Council’s Manager City Presentation has evaluated that plan and advised that the plan is satisfactory. In particular, it has been noted that the tree species selected to be planted along the eastern boundary should not impact upon neighbouring properties, aside from leaf debris. However, it is has been recommended that the proposed Silver Birch (Betula pendula) is replaced with specimens that require less watering and which maintain good foliage density when in leaf, such as Columnare (Acer platanoides), Capital (Pyrus calleryana) or Pringreen (Quercus palustris). It is considered that this can be addressed by condition of consent.

While the landscape plans provide for the retention of a number of large, mature trees, a number of trees are proposed to be removed from the rear of the subject property. Removal of these trees has been supported by an arborist’s statement. Further to the arborist statement, Council’s Manager City Presentation has undertaken an inspection of the subject property. The Manager City Presentation noted the Deodar as the only tree of significance proposed to be removed and provided the following commentary:

It is regretful that such a tree should be removed as its life expectancy is considerable; however to retain and ensure it remains a viable and healthy tree a 4.35 metre radius (from trunk centre, ie 8.7 metre diameter) TPZ would be required. The proposal identifies that soil level changes (up to 500mm of fill) will be required to link the two properties for car parking; this importation of fill itself is sufficient to damage the tree’s root system and ensure the slow decline in health of the tree. As such it is regretfully agreed that this specimen should be permitted to be removed.”

Further to the arborist statement and commentary provided by Council’s Manager, it is noted that all trees to be removed are located at the rear of 62 Byng Street and 77 Hill Street and do not contribute to the appearance of the Yallungah Mansion when viewed from Byng Street. Accordingly, it is considered acceptable that the trees be removed in this instance to facilitate the construction of the car park at the rear of the property.

Paving, including a cobblestone and bitumen (resin-bonded sealed gravel overlay) has been proposed as the main accessway and car park surface treatments. These treatments are considered appropriate from both a landscaping and heritage perspective.

Notably, Council’s appointed Heritage Advisor has identified that the median grass in the driveway is not traditional and adds complexity to the landscape which is not supported. Accordingly a condition of consent has been recommended requiring removal of the grass strip.

It is considered that the requirements of the DCP have been adequately addressed.

Water and Soil Management Objectives

The DCP sets the following objectives in regard to water and soil management:

· To control and minimise the impact of stormwater run-off and soil erosion on adjoining land and downstream.

· To encourage reduced water wastage by reusing, recycling and harvesting stormwater.

The water and soil management objectives are addressed by the following planning outcomes regarding stormwater, and erosion and sediment control.

Stormwater

The DCP sets the following planning outcomes in regard to stormwater:

· Onsite drainage systems are designed to consider:

- downstream capacity and the need for onsite stormwater retention, detention and re-use;

- scope for onsite 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.

Stormwater has previously been addressed in detail under the heading “7.3 - Stormwater Management” and is considered satisfactory.

It is considered that the requirements of the DCP have been adequately addressed.

Erosion and Sediment Control

The DCP sets out the following planning outcomes in regard to erosion and sediment control:

· A Stormwater and Soil Management Plan as required by the Development and Subdivision Code demonstrate how sedimentation and erosion of disturbed areas will be managed on the site.

· All disturbed areas are re-stabilised and revegetated as soon as practicable during development.

Council’s Building Surveyor has recommended a condition of consent requiring soil erosion measures to be implemented onsite prior to works commencing.

It is considered that the requirements of the DCP have been adequately addressed.

CHAPTER 13 - HERITAGE

Sections 13.1-13.06 of Chapter 13 - Heritage of the DCP address heritage matters in detail, including heritage objectives, heritage items and heritage conservation areas, heritage consideration for development, development in the vicinity of heritage items, heritage proposals as advertised development, and incentives for heritage conservation.

These matters have previously been addressed in detail under the heading “Clause 5.10 - Heritage Conservation”.

It is considered that the requirements of the DCP have been adequately addressed.

CHAPTER 15 - CAR PARKING

Section 15.4 - Parking Requirements

Section15.4 - Parking Requirements sets out the minimum parking requirements for specific land uses.

The DCP identifies that a motel generates a minimum car parking requirement of:

· one space per unit

· one space for each resident manager

· one space for every two employees

· one space for every three seats in a restaurant

· one space per 10m² of entertainment or function room areas

The applicant has identified that the facilities and services offered by the hotel would not be available to the general public. On this basis it is considered that the restaurant and conference room do not need to be taken into consideration in the calculation of minimum car parking requirements.

Furthermore, the applicant has forecast an average weekly occupancy rate of 70% and indicates that casual staff will be onsite at different times throughout the day. In this regard it is open to Council to determine whether or not a dispensation from the minimum car parking requirements should be granted. However, it is not considered to be appropriate in this instance.

It is considered that the proposed hotel generates the following car parking requirement:

· 28 units = 28 car parking spaces

· One resident manager = 1 car parking space

· Four Full time employees = 2 car parking spaces

· Eight casual employees = 4 car parking spaces

As such, the proposed hotel generates a requirement for a total of 35 car parking spaces.

As the proposed development provides for 28 onsite car parking spaces, there is a shortfall of seven spaces. In accordance with the Orange Car Parking Development Contribution Plan 2015, Council may impose conditions on a development consent requiring the payment of a monetary contribution for the shortfall of parking to ensure that the equilibrium in car parking demand and supply is maintained.

It acknowledged that both 62 Byng Street and 77 Hill Street have historically been used for the purpose of a dwelling house. As each property included sufficient space for two car parking spaces it is not considered that a credit for car parking spaces should be applied.

A contribution of $13,841.73 is applied per deficient car parking space for all developments that involve the creation of a net additional gross floor area on the development site. The relevant condition is calculated as follows:

7 car parking spaces x $13,841.73 = $96,892.11

It is recommended in this case that a condition of consent be applied requiring that the applicant make a cash contribution towards the provision of car parking in lieu of its actual provision on the site.

Given the proximity of the subject property to the Orange CBD and the public car park located 200m (approximately) to the east (accessed from Hill Street via Little Summer Street) it is considered that the shortfall of onsite parking can be accommodated within a reasonable distance of the proposed hotel.

In addition, it is noted that four of the proposed car parking spaces are identified as being small car parking spaces. Council’s Engineering Department has commented that the relevant Australian Standard is silent on the maximum number of small car parking spaces to be provided within a carpark, with the final number being at the discretion of the consent authority. In this regard, Council’s Engineering Department consider that number of small car parking spaces provided is reasonable.

It is considered that the requirements of the DCP have been adequately addressed.

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

Demolition of a Building (clause 92)

The proposal involves the demolition of the rear portion of the existing mansion. A condition is attached requiring the demolition to be carried out in accordance with Australian Standard AS2601 - 2001: The Demolition of Structures.

Fire Safety Considerations (clause 93)

Council’s Building Surveyor has identified that fire safety considerations are to be addressed at the Construction Certificate stage. Such considerations would include emergency service vehicle access. It is acknowledged that the site has some physical restrictions for emergency service vehicles and these may result in the need for an alternative fire engineered solution that would need to be approved by NSW Fire and Rescue and the appointed Principle Certifying Authority.

Buildings to be Upgraded (clause 94)

Council’s Building Surveyor has identified that the existing dwelling is to be upgraded to suite the new classification. This is addressed by a prescribed condition of consent.

BASIX Commitments (clause 97A)

Council’s Environmental Health and Building staff advise that matters in relation to the energy efficiency of the building would be considered by the Principle Certifying Authority at the Construction Certificate stage of the development.

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

Context and Settings

The subject property is located within a predominately residential area at the periphery of the Orange CBD. The area is generally characterised by single and double storey period dwellings to the west, with a greater prevalence of commercial buildings and uses to the east.

Non-residential uses located proximate to the subject property include the Orange Conservatorium of Music at 73A Hill Street, the De Russi Suites at 72 Hill Street, Chiropractic Centre at 85 Hill Street, Osteopath at 81 Hill Street, a car wash at 65 Summer Street, the Gladstone Hotel at 69 Byng Street and St Joseph’s Church at 71-85 Byng Street.

The history of the area and integrity of the historic streetscapes is acknowledged by the widespread application of the Central Orange Heritage Conservation Area and individual property listings.

The potential impacts of the proposed use and development on its context and settings have been addressed in the body of this report. In summary, it is considered that:

· The subject property is strategically located at the periphery of the Orange CBD and the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding land use mix

· The use and development will not adversely significantly impact on the amenity of adjoining and proximate residential properties. It is, however, acknowledged that the height and length of the proposed extension emphasise the sense of visual bulk experienced from the Hill Street properties and the Hill Street public domain

· The use and development will not detract from have an acceptable impact the heritage significance of the Yallungah Mansion, Gallbally Mansion or H.A.C.B.S Hall

· The extension will not detract from have an acceptable impact on the character of the conservation area.

Access, Transport and Traffic

A number of written submissions received raised concerns regarding potential impacts associated with increased vehicle movements within Hill Street and Byng Street, and increased demand for off-street car parking spaces.

Car parking and access have been addressed in detail in the body of this report. Council’s Engineer considers that car park layout, including ingress and egress are satisfactory.

In addition, the assessment prepared by Terraffic Pty Ltd provides an assessment of the likely potential number of evening peak hour trips generated by the proposed hotel based on the Roads and Maritime Service (RMS) “Guide to Traffic Generating Development”.

Specifically, the assessment identifies that the proposed hotel would generate a maximum of 11.2 vehicle traffic movements during the evening peak. Taking into consideration the original residential use of the subject property, the additional traffic generated by the proposed hotel is reduced to nine vehicle traffic movements per hour.

The assessment goes on to state that the additional traffic generated by the proposed hotel is relatively minor and will not have any noticeable or unacceptable effect on the road network serving the site in terms of road network capacity or traffic related environmental effect, and that the proposed development does not have unacceptable traffic implications.

While not addressed by the assessment prepared by Terraffic Pty Ltd, the RMS guide indicates that the proposed development would generate 84 daily vehicle trips.

Council’s Engineer considers that there will be negligible impact on the local traffic network as a result of the increase in traffic movements. However, in order to avoid potential conflict between traffic exiting the driveway of 77 Hill Street and pedestrians, it has been recommended that the southern boundary fence forward of the building line be limited to a maximum of 1.2m in height.

In addition, it is considered that the security gate should be set back from the street frontage and behind the front building line of the existing dwelling at 77 Hill Street.

It is considered that this can be addressed by a condition of consent.

Public Domain

The proposed development will not impact on the proximate public domain.

Utilities

Council’s Engineer has identified that all necessary utilities are available to the subject property and that any required upgrade would be at the cost of the applicant

Heritage

Heritage has been addressed in detail in the body of this report.

It is considered that the proposed development has been suitably designed to maintain the significance of the Yallungah Mansion, Galbally Mansion and the H.A.C.B.S Hall heritage items, and the integrity of the Byng Street streetscape.

The development application has been evaluated by Council’s appointed Heritage Advisor. The Heritage Advisor has made recommendations to ensure that the proposed works enhance and complement the heritage significance of the listed site and significance of the remaining building, landscape and streetscape and the wider setting and context of the Conservation area.

Accordingly, the proposed use and development is considered to be an appropriate infill development in the context of the wider Central Orange Heritage Conservation Area.

Other Land Resources

The proposed use and development will not affect other land resources such as agricultural land, mineral and extractive resources, or the water supply catchment.

Water

Water quality is addressed in detail in the body of this report. It is not considered that the proposed development will have a detrimental impact on water quality.

Soils

The proposed use and development will not have a detrimental impact on soil conservation.

Air and Microclimate

The proposed use and development is unlikely to have a detrimental impact on air quality or microclimate.

Asbestos materials associated with the Yallungah Mansion may be present on the site. Council’s Building Surveyor has recommended a condition of consent requiring that all building demolition is to be carried out in accordance with the relevant Australian Standard and the requirements of the NSW Work Cover Authority.

Flora and Fauna

Flora and fauna have been considered in detail in the body of this report.

The development application proposes the removal of three trees from the subject property, being a Box Elder, Nettle and Deodar, each having a diameter at breast height (DBH) greater than 300mm. It is noted, however, that development consent is required to demolish any tree which forms part of a heritage item or is located within a heritage conservation area. Accordingly, development consent is required to demolish all trees identified to be removed from the subject property. In addition to those discussed above, these are identified as including Nettle, Pistachio and Birch species.

The arborist statement has sought to justify the removal of these trees on the basis of safety (Box Elder), not being an original planting of the garden (Nettle) and the compensatory effect of proposed landscaping (Deodar).

Based on an inspection of the subject property and taking into consideration its urban context, it is considered that removal of trees:

· Is unlikely to have an adverse effect on the life cycle of a threatened species or endangered population such that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction;

· Is unlikely to have an adverse effect on the extent or substantially and adversely modify the composition of an endangered or critically ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction;

· Is unlikely to effect the extent, fragment or isolate the habitat of a threatened species, population or ecological community; and

· Is unlikely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat.

Council officers are not aware of any applicable recovery plan or threat abatement plan. The removal of the trees would not constitute a key threatening process.

Waste

The applicant has advised Council that they have achieved an in principle agreement with an external waste removal contractor to service the proposed hotel with two skip bins located within an enclosure at the lower ground floor undercroft. The skip bins are to be removed by a small truck with a tare weight of 4.1 tonnes. It is considered that a waste management agreement should be required by condition of consent.

Energy

Noise and Vibration

A Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) was provided with the development application.

The NIA concludes that the noise emissions associated with the proposed use and development will achieve compliance with the relevant criteria subject to the recommendations being implemented.

Council’s Manager Building and Environment has reviewed NIA and concluded that the proposal would not adversely impact on the adjoining residential receivers of the area, subject to meeting the conditions contained with the attached Notice of Determination.

Natural Hazards

There are no known natural hazards associated with the proposed used and development.

Technological Hazards

There are no known technical hazards associated with the proposed used and development.

Safety, Security and Crime Prevention

The proposed hotel has generally been designed in accordance with the key principles of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED). In particular:

· Surveillance: The hotel grounds would be monitored by security cameras and will benefit from natural surveillance of guests and employees;

· Access Control: Access to the hotel would be restricted by gates and boundary fencing;

· Target hardening: While not specifically addressed by the applicant, it is reasonable to assume that internal access to the hotel would be restricted and appropriate security measures in place.

In this regard, it is not considered that the proposed use or development would detract from personal safety or increase the potential for crime, vandalism or fear.

Social Impacts

It is not considered that there will be any detrimental social impacts associated with the proposed hotel. In particular, it is noted that the proposed hotel and its associated facilities and services are not available to the general public and that the hotel does not include a facility licensed to serve alcohol.

Economic Impacts

It is considered that the proposed development will have a positive economic impact on the local area through investment in the development of the hotel, further opportunities for employment within the Orange Region and further attraction of tourists.

Site Design and Internal Design

The detailed design of the proposed development has been addressed throughout the body of this report. It is considered that the proposed development has been suitably designed to responded to the key opportunities and constraints of the subject property and achieves a suitable internal layout and external appearance.

Cumulative Impacts

The DCP outlines that in determining a development application, Council will consider not only the direct impacts of a particular development but also whether the development, when carried out in conjunction with other development in the locality, has a more significant environmental impact.

As an example, in urban areas the DCP identifies that the amenity of a residential area may be affected by a concentration of non-residential units, and that developments such as residential units and dual occupancy should be located and designed in a way that fits in with the predominant low-density character of the City’s residential areas.

With regard to the proposed development, it is considered that it has the potential to have a cumulative impact on:

· The significance of the Yallungah Mansion, other adjoining and proximate heritage items; and the Central Orange Conservation Area;

· The local street network in terms of traffic flow and availability of on-street parking; and

· Residential amenity in terms of the noise and light associated with the use of the proposed hotel and the visual bulk of the proposed two storey extension and lower ground floor under croft.

However, notwithstanding the potential cumulative impacts, it is considered that each issue has been appropriately assessed in this report, that the proposed use and development is suitable in its context, and that it will not have a significant cumulative impact which exceeds reasonable community expectations.

