Agenda of Planning and Development Committee

Planning and Development Committee 6 September 2016

2.1 Items Approved Under the Delegated Authority of Council

TRIM REFERENCE: 2016/1711

AUTHOR: Paul Johnston, Planning Team Leader

EXECUTIVE Summary

This report provides a list of development applications approved under the delegated authority of Council.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

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

Financial Implications

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 the information provided in the report by the Acting Manager Development Assessments on Items Approved Under the Delegated Authority of Council be acknowledged.

further considerations

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

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Reference:	DA 814/1998(2)	Determination Date	3 August 2016
PR Number	PR17942
Applicant/s:	Ms NL Gannon
Owner/s:	Ms NL Gannon
Location:	Lot 1 DP 1022900 – 11 Witton Place, Orange (previously part of Lots 1 and 6 DP 229896, Lot 5 in DP 112242 and Pt Lot 64 DP 756899 - Cargo Road, Orange)
Proposal:	Modification of development consent – six lot rural residential subdivision (Stage 1). The modification involves removing the building envelope from Lot 1 DP 1022900 – 11 Witton Place
Value:	$0

Reference:	DA 194/2014(5)	Determination Date	29 July 2016
PR Number	PR25415
Applicant/s:	Orange Service Centre Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Orange Service Centre Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 86 DP 1167633 – 1 Hanrahan Place, Orange
Proposal:	Modification of development consent – highway service centre and signage. The modification involves increasing the number of signs on the building (four wall panel signs on the southern elevation) and canopy (one additional sign on the fascia); and installing one banner sign on the southern boundary.
Value:	$1,200,000 (being the same value as the original development)

Reference:	DA 75/2016(2)	Determination Date	16 August 2016
PR Number	PR22435
Applicant/s:	NSW Rural Fire Service
Owner/s:	The State of New South Wales
Location:	Lot 1 DP 1117200 – 1395 Forest Road, Orange
Proposal:	Modification of development consent – emergency services facility (shed). The modification involves relocation of the approved shed 3m to the east and minor reorientation of the shed to face due north and parallel to the existing internal access road.
Value:	$300,000 (being the same value as the original development)

Reference:	DA 139/2016(1)	Determination Date	15 August 2016
PR Number	PR20778
Applicant/s:	Bell River Homes Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Bell River Homes Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 580 DP 1093492 – 21-23 Elsham Avenue, Orange
Proposal:	Subdivision (two lot industrial)
Value:	$0

Reference:	DA 165/2016(1)	Determination Date	15 August 2016
PR Number	PR21084
Applicant/s:	D’Aquino Bros Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Rotom Holdings Pty Limited
Location:	Lot 16 DP 1097086 – 2 Strathgrove Way, Orange
Proposal:	Warehouse or distributions centre (washbay and alterations and additions to existing premises)
Value:	$100,000

Reference:	DA 192/2016(1)	Determination Date	22 August 2016
PR Number	PR7083
Applicant/s:	Hotel Canobolas Pty Limited
Owner/s:	Hotel Canobolas Pty Limited
Location:	Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 DP 239074 – 170-174 Lords Place and 119 Kite Street, Orange
Proposal:	Office premises, food and drink premises, hotel or motel accommodation and signage
Value:	$200,000

Reference:	DA 201/2016(1)	Determination Date	1 August 2016
PR Number	PR26173
Applicant/s:	Mr I Zhang
Owner/s:	Mr R Lin and Mrs M Hong
Location:	Lot 104 DP 1188122 – 5 Glasson Drive, Orange
Proposal:	Dual occupancy and subdivision (two lot residential)
Value:	$320,000

Reference:	DA 201/2016(2)	Determination Date	16 August 2016
PR Number	PR26173
Applicant/s:	Mr I Zhang
Owner/s:	Mr R Lin and Mrs M Hong
Location:	Lot 104 DP 1188122 – 5 Glasson Drive, Orange
Proposal:	Modification of development consent - dual occupancy and subdivision (two lot residential). The modification involves the recalculation of development contributions applicable to the development.
Value:	$320,000 (being the same value as the original development)

Reference:	DA 202/2016(1)	Determination Date	1 August 2016
PR Number	PR26172
Applicant/s:	Mr I Zhang
Owner/s:	Mr R Lin and Mrs M Hong
Location:	Lot 103 DP 1188122 – 3 Glasson Drive, Orange
Proposal:	Dual occupancy and subdivision (two lot residential)
Value:	$320,000

Reference:	DA 202/2016(2)	Determination Date	16 August 2016
PR Number	PR26172
Applicant/s:	Mr I Zhang
Owner/s:	Mr R Lin and Mrs M Hong
Location:	Lot 103 DP 1188122 – 3 Glasson Drive, Orange
Proposal:	Modification of development consent - dual occupancy and subdivision (two lot residential). The modification involves the recalculation of development contributions applicable to the development.
Value:	$320,000 (being the same value as the original development)

Reference:	DA 218/2016(1)	Determination Date	15 August 2016
PR Number	PR1178
Applicant/s:	Canobolas Caravan & Marine Centre
Owner/s:	Canobolas Caravan Park Pty Limited
Location:	Lot 1 DP 218415 – 166-172 Bathurst Road, Orange
Proposal:	Vehicles sales or hire premises and vehicle repair station (alterations and additions, including washbay)
Value:	$100,000

Reference:	DA 224/2016(1)	Determination Date	1 August 2016
PR Number	PR6248
Applicant/s:	Ms J Malone
Owner/s:	Ms J Malone
Location:	Lot 11 DP 825795 – 68 Kite Street, Orange
Proposal:	Demolition (tree removal)
Value:	$3,000

Reference:	DA 231/2016(1)	Determination Date	11 August 2016
PR Number	PR9813
Applicant/s:	LM Interiors and Steel Stone & Wood
Owner/s:	Bailey Funds Management Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 11 DP 800314 – 86-88 Peisley Street, Orange
Proposal:	Bulky goods premises and office premises (alterations to existing premises)
Value:	$50,000

Reference:	DA 232/2016(1)	Determination Date	18 August 2016
PR Number	PR26102
Applicant/s:	DB and R Jones
Owner/s:	Orange Investments (NSW) Pty Ltd, and Mr RG Dawes
Location:	Lots 6 and 7 DP 1183249 – 229 and 231 McLachlan Street, Orange
Proposal:	Recreation facility (indoor)
Value:	$750,000

Reference:	DA 234/2016(1)	Determination Date	26 July 2016
PR Number	PR27302
Applicant/s:	McNamara Street Investments Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	McNamara Street Investments Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 11 DP 1218499 – 8 McNamara Street, Orange
Proposal:	Office premises
Value:	$650,000

Reference:	DA 242/2016(1)	Determination Date	22 July 2016
PR Number	PR11580
Applicant/s:	Checkpoint Building Surveyors
Owner/s:	Alceon Group Pty Limited
Location:	Lot 564 DP 776383 – 212-220 Summer Street, Orange
Proposal:	Shop (shop fitout – tenancies 2-3 and 4)
Value:	$248,524

Reference:	DA 252/2016(1)	Determination Date	15 August 2016
PR Number	PR6608
Applicant/s:	Orange Precision Metalcraft
Owner/s:	Jenkins (DIT) Pty Limited
Location:	Lot 2 DP 255071 – 3 Leewood Drive, Orange
Proposal:	General industry (portable structure (meal room))
Value:	$10,000

Reference:	DA 253/2016(1)	Determination Date	17 August 2016
PR Number	PR5210
Applicant/s:	Mr AJ and Mrs AM Ralston
Owner/s:	Mr AJ and Mrs AM Ralston
Location:	Lot 5 DP 22199 – 108 Hill Street, Orange
Proposal:	Demolition (existing dwelling)
Value:	$18,000

Reference:	DA 270/2016(1)	Determination Date	19 August 2016
PR Number	PR11580
Applicant/s:	CPRAM Investments Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Alceon Group Pty Limited
Location:	Lot 564 DP 776383 – 212-220 Summer Street, Orange
Proposal:	Take away food and drink premises (alterations)
Value:	$50,000

Reference:	DA 271/2016(1)	Determination Date	15 August 2016
PR Number	PR6234
Applicant/s:	Daryl Jackson Robin Dyke Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Petrinovic Family Pty Limited
Location:	Lot 1 Sec 46 DP 758817
Proposal:	Business identification signage
Value:	$3,060

TOTAL NET* VALUE OF ALL DEVELOPMENTS APPROVED IN THIS PERIOD: $2,822,584

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

Planning and Development Committee 6 September 2016

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

TRIM REFERENCE: 2016/1741

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 (37 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 37 lots ranging in size from 2,009m²to 3,917m².

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.

SITE INSPECTION

This matter was submitted to the Planning and Development Committee (PDC) at its meeting of 5 April 2016, at which time it was resolved to undertake a site inspection.

The site inspection was convened on 5 May 2016, attended by Councillors and staff as well as some objectors and observed by the proponent. Several other Councillors are understood to have conducted their own inspections subsequent to the formal site inspection.

Several comments arose from Councillors as a result of the inspection and the principal objector did address the meeting and staff and the proponent did answer several questions posed. The principal objector subsequently submitted an alternative concept sketch, in which no direct access to Gorman Road was proposed, rather relying on the access through the recently completed "Sunset Ridge" estate located to the north.

Council's Technical Services Division has reviewed this alternative concept and offered the following advice:

"The road layout for this subdivision has a road (Road no. 1) connecting the extension of Connemara Drive ….. with Gorman Rd.

The reason for this connection to Gorman Road is to provide an additional exit point from Blunt’s subdivision to the surrounding road network.

Without this connection, all the lots in Blunt’s subdivision (38 in total) plus the 36 lots in (the Sunset Ridge subdivision) all access the surrounding road network at Gorman Road at one point. In effect there is a 74 lot cul-de-sac created. Our subdivision code limits cul-de-sacs to 30 lots so this is a significant departure from the code. Apart from amenity for residents, (which would (be) adversely impact (upon)) the residents which have to put up with traffic from all these lots travelling past their property each day) and travel efficiency, as motorists are forced to travel significant distances from the subdivision to access the surrounding road network, a key reason for this requirement relates to access for emergency vehicles and potential escape paths for residents in the event of a fire or similar situation".

A redesigned subdivision layout with no access from Gorman Road is thus not supportable because of these amenity and safety considerations.

The principal objector at the site inspection also raised issues or made comment with respect to several other issues, which can be summarised generally as follows:

· view loss

· building heights

· setbacks

· building envelopes

· materials and finishes for buildings.

A number of these issues have previously been assessed and commented upon in the main report; others appear to have been misinterpreted as far as staff recommendations are concerned. One is a new issue requiring further comment.

