ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

Ordinary Council Meeting

 

Agenda

 

18 April 2017

 

 

Notice is hereby given, in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 that a Ordinary meeting of ORANGE CITY COUNCIL will be held in the Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Byng Street, Orange on  Tuesday, 18 April 2017  commencing at 7.00pm.

 

 

Garry Styles

General Manager

 

For apologies please contact Michelle Catlin on 6393 8246.

    

 


Council Meeting                                                                                              18 April 2017

Agenda

EVACUATION PROCEDURE

In the event of an emergency, the building may be evacuated. You will be required to vacate the building by the rear entrance and gather at the breezeway between the Library and Art Gallery buildings. This is Council's designated emergency muster point.

Under no circumstances is anyone permitted to re-enter the building until the all clear has been given and the area deemed safe by authorised personnel.

In the event of an evacuation, a member of Council staff will assist any member of the public with a disability to vacate the building.

  

1                Introduction.. 4

1.1            Apologies and Leave of Absence. 4

1.2            Opening Prayer. 4

1.3            Acknowledgement of Country. 4

1.4            Declaration of pecuniary interests, significant non-pecuniary interests and less than significant non-pecuniary interests. 4

2                Mayoral Minutes. 4

Nil

3                Confirmation of Minutes of Previous Meeting.. 4

3.1            Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Orange City Council held on 04 April 2017  5

4                Notices of Motion/Notices of Rescission.. 10

Nil

5                General Reports. 11

5.1            Recommendations and Resolutions from Policy Committees. 11

5.2            Outstanding Questions Taken on Notice. 30

5.3            Statement of Investments - March 2017. 34

5.4            Development Application DA 4/2016(1) - 61B Moulder Street 38

5.5            Draft Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Amendment 19 - 386 Molong Road  107

5.6            Identity of Code of Conduct Complainant 286

5.7            Naming of Showground Pavilion. 291

5.8            Robertson Park Toilets. 297

5.9            Proposed Southern Link Cycleway. 320

5.10          Update - Improved Operating Procedures for Valves and Hydrants. 323

5.11          Tenders and Procurement 327

5.12          North Sydney Council correspondence. 330

5.13          Brand Orange Funding Agreement 340


 

 

6                Closed Meeting - See Closed Agenda.. 347

6.1            Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games Queen's Baton Relay Council Selected Batonbearer. 348

6.2            Duntryleague seeking conversion of loan. 349

6.3            Outstanding Water Charges - Request to Write Off 350

 

7                Resolutions from closed meeting.. 351

 


Council Meeting                                                                                              18 April 2017

1       Introduction

1.1     Apologies and Leave of Absence

1.2     Opening Prayer

1.3     Acknowledgement of Country

I would like to acknowledge the Wiradjuri people who are the Traditional Custodians of the Land. I would also like to pay respect to the Elders both past and present of the Wiradjuri Nation and extend that respect to other Aboriginal Australians who are present.

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

The provisions of Chapter 14 of the Local Government Act, 1993 (the Act) regulate the way in which Councillors and designated staff of Council conduct themselves to ensure that there is no conflict between their private interests and their public role.

The Act prescribes that where a member of Council (or a Committee of Council) has a direct or indirect financial (pecuniary) interest in a matter to be considered at a meeting of the Council (or Committee), that interest must be disclosed as soon as practicable after the start of the meeting and the reasons given for declaring such interest.

As members are aware, the provisions of the Local Government Act restrict any member who has declared a pecuniary interest in any matter from participating in the discussion or voting on that matter, and requires that member to vacate the Chamber.

Council’s Code of Conduct provides that if members have a non-pecuniary conflict of interest, the nature of the conflict must be disclosed. The Code of Conduct also provides for a number of ways in which a member may manage non pecuniary conflicts of interest.

Recommendation

It is recommended that Councillors now disclose any conflicts of interest in matters under consideration by the Council at this meeting.

 

 

2       Mayoral Minutes

Nil     

3       Confirmation of Minutes of Previous Meeting

RECOMMENDATION

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Orange City Council held on 4 April 2017 (copies of which were circulated to all members) be and are hereby confirmed as a true and accurate records of the proceedings of the Council meeting held on 4 April 2017.

Attachments

1        Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Orange City Council held on 4 April 2017



ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

 

MINUTES OF THE

Ordinary Council Meeting

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

ON 4 April 2017

COMMENCING AT 7.00pm


 1      Introduction

Attendance

Cr J Davis OAM (Mayor), Cr J Hamling (Deputy Mayor), Cr A Brown, Cr K Duffy, Cr R Gander, Cr C Gryllis, Cr N Jones, Cr S Munro, Cr R Turner

Acting General Manager, Director Corporate and Commercial Services, Director Development Services, Director Community, Recreation and Cultural Services, Manager Corporate and Community Relations, Water Treatment Manager, Works Manager, Manager Building and Environment, Senior Planner (Drum)

 

RESOLVED - 17/102                                                                             Cr K Duffy/Cr S Munro

That Council allow Channel 9 to record the Council Meeting.

 

 

1.1     APOLOGIES

 

RESOLVED - 17/103                                                                          Cr R Gander/Cr R Turner

That the apologies be accepted from Cr R Kidd, Cr G Taylor and Cr J Whitton for the Council Meeting of Orange City Council on 4 April 2017.

 

1.2     ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

 


 

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

Item 2.3 – Planning and Development Committee - DA 4/2016(1) – 61B Moulder Street

Cr C Gryllis declared a pecuniary interest in item 2.3 of the Planning and Development Committee as the Architect for the applicant leases a building Cr Gryllis manages.

Cr R Turner declared a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in item 2.3 as he knows the neighbours well who are objecting to the development application.

Cr A Brown declared pecuniary interest in item 2.3 as he knows the neighbours and had had business dealings with neighbours.

Item 2.4 – Planning and Development Committee - DA 304/2016(1) – 132-142 Kite Street and 26 McNamara Street

Cr C Gryllis declared a pecuniary interest in item 2.4 of the Planning and Development Committee as while he has no involvement with this project has had previous dealings with the applicant.

Cr A Brown declared a pecuniary interest in item 2.4 of the Planning and Development Committee as he is in business dealings with the applicant.

 

2       Mayoral Minutes

2.1     Centroc Board Meeting

TRIM Reference:        2017/523

RESOLVED - 17/104                                                                          Cr R Gander/Cr S Munro

That the Mayoral Minute on the Centroc Board Meeting 23 February 2017 at Forbes be acknowledged.

 

 

 

THE MAYOR DECLARED THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ADJOURNED FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE OPEN FORUM AT 7.05PM

 

OPEN FORUM

Mr Ian Carter - Item 2.3 - PDC - DA 61B Moulder Street, Orange

Mr Carter outlined his objection to the development.

Mr Scott Gilbank - Item 2.3 - PDC - DA 61B Moulder Street, Orange

Mr Gilbank outlined his objection to the development.

Ms Jacqueline Grant - Item 2.3 - PDC - DA 61B Moulder Street, Orange

Ms Grant outlined her objection to the development.

Ms Deborah Marr – Council Meeting – Item 5.2 – Robertson Park Toilets

Ms Marr outlined her support for the toilet co-located with the CWA Hall, to proceed.


 

Mr Daniel Fock - Item 2.3 - PDC - DA 61B Moulder Street, Orange

Mr Fock outlined his objections to the development.

Ms Sally Sutherland - Item 2.3 - PDC - DA 61B Moulder Street, Orange

Ms Sutherland, Architect for the development at 61B Moulder Street, sought Council’s consent for the development.

Ms Sue Bourke - Item 2.3 - PDC - DA 61B Moulder Street, Orange

Ms Bourke outlined her objections to the development.

 

THE OPEN FORUM CONCLUDED AT 7.45PM

 

3       Confirmation of Minutes of Previous Meeting

RESOLVED - 17/105                                                                        Cr J Hamling/Cr R Gander

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Orange City Council held on 21 March 2017 (copies of which were circulated to all members) be and are hereby confirmed as a true and accurate record of the proceedings of the Council meeting held on 21 March 2017 with an amendment to the wording of a Question Taken on Notice to read “Cr Duffy requested to view a signed copy of the General Manager’s contract. The Mayor asked that it be circulated to Councillors.”

 

THE MAYOR DECLARED THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ADJOURNED FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE POLICY COMMITTEE MEETINGS AT 7.45PM

THE MAYOR DECLARED THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL RESUMED AT 8.22PM

 

4       Notices of Motion/Notices of Rescission

Nil

5       General Reports

5.1     Lease Part Jaeger Reserve to Orange Croquet Club

TRIM Reference:        2017/575

RESOLVED - 17/125                                                                         Cr J Hamling/Cr S Munro

1        That Council enter into a five year lease (with one five year option) with the Orange City Croquet Club Incorporated for part of Jaeger Reserve for $1 per annum (ex GST).

2        That permission be granted for the use of the Council Seal on necessary documents if required.

 

 


 

 

5.2     Robertson Park Toilets

TRIM Reference:        2017/573

MOTION                                                                                                   Cr K Duffy/Cr J Davis

That this matter be deferred to a future Council Meeting.

AMENDMENT                                                                                    Cr C Gryllis/Cr R Gander

1               That Council proceed with Option 1 as listed in the report.

2               That a funding source be identified.

THE AMENDMENT ON BEING PUT TO THE MEETING WAS LOST

THE MOTION ON BEING PUT TO THE MEETING WAS CARRIED

RESOLVED - 17/126                                                                                 Cr K Duffy/Cr J Davis

That this matter be deferred to a future Council Meeting.

 

** Crs Gryllis and Jones requested that their names be recorded as having voted against this decision of Council. ** 

6       Closed Meeting

In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, and the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, in the opinion of the General Manager, the following business is of a kind as referred to in Section 10A(2) of the Act, and should be dealt with in a Confidential Session of the Council meeting closed to the press and public.

In response to a question from the Mayor, the General Manager advised that no written submissions had been received relating to any item listed for consideration by the Closed Meeting of Council.

The Mayor extended an invitation to any member of the public present at the meeting to make a presentation to the Council as to whether the meeting should be closed for a particular item.

RESOLVED - 17/127                                                                           Cr R Gander/Cr C Gryllis

That Council adjourn into a Closed Meeting and members of the press and public be excluded from the Closed Meeting, and access to the correspondence and reports relating to the items considered during the course of the Closed Meeting be withheld unless declassified by separate resolution. This action is taken in accordance with Section 10A(2) of the Local Government Act, 1993 as the items listed come within the following provisions:

6.1     Tender - Reference Concept Design for the Orange STP Disinfection Upgrade

This item is classified CONFIDENTIAL under the provisions of Section 10A(2) of the Local Government Act 1993, which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to (c) information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

 

     

** Cr Hamling left the meeting with the time being 8.45pm **

 

The Mayor declared the Ordinary Meeting of Council adjourned for the conduct of the Closed Meeting at 8.45pm.

The Mayor declared the Ordinary Meeting of Council resumed at 8.48pm.

 

7       Resolutions from Closed Meeting

The Director Corporate and Commercial Services read out the following resolutions made in the Closed Meeting of Council.

6.1     Tender - Reference Concept Design for the Orange STP Disinfection Upgrade

TRIM Reference:        2017/549

RESOLVED - 17/128                                                                           Cr R Gander/Cr C Gryllis

1        That Council award the contract for the Reference Concept Design for the Orange Sewage Treatment Plant Disinfection Upgrade (separable portions 1 and 2) to Hunter H2O Holdings Pty Ltd for the tendered lump sum price of $109,719 plus the $12,870 proposed for investigation into energy offsets and on-site recycling  equating to a total amount of $122,589 (inc GST).

2        That permission be granted to affix the Council Seal to all relevant documents.

 

 

Division of Voting

Voted For

Cr J Davis (Mayor), Cr K Duffy, Cr R Gander, Cr C Gryllis, Cr N Jones, Cr S Munro, Cr R Turner, Cr A Brown

Voted Against

Nil

Absent

Cr R Kidd, Cr G Taylor, Cr J Whitton, Cr J Hamling

 

The Meeting Closed at 8.49pm

 

This is Page Number 5 and the Final Page of the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Orange City Council held on 4 April 2017.

  


Council Meeting                                                                                              18 April 2017

 

 

4       Notices of Motion/Notices of Rescission

Nil


Council Meeting                                                                                              18 April 2017

 

 

5       General Reports

5.1     Recommendations and Resolutions from Policy Committees

TRIM REFERENCE:        2017/665

AUTHOR:                       Michelle Catlin, Manager Administration and Governance    

 

 

EXECUTIVE Summary

Council’s Policy Committees (Planning and Development Committee, Employment and Economic Development Policy Committee, Infrastructure Policy Committee, Sport and Recreation Policy Committee, Environmental Sustainability Policy Committee, Finance Policy Committee and Services Policy Committee) have delegation to determine matters before those Committees, with the exception of items that impact on Council’s Delivery/Operational Plan.

This report provides minutes of the Policy Committees held since the last meeting. Resolutions made by the Committees are for noting, and Recommendations are presented for adoption or amendment by Council.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “1.2 Our City - Information and advice provided for the decision-making process will be succinct, reasoned, accurate, timely and balanced”.

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

 

Recommendation

1        That the resolutions made by the Planning and Development Committee at its meeting held on 4 April 2017 be noted.

2        That the resolutions made by the Employment and Economic Development Policy Committee at its meeting held on 4 April 2017 be noted.

3        That the resolutions made by the Infrastructure Policy Committee at its meeting held on 4 April 2017 be noted.

4        That the resolutions made by the Sport and Recreation Policy Committee at its meeting held on 4 April 2017 be noted.

5        That the resolutions made by the Environmental Sustainability Policy Committee at its meeting held on 4 April 2017 be noted.

6        That the resolutions made by the Finance Policy Committee at its meeting held on 4 April 2017 be noted.

7        That the resolutions made by the Services Policy Committee at its meeting held on 4 April 2017 be noted.

 

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

Planning and Development Committee

At the Planning and Development Committee meeting held on 4 April 2017 all resolutions were made under delegation, and the minutes are presented for noting.

Employment and Economic Development Policy Committee

At the Employment and Economic Development Policy Committee meeting held on 4 April 2017 all resolutions were made under delegation, and the minutes are presented for noting.

Infrastructure Policy Committee

At the Infrastructure Policy Committee meeting held on 4 April 2017 all resolutions were made under delegation, and the minutes are presented for noting.

Sport and Recreation Policy Committee

At the Sport and Recreation Policy Committee meeting held on 4 April 2017, all resolutions were made under delegation, and the minutes are presented for noting.

Environmental Sustainability Policy Committee

At the Environmental Sustainability Policy Committee meeting held on 4 April 2017, all resolutions were made under delegation, and the minutes are presented for noting.

Finance Policy Committee

At the Finance Policy Committee meeting held on 4 April 2017, all resolutions were made under delegation, and the minutes are presented for noting.

Services Policy Committee

At the Services Policy Committee meeting held on 4 April 2017, all resolutions were made under delegation, and the minutes are presented for noting.

 

Attachments

1          PDC 4 April 2017 Minutes, 2017/638

2          EEDPC 4 April 2017 Minutes, 2017/639

3          IPC 4 April 2017 Minutes, 2017/640

4          SRPC 4 April 2017 Minutes, 2017/641

5          ESPC 4 April 2017 Minutes, 2017/642

6          FPC 4 April 2017 Minutes, 2017/643

7          SPC 4 April 2017 Minutes, 2017/644

  


Planning and Development Committee                                                 18 April 2017

5.1                       Recommendations and Resolutions from Policy Committees

Attachment 1      PDC 4 April 2017 Minutes


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

MINUTES OF THE

Planning and Development Committee

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

ON 4 April 2017

COMMENCING AT 7.00pm


 1      Introduction

Attendance

Cr R Turner (Chairperson), Cr J Davis OAM (Mayor), Cr C Gryllis, Cr A Brown, Cr K Duffy, Cr R Gander, Cr J Hamling (Deputy Mayor), Cr N Jones, Cr S Munro

Acting General Manager, Director Corporate and Commercial Services, Director Development Services, Director Community, Recreation and Cultural Services, Manager Corporate and Community Relations, Water Treatment Manager, Works Manager, Manager Building and Environment, Senior Planner (Drum)

** The Mayor opened the meeting and Chaired the meeting for item 2.3 only, as the Chairperson declared an interest in this item. **

APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE

 

RESOLVED - 17/102                                                                          Cr R Gander/Cr R Turner

That the apologies be accepted from Cr R Kidd, Cr G Taylor and Cr J Whitton for the Planning and Development Committee of Orange City Council on 4 April 2017.