There may be cumulative impacts associated with other future use and development of properties within the vicinity of the subject property. Those impacts will be assessed at the Development Application stage.

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

The subject property is considered suitable for the proposed use and development given that it is located at the periphery of the Orange CBD within an area characterised by a mix of uses and that will not have any unreasonable off-site impacts. There are no physical constraints of the site which render it unsuitable and all appropriate utilities are available.

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

The proposed development is defined as "advertised development" under the provisions of Council’s DCP 2004 and the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations. Notice of the development application was given in accordance with Section 88 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations. No public authorities were identified as having an interest in the determination of the application.

The application was advertised for the prescribed period of 14 days and at the end of that period 25 submissions were received. It is noted that some submitters made multiple submissions. A further 26 submissions were received after that period ended, including five supporting submissions. All of these submissions have been taken into consideration in this assessment.

In summary, the submissions raised issues regarding:

· impacts on adjoining properties (overlooking, overshadowing, noise, light spill, visual bulk, air pollution, damage to trees, impacts of proposed trees, risk of structural damage, property devaluation)

· increased traffic congestion within Hill Street and Byng Street, including risk to pedestrian safety

· lack of/inadequate parking

· impacts on significance of heritage items and the Central Orange Heritage Conservation Area

· waste management

· signage

· emergency access

· lack of community consultation

· developer contributions

· Council process

· disabled access

Each of these concerns is commented upon as follows:

Impacts on Adjoining Properties

The residents/occupants of the adjoining properties at 60 Byng Street; 64 Hill Street, 85 Hill Street, 81 Hill Street, 79 Hill Street and 75 Hill Street have raised concerns regarding the following matters:

Privacy (overlooking)

Overlooking has been addressed in detail in the body of this report.

To the west it is considered that potential overlooking of the private open space of 60 Byng Street can adequately be controlled by fencing and a fixed, external louvre system with limited transparency. Conditions to this effect are recommended.

To the east it is considered that the visual privacy of the Hill Street properties will be adequately protected by a 9m setback from each residential property boundary, the metal screening of lounge/sitting areas and a condition of consent requiring that the upper level corridor on the eastern elevation of the proposed extension be screened with an obscure film to a height of 1700mm above floor level.

Overshadowing

Overshadowing has been addressed in detail in the body of this report.

While the shadow diagrams are inaccurate in this regard, it not considered that the increase in overshadowing would be significant.

While the proposed development will cause some additional overshadowing of the property at 60 Byng Street on 21 June, having regard to Council’s planning controls and standards, the extent of additional overshadowing is considered negligible given the substantial size of the private open space located to the rear of the dwelling.

The proposed development will have an impact on the properties located at 79, 81 and 85 Hill Street. These properties are currently used for the purpose of serviced short stay accommodation, an Osteopath and Chiropractic Centre, respectively. However, the owners of these properties have all expressed an intention to use these properties as their principal dwelling in the future.

Based on the shadow diagrams provided by the applicant, it is evident that each of these properties, including their private open space, are partially overshadowed throughout the day due to the siting and height of adjacent buildings and fence lines. While the shadow diagrams indicate that the proposed development would cause some additional overshadowing of each of these properties, this would be limited to between 2 and 3pm.

The greatest shadow impact of the proposed development would be on the rear private open space of the dwelling at 79 Hill Street, which is currently used for the purpose of short stay accommodation. Notwithstanding the impact, it is considered that approximately 40% of the private open space of this property would continue to receive sunlight between 11am and 2pm.

In addition, it is noted that the proposed fill required for the car park to drain to Hill Street will increase the extent of overshadowing of the rear private open space of 75 Hill Street. This has not been shown on the shadow diagrams provided by the applicant. However, it is not considered that this increase would be significant. A detailed assessment of such was undertaken by staff that indicated that the fence height would not adversely affect shadow impacts on this property having regard to Council’s planning controls and standards.

Accordingly, it is not considered that the proposed development would significantly reduce the availability of daylight to habitable rooms or significantly increase overshadowing of main living-area windows or the private open space of the adjoining properties.

Residential Amenity (noise)

Acoustic privacy has been addressed in detail in the body of this report.

A Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) was submitted with the development application. That assessment identifies that the noise emissions associated with the proposed use will achieve compliance with the relevant criteria, subject to recommendations being implemented.

Residential Amenity (light spill)

While a lighting plan has not been provided with the development application, the applicant has indicated that lighting will be bollard lighting below fence height with a downward spill.

Council’s Building Surveyor has recommended a condition of consent that requires glare from internal lighting not to be permitted to extend beyond the limits of the building authorised by the approval, and that ancillary light fittings fitted to the exterior of the building are to be shielded or mounted in a position to minimise glare to adjoining properties.

In addition, a condition of consent is recommended requiring that a lighting plan be submitted prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate demonstrating compliance with Australian Standard AS 4282-1997 - Control of the Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting.

Furthermore, given the extent of glazing proposed on the eastern facade of the proposed extension, it is recommended that glazing may include a body tint without any external reflective coating to minimise potential impacts on the Hill Street properties. Further, it is considered that the applicant should be required to demonstrate how the proposed glazing will not create an unreasonable level of glare prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Residential Amenity (loss of amenity and privacy from original garden)

While the original garden setting of 62 Byng Street would have complemented the amenity of the adjoining residential properties, that amenity is considered to be “borrowed” and cannot be relied upon by an adjoining property owner.

Visual Bulk

Visual bulk has been addressed in detail in the body of this report.

The proposed development would exceed Council’s guidelines for appropriate visual bulk on part of the western side of the proposed development. The sense of visual bulk experienced would be further emphasised by the 69m length of the proposed development.

The encroachment is considered acceptable as it provides modulation that helps to improve the appearance of the proposed addition and would only be experienced through existing and proposed screening vegetation from within the substantial rear garden of Galbally Mansion at 60 Byng Street, and because it would not have an excessively detrimental effect on the amenity of that property.

While the proposed development would meet the DCP guidelines for appropriate visual bulk on the eastern side of the development, the 69m length of the proposed development would emphasise the sense of visual bulk experienced from the Hill Street properties. In particular, it is noted that the Hill Street properties that adjoin the subject property typically have very shallow rear gardens that would provide little visual relief.

Council’s appointed Heritage Advisor has evaluated the submitted plans and has advised that the scale, modulated bays, recessed junction, landscape planting and materials will not detract from the character of the conservation area. Further discussion in relation to overall design of the building and its impact upon the heritage conservation area has been provided in the body of this report.

Air Pollution (kitchen fumes)

Council’s Building Surveyor has recommended a condition of consent requiring an Operational Management Plan relating to the hotel operations. The Plan shall include measures to appropriately mitigate operational noise (including noise from plant, patrons/pedestrians entering/leaving the site, waste collection and deliveries) along with measures to mitigate odours and fumes that could be emitted from the kitchen or waste storage area.

Clarification of Use - what time of the day will ‘high teas’ and ‘similar functions’ occur? Will they be available to the public?

The applicant has advised that all services and facilities offered by the proposed hotel would be restricted to overnight stay guests.

While the applicant has not provided specific details regarding the times that these services would be offered, given the residential nature of adjoining properties it is considered appropriate that all organised outdoor activities and services on the Formal Lawn Area of the site be limited to the hours of 7am - 10pm to protect their amenity. It is considered that this can be addressed by a condition of consent.

Trees - construction may damage the root system of old trees located on common boundary

Council identified that that the development would be constructed within the drip zone/ root zone of a mature tree located on the adjoining property to the west. An additional submission from the applicant’s arborist identified that as the building involves piers, potential disturbance would be limited to two 300mm holes. While the arborist acknowledged that the two holes would be located in the drip zone of the tree and that some severance would occur, it is his opinion that there would be negligible impact on the health, stability and longevity of the tree.

The Manager of City Presentation provided the following commentary:

“On the western boundary of 62 Byng Street and the adjoining neighbour are 3 trees of particular note:

· A Beech (fagus sp) located on the subject property

· A Box Elder (Acer negundo) located on the boundary, predominately on the property of 60 Byng Street, but the trunk is deflecting the common boundary wire fence.

· An Elm tree (Ulmus sp.) located on the boundary, predominately on the property of 60 Byng Street, but the trunk is deflecting the common boundary timber paling fence.

o For tree along the western boundary – the TPZ shall be erected at a minimum 4.5metres in radius from the centre of each tree and connect to the western boundary fence.

o Liquidambar – TPZ shall be 7.2 metres in diameter

Trees included:

Liquidambar – north eastern corner of 62 Byng Street

Elm – north western corner of 62 Byng Street

Beech – western boundary

Box Elder – western boundary on or immediately beyond

Elm (2) western boundary on or immediately beyond

It is noted that pruning will be required to remove branches encroaching within the building envelope. The following clause shall apply:

· All pruning work shall be undertaken to AS4373-2007 Pruning of amenity trees by a qualified arborist under the supervision of Council’s Manager City Presentation.”

Trees - impact on adjoining properties

Council’s Manager City Presentation has identified that the trees selected to be planted along the eastern boundary of the development being Horn beam (Carpinus betulus ‘Fastigiata’) is an upright narrow (to 6m wide) small sized tree (10m high) which is useful where lateral space is limited. The species is not known for issues, leaf debris aside, as the species is deciduous; and where the environment is urban windblown, detached vegetative material would present minor inconvenience. The species is often used in avenue planting and should not impact on neighbouring properties.

Leaf debris is not considered to be a relevant planning consideration.

Council Process - Council did not advise of the previous demolition of structures, garden and trees from the rear of the site

Council has been made aware of some works previously undertaken without development consent. Those works have been addressed as part of the current development application. Matters in relation to carrying out works on the subject property without development consent will be addressed under separate cover, consistent with Council’s usual practice.

Where works are undertaken without Council’s knowledge, Council has no scope to advertise to adjoining and proximate landowners.

Clarification of Surrounding Uses - the development application incorrectly identifies that the properties along Hill Street are used for commercial purpose. The properties at 79, 73, 75, 81 and 83 Hill Street are residential properties.

The Hill Street properties, with the exception the H.A.B.C.S Hall, have been treated as residential properties for the purpose of this assessment. However, it is noted that 79, 81 and 85 Hill Street are currently used for short stay accommodation, an Osteopath and Chiropractic Clinic respectively.

Engineering - risk of structural damage to adjoining properties

Risk of structural damage is generally not considered to be a relevant planning consideration. However, considering the historic nature of proximate buildings to the subject property, it is recommended that a condition of consent be applied requiring that the applicant shall supply Council with a dilapidation report for the adjoining properties at 75 and 79 Hill Street as well as 60 and 64 Byng Street which documents and photographs the condition of buildings and improvements on those properties. A copy of the report must be provided to Council and the owners of the nominated properties and Council shall be provided with a list of owners to whom a copy of the report has been provided.

Engineering - well/s and active water table have been identified on the subject property

This matter would need to be addressed by the developer prior to, or during construction as required.

Commercial Levels of Vehicle and Foot Traffic Along Driveway Impacting on 75 Hill Street

While the proposed hotel will increase the volume of traffic adjacent to the northern boundary of 75 Hill Street, the NIA provided with the development application indicates that the noise emissions associated with the proposed use and development will achieve compliance with the relevant criteria subject to the installation of an acoustic treatment screen along the side of the car park adjacent to 75 Hill Street.

Furthermore, the assessment prepared by Terraffic Pty Ltd indicates that the additional traffic generated by the proposed hotel is relatively minor and will not have any noticeable or unacceptable effect on the road network serving the site in terms of road network capacity or traffic related environmental effect, and that the proposed development would not have unacceptable traffic implications.

Developer Contributions - is the developer willing to contribute to cost of works required to offset the impact of the proposed use, including double-glazed windows, 1.8m double brick fence and leaf gutter stoppers?

The attached Notice of Determination includes conditions that require the applicant to make changes to the proposed development and to provide perimeter treatments that are considered necessary to protect the amenity of adjoining residential properties. Any additional works sought by adjoining property owners may be negotiated with the applicant.

Property Devaluation

Property value is not considered to be a relevant planning consideration.

Clarification of Use - has a liquor licence been sought? Unacceptable for residential property to adjoin two licenced premises in a residential area. 85 Hill Street is already affected on Friday and Saturday nights.

The development application does not indicate an intention to obtain a liquor licence, however this would not preclude the applicant from seeking a licence in the future. Liquor licences are issued at the discretion of the NSW Police, not Local Government. However, it is acknowledged that a hotel is a use for which a liquor licence may be granted.

OTHER ISSUES

Traffic - increased traffic flow and congestion within Hill Street and Byng Street, pedestrian safety

Traffic has been addressed in detail in the body of this report.

A traffic assessment was submitted with the development application. That assessment identifies that the proposed hotel would generate a maximum of 11.2 vehicle traffic movements during the evening peak. Taking into consideration the original residential use of the subject property, the additional traffic generated by the proposed hotel is reduced to 9 vehicle traffic movements per hour.

While not addressed by the assessment prepared by Terraffic Pty Ltd, the RMS guide indicates that the proposed development would generate 84 daily vehicle trips. Council’s Engineer considers that there will be negligible impact on the local traffic network as a result of the increase in traffic movements. However, in order to avoid potential conflict between traffic exiting the driveway of 77 Hill Street and pedestrians, it has been recommended that the southern boundary fence and any front fence forward of the building line be limited to a maximum of 1.2m in height.

It is considered that this can be addressed by a condition of consent.

Parking (increase in on-street parking demand)

Parking has been addressed in detail in the body of this report.

As the proposed development provides for 28 onsite car parking spaces, there is a shortfall of seven spaces. Subject to the Orange Car Parking Development Contribution Plan 2015, Council may impose conditions on a development consent requiring that the equilibrium in car parking demand and supply be maintained.

Given the proximity of the subject property to the Orange CBD and the public car park located 200m (approximately) to the east (accessed from Hill Street via Little Summer Street), it is considered the shortfall of onsite parking can be accommodated within a reasonable distance of the proposed hotel.

In addition, it is noted that four of the proposed car parking spaces are identified as being small car parking spaces. Council’s Engineering Department has commented that it is not aware of any limit on the number of small car parking spaces to be provided in a car park.

Works Undertaken Without Approval

Council has been made aware of works that have been undertaken onsite without development consent. These works include the demolition of a rear fibro addition to the mansion and two asbestos outbuildings, alteration of the existing mansion by making structural changes to its interior and exterior, and demolition of trees within the garden area.

This matter is to be addressed under separate cover at a future Council meeting.

Heritage Character/Neighbourhood Character

Heritage has been addressed in detail in the body of this report.

The development application has been evaluated by Council’s appointed Heritage Advisor. The Heritage Advisor has made recommendations to ensure that the proposed works enhance and complement the heritage significance of the listed site and significance of the remaining building, landscape and streetscape, and the wider setting and context of the Conservation area.

Accordingly, the proposed use and development is considered to be an appropriate infill development in the context of the wider Central Orange Heritage Conservation Area.

Disabled Access – does the proposed development meet the relevant Australian Standard for disabled access?

Council’s Building Surveyor has advised that disabled access is to be addressed at the Construction Certificate stage.

The Development Application is not on Display at Council

The development application was advertised on Wednesday 7, October 2015 and exhibited between Wednesday, 7 October and Tuesday, 20 October 2015. During this period the development application was available to be viewed at the main reception desk, with all other development applications advertised during the same period.

Waste Management

It is considered that a Waste Management Plan (WMP) should be required by condition of consent.

Lack of Community Consultation

The development application has been advertised in accordance with Council protocols. In addition, it noted that Council has accepted and considered issues raised in submissions lodged after the public exhibition period and that interested members of the public (being adjoining land owners and submitters) were invited to an onsite meeting.

Signage

The development application does not seek consent for signage. Unless signage can be erected as exempt or complying development, a separate development application would be required for signage. All development applications are assessed on merit.

