ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

Planning and Development Committee

 

Agenda

 

1 August 2017

 

 

Notice is hereby given, in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 that a Planning and Development Committee meeting of ORANGE CITY COUNCIL will be held in the Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Byng Street, Orange on TUESDAY, 1 AUGUST 2017.

 

 

Garry Styles

General Manager

 

For apologies please contact David Waddell on 6393 8261.

    

 


Planning and Development Committee                                                1 August 2017

Agenda

  

1                Introduction.. 3

1.1            Declaration of pecuniary interests, significant non-pecuniary interests and less than significant non-pecuniary interests. 3

2                General Reports. 4

2.1            Items Approved Under the Delegated Authority of Council 4

2.2            Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Amendment 20 - Eastern Gateway Caravan Park. 8

2.3            Development Application DA 63/2017(1) - 36-40 Turner Crescent 27

2.4            Development Application DA 93/2017(1) - 1693 Forest Road. 135

2.5            Development Application DA 192/2017(1) - 87 Byng Street 167

 


Planning and Development Committee                                                1 August 2017

 

1       Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation

It is recommended that Committee Members now disclose any conflicts of interest in matters under consideration by the Planning and Development Committee at this meeting.

 


Planning and Development Committee                                                1 August 2017

 

 

2       General Reports

2.1     Items Approved Under the Delegated Authority of Council

TRIM REFERENCE:        2017/1372

AUTHOR:                       Paul Johnston, Manager Development Assessments    

 

 

EXECUTIVE Summary

Following is a list of development applications approved under the delegated authority of Council.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

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

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

 

Recommendation

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

 

further considerations

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

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

 

Reference:

DA 232/2016(2)

Determination Date

7 July 2017

PR Number

PR26102

Applicant/s:

Mr R Jones

Owner/s:

Mr RJ and Mrs BN and Ms DN Jones

Location:

Lots 6 and 7 DP 1183249 – 229-231 McLachlan Street

Proposal:

Modification of development consent – recreation facility (indoor). The modification involves a roller door added to the side wall at the rear, changes to the front façade and a slightly revised layout internally modifying some of the access arrangements and sizes to upstairs toilets.

Value:

$750,000 (being the same value as the original development)

 


 

 

Reference:

DA 408/2016(1)

Determination Date

6 July 2017

PR Number

PR19628

Applicant/s:

Mr PJ Kerney

Owner/s:

Mr PJ and Mrs RE Kerney

Location:

Lot 102 DP 1069672 – 125 Berrilee Road, Springside

Proposal:

Home Industry (winery, cellar door, kitchen)

Value:

$4,000

 

Reference:

DA 429/2016(1)

Determination Date

3 July 2017

PR Number

PR17909

Applicant/s:

Glen Buttsworth Builder Pty Ltd

Owner/s:

Ms LA Pritchard

Location:

Lot 3 DP 1013849 – 60 Kearneys Drive, Orange

Proposal:

Dual occupancy and subdivision (two lot residential)

Value:

$502,216

 

Reference:

DA 126/2017(1)

Determination Date

30 June 2017

PR Number

PR27576

Applicant/s:

DWP Homes

Owner/s:

DWP Homes Pty Limited

Location:

Lot 414 DP 1228050 – 13 Newport Street, Orange

Proposal:

Subdivision (two lot residential)

Value:

$3,000

 

Reference:

DA 129/2017(2)

Determination Date

13 July 2017

PR Number

PR27543

Applicant/s:

Contempory Homes Pty Ltd

Owner/s:

Mr KM & Mrs CH Lord

Location:

Lot 105 DP 1225620 – 2 Ellenbrae Street, Orange

Proposal:

Modification of development consent – dual occupancy and subdivision (two lot residential). The modification seeks to alter the style of fencing fronting Diamond Drive and Ellenbrae Street, and the fencing located along the shared northern boundary neighbour.

Value:

$500,000 (being the same value as the original development)

 

Reference:

DA 148/2017(1)

Determination Date

29 June 2017

PR Number

PR25975

Applicant/s:

Mrs W Finlay

Owner/s:

Mrs WL Finlay

Location:

Lot 103 DP 1180866 – 5 Trappit Place, Orange

Proposal:

Wholesale supplies

Value:

$680,000

 


 

 

Reference:

DA 156/2017(2)

Determination Date

29 June 2017

PR Number

PR26464

Applicant/s:

Royal Flying Doctor Service

Owner/s:

Orange City Council

Location:

Lot 200 DP 1195298 – 136 Aerodrome Road, Huntley

Proposal:

Modification of development consent – depot. The modification involves an extension of the approved building footprint.

Value:

$25,000 (being the same value as the original development)

 

Reference:

DA 157/2017(1)

Determination Date

22 June 2017

PR Number

PR8272

Applicant/s:

Mr G Kings

Owner/s:

Ms EE Willis

Location:

Lot 1 DP 998790 and Lot 1 DP 986148 – 122-124 McLachlan Street, Orange

Proposal:

Subdivision (2 lot residential boundary adjustment)

Value:

$0.00

 

Reference:

DA 158/2017(1)

Determination Date

28 June 2017

PR Number

PR23068

Applicant/s:

Mr G Kings

Owner/s:

Sturgeon Investments Pty Limited

Location:

Lot 22 DP 1131258 – 194 March Street, Orange

Proposal:

Subdivision (two lot subdivision) and demolition (existing shed)

Value:

$0.00

 

Reference:

DA 172/2017(1)

Determination Date

3 July 2017

PR Number

PR27642

Applicant/s:

Dinkum Exporting and Importing Pty Ltd

Owner/s:

Dinkum Exporting and Importing Pty Limited

Location:

Lot 204 DP 1229307 – 10 Aloe Vera Place, Orange

Proposal:

Dual occupancy and subdivision (two lot residential)

Value:

$380,000

 

Reference:

DA 193/2017(1)

Determination Date

7 July 2017

PR Number

PR27232

Applicant/s:

Contemporary Homes Pty Ltd

Owner/s:

Mr K and Mrs SB Barber and Mr MA and Mrs KA Paddison

Location:

Lot 203 DP 1215142 – 99 Pippin Way, Orange

Proposal:

Dual occupancy and subdivision (two lot residential)

Value:

$480,000

 


 

 

Reference:

DA 195/2017(1)

Determination Date

7 July 2017

PR Number

PR11493

Applicant/s:

Mr G Tilston

Owner/s:

Mr EWK and Mrs SK Ko

Location:

Lot B DP 89704 – 157-159 Summer Street, Orange

Proposal:

Shop (alterations to shopfront)

Value:

$40,000

 

Reference:

DA 198/2017

Determination Date

4 July 2017

PR Number

PR27478

Applicant/s:

Willowdene Constructions Pty Ltd

Owner/s:

Willowdene Constructions Pty Ltd

Location:

Lot 12 DP 1224147 – 83 Pippin Way, Orange

Proposal:

Dual occupancy and subdivision (two lot residential)

Value:

$600,000

 

Reference:

DA 199/2017(1)

Determination Date

13 July 2017

PR Number

PR17598

Applicant/s:

Loritz Circus Pty Ltd

Owner/s:

Orange City Council

Location:

Lot 13 Sec 29 DP 5600 Phillip Street – Orange Showground

Proposal:

Temporary Use of Land (entertainment facility – circus)

Value:

$1,000

 

Reference:

DA 203/2017(1)

Determination Date

4 July 2017

PR Number

PR26308

Applicant/s:

Kinross Wolaroi School

Owner/s:

The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW)

Location:

Lot 30 DP 1190518 – 59-67 Bathurst Road, Orange

Proposal:

School (demolition of existing scoreboard and LED screen installation)

Value:

$84,900

 

Reference:

DA 214/2017

Determination Date

26 June 2017

PR Number

PR25255

Applicant/s:

Transgrid

Owner/s:

Electricity Commission Ministerial Holding

Location:

Lot 102 DP 1163891 – 217 McLachlan Street, Orange

Proposal:

Utility installation (hardstand area)

Value:

$100,000

 

TOTAL NET* VALUE OF ALL DEVELOPMENTS APPROVED IN THIS PERIOD:     $2,875,116.00

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

 

  


Planning and Development Committee                                                1 August 2017

 

 

2.2     Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Amendment 20 - Eastern Gateway Caravan Park

TRIM REFERENCE:        2017/1600

AUTHOR:                       Summer Commins, Senior Planner    

 

 

EXECUTIVE Summary

This report provides an update on the procedural requirements relating to proposed Amendment 20 to Orange Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2011. The amendment relates to land at Perc Griffith Way and the Mitchell Highway, and involves rezoning and part-reclassification to facilitate the establishment of a new caravan park. The plan-making process is nearing completion. Subject to Council’s endorsement of the planning proposal, Amendment 20 to Orange LEP 2011 may now be submitted to the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office for legal opinion; and the Department of Planning and Environment for plan-making and publication.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

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

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

 

Recommendation

1        That Council resolves to proceed with Amendment 20 to Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011.

2        That Amendment 20 to Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 be forwarded to the Parliamentary Counsel's Office for legal opinion.

3        That subject to a satisfactory outcome from the Parliamentary Counsel's Office, Amendment 20 to Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 be submitted to the 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

A Planning Proposal to rezone and reclassify certain land at Perc Griffith Way and Mitchell Highway to facilitate the establishment of a new caravan park was considered by Council at the Planning and Development Committee Meeting on 7 February 2017. The Committee resolved (in part):

1        That Council seek a Gateway Determination from the Department of Planning and Environment:

To rezone the following land from E3 Environmental Management to RE2 Private Recreation:

·    Lot 10 DP 732585 - 4 Perc Griffith Way and 40 Mitchell Highway

·    Lot 2 DP 530183 - 5190 Mitchell Highway

·    Lot 3 DP 530183 - Mitchell Highway.

          To reclassify the following land from Community Land to Operational Land under the Local Government Act 1993:

·    Lot 1 DP 502526 - 32 Perc Griffith Way and 70 Mitchell Highway.

2        That Council proceed to place the planning proposal on exhibition in accordance with any requirements of the Gateway Determination.

Gateway Determination was granted by the Department of Planning and Environment on 31 March 2017 subject to a number of conditions, including but not limited to:

(a)     Consultation with the following public authorities:

·    NSW Office of Environment and Heritage

·    Department of Primary Industries – Office of Water

·    NSW Health

·    NSW Roads and Maritime Services

(b)     Community consultation including public exhibition of the planning proposal

(c)     A public hearing being undertaken, in respect of the proposed reclassification of land from Community Land to Operational Land

(d)     Preparation of the final LEP maps.

The following comments are provided in relation to the conditions of the Gateway Determination:

(a)     Consultation with public authorities

The listed agencies were notified of the Planning Proposal and invited to make submission on the proposal. The following submissions were made by the agencies:


 

Department of Primary Industries – Office of Water

DPI Water raised no objection to the proposal subject to:

·    Development on the subject lands is connected to reticulated sewer and water

·    Development on the subject lands is required to address Clause 7.7 Drinking water catchments of the Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011.

NSW Health

NSW Health advised the office did not wish to make any submission in relation to the proposal.

NSW Roads and Maritime Services

RMS raised no objection to the proposal subject to the following recommendations:

·    All vehicular access to the subject lands needs to be obtained from Perc Griffith Way, where practicable, and not from/to the Mitchell Highway

·    Tree plantings proposed in the Mitchell Highway road reserve should be planned in consultation with RMS. Trees planted in the road reserve need to be located outside the highway clear zones and positioned so as to maintain safe intersection sight distance at intersections.

·    Intersection and access treatments servicing the land will need to be capable of accommodating the largest vehicle required to access the site, cumulative traffic and background traffic. Intersection and access treatments will need to be in accordance with the Austroads Guide to Road Design, and, with respect to the Mitchell Highway, relevant Roads and Maritime Supplements.

A submission on the planning proposal was not received from the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage.

It is considered that the issues raised in the agency submissions may be considered at development application stage/s for the proposed caravan park. Variation to the planning proposal is not warranted based on the submissions of State agencies.

The agencies submissions are attached.

(b)     Community consultation

The planning proposal was placed on public exhibition between Thursday, 13 April 2017 and Thursday, 11 May 2017 (29 days). Notice of the exhibition period was given on Council’s website and in the local press. Furthermore, adjoining owners were notified in writing of the proposal. The community consultation process (notification, timeframe and exhibition material) was consistent with applicable legislation and practice notes. At the close of the exhibition period, no public submissions had been received in relation to the planning proposal.

On the basis that no submissions were received, variation to the planning proposal is not warranted.


 

(c)     Public hearing

A public hearing was convened on Tuesday 18 July 2017. Notice of the public hearing was given on Council’s website and in the local press on Thursday, 22 June 2017. The public hearing was chaired by an independent convenor (Mr Nicholas Murphy, Senior Strategic Planner, Bathurst Regional Council). The public hearing was not attended by any member of the public. A report on the public hearing was prepared by the convenor and is attached. The report concludes ‘there are no planning reasons not to proceed with the Planning Proposal in its current form.’

The potential for landuse conflicts between the go-kart track and caravan park is acknowledged in the report on the public hearing. This matter was addressed in the planning proposal as follows:

The intended use of the land as a caravan park will introduce additional noise sources to the locality. Conversely, the site will be affected by traffic noise associated with the Mitchell Highway and adjacent go-kart track. An acoustic assessment will be required at development application stage, consistent with the various NSW Environment Protection Authority Guidelines. There is scope for a range of mitigation measures to maintain acoustic amenity in the locality, such as buffers, earth mounding, landscaping and positioning of long term sites.

Council may be satisfied that landuse conflicts (acoustic impacts) associated with the planning proposal will be addressed at DA stage/s.

On the basis that no representation was made at the public hearing, variation to the planning proposal is not warranted.

(d)     Final LEP maps

The LEP maps which reflect the amendments to Orange LEP 2011 as a consequence of the planning proposal are attached.

PROCEDURE

The final steps in the plan-making process to make Amendment 20 to Orange LEP 2011 involve:

1        Council resolves to proceed with Amendment 20 in the form of the planning proposal.

2        Amendment 20 is referred to the NSW Parliamentary Counsel’s Office (PCO) for legal opinion that the plan has been drafted satisfactorily.

3        Upon receipt of PCO opinion, the amendment is referred to the Minister for Planning, Department of Planning and Environment for final plan determination and publication.

 

It is recommended that Council proceed with Amendment 20 in the form of the planning proposal. The proposal warrants support due to the following:

·    No submissions have been received from the community in relation to the proposal; and public agencies raised no objections to the proposal.


 

·    The proposal is reflective of Council’s intention to provide a new tourist accommodation facility (caravan park), consistent with the Tourism Strategy 2016/17–2018/19.

·    The physical characteristics of the subject land will not unreasonably constrain the proposal.

·    The proposal has the potential to generate positive social and economic impacts, with net community benefit.

·    The potential impacts of the proposal have been foreshadowed and there are no significant issues that would prevent the LEP amendment proceeding.

 

 

Attachments

1          Agency Submissions, D17/41110

2          Report on Public Hearing, IC17/13956

3          Maps, D17/41114

 


Planning and Development Committee                                                    1 August 2017

2.2                       Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Amendment 20 - Eastern Gateway Caravan Park

Attachment 1      Agency Submissions

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                               1 August 2017

2.2                       Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Amendment 20 - Eastern Gateway Caravan Park

Attachment 2      Report on Public Hearing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Report on the Public Hearing for the proposed reclassification of land in the Orange LGA

 

Lot 10 DP 732585, 4 Perc Griffith Way and 40 Mitchell Highway, Orange

Lot 1 DP 502526, 32 Perc Griffith Way and 70 Mitchell Highway, Orange

Lots 2 & 3 DP 530183, Mitchell Highway, Orange

 


 

 

Contents

Introduction. 3

Acknowledgement of Country. 3

Public Hearing. 3

Submissions. 4

Consideration of Submissions. 4

Recommendations. 4

Planning Proposal (PP_2017_ORANG_001) to amend Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 – Lot 10 DP 732585, Lots 2 & 3 DP 530183 from E3 Environmental Management to RE2 Private Recreation and to reclassify Lot 1 DP 502526 from ‘community’ to ‘operational’ 4

Next step. 5

 


 

Introduction

Orange City Council recently exhibited a document titled 'Draft Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 Amendment No. 20 which included the following land:

Lot

DP

Address

Intent of Planning Proposal

10

732585

4 Perc Griffith Way and 40 Mitchell Highway, Orange

Rezone the subject land from E3 Environmental Management to RE2 Private Recreation.

2

530183

5190 Mitchell Highway, Orange

Rezone the subject land from E3 Environmental Management to RE2 Private Recreation.

3

530183

Mitchell Highway, Orange

Rezone the subject land from E3 Environmental Management to RE2 Private Recreation.