1.1     DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTERESTS, SIGNIFICANT NON-PECUNIARY INTERESTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT NON-PECUNIARY INTERESTS

Item 2.3 – Planning and Development Committee - DA 4/2016(1) – 61B Moulder Street

Cr C Gryllis declared a pecuniary interest in item 2.3 of the Planning and Development Committee as the Architect for the applicant leases a building Cr Gryllis manages.

Cr R Turner declared a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in item 2.3 as he knows the neighbours well who are objecting to the development application.

Cr A Brown declared pecuniary interest in item 2.3 as he knows the neighbours and had had business dealings with neighbours.

Item 2.4 – Planning and Development Committee - DA 304/2016(1) – 132-142 Kite Street and 26 McNamara Street

Cr C Gryllis declared a pecuniary interest in item 2.4 of the Planning and Development Committee as while he has no involvement with this project has had previous dealings with the applicant.

Cr A Brown declared a pecuniary interest in item 2.4 of the Planning and Development Committee as he is in business dealings with the applicant.

2       General Reports

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

TRIM Reference:        2017/503

Cr C Gryllis declared a pecuniary interest in this item as the Architect for the applicant leases a building Cr Gryllis property manages, left the Chamber, and did not participate in the voting or debate on this item.

Cr R Turner declared a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in this item as he knows the neighbours well who are objecting to the development application, left the Chamber, and did not participate in the voting or debate on this item.

Cr A Brown declared a pecuniary interest in this item as he knows the neighbours and had had business dealings with neighbours, left the Chamber, and did not participate in the voting or debate on this item.

 

Due to a lack of quorum, this item was deferred to the next Council Meeting to be held on 18 April 2017.

** Cr Turner resumed the Chair. **

 

2.1     Items Approved Under the Delegated Authority of Council

TRIM Reference:        2017/325

RESOLVED - 17/103                                                                            Cr C Gryllis/Cr S Munro

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

 

 


 

 

2.2     Section 94 Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017

TRIM Reference:        2017/425

RESOLVED - 17/104                                                                                 Cr K Duffy/Cr J Davis

1        That the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017 be placed on exhibition for 28 days.

2        That relevant consultants and developers who undertake development work in Orange be advised that the Draft Orange Development Contributions Plans 2017 will be on exhibition and invite comments on the draft Plan.

 

 

2.4     Development Application DA 304/2016(1) - 132-142 Kite Street and 26 McNamara Street

TRIM Reference:        2017/536

Cr C Gryllis declared a pecuniary interest in this item as while he has no involvement with this project has had previous dealings with the applicant, left the Chamber, and did not participate in the voting or debate on this item.

Cr A Brown declared a pecuniary interest in this item as he is in business dealings with the applicant, left the Chamber, and did not participate in the voting or debate on this item.

RESOLVED - 17/105                                                                         Cr J Hamling/Cr S Munro

That Council consents to development application DA 304/2016(1) for Demolition, Hotel or Motel Accommodation, Restaurant or Cafe, Retail Premises and Subdivision (44 lot Strata) at Lot 1 DP 197828, Lots 2-6 DP 131416 and Lots 1‑3 DP 779111 - 132-142 Kite Street and 26 McNamara Street, Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.

 

 

Division of Voting

Voted For

Cr J Davis, Cr K Duffy, Cr R Gander, Cr J Hamling, Cr N Jones, Cr S Munro, Cr R Turner

Voted Against

Nil

Absent

Cr R Kidd, Cr G Taylor, Cr J Whitton, Cr C Gryllis, Cr A Brown

 


 

 

2.5     Development Application DA 445/2016(1) - 108 Hill Street

TRIM Reference:        2017/537

RESOLVED - 17/106                                                                        Cr J Hamling/Cr R Gander

That Council consents to development application DA 445/2016(1) for Dwelling and Attached Garage at Lot 5 DP 22199 - 108 Hill Street, Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.

 

 

Division of Voting

Voted For

Cr J Davis, Cr K Duffy, Cr R Gander, Cr C Gryllis, Cr J Hamling, Cr N Jones, Cr S Munro, Cr R Turner, Cr A Brown

Voted Against

Nil

Absent

Cr R Kidd, Cr G Taylor, Cr J Whitton

The Meeting Closed at 8.00PM.


Employment and Economic Development Policy Committee          18 April 2017

5.1                       Recommendations and Resolutions from Policy Committees

Attachment 2      EEDPC 4 April 2017 Minutes


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

MINUTES OF THE

Employment and Economic Development Policy Committee

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

ON 4 April 2017

COMMENCING AT 8.00pm


 1      Introduction

Attendance

Cr J Davis OAM (Mayor), Cr J Hamling (Deputy Mayor), Cr C Gryllis, Cr A Brown, Cr K Duffy, Cr R Gander, Cr N Jones, Cr S Munro, Cr R Turner

Acting General Manager, Director Corporate and Commercial Services, Director Development Services, Director Community, Recreation and Cultural Services, Manager Corporate and Community Relations, Water Treatment Manager, Works Manager, Manager Building and Environment, Senior Planner (Drum)

** Due to the absence of the Chairperson, Cr Davis chaired the meeting. **

APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE

 

RESOLVED - 17/111                                                                          Cr R Gander/Cr R Turner

That the apologies be accepted from Cr R Kidd, Cr G Taylor and Cr J Whitton (Chairperson) for the Employment and Economic Development Policy Committee of Orange City Council on 4 April 2017.

 

1.1     DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTERESTS, SIGNIFICANT NON-PECUNIARY INTERESTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT NON-PECUNIARY INTERESTS

Nil


 

 

2       Committee Minutes

2.1     Minutes of the Sister Cities Community Committee Meeting - 15 March 2017

TRIM Reference:        2017/511

RESOLVED - 17/112                                                                          Cr J Hamling/Cr C Gryllis

That the recommendations made by the Sister Cities Community Committee at its meeting held on 15 March 2017 be noted.

 

 

The Meeting Closed at 8.02PM.


Infrastructure Policy Committee                                                            18 April 2017

5.1                       Recommendations and Resolutions from Policy Committees

Attachment 3      IPC 4 April 2017 Minutes


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

MINUTES OF THE

Infrastructure Policy Committee

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

ON 4 April 2017

COMMENCING AT 7.00pm


 1      Introduction

Attendance

Cr J Davis OAM (Mayor), Cr J Hamling (Deputy Mayor), Cr C Gryllis, Cr A Brown, Cr K Duffy, Cr R Gander, Cr N Jones, Cr S Munro, Cr R Turner

Acting General Manager, Director Corporate and Commercial Services, Director Development Services, Director Community, Recreation and Cultural Services, Manager Corporate and Community Relations, Water Treatment Manager, Works Manager, Manager Building and Environment, Senior Planner (Drum)

 

** In the absence of the Chairperson, Cr Davis chaired the meeting. **

APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE

 

RESOLVED - 17/113                                                                          Cr R Gander/Cr R Turner

That the apologies be accepted from Cr R Kidd, Cr G Taylor (Chairperson) and Cr J Whitton for the Infrastructure Policy Committee of Orange City Council on 4 April 2017.

 

1.1     DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTERESTS, SIGNIFICANT NON-PECUNIARY INTERESTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT NON-PECUNIARY INTERESTS

Nil


 

 

2       Committee Minutes

2.1     Minutes of the City of Orange Traffic Committee - 14 March 2017

TRIM Reference:        2017/490

RESOLVED - 17/114                                                                            Cr R Turner/Cr C Gryllis

That the recommendations made by the City of Orange Traffic Committee at its meeting held on 14 March 2017 be adopted.

 

 

3       General Reports

3.1     Current Works

TRIM Reference:        2017/520

RESOLVED - 17/115                                                                           Cr C Gryllis/Cr R Gander

That the information provided in the report on Current Works be acknowledged.

 

 

QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE                                                                                                 

Cr Duffy asked if the Franklin Road and Peisley Street intersection was being considered for reopening to ease traffic congestion when the East Fork bridge construction was under way.

Cr Duffy asked if the closure of Warrendine Street, between Anson and Sale Street, was being considered.

The Acting General Manager said these matters would be subject to an upcoming briefing.

 

The Meeting Closed at 8.05PM.


Sport and Recreation Policy Committee                                                18 April 2017

5.1                       Recommendations and Resolutions from Policy Committees

Attachment 4      SRPC 4 April 2017 Minutes


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

MINUTES OF THE

Sport and Recreation Policy Committee

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

ON 4 April 2017

COMMENCING AT 8.05pm


 1      Introduction

Attendance

Cr J Hamling (Chairperson) (Deputy Mayor), Cr J Davis OAM (Mayor), Cr C Gryllis, Cr A Brown, Cr K Duffy, Cr R Gander, Cr N Jones, Cr S Munro, Cr R Turner

Acting General Manager, Director Corporate and Commercial Services, Director Development Services, Director Community, Recreation and Cultural Services, Manager Corporate and Community Relations, Water Treatment Manager, Works Manager, Manager Building and Environment, Senior Planner (Drum)

 

APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE

 

RESOLVED - 17/116                                                                          Cr R Gander/Cr R Turner

That the apologies be accepted from Cr R Kidd, Cr G Taylor and Cr J Whitton for the Sport and Recreation Policy Committee of Orange City Council on 4 April 2017.

 

1.1     DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTERESTS, SIGNIFICANT NON-PECUNIARY INTERESTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT NON-PECUNIARY INTERESTS

Nil


 

 

2       Committee Minutes

2.1     Minutes of the Australia Day Community Committee Meeting - 22 February 2017

TRIM Reference:        2017/502

RESOLVED - 17/117                                                                              Cr J Davis/Cr R Turner

That the recommendations made by the Australia Day Community Committee at its meeting held on 22 February 2017 be adopted.

 

 

 The Meeting Closed at 8.06PM.


Environmental Sustainability Policy Committee                                18 April 2017

5.1                       Recommendations and Resolutions from Policy Committees

Attachment 5      ESPC 4 April 2017 Minutes


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

MINUTES OF THE

Environmental Sustainability Policy Committee

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

ON 4 April 2017

COMMENCING AT 8.06Pm


 1      Introduction

Attendance

Cr N Jones (Chairperson), Cr J Davis OAM (Mayor), Cr J Hamling (Deputy Mayor), Cr C Gryllis, Cr A Brown, Cr K Duffy, Cr R Gander, Cr S Munro, Cr R Turner

Acting General Manager, Director Corporate and Commercial Services, Director Development Services, Director Community, Recreation and Cultural Services, Manager Corporate and Community Relations, Water Treatment Manager, Works Manager, Manager Building and Environment, Senior Planner (Drum)

 

APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE

 

RESOLVED - 17/129                                                                          Cr R Gander/Cr R Turner

That the apologies be accepted from Cr R Kidd, Cr G Taylor, Cr J Whitton for the Environmental Sustainability Policy Committee of Orange City Council on 4 April 2017.

 

1.1     DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTERESTS, SIGNIFICANT NON-PECUNIARY INTERESTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT NON-PECUNIARY INTERESTS

Nil 


 

 

2       Committee Minutes

2.1     Minutes of the Environmental Sustainability Community Committee – 17 March 2017

TRIM Reference:        2017/513

RESOLVED - 17/130                                                                         Cr J Hamling/Cr S Munro

That the recommendations made by the Environmental Sustainability Community Committee at its meeting held on 17 March 2017 be adopted.

 

 

QUESTION TAKEN ON NOTICE                                                                                                   

Cr Duffy asked could excessive water in Diamond Drive on the north side of Romano Drive following recent heavy rains be investigated.

 

 Cr Duffy asked about rats in William Street.                                                                              

 

 

The Meeting Closed at 8.12PM.


Finance Policy Committee                                                                           18 April 2017

5.1                       Recommendations and Resolutions from Policy Committees

Attachment 6      FPC 4 April 2017 Minutes


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

MINUTES OF THE

Finance Policy Committee

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

ON 4 April 2017

COMMENCING AT 8.12pm


 1      Introduction

Attendance

Cr K Duffy (Chairperson), Cr J Davis OAM (Mayor), Cr J Hamling (Deputy Mayor), Cr C Gryllis, Cr A Brown, Cr R Gander, Cr N Jones, Cr S Munro, Cr R Turner

Acting General Manager, Director Corporate and Commercial Services, Director Development Services, Director Community, Recreation and Cultural Services, Manager Corporate and Community Relations, Water Treatment Manager, Works Manager, Manager Building and Environment, Senior Planner (Drum)

 

APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE

 

RESOLVED - 17/118                                                                          Cr R Gander/Cr R Turner

That the apologies be accepted from Cr R Kidd, Cr G Taylor and Cr J Whitton for the Finance Policy Committee of Orange City Council on 4 April 2017.

 

1.1     DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTERESTS, SIGNIFICANT NON-PECUNIARY INTERESTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT NON-PECUNIARY INTERESTS

Nil 


 

 

2       General Reports

2.1     Statement of Bank Balances as at 28 February 2017

TRIM Reference:        2017/507

RESOLVED - 17/119                                                                              Cr J Davis/Cr S Munro

That the information provided in the report by the Accounting Officer – Management on the Statement of Bank Balances as at 28 February 2017 be acknowledged.

 

 

2.2     Request For Financial Assistance

TRIM Reference:        2017/542

RESOLVED - 17/120                                                                            Cr C Gryllis/Cr R Turner

That Council approve the donation request to At the Vineyard of $1,500 from Councillor Turner’s allocation as exhibited.

 

 

MATTER ARISING                                                                                                                        

Cr Duffy asked about Council seeking funding for an upgrade of amenities at Cutcliffe Oval.

 

 

The Meeting Closed at 8.14PM.


Services Policy Committee                                                                          18 April 2017

5.1                       Recommendations and Resolutions from Policy Committees

Attachment 7      SPC 4 April 2017 Minutes


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

MINUTES OF THE

Services Policy Committee

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

ON 4 April 2017

COMMENCING AT 8.14pm


 1      Introduction

Attendance

Cr R Gander (Chairperson), Cr J Davis OAM (Mayor), Cr J Hamling (Deputy Mayor), Cr C Gryllis, Cr A Brown, Cr K Duffy, Cr N Jones, Cr S Munro, Cr R Turner

Acting General Manager, Director Corporate and Commercial Services, Director Development Services, Director Community, Recreation and Cultural Services, Manager Corporate and Community Relations, Water Treatment Manager, Works Manager, Manager Building and Environment, Senior Planner (Drum)

 

APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE

 

RESOLVED - 17/121                                                                          Cr R Gander/Cr R Turner

That the apologies be accepted from Cr R Kidd, Cr G Taylor and Cr J Whitton for the Services Policy Committee of Orange City Council on 4 April 2017.

 

1.1     DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTERESTS, SIGNIFICANT NON-PECUNIARY INTERESTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT NON-PECUNIARY INTERESTS

Nil 


 

 

2       Committee Minutes

2.1     Minutes of the Ageing and Access Community Committee - 2 February 2017

TRIM Reference:        2017/476

RESOLVED - 17/122                                                                            Cr C Gryllis/Cr R Turner

That the recommendations made by the Ageing and Access Community Committee at its meeting held on 2 February 2017 be adopted.

 

 

2.2     Minutes of the Spring Hill Community Committee - 27 February 2017

TRIM Reference:        2017/506

RESOLVED - 17/123                                                                             Cr R Turner/Cr K Duffy

That the recommendations made by the Spring Hill Community Committee at its meeting held on 27 February 2017 be adopted.

 

 

2.3     Minutes of the Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting - 13 March 2017

TRIM Reference:        2017/524

RESOLVED - 17/124                                                                              Cr J Davis/Cr S Munro

That the recommendations made by the Cultural Heritage Community Committee at its meeting held on 13 March 2017 be adopted.

