Agenda of Council Meeting

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

MINUTES OF THE

Ordinary Council Meeting

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

ON 6 June 2017

COMMENCING AT 7.00pm

1 Introduction

Attendance

Cr J Davis OAM (Mayor), Cr J Hamling (Deputy Mayor), Cr A Brown, Cr K Duffy, Cr R Gander, Cr C Gryllis, Cr R Kidd, Cr S Munro, Cr G Taylor, Cr R Turner, Cr J Whitton

General Manager, Director Corporate and Commercial Services, Director Development Services, Director Community, Recreation and Cultural Services, Director Technical Services, Manager Administration and Governance, Manager Corporate and Community Relations, Water and Sewerage Strategic Manager, Manager Building and Environment, Senior Planner (Drum)

RESOLVED - 17/209 Cr S Munro/Cr R Gander

That Council allow the media to record the Council Meeting.

1.1 APOLOGIES

RESOLVED - 17/210 Cr J Hamling/Cr C Gryllis

That the apology be accepted from Cr N Jones for the Council Meeting of Orange City Council on 6 June 2017.

1.2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

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

Cr J Davis declared a pecuniary interest in item 2.4 of the Planning and Development Committee (DA 113/2017(1) – 38-44 Bathurst Road) as he is the business owner.

Cr J Hamling declared a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in item 2.4 of the Planning and Development Committee (DA 113/2017(1) – 38-44 Bathurst Road) as he ran on Cr Davis’s ticket in the 2012 Local Government Election.

Cr C Gryllis declared a pecuniary interest in item 2.6 of the Planning and Development Committee (Planning Proposal Old Hospital Site) as an agent acting in associated matter.

2 Mayoral Minutes

Nil

THE MAYOR DECLARED THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ADJOURNED FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE OPEN FORUM AT 7.07PM

OPEN FORUM

Item 2.2 – Employment and Economic Development Policy Committee – Update on Quarterly Unemployment Data (Grow Local Program)

Mr Kevin McGuire (Wangarang)

Mr McGuire thanked Council for grants received under the Grow Local campaign and outlined the significant development of Wangarang Industries Council’s funding had provided.

Item 2.3 – Planning and Development Committee - DA 245/2016(1) - 6/175 and 7/175 Dalton Street

Mr Dhruv Patel

Mr Patel sought Council’s approval of the development application.

Item 2.2 – Planning and Development Committee – DA 63/2017(1) - 36-40 Turner Crescent, Orange

Ms Jodie Williams

Ms Williams outlined her objection to the development.

Ms Kylie Webster

Ms Webster outlined her objection to the development.

Mr Peter Calder

Mr Calder outlined his objection to the development.

Mr Graeme Scott

Mr Scott outlined his objection to the development.

THE OPEN FORUM CONCLUDED AT 8.00PM

3 Confirmation of Minutes of Previous Meeting

RESOLVED - 17/211 Cr J Whitton/Cr S Munro

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Orange City Council held on 16 May 2017 (copies of which were circulated to all members) be and are hereby confirmed as a true and accurate record of the proceedings of the Council meeting held on 16 May 2017.

4 Notices of Motion/Notices of Rescission

Nil

THE MAYOR DECLARED THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ADJOURNED FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE POLICY COMMITTEE MEETINGS AT 8.00PM

THE MAYOR DECLARED THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL RESUMED AT 9.48PM

5 General Reports

5.1 Register of Delegations

TRIM Reference: 2016/2974

RESOLVED - 17/248 Cr C Gryllis/Cr S Munro

That the Register of Delegations, as amended in June 2017, be adopted.

6 Closed Meeting

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

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

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

RESOLVED - 17/249 Cr R Gander/Cr C Gryllis

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

6.1 NetWaste Tender F2442 - Tender for the Collection and Recycling of Scrap Metal for Councils in the NetWaste Region

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

6.2 Solar Power Purchase Agreements Aquatic Centre and Civic Centre

6.3 EOI - Loan Borrowings

6.4 General Manager's Performance Appraisal (RESTRICTED)

This item is classified CONFIDENTIAL under the provisions of Section 10A(2) of the Local Government Act 1993, which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to (a) personnel matters concerning particular individuals (other than councillors).

6.5 Complaints under Orange City Council Code of Conduct (RESTRICTED)

This item is classified CONFIDENTIAL under the provisions of Section 10A(2) of the Local Government Act 1993, which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to (i) alleged contraventions of any code of conduct requirements applicable under section 440.

The Mayor declared the Ordinary Meeting of Council adjourned for the conduct of the Closed Meeting at 9.51pm.

The Mayor declared the Ordinary Meeting of Council resumed at 10.37pm.

7 Resolutions from Closed Meeting

The Mayor read out the following resolutions made in the Closed Meeting of Council.

6.1 NetWaste Tender F2442 - Tender for the Collection and Recycling of Scrap Metal for Councils in the NetWaste Region

TRIM Reference: 2017/1010

RESOLVED - 17/250 Cr C Gryllis/Cr R Gander

1 That Council award contract F2442 for Collection and Recycling of Scrap Metal for Councils in the NetWaste Region to Sims Metal Management.

2 That Council confirm its involvement in the Contract to NetWaste and execute the Contract documents as appropriate.

3 That approval be granted for the use of the Council Seal on any relevant document if required.

Division of Voting
Voted For	Cr J Davis (Mayor), Cr K Duffy, Cr R Gander, Cr C Gryllis, Cr J Hamling, Cr R Kidd, Cr S Munro, Cr G Taylor, Cr R Turner, Cr J Whitton, Cr A Brown
Voted Against	Nil
Absent	Cr N Jones

6.2 Solar Power Purchase Agreements Aquatic Centre and Civic Centre

TRIM Reference: 2017/913

RESOLVED - 17/251 Cr S Munro/Cr J Hamling

1 That Council award the tender for the Solar Panels and Power Purchase Agreement on the Aquatic Centre roof to Kenjarhy Solar.

2 That permission be granted for the use of the Council seal on any relevant document if required.

Division of Voting
Voted For	Cr J Davis (Mayor), Cr K Duffy, Cr R Gander, Cr C Gryllis, Cr J Hamling, Cr R Kidd, Cr S Munro, Cr G Taylor, Cr R Turner, Cr J Whitton, Cr A Brown
Voted Against	Nil
Absent	Cr N Jones

6.3 EOI - Loan Borrowings

TRIM Reference: 2017/979

RESOLVED - 17/252 Cr J Davis/Cr S Munro

That the loan be undertaken as an internal loan if a response is received from the Office of Local Government by 19 June 2017, otherwise:

1 That the loan funds be drawn from the Commonwealth Bank of Australia repaid in quarterly instalments fixed for five years at 3.12%.

2 That the General Manager be authorised to execute relevant documents.

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

4 That the necessary advices be supplied to update the NSW Government on Council’s borrowings.

Division of Voting
Voted For	Cr J Davis (Mayor), Cr K Duffy, Cr R Gander, Cr C Gryllis, Cr J Hamling, Cr R Kidd, Cr S Munro, Cr G Taylor, Cr R Turner, Cr J Whitton, Cr A Brown
Voted Against	Nil
Absent	Cr N Jones

6.4 General Manager's Performance Appraisal (RESTRICTED)

TRIM Reference: 2017/1016

RESOLVED - 17/253 Cr G Taylor/Cr J Whitton

1 That the completion of the General Manager’s performance appraisal be noted.

2 That the Performance Agreement for 2017/18 and the action plan for 2017/18 be noted.

3 That the next appraisal of the General Manager be held prior to October 2018.

6.5 Complaints under Orange City Council Code of Conduct

TRIM Reference: 2017/1087

RESOLVED - 17/254 Cr J Whitton/Cr G Taylor

That the report on complaints under Orange City Council Code of Conduct be deferred.

The Meeting Closed at 10.39PM

This is Page Number 6 and the Final Page of the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Orange City Council held on 6 June 2017.

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

MINUTES OF THE

Extraordinary Council Meeting

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

ON 13 June 2017

COMMENCING AT 7.00pm

1 Introduction

Attendance

Cr J Davis OAM (Mayor), Cr J Hamling (Deputy Mayor), Cr K Duffy, Cr R Gander, Cr C Gryllis, Cr R Kidd, Cr S Munro, and Cr G Taylor.

RESOLVED - 17/255 Cr S Munro/Cr C Gryllis

That Council allow the media to record the Council Meeting.

1.1 APOLOGIES

RESOLVED - 17/256 Cr C Gryllis/Cr S Munro

That the apologies be accepted from Cr A Brown, Cr N Jones and Cr R Turner for the Council Meeting of Orange City Council on 13 June 2017.

1.2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

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

Nil

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

Ms Linda Dawson

Ms Dawson made a pesentation to support her submission regarding the fee for tutoring in the Library.

THE OPEN FORUM CONCLUDED AT 7. 08 PM

2 General Reports

2.1 Adoption of Integrated Planning and Reporting Documents - Community Strategic Plan, Delivery/Operational Plan and Resourcing Strategy

TRIM Reference: 2017/1017

RESOLVED - 17/257 Cr R Gander/Cr S Munro

1 That in accordance with Sections 534, 535, 537 and 538 of the Local Government Act 1993, Council adopt the following structure for rating purposes for the period 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018, and make the ad valorem rate in the dollar and base amount as detailed in the table below, noting that land value to be used is based on the valuation date of 1 July 2016 and supplementary information provided since that date, for the rateable land in the Orange Local Government Area, as follows:

Ordinary Rates	Value of assessments $M	Ad Valorem Amount	Base Amount	Base Amount % of Total	Estimated Yield $
Residential	1,796	0.005747	662.56	48.79%	21,327,924
Residential – Rural Residential	169	0.003229	662.56	36.12%	933,694
Residential – Clifton Grove	59	0.004191	662.56	36.23%	418,843
Residential – Ammerdown	14	0.004986	662.56	29.64%	96,110
Residential – Village	18	0.003601	393.25	49.66%	149,656
Farmland	230	0.001617	662.56	36.72%	674,913
Business	517	0.012170	662.56	11.14%	7,570,805
Business – Village	1	0.003601	393.25	49.94%	11,811
Special Rates
Orange Central Business Area	147	0.004259	N/A	N/A	655,769
				TOTAL	$31,839,525

2 That Council adopt the Schedule of Fees and Charges as listed in the exhibited draft Delivery/Operational Plan for the period 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018, provided that such changes may be varied by any alteration to the Local Government Act 1993 or Local Government (General) Regulation as directed by the NSW Government and subject to Council having the right to vary fees charged during the year subject to the required exhibition processes being observed, with the following amendments to be re-advertised, noting these are the ex GST amounts:

a The interest rate payable on overdue rates and charges be set at 7.5%.

b Showground Pavilion – events of greater than 1 week duration – fee determined individually for each application

c Before and After School Care – Before school session per child - $21.00

d Before and After School Care – After school session per child - $27.00

e Vacation Care – per child per day - $57.00

f Family Day Care – Fee per hour of contracted care or part thereof - Before and After School Care - $7.70 - $12.50

g Family Day Care – Vacation Care – Daily rate - $55.00 - $60.00

h Spring Street Childcare Centre - Bookings for extra day - $96.00

i Yarrawong Childcare Centre – Bookings for extra day - $96.00

j Residential Services – Residents contribution of their benefits – Residents rent contribution – to be determined by the National Disability Insurance Agency

k Residential Services – Residents contribution of their benefits – Residents board and lodgings – to be determined by the National Disability Insurance Agency

l Companion Animals – For a de-sexed animal - $53.00 with CPI to be applied from 1 July 2017

m Companion Animals - For a de-sexed animal owned by an eligible pensioner - $22.00 with CPI to be applied from 1 July 2017

n Companion Animals - For an animal not de-sexed - $195.00 with CPI to be applied from 1 July 2017

o Companion Animals – Animal not de-sexed but kept by a recognised breeder for breeding purposes - $53.00 with CPI to be applied from 1 July 2017

p Private Certification – Lodgement of privately certified Part 4A certification with Council (Clause 263(2))- $36.00

q Property Certificate – Certificate under s735A of the Local Government Act - $195.00

r Environmental Learning Facility – usage by not for profit community groups – Free hire of venue

s Certificate 603 - $80.00

t Amend references to the “Friends of the Gallery” free venue hire to include “Friends of the Museum”.

u Amend Carriage Cottage – Community Group entries to the following:

i. Community Group – non-profit – up to 10 times in one year – free

ii. Community Group – non-profit – per hour after 10 times per year - $9.55

3 That the following expenditure, as detailed in the draft Delivery/Operational Plan, for the period 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018 be voted in accordance with the requirements of Clause 211 (2) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005:

2017/18	General Fund	Water Supply	Sewer Operations	All Funds
Operational Expenditure	$69,671,121	$21,208,680	$10,124,894	$101,004,695
Capital Expenditure	28,337,024	10,873,997	5,297,670	44,508,691
Loan Repayments	3,286,574	254,312	138,892	3,679,778
TOTAL	$101,294,719	$32,336,989	$15,561,456	$149,193,164

4 That Council adopt the:

a 2017/18 – 2026/27 Community Strategic Plan

b 2017/18 – 2020/21 Delivery/Operational Plan

c Resourcing Strategy incorporating the Long-Term Financial Plan, Workforce Management Plan, Asset Management Policy and Strategy