Councillor Conflict of Interest

Issues regarding conflict of interest are not a relevant planning consideration. Issues of conflicts of interest for individual Councillors are matters for consideration by the individual Councillor and are subject to Council’s adopted Code of Conduct.

As the owner of the adjoining land and as the determining authority under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, Council cannot divest itself of the circumstances which give rise to the conflict of interest, and therefore the conflict requires to be managed.

Infill Development Policy

Council’s Development Control Plan 2004 is currently under review and in draft form awaiting the outcomes of Council amalgamations. The Department of Planning has advised that no planning documents would be adopted until such time as this process has played out. The Infill Policy will form a chapter of the new DCP.

Accuracy of Height Poles at Onsite Meeting and Tape Between Poles

The applicant has provided a survey of the height poles erected for the purpose of the onsite meeting. The applicant has advised Council that the height pole survey found that in comparison to the RLs shown on the roof plan, there were five height poles that accurately represent the proposed RLs. There are four height poles that are higher than the proposed RL (between 30mm and 180mm). There is one height pole that is 60mm lower than the proposed RL.

Notwithstanding the variation between the height poles and the proposed RLs, the applicant has asserted that height poles erected onsite provide an accurate representation of the proposed building layout. Further, the applicant has indicated that the height poles as viewed from Hill Street verify the accurate perspective view of the proposed development, rather than the 2D elevation which is unrealistic.

Council does not have a policy in relation to height poles and no specific guidance was given to the applicant in relation to the use of tape between height poles.

Essential Service Access

Council’s Engineer has advised that the access to the proposed development has been appropriately designed to allow access for all essential services.

The exhibition period should be extended to provide for closer scrutiny and Councillor consultation

The development application has been advertised in accordance with Council’s protocol.

Architectural plans should have been available at the onsite meeting to demonstrate how the proposed development will present from Hill Street

Architectural plans were on exhibition at Council from Wednesday, 7 October 2015 to Tuesday, 20 October 2015. Council did not require the applicant to provide plans at the site meeting.

SUPPORTING SUBMISSIONS

The Orange City Council 10 Year Tourism strategy identified a shortage of higher quality accommodation

Noted.

Lack of quality accommodation available in Orange

Noted.

The proposed development will have a positive impact on business and small wine makers

Noted.

Hill Street/Byng Street is a mixed use area

Noted.

Traffic - increased traffic will have negligible impact

Noted.

Parking - parking in Hill Street is rarely an issue

Noted.

PUBLIC INTEREST s79C(1)(e)

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

SUMMARY

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

COMMENTS

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

Attachments

1 Notice of Approval, D16/12111 ⇩

2 Plans (1), D16/6627 ⇩

3 Plans (2), D16/6629 ⇩

4 Plans (3), D16/6631 ⇩

5 Plans (4), D16/6632 ⇩

6 Plans (5), D16/6634 ⇩

7 Plans (6), D16/6635 ⇩

8 Plans (7), D16/6638 ⇩

9 Plans (8), D16/6639 ⇩

10 Submissions (1), D16/6398 ⇩

11 Submissions (2), D16/6400 ⇩

12 Submissions (3), D16/6401 ⇩

13 Submissions (4), D16/6402 ⇩

14 Submissions (5), D16/6403 ⇩

15 Submissions (6), D16/6404 ⇩

16 Submissions (7), D16/6405 ⇩

17 Submissions (8), D16/6406 ⇩

18 Submissions (9), D16/6408 ⇩

19 Submissions (10), D16/6409 ⇩

20 Heritage Advice, D16/11997 ⇩

21 Peer Review, IC16/4511 ⇩

Planning and Development Committee 5 April 2016

2.3 Development Application DA 233/2015(1) - 98 Gorman Road

TRIM REFERENCE: 2016/577

AUTHOR: Michael Glenn, Senior Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged	15 July 2015
Applicant/s	Mrs CY Pearson, Mrs FK Blunt and Mrs JE Youngman
Owner/s	Mrs CY Pearson, Mrs FK Blunt and Mrs JE Youngman
Land description	Lot 1 DP 581736 - 98 Gorman Road, Orange
Proposed land use	Subdivision (38 lot residential plus public open space and drainage reserves)
Value of proposed development	$0

Council's consent is sought for a subdivision of the subject land into 38 lots ranging in size from 2,009m²to 3917m².

The subject property is constrained by its slope, its prominence as a visual element of the landscape, and the potential impacts on iconic views to both the north to the Mullion Ranges and southwest to Mt Canobolas. The slope of the subject land is, in places, in excess of 25%, and is thus likely to lead to significant levels of cut and fill both in the road construction and also for likely future development of the lots.

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

The guidelines instruct Council it should expend money in accordance with the detailed budget adopted for the purposes of implementing the Delivery/Operational Plan for the 2015/16 year.

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

That Council consents to development application DA 233/2015(1) for Subdivision (38 lot residential plus public open space and drainage reserves) at Lot 1 DP 581736 - 98 Gorman Road, Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

THE APPLICATION

Council's consent is sought for subdivision (38 lot residential plus public open space and drainage reserves) at Lot 1 DP 581736 - 98 Gorman Road, Orange.

THE PROPOSAL

The proposal involves a subdivision, associated earthworks, drainage, installation of services and road construction.

As indicated in the executive summary, the site is constrained by its slope, high levels of visibility and conflicts between the zone restrictions and the existing and competing local character. These constraints are acknowledged in the applicant's submission and some allowances made in the layout of the subdivision. Principally, the layout incorporates larger lots on the more sloping areas of the site. This will provide space in which to move future dwellings around and provide privacy buffers and the like. However, the applicants’ response in itself is not sufficient to conclude that no significant adverse effect will be likely to arise from the proposed subdivision.

The proposed subdivision complies with the requirements of LEP 2011. Further, there is no detailed masterplan applicable (in the same way as a masterplan has been done for the Shiralee Urban Release Area). The proposed development does not generate any significant direct breaches of the general residential planning outcomes of DCP 2004.

Figure 1 - site plan showing surrounding development densities

However, notwithstanding the general compliance to the major planning controls, the proposed development does have some significant adverse effects which can be identified in the Section 79C assessment. The Sustainable Settlement Strategy completed in 2004 as a precursor to further changes to the zoning of the locality indicated significant constraints in terms of view corridors along the ridgetop, and highly constrained land along the area where slope is greatest in view of the likely amount of cut and fill that will be required in these areas. The inherent conflict that arises due to the differing subdivision densities between the essentially rural residential and rural land to the north and west of the site (and which has been the subject of some intense debate for other similar proposals on the surrounding lots, and the more densely used residential land to the east and south is acknowledged, and remains as much an issue for this application as any of the other recently approved green fields residential subdivisions for this locality.

To an extent it is not possible to fully address all of these constraints such that their impact could be said to be fully expunged from the development; however it is considered possible to minimise such impacts with conditions and render the proposed development acceptable in terms of its external effects.

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

Site Constraints - the Sustainable Settlement Strategy

The significant constraints are thoroughly outlined in Chapter 9 of the Sustainable Settlement Strategy (SSS).

The SSS identified parts of this land as being unsuitable for urban/residential development. It is, however, zoned R5 Large Lot Residential under Orange Local Environment Plan 2011 (OLEP 2011), with no special controls applicable under a DCP masterplan. The SSS was intended to serve as the basis for any future zonings and any detail design criteria that might otherwise be devised to apply to the subject land. Of itself, the SSS has no statutory weight, but it does offer significant usefulness in undertaking a merits based assessment as is required under Section 79C of the Act.

The major environmental constraints affecting the subject land are depicted in a series of maps from the SSS:

Figure 2 - geotechnical constraints

The sloping parts of the site can be expected to contain significant tonnages of submerged rock.

Figure 3 - visual and landscape constraints

The areas of visual and landscape sensitivity within the study area are creek lines (focused on Broken Shaft Creek), existing significant vegetation, ridgelines and sensitive rural views. These constraints are shown in Figure 2. Specifically, the SSS recommends or identifies the following slope and ridge related constraints:

(a) any future development needs to protect watercourses, establish appropriate buffers and protect and augment existing riparian vegetation;

(b) sensitive rural views include attractive views from both within and outside the study area;

(d) the SSS suggests that the sensitive drainage lines within the study area be vested in public ownership - it identifies one such line traversing the subject property.

Response to the Identified Constraints

The layout of the proposed subdivision does not incorporate any linkages to connect the walking and open space areas purchased (but as yet undeveloped) to the west when that land was recently subdivided. Whilst a specific link is not proposed the subdivision layout does, however, include dedications of land for a drainage reserve at the western lower end of the block, and a smaller area of open space around the Trig station in the north-eastern corner. The open space around the Trig station is included in the 2015 Section 94 Contributions Plan, and as such compensation for this land will be offered to the applicant. Council is not in a position to expend funds from its general revenue sources to acquire land that does not form part of the intended open space network.

Whilst the drainage lines have some importance, the overwhelmingly significant constraining factors of this site are the elevated ridge lines and the rocky soil on the slope of the land, which will make future construction expensive and difficult, and the likely levels of site disturbance at dwelling construction a difficult and challenging prospect. The sheer slope of the site leading to the ridge is a significant issue and likely to affect view lines and neighbourhood character to an inordinate degree as these sloping areas are developed.

The basic permissibility of the proposed subdivision is established in the zoning restrictions (and in particular the minimum lot size provisions) which this proposal meets the requirements of. Moreover, the proposed development is generally consistent with the objectives of the principal environmental planning instrument (EPI) and also the zone objectives.

However, the SSS clearly identifies some major constraints affecting the site. The applicant’s submission addresses these constraints, however it is considered appropriate to impose conditions so as to achieve outcomes more consistent with the LEP and DCP objectives.

Amended plans were submitted on 22 February 2016 that attempt to address some of the issues that arose during the assessment process. The amended plans accommodate Essential Energy’s requirements and also try to respond to some of the landscape quality issues by retaining more of the trees on the site. The applicant erroneously believes that Essential Energy requires the removal of vegetation from the easements, including the very significant landscape trees on Lots 306 and 307, but this is not the case. Essential Energy has no issue with the retention of these trees within their easement areas.

A constraint identified in the SSS is the ridgeline which is identified as making a significant contribution to the visual amenity of the locality. It is considered that the development that will occur on the ridgeline both as a result of the subject development and under further development that will occur following subdivision will significantly impact on the skyline from large areas of the existing area of the City to the east and south, and from the more rural and rural residential land to the north and west; and also have inordinate potential to affect the view corridor and scenic quality over a wide area.

A number of restrictions are considered appropriate to address these concerns and are included as conditions of consent to be written as Restrictions-as-to-User on the land titles for these affected lots. These restrictions relate to:

(1) Amended plans are required that require the amalgamation of proposed Lots 332 and 333 (hereafter referred to as Lot 332/333) into the one allotment, and increase the minimum depth for Lot 334 to 38m (currently proposed at 35m).

(2) Building restriction envelopes in which maximum site coverage does not exceed 35% of the block size for Lots 332/333 to 338, and Lots 312 to 319 (being those lots on the ridge and those lots along the southern boundary). A minimum setback of 15m from the southern boundary for Lots 312 to 319 is required.

(3) Minimum setbacks from Gorman Road of 12m.

(4) The imposition of a Section 88B Restriction-as-to-User that requires the submission of a landscape plan that is to the satisfaction of Council with any dwelling (or outbuilding) application for Lots 332/333 to 338 inclusive. Such landscaping is to incorporate species selection with a mature height greater than the height of the structures proposed and able to screen a minimum of 50% of the width of the proposed dwelling or building frontage. Full implementation of the approved landscaping is required prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate and retention and maintenance of such landscaping required thereafter.

(5) A Section 88B Restriction-as-to-User is required for Lots 332/333 to 338 limiting future development on these lots to single storey construction.

(6) All fencing throughout the entire subdivision is to be restricted to rural type fencing less the barbed wire component as per the requirements of Council’s DCP 2004 or its successor.

(7) Retention and protection of trees on Lots 306 and 307 as well as trees on Lots 315, 310, 303 (the smaller tree on this lot may be removed), 304 and 305, including those trees currently proposed for removal on the amended plan (principally those trees within the easement), by the imposition of building envelopes and tree protection zones on these sites. Section 88B restrictions are also required for the protection of the designated trees

(8) For those lots not elsewhere identified in the consent (Lots 301 to 307, Lots 308 to 311 and Lots 320 to 331), building restriction envelopes not exceeding 50% of the block size are required.

(9) All building envelopes required under this consent, in addition to all other restrictions, shall incorporate front and side setbacks not less than of 10m and 2m respectively.

Section 5A Assessment

Assessment guidelines are in force (see DECC-W “Threatened Species Assessment Guidelines - The Assessment of Significance”) which requires consent authority to adopt the precautionary principle in its assessment.

The subject property is not mapped as containing high value biodiversity, however the SSS nevertheless identifies the site as having some biodiversity potential. There are isolated trees on the site, as well as a number of partially exposed rocky outcrops and considerable amounts of embedded surface rock. These rocky components are discussed in OEH guidelines as landscape elements likely to provide some habitat value, particularly for invertebrates and small reptiles. Invariably the proposed development, along with future development of the site as a housing estate, poses some threat to those habitat niches on the site.

As an offset to that threat, it is considered appropriate to require as a condition of approval either the storage and above ground use of excavated rock material on the site, or the storage of the material on a Council designated stockpile for future use. A condition to that effect is included in the attached notice, and specifically does not allow such material to be reburied.

Site Photographs

IMAG0362

Photograph 1 - subject property from its western boundary looking east upslope

IMAG0369

Photograph 2 - native vegetation on the site is fairly limited,

but offers significance as a link to the more rural land nearby

IMAG0374

Photograph 3 - recently completed stormwater drainage for the western subdivision

in Dean Drive.

The proposed development will direct its surface flows into the drainage system that passes through this detention basin. It is important that water quality and sedimentation be managed to maintain this system in adequate working order and to ensure the continuing water quality of the downstream properties, which rely on this water course as a water supply, albeit some 33 kilometres downstream.

IMAG0384

Photograph 4 - subject property looking north

This photograph was taken from Silverdown Way. Note the slope of the site and the iconic views of the Mullion Ranges in the distance.

Aboriginal Heritage

Council commissioned a report by Parsons Brinkerhoff in 2004 for the Sustainable Settlement Strategy. The Parsons Brinkerhoff report includes a predictive tool as to the likelihood of Aboriginal heritage existing on a given site within its study area. In this case, the predictive tool (which includes a map) suggests a moderate possibility of Aboriginal heritage occurring on adjoining sites closer to Broken Shaft Creek, but no significant potential for the subject property. This is consistent with known Aboriginal settlement and encampment patterns that, as a generalization, favoured more sheltered sites closer to known watercourses.

Occasionally, if there is a significant feature such as an escarpment or large floater stones on the surface, Aboriginals might identify the locality as being culturally or religiously significant, but in this case there are no such natural features or landmarks. Additionally, occasionally wooded areas might be used for the collection of bark, and some species of trees could be used as "scar trees". Again no observable evidence exists on the site of this sort of activity.

Figure 4 - extract from Parson Brinkerhoff report on Aboriginal Heritage

Council in 2010 also commissioned an Aboriginal Heritage Study. This study identified some potential for part of Broken Shaft Creek to possess some Aboriginal artefacts, but not much potential for the site itself. The OEH register of known artefacts and sites lists two finds approximately 600m west of the site in the riparian area of Broken Shaft Creek.

The NPW Act requires a developer to apply “due diligence”, which means a legal standard of care, to determine whether a proposed activity could harm (ie damage, destroy, deface or move) Aboriginal objects or declared Aboriginal Places. In the context of protecting Aboriginal cultural heritage, due diligence involves taking reasonable and practicable measures to determine whether a developer’s actions will harm an Aboriginal object, and if so, what measures can be taken to avoid that harm.