 

 

QUESTION TAKEN ON NOTICE                                                                                                   

Cr Jones asked what the survey in the Senior Citizens’ and Pensioners’ Centre consultation dealt with. Information to be provided.

 

The Meeting Closed at 8.22pm.


Council Meeting                                                                                              18 April 2017

 

 

5.2     Outstanding Questions Taken on Notice

TRIM REFERENCE:        2017/666

AUTHOR:                       Michelle Catlin, Manager Administration and Governance    

 

 

EXECUTIVE Summary

Councillors have the opportunity to ask questions of the General Manager throughout Council and Committee meetings. While many questions asked can be answered at the meeting, or via a memo circulated to Councillors after the meeting, some questions require further action.

To ensure these questions are recorded and monitored, the attached table is updated, and is provided to Council for information.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “1.2 Our City - Information and advice provided for the decision-making process will be succinct, reasoned, accurate, timely and balanced”.

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

 

Recommendation

That the information provided in the report by the Manager Administration and Governance on Questions Taken on Notice 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

Attached is a table of outstanding questions taken on notice from the Council Meetings held from 15 November 2016 to present. Where action has been taken on a particular question, this is noted in the “action” column. A new section has been added to the report where a matter arising has been progressed as a works request so Councillors are provided with an update on those items that require works to be scheduled.

 

Attachments

1          Outstanding Questions Taken on Notice, 2014/745

 


Council Meeting                                                                                                                        18 April 2017

5.2                       Outstanding Questions Taken on Notice

Attachment 1      Outstanding Questions Taken on Notice

2014/745                                                                                                                                                    

OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE

COUNCIL MEETINGS

 

Date of Meeting

Question

Responsible Staff Member

Action

Date for completion

 

 

4 April

2017

Cr Jones asked what did the survey in the Senior Citizens’ and Pensioners’ Centre consultation deal with.

Director Community, Recreation and Cultural Services

Survey was for the Disability Inclusion Action Plan and was seeking response from the committee members. Survey also distributed to the community and Councillors.

April 2017

Cr Duffy asked about rats in William Street.

Manager Building and Environment

Matter to be investigated and information supplied to councillors.

April 2017

Cr Duffy asked could excessive water in Diamond Drive on the north side of Romano Drive following recent heavy rains be investigated

Water and Sewer Strategic Manager

Matter to be investigated and information supplied to councillors.

April 2017

Cr Duffy asked was the Franklin Road and Peisley Street intersection being considered for reopening to ease traffic congestion when the East Fork bridge construction was under way.

Cr Duffy asked was the closure of Warrendine Street, between Anson and Sale Street, being considered.

Director Technical Services

The Acting General Manager (Chris Devitt) said these matters would be subject to an upcoming briefing.

April 2017

21 March

2017

Cr Duffy requested to view a signed copy of the General Manager’s contract.

Executive Support Manager

The standard contract for General Managers was emailed to all Councillors on 27 March.

Completed

Cr Hamling requested information on the recently held school swimming carnivals and why swimmers did not dive into the pool and started races in the water.

Manager Commercial and Emergency Services

Memo distributed via Councillor pigeon holes 5 April 2017.

Completed

Cr Duffy requested details of all costs for the Northern Distributor Road.

Director Technical Services

Information to be provided to Councillors.

April2017

Cr Duffy requested a report on the issue of bats in Cook Park and what action can be taken to remove the bats.

Manager City Presentation

Information to be circulated to Councillors.

May 2017

Cr Gryllis requested Council report on the possibility of making other water reserves available for recreational purposes to be provided as soon as possible.

Director Technical Services

Matter to be discussed at a briefing session initially before being reported to Council.

April 2017

Cr Turner requested a report on the BMX track and what is planned for this site. The Mayor requested the Club be invited to attend the next meeting and discuss their plans and progress on attracting competitions, installing starting gates.

Director Community, Recreation and Cultural Services

Staff contacted the BMX Club on 21 March 2017 and President currently overseas until 6 May 2017. President will make a presentation to Council at its meeting of 16 May 2017.

May 2017

Cr Duffy requested an update report on the cycleway including negotiations for the easement over 79 Gardiner Road.

Manager Administration and Governance

Report listed for Council Meeting of 18 April 2017

April 2017

7 March

2017

Cr Duffy requested results of the Benkelman beam testing undertaken on the Northern Distributor Road, William Street and Ophir Road.

Director Technical Services

Cr Duffy to provide clarification on details required.

April 2017

7 Feb

2017

Cr Whitton requested staff to investigate a fence in the laneway off Lords Place, adjacent to Torpy Street.

Manager Building and Environment

Fence has been inspected. Advisory note being sent to owner of site to advise that the fence should be replaced.

Completed

20 December 2016

Cr Duffy asked if roadside vendors are required to submit a development application.

Director Development Services

Information to be circulated to Councillors.

April 2017

Cr Taylor requested a report on whether the identity of complainants (if a Councillor) can be disclosed if considered to be in the public interest.

Manager Administration and Governance

Report listed for Council Meeting of 18 April 2017

April 2017

15 Nov 2016

Cr Duffy requested comparative information on infringements issued over 2015 under the manual system.

Director Development Services

Information to be provided to Councillors.

April 2017

6 September 2016

Cr Gryllis requested that Council invite the President of the Orange Chamber of Commerce to attend either a Council Meeting, or the Economic Development Community Committee meeting, to outline the Chamber’s suggestions on ways to encourage development in the City.

Executive Support Manager

Orange Business Chamber cancelled and will provide an information pack to Councillors instead. Communicated to Councillors in the weekly email on Friday 31 March 2017.

Completed

 


Council Meeting                                                                                              18 April 2017

 

 

5.3     Statement of Investments - March 2017

TRIM REFERENCE:        2017/634

AUTHOR:                       Brock Gannon, Financial Accounting Officer    

 

 

EXECUTIVE Summary

The purpose of this report is to provide a statement of Council’s investments held as at 31 March.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “1.2 Our City - Information and advice provided for the decision-making process will be succinct, reasoned, accurate, timely and balanced”.

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

 

Recommendation

1        That Council receives the Statement of Investments as at 31 March 2017.

2        That Council receives and adopts the certification of the Responsible Accounting Officer.

 

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

Section 212(1) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires that a written report be presented each month at an Ordinary Meeting of the Council detailing all money that Council has invested under Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993.

As at 31 March 2017, the investments held by Council totalled $122,442,377.73 and is attributed to the following funds.

 

 

31/03/2017

28/02/2017

General Fund

48,807,835.67

43,925,560.25

Sewer Local Fund

34,181,870.71

34,085,795.76

Water Supply Local Fund

39,452,671.35

38,192,699.64

Orange CBD Special Rate

 

 

122,442,377.73

116,204,055.65

A reconciliation of Council’s investment portfolio provides a summary of the purposes for which Council’s investments are being held.

 

Externally Restricted

31/03/2017

28/02/2017

General Fund

17,748,846.41

22,353,184.13

Water Fund

39,452,671.35

38,192,699.64

Sewer Fund

34,181,870.71

34,085,795.76

Auspiced

1,522,412.52

1,522,412.52

Internally Restricted

9,950,332.74

7,485,815.41

Unrestricted

19,586,244.00

12,564,148.19

122,442,377.73

116,204,055.65

 

 

Portfolio Performance

Council’s current Long Term Financial Plan establishes the benchmark for Council’s interest on investments at “75 basis points above the current cash rate”. The cash rate as at 31 March 2017 remained at 1.50%. The annualised average interest rate of Council’s investment portfolio at the same reporting date was 3.02% (weighted average 2.57%) which continues to exceed Council’s benchmark i.e. the cash rate of 1.50% plus 0.75% (or 75 basis points).

 

 

Council has also utilised the AusBond Bank Bill Index to provide a further benchmark focused towards long term investments. As at 31 March 2017, the AusBond rate was 1.78%. The annualised average interest rate of Council’s investment portfolio at the same reporting date was 3.02%.

Council’s adopted Investment Policy establishes limits in relation to the maturity terms of Council’s investments as well as the credit ratings of the institutions with whom Council can invest.

The following tables provide a dissection of Council’s investment portfolio as required by Council’s Investment Policy. The Policy identifies the maximum amount that can be held in a variety of investment products or with institutions based on their respective credit ratings.

Table 1 and Table 2 show the percentage held by Council (holdings) and the additional amount that Council could hold (capacity) for each respective category in accordance with limits as established by Council’s Policy.

 

Table 1: Maturity – Term Limits

Term to Maturity Allocation

Maximum

Holding

Capacity

0 - 3 Months

100.00%

6.31%

93.69%

3 - 12 Months

100.00%

65.47%

34.53%

1 - 2 Years

70.00%

7.36%

62.64%

2 - 5 Years

50.00%

20.86%

29.14%

5+ Years

25.00%

0.00%

25.00%

 

Table 2: Credit Rating Limits

 

Maximum

Holding

Capacity

AAA

100.00%

0.00%

100.00%

AA

100.00%

17.56%

82.44%

A

60.00%

42.14%

17.86%

BBB & NR

40.00%

39.86%

0.14%

Below BBB

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

Certification by Responsible Accounting Officer

I, Kathy Woolley, hereby certify that all investments have been made in accordance with Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993, Clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and Council’s Investment Policy.  


Council Meeting                                                                                              18 April 2017

 

 

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

TRIM REFERENCE:        2017/655

AUTHOR:                       Kelly Walker, Town Planner    

 

 

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged

6 January 2016

Applicant/s

Mr DG and Mrs CG Isles

Owner/s

Mr DG and Mrs CG Isles

Land description

Lot 13 DP 1037756 - 61B Moulder Street, Orange

Proposed land use

Dwelling alterations and additions

Value of proposed development

$270,000

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

The application was originally considered at the Planning and Development Committee meeting on 7 March 2017, and was deferred by members so that a site inspection could be undertaken. The site inspection was carried out on 21 March 2017. The application was considered again at the Planning and Development Committee meeting on 4 April 2017, but deferred due to an insufficient number of Councillors in attendance to achieve a quorum for the consideration of the application.

Four additional submissions were received following the 7 March Committee meeting, and another submission was received following the site inspection. Two of those submissions were supplementary to an original submission, and the other three were from additional neighbours. The submissions do not raise any issues that had not already been covered in the original report.

Since the 7 March Committee meeting, Council adopted a policy document in relation to infill development in Conservation Areas; Development Control Plan 2004 Infill Guidelines, which has been taken into consideration in the Development Control Plan (DCP) section of this report. It is concluded that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the policy.

The proposal involves internal alterations and the addition of an upper floor. The upper floor will consist of two bedrooms, a study and a bathroom, with a new internal stairway which provides access. The ground floor will consist 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 proposed to replace the existing roof tiles with Colorbond material in ‘Monument’ colour. ‘Volcanic Ash’ is proposed for the walls of the existing dwelling and the additions.

Amenity concerns have been raised by neighbouring properties in regards to overlooking, privacy, daylighting, noise, and impacts to heritage. While the proposed development departs from the bulk and scale guidelines set out in the Orange Development Control Plan 2004 (DCP), this is a performance based document, and any assessment of a development needs to consider if the proposal complies with the overriding planning outcomes of the DCP.


In this case the proposed development does meet the bulk and scale objectives, and the resulting impacts can be mitigated by way of conditions of consent. The proposal has also been assessed against the tests applied by the Land and Environment Court when considering departures from numerical requirements of planning controls, and is considered to meet those tests.

It is important to recognise that neither the new Infill Guidelines, or the DCP and Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 (LEP) require land to be viewed in isolation within the heritage conservation area. The guidelines states that development does not have to replicate the existing built form, but should be compatible. Furthermore, just because a development is visible from nearby properties does not result in the proposal being inappropriate.

Whilst the proposed first floor addition would be visible from neighbouring sites, the sensitive architectural design (such as the addition being recessed into the existing roof, low ceiling height, articulation, recessive colour scheme, and window positioning and design); recessive colour scheme of the proposal; amendments during the assessment phase of this application and those that will be required by conditions of consent; adequately ameliorate impacts from the proposed development so that it will not adversely impact on the surrounding environment and neighbourhood.

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

Nil

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

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


 

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

THE APPLICATION/PROPOSAL

Council's consent is sought for 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 will consist of two bedrooms, a study and a bathroom, with a new internal stairway which provides access. The ground floor will consist 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 proposed to replace the existing roof tiles with Colorbond material in ‘Monument’ colour. ‘Volcanic Ash’ is proposed for the walls of the existing dwelling and the additions.

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 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 within 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 these 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 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.

The proposed change in roof material is considered acceptable, where it is consistent with other modern neutral dwellings in the area. The dark colour ‘Monument’ for the roof, and ‘Volcanic Ash’ for the walls are considered appropriate recessive colours in the Conservation Area. It is also considered that the new colours are more appropriate than the existing colour scheme of the dwelling.

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 within the context of the neighbouring listed buildings due to siting and separation distances. Furthermore, the proposal will not be readily visible from the street, and will not impact on the built form of the streetscape 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 proposed colour scheme uses recessive colours that will not dominate the heritage values and residential amenity of the surrounding area. The proposal is unlikely to create a precedent for further first floor additions in the area, as 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, detailing, and colours 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 from Moulder Street, and is not easily visible from the streetscape, with the exception of a view viewpoints such as directly at 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.

In this case, the encroachments are considered acceptable because the immediate neighbouring dwellings are offset from the subject dwelling. The design utilises the form of the existing roof to partially recess the first floor, thus providing visual relief to the bulk of the addition. In particular, the elevations have been 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. Additionally, the application proposes a dark recessive roof colour, and a neutral recessive wall colour, which assist in reducing visual prominence.

The neighbouring dwellings are well separated from the first floor addition, with the closest eastern dwelling (35 Hill Street) being over 50m away, and the closest western dwelling (59A Moulder Street) being approximately 24m away (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 existing site coverage and areas of open space and vegetation 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 which it was assessed against at the time. The proposed development will meet the previous DCP standards, as well as the current DCP planning objectives, 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.

It is noted that there are a few other examples of two storey dwellings in the surrounding area, including:

·    59A Moulder Street immediately adjacent (west) of the subject site;

·    48 Kite Street to the immediate north (see Figure 3);

·    45 Moulder Street to the west;

·    84 Moulder Street to the east (see Figure 3); and

·    36 and 48 Hill Street to the northeast (see Figure 4).


 

 

Figure 3 – Photographs of two storey dwellings at 48 Kite (left) and 84 Moulder (right) Streets

Figure 4 – Photographs of two storey dwellings at 36 (left) and 48 (right) Hill Street

These two storey dwellings are considered generally suitable for the Conservation Area and the neighbourhood. With the exception of number 84 Moulder Street, the upper levels are set back from the front boundary, and are not readily noticeable when viewed within the streetscape (see Figures 3 and 4). These examples are comparable to the subject proposal, which is also set back from the street, but also set behind other dwellings. There are also numerous large heritage houses in the neighbourhood which 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, and the addition will be visible from some of the neighbouring sites. However, it is considered that the visual impacts resulting from the proposed additions and alterations are acceptable and reasonable given the architectural design and features of the addition, including the recessive colour scheme. Overall it is considered that the proposal meets the planning objectives for bulk and scale. 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 iconic landforms of Orange are not visible from the site. As such the view sharing planning principles are not applicable to this application. Notwithstanding this, it is acknowledged that residents in the area enjoy vistas of extensive mature vegetation, and the increased bulk and scale of the subject dwelling will result in a changed outlook to this vista. A number of neighbouring properties would only have filtered views of the proposal through the existing vegetation, even when taking into account season variation in foliage. For those properties who will be able to see the proposed addition, impacts to the vistas of vegetation will be negligible due to the design, form, and recessive colours of the proposed addition; as well as the separation distances between the subject site and the neighbouring dwellings and their areas of private open space, which has been discussed previously in the DCP assessment. It is also notes that the proposal does not involve the removal or alteration of any of the existing vegetation.


 

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 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 all of the western 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, as there is only an increase in living floor area, not in bedrooms or expected occupancy.


 

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.