5 That Council approve requests for Financial Assistance of:

a General Donations of $55,250.50

GENERAL DONATIONS	Donations information	Amount (ex GST)
Orange Pre-School Kindergarten Ltd	Rates reimbursement	$ 1,299.00
3rd Orange Scout Group	Rates reimbursement	$ 2,184.00
Orange District Girl Guides	Rates reimbursement	$ 612.50
CareWest Ltd	Rates reimbursement	$ 2,792.00
City of Orange Brass Band	Rates reimbursement	$ 2,989.00
Orange War Widows Social Club	Bus trips and lunches for members	$ 500.00
Orange Society of Model Engineers Cooperative Ltd	Monthly miniature railway in Matthews Park	$ 555.00
Mid Western Consumer Advisory Group Inc. (MWCAG) The O'Brien Centre	Support for mental health service provision	$ 1,500.00
Orange Woodworkers Association Inc	Equipment	$ 1,375.00
Orange Bush Nippers Inc	Lifesaving equipment	$ 3,000.00
The Come Together Choir	Safety rails, ramp and microphone	$ 1,500.00
Foodcare Orange Inc	Engage dietician for series of recipe master cards	$ 500.00
Bowen Community Technology Centre	Supporting children in the Bowen area	$ 1,500.00
Western Region Academy of Sport (WRAS)	To assist athletes in Orange based training sessions	$ 1,121.00
Central West Aboriginal Cancer Network (Community Group)	Well Women's Day and Breastscreen	$ 3,000.00
Cantar Inc	Purchase music and facility hire for Women's Community Choir	$ 500.00
Glenroi Community Group	BBQ annual RSPCA vet check and inoculations and Glenroi community activities	$ 1,500.00
Fusion Australia Ltd	Youth and community programs	$ 1,500.00
Orange and District Horticultural Society	Daffodil and Spring shows	$ 100.00
City of Orange Eisteddfod Society Inc	Junior Pianoforte Scholarship	$ 600.00
City of Orange Veterans Golf Inc	Orange Gold Classic for Veterans	$ 750.00
Orange and District Early Education Program (ODEEP)	Support for program to develop skills for children to transition to school	$ 1,500.00
Salted Grace Interiors	Upgrades to rooms for vulnerable children	$ 750.00
Orange Uniting Church	Upgrade community facilities with heating and cooling infrastructure	$ 3,000.00
Orange Aero Club Inc	Orange Aero-Medical Exchange Facility - facilities for medical patients	$ 3,000.00
The Shepherd Centre (for Deaf Children)	Ready-set-go - school readiness program for Orange children with hearing difficulties	$ 3,000.00
Orange Eight Day Games	Support for event and prize giving	$ 1,500.00
Orange Baptist Church	Orange Community Christmas Lunch	$ 650.00
Country Women's Association of NSW and Central West Group	Schools public speaking competition - prizes	$ 200.00
Canobolas Clontarf	Water confidence program for boys	$ 500.00
Calare Public School	Senior presentation Day	$ 500.00
Orange Legacy	Banners in main street	$ 648.00
Orange Rainbow Swimming Club	Swimming lessons for children with a disability	$ 375.00
Orange Spinners and Handcrafts Group	Fibre muster event	$ 1,000.00
Orange Colour City Running Festival	Event administration	$ 500.00
History Council of NSW Inc (HCNSW)	Workshop Orange Readers and Writers Festival	$ 1,000.00
All schools in Orange	Prize money for schools- available on application	$ 2,000.00
Canobolas Highland Pipe Band	Uniforms and equipment	$ 750.00
Apple Festival	Event sponsorship	$ 5,000.00
	TOTAL	$ 55,250.50

b Major Promotions and Sponsorships of $48,000

MAJOR PROMOTIONS AND SPONSORSHIP	Donations information	Amount
Canobolas Cottage Inc (trading as Ronald McDonald House)	Gala Ball	$ 1,500.00
Cancer Council NSW	Orange relay for life	$ 1,500.00
Epilepsy Support Group Central West	Nurse	$ 3,000.00
Rotary Club of Orange	Banjo Paterson Poetry Festival - event management	$ 10,000.00
Orange FOOD Week	Event management	$ 1,500.00
Orange Vignerons' Association	Wine Week - event management	$ 1,500.00
Dirt Lane Press	Local author - book publication	$ 3,000.00
Wangarang Industries	Charity Golf Challenge event	$ 1,500.00
McCormack Barber	New Year's Eve Fireworks	$ 20,000.00
Lions Club of Orange	Camel races event	$ 1,500.00
Australian National Field Days	Official program costs	$ 1,500.00
Orange City Bowling Club	Golden Eagle Pairs Classic - 50th Anniversary	$ 1,500.00
	TOTAL	$ 48,000.00

c In region events donations – from Tourism Services Promotions budget

Event	Tourism Services Promotions budget
Orange FOOD week	$8,500
Orange Vignerons' Association - Wine week	$8,500
Apple Festival/Ramble	$1,000
Rotary Club of Orange - Banjo Festival (will be supplemented with in-kind up to $5,000 in value)	$5,000
TOTALS	$23,000.00

6 That the Councillor allowance be set at $19,310 and the Mayoral Allowance be set at $42,120 for 2017/18, being the maximum allowable for Regional Rural councils as determined by the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal.

7 That the Levels of Service table be amended with the following insertion:

Orange Regional Museum opened in November 2016. A rotating series of installations will showcase the social histories and heritage of the region through diverse themes such as migration, food, mining, sporting and others. The Museum also presents a diverse program of workshops, lectures and family friendly activities and has a growing collection of historical items. The Museum is open 9am to 5pm daily (except Christmas Day and Good Friday). Entry is free.

8 That as the NSW Government has determined not to proceed with the Fire Emergency Services Levy, all notations and any impacts of the levy be removed from the Delivery/Operational Plan.

9 That $20,000 (ex GST) be added for Lucknow capital projects from the masterplan as a quarterly adjustment.

10 That $20,000 (ex GST) be added for Spring Hill capital projects from the masterplan as a quarterly adjustment.

QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE

Cr Kidd requested staff consider making the East Room or West Room of the Gallery available for tutoring.

Cr Duffy requested a report on the impact if Council were to remove the fee for tutoring in the Library. Cr Hamling requested this report include the number of tutors operating in the Library and how many students pay for tutoring in the Library.

Cr Kidd requested more information be sought from Food Care in relation to the cost of providing their services and where their funding comes from.

RESOLVED - 17/258 Cr R Kidd/Cr J Hamling

That the Council Meeting scheduled for 20 June 2017 be held on Thursday 22 June 2017 at 7.00pm due to a number of Councillors attending the National General Assembly of Local Government.

The Meeting Closed at 7.55PM

This is Page Number 19 and the Final Page of the Minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting of Orange City Council held on 13 June 2017.

Council Meeting 22 June 2017

5.4 Orange LEP Amendment 9 - Orange Airport Industrial Park - Submissions Report

TRIM REFERENCE: 2017/333

AUTHOR: David Waddell, Director Development Services

EXECUTIVE Summary

This report outlines the issues raised out of the exhibition process associated with Amendment 9 to Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Orange Airport Industrial Precinct. Additionally the remaining procedural steps involved are outlined along with options explored by staff with the NSW Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E).

133 submissions were received, including seven from Agencies as follows:

· NSW Rural Fire Service

· Roads and Maritime Services (two submissions)

· Civil Aviation Safety Authority

· Office of Environment and Heritage

· Department of Primary Industries – Agriculture

· Department of Primary Industries – Water (two submissions)

· Sidings Springs Observatory

In addition, both Blayney and Cabonne Councils made submissions objecting to the proposal.

Should Council resolve to proceed with the Amendment, then this report and all submissions will be forwarded to DP&E for consideration.

Council is reminded that the Minister for Planning is the ultimate consent authority for this Amendment, not Council.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “11.1 Our Economy – Encourage the growth of local business, support emerging industry sectors and attract new investment to Orange”.

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

1 That, having considered the report by the Director Development Services and the submissions made following exhibition, Council resolves in accordance with Section 59 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to proceed with Amendment 9 to Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 subject to:

· the proposed IN1 General Industrial zone being altered to IN2 Light Industrial zone and including as additional permissible uses Rural Industries, Agricultural Produce Industries and Freight Transport Facilities

· an Additional Permitted Use listing being added to schedule 1 of the Local Environmental Plan to enable Industrial Training Facilities in the proposed B7 area

2 That in the event that the additional permissible uses for Rural Industries, Agricultural Produce Industries and Freight Transport Facilities are not included for land in the IN2 Light Industrial Zone, the IN1 General Industrial zone in the original proposal be maintained.

3 That as the changes are made to address community submissions and in consultation with the Department of Planning and Environment, the proposal not be re-exhibited.

4 That, in consultation with the Department of Planning and Environment, the proposal be forwarded to the Parliamentary Counsel Office for legal opinion and subject to a satisfactory outcome the matter being submitted to Department of Planning and Environment for final determination and publication.

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

Amendment 9 to Orange LEP 2011 - Orange Airport Industrial Precinct was exhibited from 19 November 2016 to 31 January 2017. The proposal was also sent to agencies and councils in line with the Gateway requirement.

133 submissions were received, including seven from Agencies as follows:

· NSW Rural Fire Service

· Roads and Maritime Services (two submissions)

· Civil Aviation Safety Authority

· Office of Environment and Heritage

· Department of Primary Industries – Agriculture

· Department of Primary Industries – Water (two submissions)

· Sidings Springs Observatory

In addition both Blayney and Cabonne Councils made submissions objecting to the proposal.

Agency responses were as follows:

· NSW Rural Fire Service raised no objection to the proposal, noting that the site is not currently mapped as bush fire prone but that they consider it likely that a grassland hazard does exist at times on some adjoining lands. Consequently they recommend that the aims and objectives of Planning for Bushfire Protection 2006 be considered during any subsequent development application.

· Roads and Maritime Services initially requesting further traffic studies then not objecting to the proposal.

· Civil Aviation Safety Authority raised no objection to the proposal, advising that the National Airports Safeguarding Framework (NASF) guidelines be used when proposing or assessing development in the vicinity of airports as appropriate. NASF guidelines were developed by the Commonwealth in conjunction with state planning authorities and are intended to provide protection against inappropriate development in and around airports, providing a nationally consistent framework.

· Office of Environment and Heritage note that there appears to be a drainage line that meanders through the southern part of the site and an appropriate buffer should be placed on either side of this drainage line. OEH support the retention of remnant stands of vegetation including the Tablelands Snow Gum, Black Sallee, Candlebark and Ribbon Gum Grassy Woodland Endangered Ecological Community (EEC). OEH recommend maintaining records that demonstrate due diligence in relation to protection of Aboriginal heritage and archaeology to ensure that planning decisions do not inadvertently harm Aboriginal objects and demonstrate consistency to the Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in NSW. OEH also note that the level of flora and fauna assessment is as yet inadequate (Council will need to undertake further assessment). In this regard Council can ensure that further more detailed work is undertaken at the subdivision design stage.

· Department of Primary Industries – (Agriculture) - stating that the area is inherently valuable to agriculture as it includes Biophysical Strategic Agricultural Land however past and current planning provisions have led to fragmentation and the loss of such lands to residential uses hence the potential for productive and efficient agriculture is significantly reduced in this area and further stating that agricultural processing industries should be included to support job creation.

· Department of Primary Industries (Water) – providing general management suggestions should the proposal proceed including monitoring of groundwater and supporting reticulated water and sewerage.

· Australian Astronomical Observatory (AAO) which has responsibility for the Siding Springs Observatory made a submission having been approached by the Spring Hill & Surrounding Districts Consultative Committee. AAO note that the Observatory is 234km distant from the subject site and as such the effect of the estate upon the observatory “would be small”. AAO note that Orange lies outside the NSW Dark Skies Region and there is no legal requirement for Council to follow the Dark Sky Planning Guideline. Notwithstanding this they supplied a copy of the guideline for reference noting that minimising upward sky-glow is of benefit for everyone, not just astronomers.

Staff have collated the submissions made, extracted issues of concern and attempted to provide responses to these issues. Full Submission folders have been provided to Councillors under separate cover so that Councillors can be fully aware of issues raised.

The following issues were raised in submissions and the project team has attempted to provide responses for Council consideration against each issue. In addition, the team has referred to some of the more comprehensive submissions as reference points for detail within the issue topic. Against each issue is the number of submissions raising the issue.

Issue 1 - Expresses support for the proposal (1 submission)

No comment required.

Issue 2 - Expresses opposition to the proposal (119 submissions)

No comment required.

Issue 3 - Supports proposition that water issues can be readily managed (1 submission)

No comment. The author notes that the normal environmental controls on development placed by Council should prevent pollution of the catchment and also Council’s experience with stormwater harvesting adds another layer of safety.

Issue 4 - The proposal will result in negative amenity impacts for residents in Spring Hill, Huntley and adjoining districts (16 submissions)

If amenity is the sum total of impacts such as light spill, noise, traffic, visual impact and ‘the feel’ of the development in the locality, then there is little doubt that the proposal will alter the amenity of the area. Submissions raised amenity in a general sense combining the causal factors to conclude that the proposal will diminish the quality of life in the locality.

Traffic impacts are dealt with in responding to issues 16, 17 and 18. It is of note that the village of Spring Hill is already subject to heavy vehicle movements from the various quarries in the area and from aircraft noise. It is the intensification of these impacts, through increased frequency of heavy vehicles and potential additional noise sources, which worries residents.

Light spill is dealt with in response to other issues in this report. It is noted that Australian Standards for light infrastructure exist to prevent impacts, and this is what Orange City Council will rely on to minimise impacts.

Noise from any development in NSW is controlled by the Industrial Noise Policy and regulations. This will be the case with all developments within the proposed OAITP boundaries. In addition, the EIS for the airport extension dealt with aircraft noise impacts across the various areas impacted and gained approval for eh extension project. State law on these matters provides a baseline of safeguards and expectations. Orange City Council has and always will seek to provide higher standards where possible.

The more general amenity impact arising from the mere ‘presence’ of industrial developments in the area is difficult to quantify and mitigate against, other than to mitigate against the component parts. The “do nothing” approach is clearly the only other option.

Issue 5 - The need for the proposal is questioned because there are enough zoned sites in Blayney, Orange and Cabonne to support industrial demand (45 submissions)

Several of these submissions phrase this issue in terms of undeveloped ‘greenfield’ sites, while others point to built-out but vacant ‘brownfield’ sites. Further, some submissions refer only to supply within the Orange LGA, while others view supply across all three councils in the sub-region.

In each context the issue relates to the question of appropriate levels of supply of industrial land. Land use planning plays a significant role in maintaining a strong and vibrant local and regional economy. Both oversupply and undersupply of zoned land may cause market distortions that hinder the economy. Undersupply of land may artificially inflate prices to the detriment of new firms being able to establish or expand. Oversupply of land may both deflate prices and increase holding costs to the point of development becoming uneconomic.

Factors that may distort the demand level include broader economic conditions at the state and national level and fluctuations in local population growth rates; while supply levels may be distorted through “land banking” by private landowners.

Due to these uncertainties supply levels should be maintained within a range that is anticipated will not distort prices, defined as a price point that recovers the costs of development without creating an undue barrier to business establishment and/or expansion. An appropriate level for most sectors (residential, commercial, industrial) is typically regarded as between 15-20 years supply (relative to historic trends).

With regard to Electrolux, the former abattoir and various smaller established premises, availability of established buildings should be regarded in a similar manner to vacant houses and apartments in the residential sector. There will always be a vacancy rate or percentage of one level or another, but this does not mean that all premises are suitable for all prospective occupants.

Just as some households seek to be build new homes tailored to their own needs and preferences rather than adapt an existing house, likewise some industries and businesses have specific operational requirements that require purpose built facilities.

Additionally, the supply within the Orange LGA has minimal ability to provide larger sized parcels, which in turn limits the ability for Orange to attract major employment generators.

With regard to some of the undeveloped land, many of the available sites have been found to be constrained in a variety of ways, as outlined in the exhibition materials. This includes slope and topography, drainage issues and available infrastructure.

Some of the submissions have also referenced land in north Clergate which, although identified in the sub-regional strategy for industrial development, is currently zoned RU1 Primary Production; and the owner has indicated no intention to proceed with an industrial rezoning. To include such land in supply estimates would therefore be misleading.

Of the remaining supply of industrial zoned land in the city only 4 areas currently have vacant industrial land – Leewood Industrial Estate (including Scott Place), Edward Street north of the Southern Feeder Road (including the old saleyards site), Narrambla Industrial Estate and Clergate Road. There is a total of 95.2ha of land available in these areas, however only around 37ha of this supply is fully unconstrained.

Based on historical development of industrial land in Orange over the past 25 years, it is estimated that around 5.5 years of supply of this unconstrained industrial land exists, with only one parcel capable of accommodating a large scale development in excess of 5ha.

In terms of the availability of industrial land in Blayney and Cabonne shires, this is acknowledged. However, as stated in the proposal documentation, the market does not view industrial land in the three LGAs as interchangeable. Some firms seek to service a regional and interstate market, others have a more local focus. Some firms value proximity to larger labour pools than others. Some firms seek access to particular infrastructure and transport options more so than others.

Accordingly, the proposal has sought to maintain the overall industrial supply level that the sub-regional strategy nominated for the Orange LGA, recognising the original removal of the Towac area and the difficulties faced by the former abattoir and North Clergate areas.