With regard to view loss, this issue was fully assessed and the staff position made clear in the main report.

With regard to building height, the principal objector is seeking a blanket single storey restriction across the whole subdivision. This is not supported, but single storey restrictions are recommended in the consent for certain lots along the main ridge.

With regard to setbacks, the staff position and recommendation of a 15m setback from the southern boundary for future buildings and substantial setbacks from Gorman Road with side setbacks also specified remain. It is the objector's submission that these controls be further increased at least for the shared southern boundary.

With regard to building envelopes, restrictions are contained in the attached consent that require minimum setbacks and limit site coverage to either 35% for the more sensitive blocks, or 50% for the less sensitive blocks. The objector wants to further restrict development by specifying actual building envelopes, but this is not supported in this case due to the slope of many of the affected lots.

With regard to materials and finishes, whilst future buildings and development on the subdivided lots are valid as matters for consideration, it is a fine line of separation to determine what is a linked secondary impact arising from the subdivision, and issues that should more appropriately be considered at the building application stage.

Issues relating to general form, height, site coverage, setbacks and the like have a clear link to the subdivision, but issues relating to building finishes do not have a link to the subdivision aspect of the land's development. Further, it is noted that the general provisions of Council's DCP 2004 will require the reflectivity and compatibility of materials to be considered at the building stage of development.

The original report is again submitted to Council for consideration.

REVISED PROPOSAL AND NOMINATION AS INTGRATED DEVELOPMENT

On 6 June 2016 the applicant informed Council staff that they now wished the matter to be processed as Integrated Development, and submitted amended plans that are claimed to respond to some issues raised during the public consultations on this application. The revised plans have been exhibited as per the requirements for Integrated Development, and the general Terms of Approval obtained from the co-approval agency. Objections were lodged in relation to the revised proposal, and as required by the legislation, copies of the objections passed to the co-approval agency.

The NSW Office of Water has responded after having considered the revised proposal and all submissions received within the statutory period. The General Terms of Approval of the NSW Office of Water have been included in the attached draft Notice of Determination.

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 233/2015(1) for Subdivision (37 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 (37 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 with 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 (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 6 June 2016 that took into account earlier amendments, whilst also attempting to address some of the issues that arose during the assessment and public consultation 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.

The following is a summary of the major changes incorporated into the final amended plans. To provide clarity and certainty in the consent outcomes, it is considered appropriate to impose a number of restrictions as to user to address these issues. These restrictions will relate to some of the following features of the amended (and some that are carried over, unaddressed in the applicant submission):

(1) The final amended plans increase the minimum depth for Lot 333 to 38m as was recommended in discussions with the applicant. However the final revised layout proposes to retain Lot 332 which is heavily affected by the Essential Energy electricity easement.

(2) The addition of a second drainage reserve, adjacent the southern boundary with the adjoining Lot 106. This additional reserve would isolated Lots 313 and 314, and limit the shared boundary with Lot 106 DP1075776.

(3) Reconfigures the orientation of Lots 306 and 307 making it possible for the significant vegetation on those lots to be retained.

(4) Building restriction envelopes in which maximum site coverage does not exceed 35% of the block size for Lots 331 to 337, and Lots 313 to 318 (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 318 is also recommended.

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

(6) 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 331 to 337 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 331 to 337 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 any other native species with a height greater than 10m generally 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 fenced 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 312 and Lots 319 to 330), 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. The dual drainage reserves that are now proposed will not inhibit the quality of surface runoff from the site.

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 with sufficient prominence as to be likely to attract attention. 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 applicants have sought approval under the Integrated Development provisions of the Act, which is the applicants’ choice. The NSW Office of Water (NoW) has issued its general Terms of Approval which are incorporated into the draft development consent.

There is a drainage line Category 1 stream (using the Strahler classification system on the site) which eventually drains into Broken Shaft creek. The 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 fenced 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 follow the general terms of approval issued by NSW office of water as integrated development 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 off Gorman Road, 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 fully 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

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 the lot yield change during the course of the decision making processes 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 $35 per m² = $80,395

Based on the compensation for open space described above, 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 $35 per m² = $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 the roads design is actively supported by Council's design engineer in pre-lodgment discussions with the applicant. This has been re-affirmed for the amended plan. It is necessary to provide a separate intersection onto Gorman Road, as the alternative (rely on the access point for the sunset Ridge Estate) would overload the capacity of that intersection above current design limits of the subdivision code.

Conditions of consent are attached to the notice of determination addressing matters in relation to road construction.

Cumulative Impacts

It is appropriate 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.

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 in its original form was not defined as advertised development, however upon its nomination as Integrated Development by the applicant, this in turn triggered advertised development Provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000. This triggered a need to exhibit the proposed development for 30 days and to advise the co-approval body of any submissions arising from that exhibition process.

For the original application, 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 number of submissions were received as a result of that earlier notification process.

The plans received on 6 June, and which are the subject of the exhibition (and this assessment) differ in a number of aspects to those that were considered from June 2015. Submissions received in relation to those earlier renditions of the plans cannot be validly considered or carried forward to the revised scheme.

In relation to the 6 June 2016 version of the proposed development, three submissions have been received, which are summarised and commented upon as follows:

John Brunner - 126 Gorman Road

(1) Sustainable Settlement Strategy (section 2.4.2) requires that ‘ample configuration can provide reasonable areas of useable open space and achieve detachment/privacy from neighbours.’ Mr Brunner states that in his opinion Lot 318 will not be able to achieve adequate privacy and/or detachment.

(2) The development of proposed Lot 318 will be contrary to a key R5 Large Lot Residential Zone objective, which requires [that future development] ‘provide residential housing in a rural setting while preserving and minimising impacts on environmentally sensitive locations and scenic quality’. Mr Brunner claims that future development on Lot 318 will certainly not achieve these stated outcomes, and further advocates a specific building envelope to add certainty to the outcomes on Lot 318 (which will be a significant issue for his property).

(3) Planning outcomes of the DCP - ancillary buildings are located behind the front building line. Mr Brunner claims that the location of ancillary buildings has the potential to affect his amenity and is therefore a significant potential impact of the application, is not being addressed in the application

(4) Likely Impacts of the Development- Visual Amenity. The objector is concerned that the lack of detail, and the lack of a building envelope at subdivision stage renders an assessment of view loss impossible.

Comment

With regard to point (1), the SSS was a strategic document prepared in 2004 (approximately) with a mind to identifying constraints and opportunities for future zonings and DCP policy positions for the Ploughmans Valley estate. It was never fully implemented and does not form part of any planning control or policy for the subject property, although it is readily acknowledged that as a study into land capability it is probably the best available to Council. Despite this, it is not a document that could reasonably be used as a lot specific assessment tool in the manner suggested by the objector.

With regard to point (2), the R5 zoning should essentially be viewed as a transition zone between full blown rural land and residentially zoned land. As such, it cannot be expected to develop with the same densities as full rural land. Moreover, R5 has differing densities. The pattern of development on the objector’s land is at a lower density to that likely to occur within the subject site. However, the lot sizes proposed (including Lot 318) are consistent with the minimum specified for this locality (2000m²). It is difficult to justify a rejection of a proposed development, or even a particular lot within a subdivision, when the proposed development complies with the relevant standard and it is possible for future development to mitigate possible adverse effects.

With regard to point (3), controls are proposed that limit the footprint of future buildings and impose certain restrictions with regard to setbacks. Additionally, any future applications would be required to consider neighbourhood amenity, visual building bulk restrictions and view sharing provisions detailed within in the DCP.

With regard to point (4), the key issue being mooted within this objection appears to be that no specific building envelope is proposed or required. Controls are proposed that will limit the site coverage and also apply minimum setbacks from the boundaries. A building envelope, as such, in this case is not favoured as this will tend to limit the solutions and options available to future landowners as specific subsoil characteristics are discovered for each site.

Pauline Heffernan - 120 Gorman Road

(1) Unclear if single storey restrictions specified for the original submission would be applied to the ridge top lots.

(2) Lots 318, 319 and 330 should also have a single storey restriction applied to them.

(3) Lot 318 should have a building envelope applied.

With regard to points (1) and (2), the single storey restriction is recommended for Lots 331 to 337. The restriction is intended to limit the effects of vertical bulk on the visual landscape significance of the ridge, particularly when viewed from the more densely populated residential areas of the City to the east and southeast. It is impossible to completely avoid or solve the visual impacts of future development along the ridge, and a limitation to single storey for Lots 318, 319 and 330 is impractical because of the slope that exists on these lots. Lot 330, for example, has a cross fall in excess of 9m. Moreover, none of these three additional lots (Lots 318, 319 and 330) are visible from the populated areas to the east of the site.

With regard to point (3), staff do not support the imposition of a building envelope on Lot 318. A site coverage restriction and a setback control are proposed, but a limit on the physical space a building might occupy is considered an overly rigid and constraining limit on the future development of the site. Being able to move a building around on these sites during the design phase will give a degree of flexibility to the design process.

Sarah and Patrick Rourke - 40 Silverdown Way

(1) Impact of the proposed road that cuts across the contours over the top of the ridgeline. This will have a significant adverse effect on the visual amenity and detrimentally affect the ridge as an element of the view corridor.

(2) Access should be limited to solely via the new Sunset Ridge estate or other less visually intrusive solution.

With respect to points (1) and (2), the proposed road is a necessity for the proposed development for which there is no practical alternative. Council’s Director Technical Services has previously provided comments with respect to this issue. There are no obvious alternatives other than the one proposed; and in any event, Council has a primary obligation to consider the application as submitted rather than attempt to design on-the-run the layout of the subdivision.

The applicant has also wanted to point out that the batters that will be either side of the road construction will be relatively gentle and fully landscaped as part of the subdivision works.

View loss (and scenic quality) remain issues of concern to this objector principally for reasons relating to the link road construction over the ridge to Gorman Road.

Assessment of views (and scenic quality) are addressed in DCP 2004 under the planning outcomes for buildings - PO7.7-9. There are also some relevant Land & Environment Court Planning Principles on which to base the assessment of these issues.

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 and northeast 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 objectors’ 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 objectors’ 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 for the objector after the subject property is developed. 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 when 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-northwest 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 some of this outlook view would be retained. 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.

This report includes an assessment of the suitability of the subdivision design, including an analysis of slope and its impact on sizes and shapes 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. It should also be noted that the draft conditions of consent includes conditions requiring the establishment of 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 is considered necessary to limit the impacts of this development on surrounding lands, and will ensure that the development proceeds in an acceptable manner.

Conditions of consent have been included on the attached 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.