1

502526

32 Perc Griffith Way and 70 Mitchell Highway, Orange

Reclassify the subject land from ‘community’ to ‘operational’.

 

Part of the site is used for a Go Kart facility.   Council has indicated to me that the use is proposed to continue following the rezoning and reclassification of the subject land.   Council has also identified that part of the site will be used for a caravan park.

The draft LEP Amendment proposes to reclassify certain parcels of Council owned land pursuant to the Local Government Act 1993.   The provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 require that a public hearing be held regarding such reclassification proposals.

To satisfy these requirements Orange City Council convened a public hearing, pursuant to Section 29 of the Local Government Act, commencing at 1.00pm on Tuesday 18 July 2017 at Committee Room 3 in the Council offices located at Byng Street, Orange.

As required by Public Land Management, issued by the Department of Local Government in May 2000, Orange City Council appointed me, Mr. Nicholas Murphy, as an independent person to preside at the hearing.   I am a qualified town planner employed by Bathurst Regional Council as a Senior Strategic Planner.

Prior to the hearing, I undertook a site inspection to familiarise myself with the locations and identify any matters which I should take into consideration in making my recommendation.  

Acknowledgement of Country

The Chair read the Acknowledgement of Country.

Public Hearing

A public notice was placed in a local newspaper notifying interested persons and groups of the Public Hearing.   During the public exhibition period, Orange City Council did not receive any submissions in relation to the Planning Proposal. 


 

 

The meeting was convened at 1.05 pm on Tuesday 18 July 2017 as advertised. Present at that time were:

Mr Nicholas Murphy (meeting chair) - Bathurst Regional Council;

Mrs Summer Cummings - Orange City Council, Senior Planner, Development Services;

At the commencement of the hearing, the Chair enquired whether there was anyone in attendance relating to the Perc Griffith Caravan Park reclassification.   There were no speakers in relation to the matter.

The meeting closed at 1.16pm with no-one attending the Public Hearing.

Submissions

No submissions were made in relation to the matter.

Consideration of Submissions

Following the close of the meeting, I considered the matters contained in the Planning Proposal documentation.   In relation to the Planning Proposal, I have concluded:

a)   Draft Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 Amendment No. 20 to rezone Lot 10 DP 732585, Lots 2 & 3 DP 530183 from E3 Environmental Management to RE2 Private Recreation and to reclassify Lot 1 DP 502526 from ‘community’ to ‘operational’.  

 

b)   Orange Council has stated that the intended use of the land is for a caravan park.

 

c)   Council has not received any submissions in relation to the matter.

 

d)   There are no planning reasons not to proceed with the Planning Proposal in its current form.

Recommendations

I have examined the information available for the Planning Proposal Gateway Determinations of the Planning Proposal (PP_2017_ORANG_001) and the publically available information supporting the Planning Proposal.

Planning Proposal (PP_2017_ORANG_001) to amend Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 – Lot 10 DP 732585, Lots 2 & 3 DP 530183 from E3 Environmental Management to RE2 Private Recreation and to reclassify Lot 1 DP 502526 from ‘community’ to ‘operational’

 

It is important to note that the reclassification of the land from Community to Operational does not compel Council to sell the land.   The reclassification of the land provides Council with flexibility in entering into lease arrangements and/or sale of the land at a future date if it is deemed appropriate.

 

Part of the site is used for a Go Kart facility.   Council has indicated to me that this use is proposed to continue following the rezoning and reclassification of the subject land.   Council has also identified that part of the site will be used for a caravan park.   Given that part of the site is proposed to be used for a caravan park, Council needs to be mindful for potential land use conflicts between the future residential uses within the caravan park and the Go-Kart track.   This is particularly so in relation to the noise generated by the Go-Kart track.   It is considered that the Caravan Park, particularly any long term sites, are noise sensitive receivers.

I am of the opinion that Council needs to be satisfied that appropriate noise attenuation buffers for the caravan park need to be determined prior to the establishment of the caravan park to ensure that the two uses can coexist.  

There are no other planning reasons why the Planning Proposal to rezone and reclassify the subject land should not proceed in its current form.

Next step

The independent report of the outcomes of the public hearing will be submitted to Orange City Council for consideration.   The report from the public hearing, as required by section 57(7) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, is to be made available to the community.

Orange City Council staff will prepare a report for a forthcoming ordinary meeting of Council to consider and resolve if it wishes to proceed with the Planning Proposals.

 

 

 

 

Nicholas Murphy
SENIOR STRATEGIC PLANNER

 



Planning and Development Committee                                                                          1 August 2017

2.2                       Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Amendment 20 - Eastern Gateway Caravan Park

Attachment 3      Maps

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                          1 August 2017

2.2                       Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Amendment 20 - Eastern Gateway Caravan Park

Attachment 3      Maps

PDF Creator



Planning and Development Committee                                                1 August 2017

 

 

2.3     Development Application DA 63/2017(1) - 36-40 Turner Crescent

TRIM REFERENCE:        2017/1604

AUTHOR:                       Summer Commins, Senior Planner    

 

 

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged

6 March 2017 (additional information submitted 12 May 2017)

Applicant/s

Australian Childcare Solutions

Owner/s

Australian Childcare Solutions Pty Ltd

Land description

Lot 194 DP 1007290 - 36-40 Turner Crescent, Orange

Proposed land use

Child Care Centre

Value of proposed development

$2,625,014

Council's consent is sought for a proposed child care centre at 36-40 Turner Crescent, Orange, on land described as Lot 194 DP 1007290. The proposal involves construction of a purpose-built facility for use as a long day child care centre; and associated site works including vehicle areas, external play space and landscaping. The facility will provide 124 child care places for children aged between 0-6 years, and operate between the hours of 7.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday.

The development application was considered by the Planning and Development Committee at its meeting held on 6 June 2017. The Committee resolved:

2.2     Development Application DA 63/2017(1) - 36-40 Turner Crescent

TRIM Reference:        2017/1000

RESOLVED - 17/214                                                                             Cr R Turner/Cr S Munro

That Council defer consideration of development application DA 63/2017(1) for Child Care Centre at Lot 194 DP 1007290 - 36-40 Turner Crescent, Orange subject to a site inspection and consideration of a possible access off Molong Road.

 

In respect of the resolution, a site inspection was held on Tuesday, 13 June 2017 and attended by Councillors, Council staff and objectors to the proposed development. Council staff consulted with Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) in relation to revised access arrangements for the proposed child care centre via Molong Road. The RMS provided in‑principle agreement to a left-turn only exit driveway to Molong Road. Subject to design, this arrangement would necessitate site ingress via Turner Crescent and egress via Molong Road (and potentially Turner Crescent).

It is not possible to achieve an exit driveway to Molong Road based on the site layout and building design proposed. The applicant for the development application did not wish to proceed with an amended proposal to address the RMS suggested site access arrangements. An amended proposal would need to be supported by revised architectural drawings (site, floor and elevation plans), updated Statement of Environmental Effects, landscaping/fencing details, acoustic report and traffic assessment in order to enable proper assessment of the application. The applicant requested that the development application be considered and determined in the form submitted.

The proposed development comprises "advertised development" pursuant to Orange Development Control Plan (DCP) 2004-5.3. The development application was advertised and notified in March 2017 and thirty-one (31) submissions were received. The issues raised in the submissions generally relate to traffic generation and management, and impacts on residential amenity.

The development application did not proceed to mediation as the issues raised in the submissions were considered unlikely to be reasonably capable of mediation (pursuant to Council’s Declaration of Planning and Development Assessment Procedures and Protocols (May 2010)). The issues raised in the submissions are addressed later in this report.

The development application was re-advertised in July 2017. Re-advertising was considered to be in the public interest with reference to the Committee’s resolution of 6 June 2017; and to make publicly available supporting documentation (revised traffic report) that was submitted after the original exhibition period in March. At the time of writing of this report the development application was still on public exhibition, and three submissions had been received. The submissions received to date during the July re-exhibition period are considered in this report. Additional submissions will be considered in a supplementary report at the close of the exhibition period and presented at the 1 August 2017 Planning and Development Committee meeting.

The development application is supported by architectural and engineering drawings and traffic and acoustic assessments. Council officers concur with the content and findings of the supporting documentation.

The proposal does not contravene the applicable planning regime applying to the land. Impacts of the development are considered to be within reasonable limit, consistent with applicable State and Local standards, and addressed by appropriate conditions of development consent. 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 permissible within the zone and has been designed with the high visibility off Molong Road in mind. A significant number of submissions have been received from the neighbourhood, with concerns raised particularly around noise and traffic impacts. Council’s Development Engineering team have analysed the traffic reports provided with the application and are satisfied that the impacts arising are reasonable. Similarly, Council’s Manager Building and Environment is satisfied that the noise impacts will not be significant if the mitigation measures proposed, such as fencing, are implemented.

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

1        That the report by Senior Planner (Commins) on DA 63/2017(1) for Child Care Centre at Lot 194 DP 1007290 - 36-40 Turner Crescent, Orange, be acknowledged.

2        That determination of DA 63/2017(1) be considered in conjunction with a supplementary report addressing submissions received during re‑advertising and re‑exhibition of the application.

 

further considerations

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

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

THE PROPOSAL

The proposal involves construction of a purpose-built child care centre on the subject land.

The proposed building will comprise a single-storey structure of large, modern domestic scale and design. The child care centre building will be generally rectangular, with a footprint of some 63m x 20m and total floor area of 971m2. Construction materials will comprise concrete slab on ground, face brick external walls, aluminium-framed openings of domestic proportions and 25 degree pitched Colorbond gable roof form.


 

Figure 1 - western (front) façade of proposed building and car park (view from Turner Crescent)

The proposed building will contain:

·    entry foyer with adjacent reception

·    seven (7) playrooms according to age bracket with adjacent bathrooms, stores and sleep rooms

·    kitchen, staff room, laundry and store rooms.

External play space will be located at the rear (east) of the building and in the south-western portion of the site at the Turner Crescent frontage. Onsite parking for 31 vehicles will be provided at the site frontage with access via Turner Crescent. Extensive landscaping will be undertaken of the site perimeter, car park and external play spaces.

Figure 2 - proposed site plan


 

The proposed child care centre will provide 124 long day child care places for children aged between 0-6 years, and operate between the hours of 7am to 6pm Monday to Friday. The child care centre will employ 26 staff members (educators, administration, cleaners and cooks).

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,

(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.

An easement to drain sewer traverses the front boundary of the subject land, adjacent to the Turner Crescent frontage. The proposed development is sited clear of and will not affect the operation of the easement.

As depicted below, the subject land comprises a landlocked triangular-shaped parcel situated on the southern side of the parcel directly to the south of the subject land (known as 159 Molong Road). The proposed development does not involve any works on this portion of land.

Figure 3 - the development site split by 159 Molong Road


 

The subject land does not have frontage or access to Molong Road. A public reserve (Lot 196 DP 1007290) adjoins the eastern boundary, as depicted below. This parcel could be dedicated public road (pursuant to Section 10 of the Roads Act 1993) should alternative site access via Molong Road be proposed. As outlined in this report, the RMS has given in‑principle agreement to a left-turn only exit driveway to Molong Road. It is not possible to achieve an exit driveway to Molong Road based on the site layout and building design proposed in the DA. The applicant does not wish to amend the application to incorporate this potential revised access arrangement.

Mapping

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

Land Zoning Map:

Land zoned R2 Low Density 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

Floor Planning Map:

Not a flood planning area

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

Part 2 - Permitted or Prohibited Development

Land Use Zones

The subject site is located within the R2 Low Density Residential zone. The proposed development is defined as a child care centre under OLEP 2011 and is permitted with consent for this zone. This application is seeking consent.

Objectives

The objectives for land zoned R2 Residential are as follows:

·   To provide for the housing needs of the community.

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

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

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

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


 

The proposed development is consistent with the relevant objectives of the R2 zone. The proposal does not involve residential landuse. The proposed child care centre will provide a long-day child care service that will be utilised by local and wider residents. Child care centres are a permitted and complementary landuse in the R2 zone. The subject residential precinct is serviced by public transport (Orange Buslines Route 536). The land does not have frontage or access to the Southern Link Road.

Part 3 - Exempt and Complying Development

The application is not exempt or complying development.

Part 4 - Principal Development Standards

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

Part 5 - Miscellaneous Provisions

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

Part 6 - Urban Release Area

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

Part 7 - Additional Local Provisions

7.3 - Stormwater Management

Clause 7.3 is applicable. This clause states in part:

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

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

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

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

7.6 - Groundwater Vulnerability

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

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


 

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

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

In consideration of Clause 7.6, the proposal is considered to be acceptable. The proposed child care centre does not involve processes or activities that would impact on groundwater resources. The centre will be connected to Council’s reticulated sewerage system.

Clause 7.11 - Essential Services

Clause 7.11 applies. This clause states:

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

(a)     the supply of water,

(b)     the supply of electricity,

(c)     the disposal and management of sewage,

(d)     stormwater drainage or on-site conservation,

(e)     suitable road access.

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

·    The land is connected to reticulated water supply.

·    Electricity and telecommunications are available.

·    The land is serviced by Council’s reticulated sewerage system.

·    Stormwater from the development will be connected to Council’s urban stormwater drainage system.

·    The site has direct frontage and access to Turner Crescent.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land

The development site was created by a subdivision approved under DA L337/98 (20 January 1999).


 

Figure 4 – approved plan DA L337/98 (subject land shown highlighted)

Condition 6 of DA L337/98 states:

Soil sampling for analysing chemical residue to an extent that adequately demonstrates the suitability of the land for residential development shall be carried out upon the subject property. Such testing shall be carried out by a NATA Registered Laboratory. Reference should be made to the Environmentally Hazardous Chemicals Act 1995 and the Department of Planning Circular C10. These results shall be provided prior to the release of the Subdivision Certificate.

A Contamination Screening Survey was submitted as required by Condition 6 (Terra Sciences February 1999). Soil sampling (6 samples) was undertaken over the development site (approved Lots 220, 221 and 222).

Figure 5 – soil samples over the subject land


 

The Terra Sciences assessment concludes and recommends as follows:

·    “The site does not appear to have a history of heavy pesticide or herbicide use.

·    There were no obvious signs of contamination in the surface soils across the site, nor were there any hydrocarbon or other unusual odours at the time of the survey.

·    All pesticide concentrations were below the Health Based Investigation Threshold Limits and therefore unlikely to pose any risk to humans.

·    All metal concentrations were below the Health Based Investigation Threshold Limits and therefore unlikely to pose any risk to humans.

·    All pesticide concentrations were below the Environmental Investigation criteria.

·    All metal concentrations, apart from arsenic and copper were below the Environmental Investigation criteria.

·    Copper and arsenic concentrations are within published values for background concentrations.

·    The site is not within an environmentally sensitive area and will ultimately be an urban area. As a result, the Health Based Investigation Thresholds would be more appropriate than the Environmental Investigation Threshold.

·    The fill used on site does not appear to be contaminated.

·    Based on the above conclusions and in accordance with the ANZECC/NHMRC Guidelines, Terra Sciences recommends that further investigation is not warranted on the subject site and that no specific precautions are required in the use of the site for residential development.”

In respect of Council’s obligations under SEPP 55 Remediation of Land, the following clauses apply:

7(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.

(2)     Before determining an application for consent to carry out development that would involve a change of use on any of the land specified in subclause (4), the consent authority must consider a report specifying the findings of a preliminary investigation of the land concerned carried out in accordance with the contaminated land planning guidelines.

(4)     The land concerned is:

(c)     to the extent to which it is proposed to carry out development on it for residential, educational, recreational or child care purposes, or for the purposes of a hospital—land:

(i)      in relation to which there is no knowledge (or incomplete knowledge) as to whether development for a purpose referred to in Table 1 to the contaminated land planning guidelines has been carried out, and

(ii)     on which it would have been lawful to carry out such development during any period in respect of which there is no knowledge (or incomplete knowledge).

The submitted Terra Sciences report (1999) confirms that the land ‘is bound on all sides by land which has historically been used for agricultural purposes’; further, ‘the site has been cleared and previously used for grazing and cropping.’ As such, there is knowledge that the land has been used for a purpose referred to in Table 1 (clause 4(c)(i)).

Notwithstanding, contamination assessment has been undertaken in conjunction with land subdivision for residential purposes. The assessment confirmed that the site is suitable for residential development, being the most sensitive landuse.

Council may be satisfied that the contamination investigation status of the development site is “unrestricted” and therefore suitable for all landuses including the proposed child care centre. The findings of the Terra Sciences report (1999) were discussed with Geolyse (former Terra Sciences) Environmental Scientist, Mr Brendan Stuart, in June 2017. He confirmed standards today are consistent with or lower than they were in 1999 when the contamination assessment was undertaken. If further sampling was undertaken today, findings would be consistent with the 1999 assessment.