If the supply represented by those locations is removed and not replaced within the Orange LGA, the intent of the sub-regional strategy would be distorted. This may cause the sub-region to lose the ability to attract those firms whose operational, logistic or market requirements are not well suited to rural shires.

Due to the time required to bring new land through the planning process, there is a need to ensure that supply remains ahead of the market. Waiting until supply exhausts would distort land values, causing some firms to locate in other regions; and this in turn would suppress the local and sub-regional economy. Creating new supply should therefore always occur against a backdrop of apparent ample supply.

The proposed development has the potential to create in excess of 1,100 new jobs once the site is fully occupied.

Issue 6 - There is inadequate water supply to service the proposal (1 submission)

In designing the Orange to Carcoar Pipeline, both current and future demands were allocated to each connection point along the route, including the Orange Airport Industrial Park. The process included water modelling by Orange City Council staff and peer review by consultants prior to the awarding of the Design and Construct project. Laying of the pipeline is underway, with commissioning of the project expected to be completed before the end of the 2017/2018 financial year.

Issue 7- The proposal will be in an area subject to flooding (2 submissions)

and

Issue 8 - Infrastructure is lacking in the area (2 submissions)

and

Issue 9 - The proposal lacks design detail (1 submission)

As described in the above response to Issue 6, water supply will be adequate with the construction of a new potable water connection between Orange and Carcoar that runs through the proposed site.

A new sewer main will also be constructed in conjunction with this water main to enable effluent from the existing Spring Hill/Lucknow sewerage system, as well as future waste water from the proposed development, to be pumped back to Orange for treatment at the Orange Sewage Treatment Plant. This will limit the potential for any groundwater contamination from the old Spring Hill Sewerage Treatment Plant by removing all existing and future effluent from the Spring Hill area.

Existing roads to the site, i.e. Huntley, Forest and Beasley Roads, are public roads and all have significant spare capacity to cater for expected traffic generated by the development. In addition, Forest Road is a Regional Road, which recognises its importance as a major link road within the region as well as a recognised route for heavy vehicles. Further information concerning roads and traffic is provided in the combined response to Issues 16, 17 and 18 below.

The site is located on relatively flat ground approximately 948m-950m AHD. A small rise to the southwest of the site rises to approximately 963m-964m AHD. With the exception of this area the proposal site is elevated relative to surrounding land and essentially straddles the watershed between catchments. The detailed design of the estate will address any localised flooding issues. Being at the top of the catchment there is little potential for major flooding.

The detailed design of the development will be considered once the rezoning decision has been finalised. However, the structure plan identifies potential development areas as well as the general layout in sufficient detail to progress with the rezoning application.

Issue 10 - The proposal will result in the loss of Prime Agricultural land (45 submissions)

The land is identified by the state as Biophysical Strategic Agricultural Land (BSAL). The primary purpose of BSAL classification in NSW is to reduce conflict between agriculture and the coal seam gas (CSG) industry. CSG is a lucrative although finite resource, whereas agriculture typically delivers lower but more sustained value as properly managed soils are essentially an indefinitely renewable resource.

Notwithstanding this, the amount of land required to sustain a commercially viable agricultural enterprise is substantial. In Orange the minimum lot size for rural subdivisions has been set at 100ha (250 acres) and is indicative of the amount of land that would typically be required for commercial viability of most forms of primary production. The LEP does enable consideration of smaller lots for more intensive forms of agriculture, such as horticulture or viticulture, when supported by a farm plan that confirms viability.

Orange has seen numerous small scale orchards and vineyards taken out of production over the years, with the properties effectively converting to rural-residential “lifestyle” properties, with little to no agricultural output generated. Such fragmentation of land is the most pronounced threat to continued agricultural use, both in terms of the lifestyle lot itself and the potential for residential-agricultural land use conflicts constraining the operational practices of neighbouring farms.

The subject land is situated on the southern side of the Orange airport in an area that has already been significantly fragmented into small lifestyle lots. Along Forest Road there are five residential lots between 1.2ha and 3.8ha in size; immediately west of Spring Hill in Cabonne Shire a 17 lot estate has been created ranging in size from 2ha-13ha. There are additionally various concessional lots of approximately 2ha throughout the area. Each residence constrains the ability of neighbouring farms to undertake various routine agricultural activities such as spraying in order to avoid complaints and protests.

Conversely the proposal seeks to establish a mixed light industrial, business and technology park estate adjacent to the airport. The proposal incorporates significant buffer lands that are to be zoned for public open space and embellished with landscaping. As such the proposal will not generate conflict with the operations of neighbouring farmlands. The impact upon the agricultural land is therefore limited to the extent of land involved in the proposal itself. At approximately 114ha of gross land involved, this equates to approximately one commercially viable farm.

The NSW Farmers Association (Orange branch) submission states in part:

“It is not clear that the project represents an unacceptable and large impact on the state’s BSAL asset base as a result of direct impact of the project, however, NSW Farmers would prefer that productive agricultural land, including BSAL, be protected.

…

In the analysis of the proposed site it mainly consists of white volcanic soil that occupies most of the lower ground, with some red volcanic soils on the higher parts of the proposed development area. This has made most of the proposed site only suitable for grazing enterprises and not suitable for horticultural crops such as fruit trees and vegetable crops. While there would be a reduction in agricultural output from sheep and cattle grazing, the proposed land area will have only a minimal impact on agricultural production across the Orange region.”

This is indicative of the broad brush approach that was employed in mapping BSAL lands. In other words, a BSAL designation is an indication that the agricultural value of land is “likely” to be high, but that further more localised investigation, such as presented by NSW Farmers, may give a better understanding of the actual value of any given site. This advice was received as part of the public exhibition process and was not solicited by Council.

In evaluating the proposal, the loss of an equivalent of one commercially viable farm needs to be balanced against the potential benefits that the creation of an employment precinct can generate. Admittedly, it would be preferable to locate on non-BSAL lands, however the unique characteristics of the site, such as proximity to air, road and rail infrastructure as well as a gas line already in-situ, provide additional advantages to the site that are not repeated elsewhere in the LGA. These advantages are outlined throughout the planning proposal and would enhance the employment and economic opportunities achievable. These reasons are considered to justify the relatively minor loss of agricultural land in this instance.

The NSW Farmers submission suggests encouraging greenhouses on part of the site, which if pursued could offset the potential loss of agricultural production. In land use planning terms, this would be classed as a rural industry and would be permissible in the proposed zones.

The Department of Primary Industries (Agriculture) states in its submission:

…….this proposal could provide significant opportunity for protected agriculture and other (more intensive industrialised) agricultural industries. These industries will generate employment and can take advantage of the infrastructure and transport facilities this proposal will provide. This use is consistent with the traditional “industrial and business” land uses that this amendment seeks, and will also enhance primary industry production. Hence DPI Agriculture recommends that agriculture and agricultural processing is included as a potential land use in this proposal.

Since this proposal’s instigation the NSW Government has released a Right to Farm policy that supports landholders in undertaking lawful agricultural practices without conflict or interference from neighbours or other land uses. If agricultural land and practises are near the proposal, DPI Agriculture encourages the council to take this policy into account and to also undertake a land use conflict risk assessment.

The area is inherently valuable to agriculture as it includes Biophysical Strategic Agricultural Land and supports a range of agricultural activities including grazing and intensive agriculture. However past and current planning provisions have led to fragmentation and the loss of such lands to residential uses hence the potential for productive and efficient agriculture is significantly reduced in this area.

The submission then encourages Blayney Cabonne and Orange Councils to continue to support the BCO Strategy as a means to prevent further land fragmentation across the region.

Issue 11 - Orange City Council should spend the funds on other projects including roads (2 submissions)

and

Issue 12 - The proposal will be cost prohibitive (3 submissions)

and

Issue 13 - No cost benefit analysis or Business plan has been produced by Orange City Council and therefore there is a significant financial risk (14 submissions)

and

Issue 14 - The financial sustainability of the Business Park is in doubt if current industrial land take up rates are used (10 submissions)

Council has long been a developer of industrial land in the city, with the Narrambla Estate the most recent example of this. Provision of an adequate and diverse supply of industrial land is a key part of Council's economic development role. This strategy is not just focussed on the construction of industrial estates, but also on the flow-on benefits which accrue to the broader local and regional economy through the development of enterprises within the estate. Council also has the capacity to take a long term approach to the delivery of the estate, with uptake of lots potentially fluctuating depending on overall economic conditions. However, as has been the case with Narrambla in particular, over the longer term this estate has proven to be a key generator of jobs and economic activity in Orange, and the proposed estate at the airport should also achieve the same ultimate outcome. If the alternative is to do-nothing option, this projected economic activity will not occur.

Issue 15 - The site selection process is flawed including the criteria used (15 submissions)

The site selection criteria of the original Blayney Cabonne Orange Rural and Industrial Lands sub-regional strategy resulted in the peculiar recommendation of north Clergate being nominated for both industrial and residential development, with an extensive direct interface. Additionally, a site near the Towac Racecourse was initially nominated in a draft form of the strategy that provoked considerable opposition and was ultimately removed from the final strategy.

The rationale for the site selection criteria is detailed in the addendum to the sub regional strategy that was exhibited alongside the planning proposal. The addendum provides a summary of the strategic land units identified in the original strategy, the original reasons they were included in that strategy and a status update on how the land has been used/developed over the intervening period.

The addendum reiterates a point made in the original strategy that:

“it should be noted that inclusion as a Strategy Area … does not automatically translate into rezoning … detailed local environmental studies will be required for all Strategy Areas to determine their suitability for rezoning”.

It should logically follow that if a strategy area identified in the original strategy does not proceed, for whatever reason, an adjustment would be required to ensure that appropriate levels of industrial land are nonetheless maintained.

The addendum reviews the vision and principles of the original strategy to ensure they remain applicable. This in turn leads into a discussion of growth management and matters that should be considered to help ensure that growth delivers the vision and principles of the strategy.

The site evaluation criteria are then reviewed and adapted partly in recognition that the original criteria resulted in the north Clergate interface conflict and the initial nomination of land near Towac Racecourse.

The revised criteria:

· increased emphasis on potential land use conflict,

· increased emphasis on site constraints to reduce disturbance of landforms,

· reduced emphasis on urban proximity to reduce potential land use conflict.

This represents an evolution of evaluation criteria, which is consistent with undertaking a meaningful review of the strategy. Further detail of the criteria used and the rationale for each are detailed in Part D of the addendum.

Issue 16 - The road network is inadequate to service the proposal (3 submissions)

and

Issue 17 - The proposal will result in heavy vehicle impacts on Spring Hill (6 submissions)

and

Issue 18 - The proposal will result in negative general traffic impacts (14 submissions)

Council engaged Parking & Traffic Consultants Pty Ltd to undertake a Traffic Impact Assessment Report for the proposed Orange Airport Industrial Park. The report dated 17 March 2017 concludes the following:

· All roads and junctions on the surrounding road network are operating within acceptable levels of service for the existing scenarios;

· All the junctions (based on a high density model) are shown to operate well within acceptable levels of service; and

· There is no need for any improvement of roads and junctions in relation to the low or high density scenario and the forecast background growth within this period.

In response to the issue of heavy vehicles impacting Spring Hill, we note the Parking & Traffic Consultants Pty Ltd Traffic Impact Assessment Report dated 17 March 2017 models a total increase of between 9 (Low density scenario) and 20 (high density scenario) commercial vehicle trips in the peak hour, the expected commercial vehicle distribution (figure 12) reduces the expected commercial vehicles travelling through Spring Hill by 60%. Therefore the expected commercial vehicles travelling through Spring Hill in the peak hour is 40% of the 9-20, resulting in 4- 8 additional commercial vehicles only.

Upon receipt of the Parking & Traffic Consultants Pty Ltd Traffic Impact Assessment Report, it was forwarded to Roads & Maritime Services (RMS) NSW for review and comment.

RMS responded to Orange City Council via letter dated 28 April 2017, in which they advised, following review of the SIDRA analysis of current traffic movements and projected future movements, they have no objection to the proposal and will make no further submission.

The planning proposal envisages upgrading the road network from the city to the airport to accommodate both the growth in traffic numbers and heavy vehicle usage. Such upgrades will also enable improvements to cyclist facilities along the route.

Issue 19 - There is a lack of public transport for the workforce associated with the proposal (1 submission)

It is anticipated that most staff will commute with private vehicles. The road network enhancements and a growing workforce could generate sufficient demand for a peak period shuttle bus service, particularly if this were to coincide with flight schedules.

Issue 20 - The proposal will result in land use conflicts (8 submissions)

The proposal is situated alongside the airport and incorporates buffer areas to the non-airport side. Each development within the estate will be the subject of development assessments that can examine potential land use conflicts, and Council will be able to impose appropriate conditions and design requirements to protect neighbouring lands from adverse consequences such as noise or other emissions.

Traffic generation is acknowledged and will be addressed through road network upgrades as discussed in Issues 16 - 18.

Issue 21 - Heavy industry will be involved in the proposal resulting in adverse impacts (1 submission)

Heavy industry is defined in the Orange LEP as:

heavy industry means a building or place used to carry out an industrial activity that requires separation from other development because of the nature of the processes involved, or the materials used, stored or produced, and includes:

(a) hazardous industry, or

(b) offensive industry.

It could also involve the use of a hazardous storage establishment or offensive storage establishment.

The assumption that any heavy industry proposal would unavoidably result in adverse impacts is not supported. The majority of industrial development in Orange does not conform to the heavy industry definition. Orange typically attracts a range of light industries and trade related enterprises, along with engineering and mining industry support services.

As discussed later in this report a move to IN2 (light Industry) and B7 (Business Park) amended zones has been offered to more accurately reflect the type of industry that might be located at the airport.

Issue 22 - The proposal will result in negative ecological impacts (11 submissions)

The site of the proposal is situated on predominantly level, cleared land adjacent to the airport. The site has been extensively disturbed from its natural state by decades of agriculture and grazing. Direct impacts upon flora and fauna are therefore considered to be negligible. Other potential ecological impacts have been inferred from potential groundwater/aquifer impacts - this aspect has been addressed in response to Issue 16.

The concept plan includes buffer areas, particularly on the southern side of the estate that will be landscaped as one means of addressing amenity concerns. Such landscaping has the potential to improve ecological values. Street trees within the estate may further contribute in this regard.

Issue 23 - The proposal will result in negative impacts on the drinking water catchment (91 submissions)

This water quality issue was mentioned a number of times in the 2017 submission by the Spring Hill and Surrounding Districts Consultative Committee (Spring Hill and Surrounding Districts Consultative Committee) with comments predominantly drawn from the Holliday Geoscience appendix. Whilst impact on water security is also regularly mentioned in the report, it is in the context of risk to water quality on existing raw water supply systems. In acknowledging that surface water is interlinked with groundwater, the latter is specifically addressed in Issue 25 below.

Concerns regarding heavy industry, as raised a number of times in the Spring Hill and Surrounding Districts Consultative Committee submission, are specifically addressed in Issue 21.