The process for applying due diligence is described in the OEH publication Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (2010). If a proposed development could harm Aboriginal objects or declared Aboriginal Places, then investigations of the development area are required to determine:

1 what Aboriginal cultural heritage is located there;

2 why (or if) the Aboriginal cultural heritage located within the area is important;

3 the likely impacts of the proposed development on Aboriginal cultural heritage are;

4 how the impacts on Aboriginal cultural heritage can be avoided or minimised. In cases where Aboriginal cultural heritage will be damaged or destroyed, an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) is required.

In this case, the applicant has not undertaken a survey or study to determine if such heritage exists. However, the site characteristics do not suggest a great possibility of Aboriginal heritage of any kind on the site. The available area based general studies suggest no significant possibility for this site.

Integrated Development

The applicant has not sought approval under the integrated development provisions of the Act, which is the applicant’s choice. There is a drainage line Category 1 stream (using the Strahler classification system on the site) which eventually drains into Broken Shaft creek. The NSW Office of Water (NoW) advises that it is probable that a controlled activity permit would be required given the extent of disturbance to be undertaken on this drainage line. It is considered appropriate to impose a condition that requires the applicant to liaise directly with NoW with respect to requirements under the Water Management Act (WMA).

Section 79C

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

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

Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011

Part 1 - Preliminary

Clause 1.2 - Aims of Plan

The broad aims of the LEP are set out under sub-clause 2. Those relevant to the application are discussed below:

(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.

The proposed development will detract from the rural character of the locality, but will be consistent with the residential character of the more urban areas nearby. Given that the land is essentially a transitional zone between urban and non-urban development, this would appear to be appropriate development for the site.

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

1 Require all subdivision fencing as rural style fencing (post and wire, no barbed wire).

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

3 Imposition of Section 88B building restriction envelopes for certain lots to ensure retention of certain significant trees on the site and thereby maintain to a better extent the contribution to character and amenity made by this property to the locality.

4 Establishment by condition and Section 88B Restriction-as-to-User under the Conveyancing Act 1979 of a no build buffer 10m wide for the northern, western and eastern boundaries. For the northern and western boundaries, vegetation buffers are also required to be planted and maintained until release of the Subdivision Certificate.

5 To improve the streetscape and spacing between dwellings, it is considered appropriate to impose a condition that requires minimum front and side setbacks on the new lots, except where similar alternative arrangements (such as the building envelopes for certain lots) are already imposed as conditions of consent.

6 Imposition of a condition preventing the removal of any trees except within the designated road reserves of the development. Future applications will need to consider the tree removals from the site outside the specified exclusion zones on a case‑by‑case basis.

(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.

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

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

The proposed development would not have any significant effect on the resources of the Orange City water supply.

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

The proposed development does not propose housing; however it does increase the supply of residential allotments. This will produce the conditions needed to provide additional housing opportunities.

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

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

To minimise the impacts on character and visual amenity, the consent includes conditions to retain the significant vegetation on the site, enhance vegetation buffers around the perimeter, retain or provide rural fencing around the site boundaries, and require setbacks that are in excess of current DCP standards for residential development.

Clause 1.6 - Consent Authority

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

Clause 1.9A - Suspension of Covenants, Agreements and Instruments

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

· covenants imposed or required by Council

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

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

· any trust agreement under the Nature Conservation Trust Act 2001

· any property vegetation plan under the Native Vegetation Act 2003

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

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

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 R5 Large Lot Residential
Lot Size Map:	Minimum Lot Size 2000m²
Heritage Map:	Not a heritage item or conservation area
Height of Buildings Map:	No building height limit
Floor Space Ratio Map:	No floor space limit
Terrestrial Biodiversity Map:	Low biodiversity sensitivity on the site
Groundwater Vulnerability Map:	Ground water vulnerable
Drinking Water Catchment Map:	Not within the drinking water catchment
Watercourse Map:	Not within but 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

These matters (and all clauses of the LEP) have been considered in the assessment. Those relevant to the proposed development are listed and commented upon where appropriate in the body of this report.

Part 2 - Permitted or Prohibited Development

Land Use Zones

The subject site is zoned R5 Large Lot Residential. The proposed development is defined as subdivision under LEP 2011. Subdivision of land under LEP 2011 has the same meaning as defined in the Act. Pursuant to clause 4B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act subdivision of land means:

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

Subdivision of land is permissible in the R5 Large Lot Residential zone with the consent of Council pursuant to clause 2.6.

Clause 2.3 of LEP 2011 references the Land Use Table and Objectives for each zone in LEP 2011. These objectives for land zoned R5 Large Lot Residential are as follows:

· To ensure that large residential lots do not hinder the proper and orderly development of urban areas in the future.

· To ensure that development in the area does not unreasonably increase the demand for public services or public facilities.

· To 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 provide residential housing in a rural setting while preserving, and minimising impacts on, environmentally sensitive locations and scenic quality.

· To minimise conflict between land uses within this zone and land uses within adjoining zones.

· To provide for student housing in close proximity to the Charles Sturt University.

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

In relation to the first objective, the proposed development would not act to hinder the proper and orderly development of urban areas. The development is consistent in terms of yields and layout with the zoning of the site.

In relation to the second objective, the proposed development will incorporate essential utility services, including roads, stormwater sewer and water supply. These will be the responsibility of, and at the expense of the developer to provide.

In relation to the third objective, there will be access to a public road, making access to public transport possible. There are no public walkways or open areas provided on the site. There is, however, a drainage reserve that generally will tend to have a secondary usage as open space.

In relation to the fourth objective, the proposed development will provide opportunities for housing that can minimise environmental impacts, impacts on scenic quality and maintain rural character.

In relation to the fifth objective, conditions have been included to minimise the likely nuisances that may arise for future development on the new lots. These include buffering, lighting and fencing requirements.

In relation to the sixth objective, the subject application does not propose any housing and the subject land is not located in close proximity to Charles Sturt University

In relation to the seventh objective, this objective is not relevant to the subject property or the proposed development

Clause 2.6 - Subdivision - Consent Requirements

The above clause establishes that development consent is required for subdivision. The applicant is seeking consent via this development application.

Part 4 - Principal Development Standards

Clause 4.1 - Minimum Subdivision Lot Size

This clause requires the subdivision of land to be equal to or greater than the size nominated for the land under the Minimum Lot Size Map. In relation to this site, the map nominates a minimum lot size of 2,000m². The smallest lot proposed by the application is 2,000m².

Part 5 - Miscellaneous Provisions

5.9 - Preservation of Trees or Vegetation

The application as submitted shows some significant individual native trees on the site. The plans suggest that significant natives exist on the following lots: Lots 303-308, Lot 310, Lots 315-316 and Lot 319. There are three or four trees located within the proposed road reserves.

The plans submitted with the application indicate the removal of all the trees within the road reserves and no special protection for any of the trees on the private lots to be created. It is considered that these arrangements are not satisfactory. The trees form an important element of the landscape.

The most significant vegetated areas of the site are located on Lots 307-308 and Lot 310. Lot 307 is also heavily affected by a proposed electricity easement. As original submitted, it was not possible to create Lot 307 and realistically retain the significant trees on that lot with the current configuration of the lot. However ,amendment of the lot layout so as to reconfigure the division between Lot 306 and 307 from the current east-west division line to a north-south division line, and the imposition of building envelopes ensures the retention of the significant vegetation on these lots whilst not affecting lot yields for the proponent.

With regard to the other trees on the site, the trees located on certain lots should be retained and protected for reasons relating to visual amenity. The applicant has submitted an amended plan in this regard, but has erroneously claimed he needs to remove trees from within the electricity easement (including the significant trees on Lots 306 and 307) "to meet Essential Energy requirements". In fact, no such requirement exists, and conversations with Essential Energy staff indicate they have no expectation to remove existing vegetation from the site. Conditions are therefore imposed requiring the retention and protection of those trees. Conditions are also included in the consent requiring the protection of the trees to be retained by the establishment of TPZs in accordance with AS2970, and specifically no site disturbance, fill or excavation within these areas.

Part 7 - Additional Local Provisions

7.1 - Earthworks

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

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

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

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

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

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

(f) the likelihood of disturbing relics

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

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

There are extensive earthworks proposed in this application that will substantially alter the site as an element of the landscape, and in some respects are likely to adversely affect the site as part of an identified view corridor. In response to the itemised matters of this clause, the following comments are submitted:

In relation to (a), the details of the stormwater drainage system have not been submitted. However, it is apparent from the material that has been submitted that the general intention is to collect surface runoff to a detention basin that will, in turn, drain into a drainage reserve and stormwater management system already in place on this lower subdivision. There is nothing wrong with this general approach, however the slope and soil characteristics are likely to present significant erosion and water quality challenges.

In relation to (b), earthworks relating to the proposed subdivision are unlikely to adversely affect the likely future use of the site for residential purposes. Clearly, the slope issue will require extensive earthworks for this subdivision, and further there is every likelihood of extensive earthworks as specific house applications are received. It is unlikely that house applications on the sloping lots will, or can be processed as complying developments, so Council will have the opportunity to revisit the excavation effects of individual house applications and apply merit based solutions as required as those applications are received.

In relation to (c), fill quality can be monitored at construction stage by the certifier. There is no information to suggest that the site at the present time suffers from any significant levels of sub-surface contamination.

In relation to (d), there will be amenity impacts arising from the expected levels of earthworks on the site; however within the parameters of the zoning restrictions, such works cannot be considered as excessive. Even extensive earthworks do not necessarily lead to excessive impacts on amenity, and in this case it is expected that the works for the subdivision will be managed and carried out in a way that keeps nuisance and amenity issues to an acceptable minimum.

In relation to (e), the source of imported material has not been stated, but can be conditioned in the consent. In terms of disposal, it is not expected that large quantities of material will need to be removed from the site, but conditions can be included that require removal of material from the site, where necessary, to be to an approved landfill. Special arrangements should be imposed with respect to excavated rock.

With regard to (f), the likelihood of disturbing relics as a result of earthworks for this development is considered low.

With regard to (g), there is a drainage line that appears as a blue line on the NSW Office Of Water map. Conditions are included that require the applicant to liaise with NoW and obtain all necessary controlled activity permits under the Water Management Act as necessary. For the purposes of LEP assessment, it is conceded that significant changes are likely in the drainage patterns on the site, but no changes to the pre- and post-development flows and no significant adverse effects are likely.

With regard to (g), a stormwater design is required to be submitted at the construction stage of the development; although conceptually the subdivision plan includes provision for a large retention basin on the site. It is considered that the engineered solutions sketched out in the concept plans submitted with this application are sufficient to conclude no significant external effects arising from stormwater runoff from the development.

7.3 - Stormwater Management

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

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

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

(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 sloping nature of the site and the extensive earthworks that will be necessary for this development, along with the increases in hard paving, will require the development of a comprehensive stormwater management plan and erosions and sediment control plan for the site. The submitted plans show the provision of a large drainage reserve in the south-western sector of the subject land. This drainage reserve will be developed as a detention basin and will form an integral component for the stormwater management of the site.

Councils Development Engineer is of the opinion that a solution can be designed for this site with no significant problems arising. Conditions are included to ensure that the development is designed in accordance with Orange Development and Subdivision Code.

It is considered that the post- development runoff levels will not exceed the pre-development levels.

7.4 - Terrestrial Biodiversity

The subject property is not identified in the LEP as possessing any significant terrestrial biodiversity.

7.5 - Riparian Land and Watercourses

The subject property is not identified as containing riparian land or a significant watercourse under the LEP. NoW mapping identified the site as containing a very low order Category 1 stream, based on the Strahler method of assessment.

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.

7.8 - Salinity

There is no evidence of salinity affecting the site. Whilst imposed as a matter for consideration under the standard instrument, salinity is not a problem that arises in the Orange LGA. Salinity is most often affected with wholesale, large scale vegetation removal or where there is a large amount of intensive irrigation to occur. In this case neither activity is proposed.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

State Environmental Planning Policy -55 (Remediation Of Land) 2008

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land applies to the subject development. The previous use of the land is agriculture, with the most recent use being a small hobby farm type activity. In consideration of the relevant consideration of the SEPP, contamination of the subject land is possible, but unlikely. A condition is included on the attached Notice of Approval requiring soil sampling and geotechnical testing to be undertaken prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2008

The subject land is affected by an Essential Energy transmission line, which under the provisions of the Infrastructure SEPP triggers a need for Essential Energy to be consulted and their views taken into account in the assessment. Relevantly the SEPP provides as follows with respect to development proposed to be subdivided and/or developed for residential purposes. Clause 45 of the Infrastructure SEPP makes the following provisions that are relevant to this application:

(1) This clause applies to a development application (or an application for modification of a consent) for development comprising or involving any of the following:

(a) the penetration of ground within 2m of an underground electricity power line or an electricity distribution pole or within 10m of any part of an electricity tower,

(b) development carried out:

(i) within or immediately adjacent to an easement for electricity purposes (whether or not the electricity infrastructure exists), or

(ii) immediately adjacent to an electricity substation, or

(iii) within 5m of an exposed overhead electricity power line,

(c) installation of a swimming pool any part of which is:

(i) within 30m of a structure supporting an overhead electricity transmission line, measured horizontally from the top of the pool to the bottom of the structure at ground level, or

(ii) within 5m of an overhead electricity power line, measured vertically upwards from the top of the pool,

(d) development involving or requiring the placement of power lines underground, unless an agreement with respect to the placement underground of power lines is in force between the electricity supply authority and the council for the land concerned.

(2) Before determining a development application (or an application for modification of a consent) for development to which this clause applies, the consent authority must:

(a) give written notice to the electricity supply authority for the area in which the development is to be carried out, inviting comments about potential safety risks, and

(b) take into consideration any response to the notice that is received within 21 days after the notice is given.

A copy of the application was forwarded to Essential Energy, which has provided requirements in relation to the proposed development. In summary Essential Energy has stated the following:

Development Application 0233/2015(1)

Property: 98 Gorman Road Orange more particularly described as Lot 1 in DP 581736

We refer to the above matter and Council’s correspondence requesting comment on the proposed subdivision at the above address.

Strictly based on the documents provided Essential Energy consents to the above subdivision subject to:

· statutory ground clearances being maintained in accordance with Essential Energy’s Operational Manual: Overhead Design Manual (CEOM7097). Any remediation work required would need to be completed by an Accredited Service Provider not at the expense of Essential Energy;

· no vegetation being planted within the proposed easement without approval from Essential Energy; and

· an easement being created with respect to the existing 66,000 volt powerline within the proposed subdivision, as outlined in Essential Energy’s Network Planning: Easement Requirements policy (CEOP8046) in particular:

(a) an easement 30 metres wide is required; and

(b) Essential Energy’s standard easement terms parts A/B or C of Memorandum AG189384.

It should be noted that there is high voltage overhead electricity infrastructure in the area. It is the responsibility of the persons/s completing any works around powerlines to understand their safety responsibilities. WorkCover NSW (www.workcover.nsw.gov.au) has publications that provide guidance when working close to electricity infrastructure these include the Code of Practice – Work near Overhead Power Lines.

These requirements are included as conditions of consent in the attached notice of determination.

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

Part 0.2 (General Translation of Zones) establishes the interim provisions that link DCP 2004 to LEP 2011, and further establishes the equivalent zones of the new LEP to the previous LEP 2000 zones for which the DCP was prepared.

Part 0.4-5 (Interim Planning Outcomes - Murphy Lane and Gorman Road) establishes some basic site specific controls for the subject property.

Part 2 (Natural Resource Management) of the DCP has relevance to the assessment of the water quality issue affecting the site.

Part 3 (General Considerations) has relevance with respect to cumulative impacts and scenic landscape issues.

Part 4 (Special Environmental Considerations) has some relevance with regard to possible site contamination.

Part 7 (Development In Residential Areas) is relevant as it establishes the urban design principles on which to assess the layout of the proposed subdivision.

The relevant Planning Outcomes for the proposed development are commented upon below.

Part 0.2 - General Translation of Zones

This part establishes the equivalent zones in LEP 2011 that are equivalent for the previous LEP for which DCP 2004 was written. In this case the R5 zone is equivalent to the LEP 2000 1(c) Rural Residential and 2(d) Urban Transition zones.