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 – Part 7 Development in Residential Zones

Part 7.5 Merit Based Appropriate to Residential Development in Orange

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

Neighbourhood Character

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

·     Site layout and building design enables the:

-    creation of attractive residential environments with clear character and identity

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

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

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

The Turner Crescent residential precinct is defined by modern double fronted, single-storey brick veneer dwellings circa 1990, on separate allotments. The design and detailing of the proposed childcare centre are considered suitable within the subject residential setting and will complement the neighbourhood built form due to the following:


 

·    The narrow and curvilinear site frontage and partial battleaxe configuration of the allotment departs from neighbouring parcels. As such, the building will be removed from the built form on adjoining sites. The building will not contribute to a streetscape built form.

·    The building is provided with a generous setback of some 22m from the front boundary so as to not appear imposing in the Turner Crescent streetscape.

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

·    The hipped roof, wall height and window fenestration will be reflective of domestic architectural forms in this streetscape.

·    The proposed external finishes will be compatible with adjoining dwellings.

The development will broaden the function of the neighbourhood by introducing a non‑residential component. Indeed, the proposed child care centre comprises the only non‑residential landuse in the Turner Crescent/Cianfrano Place residential neighbourhood. Notwithstanding, child care centres are a permitted use in the R2 zone, and the proposal is considered to be complementary in this setting.

Building Appearance

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcomes in regard to Building Appearance:

·    The building design, detailing and finishes relate to the desired neighbourhood character, complement the residential scale of the area, and add visual interest to the street.

·    The frontages of buildings and their entries face the street.

·    Garages and car parks are sited and designed so that they do not dominate the street frontage.

As considered above, the design, detailing and finishes for the proposed child care centre are appropriate in this neighbourhood and will reasonably complement the built form in the residential setting.

The building footprint and massing is more extensive than adjoining dwellings, with a footprint of some 63m x 20m. Notwithstanding, it is considered that building scale will not conflict with adjoining dwellings based on building design, limited site frontage and setback from the front boundary. The building massing will be reduced via recesses in the hipped roof profile and mix of wall finishes.

The front building elevation will present to Turner Crescent (notwithstanding the small site frontage and large building setback). The main front façade will comprise building entrance, verandah treatment and numerous vertical and horizontal openings of domestic scale.

The proposed car park will be located at the site frontage, forward of the building. The proposed site layout is consistent with other child care centres on residential parcels in the City. An enclosed outdoor play space is also located in the front setback in the southern portion of the parcel. Extensive landscaping of site perimeter and building entrance will provide screening and visual relief of vehicle areas.


 

Heritage

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

·    Heritage buildings and structures are efficiently re-used.

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

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

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

Setbacks

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

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

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

The proposed building will be sited a minimum 22m from the front boundary to Turner Crescent. The proposed front setback is appropriate to reduce the visual encroachment of the building mass and footprint in the streetscape. Perimeter plantings to the car park at the site frontage will provide softening and embellishment of vehicle areas in the front setback. Side and rear setbacks for the proposed building will comply with the Building Code of Australia.

Front Fences and Walls

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

·    Front fences and walls:

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

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

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

A fence will be erected on the part-front boundary to Turner Crescent in order to enclose the outdoor play area in the southern portion of the site. Fencing treatment will comprise a stepped part timber and part blockwork fence atop a retaining wall. Finished heights of retaining walls and fencing at the front boundary are unclear in the DA submission (and indeed will be subject to variation in conjunction with conditional alterations to finished levels over the site). A condition is recommended requiring submission and approval of final details of fencing, landscaping and retaining walls for the Turner Crescent frontage prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. It is considered that hard and soft landscaping adjacent to the front boundary and access driveway will provide an entry statement to the site and a sense of identity for the child care centre within the Turner Crescent streetscape.


 

The northern and eastern boundaries of the site present to the Northern Distributor Road and Molong Road respectively. These boundaries will incorporate masonry stepped retaining walls, timber fencing atop the walls and extensive infill landscaping.as depicted below. The proposed overall height of the retaining walls and fencing will be 3.9m.

Figure 6 – section view - fencing and landscaping treatment to Northern Distributor Road

and Mitchell Highway

Figure 7 - fencing and landscaping treatment to Northern Distributor Road and Mitchell Highway


 

It is considered that fencing and landscaping treatment to the NDR and Molong Road is of high standard, and commensurate with the site’s gateway location. While the overall height of the wall and fence is substantial, terracing of the retaining walls and infill landscaping will reduce the visual prominence.

As outlined in the following sections of this report, conditions are recommended requiring alterations to the proposed finish ground levels on the site (in order to minimise visual bulk impacts for adjoining dwellings). Alteration to finished levels may result in associated alteration (reduction) to the overall height of walls and fencing to the NDR and Molong Road. A condition is recommended requiring submission and approval of final details of fencing, landscaping and retaining walls for the NDR and Molong Road boundaries prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Perimeter fencing will be erected on the boundaries of the site adjoining residential properties at 42 Turner Crescent (to the west) and 159 Molong Road (to the south). Fencing will be erected at existing natural ground level and comprise a height of 2.1m and taper to 1.0m forward of the Turner Crescent building line on those adjoining properties. It is noted that fencing of this height and construction is required to satisfy the requirements of the submitted acoustic report (as outlined in this report).

Visual Bulk

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

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

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

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

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

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

-   building to the boundary where appropriate.

The proposed child care centre will be single-storey and of consistent height with adjoining dwellings in Turner Crescent.

The building footprint and massing will be larger than adjoining dwellings, with overall dimensions of some 63m x 20m. Notwithstanding, the site has limited frontage to Turner Crescent and will not contribute to nor detract from the streetscape built form. As considered above, the proposed front setback of 22m will reduce the visual encroachment of the building mass in the streetscape.

The proposed building will be contained within the DCP prescribed visual bulk envelope plane. The building will comprise a total building footprint of 1,183m2. Based on a site area of 3,373m2, the development will have site coverage of 35.1%, in compliance with the maximum 50% prescribed in the DCP.


 

Earthworks will be required in conjunction with the proposal. Substantial site filling will be undertaken to provide level surfaces, with part retention along the boundaries to the NDR and Mitchell Highway (as outlined above). In order to avoid visual bulk encroachment impacts for the adjoining western dwelling at 42 Turner Crescent associated with the car park, a condition is recommended that finished levels in the car park reflect natural ground level; further, that retaining walls not be erected on the western site boundary. This conditional alterations to car park levels may necessitate erection of a retaining wall through the site, adjacent to the western façade of the child care centre. Site retention here will not adversely impact on the adjoining western dwelling at 42 Turner Crescent due to the separation of some 20m.

The child care centre building will be reasonably removed from site boundaries to prevent visual encroachment on the adjoining dwellings at 42 Turner Crescent and 159 Molong Road.

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 adversely 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.

Assessment of shadow impacts by Council staff demonstrates that the proposal will not unreasonably overshadow the nearest affected dwellings to the west (42 Turner Crescent) and south (159 Molong Road). Based on the height and siting of the proposed building and the siting of the adjoining dwellings, internal and external solar access will be maintained for those dwellings, consistent with the DCP guidelines.

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


 

Views

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

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

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

Design and detailing for the proposed building and site works are of a high standard and commensurate with the site’s gateway location within the Mitchell Highway and Northern Distributor Road (NDR) view corridor. The proposed building will not unreasonably diminish views for other properties in the vicinity.

Visual Privacy

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

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

-   building siting and layout

-   location of windows and balconies

and secondly by:

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

The proposed site layout and building design will provide acceptable visual privacy for adjoining dwellings:

·    Perimeter fencing of varying heights will be erected on the side boundaries. Fencing adjacent to the residential properties will be 2.1m in height and 1.0m forward of the building line on those adjoining properties (as required by conditions). (Nb. The normal height of fencing in a residential environment is ordinarily 1.8m; 2.1m high fencing to mitigate noise impacts is considered reasonable).

·    Extensive landscaping will be provided to the site perimeters.

·    South-facing openings in the proposed child care centre will comprise two windows in nominated “sleep” rooms. The openings will be located some 4m from the southern boundary of the site. This separation and use of rooms is considered suitable to prevent overlooking of the adjoining southern dwelling at 159 Molong Road.

·    The proposed building will be sufficiently removed from the western side boundary to prevent overlooking from within the building of the adjoining western dwelling at 42 Turner Crescent.

·    Conditions are recommended that car park finished levels reflect existing natural ground level in order to reduce overlooking from the car park towards the adjoining western dwelling at 42 Turner Crescent.


 

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.

A noise assessment has been submitted in support of the proposed child care centre (Renzo Tonin & Associates February 2017).

Noise associated with the proposal will be generated by outdoor play, mechanical plant, traffic noise in the car park, and traffic noise in local streets generated by vehicles associated with the child care centre. Furthermore and conversely, the operation of the centre will be affected by traffic noise from Molong Road and the Northern Distributor Road.

The noise assessment concludes:

Operational noise from the proposed childcare centre was assessed against the relevant criteria and was predicted to exceed the applicable criteria at the nearest affected residential receivers. Thus, physical mitigation and management measures were recommended to ensure that operational noise would comply with the criteria at the nearest affected receivers.

Traffic noise from Molong Road and the Northern Distributor Road impacting on the outdoor play areas of the proposed child care centre was predicted to exceed the relevant criterion. As a result, in-principle noise mitigation measures were recommended to reduce traffic noise impacting on the outdoor play areas to acceptable levels.

The noise assessment recommends installation of solid noise screens/fencing to the eastern, south-eastern and northern boundaries.

Council's Manager Building and Environment concurs with the findings and recommendations of the noise assessment. Conditions are recommended to address the requirements of Council and the submitted noise assessment in respect of physical and operational mitigation measures.

Security

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

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

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


 

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

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

·    Internal and external CCTV cameras will be provided.

·    Internal and external motion-activated security sensor lighting will be installed.

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

·    Outdoor play spaces will only be accessible from within the building.

·    The proposed landscape design will not restrict sightlines.

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 subject land has direct frontage and access to Turner Crescent. A 6m vehicle crossing and driveway will be constructed to service the site. In order that adequate sight distances are provided for vehicles turning right into the site (ie when travelling north along Turner Crescent), a raised median and line marking will be provided along Turner Crescent.

The median will be broken to allow entry into the site when adequate sightlines are achieved. As an additional traffic safety measure, the intersection area of the car park entrance with Turner Crescent will be resealed (as required by condition). The median, line marking and intersection resealing will reduce the speed of vehicles entering the site, provide adequate reaction times and improve traffic amenity generally.

The proposed access arrangements were reached in conjunction with Council’s Development Engineer and are considered suitable to achieve safe access to the development site. Relevant conditions are recommended in relation to the required works.

Car Parking

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

·    Parking facilities are provided, designed and located to:

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

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


 

·    Car parking is provided with regard to the:

-   the number and size of proposed dwellings

-   requirements of people with limited mobility or disabilities.

Pursuant to DCP 2004, onsite parking is required for child care centres at a rate of 1 space for every 4 children in attendance. The proposed child care centre will provide 124 child care places, with 31 parking spaces required. The onsite car park will provide 31 parking spaces, including 1 space for disabled drivers, in compliance with the DCP.

Onsite car parking for the development is also consistent with parking requirements pursuant to the Guide to Traffic Generating Developments (Roads and Traffic Authority 2002) (the RMS Guide). The RMS Guide also requires 1 space for every 4 children in attendance.

The submitted Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment (McLaren Traffic Engineering May 2017) provides additional details in respect of RMS parking requirements as follows:

“RMS commissioned updated surveys and analysis of child care centres in 2015. While the findings of this update have not been officially adopted, the following car parking rates were found, with particular reference given to the centre size:

·   Centres with 70-100 children – 1 space per 6 children.

Based upon application of the above parking rates, 124 children would result in 21 car parking spaces in total (based upon a rate of 1 space per 6 children). Hence the provision of 31 car parking spaces for the child care centre is a surplus of 10 spaces above the minimum requirement.”

The onsite car parking resources are considered suitable for the proposed child care centre.

In order to improve the functioning of the onsite car park, Council’s Development Engineer has recommended that the car park design be amended (dimensions, aisle widths and turn bay) to the highest user standard under Australian Standard AS 2890.1:2004 Off-street car parking. There is sufficient area within the subject land to accommodate the design changes required. A condition is recommended in relation to this matter.

Private Open Space

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

·    Private open space is clearly defined for private use.

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

·    Private open space is:

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

–   accessible from a living area of the dwelling


 

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

–   orientated to optimise year round use.

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

Open Space and Landscaping

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

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

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

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

–   allow cost effective management.

A Landscape Design Intent has been submitted in support of the proposal (Larc Collective Landscape Architects). The plan incorporates extensive plantings to the car park perimeter, outdoor play spaces and public road frontages.

The landscape plan was referred to Council’s Manager City Presentation for consideration and comment. He advised as follows:

The suggested list of trees, palms and shrubs requires review and alternative species selected as many of the species nominated will either fail or struggle with the Orange climatic conditions; particularly the cold winters and severe frosts. Many of the species selected are naturally occurring in temperate rainforests or closed forests and as such will have little success in Orange. A revised and appropriate selection of trees, palms and shrubs shall be submitted for approval.

Conditions are recommended requiring submission and approval of a revised and locale-specific landscape plan prior to issue of a Construction Certificate, and installation and ongoing maintenance of the approved landscaping works.

Stormwater

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

·    On-site drainage systems are designed to consider:

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

–   scope for on-site infiltration of water

–   safety and convenience of pedestrians and vehicles

–   overland flow paths.

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

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


 

Erosion and Sedimentation

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

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

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

Part 7.9 - Shops and Business in the Urban Residential Zone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

·    As considered earlier in this report, the design, detailing and finishes for the proposed child care centre are appropriate for this site and neighbourhood. The building will take a large, modern domestic scale and design, and will reasonably integrate with adjoining dwellings and the built form in this setting.

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

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

·    As considered earlier in this report, the proposed child care centre will generate demand for 31 onsite parking spaces. Thirty-one (31) onsite car parking spaces will be provided, including 1 space for disabled drivers, in compliance with DCP 2004 and the RMS Guide.


 

·    An indicative business identification sign is provided on the retaining wall at the Mitchell Highway/NRD intersection. A condition is recommended requiring further consent to be obtained for advertising that is not exempt development.

Development Control Plan 2004 - Part 15 Car Parking

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

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

·    Car parking areas are designed according to Australian Standard.

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

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

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

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

·    As outlined earlier in this report, onsite car parking will be provided for the proposed child care centre consistent with DCP 2004 and the RMS Guide.

·    Conditions are recommended requiring the submission of engineering plans for the proposed car park, demonstrating compliance with AS 2890.1-2004 Off-street car parking (highest user standard) and AS 2890.6:2009 Off-street car parking for people with disabilities.

·    Landscaping (as amended by conditions to be locale-specific) will be provided to the perimeter of the proposed car park. The landscaping will provide site beautification and visual and acoustic relief to vehicle areas.

·    Based on the long-day operation of the proposed child care centre, car park lighting will be required. A condition is recommended requiring outdoor lighting to comply with AS 4282:1997 Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting.

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

·    The submitted Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment (McLaren Traffic Engineering May 2017) provides the following comments in respect of service/commercial vehicles:

“A B99 utility / courier van (ie. a Toyota Hiace) is the typical sized vehicle used for deliveries to child care centres… B99 vehicles can access normal sized car spaces, and the site will be easily able to accommodate a delivery vehicle on site between 9am and 4pm outside of peak visitor times, when spare visitor parking will be in abundance…. A B99 will have sufficient manoeuvring area on site and shall be easily managed due to the small natural of deliveries and low frequency.”

A condition is recommended that service vehicles to the site shall not exceed a B99 utility or courier van.


 

DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS

Development contributions for water, sewer and drainage works are applicable to the proposed development. The contributions are based on 6.44 ETs for water supply headworks and 11.4 ETs for sewerage headworks. A condition is recommended requiring payment of the applicable contributions.

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

Demolition of a Building (clause 92)

The proposal does not involve the demolition of a building.

Fire Safety Considerations (clause 93)

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

Buildings to be Upgraded (clause 94)

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

BASIX Commitments (clause 97A)

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

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

Visual Impacts

As considered earlier in this report, the design, detailing and finishes for the proposed child care centre are appropriate for this site and neighbourhood. The building will take a large, modern domestic scale and design, and will reasonably integrate with adjoining dwellings and the built form in this setting. The narrow and curvilinear site frontage and partial battleaxe configuration of the allotment departs from neighbouring parcels. As such, the building will be removed from the built form on adjoining sites. The building will not contribute to a streetscape built form.