Issue 24 - The proposal will result in negative noise impacts (6 submissions)

The proposed location coincides with an existing noise generating activity, namely the airport. As such, the local planning system has discouraged placement of dwellings in the vicinity for many decades. The number of sensitive receivers in proximity to the subject land is not surprisingly low. The nearest homes are two dwellings in Adrian’s Lane which are located on the edge of the final stage of the proposal, a further six dwellings along Forest Road ranging from 200m-600m away from the southern edge of the estate and one dwelling in Gander Road also approximately 600m from the western edge of the estate. A small ridgeline on the south-western edge of the estate, rising approximately 11m-12m above the surrounding land, provides some acoustic and visual screening in this direction.

In addition to these distances, individual developments will be subject to acoustic assessments during the development application process. Firms that seek to operate 24 hours a day will need to demonstrate how their proposals avoid and minimise noise impacts through suitable acoustic design responses such as baffles, sound mounds, insulation of buildings, delivery hours and shift changeovers, and other measures as may be relevant to their particular operations. This can be reinforced through conditions of consent on a case-by-case basis.

Issue 25 - The proposal will result in negative impacts on groundwater (90 submissions)

and

Issue 26 - The proposal will result in negative impacts on the Spring Hill bore capture zone (3 submissions)

and

Issue 27 - The Jewell groundwater report is deficient (4 submissions)

Issue 27 is a key process issue raised in the submission by Spring Hill and Surrounding Districts Consultative Committee (2017), with reference to Council’s environmental assessment for the proposal that included a water quality risk assessment for the Spring Hill drinking water bore supply (as conducted by Jewell & Associates in 2015). Comments in the Spring Hill and Surrounding Districts Consultative Committee submission were predominantly drawn from the Holliday Geoscience appendix where it is stated that:

“The use of the Jewell Report for an incorrect purpose is unprofessional, and potentially deceptive”.

The Department of Primary Industries - Water (2017) has also provided comment on the need to consider groundwater risk specific to the proposal site.

Subsequent to the environmental assessment (and the 2015 Jewell report), Council engaged Jewell & Associates to conduct a Groundwater Assessment Orange Aerodrome (2016) which considered potential groundwater impacts under both the existing scenario and that of the proposed development. The assessment included a site reconnaissance and desktop review, the latter of which involved review of information in the public domain and previous studies conducted by Jewell & Associates. The output recommended a number of measures considered appropriate to protect the aquifer, whereby it is considered that risks can be reduced to an acceptable level.

Issue 25 is focussed on impacts on groundwater quality, with the Department of Primary Industries - Water (2017) commenting that the:

“… high quality groundwater resource….is characterised by a high groundwater vulnerability rating from surface pollution, hence adequate design and management measures need to be applied to mitigate impacts” and requests that “further studies are done to identify the groundwater flow direction and redefine the capture zone for the town water supply bores”.

Groundwater vulnerability is a key issue in the Spring Hill and Surrounding Districts Consultative Committee submission (2017) and is raised in the context of: high water infiltration rates, high connectivity between surface water and groundwater, little knowledge of the likely pathways of the contaminant, water logging, the Spring Hill bores, the sheer size of the proposal and the proposed heavy industry. The Spring Hill and Surrounding Districts Consultative Committee submission (2017) considers the groundwater pollution risk to be enhanced and high for the similar reasons as listed in Issue 23, namely: sediment; fuel spills and toxic chemicals; onsite use; storage and disposal of any chemicals on the land; toxic runoff; spills and wash-downs; and the treatment, storage and disposal of wastewater and solid waste arising from development and operations of the proposed industrial site.

Two examples of industrial groundwater contamination are provided in the Spring Hill and Surrounding Districts Consultative Committee submission (2017), including reference to the Williamstown RAAF by fire-fighting chemicals, and pollution across a broad area in the Darling Downs, Qld by Linc Energy. The pollutant generated from fire-fighting chemicals is considered in the Jewell and Associates Groundwater Assessment Orange Aerodrome (2016). The Darling Downs example concerns hydrogen contamination from a coal gasification plant run by Linc Energy and is not considered relevant to the proposal.

The vulnerability of groundwater to pollutants as raised in the Spring Hill and Surrounding Districts Consultative Committee submission (2017) and by DPI-Water (2017) is considered in the Jewell 2016 report. For example, the introduction describes that:

“Within the Orange Basalt aquifer most groundwater is hosted by secondary features such as fractures, which renders the aquifer vulnerable to contamination derived from the surface. Storage in the aquifer is replenished by infiltration derived directly from rainfall, as well as by leakage from surface water bodies. Thus, the potential impact of development on both the quality and quantity of groundwater in the aquifer, and the measures required to protect the aquifer from any adverse impacts, are of great importance to OCC and also to other users of the aquifer.”

The Jewell 2016 report includes a description of the site, including existing groundwater use (including Issue 26 - Spring Hill bores), the hydrogeological setting and aquifer vulnerability. The Jewell 2016 report considers a range of potential hazards under three scenarios, including hazards arising under current land use and continuing under proposed re-zoning; hazards arising under the proposed re-zoning or which may be exacerbated by the proposed re-zoning; and hazards arising under the current zoning which may be reduced by the proposed rezoning. Each hazard is considered in a risk assessment in the ‘uncontrolled’ state, and importantly with relevance to the comments made by DPI-Water (2017), the ‘controlled’ state.

Whilst some of the risks in the Jewell 2016 report are considered not significant, others will require implementation of new or enhanced administrative procedures; and in some cases additional investigative or engineering work to provide more or better information, either because existing controls could be improved or to manage changes that will occur due to the proposed development. These risks are:

- herbicide/pesticide contamination originating from land application, including along the rail corridor;

- contamination originating from abandoned/disused bores;

- contamination arising from road and rail accidents;

- contamination arising from storage and handling of fluids and soluble solids in the proposed industrial area;

- reduction of aquifer recharge due to an increase in the proportion of paved surfaces; and

- the issue of use of PFC’s for fire suppression, which requires confirmation that there are no existing impacts, and appropriate controls to ensure that impacts cannot occur in the future.

The Jewell 2016 report (p 43) considers that:

“All of these risks can be effectively managed and reduced to an acceptable level by the implementation of effective control measures”.

Council is committed to incorporating recommendations from the Jewell 2016 report into management processes. Council considers that the Jewell 2016 report addresses the potential for groundwater pollution as raised in public submissions, and Council is committed to engaging Department of Primary Industries - Water to define the needs of further groundwater studies, following their review of the report.

Issue 28 - The proposal will result in negative visual impacts (5 submissions)

Assessment of development applications will have regard to the visual presentation of each site and the estate overall. Development of the estate will change the visual outlook, but the distance to neighbours, buffer and landscaping areas as well as individual design assessments combine to reduce the significance of the change.

Since Council is the proponent there is the opportunity to impose conditions on the contract of sale and 88B restrictions on title, as well as through Development Control Plan provisions, to ensure a high standard of design is delivered. See discussion on Issue 29 for more detail on visual impacts.

Issue 29 - The proposal will result in negative impacts on the tourist arrival experience (70 submissions)

Tourism is an important and valued sector of the Orange economy and first impressions can affect the visitor experience. The overall experience affects tourism on two levels. The first is the rate of repeat/return visitation of the individual themselves, while the second is an indirect effect via word-of-mouth (positive or negative).

A traditional view is that the reach of word-of-mouth experiences was limited to the person’s direct relationships and face-to-face encounters. However, with the rising influence of social media, personal experiences are able to reach a much broader audience.

It is therefore important for local tourism to always seek to provide a positive and welcoming experience. It is true that it only takes a moment to form an impression. In this regard there are two moments where a tourist’s impression could be influenced by the proposal. Airborne on approach/departure and at ground level while driving to/from the airport.

Airborne visual impressions would be fleeting. Because the industrial area is proposed to be located alongside the runway, rather than under or adjacent to flight paths, lateral views from passenger planes on approach would continue to consist of rural farmland. Only once landed and taxiing would passenger views take in the industrial area, this only on one side of the aircraft; and airside development such as hangars and the like would largely screen the more general industry behind.

Ground level views, as may be experienced from taxi/bus and private vehicle connections, would be screened by the inclusion of public open space buffers and associated landscaping. While built forms would be discernible beyond the landscaped buffer, the distance from Forest Road to industrial developments would help to diminish the impression of bulk and scale.

Furthermore, airports are not regarded to be tourist destinations or attractors in their own right. Most visitors will spend a minimal amount of time at the airport before and after flights, with most of the dwell time spent inside the terminal building.

Tourist expectations for airports are more commonly associated with how quickly and efficiently they can pass through the facility, the standard of comfort and facilities available during their wait and the availability of parking or connecting ground transport. As such, the standard and presentation of the terminal building rather than surrounding development is more significant.

That is not to suggest that the presentation and standard of development in the industrial estate is not relevant. As the estate is a Council driven concept there is the opportunity, through both conditions on contracts for sale and through DCP provisions, to promote a high standard of presentation.

Issue 30 - The proposal will result in negative air safety impacts (2 submissions)

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) is the national air safety regulator. CASA was consulted on the proposal and made a submission, recommending that the National Airports Safeguarding Framework (NASF) guidelines be used when proposing or assessing developments in the vicinity of airports as appropriate. NASF is a land use planning framework that aims to improve community amenity by minimising noise-sensitive development near airports and improve safety outcomes by ensuring aviation safety requirements are recognised in land use planning decisions through guidelines being adopted by jurisdictions on various safety related issues.

Issue 31 - The proposal will result in negative light pollution impacts (6 submissions)

It is noted that Australian Standards exist for light infrastructure to prevent impacts and this is what Orange City Council will rely on to minimise impacts during the DA process for developments.

The Standard AS4282 Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting is the relevant standard. From the website:

The Australian standard providing guidance on outdoor lighting pollution, light trespass and excessive glare………..

The aim of the standard is to provide application-based guidelines for designers, installers, asset owners and managers, and to set requirements ensuring outdoor lighting installations provide a safe, secure and non-obtrusive lit environment.

Regulators and council officials use the standard to manage lighting issues that range from light pollution to excessive glare and neighbourhood nuisance. It currently addresses obtrusive outdoor lighting from car parking lots, parks and reserves, sports lighting, floodlighting and yard lighting that that can give rise to discomfort or pose a safety hazard.

Issue 32 - The proposal will run the risk of an industrial accident/disaster (7 submissions)

The issue assumes that subsequent developments will involve hazardous, poorly designed or poorly managed projects. Assessment of development applications will have regard to this potential, and any proposal with such potential will need to demonstrate appropriate responses in their applications.

Issue 33 - The proposal will result in negative impacts on cyclists (2 submissions)

The conceptual masterplan incorporates a buffer zone of open space that can provide a separated pedestrian/cycleway. More generally, the proposal will result in upgrading of the road network, improving the width and condition of road shoulders and enabling greater separation between cyclists and traffic.

Issue 34 - The proposal will result in negative impacts on adjoining farms' accreditation (3 submissions)

Submissions raise concern that any contamination of water or soils could threaten the accreditation of nearby agricultural activities, the example cited being a beef and stud enterprise that is Cattlecare Accredited. This presumes that subsequent developments will be of the heavy industry type and not properly designed, operated or managed to prevent pollution.

As described in response to Issue 21, heavy industry is not the typical form of business that establishes in Orange. However, part of the rationale of the proposal is to provide for large format operations that are not able to be accommodated in other industrial areas. Any such application would be subject to the development assessment process and need to demonstrate how the particular proposal will avoid and mitigate such risks. Failure to do so would be adequate grounds for a refusal.

Issue 35 - The proposal will result in reduced property values in the area (2 submissions)

The effect on property values from planning decisions is notoriously difficult to quantify and is not regarded as being a material consideration in land use planning. A wide range of factors contribute to the price that any given property can achieve in the open market. These include (but are not limited to):

· condition and presentation of built improvements (house, sheds, fences etc)

· location

· proximity to services (employment, shopping, education and health care)

· accessibility (condition of road network, distance to city/town/village)

· mobile phone coverage and internet access

· views and aspect

· climate and rainfall patterns

· car parking and traffic

· development potential and land-use regulation

· change, and rate of change, in population

· supply and demand of development ready stock

· rental vacancy rates

· urbanisation and gentrification

· interest rate environment

· taxation environment (negative gearing, capital gains tax rules, ability to buy property within self-managed superannuation funds).

In addition to this complexity, property values have both a positive and negative effect in the local economy. Clearly a landowner benefits from strong and rising prices, however the same effect is a barrier to entry for those seeking to buy into an area. This dichotomy is a substantial reason that land use planning typically seeks to be agnostic with respect to property values.

Therefore, instead of trying to side with either established landowners or aspiring land-seekers, the planning system fosters economic growth overall. A growing local economy benefits both buyers and sellers. Economic growth brings more prospective buyers, and such buyers have a greater capacity to borrow/spend. Competition between buyers then drives up property prices. Conversely, constraining development dampens economic growth, reducing the number and purchasing power of buyers and leading to reduced competition for available properties.

The planning system facilitates this dynamic by allocating appropriate supply of land to its highest order use, while imposing appropriate environmental safeguards and managing interface issues.

Appropriate supply in this regard is considered to be the amount of land needed to provide buyers with a fair and reasonable diversity of sites to choose from, while not creating a glut of supply such that the competition among buyers would fail to reach a price point that covers the costs of development.

Issue 36 - The proposal will result in negative impacts on the region’s food bowl reputation (8 submissions)

Orange’s food and wine reputation has been fostered over many decades through a variety of marketing, events and ongoing efforts of both local producers and food establishments. Throughout this time the industrial sector has played a significant if fluctuating role in the local economy.

Industrial and light commercial activity has not previously been cited as hindering or obstructing the food and wine or ‘food bowl’ branding of either Orange or the central west more generally. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that both sectors of the local economy are able to co-exist without detriment. Additionally, some light industrial activities (such as micro-breweries, wineries, cheesemakers and other agricultural produce industries) may in fact contribute positively to such branding endeavours.

Issue 37 - Appropriate rail sidings already exist at Blayney and Orange (1 submission)

and

Issue 38 - The proposal duplicates the Parkes Airport/Industrial Hub on the Inland Rail corridor (3 submissions)

and

Issue 39 - The proposed rail siding is on a stretch of rail line that renders it unfeasible (1 submission)

The current proposal does not include a rail siding.

The Parkes Inland Rail hub has a very strong focus as a road/rail intermodal facility, which is likely to expand significantly if the inland rail project proceeds. Future smaller scale intermodals across the region could work in conjunction with a major national facility at Parkes so could be regarded as complementary rather than in competition if developed as part of an overall regional transport/freight strategy.

The proposal is not dependent upon a rail interchange or siding. The potential for a rail/ road interchange was identified for further investigation if and when expansion of the estate was warranted.

Issue 40 - There has been a lack of consultation with Blayney and Cabonne Councils (2 submissions)

Both Blayney and Cabonne Shire Councils have been consulted at staff level during varying stages of the project. Formal consultations have been in accordance with the Gateway Determination, resulting in staff reports to each respective Council.

Issue 41 - The local community is being ignored (2 submissions)

The proposal was placed on public exhibition from 19 November 2016 to 31 January 2017, attracting 133 submissions of which 124 were from members of the public and the Spring Hill and Surrounding Districts Consultative Committee.

All issues raised in submissions are required to be considered on their respective merits regardless of the proximity of the person(s) making the submission to the proposal. That is, the substance of the issue raised is the relevant concern rather than who or how many raised it.