Part 0.4-5 - Interim Planning Outcomes - Murphy Lane and Gorman Road

· Development of land within the area comprises rural style fencing and does not comprise coloured metal fencing.

This is an issue most appropriately addressed by a section 88B instrument.

· Development of land within the area is accompanied by a landscape plan that demonstrates how the buildings will be blended into the landscape, and,

· Development of land within the area is landscaped to effectively prevent skylining of buildings.

In the context of the individual allotments, landscaping will occur as dwellings on those allotments are constructed. In the context of street tree planting, Councils Section 94 funds will cover the cost of street tree planting. In the context of landscaping to protect the ridgeline effects, a condition is included (and will also be required as a Section 88B Restriction-as-to-User) requiring a landscaping plan and subsequent plantings to be established to mask at least 50% of the frontage of future dwellings, and be capable of achieving mature heights and densities so as to be effective in achieving its purpose of screening for scenic protection.

In other respects there are also conditions recommended that protect the existing significant vegetation (for character). Other conditions are included to limit site coverage and impose setback or building envelope restrictions on the lots to be created.

· Ancillary buildings and outbuildings are located behind the front building line of the main dwelling and provided with screen landscaping when viewed from the public road.

This is a matter that is not relevant to the subdivision assessment, however it is relevant to the planning of future development of each site.

· Where permitted by the minimum lot size map of the LEP all subdivisions creating lots below 2ha must provide reticulated sewer to lots below 2ha.

Water and sewer in accordance with this requirement is proposed for the proposed subdivision. Attached to the draft Notice of Determination are conditions addressing these matters.

Part 2 - Natural Resource Management

The DCP states:

Development that concentrates, redirects flows, increases flow rates or disturbs land in close proximity to creeks has the potential to affect waterways with associated erosion, sedimentation and release of nutrients, which combine to affect downstream water quality. Erosion appears to be particularly prevalent within the “North Orange” red earth soil types.

Urban stormwater has also been identified as a significant source of water pollutants. Uncontrolled stormwater flows from urban development has the potential to contribute to downstream impacts, including periodic flooding, erosion, sedimentation and reduced in‑stream water quality.

Orange City Council’s Drainage Strategy was adopted by Council on 19 June 1997 to identify measures required to control stormwater-flow velocities and volumes.

Conditions are included that require the design and provision of a stormwater management system that minimises erosion, controls outflows and requires water quality to be at least as good as the best water currently being discharged from the site as a vacant allotment.

Part 3 - General Considerations

It is acknowledged that for this particular development the applicant has not responded in a way that is satisfactory to the views expressed by the community in their submissions. The issues of slope, character, open space, linkages and the like have not been well addressed in the design of the subdivision.

These shortcomings are not sufficient to warrant refusal of the application in itself. In order to refuse the application it would need to be established that significant adverse effect was likely or unavoidable. In this case, the design is not optimal, however the external impacts, measured against the applicable assessment standards, are not significant.

With regard to cumulative impacts, the DCP requires that applicants demonstrate how the development relates to the existing character of the locality. In this instance there is a mixed character for the locality. To the west there is further R5 land with a minimum lot size of 4000m², beyond which is rural land. Land to the north is R5 with a minimum lot size of 2000m², and beyond that is further R5 land with a 2ha minimum lot size. To the east the character of the land is more fully urban, generally zoned R2 Low Density Residential with a minimum lot size of around 850m². To the south the land is R5 Large Lot Residential, again with a minimum lot size of 2ha.

Whilst there is a consistency in zoning restrictions, the minimum lot sizes are variable for this locality and this reflects in the density and form of final development. The 2 hectare R5 land generally has large spacing between dwellings and larger, more grand dwellings erected thereon. Most of the 4000m² and 2000m² land to the west and north is still under development. The more urbanised residential land to the east relative to the R5 land is fairly densely developed, though in comparison to other parts of Orange it remains low density residential.

It is accepted that the proposed development does result in lot sizes significantly smaller than the large lot residential subdivisions that are nearby. It does not follow, however, that this is necessarily a conflict in the character. Moreover, the DCP is somewhat inconsistent with the new zoning and density provisions applicable to the site, in that the zoning restrictions are clearly aimed at achieving or accepting changes in the development patterns that are intended to reflect a new density that is intermediate between the lower density 2 hectare development to the north and the higher density full urban to the east. Within that context, and in the absence of any specific master planning in the DCP, it cannot be strongly argued that the proposed development is vastly inconsistent with the expected future character of the locality.

The site has been given a zone and a lot size control that dictates what is appropriate to the site. The proposed development meets that standard. This density and lot size are somewhere between full urban residential and the lower density large lot residential that also exists in the locality. Some mitigation of the apparent conflict in competing demands can be achieved by means of appropriate fencing, roads construction, landscape buffering, retention of significant vegetation, building envelopes and street lighting. It is conceded, however, that the future development of this site in terms of expected yields, spacing and intensity of development, will be greater than has hitherto been the case in this locality.

Relevant Planning Outcomes also require that new development maintains environmental impacts within existing or community accepted levels, and lastly, that water conservation measures are implemented. It is considered that appropriate conditions can be imposed that will satisfactorily address these matters.

Part 4 - Special Environmental Considerations

This part has some relevance with regard to possible site contamination to the extent that as a greenfields development site there is some risk of soil contamination arising from past uses for agricultural purposes. Such risk in this case is considered to be very low, however conditions are included that address soil testing as a precaution to health and safety of future residents of the site.

Part 7 - Development in Residential Areas

The subject land is residential in terms of zoning, and therefore the proposal requires assessment against commonly accepted standards and practices applicable to low density residential development. As currently written, there are no specific provisions of the Ploughmans Valley Master Plan applicable or relevant to the proposed development. Council does have general principles applicable to all subdivisions that are listed in PO7.2‑1 and commented upon as follows:

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

Does not apply to the proposed subdivision. There are no DCP master plan sheets applicable to this site.

· Lots are orientated to optimise energy-efficiency principles.

The proposed subdivision is for lots around 2,000m² in area, which will allow for space to configure and orientate standard sized dwellings for optimal energy efficiency and solar access.

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

The urban design guidelines are an interpretative set of standards. The provisions of these guidelines and the assessment relating to each matter for consideration are set out below:

UDAS Urban Form Principles Summary

· Street hierarchy developed in accordance with required size and function; topography and natural features determine lot and street layouts.

The proposed development has no real street hierarchy, however such hierarchy is not really necessary for a subdivision of this size.

· Plan services and infrastructure to accommodate future growth strategies and ensure development is located for cost effective service provision.

The proposed subdivision will rely on a pump station that has been installed to provide service to the other recent subdivisions that have occurred in the Gorman Road/Dean Drive/Silverdown Way locality. Attached are relevant conditions of consent addressing matters in relation to the provision of essential infrastructure.

· Establish a development scale and density which is supportive of public transport, cyclist and pedestrian use; provide pedestrian and cycle routes that connect key community facilities, parks and open spaces.

To achieve a better outcome in respect of this guideline (ie supportive of public transport), it would be necessary to increase densities to standard residential levels, which could have further detrimental effect on amenity.

The proposed development is large lot residential in character, which traditionally is difficult to achieve good outcomes in terms of access to public transport. Within the constraints of the zoning and minimum lot size restrictions of the site, the proposed development is satisfactory.

With regard to pedestrian and cycleway links, the proposed development makes minimal provision in the current design. However, the development site will be within reasonable proximity to future open space and pedestrian/cycleway links likely to be constructed as the area generally is developed.

· In new subdivisions, continue the established city grid and maintain direct physical and visual connections, avoid car-dependent, cul-de-sac development.

The proposed development is a new subdivision, which links into the existing road network. There will be a degree of car dependence in the subdivision given the distance and isolation from the CBD and the very nature of the subdivision as fringe large lot residential development. However, within the constraints of the subdivision type, the response offered by the applicant is a neutral impact.

· Ensure that street patterns provide maximum physical and visual connectivity, offer a choice of routes and allow for double sided blocks such that development is oriented towards the street frontage.

It is considered that the proposed layout is consistent with this guideline.

· In multi-dwelling development, provide a street entry for each dwelling, avoid battleaxe, villa-style development and design appropriately to topography, climate and aspect.

As R5 land, the ability for multi housing development such as dual occupancy will be restricted. The proposed development is for subdivision, so the relevance of this guideline to the assessment is marginal as it relates to specific building types and forms.

· Reinforce original subdivision patterns and streetscapes that characterise the settlement, maintain consistent setbacks from front and rear of lots in low density areas and continuous street and awning edges along core streets/perimeters of major blocks.

The subject land has been recently rezoned to facilitate large lot residential development. Whilst the area largely remains underdeveloped at this stage future large lot residential development will alter the general character of this locality in time. The proposed development is considered to be largely consistent with the emerging development form envisaged for this locality.

· Encourage deep soil zones to centre of blocks to allow the cultivation of large trees with large canopies and to permit infiltration of rainwater to the water table.

It is unlikely that there is a significant variation in soil depths and zones for this site.

· Maintain axes with views and vistas towards watercourses and surrounding natural landscape, enhance and maintain river, coastal and landscape edge treatments, whilst minimising risk of flooding.

The allotments on this site will essentially have principal vistas to the north which offer panoramic scenic views of semi-rural development. In all, the proposed lots will have generally very good views and vistas.

· Maintain and protect any local heritage, natural or manmade, of physical, social or cultural significance in the community to establish an understanding of the collective past.

These issues have been considered in this assessment and appropriate allowances made in the recommendations.

· Define public open spaces and parks with consistent carriageway treatment and landscaping along the urban/natural edge.

The proposed development incorporates a small pocket park around the Trig station atop the ridge in the north-eastern corner of the site. The proposed open space around the Trig station has been identified in the Section 94 Plan for this locality, and hence compensation for the dedication of this open space will be provided. The location of the open space will provide for views across the urban areas of Orange, the large lot urban development to the west, and through to Mt Canobolas and surrounding rural lands. Matters in relation to compensation of the open space will be addressed below under the heading “2015 Contributions Plan”.

· Release areas indicate trunk cycle and pedestrian ways that link the area to major open space networks and activity centres (schools, shopping centres and employment areas).

The proposed development is not identified under the DCP or LEP as a release area; however it is green fields development on the urban fringe of the City. Ideally, the development should provide for good open space and pedestrian links (preferably with cycle ways as well). These are not included in this proposal.

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

Conditions are attached to address the servicing issue. All the proposed lots will have road access provided.

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

The submitted plans show the provision of a large drainage reserve in the south-western sector of the subject land. This drainage reserve will be developed as a detention basin to assist with stormwater management of the site.

Conditions are included to ensure that the development is designed in accordance with Orange Development and Subdivision Code.

· Corner lots provide for a house to front one street

The design makes appropriate allowance for this to occur as development proceeds in the new subdivision.

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

The proposed layout complies with this requirement.

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

This standard is not relevant as dual occupancy is not permitted in the R5 zone.

LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE CONTRIBUTIONS - SECTION 94 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING & ASSESSMENT ACT

2015 Contributions Plan

The recommendation of this report is that one lot, Lot 332, be amalgamated with Lot 333 behind it, effectively reducing the lot yield of the site by one lot. Net increase in lot numbers (should the recommendations of this report be adopted) would be 36 lots (one lot credit for the existing site). Should Council elect to allow this lot to remain in the approved subdivision, the lot yield will increase and it would under those circumstances be necessary to recalculate the contributions rates and adjust the consent accordingly.

The proposed development incorporates a small pocket park around the Trig station atop the ridge in the north-eastern corner of the site. The proposed open space around the Trig station has been identified in the Section 94 Plan for this locality, and hence compensation for the dedication of this open space will be provided. The submitted plans show that the proposed open space will comprise an area of 2,297m². The area in question has been identified as unencumbered open space, and the rate applicable for encumbered open space under the contribution plan has been calculated to be $35 per m². Based on the above, the amount of compensation has been calculated as follows:

2,297m² x 35m² = $80,395

Based on the compensation for open space described above and the recommendation to amalgamate Lot 332 and 333 into a single allotment, the payment of $620,210.36 is to be made to Council in accordance with Section 94 of the Act and Orange Development Contributions Plan 2015 (development in Ploughmans Valley urban release area) towards the provision of the following public facilities:

Open Space and Recreation	@ $3,314.19 x 36 additional lots	119,310.84
Community and Cultural	@ $667.50 x 36 additional lots	24,030.00
Roads and Cycleways	@ $5,137.60 x 36 additional lots	184,953.60
Stormwater Drainage	@ $310.15 x 36 additional lots	11,165.40
Local Area Facilities	@ $9,465.09 x 36 additional lots	340,743.24
Plan Preparation & Administration	@ $566.73 x 36 additional lots	20,402.28
Sub Total		700,605.36
Less compensation for Open Space	(2297m² x 35m² = $80,395)	(80,395.00)
Total		$620,210.36

The contribution will be indexed quarterly in accordance with Orange Development Contributions Plan 2015 (development in Ploughmans Valley urban release area).

Section 64 Water and Sewer Headwork Charges

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

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

The proposed roads design is consistent with the provisions prescribed by the regulations.

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

Traffic Impacts

The proposed subdivision provides appropriate connections to the existing street network and will also allow appropriate connections for future development. There is no connection to the large lot subdivision to the west, but there is a road connection to the approved subdivision to the north.

Given the extent of cut and fill proposed in the subdivision careful engineering consideration of road geometry issues onto Gorman Road will be required. The submitted plans show that the road intersection proposed with Gorman Road will be at the top of a hill, with cuts of up to 3m either side of the junction. Whilst such arrangements are of obvious concern, there is no breach of any road safety standards, and is the roads design actively supported by Council's design engineer in pre-lodgment discussions with the applicant. Attached are conditions of consent addressing matters in relation to road construction.

Cumulative Impacts

Council is required to consider the potential for resultant cumulative impacts of the development. There is an obvious cumulative impact arising from the ongoing urbanisation of the locality as the remaining stocks of residential land are subdivided and developed for residential purposes occurs. For this site there are also issues relating to slope and view lines that have been elsewhere assessed. The critical question is not only whether cumulative impacts would arise (quite obviously they do), but also whether such effects are significant or unexpected.

As suggested above, the proposed development has a cumulative impact because it is an example of gradual urbanisation of an area not previously used for such residential development. This impacts in a cumulative way on the character and amenity enjoyed by the low density development located to the north and south of the site. Whilst the cumulative effects are acknowledged, such effects are not unusual or exceptional. They are expected and allowed for in the zoning and density provisions that apply to the site. There is nothing unusual or unexpected in the nature or this proposed development, and from that standpoint the proposed development does not have a significant impact, either individually or when viewed as part of the overall cumulative effects of residential encroachment into the rural and rural residential portions of the City.

The proposed development as originally submitted proposed minimal alleviation to its cumulative impacts. This has been partially addressed in the amended proposal with the provision of some buffers and tree retention. Such measures are to be augmented and perpetuated by the recommended conditions included in the attached Notice of Determination. It is also considered appropriate to include conditions relating to appropriate rural fencing around the perimeter of the site.

It is acknowledged that the changes to density allowed for in LEP 2011 do, by definition, detract from the large lot residential character of the locality envisaged by some nearby landowners. However, this development is consistent with the provisions of LEP 2011.

Environmental Impacts

The proposed subdivision is not anticipated to present any significant environmental impacts, subject to the design and construction of an appropriate stormwater management system and the provision of appropriate native species in the landscaping buffers. The proposed subdivision represents an extension of the residential development pattern of the area.

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

The site is considered suitable for the proposed development, however the site does have a number of significant constraints that require extensive conditions to address. The principal constraints detracting from the site suitability are slope, view lines, drainage lines, landscape quality and surrounding residential densities.

The subject site has a few significant trees and vegetation types that have previously been considered in this report. In the amended design some provision has been made to protect these areas. The constraints of the site will not significantly inhibit future development. The land is not subject to known natural or technological hazards. All utility services are or will be available to the site and adequate for the proposal. The proposed lots are of sufficient area and dimension to provide a reasonable standard of residential amenity.