Traffic Impacts

Traffic Generation and Impact

Pursuant to the submitted Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment (McLaren Traffic Engineering May 2017), traffic generation associated with the proposed child care centre is summarised as follows:

Time

Rate

Traffic Generation

Direction

7.00 - 9.00am

0.8 / child

99 trips

50 in – 49 out

2.30 - 4.00pm

0.3 / child

37 trips

19 in – 18 out

4.00 - 6.00pm

0.7 / child

87 trips

44 in – 43 out

*based on traffic generation rates for child care centres contained in the RMS Guide


 

As shown above, traffic generation associated with the development is in the order of 99 vehicle trips in the morning peak (7am-9am) and 87 vehicle trips in the evening peak (4pm‑6pm).

It is acknowledged that traffic generation associated with the child care centre will be substantially greater than that pertaining to residential landuse. Notwithstanding this, the centre has the potential to generate less than two (2) vehicle trips per minute either approaching or departing the site (not both) in the peak morning and evening period.

The Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment (McLaren Traffic Engineering May 2017) considers the impact of traffic volumes associated with the child care centre on the surrounding road network. In summary:

·    All traffic will enter and exit the site via the intersection of Mitchell Highway/ Mastronardi Way.

·    The intersection currently operates at a Level of Service “A.” The increased traffic load associated with the child care centre will not alter the existing Level of Service, with minimal additional delays and capacity maintained.

·    Existing and additional two-way peak traffic along Turner Crescent will be well below the environmental goal of 200 vehicles per hour for local streets, and the maximum threshold of 300 vehicles per hour for local streets (pursuant to the RTA Guide).

Council’s Development Engineer concurs with the McLaren assessment that Turner Crescent and the intersection of Mitchell Highway/Mastronardi Way are of sufficient capacity to accommodate additional traffic volumes associated with the child care centre.

Access and Manoeuvring

The subject land has direct frontage and access to Turner Crescent. A 6m vehicle crossing and driveway from Turner Crescent will be constructed to service the site. In order that adequate sight distances are provided for vehicles turning right into the site (ie when travelling north along Turner Crescent), a raised median and line marking will be provided along Turner Crescent.

The median will be broken to allow entry into the site when adequate sightlines are achieved. As an additional traffic safety measure, the intersection area of the car park entrance with Turner Crescent will be resealed (as required by condition). The median, line marking and intersection resealing will reduce the speed of vehicles entering the site, provide adequate reaction times, and improve traffic amenity generally. The proposed access arrangements were reached in conjunction with Council’s Development Engineer and are considered suitable to achieve safe access to the development site. Relevant conditions are recommended in relation to the required works.

Council staff consulted with the RMS in relation to the potential for revised access arrangements for the proposed child care centre via Molong Road. RMS advised as follows in this regard:


 

RMS, in principle, would agree to the left turn only exit driveway subject to the following:

·   The concrete median extend from the concrete island in Molong Road back, at least, 20 metres south of the proposed driveway.

·   The concrete median is lit in accordance with AS1158.

·   The left turn slip lane on Molong Rd fronting the land complies with Parts 4A and 4B of Austroads Guide to Road Design.

·   Route standard 3.5 metre lane widths and the run out area adjoining the south bound travel lane on Molong Road are maintained.

·   The driveway be designed for the largest vehicle required to access the development, and as much as possible, the driveway be designed to deter entry movements in and right turn movements out, whilst still providing a high level of safety for left turning vehicles exiting the site.

It is not possible to achieve an exit driveway to Molong Road based on the site layout and building design proposed. The applicant to the development application did not wish to proceed with an amended proposal to address the RMS suggested site access arrangements. An amended proposal would need to be supported by revised architectural drawings (site, floor and elevation plans), updated Statement of Environmental Effects, landscaping/fencing details, acoustic report and traffic assessment in order to enable proper assessment of the application. The applicant requested that the development application be considered and determined in the form submitted.

Car Parking

As outlined in this report, the proposed development incorporates a total of 31 off-street car parking spaces, consistent with the requirements of DCP 2004 and the RMS Guide. Due to this compliance, overflow on-street car parking is not anticipated

Neighbourhood Amenity

Noise

Noise associated with operation of the proposed child care centre will exceed that pertaining to normal residential landuse. Noise will be generated by outdoor play, mechanical plant, traffic noise in the car park, and traffic noise in local streets generated by vehicles associated with the child care centre. Furthermore and conversely, the operation of the centre will be affected by traffic noise from Molong Road and the NDR.

As outlined earlier in this report, an acoustic assessment was submitted in support of the proposal (Renzo Tonin & Associates February 2017). The acoustic assessment confirms that subject to implementation of mitigation measures, noise emissions from the proposed child care centre will comply with the relevant criteria. Further, the operation of the child care centre will not be affected by traffic noise from Molong Road and the Northern Distributor Road.

Conditions are recommended to address the requirements of Council and the submitted acoustic assessment in respect of physical and operational mitigation measures. On this basis, noise impacts are considered to be within reasonable limit.


 

Light

Based on the long-day operation of the proposed child care centre, car park lighting and other external lighting will be required. In order that external lighting will not cause nuisance glare for adjoining dwellings, a condition is recommended requiring exterior lighting to be sited and designed to comply with AS 4282-1997 Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting.

Privacy

Perimeter fencing of varying heights will be erected on the side boundaries. Fencing treatment and perimeter landscaping will prevent overlooking of adjoining dwellings from internal and external play spaces and the car park. Conditions are recommended that car park finished levels reflect existing natural ground level in order to avoid overlooking from the car park ‘deck’ towards the adjoining western dwelling at 42 Turner Crescent. The proposal will not adversely impact on privacy for adjoining dwellings.

Odour

An enclosed waste storage facility is located adjacent to the front boundary/access driveway. As the bins will be walked to the footpath on collection day, it is unnecessary that the bin bay be located at the site frontage. A condition is recommended that the bin bay be located adjacent to the nominated ‘service area’ adjacent to the northern building façade. Relocation of the bin bay will overcome potential odour impacts for the nearest affected dwelling at 42 Turner Crescent. Furthermore, resiting of the bin bay will provide for additional landscaping at the site entry, with positive visual impacts on the streetscape.

Visual Bulk

The child care centre building will be reasonably removed from site boundaries to prevent visual encroachment on the adjoining dwellings at 42 Turner Crescent and 159 Molong Road. As outlined in this report, conditions are recommended that finished levels in the car park reflect natural ground level in order to avoid visual bulk encroachment impacts for the adjoining western dwelling at 42 Turner Crescent.

Environmental Impacts

The subject land is contained within an established residential precinct and comprises vacant, cleared land. Significant vegetation, threatened species or ecological endangered communities or their habitats are unlikely to be present. The site is not in proximity to any waterway, drinking water catchment or sensitive area. Sediment control measures, as required by conditions, will prevent loose dirt and sediment escaping the site and polluting downstream waterways.

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


 

Social and Economic Impacts

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

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

The subject land is suitable for the proposed child care centre due to the following:

·    The proposed development is a permitted use in the R2 Low Density Residential zone, being the zoning of the subject land.

·    Urban utility services are available and suitable subject to augmentation.

·    The site has direct frontage and access to Turner Crescent.

·    The local road network adjacent to the site is of sufficient capacity to accommodate traffic volumes.

·    The site is not subject to known technological or natural hazards.

·    The parcel is vacant cleared land with no known biodiversity value.

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

The proposed development comprises "advertised development" pursuant to DCP 2004‑5.3. The DA was subject to two exhibition and public participation phases, as outlined below.

MARCH PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The development application was advertised and notified in March 2017 and thirty‑one (31) submissions were received. The issues raised in the submissions during the March exhibition period are addressed below. The applicant (and consultants) have responded to the submissions as outlined where relevant.

1     Traffic Matters

The submitted traffic assessment contains anomalies

Comment: A Traffic and Parking Statement (Traffic Solutions Pty Ltd February 2017) was submitted in support of the development application. In response to issues raised in the submissions and Council’s concerns, the applicant was requested to provide additional traffic details. An alternative traffic consultant was subsequently engaged by the applicant, namely McLaren Traffic Engineering. The following documents were submitted by McLaren Traffic Engineering in support of the proposal:

1        Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment of Child Care Centre at 36-40 Turner Crescent (12 May 2017); and

2        Response to Resident Submissions with respect to Proposed Child Care Centre (18 May 2017).

Council’s Development Engineer is satisfied and concurs with the content and findings of the traffic details submitted by McLaren Traffic Engineering, subject to conditions of consent.


 

The proposal will result in traffic congestion in surrounding residential streets

Comment: McLaren Traffic Engineering advises as follows in respect of this matter:

“When the estimated AM and PM peak period generations [associated with the child care centre] are added to the current local traffic conditions of Turner Crescent and Mastronardi Way, the traffic congestion was found to be minimal, with the existing Level of Service “A” being retained for the worst turning movements of the intersection of the Mitchell Highway / Mastronardi Way, with minimal additional details and capacity being maintained. This represents “GOOD” performance being maintained.

The existing traffic flows along Turner Crescent in conjunction with the additional traffic generated from the child care centre provides two-way traffic movements that are below the environmental goal of 200 vehicles per hour and a maximum 300 vehicles per hour for local streets as specified in the RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Developments (2002), as a measure of impact on Residential Amenity.

Hence, the traffic generated will not have a significant impact on residential amenity and congestion in surrounding residential streets.”

Council’s Development Engineer concurs with McLaren’s findings.

Traffic congestion will impact on safety for pedestrians (including school children) in surrounding residential streets

Comment: McLaren Traffic Engineering advises as follows in respect of this matter:

“The increase of 99 and 87 vehicle trips (equating to less than 2 cars per minute) during the morning and afternoon peak periods respectively does not considerably increase the traffic congestion along the local streets and as a result does not increase the risk to pedestrians that what is already occurring.”

Council’s Development Engineer concurs with McLaren’s findings and advises:

“The anticipated traffic volume increase is well within the existing road capacity and will not impact on pedestrian safety. Existing speed humps are considered adequate traffic calming devices.”

The capacity of Turner Crescent is inadequate to cater for additional traffic volumes

Comment: As outlined above, McLaren Traffic Engineering advises as follows in respect of this matter:

“The existing traffic flows along Turner Crescent in conjunction with the additional traffic generated from the child care centre provides two-way traffic movements that are below the environmental goal of 200 vehicles per hour and a maximum 300 vehicles per hour for local streets as specified in the RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Developments (2002), as a measure of impact on Residential Amenity.”

Council’s Development Engineer concurs with McLaren’s findings.


 

The onsite car park is inadequate to meet the parking demands of the child care centre, with subsequent overflow on-street parking

Comment: As outlined in this report, the proposed development incorporates a total of 31 off-street car parking spaces, consistent with the requirements of DCP 2004 and the RMS Guide. Due to this compliance, overflow on-street car parking is not anticipated.

Council’s Development Engineer advises:

“The required parking spaces calculated under Orange DCP 2004 (31) have been supplied. The required spaces calculated under RMS guidelines (21) have been exceeded. [On this basis] there is not expected to be any overflow on-street parking.”

There is insufficient onsite manoeuvring area to accommodate service vehicles

Comment: McLaren Traffic Engineering advises as follows in respect of this matter:

“A B99 utility / courier van (ie. a Toyata Hiace) is the typical sized vehicle used for deliveries to child care centres… B99 vehicles can access normal sized car spaces, and the site will be easily able to accommodate a delivery vehicle on site between 9am and 4pm outside of peak visitor times, when spare visitor parking will be in abundance…. A B99 will have sufficient manoeuvring area on site and shall be easily managed due to the small natural of deliveries and low frequency.”

Council’s Development Engineer concurs with McLaren’s findings, subject to conditions of consent requiring that the car park design be amended (dimensions, aisle widths and turn bay) to the highest user standard under Australian Standard AS 2890.1:2004 Off-street car parking; and the maximum service vehicle to enter the site being a B99 utility/courier van.

No Standing signs are inappropriate to prevent onstreet congestion and will inconvenience residents

Comment: The proposal does not involve installation of ‘No Standing’ signs along Turner Crescent.

There are inadequate sight distances to permit safe ingress to the site for vehicles entering the site from the south

Comment: As outlined earlier in this report, in order that adequate sight distances are provided for vehicles turning right into the site (ie when travelling north along Turner Crescent), a raised median and line marking will be provided along Turner Crescent.

The median will be broken to allow entry into the site when adequate sightlines are achieved. As an additional traffic safety measure, the intersection area of the car park entrance with Turner Crescent will be resealed (as required by condition). The median, line marking and intersection resealing will reduce the speed of vehicles entering the site, provide adequate reaction times and improve traffic amenity generally. The proposed access arrangements were reached in conjunction with Council’s Development Engineer and are considered suitable to achieve safe access to the development site. Relevant conditions are recommended in relation to the required works.


 

There is potential for traffic accidents at the Mitchell Highway/Northern Distributor Road (NDR) intersection to enter the site

Comment: McLaren Traffic Engineering provided the following comments in relation to this matter:

“The child care centre will have no vehicle access from Mitchell Highway and the Northern Distribution Road, all access will be from Turner Crescent.”

The applicant’s planning consultant further advises as follows in this regard:

“The likelihood of vehicles involved in any traffic accident at the intersection of the Mitchell Highway and Northern Distributor Road entering the site is considered low for the following reasons:

v The intersection of the Mitchell Highway and NDR is a roundabout intersection at which vehicles would be anticipated to enter and exit at a relatively low speed (maximum 30km/hr).

v The boundaries of the subject site are setback substantially from the two intersection roads and roundabout intersection. A 10m wide public reserve is positioned beside the site’s eastern side boundary and the Mitchell Highway, with the edge of the carriageway located some 13m from the site boundary. The edge of the carriageway of the NDR is located some 26m from the site’s northern boundary.

v A terraced and landscaped retaining wall with a total height of 2.4m is to be erected along the northern boundary of the site and partially returning along the eastern side boundary."

Council officers concur that the likelihood of a traffic accident entering the site via Mitchell Highway/NDR is low based on vehicle speeds at the intersection, separation of the site from the formed carriageway and finished levels for the development site. In respect of the Turner Crescent frontage and access, the median, line marking and intersection resealing as required by conditions of consent will reduce the speed of vehicles entering the site and provide adequate reaction times.

Traffic noise will adversely impact on residential amenity

Comment: McLaren Traffic Engineering provided the following comments in relation to this matter:

“The total future two-way traffic along Turner Crescent is calculated to be 142 and 133 vehicles during the AM and PM period peaks respectively. These two-way flows are below the environmental goal of 200 vehicles per hour and the maximum threshold of 300 vehicles per hour for local streets as specified in the RMS Guide.”

Furthermore, the applicant’s planning consultant advised as follows:

“The Noise Assessment undertaken by Renzo Tonin & Associates specifically addressed this matter in section 5.1 of their report and established that based on the proposed 99 vehicle movements during the morning peak period, road traffic noise level on Turner Crescent due to traffic generated by the child care centre would comply with the noise criterion of the NSW Road Noise Policy at the most affected residences along Turner Crescent.”

As such, while the proposed child care centre will alter the neighbourhood acoustic environment, traffic noise is considered to be within reasonable limit and in accordance with relevant standards.

Pedestrian infrastructure should be provided in the vicinity of the site, including formed footpaths and a pedestrian crossing

Comment: Council’s Development Engineer advises as follows in this regard:

“The development does not meet the warrants for a marked pedestrian crossing. All drop offs are planning to occur within the site. A concrete footpath is to be constructed for the full frontage of the development to Turner Crescent [as required by a condition of consent] to cater for any local residents who may walk to the centre. Any additional footpaths will be subject to consideration under Council’s residential footpath construction program.”

The proposal will exacerbate the poor condition of the Turner Crescent road surface

Comment: Council’s Development Engineer provided the following comments in relation to this matter:

Any maintenance issues identified with the Turner Crescent road surface will be addressed by Council under the local roads maintenance program.

In order to improve road safety adjacent to the site, a condition is recommended requiring resealing of the intersection of the car park entrance with Turner Crescent.

The proposed arrangements for waste management (size of bins, frequency of collection, location of bin storage) are inadequate / unsuitable

Comment: The applicant’s planning consultant advised as follows in this regard:

“The size of the [waste] storage facility has been determined based on other similar sized child care centres and waste generation rates. If the facility requires an additional regular collection service by Council, this can be arranged by centre management.”

Council’s Development Engineer raised no objection to the proposed waste management arrangements. Bins will be placed kerbside on collection days and returned to the storage area. As outlined in this report, a condition is recommended requiring relocation of the enclosed waste storage facility to the service area adjacent to the northern facade of the child care centre. Relocation will limit potential odour and visual impacts for the nearest adjoining dwelling at 42 Turner Crescent.