The formal exhibition period is in addition to previous community engagement and public meetings in Spring Hill that followed a preliminary concept presented to Council in 2015. The assertion in one submission that “Consultation with the local community has been cursory at best” and in another submission “What is the point of community consultation if you don’t listen to that community?” are both refuted. Consultation has been periodic over an extended timeframe, with design and scope changes being made in response to feedback.

Community consultation is an important feature of land use planning that can serve to enhance understanding of the location and context of a proposal. However Council is required to balance a wide range of often competing interests and concerns, therefore consultation does not equate to a resident veto.

Issue 42 - Orange City Council is pursuing the Clergate rezoning back to residential in order to gain a financial windfall from residential rates (1 submission)

The Clergate rezoning is being pursued by an individual property owner who believes a rural residential estate is more appropriate on their land than the currently zoned industrial estate. A key reason for this rezoning application has been the failure over a period of time to attract industrial development to this site.

Issue 43 - The proposal will result in negative impacts on heritage assets (1 submission)

The relevant submission notes the wealth of history within the agricultural area of Huntley and Spring Hill. Particular reference is then made to several sites and buildings in the area, namely:

· ‘Little Springs’ homestead comprised of mud brick construction,

· ‘Huntley Park’ butter factory,

· Jim Martin’s cottage at Martin’s Corner,

· Huntley Park Produce Company, and

· the former Cadia Rail line and corridor adjacent to Forest Road.

The site area of the proposal does not include or impact upon any of the above sites. These sites have been noted for further consideration in the next heritage inventory review.

Issue 44 - The proposal will result in negative health (air quality) impacts (5 submissions)

Dust generation during construction was cited in one submission. This is a matter that is routinely addressed in the development consent process and subsequently mitigated through standard dust suppression conditions.

Increased traffic will result in an increase in vehicle exhaust emissions along the route to and from the industrial estate. Parking & Traffic Analysis have reviewed the proposal and supplied a traffic impact assessment report (attached to this report). While the analysis does not extend to air pollution, it does indicate that traffic volumes will remain within the capacity of the network. This suggests that particulate levels will remain consistent with rural areas generally.

Issue 45 - The information presented is generally inaccurate (4 submissions)

The information and documents presented were reviewed by the Department of Planning and Environment’s Gateway process. By virtue of granting a Gateway Determination the Department affirmed that the materials were sufficient to inform the public and relevant agencies of the intent of the proposal. The information provided was prepared in good faith to portray both the proposal and its context as accurately as was known at the time.

Issue 46 - The environmental assessment is inadequate (2 submissions)

The environmental assessment presented was reviewed by the Department of Planning and Environment’s Gateway process. By virtue of granting a Gateway Determination the Department affirmed that the materials were sufficient to inform the public and relevant agencies of the environmental aspects of the proposal.

Issue 47 - The job numbers presented are inflated (4 submissions)

The projected numbers have been determined based on sound processes by an independent source.

Issue 48 – Biosecurity concerns (1 submission)

This issue is acknowledged. The submission recommends biosecurity risk assessments for any new industry and that high level biosecurity measures are established to minimise the risk of incursions of pests, diseases and plant material through the airport. These suggestions are supported, and it is suggested that if the proposal proceeds then developments will need to be subject to an overall biosecurity plan.

Issue 49 - The proposal will result in negative impacts on the Huntley Berry farm (2 submissions)

One submission argues that driving through an industrial zone would impact on the attractiveness of Huntley Berry farm as a tourist destination, while the other notes it as a small scale commercial development within a short distance to the airport.

The Huntley Berry farm is located on the northern side of the airport, while the proposed industrial estate is located on the southern side of the airport. This provides a separation distance of approximately 1600m to the Huntley Berry Farm. The proposal does not place the estate directly on any of the main routes such as Forest Road, Huntley Road etc. Additionally, the concept includes buffer areas as public open space that would be landscaped to enhance the presentation of the area and provide screening of the estate.

Issue 50 - Objection to internal loan being used to purchase property (1 submission)

Council considers when preparing its 10 year Long Term Financial Plan the best use of funds and the best value for money approaches for funding projects. Council is able to utilise funds through internal borrowing processes. This is an attractive means of funding projects as the lower borrowing costs mean the repayments are less. Repayment of this loan are included in the budget. Money held for sewerage infrastructure is being used in this case. These funds are not required to be spent on infrastructure for a number of years. Council manages expenditure on sewerage infrastructure having determined the needs in its 30 year sewerage modelling systems. The use of moneys in this way is a cheaper and better value for money option than external borrowings. Council also has the capacity to externally source loans but it is at less attractive interest rates.

PROCEDURE

Given the direct interest of Council, as both land owner and proponent, the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E) retained the role of Relevant Planning Authority (RPA) at the Gateway stage. This means that Council is not the determining authority for the proposal.

Should Council proceed with the proposal the materials will be forwarded to the NSW Parliamentary Counsels Office (PCO) for a legal opinion that the plan has been drafted satisfactorily. Once PCO opinion is received, the matter then moves to the DP&E for final determination. In making the determination DP&E will have regard to:

· the merits of the proposal itself

· consistency and compliance with State and local policies and strategies

· the issues and concerns raised during the public exhibition process

· other government agency concerns or feedback.

In this regard DP&E would have the option of approving the proposal as-is, approving the proposal with modifications, or refusing the proposal.

It is assumed that if DP&E were considering substantial changes (beyond the scope of any Council resolution) that Council would be consulted prior to the final determination - however this courtesy is not enshrined in legislation.

If DP&E decide to approve the proposal, with or without changes, they would then undertake the final stages of arranging to have the amendment published on the NSW legislation website.

Any amendment would only have legal effect upon publication on the legislation website.

OPTIONS

During review of the submissions, staff have liaised with DP&E on a variety of matters, including the consultation with Blayney and Cabonne Councils, the scope and status of the sub-regional strategy addendum and the main themes of the submissions.

On 28 April 2017 Council staff met onsite with DP&E Katrine O’Flaherty (Director, Western Region), Brett Whitworth (Executive Director, Local Planning Liaison) and Nita Scott (Senior Planner) and staff from Blayney and Cabonne Councils to help familiarise them with the site and its surrounding context, and to discuss particularly issues of concerns raised by the two Councils.

At that meeting it was suggested that the use of IN1 General Industrial may have created an impression of being predominantly ‘heavy industry’, with risks of contamination and visual blight when this is not the case. The zone name ‘General Industry’ is a result of the standardised LEP template adopted across NSW over the last decade, whereby councils were not able to create entirely new zones but may only select from a limited number of options. In this regard IN1 General Industry has simply been the default zone selected in Orange for employment generating lands. This indeed may create a false impression as it is Orange Council’s intent to create a special zone where higher level industry can coexist with the advantages of gas, road and air freight to create value adding employment. High tech manufacturing rather than heavy industrial.

Notwithstanding this, the DP&E suggestion of an alternative, less contentious, zone that still achieves the employment generating intent may assist in addressing many of the concerns expressed by the community. Of the currently available zones three alternatives have been examined, these include B6 Enterprise Corridor, B7 Business Park and IN2 Light Industrial. The following table illustrates the different range of uses permitted in each. The primary distinction is that all three limit industry to ‘Light Industries’ and prohibit ‘General Industries’ that the IN1 zone otherwise allows.

Common to all four zones	Warehouse or distribution centres; Roads; Light Industries; Neighbourhood shops; Garden centres; Hardware and building supplies;
Unique to IN1	Freight transport facilities; General industries; Vehicle sales or hire premises; Rural industries; Agricultural produce industries
Common to IN1 and IN2	Depots; Vehicle sales or hire premises; Timber yards; Places of public worship; Kiosks; Industrial training facilities; Landscaping material supplies; Rural supplies;
Unique to IN2	Funeral homes;
Common to IN1 and B6	Vehicle sales or hire premises; Timber yards; Kiosks; Landscaping material supplies; Rural supplies;
Unique to B6	Hotel or motel accommodation; Multi dwelling housing; Tourist and visitor accommodation; Business premises; Community facilities; Plant nurseries; Restaurants or cafes; Self-storage units; Shop top housing;
Common to B6 and B7	Take away food and drink premises; Passenger transport facilities;
Unique to B7	Respite day care centres; Child care centres; Office premises;

The B6 and B7 zones have been used in other parts of the LGA (principally along Bathurst Road and the northern section of Leeds Parade) such that tailoring either of these zones to the airport, through amending the land use table, may potentially have unintended consequences in other parts of Orange.

The IN2 zone has only been used on one other site in Orange at 185 Leeds Parade (south of the NDR alongside the railway as shown below).

That site is yet to be developed and has some constraints in terms of access. Consequently tailoring the IN2 zone to suit the airport would not affect any existing enterprises elsewhere in the LGA.

Creating a zone specifically for airport proposal will enable the zone to reflect the strategic importance of the site and the intersection of its key values and assets, such as access to the airport itself, the gas line and accessibility to the highway. This approach also allows the concerns of Blayney and Cabonne Shires to be taken into account as the range of uses and objectives of the zone can be more closely tied to the high technology uses and related activities contemplated for the site.

A local clause and Additional Permitted Use (APU) listing in schedule 1 of the LEP would also assist in refining the uses and objectives for the site and avoid compromising or hindering the orderly development of 185 Leeds Parade.

Of the apparent options, retaining the B7 Business Park zone combined with an Additional Permitted Use listing for Industrial Training Facilities, and converting the IN1 General Industrial zone to IN2 Light Industrial with similar Additional Permitted Uses to allow Rural Industries, Agricultural Produce Industries and Freight Transport facilities is considered to provide the most appropriate mix of uses while deterring the more intensive forms envisaged in various submissions.

Changing the mix of zones selected and tailoring the range of permissible uses as described would respond to various matters raised in the submission process. Principally, the change would ensure that some of the more intensive forms of industrial activity, that appear to have been a significant cause for concern among the community, would not be permissible in a revised mix of zones. As the changes are intended to address community concerns, the Department of Planning and Environment advice is that this would not result in a need to re‑exhibit the proposal.

It is therefore recommended that the planning proposal be supported in principle by Council but that DP&E be requested to alter the zone selection to B7 Business Park and IN2 Light Industrial, with an accompanying APU listing for Industrial Training Facilities, Rural Industries, Agricultural Produce Industries and Freight Transport facilities.

In the event that this approach is not supported by the Department of Planning and Environment then the proposal stands as originally proposed with IN1 and B7 zones.

Attachments

1 Groundwater Assessment Report, IC16/8122 ⇩

2 National Airports Safeguarding Framework, D17/34466 ⇩

Council Meeting 22 June 2017

5.4 Orange LEP Amendment 9 - Orange Airport Industrial Park - Submissions Report

Attachment 1 Groundwater Assessment Report

PDF Creator

Council Meeting 22 June 2017

5.5 Part 5 Environmental Assessment East Fork Road Bridge

TRIM REFERENCE: 2017/1200

AUTHOR: David Waddell, Director Development Services

EXECUTIVE Summary

Orange City Council is proposing to construct a new bridge at East Fork on Peisley Street Orange, aimed at limiting the traffic impact in one of Orange’s busiest streets when a new rail overpass bridge is built.

The $2.5 million project, being managed by Orange City Council, has received a total of $1.25 million in funding through the NSW Government’s Restart NSW Fixing Country Roads program and $1.25 million in funding provided by the Australian Government’s Bridges Renewal Program.

The key features of the proposal include:

· New two span, single lane bridge over the Broken Hill rail line, adjacent to the existing bridge

· A bridge deck length of 30.9 metres with one seven metre lane width between kerbs

· Minimum one metre shoulders

· A 2.5 metre shared path adjacent to the southbound lane with service conduits underneath

· A 5.07 metre vertical clearance under the new bridge to meet the single stacking height requirement and match adjacent existing bridge

· 1.5 metre horizontal clearance to existing bridge

· Bridge to be designed to cater for heavy vehicles up to B-Doubles

· Appropriate retaining structures to suit local soil types for bridge abutments and fill areas to reduce impact on rail corridor

· Temporary construction compounds to facilitate construction activities.

· When access across the bridges is closed, traffic would be diverted along Gardiner Road, Anson Street and the southern feeder Road, adding 1.08 kilometres to a journey.

· Unrestricted two way traffic will be maintained for as long as practical. Full closure of the road will be necessary but limited to high risk activities such as crane lifts.

· Construction work is expected to take about 12 months to complete with work in to begin September.

· Construction works should not result in the pollution of land or water so long as best management practices for erosion and sediment control are undertaken during construction, and appropriate remediation measures are implemented on a progressive basis.

Council commissioned GHD, to prepare a Review of Environmental Factors (REF) for determination by Council as the proponent and the determining authority under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act).

The REF examines the Council’s plan to undertake the bridge construction while maintaining traffic through the worksite. With the exception of heavy vehicles, which would be required to detour around the work site, southbound traffic will be maintained through the work site for as long as practically possible and in consideration of Work Health and Safety.

The beneficial effects of the proposal would be improvements to safety for all road users including the provision of access for B-Doubles.

The REF has identified that the proposal has the potential to result in a number of temporary adverse environmental effects during construction, including:

· Potential noise and vibration impacts to sensitive receivers

· Disruption to traffic, pedestrians and cyclists

· Potential decline in air quality

· Increased risk of spills and contamination.

Whilst Orange City Council is the determining authority for the project, at certain locations other approvals/permits/licences will need to be secured from Transport for NSW.

The REF was exhibited and six submissions received. The issues raised have been addressed by the Project team and are dealt with in this report.

The REF concludes that:

The proposal would result in both positive and negative impacts, however the safeguards summarised in this REF would manage and mitigate the identified negative impacts. The beneficial impacts are considered to outweigh the adverse impacts of the proposal.

The assessment of the proposal and associated environmental impacts has been undertaken in accordance with clause 228 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, Section 111 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, the Fisheries Management Act 1994, and the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

This REF finds that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact on the environment and therefore an environmental impact statement under Part 5.1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 is not required. There would be no significant impact on threatened species listed under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 and/or Fisheries Management Act 1994. Therefore, a species impact statement is not required.

The proposal would not significantly impact on a matter of national environmental significance or Commonwealth land. As a result, it is considered that there is no need to refer the proposal to the Australian Government Department of Environment and Energy under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Under Section 111 of the EP&A Act, Council is responsible for assessing all matters affecting or likely to affect the environment from this activity.

The REF concludes that there will be no significant impacts arising. The REF also recommends mitigation measures to minimise impacts and to protect the environment. These, together with Council's standard conditions, form part of the consent.

Staff concur with the findings of the REF. It is concluded that Council has satisfied its obligations under Part 5 of the EP&A Act 1979 and that the project can proceed.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “15.1 Our Environment – Maintain and renew traffic and transport infrastructure assets and services as specified within the Asset Management Plan at agreed levels of service”.

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

That Council approves the East Fork Road Project in accordance with its obligations under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

The authority to determine developments under Part 5 of the EP&A Act is encompassed by the General Manager's delegation GM004 adopted by Council 18 December 2012.

The key features of the proposal include:

· New two span, single lane bridge over the Broken Hill rail line, adjacent to the existing bridge

· A bridge deck length of 30.9 metres with one seven metre lane width between kerbs

· Minimum one metre shoulders

· A 2.5 metre shared path adjacent to the southbound lane with service conduits underneath

· A 5.07 metre vertical clearance under the new bridge to meet the single stacking height requirement and match adjacent existing bridge

· 1.5 metre horizontal clearance to existing bridge

· Bridge to be designed to cater for heavy vehicles up to B-Doubles

· Appropriate retaining structures to suit local soil types for bridge abutments and fill areas to reduce impact on rail corridor

· Temporary construction compounds to facilitate construction activities.