Development Control Plan 2004 Infill Guidelines

The Orange Development Control Plan 2004 Infill Guidelines apply to this application. Council recently adopted this policy to guide designs of infill development in heritage areas, to ensure new development ‘harmonises’ with the character of the neighbourhood. Residential infill development is important, as it contributes to the physical and social renewal of the older neighbourhoods, making better use of existing infrastructure, public facilities and services. The policy specifically relates to ‘infill’ development, and the NSW Heritage Office and the Royal Australian Institute of Architects NSW 2005 publication Design in Context defines infill as:

“A new building in an established and valued historic context. Good infill is building that is sympathetic to the surrounding buildings and historic context and creates new structures that enhance and complement the existing urban, suburban or rural character”.


 

While the proposed development does not relate to a new building, it involves a building addition a Conservation Area and adjacent to a listed heritage item, and therefore the policy can be used as a guidance tool.

The policy states that an important aspect of good design is designing in context and having regard to the site and its surroundings. Consideration should be given to the nature of adjoining and surrounding heritage items and places, significant vegetation on the site and adjoining the site, and the overall significance and character of the heritage area where it is located.

New development within a Conservation Area should not have to replicate the existing built form, but should be compatible and enhance the existing streetscape. Contemporary designs may be acceptable provided the design is appropriate in character, scale and form, siting, materials and colour, and detailing. Historic character is shaped by landform, distinctive vegetation, building style and scale, street and subdivision pattern, fabric, curtilage, setbacks, materials, views, vistas, and pattern and proportions of buildings.

The setting is varied in terms of scale, ranging from modest to very grand sized dwellings, both one and two storey dwellings with varying ridgeline heights, and lots varying greatly in size and shape. Extensive mature vegetation is fairly consistent in the area. The proposed additions and alterations do not alter the existing landform; vegetation; street, building and lot patterns; the fabric of neighbouring listed buildings and their curtilage; the subject curtilage; or setbacks from the boundaries or the street. The materials and proportions of the addition have been designed to match the existing dwelling, neighbouring dwellings, and the landscape, as discussed in detail in the LEP and DCP assessments of this report.

The guideline also allows alternative design solutions that may not meet the prescriptive numerical standards of the LEP and DCP, but would otherwise satisfy the fundamental objectives. The objectives of the policy are as follows:

·    Retention of appropriate visual setting (Article 8 Burra Charter).

·    To ensure new buildings respond to and enhance the character and appearance of the streetscapes of the Heritage Conservation Areas.

·    To ensure contributory heritage items retain their prominence and are not dominated by new development within a Heritage Conservation Area and do not compromise the heritage values of the existing area.

·    To ensure new buildings do not adversely affect the significance, character or appearance of the Heritage Conservation Area or heritage items.

·    To allow for reasonable change within a Heritage Conservation Area while ensuring all other heritage objectives are met.

·    To ensure new development facilitates the retention of significant vegetation that contributes to the tree canopy, especially within the Central Orange Heritage Conservation Area.

It is considered that the applicant has given adequate consideration to the context of the subject site, the neighbouring properties, and the surrounding pattern of development, as shown in the submitted plans and supporting information, and discussed in the LEP and DCP assessments.


 

In particular:

-    The visual setting will be largely retained, with no more than minor alterations to the outlook from neighbouring dwellings, and negligible impact on the streetscape;

-    The heritage values of the nearby listed buildings and the Conservation Area will not be compromised;

-    The proposal allows for a reasonable change to the existing site without impacting on the heritage objectives of the LEP and DCP; and

-    No vegetation will be lost as a result of the proposal, therefore the existing tree canopy and significant vegetation will be retained.

Overall it is considered that the proposal is generally consistent with the standards set out in the DCP, and any impacts are minor and can be appropriately mitigated.

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, Conservation Area, or nearby listed buildings, 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 several 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 require obscured glazing and/or privacy screens to be installed on upper level western windows, and be permanently maintained thereafter. Subject to this condition of consent, privacy and overlooking impacts are considered to be acceptable.

It is noted that Mr Fock submitted an additional representation following the previous Committee meeting. He reiterates his concerns in regards to overlooking and privacy from the proposed western windows, stating that there is no privacy screening or glazing to mitigate to these impacts. While the proposal does not include such measures, conditions of consent require them to be installed, and Council officers have discussed this in detail with Mr Fock. Additional concerns and comments are detailed in the table below.

Concerns

Comments

Increased density:

- dwelling floor area and bedrooms will result in additional occupants and no additional garden space;

- change in the type of occupants, with the possibility of cats which could affect the local fauna;

- additional ‘drain’ on public resources including garbage, energy (electricity), and sewerage;

- likely to increase anti-social behaviour in the area; and

- likely increase in noise levels.

The previous report stated that the proposal increased the dwelling from a 2-bed to a 3-bed house, however this was incorrect. As Mr Fock points out, the existing dwelling is a 3-bed house. The proposal is for a 3-bed house with a greater living room floor area, as such there is no increase in bedrooms or the expected occupancy. While a study can be considered an additional bedroom in some cases, this particular layout shows the study to be in an open communal space, that could not easily be converted into a bedroom. It is therefore not anticipated that the proposal will increase the occupancy rate of the dwelling, increase noise levels, or increase the overall demand for services in the area. It is also not anticipated that the development will give rise to an increased number of domestic cats or anti-social behaviour in the area.


Inconsistent with the aims of the LEP:

unique character of Orange; and

heritage values.

As set out in the LEP assessment of this report, the proposal is considered to be generally consistent with the aims of the LEP, 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.


 

Neighbourhood character:

departs from the DCP Guidelines;

the development can clearly be seen from the street;

is inconsistent with heritage streetscape of Moulder Street

single-storey character of residential areas predominates and should be retained.

While Mr Fock’s supplied photograph shows that the subject dwelling is visible, this has been taken from a viewpoint in the subject driveway and not from the street. The rear dwelling at 61B Moulder Street and its proposed addition will only be seen from very limited positions in the street, including at the end of the subject driveway, and adjacent to the vacant lot at 74 Moulder Street (see Figure 5). Heritage and neighbourhood character was considered in the DCP section of this report, where it was concluded that the proposal will not adversely affect the surrounding neighbourhood or heritage values.

Bulk and scale is out of context with the area and encroachments with visual bulk envelopes are fairly substantial – questions whether substantial enough to not be considered a modification. Objects to allowing the applicant to be ‘exempt’ from the rules, requesting that the design should be amended.

As noted in the DCP assessment, the proposal does not fit within the visual bulk envelope, however achieves compliance with the DCP planning objectives for bulk and scale. The impacts resulting from the encroachments are minor due to the design of the proposed addition, as well as separation distances to neighbouring dwellings. Furthermore the proposal meets the tests for bulk and scale set out in relevant case law. This application is not a modification to the original application, but is a new and separate application to extend and alter the original development.

Impacts to solar access to his backyard, adjoining vegetable garden, and his solar panels.

As set out in the DCP section of the report, the extent of the additional shadow caused by the proposal is limited to minor shadowing to the western neighbour’s back yard and swimming pool between 9‑10am on the winter solstice, and minor shadowing to the eastern neighbour’s vegetable garden at 3pm on the winter solstice. These gardens are extensive in size and as such the shadowing impacts are not considered to be adverse, and meet the standards for daylighting set out in the DCP. There will not be any overshadowing of the neighbour’s solar panels.

 

 

 

 


 

 

Figure 5 – Photographs of site from Moulder Street which shows that the subject dwelling is visible from limited viewpoints in the street

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 the additional living floor area is are 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, meeting the tests for bulk and scale set out in relevant case law. 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.

Scott Gilbank – 50 Kite Street ‘Mena’

This submission was received after the previous Committee meeting, and raises the following concerns:

- proposal alters the pattern of development on the site and in the surrounding area;

- there are no 2 storey dwellings in the townhouse cluster;

- the proposal does not complement the neighbourhood character;

- the outlook for the neighbouring properties will alter, where the subject dwelling will be increased in scale and bulk;

- proposal is not contained within the visual bulk envelope prescribed by the DCP with substantial encroachments on the eastern and western elevations; and

- the current vegetation is not indicative of the mass throughout the year.

These issues were considered in the original report to Committee. The DCP assessment concludes that although the proposed development is different in scale and form to other development in the neighbourhood, the proposed addition respects the existing and adjacent dwellings, and is not out of character with the surrounding area.

Although there is extensive vegetation screening the proposed additions from this neighbouring listed dwelling at present (being that it is early autumn), it is acknowledged that foliage will vary throughout the seasons. While the proposal will result in a changed outlook for the neighbour in the seasons where foliage is sparse, it is not considered that there will be any adverse loss of amenity due to a generous separation distance between the proposed works and the listed dwelling of around 68m. Furthermore, the immediate neighbour to the west of Mena (at number 48 Kite Street) contains a two-storey dwelling in close proximity to the listed dwelling, which does not affect its heritage setting and values, or impact adversely on the Conservation Area.

Peter and Jacqueline Grant – 35 Hill Street

This submission was received after the previous Committee meeting, and raises the following concerns:

- late summer foliage will not be retained for over six months of each year, and trees may fall or be felled resulting in visual intrusion of the development into gardens;

- want to preserve the unique dense vegetated areas of the City, including its ecological values;

- impacts to the heritage values of the area and neighbourhood character;


 

- visual bulk is not reasonable, and neighbours will have an altered outlook, loss of privacy and loss of views to flora;

- potential cumulative impacts.

These issues were considered in the original report to Committee. The DCP assessment concludes that while the development will be visible from neighbouring sites and will alter their outlook, the visual setting will remain largely unchanged, and the impacts are not adverse. The proposal does not result in the loss of any existing vegetation or areas of outdoor space, and it is considered that the reduction in the vegetation vista of for the neighbour at 35 Hill Street will be negligible. It is also noted that number 35 Hill Street is not an immediately adjacent neighbour, where the vegetable garden at number 48 Kite Street separates it from the subject site, with a separation distance of around 29m to the back garden of 35 Hill Street and at least 50m to the dwelling. As noted in the DCP assessment, the physical separation results in the visual bulk encroachment from the eastern stairwell to have a negligible impact on eastern neighbouring dwellings. The proposed addition is considered respectful of the existing and adjacent dwellings, respectful to nearby listed buildings and the Conservation Area, and is not out of character with the heritage setting of the surrounding area.

Amie and Charlie Warren – 52 Kite Street

Following the site inspection held on 21 March 2017, another submission was received which raises the following concerns:

- overlooking from upper level windows;

- impacts on seclusion and amenity of the vegetated area; and

- would set a precedent for development of green spaces.

These issues have been considered in the assessment sections of this report, where it was concluded that impacts are minor and can be adequately mitigated.

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.

A site inspection was carried out on 21 March 2017 to view the subject site and hear the concerns of neighbours.

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, D17/23141

2          Plans, D17/20651

3          Submissions, D17/20961

  


Council Meeting                                                                                                        18 April 2017

5.4                       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:

18 April 2017

  Determination:

CONSENT GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:

 

 

Consent to Operate From:

19 April 2017

Consent to Lapse On:

19 April 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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

(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.


 

(8)      Plans shall be amended to include colours of the dwelling.  The roof shall be finished in Colorbond ‘Monument’, and the walls shall be finished in ‘Volcanic Ash’ or a similar colour.  Final colours may be darker than these colours, but not lighter.

 

 

PRIOR TO WORKS COMMENCING

 

(9)      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.

 

(10)    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

 

(11)    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.

 

(12)    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.

 

(13)    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.

 

(14)    All materials and finishes of the proposed additions are to be constructed from non-reflective materials and in accordance with the approved colour scheme.

 

 

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

 

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

 

(16)    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.

 

(17)    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.

 

(18)    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

 

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

 


 

 

 

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:

 

19 April 2017

 

 


Council Meeting                                                                                                                        18 April 2017

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

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator



Council Meeting                                                                                                                        18 April 2017

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

Attachment 2      Plans


Council Meeting                                                                                                                        18 April 2017

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

Attachment 2      Plans



Council Meeting                                                                                                  18 April 2017

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

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Meeting                                                                                              18 April 2017

 

 

5.5     Draft Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Amendment 19 - 386 Molong Road

TRIM REFERENCE:        2017/627

AUTHOR:                       Craig Mortell, Senior Planner    

 

 

EXECUTIVE Summary

Council has received a planning proposal to rezone and reduce the minimum lot size on land at 386 Molong Road on the intersection of the Northern Distributor Road (NDR), known as Lot 81 DP 1202584 and Lot 6 DP 1065578. The proposal also seeks to remove the urban release area status applying to the land.

The subject site has previously been approved for residential subdivision (DA 217/2014(1)) for 61 lots at the minimum size of 1,000m2. A concept plan provided with the proposal shows the reduction in minimum lot size would enable a subdivision of between 96-130 lots at a range of sizes from 250m2 through to 1,200m2.

The increased yield will result in an increase to traffic generation through a single connection point to the NDR, which may in turn require a different intersection treatment than previously approved. However the concept plan provides generous setbacks along the NDR frontage (between 10m-25m), primarily to accommodate acoustic mounding barriers, but will also provide sufficient space to accommodate intersection improvements if required.

The site is identified as part of LU2 in the Orange Sustainable Settlement Strategy (OSSS) as updated in 2010. LU2 is recommended as a “New Urban Residential Area” in the short/ medium/long term timeframe. The OSSS recommends the area for urban supply due to “the need to use housing land on the fringe of the urban centre more efficiently, and that such development may utilise limited residual capacity in carriers to existing Orange STP, ploughman’s Creek should be managed as a riparian corridor”.

The concept put forward reflects this strategic intent by providing more housing supply and options contiguous with the urban footprint of the City, while also providing a transitional buffer along the creek line to larger sized properties beyond. This would increase the efficient utilisation of public infrastructure compared to the existing approval, without impacting upon rural and agricultural operations or scenic amenity.

The attached planning proposal prepared for the landowner by iPlanProjects addresses the requirements of the Department of Planning and Environment’s guidelines for planning proposals. Staff have reviewed the supplied documentation and are generally supportive of the details provided. This report therefore focuses on the key issues of the site and concept rather than exhaustively reiterating the supplied details.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “1.2 Our City - Information and advice provided for the decision-making process will be succinct, reasoned, accurate, timely and balanced”.


 

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

 

Recommendation

1       That Council support the concept plan as the basis for a planning proposal being forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment for consideration and a Gateway Determination.

2       That, subject to the conditions and requirements of a Gateway Determination, the planning proposal be placed on public exhibition for 28 days.

 

further considerations

The recommendation of this report has been assessed against Council’s other key risk categories and the following comments are provided:

 

 

 

Environmental

The concept plan has been designed to provide a corridor of open space along the creek lines. The exact dimensions of the corridor are subject to further discussion but will allow for stormwater management, protection of riparian ecological processes and passive recreation.

 

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Council has received a planning proposal to rezone and reduce the minimum lot size on land at 386 Molong Road on the intersection of the Northern Distributor Road (NDR), known as Lot 81 DP 1202584 and Lot 6 DP 1065578. The proposal also seeks to remove the urban release area status applying to the land.

The subject site has previously been approved for residential subdivision (DA 217/2014(1)) for 61 lots at the minimum size of 1,000m2. A concept plan provided with the proposal shows the reduction in minimum lot size would enable a subdivision of between 96-130 lots at a range of sizes from 250m2 through to 1200m2.

The larger of these lots is located along the NDR frontage behind a buffer strip to allow for acoustic sound mounds. Additional space is reserved along the creek lines as well as two pocket parks.

The smaller lots are located to maximise the amenity of the open space along the creek lines. Use of single sided roads along the edge of the open space ensures the area will be accessible to the broader community and increase passive monitoring of the area.


 

Access

Council has maintained a position that there would only be a single access point on the northern side of the NDR between Molong Road and Burrendong Way, which should serve two main properties, the subject land and another property at 377 Burrendong Way. The design allows for four connections from the site to 377 Burrendong Way and illustrates conceptual layouts of how that land could use the connections to develop in the future. It should be noted that the proposal is not seeking to change the zoning, lot size or urban release area status of 377 Burrendong Way, nor are the concept layouts intended to be definitive. Rather the conceptual layouts for 377 Burrendong Way are only provided to demonstrate that the proposal does not obstruct or sterilise that land.