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. These measures are unlikely to meet with the approval of all the local residents, who remain opposed to the proposed development, however this opposition is more to do with the change in zoning than the details of the actual proposed subdivision design (there are exceptions to this generalization and these are addressed in the report with some changes incorporated into the consent).

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, D16/34999 ⇩

2 Plans, D16/33385 ⇩

3 Submissions, D16/33386 ⇩

Planning and Development Committee 6 September 2016

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

Attachment 1 Notice of Approval

leaflogo

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

Development Application No DA 233/2015(1)

NA16/ Container PR4763

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 81(1)

Development Application
Applicant Name:	Mrs JE Youngman, Mrs FK Blunt and Mrs CY Pearson
Applicant Address:	C/- Peter Basha Planning & Development PO Box 1827 ORANGE NSW 2800
Owner’s Name:	Mrs CY Pearson, Mrs JE Youngman and Mrs FK Blunt
Land to Be Developed:	Lot 1 DP 581736 - 98 Gorman Road, Orange
Proposed Development:	Subdivision (37 lot residential plus public open space and drainage reserves)

Building Code of Australia building classification:	Not applicable

Determination
Made On:	6 September 2016
Determination:	CONSENT GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:

Consent to Operate From:	7 September 2016
Consent to Lapse On:	7 September 2021

Terms of Approval

The reasons for the imposition of conditions are:

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

(2) To maintain neighbourhood amenity and character.

(3) To ensure compliance with relevant statutory requirements.

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

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

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

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

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

Conditions

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

(a) Plan/s by Heath Consulting Engineers numbered:

14048_DA03 REV F (Sheet 3); 14048_DE02 REV B (sheet 2); 14048_DE03 REV B (sheet 3);

14048_DE04 REV B (sheet 4); 14048_DE05 REV B (sheet 5); 14048_DE06 REV B (sheet 6);

14048_DE07 REV B (sheet 7); 14048_DE08 REV B (sheet 8); 14048_DE09 REV B (sheet 9);

14048_DE10 REV B (sheet 10); 14048_DE10 REV B (sheet 11); 14048_DE12 REV B (sheet 12);

14048_DE13 REV B (sheet 13); 14048_DE14 REV B (sheet 14); 14048_DE15 REV B (sheet 15);

14048_DA04 REV D (sheet 4); (16 sheets in total)

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

as amended in accordance with any conditions of this consent.

PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS

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

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

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

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

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

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

(3) A Construction Certificate application is required to be submitted to, and issued by, Council prior to any works being carried out onsite.

(4) Engineering plans, showing details of all proposed work and adhering to any engineering conditions of development consent, are to be submitted to, and approved by, Orange City Council or an Accredited Certifier (Categories B1, C3, C4, C6) prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

All roads are to be constructed to a sealed urban road standard in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.

(5) The applicant shall provide Council with written documentation from NSW Office of Water (NOW) indicating that a controlled activity permit under the Water Management Act (WMA) is not required for the proposed development. If the NSW Office of Water determine that a controlled activity permit under the Water Management Act is required for the proposed development the applicant shall furnish Council with a copy of the permit prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

(6) A water and soil erosion control plan is to be submitted to Orange City Council or an Accredited Certifier (Categories B1, C3, C4, C6) for approval prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate. The control plan is to be in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code and the Landcom, Managing Urban Stormwater; Soils and Construction Handbook.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(12) Fencing of the Tree Protection Zones (TPZs) around remnant trees Lots 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 310 and 315 shall be installed, with signage to be supplied by Orange City Council. TPZs shall be identified in consultation with Council’s Manager City Presentation, and fencing is required to be installed to the Director – Environmental Services’ satisfaction and retained throughout the construction process.

PRIOR TO WORKS COMMENCING

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

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

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

(15) Excavated rock derived from the site works shall either be the stored and used in above ground uses within the subdivision area, or, stored on a Council designated stockpile for future use. It shall not be re-buried.

If Aboriginal objects, relics, or other historical items or the like are located during development works, all works in the area of the identified object, relic or item shall cease, and the NSW OEH and representatives from the Orange LALC shall be notified. Further archaeological investigation shall be undertaken where required,. Development works in the area of the find(s) may recommence only when cleared to do so by OEH, which may require a permit to destroy the artefact under section 90 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.

(16) The source of imported material must be advised prior to the placement of that fill and shall be from a site or source certified as not contaminated

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

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

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

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

(20) Gorman Road is to be constructed as half road width for the full frontage of the proposed development. This work is to include road pavement and pavement surfacing to the centreline, kerb and gutter construction and earth-formed footpath on the development side of the road.

(21) For all single access battle axe blocks, a concrete driveway, kerb layback and footpath crossing is to be constructed to a minimum width of 3.0 metres and to the requirements and standards of the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.

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

(23) Concrete bicycle pathways, a minimum of 2.5 metres wide, are to be constructed on one side of all 20.0m wide streets including Gorman Road.

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

(24) All street lighting is to be completed using Essential Energy approved LED lighting. The required lighting level along all roads is P4 as per the Australian Standard.

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A SUBDIVISION CERTIFICATE

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

(26) The subdivision plan shall also be altered to show a minimum depth for Lot 334 of 38m (proposed at 35m).

(27) A Restriction-as-to-User under Section 88B of the NSW Conveyancing Act 1979 shall be created on the titles of Lots 332 to 338 and 312 to 319 (being those lots on the ridge and those lots along the southern boundary) specifying a maximum site coverage that does not exceed 35% of the respective lot size. The Restriction shall also provide for a minimum setback of 15m from the southern boundary for Lots 312 to 319 and a minimum setback of 12m from Gorman Road.

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 allotment size are required.

All building envelopes required under this consent, except where elsewhere otherwise specified, shall incorporate front and side setbacks not less than of 10m and 2m respectively.

(28) A Restriction-as-to-User under Section 88B of the NSW Conveyancing Act 1979 shall be created on the title for Lots 332 to Lot 338 (inclusive) that requires the submission of a landscape plan that is to the satisfaction of Council with any dwelling (or outbuilding) application. 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.

(29) A Restriction-as-to-User under Section 88B of the NSW Conveyancing Act 1979 shall be placed on the titles of proposed Lots 332 to 338 limiting future development on these lots to single storey construction. The Restriction-as-to-User shall also limit all fencing throughout the subdivision to rural type fencing less the barbed wire component as per the requirements of Councils Development Control Plan 2004.

(30) A Restriction-as-to-User under Section 88B of the NSW Conveyancing Act 1979 is required for the retention and protection of trees on Lots 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 310 and 315 (the smaller tree on this lot may be removed), 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. The restriction shall provide for the protection of the designated trees.

(31) The payment of $620,210.36 is to be made to Council in accordance with Section 94 of the Act and the 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 $35 per m² = $80,395)	-$80395.00
Total		$620,210.36

The contribution will be indexed quarterly in accordance with the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2015 (development in Ploughmans Valley urban release area).

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

(33) Payment of contributions for water, sewer and drainage works is required to be made at the contribution rate applicable at the time that the payment is made. The contributions are based on 36 ETs for water supply headworks and 37 ETs for sewerage headworks. A Certificate of Compliance, from Orange City Council in accordance with the Water Management Act 2000, will be issued upon payment of the contributions.

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

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

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

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

All street lighting is to be completed using Essential Energy prestige style 4 columns and luminaries. The required lighting level along all roads is P4 as per the Australian Standard.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

REQUIREMENTS FROM ESSENTIAL ENERGY

· 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.

GENERAL TERMS OF APPROVAL FROM THE NSW OFFICE OF WATER

Number	Condition		File No: ERM2016/0474
Site Address:		98 Gorman Road, Orange
DA Number:		233/2015/1
LGA:		Orange City Council
Plans, standards and guidelines
1	These General Terms of Approval (GTA) only apply to the controlled activities described in the plans and associated documentation relating to 233/2015/1 and provided by Council: (i) Site plan Any amendments or modifications to the proposed controlled activities may render these GTA invalid. If the proposed controlled activities are amended or modified DPI Water (formerly the NSW Office of Water) must be notified to determine if any variations to these GTA will be required.
2	Prior to the commencement of any controlled activity (works) on waterfront land, the consent holder must obtain a Controlled Activity Approval (CAA) under the Water Management Act from DPI Water. Waterfront land for the purposes of this DA is land and material in or within 40 metres of the top of the bank or shore of the river identified.
3	The consent holder must prepare or commission the preparation of: (i) Rehabilitation and Vegetation Management Plan (ii) Works Schedule (iii) Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (iv) Soil and Water Management Plan (v) Design and specifications including discharge design plan
4	All plans must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and submitted to the DPI Water for approval prior to any controlled activity commencing. The following plans must be prepared in accordance with DPI Water's guidelines located at www.water.nsw.gov.au/ Water-Licensing/Approvals. (i) Vegetation Management Plans (ii) Laying pipes and cables in watercourses (iii) Riparian Corridors (iv) In-stream works (v) Outlet structures
5	The consent holder must (i) carry out any controlled activity in accordance with approved plans and (ii) construct and/or implement any controlled activity by or under the direct supervision of a suitably qualified professional and (iii) when required, provide a certificate of completion to DPI Water.
6	The consent holder must carry out a maintenance period of two (2) years after practical completion of all controlled activities, rehabilitation and vegetation management in accordance with a plan approved by the DPI Water.
7 - 11	N/A
12-14	N/A

15	The consent holder is to ensure that all drainage works (i) capture and convey runoffs, discharges and flood flows to low flow water level in accordance with a plan approved by DPI Water; and (ii) do not obstruct the flow of water other than in accordance with a plan approved by DPI Water.
16	The consent holder must stabilise drain discharge points to prevent erosion in accordance with a plan approved by DPI Water.
17	The consent holder must establish all erosion and sediment control works and water diversion structures in accordance with a plan approved by DPI Water. These works and structures must be inspected and maintained throughout the working period and must not be removed until the site has been fully stabilised.
18	The consent holder must ensure that no excavation is undertaken on waterfront land other than in accordance with a plan approved by DPI Water.
19	The consent holder must ensure that any excavation does not result in (i) diversion of any river (ii) bed or bank instability or (iii) damage to native vegetation within the area where a controlled activity has been authorised, other than in accordance with a plan approved by DPI Water.
20	The consent holder must ensure that (i) river diversion, realignment or alteration does not result from any controlled activity work and (ii) bank control or protection works maintain the existing river hydraulic and geomorphic functions, and (iii) bed control structures do not result in river degradation other than in accordance with a plan approved by DPI Water.
21 - 28	N/A
END OF CONDITIONS

Other Approvals

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

Nil

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

Nil

Right of Appeal

If you are dissatisfied with this decision, section 97 of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 gives you the right to appeal to the Land and Environment Court within 6 months after the date on which you receive this notice.

* Section 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 does not apply to the determination of a development application for State significant development or local designated development that has been the subject of a Commission of Inquiry.

Disability Discrimination Act 1992:

This application has been assessed in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. No guarantee is given that the proposal complies with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

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

The Disability Discrimination Act covers disabilities not catered for in the minimum standards called up in the Building Code of Australia which references AS1428.1 - "Design for Access and Mobility". AS1428 Parts 2, 3 and 4 provides the most comprehensive technical guidance under the Disability Discrimination Act currently available in Australia.


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

Signed:	On behalf of the consent authority ORANGE CITY COUNCIL
Signature:
Name:	DAVID WADDELL - DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Date:	7 September 2016

Planning and Development Committee 6 September 2016

2.4 Development Application DA 172/2016(1) - 50 Moonstone Drive

TRIM REFERENCE: 2016/1959

AUTHOR: Summer Commins, Town Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged	27 May 2016 Additional information received 16 August 2016
Applicant/s	Ms DH Omer
Owner/s	Ms DH Omer
Land description	Lot 123 DP 1190845 - 50 Moonstone Drive, Orange
Proposed land use	Child Care Centre
Value of proposed development	$1,030,000

Council's consent is sought for a proposed child care centre at 50 Moonstone Drive, Orange, on land described as Lot 123 DP 1190845. The proposal involves construction of a single-storey building for the purpose of a long day care child care centre. Onsite car parking will be provided. The centre will provide 75 child care places for children aged between 0‑5 years, and operate between the hours of 6.30am and 6.00pm Monday to Friday.

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 172/2016(1) for Child Care Centre at Lot 123 DP 1190845 - 50 Moonstone Drive, Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

THE PROPOSAL

The proposal involves the construction of a new building for use as a long day child care centre.

The purpose-built premises will be of contemporary design and detailing, and residential in form and scale. The building will be single-storey, with a floor area of 739.1m², footprint of some 29m x 29m and height (ridge) of some 5.8m. External finishes will include face brick walls, Colorbond roof sheeting and aluminium framed openings.

The proposed building will contain:

· entry foyer with adjacent reception, offices and conference room

· five (5) playrooms according to age bracket and adjacent bathrooms and nap rooms

· kitchen, staff amenities, laundry and store rooms.

Front (west) elevation to Moonstone Drive

As depicted below, the site layout will provide vehicle, pedestrian and landscaped areas at the site frontage and outdoor play spaces at the rear of the building.

Site plan

Onsite car parking will be provided for 21 vehicles. Dual access via Moonstone Drive will provide for one-way vehicle circulation through the site.

The centre will provide 75 child care places for children aged between 0-5 years, and operate between the hours of 6.30am and 6.00pm Monday to Friday.

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

Section 5A Assessment

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

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

Section 79C

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

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

Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011

Part 1 - Preliminary

Clause 1.2 - Aims of Plan

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

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

The application is considered to be consistent with objectives (a) and (b) as outlined in this report.

Clause 1.6 - Consent Authority

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

Clause 1.9A - Suspension of Covenants, Agreements and Instruments

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

· covenants imposed or required by Council

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

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

· any trust agreement under the Nature Conservation Trust Act 2001

· any property vegetation plan under the Native Vegetation Act 2003

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

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

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

Mapping

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

Land Zoning Map:	Land zoned R1 General Residential
Lot Size Map:	No minimum Lot Size
Heritage Map:	Not a heritage item or conservation area
Height of Buildings Map:	No building height limit
Floor Space Ratio Map:	No floor space limit
Terrestrial Biodiversity Map:	No biodiversity sensitivity on the site
Groundwater Vulnerability Map:	Ground water vulnerable
Drinking Water Catchment Map:	Not within the drinking water catchment
Watercourse Map:	Not within or affecting a defined watercourse
Urban Release Area Map:	Not within an urban release area
Obstacle Limitation Surface Map:	No restriction on building siting or construction
Additional Permitted Uses Map:	No additional permitted use applies

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

Part 2 - Permitted or Prohibited Development

Land Use Zones

The subject site is located within the R1 General Residential zone. The proposed development is defined as child care centre. Pursuant to the OLEP 2011 Dictionary:

Child care centre means a building or place used for the supervision and care of children that:

(a) provides long day care, pre-school care, occasional child care or out-of-school-hours care, and

(b) does not provide overnight accommodation for children other than those related to the owner or operator of the centre,

but does not include:

(c) a building or place used for home-based child care, or

(d) an out-of-home care service provided by an agency or organisation accredited by the Children’s Guardian, or

(e) a baby-sitting, playgroup or child-minding service that is organised informally by the parents of the children concerned, or

(f) a service provided for fewer than 5 children (disregarding any children who are related to the person providing the service) at the premises at which at least one of the children resides, being a service that is not advertised, or

(g) a regular child-minding service that is provided in connection with a recreational or commercial facility (such as a gymnasium), by or on behalf of the person conducting the facility, to care for children while the children’s parents are using the facility, or

(h) a service that is concerned primarily with the provision of:

(i) lessons or coaching in, or providing for participation in, a cultural, recreational, religious or sporting activity, or

(ii) private tutoring, or

(i) a school, or

(j) a service provided at exempt premises (within the meaning of Chapter 12 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998), such as hospitals, but only if the service is established, registered or licensed as part of the institution operating on those premises.

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

Objectives

These objectives for land zoned R1 General Residential are as follows:

1 - Objectives of the R1 General Residential Zone

· To provide for the housing needs of the community.

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

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

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

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

The proposed development is consistent with the relevant objectives of the R1 zone. The proposal does not involve residential landuse. The proposed child care centre will provide a long-day child care service that will be utilised by local and wider residents. The subject Waratah residential precinct is serviced by public transport. The land does not have frontage or access to the Southern Link Road.

Part 3 - Exempt and Complying Development

The application is not exempt or complying development.

Part 4 - Principal Development Standards

The Part 4 Principal Development Standards do not relate to the subject land or proposed development.

Part 5 - Miscellaneous Provisions

The Part 5 Miscellaneous Provisions are not applicable to the proposal.

Part 6 - Urban Release Area

The subject site is not located in an Urban Release Area and Part 6 does not apply.

Part 7 - Additional Local Provisions

7.1 - Earthworks

Clause 7.1 is applicable. This clause states in part:

(2) Development consent is required for earthworks unless:

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

Minor earthworks are required for the proposed child care centre. The earthworks are ancillary to the development and separate consent is not required pursuant to clause 7.1(2)(b).

7.3 - Stormwater Management

Clause 7.3 is applicable. This clause states in part:

(3) Development consent must not be granted to development on land to which this clause 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 on-site infiltration of water, and

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

In consideration of Clause 7.3, conditions are recommended in relation to stormwater infrastructure associated with the proposed child care centre. Stormwater from the site will be connected to Council’s urban stormwater drainage system. Compliance with conditions will ensure that stormwater runoff will not adversely impact on adjoining properties.

7.6 - Groundwater Vulnerability

The subject land is identified as Groundwater Vulnerable on the Groundwater Vulnerability Map. Clause 7.6 applies. This clause states in part:

(3) Before determining a development application for development on land to which this clause applies, the consent authority must consider:

(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.

In consideration of Clause 7.6, the proposal is considered to be acceptable. The proposed child care centre does not involve processes or activities that would impact on groundwater resources.

Clause 7.11 - Essential Services

Clause 7.11 applies. This clause states:

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

(a) the supply of water,

(b) the supply of electricity,

(c) the disposal and management of sewage,

(d) stormwater drainage or on-site conservation,

(e) suitable road access.

In consideration of this clause, all utility services are available to the site and adequate for the proposed child care centre.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

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 the development that is proposed, and if the land requires remediation to be made suitable for the proposed development it is satisfied that the land will be remediated before the land is used for that purpose.

Furthermore, SEPP 55 requires that before determining an application for consent to carry out development that would involve a change of use on any of the land specified in subclause (4), the consent authority must consider a report specifying findings of a preliminary investigation of the land concerned. Notably, subclause (4) refers to ‘child care purposes’.

Given that the land has been recently subdivided and deemed suitable for residential use, it is considered that the subject land is suitable for the proposed development and no further investigation of contamination is required.

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 7 Development in Residential Zones

Part 7.5 Merit Based Approach to Residential Development in Orange

The following Planning Outcomes are used as a guide in assessment of the proposed child care centre.

Neighbourhood Character

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

· Site layout and building design enables the:

- creation of attractive residential environments with clear character and identity

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

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

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

The Moonstone Drive residential precinct is defined by substantial and contemporary double fronted, brick veneer, single dwellings. In addition, a church has recently been constructed on land two parcels removed from the subject land to the south at 46 Moonstone Drive.

The design and detailing of the proposed childcare centre are considered suitable within the subject residential setting and will complement the neighbourhood character due to the following:

· The building is provided with a generous setback of some 19m from the front boundary so as to not appear imposing in the Moonstone Drive streetscape. The setback will complement the siting of adjoining improvements to the south.

· The building will be single storey and of consistent height with adjoining dwellings.

· The hipped roof, wall height and window fenestration are reflective of domestic architectural forms in this streetscape and the Waratah subdivision generally.

· The proposed external finishes are compatible with adjoining dwellings.

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 considered above, the design, detailing and finishes for the proposed child care centre are appropriate in this neighbourhood and will complement the streetscape built form. The external materials and scale of the proposed building are generally residential in form and commensurate with the existing and emerging built form.

The proposed building will address Moonstone Drive. The front elevation will comprise main entrance double doors, verandah treatment and numerous symmetrical vertical openings.

The proposed car park will be located at the site frontage, forward of the child care centre building. The proposed site layout is consistent with other child care centres on residential parcels in the city (eg the Waratah Early Learning Centre at 52-54 Farrell Road). Extensive landscaping of the front boundary and site boundaries forward of the building line will provide screening and visual relief of vehicle areas.

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.

The subject land does not contain or adjoin a heritage item and is not located within a heritage conservation area.

Setbacks

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

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

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

The proposed building will be sited a minimum 20m from the front boundary to Moonstone Drive. The front setback will relate to the siting of the adjoining dwelling to the south at 48 Moonstone Drive; and the church on the next southern parcel at 46 Moonstone Drive. The proposed front setback is considered to be acceptable. Side and rear setbacks for the proposed building will comply with the Building Code of Australia.

Front Fences and Walls

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcomes in 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.

The proposal does not involve the erection of a front fence to Moonstone Drive.

An acoustic assessment has been submitted in support of the proposal (Wilkinson Murray August 2016). In order to ameliorate noise impacts associated with the proposed child care centre, fencing will be erected on the side boundaries (consistent with the recommendations of the acoustic assessment). Side boundary fencing will have a height of 1.8m on the northern boundary, and height range of 1.8m - 2.4m on the southern boundary. Side boundary fencing will generally extend to the front building line of dwellings on the adjoining parcels, consistent with fence siting in this streetscape.

Recommended Noise Barriers (Wilkinson Murray August 2016)

That part of the fence on the southern boundary with a height of 2.4m will not have unreasonable visual bulk impacts for the adjoining dwelling at 48 Moonstone Drive. The existing dwelling is set back some 10m from the fence, and main internal and external living spaces of the dwelling will not directly oppose the fence. Plantings (trees) on the child care centre site adjacent to the fence will have a mature height of 10m, and provide some visual relief to the fence. The taller portion of the fence will not be visible at the Moonstone Drive site frontage.

A condition is recommended that fencing be erected consistent with the recommendations contained in the acoustic assessment.

Visual Bulk

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

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

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

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

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

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

- building to the boundary where appropriate.

The proposed building will be single-storey with reasonable setbacks from side and rear boundaries. The building will generally complement the bulk and scale of adjacent dwellings and church in Moonstone Drive.

The proposed building will be contained within the DCP prescribed visual bulk envelope plane. The building will comprise a total building footprint of 739.1m². Based on a site area of 2,024m², the development will have site coverage of 36.5%, in compliance with the maximum 50% prescribed in the DCP.

Minor earthworks will be required for the establishment of the building and car park. Finished levels will relate to natural ground levels on this site and neighbouring parcels. Visual bulk encroachment impacts are not anticipated for adjoining dwellings.

Walls and Boundaries

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

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

- the privacy of neighbouring dwellings and private open space

- the access to daylight reaching adjoining properties

- the impact of boundary walls on neighbours.

The proposal does not involve the construction of buildings on the boundary. As outlined in this report, the site layout and building design will not impact on adjoining dwellings in respect of privacy, solar access or visual bulk.

Daylight and Sunlight

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

· Buildings are sited and designed to ensure:

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

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

- consideration of Council’s Energy Efficiency Code.

Shadow diagrams were not prepared in support of the proposed development. Notwithstanding, assessment of shadow impacts demonstrates that the proposal will not unreasonably overshadow the (most effected) adjoining dwelling to the south at 48 Moonstone Drive. Based on the height and siting of the proposed building and the siting of the adjoining southern dwelling, internal and external solar access will be maintained for 48 Moonstone Drive, consistent with the DCP guidelines.

Consistent with the recommendations of the submitted acoustic assessment (Wilkinson Murray August 2016), fencing on the southern boundary will have a height of 1.8m‑2.4m. That part of the fence 2.4m in height will not oppose main internal or external living spaces for the adjoining southern dwelling at 48 Moonstone Drive. Accordingly, the fence height will not result in unreasonable overshadowing of primary living spaces.

The proposed site layout and building design will provide solar access to internal play rooms and outdoor play spaces associated with the proposed child care centre.

Views

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

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

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

The subject site is not within an important view corridor. The proposed building will not unreasonably diminish views for other properties in the vicinity.

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 site layout and building design will provide acceptable visual privacy for adjoining dwellings. Perimeter fencing of varying heights will be erected on the side boundaries and will prevent overlooking from internal and external play spaces associated with the proposed child care centre. Landscaping to the site boundaries will further assist.

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.

An acoustic assessment has been submitted in support of the proposal (Wilkinson Murray August 2016). Noise associated with the child care centre will be generated by indoor activities, mechanical plant, onsite traffic and outdoor play. In order to mitigate noise impacts associated with the proposed child care centre, the assessment makes the following recommendations:

· Construct noise barriers/fences on the northern and southern boundaries… Barriers should be continuous with no gaps.

· Limit the number of children permitted to partake in outdoor free play to 50 at any one time.

· Condition mechanical plant noise to comply with the criteria derived therein (ie. 40dBA, 39dBA and 35dBA for the day, evening and early morning periods respectively) at the neighbouring residences.

· The centre should erect signage and also brief parents on the importance of limiting noise emissions from the car park area.

· The proponent should assess mechanical plant noise once details of the design are available.

The acoustic assessment concludes:

‘With [implementation of] the mitigation measures, noise emissions from the proposed centre are predicted to generally be within the relevant criteria.’

Conditions are recommended to address the requirements of the acoustic assessment.

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 proposal is considered acceptable in regard to safety and security as follows:

· The front facade to Moonstone Drive has numerous windows which address the onsite car park and street. The building design will provide reasonable opportunities for natural surveillance.

· The site has acceptable access control due to perimeter fencing and fully enclosed outdoor play spaces.

· The proposed landscape design will not restrict sight lines.

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.

The onsite car park will accommodate the turn path of a B85 vehicle (4.9m in length); ie a standard car. Sufficient manoeuvring area will be available in the car park to permit reverse manoeuvring from car spaces and forward direction egress to Moonstone Drive.

Conditions are recommended requiring stormwater drainage within the proposed car park. Landscaping of the car park is proposed. The site layout will allow for the functional movement of people with a disability through the site.

Car Parking

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

· Parking facilities are provided, designed and located to:

- enable the efficient and convenient use of car spaces and 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.

Pursuant to DCP 2004, onsite parking is required for child care centres at a rate of 1 space for every 4 children in attendance. The proposed child care centre will provide 75 child care places, with 18.75 (ie 19) parking spaces required. Twenty-one (21) onsite car parking spaces will be provided, including 1 space for disabled drivers, in compliance with the DCP.

Onsite car parking for the development is also consistent with parking requirements pursuant to the Guide to Traffic Generating Developments (Roads and Traffic Authority 2002) (the RTA Guide). The RTA Guide requires 1 space for every 4.5 children in attendance, which amounts to 16.6 (17) parking spaces for the proposed child care centre.

Private Open Space

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

· Private open space is clearly defined for private use.

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

· Private open space is:

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

– accessible from a living area of the dwelling

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

– Orientated to optimise year round use.

The Planning Outcomes are not applicable to the proposed child care centre.

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 landscape plan has been submitted in support of the proposal. Extensive plantings at the site frontage will provide screening of the car park in the Moonstone Drive streetscape. Landscaping on the side boundaries forward of the building line will partly ameliorate noise and visual impacts associated with the site accesses and car park for adjoining dwellings to the north and south. The proposed plantings are appropriate to the Orange area and incorporate trees, shrubs and groundcover. Conditions are recommended requiring the establishment and maintenance of landscaping.

Stormwater

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

· On-site drainage systems are designed to consider:

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

– scope for on-site infiltration of water

– safety and convenience of pedestrians and vehicles

– overland flow paths.

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

In order to achieve compliance with the Planning Outcomes, conditions are recommended in relation to stormwater management of the site.

Erosion and Sedimentation

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

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

In order to achieve compliance with the Planning Outcomes, conditions are recommended in relation to erosion and sediment control.

Part 7.9 - Shops and Business in the Urban Residential Zone

The DCP prescribes the following Planning Outcomes for Shops and Business in the Urban Residential Zone:

· Development complements the scale of residential development in the area and the predominant heights and form of residential development in the vicinity

· Business premises are located in neighbourhood business areas existing prior to Orange LEP 2000

· Development applications satisfactorily demonstrate that the development will not adversely affect the amenity of the residential locality as a consequence of the nature of the business, loading or unloading requirements, on-street parking, hours of operation, etc

· Neighbourhood business premises are small scale to serve the needs of the residents of the locality…

· Onsite parking is provided according to Section 15.4 of this plan

· Advertising signage is limited to exempt development for home businesses or businesses in converted dwelling houses

· Advertising signage in neighbourhood centres is not intrusive to the character of the residential locality…

In consideration of the Planning Outcomes, the proposed child care centre is satisfactory, as outlined below:

· As considered earlier in this report, the design, detailing and finishes for the proposed child care centre are appropriate in this neighbourhood and will complement the streetscape built form. The external materials and scale of the proposed building are generally residential in form and scale, and commensurate with the adjoining dwellings and emerging built form in this setting.

· The proposal does not comprise a business premises or neighbourhood business premises.

· As outlined in this report, the proposed child care centre will not unreasonably impact on amenity for adjoining dwellings in respect of visual bulk, solar access, privacy, noise or traffic congestion. Relevant conditions are recommended to maintain amenity for adjoining dwellings.

· As considered earlier in this report, the proposed child care centre will generate demand for 19 onsite parking spaces. Twenty-one (21) onsite car parking spaces will be provided, including 1 space for disabled drivers, in compliance with the DCP.

· The proposal does not involve advertising. A condition is recommended requiring further consent be obtained for advertising that is not exempt development.

Development Control Plan 2004 - Part 15 Car Parking

The DCP prescribes the following Planning Outcomes for Off-Street Car Parking:

· Adequate off-street car parking is provided in accordance with the table, or alternatively, according to an assessment that demonstrates peak parking demand based on recognised research

· Car parking areas are designed according to Australian Standard.

· Car parking areas include adequate lighting and landscaping which provides for the personal security of users

· Bicycle parking facilities are provided according to the relevant Australian Standard.

· Facilities for loading and unloading of commercial vehicles are provided according to the relevant Australian Standard

In consideration of the Planning Outcomes, the proposed child care centre is satisfactory, as outlined below:

· As outlined earlier in this report, onsite car parking will be provided for the proposed child care centre consistent with the DCP requirements.

· Conditions are recommended requiring the submission of engineering plans for the proposed car park, demonstrating compliance with AS 2890.1-2004 Off Street Car Parking.

· Landscaping will be provided to the perimeter of the proposed car park. The landscaping will provide site beautification and visual and acoustic relief to vehicle areas.

· The nature of the landuse is unlikely to necessitate bicycle parking facilities.

· Service vehicles associated with the development will comprise small vans and light commercial vehicles. These may be accommodated onsite within the proposed car park.

DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN 2015

Development contributions for water, sewer and drainage works are applicable to the proposed development. The contributions are based on 3.5 ETs for water supply headworks and 6.5 ETs for sewerage headworks. A condition is recommended requiring payment of the applicable contributions.

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

Demolition of a Building (clause 92)

The proposal does not involve the demolition of a building.

Fire Safety Considerations (clause 93)

Fire protection measures will be required appropriate to the building class. Fire safety considerations will be addressed at Construction Certificate stage.

Buildings to be Upgraded (clause 94)

This matter is not relevant as the subject land is vacant.

BASIX Commitments (clause 97A)

BASIX is not applicable to the proposal. A Section J Energy Efficiency statement will be required at Construction Certificate stage.

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

Visual Impacts

The design, detailing and finishes for the proposed child care centre are appropriate in this neighbourhood and will complement the streetscape built form. The external materials and scale of the proposed building are generally residential in form and scale and commensurate with the adjoining dwellings and church. Extensive landscaping to the car park perimeter will provide integration of the proposed building in the streetscape and softening of hardstand areas.

Traffic Impacts

Traffic Generation

The RTA Guide prescribes the following traffic generation rates for long day child care centres:

Centre Type and Number of Children	Peak Vehicle Trips/Child
75 place long day care	7.00am – 9.00am	2.30-4.00pm	4.00-6.00pm
	0.8	0.3	0.7
Total Vehicle Trips	60	22.5	52.5

Traffic generation associated with the development is in the order of 60 vehicle trips in the morning peak (7.00am-9.00am) and 52.5 vehicle trips in the evening peak (4.00pm‑6.00pm). The RTA Guide defines a vehicle trip as a one-way vehicular movement from one point to another, excluding the return journey. Accordingly, the estimated vehicle trips will comprise 30 in the morning peak and some 27 in the evening peak.

It is acknowledged that traffic generation associated with the child care centre will be substantially greater than that pertaining to residential landuse. Notwithstanding this, the centre has the potential to generate less than one (1) vehicle trip per minute either approaching or departing the site (not both) in the peak morning and evening period.

It is considered that the traffic generated by the proposed child care centre will not adversely impact on local traffic amenity. The existing road network in the vicinity of the site operates at a reasonable level of service, with more than sufficient capacity to cater for additional traffic volumes.

The increase in traffic flows is unlikely to have a detrimental effect upon the operation of Moonstone Drive, or the intersections with Jasper Street to the north and Turquoise Way to the south. In this regard:

· The access driveways proposed to serve the development are suitably located and will provide good sight distances along Moonstone Drive.

· The design of the carpark will comply with AS 2890.1-2004 Off Street Car Parking.

· Onsite car parking for the development will comply with the requirements of DCP 2004 and the RTA Guide.

The applicant submits that traffic generation associated with the proposed child care centre is unlikely to conflict with traffic associated with the recently approved place of worship at 46 Moonstone Drive. Peak vehicle trips for the church are weekends and weekday evenings; ie outside of operating hours for the child care centre. On this basis, there is considered to be minimal overlapping traffic generation for non-residential uses in the locality. This assessment is acknowledged and concurred with.

Access and Manoeuvring

The subject land has direct frontage to Moonstone Drive. Dual footpath crossings will provide for one-way vehicle circulation through the site: vehicles will enter via the northern access and exit via the southern access. All vehicles will enter and exit the site in a forward direction. The access driveways will be reasonably removed from the intersections with Jasper Street to the north and Turquoise Way to the south.

The onsite car park will accommodate the turn path of a B85 vehicle (4.9m in length); ie a standard car. Sufficient manoeuvring area will be available in the carpark to permit reverse manoeuvring from car spaces and forward direction egress to Moonstone Drive.

Car Parking

The proposed development incorporates a total of 21 off-street car parking spaces, consistent with the requirements of DCP 2004 and the RTA Guide. Compliance with the requirements for onsite car parking will lessen reliance for on-street parking and associated traffic congestion in Moonstone Drive.

Neighbourhood Amenity

Noise

Noise associated with operation of the proposed child care centre will exceed that pertaining to normal residential landuse. Noise will be generated by indoor activities, mechanical plant, onsite traffic and outdoor play. As outlined earlier in this report, an acoustic assessment was submitted in support of the proposal (Wilkinson Murray August 2016). The acoustic assessment confirms that subject to implementation of mitigation measures, noise emissions from the proposed child care centre will generally comply with the relevant criteria. Conditions are recommended to address the requirements of the acoustic assessment. On this basis, noise impacts are considered to be within reasonable limit.

Light

In order that any external lighting associated with the proposed child care centre will not cause nuisance glare for adjoining dwellings, a condition is recommended requiring exterior lighting be sited and designed to comply with AS 4282-1997 Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting.

Privacy

Perimeter fencing of varying heights will be erected on the side boundaries and will prevent overlooking of adjoining dwellings from internal and external play spaces and car park. Landscaping will further assist. The proposal will not adversely impact on privacy for adjoining dwellings.

Environmental Impacts

The proposed child care centre will not involve processes or activities that would impact on air or water quality in the locality. Where applicable, the applicant shall enter into a Trade Waste Contract with Council. Other wastes will be disposed of via Council's waste collection or recycling services. Adverse environmental impacts are not anticipated as a result of the proposal.

Social and Economic Impacts

The proposed development is unlikely to generate a negative social or economic impact within the locality. The proposal will provide valuable child care places within the community, enabling greater participation by parents in the workforce. The development will also provide additional employment opportunities.

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

Landuse

Child care centres are permitted in the R1 zone and considered to be a complementary landuse.

Servicing

All utility services are available to the site and adequate for the proposal. The proposed development will be connected to Council’s sewer, town water and stormwater reticulations in accordance with normal requirements. Power, telephone and natural gas services will be connected to the dwellings in accordance with the requirements of the relevant supply authority. Conditions are recommended in relation to services connection to the proposed development.

Physical Attributes and Hazards

The subject site is considered to be suitable for the proposed development. There are no physical attributes within the site that would unreasonably constrain the development. The site is not subject to known technological or natural hazards.

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. At the conclusion of the exhibition period two submissions had been received, including a petition containing ten signatures. The issues raised in the submissions are outlined below:

The proposal will generate additional traffic

As outlined earlier in this report, it is considered that the traffic generated by the proposed child care centre will not adversely impact on local traffic amenity. The existing road network in the vicinity of the site operates at a reasonable level of service, with more than sufficient capacity to cater for additional traffic volumes. Onsite traffic arrangements will assist to minimise congestion associated with increased traffic volumes.

The proposal will cause on-street parking congestion; insufficient onsite parking will be provided

As outlined earlier in this report, 21 onsite car parking spaces will be provided for the proposed child care centre, consistent with the requirements of DCP 2004 and the RTA Guide. Compliance with the requirements for onsite car parking will lessen reliance for on-street parking and associated traffic congestion in Moonstone Drive.

The proposal will contribute to an overdevelopment of non-residential uses in a residential area

The proposed child care centre is a permitted use in the R1 General Residential zone and consistent with the zone objective to ‘enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.’

The place of worship at 46 Moonstone Drive represents the only other non-residential use in the western portion of the Waratah subdivision, and indeed in the Moonstone Drive precinct. (Industrial uses to the east across Clergate Road and north on Ralston Drive are located outside of the Waratah subdivision). Two (2) non-residential and permitted uses are not considered an overdevelopment in the locality.

Cumulative impacts are considered to be within reasonable limits. As demonstrated in this report, the building design will complement the neighbourhood built form; traffic generation will not adversely impact on local traffic amenity; and the proposal will not unreasonably impact on residential amenity in terms of visual bulk, solar access, privacy or noise.

The proposed building utilises the maximum permissible density for the site

The proposed building will not exceed the DCP-prescribed building envelope or site coverage. As considered earlier in this report, the design, detailing and finishes for the proposed child care centre are appropriate in this neighbourhood and will complement the streetscape built form. The external materials and scale of the proposed building are generally residential in form, and commensurate with the existing and emerging built form.

The proposal will decrease the value of surrounding dwellings

The perceived impact of a proposed development on property values is not a valid consideration in the assessment of a development application, pursuant to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

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 Orange LEP 2011. The proposal is consistent with the applicable planning outcomes and guidelines contained in Orange DCP 2004. 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, D16/38546 ⇩

2 Plans, D16/38253 ⇩

3 Submissions, D16/38261 ⇩

Planning and Development Committee 6 September 2016

2.4 Development Application DA 172/2016(1) - 50 Moonstone Drive

Attachment 1 Notice of Approval

leaflogo

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

Development Application No DA 172/2016(1)

NA16/ Container PR26365

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 81(1)

Development Application
Applicant Name:	Ms DH Omer
Applicant Address:	17 Westringia Avenue MOUNT ANNAN NSW 2567
Owner’s Name:	Ms DH Omer
Land to Be Developed:	Lot 123 DP 1190845 - 50 Moonstone Drive, Orange
Proposed Development:	Child Care Centre

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

Determination
Made On:	6 September 2016
Determination:	CONSENT GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:

Consent to Operate From:	7 September 2016
Consent to Lapse On:	7 September 2021

Terms of Approval

The reasons for the imposition of conditions are:

(1) To ensure compliance with relevant statutory requirements.

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

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

(4) To maintain neighbourhood amenity and character.

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

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

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

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

Conditions

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

(a) Plan/s numbered Plans by McKinnon Design - Job No. 15010 - Drawings DA1-DA3 Issue B (3 sheets)

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

as amended in accordance with any conditions of this consent.

PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

(5) An approval under Section 68 of the Local Government Act is to be sought from Orange City Council, as the Water and Sewer Authority, for water, sewer and stormwater connection. Details concerning the proposed backflow prevention between the nominated water tank supply and the potable system are to be provided. No plumbing and drainage is to commence until approval is granted.

(6) Detailed plans and specification are to be provided specifying the proposed fitout of the food preparation and storage areas in accordance with the requirements of Australian Standard 4674-2004 "Design and construction and fit-out of food premises" and Standard 3.2.3 "Food Premises and Equipment" of the Australian New Zealand Food Standards Code.

(7) The applicant is to submit a waste management plan that describes the nature of wastes to be removed, the wastes to be recycled and the destination of all wastes. All wastes from the demolition and construction phases of this project are to be deposited at a licensed or approved waste disposal site.

(8) Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, details of the mechanical plant to be installed are to be provided to the PCA. Such details are to be accompanied by a revised acoustical assessment demonstrating compliance with the noise goals set out in the report by Wilkinson Murray (Report No. 16132 Version B) dated August 2016.

(9) Engineering plans providing complete details of the proposed driveway and car-parking areas is to be submitted to Orange City Council or an Accredited Certifier (Categories B1, C3, C4, C6) upon application for a Construction Certificate. These plans are to provide details of levels, cross falls of all pavements, proposed sealing materials and proposed drainage works and be in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.

(10) A water and soil erosion control plan is to be submitted to Orange City Council or an Accredited Certifier (Categories B1, C3, C4, C6) for approval prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate. The control plan is to be in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code and the Landcom, Managing Urban Stormwater; Soils and Construction Handbook.

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

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

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

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

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

together with copies of the data files for the model and engineering design plans of the required drainage system are to be submitted and approved by Orange City Council prior to the issue a Construction Certificate.

Alternatively a payment of $1,798.80 shall be paid to Council, prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate, for the construction of an off-site stormwater retention basin. Payments are indexed in accordance with Councils Management Plan current at the time of issue of a Construction Certificate.

(12) A Liquid Trade Waste Application is to be submitted to Orange City Council prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate. The application is to be in accordance with Orange City Council’s Liquid Trade Waste Policy. Engineering plans submitted as part of the application are to show details of all proposed liquid trade waste pre-treatment systems and their connection to sewer.

Where applicable, the applicant is to enter into a Liquid Trade Waste Service Agreement with Orange City Council in accordance with the Orange City Council Liquid Trade Waste Policy.

(13) Payment of contributions for water, sewer and drainage works is required to be made at the contribution rate applicable at the time that the payment is made. The contributions are based on 3.5 ETs for water supply headworks and 6.5 ETs for sewerage headworks. A Certificate of Compliance, from Orange City Council in accordance with the Water Management Act 2000, will be issued upon payment of the contributions.

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

PRIOR TO WORKS COMMENCING

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

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

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

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

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

(18) A Registered Surveyor’s certificate identifying the location of the building on the site must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority.

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

(20) Noise barriers/fences are to be constructed in accordance with the recommendations of the acoustic assessment by Wilkinson Murray (Report No. 16132 Version B dated August 2016).

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

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

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

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

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

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

(25) A total of 21 off-street car parking spaces shall be provided upon the site in accordance with the approved plans, the provisions of Development Control Plan 2004, and be constructed in accordance with the requirements of Council's Development and Subdivision Code prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

(26) Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans and shall be permanently maintained to the satisfaction of Council's Manager Development Assessments.

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

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

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

(30) Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate, signage is to be erected in the carpark in accordance with the recommendations of Acoustic Assessment by Wilkinson Murray (Report No. 16132 Version B) dated August 2016, advising that noise is to be limited in the carpark.

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

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

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

MATTERS FOR THE ONGOING PERFORMANCE AND OPERATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT

(34) A separate development application shall be submitted to and approved by Council prior to the erection of any advertising structures or signs of a type that do not meet the exempt development provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008.

(35) Outdoor lighting must be in accordance with the Australian Standard AS 4282-1997 Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting.

(36) The noise mitigation measures as outlined in the recommendations of the acoustic assessment by Wilkinson Murry (Report No. 16132 Version B dated August 2016) shall be maintained for the duration of the development.

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

(38) The maximum number of children permitted to partake in outdoor free play is 50 at any one time.

(39) All vehicles associated with the pickup and drop-off of children must use the car park facilities provided on the land.

Other Approvals

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

Nil

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

Nil

Right of Appeal

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

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

Signed:	On behalf of the consent authority ORANGE CITY COUNCIL
Signature:
Name:	DAVID WADDELL - DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Date:	7 September 2016

Planning and Development Committee 6 September 2016

2.5 Development Application DA 3/2013(1) - 806 Huntley Road

TRIM REFERENCE: 2016/1979

AUTHOR: Andrew Crump, Senior Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged	21 December 2012
Applicant/s	Mr GG Howarth
Owner/s	Mr GG Howarth
Land description	Lot 19 DP 750387 - 806 Huntley Road, Huntley
Proposed land use	Dwelling (building entitlement)
Value of proposed development	$100,000

Council's consent is sought for a dwelling house on land described as Lot 19 DP 750387, known as 806 Huntley Road, Huntley.

A search of Council’s records indicates that the land comprises only part of an existing holding as defined under Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011. Records further indicate that the existing holding comprised land described as Lots 18, 19, 29 and 30 DP 750387.

An existing holding is defined under OLEP 2011 as:

land that:

(a) was a holding on 24 January 1964, and

(b) is a holding at the time the application for development consent referred to in subclause (3) is lodged,

whether or not there has been a change in the ownership of the holding since 24 January 1964, and includes any other land adjoining that land acquired by the owner since 24 January 1964.

Given that the application has been lodged only on Lot 19 DP 750387, being only part of an “existing holding”, it is beyond Council’s power to consent to the application in its current configuration, even in the event the application was complete and competent on this single title.

The above nonconformity with the applicable provision could be addressed if the applicant were to amend the application pursuant to clause 55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations (provided that Council was agreeable to the amendments) to include the three other parcels for which the applicant owns that make up the whole of the existing holding.

Pursuant to clause 4.2A(4) of Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 (OLEP 2011) land ceases to be an existing holding for the purposes of subclause (3)(d) if an application for development consent referred to in that subclause is not made in relation to that land before 31 December 2012.

Whilst it is unclear from the information submitted with the application as to which provision of the LEP the applicant is relying upon for consent to be granted for a dwelling on the land, Council staff can confirm that a development application (of limited information) for a dwelling was lodged on 21 December 2012.

The application, when submitted, comprised only the application form and a basic Statement of Environmental Effects of limited detail. No plans or environmental reports (ie contamination, suitability for onsite effluent or impact from aircraft noise, etc.) accompanied the application.

As such, Council staff are not able to complete the assessment of the application; and relevantly, the application is recommended for refusal for the following reasons:

1 Insufficient information has been submitted with the application to allow a detailed and rigorous assessment pursuant to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

2 The applicant did not include documents that are required to accompany a development application as detailed in schedule 1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

3 The land to which this application relates does not constitute the whole of an existing holding as defined by clause 4.2A(6) of Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011.

Council staff have provided the applicant with a number of opportunities via both formal correspondence and phone conversations to provide the necessary information, but to no avail.

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 refuses development application DA 3/2013(1) for Dwelling House at Lot 19 DP 750387 - 806 Huntley Road, Huntley pursuant to the reasons provided in the attached Notice of Refusal.

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

THE APPLICATION

Council's consent is sought for the erection of a dwelling house on land described as Lot 19 DP 750387, known as 806 Huntley Road, Huntley.

THE PROPOSAL

It is not clears as to exactly what is proposed as part of the application, other than to state that the application form describes a ‘four bedroom residence with detached double garage’. The location, size, appearance, etc of the dwelling are not known from the information provided.

CHRONOLOGY OF THE APPLICATION

The application was lodged on 21 December 2012. Council wrote to the applicant on 14 January 2013 requesting additional information necessary to complete assessment. The applicant responded to this request seeking an extension to the 28 day timeframe stipulated in that letter on 10 February 2013. A further letter was received from the applicant on 15 February 2013 requesting that the dwelling entitlement be retained.

Council again wrote to the applicant on 13 May 2013 requesting additional information and again on 13 August 2014. The applicant again requested an extension of time to provide the additional information. This letter provided a commitment to provision of the plans by 1 August 2015. An extension of time was agreed to by Council staff in a letter dated 10 September 2014

Council staff wrote a final letter on 9 August 2016 providing the applicant with 14 days to respond to the request for information, and advising the applicant that if the necessary information had not been received by the date provided in the letter, the application would be finalised with a recommendation for refusal. No response has been received to date.

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

Section 5A Assessment

In this instance there is significant biodiversity or habitat value identified in the north-eastern quadrant of the parcel. It is not possible to complete a Part 5A assessment as it is not known from the information provided where the proposed house is located, and as such what impact that may have on the identified biodiversity and 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,

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

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

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

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

It is not possible to conclusively ascertain from the information provided whether or not the application is consistent with the above listed aims of the plan.

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 E3 Environmental Management
Lot Size Map:	Minimum Lot Size 100ha
Heritage Map:	Not a heritage item or conservation area (located opposite a heritage item)
Height of Buildings Map:	No building height limit
Floor Space Ratio Map:	No floor space limit
Terrestrial Biodiversity Map:	High biodiversity sensitivity on the site
Groundwater Vulnerability Map:	Ground water vulnerable
Drinking Water Catchment Map:	Within the drinking water catchment
Watercourse Map:	Not within or affecting a defined watercourse
Urban Release Area Map:	Not within an urban release area
Obstacle Limitation Surface Map:	No restriction on building siting or construction
Additional Permitted Uses Map:	No additional permitted use applies

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

Part 2 - Permitted or Prohibited Development

Land Use Zones

The subject site is located within the E3 Environmental Management zone. The proposed development is defined as a dwelling house under OLEP 2011 which means:

a building containing only one dwelling.

To extend this definition further:

dwelling means a room or suite of rooms occupied or used or so constructed or adapted as to be capable of being occupied or used as a separate domicile.

Dwelling houses are permissible in the E3 Environmental Management zone with the consent of Council.

Clause 2.3 of LEP 2011 references the Objectives for each zone in LEP 2011. These objectives for land zoned E3 Environmental Management are as follows:

1 - Objectives of the E3 Environmental Management

· To protect, manage and restore areas with special ecological, scientific, cultural or aesthetic values.

· To provide for a limited range of development that does not have an adverse effect on those values.

· To manage development within water supply catchment lands to conserve and enhance the city and district’s water resources.

· To maintain the rural function and primary production values of the area.

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

It is not possible to complete an assessment of the appropriateness of the development against the above listed objectives of the zone given the deficiencies with the application.

Part 3 - Exempt and Complying Development

The application is not exempt or complying development.

Part 4 - Principal Development Standards

Clause 4.2A - Erection of Dwelling Houses on Land in Certain Rural and Environmental Protection Zones

This clause prevents the erection of dwelling Houses on land zoned RU1, E2, E3 or E4 unless the following provisions can be met:

(1) The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a) to minimise unplanned rural residential development,

(b) to enable the replacement of lawfully erected dwelling houses in rural and environmental protection zones.

It is not possible to conclusively determine if the proposed dwelling is consistent with the above objectives given the identified deficiencies with the application.

(3) Development consent must not be granted for the erection of a dwelling house on land in a zone to which this clause applies, and on which no dwelling house has been erected, unless the land is:

(a) a lot that is at least the minimum lot size specified for that land by the Lot Size Map, or

(b) a lot created before this Plan commenced and on which the erection of a dwelling house was permissible immediately before that commencement, or

(c) a lot resulting from a subdivision for which development consent (or equivalent) was granted before this Plan commenced and on which the erection of a dwelling house would have been permissible if the plan of subdivision had been registered before that commencement, or

(d) an existing holding.

Note. A dwelling cannot be erected on a lot created under clause 9 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008 or clause 4.2.

(4) Land ceases to be an existing holding for the purposes of subclause (3) (d) if an application for development consent referred to in that subclause is not made in relation to that land before 31 December 2012.

OLEP 2011 defines an existing holding as

land that:

(a) was a holding on 24 January 1964, and

(b) is a holding at the time the application for development consent referred to in subclause (3) is lodged,

whether or not there has been a change in the ownership of the holding since 24 January 1964, and includes any other land adjoining that land acquired by the owner since 24 January 1964.