Unrestricted two way traffic will be maintained for as long as practical. Full closure of the road will be necessary but limited to high risk activities such as crane lifts.

Construction work is expected to take about 12 months to complete with work in to begin September.

When access across the bridges is closed, traffic would be diverted along Gardiner Road, Anson Street and the southern feeder Road, adding 1.08 kilometres to a journey.

A full range of other issues have been investigated within the REF and found to be satisfactory. In this regard the REF has considered the relevant provisions of:

• Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

• Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000

• Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

• Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995Fisheries Management Act 1994

• National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974

• Wilderness Act 1987

• Heritage Act 1977

• Native Vegetation Act 2003

• Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997

• Water Management Act 2000

• Water Act 1912

• Local Government Act 1993

• Dam Safety Act 1978

• Roads Act 1993

The REF was exhibited and six submissions received.

Submissions were received from

· James Sheahan Catholic High School

· Max Jones

· Paul Matthews

· Ronald McDonald House

· Tony Callaghan

· Lynette Redmond

James Sheehan Catholic High School

This submission related mainly to the issue of traffic impacts.

Project staff respond that a Community Engagement Plan has been developed and is available on the Orange City Council website under “Your Say”. The plan provides traffic advisory information to road users and the community. Additional information will be provided via media, traffic message boards and signage. Key stakeholders have been identified who will be appropriately notified prior to and during the traffic diversions. Traffic diversions will be monitored for effectiveness and amended as required.

An independent traffic model has been developed that estimates diversions would add between 1.5 to 3.0 minutes to travel times in the area.

A construction Tender will be awarded later this year, which will require the Contractor to develop and implement a traffic management plan in accordance with the REF.

Max Jones

Mr Jones asked that a straight overhead bridge be considered.

This option was investigated which would include the removal of the existing bridge and pedestrian footbridge. Construction of a new bridge would extend from Peisley Street to Forest Road in a straight line.

This option would reduce the length of road and provide a direct route. The bridge would be in the order of 280m in length to enable changes of grade to achieve rail clearances over the two tracks. It would also require acquisition of private properties in both Peisley Street and Forest Road, would impact on the existing rail buildings, have a significant impact on existing underground services and have an unacceptable cost benefit ratio.

This option was not considered further in the REF due to the necessary bridge width over the two rail lines being too wide and piles required for support would impact on the heritage buildings located at East Fork Junction. Additionally, the approaches to the bridge would result in major impacts on existing properties such as land acquisition, potential for removal of existing buildings and power lines.

Paul Matthews

Mr Matthews raised numerous concerns. These are listed and addressed by Project staff below.

Response to Paul Matthews 35 Tynan Street

Concerns

Replies

Currently the night time bridge traffic travelling south, causes the headlight beams to just flick into our lounge room. The proposed new southbound lane will cause the headlights to beam directly into our lounge room, our lounge room is directly inline & at the same elevation as the bridge.

Is a provision for screens available for protection from this pollution?

A Headlight study has been conducted of 35 Tynan St.

The report concludes that the property is 110m from the new bridge site and it would be very unlikely that the location of the proposed duplicated bridge and new traffic alignment into Forest Road would create a vehicle headlight problem for 35 Tynan Street beyond what would be considered reasonable in a residential setting

As a new set of street lighting will be installed, are these fitted with blinkers on the sides to concentrate the light downwards?

A lighting investigation has been completed by GHD and a preliminary lighting design prepared by Gerard Lighting in accordance with AS/NZS 1158. 3.1 – 2005 Lighting Category P3.

Blinkers are not specified. Final lighting designs will be supplied by the successful contractor

Large trucks travelling over the bridge day & night is going to cause a large increase in road noise; eg. exhaust brakes.

Is a provision in place for the restricted use of exhaust brakes?

The REF determines that during operation it is expected that the annual average daily traffic for B – Doubles would increase from 7 to 30 and the impacts associated with this increase in B – Double movements is expected to be minor and there will not be a large increase in road noise

There are many processes and procedures associated with the use of exhaust brakes for drivers and some provisions require that there are no restrictions within 300m of traffic to slow or stop such as rail crossings or substandard curves

Drivers are trained in the minimal use of exhaust braking within residential areas and modern exhaust systems emit minimal noise

Response to Paul Matthews 35 Tynan Street
Concerns	Replies
The bridge is to be closed for periods. Working in Peisley St, I walk to work & do not wish to walk all the way around. Is a provision in place for pedestrians during this time?	The existing pedestrian footbridge would be removed prior to construction of the new bridge. During construction when southbound traffic only is facilitated, pedestrians and cyclists would be permitted to cross the rail corridor via a dedicated path on the existing rail bridge protected by concrete barriers. It is intended to maintain two-way traffic for as long as possible during construction. This is anticipated to occur for approximately 53 days during the project. Subsequent to the REF, additional investigation of pedestrian access has been considered when two-way traffic is facilitated over the existing bridge. To ensure pedestrian safety, it has been determined that pedestrian access cannot be permitted while there is two-way traffic. Detours via Anson Street would be in place along with public notices advising of the detours during this time. Pedestrians and cyclists would be permitted to cross the new bridge when it is complete and works on the existing rail bridge have commenced. The contractor’s Traffic Control Plan would also address the closure of the road to allow safe work conditions for site personnel and allow machinery access to the proposal site.
With the increase in B-Doubles down Peisley St/Forest Rd, this is a heavily congested road already with very limited driveway access due to parking. Are the blind driveway issues going to be addressed in Peisley St? This can be very difficult turning out of businesses on this street due to the large amounts of parked cars there.	The REF determines that during operation it is expected that the annual average daily traffic for B – Doubles would increase from 7 to 30 and the impacts associated with this increase in B – Double movements is expected to be minor The Bridge works REF does not specifically address existing access issues along Peisley Street. Parking outside specific business’ that may be causing issues would require submission to Council’s Traffic Committee for consideration The proposal will result in both positive and some negative impacts, however the safeguards summarised in the REF will manage and mitigate the identified negative impacts. The beneficial impacts are considered to outweigh the adverse impacts of the proposal
Response to Paul Matthews 35 Tynan Street
Concerns	Replies
There are currently NO crossing areas between the busiest sections of Peisley St to Forest Rd to gain access to use the footbridge & the footpath. Is a provision in place to supply a pedestrian island & footpath to prevent having to walk on the road if B-Doubles are allowed to use the street?	The Bridge works REF does not specifically address existing pedestrian access issues on Peisley Street. At this stage there is no provision to provide a pedestrian island or footpath connections other than to replicate what already exists. This could be a future consideration for the traffic committee, subject to funding. The REF determines that during operation it is expected that the annual average daily traffic for B – Doubles would increase from 7 to 30 and the impacts associated with this increase in B – Double movements is expected to be minor

Ronald McDonald House

Ronald McDonald House made submission in regard to Ronald McDonald House visitor awareness of travel routes to the Orange Health Service including Ronald McDonald House.

A Community Engagement Plan has been developed provides traffic advisory information to road users and the community via media, traffic message boards and signage. Key stakeholders have been identified who will be appropriately notified prior to and during the traffic diversions. Traffic diversions will be monitored for effectiveness and amended as required.

An independent traffic model has been developed that estimates diversions would add between 1.5 to 3.0 minutes to travel times in the area.

A construction Tender will be awarded later this year, which will require the Contractor to develop and implement a traffic management plan in accordance with the REF.

Tony Callaghan

Mr Callaghan asked that a straight overhead bridge be considered.

This option was investigated which would include the removal of the existing bridge and pedestrian footbridge.

Construction of a new bridge would extend from Peisley St to Forest Rd in a straight line. This option would reduce the length of road and provide a direct route, the bridge would be in the order of 280m in length to enable changes of grade to achieve rail clearances over the two tracks. It would also require acquisition of private properties in both Peisley St and Forest Rd, would impact on the existing rail buildings, have a significant impact on existing underground services and have an unacceptable cost benefit ratio.

This option was not considered further in the REF due to the necessary bridge width over the two rail lines being too wide and pile required for support would impact on the heritage buildings located at East Fork Junction. Additionally, the approaches to the bridge would result in major impacts on existing properties such as land acquisition, potential for removal of existing buildings and power lines.

Lynette Redmond

Mrs Redman understands the upgrade is necessary however believes that the “Southern Ring Road” should be completed first. In addition Mrs Redman raises concerns that “a major health facility was built without main road access” and she considers the traffic in Anson Street is already at a “dangerous level”.

Project staff respond by identifying that for the majority of the project south bound traffic will be facilitated along Peisley Street limiting impacts on the morning peak traffic in Anson Street. It is also expected that some self-regulation of traffic will occur with traffic avoiding Anson Street at peak times. With the future development of the Southern Feeder Rd additional north south accesses will be developed, such as at Edward St, Cecil Rd, Woodward St/Shiralee Rd, Pinnacle Rd and ultimately Ploughman’s Lane, which will reduce the reliance on Anson St in the future.

In addition a Community Engagement Plan has been developed and is available on the Orange City Council website under “Your Say”. The plan provides traffic advisory information to road users and the community. Additional information will be provided via media, traffic message boards and signage. Key stakeholders have been identified who will be appropriately notified prior to and during the traffic diversions. Traffic diversions will be monitored for effectiveness and amended as required.

While there is expected to be greater traffic numbers in Anson Street during construction in the longer term the duplicate bridge will take traffic away from Anson Street addressing some of Mrs Redmond’s concerns that “traffic on Anson Street is already at a dangerous level”.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

As is required under legislation, the REF has considered impacts as follows:

· Traffic, transport and access

· Noise and vibration

· Water quality, groundwater and flooding

· Topography, geology and soils

· Biodiversity

· Landscape character and visual amenity

· Aboriginal heritage

· Non-Aboriginal heritage

· Waste management

· Socio-economic effects

· Energy and greenhouse emissions

· Air quality

Construction works should not result in the pollution of land or water so long as best management practices for erosion and sediment control are undertaken during construction, and appropriate remediation measures are implemented on a progressive basis.

The beneficial effects of the proposal would be improvements to safety for all road users including the provision of access for B-Doubles.

The REF has identified that the proposal has the potential to result in a number of temporary adverse environmental effects during construction, including:

· Potential noise and vibration impacts to sensitive receivers

· Disruption to traffic, pedestrians and cyclists

· Potential decline in air quality

· Increased risk of spills and contamination.

Whilst Orange City Council is the determining authority for the project, at certain locations other approvals/permits/licences will need to be secured from Transport for NSW.

Overall, potential negative impacts associated with the proposal are not considered to be significant and able to be adequately managed by implementing the mitigation measures. The benefits of the proposal are considered to outweigh any potential adverse impacts. The disruption to road users is clearly the issue which will impact most but this is not atypical of road project impacts.

Under Section 111 of the EP&A Act, OCC is responsible for assessing all matters affecting or likely to affect the environment from this activity. The potential impacts of the proposal have been considered against the matters listed in clause 228 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (EP&A Regulation) and are not considered to be significant.

The REF concludes that:

Under Section 111 of the EP&A Act, Council is responsible for assessing all matters affecting or likely to affect the environment from this activity.

Staff concur with the findings of the REF. It is concluded that Council has satisfied its obligations under Part 5 of the EP&A Act 1979 and that the project can proceed.

Council Meeting 22 June 2017

5.7 Development Application DA 53/2017(1) - 30 Telopea Way

TRIM REFERENCE: 2017/1249

AUTHOR: Summer Commins, Senior Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged	28 February 2017
Applicant/s	Orange North Pty Ltd
Owner/s	Orange North Pty Ltd
Land description	Lot 16 DP 1210246 - 30 Telopea Way, Orange
Proposed land use	Subdivision (four lot Torrens title), Subdivision (eight lot Community Title), Dwelling Houses (nine) and Medical Centre
Value of proposed development	$2,600,000

Council's consent is sought for development of land at 30 Telopea Way, Orange, for the purposes of a medical centre and residential development. The development will proceed in stages, as follows:

Stage 1: Torrens subdivision of the land to create one (1) lot for the medical centre at the Telopea Way frontage; two (2) standard lots for dwellings at the Telopea Way frontage; and one (1) battleaxe development lot for dwellings at the rear of the site.

Stage 2: Community subdivision of the battleaxe development lot to create seven (7) residential lots and one (1) community lot (for an internal road).

Stage 3: Construction of the dwelling houses (single-storey and detached).

Stage 3: Construction of the medical centre.

The proposal is consistent with the planning regime applying to the land. Approval of the application is recommended.

DECISION FRAMEWORK

Development in Orange is governed by two key documents Orange Local Environment Plan 2011 and Orange Development Control Plan 2004. In addition the Infill Guidelines are used to guide development, particularly in the heritage conservation areas and around heritage items.

Orange Local Environment Plan 2011 – the LEP should be considered by Council to be a definitive document. LEPs govern the types of development that are permissible or prohibited in different parts of the City and also provide some assessment criteria in specific circumstances. Uses are either permissible or not - there are no grey areas in terms of permissibility. The objectives of each zoning and indeed the aims of the LEP itself are, however, open to interpretation and can be used to guide decision making around appropriateness of development.

Orange Development Control Plan 2004 – the DCP guides development. In general it is a performance based document rather than prescriptive in nature - its purpose is to guide development. The Land and Environment Court tends to view it as such. In each area of interest there are often guidelines used. These guidelines indicate ways of achieving the planning outcomes. It is thus recognised that there may also be other solutions of merit. All design solutions are considered on merit by planning and building staff. Applications should clearly demonstrate how the planning outcomes are being met where alternative design solutions are proposed. So one can see that the DCP gives leeway for developers and architects to use design to achieve the outcome in other ways if they can. Stating that DCP guidelines are inflexible can be misleading.

This development is considered an appropriate use of land in this precinct under the R1 zoning, although the Infrastructure SEPP has been used to allow the medical centre use. It is still a use that might be expected in a residential area servicing the needs of the local population. The slight departure in bulk and scale around the medical centre building is considered justified as the community road lessens its impact.

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 53/2017(1) for Subdivision (four lot Torrens), Subdivision (eight lot Community Title), Dwelling Houses (nine) and Medical Centre at Lot 16 DP 1210246 - 30 Telopea Way, Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

THE PROPOSAL

The proposal involves staged development of the subject land for the purposes of a medical centre and residential development, as follows:

Stage 1 - Torrens Subdivision

Stage 1 involves four lot Torrens subdivision of the land to create the following parcels:

Proposed Lot	Area (m²)	Intended Use
201	1,478.4	Proposed medical centre
202	3,659.2	Development lot for Community title subdivision and dwellings
203	398.7	Proposed Dwelling 1
204	398.7	Proposed Dwelling 2

Proposed four lot Torrens subdivision

Stage 2 - Community Subdivision

Stage 2 involves subdivision of development Lot 202 (Stage 1) to create the following Community lots:

Proposed Lot	Area (m²)	Intended Use
1	991.7	Community property – vehicle and landscaped areas
2	382	Dwelling 3
3	382	Dwelling 4
4	510.2	Dwelling 5
5	326.4	Dwelling 6
6	356.6	Dwelling 7
7	334.7	Dwelling 8
8	375.9	Dwelling 9

Proposed eight lot Community subdivision

Stage 3 - Dwellings

Stage 3 involves construction of Dwellings 1 and 2 on proposed Torrens Lots 203 and 204 (Stage 1); and Dwellings 3-9 on Community Lots 2-8 (Stage 2).

The dwellings will be detached, single-storey, and of contemporary design and detailing. Each dwelling will contain 3-4 bedrooms, two bathrooms and attached double garage. External finishes will comprise face brick walls with tiled/rendered and painted highlights, Colorbond roof sheeting and roller doors, and aluminium framed openings. Private open space will be provided for each dwelling. Perimeter and internal fencing will be erected and landscaping installed.

Proposed Dwellings 1 and 2 will have frontage and access to Telopea Way. Proposed Dwellings 3-9 will address and be accessed via the shared internal roadway.

A typical elevation of the proposed dwellings is depicted below:

Typical front elevation - Dwellings 1-9

Stage 4 - Medical Centre

Stage 4 involves construction of a medical centre on proposed Torrens Lot 201 (Stage 1).

The medical centre will be single-storey with a footprint of some 36m wide x 15m deep. The building will take a modern rectilinear design with skillion roof profile, parapet to front and side elevations, defined entry portal and symmetrical openings. External finishes will reinforce the contemporary building design and comprise masonry walls, Scyon Matrix Panel cladding to parapet, smooth sheet horizontal cladding to entry, Colorbond roof sheeting and aluminium framed glazing.

The medical centre will comprise reception/waiting area, six consulting rooms, three procedure rooms, nurse’s station, amenities and utilities area. The building will have a floor area of approximately 520.9m².

The proposed medical centre will address Telopea Way. A car park containing 18 car spaces will be provided to the south of the building, with direct access via Telopea Way. Pedestrian pathways and landscaping will be established.

The medical centre will provide health services to out-patients via an appointment regime. The proposed hours of operation are 7am to 7pm Monday to Friday; and 8am to 6pm weekends and public holidays.

The proposed medical centre is depicted below:

Front (western) façade to Telopea Way

Artist’s impression

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 consistent with the above objectives, as outlined in this report.

Clause 1.6 - Consent Authority

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

Clause 1.9A - Suspension of Covenants, Agreements and Instruments

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

· covenants imposed or required by Council

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

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

· any trust agreement under the Nature Conservation Trust Act 2001

· any property vegetation plan under the Native Vegetation Act 2003

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

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

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

Mapping

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

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

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

Part 2 - Permitted or Prohibited Development

Clause 2.1 - Land Use Zones

The subject site is located within the R1 General Residential zone. The proposed development is defined as “subdivision,” “dwelling houses” and “medical centre.”

Pursuant to Section 4B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act:

Subdivision of land means: the division of land into two or more parts that, after the division, would be obviously adapted for separate occupation, use or disposition.

Pursuant to the OLEP 2011 Dictionary:

Dwelling house means: a building containing only one dwelling.

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

Medical centre means: premises that are used for the purpose of providing health services (including preventative care, diagnosis, medical or surgical treatment, counselling or alternative therapies) to out-patients only, where such services are principally provided by health care professionals. It may include the ancillary provision of other health services.

In terms of permissibility:

· Subdivision is permitted with consent in the R1 zone pursuant to Orange LEP 2011.

· Dwelling houses are permitted with consent in the R1 zone pursuant to Orange LEP 2011.

· Medical centres are permitted with consent in the R1 zone pursuant to Clause 57 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007.

Clause 2.3 - Zone Objectives and Landuse Table

The 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 proposal is consistent with the objectives of the R1 zone as follows:

· Proposed Dwellings 1-9 will provide additional housing stock to accommodate the housing needs of the community.

· The development will contribute to the variety of housing types and densities in the Waratah precinct, and complement the developing neighbouring residential density.

· The proposed medical centre is a complementary landuse that will provide health services facilities for residents in the locality.

· The subject land is serviced by public transport.

· The site does not have frontage or access to the Southern Link Road.

Clause 2.6 - Subdivision - Consent Requirements

Clause 2.6 is applicable and states:

(1) Land to which this Plan applies may be subdivided but only with development consent.

Consent is sought for Torrens and Community subdivision of the subject land in accordance with this clause.

Part 3 - Exempt and Complying Development

The application is not exempt or complying development.

Part 4 - Principal Development Standards

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

Part 5 - Miscellaneous Provisions

Part 5 Miscellaneous Provisions do not relate to the proposal.

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

Clause 7.1 applies. This clause states in part:

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

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

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

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

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

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

(f) The likelihood of disturbing relics

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

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

In consideration of this clause, the proposal is considered to be acceptable. Minor earthworks will be required to create level building pads, site accesses and vehicle areas, service connections and landscaping. The earthworks will be supported onsite with minor change to ground levels. Disruption to drainage is considered to be minor and will not detrimentally affect adjoining properties. Conditions are recommended in relation to sediment and erosion control during construction.

7.3 - Stormwater Management

Clause 7.3 is applicable. This clause states in part:

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

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

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

(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.

In consideration of this clause, the proposal is acceptable. The development will be serviced by new interlot stormwater drainage. Conditions are recommended in relation to drainage works to satisfy the requirements of Clause 7.3.

7.6 - Groundwater Vulnerability

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

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

(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.

In consideration of Clause 7.6, the proposal is acceptable. The proposed development does not involve processes or activities that would impact on groundwater resources. The subject land is connected to Council’s reticulated sewerage system.

Clause 7.11 - Essential Services

Clause 7.11 is applicable. This clause states:

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

(a) the supply of water

(b) the supply of electricity

(c) the disposal and management of sewage

(d) storm water drainage or on-site conservation

(e) suitable road access.

In consideration of this clause, all utility services are available to the land and adequate for the proposal:

· The subject land is connected to reticulated water supply.

· Electricity and telecommunications are available to the land.

· The site is connected to Council’s reticulated sewerage system.

· Conditions are recommended requiring stormwater management consistent with the Development and Subdivision Code.

· The subject land has direct frontage and access to Telopea Way.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

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

SEPP (Building Sustainability Index BASIX) 2004 applies to the subject development. BASIX Certificates have been submitted in support of proposed Dwellings 1-9. Each dwelling will satisfy the provisions of BASIX in respect of water, thermal comfort and energy. The proposal is consistent with the SEPP. Conditions are recommended requiring the BASIX commitments be undertaken during construction works.

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

SEPP 55 Remediation of Land is applicable. Pursuant to Clause 7(1):

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

(a) it has considered whether the land is contaminated

(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

(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.

Contamination investigation was undertaken in conjunction with former subdivision of the land. Further investigation as a precursor to site remediation is considered unnecessary in conjunction with the proposal.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

Health services facilities are permitted with consent in the R1 General Residential zone, pursuant to Clause 57.

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

DCP 2007-7 - Development in Residential Areas

Subdivision in North Orange - Waratah

The DCP sets the following (applicable) Planning Outcomes in regard to residential subdivision in North Orange - Waratah:

· The subdivision layout is generally in accordance with the Conceptual Subdivision Layout.

· Subdivision design and construction complies with the Orange City Development and Subdivision Code.

· Lots are oriented to maximise energy efficiency principles.

· Residential lots have direct frontage and access to a public road.

· All utility services are provided to the proposed lots.

In consideration of the planning outcomes, the development is acceptable, as follows:

· The Conceptual Subdivision Layout has already been varied in the vicinity of the subject land. The proposed Torrens and Community subdivision layouts will not impact upon the approved or existing road network and landuse pattern, and are considered to be acceptable.

· As demonstrated in this report, the proposed residential lots will be of sufficient area to provide a high standard of residential amenity to proposed Dwellings 1‑9, in full compliance with the DCP (Part 7.5 - Merit-Based Approach to Residential Development in Orange).

· The subdivision design and construction will comply with the Orange Development and Subdivision Code. Conditions are recommended in relation to this matter.

· The orientation of the proposed lots will provide reasonable solar access to proposed Dwellings 1-9. The proposed dwellings will comply with the DCP guidelines for solar access to indoor and outdoor habitable spaces, as outlined in this report.

· Proposed Torrens Lots 203 and 204 will have direct frontage and access to Telopea Way. Proposed Lot 1 in the Community subdivision will have direct access to Telopea Way. This lot will be developed as a private roadway that will provide legal access to Community Lots 2 to 8.

· Urban utility services will be provided to the proposed lots. Relevant conditions are recommended in relation to services construction and connection.

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.

Development adjoining the site is mixed in function and character. A child care centre is approved on the adjoining northern parcel, with two-storey medium density housing approved to the east. A low density residential neighbourhood extends further to the east. Land to the immediate south is vacant, with the next southern parcels comprising a further child care centre and McDonalds Restaurant (across Farrell Road). The North Orange Shopping Centre is located to the west, across Telopea Way. Waratah Sportsground is situated to the north and northwest of the land, at the culmination of Telopea Way.

The proposed development is considered satisfactory in terms of neighbourhood character due to the following:

· The proposed medical centre and medium density housing are considered appropriate landuses in this spatial setting and will complement mixed use development in the vicinity.

· The proposed medical centre will complement and reinforce the neighbourhood centre opposite the site.

· The proposed dwellings will complement the density of the approved medium density housing development on the adjoining land to the east.

· The dwellings in the community scheme will comprise a separate and integrated precinct, with a defined character and identity.

· The design for Dwellings 1-9 will complement the neighbourhood character in respect of building design, external finishes, height and site layout.

The proposal will not alter or diminish the function of Telopea Way for pedestrian access and use. In this regard:

· Vehicles associated with the proposed medical centre and Dwellings 3-9 will enter and exit the site in a forward direction.

· Reverse egress to Telopea Way for Dwellings 1 and 2 will be consistent with vehicle movements for single dwellings throughout the City. The driveways will be removed from the car park exit associated with the North Orange Shopping Centre.

· The access for the proposed medical centre will oppose the car park entrance and exit for the shopping centre. The road formation of 13m is acceptable to prevent conflicts. Furthermore, sight lines along Telopea Way to the north and south are expansive.

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.

In consideration of the planning outcomes:

· The design and detailing for the proposed dwellings are reflective of the predominant residential building form in the Waratah precinct.

· Proposed Dwellings 1 and 2 will address Telopea Way, with Dwellings 3-9 to address the shared private roadway. The front elevations will each comprise window/s, front entry door, portico treatment and double garage.

· Garage presentation will not dominate the street frontage. The attached garages will not project forward of the main front dwelling façade. Each garage will be contained beneath the main dwelling roof profile and thereby integrate with the building design. The garage doors will comprise less than 50% of each dwelling frontage.

· The building design and detailing for the medical centre will complement the built from in the North Orange shopping centre complex.

Heritage

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

· Heritage buildings and structures are efficiently re-used.

· New development complements and enhances the significance of a heritage item or place of heritage significance listed in the orange heritage study.

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

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

Setbacks

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

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

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

Street setbacks for the proposed dwellings will comply with the DCP:

· Proposed Dwellings 1 and 2 will be sited a minimum 4.5m from the front boundary to Telopea Way.

· Garages for Dwellings 1 and 2 will have a minimum setback of 5.5m from the public street, thus providing tandem parking for each dwelling wholly within the subject land.

· Side and rear setbacks for the proposed dwellings will comply with the BCA.

The street setback for the proposed medical centre will be 6.2m for the main front façade and 4.5m to the entry portal. Siting of the medical centre will relate to the residential building line.

Front Fences and Walls

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcomes in regard to Fences and Walls:

· Front fences and walls:

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

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

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

The proposal does not involve a front fence to Telopea Way for proposed Dwellings 1 and 2 or the medical centre. Front fencing does not feature in this streetscape.

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 satisfactory as follows:

· Proposed Dwellings 1-9 will be contained within the DCP-prescribed visual bulk envelope (VBE) plane when projected from the external and proposed internal lot boundaries.

· The medical centre will encroach within the VBE plane when projected from the northern (side) and eastern (rear) boundaries of proposed Lot 201. Visual encroachment impacts for adjoining proposed Dwellings 1, 6 and 8 are not anticipated, due to the separation provided by the private community roadway.

· Proposed Dwellings 1-9 will not exceed the maximum 60% site coverage prescribed in the DCP for single dwellings:

Proposed Lot	Dwelling/Footprint (m²)	Lot Area (m²)	Site Coverage (%)
203	Dwelling 1 – 189.5	398.7	47.5
204	Dwelling 2 – 191.4	398.7	47.5
2	Dwelling 3 – 187.8	382	49.2
3	Dwelling 4 – 187.8	382	49.2
4	Dwelling 5 – 187.8	510.2	36.8
5	Dwelling 6 – 174.4	326.4	53.4
6	Dwelling 7 – 174.4	356.6	49.0
7	Dwelling 8 – 175.4	334.4	52.2
8	Dwelling 9 – 174.7	375.9	46.5

· The proposed medical centre will comprise a footprint of some 540m². Based on proposed site area of Lot 201 of 1478.7m², the development will have site coverage of some 36% in compliance with the maximum 50% prescribed in the DCP.

· The proposed dwellings will be single-storey with reasonable setbacks from proposed side and rear boundaries. The dwellings will complement the bulk, height and scale of typical residential development in the Waratah subdivision.

· The bulk and massing of the proposed medical centre will complement that of the North Orange Shopping Centre precinct opposite the site.

· Negligible earthworks and land shaping will be required in conjunction with the proposed development. Finished levels will relate to natural surface levels.

Walls and Boundaries

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

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

- the privacy of neighbouring dwellings and private open space

- the access to daylight reaching adjoining properties

- the impact of boundary walls on neighbours.

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

Daylight and Sunlight

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

· Buildings are sited and designed to ensure:

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

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

- consideration of Council’s Energy Efficiency Code.

Shadow diagrams have been prepared in support of the proposed development. In consideration of the DCP Guidelines, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory as outlined below.

Solar Access to 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 proposed development is considered satisfactory due to the following:

· The shadow diagrams demonstrated that sunlight will be available to the prescribed minimum open space areas for the proposed dwellings for at least three hours between 9am and 3pm on the winter solstice:

Dwelling	GFA (m²)	POS Required (m²)	Unshaded POS Required (m²)	Solar access to POS- performance in min. 3 hour period	Compliance
1	124.9	62.5	25.0	25.3 10.30am -1.30pm	Yes
2	124.9	62.5	25.0	25.2 10.30am – 1.30pm	Yes
3	136.2	68.1	27.2	47.5 10.30am – 1.30pm	Yes
4	136.2	68.1	27.2	47.5 10.30am – 1.30pm	Yes
5	136.2	68.1	27.2	48.2 10.30am – 1.30pm	Yes
6	122.2	61.1	24.4	32.7 10.30am – 1.30pm	Yes
7	122.2	61.1	24.4	36.1 10.30am – 1.30pm	Yes
8	122.2	61.1	24.4	25.9 10.00am – 1.00pm	Yes
9	122.2	61.1	24.4	30.0 11.00am – 2.00pm	Yes

· The proposed development will not adversely shadow the private open space for the approved dwellings on the adjoining eastern parcel (pursuant to DA 4/2005(1)). Shadows cast by proposed Dwellings 5, 7 and 9 will not extend beyond the perimeter fence shadow between 9am and 1pm. As such, more than three hours of on-ground solar access will be maintained for the approved eastern dwellings, consistent with the DCP guidelines.

