Agenda of Extraordinary Council Meeting

Extraordinary Council Meeting 27 March 2018

2.1 Development Application DA 242/2017(1) - 212-220 Summer Street and Post Office Lane

RECORD NUMBER: 2018/248

AUTHOR: Andrew Crump, Senior Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged	5 July 2017
Applicant/s	Alceon Group Pty Limited
Owner/s	Alceon Group Pty Limited and Orange City Council
Land description	Lot 564 DP 776383 - 212-220 Summer Street and Post Office Lane, Orange
Proposed land use	Demolition (ground, first and second floors, and roof of existing retail tenancy), and Commercial Premises (alterations and additions including elevated outdoor dining area)
Value of proposed development	$12,081,304

Council's consent is sought to redevelop the tenancy within the Orange City Centre that was (most recently) formally occupied by Myer. The applicant is seeking consent to demolish the building save for the front and side façades. The demolition includes the roof, second floor (within the original 1860s and 1870s parts of the building), the first floor and ground floor. The roof section of a later 1960s building behind the original building is being retained as it is in reasonable condition. There is an original intact cellar/basement below the north-eastern corner of the building (below the very first 1862 building). This will be left largely intact save for a new concrete floor over and some essential new footings and columns to carry the new floor and structure above.

The applicant is proposing to rebuild the commercial floor space over only the ground floor, i.e. remove the first floor retail floor space. A portal frame (large fabricated steel structure consisting of perimeter columns (and one main central column), beams and trusses (with new roof over) will be constructed behind the façade to provide the new commercial floor area. The new commercial space will consist of a major tenancy, mini major tenancy, thirteen small speciality shops (whether these be retail shops or food and beverage shops is yet to be determined) and two small central kiosks. A central mall space, amenities and back-of-house/service corridors areas are also provided for in the new commercial space.

As part of the development, the applicant is proposing to lease an area within Post Office Lane for the purposes of outdoor dining. The structure in Post Office Lane has come about as a result of extensive negotiations with the applicant; with the prime objective of preserving the significant fabric within the original basement. The reasons prompting the elevated deck structure in Post Office Lane are discussed in detail below.

This development application is particularly complex owing to the findings presented by the applicant’s structural engineering consultant (et al), the high level of heritage significance ascribed to the subject building and the economic impacts that occur within the CBD attributed to a large empty retail space in one of the most important commercial properties within the City (from both a retailing perspective and pedestrian movements perspective).

These three equally important considerations have been duly considered in equal measure in the assessment of the application.

After extensive dialogue between the applicant and Council Staff (including Council’s independent experts and Council’s Heritage Advisor), and the submission of additional information (including revised drawings), Council staff have reached the conclusion that the proposal presented by the applicant is acceptable subject to a number of conditions relating to the conservation of the building.

Given the extensive loss of heritage fabric, the objective must therefore focus on ensuring that an acceptable level of significant heritage fabric is retained and reused in a meaningful way to interpret the original parts of the building for future generations. Additionally, it is also paramount to ensure that new elements such as the Post Office Lane structure, shopfronts and other new introduced material are sympathetic to the heritage item on the land as well as on adjoining land and the Central Heritage Conservation Area.

Council staff are confident that the conclusions of this rigorous assessment and the recommended conditions of consent strike a reasonable and appropriate balance between the conservation of the highly valued heritage building (accounting for the physical condition of the building) and the commercial realities of current retail trends in a major regional centre.

However, the following cannot be understated. The development involves a substantial amount of disruption to significant fabric within a very important heritage building. The measures employed to mitigate the loss of fabric imposed via conditions of consent should be seen as non-negotiable; in other words, the development should be deemed unacceptable by Council unless each and every condition recommended in this report are imposed.

DECISION FRAMEWORK

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

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

Orange Development Control Plan 2004 – the DCP guides development. In general, it is a performance based document rather than prescriptive in nature - its purpose is to guide development. The Land and Environment Court tends to view it as such. In each area of interest there are often guidelines used. These guidelines indicate ways of achieving the planning outcomes. It is thus recognised that there may also be other solutions of merit. All design solutions are considered on merit by planning and building staff.