2     Noise Impacts Associated with the Child Care Centre

Comment: As outlined earlier in this report, an acoustic assessment was submitted in support of the proposal (Renzo Tonin & Associates February 2017). The acoustic assessment confirms that subject to implementation of physical and operational mitigation measures, noise emissions from the proposed child care centre will comply with the relevant criteria. Council's Manager Building and Environment concurs with the findings and recommendations of the noise assessment. Conditions are recommended to address the requirements of the noise assessment.


 

3     The Social Demographics of the Surrounding Residential Area Do Not Warrant a Child Care Centre

Comment: The applicant’s planning consultant advised as follows in this regard:

“The applicant has undertaken appropriate research and determined that there is sufficient existing and future demand for additional child care places within the locality.”

This matter is not a relevant consideration in the assessment of a development application pursuant to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

JULY PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The development application was re-advertised and re-notified in July 2017. Re-exhibition of the application was considered to be in the public interest with reference to the Committee’s resolution of 6 June 2017, and to make publicly available supporting documentation (revised traffic report) that was submitted after the original exhibition period in March.

At the time of writing of this report the development application was still on public exhibition, and three submissions had been received. The submissions received to date are considered below. Additional submissions will be considered in a supplementary report at the close of the exhibition period.

Traffic issues previously expressed in submissions during March exhibition period

Comment: Traffic issues have been variously addressed in previous sections of this report. Council’s Development Engineer advises “[Council’s] Technical Services’ position on the proposal is still consistent with the original assessment in relation to traffic capacity of Turner Crescent, access arrangements, car park design and the McLaren Traffic assessment, subject to compliance with conditions.”

Access to the site via Molong Road would overcome traffic concerns.

Comment: The applicant for the development application did not wish to proceed with an amended proposal to provide access to the site via Molong Road (notwithstanding in-principal agreement from RMS for same). An amended proposal would need to be supported by revised architectural drawings (site, floor and elevation plans), updated Statement of Environmental Effects, details of landscaping/fencing treatment, acoustic report and traffic assessment in order to enable proper assessment of the application. The applicant requested that the development application be considered and determined in the form submitted.

PUBLIC INTEREST s79C(1)(e)

The proposal is not inconsistent with any relevant policy statements, planning studies, guidelines, etc that have not been considered in this assessment.


 

COMMENTS

The requirements of the Environmental Health and Building Surveyor, Development Engineer, Manager Building and Environment and Manager Development Assessments are included in the attached Notice of Approval.

 

Attachments

1          Plans, D17/31599

2          Submissions (first exhibition period), D17/31684

3          Submissions (second exhibition period - to report date), D17/41646

  


Planning and Development Committee                                                                          1 August 2017

2.3                       Development Application DA 63/2017(1) - 36-40 Turner Crescent

Attachment 1      Plans

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                          1 August 2017

2.3                       Development Application DA 63/2017(1) - 36-40 Turner Crescent

Attachment 1      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                          1 August 2017

2.3                       Development Application DA 63/2017(1) - 36-40 Turner Crescent

Attachment 1      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                          1 August 2017

2.3                       Development Application DA 63/2017(1) - 36-40 Turner Crescent

Attachment 1      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                          1 August 2017

2.3                       Development Application DA 63/2017(1) - 36-40 Turner Crescent

Attachment 1      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                          1 August 2017

2.3                       Development Application DA 63/2017(1) - 36-40 Turner Crescent

Attachment 1      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                          1 August 2017

2.3                       Development Application DA 63/2017(1) - 36-40 Turner Crescent

Attachment 1      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                          1 August 2017

2.3                       Development Application DA 63/2017(1) - 36-40 Turner Crescent

Attachment 1      Plans

PDF Creator



Planning and Development Committee                                                    1 August 2017

2.3                       Development Application DA 63/2017(1) - 36-40 Turner Crescent

Attachment 2      Submissions (first exhibition period)

PDF CreatorPDF Creator


 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                    1 August 2017

2.3                       Development Application DA 63/2017(1) - 36-40 Turner Crescent

Attachment 3      Submissions (second exhibition period - to report date)

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                1 August 2017

 

 

2.4     Development Application DA 93/2017(1) - 1693 Forest Road

TRIM REFERENCE:        2017/1606

AUTHOR:                       Michael Glenn, Senior Planner    

 

 

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged

27 March 2017

Applicant/s

Mr T White

Owner/s

Mr TM and Mrs BP White

Land description

Lot 2 DP 615933 - 1693 Forest Road, Orange

Proposed land use

Secondary Dwelling

Value of proposed development

$250,000

Council's consent is sought for the erection of a secondary dwelling at the rear of the existing dwelling, as well as the carrying out of extensions to the principal dwelling on land known as Lot 2 DP 615933 - 1693 Forest Road, Orange.

Secondary dwellings are rendered permissible in the R2 zone by reason of the provisions contained in State Environmental Planning Policy - Affordable Rental Housing (ARH). The ARH limits the size of the secondary dwelling to 60m2 hence the reason for a Clause 4.6 variation, which has now been lodged. It is possible to apply the mechanisms for variations to development standards (Clause 4.6 of OLEP 2011) to a variation of a development standard contained in the ARH, as the ARH and the LEP are cross-referenced with regard to their application and the development standards contained in each environmental planning instrument.

The submission and supporting information of the original application was considered to be inadequate. Council staff requested the submission of additional information to enable the assessment to be undertaken. Several iterations of this documentation was submitted before the final version. In its final configuration, the applicant has lodged a request for variation to development standards pursuant to Clause 4.6. The application demonstrates that the form of development is consistent with the performance standards contained in Council’s Development Control Plan, and is generally compatible to nearby and surrounding development. Council can accept a variation to standards in this case without adverse effects arising on the general applicability and consistency of the LEP or the ARH. A variation to the development standard is therefore supported in this case.

Council’s records show that there have been some issues with unauthorised use of the open space area at the rear for vehicle access. It is not proposed in this application that such access be utilised, nevertheless it is considered a constraint potentially affecting the site. A condition is included specifying no vehicular access to the site from the parkland located at the rear of the site.


 

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.

DECISION FRAMEWORK

This application seeks a departure from OLEP 2011 standards. In this case staff believe the departure is acceptable in terms of the impacts and any precedent set. 

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 93/2017(1) for Secondary Dwelling at Lot 2 DP 615933 - 1693 Forest Road, Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.

 


 

further considerations

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

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

THE PROPOSAL

The proposal involves the carrying out of alterations and additions to the existing dwelling, and the addition of a secondary dwelling connected to the original by way of a breezeway. The existing dwelling is proposed to be increased from a floor area of 161.5m2 to 223.5m2. There are also changes to the internal layout within the fabric of the existing dwelling as well (principally to accommodate an ensuite off the main bedroom and convert one of the other existing bedrooms to a study). At the conclusion of the alterations, the existing dwelling is proposed to emerge as a large dwelling with master bedroom/ensuite and study, three additional bedrooms (for a total of four bedrooms), two additional bathrooms, sunroom, dining/kitchen and living room.

The proposed secondary dwelling would be a residence with a floor area of 90.44m2 and would provide two bedrooms, bar/kitchen, living/rumpus and separate bathroom/laundry.

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

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

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

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

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

With regard to (a), it is noted that the streetscape provides significant value in terms of neighbourhood character and a good degree of amenity as a result of the housing styles and densities evident in the street. It is important to ensure that future development of this site, whilst being smaller scale residential development, respects the pattern of defined private open spaces, off-street car parking and reasonable finishes to buildings that makes up the overall development.

With regard to (b), the proposed development seeks to provide low scale accommodation, as well as some alterations and additions to bring into effect the proposed conversion. There are no significant issues arising from the changed land use patterns or densities arising.

With regard to (c), the proposed development will have a slight increase in demand for water services but otherwise have no impact. Existing infrastructure and water supply storage capacities of the city are able to absorb the demands generated by the proposed development, and will be able to similarly address future similar infill developments that may arise more frequently as a result of this development form should it become more popular. Urban consolidation represents a highly efficient use of land because it does not increase the demands generated by open space or landscaping that can be associated with more traditional green fields residential development.

With regard to (d), the proposed development does not have a direct impact, however as an example of urban consolidation, in contrast to other green fields development in new areas, the proposed development is of a form likely to decrease urban development pressures on rural fringe development, if utilised more regularly.

In relation to (e), the basic proposal is to provide a secondary dwelling that inherently is of different characteristics to the more traditional housing forms evident in the street. There are general demographic trends that suggest smaller household sizes, family members staying longer in the family home, or older members of a family being provided with separate onsite accommodation.


 

In relation to (f), the subject application proposes minimal changes to the visible parts of the site. This represents tangible and positive management of the site in terms of the landscape and scenic contribution of the site to the city. The proposed development is a form of urban infill development which presents inherent efficiencies in terms of land use, but also presents challenges to neighbourhood character and amenity. The assessment should be undertaken to balance up these competing demands.

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 R2 Low Density Residential

Lot Size Map:

No Minimum Lot Size

Heritage Map:

Not a heritage item or conservation area

Height of Buildings Map:

No building height limit

Floor Space Ratio Map:

No floor space limit

Terrestrial Biodiversity Map:

No biodiversity sensitivity on the site

Groundwater Vulnerability Map:

Ground water vulnerable

Drinking Water Catchment Map:

Not within the drinking water catchment

Watercourse Map:

Not within or affecting a defined watercourse

Urban Release Area Map:

Not within an urban release area

Obstacle Limitation Surface Map:

No restriction on building siting or construction

Additional Permitted Uses Map:

No additional permitted use applies


 

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

Part 2 - Permitted or Prohibited Development

Land Use Zones

The subject site is located within the R2 Low Density General Residential zone. The proposed development is defined as Dwelling House (alterations and additions) and Secondary Dwelling comprising an existing principal dwelling, and a detached smaller secondary dwelling proposed in the rear yard.

Alterations and additions to a dwelling is permissible with development consent. The proposed secondary dwelling is not permissible in the R2 zone, however a limited form of secondary dwelling is permissible under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP (ARH). The ARH has the effect of enabling secondary dwellings to the point and sizes specified under that instrument.

Clause 2.3 of LEP 2011 references the Land Use Table and Objectives for each zone in LEP 2011. These objectives for land zoned R2 Low Density Residential are as follows:

1 - Objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone

·    To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.

·    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.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the non-compliance with the zoning restrictions makes it difficult to conclude the proposed development is consistent with the zone objectives, it is in fact considered this proposal is either consistent with the zone objectives, or at least not antipathetic (ie. hostile, opposed or averse) towards them. In terms of building form, site densities, building height and other surrogate measures often used to measure neighbourhood character, the proposed development is not dissimilar to nearby and surrounding development. This apparent anomaly arises because the site on which the proposed development is to be erected is quite large.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) (the SEPP) has provisions that act to override or replace the development standards of the LEP where inconsistencies arise between the SEPP and the LEP, but do not eliminate the provisions of the Development Control Plan as a matter for consideration.

Clause 2.7 - Demolition Requires Development Consent

This clause triggers the need for development consent in relation to a building or work. This requirement does not apply to any demolition that is defined as exempt development. The proposal involves some ancillary demolition as part of the overall refurbishment of the house. The demolition works proposed will have no significant impact on adjoining lands, streetscape or public realm.


 

Part 3 - Exempt and Complying Development

The application is not exempt or complying development.

Part 4 - Principal Development Standards

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards

This clause establishes the process by which development standards may, in exceptional circumstances be varied. Before granting a variation under this clause Council must consider a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating:

·    that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case

·    that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a)     to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development

(b)     to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances.

In relation to (a), the applicant is seeking Council support for variation. If adopted, Council would be exercising flexibility in the application of its planning controls. In relation to (b), if the request for variation is supported, Council would be allowing a second dwelling on a larger lot that whilst not permitted under the LEP, would not be out of character or cause amenity issues for surrounding dwellings.

Subclause (2) establishes the framework whereby the clause is not merely restricted to provisions of the LEP. It states:

(2)     Development consent may, subject to this clause, be granted for development even though the development would contravene a development standard imposed by this or any other environmental planning instrument. However, this clause does not apply to a development standard that is expressly excluded from the operation of this clause.

Of particular note (and appearing in bold in this report) is that the clause may be applied to any other environmental planning instrument.

Subclause (3) sets out the following provisions:

(3)     Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating:

(a)     that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

(b)     that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.


 

The applicant submission in relation to this is contained in their revised Statement of Environmental Effects. In essence, the applicant submission goes to the compatibility of the design to its surroundings. In terms of primary performance measures like site coverage, setbacks, building heights, landscaped areas and the like, the proposed development complies with relevant standards, and more importantly would not run counter to the surrounding neighbourhood character.

It is considered the principal risk arising from allowing a variation of this nature could be construed as the potential to weaken Council’s ability to apply the standard if and when it needed to adhere to the letter and purpose of the standard. It is conceivable that an over‑use of this leniency in the standard could weaken its ability to be used at other times. However, such risk whilst acknowledged is considered low risk in this instance. The proposed development does comply with other controls relevant to preserving neighbourhood character, and if approved would not cause a significant loss of amenity for any neighbouring property owner.

Subclause (4) contains the following provisions:

(4)     Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:

(a)     the consent authority is satisfied that:

(i)      the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3), and

(ii)     the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out, and

(b)     the concurrence of the Secretary has been obtained.

In relation to 4(a)(i) Council can be satisfied that the proponent has addressed matters relevant to the application of Clause 4.6 (including the LECs 5 part test - see below). In relation to (ii), the objectives of the ARH Standard to which the variation is applicable are not clear. However, it would seem that they were intended to provide some level of permissibility to secondary dwellings in residential zones where a Council might not have provisions in its own environmental planning instrument for secondary dwellings. It seems somewhat ironic that the Department’s insistence on applying its own ARH Development Standards to the R2 zone, and insisting that Council’s more generous secondary dwellings provisions be excluded, now results in a somewhat anomalous situation in the Council zone tables. In early drafts of the LEP, Clause 5.4 was intended to apply to both R1 and R2 zones, but at the Department of Planning insistence it was not included in the final draft for the zone. This would suggest that provided a proposal was consistent with the regulatory controls contained in Clause 5.4 as they apply to secondary dwellings, a variations to the ARH restrictions in the R2 zone is acceptable.

In relation to (b), Council has assumed concurrence to act on behalf of the DOPs secretary.


 

Subclause 5 has the following provisions:

In deciding whether to grant concurrence, the Secretary must consider:

(a)     whether contravention of the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and

(b)     the public benefit of maintaining the development standard, and

(c)     any other matters required to be taken into consideration by the Secretary before granting concurrence.

Council is entitled to act on behalf of the Secretary in this matter, but must still give some consideration to the general provisions of this subclause.

In relation to (a), the proposed variation is of little or no significance at a state or regional level.

In relation to (b), the public benefit is considered to be positively served by the proposed variation. The intent of the clause was to allow an “entry level” of secondary dwelling development as permissible in areas that might otherwise not allow a secondary dwelling. Council’s Strategic Planner advises that Council had wanted to include secondary dwellings in the R2 land use tables of LEP-2011 as permissible development, and apply the provisions of Clause 5.4 of the LEP to such developments (which allow a more generous form of secondary dwellings than the ARH). However, the Department at some stage decided to apply the ARH overrides to the R2. It is intended to rectify this anomaly in the projected review of OLEP-2011. This suggests that a development that exceeds the ARH, but is within the parameters of the OLEP-2011 Clause 5.4 limits (as is proposed in this application), is consistent the public benefit test of this clause.

In relation to (c), there are no other known matter the secretary must take into consideration.

Subclauses 6-8 are not relevant to the assessment of the application.

The Five Part Test

The Five Part Test is rooted in Land and Environment Court Planning Principles. The Department of Planning recommends that consent authorities apply the test in their assessment of Clause 4.6 variations.

The five part test embodies the following principles:

1        the objectives of the standard are achieved notwithstanding noncompliance with the standard

2        the underlying objective or purpose of the standard is not relevant to the development and therefore compliance is unnecessary

3        the underlying object or purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required and therefore compliance is unreasonable

4        the development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by the council’s own actions in granting consents departing from the standard and hence compliance with the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable


 

5        the compliance with development standard is unreasonable or inappropriate due to existing use of land and current environmental character of the particular parcel of land. That is, the particular parcel of land should not have been included in the zone.

With regard to point (1), there are no stated objectives for Division 2 (Clauses 19-24) of the ARH dealing directly with the allowable development as secondary dwellings in the R2 zone of OLEP-2011.

The aims of this Policy are as follows:

(a)     to provide a consistent planning regime for the provision of affordable rental housing

(b)     to facilitate the effective delivery of new affordable rental housing by providing incentives by way of expanded zoning permissibility, floor space ratio bonuses and non-discretionary development standards

(c)     to facilitate the retention and mitigate the loss of existing affordable rental housing,

(d)     to employ a balanced approach between obligations for retaining and mitigating the loss of existing affordable rental housing, and incentives for the development of new affordable rental housing

(e)     to facilitate an expanded role for not-for-profit-providers of affordable rental housing

(f)      to support local business centres by providing affordable rental housing for workers close to places of work

(g)     to facilitate the development of housing for the homeless and other disadvantaged people who may require support services, including group homes and supportive accommodation.