A further constraint affecting the land is the presence of a power line traversing the site, and to an extent this power line easement renders one of the proposed lots impractical for future development. For that reason a condition is included that requires the amalgamation of proposed Lots 332 and 333 on the site.

As elsewhere described, the site has an identified constraint in that the ridge is prominent in terms of its visual effect and a known visual corridor to iconic views to the north. There are Land and Environment Court Planning Principals that may be applied to the view issue, and with regard to the ridgeline development, conditions are included that whilst not completely overcoming all of the impacts of future development, will reduce such impacts to the point of not having a significant adverse effect.

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

The proposed development is not defined as advertised development under the provisions of the LEP. However, a notification process was undertaken for the adjoining residents, and a notice advising of the receipt of the application was also placed in the local newspaper. A summary of the submissions received follows, along with staff responses to the issues raised.

Martin Atkins - 80 Gorman Road

(1) The supporting information for the application does not adequately address the major constraints and environmental issues.

(2) Slope of the site is excessive, as well as the slope of the access to the proposed reserve and Trig point. Suggests that solar access can be improved by changing the orientation of sites.

(3) The ridge line as a visual element is vital with extensive discussion already available such as the discussion contained in the Sustainable Settlements Strategy (SSS).

(4) The proposed development would bring about substantial (and in many respects, unsatisfactory) changes to the landform and negate or detract from the essentially rural character and aspect of this locality.

(5) Suggests ways that the ridgeline could be protected; specified building footprints for each lot (reflecting the suggestions of the SSS for no build areas); mandatory tree planting and landscaped buffers along the ridgelines; and controls over building heights along the ridgelines.

Comment

With regard to point (1), there is sufficient information submitted to allow Council to make assessment of the proposed development against the relevant criteria set up in the LEP and other related legislation. The outcomes likely to arise in the development of this site are not considered ideal; however within the context of the local controls that apply, it is considered that satisfactory development will be achievable within the revised subdivision layout.

With regard to point (2), it is agreed the slope of the site is considered to be the most challenging constraint affecting the site, and will certainly require careful assessment of future applications. The slope issue renders it unlikely that future dwellings can be erected except with development consent from Council. As a generalisation, it will not be possible to erect dwellings on the sloping lots as complying development. A requirement for further development consent will give Council the opportunity to assess the particular idiosyncrasies of each proposal.

The proposed lots are of sufficient size and orientation to achieve adequate solar access. It is considered that with careful planning and specific site constraints as elsewhere discussed in this report, it will be possible to achieve satisfactory final outcomes for these sites.

With regard to (3), it is agreed that the ridgeline represents a critical constraint and that future development along the ridgeline is unlikely to allow the ridge to emerge unsullied as an element of the visual character of the area. The ridge is both part of the view of the locality and provides a frame of reference for the views to the north, and such function will be eroded as future development occurs. Conditions have been included to at least mitigate the worst effects that this will have, including mandatory landscaping for future development applications, limits on the building area, greater than normal setbacks and the elimination of one lot. These measures will help to mitigate the worst excesses of future ridgeline development.

With regard to (4), the proposed development will lead to extensive earthworks and, ergo, changes to landform. Moreover, future development (for higher than surrounding residential density) will lead to significant changes to the character of the locality, as is also occurring in surrounding subdivisions in this locality. There will be some adverse effects arising from those changes from the juxtaposition of the low density rural residential character that currently dominates the locality, but is not considered excessive in terms of the residential character the current zoning and minimum lot size provisions that apply to the site. Such conflicts are to be expected, and not considered uncommon. Council must satisfy itself that the conflicts that do arise are not out of the ordinary, or unexpected, and that such impacts as are likely to arise are not excessive. It is considered that in general the detracting qualities of the proposed development are not significant, or excessive in their effect.

With regard to (5), the recommended conditions of consent reflect the basic thrust of the suggestions contained in this point of objection. Conditions are included for retention of trees, other conditions for the ridgeline lots require appropriate landscaping as both a condition of consent and as a Section 88B Restriction-as-to-User (so as to apply to future development applications). It is not recommended that special building height restrictions be applied in this case, as the dominant effect arises from the topography of the site, rather than the future dwellings.

Pauline Heffernan - 120 Gorman Road

(1) Has expressed repeatedly since 2012 strong opposition to small lot subdivisions in this locality. Small lots are not in keeping with the desirable character of this locality.

(2) The proposal is located on a block with challenging topography which generate major additional concerns relating to runoff and erosion and sediment control. Also the need for major earthworks that will be visible from long distances on the major entry points into Orange from Forbes and Molong.

Comment

With regard to point (1), it is confirmed that this person, and others, have expressed repeated concerns about the ability to undertake small lot subdivisions in an area that prior to LEP 2011 only allowed 2 hectare lots. As such, this point of concern is less an objection to this particular proposal and more an objection to the minimum lot size provisions contained in the LEP.

There is no specific objection raised in this point pertinent to the details of this proposed layout. It is a matter for Council to decide appropriate density controls, but within the confines of the current planning controls, the proposed development is fully compliant.

With regard to point (2), it is agreed that the major constraint affecting the future development of this site is its slope, and that two of the issues arising from that constraint are stormwater management and erosion and sediment control. Whilst presenting a challenge, it is far from insurmountable. Council has previously been confronted with large subdivisions on slope constrained land and has required developers to find solutions to the challenges those sites present. In this case the applicant has a concept plan for stormwater management that can work adequately. There will not be a serious issue with stormwater management, and erosion or sediment control arising from this development, which will be managed by way of conditions of consent.

Dr P and Mrs S Rourke - 40 Silverdown Way (two submissions)

(1) The application as submitted does not adequately address the constraints specific to this parcel of land, in particular the effects on the scenic ridge, slope, existing streams and maintaining the scenic quality of the locality.

(2) (The residence of this objector) enjoys a significant northerly aspect with iconic views to the north that will be degraded by the proposed development.

(3) Urges Council to adopt the following:

(i) Building buffers (of 40m) off the ridge line as suggested in the SSS

(ii) Larger street frontages are required for proposed lots 314, 315, 316, 317, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, which run as long narrow lots from north to south. Such configuration affects the distant views and will decrease glimpses of the distant iconic views by the lot configuration

(iii) Building envelopes for each of the lots to provide spacing between the dwellings

(iv) The permitted amount of cut and fill per lot. To minimise the amount of scarring on the hillside, earthworks need to be controlled from the outset

(v) Maximum building height controls should be applied to minimise the effect on rural views.

(4) Construction impacts, including dust and noise, which will continue for many years. The submitter requests that appropriate dust controls are put in place, and that Council enforces noise restrictions.

Comment

With regard to point (1), the submission by the applicant in terms of required information and form meets the statutory obligations imposed on Local Development as specified in Schedule 1 of the EP&A Regulations 2000 and does allow an adequate assessment to be made under Section 79C of the Act. It is considered that topography, slope and view loss are major constraints affecting the locality, as is the likely impact on existing character. It is considered that changes to the proposal are required to more adequately address these constraints, but such changes are within the ambit of conditions to achieve those outcomes.

These conditions as included in the draft notice of determination are consistent with the restrictions set out in Section 80A of the Act.

With regard to view loss as set out in point (2), assessment of views is addressed in DCP 2004 under the planning outcomes for buildings - PO7.7-9. There are also some relevant Land & Environment Court Planning Principles for the assessment of views.

DCP 2004 has the following planning outcomes with respect to view loss assessment:

· 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 new development.

The Mullion Ranges to the north are not visible from the objectors’ property (refer to Photograph 4 of this report, which was taken from the front boundary of the objectors’ property), although it enjoys more general panoramic views to the north. These should be classified as significant and panoramic to the north. The SSS further identifies the ridge of the subject property as itself forming and contributing an element of the views enjoyed in this locality.

The objectors’ property and dwelling have been set up to take advantage of these views, as is evidenced from the following aerial view (see Figure 5).

Figure 5 – objectors primary view line

There is a significant height difference between the position of the objector's dwelling and land over which they enjoy their primary views. Other views further to the east are constrained by the topography and will be adversely affected, but it is considered that substantially the primary views for the objector’ would be retained. The contours shown in Figure 5 are at 2m intervals, and thus the objectors’ dwelling is approximately 6-8m higher than the land over which they enjoy their most significant views.

There is no dispute that certain elements of these views may be impacted after the subject property is developed for the objector. However it is not considered that such losses are excessive. The views currently enjoyed would be substantially retained for the objector, and conditions with respect to setbacks, site coverage and building envelopes, along with secondary controls relating to tree retention and future fencing (required to be rural fencing, less the barbed wire) will all serve to reduce view loss impacts.

The DCP includes some guidelines with regard to view analysis, and identifies certain features as providing "highly valued" views. The DCP identifies Mt Canobolas as the primary view in Orange, but also identifies Suma Park, Mt Bulgas to the east, the framing hills around Clifton Grove and further to the north the Mullion Ranges

None of these primary or "highly valued" views are impeded by the proposed development. The likely future development on the lots in question will be the subject of further assessment at the stage applications for individual development proposals are received. However, it is appropriate and possible to impose building restrictions (previously detailed) that will control the amount of view loss to a "view sharing" situation.

The Land & Environment Court has established some planning principles with regard to view loss assessment. The salient principle can be found in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council [2004] NSWLEC 140 at 25-29, as set out below:

25 The notion of view sharing is invoked when a property enjoys existing views and a proposed development would share that view by taking some of it away for its own enjoyment. (Taking it all away cannot be called view sharing, although it may, in some circumstances, be quite reasonable.) To decide whether or not view sharing is reasonable, I have adopted a four-step assessment.

26 The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (eg of the Opera House, the Harbour Bridge or North Head) are valued more highly than views without icons. Whole views are valued more highly than partial views, eg a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured.

27 The second step is to consider from what part of the property the views are obtained. For example the protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult than the protection of views from front and rear boundaries. In addition, whether the view is enjoyed from a standing or sitting position may also be relevant. Sitting views are more difficult to protect than standing views. The expectation to retain side views and sitting views is often unrealistic.

28 The third step is to assess the extent of the impact. This should be done for the whole of the property, not just for the view that is affected. The impact on views from living areas is more significant than from bedrooms or service areas (though views from kitchens are highly valued because people spend so much time in them). The impact may be assessed quantitatively, but in many cases this can be meaningless. For example, it is unhelpful to say that the view loss is 20% if it includes one of the sails of the Opera House. It is usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.

29 The fourth step is to assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact. A development that complies with all planning controls would be considered more reasonable than one that breaches them. Where an impact on views arises as a result of non-compliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable. With a complying proposal, the question should be asked whether a more skillful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours. If the answer to that question is no, then the view impact of a complying development would probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable.

In relation to paragraph 25, it is acknowledged that likely future development of the site will reduce views enjoyed by the objector to the north. However, due to the size of the allotments and the controls elsewhere included in the Notice of Determination, view sharing for this development is considered possible.

In relation to paragraphs 26 and 27, the views to the north are significant, but are not identified as iconic under the DCP. They are, however, considered in the SSS and suggested as significant in that study. The views for the objectors’ property are panoramic and general, viewed primarily across the rear, north-north west facing boundary of the objector. These views cover a wide proportion of the panorama. A proportion of this outlook view may be lost as a result of future residential development, however it would retain some of this outlook view. The DCP building envelope provisions will ensure that total obstruction of the view corridor does not occur.

Further, in relation to paragraph 28, it is considered that this principal links back to the preceding comments. For the whole of the objectors’ property the potential view loss arising from future development is considered unlikely to be a total loss of view. Some degree of view sharing will be possible from the objectors’ property. It is considered unreasonable for the objector to assume that the vacant land to the north of their property would remain vacant indefinitely.

In relation to paragraph 29, the proposed subdivision is consistent with other planning controls, and in the context of applying those controls must be considered as in conformity to the applicable standards. There is an obvious problem in taking this logic too far. Although conforming to the LEP provisions and the general controls of the DCP, there is no detailed masterplan in the DCP. Such guiding principles as are considered likely to have been applied to such a masterplan have, in fact, been applied to this planning assessment and conditions and changes imposed as to achieve those altered outcomes. It is considered that even with the application of ersatz controls the proposed development should be considered as consistent with those desired planning outcomes, and hence a reasonable outcome in terms of view sharing.

In regards to point (3), the body of this report includes an assessment of the suitability of the subdivision design, including an analysis of slope and its impact on size and shape of the proposed lots. The submission urges Council to consider the placement of certain restrictions on the titles of the proposed lots aimed at assisting with the protection of views and amenity of surrounding properties.

The matters raised in the submission suggest the establishment of buffer zones along the ridge, a redesign of the width-to-depth ratio of certain lots to limit future view impacts, the establishment of building envelopes, a limit on the amount of cut and fill permitted on the land and the establishment of building height controls to minimize impacts on rural views.

Recommendations included in this report attempt to address some, but not all of the suggestions made by the objector. In particular it should be noted that the recommendations outlined in the body of the report have been incorporated into conditions of consent where deemed appropriate and reasonable. In particular, it should be noted that the draft conditions of consent include conditions requiring the establishment a restriction on the title of certain lots prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate. The recommended conditions address the following matters

· establishment of building envelopes and setbacks for future development

· establishment of site coverage controls

· a requirement for the protection and retention of certain established vegetation within the development site

· a requirement for the establishment of landscape zones within certain lots

· a requirement for landscape buffers to be established in certain locations

· a requirement for single storey development for Lots 332/333 to 338

· The amalgamation of Lots 332 and 333 into a single allotment.

The implementation of the above recommendations are considered necessary to limit the impacts of this development on surrounding lands and will ensure that the development proceeds in an acceptable manner.

In regards to point (4), conditions of consent have been included on the attached draft notice, which relate to soil and erosion control, and the hours of operation for construction. Furthermore, the future developers will need to comply with the noise requirements and regulations set out in the Protection of the Environmental Operations Act 1997.

Professional planning submission by Planning Partnerships (Ben Rourke), on behalf of Sarah and Patrick Rourke

(1) The waterway on the block is a prescribed stream, requiring an Integrated Development Consent with co-approval from NSW Office of Water. Alternatively a 40 setback from the Riparian zone is required.

(2) Visual impacts. The likely future development along the ridgelines will have a significant adverse impact on the existing scenic outlook enjoyed by the objector.

(3) Requests amended plans that include a 30m wide buffer from the shared boundary , or a building envelope on which a dwelling may be built. Further the establishment of a landscape buffer along the shared boundary is requested.

Comment

In relation to (1), Council is advised that there is a drainage line Category 1 stream (using the Strahler classification system on the site) which eventually drains into Broken Shaft creek. The NSW Office of Water (NoW) advises that it is probable that a controlled activity permit would be required given the extent of disturbance to be undertaken on this drainage line. It is incorrect, however, to assert that Integrated Development assessment is mandatory for a proposed development not nominated as integrated by the proponent when lodged with Council. The applicant has a choice and has elected in this case that this proposal not be treated as Integrated Development. As discussed in the body of this report, it is considered appropriate under these circumstances to impose a condition that requires the applicant to liaise directly with NoW with respect to requirements under the Water Management Act (WMA).

In relation to (2), it is agreed that the development likely to follow the subdivision of the subject land will change the character of the objectors’ land, however it does not follow that such impacts are likely to have a significant adverse effect. This is a significant test to apply in the assessment, and is obviously subjective. However, the proposed development is consistent with the relevant zoning and density controls of the LEP, generally conforms to the assessment criteria of the DCP as they currently exist, and further can be conditioned so as to meet further standards as would be likely to apply had the site been subject to formal master planning. The proposed development is generally consistent with relevant Land and Environment Court Planning Principals in terms of view loss and view sharing. On the basis of these relevant surrogate measures and standards, the proposed development is considered reasonable development, unlikely to have significant impact on the visual quality of the locality.

