Agenda of Planning and Development Committee

Planning and Development Committee 4 April 2017

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

TRIM REFERENCE: 2017/503

AUTHOR: Kelly Walker, Town Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

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

The 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. Three additional submissions were received following the last Committee meeting, and another following the site inspection. One of the submissions is supplementary to an original submission, and the other three are from additional neighbours. These submissions do not raise any issues that had not already been covered in the original report.

Since the previous Committee meeting, Council has 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. The proposed development departs from the bulk and scale guidelines set out in the Orange Development Control Plan 2004 (DCP), however it is considered that the resulting impacts can be mitigated by way of conditions of consent, and the proposal complies with the overriding planning outcomes of the DCP, as well as the tests applied by the Land and Environment Court when considering departures from numerical requirements of planning controls. Whilst the proposed first floor addition would be visible from neighbouring sites, the sensitive architectural design and recessive colour scheme of the proposal ensures that the development would not have significant or adverse impacts on the surrounding neighbourhood.

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.

It is considered that the architectural design (such as the addition being recessed into the existing roof, low ceiling height, articulation, recessive colour scheme, and window positioning and design), and number of 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.

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 two submissions were received.

Daniel Fock – 59A Moulder Street

The submission raised concerns regarding visual privacy and overlooking into their outdoor spaces including the backyard, deck and swimming pool. The submission requests that the western windows either be removed from the proposal or have privacy screens. This issue has been dealt with in the DCP assessment of the report where conditions of consent 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, D17/21142 ⇩

2 Plans, D17/20651 ⇩

3 Submissions, D17/20961 ⇩

Planning and Development Committee 4 April 2017

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

TRIM REFERENCE: 2017/536

AUTHOR: Daniel Drum, Town Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged	8 September 2016
Applicant/s	TPG Town Planning & Urban Design
Owner/s	Eastern Developments Pty Ltd
Land description	Lot 1 DP 197828, Lots 2-6 DP 131416 and Lots 1‑3 DP 779111 - 132-142 Kite Street and 26 McNamara Street, Orange
Proposed land use	Demolition, Hotel or Motel Accommodation, Restaurant or Cafe, Retail Premises and Subdivision (44 lot Strata)
Value of proposed development	$10,500,000

Council's consent is sought to establish a mixed use development on land at 132-142 Kite Street and 26 McNamara Street, Orange, being Lot 1 DP197828, Lots 2-6 DP 131416 and Lots 1-3 DP 779111 (the ‘subject property’). The mixed use development comprises hotel or motel accommodation, restaurant or café and retail premises. The subject property comprises a total area in the order of 2,899m²(approximately) in an irregular shape and is occupied by the former Central Western Daily building, which is currently vacant.

Specifically, Council’s consent is sought for:

· demolition of the existing building;

· use and development of hotel or motel accommodation, restaurant or café and retail premises; and

· subdivision (44 lot Strata).

While the development application also foreshadows consolidation of the subject lots, this has previously been approved as exempt development and is pending registration.

The proposed hotel comprises 44 apartments in a combination of one bedroom (one), two bedroom (40), and three bedroom (three) apartments. However, 33 of the two bedroom apartments have been designed in a manner which allows for each room to be accessed separately as a one bedroom apartment, allowing for a maximum capacity of 77 apartments.

Aside from accommodation, other facilities within the hotel would include:

· reception and waiting area;

· manager’s office;

· luggage store;

· business lounge;

· conference room and associated kitchen and amenities;

· gym;

· BBQ area;

· laundry; and

· service and utility facilities.

In addition to the hotel, the mixed use development includes a café and one leasable retail area. While the café would be available to the general public, the supporting material submitted with the development application indicates that it is largely intended to service hotel guests. The proposed cafe has a seating capacity of 65 people (approximately) and would operate from 6am-11pm daily.

Eighty car parking spaces have been proposed as part of the mixed use development. The provision of off-street car parking spaces is a key issue for consideration in the assessment of this application and is addressed in detail in the body of this report.

Landscaping associated with the proposed development is principally the extension of existing street trees in Kite Street and commencement of street trees in McNamara Street. Other minor landscaping is also proposed adjacent to the main Kite Street entrance to the hotel reception area and along the common boundary of 24 McNamara Street and 137‑139 Peisley Street.

The key issues for consideration include:

· car parking and traffic;

· urban design;

· heritage; and

· impact on adjoining properties.

Six submissions were received during the exhibition period. Copies of all submissions are attached to this report and the issues raised by submitters are addressed in the body of this report.

The following assessment identifies that the proposed development can be supported.

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 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.

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

THE APPLICATION/PROPOSAL AND ADJOINING PROPERTIES

Council's consent is sought for demolition, use and development of hotel or motel accommodation, restaurant or café, retail premises; and 44 lot Strata subdivision.

Use

The proposed hotel comprises 44 apartments in a combination of one bedroom (one), two bedroom (40) and three bedroom (three) apartments. However, 33 of the two bedroom apartments have been designed to allow for each room to be accessed separately as a one bedroom apartment, creating the potential for up to 33 additional apartments and an overall total of 77 apartments.

Supporting material submitted with the development application, based on data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics for the period between July 2012 and June 2013, indicates that occupancy rates for hotels in Orange varied between 49.7% in December 2012 and 76.9% in October 2012. This would equate to an average maximum occupancy of 59 apartments.

Apart from accommodation, other facilities and services within the hotel would include a reception and waiting area, manager’s office, luggage store, business lounge, conference room and associated kitchen and amenities, gym, BBQ area, laundry, and service and utility facilities.

The services and facilities offered by the hotel, including the business lounge, conference room and gym, will only be available to guests of the hotel.

The hotel would employ four permanent staff and a resident manager.

The 66m²leasable area adjacent to Kite Street is intended to be used as a form of retail premises, which includes uses such as shops and food and drink premises. However, as a tenant for the lease area has not been secured and no specific details of the proposed use have been provided, a condition of consent must be applied requiring a fresh development application for its first use. Notwithstanding, the area is treated as a retail premises for the purpose of this assessment.

Development

Development works include the complete demolition of the former Central Western Daily building, which is currently vacant, and construction of a new four storey building.

The proposed building has been designed in a contemporary style which is distinguished from the proximate historic buildings, including the Great Western Hotel at 145-147 Kite Street and the Kite Street Specialist Centre at 126 Kite Street (formerly the Canobolas Shire Council Chamber).

The proposed building would generally be built to the Kite Street and McNamara Street boundaries, presenting as a four storey form to both street frontages with the exception of a three storey interface to the existing single storey building at 24 McNamara Street.

The ground floor of the building has been designed to activate both the Kite Street and McNamara Street frontages. This is predominately achieved via the café and outdoor terrace which ‘wrap’ around the corner of Kite and McNamara Street. The level of activation achieved by the café and outdoor terrace will be further complemented by the retail lease area adjacent to Kite Street. The use of various external materials, including glazing and stone cladding, and architectural features such as the awning to Kite Street, will also ensure an appropriate level of visual interest within the streetscape.

Above ground level, building articulation is predominately achieved via a combination of staggered building setbacks, varied external materials including pre-finished cladding and textured paint finish, and architectural features including metal screens and glass balustrades.

While presenting predominately as a four storey building, the overall height of the building has been minimised via an inverted roof design.

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

The existing conditions of the subject property are illustrated in Figures 1-4 below.

Figure 1: existing building as viewed from McNamara Street

Figure 2: existing building as viewed from corner of Kite Street and McNamara Street

Figure 3: existing building and unsealed car park as viewed from south-eastern corner

of the subject property

Figure 4: existing building and unsealed car park as viewed from south-western corner

of the subject property

Adjoining Properties

Properties immediately adjoining the subject property include the Great Western Hotel at 145-147 Peisley Street, Ace Accounting at 26 McNamara Street, a hair and beauty salon at 141-143 Peisley Street and second hand/antique store at 137-139 Peisley Street. While 26 McNamara Street appears to be used for the purpose of an accounting business, Council’s records indicate that the current approved use of the property is a residential dwelling. This matter is discussed in detail in the body of this report.

The existing conditions of the properties adjoining the subject property are illustrated in Figures 5-9, below.

Figure 5: 24 McNamara Street as viewed from McNamara Street

IMG_1870 (2)

Figure 6: 24 McNamara Street as viewed from the subject property

Figure 7: 145-147 Peisley Street as viewed from the subject property

IMG_1867 (2)

Figure 8: 145-147 Peisley Street as viewed from Kite Street

Figure 9: 137-139 McNamara Street as viewed from the subject property

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 - Evaluation

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

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

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

The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the relevant aims of Orange LEP 2011. In particular, the proposed development will assist in reinforcing Orange as a major regional centre; will contribute to the social, economic and environmental resources of Orange; and recognise the environmental heritage features of Orange.

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

Clause 1.6 - Consent Authority

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

Clause 1.9A - Suspension of Covenants, Agreements and Instruments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A search of Council’s records identifies that the subject property is not affected by any of the foregoing covenants, instruments, agreements or plans. However, it is noted that Council does not hold a Section 88B Instrument for the subject property.

It is noted that Lot 5 DP 131416 is affected by a right-of-way (ROW). The applicant has advised that the ROW is effectively redundant as it only applies to those lots which form part of the subject property and is not to the benefit of any adjoining property. As such, there is no impact of building over the ROW.

Lots 1, 2 and 3 DP 779111 are affected by an easement for the underground drainage of water. Council’s Development Engineer has identified that a condition of consent should be applied requiring that the existing stormwater line be included as part of the drainage works for the proposed development.

Two sewer mains traverse Lots 4, 5 and 6 DP 132416. While the applicant has proposed to realign the affected sewer main, Council’s Technical Services Division has recommended conditions of consent requiring that the sewer line be relocated clear of the proposed building.

Clause 1.7 Mapping

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

Land Zoning Map:	Land zoned B3 Commercial Core
Lot Size Map:	No Minimum Lot Size
Heritage Map:	Not a heritage item or conservation area
Height of Buildings Map:	Building height limit 16m
Floor Space Ratio Map:	Floor space limit 2:1
Terrestrial Biodiversity Map:	No biodiversity sensitivity on the site
Groundwater Vulnerability Map:	Ground water vulnerable
Drinking Water Catchment Map:	Not within the drinking water catchment
Watercourse Map:	Not within or affecting a defined watercourse
Urban Release Area Map:	Not within an urban release area
Obstacle Limitation Surface Map:	No restriction on building siting or construction
Additional Permitted Uses Map:	No additional permitted use applies

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

Part 2 - Permitted or Prohibited Development

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

The subject property is zoned B3 Commercial Core zone (Figure 10).

Figure 10: zone context plan (subject property identified by heavy red line)

The proposed use and development is defined as hotel or motel accommodation, restaurant or café and retail premises under the Orange Local Environmental Plan, which mean:

Hotel or motel accommodation:

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

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

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

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

Note.

Hotel or motel accommodation is a type of tourist and visitor accommodation - see the definition of that term in this Dictionary.

Restaurant or café:

… a building or place the principal purpose of which is the preparation and serving, on a retail basis, of food and drink to people for consumption on the premises, whether or not liquor, take away meals and drinks or entertainment are also provided.

Note.

Restaurants or cafes are a type of food and drink premises - see the definition of that term in this Dictionary.

Retail premises:

…retail premises means a building or place used for the purpose of selling items by retail, or hiring or displaying items for the purpose of selling them or hiring them out, whether the items are goods or materials (or whether also sold by wholesale), and includes any of the following:

(a) bulky goods premises,

(b) cellar door premises,

(c) food and drink premises,

(d) garden centres,

(e) hardware and building supplies,

(f) kiosks,

(g) landscaping material supplies,

(h) markets,

(i) plant nurseries,

(j) roadside stalls,

(k) rural supplies,

(l) shops,

(m) timber yards,

(n) vehicle sales or hire premises,

but does not include highway service centres, service stations, industrial retail outlets or restricted premises.

Note.

Retail premises are a type of commercial premises - see the definition of that term in this Dictionary.

Hotel or motel accommodation, restaurant or café and retail premises are permissible within the B3 Commercial Core zone with the consent of Council.

The objectives of the B3 Commercial Core are:

· To provide a wide range of retail, business, office, entertainment, community and other suitable land uses that serve the needs of the local and wider community.

· To encourage appropriate employment opportunities in accessible locations.

· To maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.

· To promote development that contributes to the role of the Orange CBD as the primary retail and business centre in the City and region.

It is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the B3 Commercial Core zone. In particular, the proposed development is considered to be a suitable land use which would serve the needs of the local and wider community; encourage appropriate employment opportunities in an accessible location; and promote development that contributes to the role of the Orange CBD as the primary retail and business centre of the City and region.

Clause 2.6 - Subdivision - Consent Requirements

Clause 2.6 triggers the need for development consent for the subdivision of land. Additionally, the clause prohibits subdivision of land on which a secondary dwelling is situated if the subdivision would result in the principal and secondary dwellings being located on separate lots if either of those lots are below the minimum lot size applying to the land.

The proposed development involves a 44 lot Strata subdivision which corresponds with the floor layout of the 44 apartments.

The proposal does not involve a secondary dwelling.

Clause 2.7 - Demolition Requires Development Consent

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

The proposed development involves the demolition of the former Central Western Daily building, which is now vacant.

Part 4 - Principal Development Standards

Clause 4.3 - Height of Buildings

This clause limits the height of buildings (HoB) on land identified on the Height of Buildings Map. The subject land is identified on the map as having a HoB limit of 16m.

The maximum height of the proposed development is generally associated with the utilities and services located on the roof of the proposed development. A review of these utilities and services identified that the height of each was below 16m when compared with the corresponding contour line below, with the exception of the air conditioning condenser with the RL 878.85 which had a maximum height of 16.1m. The applicant subsequently submitted amended plans to address this issue.

Clause 4.4 - Floor Space Ratio

This clause limits the floor space ratio (FSR) permitted on land identified on the Floor Space Ratio Map. Clause 4.5 is associated with this clause and establishes the rules for calculating the site area and FSR of any proposal. These rules exclude certain parts of a site and development such as:

· excluding any part of the site upon which the development is prohibited (I if the site is split zoned only the zone in which the development is permissible may be considered)

· excluding community land and most public places

· lots in a strata scheme wholly or partly above other lots in the scheme do not increase the site area (ie the site area is the ground level of the scheme only)

· adjoining lots in the same ownership do not form part of the site area unless significant parts of the development are proposed on that land

· the floor area of existing buildings is to be included in the FSR calculation

· any covenant restricting floor space on the lot, due to floor space having been considered as part of the development of another lot, is to be taken into account.

The subject land is identified as having an FSR of 2:1. The site area has been calculated under Clause 4.5 as 2,898m²using a plan of consolidation prepared for the subject property, meaning the site may have up to 5,796m² of floor space.

The proposal, minus the exclusions detailed in Clause 4.5, has been calculated as having a gross floor area in the order of 4,676m² and is therefore consistent with the FSR requirements.

Notably, the applicant has indicated that the proposed development would have a gross floor area of 4,771m², being approximately 100m²greater than the area calculated by Council staff. Regardless, the gross floor area as calculated by the applicant is also consistent with the FSR requirement.

Part 5 - Miscellaneous Provisions

5.10 - Heritage Conservation

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

While the subject property is not identified as a heritage item and is not located within a heritage conservation area, it is located adjacent to the former Canobolas Shire Council Chambers (now the Kite Street Specialist Centre) (Heritage Item I149) at 126-130 Kite Street and the Great Western Hotel (Heritage Item I230) at 145-147 Peisley Street, Orange. The subject property is also located adjacent to the southern periphery of the Central Orange Heritage Conservation Area (Figure 11).

Figure 11: heritage context plan (subject property identified by heavy red line and star)

As the subject property is not a heritage item and is not located within a heritage conservation area, consent is not required pursuant to Clause 5.10(2) Requirement for consent. However, pursuant to Clause 5.10(5) heritage assessment Council may require the submission of a heritage conservation management plan before granting consent to any development on land that is in the vicinity of a heritage item or heritage conservation area.

Given that the subject property adjoins two heritage items and is adjacent to the Central Orange Heritage Conservation Area, Council staff considered it appropriate to refer the development application to Council’s appointed Heritage/Urban Design Advisor for his assessment and recommendations. A copy of the Heritage/Urban Design Advisor’s comments are attached to this report.

It is noted that during the assessment of the proposed development Council adopted the Orange Development Control Plan 2004 Infill Guidelines (the ‘guidelines’), which apply to land within heritage conservation areas or which adjoins heritage items. Given that the subject property is located between two heritage items, the guidelines would apply to the proposed development.

Notably, the development application was accompanied by an assessment against the Office of Environment and Heritage’s Design in Context - Guidelines for Infill Development in the Historic Environment design criteria, addressing issues such as character, scale, form, siting, materials and colours. The design criteria of the Design in Context document form the basis of Council’s recently adopted guidelines. Council’s Heritage/Urban Design Advisor has advised that the assessment provided is the appropriate form of heritage management document in this circumstance.