The proposed development as proposed does not contravene any of those basic objectives.

It could also be construed that the provisions of Division 2 are relevant in the context of the applicable zoning. The compatibility of the proposed development to the applicable zone objectives has been considered elsewhere in this report.

With regard to (2), the underlying purpose of the standard is not stated in the ARH, however both the ARH general objectives and the objectives of the R2 zone have been considered. It has been determined in that assessment that the proposed variation does bring the development into conflict with either of these overarching principals.

With regard to point (3), it is considered that the underlying purposes supporting the standard can be achieved either with the minor non-compliance contained in the proposed development as now configured, or if the development were made to fully comply.

With regard to point (4), Council has not demonstrated a general abandonment of this clause in its previous decisions for medium density development under OLEP 2011.

It is considered that the proposed development is similar in form and density to other nearby and surrounding medium density developments, and that the relative proximity to the CBD does allow, or suggest, that support for medium density development close to town is appropriate.


 

With regard to point (5), the scale and densities evident in other surrounding development, as well as the generally satisfactory outcomes in terms of amenity and character, all point to the proposed development not needing to comply with the numerical standard in order to achieve the intent behind the development standard. It is considered that insistence on full compliance with Clause 4.1B for this site is unreasonable, and unnecessary in this case.

Department Of Planning’s Circular B1

This circular sets out the circumstance and criteria for applying Council’s assumed concurrence to the determination of development standards under Clause 4.6. Council has assumed concurrence to assess and process Clause 4.6 variations of this nature.

Circular B1 as updated 9 May 2008 gives Council the assumed concurrence of the Director. This was confirmed by Senior Planner Nita Scott from the Department of Planning Western Region Office:

your SI LEP automatically gives you the ability to vary the development standard (after consideration etc), with the ‘rural’ and ‘environmental’ exceptions to this spelt out in 4.6.6.

Council does have quarterly reporting obligations as to the number of times it has used Clause 4.6 and for what purposes. The Department wants to keep check on the overuse of Clause 4.6 to discourage inappropriate use of the clause on a routine basis. Despite some use of the clause for development in the Orange City LGA, there has been no expressions of concern from the Department about the overuse of the clause.

There are some circumstances where Clause 4.6 is prohibited from being used, but this particular situation is not one of those circumstances.

The land is located within the R1 zone, which has the following objectives:

·    To provide for the housing needs of the community.

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

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

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

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

The proposed development with its non-compliance to ARH is not contrary to any of the objectives for that instrument, neither is the proposed development likely to result in development that is significantly contrary to zone objectives. Neither does the proposed development significantly contravene the DCP’s planning outcomes.

Overall it is considered that the proposed development does not result in any adverse impact on the operation of the LEP or the DCP, and would not result in any significant adverse impact. It is considered that the proposal, including the variation sought, is consistent with the above objectives.


 

Part 5 - Miscellaneous Provisions

Clause 5.4 - Controls Relating to Miscellaneous Permissible Uses

No parts of this clause are applicable to the proposed development in a technical sense, however it is noted that if the proposed development were permissible in the zone, the secondary dwelling provisions of the LEP would apply. The proposed development would comply with Clause 5.4 if the clause were applicable to the proposed development.

Part 7 - Additional Local Provisions

7.3 - Stormwater Management

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

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

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

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

It is proposed to discharge surface runoff from the development to Council’s stormwater system in the street.

7.6 - Groundwater Vulnerability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 

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

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

Affordable Rental Housing State Environmental Planning Policy

The Affordable Rental Housing State Environmental Planning Policy (ARH) is applicable to this site and development type. The aims of this Policy are as follows:

(a)     to provide a consistent planning regime for the provision of affordable rental housing

(b)     to facilitate the effective delivery of new affordable rental housing by providing incentives by way of expanded zoning permissibility, floor space ratio bonuses and non-discretionary development standards

(c)     to facilitate the retention and mitigate the loss of existing affordable rental housing,

(d)     to employ a balanced approach between obligations for retaining and mitigating the loss of existing affordable rental housing, and incentives for the development of new affordable rental housing

(e)     to facilitate an expanded role for not-for-profit-providers of affordable rental housing,

(f)      to support local business centres by providing affordable rental housing for workers close to places of work

(g)     to facilitate the development of housing for the homeless and other disadvantaged people who may require support services, including group homes and supportive accommodation.

The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the ARH SEPP.

Division 2, Clauses 19-24 set out the provisions relating to secondary dwellings.

Clause 19 of the SEPP sets out the definition criteria for secondary dwellings. It defines a secondary dwelling as:

"development for the purposes of a secondary dwelling includes the following:

(a)     the erection of, or alterations or additions to, a secondary dwelling

(b)     alterations or additions to a principal dwelling for the purposes of a secondary dwelling.”

Note:   The standard instrument defines secondary dwelling as follows:

“secondary dwelling means a self-contained dwelling that:

(a)     is established in conjunction with another dwelling (the principal dwelling), and

(b)     is on the same lot of land (not being an individual lot in a strata plan or community title scheme) as the principal dwelling, and

(c)     is located within, or is attached to, or is separate from, the principal dwelling."


 

Clause 20 establishes the zones of LEP 2011 in which the ARH SEPP is applicable. It includes the R2 Low Density Residential zone in which the subject property is located.

Clause 21 establishes the types of development to which the policy applies. The subject application, being consistent with the definition of secondary dwelling, can have the ARH applied to it.

Clause 22 serves to clarify and define those instances where development consent is required and applies certain development standards, or instances where Council may not grant consent under the ARH.

Subclause (1) establishes that development to which the division is applicable may be carried out with consent.

Subclause (2) does not permit the application of the secondary dwelling clauses where there is more than the principal dwelling and secondary dwelling on the subject property. The application has been amended to include an internal layout of the existing dwelling, and the summary of approved plans includes a reference to this site plans in the attached approval.

Subclause (3) applies certain standards that prevent Council from granting consent if exceeded. Part (a) limits the total floor area of the principal dwelling to the maximum permissible for a dwelling house on the land under another Environmental Planning Instrument (EPI). Council does not have a maximum floor area that applies to the principal dwelling.

Part (b) of subclause (3) places a limit of 60m2 on the secondary dwelling. The proposed development does not comply with this standard. It is possible to apply Clause 4.6 of the OLEP-2011 to this development standard to seek variation to the numerical standards that are applicable. The applicant has exercised this option and the request for variation has been considered elsewhere in this report. The applicants request to vary the standards is supported.

Subclause (4) has an important function in that it sets up the parameters in which Council may not refuse an application for a secondary dwelling. Part (a) of this subclause sets standards with respect to site area. For a secondary dwelling that is attached or located within the principal dwelling, approval may not be refused on the basis of site area if the site area is 450m² or greater. In this instance the proposed secondary dwelling is detached from the main dwelling, however the site area is considerably greater than 450m2.

Part (b) prevents Council from refusing an application if no additional parking is to be provided on the site. This clause does not obviate other requirements for a parking assessment, such as is called up by DCP 2004 and required as a matter for consideration under Section 79C(1)(A)(iii) of the Act. Where alternatives exist for parking to be provided, whilst Council cannot refuse such an application on the basis of not providing additional parking, it can require by amended plan, or condition, parking to achieve better outcomes in terms of the Section 79 assessment.

Subclause (5) suggests that the matters for consideration called out under the ARH are not the sole heads of consideration to consider. The subclause states: “A consent authority may consent to development to which this Division applies whether or not the development complies with the standards set out in subclause (4)”. Use of the term ‘may’ suggest that consent may be withheld, presumably on the basis of some other matter for consideration listed under Section 79C of the Act.

Clause 24 prevents any subdivision of a lot on which a secondary dwelling is proposed or has been approved.

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land (SEPP-55) applies to the subject development. SEPP 55 states that a consent authority must not consent to the carrying out of any development unless:

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

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

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

The site is not known to be contaminated. However, the recent uncontrolled demolition of the garage poses a potential risk from asbestos debris being inadequately removed from the site. Two issues arise from this unauthorised demolition, firstly where such waste has been disposed (must be to an approved waste disposal facility), and secondly whether the area where the demolition has taken place is now suitable (no asbestos debris or particles remaining). Attached is a recommended condition addressing this issue.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index BASIX)

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

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

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

DESIGNATED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development is not designated development.

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

Development Control Plan 2004

Development Control Plan 2004 (“the DCP”) applies to the subject land (Part 0 - LEP 2011 and Part 7 - Development in Residential Areas). An assessment of the proposed development against the relevant Planning Outcomes will be undertaken below.

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

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


 

Under LEP 2000, the subject property was zoned 2(a) Urban Residential. The corresponding zones in the Orange LEP-2011 to zone 2(a) Urban Residential (Orange LEP 2000) is zone R1 General Residential or R2 Low Density Residential (Orange LEP 2011). As such, Orange DCP 2004 (Part 7 - Development in Residential Areas) is relevant to this proposal. The provisions of Part 7 are considered below.

Part 7 - Design Elements for Residential Development

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcomes in regard to urban residential development.

Neighbourhood Character

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

·    Site layout and building design enables the:

-     creation of attractive residential environments with clear character and identity

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

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

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

The character and identity of the development are influenced by building design that maintains a common theme and consistent use of materials. The subject property is not part of a conservation area and is not an individually listed heritage item. The dwelling on the site is estimated to be a 1980’s bungalow. It is a relatively large dwelling, significantly larger than the dwellings that have been constructed around the subject property.

Building Appearance

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcomes in regard to Building Appearance:

·    The building design, detailing and finishes relate to the desired neighbourhood character, complement the residential scale of the area, and add visual interest to the street

·    The frontages of buildings and their entries face the street

·    Garages and car parks are sited and designed so that they do not dominate the street frontage.

The locality does display a variety of styles and finishes with it being desirable that the bungalow style being conserved. The proposed development should make minimal change to the way the buildings impact on the streetscape.

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.

In this case the proposed secondary dwelling complies with the setback controls.


 

Visual Bulk

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

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

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

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

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

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

-     building to the boundary where appropriate.

In consideration of the DCP Guidelines, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory. The proposed building is single storey, consistent with the established development form of residential development in the locality.

The DCP requires dwellings to be contained within the prescribed envelopes generated by planes projected at 45o over the site commencing 2.5m above existing ground level from each side and rear boundary. The development will be contained within these planes and is considered acceptable. Site coverage (including both the existing principal dwelling and its component parts) and the proposed secondary dwelling is 21.09%, which is well within the specified limits of the DCP.

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 proposed development is considered to be generally compliant to the intent of this planning outcome.

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 not been submitted for assessment, however it is obvious that the proposed secondary dwelling will not have a significant adverse effect on the solar access currently enjoyed by the existing dwelling.

Views

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

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

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

The subject site is not within an important view corridor. No significant views are affected by the proposed development.

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.

There is no direct overlooking or privacy issue of the dwelling interiors themselves, and the private open space component is also provided with adequate levels of privacy. As the proposed development is intended to be occupied by a close family relative there is not a pressing need to ensure privacy between the two dwellings.

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.

It is considered unlikely the proposed development will cause a significant issue in terms of acoustic privacy or noise intrusions.

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.

In general it is considered that each of the dwellings will possess adequate levels of security for the occupants and the locality generally.

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.

No significant changes are proposed for the means of access.

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 access ways within the site

-     reduce the visual dominance of car parking areas and access ways.

·    Car parking is provided with regard to the:

-     the number and size of proposed dwellings

-     requirements of people with limited mobility or disabilities.

There is no loss in parking proposed. Council may not refuse the application on the basis of parking not provided, but could (and should) raise issue about parking if the application resulted in a loss of parking from the site. At the present time there is provision for two undercover parking spaces and approximately four informal outdoors parking spaces, which will be adequate to meet the expected demands for parking.

Private Open Space

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

·    Private open space is clearly defined for private use

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

·    Private open space is:

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

-     accessible from a living area of the dwelling


 

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

-     Orientated to optimise year round use.

The proposed development would utilise the private open space as a shared area between the two dwellings. Given the proposed development is to be utilised by the same family, it is considered unnecessary to delineate or provide separated private open spaces at this time. It is noted that should the need to provide separately delineated private open space areas for each of the dwellings, capacity does exist in the site planning to achieve this.

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, access ways and parking areas

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

It is apparent from site inspection and perusal of the plans that open space and landscaping is already, or can be provided for each dwelling.

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 flow paths

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

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


 

Erosion and Sedimentation

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

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

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

ORANGE DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN 2017

Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017 is relevant to the proposal. The following table provides the relevant charges under the contributions plan.

The payment of $4,598.87 is to be made to Council in accordance with section 94 of the Act and the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017 (Development in LGA Remainder) towards the provision of the following public facilities:

Open Space and Recreation

@ $1,618.82 x 1 additional 1 bedroom dwelling

1,618.82

Community and Cultural

@ $469.46 x 1 additional 1 bedroom dwelling

469.46

Roads and Traffic Management

@ $2,383.84 x 1 additional 1 bedroom dwelling

2,383.84

Local Area Facilities

-

-

Plan Preparation & Admin

@ $126.75 x 1 additional 1 bedroom dwelling

126.75

TOTAL:

 

$4,598.87

The contribution will be indexed quarterly in accordance with Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017 (Development in LGA Remainder).

Section 64 Water and Sewer Headworks Charges

Section 64 water and sewer headwork charges are also applicable to the proposal. Such charges are calculated at the time of release of a Construction Certificate for the proposed secondary dwelling. Attached are draft conditions requiring the payment of the required contributions prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Applicant’s Request for Exemption from Section 94 and 64 Contributions

The Statement of Environmental Effects submitted with the application seeks to have the contributions waived for the following reason:

The proposed two bedroom flat will be occupied by the applicant’s mother.

Council has previously waived the payment of contributions in situations where the accommodation to be built is for a family member. The adopted policy for this situation is to defer such payment until such time as the secondary dwelling is no longer occupied by a family member. There is an important distinction between waiving and deferring in terms of protecting Council's Section 94 plan.

Council has in the past permitted Section 94 contributions to be deferred only on the basis that the secondary dwelling is used by a family member. The applicant’s request insofar as it relates to accommodation for a family member is consistent with that approach.


 

As mentioned above, Council does have the ability to waive contributions as requested by the applicant. However, doing so would be inconsistent with the approach taken in the past by Council for similar developments. In order to maintain consistency and protect Council’s interests, it is recommended that the applicant enter into a Deed of Covenant with Council prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate and that the agreement and Council’s interests be recognised on the title of the land prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

The intent of the Deed of Covenant would be to defer the payment of Section 94 development contributions and Section 64 water and sewer headworks charges. As a minimum; the Deed of Covenant must provide for the following:

·    That the applicant covenant with Council that they will not permit any person or persons, other than members of the family of the registered proprietor to occupy the secondary dwelling on the land provided for under the relevant consent [this consent].

·    That the applicant’s covenant with Council that they will notify Council of their intent to sell the land prior to the actual sale of the land.

·    Should the terms of the agreement be breached the relevant contributions would be required to be paid within a specified period.

Once the final deed of covenant has been executed by the relevant parties, evidence is required to be provided to Council that Council’s interests under that legal agreement have been placed on the title of the land prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate. The applicant may in the alternative make arrangements for the formal payment of the contributions.

The broader details of the Deed of Covenant can be agreed to post consent if the applicant chooses to go down that path.

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

The development is not inconsistent with the provisions prescribed by the regulations.

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

Traffic Impacts

The capacity of the road network in the vicinity of the site is sufficient to accommodate additional localised traffic generated by the development. The proposed driveways will be appropriately sited so as to prevent vehicle conflicts. As previously considered (see “DCP 2004”), proposed parking and manoeuvring arrangements comply with the provisions of the DCP.

Neighbourhood Amenity

The proposed dwelling and dwelling addition will provide and retain a reasonable standard of residential amenity for the proposed dwellings and development on adjoining lands in respect of solar access, privacy etc. The proposed development will provide for a continuation of residential landuse and will not alter the function of the neighbourhood. The development will not have adverse impacts on neighbourhood amenity.


 

Cumulative Impacts

The proposal is considered to be satisfactory in terms of cumulative impact. Whilst there are few examples of secondary dwellings visible, or prominent in the street, there are older style flats and the like that are very similar in their impact to a secondary dwelling. The proposal has compatible impacts on the streetscape and will maintain the pattern of detached dwelling houses of one and two storey forms. The siting of the secondary dwelling will have minor visual impacts, largely because it is not easily visible from the street. Generally, those elements of the proposed development that are visible from the street are respectful of the unique and important character of the street and the heritage setting into which it is placed.