· Shadows to the adjoining vacant parcel to the south will mainly relate to perimeter fencing. Overshadowing caused by the development is not expected to unreasonably impact on the future use of the adjoining southern parcel.

· Shadows cast by the proposed medical centre will be contained within vehicle areas in the development (the medical centre car park to the south, and private roadway to the east). The medical centre will have nil impact on solar access to private open space areas within and adjoining the development site.

Solar Access to Northern Windows

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

The proposed development is considered satisfactory due to the following:

· Sunlight will be provided to north-facing living area windows for proposed Dwellings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 in excess of the DCP guidelines.

· It is noted that north-facing dining room windows for Dwellings 3, 4 and 5 will be shaded by the adjacent alfresco roof. This arrangement is considered acceptable, however, as the open plan space also contains a generous and uncovered living area window. The applicant submits that:

‘to remove the alfresco simply to meet the numeric requirement of the DCP would diminish the amenity of the dwelling in other respects. The alfresco provides an outdoor living opportunity that will enhance the amenity of the dwelling by providing shade in summer, shelter in winter and weather protection in general.’

No objection is raised to this arrangement. While Council has required the installation of skylights to habitable windows shaded by awnings or similar, skylights are not required for Dwellings 3, 4 and 5 due to the adjacent uncovered living area window.

· In respect of Dwelling 6, sunlight will be provided to >90% of north-facing glazing between 9am and 12 noon; and >50% between 12 noon and 1pm. This is considered a minor variation on the DCP requirement and will provide acceptable solar access to the Dwelling 6 living room.

· Sunlight will be provided to north-facing living area windows for proposed Dwellings 8 and 9, consistent with the DCP guidelines. The north-facing habitable spaces for Dwellings 8 and 9 comprise a separate lounge room. The open plan living/ dining/kitchen zone is located to the rear (south) of the dwelling and will not have access to northern sunlight. However, additional sunlight will be provided to open plan living areas in the morning for Dwelling 8 and afternoon for Dwelling 9.

· The proposed development will not reduce solar access to north-facing windows for the approved dwellings to the east.

· As outlined above, shadows to the adjoining vacant parcel to the south will mainly relate to perimeter fencing. Overshadowing caused by the development is not expected to unreasonably impact on the future use of the adjoining southern parcel.

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 valued view corridor to the southwest towards Mount Canobolas and the Orange Botanic Gardens is already disrupted by the North Orange Shopping Centre buildings. The proposed dwellings will not unreasonably diminish views for adjoining residential properties in the vicinity of the development site.

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.

Acceptable visual privacy will be achieved within the development and for dwellings on adjoining land, as follows:

· The proposed medical centre will not have windows or public spaces along the northern (side) and eastern (rear) elevations adjacent to the proposed dwellings. Further, the internal private roadway will provide separation between the opposing landuses. This interface will reduce the potential for adverse privacy impacts.

· The residential site layout and building design will minimise the potential for overlooking from adjoining dwellings. The orientation of living spaces, window placement and configuration, setbacks from boundaries, fencing and landscaping will assist to maintain visual privacy.

· Internal and external living spaces for the proposed dwellings will be oriented to the rear and will not be directly opposing.

· The interface between private open spaces will be modest, and typical to a medium density residential development.

· Perimeter and internal fencing will be installed.

· The front door and garage for each dwelling will be oriented to ensure privacy for residents when arriving and departing the dwellings.

· Finished floor levels for the dwellings will relate to natural ground level, and assist to maintain visual privacy.

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 layout and building design for the proposed dwellings are typical of adjacent North Orange residential neighbourhoods. Adverse acoustic impacts are not anticipated for the proposed dwellings within the development, nor those on adjoining lands as a consequence of the proposal.

In respect of the siting of the medical centre adjacent to proposed Dwelling 8, Council’s Environmental Health and Building Surveyor advised as follows:

The proposed medical centre is not likely to cause any acoustic issues for the proposed dwellings as it is generally a quiet type of land use. The dwelling closest to the medical centre carpark does not have any living areas adjacent and will be separated by a fence which will provide a reasonable level of attenuation.

Hours of operation for the proposed medical centre are consistent with day time operating hours pursuant to the NSW Industrial Noise Policy. Operating hours are considered to be acceptable and will coincide with those at the North Orange Shopping Centre.

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 development is considered satisfactory in terms in surveillance, territorial enforcement and access control as follows:

· Clear sightlines will be available between building frontages to public areas and vehicle areas.

· The site and buildings will be externally illuminated.

· The landscape design will limit opportunities to conceal potential offenders.

· Perimeter and internal fencing will be installed.

· The buildings will have windows that address Telopea Way or private roadway.

· Internal access will be provided from the garage into the dwellings.

· General maintenance of the site and buildings.

Circulation and Design

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

· Accessways and parking areas are designed to manage stormwater

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

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

The proposed development is considered suitable in respect of the planning outcomes:

· Conditions are recommended in relation to stormwater management for the proposed development.

· Direct vehicular access will be provided to Telopea Way for proposed Dwellings 1 and 2 via separate vehicle crossings and driveways. Reverse egress to the street will be consistent with manoeuvring arrangements for single dwellings in residential areas.

· Access to proposed Dwellings 3-9 will be via a shared private roadway. Sufficient manoeuvring area will be available within the private roadway to permit a reverse manoeuvre from the garages, onsite turning and forward egress to the access arm and Telopea Way.

· Separate access will be provided to the medical centre via Telopea Way. The carpark access will permit two-way passing at the street frontage. Sufficient manoeuvring area will be available in the car park to accommodate a B99 vehicle.

· The site layout will accommodate manoeuvring of a medium rigid vehicle 8.8m in length. A service vehicle of this size is suitable for the residential component of the development.

· Driveway areas will be landscaped to provide softening of hardstand area.

Car Parking

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

· Parking facilities are provided, designed and located to:

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

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

· Car parking is provided with regard to the:

- the number and size of proposed dwellings

- requirements of people with limited mobility or disabilities.

Pursuant to DCP 2004, onsite parking is to be provided for 3br+ dwellings at a rate of 1.5 spaces per dwelling and 0.2 visitor spaces per dwelling. Two (2) garaged spaces per dwelling will be provided for Dwellings 1-9; and two (2) visitor parking spaces will be provided in Community Lot 1, consistent with the DCP requirements.

Consistent with Council’s practice, onsite parking is to be provided for medical centres at a rate of 1 space per 40m² gross floor area (GFA). Based on GFA of 520.9m², 13 parking spaces are required. Consistent with this requirement, 18 onsite parking spaces will be provided in the medical centre carpark.

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 dwellings will comply with the DCP Guidelines in respect of minimum area, dimension, orientation, solar access and connectivity:

· The following table demonstrates that each of the proposed dwellings is provided with open space that complies with the minimum requirement in terms of area:

Dwelling	Living Area (ex. Garage, porches, patios etc) (m²)	Private Open Space Required by DCP (m²)	Private Open Space Provided (m²)	Compliance
1	124.9	62.5	89.2	Yes
2	124.9	62.5	84.7	Yes
3	136.2	68.1	90	Yes
4	136.2	68.1	90	Yes
5	136.2	68.1	91.3	Yes
6	122.2	61.1	61.8	Yes
7	122.2	61.1	82.2	Yes
8	122.2	61.1	99.9	Yes
9	122.2	61.1	99.5	Yes

· Private open space for each dwelling will have a minimum dimension of 3m.

· The private yards can accommodate an area of 5m x 5m.

· The nominated 5m x 5m open space areas will be of negligible slope and will achieve a high standard of amenity and functionality.

· Open space for the dwellings will be located behind the building line and be provided with a northerly aspect.

· As outlined previously, the solar access to each area of private open space on the winter solstice is considered satisfactory.

Open Space and Landscaping

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

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

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

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

- allow cost effective management.

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

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

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

A landscape plan has been submitted in support of the proposal. The proposed landscaping scheme will provide integration of the dwellings and medical centre in the Telopea Way streetscape and softening of hardstand driveways. The proposed plantings are appropriate to the Orange area and incorporate trees and shrubs.

Stormwater

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

· Onsite 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 flowpaths.

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

Conditions are recommended in relation to stormwater management of the site.

Erosion and Sedimentation

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

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

An erosion and sediment control plan will be required in conjunction with the engineering design plans for the development. A condition is recommended in relation to this matter.

DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN 2015

Development contributions are applicable to the proposed development pursuant to Orange Development Contributions Plan 2015.

The contributions applying to Stage 1 (Torrens subdivision to create proposed Lots 201-204) in the Waratah urban release area will be levied as follows:

Open Space and Recreation	3 additional lots @ $3,346.33	10,038.99
Community and Cultural	3 additional lots @ $673.97	2,021.91
Roads and Cycleways	3 additional lots @ $5,163.01	15,489.03
Stormwater Drainage	-

Date of Meeting	Question	Responsible Staff Member	Action	Date for completion
	Cr Kidd advised that the changerooms at the Aquatic Centre require maintenance.	Commercial and Emergency Services Manager	Referred to relevant staff for attention.	June 2017
	Cr Duffy requested information on the future subdivision on the western side of William Maker Drive.	Director Technical Services	The Development Control Plan for this area is to be circulated to Councillors.	June 2017
	Cr Taylor requested concept plans for the Hill Street/William Maker Drive intersection be placed on Council’s website.	Director Technical Services	Concept plans to be placed on website.	June 2017
	Cr Gander requested information on the possibility of opening the Franklin Road/Peisley Street intersection.	Director Technical Services	Added to the Councillor Briefing list for discussion.	July 2017
	Cr Munro requested information on when Ploughmans Lane will be resurfaced.	Works Manager	A program of works is to be provided to Councillors.	June 2017
	Cr Gryllis requested an educational campaign be undertaken to inform the community of the benefits and purpose of the blisters being installed at various intersections.	Director Technical Services	It was agreed to list the issue of intersection treatments for a future Councillor Briefing to discuss the various compliance and design issues.	July 2017
	Cr Hamling requested the opening date for the Toll hangar.	Commercial and Emergency Services Manager	Council staff have contacted a representative from Toll in regard to an opening day and Toll are yet to advise.	June 2017
	Cr Gander requested information on whether any tenants of the Orange Airport had moved to Cowra following the approach from Cowra Council.	Commercial and Emergency Services Manager	There have been no leases cancelled at the Airport. Council also wrote to tenants and other users at the airport in regard to interest in Council constructed hangars. Only one person has contacted Council in this regard and they intend to erect their own hangar.	June 2017
	Cr Munro requested information on youth unemployment figures for Orange.	Manager Business Development	Information to be circulated to Councillors.	June 2017
	Cr Duffy asked who the agent is for the Old Hospital Site.	Director Corporate and Commercial Services	A response will be provided to Councillors.	June 2017
2 May 2017	Cr Kidd suggested staff consider promoting the Orange Function Centre carpark for RV parking. Cr Kidd requested directional signage to the RV dump point be reviewed.	Manager Business Development	Response provided to Councillors through weekly email on Friday 12 May 2017	Completed D17/29204
	Cr Hamling requested staff look into inviting currently serving members of the armed forces to attend the Anzac Day ceremony.	Manager Business Development	Response provided to Councillors through weekly email on Friday 12 May 2017.	Completed D17/29143
	Cr Duffy requested the City of Orange Traffic Committee to review the operation of the pedestrian crossing in Anson Street.	Commercial and Emergency Services Manager	Report has been completed for the COTC meeting to be held in June.	June 2017
	Cr Duffy requested the City of Orange Traffic Committee to consider the installation of a timer on traffic lights to indicate how long pedestrians have to cross.	Commercial and Emergency Services Manager	Letter written to the RMS regarding the timing at traffic lights.	June 2017
	Cr Gander asked what type of lighting will be used for Clergate Road.	Works Manager	Information included in the weekly email to Councillors on 16 June 2017	June 2017
18 April 2017	Cr Duffy requested the information on bats in Cook Park include reference to how Singleton have managed this issue.	Manager City Presentation	Information to be circulated to Councillors.	June 2017
18 April 2017	Cr Duffy asked a series of questions on valves and hydrants.	Water and Sewerage Strategic Manager	Report provided to the Council Meeting held on 6 June 2017.	Completed
4 April 2017	Cr Duffy asked about rats in William Street.	Manager Building and Environment	Matter to be investigated and information supplied to councillors.	June 2017
21 March 2017	Cr Duffy requested details of all costs for the Northern Distributor Road.	Director Technical Services	Information to be provided to Councillors.	June 2017
	Cr Duffy requested a report on the issue of bats in Cook Park and what action can be taken to remove the bats.	Manager City Presentation	Information to be circulated to Councillors.	June 2017
	Cr Gryllis requested Council report on the possibility of making other water reserves available for recreational purposes to be provided as soon as possible.	Director Technical Services	Report taken to the 6 June 2017 meeting on Gosling Creek. Follow up report on Suma Park and Spring Creek to be provided	July 2017
15 Nov 2016	Cr Duffy requested comparative information on infringements issued over 2015 under the manual system.	Director Development Services	Information to be provided to Councillors.	June 2017

	31/05/2017	30/04/2017
General Fund	44,627,883.20	44,729,299.05
Sewer Local Fund	35,107,588.60	33,672,127.70
Water Supply Local Fund	40,918,327.24	39,483,095.42
Orange CBD Special Rate
	120,653,799.04	117,884,522.17

Externally Restricted	31/05/2017	30/04/2017
General Fund	17,284,567.34	17,748,846.41
Water Fund	40,918,327.24	39,483,095.42
Sewer Fund	35,107,588.60	33,672,127.70
Auspiced	1,522,412.52	1,522,412.52
Internally Restricted	10,416,175.71	9,950,332.74
Unrestricted	15,404,727.63	15,507,707.38
	120,653,799.04	117,884,522.17

Term to Maturity Allocation	Maximum	Holding	Capacity
0 - 3 Months	100.00%	10.07%	89.93%
3 - 12 Months	100.00%	60.51%	39.49%
1 - 2 Years	70.00%	6.88%	63.12%
2 - 5 Years	50.00%	22.55%	27.45%
5+ Years	25.00%	0.00%	25.00%

	Maximum	Holding	Capacity
AAA	100.00%	0.00%	100.00%
AA	100.00%	16.04%	83.96%
A	60.00%	42.87%	17.13%
BBB & NR	40.00%	38.36%	1.64%
Below BBB	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Division of Voting
Voted For	Cr J Davis, Cr K Duffy, Cr R Gander, Cr C Gryllis, Cr J Hamling, Cr R Kidd, Cr S Munro, Cr G Taylor, Cr R Turner, Cr J Whitton, Cr A Brown
Voted Against	Nil
Absent	Cr N Jones

Division of Voting
Voted For	Cr J Hamling, Cr G Taylor
Voted Against	Cr J Davis, Cr K Duffy, Cr R Gander, Cr C Gryllis, Cr R Kidd, Cr S Munro, Cr R Turner, Cr J Whitton, Cr A Brown
Absent	Cr N Jones

Division of Voting
Voted For	Cr K Duffy, Cr R Gander, Cr C Gryllis, Cr R Kidd, Cr S Munro, Cr G Taylor, Cr R Turner, Cr J Whitton, Cr A Brown
Voted Against	Nil
Absent	Cr N Jones, Cr J Davis (Mayor), Cr J Hamling (Deputy Mayor)

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