Council’s Heritage/Urban Design Advisor has considered the proposed development with regard to the applicable planning controls as well as the OEH and Council infill guidelines. With specific regard to the Council guidelines, the Heritage/Urban Design Advisor has indicated that the proposed development is suitable in its context for the following reasons:

1. Character

a. The proposal is an infill in the streetscape between the Hotel and the former Council building. The provision of a defined base, mid-section and top provides a traditional reference to the buildings in the vicinity

b. The screens reference verandahs and provide depth and shading to the street elevations

c. The setbacks are appropriate for the commercial uses and location where boundary development is common.

2. Scale and form

a. While the building is higher than the neighbours the scaling references and screens mitigate this impact

b. The form addresses the street corner where the height and corner details are appropriate.

3. Siting

a. The setbacks are appropriate for both street frontages. The ends of the two wings address the proximity of the adjoining sites and proximity of the listed buildings.

4. Materials and colour

a. Subject to revised architectural drawings and the samples requested, the materials and colour scheme relates to the main colours and tones used in the streetscape. The use of darker and deeper tones will allow the traditional buildings and heritage items to remain dominant.

b. The screen materials will mitigate the bulk and character by providing depth and shade across the facades. They will interpret traditional verandahs in a suitable contemporary manner while mitigating the use of glass.

c. The use of a suitable stone will interpret the traditional local use of basalt at the ground floor level.

5. Detailing

a. The screen details will mitigate the bulk and character by providing depth to the two facades – one which is opposite the Conservation Area. They will interpret traditional verandahs in a suitable contemporary manner.

In summary, the Heritage/Urban Design Advisor has provided the following advice and recommendations:

Summary

The consultants have generally adopted directions and the advice offered in relation to design issues associated with meeting the issues required within the LEP, DCP , the DCP Infill guidelines and the Design in Context guide.

Generally the proposals presented in the Drawings will complement the heritage significance of the existing listed heritage item and the streetscape within the conservation area subject to the amendments to the drawings and the materials requested being provided and approved.

Recommendations

· Steel perforated or louvred metal screens around the North, West and East sides of the roof mounted units and similar to their height in Windspray colour are recommended to provide a suitable roof form, character and appearance;

· The finishes and materials noted are to be submitted and approved with the DA;

· Steel and metal screens are to be provided to the two sets of elevations to unify the Kite Street and McNamara Street elevations and the balcony/balustrade details so as to present a consistent character to the streetscapes which are in the vicinity of the conservation area and listed heritage items.

Given that Council’s Heritage/Urban Design Advisor recommended that detailed finishes and materials were to be submitted and approved with the proposed development, Council staff requested that the applicant provide a complete materials board including examples of actual external materials and complete colour schedule.

Council’s Heritage/Urban Design Adviser has inspected the materials board and indicated that the samples of the paint colours for the sheet materials, the balustrade glass and stainless steel framing, and aluminium louvres are acceptable. However, the samples presented for the two stone areas on the external walls to both streets and the aluminium window framing are not consistent with earlier advice nor with the DCP guide for Heritage: complementing the heritage significance of the Conservation Area. In particular, the Heritage/Urban Design Adviser stated the following:

“The stone samples are not acceptable as they provide a product which are by their nature a thin tile and will appear as a tile. The original design intent and the appearance shown on the November drawings of the two Street Elevations was of a stone and not a tile. It is a design principle in heritage practice that replica products are not supported. This principle has been used to guide the advice for both the stone and aluminium. It is consistent with heritage advice provided by Council for similar projects where there is an impact on Heritage values and significance.

There are alternatives which are genuine stone in a suitable colour, texture and laying style which will complement this substantial building in a prominent location. There are two aluminium finishes which are similar in colour with lifespan expectations beyond the wood grain finishes.”

Council’s Heritage/Urban Design Advisor subsequently recommended that performance based conditions be applied in order to ensure that appropriate external finishes will be used on the development, including:

· The stone shown as D on the Elevations is to be used to clad the external walls on the ground floor of the two street elevations and is to be a genuine stone product, similar to Basalt in colour with a traditional Rough finish, laid in a traditional Random ashlar pattern and tight 10-15mm joints to be provided with recessed pointing darker than the stone;

· The stone shown as E is used to clad the base plinth on both street elevations and is to be similar to Basalt in colour but fully dressed on the exposed faces, laid in a traditional Random coursed ashlar pattern with a Honed finish and tight 10-15mm joints with recessed pointing darker than the stone;

· The aluminium framing to the doors and windows is to have an anodised Light Bronze colour by AWS or equal or a powdercoated finish similar to Dulux Wheatmeal

A copy of the Heritage/Urban Design Advisor’s supplementary comments are also attached to this report.

Based on this advice, including the Heritage/Urban Design Advisor’s full report, it is recommended that conditions of consent be applied requiring that:

· amended architectural plans must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate showing steel perforated or louvered metal screens around the north, west and east sides of the roof mounted units and equivalent to their height in Windspray;

· amended architectural plans must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate showing steel and metal screens to all balconies and balustrades; and

· amended architectural plans must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate which include a notation on the plan requiring horizontal ruled nominal 5mm joints at floor, window sill and window headlines.

Following a further discussion with Council’s Heritage/Urban Design Advisor, it is also recommended that a further condition of consent be applied requiring that the proposed 1.8m high Colorbond fence around the perimeter of the subject property be replaced with a 1.8m high lapped and capped hardwood timber fence.

Part 7 - Additional Local Provisions

7.1 - Earthworks

This clause establishes a range of matters that must be considered prior to granting development consent for any application involving earthworks, such as:

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

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

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

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

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

(f) the likelihood of disturbing relics

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

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

The architectural plans submitted with the development application indicate that the extent of earthworks associated with the proposed development are in the order of +/- 1m of cut and fill from the existing ground level (EGL).

The earthworks are considered minor and ancillary to the proposed development and are unlikely to have a detrimental impact with regard to the foregoing matters.

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

The proposed development has been designed to minimise the impacts of stormwater on the subject property and adjoining properties. In particular, this is to be achieved by utilising existing stormwater infrastructure which services the subject property. Council’s Development Engineer has confirmed that the proposed method of stormwater management is appropriate.

7.6 - Groundwater Vulnerability

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

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

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

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

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

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

7.11 Essential Services

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

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

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

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

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

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

While the subject property was historically used for residential purpose, as verified by Council’s historic photos and other research (Edwards 2011, A gentleman of the inky Way – Orange through Joe Glassons Looking Glass) it has contained the Central Western Daily office and printery since the mid 1960s.

While an office and printery are not uses listed in Table 1 of the SEPP 55 Planning Guidelines, paper and printing works which include commercial printeries with significant stores of ink and solvents are considered to be a potentially contaminating land use.

Accordingly, Council staff undertook a review of the site history and internal inspection of the existing building to determine the likelihood of the subject property being contaminated. The review of the site’s history identified that the existing building is the original building purpose built to house the Central Western Daily offices and printery. However, it is noted that there have been a number of modifications and extensions since its original construction.

The internal inspection of the subject property identified that those areas housing the printing equipment were in good condition and unlikely to have allowed any significant penetration of contaminating substances into the soil profile below the building. The existing condition of the floor in areas likely to have housed printing equipment is demonstrated in Figures 12-14 below.

Figure 12: condition of floor surface

Figure 13: condition of floor surface Figure 14: condition of floor surface

Further, during the assessment of the proposed development, Council staff identified a Phase 1 and 2 Environmental Site Assessment and Underground Storage Tank In Situ Validation Report for the subject property within Council’s records. The report had been provided to Council in November 2014.

Notably, the report identified that the primary risks of site contamination were associated with the historical printing operations as discussed above, and a former underground storage tank and bowser. The report notes that the underground storage tank located adjacent to the southern wall of the building was decommissioned by extracting residual oily water from the tank and filling the tank with concrete slurry.

Based on the findings of the Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment and in situ decommissioning and validation of the underground storage tank, the consultant indicated that the potential risk of site contamination is low and that the site is suitable for ongoing “commercial/industrial” land use.

The Contamination Central Contaminated Land Quick Reference Guide defines a commercial/industrial scenario as:

“Typical commercial or light industrial properties, consisting of single or multistorey buildings where work areas on the ground floor (constructed on a ground level slab) or above surface structures (such as a basement car parks or storage areas).

Adult employees, who are largely involved in office-based or light indoor industrial activities. The employees who are most susceptible to health risks associated with volatile soil contaminants are the employees who work in offices on the ground floor, as the greatest potential for vapour intrusion occurs with workspaces immediately overlying contaminated soil.

The outdoor areas of the commercial/industrial facilities are largely covered by hardstand, with some limited areas of landscaping or lawns and facilities. Employees may make use of outdoor areas of the commercial/industrial premises for activities such as meal breaks. Opportunities for direct access to soil by employees using these facilities are likely to be minimal, but there may be potential for employees to inhale, ingest or come into direct skin contact with dust particulates derived from the soil on the site.”

Given that the ground floor of the proposed development would comprise a café, retail tenancy and other uses associated with the hotel, and that all apartments would be located on the upper levels, it is considered that commercial/industrial is the most appropriate characterisation of the proposed use.

While it is clear that the subject property is not likely to be contaminated, it is considered prudent to apply a precautionary condition of consent requiring that if any previously unidentified contamination is identified during works, the works must cease and an appropriate resolution must be achieved in consultation with Council. Any necessary remediation works may require additional development consent.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

Traffic-generating Development

State Environmental Planning Policy (infrastructure) 2007 Section 104 Traffic-generating development requires that written notice of an application for traffic-generating development must be provided to Roads and Maritime Services. The application was subsequently referred to the RMS.

The RMS has provided Council with a written response indicating that it does not object to the proposed development and makes no submission.

Other matters required to be considered under Section 104 Traffic-generating development, such as the efficiency of movement of people and freight to and from the site, the extent of multi-purpose trips, potential traffic safety, road congestion and parking implications, are addressed in the body of this report.

Other Development

State Environmental Planning Policy (infrastructure) 2007 Section 45 Determination of development applications – other development requires that written notice of development that may penetrate ground within 2m of an underground electricity power line must be given to the electricity supply authority for the area. The application was subsequently referred to Essential Energy.

Essential Energy provided Council with a written response indicating that it has no objection to the development subject to conditions of consent. These conditions have been incorporated into the attached draft notice of consent.

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

There are no draft environmental planning instruments that apply to the subject land or proposed development.

DESIGNATED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development is not designated development.

PROVISIONS OF ANY DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN s79C(1)(a)(iii)

Development Control Plan 2004

Development Control Plan 2004 (“the DCP”) applies to the subject land. Chapters of the DCP relevant to the proposed use and development include:

· Chapter 0 - Transitional Provisions;

· Chapter 2 - Natural Resource Management;

· Chapter 3 - General Considerations;

· Chapter 4 - Special Environmental Considerations;

· Chapter 5 - General Considerations for Zones and Development;

· Chapter 8 - Development in Business Zones;

· Chapter 13 - Heritage; and

· Chapter 15 - Car Parking.

CHAPTER 0 - TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

Section 0.2 - General Translation of Zones

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

The table identifies that the B3 Commercial Core zone corresponds with the 3A Regional Centre zone for the purposes of the DCP.

Chapter 2 - Natural Resource Management

Section2.1 - Water Quality

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

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

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

Section 2.2 - Soil Resources

Section 2.2 - Soil Resources identifies that soil characteristics influence land use and development capability, including the suitability for building footings, onsite waste disposal, road engineering and drainage.

Council’s Technical Services Division has recommended a condition of consent requiring that the development is to be constructed in accordance with Council’s Development and Subdivision Code.

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

CHAPTER 3 - GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

Section 3.1 - Cumulative Impacts

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

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

Section 3.2 - Scenic, Landscape and Urban Areas

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

Landscaping has predominately been proposed in the form of street trees along the Kite Street and McNamara Street frontages.

Council’s Manager City Presentation has indicated support for the proposed street trees and has provided recommended conditions of consent in relation to the location of the proposed street trees and tree species (Fraxinus ‘Raywood’ - Claret Ash).

Council’s Manager City Presentation has also recommended a condition of consent requiring a Tree Protection Zone to be implemented to protect the mature Eucalypt located in the north-western corner of the adjoining property at 145-147 Peisley Street (the Great Western Hotel) during construction works, particularly the realignment of the sewer line.

Council’s Heritage/Urban Design Advisor has indicated that the proposed development will complement the heritage significance of the existing listed heritage item and the streetscape subject to the recommendations previously discussed.

Section 3.4 - Waste Generation

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

While a Waste Management Plan has not been submitted with the development application, the applicant has indicated that a waste management plan would be submitted prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Council’s Building Surveyor has indicated that this is an appropriate outcome and has recommended conditions of consent requiring a waste management plan to be prepared prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

CHAPTER 4 - SPECIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

Section 4.1 - Sewage Disposal

Section 4.1 - Sewage Disposal identifies that urban development must be connected to a sewerage system approved by Council prior to occupation. For the purposes of this clause, urban development includes all development within residential, business and industrial zones (and associated open space and special use zones).

Council’s Development Engineer has advised that appropriate sewerage services can be connected to the proposed development. An assessment of sewer and headwork charges applicable to the proposed development is provided in the body of this report.

Section 4.3 - Land Shaping

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

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

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

Section 4.4 - Contaminated Land

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

The relevant matters have previously been addressed under the heading State “Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land”.

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

CHAPTER 5 - GENERAL CONSIDERATION FOR ZONES AND DEVELOPMENT

Section 5.3 - Advertised Development

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

While the proposed development is not categorised as advertised development, Council’s Development Services Division determined to advertise the development application in the public interest given the scale of the proposed development and location of the subject property adjacent to a number of heritage items and the Central Orange Heritage Conservation Area.

Accordingly, the development application was advertised on Saturday, 21 January 2017 and exhibited between Monday, 23 January and Monday, 6 February 2017.

At the end of that period six written submissions were received. A detailed assessment of the issues raised by the submitters is provided under the heading “Any Submissions Made in Accordance with the Act”.

CHAPTER 8 - DEVELOPMENT IN BUSINESS ZONES

Section 8.1 - Orange CBD

Section 8.1 - Orange CBD outlines planning outcomes for the Orange Central Business District, with an emphasis on design, character, parking and loading. The relevant planning outcomes are addressed below.

· Buildings have a high level of urban design to contribute to the regional status of the City’s Central Business District with attention given to façade features, external materials, colour and advertising.

Given the scale of the proposed development, the prominent location of the subject property within the Orange CBD and the relationship to nearby heritage items and heritage conservation area, Council staff considered it appropriate to refer the development application to Councils Heritage/Urban Design Advisor for his assessment and recommendations.

A copy of the Heritage/Urban Design Advisor’s comments are attached to this report with the summary and recommendations reproduced under the heading “5.10 - Heritage Conservation”.

In particular, it is noted that Council’s appointed Heritage/Urban Design Advisor has assessed the proposed development against Council’s recently adopted Orange Development Control Plan 2004 Infill Guidelines. In summary, the Heritage/Urban Design Advisor considers that the proposed development has provided a suitable response to each of the applicable design criteria, including character, scale and form, siting, materials and colours, and detailing.

Based on the advice and recommendations provided by Council’s Heritage/Urban Design Advisor, it is considered that the proposed development has been appropriately designed with regard to the site’s context within the Orange CBD, subject to meeting the recommended conditions of consent.

· Urban design demonstrates a clear reference to the CBD Strategic Action Plan.

The Orange Central Business District Strategic Action Plan 2003 (the ‘Strategic Action Plan’) seeks to provide a long term strategy to address a broad range of issues affecting the CBD.

In general, the Strategic Action Plan identifies the subject property as forming a tertiary street retail area at the southern periphery of the CBD (Figure 15). Key themes of the Strategic Action Plan relevant to the subject property include access and movement, built form and heritage, and landscape and public domain.

Figure 15: Orange Central Business District Strategic Action Plan - Structure Plan (Land Use)

Access and Movement

In terms of access and movement, the proposed development is considered to be consistent with the Strategic Action Plan as the ground level will incorporate a continuous awning over the Kite Street footpath, protecting against sun and rain; and the activated frontage to Kite Street and McNamara Street and street trees will make a positive contribution to the streetscape.

Built Form and Heritage

With regard to built form, the proposed development is considered to be consistent with the Strategic Action Plan insofar as the ground level will provide an active frontage to Kite and McNamara Streets, with the combination of materials and architectural features achieving a suitably articulated façade.

Landscape and Public Domain

The proposed development is consistent with the landscape and public domain objectives of the Strategic Action Plan as it would provide for the extension of existing street trees within Kite Street.

· Provision of adequate fire-safety measures and facilities for disabled persons (according to the BCA) are addressed at the application stage (relevant for all development but particularly important where converting residential buildings for business use).