Traffic

The proposal will result in an increase in the number of lots, and therefore the amount of traffic, accessing the NDR at the single access point. The location of this access point has already been approved as part of the previous approval (DA 217/2014(1)), however the increase in the number of vehicle movements through this intersection will need to be considered during a future development application. The concept plan includes a splay and setbacks of 10m on one side and 25m on the other, which while not a formal subdivision does illustrate that the concept can provide space for adaptation of the intersection if required, such as turning lanes, slip lanes and the like.

Pedestrian Linkages and Walkability

The concept plan includes provision of a footbridge to link the estate with the Totally Local site on Molong Road. In addition to which, the site can connect to Council’s cycleway network which is intended to provide linkages along the NDR in the future. Providing single sided roads along the open space corridors will ensure good public access and passive recreation for residents. Connection points to the east ensure these benefits will also be available to future residents of the adjoining land when it develops in due course. Inclusion of two pocket parks within the concept will further enhance the estate and promote physical activity of residents.

Streetscapes

The provision of setbacks and sound mounds along the NDR will minimise the visual impression on the NDR route, particularly once landscaping of the mounds matures. The provision of open space corridors along the creek lines, combined with single sided park edge streets (in turn leading to housing addressing the public spaces), means that when viewed from Molong Road the estate will have an open and welcoming appearance rather than an expanse of Colorbond fencing.

Sewer Pump Station (Noise and Odour)

The northern end of the site is affected by noise and odour zones from the North Orange Number 1 Sewer Pumping Station. This area will be in the later stages, and Council’s Draft Development Servicing Plan discusses potential relocation of the pump station at an undefined future date. Alternatively, improved sealing of the pump station (including the wet well cover and concrete channel housing electrical cables to the pump house) could also be considered.


 

The odour and noise issue was raised during the assessment of DA 217/2014(1) and essentially remains the same. That assessment and subsequent approval included a condition of consent that requires remediation works identified in an Odour Impact Assessment report prepared by SLR be undertaken prior to commencement of the construction of any residential development on lots in close proximity to the Pump Station. Similarly, a Noise Impact Assessment, also by SLR, made recommendations to reduce pump station noise impacts for the lots in closest proximity. These included:

·    acoustic vents to replace the existing open grills on the pump house doors

·    100mm thick Rockwool insulation over 13mm plasterboard (or similar density material) to the underside of the existing roof (sealed with mastic)

·    solid barrier (minimum 1.8m height) to the south and east of the pump station (sealed with mastic or overlapping panels to avoid air gaps)

·    seals around the well cover.

The noise and odour issues from the pump station will again be assessed and reviewed at the DA stage. It should be noted that if the proposal does not proceed (for whatever reason) the existing DA approval can still be acted upon and developed, therefore the noise and odour issues will be addressed in due course either way. The proposal will increase the number of residential lots within the noise and odour affected area, but does not preclude or hinder the previously identified mitigation measures.

Stormwater and Flooding

The site is located at the confluence of Somerset Creek and Ploughmans Creek. The NDR, which traverses Somerset Creek immediately upstream of the site, will act to regulate the flow of floodwaters from upstream into the site. The provision of open space corridors along both creek lines will therefore effectively manage localised flooding potential and accommodate inflows from higher in the catchment.

It should be noted that in nominating land use zones the proposal has included a hatched area between the creek lines and the potential lots. This hatched area has been nominated to provide a degree of flexibility in the concept plan so that the subdivision DA can be adjusted once more detailed survey and flood analysis is available. As a result the final corridor of open space along the creek lines may be slightly narrowed in places, but the hatching is not intended to enable an increase in lot yield beyond that indicated in the concept plan.

Housing diversity

The range of lot sizes proposed includes compact lots comparable in size to the Shiralee Master Plan. The concept acknowledges that some local developers are cautiously sceptical of the market demand for this scale of product, and as such suggests that the compact lots could be combined in pairs, known in the industry as splitter blocks. This would give the buyer the option of either having a single larger lot or undertaking a dual occupancy and two lot subdivision.

State Environmental Planning Policies and Section 117 Ministerial Directions have been evaluated in the attached planning proposal documentation. The proponent’s comments and responses to these matters are supported.

Flora and Fauna

The site is heavily disturbed from past use for agriculture. Little vegetation remains on the site, including the riparian corridors of both Somerset Creek and Ploughmans Creek. The design includes open space corridors along these creeks, providing the opportunity to embellish the site with substantial landscaping treatment. Consequently the proposal is likely to lead to enhanced ecological outcomes.

Contamination

The site history does not indicate any likely contamination. This was considered in detail during assessment of DA 217/2014(1) and the concept does not increase the footprint of the project or include new or different lands. It is therefore considered that the site can be safely developed for residential development. Nonetheless, contamination will again be considered at the DA stage for this proposal.

Contributions

Under the previous DA negotiations issues were raised in relation to contributions and provisions of open space. Obviously with an increase in lot yield and a revised open space network proposed it would be necessary for Council to formally revisit the Section 94 Contributions plan as it relates to this precinct if the proposal was to proceed. It should be noted that the hatched areas on the proposal and zone map attached are proposed to provide flexibility in the final design between the lot boundaries and open space.  Contributions will be therefore need to be determined based on a combination of overall  lot yield and area of open space provided.

Conclusion

The concept put forward recognises that the site presents an opportunity to provide more housing supply and options in proximity contiguous with the urban footprint of the City, while providing a transitional buffer along the creek line to larger sized properties beyond the creek line. This would increase the efficient utilisation of public infrastructure compared to the existing approval. Traffic generation will be higher than the previous DA approval, but the inclusion of NDR setbacks indicates that any revised intersection design can be accommodated within the NDR reserve and the setbacks proposed. The conceptual design includes linkages to the neighbouring land, ensuring future development is not stymied, and exhibits positive urban design responses to the site characteristics. Noise and odour issues from the North Orange Sewer Pump Station Number 1 remain a factor, but the previous DA assessment identified a range of mitigation measures that illustrate the impacts can be appropriately managed.

 

Attachments

1          Planning Proposal, D17/23866

2          Concept Plan (site analysis, structure plan options, development principles, proposed amendments, detailed design responses), D17/23875

3          Proposed Zone and Lot Size maps, D17/23873

4          NDR Road noise assessment, D17/23872

5          Sewer Pump Station noise assessment, D17/23868

6          Sewer Pump Station odour impact assessment, D17/23870

7          Sewer Pump Station odour monitoring report, D17/23871

 


Council Meeting                                                                                                  18 April 2017

5.5                       Draft Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Amendment 19 - 386 Molong Road

Attachment 1      Planning Proposal

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Meeting                                                                                                                        18 April 2017

5.5                       Draft Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Amendment 19 - 386 Molong Road

Attachment 2      Concept Plan (site analysis, structure plan options, development principles, proposed amendments, detailed design responses)

PDF CreatorPDF Creator


Council Meeting                                                                                                                        18 April 2017

5.5                       Draft Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Amendment 19 - 386 Molong Road

Attachment 2      Concept Plan (site analysis, structure plan options, development principles, proposed amendments, detailed design responses)

PDF Creator


Council Meeting                                                                                                                        18 April 2017

5.5                       Draft Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Amendment 19 - 386 Molong Road

Attachment 2      Concept Plan (site analysis, structure plan options, development principles, proposed amendments, detailed design responses)

PDF Creator


Council Meeting                                                                                                                        18 April 2017

5.5                       Draft Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Amendment 19 - 386 Molong Road

Attachment 2      Concept Plan (site analysis, structure plan options, development principles, proposed amendments, detailed design responses)

PDF Creator


Council Meeting                                                                                                                        18 April 2017

5.5                       Draft Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Amendment 19 - 386 Molong Road

Attachment 2      Concept Plan (site analysis, structure plan options, development principles, proposed amendments, detailed design responses)

PDF Creator


Council Meeting                                                                                                                        18 April 2017

5.5                       Draft Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Amendment 19 - 386 Molong Road

Attachment 2      Concept Plan (site analysis, structure plan options, development principles, proposed amendments, detailed design responses)

PDF Creator


Council Meeting                                                                                                                        18 April 2017

5.5                       Draft Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Amendment 19 - 386 Molong Road

Attachment 2      Concept Plan (site analysis, structure plan options, development principles, proposed amendments, detailed design responses)

PDF Creator


Council Meeting                                                                                                                        18 April 2017

5.5                       Draft Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Amendment 19 - 386 Molong Road

Attachment 2      Concept Plan (site analysis, structure plan options, development principles, proposed amendments, detailed design responses)

PDF Creator


Council Meeting                                                                                                                        18 April 2017

5.5                       Draft Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Amendment 19 - 386 Molong Road

Attachment 2      Concept Plan (site analysis, structure plan options, development principles, proposed amendments, detailed design responses)

PDF Creator


Council Meeting                                                                                                                        18 April 2017

5.5                       Draft Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Amendment 19 - 386 Molong Road

Attachment 2      Concept Plan (site analysis, structure plan options, development principles, proposed amendments, detailed design responses)

PDF Creator


Council Meeting                                                                                                                        18 April 2017

5.5                       Draft Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Amendment 19 - 386 Molong Road

Attachment 2      Concept Plan (site analysis, structure plan options, development principles, proposed amendments, detailed design responses)

PDF Creator


Council Meeting                                                                                                                        18 April 2017

5.5                       Draft Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Amendment 19 - 386 Molong Road

Attachment 2      Concept Plan (site analysis, structure plan options, development principles, proposed amendments, detailed design responses)

PDF Creator


Council Meeting                                                                                                                        18 April 2017

5.5                       Draft Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Amendment 19 - 386 Molong Road

Attachment 2      Concept Plan (site analysis, structure plan options, development principles, proposed amendments, detailed design responses)

PDF Creator


Council Meeting                                                                                                                        18 April 2017

5.5                       Draft Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Amendment 19 - 386 Molong Road

Attachment 2      Concept Plan (site analysis, structure plan options, development principles, proposed amendments, detailed design responses)

PDF Creator


Council Meeting                                                                                                                        18 April 2017

5.5                       Draft Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Amendment 19 - 386 Molong Road

Attachment 2      Concept Plan (site analysis, structure plan options, development principles, proposed amendments, detailed design responses)

PDF Creator


Council Meeting                                                                                                                        18 April 2017

5.5                       Draft Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Amendment 19 - 386 Molong Road

Attachment 2      Concept Plan (site analysis, structure plan options, development principles, proposed amendments, detailed design responses)

PDF Creator


Council Meeting                                                                                                                        18 April 2017

5.5                       Draft Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Amendment 19 - 386 Molong Road

Attachment 2      Concept Plan (site analysis, structure plan options, development principles, proposed amendments, detailed design responses)

PDF Creator


Council Meeting                                                                                                                        18 April 2017

5.5                       Draft Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Amendment 19 - 386 Molong Road

Attachment 2      Concept Plan (site analysis, structure plan options, development principles, proposed amendments, detailed design responses)

PDF Creator


Council Meeting                                                                                                                        18 April 2017

5.5                       Draft Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Amendment 19 - 386 Molong Road

Attachment 2      Concept Plan (site analysis, structure plan options, development principles, proposed amendments, detailed design responses)

PDF Creator


Council Meeting                                                                                                                        18 April 2017

5.5                       Draft Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Amendment 19 - 386 Molong Road

Attachment 2      Concept Plan (site analysis, structure plan options, development principles, proposed amendments, detailed design responses)

PDF Creator


Council Meeting                                                                                                                        18 April 2017

5.5                       Draft Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Amendment 19 - 386 Molong Road

Attachment 2      Concept Plan (site analysis, structure plan options, development principles, proposed amendments, detailed design responses)

PDF Creator


Council Meeting                                                                                                                        18 April 2017

5.5                       Draft Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Amendment 19 - 386 Molong Road

Attachment 2      Concept Plan (site analysis, structure plan options, development principles, proposed amendments, detailed design responses)

PDF Creator


Council Meeting                                                                                                                        18 April 2017

5.5                       Draft Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Amendment 19 - 386 Molong Road

Attachment 2      Concept Plan (site analysis, structure plan options, development principles, proposed amendments, detailed design responses)

PDF Creator


Council Meeting                                                                                                                        18 April 2017

5.5                       Draft Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Amendment 19 - 386 Molong Road

Attachment 2      Concept Plan (site analysis, structure plan options, development principles, proposed amendments, detailed design responses)

PDF Creator


Council Meeting                                                                                                                        18 April 2017

5.5                       Draft Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Amendment 19 - 386 Molong Road

Attachment 2      Concept Plan (site analysis, structure plan options, development principles, proposed amendments, detailed design responses)

PDF Creator


Council Meeting                                                                                                                        18 April 2017

5.5                       Draft Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Amendment 19 - 386 Molong Road

Attachment 2      Concept Plan (site analysis, structure plan options, development principles, proposed amendments, detailed design responses)

PDF Creator


Council Meeting                                                                                                                        18 April 2017

5.5                       Draft Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Amendment 19 - 386 Molong Road

Attachment 3      Proposed Zone and Lot Size maps

PDF CreatorPDF Creator



Council Meeting                                                                                                  18 April 2017

5.5                       Draft Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Amendment 19 - 386 Molong Road

Attachment 4      NDR Road noise assessment

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Meeting                                                                                                  18 April 2017

5.5                       Draft Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Amendment 19 - 386 Molong Road

Attachment 5      Sewer Pump Station noise assessment

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Meeting                                                                                                                        18 April 2017

5.5                       Draft Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Amendment 19 - 386 Molong Road

Attachment 5      Sewer Pump Station noise assessment

PDF Creator


Council Meeting                                                                                                  18 April 2017

5.5                       Draft Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Amendment 19 - 386 Molong Road

Attachment 5      Sewer Pump Station noise assessment

PDF Creator


Council Meeting                                                                                                                        18 April 2017

5.5                       Draft Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Amendment 19 - 386 Molong Road

Attachment 5      Sewer Pump Station noise assessment

PDF Creator


Council Meeting                                                                                                  18 April 2017

5.5                       Draft Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Amendment 19 - 386 Molong Road

Attachment 6      Sewer Pump Station odour impact assessment

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Meeting                                                                                                                        18 April 2017

5.5                       Draft Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Amendment 19 - 386 Molong Road

Attachment 6      Sewer Pump Station odour impact assessment

PDF Creator


Council Meeting                                                                                                  18 April 2017

5.5                       Draft Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Amendment 19 - 386 Molong Road

Attachment 6      Sewer Pump Station odour impact assessment

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Meeting                                                                                                  18 April 2017

5.5                       Draft Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Amendment 19 - 386 Molong Road

Attachment 7      Sewer Pump Station odour monitoring report

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Meeting                                                                                              18 April 2017

 

 

5.6     Identity of Code of Conduct Complainant

TRIM REFERENCE:        2017/324

AUTHOR:                       Michelle Catlin, Manager Administration and Governance     

 

 

EXECUTIVE Summary

At the Council Meeting held on 20 December 2016, Cr Taylor requested a report on whether the identity of a complainant under the Code of Conduct who had sought confidentiality, could be revealed, if considered to be in the public interest. While staff had previously sought advice from the Office of Local Government on this matter, following the meeting on 20 December 2016, the Mayor wrote to the Office seeking a re-consideration of this matter, including the public interest test.

The Mayor’s letter to the Office of Local Government, and the subsequent response, is provided for Council’s information.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “1.2 Our City - Information and advice provided for the decision-making process will be succinct, reasoned, accurate, timely and balanced”.

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

 

Recommendation

That Council note advice from the Office of Local Government that the identity of the Code of Conduct complainant not be revealed.

 

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

At its meeting held 18 August 2015 Council was advised of the $26,460 cost of investigating a complaint containing 24 allegations under Council’s Code of Conduct, all but one of which were found to not require further action.

At that time, Councillors requested information on the complainant who was not identified, but was identified as being a Councillor. Councillors also sought information on the nature of the 24 allegations made.

Staff sought advice from the Office of Local Government, who advised at the time that Council was unable to release the identity of the complainant, as the Conduct Reviewer had agreed to keep the identity of the complainant confidential.

After Council’s decision of 20 December 2016, the Mayor wrote to the Office of Local Government seeking re-consideration of this matter given the ongoing concern, and a copy of that letter is attached.