In relation to (3), there are no detailed master planning provisions on which to assess the outcomes of this proposed development. It is not possible or practical to seek buffers or corridors of 30m; however building envelopes for proposed Lots 312 to 319 (inclusive), in which setbacks of not less than 15m are included as conditions in the notice.

PUBLIC INTEREST s79C(1)(e)

The proposed development is of considerable interest to a small section of the public due to the perception of the adverse impacts the proposal would generate on rural residential character. However, whist the change in zoning may be perceived as a land use conflict, the actual development is consistent with its zoning and the overall objectives and provisions of the LEP; and the proposed development, of itself, will not cause any significant adverse effect beyond what is allowed for under the zoning of the site. The proposal is not inconsistent with any relevant policy statements, planning studies, guidelines etc that have been considered in this assessment.

SUMMARY

The proposed development can be conditioned so as to minimise the adverse effects of the subdivision. Principally, conditions have been added to retain existing rural fencing, retain and enhance the natural vegetation of the site, and achieve higher than normal spacing and setbacks for future dwellings on the new lots by various measures. One lot is proposed to be eliminated. This is unlikely to meet with the approval of the local residents, who are strongly opposed to the proposed development, however it is likely to minimise the adverse effects arising from the proposed development.

The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning that applies to the site. It is also consistent with the objectives of the LEP, or at minimum, not contrary to them. The proposed development is not contrary to any specific provision of the DCP. Conditions are imposed that would achieve the same outcomes as if the subject property were the subject of a fully worked-up masterplan.

It is considered that within the parameter discussed within the report, there is no significant view loss or privacy issues allied to the proposed development. It has been necessary to recommend significant conditions to address certain amenity issues, but as a generalisation, the proposed development is consistent with the standards and aims of the planning controls that can be applied to it.

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

COMMENTS

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

Attachments

1 Notice of Approval, D16/12646 ⇩

2 Plans, D16/12096 ⇩

3 Submissions (1), D16/11916 ⇩

4 Submissions (2), D16/11917 ⇩

Planning and Development Committee 5 April 2016

2.4 Development Application DA 31/2016(1) - CWA Hall - Robertson Park - Byng Street

TRIM REFERENCE: 2016/642

AUTHOR: Kelly Walker, Town Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged	8 February 2016
Applicant	Orange City Council
Owner	Orange City Council
Land description	Lot 703 DP 1020799 - CWA Hall - Robertson Park - Byng Street, Orange
Proposed land use	Community Facility (alterations and additions to CWA Hall), Business Identification Signage and Demolition (tree removal)
Value of proposed development	$228,000

Council's consent is sought for alterations to the CWA (Country Women’s Association) Hall in Robertson Park, Byng Street, Orange. The proposal involves part demolition of the CWA Hall and rebuilding a slightly larger extension, including the installation of public toilets, an outdoor courtyard, and a new ramp from the park. The proposal also involves the removal of a tree within the park to facilitate the larger extension. A new sign is proposed on the northern (Byng Street) elevation stating: “CWA Orange Branch”.

Robertson Park is a listed heritage item, which includes the landscaping, trees, bandstand, war memorial, fountain and CWA Hall. The site is also within the Heritage Conservation Area. Consent is required for the demolition of a listed heritage item, including the removal of the tree, as well as the construction of the new extension.

The applicant has been liaising with Council’s Heritage Advisor, who has made recommendations to achieve an acceptable outcome. While the applicant has taken some of these comments into consideration two design elements relating to the provision of a glass block panel in the eastern elevation of the building and the final details of the proposed sliding gate remain outstanding. The applicant states that a final design of the gate has not yet been worked up.

Conditions of consent addressing such matters have been recommended for Council’s consideration and are attached to the Notice of Approval. A condition of consent is also required to photographically record and survey the listed building prior to its (part) demolition.

Council’s Manager City Presentation supports the removal of the tree, and does not require a replacement.

Council’s Environmental Health and Building Surveyor recommends conditions of consent to ensure that works are carried out in compliance with relevant regulations, including the demolition and removal of asbestos materials, fencing off the site during construction (given it is public land) and accessibility requirements of the public toilets.

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

The guidelines instruct Council it should expend money in accordance with the detailed budget adopted for the purposes of implementing the Delivery/Operational Plan for the 2015/16 year.

Council must also avoid entering into contracts or undertakings where expenditure or revenue is greater than $250,000 or 1% of the Council’s revenue from rates in the preceding year, whichever is the greater, unless the contract or undertaking is as a result of a decision or procurement process commenced prior to the merger proposal period or where entering into a contract or undertaking is reasonably necessary for the purposes of meeting the ongoing service delivery commitments of the Council or was previously approved in the Council’s Delivery/Operational Plan.

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

That Council consents to development application DA 31/2016(1) for Community Facility (alterations and additions to CWA Hall), Business Identification Signage and Demolition (tree removal) at Lot 703 DP 1020799 - CWA Hall - Robertson Park - Byng 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 alterations to the CWA (Country Women’s Association) Hall in Robertson Park, Byng Street, Orange.

The proposal involves part demolition of the CWA Hall, being the southern section of the hall, currently containing the mothers’/meeting room, kitchen and hall toilets; and the removal of the Box Elder tree adjacent to the hall to the south. The proposal also involves building an extension in its place, with a larger footprint of around 129m². The new extension will contain a meeting room with doors out to a new enclosed courtyard (facing the park), kitchen, hall toilets, and a storage cupboard and entry (facing Byng Street). The extension will also provide new public toilet facilities with three toilet cubicles, one being an accessible toilet. Entry to the public toilets will be provided from both the park (eastern side sliding gate) and from the courtyard (hinged gate). The courtyard will have gates opening to a ramp to the park.

Materials include painted timber chamfer boards, painted concrete base, glass bricks on the northern and southern elevations, and brickwork (Macarthur mix) on the eastern elevation and for fence and wall detailing. A sliding gate is proposed on the eastern elevation, however final details have not yet been provided.

A new sign is proposed on the northern (Byng Street) elevation stating: “CWA Orange Branch”.

No external changes are proposed the existing main hall building.

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

Section 5A Assessment

This section includes a requirement to consider any adopted assessment guidelines, which means assessment guidelines issued and in force under section 94A of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. Assessment guidelines are in force (see DECC-W “Threatened Species Assessment Guidelines - The Assessment of Significance”) which requires consent authority to adopt the precautionary principle in its assessment.

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

Section 79C

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

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

Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011

Part 1 - Preliminary

Clause 1.2 - Aims of Plan

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

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

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

The application is considered to be consistent with these aims, where the proposal enhances a public space and has been designed to be respectful of the heritage and landscape values of Robertson Park and the CWA Hall.

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 RE1 Public Recreation
Lot Size Map:	Minimum Lot Size
Heritage Map:	A listed heritage item and within a heritage conservation area
Height of Buildings Map:	Building height limit 6m
Floor Space Ratio Map:	Floor space limit 0.2:1
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:	Within a sensitive waterway and Orange Key Fish Habitat
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 RE1 Public Recreation zone. The proposed development is defined as a ‘Community Facility’ and ‘Business Identification Signage’ under the Orange LEP 2011, which are defined as follows:

community facility means a building or place:

(a) owned or controlled by a public authority or non-profit community organisation, and

(b) used for the physical, social, cultural or intellectual development or welfare of the community,

but does not include an educational establishment, hospital, retail premises, place of public worship or residential accommodation.

business identification sign means a sign:

(a) that indicates:

(i) the name of the person or business, and

(ii) the nature of the business carried on by the person at the premises or place at which the sign is displayed, and

(b) that may include the address of the premises or place and a logo or other symbol that identifies the business,

but that does not contain any advertising relating to a person who does not carry on business at the premises or place.

Both are permitted with consent for this zone, and this application is seeking consent.

Clause 2.3 of LEP 2011 references the Land Use Table and Objectives for each zone in LEP 2011. These objectives for land zoned RE1 Public Recreation are as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

The proposal is generally consistent with the objectives for the zone in that it provides a public facility which enhances the use of the land for community and recreational use, and does not impact on the natural environment.

Clause 2.7 - Demolition Requires Development Consent

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

The proposal involves demolition and the applicant is seeking the consent of Council. The demolition works proposed will have no significant impact on adjoining lands, streetscape or public realm. Conditions will be imposed in respect of hours of operation, dust suppression and the need to investigate for, and appropriately manage the presence of any materials containing asbestos. The proposal involves the demolition of a listed heritage item, as well as the removal of a tree in a heritage conversation area, and this is discussed in greater detail later in this report.

Part 3 - Exempt and Complying Development

The application is not exempt or complying development.

Part 4 - Principal Development Standards

Clause 4.3 - Height of Buildings

This clause limits the height of buildings (HoB) on land identified on the Height of Buildings Map. The subject land is identified on the Map as having a HoB limit of 6m. The maximum height of the proposed extension is 4.1m² and is therefore consistent with the established height limit.

Clause 4.4 - Floor Space Ratio

This clause limits the floor space ratio (FSR) permitted on land identified on the Floor Space Ratio Map. Clause 4.5 is associated with this clause and establishes the rules for calculating the site area and FSR of any proposal. These rules exclude certain parts of a site and development such as:

· excluding any part of the site upon which the development is prohibited (ie if the site is split zoned only the zone in which the development is permissible may be considered)

· excluding community land and most public places

· lots in a strata scheme wholly or partly above other lots in the scheme do not increase the site area (ie the site area is the ground level of the scheme only)

· adjoining lots in the same ownership do not form part of the site area unless significant parts of the development are proposed on that land

· the floor area of existing buildings is to be included in the FSR calculation

· any covenant restricting floor space on the lot, due to floor space having been considered as part of the development of another lot, is to be taken into account.

The subject land is identified on the Map as having an FSR of 0.2:1. Robertson Park is considered to be community land, and its site area has been calculated under clause 4.5 as 17,941.2m², meaning the site may have up to 3,588.2m² of floor space. The proposal has been calculated as having a gross floor area of 308.7m² (existing hall to be retained, plus new extension) and is therefore consistent with the FSR requirements.

Part 5 - Miscellaneous Provisions

5.10 - Heritage Conservation

(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.

(2) Requirement for Consent

Development consent is required for any of the following:

(a) demolishing or moving any of the following or altering the exterior of any of the following (including, in the case of a building, making changes to its detail, fabric, finish or appearance):

(i) a heritage item,

(ii) an Aboriginal object,

(iii) a building, work, relic or tree within a heritage conservation area,

(b) altering a heritage item that is a building by making structural changes to its interior or by making changes to anything inside the item that is specified in Schedule 5 in relation to the item,

(c) disturbing or excavating an archaeological site while knowing, or having reasonable cause to suspect, that the disturbance or excavation will or is likely to result in a relic being discovered, exposed, moved, damaged or destroyed,

(d) disturbing or excavating an Aboriginal place of heritage significance,

(e) erecting a building on land:

(i) on which a heritage item is located or that is within a heritage conservation area, or

(ii) on which an Aboriginal object is located or that is within an Aboriginal place of heritage significance,

(f) subdividing land:

(i) on which a heritage item is located or that is within a heritage conservation area, or

(ii) on which an Aboriginal object is located or that is within an Aboriginal place of heritage significance.

(4) 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).

Robertson Park is a listed heritage item, which includes the landscaping, trees, bandstand, war memorial, fountain, and CWA Hall. The site is also within the Heritage Conservation Area. The Orange Heritage database states the following:

“The park occupies 2 hectares, has an important central location in the city, and has considerable cultural significance in the town's history. Elements of significance which have retained their character include the diagonal layout, trees, bandstand, war memorial, fountain, Boer war memorial lamp post, and CWA Hall. This park is notable for its mature exotic trees - plains and elms on the west and ash and pin oaks on the east. A formal arrangement of paths, made of decomposed granite gravel with concrete edges, runs throughout, with focal points, which include the marble fountain. There is a timber and bluestone bandstand of 1915, with slate roof, an entrance arbour and a monument to the war dead. The grass is predominantly kikuyu. A country Women's Building occupies the north-west corner of the park”.

The park and listed items are considered to be in good condition, and have high level streetscape value. The site is highly valued by the community.

The CWA Hall is in two distinct parts, the original part which is to be demolished (See Figures 1 and 2), which was erected as a Bowling Club:

“formed in 1900 had its greens at the N end of the park, with a clubhouse which remained as a ladies rest room when the Club moved to Anson Street. It was taken over by the Country Women’s association before becoming the first baby health centre in Orange”.

The art deco style hall part of the building (See Figure 2) is a later addition, erected in 1954.

IMAG6317

Figure 1 - corner view indicating the brick extension and timber extension

(to be demolished and replaced)

IMAG6316

Figure 2 - view from the Park showing the CWA Hall to the left (to be retained)

and the attached structures to the right (to be demolished and replaced)

The heritage photograph from 1931 (See Figure 3) appears to show the building to be demolished standing independently without the Hall, with weatherboard wall cladding and traditional terracotta roof tiles. A sign suspended from the front eave indicates that the premises accommodated a Baby Health Centre and CWA Rest Room. It appears that the roof was re-clad and the building clad in face brick, possibly at the time the main hall was built. Based on the 1931 photograph, it can be assumed that the rear timber clad elevation, clearly evident in Figure 1, is the remaining portion of the original building, and that it was not re-clad in brick when the Hall was erected.

Figure 3: Heritage photograph of bowling green and baby health centre (from 1931)

Consent is required for the demolition of a listed heritage building and the removal of the tree, as well as the construction of the new extension. The applicant has been liaising with Council’s Heritage Advisor, who has made recommendations to achieve an acceptable outcome. The following comments have been made:

Distinctive hall features:

· The hall building includes a horizontal band of slightly darker brickwork on the upper wall

· The hall has a rendered expressed base some 450mm high above ground level

· The front of the hall only has distinctive horizontal (canopy) and vertical details in brick and render

· The building has some rendered details and some traditional gloss ceramic tiles

· The building includes the traditional CWA logo

· The windows are generally large with refined fine framing

· The hall has a traditional terra cotta tiled hipped roof with expressed eave and gutter

Issues raised in pre-application stages:

· The loss of the accessible front line which is replaced by the fenced enclosed space has a physical and visual impact upon the heritage significance of the Park. If there is no alternative option but for the larger building footprint then some form of mitigation will be required.

· The general materials appear to be suitable with the exception of the matching face brick. The use of bricks that are darker and not lighter than the existing will ensure that the new work remains visually recessive and does not distract from the existing. A good example is the darker brown bricks evident on the hall.

· An expressed base in a form of interpretation would be a sympathetic treatment to the ground level.

· In view of the origins of the building to be demolished being the earliest remaining portion of the CWA Rest Room on the site, it is recommended that the rear elevation is clad below the proposed windows in weatherbaords as an interpretation of the original building.

· A special effect on the side wall in the brickwork would be acceptable subject to that panel of brick being expressed say 50mm forward as a framing device from the ends of the wall.

· A bold CWA traditional graphic would be appropriate on the rear elevation.

· Safety mesh where required should be crimsafe, securimesh or similar and not expanded metal.

While the applicant has taken most of these points into account in the design submitted in this application, there are still concerns over the visual appearance of the elevations fronting the park. The following recommendations have been made.

Recommendations:

· An archival record of the building should be prepared prior to any demolition in accordance with the standard NSW Heritage Division guide, in order that the nature of the building be retained within the Local Studies Collection of the Library.

· Interpretive material should be provided in text and photographs, based on consultations with the CWA and the appropriate records and mounted within the premises to illustrate the site history and significance for the CWA and the former Bowling Club.

• The courtyard takes over a substantial portion of the existing green lawn and has a substantial visual impact - recommended mitigation to re-orient the ramp to be parallel with the proposed fence, delete the brick walls and piers so that only the transparent steel fence provides a barrier with minimal visual impact, modify the steel barrier by deleting the exposed spear points to reduce any hazard as well as enhance the design, and steel fence to be Dulux Lead Colour or similar.

• The side elevation has a heavy visual impact with the brick wall and steel sliding gate – recommended mitigation to provide a glass block panel in the toilet area similar to the panel in the accessible toilet, and modify the steel sliding gate with a more decorative design.