The proposed development will not reduce the open space, solar access or privacy afforded to neighbouring properties. Similarly, the site layout and building design will provide a reasonable standard of residential amenity for the proposed dwellings in terms of open space, solar access and privacy.

Environmental Impacts

The subject land is located within an established residential area. As a result, significant vegetation, threatened species or ecological endangered communities or their habitats are unlikely to occur on the subject land. The proposed development will not impact upon the locality in terms of environmental impacts.

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

Servicing

Council’s Technical Services Division advises that all utility services are available to the site and adequate for the proposal. The proposed development will be connected to Council’s sewer, town water and stormwater reticulations in accordance with normal requirements. Power, telephone and natural gas services will be connected to the dwellings in accordance with the requirements of the relevant supply authority. Attached is a condition of consent addressing this issue.

Physical Attributes

The land does not present any significant constraints to render the proposed development as unsuitable.

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

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

PUBLIC INTEREST s79C(1)(e)

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


 

SUMMARY

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

COMMENTS

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

 

Attachments

1          Notice of Approval, D17/41063

2          Plans, IC17/6258

 


Planning and Development Committee                                                         1 August 2017

2.4                       Development Application DA 93/2017(1) - 1693 Forest Road

Attachment 1      Notice of Approval

 

OrangeCityCouncilNEW#45524E (2)

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

 

Development Application No DA 93/2017(1)

 

NA17/                                                                                               Container PR4065

 

 

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 81(1)

 

Development Application

 

  Applicant Name:

Mr T White

  Applicant Address:

C/- Saunders and Staniforth

2/204-206 Lords Place

ORANGE  NSW  2800

  Owner’s Name:

Mr TM and Mrs BP White

  Land to Be Developed:

Lot 2 DP 615933 - 1693 Forest Road, Orange

  Proposed Development:

Secondary Dwelling

 

 

Building Code of Australia

 building classification:

 

As determined by Certifier

 

 

Determination

 

  Made On:

1 August 2017

  Determination:

CONSENT GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:

 

 

Consent to Operate From:

2 August 2017

Consent to Lapse On:

2 August 2022

 

Terms of Approval

 

The reasons for the imposition of conditions are:

 

(1)      To ensure compliance with relevant statutory requirements.

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

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

(4)      To maintain neighbourhood amenity and character.

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

Conditions

 

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

 

(a)      Plans By McKinnon Design referenced 16062 issue D sheets 01, 02 (2 sheets)

 


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

 

as amended in accordance with any conditions of this consent.

 

 

PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 


 

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

 

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

 

(8)      The payment of $4,598.87 is to be made to Council in accordance with Section 94 of the Act and the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017 (Development in LGA Remainder) towards the provision of the following public facilities:

 

Open Space and Recreation

@ $1,618.82 x 1 additional 1 bedroom dwelling

1,618.82

Community and Cultural

@ $469.46 x 1 additional 1 bedroom dwelling

469.46

Roads and Traffic Management

@ $2,383.84 x 1 additional 1 bedroom dwelling

2,383.84

Local Area Facilities

-

-

Plan Preparation & Admin

@ $126.75 x 1 additional 1 bedroom dwelling

126.75

TOTAL:

 

$4,598.87

 

The contribution will be indexed quarterly in accordance with Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017 (Development in LGA Remainder).

 

In the alternative to the payment of the applicable Section 94 development contributions prior to the issue of a construction certificate detailed above, the applicant shall enter into a deed of covenant with Council prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

 

As a minimum the deed of covenant must provide for the following:

·    That the applicant covenant with Council that they will not permit any person or persons, other than members of the family of the registered proprietor to occupy the secondary dwelling on the land provided for under the relevant consent [this consent].

·    That the applicant’s covenant with Council that they will notify Council of their intent to sell the land prior to the actual sale of the land.

·    Should the terms of the agreement be breached the relevant contributions would be required to be paid within a specified period.

 

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

 

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

 

In the alternative to the payment of the applicable Section 64 contributions for water, sewer and drainage works prior to the issue of a construction certificate detailed above, the applicant shall enter into a deed of covenant with Council prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

 

          As a minimum the deed of covenant must provide for the following:

·    That the applicant covenant with Council that they will not permit any person or persons, other than members of the family of the registered proprietor  to occupy the secondary dwelling on the land provided for under the relevant consent [this consent].

·    That the applicant’s covenant with Council that they will notify Council of their intent to sell the land prior to the actual sale of the land.

·    Should the terms of the agreement be breached the relevant contributions would be required to be paid within a specified period.


 

PRIOR TO WORKS COMMENCING

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

 

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

 

(17)    Finished ground levels are to be graded away from the buildings and adjoining properties and must achieve natural drainage. The concentrated flows are to be dispersed down slope or collected and discharged to the stormwater drainage system.

 

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

 

(19)    The cut and fill is to be retained and/or adequately battered and stabilised (within the allotment) prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

 

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

 

 

MATTERS FOR THE ONGOING PERFORMANCE AND OPERATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT

 

(21)    No vehicular access to the site from the parkland located at the rear is permitted under this consent. No gates, able to allow the passage of a vehicle through this area are permitted.

 


 

 

 

Other Approvals

 

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

 

          Nil

 

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

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

Right of Appeal

 

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

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

 

 

  Disability Discrimination Act 1992:

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

  Disclaimer - S88B Restrictions on the Use of Land:

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

 

 

Signed:

On behalf of the consent authority ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

 

 

Signature:

 

 

Name:

 

PAUL JOHNSTON - MANAGER DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENTS

 

Date:

 

2 August 2017

 



Planning and Development Committee                                                                          1 August 2017

2.4                       Development Application DA 93/2017(1) - 1693 Forest Road

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF CreatorPDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                1 August 2017

 

 

2.5     Development Application DA 192/2017(1) - 87 Byng Street

TRIM REFERENCE:        2017/1607

AUTHOR:                       Michael Glenn, Senior Planner    

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Application lodged

30/05/2017

Applicant/s

Mr B Crawley

Owner/s

Mr AJ Kirkwood

Land description

Lot 87 DP 1086540 - 87 Byng Street, Orange

Proposed land use

Kiosk

Value of proposed development

$2,000

Council's consent is sought to establish a small kiosk on the subject property, operating out of a former garage, with access onto Sale Street. The proposed development is for the use of a building originally built as a garage, but converted after the rezoning of the land in 1978 to a storage room.

The proposed development has attracted a number of public submissions, concerned mostly with the gradual commercialisation of Sale Street, the increase in commercial traffic and parking. There are more specific concerns relating to noise and signs as well.

A number of conditions are included in the consent intended to address the issues of concern to local residents, including conditions that don’t allow outdoor seating and requires the payment of contributions to address parking to avoid increasing commercial traffic into Sale Street. Conditions are also included to limit the hours of operation, prevent the playing of amplified music from the site, control of noise and display of signs. It is considered the applicant has made genuine efforts to address the amenity and character issues that have been raised by local residents, and that overall the proposed development in the form now proposed will not have a significant adverse effect on local amenity.

The application is supported, subject to conditions.

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 permissible within the zone and has potential impacts that can be managed satisfactorily in the opinion of staff.

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

 

Recommendation

That Council consents to Development Application DA 192/2017(1) for Kiosk at Lot 87 DP 1086540 - 87 Byng Street, Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.

 

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

THE APPLICATION

Council's consent is sought to establish a Kiosk operating from the rear of the subject property at Lot 87 DP 1086540 - 87 Byng Street, Orange.

THE PROPOSAL

The proposal involves the conversion of a building that was originally constructed as a garage, then converted to a storage area in approximately 1978, into a Kiosk selling coffee and light refreshments to passing trade. The gross floor area involved in this conversion is just 14.5m2. The application, following its notification processes has been modified such that no outdoor dining is proposed and no signs form part of the application. The proposed hours of operation are restricted to 7am to 4pm Monday to Saturday. The applicant is offering a car parking contribution to cover the parking demand generated by the proposed use.


 

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,

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

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

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

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

In regard to (a), the establishment of a small Kiosk on the subject property will cater to the convenience needs of the local community. This is unlikely to affect the role of the CBD as a regional centre in any significant way.

In relation to (b), (c) and (e), the proposed development if approved will not act in a manner to be contrary or opposed to the achievement of those outcomes.

The aims outlined in (d) are not affected by the proposed development. The proposed development is located within a heritage conservation area of the Orange LEP 11.

It is noted that the main structure on the site is unaffected by the proposed development, whilst the garage to which the proposed development does relate to would be only slightly affected in terms of its built form and character to only a very limited extent. It is considered the proposed development is generally consistent with the stated aims and objectives of the plan.

Clause 1.6 - Consent Authority

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

Clause 1.9A - Suspension of Covenants, Agreements and Instruments

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

·    covenants imposed or required by Council

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

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

·    any trust agreement under the Nature Conservation Trust Act 2001

·    any property vegetation plan under the Native Vegetation Act 2003

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

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

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

Mapping

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

Land Zoning Map:

Land zoned B3 Commercial Core

Lot Size Map:

No Minimum Lot Size

Heritage Map:

Located within a heritage conservation area

Height of Buildings Map:

building height limit 9m

Floor Space Ratio Map:

No floor space limit 0.5:1

Terrestrial Biodiversity Map:

No biodiversity sensitivity on the site

Groundwater Vulnerability Map:

ground water vulnerable

Drinking Water Catchment Map:

Not within the drinking water catchment

Watercourse Map:

Not within or affecting a defined watercourse

Urban Release Area Map:

Not within an urban release area

Obstacle Limitation Surface Map:

No restriction on building siting or construction

Additional Permitted Uses Map:

No additional permitted use applies


 

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

Part 2 - Permitted or Prohibited Development

Land Use Zones

 

Figure 1 – zoning map

The subject site is located within the B3 Commercial Core zone. The proposed development is defined as a Kiosk under OLEP 2011 and is permitted with consent for this zone. This application is seeking consent.

“Kiosk” is defined as “premises that are used for the purposes of selling food, light refreshments and other small convenience items such as newspapers, films and the like”.

Note.

Clause 5.4 provides controls relating to the gross floor area of a Kiosk, limiting the floor area of the Kiosk to no more than 60m2 of GFA (this would include any area of outdoor seating if so proposed, but the amended proposal does not include such area. The LEP specifies that Kiosks are a drill down subcategory of Retail Premises, which are listed as permissible in the zone.

Clause 2.3 of LEP 2011 references the Land Use Table and Objectives for each zone in LEP 2011. These objectives for land zoned B3 Commercial Core are as follows:

1 - Objectives of the B3 Commercial Core Zone

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

·     To encourage appropriate employment opportunities in accessible locations.

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

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


 

In relation to the listed zone objectives, it is considered the proposed development is entirely consistent with the zone objectives. It is proposing a commercial use for the site that is permissible and in its amended form unlikely to generate significant adverse impacts on surrounding residential land or nearby businesses.

Part 3 - Exempt and Complying Development

The application is not exempt or complying development.

Part 4 - Principal Development Standards

Clause 4.3 - Height of Buildings

This clause limits the height of buildings (HoB) on land identified on the Height of Buildings Map. The subject land is identified on the Map as having a HoB limit of 9m. The maximum height of the proposed development is 5.7m (and contained within an existing building) and is therefore consistent with the established height limit.

 

Figure 2 – Height of Building extract from LEP

Clause 4.4 - Floor Space Ratio

The subject land is identified on the Map as having an FSR of 0.5:1. The site area has been calculated under clause 4.5 as 775m2, meaning the site may have up to 387.5m2 of floor space. The proposal, minus the exclusions detailed in clause 4.5, has been calculated as having a gross floor area of 237m2 and is therefore consistent with the FSR requirements.

 

Figure 3 – Floor Space Ratio


 

Part 5 - Miscellaneous Provisions

Clause 5.4 - Controls Relating to Miscellaneous Permissible Uses

This clause contains various development standards that apply to specific types of development. Relevantly the clause requires:

·    Kiosks to be limited to 60 square metres of gross floor area

In this regard the proposal is consistent with this requirement. A condition of consent is included in the consent limiting the size of the Kiosk to not more than 60m2.

5.10 - Heritage Conservation

The proposed development would be located on land within the conservation area, but does not propose the erection of a building or involve significant structural changes. Consent is needed for the proposed change of use, but not for reasons relating to the location within a conservation area of the LEP.

Part 7 - Additional Local Provisions

7.6 - Groundwater Vulnerability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

There are no State Environmental Planning Policies that apply to the subject development.


 

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

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 (Remediation of Land) must be considered prior to the granting of consent. This requirement is pursuant to the provisions contained in Clause 7 of the policy. In this case there are no circumstances to suggest that the land is contaminated.

DESIGNATED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development is not designated development.

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

Development Control Plan 2004

Development Control Plan 2004 (“the DCP”) applies to the subject land (Part 8). An assessment of the proposed development against the relevant Planning Outcomes will be undertaken below.

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

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

The corresponding zone to zone 3(a) Regional Centre zone (Orange LEP 2000) is zone B3 Commercial Core zone (Orange LEP 2011). As such, Orange DCP 2004 – Chapter 8 is relevant to this proposal. The provisions of Part 8 are considered below.

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

The proposed development does not involve the erection of a new building.  It is proposed to re-purpose an existing building

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

A Strategic Action Plan (SAP) for the Orange Central Business District prepared by Dickson Rothschild in 2002/03 identified a number of issues relevant to the development of the main business centre of Orange.

The CBD Plan identified the following main issues:

·    appropriate land uses

·    building type and form, setbacks

·    building facades and awning treatments

·    regard for heritage values

·    lack of active street frontages and unused entrances

·    landscape and public domain features

·    signage

·    dilapidated or unused buildings.

The CBD Plan found that the dominance of shopping centres and driveways to public and private parking areas can reduce streetscape qualities of CBD streets, which reduce pedestrian amenity. Blank walls and unused shop entrances reduce pedestrian amenity along important pedestrian-pathways frontages.

The proposed development is considered to be generally consistent with the SAP for the CBD. The application and relevance of the SAP to a small scale development of this nature is clearly constrained, but there are no cumulative or nibbling effects contained in the general form of the proposed development working to undermine or detract from the importance of the CBD.

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

Conditions are included in the consent to address fire safety.

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

The proposed development is for a small Kiosk which is a form of commercial activity, albeit on a small scale more commensurate with the site’s proximity to surrounding residential development, whilst not abrogating its role of the city CBD.

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

The assessment of the car parking requirements for this development is linked to the prior uses of the site, as well as the nearest best fit of parking assessment rates as set out in Part 15 of the DCP. The prior history of this site is that the last approval for use occurred in 1978, when the site zoning was reclassified under the then applicable planning ordinance (Interim development Order 1), and the use of the main dwelling as “professional offices” with an assessed demand for three off street parking spaces to be accessed from Byng Street. At that time the building that is now the subject of the current change of use application was designated as storage, but no car parking for this space was considered necessary.

As a Kiosk, the most appropriate car parking rate under Part 15 of the DCP is a ‘restaurant in the CBD’ which applies a parking rate of one space per 40m2 of GFA. At this rate, the calculated car parking demand under the code is 0.3625 spaces.

The applicant has offered to pay a contribution in lieu of providing a parking space on the site. Plans were amended and submitted during the assessment process that did show an onsite car parking space, but the layout was not considered satisfactory, and the provision of onsite car parking was deleted from the proposal in favour of a car parking contribution. The parking location was not satisfactory as vehicles would be forced to reverse out into the street from the proposed space. The applicant has communicated his willingness in writing to accepting a contribution in lieu of the required space, which is an acceptable alternative to actually providing parking on the site and avoids potential conflicts with traffic and pedestrians in Sale Street.


 

At current rates, the contribution would be under Rate (b) (per deficient space for all developments that involve a change of use for the existing building and will not result in the creation of net additional GFA on the development site) is $7,067.35 per space. The proposed development generates a demand for 0.3625 spaces based on the above assessment, equating to a contribution of $2,554.87. A condition for that amount is included in the draft consent.

INFILL GUIDELINES

Development in a heritage setting must be assessed against Council’s Infill Guidelines. In this case, there are no substantive changes to the presentation of the building.

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

Demolition of a Building (clause 92)

The proposal does not involve the demolition of a building.

Fire Safety Considerations (clause 93)

The proposal involves a change of building use for an existing building. Council is satisfied that the fire protection and structural capacity of the building are appropriate for the proposed new building use. Relevant conditions are attached.