A response has now been received, and is provided for Council’s information.

 

Attachments

1          Letter to Office of Local Government - Identity of complainant, D16/62748

2          Letter from Office of Local Government - Non-disclosure of identity of complainant - Code of Conduct complaint, IC17/3120

  


Council Meeting                                                                                             18 April 2017

5.6                       Identity of Code of Conduct Complainant

Attachment 1      Letter to Office of Local Government - Identity of complainant

 

 

D16/62748

F299

 

 

22 December 2016

 

 

Mr John Davies

Manager Governance

Office of Local Government
Locked Bag 3015

NOWRA NSW 2541

 

 

Dear John

 

IDENTITY OF CODE OF CONDUCT COMPLAINANT

 

I write to you in relation to an ongoing concern for Orange City Council that is having considerable impact on Council’s credibility in the Orange community.

 

As you are aware, in 2015, a Councillor submitted 24 separate allegations of breaches of the Code of Conduct. These allegations were referred to a Conduct Reviewer, who found that no action was required on all but one matter, which was referred to the General Manager and had previously been resolved.

 

Council had requested an update report on Code of Conduct matters, and on 18 August 2015 a report was provided that advised of these 24 allegations, at a cost to the Orange community of $26,460. This was the first time Councillors (except the complainant) were made aware of these allegations.

 

Councillors were understandably very concerned about this situation, and sought to have the nature of the allegations, and the identity of the complainant disclosed. Staff advised that because the Conduct Reviewer had agreed to keep the complainant’s identity confidential, this information could not be disclosed.

 

This situation has had considerable impact on all Councillors and the credibility of Orange City Council. The media contacted each Councillor, and each Councillor categorically denied it was he who made the allegations. This was reported in the media, therefore creating a question over the integrity of all 12 Councillors as obviously one was being dishonest. This situation has a very negative impact on public confidence in the integrity of Orange City Council.

 


 

2

While this was over 12 months ago, the issue continues to be raised in public forums. At the Council Meeting held 20 December 2016, this was again discussed, with one Councillor advising the open Council Meeting that he had advice that suggested Council could disclose the identity of the complainant if “deemed to be in the public interest”.

 

There are 11 Councillors who are strongly of the view that it is in the public interest to identify who made these allegations.

 

Of particular concern is that when the issue is discussed at Council Meetings, there is complete agreement among all Councillors of how damaging to Council this situation is to the reputation and integrity of Council. It is galling to say the least to know that one Councillor responsible for this situation, makes public comments condemning the very situation he created and allows to continue.

 

I am aware that staff have requested your advice previously on disclosing the identity of the complainant and that your advice at the time was that if the Conduct Reviewer had accepted the request to have the identity withheld, Council could not release the information. I ask that you consider this matter further, and apply the “public interest” test to the request to disclose the identity of the complainant.

 

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

 

Cr John Davis OAM

MAYOR OF ORANGE


Council Meeting                                                                                                  18 April 2017

5.6                       Identity of Code of Conduct Complainant

Attachment 2      Letter from Office of Local Government - Non-disclosure of identity of complainant - Code of Conduct complaint

PDF Creator


Council Meeting                                                                                              18 April 2017

 

 

5.7     Naming of Showground Pavilion

TRIM REFERENCE:        2017/137

AUTHOR:                       Scott Maunder, Director Community, Recreation and Cultural Services    

 

 

EXECUTIVE Summary

This report seeks the direction of Council for the naming of the Orange Showground Pavilion.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “6.1 Our Community – Identify changing community aspirations and undertake community engagement and planning for the development and support of sporting and recreational services”.

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

 

RecommendationS

1        That Council name the newly constructed Pavilion at the Orange Showground the “President’s Pavilion”.

2        That the Red Arch be named after the Naylor Family, and in the event that the Red Arch is replaced, that its replacement carries that name.

 

further considerations

The recommendation of this report has been assessed against Council’s other key risk categories and the following comments are provided:

Image and Reputation

There is a risk that the inappropriate naming of the pavilion will cause negative publicity and compromise goodwill. Conversely the appropriate naming of the new pavilion will create positive goodwill and publicity.

Stakeholders

There is a risk that the inappropriate naming will damage the relationship with stakeholders of the Orange Showground.

 


SUPPORTING INFORMATION

At its meeting of 15 April 2015 Council resolved:

 

RESOLVED - 15/122                                                                                Cr J Davis/Cr C Gryllis

1        That the decision to name the new pavilion be deferred until one month prior to the official opening.

2        That an honour board recognising the past presidents be erected and maintained inside the new pavilion.

 

With the new pavilion due to be opened at the Orange Show in May 2017,  this report has come to Council for a determination of the name for the Pavilion.

Council previously considered that the new pavilion at the Orange Showground be named one of the following:

a    Naylor Pavilion

b    Betty Naylor Pavilion

c    President’s Pavilion

Council received the attached correspondence requesting that the Pavilion recognise the Naylor family following the passing of Betty Naylor and has received other correspondence of a similar theme following news articles.

However whilst this recognises the significant past and present contribution of the Naylor Family to the showground and the annual show,  it does not recognise the significant efforts of past, present and future presidents.

The attached correspondence suggests that naming the Red Arch in honour of the Naylor family recognises the contribution of the family.

 

Attachments

1          Letter to Mayor - naming suggestion for new multipurpose centre - Orange Showground, IC14/13180

 


Council Meeting                                                                                                  18 April 2017

5.7                       Naming of Showground Pavilion

Attachment 1      Letter to Mayor - naming suggestion for new multipurpose centre - Orange Showground

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Meeting                                                                                              18 April 2017

 

 

5.8     Robertson Park Toilets

TRIM REFERENCE:        2017/676

AUTHOR:                       Scott Maunder, Director Community, Recreation and Cultural Services    

 

 

EXECUTIVE Summary

This report provides Council with an update on the construction of the amenities block in Robertson Park and seeks Council’s direction on the next stage of the project.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “5.1 Our Community – Identify changing community aspirations and undertake community engagement and planning for the creation of open spaces, recreational facilities and services, recognising the special needs of older people and those with disabilities”.

Financial Implications

Council’s Financial Services staff have reviewed the financial implications of the options proposed in this report and identify below how the recognition of the expenditure in terms of assets management and accounting treatment that would need to be undertaken.

It is clear that an amenities block that is separate to another structure as suggested in option 2 and option 3 offers advantages to Council from both an assets and financial impact view point.

A new option, numbered option 4, is outlined,  which enables the upgrade of the CWA facilities offering an advantage the community.

Assets management impacts of the options

Financial Services staff have reviewed the Accounting Standard AASB116 in regard to the stand alone facility as identified in options 2 and 3 suggests the ability to recognise the structure as a Council asset. This is advantageous to Council as it:

·    Adds the structure to Council’s assets management system which provides the opportunity to capitalise most of the expenditure. 

·    Capitalisation of costs offers operational financial position advantages to Council.

·    More importantly, the ongoing management of the facility is under Council’s care and control, thus ongoing maintenance of the facility can be handled by Council directly and renewal of the facility can be added to the assets management system to ensure the facility is budgeted for replacement in the future.

It is less likely works undertaken in option 1 which involve extensive works on the CWA Hall could result in the ability to recognise the building as a Council asset as the building is not under the care and control of Council. Any alterations in any option to the CWA Hall itself will likely need to be expensed and not treated as capital works.

Option 4 does not have an asset management impact.


 

Costs impacts of the options

The difference in the cost point of the options illustrates a significant advantage financially in undertaking the works under option 2 or 3.

 

Option 1 would result in a negative impact on the financial position of Council as the estimated cost of the project is approximately $500,000 (ex GST). It is expected this will be entirely operational money and that it will be difficult to capitalise the works as it will be on the CWA’s building.  This is well over the current budget of $230,000 (ex GST) that Council has approved for the project.

Option 2 has costs identified in the report of $270,000 (ex GST) of which $19,750 is a contingency allowance. A budget of $230,000 would need to be augmented by $20,250 to allow for the works. The contingency would be noted, but would remain unfunded as it is only to be called on for issues that might arise that are unknown at present. The $20,250 shortfall on budget can be funded from the Assets Renewal Reserve. It is recommended that as the CWA Hall works cannot be capitalised, they be expressly capped at an upper limit of $25,000. The balance of the costs in option 2 can be capitalised.

An estimate of costs for option 3 was obtained in 2014 at approximately $190,000 (ex GST). A current cost estimate has not been obtained. Given price increases over recent years, the estimate could exceed that for option 2. All costs though associated with option 3 could be capitalised by Council. Should Council proceed with this option its entire costs could be capitalised.

Should Council choose option 4 would have a negative impact on the operating position of Council to the extent of agreed works on the CWA Hall as it does not own that asset.

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

 

Recommendation

That pending formal agreement with the CWA, Council proceed with option 2 as outlined in the report to build the Robertson Park toilet using the budget allocation of $230,000 (ex GST) plus up to $40,250 from reserves as follows:

1        Up to $25,000 (ex GST) for works on the CWA Hall

2        Up to $225,500 (ex GST) for works to construct the amenity and for fees for the project, including project management fees

3        Up to $19,750 (ex GST) being identified as contingency monies for any unknown issue that arises during the project build, held for allocation,  if necessary.

 

 


 

further considerations

The recommendation of this report has been assessed against Council’s other key risk categories and the following comments are provided:

Service Delivery

No public amenity is available in Robertson Park.

Image and Reputation

Council has received criticism in relation to the lack of public amenities in Robertson Park, particularly at times of major events held in the Park. Council has been considering this project for an extended period of time.

Stakeholders

Council has been working with the CWA to identify a solution for the provision of toilets in Robertson Park and also provide a benefit to the users of the CWA Hall.

The CWA has been acting in good faith with Council and altered its external hire arrangements in anticipation of the works being completed in line with previous Council resolutions.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

At its meeting of 8 December 2016 Council resolved:

 

RESOLVED - 16/521                                                                           Cr J Whitton/Cr G Taylor

1        That Council declines to accept any of the tenders for the Construction and Part Demolition - CWA Amenities Building - Robertson Park, Tender Number F2329 as a result of all tenders exceeding the available budget.

2        That Council cancel the proposal to contract the Construction and Part Demolition – CWA Amenities Building – Robertson Park contemplated in the tender.

3        That Council note that extenuating circumstances exist, being that tenders received did not meet available budget, and that Council does not consider re-tendering will achieve a better result.

4        That the General Manager be authorised to negotiate the terms of a contract with other suitable organisation(s) for a cost effective solution which aligns with Council’s objectives to construct amenities in Robertson Park.

5        That permission be granted for the use of the Council Seal on all relevant documents if required.

 

Following the resolution Council staff met with two of the tenderers (the third declined) and a local builder to review the tender submissions and to determine what cost savings could be achieved for the project.

Whilst some savings were identified in the negotiations, the costs for the project remained in the range of $470,000 to $500,000. Further costs savings may be able to be achieved with building modification however these were in the order of $20-30,000 and would require further approvals.

It is recognised that these costs are well in excess of the original estimates for the project which were determined at the time of the design after seeking third party advice. Costs are also reflective of the current demand for building services in the region.

Should Council proceed with option 1 at a cost of up to $500,000, this would result in a negative impact on the operating costs at $500,000.

With this in mind Council staff again explored an alternative option. Option 2 would deliver a facility including three cubicles which could be accessed from within the building, and public toilets which would include two general cubicles and one cubicle for people with disability which could be accessed from either within the CWA Hall or external to the building. This option would also include the repair of the existing toilets and upgrade of kitchen of the CWA Hall.

A comparison of the two options follows:

Feature Of Design

Option 1

Option 2

Disability access to the building

Yes

No – although provides access to public toilets

Allows the mothers/meeting room to open out onto the fenced courtyard which provides an enclosed safe and secure area within the park

Yes

Yes

Includes the upgrade of the kitchen

Yes

Yes

Addition of a private courtyard with a surrounding fence reducing the opportunity of vandalism which historically occurs in concealed spaces

Yes

Yes

The courtyard also allows the responsible service of alcohol to take place increasing the use of the building

Yes

Yes

Allows the CWA building and amenities block to be seen as a holistic building.

Yes

No

Ability to utilise hall during construction

No

Yes

 

A detailed cost estimate was requested using the design detail and concepts of the current proposal. Allowing for a contingency of 10% (which may not be required), and the cost for site management, repair of the existing toilets and renovation of the kitchen the project cost would be:

Option 2

197,500

Contingency at 10%

19,750

Project management and site establishment

20,000

Toilet repairs

5,000

Kitchen renovation

20,000

Council Fees

8,000

Total

270,250

 

Council has again discussed the matter for the alternative option 2 with the CWA. The initial reaction as it was in September 2015 is that the CWA’s strong preference was for the original design – option 1 rather than the alternate option 2. However they would consider option 2. Copies of correspondence are attached to this report.       


 

The most recent correspondence from the CWA has also requested a firm timeframe of proposed works. A comparative table between options follows:

Project Milestones

Option 1

Option 2

Detailed plans for DA

 

April 2017

Lodge and assess DA – 3 months

 

July 2017

Conduct and award Tender

 

August 2017

Engage contractor

March 2017

September 2017

Conduct works (allow time to procure services and program in to current works program)

May 2017- August 2017

September 2017 – December  2018

Works completed and site operational

September 2017

January 2018

Cost

500,000 Operational

245,250 Capital

25,000 Operational

 

STAND ALONE FACILITY (option 3)

Council requested information relating to the stand alone facility proposed in 2014.

At its meeting of 15 July 2014 Council resolved:

RESOLVED - 14/818                                                                             Cr G Taylor/Cr R Turner

That Council proceed with the lodgement of the development application for the construction of a three cubicle amenity block located on eastern side of Robertson Park as detailed in the report.

The design was developed and a Development Application was lodged with Council for its consideration. At its meeting of 2 December 2014 to consider the development application Council resolved:

2.3     Development Application DA 295/2014(1) - Robertson Park (Amenities Facility) - 269-279 Summer Street

TRIM Reference: 2014/2229

Cr C Gryllis declared a pecuniary interest in item 2.3 as Managing Agent for several properties in this area, left the Chamber, and did not participate in the voting or debate on this item.

RESOLVED - 14/001      Cr N Jones/Cr R Turner

That Council defer development application DA 295/2014(1) for Recreation Area (amenities facility) at Lot 702 DP 1002273 - Robertson Park - 269-279 Summer Street, Orange pending further investigation of alternate locations (including the CWA Hall).

 

Council then held a number of meetings with the CWA to determine if co-location was possible. Following those discussions two concept plans were developed for which Council sought and attained in-principal agreement from the CWA.


 

At its meeting of 6 October 2015 Council resolved:

RESOLVED - 15/467                                                                              Cr S Munro/Cr C Gryllis

1        That Council co-locate the new amenities block in Robertson Park with the Country Women’s Association Hall.

2        That Council proceed with option 1 as set out in this report to progress to the detailed design stage.

As a consequence Council withdrew its application DA 295/2014(1). Should Council choose to do so it would be a relatively simple process to reactivate the development application for the stand alone facility.

The cost estimates in 2014 was $190,000 (ex GST) however a current estimate of costs has not been obtained and may be significantly different. Copies of the stand-alone design are attached to this report.

Option Four – abandon the project

Council could resolve to abandon the project but continue with the provision of portable toilet facilities for Council run events.

Should Council choose to follow this course of action it is recommended that it consider meeting the cost of repair to the existing CWA toilet and kitchen facilities to an amount of $25,000 to ensure that facility meets the demands of the community groups and individuals that utilise the CWA Hall. This would be have to be treated in a financial sense as a donation to the CWA as it would be a financial benefit to another entity.