Applications should clearly demonstrate how the planning outcomes are being met where alternative design solutions are proposed. So one can see that the DCP gives leeway for developers and architects to use design to achieve the outcome in other ways if they can. Stating that DCP guidelines are inflexible can be misleading.

Director’s Comment

This development application report balances the very real need for this building to be restored as a vibrant part of the CBD and the loss of significant heritage assets that go back to the Dalton era. The staff recommendation of approval within this report is predicated on the maintenance of the conditions proposed by staff. Should these conditions be removed then the acceptability of the proposed development is significantly diluted as the loss of heritage fabric is significant and must be compensated for.

RECENT LEGISLATIVE CHANGES

On 1 March 2018 the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 was substantially amended. The most immediate change involves the restructuring and renumbering of the Act, with other more substantive changes to be phased in over time. However, for some applications (particularly where an application was lodged prior to the changes coming into effect) the supporting documentation may still reference the previous numbering regime. In the drafting of this report the content and substance of the supporting material has been considered irrespective of which legislative references were used.

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 242/2017(1) for Demolition (ground, first and second floors, and roof of existing retail tenancy), and Commercial Premises (alterations and additions including elevated outdoor dining area) at Lot 564 DP 776383 - 212-220 Summer Street and Post Office Lane, Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.

further considerations

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

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

THE APPLICATION/PROPOSAL

Council's consent is sought to redevelop a retail tenancy within the Orange City Centre which is located on land described Lot 564 DP 776383. The land is known as 212‑220 Summer Street, Orange. The subject tenancy relates to the area within the shopping centre most recently occupied by Myer.

The development involves demolition of the subject tenancy save for the front and side facades (those being the facades facing Summer Street, Post Office Lane and the wall adjoining the commercial building to the west). The roof of the later c1960 and c1980 portion of the building behind the original building is being retained as it is in reasonable condition (this relates to the single storey area within the former Myer store where the; make-up, perfume, women’s shoes and hand bags, women’s clothing and women’s intimate apparel departments were previously located). The area where demolition is proposed from roof to ground level is defined in the below figure as Area A. The area of roof shown by a broken blue line outside of Area A will be retained, save for a section over the Anson Street side of the building and a small area behind the ANZ building. Area A also happens to relate to the original and most significant parts of the building (refer below Figure 1).

Figure 1: excerpt from Henry & Hymas Report pg. 1

The development then involves the construction of a portal frame (with new roof structure) within Area A which ties into the existing façade and provides for commercial floor space over a single (ground) level. The new commercial floor space will be segregated into a major tenancy, mini major tenancy, thirteen specialty tenancies and two kiosks. The area will also accommodate central mall space, new amenities and service corridors. An alteration to the existing loading dock is also proposed. The retail space within the mini major B tenancy (being the tenancy addressing Anson Street) will be independent of the rest of the shopping centre; ie it will not connect internally with the major tenancy. A mezzanine level with goods hoist is proposed over the rear portion of the mini major tenancy.

The application also involves the lease of part of Post Office Lane for the purposes of constructing an elevated covered outdoor dining area. The proposed development in terms of the internal configuration of tenancies along with the proposed outdoor area in Post Office Lane is shown in the below extract of the architectural floor plan.

Figure 2: excerpt of plan showing proposed tenancy layout, circulation space, amenities

and the outdoor area in Post Office Lane

It should be noted that a detailed construction methodology and structural sequencing of the project forms part of the application. The above description is a simplified version of the project. The complex construction sequence is addressed in detail below. The sequencing addresses the stabilisation of the retained facades.

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

Section 1.7 Assessment

Section 1.7 - Application of Part 7 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and Part 7A of the Fisheries Management Act 1994

From 25 August 2017, the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2017 and Biodiversity Conservation Regulation 2017 were gazetted. The implementation of this legislation (and supporting guidelines) is subject to savings provisions that defer their full effect for a period of six months from the date of gazettal for local development.

The subject land is characterised as commercial property within a highly altered urban environment, and accordingly the subject property has no biodiversity or habitat value.

Section 4.15 - Evaluation

Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 requires Council to consider various matters, of which those pertaining to the application are listed below.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Before proceeding further, it is important to understand the historical context of this part of the Orange City Centre and its development over the last 165 years. The following is based on information that has been provided by Mr Rob Bartlett, Mr Euan Greer and other members of The Orange and District Historical Society.

The subject land was first developed by James ‘the younger’ Dalton (son of James Dalton ‘the elder’) in c1853 where a slab and bark store was constructed and later replaced by a two-roomed timber building; which was subsequently replaced in c1858 by a single storey brick building (refer Figure 3).

Figure 3: Dalton Bros’ first brick store c1858

(Image: Flynn and Leggo, 1928, p.204 (courtesy Mr Euan Greer))

The original brick building shown above was later demolished and replaced by a far more substantial two storey masonry building in c1862 (refer Figure 4 (Note: Orange’s first Post Office is shown in the below figure to the left of the Dalton Stores.).

Figure 4: Dalton Bros’ “Elizabethan” store of 1862

(Image: Orange and District Historical Society (courtesy Mr Euan Greer))

The 1862 store shown above was later extended to the west in c1868 to add an additional storey and almost double the footprint. It was at this point that the distinctive small arched windows on the upper floor and decorative parapet were constructed, being elements of the outward projecting parts of the building that are still identifiable today (Note: the first floor windows have been replaced at some point with intrusive aluminium windows, with arch lintels removed and decorative pilasters, pilaster capitals and parapet urns also removed).

Figure 5: 1868 extension – second floor addition and increased floor area

A small wattle and daub hut was demolished and a second substantial three storey building was constructed to the west of the original stores in 1873, which comprised an occupiable first floor verandah over the footpath (refer below figure). The two buildings were separated by a laneway which provided access to a large yard at the rear of the buildings.

Figure 6: both buildings shown, the 1873 building is nearest the camera

(note the laneway between the two buildings)

(Image: Orange and District Historical Society (courtesy Mr Rob Bartlett))

Access to the central laneway was later removed by joining the two separate buildings with the prominent central vaulted window and distinctive central parapet (shown below). This occurred in c1895.

Figure 7: the c1895 central extension which joined the two buildings

(note the large painted wall sign (cropped) showing “…THERS”

which would originally have read “DALTON BROTHERS”)

(Image: Bone, 1908, p.83 (courtesy Mr Euan Greer))

The Dalton Brothers store was sold to Edgeleys Ltd, in the late 1920s, at which time it became known as Edgeleys Ltd Western Stores. A substantial change to the façade occurred in the 1960s where maroon cladding was applied to the upper portion of the building. This cladding was later removed in 1986 when the building was occupied by Myer (then Grace Bros. and most recently back to Myer).

Colour photograph of a building saying the western stores, the shopping centre of Orange with crowds gathered outside

Figure 8: the Western Stores in 1970

(the crowd was waiting for the arrival of Queen Elizabeth II)

(Source ABC NEWS – photo provided by Orange and District Historical Society)

Colour photograph of 1980s main street of a town with old two storey building saying Orange City Centre

Figure 9: the former Dalton Stores as it was in 1988 (occupied by Grace Bros at the time)

(Source ABC NEWS – photo provided by Orange and District Historical Society)

Composition of the Existing Building

It is also important to describe the make-up of the existing building or how it is composed and explain its parts. Anecdotally, it would seem that some members of the community were not aware that part of the building had a further level above the first level that was accessible to the public, nor are they aware of the basement below the street level, or the original features of the building such as the timber pulleys.

The following describes diagrammatically the make-up of the subject building and approximate location of some of the unique features.

Figure 10: schematic of composition of existing building

Figures 11 and 12: spiral staircase to basement and basement looking north towards

Summer Street

Figure 13: roof structure of the earlier c1860s building

(Source: URBIS)

Figure 14: goods pulley - second floor - 1862 building

BACKGROUND

DA 159/2016(1) (‘the former consent’ hereafter) received development consent on 17 August 2016. The former consent provided for alterations and additions of the same tenancy within the shopping centre which is the subject of this current application. The former consent essentially retained much of the existing fabric such as the roof and the upper floors (particularly those of the 1860s and 1870s parts of the building), replaced the ground and first floors, and retained in situ an 100m²area of original cast iron columns and pressed metal ceilings either on the ground floor or first floor.

Under the former consent, a similar tenancy layout across the ground floor was proposed as is proposed under this current application; however, three additional retail tenancies were proposed on level one. Level 2 was being left untouched.

In November 2016 Council staff met with the applicant, at which time the applicant indicated that they had identified a number of issues with the structural integrity of the building to the point where the former consent was not able to be physically completed. The applicant advised that they intended seeking approval for an alternate proposal that addressed the issues identified at that time.

Mid-way through 2017 the applicant provided Council with a draft Heritage Impact Statement prepared by URBIS and a draft Structural Engineering Report prepared by Henry & Hymas. The structural report identified the following key findings:

A holistic structural design solution is required for Area A (refer below for area A) of the former Myer building to ensure its long- term stability and safety, both during construction and upon completion. Failure to do so, poses an unacceptable risk of danger to construction workers and the public due to the building’s structural fragility. Key concerns are:

1. The prevalence of masonry brickwork with lime mortar in poor condition;

2. Vertical misalignment of the Summer Street and PO Lane facades;

3. Significant cracking and deterioration in the brickwork of the internal masonry walls on Levels 1 and 2 indicating a:

i. weakening connection to the floor and roof framing elements;

ii. break-down in the connection with the perimeter walls;

iii. construction safety risk (due to the extent of self-supported masonry walls at a high level)

4. First and second floor framing members not being adequately connected to the perimeter and internal masonry walls;

5. Structural columns and beams falling short of required FRLs;

6. The poor condition of the building’s existing foundations; and

7. The roof design, its inadequate ties to the walls and inadequate resistance to snow loads

This highlights that the existing structural system supporting Area A of the former Myer building requires significant remediation in order to render it suitable for its intended retail use. The proposed structural system achieves this by adopting a design which:

1. Treats the building as a single unified structure;

2. Prioritises the preservation of the facades and awnings on Summer Street (including the parapet) and PO Lane and arrests their further unrestrained movement;

3. Provides a new steel frame for the entire building which combines with a new steel roof frame to adequately brace the entire structure;

4. Creates a stable floor framing system with levels, load bearing capacity and fire resistance which complies with all current relevant standards;

Figure 15: extract from the Henry & Hymas report

At this point Council engaged the services of NSW Public Works Advisory (PWA) to act as Council’s structural engineering experts. PWA is a NSW State Government department that is the result of a recent amalgamation of Regional and Rural Water Solutions and Heritage Assets and Advisory departments. PWA now specialises in design and project management of infrastructure projects at all levels of government and also offers an advisory service to all levels of government on various projects and developments.

PWA was given a specific brief from Council staff to purely review the material and advise if other options were possible. They were not requested to carry out any detailed design of alternatives. This was not possible based on time and budget.

The PWA representatives consisted of two senior structural engineers and the PWA Director - Heritage Asset Advisory. PWA senior structural engineers and various Council staff attended a site visit with the applicant and the applicant’s consultants in June 2017 to glean a first-hand account of the building’s condition and hear from the applicant’s consultants on the range of issues they had discovered with the building.

Following the site visit, PWA prepared a ‘preliminary findings’ report. The PWA report was provided to the applicant which was discussed at an intensive workshop attended by the proponent’s project manager, structural engineer and construction manager; structural engineers engaged by Council and PWA’s Director - Heritage Asset Advisory. This meeting was seen to be somewhat of a frustrating exercise from PWA and Council staff’s point of view. The options presented by PWA were quickly discounted as either not being possible from a constructability/safety of construction site perspective or from a feasibility perspective.

Shortly after this meeting, the application was formally lodged with Council and the pre‑DA exercise concluded.

Following the workshop with the proponent’s consultants, PWA prepared a final report which demonstrated that there would be other options available to the proponent in lieu of the extensive demolition sought.

The report by PWA adopted a first principles approach initially by identifying which parts of the building were of high significance and which parts were less significant. PWA acknowledged that this exercise was made difficult given the absence of detailed significance mapping for the whole site and the short period of time available to them. With the assistance of Council’s Heritage Advisor and Council staff, the significant parts of the building were identified. It should be noted at this point that Council staff requested that this be done as part of an extensive request for additional information.

The PWA report segregates the building into two main parts: the less significant parts shown green and the highly significant parts of the building shown yellow. The pink areas relate to those parts of the building that would not change, ie the c1960s roof (refer to figures below). The PWA report also suggests that their option could be carried out in a staged arrangement, where the rear portion of the development site could be redeveloped quickly and the anchor tenants could occupy those tenancies as Stage 1. Following this, the front of the building, the more significant portion of the building, could be developed as Stage 2. Fundamentally, the PWA advice looks at retaining as much of the original significant fabric as possible.

Figure 16: PWA conceptual schematic - basement plan

Figure 17: PWA conceptual schematic - ground floor

Figure 18: PWA conceptual schematic - first floor

Figure 19: PWA conceptual schematic - second floor

Figure 20: PWA conceptual schematic - roof plan

As part of the PWA advice it was identified from earlier photos that the 1873 (westernmost) building had an accessible first floor verandah and the early c1860s building a posted verandah. The PWA advice included the option of reinstating the original verandah treatments to the two building (refer to figure below).

Figure 21: both buildings shown, the 1873 building is nearest the camera

(note the laneway between the two buildings)

(Image: Orange and District Historical Society (courtesy Mr Rob Bartlett))

The report provided the following in terms of the works and sequencing of how the PWA option could be achieved:

Area 1 – Shown in hatched green coloured zones

a) Stabilisation of main three storey facades and tying them together with the timber first and second floor structure of the two pods as required. (This could be in a temporary manner or permanently)

b) Ground Floor: Demolish existing timber floors in the green zone areas and build new concrete slab and footings. This includes the central corridor off Summer Street.

c) Close up shop front windows on Summer Street or enable them to be used for temporary limited access for retail displays boxes only.

d) First Floor and Second floor: Demolish floors within the areas marked green retaining a wide bridge section behind the Summer Street façade at both levels. This could assist bracing and retain an access link between the two pods at both levels for future commercial / hospitality options.

e) Roof: Demolish existing roof within the areas marked green and replace with totally new roof to suit new single storey retail facility. Incorporate a roof truss system spanning across the southern edges of the 2 pods to provide lateral bracing, new roof support and a common line for fire compartmentation at 2^nd floor to roof level.

f) Install temporary street canopy support posts/ props to assist load reduction and potential uplift forces on façade loading OR reconstruct the previous period design verandas for both façade structural stability and premium functional hospitality use(s).

g) The placement/orientation of public amenities proposed on the green area might need to be reviewed to provide appropriate access points internally, externally and after hours.

Area 2 - Shown in hatched Orange coloured zones

a) Retain the cellar layout and floor structure above.

b) Restore ground level timber floor structure &/or replace with concrete slab and footings.

c) Demolish internal masonry walls at 1st and 2nd floors only to reduce the loadings on columns and beams below. Replace these walls with steel bracing frame and cladding to suit access options between the two pods at these levels.

d) Provide fire rating and other actions to enable a fire engineered solution.

e) Tie first and second floor structures to the external walls in a permanent way if not done so in stage 1.