Buildings to be Upgraded (clause 94)

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

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

Hours of Operation

The stated hours of operation in the supporting information for the DA are 7am to 4pm Monday to Saturday. Residents have expressed some concerns that these hours will adversely impact on their residential lifestyles, principally because of noise and traffic issues. It is considered such concerns are not well founded given that the stated hours for the proposed development are consistent with those times when business activities are beginning and ending and traffic in the local streets is also beginning to increase. It is difficult to see how the proposed business, with a floor area of just 14.5m2 of GFA will significantly alter the patterns of activity or noise generation in the locality. Nevertheless, it is important that the proposed business adhere to the hours of operation to ensure significant nuisances do not arise. Consequently, a condition limiting the hours to those stated in the application is included in the consent.

Reclassification to Kiosk

The applicant has agreed to amend his application such that he is now seeking approval for a Kiosk. A Kiosk, as opposed to a more traditional restaurant or café, is limited in size and further limited to the serving of light refreshments. It is considered these elements of the Kiosk use can be supported by conditions in the consent, and that further such restrictions will have indirect benefits to issues of odour, noise, traffic, waste and the like.


 

Odours

As indicated above, the reclassification of the proposed development to Kiosk has a number of amenity benefits, not least of which is that odours should be decreased because of lower expected volumes. Odours can be further managed by specifying the location of waste bins on the southern side of the Kiosk to keep those bins away from nearby residents. A condition is included in the consent to that effect.

Light Spill

Light spill and light glare has potential to adversely affect the amenity enjoyed by residential neighbours. No lighting is proposed to be installed. It is considered appropriate in the interests of good governance to impose a condition alerting the applicant that no approval is granted under the consent for outdoor lighting.

Noise

Noise has the potential to affect residential amenity in the nearby residential development. It is therefore considered appropriate to impose the following standard requirement as a condition in the consent:

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

Noise emissions will also be controlled by surrogate controls, including restrictions on the hours of operation and a prohibition on the use of electronic amplified music.

Amplified music

As indicated above, it is considered appropriate to impose a condition that prevents the use of electronic amplified music from the premises at any time as a practical means of controlling noise.

Outdoor dining

The applicants amended submission excludes outdoor dining from the proposed development. A condition specifying no outdoor dining is considered appropriate given the proximity of residential development. If the applicant were to intend to provide outdoor seating (as opposed to footpath dining), it would be necessary for him to seek further approval from Council for that expansion of the development.

Traffic and Parking

Traffic in Sale Street and parking congestion is an existing problem for local residents and a major concern for them in relation to this proposal. As previously discussed in this report, the parking demands generated by this proposal are quite modest at 0.3625 spaces. It is considered that the most appropriate means of addressing this latent demand is to levy a contribution, which the applicant has agreed to.

Resident concerns about congestion and parking are acknowledged, but it is also noted that these are existing issues already in the street, and that any future exacerbation of that problem by the proposed development is unlikely to arise. It is most likely that the target customer base for the development are existing shoppers and commuters who already park in the locality.

It is difficult to envisage people making a specific trip to this establishment just to obtain coffee as a special trip, or to spend an extended period parking in the street for that purpose.

Impacts on nearby Residential; character and amenity

The proposed development is located within an existing building that is in turn close to the zone boundary. Residential development is dominant to the north. It is acknowledged that potential conflict can exist between the activities in the B3 zone and the resident expectation that live close to such zones. It is not considered, however, that the proposed development represents an especially obnoxious conflict between the pursuit of residential amenity on the one hand, and the business objectives of the B3 zone on the other. Subject to certain precautionary arrangements it is considered feasible for the Kiosk to be established without significant adverse effects for residential neighbours.

Signs

In its original form the applicant did propose various forms of signage, though specific details have been withdrawn in the amended proposal. No signs are now proposed and a condition is included to that effect in the consent. The applicant may seek separate approval for signage or it may be possible for some minor forms of signage to be erected as exempt development. Sandwich boards and product placement type signs are not permissible.

Privacy

The area in which the proposed development is proposed is relatively enclosed.  Further, conditions of consent will exclude outdoor dining, and contain the development to within the building containing the Kiosk itself. The noise generation characteristics of the proposed development are controlled by the hours of operation, the prohibition of amplified music and the overarching condition on ambient noise levels.  It is considered that the impacts on privacy will be adequately contained and limited by these conditions, and that the development being located within a garage of limited floor area and with no windows facing the residential land to the north will not of itself pose a significant problem in terms of privacy..

Waste Management

It is considered appropriate to include a condition that specifies waste collection must occur within the hours of operation of the business, that is sometime between 7am and 4pm, Monday to Saturday.

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

The site is zoned B3 Commercial Core and should therefore be considered inherently suitable for the proposed development (which is permissible in the zone). It is acknowledged that the site chosen for the proposed development is adjacent a residential zone in which inherent land use conflicts between the competing demands of residential and commercial zones may be expected.

The proposed development as a Kiosk is constrained relative to other activities that are permissible in the B3 zone. As a constrained land use, with appropriate conditions applied, significant adverse effects on neighbourhood character and amenity will be avoided.

The proposed development is therefore considered suitable to the site in its amended form.

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

The proposed development is not defined as advertised development under the provisions of the LEP, and as such no formal exhibition of the application was required. However, residents in the locality were individually advised of the proposed development. Three individual submissions and a petition with fifteen signatures were received as a result of that process. A summary of the concerns raised is set out and commented upon below.

Dino and Robin Cunial

52 Sale Street, Orange

Concerned about parking. Demand for street parking is already high. Should also consider noise issues. Opening hours of concern.

Comment

It is considered that parking demands in Sale Street are high at the present time, however the increase in demand arising from the proposed development would be very minor (less than one space under the applicable rates of Council’s DCP). It is considered that the proposed development will not be an inherent traffic or congestion generator.  There will be a tendency for existing commuters and shoppers for the CBD to provide trade for the proposed development, but little or no likelihood that the proposed development will inherently generate congestion or parking demand (beyond the very limited 0.3625 spaces generated under the code) with any measurable or discernible effect.

Paul and Cheryl McDonald

71 Sale Street, Orange

The residential houses in a heritage area are overwhelmed with parking from early mornings to late at night. Another business in the street will place even more pressure on residences in terms of increased demand for parking.

As indicated in the preceding comments, the demand for parking in Byng Street is high but the expected additional demand generated or attributable from the proposed development is considered very minor. It is considered the proposed development would simply continue the arrangements settled upon in 1978 when the property was rezoned and commercial development on the site was lawfully commenced. It could be argued that the change of the garage from a storage area to a kiosk selling coffee could result in increased activity but such activity would be very minor and further diminished by the prospect that some changes of use of the storeroom could be established as exempt development, and be undertaken as exempt development under current legislation. In terms of the assessed increase in parking demand, the proposed change would only increase parking requirements by one third of a space. This is not enough to make any measurable difference to the conditions that already exist in Sale Street.


 

There is already an oversupply of coffee shops in the locality. Yet another one is not needed.

Council is not in a position to regulate the supply and types of commercial development in this way. Free market forces and competition will decide whether there are too many coffee shops in the locality. Council is able to apply generalised controls such as zoning permissibility and to assess compatibility issues to surrounding land uses. It is empowered to consider such matters as are relevant to the Section 79C assessment, but may not include matters that fall outside the ambit of the Section 79C assessment. Determining if there are already enough coffee shops in the locality is well outside the brief of completing the planning assessment.

If approval is to be granted, access should only be via Byng Street where the zoning is commercial. The Sale Street frontage is accessible only by way of a street zoned for residential purposes.

The subject site has a legal and existing means of access via Sale Street. The issue raised in this instance is not very specific as to what benefits might be derived by limiting access in this way. Moreover, the overall intensity and activity to be generated by the proposed development is likely to be very minor and unlikely to affect surrounding residential amenity to any significant extent.

The proposed hours will allow customers entering and leaving from an early hour.

Operating hours for most days is 7am to 4pm. This is commensurate to the general operating hours of nearby and surrounding businesses and generally equates to a daytime usage.

David J Watkins

Watkins Dental

89 Byng Street, Orange

No objection in principal but concerned about the potential for parking, access and privacy issues.

These concerns are elaborated further as follows:

Common driveway between the properties provides access to handicapped persons. Vehicles drive up the driveway and turn around in our car park as it is not possible, or safe to reverse out of the driveway.

This concern seems to suggest the proposed activity in some way will interfere with the function and use of the neighbouring carpark. There is no basis in the proposed development to suggest this will happen or is contemplated.  The operator of the proposed coffee shop is located on a property that shares a driveway with the objector for the three parking spaces serving the former dwelling, but the proposed development will rely mostly on Sale Street for its trade.


 

Patients attending the dental surgery at 89 Byng Street would not like people wandering through the carpark looking in while they are undergoing treatment.

In the event that the users of the car park used their access in an inappropriate way, such as peering into the dental surgery windows or the like, it is possible for the objector to take his own legal action. However, such activities do not form part of the proposed development and therefore are purely speculative as to likelihood. They are not a relevant concern to the proposed development.

We have concerns about the aesthetics of star post fence, which will be even more visible from Byng Street.

A condition for details to be provided on the fencing styles and details is included in the consent. This should ensure a reasonable standard of finish for the fence in question.

Suggest that access be restricted to Sale Street, and that a fence be erected along the shared boundary of 87 and 89 Byng Street.

A low picket fence is already erected adjacent the subject property’s three car parking spaces which are required to be accessed via the shared driveway from Byng Street, and located between 87 and 89 Byng Streets. Neither of these properties are residential and both appear to use the carpark at the rear on an informal shared basis. Either property could erect a dividing fence down the shared boundary at any time without consent from Council as no right of way exists between the two properties. It appears to be by mutual agreement that the shared access exists.

 

Figure 4 - shared boundary between 87 and 89 Byng Street

There is no pressing need for the erection of a fence along this boundary and a construction of a fence in this way would be disruptive to both properties because it would deny access to the rear car parking area.


 

Petition from Sale Street residents.

(Fifteen signatures, nominating that they reside at 52, 54a, 54b, 56, 62, 69, 71, 73, 77 and 79 Sale Street).

The application is for 87 Byng Street but the applicant intends to carry out the business fronting onto Sale Street, which is a residential area.

The building to which the proposed development would be operated, is at the rear of the commercial premises formerly a dwelling and currently vacant. The subject property was rezoned in 1978, from Residential 2(b) under the then applicable planning scheme. The changes in zoning were to allow commercial reclassification of the whole site. The rezoning request was accompanied at that time with a development application for a specified use, being professional offices to be operated from within the whole of the residence at 87 Byng Street. This development application further proposed the provision of seven spaces, including the use of the garage (the subject of the current application) as a parking space, all of which were to be provided with access from Sale Street.

Council in its determination of that application and rezoning reduced the parking requirements to just three spaces, and did not include the garage as part of those parking requirements. Council further required that these three spaces be accessed solely from Byng Street, but allowed continued access to the garage and indeed the property generally from Sale Street.

It is considered the proposed development would simply continue the arrangements settled upon in 1978. It could be argued that the change of the garage from a storage area to a coffee house could result in increased activity but such activity would be very minor. In terms of the assessed increase in parking demand, the proposed change would only increase parking requirements by one third of a space. This is not enough to make any measurable difference to the conditions that already exist in Sale Street.

The street parking is filled with vehicles as this block is the first unrestricted (time wise) parking from the CBD. The applicant is not providing any off street parking for customers

It is agreed that commuter and shopper parking in Sale Street is at a high level, and this is likely to cause problems for the local residents living in that street. However, it is unlikely that the proposed development in its amended form will generate significant additional demand for parking in Sale Street. Such demand as can be attributed to the proposed use is most appropriately addressed by a contribution under Council’s Section 94 Plan. Further, it is considered unlikely that the proposed Kiosk will generate significant additional trips into or out of the locality for the sole purpose of being a patron of the coffee shop. More likely, the new shop will provide coffee to existing commuters and shoppers.

Parking demand is further increased by parents of children delivering their young children to Catherine McCauley Primary School.

This may or may not be the case, but it is not relevant to the consideration of the proposed development. It is relevant to consider the parking demands caused by the proposed development, and then determine if such demands can be adequately met. In this case the parking demands of the proposed development are minor, but such demand as is attributable is best addressed by a contribution rather than on-site parking provision.


 

Residents’ issues should be considered and the application should be refused.

The issues raised by residents have been carefully considered, and throughout the report changes to the proposal in various ways applied to decrease the impacts of the proposed development on surrounding land uses. Public participation and the public interest are matters for consideration, and have been considered in this assessment.

PUBLIC INTEREST s79C(1)(e)

The proposed development has generated some comment from the public, suggesting a higher than usual public interest. It is accepted that some of the issues raised by residents deserve conditions to address their concerns, however it cannot be argued that an approval of the proposed development is in a planning sense contrary to the public interest. This is because no significant harm is likely to arise in the public realm if the proposed development were approved. The proposed development is considered to be of minor interest to the wider public due to the relatively localised nature of potential impacts. The proposal is not inconsistent with any relevant policy statements, planning studies, guidelines etc that have not been considered in this assessment.

SUMMARY

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

COMMENTS

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

 

Attachments

1          Notice of Approval, D17/41543

2          Plans, IC17/10746

3          Submissions, D17/41435

 


Planning and Development Committee                                                         1 August 2017

2.5                       Development Application DA 192/2017(1) - 87 Byng Street

Attachment 1      Notice of Approval

 

OrangeCityCouncilNEW#45524E (2)

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

 

Development Application No DA 192/2017(1)

 

NA17/                                                                                             Container PR20690

 

 

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 81(1)

 

Development Application

 

  Applicant Name:

Mr B Crawley

  Applicant Address:

683 Canobolas Road

ORANGE  NSW  2800

 

  Owner’s Name:

Mr AJ Kirkwood

  Land to Be Developed:

Lot 87 DP 1086540 - 87 Byng Street, Orange

  Proposed Development:

Kiosk

 

 

Building Code of Australia

 building classification:

 

To be determined by the PCA

 

 

Determination

 

  Made On:

1 August 2017

  Determination:

CONSENT GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:

 

 

Consent to Operate From:

2 August 2017

Consent to Lapse On:

2 August 2022

 

Terms of Approval

 

The reasons for the imposition of conditions are:

 

(1)      To ensure compliance with relevant statutory requirements.

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

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

(4)      To maintain neighbourhood amenity and character.

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

Conditions

 

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

 

(a)      Site Plan submitted with the application May 2017. Internal design plan by applicant submitted with the Development Application.


 

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

 

as amended in accordance with any conditions of this consent.

 

 

PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

 

(4)      The payment of $2,554.87 shall be made to Council in accordance with Section 94 of the Act and Orange Car Parking Development Contributions Plan 2015 in lieu of the physical provision of adequate on-site car parking spaces.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

(6)      Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, evidence is to be provided of a that a suitable damp proof course is in place to allow the habitable use of the building.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

PRIOR TO WORKS COMMENCING

 

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


 

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

MATTERS FOR THE ONGOING PERFORMANCE AND OPERATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT

 

(17)    This approval permits the establishment and use of the premises as a kiosk as defined under the provisions of the Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011, which means premises that are used for the purposes of selling food, light refreshments and other small convenience items such as newspapers, films and the like, This consent limits the kiosk to within the existing building with a floor area of 14.5m². No outdoor seating is permitted to be provided under this consent.

 

(18)    The hours of operation for the approved use shall be restricted to 7am to 4pm Monday to Saturday.

 

(19)    Waste bins for the approved use shall be stored on the southern side of the kiosk, except on the designated waste collection days.

 

(20)    No approval is granted under this consent for the installation of any outdoor lighting on the site in relation to the approved use as a Kiosk.

 

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

 

(22)    The use of electronic amplified music from the premises at any time, is not permitted under this consent.

 

(23)    No sandwich boards or the like are to be placed on Council's footpath.


 

(24)    A separate development application shall be submitted to and approved by Council prior to the erection of any advertising structures or signs of a type that do not meet the exempt development provisions of Orange Local Environmental Plan 2000 (amended) and Development Control Plan 2004.

 

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

 

 

ADVISORY NOTES

 

(1)      Under Clause 93 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, Council has considered the fire separation and the structural capacity of the building appropriate to the proposed use and is granting a concession in regard to fire separation (Part C of the BCA2016).

 

 

 

 

Other Approvals

 

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

 

          Nil

 

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

 

          Nil

 

 

 

 

Right of Appeal

 

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

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

 

 

  Disability Discrimination Act 1992:

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

  Disclaimer - S88B Restrictions on the Use of Land:

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


 

 

 

Signed:

On behalf of the consent authority ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

 

 

Signature:

 

 

Name:

 

PAUL JOHNSTON - MANAGER DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENTS

 

Date:

 

2 August 2017

 


Planning and Development Committee                                                                          1 August 2017

2.5                       Development Application DA 192/2017(1) - 87 Byng Street

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                    1 August 2017

2.5                       Development Application DA 192/2017(1) - 87 Byng Street

Attachment 3      Submissions

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator