Agenda of Planning and Development Committee

Planning and Development Committee 6 February 2018

2.1 Items Approved Under the Delegated Authority of Council

TRIM REFERENCE: 2017/2718

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 255/2016(2)	Determination Date	8 December 2017
PR Number	PR15538
Applicant/s:	Commplan Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Orange City Council
Location:	Lot 1 DP 418091 – 181 Icely Road, Orange
Proposal:	Modification of development consent - telecommunications facility (30m monopole, antennas, shelter and fenced compound). The modification proposes to move elements of the infrastructure and the tower relative to the significant vegetation.
Value:	$180,000 (being the same value as the original development)

Reference:	DA 304/2016(2)	Determination Date	4 January 2018
PR Number	PR27531
Applicant/s:	TPG Town Planning & Urban Design
Owner/s:	Eastern Developments Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 200 DP 1225088 – 132 Kite Street, Orange
Proposal:	Modification of development consent - demolition, hotel and motel accommodation, restaurant or café, retail premises and subdivision (44 lot strata). The modification involves deferring the requirement for sewer and water headwork contributions and car parking contributions (Conditions (34) and (21) respectively) from being paid prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate and Occupation Certificate.
Value:	$10,500,000 (being the same value as the original development)

Reference:	DA 229/2017(1)	Determination Date	3 January 2018
PR Number	PR27170
Applicant/s:	Orange MS Investments Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Orange MS Investments Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 21 DP 1212446 – 104 Lysterfield Road, Orange
Proposal:	Subdivision (24 lot Torrens title)
Value:	$0

Reference:	DA 245/2017(2)	Determination Date	8 January 2017
PR Number	PR1494
Applicant/s:	Housing Plus Ltd
Owner/s:	Housing Plus Ltd
Location:	Lot 10 DP 248178 – 71 Bletchington Street, Orange
Proposal:	Modification of development consent - Seniors Housing (four self‑contained dwellings). The modification involves the provision of an additional dwelling within the building, comprising a total of five self‑contained dwellings. The floor plan will be amended to remove common and staff areas and accommodate the additional dwelling.
Value:	$1,400,000 (being the same value as the original development)

Reference:	DA 300/2017(1)	Determination Date	30 November 2017
PR Number	PR19019
Applicant/s:	Mrs J Miles
Owner/s:	Mr MJ and Mrs JM Miles
Location:	Lot 49 DP 1063083 – 19 Elwin Drive, Orange
Proposal:	Resource recovery facility (metal recycling) (industrial building and site works)
Value:	$76,000

Reference:	DA 304/2017(1)	Determination Date	8 December 2017
PR Number	P8739R
Applicant/s:	Mr AC and Mrs RT Roweth
Owner/s:	Mr AC and Mrs RT Roweth
Location:	Lot 27 DP 11439 – 111 Moulder Street, Orange
Proposal:	Medical centre and demolition (garage)
Value:	$10,000

Reference:	DA 335/2017(1)	Determination Date	11 December 2017
PR Number	PR7567
Applicant/s:	Tent of Hope Ltd
Owner/s:	The State of NSW
Location:	Lot 7 DP 820905 – March Street, Orange
Proposal:	Temporary use of land (community event for religious outreach and associated activities)
Value:	$0

Reference:	DA 345/2017(1)	Determination Date	12 January 2018
PR Number	PR19022
Applicant/s:	Wakefield Planning
Owner/s:	Mr MP and Mrs CM Bayada
Location:	Lot 52 DP 1063083 – 10 Elwin Drive, Orange
Proposal:	Industrial activity with ancillary furniture showroom
Value:	$0

Reference:	DA 361/2017(2)	Determination Date	17 January 2018
PR Number	PR10006
Applicant/s:	Lyndon Community
Owner/s:	Ms JZ Bond
Location:	Lot 177 DP 775277 – 6 Lysterfield Road, Orange
Proposal:	Modification of development consent – group home (transitional) (change of use). The modification sought to change the wording of Condition (4) of the original consent, which required the upgrade of part of Lysterfield Road prior to occupation of the group home, and that Council allows the upgrade to take place after occupation.
Value:	$0 (being the same value as the original development)

Reference:	DA 365/2017(1)	Determination Date	24 November 2017
PR Number	PR15697
Applicant/s:	Western Freight Management Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Tura Holdings Pty Limited
Location:	Lot 4 DP 844802 – 10 Astill Drive, Orange
Proposal:	Freight transport facility (alterations to existing works bay)
Value:	$50,000

Reference:	DA 366/2017(1)	Determination Date	11 January 2018
PR Number	PR1165
Applicant/s:	Homefront Crossfit
Owner/s:	Mr AO Baldwin
Location:	Lot 110 DP 614058 – 3 Barrett Court, Orange
Proposal:	Recreation facility (indoor) (alterations and additions) and business identification signs (wall and fascia signs)
Value:	$950,000

Reference:	DA 367/2017(1)	Determination Date	12 January 2017
PR Number	PR25968
Applicant/s:	Cross Country Trucks
Owner/s:	Mr PC and Mrs LG Isaacs
Location:	Lot 96 DP 1180866 – 30 Colliers Avenue, Orange
Proposal:	Vehicle sales or hire premises, business identification signage and solar energy system
Value:	$550,000

Reference:	DA 370/2017(1)	Determination Date	19 December 2017
PR Number	PR18576
Applicant/s:	Mr GW and Mrs SA Delaney
Owner/s:	Mr GW and Mrs SA Delaney
Location:	Lot 200 DP 1042614 - 583 Huntley Road, Huntley
Proposal:	Home industry (vehicle repair station)
Value:	$0

Reference:	DA 379/2017(1)	Determination Date	8 December 2017
PR Number	PR6012
Applicant/s:	Mrs AB Burton
Owner/s:	Mrs AB Burton
Location:	Lot 20 DP 234780 – 32 Kenna Street, Orange
Proposal:	Serviced apartment
Value:	$0

Reference:	DA 381/2017(1)	Determination Date	11 December 2017
PR Number	PR18066
Applicant/s:	Dr LE Butt
Owner/s:	Dr LE Butt
Location:	Lot 52 DP 1019314 – 7 Ophir Street, Orange
Proposal:	Demolition (garage, carport and pergola) and secondary dwelling
Value:	$189,200

Reference:	DA 391/2017(1)	Determination Date	7 December 2017
PR Number	PR14622
Applicant/s:	Mr S Marvasti
Owner/s:	Mr S Marvasti
Location:	Lot 2 DP 615667 – 4661 Mitchell Highway, Lucknow
Proposal:	Dual occupancy (alterations and additions to existing), swimming pool (in ground) and fencing (pool fencing)
Value:	$80,000

Reference:	DA 392/2017(1)	Determination Date	18 December 2017
PR Number	PR17786
Applicant/s:	John Holland Country Regional Network
Owner/s:	SRA (Aust Native Landscapes)
Location:	Lot 52 DP 1026842 – 94 Peisley Street, Orange
Proposal:	Earthmoving business, retail and sand supplies (alterations to existing building)
Value:	$50,000

Reference:	DA 394/2017(1)	Determination Date	12 December 2017
PR Number	PR22619
Applicant/s:	Jones & Smith Distillery
Owner/s:	Mr AJ and Mrs DM Jones
Location:	Lot 100 DP 1117146 - 527 Beasley Road, Spring Hill
Proposal:	Rural industry (artisan micro distillery)
Value:	$115,000

Reference:	DA 409/2017(1)	Determination Date	8 December 2017
PR Number	PR19016
Applicant/s:	Mr HR and Mrs RH Ovenden
Owner/s:	JH and HJ Ovenden
Location:	Lot 46 DP 1063083 – 13 Elwin Drive, Orange
Proposal:	Industry, warehouse and distribution centre, business identification sign
Value:	$275,000

Reference:	DA 411/2017(1)	Determination Date	14 December 2017
PR Number	PR8327
Applicant/s:	Peter Basha Planning & Development
Owner/s:	Keronga Park Pty Limited
Location:	Lot 1 DP 91037 - 72 McNamara Street, Orange
Proposal:	Office premises (alterations and additions to existing building)
Value:	$30,000

Reference:	DA 419/2017(1)	Determination Date	10 January 2018
PR Number	PR19012
Applicant/s:	McKinnon Design and Drafting
Owner/s:	Mr JH and Mrs HJ Ovenden
Location:	Lot 42 DP 1063083 – 17 Astill Drive, Orange
Proposal:	Industry (alterations and additions to existing building) and signage
Value:	$480,000

Reference:	DA 425/2017(1)	Determination Date	13 December 2017
PR Number	PR17497
Applicant/s:	The Top Wash
Owner/s:	Tinobah (Orange) Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 1 DP 1010341 - 65 Summer Street, Orange
Proposal:	Demolition (tree removal)
Value:	$880

Reference:	DA 435/2017(1)	Determination Date	18 December 2017
PR Number	PR10588
Applicant/s:	Veritas House
Owner/s:	Mr BD and Mrs SG Furnell
Location:	Lot 1 DP 85339 - 29-31 Sale Street, Orange
Proposal:	Office premises (change of use)
Value:	$100,000

TOTAL NET* VALUE OF ALL DEVELOPMENTS APPROVED IN THIS PERIOD: $2,956,080

* 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 6 February 2018

2.2 Development Application DA 426/2016(1) - 160-178 Peisley Street

TRIM REFERENCE: 2017/1605

AUTHOR: Michael Glenn, Senior Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged	7 December 2016
Applicant/s	RPS Australia East Pty Ltd
Owner/s	Telfield Pty Ltd & Wizby Pty Ltd
Land description	Lots B, C, D, E, F DP 37972 - 160-178 Peisley Street, Orange
Proposed land use	Service station and signage
Value of proposed development	$2,000,000

Council's consent is sought for the construction of a service station with small convenience store, and signs on the subject property. The application has been referred to Council because the estimated cost of the development exceeds the delegation prescribed for the General Manager.

This application has been delayed for a number reasons. Firstly, because the relatively shallow entry and exit angles for delivery vehicles reduced the visibility of traffic in Peisley Street unacceptably in the original design. The very shallow entry and exit angles for vehicles was determined to be non-compliant and unsafe for vehicles in Peisley Street. This caused the Roads and Maritime Service (RMS) and Council staff to withhold their concurrence (Peisley Street/Forest Road as a state road requires concurrence of RMS for developments of this nature), until such time as the layout had been redesigned and the vehicle manoeuvring angles onto and off the site were made more perpendicular to the front boundary. This would thereby improve the ability to see traffic using the inside lane of Peisley Street (service vehicles are permitted and can lawfully cross traffic lanes to access a sight, but must do so in a manner that is safe). The amended plans achieve that outcome, and RMS have now provided their concurrence.

Secondly, the site until November 2017 remained on the NSW Environment Protection Authority’s (EPA’s) Contaminated Lands Register. The contamination on the site was dealt with in 2006-2008 when the original service station on the site was removed. The contamination took the form principally as deep soil hydrocarbon contamination, with some lead contamination that had potential to enter the water table and transmigrate via natural flows. This contamination was dealt with by capping of the contamination hot spots. The proposed development will require fresh excavation, which has the potential to break open the cap and thereby uncover remaining contamination on the site. Council has never received adequate validation of the original remediation (until receipt of this DA) and could not rely on the continued adequacy of that remediation as the principal containment strategy (the capping), since the site was proposed to be excavated (thereby raising the potential for exposure of the contaminated material remaining in situ on the site. In its original form the applicant failed to produce an adequate validation process that could serve to confirm that the site would be suitable for purpose notwithstanding this re‑disturbance of the site’s contamination hot spots.

The applicant made attempts to submit validation reports over the past year, but none of these reports until the last addressed the key matters set out in Clause 7 of State Environmental Planning Policy 55 (Remediation Of Land) by establishing that the site in its future state (ie after the excavation) would remain safe enough and suitable enough for the proposed development to proceed.

As indicated above, the applicant has now submitted a relevant validation report that certifies the development is suitable for purpose as the current proposed development is seeking consent for. Council is now in a position to move forward in the assessment.

There are also issues regarding the provision of improved landscaping, and a more restrained sign scheme than was originally proposed. The building remains not ideal as an element of the streetscape, but is less averse than the original design. Given that the subject property is not part of a conservation area, and is already vacant after a demolition carried out in 2006, it is considered the proposed treatments are acceptable as an element of the CBD.

DECISION FRAMEWORK

Development in Orange is governed by key documents summarised as follows:

State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) provide the NSW Govt the ability to provide a legislative framework to assess specific matters. They are made by the Minister of Planning and generally have over-arching weight within the context of the issue they address

In this case there are four principal state policies applicable to the assessment of this application; SEPP Policy 33 (Hazardous and Offensive Development), SEPP-55 (Remediation of Land), SEPP (Infrastructure 2007), and SEPP 64 (Outdoor Advertising).

Orange Local Environment Plan 2011 – the LEP should be considered by Council to be a definitive document (except when modified or added to by over-arching state policies). 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.

Director’s Comment – The proposed development is permissible with the consent of Council. The subject land has direct frontage to Peisley Street and therefore, pursuant to the requirements of State Environmental Policy (Infrastructure), Council was required to obtain the concurrence of Roads and Maritime Service (RMS) prior to determination of the application. Whilst the RMS initially withheld their concurrence, the applicant has since addressed the concerns raised by the RMS with the submission of amended plans. The concurrence of the RMS has since been obtained and it is open for Council to now grant development consent in this case. 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.

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 426/2016(1) for a service station and business identification signage at Lots B, C, D, E, F DP 37972 - 160-178 Peisley Street Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Council's consent is sought for Service Station and Signage at Lots B, C, D, E, F DP 37972 - 160-178 Peisley Street, Orange. The application itself describes the signs proposed as “business identification signs”, however as a number of the signs that are proposed do not conform to the definition of “business identification signs”, the description of the proposed development has been changed to the more general description of “Signage” which covers both general advertising and business identification signs.

THE PROPOSAL

The proposal involves development of the site as a service station and convenience store with associated parking and manoeuvring areas. The proposed development will include the following:

· three fuel dispenser stations with flat roofed canopy and a pre-cast concrete convenience store with a Gross Floor Area (GFA) of 195m² and cashier. The proposed building will also incorporate toilets, office and dry store

· three 55 KL underground tanks

· ten off-street car parking spaces

· loading bay

· bin storage and collection area

· signage

· landscaping

· 24 hour operating cycle, seven days per week, and usual staff of one onsite.

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 generally consistent with these aims.

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 does hold older surveys of the site that suggest the existence of rights of way to favour Council over several of the properties. However, the applicant has provided the most up to date registered surveys for the site which show that the “proposed rights of way” shown in the 1945 survey (the relevant survey for the current lot descriptors), were in fact never registered.

The applicant advises in an addendum to his SoEE “Attached is a title search of the five properties involved (Lots B to F DP 37972) – search done today. The attached shows that the “proposed right of ways” are not recorded on the titles. Therefore in a legal sense they do not exist”.

Mapping

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

Land Zoning Map:	Land zoned B3 Commercial Core
Lot Size Map:	No Minimum Lot Size
Heritage Map:	Not a heritage item or conservation area
Height of Buildings Map:	building height limit 12m
Floor Space Ratio Map:	floor space limit 1.5:1
Terrestrial Biodiversity Map:	No biodiversity sensitivity on the site
Groundwater Vulnerability Map:	groundwater 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 B3 Commercial Core zone. The proposed development is defined as a service station and advertising signs under OLEP 2011, and both elements of the proposed development are permitted with consent for this zone. This application is seeking consent.

Pursuant to the LEP dictionary, a service station means:

a building or place used for the sale by retail of fuels and lubricants for motor vehicles, whether or not the building or place is also used for any one or more of the following:

(a) the ancillary sale by retail of spare parts and accessories for motor vehicles,

(b) the cleaning of motor vehicles,

(c) installation of accessories,

(d) inspecting, repairing and servicing of motor vehicles (other than body building, panel beating, spray painting, or chassis restoration),

(e) the ancillary retail selling or hiring of general merchandise or services or both.

Signage means:

any sign, notice, device, representation or advertisement that advertises or promotes any goods, services or events and any structure or vessel that is principally designed for, or that is used for, the display of signage, and includes any of the following:

(a) an advertising structure,

(b) a building identification sign,

(c) a business identification sign,

but does not include a traffic sign or traffic control facilities.

Service stations and signage are permitted in the B3 Commercial Core zone with the consent of Council. It should be noted that the proposed service station includes a small ancillary store, selling general merchandise that may include goods not necessarily related to travelling motorists. The scale of this aspect of the development is considered to be a typical operation of a service station and therefore consistent with Part E of the above‑described definition of a service station.

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.

The development is not inconsistent with the objectives of the zone.

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 12m. The maximum height of the proposed development is 6.1m and is therefore consistent with the established height limit

Clause 4.4 - Floor Space Ratio

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

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

· excluding community land and most public places

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

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

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

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

The subject land is identified on the Map as having an FSR of 1.8:1. The site area has been calculated under Clause 4.5 as 1664m², meaning the site may have up to 2995.56m² of floor space. The proposal, minus the exclusions detailed in Clause 4.5, has been calculated as having a gross floor area of 191m² and is therefore consistent with the FSR requirements.

Part 7 - Additional Local Provisions

7.1 - Earthworks

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

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

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

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

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

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

(f) the likelihood of disturbing relics

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

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

The earthworks proposed in the application are limited to the extent of cutting and filling required for the underground petrol storage tanks and associated drainage. The extent of the proposed earthworks is considerable, however these works are not expected to significantly affect drainage patterns in any way.

The earthworks will be appropriately supported onsite and the change in ground level is not substantial. Therefore, the effect on the amenity of adjoining properties is considered to be minor. The extent of the earthworks will not materially affect the potential future use or redevelopment of the site that may occur at the end of the proposed development's lifespan. The site is not known to contain any Aboriginal, European or archaeological relics. Previous known uses of the site do not suggest that any relics are likely to be uncovered.

The site is not in proximity to any waterway, drinking water catchment or sensitive area, however conditions will be imposed to require a sediment control plan, including silt traps and other protective measures, to ensure that loose dirt and sediment does not escape the site boundaries.

7.3 - Stormwater Management

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

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

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

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

The proposal has been designed to include permeable surfaces through landscaping, and includes onsite retention of stormwater. It is considered that the post-development runoff levels will be similar to pre-development levels, and the management of onsite stormwater is acceptable.

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 does not involve extraction of groundwater and will therefore not contribute to groundwater depletion. The proposal has the potential to involve the discharge of toxic or noxious substances through accidental spillages, particularly through leaking of underground tanks and pipes, as well as above ground spillages. Conditions designed to protect both groundwater quality (to avoid groundwater contamination), as well as protecting surface water standards, are included in the consent. The groundwater protection arrangements centre around the use of an underground Spel Puracepter, as well as a bio-retention basin for stormwater, and is therefore considered acceptable.

Further, a condition is included in the consent that requires the tanks to comply with AS1940-2004, which is the relevant standard for underground tanks and includes requirements for double bunding to minimise the risks from spills and leaks.

Furthermore, spills and leaks will be monitored through wells, which is addressed in more detail below.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

The following State Environmental Planning Policies apply to the subject development:

State Environmental Planning Policy Infrastructure 2007

Clauses 84-89 – Development in a Rail Corridor

Clauses 85 has provisions relating to non-metropolitan land adjacent to rail corridors.

85 - Development Immediately Adjacent to Rail Corridors

This clause applies to development on land that is in or immediately adjacent to a rail corridor, if the development:

(a) is likely to have an adverse effect on rail safety, or

(b) involves the placing of a metal finish on a structure and the rail corridor concerned is used by electric trains, or

(c) involves the use of a crane in air space above any rail corridor.

Sub-clause (2) contains the following:

(2) Before determining a development application for development to which this clause applies, the consent authority must:

(a) within 7 days after the application is made, give written notice of the application to the Chief Executive Officer of the rail authority for the rail corridor, and

(b) take into consideration:

(i) any response to the notice that is received within 21 days after the notice is given, and

(ii) any guidelines that are issued by the Secretary for the purposes of this clause and published in the Gazette.

Clauses 98 - 104 Development in or Adjacent to Road corridors and Road reservations

Clauses 101 and 104 of this SEPP are applicable to this development, and are discussed below. Concurrence with the RMS is required for this proposal.

101 - Development with Frontage to Classified Road

The primary objective of this clause is to ensure that new development does not compromise the effective and ongoing operation and function of classified roads. The consent authority must not grant consent to development on land that has a frontage to a classified road unless it is satisfied that:

(a) where practicable, vehicular access to the land is provided by a road other than the classified road, and

(b) the safety, efficiency and ongoing operation of the classified road will not be adversely affected by the development as a result of:

(i) the design of the vehicular access to the land, or

(ii) the emission of smoke or dust from the development, or

(iii) the nature, volume or frequency of vehicles using the classified road to gain access to the land, and

(c) the development is of a type that is not sensitive to traffic noise or vehicle emissions, or is appropriately located and designed, or includes measures, to ameliorate potential traffic noise or vehicle emissions within the site of the development arising from the adjacent classified road.

104 - Traffic-Generating Development

This clause applies to a service station of any size where it has direct vehicular or pedestrian access to a classified road, or to a road that connects to a classified road where the access is within 90m of the connection. It requires the consent authority to give written notice of the application to the RMS and take their response into consideration, as well as consider the accessibility of the site concerned, and any potential traffic safety, road congestion or parking implications of the development.

The RMS was not prepared to support the proposed development in its original form, due to the poor sightlines of the heavy delivery vehicle nominated in the application to undertake fuel deliveries. This position was largely supported by the City of Orange Traffic Committee (COTC). To achieve an adequate design outcome, the applicant needed to ensure the angle of entry and exits to and from the site was close to perpendicular to the kerb as possible. Despite the applicant submitting a report from a traffic consultant that argued the design in its original form was satisfactory in this regard, the RMS, COTC and Council Technical Services staff were unanimous that the delivery arrangements were not safe and required amendment.

The applicant has amended his proposal now, so as to incorporate and address the RMS issues. The RMS have indicated their support for the agreement to the recommended conditions requiring the following conditions be imposed:

· vehicular access and egress between the site and Peisley Street shall be via the approved vehicular access ways only

· the exit driveway shall be no more than ten (10) m wide. The driveways shall be constructed in concrete and shall match existing road and footpath levels

· prior to occupation of the development, “No Entry “(R2-4) signs are to be provided on the land at each side of the entry driveway. The signs are to face the site to advise motorists not to exist the site onto Peisley Street via the designated entry driveway

· all vehicle movements to and from the site shall be in a forward direction

· adequate turning circles and vertical clearance shall be provided within the site to accommodate the largest type of vehicle (19m articulated vehicle) that will visit the site during construction and operation

· all activities, including loading and unloading of goods associated with the development are to be carried out onsite in the dedicated areas.

With regard to the potential impacts on the rail corridor located behind the site, the application was referred to the Asset Manager for the rail network, with a response received by Council on1 February 2017, setting out the following requirements:

“It is requested that Council considers fencing and stormwater as follows:

Fencing

· The security of fencing along the rail corridor is essential to prevent unauthorised entry. JHR requests that Council impose a condition on any consent requiring a 1.8m chain wire fence or similar to prevent access.

Stormwater

· It is requested that Council ensures that no additional stormwater flows toward the rail corridor and all wastewater is appropriately treated and disposed of.”

State Environmental Planning Policy 33 - Hazardous and Offensive Development

This policy seeks to ensure that the consent authority has sufficient information to assess whether a development is potentially hazardous or offensive, and to impose conditions to reduce or minimise any adverse impacts. The policy sets out the definition of a ‘potentially hazardous industry’ as follows:

a development for the purposes of any industry which, if the development were to operate without employing any measures (including, for example, isolation from existing or likely future development on other land) to reduce or minimise its impact in the locality or on the existing or likely future development on other land, would pose a significant risk in relation to the locality:

(a) to human health, life or property, or

(b) to the biophysical environment,

and includes a hazardous industry and a hazardous storage establishment.

A development application for a potentially hazardous industry must be accompanied by a Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA), in accordance with current circulars and guidelines from the Department of Planning. Guidelines titled Applying SEPP-33 Development Application Guidelines, and Multi Level Risk Assessment Guidelines are particularly relevant to this application, among others. The applicant has prepared a Multi-Level Risk Assessment and PHA in accordance with these guidelines.

The multi risk assessment was prepared by Myros and concludes that the safety risks associated with the use of the site as a service station are minimal. The multi risk assessment’s principal recommendation is that all equipment to be installed on the site be carried out strictly in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. The following conditions are included in the consent as a result of that recommendation:

· All equipment must be installed to manufacturer’s recommendations and must comply with all the relevant standards listed within.

· Specific safety features of the site, as set out in the submitted Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA) submitted with the Development Application shall be adhered to strictly at all times. The applicant shall ensure that safety procedures are well posted on the site and shall further ensure that all staff are adequately inducted as to correct safety procedures and protocols as set out in the PHA.

Assessment Guidelines Appendix 6 - Ongoing Acceptability

The guidelines state:

"If, following the assessment of a PHA and other considerations, Council considers that the proposal can proceed, it should consider imposing relevant hazards-related conditions as recommended by the Department. These conditions will help ensure the ongoing safety of a potential development."

Not all of the recommended conditions are considered relevant to this situation, however those that are relevant are included in the attached consent.

Furthermore, a Trade Waste Agreement will need to be entered into with the Council, and a Dangerous Goods Notification is required from Safework NSW.

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land

This policy requires contamination and remediation to be considered when determining a planning application. Council may not grant consent to further development of the site (pursuant to the provisions of Clause 7 of the policy) unless it is satisfied that the site has been remediated.

The Environmental Protection Authority maintains a register of potentially contaminated sites. The register lists the subject property as “under investigation” but does not specifically identify the site as contaminated. The principal means for Council to monitor whether a site is contaminated or not, is for a remediation plan to be implemented. There are statutory procedures for achieving that outcome. A proponent must provide a validation certificate incorporating a notice of completion of remediation works to establish that such remediation has been completed and the site made suitable for a particular category of development (generally within the categories of Industrial, commercial or residential).

On 8 June 2005 development consent was granted under DA 014/682 to the demolition of the buildings, removal of underground tanks and remediation of the site. The consent included the following condition in the consent:

“the applicant shall provide Council with a Notice of completion of Category 2 Remediation within thirty days of completion of the works. The notice shall contain the information as set out in SEPP-55 – Remediation of Land”.

Validation and/or notices of completion for the remediation work undertaken in 2006‑2008 were not submitted to either Council or the EPA. As a result of this, the EPA listed the site as “under investigation until November 2017, at which time the ARCADIS report was finalised and submitted to both Council and the EPA. Since the completion and submission of that report, EPA have removed the site from being “under investigation”.

It is noted that a validation report was completed in 2013 by the then owner (Mobil Australia), but this information was not communicated to either the EPA or Council until June 2016. Even so, the remediation processes that was employed (a cap over the contamination hotspots), could not be guaranteed as effective if the cap was ever penetrated by subsequent development (which is precisely what the current proposal does seek to do with its excavation and re-installation of underground fuel storage tanks). Whether or not the standard to which the site was remediated, and the methods of remediation used remain effective has proven to be a major obstacle to overcome.

Since June 2016, the applicant has made several attempts at submitting a validation report to establish that the site was able to be used for the proposed use. These earlier attempts failed to show that the site could have the contamination capping broken and remain suitable for purpose. It has taken until recently for an acceptable validation report to be submitted. A report has now been submitted from ARCADIS (an environmental science consultancy) that confirms the validation process and suggests the site is suitable for the proposed development. A full copy of the ARCADIS report is attached, but in summary the report concludes:

“the presence of hydrocarbons in soil and groundwater at the site do not have the potential to pose an unacceptable risk to human health or ecological receptors at the site. As such, the site is suitable for the proposed use in accordance with the CLM Act 1997. Any waste materials generated at the site related to excavation works should be classified in accordance with the NSW EPA (2014) Waste Classification Guidelines”

In substance, the submission meets the intent of Clause 7, and Council may validly consider the issue of a development consent.

State Environmental Planning Policy 64 – Advertising and Signage

State Environmental Planning Policy 64 - Advertising and Signage applies to the subject land. The relevant provisions of the SEPP are addressed below.

The Proposed Signs

The signs proposed include the following:

Sign 1 – General Advertisement 6m high illuminated pole sign with corporate logo, wordmark “United Petroleum” and fluorescent pricing details.

Figure 1 – proposed sign 1 (6m free standing pole sign)

Initially the proposed pole sign incorporated an overall height in excess of 8m above existing natural ground levels and no setback from the street frontage. This was considered unacceptable on grounds relating to streetscape. The amended proposal increases the setback slightly and reduces the height of the structure to 6m, which in the past has been generally accepted as within a reasonable human scale in Orange. The proposal is not considered a Business Identification Sign since the electronic number displays are not covered in the definition of business identification sign. As a result this sign is considered to be general advertising.

Sign 2 - Building wrap fascia sign (illuminated) around pump canopy 900mm wide.

Figure 2 – building wrap fascia sign (illuminated)

This is considered to be consistent with the definition of business identification sign.

Sign 3 – Business Identification Sign - shop fascia sign (illuminated)

Figure 3 – illuminated shop fascia sign

Sign 4 – General advertisement – “Pie Face” sign at entry

Figure 4 – “Pie face’ advertisement entry sign

Sign 5 – General advertisement window sign (north facing)

Figure 5 – “Pie Face” window advertisement

Sign 6 – General advertisement painted wall sign (west facing, Peisley Street)

Figure 6 – general advertisement “Pie Face” wall advertisement (not illuminated)

3 - Aims, objectives etc.

(1) This Policy aims:

(a) to ensure that signage (including advertising):

(i) is compatible with the desired amenity and visual character of an area, and

(ii) provides effective communication in suitable locations, and

(iii) is of high quality design and finish, and

(b) to regulate signage (but not content) under Part 4 of the Act, and

(c) to provide time-limited consents for the display of certain advertisements, and

(d) to regulate the display of advertisements in transport corridors, and

(e) to ensure that public benefits may be derived from advertising in and adjacent to transport corridors.

(2) This Policy does not regulate the content of signage and does not require consent for a change in the content of signage.

The height of the pole sign, as originally proposed was greater than the height of the proposed building to which it relates. This proposed height for the pole sign has since been reduced to 6m, which is considered acceptable.

4 - Definitions

The proposed signage can be defined as ‘business identification signs’ and ‘advertisements’ pursuant to Clause 4 of the SEPP. As a result, the overall classification of the proposed signs are ‘signage, which incorporates both categories of sign.

Business identification signage means a sign:

(a) that indicates:

(i) the name of the person, and

(ii) the business carried on by the person,

at the premises or place at which the sign is displayed, and

(b) that may include the address of the premises or place and a logo or other symbol that identifies the business,

but that does not include any advertising relating to a person who does not carry on business at the premises or place.

Advertisement means signage to which Part 3 applies and includes any advertising structure for the advertisement.

Sign 2 of the proposed signage is considered to be ‘business identification signage’, with the other signs contained in the application being more consistent with the definition of “advertisement”. Both sign types are permissible at this locality, but it is noted that the advertisements are subject to additional parts of the policy compared to the business identification sign.

The advertising signs are subject to the additional provisions of Part 3 of the policy, because it can be classified as “advertising”, whilst the business identification sign, whilst a sign, is not defined in the policy as advertising and not subject to Part 3 of the policy.

All of the signs (ie both the general advertising and the business identification signs) are, however subject to assessment against the provisions of Schedule 1 of the Policy. Due to the numbers and types of signs proposed, none of the signs may be erected or considered exempt development (ie not requiring consent).

The proposed pylon sign will display fuel prices, which places that sign outside the ambit of ‘business identification signage’. Pricing of fuel by Service stations is a statutory requirement by NSW Fair Trading which under its legislation requires the following:

All NSW petrol station operators are required to display the price of regular unleaded petrol. The sign must:

· be positioned and lit so that any price it displays can be readily seen by motorists approaching the petrol station when the station is open; and

· display a price that must be a price per litre of petrol.

The size of the sign should be determined by what is reasonable in the circumstances, given the criteria outlined above.

Petrol station operators will not have to display signs if the erection of a price sign is inconsistent with local council planning restrictions (NSW Fair Trading).

This is addressed in detail in the Schedule 1 assessment below.

6 - Signage to Which this Policy Applies

(1) This Policy applies to all signage:

(a) that, under another environmental planning instrument that applies to the signage, can be displayed with or without development consent, and

(b) is visible from any public place or public reserve, except as provided by this Policy.

(2) This Policy does not apply to signage that, or the display of which, is exempt development under an environmental planning instrument that applies to it, or that is exempt development under this Policy.

The proposed signage can be displayed with development consent and will be visible from a public place, and therefore SEPP 64 applies to the application.

8 - Granting of Consent to Signage

A consent authority must not grant development consent to an application to display signage unless the consent authority is satisfied:

(a) that the signage is consistent with the objectives of this Policy as set out in Clause 3(1)(a), and

(b) that the signage the subject of the application satisfies the assessment criteria specified in Schedule 1.

The signage is consistent with the aims, objectives, etc. of the plan and a Schedule 1 assessment is undertaken below.

Part 3 of the SEPP

As indicated above, the provisions of this part are only applicable to the advertisements being proposed.

Clause 11 - Requirement for Consent

Clause 11 states:

A person must not display an advertisement, except with the consent of the consent authority or except as otherwise provided by this Policy.

The applicant is seeking consent for the proposed signs.

Clause 13 - Matters for Consideration

Clause 13 triggers the requirement for the development to be consistent with this Policy, as well as the assessment criteria contained within Schedule 1. An assessment of the criteria contained within Schedule 1 is undertaken below.

Clause 14 - Duration of Consents

(1) A consent granted under this Part ceases to be in force:

(a) on the expiration of 15 years after the date on which the consent becomes effective and operates in accordance with Section 83 of the Act, or

(b) if a lesser period is specified by the consent authority, on the expiration of the lesser period.

A condition limiting the duration of the consent for the pylon sign is included in the notice of determination.

23 - Freestanding advertisements

(1) The consent authority may grant consent to the display of a freestanding advertisement only if the advertising structure on which the advertisement is displayed does not protrude above the dominant skyline, including any buildings, structures or tree canopies, when viewed from ground level within a visual catchment of 1 kilometre.

Schedule 1 Assessment Criteria

Character of the Area

· Is the proposal compatible with the existing or desired future character of the area or locality in which it is proposed to be located?

· Is the proposal consistent with a particular theme for outdoor advertising in the area or locality?

The proposed pylon sign as is now proposed is 6 m high (in its original form it was 8m high). It is noted the proposed development incorporates a 6.1m awning or canopy, and the top plate of the proposed building is 6.1m. Structures either side of the subject property are less than this height.

A visual representation of the proposed sign and how it might appear is shown in the following rendered drawing.

DA 426-2016 PeisleyA (002) - sign position as proposed - 160-178 Peisley Street

Figure 7 –streetscape after the development is completed

It is considered the proposed pylon sign will not protrude above the skyline and will not have a significant adverse effect on neighbourhood character, though it is conceded the proposed development is far from ideal in terms of its streetscape presentation.

The area is characterised as a mix of commercial, industrial, rail and communications infrastructure with a heritage overtone in the locality. Residential influences are less prevalent and less influential to the neighbourhood character. The character of the land is further influenced by the high profile location on the entrance to the business area of the city. Existing signage in Peisley Street to the south of Summer Street for several blocks is mixed. There are several other pylon signs (notably outside the railway station and opposite at Aldi), both of which are at or below the 6m height guide.

There is a greater density of signage as Summer Street is approached, and less signage further away. Buildings are generally two storeys on the western side of Peisley Street, and a mix of vacant, blocks, and one and two storey forms on the eastern side of the street.

The proposed pylon sign is considered to be consistent with the existing character of the area, taking into consideration the overall scheme proposed with its mix of pylon, wall, fascia, and canopy signs on the building and fuel canopy, which are both set back from the main road. The proposed freestanding pylon sign will be erected on the corner of at the frontage to Peisley Street, and will be a significant impact on character and presentation. It is not ideal that this sign be included in the overall scheme, but it is considered to within acceptable parameters in terms of impacts on character and streetscape.

Special Areas

· Does the proposal detract from the amenity or visual quality of any environmentally sensitive areas, heritage areas, natural or other conservation areas, open space areas, waterways, rural landscapes or residential areas?

The subject land is not within an environmentally sensitive area, but the area subject property is adjacent a listed heritage items and a conservation area.

Views and Vistas

· Does the proposal obscure or compromise important views?

· Does the proposal dominate the skyline and reduce the quality of vistas?

· Does the proposal respect the viewing rights of other advertisers?

The proposed signage, apart from the 6.0m pylon sign, is shown to be limited to flush wall and canopy signage set back from the road, and as such will not obscure views, dominate the skyline, or impact the viewing rights of other signs in the area. The 6.0m pylon sign is sited in a manner that will not impact upon views, and is a height commensurate with the heights of the building on the land and adjacent properties, therefore will not dominate the skyline, nor reduce the quality of view corridors.

Streetscape, Setting or Landscape

· Is the scale, proportion and form of the proposal appropriate for the streetscape, setting or landscape?

· Does the proposal contribute to the visual interest of the streetscape, setting or landscape?

· Does the proposal screen unsightliness?

· Does the proposal protrude above the tree canopies in the locality?

· Does the proposal require ongoing vegetation management?

In relation to these matters, none of the signs contained in the proposal can be considered in scale with the general building forms and massing evident in the street. The proposal in terms of messaging and visual impact is not inconsistent with the intent of the listed planning outcomes.

Site and Building

· Is the proposal compatible with the scale, proportion and other characteristics of the site or building or both on which the proposed signage is to be located?

· Does the proposal respect important features of the site or building, or both?

· Does the proposal show innovation and imagination in its relationship to the site or building or both?

The proposed development is compatible to the scale of the buildings. The site is vacant at the present time, but there are no conflicts expected to arise with respect to the future proposed building. The proposed signage for the development is considered to be more or less standard design responses for this style and scale of development.

Associated Devices and logos with advertisements and advertising structures

· Have any safety devices, platforms, lighting devices or logos been designed as an integral part of the signage or structure on it is to be displayed?

No safety devices or logos that are likely to be misidentified as a safety or traffic sign are incorporated into the proposed advertisements.

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 (Parts 8 – Development In Business zones and Part 14 –Advertising) is the principal element of the DCP applicable to the proposed development. 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 (Orange LEP 2000) is zone B3 Commercial Core (Orange LEP 2011). As such, Orange DCP 2004 – Part 8 is relevant to this proposal. The provisions of Part 8 are considered below.

Design and Character

Part 8 of the DCP stems from the recommendations of the Structure Plan developed by consultants Dickson Rothschild in 2002/2003. 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.

There is a need to create unifying elements along street facades and to integrate heritage features with new buildings.

Chapter 8 – Development in Business Zones

Central Business District - Design Requirements

The subject property is located on the periphery of the Central Business District (CBD). Part 8.1-1 of the DCP requires that buildings within the CBD have a high level of urban design to contribute to the regional status of the CBD as a regional hub, with attention given to façade features, external materials, colour and advertising.

It is considered that architecturally the proposed development is compatible to its surroundings. It is noted that there is a diverse range of styles and finishes of the buildings in the locality. There are significant heritage buildings on the opposite side of Peisley Street (ie on the street’s its western side). There is a significant heritage precinct to the south in the rail activity related buildings. The former Roberts’ Bakery is located to the north and is also of heritage design and significance.

However, there are also buildings and sites of contemporary design with little or no heritage value. There are two motor vehicle showrooms to the north, and on the opposite side of Peisley Street there is a supermarket. These more contemporary elements of the streetscape have their detracting qualities mitigated by several elements, involving increased setbacks, low or small scale for the buildings, and/or elements of landscaping in the frontage areas.

It is considered that for the proposed development, to mitigate its effects on the character of the area, it will be necessary to require all three of these elements (ie. setbacks, low scale and landscaping). With regard to landscaping, the applicant has submitted a draft plan which was referred to the Manager, City Presentation, and the following comments have been provided:

“The submitted landscape plan falls well short of being satisfactory as several of the identified species to be used would not tolerate the severe frost conditions that are prevalent during an Orange winter, eg the Gymea Lilly (Doryanthes excelsa) and Mock Orange (Murraya paniculata) which will not tolerate the frosts.

The landscape bed in the south-western corner has the capacity to host one to two small deciduous trees to enhance the streetscape, such as Malus sp, Prunus sp or Pyrus sp - small trees growing to 6 to 10m in height.

Additional diversity of shrubs, such as the Indian Hawthorn (Rhaphiolepis indica) ie shrubs growing 1 to 1.5m in height along the western frontage are required, ie. replace the Doryanthes with more suitable shrub species, eg. Westringea sp, Correa sp.

There is also potential to enhance the northern landscape buffer through widening the landscape strip and planting a layered garden (ie two tiers of shrub layer) Callistemon (as shown) in the rear and a shrub growing to 1m in the foreground.

The Murraya shall be replaced on the north eastern corner with a species known to tolerate the extreme frosts Orange is susceptible to, eg. Pittosporum sp, Magnolia sp (Little Gem), Michelia sp (Port Wine Magnolia).”

The applicant was informed of these concerns, along with some issues relating to the parking spaces along the northern boundary. They have indicated by email that no objection is raised to a condition requiring a revised landscape plan (and another separate condition relating to parking changes, assessed elsewhere in this report).

A condition incorporating the above recommendations is included in the consent.

Chapter 14 - Advertising

Advertisements

· The location, size, colour and design of advertisement complement the character of the locality.

· Advertisements on buildings fit within the envelope of the building.

As set out in the SEPP 64 assessment earlier in this report, the revised proposed signage is considered to be acceptable for this site and location, with the exception of advertisements and moving signs.

· Freestanding pole or pylon signs relate to the height of associated buildings in business and industrial areas.

The applicant is proposing a pylon sign with a height of 6m. This is considered an appropriate height, consistent with the scale of the development and other signage within the vicinity.

High-Profile Areas

· Business identification signs complement the character of the locality.

As addressed above, the proposed signage is considered to be acceptable in this locality. Subject to conditions of consent, the signs will not impact on the nearby residential zone, are in keeping with other signage on the highway, and provide suitable identification of the service station.

Chapter 15 - Car Parking

The DCP sets out the minimum car parking requirements for a service station, which are three spaces for each work bay, and one space per 25m² of gross floor area (GFA) of shop, convenience store or payment area. The building, which contains a payment area, a shop and a toilet, has a GFA of 200m². No work bays are proposed as part of this service station. As such, the development generates a requirement for eight car parking spaces. A total of ten car parking spaces are proposed on the site, one being a disabled parking space with a disabled shared zone. The excess parking is a leftover of the earlier rendition in the proposal, wherein the GFA of the convenience store was substantially larger than the current version of the proposal.

Three of the spaces along the northern boundary are parallel parks which is not ideal in this situation. Accessing these spaces is more difficult and the placement along the boundary reduces the ability to optimise the landscaping site. Landscaping along the northern boundary of a substantial nature is necessary in this case in order to keep the less desirable streetscape elements of this proposal. The car yard to the north separates elements of the streetscape, and thereby limits their impact on the streetscape if they were permitted to operate in a unified way. As a rough idea of how the site layout is needed to be improved, the applicant has accepted the following design concept and requested a condition to achieve the outcome be imposed.

Figure 8 - recommended changes to landscaping and car parking

Loading

Deliveries to the site will be by 19m semi-articulated tanker vehicle. This aspect of the development was referred to the RMS for advice, as well as Technical Services staff and the COTC.

It took the applicant several attempts of relocating the fill points for the underground tanks, and the elimination of one of the pumps from the proposed station to provide enough aisle widths for the delivery truck to enter and leave in a forward direction. The main issue with the vehicle deliveries was making sure the vehicle could enter and leave across the driveway as perpendicular to the road alignment as possible. If the entry or exit angles are too shallow there are potential conflicts with other traffic in Peisley Street and inadequate vision for pedestrians and traffic (it should be noted that the delivery vehicle must begin its entrance manoeuvre, and finish its exit, on the right hand lane of Peisley Street and said manoeuvre must cross the inner lane of Peisley Street. This is a legal traffic manoeuvre, but it must be possible to carry this out safely.

The revised traffic manoeuvre diagram are as shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9 – manoeuvring diagram

As previously advised, RMS gave the following response to the revised DA on 17 June 2017:

“I refer to an email from Marc Kiho, Development Engineer at Orange City Council referring amended plans for the DA426/2016 to Roads and Maritime Service (RMS) for comment. I note DA426/2016 has been referred to the RMS in accordance with Section 138(2) of the Roads Act 1993, Clause 18 of the State Environmental Planning Policy No.64 (Advertising and Signage) and Section 104 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure 2007).

I note the amended plans include relocation of the fuel storage tank inlet point to the rear of the site.

The RMS does not object to the proposal, and, pursuant to Section 138(2) of the Roads Act 1993 grants its concurrence”.

The RMS has imposed a number of conditions which are included in the consent. Council’s Technical Services staff have reinforced this assessment, stating in the assessing report “Comments from the RMS should be attached separately as a condition”.

The City of Orange Traffic Committee (OTDC) at its meeting of 14 February 2017 considered the original proposal and raised concerns about the solutions that have been applied for the internal circulation patterns. The COTC shared the RMS’ concerns regarding the shallow access and egress angles, and the safety issues this generates for pedestrians and other traffic. They noted the loss of parking spaces in the street which will result from the proposed development in its current form. The internal traffic circulation patterns as submitted are considered unsatisfactory and increase the chances of traffic conflicts in the current form.

The COTC have not considered the revised plans, but it is noted that the revised plans do address the key points raised.

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

Buildings to be Upgraded (clause 94)

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

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

Context and Setting

The context and setting of a particular area is established by taking into account the surrounding situation having regard for adjoining land uses, scenic qualities, scale of surrounding development, previous land use, etc. The locality immediately surrounding the site is characterised by mixed land uses including hotels, motor vehicle sales premises, a restaurant, rail precinct, supermarket and various specialty outlets. The subject property is identified in the CBD Structure Plan (forming part of the DCP provisions) as a commercial area of tertiary significance. The subject property is not itself a heritage item, and is not within a conservation area, but is in proximity to both, and fairly visible as an element of the streetscape and neighbourhood character.

The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the concept of a “tertiary commercial” site. The architecture site design and land use are not conducive to the traditional building forms that are part of the central CBD character, but it also needs to be acknowledged that this particular locality has similar land uses (eg. the motor vehicle sales yards) that are of a similar ilk to the land use being proposed in this application, and set the tone of what a “tertiary commercial area” is meant to look like and function.

The proposed land use is considered acceptable to its context and setting on that basis, subject to the imposition of conditions (such as limiting the sign heights, and increasing the landscaping).

Noise Impacts

Potential noise impacts of the proposed development have been considered, but are not considered to be a key matter of consideration in this instance. There are residential occupancies within the CBD, however the existing noise levels in this locality are already at an elevated state, except at night. It is considered that the primary sources of noise to the area are road traffic and rail related noise. It is further considered that the proposed development is unlikely to exacerbate those noise generators in any measurable way.

Traffic Impacts, Access and Site Design

The subject land is located adjacent to Peisley Street, with one of the principal constraints being the entry and exist of large fuel tankers to the site in such a way as safety for traffic and pedestrians is not compromised. This was not evident in the original designs submitted for consideration, but has been satisfactorily addressed in the amended plans.

The requirements of the RMS have been integrated into the notice of approval as conditions of consent.

Given the high profile nature of the subject land and the proximity to a classified road, the development was referred to the COTC for comment. COTC supported the concerns of the RMS. As the amended plans have received RMS issues, and the COTC in its comments did not add any other issues for consideration, it was not considered necessary to refer the amended proposal back to the COTC for further comment. COTC at the time assessed the original proposal and did not request that the matter be returned to them for further assessment.

It is considered that the proposed development, subject to some minor adjustments to the basic site plan layout will ensure that access points, car parking, loading and manoeuvring arrangements are sufficient for the proposed service station, and will not adversely impact on the surrounding road network, or on neighbouring properties.

Council agrees with the position of the RMS and COTC. It is considered that the development would be appropriate in terms of traffic impacts subject to the conditions of consent noted above.

Visual Impacts

The development is not likely to present any unreasonable impacts in terms of visual amenity, where the building and canopy are set back from the street, acceptable colours and materials are proposed, and the scale and design are in keeping with other buildings in the surrounds. The heights of the proposed pylon sign has been reduced to 6m, which is consistent to the general standards of limiting sign heights to be not higher than the buildings to which they relate The landscaping plan as submitted is not satisfactory, being poor in its species nomination, and lacking in likely mature heights for those species. The landscaped areas are considered inadequate. These shortcomings can be addressed by conditions of consent, which the applicant has agreed to.

Environmental Impacts

As set out in the SEPP 33 analysis of this report, there is some risk to the environment through potential leaking of underground tanks and pipes. The guidelines state that where the risk criteria has found to be acceptable to people, then the environmental risk could also be tolerated. However, the water table in this location is high, and conditions of consent are recommended in relation to monitoring for leaks. Monitoring has been recommended in the submitted PHA, and the EPA also recommends monitoring wells.

Management of stormwater on the site has been conditioned in the consent.

Potential risks from ongoing contamination was a major impediment to allowing the proposed development to proceed. The applicant has now submitted a validation report that attests to the site being suitable for purpose in its current state. This is a key question in legislation. By answering that the site is suitable for the proposed use, and providing some evidence to support that statement, the applicant has now allowed the development to proceed, with Council able to conclude that the risks to life and property from contamination on the site being minimal.

Safety, Security and Crime Prevention

A Plan of Management is required which sets out considerations to ensure the safety and security of staff, customers, workers and the wider community. Measures include adequate staff training, holding an Incident Register on the site (including complaints), installation of a ‘panic button’ for emergencies, 24 hour CCTV surveillance, money handling procedures, theft procedures, external lighting, clear sightlines to forecourt, and restricted staff areas. The proposed development is considered acceptable in this regard, and a condition of consent is recommended to ensure that the service station is operated in accordance with this Plan.

Socio-economic Impacts

The development has the potential to present positive socio-economic impacts. The development will allow additional employment during both the construction and operational phases of the development.

Cumulative Impacts

With appropriate conditions of consent the development is not likely to present any unreasonable cumulative impacts within the locality. The noise impact assessment concludes that the development is acceptable in terms of noise. Traffic, parking and access are also considered to be acceptable. Furthermore, the development is considered acceptable in terms of hazard risk, and will not present any unreasonable environmental impacts within the locality.

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

There are no known physical constraints which would render the site unsuitable for the proposed service station. Adequate services and utilities are available to the site to facilitate the proposed development. The submitted reports demonstrate that the site is suitable for this use. The submitted Preliminary Hazard Analysis and Multi-Level Risk Assessment demonstrate that the proposal is not a hazardous activity and is suitable for this site.

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

The proposed development is defined as "advertised development" under the provisions of the LEP. The application was advertised for the prescribed period of 14 days and at the end of that period no submissions from the public had been received.

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, D18/3017 ⇩

2 Plans, D18/3389 ⇩

3 Validation Report, D18/3391 ⇩

4 Agency Submissions, D18/3397 ⇩

Planning and Development Committee 6 February 2018

2.2 Development Application DA 426/2016(1) - 160-178 Peisley Street

Attachment 1 Notice of Approval

OrangeCityCouncilNEW#45524E (2)

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

Development Application No DA 426/2016(1)

NA18/ Container PR9811

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 81(1)

Development Application
Applicant Name:	RPS Australia East Pty Ltd
Applicant Address:	PO Box 428 HAMILTON NSW 2303
Owner’s Name:	Telfield Pty Ltd & Wizby Pty Ltd Lots B, C, D, E, F DP 37972 - 160-178 Peisley Street, Orange
Land to Be Developed:
Proposed Development:	Service Station and Signage

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

Determination
Made On:	6 February 2018
Determination:	CONSENT GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:

Consent to Operate From:	7 February 2018
Consent to Lapse On:	7 February 2023

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 minimise the impact of development on the environment.

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

(5) To maintain neighbourhood amenity and character.

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

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

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

Conditions

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

(a) Plan/s numbered - drawings TP03 REV D, TP04 REV C, TP05 REV B, LP-001 REVD, LP-002 REV D, LP-003 REV D , SK06 Rev A (7 sheets)

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

as amended in accordance with any conditions of this consent.

PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

(5) An amended landscaping plan shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. The plan shall have regard to the advice provided in the assessment of the application by Council, relating to alternative species, more substantive plantings along the western frontage and northern side boundaries, and extension of the landscape beds along the northern boundary.

It is noted that this consent does not approve the removal of any trees from the site, which may require separate consent or permits, if not considered exempt development under the Orange Development Control Plan 2004.

(6) 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.

(7) The applicant shall prepare and submit a Litter Patrol Management Plan for the approval of the Manager of Building and Environment prior to the issue of a construction certificate. The Litter Patrol Management plan shall detail the commitments required to be undertaken by the operator of the premises to suitably manage the pick-up of rubbish from the site and the surrounding street network and open spaces.

(8) Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, details showing how compliance will be achieved with Australian Standard AS1940-2004 “The storage and handling of flammable and combustible liquids”, are to be submitted to Council/accredited certifier for assessment.

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

(10) A Liquid Trade Waste Application is to be submitted to Orange City Council prior to the issuing of a Construction (or Occupation) 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.

(11) All stormwater from the site is to be collected and piped to the existing piped drainage system at the intersection of Summer Street and Peisley Street. Engineering plans for this stormwater system are to be submitted to and approved by Orange City Council prior to a Construction Certificate being issued.

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

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

(13) All stormwater is to be collected and piped to an onsite stormwater treatment system. The design and construction of the stormwater treatment system for the subject land shall ensure that the quality of stormwater leaving the developed site shall achieve the following stormwater quality targets:

· 85% reduction in the post development mean annual load of Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

· 65% reduction in the post development mean annual load of Total Phosphorus (TP)

· 45% reduction in the post development mean annual load of Total Nitrogen loads (TN)

· 90% reduction in the post development average annual gross pollutant (>5 millimetres) load

· 90% reduction in the post development mean annual load of Hydrocarbon

· No observable Hydrocarbons present in stormwater discharge (<10ppm).

Orange City Council is to approve engineering plans for this stormwater system prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate. The applicant shall undertake comprehensive water quality modelling on for the site, using an accredited assessment tool (recommended using Music™ or other approved assessment tool) and shall include copies of the electronic data files.

PRIOR TO WORKS COMMENCING

(14) A detailed site plan shall be submitted to Council prior to works commencing. The site plan shall accurately show the location of where the excavated material will be stockpiled, identify all drainage channels (natural or constricted) within the site and show the measures that will be implemented to prevent sediment from entering the drainage channels

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

(16) 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.

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

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

(18) If Aboriginal objects, relics, or other historical items or the like are located during development works, all works in the area of the identified object, relic or item shall cease, and the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, and representatives from the Orange LALC shall be notified. Where required, further archaeological investigation shall be undertaken. Development works in the area of the find(s) may recommence if and when outlined by the management strategy, developed in consultation with and approved by the OEH.

(19) Any excavated material removed from the site shall be tested for contamination and a record in accordance with current procedures applicable in NSW made and submitted to both the EPA and Council. The destination of the removed material is to be accurately recorded and passed on to Council and the EPA. The receiver of waste material must be licensed by the NSW Environment Protection Authority to receive that waste. If a non-licensed premises is intended to receive waste from the site then an approved notice within the meaning of Section 143(4) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (Section 143 Notice) must be supplied prior to removal of the material from the remediation site. Details of material removed including volume, mass, classification, destination and any Section 143 Notices are to be submitted to Council and the EPA.

(20) Soil disturbance activities must not cause any environmental harm outside the site. The soil disturbance area is to be fully bunded, fenced and dust suppression measures implemented during the excavation and construction phases. Erosion and sediment controls must be in place to prevent any soil leaving the remediation site. Runoff from areas of potential contaminated soil, whether in situ, stockpiled or in excavation pits, must not be permitted to leave the site without relevant testing or treatment.

(21) Further validation is required after completion of the excavation, but prior to the excavation being filled, or new tanks installed, that certifies there is no risk from residual contaminants to groundwater or the water table from the site. This further validation shall be carried out in accordance with current reporting standards. In the event that the excavated site reveals levels of contamination that are either a risk to human health or at risk of entering the water table or groundwater sources, further remediation (requiring separate development consent) is required to be carried out prior to further work on the site under this development consent proceeding.

(22) 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.

(23) A Registered Surveyor’s certificate identifying the location of the building on the site must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority.

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

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

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

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

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

(28) Heavy-duty concrete kerb and gutter laybacks and footpath crossings are to be constructed in the position shown on the plan submitted with the Construction Certificate application. The works are to be carried out to the requirements of the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code and NSW Roads and Maritime Services.

(29) Any existing kerb and gutter laybacks located on the frontage that are not part of the approved entrance and exit to the development shall be replaced with standard concrete kerb and gutter and the adjacent footpath area re‑graded to the shape and level requirements of footpaths in the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

(30) State Rail pursuant to the provisions of State environmental Planning policy (Infrastructure 2007) require the following

Fencing

· Security fencing along the rail corridor is essential to prevent unauthorised entry. A 1.8m (minimum height) chain wire fence or similar to prevent access onto the rail corridor is imposed on the developer. During construction, temporary fencing to prevent unauthorised access into the rail corridor shall be provided.

Stormwater

· No additional stormwater flows toward the rail corridor and all wastewater shall be appropriately treated and disposed of, so as to not affect State Rail land or infrastructure.

(31) Prior to the issuing of an Occupational Certificate, the Applicant shall submit to Council documentation demonstrating that the following plans and systems have been developed and implemented:

(a) TRANSPORT OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Arrangements covering the transport of hazardous materials including details of routes to be used for the movement of vehicles carrying hazardous materials to or from the development. The routes selected shall be consistent with the Department of Planning’s Hazardous Industry Planning Advisory Paper No. 11, ‘Route Selection’. Suitable routes identified in the study shall be used except where departures are necessary for local deliveries or emergencies.

(b) EMERGENCY PLAN

A comprehensive Emergency Plan and detailed emergency procedures for the development. The plan shall be consistent with the Department of Planning’s Hazardous Industry Planning Advisory Paper No. 1, ‘Emergency Planning’.

A comprehensive Safety Management System, covering all on-site operations and associated transport activities involving hazardous materials. The Safety Management System shall be consistent with the Department of Planning’s Hazardous Industry Planning Advisory Paper No. 9, ‘Safety Management’.

(32) Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans and shall be permanently maintained to the satisfaction of Council's Manager Development Assessments.

(33) A total of nine (9) off-street car parking spaces shall be provided upon the site, such that all spaces are perpendicular to the kerbing provided onsite. An amended site plan incorporating these changes is required to be submitted that incorporates these requirements. The required spaces shall be provided in accordance with these final approved plans, and constructed (line marked and sealed, with appropriate dimensions) in accordance with the requirements of Council's Development and Subdivision Code prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

(34) 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.

(35) 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.

(36) 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.

(37) Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate, evidence of registration of the food premises with the NSW Food Authority is to be submitted to Council/accredited certifier.

(38) A Certificate of Compliance, from a Qualified Engineer, stating that the stormwater treatment system complies with the approved engineering plans and is commissioned and ready for use shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issuing of an Occupation Certificate.

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

(40) 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

(41) Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) impose the following operating restrictions on the approved development:

· Vehicular access and egress between the site and Peisley Street shall be via the approved vehicular access ways only.

· The exit driveway shall be no more than ten (10) metres wide. The driveways shall be constructed in concrete and shall match existing road and footpath levels.

· Prior to occupation of the development, “No Entry “(R2-4) signs are to be provided on the land at each side of the entry driveway. The signs are to face the site to advise motorists not to exit the site onto Peisley Street via the designated entry driveway.

· All vehicle movements to and from the site shall be in a forward direction.

· Adequate turning circles and vertical clearance shall be provided within the site to accommodate the largest type of vehicle 919m articulated vehicle) that will visit the site during construction and operation.

· All activities including loading and unloading of goods associated with the development are to be carried out onsite in the dedicated areas.

(42) All equipment must be installed to manufacturer’s recommendations and must comply with all the relevant standards listed within.

Specific safety features of the site, as set out in the submitted Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA) submitted with the development application shall be adhered to strictly at all times. The applicant shall ensure that safety procedures are well posted on the site and shall further ensure that all staff are adequately inducted as to correct safety procedures and protocols as set out in the PHA.

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

(44) Twelve (12) months after the commencement of operations of the development, and every three (3) years thereafter, the Applicant shall carry out a comprehensive Hazard Audit of the proposed development consistent with the Department of Planning’s Hazardous Industry Planning Advisory Paper No. 5, ‘Hazard Audit Guidelines’. The audit shall be carried out by a qualified person or team, independent of the development. Compliance documentation shall be submitted to the Council within 28 days from the date of the audit.

(45) The signage approved by this application is to be in accordance with the Department of Planning and Environment’s Transport Corridor Outdoor Advertising and Signage Guidelines 2007, and is not to flash, move or be objectionably glaring or luminous. All signage is restricted to that contained in this approval or exempt development, as defined in the Orange LEP 2011 (as amended) and State Environmental Planning Policy 64 – Advertising and Signage, with the exception of the fuel prices on the pylon sign as required by NSW Fair Trading. As such, no sign is permitted to display any advertising relating to a person or company that does not carry on business at the premises.

(46) The consent insofar as it relates to the advertising signs on the site, is time limited under Clause 14 of SEPP-64 to 15 years after the date on which the consent becomes effective and operates in accordance with Section 83 of the Act.

(47) 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.

(48) Copies of maintenance records for servicing of the stormwater treatment system and/or bio retention basin shall be forwarded to Council on 1 December annually.

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

Other Approvals

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

Water, sewer and stormwater

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

(3) All plumbing and drainage (water supply, sanitary plumbing and drainage, stormwater drainage and hot water supply) is to comply with the Local Government (Water, Sewerage and Drainage) Regulation 1998, the Plumbing Code of Australia 2016 - Plumbing & Drainage and Australian Standard AS3500 - National Plumbing and Drainage Code. Such work is to be installed by a licensed plumber and is to be inspected and approved by Council prior to concealment.

(4) Orange City Council is the Water and Sewer Authority for the Orange City Council area. Therefore all water and sewer works must be inspected by Council. These inspections CANNOT be carried out by a private certifier.

(5) The following inspections are required to be carried out by Council as the Water and Sewer Authority:

· internal sewer

· hot and cold water installation

· external sewer

· stormwater drainage

· final on water, sewer and stormwater drainage and Council services.

(6) Hot water shall be stored at a minimum of 60^OC and be delivered to all sanitary fixtures used for personal hygiene (bathrooms/ensuites) at a temperature not exceeding 50^oC. Where tempering valves are installed, a sign is to be permanently fixed on the hot water heater adjacent to the tempering valve (clearly visible) indicating:

“A tempering valve has been installed to prevent scalding. This valve is to be renewed at intervals as recommended by the manufacturer.”

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

(8) All stormwater is to be disposed of in a manner suitable to the site.

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:	7 February 2018

Planning and Development Committee 6 February 2018

2.3 Development Application DA 229/2017(1) - 104 Lysterfield Road

RECORD NUMBER: 2018/51

AUTHOR: Daniel Drum, Senior Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged	28 June 2017
Applicant/s	Orange MS Investments Pty Ltd
Owner/s	Orange MS Investments Pty Ltd
Land description	Lot 21 DP 1212446 CA 5137 - 104 Lysterfield Road, Orange
Proposed land use	Subdivision (24 lot Torrens title)
Value of proposed development	$0

Council's consent is sought for a 24 lot residential subdivision of 104 Lysterfield Road, Orange, being Lot 21 DP 1212446 (the ‘subject property’).

The proposed subdivision would create 23 lots in the order of 400 to 600m² and a residual development lot of 1.53ha. The proposed subdivision also includes provision for connecting north–south and east–west roads.

The proposed subdivision is the second stage of subdivision of the subject property, with the first stage being approved under DA293/2015 in May 2016 (modified in September 2016). The first stage of subdivision is currently under construction.

The subject property is located within the developing Shiralee urban village. Development in the Shiralee urban village is generally required to be developed in accordance with the Shiralee Development Control Plan (Shiralee DCP), including the Shiralee Masterplan. Despite this requirement, the proposed subdivision includes a number of variations from the Shiralee DCP, including lot shape, width to depth ratio and size.

While variations from the Shiralee DCP are generally not supported, Council staff recognise that the characteristics of the subject property and its ability to be developed in strict compliance with the Shiralee DCP were affected by the subdivision layout originally approved under DA293/2015 in May 2016 (modified in September 2016).

The foregoing assessment demonstrates that the proposed variations are acceptable.

Notwithstanding the foregoing issue, the proposed subdivision is considered to be consistent with the relevant aims, objectives and planning outcomes of the Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 and Orange Development Control Plan 2004.

DECISION FRAMEWORK

Development in Orange is governed by key documents summarised as follows:

State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) provide the NSW Government the ability to provide a legislative framework to assess specific matters. They are made by the Minister of Planning and generally have over-arching weight within the context of the issue they address.

Director’s Comment - The subject property is located within the developing Shiralee urban village. Development in the Shiralee urban village is generally required to be developed in accordance with the Shiralee Development Control Plan (Shiralee DCP), including the Shiralee Masterplan. The applicant seeks a departure from Council’s adopted DCP provisions that relate to this site (discussed in detail in the body of this report.) The matters in contention relate namely to provisions dealing with lot shape, width to depth ratio and size.

While variations from the Shiralee DCP are generally not supported, Council staff in the assessment recognise that the characteristics of the subject property are unique and its ability to be developed in strict compliance with the Shiralee DCP is compromised and partly affected by the subdivision layout originally approved under DA293/2015 in May 2016 (modified in September 2016).

The planning assessment demonstrates that the proposed variations are acceptable in this case. It is recommended that Council supports the subject development application.

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 229/2017(1) for Subdivision (24 lot Torrens title) at Lot 21 DP 1212446 CA 5137 - 104 Lysterfield Road, Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Council's consent is sought for a 24 lot residential subdivision of the subject property.

The proposed subdivision would create 23 lots in the order of 400 to 600m², and a residual development lot of 1.53ha. The proposed subdivision also includes provision for connecting north – south and east – west roads.

The proposed subdivision is the second stage of subdivision of the subject property, with the first stage being approved in May 2016 and subsequently modified in September 2016. The first stage of subdivision is currently under construction.

The arrangement of the proposed subdivision is illustrated in Figure 1, below.

Figure 1 - proposed subdivision layout

EXISTING CONDITIONS/SURROUNDING USE AND DEVELOPMENT

The existing conditions of the subject property are illustrated in Figure 2, below.

Figure 2 - the subject property – existing conditions

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

Section 5A Assessment

From 25 August 2017, the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2017 and Biodiversity Conservation Regulation 2017 were gazetted. State Environmental Planning Policy (Native Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017 was also gazetted. The implementation of this legislation (and supporting guidelines) is subject to savings provisions that defer their full effect for a period of three months from the date of gazettal for local development.

In this instance, site inspection reveals that the subject property is unlikely to have significant biodiversity or habitat value.

Section 79C – Evaluation

Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 sets out the matters that the consent authority is to take into consideration in determining a development application.

These matters are addressed in the body of this report.

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

Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011

Part 1 - Preliminary

Clause 1.2 - Aims of Plan

The aims of the Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 (‘OLEP 2011’) relevant to the application include:

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

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

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

The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the relevant aims of Orange LEP 2011. The relevant matters are addressed in the body of this report.

Clause 1.6 - Consent Authority

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

Clause 1.9A - Suspension of Covenants, Agreements and Instruments

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.

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

A search of Council’s records identifies that the subject property is not affected by any of the foregoing covenants, instruments, agreements or plans.

Clause 1.7 - Mapping

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

Land Zoning Map:	Land zoned a combination of R1 General Residential zone, R2 Low Density Residential zone & RE1 Public Recreation zone
Lot Size Map:	Minimum Lot Size a combination of 200m², 400m² and 2,000m².
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 zoned in a combination of R1 General Residential zone, R2 Low Density Residential zone and RE1 Public Recreation zone (Figure 3, below).

Figure 3 - Zoning Plan

Section 4B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 identifies that subdivision of land means:

“… the division of land into two or more parts that, after the division, would be obviously adapted for separate occupation, use or disposition.”

The objectives for land zoned R1 General Residential are:

· 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 objectives for land zoned R2 Low Density Residential are:

· 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.

The objectives for land zoned RE1 Public Recreation are as follows:

· To enable land to be used for public open space or recreational purposes.

· To provide a range of recreational settings and activities and compatible land uses.

· To protect and enhance the natural environment for recreational purposes.

· 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 development along the Southern Link Road has alternative access.

The proposed residential subdivision only applies to the land zoned R1 General Residential and R2 Low Density Residential. It is considered to be consistent with the foregoing objectives.

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

Clause 2.6 - Subdivision - Consent Requirements

Clause 2.6 Subdivision - Consent Requirements identifies that land may be subdivided, but only with development consent.

Part 4 - Principal Development Standards

Clause 4.1 - Minimum Subdivision Lot Size

Clause 4.1 Minimum Subdivision Lot Size requires the subdivision of land to be equal to or greater than the size nominated for the land under the Minimum Lot Size Map.

In relation to this site, the map nominates three minimum lot sizes, which are 200m²and 400m²for the land zoned R1 General Residential and RE1 Public Recreation, and 2,000m²for the land zoned R2 Low Density Residential.

The proposed subdivision is consistent with the minimum lot size requirements with the exception of proposed Lots 18, 19 and 20. These lots are generally located in an area identified as having a minimum lot size of 400m², however the rear portion of each lot is within an area identified as having a minimum lot size of 2,000m². This appears to be a result of the previous subdivision approved under DA 293/2015.

While the applicant has not identified this issue or sought to deal with it any way, Council staff accept that the orderly development of land requires that the resultant area must be incorporated into the proposed subdivision and that having regard to the Shiralee Masterplan, the most appropriate minimum lot size is 400m².

It is noted that approval is required under Clause 4.6 to vary the requirements of Clause 4.1. Clause 4.6 is addressed in further detail below.

Clause 4.6 – Exceptions to Development Standards

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards provides that 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 (other than a development standard expressly excluded from the operation of the clause).

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 that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

Further, development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard, unless the consent authority is satisfied that the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required, and 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 the concurrence of the Secretary has been obtained.

The proposed subdivision is consistent with the minimum lot size requirements with the exception of proposed Lots 18, 19 and 20. These lots are generally located in an area identified as having a minimum lot size of 400m², however the rear portion of each lot is within an area identified as having a minimum lot size of 2,000m². This appears to be a remnant of the previous subdivision approved under DA 293/2015.

As previously noted, while the applicant has not identified this issue or sought to deal with it any way, Council staff accept that the orderly development of land requires that the resultant area must be incorporated into the proposed subdivision and that having regard to the Shiralee Masterplan, the most appropriate minimum lot size is 400m².

For the sake of due process, Council staff have requested that the applicant provides an application pursuant to Clause 4.6 to confirm why compliance with the development standard is unreasonable/unnecessary in the circumstances, and to outline the environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

Council staff are satisfied that the application has adequately addressed the relevant matters and that the proposed subdivision is in the public interest as it is consistent with the objectives of Clause 4.1 Minimum Subdivision Lot Size and the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone.

Council has the assumed concurrence of the Secretary of the Department of Planning Environment for the purpose of Clause 4.6.

Part 7 - Additional Local Provisions

7.1 - Earthworks

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

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

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

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

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

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

(f) the likelihood of disturbing relics

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

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

The applicant has not proposed earthworks as part of the development application.

Notwithstanding, it is expected that some minor earthworks are likely to be limited to the extent of cut and fill required to construct new internal roads and create developable lots.

It is accepted that the required earthworks are unlikely to disrupt or have a detrimental effect on the existing drainage patterns and soil stability of the area; detrimentally affect a future use or redevelopment of the land; detrimentally affect the amenity of adjoining properties; or disturb any relics.

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

Councils Technical Services Department has advised that stormwater from the site is to be piped to the adjacent watercourse, where it is to be discharged through a standard headwall with appropriate scour protections.

Council’s Technical Services Department has also identified that a licence from the Department of Planning Infrastructure and Natural Resources for work within 40m of the watercourse.

7.6 - Groundwater Vulnerability

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

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

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

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

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

Given that the proposed development is not anticipated to involve the discharge of toxic or noxious substances it is considered unlikely to contaminate the groundwater or related ecosystems. Similarly, the proposed development is not anticipated to involve the extraction of groundwater and therefore would not contribute to groundwater depletion.

7.11 - Essential Services

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

Essential services include the supply of water and electricity; the disposal and management of sewage; stormwater drainage or onsite conservation and suitable road access.

The applicant has indicated that all services have the capacity to be extended to the site.

Council’s Technical Services Department has recommended a condition of consent to ensure arrangements can be made for all necessary essential services to be provided to the subject property.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land

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

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

Given that the subject property has a history of use for the purpose of horticulture, a Preliminary Contamination Investigation (PCI) was submitted with the development application.

Based on soil and laboratory analysis, the PCI concluded that the soil sampling program did not detect elevated levels of analysed metals and organochlorine pesticides, and that levels of all substances evaluated were near background environmental levels and below the EPA investigation threshold for residential land use.

Notwithstanding, consistent with the approach adopted in the assessment of DA293/2015 in May 2016, Council’s Building Surveyor has recommended a precautionary condition of consent requiring that chemical testing of each lot is to be undertaken to demonstrate that the land is suitable for residential use prior to the issue of a subdivision certificate.

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)

Orange Development Control Plan 2004 & Shiralee Development Control Plan 2015

Orange Development Control Plan 2004

The Orange Development Control Plan 2004 (“the DCP”) applies to the subject land. Chapters of the DCP relevant to the proposed subdivision include:

· Chapter 0 - Transitional Provisions.

· Chapter 2 - Natural Resource Management.

· Chapter 3 - General Considerations.

· Chapter 4 - Special Environmental Considerations.

Chapter 0 - Transitional Provisions

Section 0.2 - General Translation of Zones

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

The table identifies that R1 General Residential Zone and R2 Low Density Residential Zone correspond with the 2a Urban Residential and 2d Urban Transitional Zones, and the RE1 Public Recreation Zone corresponds with the Open Space Zone.

Chapter 2 - Natural Resource Management

Section 2.1 - Water Quality

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

Stormwater and groundwater quality issues have previously been addressed under “7.3 – Stormwater Management” and “7.6 - Groundwater Vulnerability”, respectively. In summary, it is considered that the proposed development is unlikely to have a detrimental impact on storm and ground water quality.

Section 2.3 - Vegetation and Section 2.4 - Flora, Fauna and Biodiversity

Section 2.3 - Vegetation and Section 2.4 – Flora, Fauna and Biodiversity identify that the natural environment of the Orange LGA has been heavily modified as a consequence of land clearing for various uses, including agriculture, plantation forests, mining and urban development; and that clearing of native vegetation has significantly affected native habitats.

Based on inspection of the subject property, it is evident that it has been highly modified by past agricultural practices and is unlikely to contain significant habitat or biodiversity value.

Chapter 3 - General Considerations

Section 3.1 - Cumulative Impacts

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

The proposed subdivision is generally consistent with the intended future of the land for residential purpose. Any likely environmental impact will be within community accepted levels.

Chapter 4 - Special Environmental Considerations

Section 4.3 - Land Shaping

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

Land shaping has previously been addressed under “Section 7.1 - Earthworks”. In summary, it is considered that the applicant has not proposed earthworks as part of the development application.

Notwithstanding, it is expected that some minor earthworks are likely to be limited to the extent of cut and fill required to construct new internal roads and create developable lots.

Section 4.4 - Contaminated Land

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

Land contamination has previously been addressed under “State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land”.

SHIRALEE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2015

The Shiralee Development Control Plan (Shiralee DCP) seeks to guide urban expansion south of the existing Orange urban area; promote a high quality urban environment with a diversity of housing and recreation opportunities; encourage alternative modes of transport and healthy lifestyles and reduce traffic congestion providing for the day to day needs of residents within the precinct.

These objectives are given effect by a series of development controls which generally deal with issues such as desired future character, local infrastructure, the village centre, residential buildings, private and public domains, the environment, and movement networks.

The general intent of the development controls for the future development of the Shiralee area is illustrated by the Shiralee Masterplan (Figure 5).

While the development controls are often written in a prescriptive manner, Section 1.8 of the Shiralee DCP provides that in exceptional circumstances Council may consider some variation in lot sizes and types. Any variation from the DCP is to be considered on a case by case basis and subject to Council’s satisfaction that the proposal meets or exceeds the aims and principles of the DCP.

The relevant controls of the Shiralee DCP are addressed below.

2.0 Desired Future Character

2.4 Subdivision

Section 2.4 Subdivision includes the following controls:

· Subdivision is to be consistent generally in accordance with the Masterplan design and intent per the DCP. Legislative requirements and DCP written controls take precedence over the Masterplan.

An extract from the Shiralee Masterplan is provided below (Figure 4). While the control identifies that subdivision must be ‘consistent generally in accordance with the Masterplan’, it is noted that the Masterplan lacks any meaningful detail against which the proposed subdivision can be assessed.

The appropriate assessment criteria is established in the following controls, set out below.

Figure 4 - Shiralee Masterplan (extract)

· Lot sizes are to be consistent with or greater than the adopted minimum lot size for the land under the LEP zoning map.

It is noted that this control requires lots’ sizes to be consistent with or greater than the adopted minimum lot size for the land under the LEP zoning map. It should be noted that minimum lot sizes are established by the LEP lot size map and not the LEP zoning map. This appears to be a simple drafting error which should not affect the obvious and logical intent of the control.

Lot sizes have previously been addressed under “Clause 4.1 - Minimum Subdivision Lot Size”.

The map nominates three minimum lot sizes, which are 200m²and 400m²for the land zoned R1 General Residential and RE1 Public Recreation, and 2,000m²for the land zoned R2 Low Density Residential.

The proposed subdivision is consistent with the minimum lot size requirements with the exception of proposed Lots 18, 19 and 20. These lots are generally located in an area identified as having a minimum lot size of 400m², however the rear portion of each lot is within an area identified as having a minimum lot size of 2,000m². This appears to be the result of the previous subdivision approved under DA 293/2015.

While the applicant has not identified this issue or sought to deal with it any way, Council staff accept that the orderly development of land requires that the remnant area must be incorporated into the proposed subdivision and that having regard to the Shiralee Masterplan, the most appropriate minimum lot size is 400m².

It is noted that approval is required under Clause 4.6 to vary the requirements of Clause 4.1. Clause 4.6 has been addressed in detail above.

· Where an oversized lot is proposed (substantially greater than the adopted minimum lot size), plans are to nominate a building envelope.

The proposed subdivision would create two oversized lots with one being 592.8m²and the other being 1.535ha.

The 592.8m²lot exceeds the medium lot range of 400–550m²by 42.8m². As such, it is considered that the proposed lot could not be further subdivided and does not require a building envelope.

The residual 1.535ha lot it is effectively a development lot which will be the subject of a future subdivision proposal. It is considered that it is not the intent of this control to require a building envelope to be established on a development lot.

· Building envelopes on oversized lots are to be positioned in a manner that clearly enables future subdivision of the lot to a pattern consistent with the masterplan layout and adopted minimum lot size for the land.

Refer to assessment above.

· Except for corner lots and where indicated otherwise on the Large Lot Classification Table, all residential lots are to have a width to depth ratio of between 1:4 and 1:2.5 to allow more opportunity for the subsequent dwelling to address both frontages.

Residential corner lots are to have greater width with a ratio of between 1:3.25 and 1:2.5 to allow more opportunity for the subsequent dwelling to address both frontages.

The lot size ratio for all lots, other than the residual development lot, are set out in Table 1 below.

Proposed Lot	Width	Depth	Ratio	Compliance with DCP
18	15	33.2	2.213333	No
19	15	33.2	2.213333	No
20	15	33.2	2.213333	No
21	17	29.6	1.741176	No
22	15.78	25.35	1.606464	No
23	15.78	25.35	1.606464	No
24	15.45	25.925	1.677994	No
25	15.25	26.5	1.737705	No
26	14.2	26.4	1.859155	No
28	15.1	26.5	1.754967	No
29	14	28.95	2.067857	No
30	18.7	39.8	2.128342	No
31	16	28.7	1.79375	No
32	15.1	26.2	1.735099	No
33	16.1	25.4	1.57764	No
34	15.8	25.4	1.607595	No
35	15.78	25.4	1.609632	No
36	13.1	20.8	1.587786	No
37	16.7	25.05	1.5	No
38	15.4	28.4	1.844156	No
39	14.7	37	2.517007	No
40	20.9	37.6	1.799043	No

Table 1 - Lot Width to Depth Ratio (other than corner lots and residual development lots)

From the outset, it is noted that all lots exceed the width to depth ratio established by the control.

The applicant has not identified this issue, nor sought to deal with it any way after being requested by Council staff. Notwithstanding, another contractor engaged by the applicant has provided a written statement to Council indicating that the foregoing ratios demonstrate ‘reasonably good compliance with the DCP’.

Council staff do not agree that a complete lack of compliance with the Shiralee DCP can be assessed as being ‘reasonably good compliance with the DCP’.

Notwithstanding, Council staff recognise that the characteristics of the subject property and its ability to be developed in strict compliance with the Shiralee DCP were affected by the subdivision layout originally approved under DA293/2015 in May 2016 (modified in September 2016).

In particular, it is noted that the altered alignment of the north–south and east‑west streets have had a substantial impact on lot depth, orientation and shape. This is demonstrated in Figure 5 below, which was provided by a contractor engaged by the applicant.

Based on the analysis presented in Figure 5, it is accepted that it would be difficult to achieve both the width to depth ratio required by the Shiralee DCP, as well as other controls such as achieving minimum lot size requirements. On this basis, it is considered that a departure from the DCP should be supported pursuant to the ‘exceptional circumstance’ provisions of Section 1.8.

Figure 5- analysis of DA293/2015

· Roads identified for Bus Routes:

- Intersections where the bus route turns are to be designed to accommodate full size coaches.

- At nominated bus stop locations the road reserve is to be increased by an addition of 0.5m to allow for passenger congregation and future street furniture. The front building setbacks of affected lots may be reduced by 0.25m to help preserve the pattern and rhythm of development.

Council’s Technical Services Department has reviewed the proposed subdivision and commented that the proposed road layout is satisfactory and generally in accordance with the Shiralee Development Control Plan.

2.5 Lot Typologies

Section 2.4 Lot typologies includes the following controls:

· Lot typologies and minimum sizes are to be consistent with the Masterplan, DCP and LEP zoning map.

An extract of the Shiralee Structure Plan and Housing Densities map is provided below (Figure 6).

Figure 6 - Shiralee Structure Plan and Housing Densities Map

While the proposed subdivision differs from the layout originally envisaged by the Masterplan, it is considered that each of the proposed lots, other than the residual development lot, should meet the lot typology requirements for medium lots. Medium lots are identified as being between 400m²–550m².

All proposed lots are within the range of 400m²–550m², with the exception of proposed Lot 40 which is 592.8m². While the proposed Lot 40 exceeds the lot typology requirement for medium lots, it is accepted that it is likely to be the only orderly outcome given the effect of the subdivision layout approved under DA293/2015.

It is considered that a departure from the DCP should be supported pursuant to the ‘exceptional circumstance’ provisions of Section 1.8.

It is considered that this control is not intended to apply to development lots such as the proposed residual 1.53ha lot.

· Any subdivision which creates more than three lots must not have any oversized lots. Oversized lots are lots that do not fit within the designated categories.

As discussed above, proposed Lot 40 exceeds the lot typology requirement for medium lots (i.e. 400m²–550m²).

It is considered that a departure from to the DCP should be supported pursuant to the ‘exceptional circumstance’ provisions of Section 1.8.

· Specific requirements for large lots within the Precinct are to be consistent with Large Lot Classification Diagram and Large Lot Classification Table.

Not applicable.

· Where subdivision involves the creation of a lot greater than the maximum for the lot typology, a building envelope is to be established on the title of the new lot. The dimensions of the building envelope are to be no greater than:

- Compact Lots: the width of the lot minus 1.2m (to provide for 0.6m side setbacks) by the depth of the lot minus the front and rear setbacks.

- Medium Lots: the width of the lot minus 2m (to provide for 1.1m side setbacks) by the depth of the lot minus the front and rear setbacks.

- The building envelope is to be positioned consistent the front and rear setbacks otherwise specified for the lot typology in this DCP.

While Lot 40 exceeds the lot typology requirement for medium lots, it only exceeds this requirement by 42.8m²(i.e. the maximum lot size is 550m² and proposed Lot 40 is 592m²).

Given that proposed Lot 40 could not be further subdivided, it is considered unnecessary to require a building envelope to be established.

The control would logically be used for an oversized lot which included sufficient land to be further subdivided, but which is not a residual development lot.

It is considered that a departure from the DCP should be supported pursuant to the ‘exceptional circumstance’ provisions of Section 1.8.

The residual 1.535ha lot is effectively a development lot which will be the subject of a future subdivision proposal. It is considered that it is not the intent of this control to require a building envelope to be established on a development lot.

· The building envelope is to be positioned consistent with the front and rear setbacks otherwise specified for the lot typology in this DCP.

Note: This control applies to compact and medium lots only.

Not applicable.

· Site coverage ratio is the ratio is the ratio between the overall site area and the combined footprint of all buildings on the property. The maximum site coverage ratio allowed for:

- 60% for compact lots

- 45% for medium lots

- 35% for standard lots

- 25% for large lots

Not applicable.

· All lots musty have direct street frontage to ensure good access and property amenity. Lots 3,000m²and larger are excepted.

All proposed lots have direct street frontage.

· Lots without a street frontage are to have a minimum size of 3,000m²providing that boundary landscaping is provided within any new development.

Not applicable.

· Corner lots are to achieve high quality street frontages on the primary and secondary street.

Not applicable.

· All compact, medium and standard lots need to achieve a solar orientation of where the long axis of the lot is:

- For north-south orientated lots between 20 degrees west of north or 30 degrees east of north; or

- For east-west orientated lots between 20 degrees north of east or 30 degrees south of east.

All proposed lots are consistent with this control.

3.0 Local Infrastructure

3.1 Infrastructure Provisions

Section 3.1 Infrastructure Provisions references Clause 7.11 of the Orange LEP 2011 and states that development is required to be provided with essential services including supply of water, electricity, gas and telecommunications infrastructure, disposal and management of sewage, stormwater drainage/onsite conservation and suitable road access.

In addition to the normal requirements of Clause 7.11, Section 3.1 states that all power lines are to be located underground.

Council’s Technical Services Department has recommended a condition of consent to ensure arrangements can be made for all necessary essential services to be provided to the subject property.

3.2 Ground Levels and Excavation

Section 3.2 Ground Levels and Excavation includes the following controls:

· Cut and fill is to be minimised with cut materials used onsite as either fill for buildings or used to even out landforms.

· Any cut is to be supported by a retaining wall or battered at a gradient of less than 1:4, provided that gradient is achievable entirely within the site boundaries.

· The design of any retaining wall greater than 600mm must be accompanied by a statement from an engineer attesting that the design is fit for purpose.

· Excavation for the purposes of development must not exceed a maximum depth measured from ground level (existing) of:

- If located not more than 2m from any boundary:1m

- If located more than 2m from any boundary: 2m

3.2 Ground Levels and Excavation

· Notwithstanding the above, excavation must not be more than 1m below ground level (existing) if the land is within 40m of a waterbody (natural). Such excavation must not interfere with or pose a risk of sedimentation to the water body – excavation within 40m of a water body (natural) must be accompanied by a report from a hydrologist demonstrating how the waterbody will be protected from harm.

· Filling, for the purpose of erecting a dwelling must not exceed 1m above ground level (existing).

· All excavation and/or filling that exceeds 600mm in depth/height must be contained by either:

- A retaining wall or other form of structural support that does not extend more than 1.5m from:

o External walls of the dwelling house,

o Decking connected to the dwelling house, or

o Principal private open space of the dwelling house,

o An unprotected sloping embankment or batter that does not extend from the dwelling house, decking or principal private open space by more than 3m, in which case the toe of the embankment or batter must be more than 1m away from a side or rear boundary.

· To facilitate assessment detailed engineering plans for retaining walls are to be supplied where the wall is intended to retain more than 600mm or more of material.
Note: for this clause “Principal Private Open Space” means courtyard space of up to 30m² that is located behind the main building alignment and is in close proximity to the living and entertaining spaces of the dwelling house.

The applicant has not proposed earthworks as part of the development application.

Notwithstanding, it is expected that some minor earthworks are likely to be limited to the extent of cut and fill required to construct new internal roads and create developable lots.

3.3 Public Domain

Section 3.3 Public Domain includes the following controls:

· Land identified for the RE1 Public Recreation Zone is to be dedicated to Council as public open space upon subdivision of the parent lot

Not applicable.

· Compensation for the dedicated land is to be in accordance with the relevant Section 94 Development Contribution Plan

· Footpath dining in the Village Centre is encouraged, although access on the footpath must be maintained and consideration must be given to access for the vision impaired and those in wheelchairs.

Not applicable.

· Outdoor dining furniture and signage must be approved by Orange City Council and provide a positive visual aesthetic to the streetscape.

Not applicable.

· Ensure reasonable pedestrian/wheelchair/pram crossing ability is designed into the road and median to ensure access into the heart of the village.

Council’s Technical Services Department has reviewed the proposed subdivision and commented that the proposed road layout is satisfactory.

It is recommended that landscaping within the public domain be addressed by condition of consent, requiring a landscaping plan in accordance with the Shiralee DCP to be submitted prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

3.4 Staging

Section 3.4 Staging includes the following controls:

· The Rifle Range exclusion zone, as shown in Figure 15. Land within the Rifle Range exclusion zone, may not be subdivided or otherwise developed until the rifle range has been decommissioned.

· The Hawke Dam Lane exclusion zone may not be subdivided or otherwise developed until the dam has been decommissioned or appropriate works are undertaken to safely convey discharges from the dam into the downstream watercourse or drainage system, in such a manner as to ensure no adverse flood risk is presented to downstream properties. Stormwater drainage design needs to be undertaken in accordance with Councils standard subdivision design code requirements. In particular adequate provision must be made for all potential overland flows into the subdivision from adjacent land as well as overland flows within the subdivision and their safe discharge onto downstream properties. Overland flows can be accommodated within road reserves or drainage reserves utilising a minor/major drainage design approach.

The subject property is not located within either the Rifle Range or Hawke Dam Lane exclusion zone.

7.0 Public Domain

7.1 Passive and Active Recreation Network

Section 7.1 Passive and Active Recreation Network includes the following controls:

· Open spaces and streets facing open spaces must be provided according to the Masterplan

· Where a property adjoins a park or other public space that is not a street or road, any residential development of that property:

- Must provide at least two windows from habitable rooms to face the public space. The windows are to be a minimum 2.5m² in size

- May not place the side or rear walls of sheds and outbuildings any closer than 2.5m from the boundary with the public space

· Properties adjoining a public park or other public space are encouraged to include a pedestrian gate along the boundary.

The applicant has not sought to address the passive and active recreation network. It is recommended that a condition of consent be applied requiring that a detailed landscaping plan be provided prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. The landscaping plan must be in accordance with the applicable controls of the Shiralee Development Control Plan and must be accompanied by a written statement which clearly demonstrates how the applicable requirements have been met.

7.2 Landscape

Section 7.2 Landscape includes the following controls:

· Eco link streets are to have an understory planting layer of native species including shrubs, groundcovers and grasses of maximum mature height of 1.5m with planting plans to be submitted for approval by Council.

· Streets with medians are to have an understory planting layer of species responding to the tree planting within the median, including shrubs, groundcovers and grasses of generally maximum mature height of 1.5m and of 1m within 5m of an intersection.

· Footpath verges within residential areas are to be planted with cool climate turf species, as approved by Council.

· Footpath verges and tree planting zones within the village centre, may be planted with robust groundcover and grass species in keeping with a high quality street environment and as approved by Council.

· A developer shall construct all footpaths, turf all verges and provide all road infrastructure planting prior to sale of building blocks.

· Orange City Council will plant all street trees.

· Maximum verge cross-fall from property boundary to kerb is to be 2%.

· Longitudinal gradient of verge is to match the gradient of the adjacent kerb. Retaining walls are to be provided along property boundaries accordingly.

The landscaping plan must be in accordance with the applicable controls of the Shiralee Development Control Plan and must be accompanied by a written statement which clearly demonstrates how the applicable requirements have been met.

8.0 Environmental Management

8.3 Stormwater and Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD)

Section 8.3 Stormwater and Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) includes the following controls:

· A comprehensive site-wide WSUD strategy is implemented for Shiralee.

· Streets and public spaces incorporate best practice WSUD elements including swales, rain gardens and detention/retention basins.

· WSUD elements are to incorporate native planting.

Council’s Technical Services Division has commented that Council will install Water Sensitive Urban Design techniques.

8.4 Environmental Hazards

Section 8.4 Environmental Hazards includes the following controls:

· Bushfire, flooding and other environmental hazards are to be assessed for each development site to ensure safety and compliance with all relevant codes, regulations and laws.

The subject property is not identified as a bushfire risk area and is not affected by the 100 ARI flood. Council staff are not aware of any other significant environmental hazards which may affect the subject property.

9.0 Movement Networks

9.2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Network and Associated Facilities

Section 9.2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Network and Associated Facilities includes the following controls:

· A cycle network is to be implemented in accordance with Figure 64. Cycle Network and be designed in accordance with Austroads Standards and RMS Guidelines.

· Footpaths to be provided on both sides of the street consistent with the street sections in Appendix C.

· Safe road crossings (e.g. marked crossings) are to be provided according to 9.4 Street Network Access Controls. Also refer indicative intersection treatments, Figures 75 and 76.

· Universal access to be provided throughout the precinct in accordance to AS.1428.1.

· On-road cycle routes are to be clearly line marked and sign posted.

· Any development that is assessed as requiring an on-site parking area or at least 5 spaces shall also be required to provide bicycle parking.

· Bicycle parking is to be provided at the ratio of 1 bicycle space per 15 car parking spaces (or part thereof).

· All bicycle spaces are to be provided with a fixed rack or other feature to facilitate chain locking the bicycle.

· Bicycle spaces are to be positioned so as to avoid conflict with car and service vehicle circulation.

· Bicycle spaces are to be clearly delineated from other parking areas by means of lane marking and/or signage.

Council’s Technical Services Division has commented that that the proposed road layout is satisfactory and that detailed design will be addressed via a condition of consent requiring detailed engineering plans prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. Conditions of consent are also recommended to require roads and paths to be built in accordance with the Shiralee engineering requirements.

9.3 Public Transport Network

Section 9.3 Public Transport Network and Associated Facilities includes the following controls:

· Bus routes and stops are to be positioned in accordance with Figure 67 - Bus Network.

· All bus stops must have a shelter that includes: seating with arm rests and lighting.

· Bus shelters are to be positioned on either side of the street at all stops indicated on Figure 67 - Bus Network.

· Pedestrian crossings must be provided within 30m of all stops.

· Continuous accessible paving must be provided from the shelter to pedestrian crossing.21.

9.4 Street Network and Access

Section 9.4 Street Network and Access includes the following controls:

· Other than where specified in the Masterplan there are to be no cul-de-sacs or no‑thru roads.

· Where new roads are aligned along existing property boundaries the first property to develop is to include stage one of the shared road including any central median reserve.

· All streets indicated on the Masterplan are to be designed and constructed in accordance with the relevant street typology diagram.

· Intersections are to be designed to maximise ease of movement for pedestrians and cyclists and to slow vehicular traffic. Indicative intersection treatments for four way and ‘T’ intersections are shown in Figure 75 and 76. Indicative Intersection Treatments.

· Traffic calming measures will be implemented in suitable locations to reduce vehicle speeds. Traffic calming measures include passive measures such as intersection narrowing, minimising width of road pavements, designation of slow speed streets and use of rumble strips at pedestrian crossing points and intersections.

· The principles of water sensitive urban design are to be incorporated in the road network for any new streets.

· Driveway crossovers are to be a maximum of 3m wide and are not to be constructed within 6m of an intersection. Crossover pavement is to match the adjacent footpath material.

· Garages and carports on corner lots are to be accessed from the longer street frontage and the crossover is to be aligned adjacent to the boundary furthest from the intersection.

· Marked Crossings, Refuge Islands and/or traffic signals are to be provided at street intersections on:

- Collector Streets

- the Southern Feeder Road, and

- Intersections of the ‘off road shared cycle and pedestrian path’.

Two stage roads

· On development of the first stage of a two stage road, the design shall include a buffer strip alongside the neighbours existing boundary. This strip is to be created as a Torrens lot and vested with Council to ensure Council can maintain control over access arrangements.

On development of the second stage of a two stage road, Council will convert the buffer strip from a lot to a road reserve to enable the construction of turning bays as part of the development.

9.5 Traffic Management

Section 9.5 Traffic Management includes the following controls:

· Key intersections shown on the management plan are to be designed to Council’s requirements.

· Intersections along nominated bus routes are to be designed to accommodate the turning arc of coach buses.

· Marked crossings, refuge islands and/or traffic signals are to be provided at street intersections on: Collector streets, the Southern Feeder Road and intersections of the off road shared cycle and pedestrian path. This will improve pedestrian and bicycle safety.

· All streets except for Collectors and the Southern Feeder Road are to have a maximum 40km per hour speed limit.

· All street kerbs are to be upright not roll kerbs. Broken upright kerbs should be used where required for WSUD function.

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

Buildings to be Upgraded (clause 94)

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

BASIX Commitments (clause 97A)

Not applicable.

SECTION 94 DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS

In accordance with Section 94 of the Act and Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017 (Shiralee Release Area) a contribution towards the provision of the following public facilities is required:

Open Space and Recreation	@ $741.78 x 23	17,060.94
Community and Cultural	@ $215.33 x 23	4,952.59
Roads and Traffic Management	@ $979.42 x 23	22,526.66
Local Area Facilities	@ $17,903.20 x 23	411,773.60
Plan Preparation & Administration	@ $160.27 x 23	3,686.21
Sub Total		$460,000

The contribution will be indexed quarterly in accordance with the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017 (Shiralee Release Area). Attached are conditions requiring the payment of the required contributions prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate.

SECTION 64 - WATER AND SEWER HEADWORKS CHARGES

Section 64 water and sewer headworks charges are also applicable to the proposal. Such charges are calculated at the time of release of a Subdivision Certificate for the development. Attached are conditions requiring the payment of the required contributions prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate.

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

The proposed subdivision has been assessed against the relevant aims, objectives, planning outcomes and controls of the Orange LEP 2011, the Orange DCP 2004 and the Shiralee DCP 2015.

The assessment demonstrates that while the proposed subdivision does not meet some of the specific development controls of the Shiralee DCP 2015, it is generally in accordance with the intent of the document. Generally, any variation from the Shiralee DCP 2015 is due to the previous subdivision approved under DA293/2015.

The subdivision will have the effect of transforming former farming land to a portion to a new residential estate (or part thereof). The likely impacts associated with transformation are clearly extensive and will range from obvious impacts such as visual impact on the existing landscape through to less obvious impacts such as increased stormwater flows from impermeable surfaces.

Notwithstanding, given the intent of the Shiralee DCP 2015, it is considered that the likely impacts of the proposed development are acceptable and can be adequately managed via the recommended conditions of consent.

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

The foregoing assessment demonstrates that the subject property is suitable for the proposed development.

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. Notwithstanding, the development application was notified to the owners of 46 Shiralee Road, Orange, which is effectively surrounded by the subject property with the exception of the Shiralee Road frontage.

Three submissions were received at the end of the notification period, two being from the owner of 46 Shiralee Road and one being from a local interest group.

Environmental Interest Group

The submission from the local interest group focussed on the environmental significance of the western portion of the subject property. The submission identified that this land should not be developed for a residential purpose given that an environmental report has not been prepared and that it forms part of the stormwater harvesting catchment.

The submission concluded that the proposed development would be supported subject to the removal of proposed Lots 53–62.

The applicant has subsequently amended the development application to remove Lots 41‑62, being the western portion of the subject property. It is understood that this land will be subject to a future development application. The relevant issues will be considered as a part of an assessment of any future subdivision proposal.

Owner of 46 Shiralee Road – Submission 1

The first submission from the owners of 46 Shiralee Road focussed on the western portion of the subject property, and raised issues such as possible environmental impact, zoning and justification for development of compact lots.

As noted above, the applicant has amended the development application to remove Lots 41–62, being the western portion of the subject property. It is understood that this land will be subject to a future development application. The relevant issues will be considered as a part of an assessment of any future subdivision proposal.

Owner of 46 Shiralee Road – Submission 2

The second submission from the owners of 46 Shiralee Road raised for key issues:

Overall Lot Density

The submitter contends that the high density of housing proposed is inconsistent with the design principles of the DCP, because there is little local amenity other than nearby open space and views (which will be impeded following construction of houses).

Council staff note that the opening paragraph of Clause 2.2 Design Principles of the Shiralee DCP states:

“Shiralee will be developed in accordance with the following Design Principles which underpin the Master Plans:….”

On this basis, it is considered that the lot densities required by the Shiralee DCP have been conceived with regard to the local amenity. There is no further opportunity during the assessment of a proposed subdivision to consider whether the lot density required by the Shiralee DCP is appropriate with regard to local amenity.

As demonstrated in the body of this report, the proposed subdivision is generally consistent with the Medium Lot typologies anticipated for the subject property.

Soil Contamination

The submitter contends that while a Preliminary Contamination Investigation (PCI) was submitted with the development application, the PCI was undertaken in 2006 and that the horticultural use of the land continued after this time. Further, the submitter identifies that that soil sampling for the PCI only covered part of the subject property and may not adequately reflect the conditions of the whole property.

The adequacy of the PCI was originally considered in the assessment of Stage 1 under DA 293/2015(1) in May 2015. The officer’s assessment of DA 293/2015(1) noted that while the horticultural use of the property may have continued after the time of contamination assessment, the use progressively declined and ceased. The report concluded that it was probable that the level of any contaminant would have been highest during the period of greatest use.

Notwithstanding, the report identified that on a precautionary basis, a condition of consent should be applied requiring further testing of each proposed lot to ensure suitability for residential use. For the sake of consistency, it is recommended that the same approach be adopted for the proposed subdivision.

Objection to proposed Lots 53-62

The submitter objects to the approval of Lots 53 – 62 for a number of reasons including: they are partially zoned RE1 Public Recreation; impact on biodiversity; overland flow; lack of justification for compact lots and road alignment.

While the issues raised are legitimate, the applicant has amended the development application to remove Lots 41–62. The relevant issues will be considered as a part of an assessment of any future subdivision proposal.

The submitter has identified the construction of roads and services for Stage 1 of the subdivision has had a detrimental impact on the amenity of their property, particularly due to noise and vibration from rock breaking and movement of machinery, and windblown dust from construction areas and mounds of dirt located near the common property boundary.

The submitter contends that these impacts would be magnified during construction of the proposed Stage 2 subdivision due to the larger number of residential lots, which is closer proximity to the dwelling at 46 Shiralee Road.

The submitter states that if construction of the proposed subdivision would render life intolerable, Council should apply a condition of consent requiring the developer to offer to purchase 46 Shiralee Road for an amount reflective of its value, Alternatively, the submitter states that all possible steps should be taken to mitigate the impact of construction on the subdivision on 46 Shiralee Road and should include locating equipment and construction spoil as far away from the residence as practical at a minimum.

Council staff are aware of the noise and vibration impacts associated with the construction of Stage 1 of the subdivision. In order to minimise these impacts during the construction of Stage 2, Council staff recommend that a condition of consent be applied requiring that a Noise and Vibration Plan be prepared to ensure that noise and vibration measures are will be compliant with the relevant Australian Standard. The plan is to be prepared in consultation with any geotechnical report that itemises equipment to be used for excavation works.

A further condition of consent is also recommended to control the period for which activities generating noise levels greater than 75dB(A) (such as rock breaking, rock hammering, sheet and pile driving) be restricted to.

With regard to windblown dust, it is recommended that a condition of consent be applied requiring that a dust management plan be submitted to Council or accredited certifier prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, identifying how dust and sources of dust can be adequately managed during the construction process.

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

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, D18/3008 ⇩

2 Plan, D18/3322 ⇩

3 Submissions, D18/3350 ⇩

Planning and Development Committee 6 February 2018

2.3 Development Application DA 229/2017(1) - 104 Lysterfield Road

Attachment 1 Notice of Approval

OrangeCityCouncilNEW#45524E (2)

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

Development Application No DA 229/2017(1)

NA18/ Container PR27170

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 81(1)

Development Application
Applicant Name:	Orange MS Investments Pty Ltd
Applicant Address:	C/- Anthony Daintith Town Planning PO Box 1975 ORANGE NSW 2800
Owner’s Name:	Orange MS Investments Pty Ltd
Land to Be Developed:	Lot 21 DP 1212446 - 104 Lysterfield Road, Orange
Proposed Development:	Subdivision (24 lot Torrens title)

Building Code of Australia building classification:	Not applicable

Determination
Made On:	6 February 2018
Determination:	CONSENT GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:

Consent to Operate From:	7 February 2018
Consent to Lapse On:	7 February 2023

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) Proposed Subdivision of Lot 21 DP1212446 Shiralee Road – Orange.

Proposed Subdivision of Stage 2 Drawing No. 10106 DA5 Rev B, dated 15.01.2015 by Carpenter, Collins, Craig (one plan)

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

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

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

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

(3) 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.

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

(4) Prior to the commencement of works or issue of a Construction Certificate (whichever occurs first), a Noise and Vibration Management Plan is to be prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic and vibration expert addressing the likely noise and vibration from excavation and construction of the proposed development and provided to Council for approval. The Plan is to identify amelioration measures to ensure the noise and vibration levels will be compliant with the relevant Australian Standards and Assessing Vibration: A technical guideline (available www.environment.nsw.gov.au). The report shall be prepared in consultation with any geotechnical report that itemises equipment to be used for excavation works. The Plan shall address, but not be limited to, the following matters:

(a) Identification of activities carried out and associated noise sources.

(b) Identification of potentially affected sensitive receivers, including residences, churches, commercial premises, schools and properties containing noise sensitive equipment.

(d) Noise and vibration monitoring, reporting and response procedures.

(e) Assessment of potential noise and vibration from the proposed excavation and construction activities, including noise from construction vehicles.

(f) Description of specific mitigation treatments, management methods and procedures to be implemented to control noise and vibration during construction.

(g) Construction timetabling to minimise noise impacts including time and duration restrictions, respite periods and frequency (consistent with conditions of this consent).

(h) Procedures for notifying residents of construction activities likely to affect their amenity through noise and vibration.

(i) Contingency plans to be implemented in the event of non- compliances and/or noise complaints.

(5) A detailed landscaping plan for the proposed subdivision is to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager of Development Assessments prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. The amended landscape plan shall indicate the proposed landscaping of all road reserves in accordance with the following:

1 Street verges are to be fully turfed with cool climate species.

2 Median strips are to be landscaped with trees and understory plantings (shrubs, groundcovers and grasses) with a general maximum height of 1.5m, reduced to a 1m height for areas within 5m of an intersection.

3 Road infrastructure planting.

The landscape design shall have regard to the landscaping principles contained within the Shiralee Urban Release Master Plan.

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

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

(8) Proposed lots are to be provided with interlot stormwater drainage, including those lots abutting public land, where the surface of the entire lot cannot be drained to the kerb and gutter at the lot frontage. A grated concrete stormwater pit is to be constructed within each lot provided with interlot stormwater drainage. Engineering plans for this drainage system are to be approved by Orange City Council or an Accredited Certifier (Categories B1, C3, C4, C6) prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

(9) Stormwater from the site is to be piped to the adjacent watercourse, where it is to be discharged through a standard headwall with appropriate scour protection. Engineering plans of this required drainage system are to be approved by Orange City Council or by an Accredited Certifier (Categories B1, C3, C4, C6) and a licence from the Department of Planning Infrastructure and Natural Resources for work within 40 metres of the watercourse is to be submitted prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

(10) A 150mm-diameter sewer main is to be constructed from Council’s existing main to serve the proposed lots. Prior to a Construction Certificate being issued engineering plans for this sewerage system are to be submitted to and approved by Orange City Council.

(11) A water reticulation analysis is to be carried out by Orange City Council on any proposed water reticulation system for the development. Engineering plans are to be submitted to and approved by Orange City Council prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

The reticulation system is to be designed to supply a peak instantaneous demand by gravity of 0.15 L/s/tenement at a minimum residual head of 200kPa.

(12) The street lighting system shall be designed having regard to the relevant lighting controls contained within the Shiralee DCP. The applicant shall submit details of the street lighting system for approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

(13) A dust management plan is to be submitted to Orange City Council or an accredited Certifier upon application for a Construction Certificate. The approved dust management plan must include measures to ensure that dust, and sources of dust, do not a have a detrimental impact on the occupants of adjoining or proximate residential properties.

The approved dust management plan is to be implemented prior to construction work commencing and until completion of all work onsite.

PRIOR TO WORKS COMMENCING

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

(15) 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.

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

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

(17) Excavation, demolition, construction or subdivision work shall only be permitted during the following hours:

(a) 7am to 6pm, Monday to Friday, inclusive (with demolition works finishing at 5pm);

(b) 8am to 1pm on Saturdays with no demolition works occurring during this time; and

Works may be undertaken outside these hours where they do not create any nuisance to neighbouring properties in terms of dust, noise, vibration etc and do not entail the use of power tools, hammers etc. This may include but is not limited to painting.

In the case that a standing plant or special permit is obtained from Council for works in association with this development, the works which are the subject of the permit may be carried out outside these hours.

This condition does not apply in the event of a direction from police or other relevant authority for safety reasons, to prevent risk to life or environmental harm.

Activities generating noise levels greater than 75dB(A) such as rock breaking, rock hammering, sheet piling and pile driving shall be limited to:

(a) 8am to 12pm, Monday to Saturday; and

(b) 2pm to 5pm Monday to Friday.

The Proponent shall not undertake such activities for more than three continuous hours and shall provide a minimum of one 2 hour respite period between any two periods of such works.

“Continuous” means any period during which there is less than an uninterrupted 60 minute respite period between temporarily halting and recommencing any of that intrusively noisy work.

Noise arising from the works must be controlled in accordance with the requirements of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and guidelines contained in the New South Wales Environment Protection Authority Environmental Noise Control Manual.

(18) 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.

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

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

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

(21) The 21.6m wide road on adjoining Lot 100 DP1204145 is to be constructed half road width for the full frontage of the proposed development from the 15.5m wide road to Lysterfield Road. This work is to include road pavement and pavement surfacing to the centreline, kerb and gutter construction and earth-formed footpath on the development side of the road.

Shiralee Road is to be widened 2.245m in accordance with the Shiralee DCP.

(22) The proposed 19.0m, 21.6 and 25.6m wide roads shall be constructed in accordance with Orange City Councils Shiralee Engineering Requirements and Additional Information (D15/40462).

(23) Concrete pathways are to be constructed to the widths and standards stated in the Shiralee Development Control Plan and Orange City Councils Shiralee Engineering Requirements and Additional Information (D15/40462).

Construction work is to be to the requirements and standards of the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.

(24) Water and sewerage reticulation is to be provided to every lot in the proposed residential subdivision in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A SUBDIVISION CERTIFICATE

(25) In accordance with Section 94 of the Act and Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017 (Shiralee Release Area) a contribution towards the provision of the following public facilities will be required:

Open Space and Recreation	@ $741.78 x 23	17,060.94
Community and Cultural	@ $215.33 x 23	4,952.59
Roads and Traffic Management	@ $979.42 x 23	22,526.66
Local Area Facilities	@ $17,903.20 x 23	411,773.60
Plan Preparation & Administration	@ $160.27 x 23	3,686.21
Sub Total		$460,000

The contribution will be indexed quarterly in accordance with the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017 (Shiralee Release Area).

(26) Prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate all landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with the approved landscaping plan.

(27) Soil sampling for analysing chemical residue is to be carried out within the proposed Lots in a manner and frequency as determined by an appropriately qualified and experienced consultant giving consideration to previous specific uses and on-site characteristics of the site. A NATA registered laboratory is to carry out such testing. Reference is to be made to the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 and State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - “Remediation of Land”. The results of the testing are to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and are to demonstrate that the land is suitable for residential use, to enable a Subdivision Certificate to be issued.

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

(29) 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 23 ETs for water supply headworks and 23 ETs for sewerage headworks. A Certificate of Compliance, from Orange City Council in accordance with the Water Management Act 2000, will be issued upon payment of the contributions.

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

(30) Evidence from a registered NATA laboratory is to be submitted prior to the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate stating that the filling of all dams and low-lying areas has been carried out in accordance with Australian Standard 3798-2007.

(31) Application is to be made to Telstra/NBN for infrastructure to be made available to each individual lot within the development. Either a Telecommunications Infrastructure Provisioning Confirmation or Certificate of Practical Completion is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority confirming that the specified lots have been declared ready for service prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate.

(32) A Notice of Arrangement from Essential Energy stating arrangements have been made for the provision of electricity supply to the development, is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate.

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

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

(35) A Maintenance Security Deposit, in accordance with the provisions and requirements of the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code, is to be provided to Orange City Council prior to the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate.

A Certificate of Compliance, from Orange City Council, certifying that the maintenance security deposit has been paid, is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate.

(36) Where stormwater crosses land outside the lot it favours, an easement to drain water is to be created over the works. A Restriction-as-to-User under section 88B of the NSW Conveyancing Act 1979 is to be created on the title of the proposed lots requiring that no structures are to be placed on the site, or landscaping or site works carried out on the site, in a manner that affects the continued operation of the interlot drainage system. The minimum width of the easement is to be as required in the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.

(37) Prior to the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate, a Road Naming Application form is to be completed and submitted with a plan of the whole development defining the stage being released - including future road extensions.

(38) Prior to the release of Lots 31 to 35 legal access shall be provided over adjoining Lot 100 DP1204145.

(39) 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 a Subdivision Certificate, unless stated otherwise.

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.

*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:	7 February 2018

Planning and Development Committee 6 February 2018

2.5 Development Application DA 247/2017(1) - Tarawell Crescent and Margaret Road

RECORD NUMBER: 2018/73

AUTHOR: Michael Glenn, Senior Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged	11 July 2017
Applicant/s	Westacre Developments Pty Ltd
Owner/s	Westacre Developments Pty Ltd
Land description	Lots 30 and 31 DP 246174, and Lot 33 DP 1055815 - Tarawell Crescent and Margaret Road, Orange
Proposed land use	Subdivision (30 lot residential)
Value of proposed development	Not Applicable

The subject application is referred to the Planning and Development Committee (PDC) for determination because Council’s Planning Protocols require subdivisions with a yield of more than ten lots, and which are not covered by a subdivision masterplan, to be referred to PDC for determination.

Council's consent is sought for the subdivision of the land described as Lots 30 and 31 DP 246174, and Lot 33 DP 1055815. Whilst a total of 30 lots are shown on the plans, it should be noted that proposed Lot 30 is a drainage reserve. Taking into consideration the existing lots that form the development site (which affects Section 94 contributions), and the status of proposed lot 30 as an infrastructure lot, the net yield of the proposed development is 26 residential lots and a public infrastructure lot.

Two of the proposed lots are constrained by significant vegetation and have restricted building envelopes for them. Proposed Lot 29 is unusual in that it is proposed as a lot with an area of 11,638m². It is understood this lot is configured in this way primarily to limit road construction costs at this time. Given the R2 zoning applicable to the site, this large lot should not be considered a future unit site (since residential flats are not permitted in the zone). Proposed Lot 28 will need some further redesign (which the applicant has agreed to) as the proposed boundary would otherwise cut through the middle of the site’s significant vegetation, which is an identified Key Threatening Process under the OEH guidelines.

The proposed layout will require the removal of several large eucalyptus paddock trees from the site. These trees offer significant landscape value, and have some significant seed-banking and nesting value, but do not constitute an Endangered Ecological Community (EEC). Their removal can be supported, subject to the provision of replacements elsewhere.

The subject properties are in close proximity to the Northern Distributor Road (NDR) with some of the lots within the noise shadow of the NDR. As a consequence, the application required the submission of a full noise impact assessment. This assessment has been reviewed as part of the overall merit assessment of the application.

The applicant proposes sole public road access from Sophie Drive. Council’s Technical Services Division advises that Sophie Drive has sufficient capacity (kerb to kerb width) for the additional traffic generated by the proposed lots.

Council’s Technical Services Division advises that the existing public roads terminating in an unfinished state behind serving Lots 22 and 29 will be required to be terminated at this time with a turn bay capable of accommodating a 12.5m heavy rigid vehicle (garbage truck/fire engine). This requirement will impact on the dimensions, area and shape of proposed Lots 29 and 22. Whilst the impact on proposed Lot 29 to accommodate the turn bay will be of limited impact (due to the large size of that proposed lot), the impact on proposed Lot 22 will be proportionally greater (because of the small starting size of Lot 22) effectively halving the available area of that lot. Its proposed area at the present time is 880m².

The proposed layout is functional in terms of its road layout, however, from the juxtaposition of urban design and community integration, the failure to provide road connections to the housing commission area further to the west is not ideal. There remains the possibility for road and footway connections to be provided across Lot 29 to the adjoining connections in the future, if that lot is further developed.

Conditions relating to the construction of the turn bays have been applied. The turn bays are required to be constructed prior to the release of Lots 13 to 29 (inclusive).

Locality Plan

Figure 1 – Locality Plan

DECISION FRAMEWORK

Development in Orange is governed by key documents summarised as follows:

Director’s Comment – The proposed development is permissible with the consent of Council. The main issue in contention with this application is to determine whether or not Council should insist upon the connection being provided through to the adjoining residential land at this time. The proposed layout is functional in terms of its road layout, however Council’s DCP encourages the development of land based on the principle of achieving a modified grid layout rather than a series of cul-de-sacs. The applicant has requested that Council not insist upon a connection being provided through to the adjoining housing commission area further to the west at this time. The design of the subdivision is such that there remains the possibility if Council was of the view to support the development as submitted to provide a road and footway connection through to the adjoining land in the future if proposed Lot 29 (comprising an area of 11,638m²) is further developed. A Section 79C assessment of the development indicates that the development is acceptable in this instance. Council’s Technical Services Division have indicated support to the concept as proposed. Attached is a draft Notice of Approval outlining a range of conditions considered appropriate to ensure that the development proceeds in an acceptable manner.

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

No compensation is payable for open space or other dedications suggested in this proposal.

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

That Council consents to development application DA 247/2017(1) for Subdivision (30 lot residential) at Lots 30 and 31 DP 246174, and Lot 33 DP 1055815 – Tarawell Crescent and Margaret Road, Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

THE APPLICATION

Council's consent is sought for Subdivision (30 lot residential) at Lots 30 and 31 DP 246174, and Lot 33 DP 1055815 - Tarawell Crescent and Margaret Road, Orange.

THE PROPOSAL

Council's consent is sought for the residential subdivision of the subject land into 30 allotments (comprising 29 residential allotments and 1 public infrastructure lot). The design incorporates allotments that contain extensive significant vegetation, intended to be retained and protected to an extent from removal by the imposition of restrictive building envelopes.

Proposed lot sizes are generally under 1000m², except for Lots 28 and 29 which are substantially larger due to the presence of significant vegetation adjacent to them.

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 there is significant biodiversity or habitat value over several parts of the site. The most significant single element is the terrestrial vegetation on the site in the form of a more or less intact box gum grassy woodland remnant. This remnant is unique because it has retained a largely intact understorey, which is unusual for urban bushland.

The applicant has proposed larger sized lots (Lots 28 and 29) with restricted building envelopes which will lessen the impacts on biodiversity significance of these areas.

There is a proposed boundary for Lot 28 at its southern end, running in a roughly east-west direction and cutting through the middle of the native vegetation area. This element of the subdivision layout is likely to have a significant adverse effect on biodiversity value, since the boundary will at some point need to be fenced, and the fencing will require some level of clearing either side of the fence, and some level of site disturbance to install such fencing. Fencing (and fragmentation of EEC remnants) is an identified Key Threatening Process (KTP) under the OEH guidelines which are applicable to the assessment.

A condition is included in the consent to address this issue, requiring the inter-allotment boundary between Lots 28 and 29 to be redesigned and repositioned so that the boundary does not pass through the significant vegetation on either lot. The boundary fencing is required to be set back from the principal vegetation a minimum of 3m.

It is further considered appropriate to impose a condition requiring (prior to the issue of a fully endorsed Subdivision Certificate), a Restriction to User to be imposed on the titles of Lots 28 and 29, in favour of Orange City Council , that does not allow the planting of invasive exotic species on either of these lots, the removal of fallen timber without permission from Council’s Manager City Presentation, or the removal of understorey plants from the significant vegetated areas without the agreement of Council’s Manager City Presentation.

A condition requiring the installation of protective fencing in accordance with AS 4970-2009 to be installed around the protected areas, prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate for the subdivision.

With respect to the paddock trees, it is not considered reasonable to require the retention of these trees. Whilst the trees themselves are significant specimens, and do provide seed banking opportunities, the benefits derived from them do not warrant their retention. To offset the loss of these important trees, a condition is included that requires a minimum of 20 replacements (to be planted prior to the issue of the Subdivision Certificate) in the public open space on the western side of Lot 29 (generally within Lot 48 DP258905, known to Council as Plowman Park), or such other location as nominated by the Manager City Presentation. The applicant is obligated to water and maintain these trees until such time as the Subdivision Certificate has been released.

Aboriginal Heritage

The subject property is not identified in the Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS) managed by the office of Environment and Heritage (OEH). Notwithstanding, it is considered that a standard condition should be imposed that requires protection of any Aboriginal artefacts discovered during the subdivisions works being carried out.

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,

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

(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 relation to (a), the proposed development will detract from or decrease the open character of the locality, but will be consistent with and increase the residential character of the more urban areas nearby. The subject property is zoned R2 Low Density Residential, and it is appropriate to assume that the site would at some point be developed for urban purposes.

The development site is surrounded by similarly zoned low density residential land, with the exception of the open space land known as Ploughman Park.

With regard to (b), the proposed development does increase the stock of housing lots that, in some perspective, adds to the development opportunities of the city. Adding to the housing stock increases the potential for population growth that, in turn, suggests that the needs of the workforce will be met.

With regard to (c), the proposed development would not have any significant effect on the resources of the Orange City water supply.

With regard to (e), the proposed development does not include housing; however, it does increase the supply of residential allotments. This will produce the conditions needed to provide additional housing opportunities.

With regard to (f), it is recognised that the changes in zoning that occurred under LEP 2011 will result in some adverse effects on the surrounding landscape. However, within the context of the general provisions, the zoning, the other objectives of the LEP and the recognised primary view corridors and the like, it is considered that this is appropriate development for the site.

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:	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 property is zoned R2 Low Density Residential Zone under the provisions of the Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011. The proposed development is defined as a subdivision under OLEP 2011. Subdivision of land under LEP 2011 has the same meaning as defined in the Act. Pursuant to Clause 4B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, subdivision of land means:

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

Subdivision of land is permissible with consent in the R2 Low Density Residential zone. There are no minimum lot size provisions applicable to the development site.

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:

· 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.

In relation to the first objective, the proposed development would provide additional lots of land on which housing stock within the city can be provided. It will provide these additional lots at a scale consistent with typical low density development. In terms of lot yield and lot sizes, the proposed subdivision is consistent with the relevant controls. In relation to the second objective, the proposed subdivision would not impede the provision of other land to provide facilities and services should such a need ever arise in the future. In relation to the third objective, it is possible for public transport services to be provided to the new lots proposed.

Further, the configuration of the proposed development with open space along the creek lines is consistent with the zone objectives in that it would facilitate the provision of walking and cycling opportunities to, through and from the site. In relation to the last objective, the proposed development has no effect. The proposed development is not inconsistent with the objectives of the zone.

Clause 2.6 - Subdivision - Consent Requirements

Application has been made for the subdivision of the subject land. Clause 2.6 of OLEP 2011 permits the subdivision of the subject land only with development consent.

Part 4 - Principal Development Standards

Clause 4.1 - Minimum Subdivision Lot Size

This clause requires the subdivision of land to be equal to or greater than the size nominated for the land under the Minimum Lot Size Map. Whilst the subject property is zoned R2 Low density Residential, which often has a minimum lot size applicable, in this case there is no minimum specified lot size for the site.

Part 7 - Additional Local Provisions

7.1 - Earthworks

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

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

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

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

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

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

(f) the likelihood of disturbing relics

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

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

The earthworks proposed in the application are limited to the extent of cutting and filling required for the construction of roads and provision of services (such as drainage). The extent of disruption to the drainage of the site is considered to be minor. There is some potential for the bulk earthworks to adversely impact upon the health of significant vegetation on the site, and for this reason conditions have been included in the consent that require the installation of protective fencing that is installed to the standards specified in AS 4970 so as to minimise the risks to that vegetation.

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

With regard to (a) and (b), the proposed development is for subdivision of an existing three lot holding into residential lots. The future development of the 29 residential lots will likely consist of standard residential housing. Council has controls with respect to site coverage that will ensure that extensive parts of each allotment will have permeable spaces.

The future surface runoff for each lot will be directed to flow into Council’s stormwater reticulation system.

It is not anticipated that the proposed development will lead to future development unsuited to the capabilities of either onsite detention or the stormwater reticulation system.

With regard to (c), there will be some impacts arising with stormwater runoff for water quantity and water quality. Quantities can be expected to rise as hard surfaces like roads are installed but can be adequately managed by engineering works, which are imposed as conditions in the consent.

With regard to water quality, collection and increase in particulate content and nutrients is likely for a residential subdivision, although contamination from toxic or dangerous chemicals is considered minimal. Nutrient and particulate control is recommended under Water Sensitive Urban Design principals (WSUD) and for this site is managed under the water re-use scheme.

7.4 - Terrestrial Biodiversity

The site has biodiversity value but is not mapped under Council’s Local Environment Plan (LEP) as warranting an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) layer. This does not suspend the operation of Section 5a of the Act, but does mean that it is unnecessary to assess the application against the provisions of Clause 7.4.

7.6 - Groundwater Vulnerability

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

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

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

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

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

The 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

The following State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) are applicable to the proposed development.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas)

The operation of this SEPP is linked to Orange City Council’s Tree Preservation Order (under Development Control Plan 2004). Where the removal of vegetation forms part of an overall development application, the assessment of that vegetation removal can be considered as part of that DA.

The SEPP has its primary assessment provisions deferred because of the savings provisions embedded into the SEPP, which permits applications lodged but not determined before the relevant date (in this case 25 August 2017) to be determined under the old regime.

It is noted that the adoption of this SEPP was concurrent to the government’s suspension of Clause 5.9. Unlike the SEPP, there were no savings provisions applied to the removal of Clause 5.9.

The SEPP as a matter for consideration is acknowledged but has no significant impact on the assessment of this application.

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land

The subject property has for many years been used for extensive agriculture, which can act as a trigger for a contamination assessment under Council’s draft remediation strategy. The structure of Council's contamination strategy can be found in the quick reference guide produced by Contamination Central at the time of the preparation of the draft policy.

There is a flowchart that sets out the procedures when receiving new development applications. This flow chart is reproduced below:

Figure 2 - development assessment flowchart

Initial Evaluation – Matters for Consideration

Figure 3 - determining if the property is on the Contaminated Lands Information System (CLIS)

The subject land is not on Council’s Local CLIS. It is not recorded on the EPA Register as being contaminated.

Figure 4 - checking previous reports

There are no reports on the CLIS relevant to this matter.

Figure 5 - site inspections

There is no physical evidence to suggest a likely source of contamination. There are no sheds, sheep dips or spray dumps, and perusal of the historical aerial photography does not reveal the presence of such structures in previous times. The site has no prior history as a site used for intensive plant agriculture. It has been used for grazing on a very limited basis (hobby farming basically) for perhaps twenty years. Before that it is believed to have been also used for more serious general grazing.

Figure 6 - site history

The previous land uses of this site are reflected in the absence of structures on the site and its use for extensive agriculture over an extended period. There is no relevant history recorded in Council’s records. Its prior land uses are based on site observation and such deduced history does not suggest that the site has any significant contamination issues.

However, the existing land use for extensive agriculture is included in Appendix A of the quick reference guide as a potential source of contamination. This observation needs, however, to be further considered against the provisions contained in the Contamination Central draft policy in section 11.3, which states:

“land used for extensive agriculture should be assessed for site contamination where development applications relate to redevelopment in the vicinity of stock yards, stock dip or farm sheds where fuel or chemicals have been stored or handled”.

As previously alluded to the site was previously used for extensive agriculture, but the site does not have any of the triggers contained in the bolded part of the above-described clause. It appears to have been used solely as grazing land.

It is considered unlikely given the above analysis that the site is contaminated. However, notwithstanding the above assessment, it is recommended that a condition be attached to the Notice of Determination requiring soil sampling for analysing chemical residue be undertaken for the residential allotments in a manner and frequency as determined by an appropriately qualified and experienced consultant, giving consideration to specific uses and onsite characteristics of the site. The results of the testing will be required to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and are to demonstrate that the land is suitable for residential use to enable the Subdivision Certificate to be released.

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 7). 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 subject property was zoned Residential 2(a) under LEP 2000, and with the adoption of LEP 2011 the subject property was classified as R2 Low Density Residential, which is an equivalent zoning to the previous land classification. It is noted that the site is not subject to any DCP masterplan.

It is appropriate to apply such parts of Chapter 7 of the DCP as are applicable to the subdivision in the assessment. Additionally, the general provisions of Chapters 2 (Natural Resource Management) and 3 (General Considerations) have relevance with respect to cumulative impacts and scenic landscape issues.

Part 2 - Natural Resource Management

The DCP states:

Development that concentrates, redirects flows, increases flow rates or disturbs land in close proximity to creeks has the potential to affect waterways with associated erosion, sedimentation and release of nutrients, which combine to affect downstream water quality. Erosion appears to be particularly prevalent within the “North Orange” red earth soil types.

Urban stormwater has also been identified as a significant source of water pollutants. Uncontrolled stormwater flows from urban development has the potential to contribute to downstream impacts, including periodic flooding, erosion, sedimentation and reduced in‑stream water quality.

Orange City Council’s Drainage Strategy was adopted by Council on 19 June 1997 to identify measures required to control stormwater flow velocities and volumes.

Conditions are included that require the design and provision of a stormwater management system that minimises erosion, controls outflows and requires water quality to be at least as good as the best water currently being discharged from the site as a vacant allotment.

Part 3 - General Considerations

The applicant has responded to the site constraints in a way generally satisfactory to environmental issues affecting this site. The issues of slope, character, open space, linkages, proximity to the NDR and Council’s plans for road re-design have been generally responded to co-operatively by the applicant.

With regard to cumulative impacts, the DCP requires that applicants demonstrate how the development relates to the existing character of the locality. In this instance the character is generally residential.

There are significant vegetation remnants evident on the site. There is a major transport link in the form of the NDR immediately to the south. Each of these constraints have differing, and sometimes competing demands on land capability, but as a generalisation the proposed subdivision responds well to the constraints.

It is accepted that the proposed development is generally consistent with the lot sizes and subdivision patterns of the residential subdivisions that are nearby. Within that context and in the absence of any specific master planning in the DCP, it cannot be strongly argued that the proposed development is vastly inconsistent with the expected future character of the locality.

The proposed roads layout is considered functional, but not ideal. The applicant has not included connections for the site to the housing commission neighborhood located to the west. The preferred roads layout in the DCP is to utilize a modified grid layout, which recommends that connectivity between neighborhoods be provided. There will be a level of disconnection between the two areas as a result. Further opportunity to provide such connection will arise should the large Lot 29 be the subject of further development in the future.

The site has been given a zone that dictates what is appropriate to the site. The proposed development meets that standard. The density and lot size are urban residential. There are no significant land use conflicts likely to arise as a result of the proposed development viz its nearby and surrounding land use patterns.

Part 7 - Development in Residential Areas

General Principles

The DCP in its preliminary instructions includes the following guidelines for design of urban residential subdivisions, based on Department of Planning Urban Design guidelines:

“The Urban Form publication identifies the following issues for future development of the City:

· The square grid of 200 m blocks and the open space system along the creek lines are the most important features of Orange’s urban identity.

· Maintaining this pattern in new development will allow uninterrupted view lines, and offer variety as the streets traverse the topography. It will also result in the efficient provision of services and permeable pedestrian routes.

· Expanding open space along natural creek lines and in associated parks will increase amenity, provide environmental buffer zones, allow for drainage control structures and help people orient themselves by being able to read the landscape.

· Laneways that have been introduced through the original blocks as a cul-de-sac can be extended to give pedestrian or vehicular access across the blocks.

· As the town grows, radial expansion will require cross connections to assist the movement between outer suburbs.

The distribution of facilities such as schools and places of worship in existing development suggest similar distribution will be required near new residential development, ie, within a five- to ten-minute walking distance from every home”.

It is considered that the revised design responds positively to the majority of these urban design principles. As previously noted, the proposed street layout is not ideal, because there is a noticeable lack of connectivity to the suburb located to the west. However the proposed road system that is proposed is functional from the point of view of traffic management, and potential does remain on the site for connections to be provided to the west at some point in the future if Lot 29 is further subdivided or developed beyond a single dwelling.

Subdivision in LGA not forming part of a Masterplan Area

Subdivision – Lot Sizes and Battleaxe Lots

Residential lots in Orange are predominantly between 600 and 900m² in area. In recent years, the average residential lot size has reduced from about 800 square metres to about 750m².

This DCP establishes guidelines for residential subdivision.

Standard Lot 500m² or greater

Cottage Lot >350 and <500m²

Town House Lot 250 to 350m²

The submitted plans show all the proposed lots to be “Standard Lots”. There are no additional information requirements for standard lots as the assumption is that there are no particular difficulties in locating a standard detached dwelling on lots of this size.

There are no battleaxe allotments proposed under this application.

Corner Lots

Corner lots should be designed to provide for a house facing one street. Where dual occupancy development is proposed on a corner lot, each dwelling should face a different street.

The proposed development is consistent with this principle.

Dual Occupancy and Unit Sites

Dual occupancies in the R2 zone are permissible with consent. Under Clause 4.1B of the OLEP, a minimum lot size of 800m² is applicable. However, as there are no minimum lot sizes, a future development in which the subdivision precedes the dwelling houses is permissible on any lot, subject to satisfactory merit assessment.

Subdivision Layouts

The Department of Urban Affairs and Planning’s Urban Design Advisory Service publication on Urban Form describes the influences on, and effects of, the urban pattern of Orange as a Case Study.

Department of Urban Affairs and Planning’s Urban Form concludes that:

... the city is well contained within a multiple of the original square mile grid and no significant subdivision has occurred along the roads into town. Some subdivisions have occurred at the edges of the city, with curvilinear streets and cul-de-sac. Nearer the city there are very small blocks, shallow with a relatively wide frontage, which express the current fashion where a wide street address is more important than a big backyard.

The Urban Form publication identifies the following issues for future development of the City:

· The square grid of 200m blocks and the open space system along the creek lines are the most important features of Orange’s urban identity.

· Laneways that have been introduced through the original blocks as cul-de-sac can be extended to give pedestrian or vehicular access across the blocks.

· As the town grows, radial expansion will require cross connections to assist the movement between outer suburbs.

· The distribution of facilities such as schools and places of worship in existing development suggest similar distribution will be required near new residential development, ie, within a five- to ten-minute walking distance from every home.

The return to a modified grid layout in preference to the 1970’s urban-planning theories of curvilinear streets and associated cul-de-sacs has become more recently promoted in the City, such as in the layout for Ploughmans Valley. This principle will continue to be emphasised for the planning for new release areas for the foreseeable future.

A modified grid layout not only provides for more efficient servicing of residential land, views and improved connections between residential areas, the grid pattern is also consistent with energy efficiency principles. Orientation of boundaries along the north‑south and east-west axes encourages solar design of houses. Lots facing east or west need to be wider to promote northern sunlight.

In this case the layout is not ideal as the applicant does not wish to provide neighbourhood connections as the adjoining suburb to the south-west has not been proposed. This issue has been raised with the applicant, but they do not wish to construct street connections to this area. Adequate neighbourhood connections are available to the site from the south‑east via Sophie Drive, though it is noted that the distance to the road in the collector category is fairly long. Council’s Technical Services have reviewed this layout and are satisfied that it can function adequately.

Orange Subdivision Code

Council Technical Services Division is principally responsible for the application of the Subdivision Code. Technical Services have not raised objection to the submitted layout, and have imposed a suite of conditions to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the Subdivision Code requirements.

Planning Outcomes

PO 7.2-1 PLANNING OUTCOMES FOR URBAN RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
Item	Performance Standard	Compliance
1	Subdivision layouts in areas zoned Urban Residential prior to this plan are generally in accordance with the applicable plan maps in Appendix 1.	There are no layout masterplans for this site.
2	Lots are orientated to optimise energy-efficiency principles.	It will generally be possible to incorporate Energy efficient principals into future development on the proposed lots.
3	New roads are planned according to modified grid layouts with restrained use of cul-de-sac roads in new developments according to the UDAS Urban Form principles for Orange.	The proposed roads layout does not propose a modified grid layout because of the lack of connections to the adjoining neighbourhood to the west. Potential exists for such connections to be provided in the future.

4	Local open space is provided along creek corridors to create open space linkages for environmental conservation and social interaction. Release areas removed from creeks provide for open-space links incorporating substantial stands of native vegetation.	There are no creek systems traversing the site.
5	Release areas indicate trunk cycle and pedestrian ways that link the area to major open space networks and activity centres (schools, shopping centres and employment areas).	There is no masterplans applicable to this site. As such, pedestrian links, open space networks and cycle paths are not required.
6	Lots below 500m² indicate a mandatory side setback to provide for solar access and privacy.	No lots below 500m² are proposed, however the conditions for road treatments are likely to cause lot 22 to be reduced to below this area. Whilst specific detail on the configuration of this lot is not known at this stage, there are other examples elsewhere within the City where small lots can be effectively developed with smart urban designs.
7	Lots below 350m² indicate existing or planned house layouts, which identify how privacy, solar access, vehicular access and private open-space needs are to be achieved.	No lots below 350 m² are proposed. It is considered unlikely that lot 22 will be so significantly affected as to reduce its area to this level.
8	Up to 25% of new subdivisions comprise small lots in dispersed locations	No small lots proposed.
9	Lots are fully serviced and have direct frontage/access to a public road.	Conditions are included in the consent to require these outcomes.
10	Design and construction complies with the Orange Development and Subdivision Code	The proposed development will comply with the subdivision code.
11	Corner lots provide for a house to front one street	The proposed corner lots (lots 3, 12 and 13) have a short and a long boundary, which conforms to this principal.
12	Battleaxe lots provide an adequate accessway width for the number of dwellings proposed to be served in order to allow for vehicle and pedestrian access and location of services	There are no battleaxe lots proposed for this development.

Lots proposed to be used specifically for dual occupancy or units in new residential areas are identified on development application plans to inform prospective purchasers of the mixed residential form of the area and measures are outlined on how prospective residents are to be informed of these identified sites prior to purchasing land.

Four lots have been identified within the subdivision as being directly suitable for dual occupancy. Three of the lots identified are located on corner allotments which provides opportunity for access to be provided to both streets. The subject lots are ideally located on the northern side of the street to maximise access to northern sunlight into principle living spaces. The forth lot is located on a large residential parcel. No objections. It should be noted that the LEP specifies a minimum lot size of 800m2 for dual occupancy except where otherwise specified. Approximately 20 of the proposed lots within the subdivision have areas exceeding 800m2.”

DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS

Section 94 Contributions

The subject land comprises three existing lots. The proposed subdivision plan shows 29 residential lots and 1 drainage reserve lot, resulting in a 26 lot yield for future development

Pursuant to Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017, the following contributions have been levied for the subject development and are attached as a condition of consent.

The payment of contributions as per the following shall be made to Council in accordance with Section 94 of the Act and the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017 (development in LGA Remainder Area) towards the provision of the following public facilities:

Open Space and Recreation	@ $3,868.46 x 26 additional lots	100,579.96
Community and Cultural	@ $1,121.86 x 26 additional lots	29,168.36
Roads and Traffic Management	@ $5,106.25 x 26 additional lots	132,762.50
Plan Preparation and Administration	@ $302.90x 26 additional lots	7,875.40
TOTAL		$270,386.22

The contribution will be indexed quarterly in accordance with the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017 (development in LGA Remainder Area). Attached is a condition of consent requiring the payment of the Section 94 Contributions prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate.

Section 64 Water and Sewer Headwork Charges

In contrast to Section 94 contributions which can apply a credit for the three existing lots, no credits are applicable for Section 64 Water and Sewer Headworks charges, as the existing lots that are subject to the proposed development have no access to water and sewer services.

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

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)

Major Site Constraints – Suitability for Residential Subdivision

NDR Noise

A report submitted with the application by noise consultants Wilkinson Murray measured noise levels in most potentially affected habitable spaces using a predictive tool based on the following assumptions:

· dwellings are established as close as 1m to the boundary

· dwellings are single storey

· windows could be left open.

No boundary fences were factored into the assumptions for the prediction model.

The report concludes that based on the assumptions stated above, the predicted internal noise levels in bedrooms and other habitable spaces can be constructed so that the internal noise levels do not exceed 40dBA. This is the accepted industry standard for restful slumber for residential development.

The principal source of noise disturbance for the residential subdivision will emanate from the NDR. The abovementioned report by Wilkinson Murray was viewed by Council’s Manager Building and Environment (who has the necessary experience to competently review noise reports and noise issues) with the following brief comments provided:

I confirm that I have assessed the noise assessment undertaken by Wilkinson Murray – Report 17366 Version A dated December 2017.

I am satisfied that the proposed subdivision would comply with the noise requirements that arise from the ISEPP.

I note that the study only considered single storey residential development.

Therefore the consent should have a condition that restricts residential development within the proposed subdivision to single storey, unless an individual acoustic assessment is undertaken for the specific dwelling. Noise levels within such a proposed dwelling must not exceed 35 dB(A) in bedrooms between 10pm and 7am and 40 dB(A) elsewhere in the building (other than a garage, kitchen, bathroom or hallway)

It may be best to have this restriction on the 88b instrument – thus condition this.

It is considered that, subject to the imposition of conditions the proposed development will not suffer from excessive noise intrusion.

Biodiversity

Council LEP mapping layers do not show the site to contain Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs). However, site inspection confirms the existence of a small area of very high value bush, including a rare intact understorey layer along the south-western boundary.

There is a less significant remnant along the southern boundary of Lot 33.

Other remnants do exist on the site but suffer from excessive weed infestation. The native tree stands have been deformed by the excessive competition posed by the invasive species that surround them, resulting in slender and weak trunk structure. These other tree stands have virtually no intact understorey.

There are also several large single “paddock” trees slightly to the north, which appear to be active as seed banking trees, as there are several small saplings evident around each of these trees. These individual trees are also likely to provide transit points for juvenile avian species as they transit to larger tree stands in the district. These trees are too large to be practically accommodated on the lot sizes proposed. These individual tree specimens are located on proposed Lots 15, 26 and 27.

The subject property itself has limited to moderate connectivity to more significant surrounding vegetation, but establishing the importance of the remaining remnant as a link in the overall remaining biodiversity network is problematic. On the basis of location and on site observation, it is considered to have low importance as a transit point in the remaining network.

The amended plan, subject to the imposition of certain conditions (which the applicant has agreed to the imposition of), does not incorporate key threatening processes within the subdivision. Some significant isolated paddock trees will be lost as a result of the development. These trees are not considered to form an EEC in their own right due to their relative isolation, but they do provide seed banking opportunities and possibly act as waypoints for juvenile avian species. To offset the loss of these significant bits of vegetation, it is considered appropriate to impose a requirement for replacements to be planted. It will take a long time for the replacement trees to reach a level of maturity, such that they could be considered replacements for the trees to be removed, but it is nevertheless a reasonable compromise and considered worthwhile to require replacements for the trees to be removed (or likely to be removed) from the site.

The major biodiversity value of the site is the small thickets located at the southern end of the site. The applicant has amended the proposal so that the two southern blocks have restrictive building envelopes on them and the blocks large enough to facilitate the conservation of those large thickets on the site. Additional conditions are imposed preventing the planting of introduced species on these lots in their gardens and limiting future buildings to within the approved envelopes.

The conditions included in the attached notice of determination were referred to Council’s Manager - City Presentation, for advice and comment. He has responded as follows:

“I concur with the proposed consent conditions especially the erection of TPZ fencing prior to the issue of a CC and the boundary adjustment proposed for lots 28 and 29. The TPZ fencing condition in itself should, if enforced correctly, ensure sound protection of the remnant woodland vegetation and understory.

With regard to the condition about replanting of trees in place of the loss of the two remnant Ribbon Gums (Eucalyptus viminalis) located on proposed lots 13/14 and 25/26. Your condition should, apart from identify that 20 tubestock sized eucalypts (of the Box Gum Woodland naturally occurring in Orange) are to be planted in Plowman Park, specify that they are to be maintained for a 12 month period and any losses during this time are to be replaced at the applicants expense and that adequate tree protection guards shall be installed to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager City Presentation.

I would also condition that the developer is to undertake the judicious removal of Priority weeds from lots 28 and 29 (outside of the proposed building envelopes) to improve the health of the remnant woodland, ie removal of Priority Weeds including privet, blackberry, cotoneaster, hawthorn etc using appropriate bush regeneration techniques such as hand removal and cut and paint methods. Such a condition will assist with improving the understory condition and maintaining species diversity, through removal of woody weed competition”.

Traffic and Road Connectivity

The subject land consists of three separate Torrens lots (Lots 30, 31 and 33). Each lot has its own access to a public road as is required for Torrens lots. Lot 30 is accessed from Tarawell Crescent, Lot 31 is accessed from Margaret Street/Sophie Drive, and Lot 33 is accessed from Maramba Rd. The original housing commission subdivision of adjoining land to the west which created the subject lots planned for the continuation of the road network into each lot.

The applicant proposes to consolidate the three lots and provide sole public road access from Sophie Drive. The proposed subdivision layout has been designed in such a way as to not provide access or connection through to Tarawell Crescent or Maramba Road as originally envisaged. These roads at the present time exist as road stubs left over when the Department of Housing developed the residential subdivisions to the west, and were intended to provide connections between the Department of Housing subdivision and the subject land.

Council’s Technical Services Division advise that the capacity of the road network (Sophie Drive) in the vicinity of the site is sufficient to accommodate additional localised traffic generated by the development, or the likely additional traffic that future developments on the subdivided lots are likely to generate. Council’s Technical Services Division have recommended given the design of the development that the existing public roads serving (existing) Lots 30 and 33 be required to be terminated with a turn bay capable of accommodating a 12.5m heavy rigid vehicle (garbage truck/fire engine). Conditions relating to the construction of the turn bays have been applied. The turn bays are required to be constructed prior to the release of Lots 13 to 29.

As previously noted, the proposed street layout is not ideal, because there is a noticeable lack of connectivity to the suburb located to the west. However the proposed road system that is proposed is functional from the point of view of traffic management, and potential does remain on the site for connections to be provided to the west at some point in the future if Lot 29 is further subdivided.

Conditions are considered necessary and are included in the attached consent preventing access for the individual lots directly onto either the NDR or William Maker Drive.

Cumulative Impacts

The proliferation of low density residential development on the fringe of the City is a reflection of the urban growth of Orange, which is currently being achieved by an expansion of residential land into the surrounding lower density rural and non-urban land.

A continuation of green field residential subdivisions satisfies the market demand, but is likely to result in community isolation from transport facilities and services due to the increase in distance from employment areas and the Central Business District (CBD). Continued reliance on green field’s development on the urban fringes also tends to be high in terms of biodiversity conservation. Because of the distances, a continuation on motor vehicle reliance is likely to be reinforced by developments such as the subject application.

On the other hand, the development of a new estate creates opportunities for home ownership, improves housing stock quality from an aesthetic point of view and promotes economic activity in the building industry.

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

The subject property has significant natural features, being the vegetation remnants. These are adequately allowed for in the subdivision design.

The subject property will be significantly reliant on motor vehicles for access to most facilities and amenities, and this should be seen as a negative to the overall amenity and ambience the site will generate. To achieve satisfactory levels of amenity it is considered highly desirable to provide pedestrian linkages to the open space network, though at the present time no plans are in place to do this.

Overall, the applicant has adequately demonstrated that the site is suitable for the proposed development. Attached to the Notice of Determination are a suite of conditions considered appropriate to ensure that the development proceeds in an acceptable manner.

Naturally Occurring Asbestos

The subject land is contained within an area of naturally occurring asbestos. Conditions are recommended requiring an asbestos management plan be prepared and implemented for the development.

Council’s Environmental Health and Building Surveyor has included the following standard condition in the development consent to manage the likely presence of Naturally Occurring Asbestos in this locality:

The site is located within an area identified as containing serpentinite rock formations, which can contain chrysotile, a naturally occurring asbestos. Therefore the applicant or person with management or control of the site shall ensure that a written plan (an Asbestos Management Plan) for the site is prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011.

To assist applicants with developing an Asbestos Management Plan, applicants are encouraged to access the ‘Asbestos Management Plan for Orange City Council 2014’, which is available on Council’s website: www.orange.nsw.gov.au

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 layout is functional in terms of its road layout, however Council’s DCP encourages the development of land based on the principle of achieving a modified grid layout rather than a series of cul-de-sacs. The applicant has requested that Council not insist upon a connection being provided through to the adjoining housing commission area further to the west at this time. The design of the subdivision is such that there remains the possibility if Council was of the view to support the development as submitted to provide a road and footway connection through to the adjoining land in the future if proposed Lot 29 (comprising an area of 11,638m²) is further developed. A Section 79C assessment of the development indicates that the development is acceptable in this instance. Council’s Technical Services Department have indicated support to the concept as proposed. 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, D18/3470 ⇩

2 Plan, D18/3487 ⇩

Planning and Development Committee 6 February 2018

2.4 Development Application DA 247/2017(1) - Tarawell Crescent and Margaret Road

Attachment 1 Notice of Approval

OrangeCityCouncilNEW#45524E (2)

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

Development Application No DA 247/2017(1)

NA18/ Container PR13530

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 81(1)

Development Application
Applicant Name:	Westacre Developments Pty Ltd
Applicant Address:	C/- Peter Basha Planning and Development ORANGE NSW 2800
Owner’s Name:	Westacre Group Developments Pty Limited
Land to Be Developed:	Lots 30 and 31 DP 246174, Lot 33 DP 1055815 - Tarawell Crescent and Margaret Road, Orange
Proposed Development:	Subdivision (30 lot residential)

Building Code of Australia building classification:	Not applicable

Determination
Made On:	6 February 2018
Determination:	CONSENT GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:

Consent to Operate From:	7 February 2018
Consent to Lapse On:	7 February 2023

Terms of Approval

The reasons for the imposition of conditions are:

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

(2) To maintain neighbourhood amenity and character.

(3) To ensure compliance with relevant statutory requirements.

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

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

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

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

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

Conditions

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

(a) Plans by Peter Basha Planning referenced 10036DA sheet 3A dated 7 November 2017 (1 sheet)

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

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

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

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

(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.

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

(4) The installation of protective fencing in accordance with AS 4970-2009 is required around the protected vegetation areas, prior to the issue of a construction certificate for the subdivision.

(5) A minimum of 20 native species that are to be approved by Council’s Manager – City Presentation prior to planting as replacement species for the large paddock trees located in the vicinity of proposed lots 13, 14, 25, 26 and 27 of the subdivision. The replacements shall be provided on a like for like basis to those to be removed and shall be planted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. The replacement species shall be planted in the public open space on the western side of Lot 29 (generally within Lot 48 DP258905, known to Council as Plowman Park) or such other location as is nominated by the Manager City Presentation.

(8) The development’s stormwater design is to include stormwater detention within the development, designed to limit peak outflows from the land to the pre-existing natural outflows up to the 100 year ARI frequency, with sufficient allowance in overflow spillway design capacity to safely pass flows of lower frequency (that is, a rarer event) without damage to downstream developments. Where appropriate, the spillway design capacity is to be determined in accordance with the requirements of the Dam Safety Committee.

The design of the detention storage is to be undertaken using the ILSAX/DRAINS rainfall-runoff hydrologic model or an approved equivalent capable of assessing runoff volumes and their temporal distribution as well as peak flow rates. The model is to be used to calculate the flow rates for the existing and post-development conditions.

The developed flows are to be routed through the proposed storage within the model so that the outflows obtained are no greater than the flows obtained for the pre-existing natural flows. A report detailing the results of the analysis, which includes:

· catchment plan showing sub-catchments under existing and developed conditions;

· schematic diagram of the catchment model showing sub areas and linkages;

· tabulation detailing the elevation, storage volume and discharge relationships; and

· tabulation for the range of frequencies analysed, the inflows, outflows and peak storage levels for both existing and developed conditions;

together with copies of the data files for the model and engineering design plans of the required drainage system are to be submitted to Orange City Council upon application for a Construction Certificate.

(9) The proposed lots are to be provided with interlot stormwater drainage, including those lots abutting public land, where the surface of the entire lot cannot be drained to the kerb and gutter at the lot frontage. A grated concrete stormwater pit is to be constructed within each lot provided with interlot stormwater drainage. Engineering plans for this drainage system are to be approved by Orange City Council or an Accredited Certifier (Categories B1, C3, C4, C6) prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

(10) Stormwater from the proposed on-site detention basin is to be piped to the existing 900mm diameter stormwater pipe in the NDR road reserve. Engineering plans of this required drainage system are to be approved by Orange City Council or by an Accredited Certifier (Categories B1, C3, C4, C6 prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

(11) A 150mm-diameter sewer main is to be constructed from Council’s existing main to serve the proposed lots. Prior to a Construction Certificate being issued engineering plans for this sewerage system are to be submitted to and approved by Orange City Council.

(12) A water reticulation analysis is to be carried out by Orange City Council on any proposed water reticulation system for the development. Engineering plans are to be submitted to and approved by Orange City Council prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

The reticulation system is to be designed to supply a peak instantaneous demand by gravity of 0.15 L/s/tenement at a minimum residual head of 200kPa.

(13) Tarawell Crescent and Maramba Roads shall be terminated with an appropriate turn bay suitable for a 12.5m heavy vehicle. The turn bay may be partly located within the existing road reserve. Stormwater drainage from the turn bay is to be connected to the inter-allotment drainage system for the proposed lots.

Construction of the turn bays shall be completed prior to the release of Lots 13 to 29.

Engineering plans are to be submitted to Orange City Council and approved prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

PRIOR TO WORKS COMMENCING

(14) 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

(15) Replacement plantings elsewhere required under this consent are required to be nurtured and protected by the applicant during the construction period, up to the day of release of the subdivision certificate. The applicant, or his agent is obligated to water the plant, control weeds and replace any losses from these trees until such time as the subdivision certificate has been released.

(16) The site is located within an area identified as containing serpentinite rock formations, which can contain chrysotile, a naturally occurring asbestos. Therefore the applicant or person with management or control of the site shall ensure that a written plan (an Asbestos Management Plan) for the site is prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011.

To assist applicants with developing an Asbestos Management Plan, applicants are encouraged to access the ‘Asbestos Management Plan for Orange City Council 2014’, which is available on Council’s website: www.orange.nsw.gov.au

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

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

(19) Sophie Drive and roads 1 and 2 shall be constructed full width for each stage of the proposed development. This work is to include road pavement and pavement surfacing, kerb and gutter construction and earth-formed footpath on both sides of the road.

(20) Concrete footpaths are to be constructed to the widths and standards stated in the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code including cul-de-sacs where an overland stormwater drainage path is located at the cul-de-sac bowl.

(21) All proposed residential lots adjacent to the detention basin and overland flow paths are to have a minimum freeboard above the 1-in-100-year flood level in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code and the Floodplain Risk Management Plan.

(22) Water and sewerage reticulation is to be provided to every lot in the proposed residential subdivision in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A SUBDIVISION CERTIFICATE

(23) The inter allotment boundary between Lot 28 and Lot 29 in the subdivision shall be relocated in the final subdivision plans so that the boundary does not pass through the significant vegetation on either lot. The plans of subdivision shall incorporate this requirement. The boundary is required to be set back from the principal vegetation a minimum of 3 metres.

(24) Prior to the issue of a fully endorsed subdivision certificate, a Restriction-as-to-User pursuant to Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act shall be imposed on the titles of Lots 28 and 29, in favour of Orange City Council , that does not allow the planting of invasive exotic species on either of these lots, the removal of fallen timber without permission from Council’s Manager City Presentation, or the removal of understorey plants from the significant vegetated areas without the agreement of Council’s Manager City Presentation. Removal of weeds and introduced species is permitted without approval.

A further restriction as to user is required limiting the construction of buildings to those areas within the approved building envelopes as shown on the approved plans.

(25) Soil sampling for analysing chemical residue is to be carried out within the proposed Lots in a manner and frequency as determined by an appropriately qualified and experienced consultant giving consideration to previous specific uses and on-site characteristics of the site. A NATA registered laboratory is to carry out such testing. Reference is to be made to the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 and State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - “Remediation of Land”. The results of the testing are to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and are to demonstrate that the land is suitable for residential use, to enable a Subdivision Certificate to be issued.

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

(27) 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 29 ETs for water supply headworks and 29 ETs for sewerage headworks. A Certificate of Compliance, from Orange City Council in accordance with the Water Management Act 2000, will be issued upon payment of the contributions.

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

(28) The payment of contributions as per the following shall be made to Council in accordance with Section 94 of the Act and the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017 (Development in LGA Remainder Area) towards the provision of the following public facilities:

Open Space and Recreation	@ $3,868.46 x 26 additional lots	100,579.96
Community and Cultural	@ $1,121.86 x 26 additional lots	29,168.36
Roads and Traffic Management	@ $5,106.25 x 26 additional lots	132,762.50
Plan Preparation and Administration	@ $302.90x 26 additional lots	7,875.40
TOTAL		$270,386.22

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

(29) Evidence from a registered NATA laboratory is to be submitted prior to the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate stating that the filling of all dams and low-lying areas has been carried out in accordance with Australian Standard 3798-2007.

(30) Application is to be made to Telstra/NBN for infrastructure to be made available to each individual lot within the development. Either a Telecommunications Infrastructure Provisioning Confirmation or Certificate of Practical Completion is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority confirming that the specified lots have been declared ready for service prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate.

(31) A Notice of Arrangement from Essential Energy stating arrangements have been made for the provision of electricity supply to the development, is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate.

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

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

(34) A Certificate of Compliance, from a Qualified Engineer, stating that the stormwater retention basin comply with the approved engineering plans is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate.

(36) Where stormwater crosses land outside the lot it favours, an easement to drain water is to be created over the works. A Restriction-as-to-User under section 88B of the NSW Conveyancing Act 1979 is to be created on the title of all affected lots requiring that no structures are to be placed on the site, or landscaping or site works carried out on the site, in a manner that affects the continued operation of the interlot drainage system. The minimum width of the easement is to be as required in the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.

(38) Prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate the building envelope on Lot 29 shall be amended to provide a minimum 2m clearance to the water main and sewer rising main.

(39) Construction of the Tarawell Crescent and Maramba Road turn bays shall be completed prior to the release of Lots 13 to 29.

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

(41) A Restriction as to User under the NSW Conveyancing Act shall be created on the titles of each residential lot restricting future residential development within the proposed subdivision to single storey development, unless an acoustic assessment is undertaken for the specific dwelling on that lot. Noise levels within such a proposed dwelling must not exceed 35 dB(A) in bedrooms between 10pm and 7am and 40 dB(A) elsewhere in the building (other than a garage, kitchen, bathroom or hallway). The required restriction shall nominate Orange City Council as the beneficiary of the restriction as to user, with power to vary or delete the restriction as required.

(42) 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

(43) Aboriginal artefacts or other indigenous heritage that is discovered during the construction process is required to be conserved, with all work in the vicinity of the discovered item being suspended until the appropriate permits have been obtained from the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Local Aboriginal Land Council has been appropriately consulted.

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

*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:	7 February 2018