Council’s Building Surveyor has commented that further detail would be required at the Construction Certificate stage to determine compliance with the BCA.

· Land use complements the role of the CBD as a regional centre for commerce and services.

The proposed development is considered to be complementary to the role of the CBD as a regional centre is it will make a substantial contribution to the existing supply of tourist and visitor accommodation within Orange.

· The reinstatement of verandahs on posts over footpaths is encouraged.

Given that the proposal involves the construction of a new building, the foregoing outcome is not considered applicable.

· Car parking is provided to meet demand either as onsite parking areas or through contributions towards public parking in and adjacent to the CBD.

Section 15.4 - Parking Requirements sets out the minimum parking requirements for specific land uses. A detailed assessment against the requirements of Section 15.4 is undertaken below.

· Advertising comprises business identification signs in accordance with SEPP 64.

No advertising signs have been proposed. It is anticipated that a separate application for advertising will be lodged once the applicant has entered into an agreement with a primary tenant for the hotel.

· Loading areas are provided for developments requiring access by large trucks in a manner that doesn’t reduce active frontages for important pedestrian pathways.

The applicant has proposed an internal loading/service area which will effectively be a shared space with the car park. Council’s Development Engineer has indicated that this is an acceptable outcome as the loading area would typically only be accessed by small rigid vehicles and that any cars using the affected spaces could be moved by hotel staff if necessary.

Notwithstanding the internal loading/service area, waste collection will need to be undertaken directly from McNamara Street. A condition of consent will be applied regarding the storage of garbage bins and a private service agreement with Council’s waste provider.

· Where possible, new buildings or external alterations in the CBD include an element of landscaping.

Landscaping associated with the proposed development is principally the extension of existing street trees in Kite Street and commencement of street trees in McNamara Street. Council’s Heritage/Urban Design advisor has commented that while other peripheral landscaping, such as planter boxes, are not necessarily required, they are acceptable in this circumstance.

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

CHAPTER 13 - HERITAGE

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

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

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

CHAPTER 15 - CAR PARKING

Section 15.1 - Background, Section 15.2 - Objectives and Section 15.3 - Relationship Between On-Street and Off-Street Car Parking

Sections 15.1-15.3 of Chapter 15 - Car Parking set out the background, objectives and relationship between on-street and off-street car parking in Orange. In particular, these sections highlight the importance of making provision for car parking in order that the demand for parking in the City is met and ensuring that the design and layout of car parking facilitates the safe and effective use of off-street parking.

The appropriate assessment of car parking requirements is addressed under the following sections.

Section 15.4 - Parking Requirements

Section 15.4 - Parking Requirements sets out the minimum parking requirements for specific land uses.

Background

The provision of off-street car parking spaces is a key issue for consideration in the assessment of this application. Notably, during the assessment process the applicant has submitted three separate car parking plans to address concerns raised by Council staff, including an original plan for 52 off-street car parking spaces, a revised plan for 77 off-street car parking spaces and the final plan which forms part of the proposed development being considered for 80 off-street car parking spaces. The provision of an additional 28 car parking spaces from the original plan for 52 car parking marks a significant effort by the applicant to address the concerns of Council staff.

While the applicant has been able to make amendments to the proposed development to substantially increase the number of off-street car parking spaces to be provided, the current design relies on the use of ‘tandem’ and ‘valet’ style car parking spaces, which would effectively require hotel staff to undertake all parking operations once the hotel reaches a certain occupancy. If the ‘tandem’ and ‘valet’ style car parking spaces were to be removed from the current car parking plan, the number of spaces provided would be reduced to 55.

In February 2017, the City of Orange Traffic Development Committee considered the proposed development and commented that it does not accept the concept of ‘tandem’ and ‘valet’ style car parking spaces. In this regard, it is noted that Council’s Development Services Division is unaware of any other existing car park within the Orange CBD which is of a similar scale and relies upon ‘tandem’ and ‘valet’ style car parking spaces. However, similar arrangements are not uncommon in a metropolitan environment where land constraints demand a higher car parking yield. Further, Council’s Development Engineer has indicated that the proposed car parking arrangement, including the use of ‘tandem’ and ‘valet’ style car parking spaces, is acceptable.

The detailed operation of the tandem’ and ‘valet’ style car parking spaces is outlined under Section 15.5 - Parking Area Design and Layout.

It is open to Council to determine whether or not tandem’ and ‘valet’ style car parking spaces should be supported with these considerations in mind.

Car Parking Demand

Section 15.4 - Parking Requirements sets out the minimum parking requirements for hotel or motel accommodation, restaurants, and shops within the Orange Central Business District.

Council staff have calculated the likely demand for off-street car parking based on the following:

· The proposed hotel comprises 44 apartments in a combination of one bedroom (one), two bedroom (40), and three bedroom (three) apartments. However, 33 of the two bedroom apartments have been designed in a manner which allows for each room to be accessed separately as a one bedroom apartment, allowing for a maximum capacity of 77 apartments.

· The applicant has indicated that the facilities ancillary to the hotel, including the conference room, business lounge and gym are intended for hotel guests only and would not generate any additional demand for car parking spaces. This approach is accepted subject to the use of these areas being restricted to hotel guests only as a condition of consent.

· In addition to the hotel, the mixed use development includes a café of 225m² and one leasable retail area of 66m². While the café would be available to the general public, the supporting material submitted with the development application indicates that it is largely intended to service hotel guests.

Section 15.4 - Parking Requirements sets out the following minimum car parking requirements:

Hotel or Motel Accommodation

· 1 space per unit/bedroom/tent or caravan site

· 1 space for every 3 beds (hostel accommodation)

· + 1 space for each resident manager

· + 1 space for every 2 employees

· + 1 space for every 3 seats in the restaurant

· + 1 space per 10m² of entertainment or function room areas.

Restaurants in the CBD

· 1 space per 40m² of GFA

Shops and Shopping Centres

· Within the CBD - 4.1 spaces/100m² GLFA

Notably, the foregoing provisions identify that there is a separate car parking requirement for a restaurant associated with hotel or motel accommodation as opposed to a restaurant in the CBD which is not associated with another use. Depending on the size of the restaurant and the number of seats available, this may result in a substantially different requirement for off-street car parking spaces.

Given that all other recently approved restaurants in the Orange CBD have been subject to the requirement for 1 space per 40m² of GFA, it seems logical that the same rate should be applied in this case as there seems to be no obvious or logical reason to apply the requirement based on seating numbers. Notwithstanding, the requirement for off-street car parking spaces generated under both requirements is presented below:

Hotel or Motel Accommodation

· 77 units = 77 car parking spaces

· 1 resident manager = 1 car parking space

· 4 full time employees = 2 car parking spaces

· 65 restaurant seats = 21.6 (22) car parking spaces^*

Restaurants in the CBD

· 225.08m² of GFA = 5.6 (6) car parking spaces^*

Shops and Shopping Centres

· 66² GLFA = 2.7(3) car parking spaces

^*Indicates interchangeable car parking requirements

Based on the foregoing, it is considered that the proposed development would generate a requirement for a total of 105 off-street car parking spaces if calculating the car parking requirement for the café based on seating numbers, or 89 off-street car parking spaces if calculating the car parking requirement for the café based on GFA.

As previously discussed, given that all other recently approved restaurants in the Orange CBD have been subject to the requirement for 1 space per 40m² of GFA, it is recommended that this rate be applied and that the proposed development be assessed as generating a requirement for 89 car parking spaces. The proposed development would therefore have a shortfall of 9 car parking spaces.

However, if Council were not of a view to support the proposed ‘tandem’ and ‘valet’ style car parking arrangement, the proposed development would have a shortfall in the order of 34 car parking spaces.

In addition to the foregoing assessment, it is noted that the introduction of additional street trees to Kite Street and McNamara Street and the realignment of the existing ingress and egress would likely result in the net loss of 1 on-street car parking space.

While the current proposed plan provides for 80 car parking spaces, the most recent traffic and parking assessment relates to the car park layout which provided for 77 off-street car parking spaces and has sought to allocate off-street car parking spaces on the following basis:

Use Type	Units/GFA/Staff	DCP Rate	Min Spaces	Spaces Provided
Hotel	77 units	1 per unit	77	71
	1 manager	1 per unit	1	1
	4 staff	1 per 2 staff	2	2
Retail	66m²	4.1 per 100m²	2.7(3)	3
			83	77

The current proposed plan which provides for 80 car parking spaces allocates 3 car parking spaces to hotel staff, with the remaining 77 assumed to be allocated to hotel guests.

Notably, the applicant has not sought to allocate any off-street car parking spaces to account for the proposed café which will be open to the public, on the basis that customers are likely to be in the vicinity for reasons other than visiting the café and that this type of multi trip destination does not generate additional car parking requirements.

If Council is willing to support the proposed ‘tandem’ and ‘valet’ style car parking arrangement, it is considered that the shortfall of 9 off-street car parking spaces could adequately be addressed via conditions of consent requiring a contribution in lieu of the physical provision of car parking spaces. In accordance with the Orange Car Parking Development Contributions Plan 2015, a contribution of $14,064.35 would be applied to account for each off-street car parking spaces not provided onsite (ie a total of $126,579.15 to account for 9 car parking spaces).

However, if Council is not willing to accept the proposed tandem’ and ‘valet’ style car parking arrangement, the shortfall of 34 car parking spaces could not simply be rectified by via a condition of consent requiring a contribution in lieu of the physical provision of car parking spaces.

In particular, it is noted that the Orange Car Parking Development Contributions Plan 2015 precludes car parking contributions being offered by the developer or required by Council for car parking associated with tourist or visitor accommodation because Council considers that it is inappropriate that those using these development should have to park in public areas physically removed from the development.

As such, a condition of consent could not be applied requiring that a contribution be required to account for each off-street car parking space required for the accommodation aspect of the proposed hotel which is not provided onsite. This would amount to a significant departure from Orange DCP 2004 and likely result in an unacceptable environmental impact.

As previously stated, it is open to Council to determine whether or not tandem’ and ‘valet’ style car parking spaces should be supported in this instance.

If Council is willing to accept the proposed tandem’ and ‘valet’ style car parking arrangement, it is considered that the foregoing approach is appropriate on the basis that Council research indicates that proximate public car parks, such as the Ophir Car Park, are underutilised. Other public car parks are also proximate to the subject property.

In particular, it is noted that Council’s Orange CBD Car Parking Study Final Report, dated 10 April 2015, identified that the Ophir Car Park (217 car parking spaces) has been surveyed as having maximum weekday occupancy of 56% and a maximum weekend occupancy of 21%, representing low usage of a Council car park. While it is noted that these figures may have changed since the report was prepared, surveys by Council staff during the assessment process identified a maximum occupancy in the order of 40%, consistent with the findings of the report. Given that the Ophir Car Park is located within 200m of the subject property, it is considered to be highly accessible to the subject property and the local street network.

It is noted that the introduction of additional street trees to Kite Street and McNamara Street and the realignment of the existing ingress and egress would likely result in the net loss of one on-street car parking space. It is considered that the net loss of one existing on‑street car parking space can also be accounted for within Council’s underutilised car parks.

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

Section 15.5 - Parking Area Design and Layout

Section 15.5 - Parking Design and Layout identifies that the design and layout of parking areas are to comply with the applicable Australian Standard.

It is noted that the operation of the proposed car parking layout would rely on the use of a ‘tandem’ and ‘valet’ style parking system depending on the occupancy of the hotel.

While Council’s Development Engineer has indicated that the proposed ‘tandem’ and ‘valet’ style car parking would not meet the applicable Australian Standard, he has confirmed that such an arrangement is a common method of maximising the capacity of a private car park and that the design is acceptable. The implications of the ‘tandem’ and ‘valet’ style car parking spaces and Council’s options have been set out in the foregoing ”Section 15.4 - Parking Requirements”.

While the proposed development being considered provides for 80 off-street car parking spaces, the most recent traffic and parking assessment outlines a car park management plan which relates to the car parking plan which provided for 77 car parking spaces:

Mode A

In Mode A, up to 44 units are occupied and the car and the car park will operate in a standard car park procedure, with hotel residents allocated (1) space per room.

The spaces used in this mode are 1, 3, 5,7 to 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 31 to 48 and 55 to 66.

Mode B

In Mode B, between 45 and 58 units are occupied and the nine (9) tandem spaces will be utilised for units operating as dual key. These are often occupied by ‘related’ residents. There are an additional 5 single spaces allocated to dual key units occupied by ‘non related’ residents.

The tandem spaces allocated to the ‘related’ dual key occupants are 1 to 6 and 18 to 29.

Mode C

In Mode C, 59 to 77 units are occupied and the 11 ‘valet’ style spaces (spaces 67 to 77) will be utilised. Subsequently, a valet system will be implemented to manage the parking provision.

Once allocated a room(and parking space), hotel residents allocated parking spaces 14 to 77 will proceed to space 67, where they will park and give their car keys to the valet. The valet will then park the car in the allocated space and securely store the key.

When exiting the hotel, the valet will bring the residents car to the exit driveway (adjacent to space 30) and return the car to the residents for them to exit the parking facility.

In mode C, should Quest staff require access or egress to their parking spaces (spaces 52 to 54), they will also utilise the valet system.

Retail staff spaces (49 to 51) are accessible at all times (as reverse in only spaces), regardless of the mode of operation.

As discussed previously, should all 77 rooms be occupied, 6 vehicles will be required to utilise on-street parking in the vicinity of the site.

On the basis that the applicant has provided a car park management plan and that Council’s Development Engineer has indicated that the car park layout it is satisfactory, it is considered that the proposed ‘tandem’ and ‘valet’ style car parking spaces could be supported.

Notwithstanding, it is noted that in February 2017, the City of Orange Traffic Development Committee considered the proposed development and commented that it does not accept the concept of ‘tandem’ and ‘valet’ style car parking spaces.

It is open to Council to determine whether or not ‘tandem’ and ‘valet’ style car parking spaces should be supported in this instance.

In this case it is recommended that Council support the proposed ‘tandem’ and ‘valet’ style car parking spaces subject to the following recommended conditions of consent:

· A revised car parking management plan be provided prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate accounting for the 80 car parking spaces provided;

· The revised car parking management plan allocate 77 car parking spaces to the accommodation component of the proposed hotel, with one car parking space to be allocated to each of the 77 units; and

· The revised car parking management plan provide an appropriate methodology for each car park to be accessed regardless of the occupancy of the hotel or relationship between the users of dual keyed rooms (ie all ‘tandem’ and ‘valet’ car parking spaces must be accessible to hotel occupants at all times via the valet parking system).

Section 15.6 - Parking Area Construction

Section 15.6 - Off-Street Car Parking sets out the following planning outcomes:

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

The requirements for off-street car parking have previously been addressed under “Section 15.4 - Car Parking Requirements”.

· Car parking areas are designed according to Australian Standard.

The implications of the ‘tandem’ and ‘valet’ style car parking spaces and Council’s options have been set out in the foregoing “Section 15.4 - Parking Requirements”.

· Car park areas include adequate lighting and landscaping (preferably deciduous shade trees), which provides for the personal security of users.

All off-street car parking will be provided internally on the ground level of the proposed development. While it is likely that a prospective developer would ensure that adequate lighting is provided, a condition of consent is recommended requiring that lighting be provided for the personal security of users.

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

The architectural plans provide bicycle parking facilities for three bikes. Based on the number of hotel units and likely employee numbers, it is considered that the proposed development is likely to generate a demand for facilities for 4 bicycles (ie 4.15 approximately.)

Given that the applicant has made substantial changes to the proposed car park in order to accommodate an additional 28 car parking spaces to the original proposal, it is considered that, on balance, the reduction of bicycle parking facilities for one bicycle is acceptable.

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

Council’s Development Engineer has indicated while the proposed internal loading area has been designed to utilise two ‘valet’ style car parking spaces. This arrangement would be satisfactory until such time as the affected car parking spaces were required.

Notwithstanding, Council’s Development Engineer has commented that a dedicated loading facility would not actually be required as delivery activities would only occur for short periods, having a negligible impact on the operation of the car park.

Council’s Development Engineer has confirmed that the proposed ‘tandem’ and ‘valet’ style car parking system would not limit access through the car park by a service vehicle.

SECTION 64 WATER AND SEWER HEADWORKS CHARGES

Section 64 water and sewer headwork charges are applicable to the proposal. Such charges are calculated at the time of release of a Construction Certificate for the proposed development.

Council’s Development Engineer has advised that water and sewer headworks charges are based on Water Directorate rates for the hotel rooms, café and function room, and that contributions are based on 26.75 ETs for water supply headworks and 42.25 ETs for sewerage headworks.

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

Demolition of a Building (clause 92)

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

Fire Safety Considerations (clause 93)

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

Buildings to be Upgraded (clause 94)

The proposal does not involve the rebuilding, alteration, enlargement or extension of an existing building.

BASIX Commitments (clause 97A)

Council’s Building Surveyor has identified that BASIX does not apply to the proposed development, however Section J of the Building Code of Australia will apply and more detail will be required at the Construction Certificate stage.

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

Context and Settings

The subject property is located within the commercial core of the Orange CBD. The area is generally characterised by a mix of commercial businesses, shops, offices restaurants and cafes.

Notably, the planning controls which apply to the subject property (including the zoning (ie B3 Commercial Core), maximum height limit (ie 16 metres), floor space ratio (ie 2:1) and Orange Development Control Plan 2004 planning outcomes for business areas) anticipate that properties such as the subject property will be redeveloped for a more intensive commercial purpose. The proposed development demonstrates compliance with these controls.

While the subject property is not identified as a heritage item and is not located within the Central Orange Heritage Conservation Area, it is noted that the subject property is located adjacent to two heritage items and the southern periphery of the Central Orange Heritage Conservation Area. Given the scale of the proposed development and the prominent location of the subject property with the Orange CBD, staff considered it appropriate to refer the development application to Council’s Heritage/Urban Design Advisor for his assessment and recommendations.

The Heritage/Urban Design Advisor has assessed the proposed development against Council’s recently adopted Orange Development Control Plan 2004 Infill Guidelines and has indicated that the proposed development is suitable in its context subject to meeting recommended conditions of consent. In particular, it is noted that while the Heritage/ Urban Design Advisor has commented that the proposed building would be higher than the neighbouring buildings, the scaling references and screens mitigate the impact and the form addresses the street corner where height and corner details are appropriate. The Heritage/Urban Design Advisor also considers the proposed development to be appropriate with regard to character, siting, materials, colours and details subject to meeting recommended conditions of consent.

While there is potential for residential accommodation within the upper levels of a number of proximate buildings, there appear to be no freestanding dwellings within the immediate vicinity of the subject property. However, it is noted that the owner of the adjoining property at 24 McNamara Street has indicated that while that premises is operated for a business, it should be treated as a dwelling for the purpose of this assessment.

The impact of the proposed development on the property at 24 McNamara Street is discussed in further detail in the body of this report under the heading Any Submissions Made in Accordance with the Act s79c(1)(d). In summary it is considered that the proposed development will have an acceptable impact on the property at 24 McNamara Street.

Access, Transport and Traffic

All written submissions received raised concerns regarding the potential impacts associated with the perceived increased demand for on-street car parking spaces. One submission raised concern regarding the impacts associated with increased vehicle movements.

Car Parking

Car parking has been addressed in detail in the body of this report. In particular, the assessment of the development application identifies that the proposed development would generate a requirement for 89 off-street car parking spaces. While the proposed development would provide for only 80 off-street car parking spaces, it is considered that the shortfall of 9 off-street car parking spaces can be adequately addressed via a condition of consent requiring monetary contributions in lieu of the physical provision of car parking spaces.

If Council is willing to support the proposed ‘tandem’ and ‘valet’ style car parking arrangement, it is considered that this approach is appropriate on the basis that Council research indicates that proximate public car parks, such as the Ophir Car Park, are underutilised.

Traffic

A number of submissions identified that increased traffic flows associated with the proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the operation of the local street network, particularly within McNamara Street.

Analysis submitted by the applicant indicates that the proposed development would typically generate a total of 33 trips during the AM and PM peaks. By comparison, the applicant submits that the former use of the subject property by the Central Western Daily would have generated 26 trips during the AM and PM peaks. Given this analysis, it is considered that an increase of seven vehicle movements during the AM and PMs peak would not have a significantly detrimental impact on the operation of the local street network.

Council’s Development Engineer has indicated that the proposed development will have an acceptable impact in the locality.

Public Domain

The proposed development is likely to a have a positive impact on the public domain of Kite Street and McNamara Street. In particular, this would be achieved by the activation of the Kite Street and McNamara Street frontages.

Utilities

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

Heritage

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

It is considered that an appropriate heritage management document has been prepared and that the design of the proposed development achieves an appropriate response with regard to the significance of the adjoining heritage items and proximate heritage conservation area subject to meeting recommended conditions of consent.

Other Land Resources

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

Water

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

Soils

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

Air and Microclimate

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

Flora and Fauna

A site inspection reveals that the subject property has no biodiversity or habitat value.

Waste

It is recommended that a condition of consent be applied requiring that the applicant enter into a private service agreement with Council’s waste contractor.

Energy

Council’s Environmental Health and Building staff advise that matters in relation to the energy efficiency of the building would be considered by the Principle Certifying Authority at the Construction Certificate stage. In particular a Section J Report would be required.

Noise and Vibration

The architectural plans submitted with the development application indicate that the likely main sources of noise associated with the proposed use and development include traffic, security gate operations, mechanical plant, resident noise, noise generated by patrons leaving the site and service staff.

Council’s Manager Building and Environment (MBE) has advised that a noise assessment has been undertaken with regard to the proximate sensitive receivers, including the residential portion of the Great Western Hotel which adjoins the subject property to the east, and the property to the immediate south at 24 McNamara Street.

It is noted that while 24 McNamara Street is currently used for the purpose of an accountancy business, it is approved for use as a residential dwelling. The circumstances surrounding 24 McNamara Street have previously been noted in this report.

Council’s MBE has advised that the proposed development is required to comply with two State Policies, including the EPA’s Interim Construction Noise Guideline 2009, which relates to noise during the construction of buildings, and the EPA’s NSW Industrial Noise Policy. With regard to these policies, the MBE has made the following comments:

· A major potential source of noise with this development would be the roof top air conditioning units. It is normal at development application stage not to have the size and type of air conditioning unit specifically identified as this is a construction detail. Therefore, at this stage it cannot be determined exactly what noise levels would be emitted from the air conditioning units. Again, however, from experience with similar developments, it is considered that acoustic panelling adjacent to each condenser unit on the roof of the proposed building would provide adequate noise shielding to ensure that compliance with the INP is achieved.

· Other operational noise impacts of the proposed development can adequately be addressed with the inclusion of conditions that require the proponent to develop and comply with an Operational Management Plan. The requirement to develop and comply with such a Plan is standard for such developments, and would ensure the appropriate management of matters such as noise from plant; patrons/pedestrians entering/leaving the site; noise from private areas such as balconies and the BBQ area; waste collection times; delivery times; general access and security gate operations); along with measures to mitigate odours and fumes that could be emitted from the kitchen or waste storage area.

Accordingly, Council’s MBE concludes that the environmental health impacts, including noise arising from the construction and operation of the proposed development, can be adequately mitigated at both the detailed construction design phase and during ongoing operation. Further, it is advised that this conclusion can be made whether or not the building to the south (the accountancy business) is used as a private residence or as a commercial building. As such, there is no objection to the proposed development subject to the recommended conditions of consent being implemented to mitigate noise impacts.

Natural Hazards

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

Technological Hazards

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

Safety, Security and Crime Prevention

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

· Surveillance: The proposed development would benefit from extensive natural surveillance, particularly from the café, outdoor terrace and apartment balconies.

· Access control: While the development would be open to the public, physical and symbolic barriers would generally channel private and public guests to appropriate locations, such as private hotel guests to the reception area and public guests to the café and café terrace.

Further, the ground level car park has been designed as a secure car park with security gates to be recessed within the McNamara Street ingress and Kite Street egress. A condition of consent is also recommended requiring lighting to be provided within the car park to ensure the safety of all users.

· Territoriality: The private and public spaces of the proposed hotel would be clearly delineated (ie hotel apartments will be located on the first level and above, while the café and terrace would be located on the ground floor adjacent to the street) . Further, the likely regular use of the café terrace would reduce opportunities for crime.

· Space management: Public open space would generally be restricted to the café and café terrace. These areas are likely to be regularly used and well maintained.

In this regard, it is considered that the proposed development is unlikely to detract from personal safety or increase the potential for crime, vandalism or fear.

Social Impacts

It is considered that there will be no detrimental social impacts associated with the proposed development.

Economic Impacts

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

Site Design and Internal Design

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

Cumulative Impacts

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

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

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

· the significance of adjoining and proximate heritage items and the Central Orange Heritage Conservation Area; and

· the local street network in terms of traffic flow and availability of on-street parking.

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

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

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

The subject property is considered suitable for the proposed use and development given that it is located within the Orange CBD within an area characterised by a mix of uses which are unlikely to experience unreasonable off-site impacts. There are no physical constraints to the site which would render it unsuitable and all appropriate utilities are available.

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

Accordingly, the development application was advertised on Saturday, 21 January 2017 and exhibited between Monday, 23 January and Monday, 6 February 2017.

At the end of that period six submissions were received, with three submissions being received from one submitter.

The key issues raised by submitters included the impact on the availability of on-street car parking spaces in Kite Street and McNamara Street; increased traffic flow in the local street network, particularly McNamara Street; and potential impacts on the property at 24 McNamara Street, including overshadowing, overlooking and noise.

Availability of On-Street Car Parking Spaces

As previously discussed in this report, the proposed development has been assessed as generating a demand for 89 off-street car parking spaces. Given that the proposed development provides for 80 off-street car parking spaces, it is considered that the shortfall can be accounted for by requiring that a monetary contribution be charged in lieu of the physical provision of nine car parking spaces.

While it is acknowledged that all submissions have identified potential increasing demand for on-street car parking spaces as a key issue, it is considered that the foregoing approach is appropriate on the basis that Council research indicates that proximate public car parks, such as the Ophir Car Park, are underutilised.

In particular, it is noted that Council’s Orange CBD Car Parking Study Final Report, dated 10 April 2015, identified that the Ophir Car Park (217 car parking spaces) has been surveyed as having maximum weekday occupancy of 56% and a maximum weekend occupancy of 21%, representing low usage of a Council car park. While it is noted that these figures may have changed since the report was prepared, spot surveys by Council staff during the assessment process identified a maximum occupancy in the order of 40%, consistent with the findings of the report. Given that the Ophir Car Park is located within 200m of the subject property, it is considered to be highly accessible to the subject property and the local street network.

It is noted that the introduction of additional street trees to Kite Street and McNamara Street and the realignment of the existing ingress and egress would likely result in the net loss of one on-street car parking space. Notwithstanding, it is considered that the net loss of one on-street car parking space can also be accounted for within Council’s underutilised car parks.

Operation of the Local Street Network

Analysis submitted by the applicant indicates that the proposed development would typically generate a total of 33 trips during the AM and PM peaks. By comparison, the applicant submits that the former use of the subject property by the Central Western Daily would have generated 26 trips during the AM and PM peaks. Given this analysis, it is considered that an increase of seven vehicle movements during the AM and PM peaks would not have a significantly detrimental impact on the operation of the local street network.

Operation of McNamara Street

One submission identified that the section of McNamara Street between Kite Street and Moulder Street contains a number of trade and wholesale businesses which require loading and unloading on a regular basis. The submitter identified that it would be beneficial for Council to alter current on-street parking to include one or several loading zones to create a safer traffic environment.

While it is acknowledged that a number of business regularly utilise McNamara Street for the purpose of truck loading and unloading, it is beyond the scope of this report to consider this suggestion in any further detail.

Operation of the Right-of-Way between 16 and 18 McNamara Street

One submission identified that the operation of the right-of-way between 16 and 18 McNamara Street is unsatisfactory, with multiple vehicles using it inappropriately.

This submission is beyond the scope of this report and is not discussed in any further detail.

Impacts on 24 McNamara Street

The owner of the property at 24 McNamara Street, located to the immediate south of the subject property, has provided written submissions to Council outlining that while the property is used for the purpose of a business (ie an accountancy firm), the property should be treated as a dwelling for the purpose of this assessment. The submitter has also identified other concerns with the proposed development, including impacts on existing solar panels, impacts associated with noise caused by the proposed development (ie the loading bay), impacts associated with noise during construction and the accuracy of the subject property boundary.

Specifically, the owner has identified that while he was aware that the property had a history of residential use prior to its purchase, he had relied on Council advice indicating that it could be used for a business if it involved himself and two other employees only.

This advice is generally consistent with the definition of a home business which may be undertaken as exempt development subject to State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes 2008) (the Exempt and Complying Development Code).

However, in order to fully satisfy the requirements of the Exempt and Complying Development Code, it also necessary that the home business not involve the use of more than 10% of the floor area of the building and/or the use of 30m², not involve the employment of more than two people other than the residents, and must be carried on by a permanent resident of the dwelling. Other requirements, which are not necessarily applicable in the current context, also apply regarding impacts on the amenity of the neighbourhood, exposure of unsightly matter, exhibition of signage and the exposure and sale of items.

In this regard, it is noted that the submitter has indicated to Council that he has had up to five staff operating from the premises (with staff numbers fluctuating subject to workload) and that he only stays at the premises from time-to-time and not on a permanent basis. As such, it is considered that the current use would not meet the requirements of an exempt home business and that a form of business premises has been established without the requisite development consent from Council. Notwithstanding the business use of the property, it must also be acknowledged that the current approved use of the property is a dwelling.

In terms of assessing the impact of the proposed development on 24 McNamara Street it is noted that the applicable chapter of Orange Development Control Plan 2004, Chapter 8 - Development in Business Zones, does not set out any applicable planning outcome or guideline regarding issues such as privacy, overshadowing, noise etc.

Further, while it may seem convenient to apply the provisions of Orange Development Control Plan 2004 Chapter 7 - Development in Residential Areas, which are intended to be applied in a typical residential setting, it is not considered appropriate to apply such provisions in the commercial core of Orange where appropriate land use and development is distinctly different from those expected in a residential area.

In this circumstance, it is considered appropriate to have regard to any applicable planning principle of the Land Environment Court for the purpose of assessing the impact of the proposed development. The planning principles are intended to assist where there is a void in policy, where policies expressed in qualitative terms allow for more than one interpretation and where policies lack clarity.

A review of the planning principles identifies that those which may be relevant to this proposal would include general impact (Davies v Penrith City Council at [116] to [121]); height, bulk and scale (Veloshin v Randwick Council [2007] NSWLEC 428 at 32-33); privacy (Meriton v Sydney City Council [2004] NSWLEC 313 at 45-46); sunlight (The Benevolent Society v Waverley Council [2010] NSWLEC 1082 at 133-144) and surrounding development (Project Venture Developments Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council [2005] NSWLEC 191 at 22-31).

Notably, the majority of applicable planning principles identify that it is not only necessary to consider the impact on existing development, but also likely future development. In particular, planning principles relating to the following subject matter are noted as requiring consideration of likely future development:

Veloshin v Randwick Council [2007] NSWLEC 428 - height, bulk and scale

Where the planning controls are aimed at creating a new character, the existing character is of less relevance. The controls then indicate the nature of the new character desired. The question to be asked is: Is the proposal consistent with the bulk and character intended by the planning controls?

Meriton v Sydney City Council [2004] NSWLEC 313 - privacy

In areas undergoing change, the impact on what is likely to be built on adjoining sites, as well as the existing development, should be considered.

The Benevolent Society v Waverley Council [2010] NSWLEC 1082 - sunlight

In areas undergoing change, the impact on what is likely to be built on adjoining sites should be considered as well as the existing development.

Project Venture Developments v Pittwater Council [2005] NSWLEC 191 - surrounding development

It should be noted that compatibility between proposed and existing is not always desirable. There are situations where extreme differences in scale and appearance produce great urban design involving landmark buildings. There are situations where the planning controls envisage a change of character, in which case compatibility with the future character is more appropriate than with the existing. Finally, there are urban environments that are so unattractive that it is best not to reproduce them.

Based on these planning principles it is evident that it is appropriate to consider the impact on likely future development as well as existing development. This is considered to be of particular relevance in this circumstance whereby there are no dwellings on McNamara Street between Kite Street to the north and Moulder Street to the south. The approved dwelling at 24 McNamara Street, if used in accordance with the approved use, would be the last remaining dwelling. While historically a residential and mixed use area, it is clear that current zoning (ie B3 Commercial Core), maximum height limit (ie 16 metres), floor space ratio (ie 2:1) and Orange Development Control Plan 2004 planning outcomes for business areas anticipate that the area is to be developed for a more intense commercial purpose, rather than a single dwelling on a lot.

In this regard it is considered appropriate to assess the impact of the proposed development on 24 McNamara Street based on the following three scenarios:

1 current approved use as a dwelling;

2 current actual use as an accounting business; and

3 likely highest and best future use as a multi-level commercial purpose.

The impacts on 24 McNamara Street are addressed below in this context.

Overshadowing

Planning Principle:

Where guidelines dealing with the hours of sunlight on a window or open space leave open the question what proportion of the window or open space should be in sunlight, and whether the sunlight should be measured at floor, table or a standing person’s eye level, assessment of the adequacy of solar access should be undertaken with the following principles in mind, where relevant:

· The ease with which sunlight access can be protected is inversely proportional to the density of development. At low densities, there is a reasonable expectation that a dwelling and some of its open space will retain its existing sunlight. (However, even at low densities there are sites and buildings that are highly vulnerable to being overshadowed.) At higher densities sunlight is harder to protect and the claim to retain it is not as strong.

· The amount of sunlight lost should be taken into account, as well as the amount of sunlight retained.

· Overshadowing arising out of poor design is not acceptable, even if it satisfies numerical guidelines. The poor quality of a proposal’s design may be demonstrated by a more sensitive design that achieves the same amenity without substantial additional cost, while reducing the impact on neighbours.

· For a window, door or glass wall to be assessed as being in sunlight, regard should be had not only to the proportion of the glazed area in sunlight but also to the size of the glazed area itself. Strict mathematical formulae are not always an appropriate measure of solar amenity. For larger glazed areas, adequate solar amenity in the built space behind may be achieved by the sun falling on comparatively modest portions of the glazed area.

· For private open space to be assessed as receiving adequate sunlight, regard should be had of the size of the open space and the amount of it receiving sunlight. Self-evidently, the smaller the open space, the greater the proportion of it requiring sunlight for it to have adequate solar amenity. A useable strip adjoining the living area in sunlight usually provides better solar amenity, depending on the size of the space. The amount of sunlight on private open space should ordinarily be measured at ground level but regard should be had to the size of the space as, in a smaller private open space, sunlight falling on seated residents may be adequate.

· Overshadowing by fences, roof overhangs and changes in level should be taken into consideration. Overshadowing by vegetation should be ignored, except that vegetation may be taken into account in a qualitative way, in particular dense hedges that appear like a solid fence.

· In areas undergoing change, the impact on what is likely to be built on adjoining sites should be considered as well as the existing development.

Assessment

The extent of overshadowing caused by the proposed development is demonstrated in Figures 16-19 below:

Figure 16: overshadowing 9am June 21

Figure 17: overshadowing 12pm June 21

Figure 18: overshadowing 3pm June 21

Figure 19: Overshadowing of north facing windows – 9am, 12pm and 3pm June 21

Current approved use as a dwelling

Based on the foregoing planning principle regarding overshadowing, it is considered that the proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on 24 McNamara Street if it is considered as a dwelling.

In particular, it is evident from the diagrams above that the proposed development would substantially overshadow both of the north facing windows between 9am and 2pm, with the shadow progressively receding during the late afternoon. Following an assessment of the plans and further analysis submitted by the applicant, it is estimated that the north facing windows of the dwelling would receive less than one hour of sunlight between 9am and 3pm, with one window receiving between 15 and 30 minutes of sunlight and the other window receiving no sunlight.

Further, it is noted that the area of private open space that would be located to the rear of the dwelling would be substantially overshadowed throughout the day, with only the rear portion of the site receiving meaningful sunlight in the middle of the day.

Given that the north facing windows and area of private open space located to the immediate rear of the dwelling would be the most sensitive elements of the dwelling to the impact of overshadowing, it is considered that the proposed development would have an unacceptable impact when considered against the planning principle. In order to reduce the impact, it would be necessary to require a redesign of the proposed development.

It should be noted that the extent over overshadowing is assessed on 21 June 21 (ie the Winter Solstice) because the sun is low in the sky and shadows are longest. In this regard, it is noted that the impact of overshadowing on the north facing windows and private open space of 24 McNamara Street will be less before and after June 21, with optimum solar access occurring on the Summer Solstice during December.

With regard to the solar panels located on the roof of 24 McNamara Street, the plans indicate that while both the east and west facing solar panels will be in shadow at 9am, the shadow would progressively recede through the morning, with both sets of panels being in full sun by 12pm and remaining in full sun until late into the afternoon. Unlike northern windows, solar panels could, in effect, operate beyond the hours of 9am to 3pm. Therefore at least three hours of direct sunlight to the panels through the middle of the day is considered reasonable.

Current actual use as an accounting business

While the current actual use of 24 McNamara Street for the purpose of an accounting business would experience the same level of impact as described above, it is not considered that a business use is as sensitive to overshadowing as a dwelling.

In particular, it is considered that the use of a room for an office or meeting area is not as sensitive as a habitable room of a dwelling, such as a living room or kitchen. Similarly, it is not considered that the area of open space located at the rear of the building would be as sensitive as a private open space immediately adjoining a dwelling.

Therefore, while the current business use may benefit from good solar access, it is not considered to be as important, or necessary, as good solar access to a dwelling. As such it is considered that the impact on the current business use is acceptable and could be supported when considered against the planning principle.

The impact of overshadowing on the solar panels would not change from the foregoing assessment and is considered reasonable.

Likely highest and best future use as a multi-level commercial purpose

Given the applicable planning controls, including the B3 Commercial Core zone, Maximum Building Height of 16m, Floor Space Ratio of 2:1 and Orange Development Control Plan 2004 planning outcomes for business areas, it is considered that the highest and best use of 24 McNamara Street is likely to be a more intense form of commercial development. However, it is noted that in order for 24 McNamara Street to accommodate a building of 16m with a Floor Space Ratio of 2:1, it is likely that it would need to be consolidated with one or more adjoining lots.

In this regard, it is considered that the impact of overshadowing cast by the proposed development would be limited to the ground floor of any new development and that a suitable design outcome could be achieved to mitigate such impact (ie no north facing windows on the ground floor area or north facing rooms used for non-sensitive uses such as storage or services).

Furthermore, it is noted that any upper level is unlikely to be affected by overshadowing cast by the proposed development.

Similarly, it is considered that any likely future development would have a greater potential to effectively utilise roof mounted solar panels.

As such it is considered that the potential impact on the likely future use and development of 24 McNamara Street would be acceptable and could be supported when considered against the planning principle.

Conclusion

Having regard to the likely overshadowing impact under each scenario and the overshadowing planning principle, it is considered that the proposed development is likely to have an acceptable impact.

In particular, it is noted that while the current approved use of 24 McNamara Street is a dwelling, it is in fact being used for an accounting business, which is an indication of how the locality in general and the property specifically are progressively transitioning to a higher and better commercial use as anticipated by the applicable planning controls.

As such, while it is accepted that overshadowing of the north facing windows and private open space of a dwelling is inappropriate; in the current context it is considered that the likely overshadowing impact is acceptable.

Overlooking

Planning Principle:

When visual privacy is referred to in the context of residential design, it means the freedom of one dwelling and its private open space from being overlooked by another dwelling and its private open space. Most planning instruments and development control plans acknowledge the need for privacy, but leave it to be assessed qualitatively. Numerical guidelines for the separation of dwellings exist in the Australia-wide guideline, AMCORD; as well is in the NSW-specific Residential Flat Design Code attached to SEPP 65. AMCORD recommends a separation of 9m between habitable rooms. The Residential Flat Design Code recommends increasing separation between buildings as they get taller. For buildings up to three storeys, it suggests 12m between habitable rooms and balconies, 9m between a habitable and non-habitable room, and 6m between non-habitable rooms. For tall buildings (such as the proposal) it suggests 24m between habitable rooms, 18m between habitable rooms and non-habitable rooms, and 12m between non-habitable rooms.

· Generalised numerical guidelines such as above, need to be applied with a great deal of judgment, taking into consideration density, separation, use and design. The following principles may assist.

· The ease with which privacy can be protected is inversely proportional to the density of development. At low-densities there is a reasonable expectation that a dwelling and some of its private open space will remain private. At high-densities it is more difficult to protect privacy.

· Privacy can be achieved by separation. The required distance depends upon density and whether windows are at the same level and directly facing each other. Privacy is hardest to achieve in developments that face each other at the same level. Even in high-density development it is unacceptable to have windows at the same level close to each other. Conversely, in a low-density area, the objective should be to achieve separation between windows that exceed the numerical standards above. (Objectives are, of curse, not always achievable.)

· The use of a space determines the importance of its privacy. Within a dwelling, the privacy of living areas, including kitchens, is more important than that of bedrooms. Conversely, overlooking from a living area is more objectionable than overlooking from a bedroom where people tend to spend less waking time.

· Overlooking of neighbours that arises out of poor design is not acceptable. A poor design is demonstrated where an alternative design, that provides the same amenity to the applicant at no additional cost, has a reduced impact on privacy.

· Where the whole or most of a private open space cannot be protected from overlooking, the part adjoining the living area of a dwelling should be given the highest level of protection.

· Apart from adequate separation, the most effective way to protect privacy is by the skewed arrangement of windows and the use of devices such as fixed louvres, high and/or deep sills and planter boxes. The use of obscure glass and privacy screens, while sometimes being the only solution, is less desirable.

· Landscaping should not be relied on as the sole protection against overlooking. While existing dense vegetation within a development is valuable, planting proposed in a landscaping plan should be given little weight.

· In areas undergoing change, the impact on what is likely to be built on adjoining sites, as well as the existing development, should be considered.

Current approved use as a dwelling

Given that the accommodation component of the proposed development includes south and east facing balconies and windows, it presents a significant opportunity for overlooking of the rear yard and north facing windows of 24 McNamara Street. The upper level barbeque area also presents an opportunity for overlooking of the north facing windows and rear private open space.

In this regard, it is noted that the majority of south facing windows and balconies are located in excess of 23m from the common boundary with 24 McNamara Street. Despite the high number of south facing windows and balconies, it is considered that a separation distance of 23m would achieve an acceptable level of privacy in a commercial setting.

However, the east facing windows and balconies and the upper level barbeque area are located within 5m and 8m of 24 McNamara Street respectively, and would allow for some overlooking of the north facing windows and rear private open space. A separation distance of 5m to 8m is not considered to be adequate and could not be supported.

Notwithstanding, while this would present an unacceptable outcome, it is considered that the impact could be mitigated to an acceptable level through the application of external screening devices along the southern elevation of each east facing balcony and the barbeque area. As such, it is considered that a condition of consent should be applied to this affect.

Current actual use as an accounting business

Based on the foregoing assessment, it is considered that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on the existing use of 24 McNamara Street as an accounting business.

Likely highest and best future use as a multi-level commercial purpose

Based on the foregoing assessment, it is considered that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on the existing use of 24 McNamara Street for a higher and better commercial use.

Height, Bulk and Scale

Planning Principle:

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 are:

Are the impacts consistent with impacts that may be reasonably expected under the controls? (For complying proposals this question relates to whether the massing has been distributed so as to reduce impacts, rather than to increase them. For non-complying proposals the question cannot be answered unless the difference between the impacts of a complying and a non-complying development is quantified.) How does the proposal’s height and bulk relate to the height and bulk desired under the relevant controls?

Where the planning controls are aimed at preserving the existing character of an area, additional questions to be asked are: 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?

Where there is an absence of planning controls related to bulk and character, the assessment of a proposal should be based on whether the planning intent for the area appears to be the preservation of the existing character or the creation of a new one. In cases where even this question cannot be answered, reliance on subjective opinion cannot be avoided. The question then is: Does the proposal look appropriate in its context?

Assessment

The height, bulk and scale of the proposed development relative to 24 McNamara Street is demonstrated below by Figure 20.

Figure 20: comparison of height, bulk and scale - proposed development and 24 McNamara Street

Current approved use as a dwelling

The Orange LEP provides specific controls to address height, bulk and scale within the Orange CBD. In particular, this includes Clause 4.3 Height of buildings (ie maximum building height of 16m) and Clause 4.4 Floor space ratio (ie Floor space ration of 2:1). These provisions have been addressed in detail in the body of this report.

While it is evident that there would be a contrast between the height, bulk and scale of the proposed development and 24 McNamara Street, it is noted that the proposed development has been designed to achieve the outcomes anticipated by the LEP provisions.

As such, the foregoing planning principle indicates that the appropriate test is to consider “…whether the massing has been distributed so as to reduce impacts, rather than to increase them”. In this regard, it is noted that the proposed development has been intentionally designed to step down to three levels adjacent to 24 McNamara Street, with a driveway also separating each property. Further, it is noted that the proposed development has been massed most heavily along the Kite Street and McNamara Street boundaries, with the building form stepping down to the ground level car park to the southeast adjacent to the rear yard of 24 McNamara Street. This outcome would ensure some relief to the private open space of 24 McNamara Street.

In this regard it is considered that the proposed development has been massed in a manner which would reduce the impact on 24 McNamara Street and that the impacts of the height, bulk and scale of the proposed development are consistent with the impacts which would be reasonably expected under the LEP controls.

Furthermore, it is noted that the planning principle highlights that where planning controls are aimed at creating a new character, the existing character is of less relevance, with the controls indicating the nature of the new character desired. This point further serves to demonstrate that while there is a contrast in height, bulk and scale between the proposed development and 24 McNamara Street, it appropriate where the planning controls are seeking to facilitate a more substantial form of development.

Current actual use as an accounting business

Based on the foregoing assessment, it is considered that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on the existing use of 24 McNamara Street as an accounting business.

Likely highest and best future use as a multi-level commercial purpose.

Based on the foregoing assessment, it is considered that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on the likely development of 24 McNamara Street for a higher and better commercial use.

Further, in is noted that the proposed development reflects the character envisaged by the planning controls which apply to the immediate area. This has been confirmed by the assessment of Councils Heritage/Urban Design Advisor with regard to Council’s recently adopted Orange Development Control Plan 2004 Infill Guidelines.

In particular, the Heritage/Urban Design Advisor commented that while the building is higher than the neighbouring buildings, the scaling references and mitigates the impact; and the form of the building addresses the street corner where the height and corner details are appropriate.

Noise

The owner of 24 McNamara has raised concerns regarding the impact of noise associated with the construction period and operation of the development (eg loading zones).

Noise has been previously addressed in detail under the heading “The Likely Impacts of the Development s79c(1)(b)”.

In summary, it is considered that the environmental health impacts, including noise arising from the construction and operation of the proposed development, can be adequately mitigated at the detailed design phase and during ongoing operations.

OTHER IMPACTS

Accuracy of Property Boundary

The owner of 24 McNamara Street has indicated that the plans submitted by the applicant do not accurately reflect the boundary of the subject property.

In this regard, it is noted that during the assessment process Council staff requested that the applicant provide further details regarding the alignment of the subject property’s southern boundary adjacent to 26 McNamara Street, due to a discrepancy between the architectural plans and Council’s mapping system.

The applicant’s surveyor has subsequently advised Council that it has undertaken a full boundary redefinition accounting for the discrepancy between the actual property boundary and Council’s mapping system. The surveyor has provided written advice indicating that the discrepancy arose as a result of an error in a deed description used to create and dimension the effected lot.

PUBLIC INTEREST s79C(1)(e)

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, D17/21205 ⇩

2 Plans, D17/22246 ⇩

3 External Finishes, IC17/5716 ⇩

4 Submissions (community), D17/20397 ⇩

5 Submissions (external authorities), D17/20399 ⇩

6 Heritage Advice, D17/20400 ⇩

7 Supplementary Heritage Advice, D17/20859 ⇩

Planning and Development Committee 4 April 2017

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

Attachment 1 Notice of Approval

OrangeCityCouncilNEW#45524E (2)

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

Development Application No DA 304/2016(1)

NA17/ Container PR14263

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 81(1)

Development Application
Applicant Name:	TPG Town Planning & Urban Design
Applicant Address:	Attention: Ashleigh Coombes PO Box 820 EDGECLIFF NSW 2027
Owner’s Name:	Eastern Developments Pty Ltd
Land to Be Developed:	Lot 1 DP 197828, Lots 2-6 DP 131416 and Lots 1‑3 DP 779111 - 132-142 Kite Street and 26 McNamara Street, Orange
Proposed Development:	Demolition, Hotel or Motel Accommodation, Restaurant or Cafe, Retail Premises and Subdivision (44 lot Strata)

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

Determination
Made On:	4 April 2017
Determination:	CONSENT GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:

Consent to Operate From:	5 April 2017
Consent to Lapse On:	5 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 provide adequate public health and safety measures.

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

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

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

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

Conditions

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

(a) Plans numbered DA.01 (10.11.16), DA02(30.08.16), DA03(08.02.17), DA.04 (10.02.17), DA.05 (08.02.17), DA.06 (21.12.16), DA.07(10.11.16), DA.08 (30.08.16), DA.09(30.08.16), DA.10 (30.08.16), DA.11 (21.03.17), Exterior Finishes (03.11.16 and March 2017) (13 sheets)

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

as amended in accordance with any conditions of this consent.

PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DEMOLITION

PRIOR TO WORKS COMMENCING

(5) Due to the extensive nature of the demolition works and their proximity to the public footpath, the applicant is to provide public liability and public risk insurance cover for a minimum of $10,000,000, endorsed to cover Council for its respective rights and interests. Evidence of valid insurance cover must be submitted to Council.

(6) Prior to demolition works commencing, the applicant is to obtain an approval under Section 68 of the Local Government Act for the temporary closure of any footpath or roadway. A pedestrian/vehicle management plan is to accompany the application. Details are to be provided of the protective hoardings, fences and lighting that are to be used during demolition, excavation and building works in accordance with the requirements of the Occupational Health & Safety Act 2000, Australian Standard AS3798-1996 (Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and Residential Developments) and the WorkCover Authority.

Note: On corner properties, particular attention is to be given to the provision of adequate sight distances.

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

(8) A survey to determine the existence of any hazardous materials on the site is to be provided. Suitable arrangements are to be made to dispose of, or remediate, any identified hazardous materials - including the notification of authorities and/or the obtaining of any required permits. Particular care and attention is to be paid to the disposal of any waste containing asbestos material.

DURING DEMOLITION/SITEWORKS

(9) All construction/demolition work on the site is to be carried out in accordance with the EPA’s Interim Construction Noise Guideline 2009.

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

(11) 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.

(12) Any asbestos material must be removed and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Work Health & Safety Act 2011 and any guidelines or Codes of Practice published by WorkCover.

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

(14) The existing sewer connection to the building proposed to be removed is to be sealed off at the sewer main.

(15) The existing water service connection to the building proposed to be removed is to be sealed off at the Council water main.

(16) Certification from Orange City Council is required shall be obtained on completion of the demolition works stating that all works relating to disconnection of the development from Council assets, works on Public Land, stormwater, sewer and water reticulation mains and footpaths have been carried out in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code and the foregoing conditions.

(17) A Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) as detailed in AS 4970 – 2009 shall be established on the development site 132 – 142 Kite Street for the Eucalyptus sp tree sited upon 145-147 Peisley Street.

(18) No excavation shall occur within 4 metres of the centre of the stem of the Eucalyptus sp tree sited upon 145-147 Peisley Street in accordance with the Tree Protection Zone required by Condition (17).

(19) 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 or Subdivision Certificate, unless stated otherwise.

CONSTRUCTION OF MOTEL, CAFE AND RETAIL PREMISES

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

(20) Architectural plans must be amended prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate to include the following:

·
A 1.8m high screening device on the southern elevation of each east facing balcony and the upper level barbeque area. The height of the screening device must be measured from the finished floor level of each balcony and the barbeque area respectively. The screening device must be a pre-finished metal screen with horizontal blades consistent with the pre-finished metal screens shown on the northern and western elevations of the building. The blades of the screen must be orientated to prevent overlooking of the adjoining property at 24 McNamara Street.

· A perforated or louvered metal screen around the north, west and east sides of each roof mounted unit. The height of each screen must be equal to the height of each unit. The screens must be finished with Dulux colour Windspray.

· Pre-finished metal screens attached to each bay of balconies along the Kite Street and McNamara Street frontages, consistent with those metal screens shown on the Plan DA.06 dated 21 December 2016.

· Ruled 5mm (nominal) joints at floor, window sill and window headlines.

· Material D on the Exterior Finishes plan dated 3 November 2016 and Exterior Finishes Board dated March 2017 must be a genuine stone product, similar to Basalt in colour with a traditional Rough finish, laid in a traditional Random ashlar pattern and tight 10-15mm joints to be provided with recessed pointing darker than the stone. The stone is to be used to clad the external walls on the ground floor of the two street elevations.

· Material E on the Exterior Finishes plan dated 3 November 2016 and Exterior Finishes Board dated March 2017 shall be similar to Basalt in colour but fully dressed on the exposed faces, laid in a traditional Random coursed ashlar pattern with a Honed finish and tight 10-15mm joints with recessed pointing darker than the stone.

· Aluminium framing to the doors and windows shall have an anodised Light Bronze colour by Architectural Window Systems or equal, or a powder coated finish similar to Dulux Wheatmeal.

· The colour bond fence as shown on DA.04 dated 10 February 2017shall be replaced with a 1.8m high lapped and capped hardwood timber fence. The height of the fence must be measured from the finished ground level of each adjoining property.

Note It is suggested strongly that the applicant obtain advice from Council and its Heritage Adviser to ensure that stone material complies with heritage requirements.

(21) The payment of $126,579.15 shall be made to Council in accordance with Section 94 of the Act and Orange Car Parking Development Contributions Plan 2015 in lieu of the physical provision of adequate on-site car parking spaces.

PAYMENT MUST BE MADE PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF ANY CERTIFICATE under part 4A of the Act.

The contribution shall be indexed quarterly in accordance with the Orange Car Parking Development Contributions Plan 2015, which may be inspected at the Orange Civic Centre, Byng Street, Orange.

(22) 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.

(23) Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, the applicant is to obtain an approval under Section 68 of the Local Government Act for the temporary closure of any footpath or roadway. A pedestrian/vehicle management plan is to accompany the application. Details are to be provided of the protective hoardings, fences and lighting that are to be used during demolition, excavation and building works in accordance with the requirements of the Occupational Health & Safety Act 2000, Australian Standard AS3798-1996 (Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and Residential Developments) and the WorkCover Authority.

Note: On corner properties particular attention is to be given to the provision of adequate sight distances.

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

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

(26) Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, evidence shall be submitted to Council of the lodgement of plans with Land & Property Information to consolidate Lot 1 DP 197826, Lots 2-6 DP 131416 and Lots 1-3 DP 779111 into one parcel.

(27) The applicant shall provide the Principal Certifying Authority and Council with a report from a qualified Acoustic Consultant that identifies all mechanical equipment and attenuation solutions (such as acoustic shielding) to be installed within the development. The Report shall confirm that the operation of such plant will comply with the NSW State Industrial Noise Policy. Plans must be amended to include any recommendations and design requirements of the Acoustic Consultant prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

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

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

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

(31) All stormwater from the site is to be collected and piped to the existing stormwater pits located on the corner of Kite Street and McNamara Lane. Orange City Council or an Accredited Certifier (Categories B1, C3, C4, C6), prior to issuing a Construction Certificate, is to approve engineering plans for this drainage system. The drainage works are to be in accordance with Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.

The existing stormwater line serving Lot 1 DP 779074 is to be included as part of the drainage works.

(32) The existing 150mm diameter sewer main is to be relocated clear of the proposed building. Prior to a Construction Certificate being issued engineering plans for this sewerage system are to be submitted to and approved by Orange City Council.

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

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

(34) Payment of contributions for water, sewer and drainage works is required to be made at the contribution rate applicable at the time that the payment is made. The contributions are based on 26.75 ETs for water supply headworks and 42.25 ETs for sewerage headworks. A Certificate of Compliance, from Orange City Council in accordance with the Water Management Act 2000, will be issued upon payment of the contributions.

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

(35) Backflow Prevention Devices are to be installed to AS3500 and in accordance with Orange City Council Backflow Protection Guidelines. Details of the Backflow Prevention Devices are to be submitted to Orange City Council prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

(36) The 150mm diameter sewer main that crosses the site is to be accurately located in relation to the proposed building. Where the main is positioned adjacent to any part of the building, measures to support building footings and slabs are to be taken in accordance with Orange City Council Policy - Building over and/or adjacent to sewers ST009.

PRIOR TO WORKS COMMENCING

(37) A Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) as detailed in AS 4970 – 2009 shall be established on the development site 132 – 142 Kite Street for the Eucalyptus sp tree sited upon 145-147 Peisley Street.

(38) 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.

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

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

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

(41) No excavation shall occur within 4 metres of the centre of the stem of the Eucalyptus sp tree sited upon 145-147 Peisley Street in accordance with the Tree Protection Zone required by Condition (37).

Prior to removal of the TPZ to construct the vehicle crossover and driveway Council’s Manager City Presentation shall be contacted and approval gained to establish formwork within the TPZ for the construction of any hard surfacing.

(42) In the event of an unexpected find during works such as (but not limited to) the presence of undocumented waste, odorous or stained soil, asbestos, structures such as underground storage tanks, slabs, or any contaminated or suspect material, all work on site must cease immediately. The beneficiary of the consent must discuss with Council the appropriate process that should be followed therein. Works on site must not resume unless the express permission of the Director Development Services is obtained in writing

(43) All construction/demolition work on the site is to be carried out in accordance with the EPA’s Interim Construction Noise Guideline 2009.

(44) A Registered Surveyor’s certificate identifying the location of the building on the site must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the pouring of the slab or footings.

(45) All construction works are to be strictly in accordance with the Reduced Levels (RLs) as shown on the approved plans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(51) The existing basalt (bluestone) kerb and gutters in Kite Street and McNamara Lane are to be retained. Where bluestone exists in the location of the proposed new driveways, the bluestone gutter is to be retained and incorporated into the new vehicular layback. Any kerb stones removed as a result of the works are to be firstly used as kerb stones in the areas of reinstated kerb and any leftover stones returned to Council.

The existing driveways in Kite Street and McNamara Street that are not proposed to be used are to be replaced with concrete and/or bluestone kerb, and the footpath reinstated to the requirements of the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

(52) Garbage collection is to be fully contained within the site. Bins must not to be located on the footpath or roadway on collection days. Prior to a Construction Certificate being issued plans and/or details of the operation of the garbage collection are to be submitted to and approved by Orange City Council, including details of a private service agreement with Council’s waste contractor. The private service agreement must be to the satisfaction of Council's Waste Services Manager.

(53) An amended Car Parking Management plan must be submitted to and be approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments accounting for the 80 on-site car parking spaces provided. The revised Car Parking Management plan must:

· Allocate 77 car parking spaces to the accommodation component of the proposed hotel, with one car parking space to be allocated to each of the 77 units; and

· Provide an appropriate methodology for each car park to be accessed at all times (i.e. all ‘tandem’ and ‘valet’ car parking spaces must be accessible to hotel occupants at all times via the valet parking system).

(54) External lighting is to be provided to ensure adequate lighting of the proposed car park to ensure the safety of employees and visitors outside of daylight hours. The lighting must be installed on the external façade of the existing / proposed building and be orientated in such a manner that it does not cause light spill from the subject property. Outdoor lighting must be in accordance with Australian Standard Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting – AS 4282-1997.

(55) 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.

(56) 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 compliance certificate issued, prior to the issue of either an interim or a final Occupation Certificate.

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

(58) Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate, evidence shall be submitted to Council of the registration of plans with the Department of Lands and Property Information to consolidate Lot 1 DP 197826, Lots 2-6 DP 131416 and Lots 1-3 DP 779111 into one parcel.

(59) The applicant shall provide Council with an Operational Management Plan. The Plan shall include measures to appropriately mitigate operational noise from the development (including noise from plant; patrons/pedestrians entering/leaving the site; noise from private areas such as balconies and the BBQ area; waste collection times; delivery times, general access and security gate operations) along with measures to mitigate odours and fumes that could be emitted from the kitchen or waste storage area.

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

(61) Certificates for testable Backflow Prevention Devices are to be submitted to Orange City Council by a plumber with backflow qualifications prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

(62) Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate the existing 2.0m wide interlot drainage easement benefiting Lot 1 DP 779074 shall be amended as required. A Restriction-as-to-User under section 88B of the NSW Conveyancing Act 1979 is to be created on the title of the proposed development Lot requiring that no structures are to be placed on the site, or landscaping or site works carried out on the site, in a manner that affects the continued operation of the interlot drainage system. The minimum width of the easement is to be as required in the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.

(63) 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 or Subdivision Certificate, unless stated otherwise.

MATTERS FOR THE ONGOING PERFORMANCE AND OPERATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT

(64) The applicant shall within 3 months from the issue of any Occupation Certificate arrange for street trees are to be supplied and installed in Kite Street and McNamara Street to Council’s specification, including removal of the existing Scotch Elm and refurbishment of the tree surround within the Kite Street frontage.

Each new tree site (three) in Kite Street is to be planted with a Fraxinus ‘Raywood’ – Claret Ash grown in a minimum 100 litre container size. Tree planting and surrounds are to be to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager City Presentation.

Each new tree site (three) and trees species in McNamara Street is to be determined in consultation with Council’s Manager City Presentation and Traffic Management Officer. Each street tree shall be of a minimum 100 litre container size and shall be installed in the parking lane on the McNamara Street frontage of the subject site. The tree sites shall be constructed using a tree pit in combination with structural soils methodology (for example City Greens Stratvault).

(65) Operating hours of the restaurant or café are restricted to between 6am - 11pm Monday to Sunday, inclusive.

(66) Access to all services and facilities within the hotel, other than the restaurant or café, shall be limited to overnight stay guests only

(67) The development must be operated in accordance with the approved car parking management plan required under Condition (53).

(68) The operation of the hotel, other than the associated restaurant or café shall be limited to a maximum of four employees and one resident manager at any one time.

(69) All garbage bins must be stored within the garbage bay at all times, other than on garbage collection days.

On garbage collection days, garbage bins must be stored in the garbage bay or within the property boundary between the conference room terrace and McNamara Street ingress.

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

(71) An assessment of noise emissions from the premises is to be provided to Council within 3 months from the issue of any Occupation Certificate. This commissioning report is to indicate noise levels through the monitoring of noise emanating from the normal peak use of the premises and determine if any, necessary noise mitigation measures. Any identified mitigation works shall be carried out within 1 month of the commissioning report, and the operation of the premises shall be carried out in accordance with any recommendations set out in the report.

(72) Emitted noise shall not exceed 5dB(A) above background sound level measured at the nearest affected residence.

(73) The development shall be operated in accordance with the approved Operational Management Plan.

(74) Waste collection bins shall be contained within the site and not located on public footpaths or roadways.

(75) The use and fitout of the area shown on the plans as Lease Area 2a has not been approved under this consent. The applicant shall obtain development consent for the first use of this space.

STRATA SUBDIVISION

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

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

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A SUBDIVISION CERTIFICATE

(77) An easement is created for any existing electrical infrastructure. The easement is to be created using Essential Energy’s standard easement terms current at the time of registration of the plan of subdivision.

(78) Notification of Arrangement (confirming satisfactory arrangements have been made for the provision of power) must be issued by Essential Energy with respect to all proposed lots which will form part of the subdivision, prior to Council releasing the Subdivision Certificate. It is the applicant’s responsibility to make the appropriate application with Essential Energy for the supply of electricity to the subdivision, which may include the payment of fees and contributions.

(79) Prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate, the applicant is to provide a written statement that the building complies with the Building Code of Australia with regard to fire separation and early warning systems.

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

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

(82) An easement to drain sewage and to provide Council access for maintenance of sewerage works a minimum of 2.0 metres wide is to be created over the 150mm diameter sewer line. The Principal Certifying Authority is to certify that the easement is in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code prior to the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate.

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

(84) Prior to the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate, Certification from Orange City Council is required stating that all works relating to connection of the development to Council assets, works on Public Land, stormwater, sewer and water reticulation mains and footpaths have been carried out in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code and the foregoing conditions.

(85) 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 or Subdivision Certificate, unless stated otherwise.

ADVISORY NOTES

(1) Any existing encumbrances in favour of Essential Energy (or its predecessors) noted on the title of the above property are complied with.

Essential Energy’s records indicate there is electricity infrastructure located within close proximity to the property. Any activities within this location must be undertaken in accordance with the latest industry guideline currently known as ISSC 20 Guideline for the Management of Activities within Electricity Easements and Close to Infrastructure.

Prior to carrying out any works, a “Dial Before You Dig” enquiry must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of Part 5E (Protection of Underground Electricity Power Lines) of the Electricity Supply Act 1995 (NSW).

Given there is electricity infrastructure in the area, it is the responsibility of the person/s completing any works around powerlines to understand their safety responsibilities. SafeWork NSW (www.safework.nsw.gov.au) has publications that provide guidance when working close to electricity infrastructure. These include the Code of Practice – Work near Overhead Power Lines and Underground Assets.

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:	5 April 2017

Planning and Development Committee 4 April 2017

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

TRIM REFERENCE: 2017/537

AUTHOR: Andrew Crump, Senior Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged	19/12/2016
Applicant/s	Mr AJ and Mrs AM Ralston
Owner/s	Mr AJ and Mrs AM Ralston
Land description	Lot 5 DP 22199 - 108 Hill Street, Orange
Proposed land use	Dwelling and Attached Garage
Value of proposed development	$334,743

Council's consent is sought for the construction of a dwelling house at Lot 5 DP 22199 -108 Hill Street, Orange. The dwelling comprises a gross floor area of 198.61m²and will provide four bedrooms, open plan kitchen/living/meals, separate living and attached double garage. The application also involves the construction of a new 1.8m high front fence comprising rendered brick piers and base and palisade infill panels.

The land, up until recently, contained a c1970s modest red brick dwelling which was demolished under development consent DA 253/2016(1).

Figure 1 – previous dwelling – demolished under Development Consent DA 253/2016(1)

The subject land is located in the Central Heritage Conservation Area, and accordingly Council’s Infill Guidelines apply to the assessment of the dwelling.

This development involves the replacement of an older style house, albeit not of very high quality, with a more modern design that will stand out in the streetscape through its contemporary nature. A critical part of the rationale behind the staff approval recommendation is the premise that the peripheral parts of the Heritage Conservation Areas are more tolerant to a lesser quality building design. In addition, the heritage value of this particular precinct needs to be acknowledged as being of a lower level of significance, as detailed below.

The development is consistent with Council’s relevant planning provisions and 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 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.

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

THE APPLICATION/PROPOSAL

Council's consent is sought for the construction of a dwelling house at Lot 5 DP 22199 - 108 Hill Street, Orange. The dwelling comprises a gross floor area of 198.61m²and will provide four bedrooms, open plan kitchen/living/meals, separate living and attached double garage. The application also involves the construction of a new 1.8m high front fence comprising rendered brick piers and base, and palisade infill panels.

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.

A 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.

BACKGROUND

When the application was first made, the design of the development comprised a contemporary façade presenting to the street consisting of opposing skillion roofs over the front living room and portico and hip roof over the garage.

Council’s Heritage Advisor provided recommendations to amend the presentation of the dwelling within the heritage conservation area such that the design was more sympathetic to the context and setting. The applicant was not fully agreeable to the proposed recommendations and a subsequent site meeting occurred between Council’s Heritage Advisor, Council Staff and the applicant; and at that time a more suitable façade presentation was agreed upon. After the meeting, the plans were amended and submitted to Council for assessment, thereby superseding the original plans. As discussed below, Council’s Heritage Advisor has fully endorsed the revised plans (including the front fence).

The comparison of the original plans compared to the amended design is shown below:

Figures 2 and 3 - amended design (top) – original design (bottom)

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,

(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 not contrary to the general aims the plan and is consistent specifically with aims (a), (b), (e) and (f).

Clause 1.6 - Consent Authority

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

Clause 1.9A - Suspension of Covenants, Agreements and Instruments

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

· covenants imposed or required by Council

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

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

· any trust agreement under the Nature Conservation Trust Act 2001

· any property vegetation plan under the Native Vegetation Act 2003

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

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

Council staff are not aware of the title of the subject property being affected by any of the above. There is a Council sewer line traversing the rear of the site which the development will not affect (as shown on the plans). Relevant conditions are attached in relation to the sewer line.

Mapping

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

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

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

Part 2 - Permitted or Prohibited Development

Land Use Zones

The subject site is located within the R1 General Residential zone. The proposed development is defined as a dwelling house under OLEP 2011 which means:

a building containing only one dwelling.

A dwelling is further defined as:

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

Dwelling houses are permissible in the R1 General Residential zone with the consent of Council.

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

1 - Objectives of the R1 General Residential Zone

· to provide for the housing needs of the community

· to provide for a variety of housing types and densities

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

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

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

The proposal is not inconsistent with the objectives of the zone. The development will provide a new dwelling to the existing broader housing stock within the City, which is commensurate with the long-standing use of the land. The site is conveniently located in close proximity to the periphery of the CBD; accessible to services and encouraging walking and cycling.

Part 3 - Exempt and Complying Development

The application is not exempt or complying development.

Part 5 - Miscellaneous Provisions

5.10 - Heritage Conservation

The subject land is situated within the Central Heritage Conservation Area. Spatially, the land lies at the northern periphery of the conservation area. The surrounding area concerned comprises a mix of housing styles from an array of periods, consisting of 1930’s inter-war bungalows, post-war weatherboard and fibro cottages, C.1960s red brick cottages (similar to that which was recently demolished on the subject land), and contemporary infill development from the late 20^th century (see below examples).

Figure 4 - c1930s inter-war Californian bungalow – opposite the site

Figure 5 - post war weatherboard and fibro cottages - adjoining subject land

Figure 6 – c1960s red brick cottages – one and two properties removed to the south in Hill Street

Figure 7 – late 20th century infill development – opposite the site

(1) Objectives

The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a) to conserve the environmental heritage of Orange,

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

(c) to conserve archaeological sites,

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

The application is not antipathetic to the objects of this clause. The development has been deemed satisfactory by Council’s heritage Advisor and is consistent with Council’s Infill Guideline as demonstrated below.

(2) Requirement for Consent

Development consent is required for any of the following:

(e) erecting a building on land:

(i) on which a heritage item is located or that is within a heritage conservation area, or

The above clause (and subclause (e)(i)) has the effect of requiring consent for the application, which the applicant has sought.

(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 development will not result in an unacceptable impact upon the heritage significance of the Central Heritage Conservation Area. A detailed assessment of the application’s appropriateness and compatibility within the heritage conservation area in terms of character, scale and form, siting, materials and colour, and detailing is undertaken below under the heading DCP 2004 - Infill Guidelines.

(5) Heritage assessment

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

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

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

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

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

A heritage management document is not required for this application, the applicant has worked with Council’s heritage Advisor as part of the assessment process which has been beneficial in arriving at the final outcome.

(6) Heritage Conservation Management Plans

The consent authority may require, after considering the heritage significance of a heritage item and the extent of change proposed to it, the submission of a heritage conservation management plan before granting consent under this clause.

A Conservation Management Plan is not required for this application. The site is vacant land and there are no items of heritage value within the land that warrant the preparation of a Conservation Management Plan.

(7) Archaeological Sites

The consent authority must, before granting consent under this clause to the carrying out of development on an archaeological site (other than land listed on the State Heritage Register or to which an interim heritage order under the Heritage Act 1977 applies):

(a) notify the Heritage Council of its intention to grant consent, and

(b) take into consideration any response received from the Heritage Council within 28 days after the notice is sent.

The site is not known to be an archaeological site; notwithstanding this, Council’s standard unexpected finds condition is attached to the notice.

(8) Aboriginal Places of Heritage Significance

The consent authority must, before granting consent under this clause to the carrying out of development in an Aboriginal place of heritage significance:

(a) consider the effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the place and any Aboriginal object known or reasonably likely to be located at the place by means of an adequate investigation and assessment (which may involve consideration of a heritage impact statement), and

(b) notify the local Aboriginal communities, in writing or in such other manner as may be appropriate, about the application and take into consideration any response received within 28 days after the notice is sent.

An AHIMS search of the site indicates that the land is not a known Aboriginal Place of Heritage Significance. Notwithstanding this, Council’s standard unexpected finds condition is attached in the likely event that an aboriginal object is discovered.

Part 6 - Urban Release Area

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

Part 7 - Additional Local Provisions

7.1 - Earthworks

This clause establishes a range of matters that must be considered prior to granting development consent for any application involving earthworks, such as:

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

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

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

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

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

(f) the likelihood of disturbing relics

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

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

The proposed earthworks are minor and ancillary to the construction of the dwelling (for which development consent has been sought). As such, consent is not required for the cut and filling of the site associated with the construction of the dwelling. In any event, the cut and fill associated with the construction of the dwelling is modest and thus will not impact on adjoining properties.

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

The proposal has been designed to include permeable surfaces and includes onsite retention of stormwater through the use of a rainwater tank (as required by BASIX). It is therefore considered that the post development runoff levels will not exceed the predevelopment levels; or more relevantly, those levels previously experienced when a dwelling was on the land.

7.6 - Groundwater Vulnerability

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

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

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

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

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

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land

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

Furthermore, SEPP 55 requires that before determining an application for consent to carry out development that would involve a change of use on any of the land specified in subclause (4), the consent authority must consider a report specifying findings of a preliminary investigation of the land concerned. However, the application does not relate to a change of use. The land has always been residential land, and will continue to be residential land.

Given that the land, up until the recent demolition, has been used for residential purposes and will continue to do so; it is considered that the subject land is suitable for the proposed development and no further investigation of contamination is required. Moreover, there was nothing identified during the recent assessment relating to the demolition of the previous dwelling on the land to suggest that the land was previously used for a purpose that could lead to contamination within the site or on adjoining land.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure)

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) applies to the land, specifically clause 45 which requires Council to seek comment from the applicable electricity service provider (in this case Essential Energy) where the development will be within 5m of overhead powerlines or penetration of ground within 2m of underground powerlines.

A power pole exists in the frontage of the subject land and provides domestic power supplies to the two adjoining dwellings. The land in question is serviced by an underground line from the pillar box in the footpath.

Accordingly, the application was referred to Essential Energy for comment. Essential Energy responded with no objections provided the following conditions are met:

1. If the proposal changes, Essential Energy would need to be informed for further comment;

2. Any existing encumbrances in favour of Essential Energy (or its predecessors) noted on the title of the above property are complied with; and

3. A clearance of 1.25 is provided from the top of the front security fence to both overhead powerlines that cross this property.

In addition, Essential Energy’s records indicate there is electricity infrastructure located within close proximity of the property. Any activities within this location must be undertaken in accordance with the latest industry guideline currently known as ISSC 20 Guideline for the Management of Activities within Electricity Easements and Close to Infrastructure.

Given there is electricity infrastructure in the area, it is the responsibility of the person/s completing any works around powerlines to understand their safety responsibilities. SafeWork NSW (www.safework.nsw.gov.au) has publications that provide guidance when working close to electricity infrastructure. These include the Code of Practice – Work near Overhead Power Lines/Underground Assets.

The above comments from Essential Energy have been incorporated into the consent where appropriate, either as conditions or as advisory notes.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index BASIX)

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index BASIX) applies to the subject development. The applicant has submitted a BASIX certificate in support of the development which demonstrates compliance with the State Government Water and Thermal efficiency targets. The application is consistent with the SEPP.

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

There are no draft environmental planning instruments that apply to the subject land or proposed development.

DESIGNATED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development is not designated development.

PROVISIONS OF ANY DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN s79C(1)(a)(iii)

Development Control Plan 2004

Development Control Plan 2004 (“the DCP”) applies to the subject land (Chapters 2, 3, 7 and 13). An assessment of the proposed development against the relevant Planning Outcomes will be undertaken below.

Pursuant to Planning Outcome 0.2-1 Interim Planning Outcomes - Conversion of Zones:

· Throughout this Plan, any reference to a zone in Orange LEP 2000 is to be taken to be a reference to the corresponding zone(s) in the zone conversion table.

The corresponding zone to zone 2a urban residential (Orange LEP 2000) is zone R1 General Residential (Orange LEP 2011). As such, Orange DCP 2004 chapter 7 – development in residential areas is of primary relevance to this proposal (other relevant chapters have also been considered). The provisions of chapter 7 are considered below.

Chapter 2 – Natural Resource Management

Chapter 2 – Natural Resource Management provides planning outcomes for stormwater quality, groundwater quality, soil resource management, vegetation management and flora fauna management; all of which have been considered above under the heading Orange LEP 2011 (stormwater, groundwater) or Section 5A of the Act.

Chapter 3 – General Considerations

Chapter 3 provides planning outcomes of a general nature. Those of relevance to this assessment relate to cumulative impacts, scenic landscape, urban areas and energy efficiency. These are all addressed elsewhere within this report. Cumulative impacts are addressed below under the heading “Likely Impacts”. Scenic, landscape and urban areas are addressed under the infill guidelines below, and energy efficiency is addressed under State Environmental Planning Policy (BASIX).

Chapter 7 - Design Elements for Residential Development

Chapter 7 provides a suite of planning outcomes applicable to residential development within residential zones. Those that are of relevance are addressed below.

Streetscape Objectives

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

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

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

· to develop a sense of place with attractive street frontages

· to encourage visually appealing cohesive streetscapes

· to create a safe and secure environment

· to provide consistent design elements that protect private investment.

The development’s compliance with the above objectives will be considered in the assessment of the following planning outcomes.

Neighbourhood Character

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

· site layout and building design enables the:

- creation of attractive residential environments with clear character and identity

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

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

· the streetscape is designed to encourage pedestrian access and use

The character and identity of a particular area is influenced by the intricate interrelationship of the public and private realms, taking into account the qualitative interplay of built form, vegetation and topographic characteristics; all of which contribute to creating a unique neighbourhood character.

The neighbourhood in which the subject land is located is characterised as a mix of dwellings from a range of periods set amongst a wide street, lined with mature deciduous trees. There are several non-residential uses further to the south including a restaurant, school, church and pub. The general topography consists of a gentle rise to the south in Hill Street. Most dwellings comprise consistent setbacks with established front gardens. The proposed development is not inconsistent with the residential character of the locality in terms of use, scale, setbacks and building appearance.

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 dwelling will present satisfactorily within the street. The architectural detailing and presentation of the attached garage addressing Hill Street will be atypical of the majority of built form (garages) within the neighbourhood, most of which are in the traditional location, being in the rear yard or toward the rear of the dwelling. Aside from the atypical design of the attached garage, the remaining design elements of the dwelling will be congruous with the design, detailing and finishes that are identified as contributing to the established neighbourhood character as established below under the infill guidelines assessment.

The dwelling will be commensurate with the existing built form in the locality, albeit with an attached garage that will appear more contemporary to the majority of the development pattern within this part of the conservation area.

Notwithstanding this, the design is considered acceptable for the following reasons:

· the width of the block constrains the usable space of the development – achieving rear garaging – and this has been recognised by Council Heritage Advisor

· the subject land is located on the periphery of the central heritage conservation area

· the portion of streetscape concerned is not as consistent (later examples of dwellings with lower or no heritage value) and as intact as other examples within the central heritage conservation area – in other examples in the heritage conservation area, such a design would be unlikely to be accepted

· the proposed fencing will assist in screening the visual dominance of the attached garage, and

· the colours and finishes of external materials is acceptable.

For the reasons outlined above and further discussed under the infill guideline, the building presentation is acceptable in the context and setting.

Heritage

The land is located within a heritage conservation area and as such Council’s heritage provisions apply. These have been addressed under the heading LEP 2011 and the below assessment against the infill Guidelines.

Setbacks

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

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

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

The front setback of the dwelling will be satisfactory and will relate appropriately to the adjoining development pattern. The dwelling to the south comprises a setback of approximately 3.5m to the front building line of the projecting carport and 4.8m to the remaining portion of the dwelling. The dwelling to the north comprises a setback of approximately 4.5m.

The proposed dwelling comprises a front setback of 4.5m to the front portico and 6.64m to the garage – consistent with the relevant planning outcome.

Side and rear setbacks comply with the Building Code of Australia.

Fences and Walls

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcomes in regard to fences and walls:

· fences and walls assist in highlighting entrances and creating a sense of identity within the streetscape

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

· fences and walls provide for facilities in the street frontage area such as mail boxes.

A front fence is proposed as part of the application which is considered acceptable as outlined below under the assessment against the infill guideline.

The dwelling requires several modest retaining walls along the boundary as a result of creating a building pad. The retaining walls will be modest in height between (approximately) 400mm (cut) and 340mm (fill). The required retaining walls will not result in any adverse impacts upon adjoining land.

Bulk and Scale Objectives

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

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

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

The development’s compliance with the above objectives will be considered in the assessment of the following planning outcomes.

Visual Bulk

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

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

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

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

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

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

- building to the boundary where appropriate.

In consideration of the DCP Guidelines, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory. The proposed dwelling will be single storey, consistent with the established development form of residential development in the locality, save for the occasional two storey dwelling within the street (one example opposite and one adjacent).

The numerical standards under the DCP require dwellings to be contained within the prescribed envelopes generated by planes projected at 45^o over the site commencing 2.5m above existing ground level from each side and rear boundary. The development complies with this numerical standard.

The single storey scale of the dwelling and the positioning of it within the subject land results in a development that will be satisfactory in terms of Council’s visual bulk requirements. The development (including the existing garage) will be below the 60% site coverage requirement for single dwellings.

Walls and Boundaries

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

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

- the privacy of neighbouring dwellings and private open space

- the access to daylight reaching adjoining properties

- the impact of boundary walls on neighbours.

The dwelling is appropriately sited within the property such that it will result in limited impacts to adjoining properties, and will have satisfactory outcomes within the site in terms of privacy and solar access.

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.

The extent of shadow created by the development has been analysed by Council staff. In consideration of the DCP Guidelines, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory as outlined below.

Overshadowing of Dwellings

According to the DCP Guidelines and Council’s Energy Efficiency Code, sunlight to at least 75% of north facing living area windows within the development and on adjoining land is to be provided for a minimum of four hours on 21 June; or not further reduced than existing where already less.

The subject dwelling is appropriately designed such that it will receive satisfactory levels of solar access into living areas via two vertically proportioned windows relating to the meals/kitchen area. An assessment of the level sunlight to these windows concluded that approximately 90% of the two windows will receive sunlight at 10am and 2pm, with levels increasing during the times between this period (i.e. 11am, 12 noon and 1pm).

In terms of adjoining properties, a shadow analysis from the submitted plans demonstrates that the subject dwelling will have an acceptable impact on the north facing windows of the adjoining land to the south. This is primarily due to the elevated nature of the floor level of the adjoining dwelling, the reasonable separation of the adjoining dwelling from its northern boundary and the covered improvements (carport) at the boundary on the adjoining land.

Overshadowing of Private Open Space

According to the DCP Guidelines and Council’s Energy Smart Homes Code, sunlight is to be available to at least 40% of required open space for dwellings within the development and on neighbouring properties for at least three hours between 9am and 3pm.

The development is appropriately sited on the land with a usable area of private open space orientated to receive reasonable levels solar access.

Additionally, the development will not unreasonably impact on adjoining properties solar access to private open space.

Views

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

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

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

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

Visual Privacy

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

· Direct overlooking of principal living areas and private open spaces of other dwellings is minimised firstly by:

- building siting and layout

- location of windows and balconies

and secondly by:

- design of windows or use of screening devices and landscaping.

The subject land is relatively flat with 1.5m of cross-fall falling from the front to the rear of the site, resulting in finished floor levels that reasonably relate to existing ground levels and no elevated floor levels. This, coupled with boundary fencing, will result in satisfactory outcomes in terms of visual privacy impacts from the development on adjoining properties.

The adjoining dwelling to the south comprises elevated floor levels, including an elevated balcony which could result in overlooking of the subject land. However, the design appears to be cognisant of this fact and the principle living areas (including private open space) are orientated such that they will not be overlooked. The design is considered acceptable.

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.

In consideration of the DCP Guidelines the proposal is considered to be satisfactory. The site is located in an area where ambient noise levels are expected to be low due to the predominant residential land use pattern. Hill Street does carry a reasonable amount of traffic north/south across the city, so it is positive to note that there are no bedrooms immediately adjoining the street frontage and that windows within the street frontage are double glazed thus improving the acoustic amenity of the dwelling.

Security

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

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

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

The siting and design of the dwelling is appropriate to be able to maintain safety and minimise the potential for crime, vandalism and fear for residents. Habitable room windows will address public roads, thereby providing opportunities for natural surveillance. The proposed front fencing (being open style) will not restrict sightlines to public areas, nor will it create hiding spaces for uninvited persons within the frontage, and will provide territorial reinforcement and delineate public and private spaces. Internal access to the dwellings will be available through the garage.

Site Access and Circulation Objectives

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

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

The development’s compliance with the above objectives will be considered in the assessment of the following planning outcomes.

Circulation and Design

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcome in regard to Circulation and Design:

· accessways and parking areas are designed to manage stormwater

· accessways, driveways and open parking areas are suitably landscaped to enhance amenity while providing security and accessibility to residents and visitors

· the site layout allows people with a disability to travel to and within the site between car parks, buildings and communal open space.

Reverse egress will be required from the attached garage consistent with the majority of residential situations across the city and is considered satisfactory. The driveway utilises the existing layback and footpath crossing and widens at the front of the garage to provide access. The design of the driveway is cognisant of the existence of the power pole within the footpath and the existing arrangement being utilised is acceptable. Council’s technical services raise no objections to the proposed vehicle egress/ingress.

Car Parking

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

· Parking facilities are provided, designed and located to:

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

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

· Car parking is provided with regard to the:

- number and size of proposed dwellings

- requirements of people with limited mobility or disabilities.

The development will result in at least two onsite car parking spaces through the provision of the attached double garage. Opportunity for stacked parking would also exist in front of the garage. The parking arrangements are acceptable.

Private Open Space

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

· private open space is clearly defined for private use

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

· Private open space is:

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

– accessible from a living area of the dwelling

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

– Orientated to optimise year round use.

The submitted plans show an area of 159m²of private open space, well in excess of the numerical requirements of the DCP. The area of private open space will be level, connected to the living spaces of the dwelling, and private and well orientated to receive sunlight from the north.

The development is acceptable in terms of private open space.

Open Space and Landscaping

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

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

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

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

– allow cost effective management.

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

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

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

A landscape plan was not submitted in support of the dwelling, which is not typically required for single dwellings. However, given the heritage setting, a condition is attached that requires a detailed landscape plan to be submitted prior to the issue of a construction certificate. The landscape plan shall relate to the front setback area and show hard and soft landscaped areas, as well as show at least two suitable trees; along with the type, number and location of shrubs and ground covers.

Water and Soil Management Objectives

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

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

The development’s compliance with the above objectives will be considered in the assessment of the following planning outcomes.

Stormwater

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

· On-site drainage systems are designed to consider:

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

– scope for on-site infiltration of water

– safety and convenience of pedestrians and vehicles

– overland flow paths.

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

Relevant conditions of consent are attached to the Notice of Approval in relation to stormwater management of the site.

Erosion and Sedimentation

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

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

Erosion and sediment control measures will be required to be implemented during construction. Attached is a condition of consent addressing this issue.

Chapter 13 – Heritage

The land is located within a heritage conservation area and as such Council’s heritage provisions apply. These have been addressed under the heading OLEP 2011 and the infill Guidelines below.

INFILL GUIDELINES

The development is described as new dwelling located in the central heritage conservation area, and as such is identified as infill development. Accordingly, the infill guidelines recently adopted by Council are applicable to the application.

The Setting

The Burra Charter includes in Article 8 in its section on "Setting":

"Conservation requires the retention of an appropriate visual setting and other relationships that contribute to the cultural significance of the place. New construction, demolition, intrusions or other changes which would adversely affect the setting or relationships are not appropriate"

It is important to firstly establish the context and setting of the location concerned as the first step in establishing the level of heritage significance relating to the subject land. Obviously, certain characteristics and idiosyncrasies of a particular place are unique to that setting; some areas within a heritage setting will intuitively have a higher level of significance than other areas by virtue of its spatial setting, surrounding built form, consistency of streetscape and the characteristics and elements within the public realm.

As shown below, the context and setting of the land in question is defined by the mix of dwelling styles from varying periods, the consistency of the streetscape and the location on the periphery of the heritage conservation area. These characteristics combined, result in a setting that has a lower significance than other areas within the heritage conservation area, which allows for a more contemporary design within the streetscape.

Objectives of Infill Design

· 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 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.

The development is not antipathetic to the objects of the guideline. The development is appropriate for its context and setting, and will not adversely affect the significance, character or appearance of the heritage conservation area. Additionally, the development will not affect the existing tree canopy within the locality.

Assessment Criteria

Character

As established above, the area concerned is characterised as a mix of dwellings from a range of periods set amongst a wide street, lined with mature deciduous trees. There are several non-residential uses further to the south including a restaurant, school, church and pub. The general topography consists of a gentle rise to the south in Hill Street. Most dwellings comprise consistent setbacks with established front gardens. The proposed development is not inconsistent with the residential character of the locality in terms of use, scale, setbacks and building appearance.

In terms of the proposed fence, Council’s Heritage Advisor provides the following comments:

The Infill design guide which forms part of the DCP indicates that fences should be similar to the adjoining fences.

There is a range of fences in this area of Hill Street.

The majority have walls in face brick but there are several in painted render.

The majority are lower than the proposed 1800mm high however there are several which are a similar height. These tend to be on the contemporary properties.

The proposal is therefore acceptable on the basis that it will suit the proposed new house and will not detract from the streetscape, subject to the proposed palisade decorative aluminium infill be the same as drawn. It is to consist of simple vertical rods without elaborative elements which would be out of keeping with the contemporary house and coloured Woodland Grey. The painted render colour is acceptable.

Scale and Form

The scale and form is consistent with the prevailing scale and form of development within the locality. The development adopts a single storey design in keeping with the prevailing development pattern within the majority of the conservation area, which is evident in the immediate surrounds, save for the adjoining property to the south and the recent infill development opposite the site.

The form of the building (as amended) adopts a contemporary design with the attached garage, rendered elements and timber features. However, the contemporary design of the dwelling through its form interoperates the tradition roof-scape (hip roof), the portico element – representing verandahs typical of a Californian bungalow, and vertically proportioned openings for the windows presenting to the street.

The form of the dwelling will be legible as a new element within the street and does not seek to mimic, replicate or copy a period dwelling.

It is important to reiterate that the attached garage is acceptable in this context as established above. There will be circumstances where the context, setting and characteristics of a particular site are more significant and intact, or spatially significant (more centrally located within the HCA), and in those circumstances an attached garage would not be acceptable.

Siting

The proposed sitting is appropriate and consistent with the open style frontages and generous landscaped setting of other dwellings in the locality and typical of residential properties in the central heritage conservation area. The front setbacks of the subject dwelling are generally consistent with the immediately adjoining developments.

Side setbacks are consistent with the adjoining development to the south and are considered acceptable in the context and setting.

Materials and Colour

The applicant submits the following materials and colours will be utilised within the development:

Roof Woodland grey

Facia, Gutters, etc Woodland grey

Window frames Woodland grey

Garage door Woodland grey

Driveway Charcoal grey

Bricks Austral – Old Colonial – Amber Glow

Moroka Finish Taubmans - Paperbark.

Council’s Heritage Advisor has agreed to the above colours and finishes. The dark grey elements (including the driveway) will be recessive and understated, which is important for a new element with an established precinct to sit sympathetically. The selected brick is sympathetic to the traditional buff brick used throughout the conservation area and will be appropriate in this context.

Detailing

The proposed detailing whilst contemporary, will be appropriate for the context and setting and when balanced against the above considerations, the detailing will be acceptable.

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

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

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

Context and Setting

The context and setting has been established throughout the report, ie. the mix of dwellings styles, the consistency of the streetscape and the location on the periphery of the heritage conservation area. The non-residential uses within the street have been considered in the assessment of the appropriateness of the development, which is determined, on balance to be acceptable and will not unreasonably detract from its context and setting.

Neighbourhood Amenity

As established above, the development is acceptable in terms of the level of impact upon adjoining residential properties. The development will not impact adjoining properties by way of overshadowing, visual bulk or visual privacy.

Visual Impact

The visual impacts of the development have been addressed above and are found to be acceptable in the context.

Traffic Impact

The development will not result in any unreasonable traffic impacts in the locality, over and above those previously experienced prior to the former dwelling being demolished.

Environmental Impact

The subject land is a highly modified residential parcel of land with no significant vegetation on the property. The development will not result in any adverse impact on endangered ecological communities, threated species or habitats.

Heritage Impact

The impacts upon the heritage significance of the central heritage conservation area has been addressed in detail in the body of this report and have been found to be acceptable.

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

The site is considered suitable for the proposed single dwelling. Council staff are not aware of the subject property being affected by any physical, natural or technological hazards that would unreasonably constrain the development from occurring in a satisfactory manner.

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

The proposed development is not defined as advertised development under the provisions of the LEP and, as such, no formal exhibition of the application was required. However, the original design submitted (since amended) was notified to adjoining property owners. No submissions were received.

PUBLIC INTEREST s79C(1)(e)

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 the context and setting. 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, D17/21132 ⇩

2 Plans, D17/20943 ⇩

Reference:	DA 335/2012(2)	Determination Date	3 March 2017
PR Number	PR17660
Applicant/s:	Health Infrastructure on behalf of Health Administration Corporation
Owner/s:	Health Administration Corporation
Location:	Lots 10B, 10C, 10D, 10E and 10F DP 4099, Lot 10A DP 187494 - 127 and 129-133 Sale Street, Orange
Proposal:	Modification of development consent – the modification involve deleting Condition (19) which related to fire safety provisions under the Building Code of Australia.
Value:	$0.00

Reference:	DA 426/2015(3)	Determination Date	21 February 2017
PR Number	PR4274
Applicant/s:	Bassman Drafting Services
Owner/s:	Mr JS Pegum and Ms R Gradon
Location:	Lots 3 and 4 DP 6662 - 106 and 106A Franklin Road, Orange
Proposal:	Modification of development consent - demolition (part dwelling and sheds), dwelling alterations and additions, swimming pool with associated deck and fencing, and secondary dwelling. The modification involves altering the approved design and detailing for the existing east addition to the principal dwelling; and staging the construction works relating to the principal dwelling.
Value:	$550,000 (being the same value as the original development)

Reference:	DA 331/2016(1)	Determination Date	6 March 2017
PR Number	PR3863
Applicant/s:	Orange Land Development Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Mr GG and Mrs TM Tilston
Location:	Lot 23 Sec 6 DP 8196 - 8 Endsleigh Avenue, Orange
Proposal:	Subdivision (two lot residential - Torrens Title), Subdivision (five lot residential - Community Title), Dwellings (four), Carport, Demolition (ancillary structures) and Tree Removal
Value:	$880,000

Reference:	DA 340/2016(2)	Determination Date	23 February 2017
PR Number	PR6950
Applicant/s:	Mr RA Cummins
Owner/s:	Mr RA and Ms JA Cummins
Location:	Lot 1 DP 195511 - 259 Lords Place, Orange
Proposal:	Modification of development consent - proposed serviced apartments and office premises - the modification involves minor reconfiguration of internal spaces in order to provide a more functional layout and simplify fire safety upgrading.
Value:	$200,000 (being the same value as the original development)

Reference:	DA 416/2016(1)	Determination Date	11 February 2017
PR Number	PR22910
Applicant/s:	Mr MM Oosterveen
Owner/s:	Mr MM Oosterveen
Location:	Lot 100 DP 1124705 - 7-9 Dora Street, Orange
Proposal:	Office premises (alterations and additions to pathology laboratory and office), and replacement shed (new construction)
Value:	$198,000

Reference:	DA 422/2016(1)	Determination Date	23 February 2017
PR Number	PR17293
Applicant/s:	Orange Society of Model Engineers
Owner/s:	NSW Government
Location:	Lots 701 and 702 DP 1002275 - Matthews Park - Moulder Street, Orange
Proposal:	Recreation area (additions to signal box)
Value:	$40,000

Reference:	DA 434/2016(1)	Determination Date	22 February 2017
PR Number	PR7468
Applicant/s:	Mr AM Low and Ms AK Bailey
Owner/s:	Mr AM Low and Ms AK Bailey
Location:	Lot 1 DP 731620 - 123 March Street, Orange
Proposal:	Demolition (tree removal)
Value:	$1,800

Reference:	DA 447/2016(1)	Determination Date	13 March 2017
PR Number	PR21294
Applicant/s:	Whyalla Circuit Pty Limited
Owner/s:	Country Rail Infrastructure Authority
Location:	Lot 16 DP 1134650 and Lot 101 DP 1037022, 150 and 154 Peisley Street, Orange
Proposal:	Subdivision (boundary adjustment)
Value:	$0.00

Reference:	DA 10/2017(1)	Determination Date	6 March 2017
PR Number	PR17233
Applicant/s:	Mrs J Campbell
Owner/s:	Mr DA and Mrs JL Player
Location:	Lot 101 DP 884400 -184-190 Peisley Street, Orange
Proposal:	Restaurant (change of use) and business identification signs
Value:	$500,000

Reference:	DA 14/2017(1)	Determination Date	20 February 2017
PR Number	PR6952
Applicant/s:	Messenger Superannuation Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Messenger Superannuation Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 1 DP 745659 - 263 Lords Place, Orange
Proposal:	Demolition (tree removal)
Value:	$4,400

Reference:	DA 16/2017(1)	Determination Date	8 March 2017
PR Number	PR27165
Applicant/s:	Havenhand and Mather Architects
Owner/s:	United Protestant Association of NSW Limited
Location:	Lot 100 DP 1209880 - March Street, Orange (AKA 70 Nile Street)
Proposal:	Demolition (dwelling house, garage and trees)
Value:	$28,000

Reference:	DA 21/2017(1)	Determination Date	16 March 2017
PR Number	PR809
Applicant/s:	Mrs JL Pottie
Owner/s:	Mrs JL Pottie
Location:	Lot 8 SP 17153 - 8/182 Anson Street, Orange
Proposal:	Serviced apartment (change of use from commercial premises)
Value:	$0.00

Reference:	DA 24/2017(1)	Determination Date	14 March 2017
PR Number	PR25385
Applicant/s:	Hotel Canobolas Pty Limited
Owner/s:	Hotel Canobolas Pty Limited
Location:	Lot 18 SP 82891 - 18/266 Summer Street, Orange
Proposal:	Pub (alterations - new kitchen)
Value:	$20,000

Reference:	DA 31/2017(1)	Determination Date	28 February 2017
PR Number	PR20399
Applicant/s:	Orange Aboriginal Medical Service Inc.
Owner/s:	Orange Aboriginal Medical Service Inc.
Location:	Lot 14 DP 270446 - 16 Cameron Place, Orange
Proposal:	Medical centre
Value:	$850,000

AREA	2015 PLAN RATE	2017 PLAN RATE
Waratah urban release area	$20,000	$19,996.29
Ploughmans Valley urban release area	$19,774	$19,827.87
North West urban release area	$15,774	$16,442.94
DPI/Bloomfield urban release area	$15,270	$15,566.91
Remainder of LGA	$9,868	$9,928.02
Phillip Street urban release area	$20,000 (capped)	$19,823.50
The Shiralee urban release area	$20,000 (capped)	$20,000 (capped)

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:	4 April 2017
Determination:	CONSENT GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:

Consent to Operate From:	5 April 2017
Consent to Lapse On:	5 April 2022