Agenda of Planning and Development Committee

Planning and Development Committee 7 March 2017

2.1 Items Approved Under the Delegated Authority of Council

TRIM REFERENCE: 2017/25

AUTHOR: Paul Johnston, Planning Team Leader

EXECUTIVE Summary

Following is 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 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 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 498/2006(4)	Determination Date	10 February 2017
PR Number	PR22384
Applicant/s:	The Wellness House Trust
Owner/s:	Dr TY Chen and The Wellness House Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 100 DP 1113737 - 55-57 Bathurst Road
Proposal:	Modification of development consent - demolition (two existing dwellings), health consulting rooms, shop (pharmacy), ancillary health shop, restaurant and advertisement (two signs). The modification proposal seeks to alter the approved trading hours to permit operation of the business on a Sunday.
Value:	$400,000 (being the same value as the original development)

Reference:	DA 152/2014(3)	Determination Date	8 February 2017
PR Number	PR26185
Applicant/s:	Ms S Bassett
Owner/s:	The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW)
Location:	Lot 100 DP 1185280 - 27 Summer Street
Proposal:	Modification of development consent - residential care facility (alterations and additions), solar energy system, business identification signage and demolition. The modification involves a very minor adjustment to approved parking spaces 8-11, revised landscape design at the rear of the building and deletion of two windows within the northern wall.
Value:	$0

Reference:	DA 374/2016(1)	Determination Date	30 January 2017
PR Number	PR16715
Applicant/s:	Whites Transport
Owner/s:	Westruss Pty Limited
Location:	Lots 23 and 24 DP 876039 - 5 and 6 Scott Place
Proposal:	Truck depot
Value:	$120,000

Reference:	DA 414/2016(1)	Determination Date	3 February 2017
PR Number	PR5147
Applicant/s:	BJ and TC Holdings Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	BJ and TC Holdings Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 30 DP 618267 - 167 Hill Street
Proposal:	Kiosk (change of use)
Value:	$80,000

Reference:	DA 430/2016(1)	Determination Date	8 February 2017
PR Number	PR3492
Applicant/s:	Ms KM Morgan
Owner/s:	Ms KM Morgan
Location:	Lot 12 DP 575734 - 3 Dalton Street
Proposal:	Subdivision (two lot residential), demolition (outbuildings), dwelling house and carports (two)
Value:	$180,000

Reference:	DA 441/2016(1)	Determination Date	1 February 2017
PR Number	PR17537
Applicant/s:	Orange Funeral Services
Owner/s:	Silverdown Properties Pty Limited
Location:	Lot 1 DP 1011930 – 1 Cameron Place, Orange
Proposal:	Funeral home (alterations and additions to existing funeral home and increase in onsite parking)
Value:	$95,000

Reference:	DA 449/2016(1)	Determination Date	2 February 2017
PR Number	PR4069
Applicant/s:	Wangarang Industries
Owner/s:	Wangarang Industries
Location:	Lot 150 DP 750401 – 1635 Forest Road, Orange
Proposal:	Light industry (alterations and additions to existing building (carport))
Value:	$25,000

Reference:	DA 450/2016(1)	Determination Date	8 February 2017
PR Number	PR9667
Applicant/s:	Pro Cert Group Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Mr RJ and Mrs M Ristvej
Location:	Lot 1 DP 86658 – 105-107 Peisley Street, Orange
Proposal:	Office premises (change of use)
Value:	$0

Reference:	DA 2/2017(1)	Determination Date	27 January 2017
PR Number	PR7095
Applicant/s:	Artist to Audience Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Orange City Council
Location:	Lot 701 DP 1001618 Lords Place, Orange - Wade Park
Proposal:	Entertainment facility (temporary use of land - concert)
Value:	$0

Reference:	DA 6/2017(1)	Determination Date	7 February 2017
PR Number	PR23045
Applicant/s:	Orange & District Football Association Soccer Inc
Owner/s:	Orange City Council
Location:	Lot 1 DP 1142713 – Sir Jack Brabham Park – 1610 Forest Road, Orange
Proposal:	Recreation area (alterations and additions to existing building) and demolition (tree removal)
Value:	$126,000

TOTAL NET* VALUE OF ALL DEVELOPMENTS APPROVED IN THIS PERIOD: $626,000

* 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 7 March 2017

2.2 Development Application DA 4/2016(1) - 61B Moulder Street

TRIM REFERENCE: 2017/327

AUTHOR: Kelly Walker, Town Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Council's consent is sought for additions and alterations to an existing dwelling at Lot 13 DP 1037756 - 61B Moulder Street, Orange.

The proposal involves internal alterations and the addition of an upper floor. The upper floor consists of two bedrooms, a study and a bathroom, with a new internal stairway which provides access. The ground floor consists of a master bedroom with ensuite and walk in robe, an open plan kitchen, dining and sitting room, and a laundry. The double garage remains unchanged. It is also proposed to replace the existing roof tiles with Colorbond material.

Amenity concerns have been raised by neighbouring properties in regards to overlooking, privacy, daylighting, noise and impacts to heritage. The proposed development departs from the bulk and scale guidelines set out in the Orange Development Control Plan 2004 (DCP), however it is considered that the resulting impacts can be mitigated by way of conditions of consent.

The application is recommended for approval.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

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

Financial Implications

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.

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.

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

That Council consents to development application DA 4/2016(1) for Dwelling Alterations and Additions at Lot 13 DP 1037756 - 61B Moulder Street, Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

THE APPLICATION/PROPOSAL

Council's consent is sought for additions and alterations to an existing dwelling at Lot 13 DP 1037756 - 61B Moulder Street, Orange.

The proposal involves internal alterations and the addition of an upper floor. The upper floor consists of two bedrooms, a study and a bathroom, with a new internal stairway which provides access. The ground floor consists of a master bedroom with ensuite and walk in robe, an open plan kitchen, dining and sitting room, a laundry and a toilet. The double garage remains unchanged. It is also proposed to replace the existing roof tiles with Colorbond material.

Amended drawings were submitted following the initial lodgement of the application, which removes the ground floor toilet and inserts a new sliding door on the eastern elevation.

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

Section 5A Assessment

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

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

Section 79C

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

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

Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011

Part 1 - Preliminary

Clause 1.2 - Aims of Plan

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

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

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

(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.

The application is considered to be generally consistent with these aims, where the proposed development increases the range of housing choice in the City in a way that does not impact on the heritage values of the area.

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.

The land is subject to a number of easements relating to access, services and drainage, however, these will not be affected by the proposed development. Council staff are not aware of the title of the subject property being affected by any of the other above instruments.

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, but is located within a 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 described as a ‘dwelling house’ under the LEP 2011, which is defined as follows:

dwelling house means a building containing only one dwelling.

A dwelling house is permitted with consent for this zone. This application is seeking consent to undertake additions and alterations to an existing dwelling house.

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

· 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 addition to the dwelling provides additional bedrooms and living space to an existing dwelling, providing for the needs of the community, and adding to the variety of housing types and densities. The subject site is within easy walking distance to the city centre, with good access to public transport and cycling routes. The proposal has no impact on the Southern Link Road.

Part 3 - Exempt and Complying Development

The application is not exempt or complying development.

Part 4 - Principal Development Standards

The LEP Principal Development Standards do not apply to this application.

Part 5 - Miscellaneous Provisions

5.10 - Heritage Conservation

(1) Objectives

The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a) to conserve the environmental heritage of Orange

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

(c) to conserve archaeological sites

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

(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).

The subject site is located within the Central Orange Heritage Conservation Area and nearby to listed heritage items, as seen in Figure 1 below (delineated by brown hashing).

Figure 1 – heritage listed properties in vicinity of subject site

The closest listed properties include ‘Mena Mansion’ at 50 Kite Street and a dwelling at 52 Kite Street, both to the north-east of the site, as well as a dwelling at 27 Hill Street to the south-east of the site. Council’s Heritage Database sets out the following details about the properties.

‘Mena Mansion’ at 50 Kite Street

“This symmetrical masonry residence with curved return verandah was built for Thomas Dalton by his father James, and is a significant example of the Irish legacy and a manifestation of their confident outlook while complementing the streetscape and contributing to the Conservation Area within the city as a heritage item.

Mena, which may have been designed by architect, Benjamin Backhouse, was built in 1875… James Dalton was a very prominent Orange merchant and pastoralist and townsman; he was at one time mayor of Orange and the Dalton family was one of the most influential Catholic families in New South Wales.

Some of the early tree plantings in the back garden are common Poplars reaching more than 30 metres. A tortured Willow at the rear of the Stables is well over 100 years old and Robinia flank the boundaries on all sides.

The current owners have reshaped the front garden and many parts in the rear, adding more varieties and species overall, making the garden a finely manicured formal garden with many leafy trees acting as canopy over the property”.

Dwelling at 52 Kite Street

“An attractive Victorian-style residence which has retained the original character and distinctive details, including mouldings, verandah and barge boards, the property was the home of Sir Charles and Lady Cutler. Sir Charles was leader of the Country party, Minister for Education, and Deputy Premier of NSW”.

Dwelling at 27 Hill Street

“A fine late Victorian residence with double fronted plan, surround verandah and elaborate triple posted porch and venetian fenestration, the building and garden complement the streetscape and contribute to the Conservation Area as a heritage item”.

The Orange City Council Community Based Heritage Study, dated March 2012 states that Central Orange Heritage Conservation Area consists of a “range of buildings dating from the nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth, and has historical importance for reflecting the development and prosperity of Orange during this period. The conservation area exhibits several fine examples of different architectural styles. The building materials used the mature street trees and the fine parklands all help to bring the area together as an aesthetically pleasing whole and as a townscape of importance”.

The Study states that the Conservation Areas are to be considered as whole heritage items in their own right, where the character of a Conservation Area comes from many components, such as buildings, landscape elements, fences, roads, etc., and the relationships formed between these components.

Most of the dwellings surrounding the subject site are not individually listed, but are considered to be ‘contributory items’. These dwellings represent an integral component of the Conservation Area, tend to date from the key periods of development, and generally have a high level of intactness. However, the subject dwelling, as well as the dwellings nearest to it, are neither listed heritage items nor contributory items, but are considered to be ‘neutral’ buildings located within the Conservation Area. The study applies the following controls to alterations and additions to ‘neutral’ buildings:

· individual buildings as ‘neutral’ are to be retained and enhanced unless it can be demonstrated that their removal will not compromise the significance of the area

· where retention is proposed the original form of the building is to be respected. Alterations and additions are not to dominate the original building form, but enhance it

· where demolition is proposed, justification for the removal of the building is to be demonstrated in accordance with standard submission requirements for Demolition.

The proposed development seeks to both retain and enhance the existing dwelling. The proposed first floor addition matches the form and detailing of the existing building, and has been designed to be smaller in scale than the ground floor, being set back from the existing building lines. It is also set back from neighbouring dwellings. Having regards to these controls, it is considered that the proposed additions and alterations enhance the existing dwelling and complement the original built form.

It is also noted that the Study observes that most items within a Conservation Area will be able to grow and change to accommodate contemporary needs, provided those changes are designed to also maintain the contribution of the property to the heritage significance of the Conservation Area. The subject dwelling as a ‘neutral’ building does not specifically contribute to the Conservation Area, and it is considered that the proposed additions and alterations will not impact on the buildings that do contribute, specifically the nearby listed buildings. The subject dwelling and its proposed additions will not be easily seen from the neighbouring listed buildings. Nor will they be readily visible from the street, which maintains a fairly standard built form that contributes to the Conservation Area.

Overall, it is considered that the proposal will have negligible impacts on the heritage values of the Conservation Area and nearby listed buildings.

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

7.3 - Stormwater Management

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

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

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

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

The proposal does not seek to alter the existing permeable and non-permeable areas on the site. There will be a slight increase in the massing of the roof, however it is considered that the post development runoff levels will be similar to pre-development levels. Overall, the proposal is considered acceptable in regards to stormwater management.

7.6 - Groundwater Vulnerability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land

Under Clause 7 of State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land (SEPP 55), Council must consider whether the land is contaminated and whether the land requires any form of remediation to render it suitable for the purpose to which it is proposed to be used. The previous land uses must be considered, along with any visible or tangible evidence on the site. Clause 7 of SEPP 55 provides as follows:

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.

In consideration of this clause, the subject land has longstanding residential use, is not listed on Council’s Contaminated Land Register, nor known to be used for a purpose referred to in Table 1 to the Contaminated Land Planning Guidelines. As such, the land is unlikely to be contaminated. Furthermore, the proposal involves alterations internal to, and an addition above, the existing dwelling, with very little earth disturbance required.

On the basis of the available evidence, it is considered that the site is suitable for the proposed use and no further preliminary investigation is required to satisfy the requirements of SEPP 55.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

SEPP (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 applies to the subject development. Clause 3 states in part:

(a) an application for a development consent, complying development certificate or construction certificate in relation to certain kinds of residential development must be accompanied by a list of commitments by the applicant as to the manner in which the development will be carried out, and

(b) the carrying out of residential development pursuant to the resulting development consent, complying development certificate or construction certificate will be subject to a condition requiring such commitments to be fulfilled.

In consideration of this clause, a BASIX certificate has been submitted in support of the development. The proposed dwelling will satisfy the provisions of BASIX in respect of water, thermal comfort and energy.

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.

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT

The proposal is not integrated 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.

Chapter 7 - Development in Residential Areas

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 surrounding residential precinct is predominately characterised by large single dwelling houses at the frontage of Hill Street, and smaller single dwellings located at the frontage of Moulder Street. Most of these houses have heritage value, being within the Heritage Conservation Area, with a few listed buildings in the surrounds. Typically, lots on Hill Street and Kite Street are large and long, whereas the lots on Moulder Street have been subdivided up over the past few decades, with a few unit developments behind the original front dwellings (See Figure 1). The subject site is an example of this type of development.

The proposed additions and alterations to the existing dwelling do not significantly alter the existing pattern of infill dwelling on the site or within the surrounding area. The first floor addition will complement the built form of the existing house and the site in respect of massing, footprint and external finishes. The proposal may create a precedent for further first floor additions in the area, however this form of development is only feasible for a few houses within the street, and as such would not become a dominant pattern. Overall, it is considered that the proposed development complements the neighbourhood character.

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.

The design and detailing for the proposed additions and alterations match the existing dwelling, are appropriate in this neighbourhood and will complement the streetscape. The dwelling does not address the street, being the third unit back, and is not easily visible from the streetscape, except from the end of the driveway. No changes are proposed to the existing double garage.

Heritage

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

· heritage buildings and structures are efficiently re-used

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

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

Heritage has been discussed in detail in the LEP assessment earlier in this report. The discussion concludes that the proposed development will not impact on the heritage values of the 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.

No changes are proposed to the existing ground floor building footprint, and therefore the existing setbacks from the street and boundaries will be retained.

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 NSW Land and Environment Court decision of Veloshin v Randwick Council [2007] NSWLEC 428 sets out planning principles for height and bulk which can be applied to this development. In that decision, Senior Commissioner Dr John Roseth states “the appropriateness of a proposal’s height and bulk is most usefully assessed against planning controls related to these attributes, such as maximum height, floor space ratio, site coverage and setbacks. The questions to be asked [where planning controls apply] are:

- are the impacts consistent with impacts that may be reasonably expected under the controls?

- how does the proposal’s height and bulk relate to the height and bulk desired under the relevant controls?

- does the area have a predominant existing character and are the planning controls likely to maintain it?

- does the proposal fit into the existing character of the area?”

The proposed dwelling will not be contained within the DCP prescribed visual bulk envelope plane, with encroachments on the eastern and western elevations. These encroachments appear fairly substantial, with the western elevation encroaching between 1.4-1.6m for a length of 11.5m, and the eastern elevation encroaching 0.6m for a length of 2.35m (not including eaves and gutters).

In this case, the encroachments are considered acceptable because the immediate neighbouring dwellings are offset from the subject dwelling. The elevations of the proposed first floor addition have been designed to be recessed back from the front building line, and steps back from some of the side building lines to separate the main bulk of the building from neighbouring dwellings. The neighbouring dwellings are well separated from the first floor addition, with the closest eastern dwelling being over 50m away, and the closest western dwelling being approximately 24m away when taking into account the setback from the front building line (see Figure 2). This design results in the massing being distributed to reduce impacts, which is consistent with the planning principles set out in the case law.

Furthermore, the dwelling will maintain its existing setbacks from the boundaries, where there are no alterations to the existing ground floor footprint of the dwelling. As such, the site coverage will remain unchanged, which was assessed in the original application to create the dual occupancy to be acceptable. No maximum height or floor space ratios apply to this site based on the current LEP and DCP standards, however it was considered in the original application that the height and floor space ratio was well below the standards required in the previous DCP. The proposed development will meet the previous DCP standards, as well as the current DCP standards (other than the visual bulk envelope as discusses above), and it is considered that the overall height, roof pitch, and additional floor area are reasonable for this neighbourhood.

Figure 2 – aerial photograph showing subject dwelling in relation to neighbouring dwellings

It is considered that the current DCP planning controls are an appropriate means to maintain the existing character of the area. The planning principle question of existing character has been addressed earlier in the DCP assessment, where it was considered that the proposal complements the character of the neighbourhood. There are a few other examples of two storey dwellings in the surrounding area, including the property immediately adjacent at 59A Moulder Street, as well as large heritage houses which, although single storey in height, have high ridgelines. As such, the proposal is considered to respect the bulk and scale of adjacent dwellings.

It is acknowledged that the immediate neighbouring properties will have an altered outlook, where the subject dwelling will be increased in bulk and scale. However, it is considered that there are no adverse impacts resulting from the proposed additions and alterations. Other potential impacts such as overshadowing and privacy are addressed in greater detail in the following outcomes below.

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.

As mentioned above, the proposal maintains existing setbacks from the boundaries. The first floor addition has the potential to impact on adjoining properties in respect of privacy and solar access, which is discussed in detail below.

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.

In consideration of the DCP Guidelines, the proposal is not considered to have any adverse daylighting impacts due to the north-south orientation of the subject site and dwelling, and the design of the proposed addition being set back from the existing building lines and boundaries. This is demonstrated in the submitted shadow diagrams, which show the extent of the additional shadow caused by the first floor addition, and this will create some minor overshadowing to the western neighbour’s back yard and swimming pool between 9‑10am on the winter solstice. There is also some minor shadowing to the eastern neighbour’s vegetable garden at 3pm on the winter solstice. However, these gardens are extensive in size and as such the shadowing is minor and acceptable.

Due to the orientation, design and setbacks of the existing dwelling and proposed addition, there will be no overshadowing impacts to the area of private open space of the neighbour to the south, and daylighting to the subject site’s area of private open space will be maintained. As mentioned in the visual bulk assessment above, the proposed works are well separated from neighbouring dwellings and as such will not impact on daylighting to their windows.

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, and the nearby listed heritage buildings are not easily visible from the surrounding area due to the presence of extensive mature vegetation. Therefore, the proposal 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.

Concerns have been raided in regards to potential overlooking impacts from the first floor addition into the western neighbour’s area of private open space and swimming pool. Although not set out in the DCP, a higher regard is given to visual privacy of existing neighbouring swimming pools.

The proposal involves new windows on the ground floor elevation, however there will be a net decrease in the number of windows, and the existing boundary fence and vegetation will sufficiently maintain privacy. The first floor addition involves three new western windows, one of which is a bathroom and the other two belong to a new bedroom.

It can be reasonably expected that the bathroom window will be constructed using obscured glazing or similar, and therefore overlooking impacts will only arise from the bedroom windows towards the western neighbour’s back yard and swimming pool. However, these impacts can be mitigated by way of privacy screens being installed and permanently maintained over these windows. A condition of consent is recommended to this effect.

It is considered that the study windows on the eastern elevation overlooking the neighbour’s vegetable garden are acceptable due to separation distance to the boundary.

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.

The site is located in an area where ambient noise levels are low due to the predominant residential land use pattern. It is not expected that the proposed development will change these existing noise levels, despite a potential increase in occupancy, where the dwelling will be increased from a two bedroom dwelling to a three bedroom dwelling.

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 does not alter the existing arrangements in this regard.

Circulation and Design and Car Parking

The proposal does not alter the existing circulation, garages and car parking arrangements on the site. The existing arrangements are considered acceptable for the proposed development.

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.

Private open space for the proposed increase in floor will not comply with the DCP Guidelines in respect of minimum area as set out in the table below:

Dwelling	Living Area (ex. Garage, porches, patios etc)	Private Open Space Required by DCP	Private Open Space Provided
Existing	145.86m²	72.93m²	86m²
Proposed	216.36m²	108.18m²	86m²

No changes are proposed to the existing area of private open space, and there is no capacity to provide additional open space given the constraints of the site. The existing arrangements are considered acceptable in this case due to the following:

· The rear yard will continue to accommodate an area of 5m x 5m;

· The open space area will continue to be of negligible slope, to achieve amenity and functionality;

· The open space will continue to be located behind the building line, have direct access from the living areas, and have access to northern sunlight;

· As outlined previously, appropriate solar access can be maintained to the area of private open space on the winter solstice; and

· It is not anticipated that the proposal will increase the occupancy of the existing dwelling.

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.

No changes are proposed to the existing areas of private open space and landscaping on the site, which is considered to be acceptable.

Stormwater, Erosion and Sedimentation

Conditions are recommended in relation to stormwater management of the site. Earthworks are not expected as part of this development.

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

Demolition of a Building (clause 92)

The proposal does not involve some demolition of the existing building, particularly the removal of roof tiles and windows. Conditions are recommended requiring demolition works to comply with relevant standards, guidelines and codes.

Fire Safety Considerations (clause 93)

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

Buildings to be Upgraded (clause 94)

The proposal involves the rebuilding, alteration, enlargement or extension of an existing building, however no upgrading works are required in this case.

BASIX Commitments (clause 97A)

A BASIX Certificate was submitted in support of the proposal. The new dwelling will comply with the provisions of BASIX in respect of water, thermal comfort and energy.

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

Neighbourhood Amenity

The proposed development will provide an improved standard of residential amenity for the existing dwelling, and maintain a reasonable standard of amenity to neighbouring properties in respect of visual amenity, bulk, daylighting etc. Privacy impacts can be mitigated by way of conditions of consent requiring obscured glazing and/or privacy screens. The proposed development will provide for a continuation of residential landuse, albeit in a more dense form, and will not alter the function of the neighbourhood or the heritage values of the Conservation Area and nearby listed buildings. Overall, it is considered that the proposed development is unlikely to have adverse impacts on neighbourhood amenity.

Traffic Impacts

The proposal is considered to be satisfactory in terms of traffic impacts, where the proposal is unlikely to increase the demand for car parking or increase traffic movements in the locality. In any case, the capacity of the local road network is sufficient to accommodate additional localised traffic. As outlined previously, no changes are proposed to the existing car parking, garage, and manoeuvring arrangements on site.

Cumulative Impacts

The proposal is considered to be satisfactory in terms of cumulative impact. The proposal will maintain the pattern of detached dwellings and unit developments that characterise this streetscape. The proposed addition will complement the neighbourhood built form in respect of bulk and form, design features and external finishes. Subject to conditions of consent, the proposed development will not reduce the open space, solar access or privacy afforded to neighbouring properties.

Similarly, the site layout and building design will provide an increased standard of residential amenity for the existing dwelling. The development will contribute to the diversity of housing forms in the precinct in a manner that is consistent with the neighbourhood character.

Environmental Impacts

The subject land is contained within an established residential precinct. Significant vegetation, threatened species or ecological endangered communities or their habitats are unlikely to be present. Conditions are recommended in regards to stormwater management.

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

The subject land is suitable for the proposed development due to the following:

· dwellings are permitted land uses in the R1 zone, and the proposal involves additions and alterations to an existing dwelling

· urban utilities are available and adequate

· the site is not subject to known technological or natural hazards

· there are no physical attributes of the land that would constrain the development

· the land is not known to be contaminated, and

· the proposed works will not impact on the streetscape, heritage conservation area, or nearby listed areas, and impacts to neighbouring properties can be mitigated and are considered acceptable.

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. Notwithstanding this, neighbouring properties were notified of the development and two submissions were received.

Daniel Fock – 59A Moulder Street

The submission raised concerns regarding visual privacy and overlooking into their outdoor spaces including the backyard, deck and swimming pool. The submission requests that the western windows either be removed from the proposal or have privacy screens.

This issue has been dealt with in the DCP assessment of the report where conditions of consent are recommended requiring obscured glazing and/or privacy screens on upper level western windows be installed and permanently maintained. Subject to this condition of consent, privacy impacts are considered to be acceptable.

Ian Carter – 29 Hill Street

This submission raises the following concerns:

- privacy and overlooking into backyard

- upstairs noise

- afternoon overshadowing of backyard, and

- inconsistent with neighbourhood character and heritage conservation area.

Privacy, overlooking, and daylighting was considered in the DCP assessment of the report, where it was concluded that the amenity of this neighbour was unlikely to be adversely impacted by the development due to separation distances between the proposed works and the neighbouring dwelling, as well as the set back of the proposed addition from the existing eastern building line and boundary.

As discussed in the S79C assessment, it is not anticipated that there will be any increase in noise generated from the dwelling, as although the potential occupancy of the dwelling could increase with the additional bedroom, it is unlikely to generate additional noise over and above what would be expected for a dwelling house.

It is considered that although different in scale and form to other development in the neighbourhood, the proposed addition respects the existing and adjacent dwelling, and is not out of character with the surrounding area. Furthermore, the proposal does not have any adverse impacts on the heritage values of the Conservation Area or nearby listed buildings and cumulative impacts are unlikely.

PUBLIC INTEREST s79C(1)(e)

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

SUMMARY

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

COMMENTS

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

Attachments

1 Notice of Approval, D17/7801 ⇩

2 Plans, D17/7835 ⇩

3 Submissions, D17/7836 ⇩

Planning and Development Committee 7 March 2017

2.2 Development Application DA 4/2016(1) - 61B Moulder Street

Attachment 1 Notice of Approval

OrangeCityCouncilNEW#45524E (2)

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

Development Application No DA 4/2016(1)

NA17/ Container PR18419

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 81(1)

Development Application
Applicant Name:	Mr DG and Mrs CG Isles
Applicant Address:	C/- Source Architects PO Box 144 ORANGE NSW 2800
Owner’s Name:	Mr DG and Mrs CG Isles
Land to Be Developed:	Lot 13 DP 1037756 - 61B Moulder Street, Orange
Proposed Development:	Dwelling Alterations and Additions

Building Code of Australia building classification:	As determined by the certifier

Determination
Made On:	7 March 2017
Determination:	CONSENT GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:

Consent to Operate From:	8 March 2017
Consent to Lapse On:	8 March 2022

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 ensure the utility services are available to the site and adequate for the development.

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

Conditions

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

(a) Plan/s numbered 15120 DA00 Rev 6, DA01 Rev 4, DA02-3 Rev 7, DA04 Rev 6, DA06 Rev 6 (6 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) In the case of residential building work for which the Home Building Act 1989 requires there to be a contract of insurance in force in accordance with Part 6 of the Act, evidence that such a contract of insurance is in force is to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority before any building work authorised to be carried out by the consent commences.

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

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

(i) the name and the licence number of the principal contractor, and

(ii) the name of the insurer by which the work is insured under Part 6 of that Act,

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

(i) the name of the owner-builder, and

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

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

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

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

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

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

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

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

PRIOR TO WORKS COMMENCING

(8) 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.

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

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

(10) All construction/demolition work on the site is to be carried out between the hours of 7am and 6pm Monday to Friday inclusive, 7am to 5pm Saturdays and 8am to 5pm Sundays and Public Holidays. Written approval must be obtained from the General Manager of Orange City Council to vary these hours.

(11) All materials on site 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.

(12) Building demolition is to be carried out in accordance with Australian Standard 2601:2001 - The Demolition of Structures and the requirements of the NSW WorkCover Authority.

(13) All materials and finishes of the proposed additions are to be constructed from non-reflective materials and colours; and match, as closely as possible the material and finish of the existing building.

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

(14) Privacy screens and/or obscured glazing is to be installed on all upper floor western windows prior to the issue of any Occupation Certificate.

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

(16) 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.

(17) 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

(18) Privacy screens and/or obscured glazing shall be maintained on the upper floor western windows.

ADVISORY NOTES

Nil

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:	8 March 2017