While the applicant has taken some of these comments into consideration two design elements relating to the provision of a glass block panel in the eastern elevation and the final details of the proposed sliding gate remain outstanding. The applicant states that a final design of the gate has not yet been worked up.

The applicant has requested that the requirement for a glass block panel in the eastern elevation of the building not be required in this case, arguing that a requirement to do so will affect the design of the wall and is outside the current brief provided by the CWA. Council’s Heritage Advisor is of the view that the eastern elevation of the building will have a heavy visual impact. In order to address concerns in regards to the visual appearance of the eastern elevation and the impact it will have on the heritage and landscape values of the park, it is recommended that the provision of a glass block panel as recommended by Council’s Heritage Advisor in the toilet area, similar to the panel proposed in the accessible toilet on the southern elevation of the building, be required as a condition of consent. It is considered that the provision of a glass block panel within the eastern elevation will significantly improve the overall visual presentation of this particular elevation. Conditions of consent addressing matters in relation to the provision of a glass block panel within the eastern elevation and a requirement for final details of a sliding gate to the public toilets to be submitted for approval have been recommended for Council’s consideration and are attached to the Notice of Approval. A condition of consent is also required to photographically record and survey the listed building prior to its (part) demolition.

Although the park’s trees are included in the heritage listing, where the exotic (English) trees were planted in the 1880s, the particular specimen to be removed is in poor condition and will continue to deteriorate. As such, Council’s Manager City Presentation supports the removal of the tree, and does not require a replacement.

It is considered that a heritage management document and heritage management plan are not required in this case.

Part 6 - Urban Release Area

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

Part 7 - Additional Local Provisions

7.1 - Earthworks

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

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

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

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

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

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

(f) the likelihood of disturbing relics

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

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

The earthworks proposed in the application are limited to the extent of cutting and filling required for the proposed extension. The extent of disruption to the drainage of the site is considered to be minor and will not detrimentally affect adjoining properties or nearby sensitive waterways. Conditions of consent are recommended to require a sediment control plan, including silt traps and other protective measures, to ensure that loose dirt and sediment does not escape the site boundaries.

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

The site is not known to be contaminated. The site is not known to contain any Aboriginal, European or archaeological relics. Previous known uses of the site do not suggest that any relics are likely to be uncovered. However, conditions are recommended to ensure that should site works uncover a potential relic or artefact, works will be halted to enable proper investigation by relevant authorities and the proponent required to seek relevant permits to either destroy or relocate the findings.

7.2 - Flood Planning

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this regard the proposed development is unlikely to change flooding regimes on or off the site and would be unlikely to cause or contribute to erosion, siltation or reduce riparian vegetation, and is therefore unlikely to create a cost burden on the community or neighbours.

7.5 - Riparian Land and Watercourses

This clause seeks to preserve both water quality and riparian ecological health. The clause applies to land identified as a “Sensitive Waterway” on the Watercourse Map.

The subject land contains such a waterway and therefore Council must consider whether or not the proposal:

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

(i) the water quality and flows within a watercourse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While the subject site contains a sensitive waterway and key fish habitat, the waterway runs underground. The proposed development seeks to demolish part of the existing building and rebuilt it slightly larger, which will result in negligible difference in stormwater runoff for the overall site. Additionally, stormwater will be connected to the existing system.

Overall, while there will always remain a risk to the waterway under extreme circumstances such as record storms and the like, it is considered that the risk of adverse impact can be appropriately managed to an acceptable level of risk.

7.6 - Groundwater Vulnerability

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

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

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

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

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

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

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

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

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

DESIGNATED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development is not designated development.

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

Development Control Plan 2004

Development Control Plan 2004 (“the DCP”) applies to the subject land. 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 (Orange LEP 2000) is the RE1 Public Recreation zone (Orange LEP 2011). As such, Orange DCP 2004 - Chapter 11 is relevant to this proposal. The relevant provisions are considered below.

Chapter 11 - Land Used for Open Space and Recreation

The planning outcome for this chapter of the DCP states that development should be carried out in accordance with the relevant adopted plan of management. While Robertson Park and the CWA Hall are considered to be public and community land, they are not covered by any adopted plan of management.

The following criteria needs to be considered for development of public land in the zone:

· The need for the proposed development on that land.

· The impact of the proposed development on the existing or likely future use of the land.

· How any proposed building complements the use of the land as open space.

· Whether public use of, and access to, the site will be affected and to what extent.

It is considered that the provision of public toilets are a necessity in the park, and the CWA Hall has been identified as the best location for these. This location and the design of the extension was chosen following years of consultation between interested parties. The proposed development is considered to have a positive impact on the park, and will complement the use of the land for recreation and public open space, where public toilets are highly desirable in parks.

The proposed extension will improve the access arrangements and existing facilities of the CWA Hall, which is used for community purposes. The proposal will not impact on the future use of the land, which is likely to remain a public park, and will improve the public use of the park without impacting on public access to the park.

Chapter 15 - Car Parking

The DCP does not set out car parking rates for community buildings and areas of public open space. The proposed development only involves a net increase in floor area of 40m², and only seeks to improve the existing facilities within the CWA Hall and provide public toilets within Robertson Park. As such, it is not expected that the proposed development will increase the demand for car parking. There is ample on-street car parking surrounding the park for users of the park, toilets, and hall, most of which is time restricted during peak hours, allowing for a greater availability and high turnover of car parking. As such, the application is considered acceptable in this regard.

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

Demolition of a Building (clause 92)

The proposal involves demolition with potential removal of asbestos material, and conditions are attached requiring the demolition to be carried out in accordance with Australian Standard AS2601 - 1991: The Demolition of Structures, and in accordance with the requirements of WorkCover.

Fire Safety Considerations (clause 93)

The proposal involves changes to a community building, and fire safety considerations can be assessed at Construction Certificate stage. Relevant conditions are attached.

Buildings to be Upgraded (clause 94)

Upgrading of the building will be required to ensure that the building is brought into partial or total conformity with the Building Code of Australia, in particular sanitary and access facilities for people with disabilities. Conditions are attached in relation to the required upgrading works.

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

Visual and Heritage Impacts

As set out in the heritage assessment earlier in this report, the proposal has been amended to address some of the concerns highlighted by Council’s Heritage Advisor. Although the concerns relating to the appearance of the eastern elevation, particularly the design of the sliding gate, and an identified need to provide some further relief within the eastern elevation have not been addressed in the application, this can be mitigated by way of conditions of consent. The visual appearance of the proposed development is considered to be acceptable, subject to various conditions of consent being adopted. Based on support for the recommended conditions of consent the visual impacts to the streetscape, heritage and landscape values of the heritage listed park and its features, and heritage conservation area are considered to be acceptable.

Conditions of consent are also required in order to record the history of the site before demolition and tree removal take place. The design and siting of the replacement extension to the CWA Hall renders the proposed part demolition of the listed building acceptable.

The loss of the tree adjacent to the existing building is considered acceptable in this case. Council’s Manager City Presentation states that the semi-mature Box Elder (Acer negundo) is exhibiting dieback to the canopy extremity, and that the thinning of the canopy has resulted in over-exposure of the branch structure to the sun, which will continue to deteriorate. A replacement planting is not required in this case as the park already has a great number of trees, and Byng Street has mature street trees which will assist in integrating the new extension into the vicinity.

Environmental Impacts

As set out in the assessment earlier in this report, impacts in terms of flooding, sensitive waterways, key fish habitat, soil erosion, and groundwater are unlikely.

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

There are no known physical constraints on the site which would render the proposed development unsuitable. The proposed use is in keeping with the existing recreational and community use of the hall and the park, and will not impact on public access to the park.

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

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

PUBLIC INTEREST s79C(1)(e)

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

SUMMARY

The proposed development is permissible with the consent of Council. The proposed development complies with the relevant aims, objectives and provisions of the LEP. A section 79C assessment of the development indicates that the development is acceptable in this instance subject to the adoption of recommended conditions of consent. 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, the Engineering Development Section, and the Heritage Advisor are included in the attached Notice of Approval.

Attachments

1 Notice of Approval, D16/12307 ⇩

2 Plans, D16/12157 ⇩

Reference:	DA 390/1999(2)	Determination Date	26 February 2016
PR Number	PR17174
Applicant/s:	Richmorn Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Richmorn Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 42 DP 882960 – 12A-12B Hamer Street, Orange
Proposal:	Modification of development consent – dual occupancy development and detached garage. The modification involves: · amending the condition of consent relating to the boundary wall along the southern boundary (which was built at a lower height than the condition specified) and · amending/deleting the conditions relating to the garage doors (which were built at a different width than specified by conditions of consent)
Value:	$150,000 (being the same value as the original development)

Reference:	DA 189/2014(2)	Determination Date	21 March 2016
PR Number	PR796
Applicant/s:	Mr MR Pasquali
Owner/s:	Pasquali Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 1 DP 152150 – 198 Anson Street, Orange
Proposal:	Modification of development consent – retail premises (change of use from office and alteration of shopfront). The modification involves altering the entrance details and changing the wall treatments below the awning at the front of the site.
Value:	$8,000 (being the same value as the original development)

Reference:	DA 38/2015(2)	Determination Date	14 March 2016
PR Number	PR1199
Applicant/s:	Isaac Property Developments Orange Pty Limited
Owner/s:	Southill Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 1 Sec A DP 13435 and Lot 20 DP 1020706 – 90-92 Bathurst Road, Orange
Proposal:	Modification of development consent – demolition (existing structures), service station and signage. The modification involves deleting Condition (14), which required various safety and hazard studies to be undertaken prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. (It was the applicant’s submission that appropriate analysis was undertaken for the original development and pre-construction reporting requirements are unnecessary.)
Value:	$1,544,555 (being the same value as the original development)

Reference:	DA 133/2015(2)	Determination Date	2 March 2016
PR Number	PR25724
Applicant/s:	Don’t Tell Jo Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Don’t Tell Jo Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 101 DP 1175489 – 74 Phillip Street, Orange
Proposal:	Modification of development consent – dual occupancy and subdivision (two lot residential). The modification involves amending the layout of approved Dwelling 1 to achieve sufficient vehicular access to the site and improved privacy to the neighbouring property to the east; and modifying the approved lot sizes.
Value:	$500,000 (being the same value as the original development)

Reference:	DA 299/2015(1)	Determination Date	7 March 2016
PR Number	PR19448
Applicant/s:	Mr MN Nagy
Owner/s:	Mr ND and Mrs A Nagy
Location:	Approved Lot 41 in the subdivision of Lot 4 DP 1067471 – 2-6 Whitney Place, Orange
Proposal:	Dual occupancy and subdivision (two lot residential)
Value:	$400,000

Reference:	DA 421/2015(1)	Determination Date	16 March 2016
PR Number	PR2317
Applicant/s:	Mr GP Madafiglio
Owner/s:	Carwoola Family Pty Limited
Location:	Lot 5 DP 715252 – 6 Carwoola Drive, Orange
Proposal:	Subdivision (12 lot residential)
Value:	$0

Reference:	DA 429/2015(1)	Determination Date	18 March 2016
PR Number	PR11558
Applicant/s:	Mr Sushi King Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Fawcett Ridge Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 24 DP 587326 – 282-284 Summer Street, Orange
Proposal:	Restaurant (change of use and building alterations)
Value:	$200,000

Reference:	DA 433/2015(1)	Determination Date	16 March 2016
PR Number	PR27179
Applicant/s:	Laurellen Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Mr LW Bevan and Laurellen Pty Ltd, and Orange City Council
Location:	Lot 391 DP 1212526 and Lot 24 DP 1035913 – 18 Astill Drive and Phillip Street Orange
Proposal:	Earthworks (bulk earthworks and tree removal)
Value:	$40,000

Reference:	DA 437/2015(1)	Determination Date	2 March 2016
PR Number	PR26103
Applicant/s:	Australia Wide Coaches
Owner/s:	Mr RG Dawes
Location:	Lot 7 DP 1183249 – 229 McLachlan Street, Orange
Proposal:	Transport depot (passenger coaches)
Value:	$230,000

Reference:	DA 445/2015(1)	Determination Date	18 March 2016
PR Number	PR18907
Applicant/s:	Mr G Norton
Owner/s:	Mr PM and Mrs ME Hiney
Location:	Lot 121 DP 1057438 – 14 Claremont Way, Orange
Proposal:	Subdivision (two lot residential)
Value:	$5,000

Reference:	DA 451/2015(1)	Determination Date	24 February 2016
PR Number	PR10589
Applicant/s:	Mr NW Luelf and Ms PM Brett
Owner/s:	Mr NW Luelf and Ms PM Brett
Location:	Lot 1 DP 1029465 – 33-35 Sale Street, Orange
Proposal:	Shop and restaurant or café (alterations to existing premises), and business identification signage
Value:	$120,000

Reference:	DA 9/2016(1)	Determination Date	25 February 2016
PR Number	PR26728
Applicant/s:	McKinnon Design and Drafting
Owner/s:	Graham Barrett Leewood Dr Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 101 DP 1203113 – 43 Leewood Drive, Orange
Proposal:	General industry (alterations and additions)
Value:	$75,000

Reference:	DA 14/2016(1)	Determination Date	10 March 2016
PR Number	PR21273
Applicant/s:	Blanchard Design Drafting
Owner/s:	Mr JA and Mrs SN Nunn
Location:	Lot 23 DP 270446 – 1 Gateway Crescent, Orange
Proposal:	Warehouse or distribution centre
Value:	$310,000

Reference:	DA 22/2016(1)	Determination Date	23 February 2016
PR Number	PR9681
Applicant/s:	Ms CE Cusack
Owner/s:	Mr E Eid
Location:	Lot 1 DP 162437 – 159 Peisley Street, Orange
Proposal:	Business premises and business identification signage
Value:	$7,000

Reference:	DA 25/2016(1)	Determination Date	25 February 2016
PR Number	PR6935
Applicant/s:	One Agency
Owner/s:	Mr G, Mrs R, Mr A and Mrs R Sciuto
Location:	Lot 1 DP 565108 – 189-191 Lords Place, Orange
Proposal:	Business identification signage
Value:	$2,000

Reference:	DA 26/2016(1)	Determination Date	23 February 2016
PR Number	PR19017
Applicant/s:	Spicer Constructions Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Mr AM and Mr GW Spicer
Location:	Lot 47 DP 1063083 – 15 Elwin Drive, Orange
Proposal:	Truck depot
Value:	$50,000

Reference:	DA 37/2016(1)	Determination Date	4 March 2016
PR Number	PR26816
Applicant/s:	Mr L Bevan
Owner/s:	Tansix Pty Ltd
Location:	Part Lot 231 DP 1206376 – 16 Astill Drive, Orange
Proposal:	Depot and vehicle sales or hire premises (change of use and building addition – wash bay)
Value:	$30,000

Reference:	DA 44/2016(1)	Determination Date	24 February 2016
PR Number	PR11580
Applicant/s:	Suzanne Grae Corporation
Owner/s:	Alceon Group Pty Limited
Location:	Lot 564 DP 776383 – 212-220 Summer Street, Orange
Proposal:	Shop (internal tenancy fitout for Shop 13)
Value:	$150,000

Development Application
Applicant Name:	Mayoh Architects Pty Ltd - PD Mayoh Pty Ltd
Applicant Address:	(Attention Melodie Kaplan) 60 Strathallen Avenue NORTHBRIDGE NSW 2063
Owner’s Name:	Denoc Holdings Pty Ltd
Land to Be Developed:	Lot 3 Sec 21 DP 758817, Lot 4 DP 1085463 and Lot 1 DP 956418 - 62 Byng Street and 77 Hill Street, Orange
Proposed Development:	Hotel or Motel Accommodation

Building Code of Australia building classification:	To be determined by Certifier

Determination
Made On:	5 April 2016
Determination:	CONSENT GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:

Consent to Operate From:	5 April 2016
Consent to Lapse On:	5 April 2021

*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:	5 April 2016