 

Attachments

1          Option 2 - Co- location of amenities with CWA, D15/36068

2          Request consideration by CWA of alternate design, D17/16602

3          Response from CWA of alternate design, IC17/4907

4          Response to proposed options - public toilets at CWA Hall - Robertson Park - September 2015, IC15/14172

5          DA 295/2014(1) - plans - Robertson Park - 269-279 Summer Street, IC14/12743

 


Council Meeting                                                                                                                        18 April 2017

5.8                       Robertson Park Toilets

Attachment 1      Option 2 - Co- location of amenities with CWA

PDF Creator



Council Meeting                                                                                                  18 April 2017

5.8                       Robertson Park Toilets

Attachment 2      Request consideration by CWA of alternate design

PDF CreatorPDF Creator

 


PDF Creator


Council Meeting                                                                                             18 April 2017

5.8                       Robertson Park Toilets

Attachment 3      Response from CWA of alternate design

Country Women’s Association of NSW

Orange Branch PO Box 621 Orange NSW 2800

 

10 March 2017

 

 

Mr Scott Maunder

Director Community, Recreation and Community Services

Orange City Council

PO Box 35

Orange NSW 2800

 

 

Reference 017/16602

 

Dear Scott

 

When in early 2015 Orange City Council made its request to locate public toilets on the CWA site and to demolish and rebuild our toilets, meeting room and kitchen (Option A), our members saw an opportunity to accelerate our existing hall maintenance and development program. Our members have supported Option A as noted in our letter to you of 7 December 2015 and other correspondence thereafter. Option A was also preferred by the building owner, the Country Women’s Association of NSW. Since December 2015 we have postponed our own toilet and kitchen renovations and have concentrated on other improvements to the hall as grants became available.

 

 In August 2016 after tenders were called on Option A and on your advice that building works would finally commence towards the end of 2016, we cancelled our regular and casual hall hirers and made plans to relocate our meetings for some months. This involved considerable and ongoing loss of revenue for the branch. However, we were of the view that any encumbrance of our site with public toilets was balanced by the new building and the proposed improvements to access and the amenity of our building. We also believed that in the long term the rebuilding and co-location plan was the best solution for Orange City Council, the CWA and the community and any short term losses would be outweighed by long term gains for all concerned. 

 

Since then we have co-operated fully in securing designs and final plans for Option A along with deeds of agreement between council and the CWA and approval of the development application from CWA’s chief executive officer.

 

 It has taken time and effort from our willing but busy volunteer members to handle this correspondence and seek the necessary approvals. We are disappointed that after more than two years we have nothing to show for our effort and nor has council. Now the branch has other activities that demand the attention of members and we would NOT welcome the work and delay involved in yet another set of potentially fruitless negotiations. Nevertheless, we would be prepared to  discuss and seek approval from our members and the Association for further options such as mentioned in your letter of 2 March 2017 once council has a genuine and detailed offer, an approved budget (with necessary contingencies) and a reasonably firm timeline for the work.

 

However, our strong preference remains for Option A, which although expensive, is in the best interests of all concerned. Further our members believe it is long past time for council to make a firm and final decision about co-location of toilets on this valuable, central and well located site.

 

Unless council expedites the building works we will have no other option but to reopen the hall for casual and permanent bookings from early April.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

Deborah Marr

Secretary

CWA Orange branch


Council Meeting                                                                                                  18 April 2017

5.8                       Robertson Park Toilets

Attachment 4      Response to proposed options - public toilets at CWA Hall - Robertson Park - September 2015

PDF Creator



Council Meeting                                                                                                                        18 April 2017

5.8                       Robertson Park Toilets

Attachment 5      DA 295/2014(1) - plans - Robertson Park - 269-279 Summer Street

PDF CreatorPDF Creator


 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Meeting                                                                                              18 April 2017

 

 

5.9     Proposed Southern Link Cycleway

TRIM REFERENCE:        2017/591

AUTHOR:                       Wayne Gailey, Manager Works    

 

 

EXECUTIVE Summary

This report provides an update on the process to acquire easements over the rear of James Sheahan Catholic High School, southern rail underpass adjoining James Sheahan Catholic High School and 79 Gardiner Road to complete the Orange Southern Link Cycleway.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “1.3 Our City - Ensure a robust framework that supports the community’s and Council’s current and evolving activities, services and functions”.

Financial Implications

Transport for NSW has allocated funding under the Cycling Towns Program of $680,000 in the 2017/18 budget for the cycleway.

Policy and Governance Implications

The purchase of these easements is necessary to complete the Southern Cyclelink and will be conducted in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991.

 

Recommendation

That the update on the Southern Link Cycleway 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

Rear James Sheahan Catholic High School, Anson Street

Council has undertaken further negotiations with James Sheahan Catholic High School regarding acquiring an easement for a proposed area of 2,040.9m2 over part lots 16, 17, 18 and 19 DP9756 owned by the school. Council has received confirmation that approval has been provided by the registered proprietor of the land, The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the diocese of Bathurst, subject to no monetary consideration for the easement in lieu of Council being responsible for construction of the cycleway and some in-kind works.

 


 

79 Gardiner Road

Council has written to the owners of 79 Gardiner Road on several occasions regarding the proposed purchase of an 8 metre wide strip of land running along the current drainage easement across their property and offering to pay for the owners to obtain an independent valuation for such strip of land. To date, Council has received no response from the owners of 79 Gardiner Road.

In light of this, Council staff have been in discussions with the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) regarding possible other options. Given that the expected extended timeframe for resolution of the land matters would exceed the limitations set in the Cycle Towns grant funding, it has been agreed to implement an interim arrangement of concrete footpaths and on-road cycle markings around this block.

Generally funding under these programs would not provide for pedestrian footpaths, however, it is seen as necessary to provide a legal “off road” facility for children under 12 years of age, given the narrow road widths in this area. The RMS has indicated that if and when Council acquires the necessary land at 79 Gardiner Road, it can apply for funding to complete the infrastructure for the missing link at that time in the future.

At this stage there is no immediate need to compulsorily acquire part of 79 Gardiner Road to fulfil the requirements of the current grant funded cycleway works. 

 

Rail Underpass

At its meeting of 21 March 2017, Council resolved as follows:

6.1     Tender for the Construction of Rail Underpass Culvert

TRIM Reference:        2017/462

RESOLVED - 17/001                                                                           Cr J Hamling/Cr R Turner

1        That Council decline to accept any of the tenders for the construction of the Rail Underpass Culvert, tender number F2427 as a result of all tenders exceeding the available budget.

2        That Council cancel the proposal to contract the Rail Underpass Culvert contemplated in the tender.

3        That Council note that extenuating circumstances exist, being a better outcome would not be achieved within the available timeframe by inviting fresh tenders or applications.

4        That the General Manager be authorised to enter into negotiations with tenderers to meet time and cost objectives to deliver the construction of the culvert.

5        That Council staff liaise with the Roads and Maritime Services to source any possible additional project funding to enable this project to proceed.

6        That permission be granted to affix the Council Seal to all documents if required.

 

To this end Council staff have negotiated with the bidders under the tender process to seek revised pricing.


 

Other Cycling Infrastructure

The Southern Link Cycleway is the largest of the infrastructure projects to be undertaken as part of the 3 year Cycling Towns Grant program funded by Transport for NSW. Elements of this project already undertaken include:

·   Reconstruction and Widening of Matthews Park shared path.

·   Construction of shared path and bridge in Moulder Park

·   Construction of a shared path through international gardens

·   Construction of shared path, boardwalks and bridges through Nelson Park

·   Seats, bubblers, landscaping and signage along the route

·   Footpaths on Gardiner Road and Franklin Road

Other infrastructure already installed under the Cycling Towns program include:

·   Bicycle stabling (bike racks) facilities at seven separate sites in the CBD and other high use areas

·   Widening of existing paths to a ‘shared use’ standard at Lone Pine Avenue and Mitchell Highway

·   On road cycleway markings on Hill Street, Anson Street, Kite Street and Byng Street

 

  


Council Meeting                                                                                              18 April 2017

 

 

5.10   Update - Improved Operating Procedures for Valves and Hydrants

TRIM REFERENCE:        2017/529

AUTHOR:                       Wayne Beatty, Water and Sewerage Strategic Manager    

 

 

EXECUTIVE Summary

A report acknowledged by Council at its meeting of 21 February 2017 on the 11 February fire at William Street noted that Council’s water reticulation staff would undertake a full review of processes associated with the overall management and operation of the City’s water reticulation network, specifically in relation to any changes to the setting of valves within the network.

The Incident Investigation Report is an internal staff document which outlines details of the incident itself and makes recommendations on proposed process improvements going forward. This report provides an update on the implementation of recommendations from the Incident Investigation Report.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “15.2 Our Environment – Operate, maintain, renew and upgrade water, sewer and stormwater infrastructure assets and services as specified within the Asset Management Plans at agreed levels of service”.

Financial Implications

It is proposed to purchase a skid mounted vacuum unit and truck at an estimated cost of $200,000 to be funded from the Water Fund.

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

 

Recommendation

That Council acknowledge the update report by the Water and Sewerage Strategic Manager on Improved Operating Procedures for Valves and Hydrants, including the intention to include a skid mounted vacuum unit and truck valued at $200,000 as an initiative in the 2017/18 budget.

 

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

Incident investigation

As a result of inadequate water flows from a hydrant in William Street during the fire event on 11 February 2017, Council staff undertook an Incident Investigation including a full review of processes associated with the overall management and operation of the City’s water reticulation network. This investigation involved a facilitated workshop discussion with all staff either directly or indirectly involved with the incident. The process required input from management, supervisors and field staff. The purpose of the investigation was not to assign blame to any one particular person or group, but to talk through the events of the day and how best to improve management processes in the future. The investigation was undertaken on 23 February 2017 after which a number of actions were recommended.

Dalton/McLachlan Street Roundabout Water Mains

As Council has been previously informed, the reason why there was inadequate flow to the fire hydrant in William Street was because the network had been closed at the Dalton/McLachlan Street roundabout therefore only allowing flow into William Street from March Street. The network was closed due to a leak in the roundabout.

After the fire, valves at the Dalton/McLachlan Street roundabout were kept open so as to maintain adequate flow into William Street. Water staff repaired the leak on Wednesday 22 February 2017. The network in this area is fully functional.

Emergency Services debrief

A full incident debrief was undertaken on Tuesday 28 February 2017 with all other agencies who attended the fire. The following agencies were present:

·    NSW Police

·    Fire and Rescue NSW (FRNSW)

·    NSW Ambulance

·    Rural Fire Service

·    Transgrid

·    Orange City Council

The debrief was constructive with all emergency service and utility authorities agreeing that actions from the debrief were to be implemented by each organisation where relevant.

Orange City Council and Fire and Rescue NSW debrief

A full debrief meeting with senior staff from Fire and Rescue NSW (FRNSW) and Orange City Council was undertaken on 8 March 2017. As a result, the following actions have been implemented:

·    A protocol has been developed between OCC and FRNSW to advise of any changes to the reticulation network which has the potential to impact on the adequacy of the network to meet required firefighting requirements

·    Accurate mapping data and a direct point of contact between relevant FRNSW and OCC staff has been established in order to keep mapping systems up to date

·    OCC has provided FRNSW with a key for the filling station at the works depot in McLachlan Street

·    OCC’s water carting truck is now on standby if required and has been modified to fit FRNSW water fittings

·    OCC has nominated a number of contact persons in the water reticulation team who can be contacted by FRNSW to assist in the event of a fire. If required by FRNSW the nominated staff member will attend the fire to help direct the operations of any water reticulation works staff who attend.

Managing the network

An improved process for managing any changes to the network has been developed including a review and redevelopment of Council’s extended water main shutdown procedures.

Valve closures

There is now a documented assessment of the impacts on the network of valve closures which extends well beyond the immediate area of the closure. This involves both adjustment to the network computer model as well as on-ground pressure and flow testing to determine any impacts.

In the event that a valve closure results in reduction in flow and/or pressure below the required minimums, affected water users are notified.

When changes are made to the network they are now documented on Council’s network plans and assets system so that it is obvious to all staff what changes have been made. The proposed timing of any resultant remedial work is also identified and programmed accordingly.

Staff are also investigating the possibility of utilising a tablet device in the field for collecting inspection and maintenance data associated with the water and sewer network.

Additional Resources

Maintenance Staff

Additional resources have been provided within the water reticulation team to increase the existing focus on hydrant and valve maintenance. At any one time, up to three teams are working on hydrant and valve inspections, maintenance and repairs.

Hydrants are being inspected, internally cleaned, clearly marked and, where necessary, raised above the surrounding road/footpath to ensure they are accessible. Pressure and flow testing is also being undertaken for all hydrants in the network.

Valves are also being inspected, clearly marked, internally cleaned and where necessary raised above the surrounding footpath to ensure they are accessible. Every valve is exercised to ensure they operate correctly and are set in the correct position.

These teams have been focussing on high risk areas as a priority including central business district,   industrial areas, schools, and known low pressure areas.


 

Vacuum Excavation Truck

In order to improve the efficiency of our hydrant and valve maintenance program, it is intended to seek an amendment to the 201/18 budget for the purchase of a vacuum excavation truck.

This unit utilises a hydro excavation technique that allows for a non-destructive excavation. This technique uses high pressure water to excavate material, significantly reducing the likelihood of damage to existing underground services.

The unit can be used not only for cleaning and maintaining hydrants and valves, but for other purposes listed below:

·    Water Service Maintenance

·    Air Valve Maintenance

·    New Water Service installations

·    Water Service Renewals

·    Sewer Access Chamber Maintenance

·    Underground service locations (Electricity, Telecommunications and Gas)

·    Signage installation

 

The estimated cost for the purchase of a skid mounted vacuum unit and truck is $200,000 and can be funded from the Water Fund.

 

 

 

                                                                          


Council Meeting                                                                                              18 April 2017

 

 

5.11   Tenders and Procurement

TRIM REFERENCE:        2017/633

AUTHOR:                       Chris Devitt, Director Technical Services    

 

 

EXECUTIVE Summary

There has recently been some commentary and media coverage around the letting of tenders by Orange City Council with a focus on tenders being declined. This report provides the findings of a review of tenders over the last two years, which indicates the majority of tenders are let and the projects proceed.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “1.3 Our City - Ensure a robust framework that supports the community’s and Council’s current and evolving activities, services and functions”.

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

 

 

Recommendation

That the report on Tenders and Procurement by the Director Technical Services 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

Since February 2015, 39 tenders have been put to Council.

Of those, 21 have been let for a value of $36.2 million. These projects have included the emergency helicopter retrieval hangar, the Waratahs link road, the channel upgrade under Robertson Park and the Orange to Carcoar pipeline.

A further seven tenders were let in the period for ongoing services and material supplies including traffic management, tyre recycling, bulk fuel and electrical services. These tenders did not include gross costs but rather established rates or panels from which Council could source contractors or supplies. Some of these have been undertaken as part of Centroc regional purchasing arrangements. 

 

Since February 2015, 11 tenders were declined with a resolution to negotiate. Of the 11 declined, two were in 2015, six in 2016 and three in 2017.

Of these 11 tenders, seven have been successfully negotiated to proceed for a value of $5.24 million. Six of these were resolved within the original budget estimates. The projects included telecommunications, the Nile Street water main replacement and the Burrendong Way reconstruction.

A variety of strategies were undertaken to resolve the matters including re-scoping works.

In the Nile Street example the work was undertaken by Council staff. This project is in the closing stages with a final cost of approximately $220,000 including remediation roadworks. The savings against the closest tender price with the roadworks added will be in the order of $150,000.

In the Burrendong Way Stage 4 project, Council resolved to reduce the scope of the works to meet the budget. Initially a 900 metre section was to be upgraded. That project was reduced to 500 metres with the balance deferred to 2017/18.

The Showground pavilion was also among the 11 tenders declined. It was resolved with an increase in size and budget at an additional cost of $150,000 with the funding source to comprise $100,000 being reallocated from the budgeted stormwater harvesting works at the Showground and $50,000 being reallocated from Moulder Park capital works.

The four remaining tenders declined are awaiting an outcome. They have an estimated value of $4.5 million and include the former Orange Base Hospital demolition and the Sir Jack Brabham sports facilities. It should be noted that Health Infrastructure has a role in approving the hospital demolition tender outside budget estimates.

The other two declined and awaiting resolution are the re-carpeting of the Civic Theatre forum and foyer which has been deferred to 2017/18,  and the Robertson Park toilets which was deferred on 4 April 2017 until the next meeting of Council.

There is no single answer as to why some tenders are exceeding budget estimates. Anecdotally increased construction activity, competing projects in other localities and road construction activity in other Local Government Areas as a result of flood damage have been identified as compounding factors. Additionally, strong activity in the creation of subdivisions may have also played in role in reducing the number of contractors available to tender for Council projects.

Orange City Council undertakes a robust process to develop budget estimates.

Tenders are a level 5 activity under the Orange City Council Purchasing Policy. Level 1 is under $1000 where quotes aren’t required and level 5 is the highest standard where tenders are called when projects are expected to exceed $120,000.

Under the Purchasing Policy, the Project Management Framework is to be used which includes a risk assessment and preliminary information about budgets and operational impacts. Within this framework there a number of options to determine budget estimates.


 

These include:

·    If no design exists, project budgets can be developed based upon similar works  undertaken by Council or the relevant industry with contingencies commensurate with the risk.

·    If designs do exist and quantities are known then known or estimated rates can be applied to determine a final cost with minimal contingencies.

·    Quotes can be obtained.

In a number of projects, external expertise is sought through quantity surveyors or others where specialist advice is needed. A case in point is the rail crossing for cycling purposes where an expert in this type of work was used to assist in estimating the costs but the resultant tender price was double the estimate.  This issue has been subsequently resolved, but the point is that there are often circumstances where estimates and tender prices do not align.  As the report identifies, Council has generally been able to negotiate to a position that is within an acceptable range of the tender estimates.

 

  


Council Meeting                                                                                              18 April 2017

 

 

5.12   North Sydney Council correspondence

TRIM REFERENCE:        2017/674

AUTHOR:                       Kathy Woolley, Director Corporate and Commercial Services    

 

 

EXECUTIVE Summary

Council has received correspondence from North Sydney Council on their actions regarding withdrawal from LGNSW. Council is provided with the correspondence for consideration.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “2.1 Our City - Provide a flexible and adaptable community engagement process for gathering and disseminating information, ideas and responses and engage with the community through a variety of formats”.

Financial Implications

Council contributed $40,172 in fees to LGNSW in 2016/17.

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

 

Recommendation

That Council note the report on North Sydney Council’s withdrawal from LGNSW.

 

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

Council’s membership of Local Government NSW (LGNSW) is current with an annual subscription fee of just over $40,000.

North Sydney Council has written to Council advising their position with regard to their membership. North Sydney is seeking a response from Council on the performance of LGNSW.

A LGNSW brochure outlining their services is attached. Their website identifies a range of their achievements over the 2016 year (https://www.lgnsw.org.au/about-us/2016-year-review) including the following:

·    Weekly updates are sent out on activities to member councils


 

 

·    Made submissions on a range of pieces of legislation and policy change including forming a reference group of councillors and general managers to comment on proposed amendments to the Local Government Act and representation on the container deposit scheme changes

·    President and Executive Officer visited every member council during the year

·    Represented councils in 125 matters in the industrial relations matters

·    Ran workshops for Disability Inclusion Action plans, Integrated Planning and Reporting, Fit for Future reform processes and councillor and staff training sessions (to 85 councils).

The matter is presented to Council for its consideration.

 

Attachments

1          Letter from North Sydney Council - Council Concerns with LGNSW, IC17/6769

2          LGNSW brochure, D17/23876

  


Council Meeting                                                                                                  18 April 2017

5.12                     North Sydney Council correspondence

Attachment 1      Letter from North Sydney Council - Council Concerns with LGNSW

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Meeting                                                                                                  18 April 2017

5.12                     North Sydney Council correspondence

Attachment 2      LGNSW brochure

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Council Meeting                                                                                              18 April 2017

 

 

5.13   Brand Orange Funding Agreement

TRIM REFERENCE:        2017/679

AUTHOR:                       Kathy Woolley, Director Corporate and Commercial Services    

 

 

EXECUTIVE Summary

Council is provided with an update on the progress against milestones in the current funding agreement with Brand Orange.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “10.1 Our Economy – Capitalise on the character and lifestyle of Orange to enhance tourism”.

Financial Implications

There is a potential for$20,000 not to be paid under this funding agreement due to failure to meet a deadline for one element.

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

 

Recommendation

That Council note the report on the Brand Orange funding agreement update, noting that failure of delivery of an item identified in the funding agreement may result in a reduction in the total cost of the services by up to $20,000.

 

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

Council entered into a funding agreement with Brand Orange for the delivery of event management and promotional activities between January 2017 and June 2017, resolving as follows on 8 December 2016:

RESOLVED - 16/514                                                                     Cr J Davis/Cr R Gander

3        That due to the unique knowledge of the required services, Council enter into a six month performance based funding agreement with Brand Orange from 1 January 2017 to 30 June 2017 for a value of $159,000 (ex GST) to be funded from the tourism services contract, payable in two instalments on 9 January and 3 April 2017. 

 

There are deadlines for the major deliverables embedded in the performance based agreement which have been monitored since the agreement was entered into. A final acquittal report is due to Council on 1 June and will be provided in a subsequent report.

The following is a summary of progress to date against the schedule of deliverables. As there was a major deadline missed, staff met with Brand Orange to determine the actions required to address the breach of the agreement terms:

BRAND ORANGE PERFORMANCE BASED FUNDING AGREEMENT PARAMETERS

 

Deliverable  

 Ex GST 

Comment/Key performance indicator

Progress update

Watson's Bay - sponsorship - subject to being able to have "proudly sponsored by Orange City Council" and visitOrange logo applied as per Council supplied artwork

 $15,000

·     KPI - Application of "Proudly sponsored by Orange City Council" and use of branding as per supplied artwork on all advertising materials.

·     KPI - Approval on all advertising materials.

·     KPI- Survey of attendees as per survey components in Schedule B and report on outcomes from the event.

·     Event to be held on 7 May

·     Approved artwork for promotional materials done

·     Correct wording acknowledging Council’s sponsorship used.

·     Full reporting on the event and survey results due as part of the 1 June final acquittal report.

Apple Ramble - “Principal sponsor – Orange City Council”  on all advertising materials plus the application of the visitOrange logo as per Council supplied artwork

 $3,000

·     KPI - Council to be identified as principal sponsor and artwork as supplied used on all advertising materials.

·     KPI - Preapproval of all artwork on all advertising materials.

·     KPI- Survey of attendees and report on outcomes as per survey components in Schedule B and report on outcomes of the event.

·     Event held

·     Sponsorship wording used.

·     Artwork approved.

·     Full reporting on the event and survey results due as part of the 1 June final acquittal report.


 

Deliverable  

 Ex GST 

Comment/Key performance indicator

Progress update

2017 Banjo Paterson Festival – represent Council on the organising committee and deliver marketing initiatives.

 $6,000

·     KPI – attendance as Council’s representative to all committee meetings

·     KPI - $5,000 is to be specifically spent on out of region advertising, approved by Council. 

·     KPI – Report of details of marketing initiatives for the event and any specifically identified visitation that has been identified relating to marketing initiative

·     Event held

·     Council was given naming rights to the breakfast event.

·     Representation on the Committee was done.

·     Follow up on the management of the event is required

·     Full reporting on the event and marketing activities due as part of the 1 June final acquittal report

2017 F.O.O.D Week - Council representation on the organising committee

 $5,000

·     KPI – attendance as Council’s representative to all committee meetings

·     KPI – Report of details of marketing initiatives for the event.

·     Attendance at committee meetings confirmed

·     Full reporting on the item due as part of the 1 June final acquittal report

2017 Apple Festival - Council representation on the organising committee

 $3,000

·     KPI – attendance as Council’s representative to all committee meetings

·     KPI –report of details of marketing initiatives for the event

·     Attendance at committee meetings confirmed

·     Full reporting on the due as part of the 1 June final acquittal report

Public relations agency management and engagement

 $5,000

·     KPI - Evidence and details of engagement with agencies and media operators initiated and delivered by Brand Orange in report.

·     Provision of information on a several PR agency activities to date 

·     Full reporting on the item due as part of the 1 June final acquittal report

Prepare and publish the 2017 Orange Wine Festival Program

 $10,000

·     KPI - Draft Publication of the program by 1 June 2017 in report.

·     Progress made

·     Full reporting on the item due as part of the 1 June final acquittal report


 

Deliverable  

 Ex GST 

Comment/Key performance indicator

Progress update

Report on the achievements from the contract including surveys

 $10,000

·     KPIs - Provision of report on all KPIs on 1 June 2017 or within one week of windup of Brand Orange if occurs before 1 July 2017

·     Report on this due 1 June 2017

Key Stakeholder engagement

 $5,000

·     Number of engagements and list of outcomes of the engagement

·     Report on this due 1 June 2017

Australian Tourism Data Warehouse updates and overhaul

 $15,000

KPI- Increase of 25% on the following listings in each category - must be unique listings, not double counted across categories - figures from ATDW end Nov 2016:

·      Accommodation: 70 facilities now  - KPI target 87 entries

·      Attractions: 30 entries now - KPI target 37 entries

·      Food and Wine: 45 entries now - KPI target 56 entries

·      Tours: 6 entries now - KPI target 8 entries

·      Events: 32 entries now - KPI target 40 entries

·     Report on this due 1 June 2017 – good progress noted to date

Cycling tourism opportunities assessment - infrastructure needs,  demand market (who else apart from competitors who already come to events would be attracted and how can the Orange region reach them)

 $15,000

·     KPI - identification of the demand and a marketing campaign that will reach the identified target audience and outcomes of visitation estimate from the marketing initiative.

·     KPI – Report to Council on the opportunity by 1 May 2017.

·     Report due 1 May 2017

·     Indication of progress made.


 

Deliverable  

 Ex GST 

Comment/Key performance indicator

Progress update

Health tourism opportunities assessment - identify demand and how Orange Region can reach the target audience

 $15,000

·     KPI - identification of the demand and a marketing campaign that will reach the identified target audience and outcomes of visitation estimate from the marketing initiative.

·     KPI – Report to Council on the opportunity by 1 May 2017.

·     Report due 1 May 2017

·     Indication of progress made.

·     Some issues with using “health tourism” as the topic identified

Accommodation sector - facilitation to merge the various accommodation groups into one group

 $10,000

·     KPI -30% of total accommodation operators signed up to create a single accommodation group

·     Subcommittee formed

·     Full reporting on the item due as part of the 1 June final acquittal report


 

Deliverable  

 Ex GST 

Comment/Key performance indicator

Progress update

Packages - develop and market 2 packages identified in the Tourism Strategy - to illustrate industry integration opportunities –

·      1 Harvest based (pick your own, farm experience etc.)

·      1 indigenous culture based 

 $20,000

·     $10K per package - with a minimum of $8.5K per package on actual advertising spend matching $ for $ value from those operators engaged in the campaigns. No in kind. 

·     $3K per package retained by Brand Orange.

·     KPI - specific bookings on both package through Bookeasy for overnight stays and event tickets.

Brand Orange has not delivered this item in accordance with KPIs – but alternatives proposed and accepted.

 

Brand Orange has sought amendment as follows:

Harvest:

·      Failed to implement packages to meet timeframes for apples and cherry harvests.

·      Has proposed to design a  package around truffle season but the season occurs after the agreement term

·      Deliverable from Brand Orange will be that the advertising package is to be completed and in the market by 1 June 2017.

·      The final acquittal report will include details of the package including specifically listing the matching $ for $ attained from industry and who the participants are and evidence of the advertising placed.

·      Council will monitor the uptake as bookings will be made on Council’s booking tool, Bookeasy.

 

Indigenous culture:

·      Brand Orange has not been able to complete this item.

·      Sought to replace with an alternate idea.

·      Agreement reached to replace with a package designed around Golf Orange.

·      Deliverable will be that the package be completed and in the market by 1 June 2017.

·      The final acquittal report will include details of the package including specifically listing the matching $ for $ attained and evidence of the advertising placed


 

Deliverable  

 Ex GST 

Comment/Key performance indicator

Progress update

Joint marketing initiative - get matching $ for $ from industry for a short specific marketing campaign designed and executed by Brand Orange by February 2017

 $20,000

·     $17K applied to an advertising campaign with matching $ for $ against every dollar applied supplied by participating operators. No in kind.

·     $3K retained by Brand Orange for operating costs.

·     KPI - specific bookings through Bookeasy for overnight stays and event tickets showing reported to council by 1 April 2017

Brand Orange has not delivered this item in accordance with the agreement KPIs.

Brand Orange sought Council’s consideration of using this funding to offset costs to attend Taste Sydney event.

 

This was rejected by Council as the requirement is for Council’s cash contribution is to be matched and actual dollars to be spent on advertising, not on event attendance.   

 

Brand Orange has subsequently proposed Council’s consideration of the advertising spend for the event and offered to submit details.  To date the information has not been supplied.

 

Given the marketing campaign component was due to have been completed by 1 April,  as per the agreement terms,  failure to deliver in accordance with the due date should require the funds to be returned to Council.

 

Pending the provision of information confirming what was spent on advertising and illustration of matching dollar for dollar at the taste Sydney event,   the second payment instalment due in April to Brand Orange will be reduced by $20,000.  
If agreement of the Taste Sydney advertising expenditure can be reached Council may provide up to half of the advertising actual spend to Brand Orange.

Newcrest cycling event - managing local media placement

 $2,000

·     KPI - placement of local advertising promotional activities

·      Event held

·      Details of tasks achieved and advertising placed to be included in the final acquittal report due 1 June.

TOTAL

 $159,000

 

The final acquittal report will be reported to Council in June 2017.

 

     


Council Meeting                                                                                              18 April 2017

 

 

6     Closed Meeting - See Closed Agenda

The General Manager will advise the Council if any written submissions have been received relating to any item advertised for consideration by a closed meeting of Orange City Council.

The Mayor will extend an invitation to any member of the public present at the meeting to make a representation to Council as to whether the meeting should be closed for a particular item.

In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, and the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, in the opinion of the General Manager, the following business is of a kind as referred to in Section 10A(2) of the Act, and should be dealt with in a Confidential Session of the Council meeting closed to the press and public.

Recommendation

That Council adjourn into a Closed Meeting and members of the press and public be excluded from the Closed Meeting, and access to the correspondence and reports relating to the items considered during the course of the Closed Meeting be withheld unless declassified by separate resolution. This action is taken in accordance with Section 10A(2) of the Local Government Act, 1993 as the items listed come within the following provisions:

6.1     Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games Queen's Baton Relay Council Selected Batonbearer

This item is classified CONFIDENTIAL under the provisions of Section 10A(2) of the Local Government Act 1993, which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to (c) information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

6.2     Duntryleague seeking conversion of loan

This item is classified CONFIDENTIAL under the provisions of Section 10A(2) of the Local Government Act 1993, which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to (b) the personal hardship of any resident or ratepayer.

6.3     Outstanding Water Charges - Request to Write Off

This item is classified CONFIDENTIAL under the provisions of Section 10A(2) of the Local Government Act 1993, which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to (b) the personal hardship of any resident or ratepayer.

 

 


Council Meeting                                                                                              18 April 2017

 

 

6.1     Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games Queen's Baton Relay Council Selected Batonbearer

TRIM REFERENCE:        2017/587

AUTHOR:                       Rachel Butler, Events Officer    

Reason for Confidentiality

This item is classified CONFIDENTIAL under the provisions of Section 10A(2) of the Local Government Act 1993, which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to (c) information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

 

 


Council Meeting                                                                                              18 April 2017

 

 

6.2     Duntryleague seeking conversion of loan

TRIM REFERENCE:        2017/607

AUTHOR:                       Kathy Woolley, Director Corporate and Commercial Services    

Reason for Confidentiality

This item is classified CONFIDENTIAL under the provisions of Section 10A(2) of the Local Government Act 1993, which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to (b) the personal hardship of any resident or ratepayer.

 

 


Council Meeting                                                                                              18 April 2017

 

 

6.3     Outstanding Water Charges - Request to Write Off

TRIM REFERENCE:        2017/629

AUTHOR:                       Kathy Woolley, Director Corporate and Commercial Services    

Reason for Confidentiality

This item is classified CONFIDENTIAL under the provisions of Section 10A(2) of the Local Government Act 1993, which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to (b) the personal hardship of any resident or ratepayer.

 

  


Council Meeting                                                                                              18 April 2017

 

 

7       Resolutions from closed meeting