Given that the application has been lodged only on Lot 19 DP 750387, being only part of an “existing holding”, it is beyond Council’s power to consent to the application as proposed even in the event the application was complete and competent on this single allotment.

Pursuant to clause 4.2A(4) of Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 land ceases to be an existing holding for the purposes of subclause (3)(d) if an application for development consent referred to in that subclause is not made in relation to that land before 31 December 2012.

Whilst it is unclear from the information submitted with the application as to which provision of the LEP the applicant is relying upon, Council staff can confirm that a development application (of limited information) for a dwelling was lodged on 21 December 2012.

Part 5 - Miscellaneous Provisions

5.10 - Heritage Conservation

The subject land is not identified as a heritage item, nor is it located in a conservation area. It is, however, opposite a heritage item, and therefore the below provisions apply by virtue of subclause 5(c).

(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).

(5) Heritage assessment

The consent authority may, before granting consent to any development:

(a) on land on which a heritage item is located, or

(b) on land that is within a heritage conservation area, or

(c) on land that is within the vicinity of land referred to in paragraph (a) or (b),

require a heritage management document to be prepared that assesses the extent to which the carrying out of the proposed development would affect the heritage significance of the heritage item or heritage conservation area concerned.

It is not possible to adequately complete a heritage assessment of the heritage item in the vicinity of the subject land due to the limited information provided.

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).

It is not clear from the information provided if earthworks are required; and therefore it is not possible to assess the development against the above provisions.

7.3 - Stormwater Management

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

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

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

It is not clear from the information provided how stormwater will be managed; and therefore it is not possible to assess the development against the above provisions. Notwithstanding this, given the size of the land it is likely that post-development run off levels will not exceed pre-development levels.

7.4 - Terrestrial Biodiversity

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

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

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

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

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

Additionally this clause prevents consent being granted unless Council is satisfied that:

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

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

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

The subject land comprises an area identified as high biodiversity as shown below:

Image 1 - high biodiversity on the subject land

As it is not known where the dwelling is proposed, Council staff are not able to complete an assessment against the above provisions and conclusively determine the level of impact likely upon the area of high biodiversity.

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.

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 appear to involve extraction of groundwater and will therefore not contribute to groundwater depletion.

However, given the deficiencies in the application it is not possible to determine if the design and siting (including the provision of an onsite effluent management system), would avoid impact on groundwater; and therefore, it is not possible to conclude if the development is acceptable or not in relation to groundwater.

7.7 - Drinking Water Catchments

This clause seeks to protect the quality of Council’s drink water catchment and requires the following provisions to be met.

(1) The objective of this clause is to protect drinking water catchments by minimising the adverse impacts of development on the quality and quantity of water entering drinking water storages.

(2) This clause applies to land identified as “Drinking water” on the Drinking Water Catchment Map.

(3) Before determining a development application for development on land to which this clause applies, the consent authority must consider whether or not the development is likely to have any adverse impact on the quality and quantity of water entering the drinking water storage, having regard to:

(a) the distance between the development and any waterway that feeds into the drinking water storage, and

(b) the onsite use, storage and disposal of any chemicals on the land, and

(c) the treatment, storage and disposal of waste water and solid waste generated or used by the development.

(4) Development consent must not be granted to development on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that:

(a) the development is designed, sited and will be managed to avoid any significant adverse impact on water quality and flows, 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.

No information has been provided to adequately address the above provisions; and in particular, matters in relation to the treatment of on-site effluent. Therefore, Council staff cannot conclusively determine that the development will not impact on the drinking water catchment.

7.9 - Airspace Operations

This clause seeks to protect the continued safe operation of the Orange Regional Airport and obligates Council to consider development within the area mapped obstacle limitation and have regard to the following provisions.

(1) The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a) to provide for the effective and ongoing operation of the Orange Airport by ensuring that such operation is not compromised by proposed development that penetrates the Limitation or Operations Surface for that airport,

(b) to protect the community from undue risk from that operation.

(2) If a development application is received and the consent authority is satisfied that the proposed development will penetrate the Limitation or Operations Surface, the consent authority must not grant development consent unless it has consulted with the relevant Commonwealth body about the application.

(3) The consent authority may grant development consent for the development if the relevant Commonwealth body advises that:

(a) the development will penetrate the Limitation or Operations Surface but it has no objection to its construction, or

(b) the development will not penetrate the Limitation or Operations Surface.

(4) The consent authority must not grant development consent for the development if the relevant Commonwealth body advises that the development will penetrate the Limitation or Operations Surface and should not be constructed.

The subject land lies just outside the area mapped obstacle limitation on the obstacle limitations map, and as such the above provisions do not apply to the assessment of the development application.

7.10 - Development in Areas Subject to Aircraft Noise

This clause requires Council to have regard to developments that will result in additional dwellings or people within the vicinity of the airport and ensure that new development will not unreasonably conflict with the continued operations of the airport.

(1) This clause applies to development that:

(a) is on land that:

(i) is near an airport, and

(ii) is in an ANEF contour of 20 or greater, and

(b) the consent authority considers is likely to be adversely affected by aircraft noise.

(2) Before determining a development application for development to which this clause applies, the consent authority:

(a) must consider whether the development will result in an increase in the number of dwellings or people affected by aircraft noise, and

(b) must consider the location of the development in relation to the criteria set out in Table 2.1 (Building Site Acceptability Based on ANEF Zones) in AS 2021—2000, Acoustics—Aircraft noise intrusion—Building siting and construction, and

(c) must be satisfied that the development will meet AS 2021—2000, Acoustics—Aircraft noise intrusion—Building siting and construction with respect to interior noise levels for the purposes of:

(i) if the development will be in an ANEF contour of 20 or greater—child care centres, educational establishments, entertainment facilities, hospitals, places of public worship, public administration buildings or residential accommodation, and

(ii) if the development will be in an ANEF contour of 25 or greater—business premises, hostels, hotel or motel accommodation, office premises or retail premises.

The applicant has not provided any information in relation to compliance with the above clause. As such, it would be ultra vires for Council to consent to the application.

7.11 - Essential services

The following clause requires Council to give regard to the essential services necessary to accommodate a particular development on the land, and whether those services are able to be made available for the development.

(a) the supply of water,

(b) the supply of electricity,

(c) the disposal and management of sewage,

(d) stormwater drainage or on-site conservation,

(e) suitable road access.

It is not possible to adequately assess the availability of services given the lack of information - no information has been provided on such things as management of sewage, access, etc.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index BASIX) applies to the subject development. However, the applicant has not submitted an a BASIX certificate with the application.

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

7 Contamination and remediation to be considered in determining development application

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

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

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

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

The land has been previously used for agricultural purposes, and as such there is the likelihood of some form of contamination being present on the land. The applicant has not submitted sufficient information to demonstrate to Council staff that the land is suitable for the purposes of a residential land-use. As such it would not be within Council’s power to approve the application in its current form.

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 7 Water Supply Catchment (Orange LEP 2000) is zone E3 Environmental management (Orange LEP 2011). As such, Orange DCP 2004 – Chapter 6 is of primary relevance to the assessment of this proposal. The relevant provisions are considered below.

PO 2.3-1 PLANNING OUTCOMES - VEGETATION MANAGEMENT

· Compliance with the Native Vegetation Conservation Act 1997.

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

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

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

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

It is not possible to complete an assessment of the above planning outcomes due to the deficiencies in information with the application.

PLANNING OUTCOMES FOR DWELLINGS IN PROXIMITY TO AGRICULTURE AND OTHER RURAL ACTIVITIES

· Dwelling houses should be located to minimise conflicts with the operation of activities associated with primary production.

· Where a dwelling is proposed to be located within 150 metres of land where spraying of chemicals is likely to occur, an adequate biological buffer is to be established between the dwelling and that agricultural land.

It is not possible to complete an assessment of the above planning outcomes due to the deficiencies in information with the application.

PLANNING OUTCOMES FOR RURAL DWELLING HOUSES

· The dwelling house complies with Council’s Energy Smart Homes Code.

· The dwelling house is sited on land identified as being suitable for construction and free from contamination, flooding and bushfire risk.

· Privacy and views of neighbouring houses are retained.

· A suitable area is available for perpetual on-site disposal of wastes.

· Substantial remnant vegetation is protected from disturbance.

· An adequate water supply is provided.

· All-weather access to a public road is provided.

· Entry gateways are set back sufficiently from the front boundary to allow vehicles to pull up off the public road carriageway.

· A buffer area is established in the vicinity of agricultural operations.

· Outbuildings are located in proximity of and to the rear of the main dwelling house when viewed from the nearest road.

It is not possible to complete an assessment of the above planning outcomes due to the deficiencies in information with the application.

PLANNING OUTCOMES – DEVELOPMENT IN THE VICINITY OF THE AIRPORT

· Noise-sensitive development is located outside the airport-noise zone.

· Where there is no alternative location, development occurs within the hatched area around the Orange airport in full compliance with Australian Standard AS 2021- 1994 Acoustics- Aircraft Noise Intrusion - Building Siting and Construction.

· Development in the vicinity of the airport complies with the Obstacle Limitation Surfaces Plan for Orange.

It is not possible to complete an assessment of the above planning outcomes due to the deficiencies in information with the application.

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

The applicant has not suitably demonstrated that the development is consistent with the provisions prescribed by the regulations.

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

The application is deficient in so far as the information provided is not adequate to enable a complete and rigorous assessment of the likely impacts as required by s79C(1)(b).

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

The application is deficient in so far as the information provided is not adequate to enable a complete and rigorous assessment of the suitability of the site required by s79C(1)(c).

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

The proposed development is not defined as advertised development under the provisions of the LEP and, as such, no formal exhibition of the application was required. No submissions have been received in relation to this application.

PUBLIC INTEREST s79C(1)(e)

Whilst the proposed development is likely to be of minor interest to the wider public due to the relatively localised nature of potential impacts, given the deficiencies with the application it not considered to be in the public interest to consent to the application.

SUMMARY

The application is deficient in so far as the information provided is not adequate to enable a complete and rigorous assessment pursuant to Council’s obligations under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. Council staff have provided the applicant with a number of opportunities via both formal correspondence and phone conversations to provide the necessary information, but to no avail. As such, the development application is recommended for refusal.

COMMENTS

The requirements of the Environmental Health and Building Surveyor and the Engineering Development Section have not been sought due to the absence of information.

Attachments

1 Notice of Refusal, D16/38654 ⇩


Signed:	On behalf of the consent authority:
Signature:
Name:	DAVID WADDELL - DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Date:	7 September 2016