f) Investigate first floor and second floor structure of the 2 pods to check if there are separate floor and ceiling structures. If separate structures for ceilings, keep and preserve high significance ceiling and, only if essential, modify/replace floor structure to comply with current standards. If not separate, keep floor structure to support ceiling and provide new flooring boards where necessary. Only if essential provide overlay structure above (Concrete slab on Bondek or CLT (Cross laminated timber) with concrete topping.

g) Strengthen existing timber hipped roof structures for both pods as required.

h) Tie parapets to the hipped roof structures similar to tying external walls to floors below.

i) Consolidate the proposed (retained?) bridge floor structure between the 2 pods at 1^st and 2^nd floor levels.

j) Provide permanent posts for the suspended street canopy OR demolish the street canopy for option to reconstruct original verandas to known period details on both pod facades with integrated discreet strengthening for main façade walls as well as to re-establish covered external north facing public access on one or two levels for café/restaurant and other similar uses.

The PWA report concludes with the below summary statement. Also, Council staff requested some photographs of projects PWA have been involved in on buildings of similar age and type (ie multi storey masonry building).

Summary

While there has been limited opportunity to fully investigate the building our experience with projects of this nature provides some confidence that both a good heritage solution and a viable commercial outcome could be achieved following the basic separation of types of work and possible staging of the redevelopment as illustrated herein.

Annexure to PWA report – similar project

Arts Exchange Building Hickson Road, The Rocks project 2015 -16

Brick building, steel and cast iron internal structure, timber floors and soffits.

Built as a power station but never used for that purpose. Was used as minerals assay office and mines museum and minerals exchange. In 1980’s and onwards used as offices.

Figures 22 and 23: - main entry of the Arts Exchange

Figures 24, 25, 26 and 27: exposed timber floor soffits and services to interpret

the original structure

Figures 28, 29, 30 and 31: commercial fit with retained columns

A second example was provided – Argyle Stores Complex

Figure 32: - note the post position in a regular grid layout similar to the 1863 and 1873 buildings within the development

A final example was provided of an elevated outdoor dining area in a lane way with retractable roof as an idea for Post Office Lane.

Figure 33: outdoor dining in a laneway within a heritage setting

The PWA report was provided to the applicant along with an extensive request for additional information, which also included a list of technical structural testing requirements such as load testing, timber strength testing, termite investigate etc, which did not form part of the initial structural report.

The response from the applicant to the PWA report is addressed below under the heading Clause 5.10(3) – Heritage Conservation.

Whilst the applicant was addressing the additional information, an invitation was made by the applicant to host a further site visit, but this time Councillors were invited to attend to get a firsthand understanding of parts of the building which were not typically open to the public and to also allow the applicant to provide an explanation as to why they had arrived at the conclusions presented. This meeting was well attended by a number of Councillors and Senior Council staff.

Following this meeting a representative of the proponent presented Council staff with additional information on 14 December 2017. The information was reviewed for adequacy, referred to internal and external referral bodies and scheduled for exhibition in the Central Western Daily in the first week of January 2018.

PROVISIONS OF ANY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT s4.15(1)(a)(i)

Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011

Part 1 - Preliminary

Clause 1.2 - Aims of Plan

The broad aims of the LEP are set out under subclause 2. Those relevant to the application are as follows:

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

(b) to provide for a range of development opportunities that contribute to the social, economic and environmental resources of Orange in a way that allows present and future generations to meet their needs by implementing the principles for ecologically sustainable development,

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

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

The aims of the plan that are relevant to the application are listed above. The application as submitted is considered to be consistent with the first three stated aims. The development as submitted is considered to be inconsistent with aim (f); notwithstanding this, the following assessment contains critical conditions of consent that mitigate the heritage impacts to the extent that the development is considered to be consistent with aim (f).

Clause 1.6 - Consent Authority

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

Clause 1.9A - Suspension of Covenants, Agreements and Instruments

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

· covenants imposed or required by Council

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

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

· any trust agreement under the Nature Conservation Trust Act 2001

· any property vegetation plan under the Native Vegetation Act 2003

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

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

According to the applicable Deposited Plan there is an extensive list of restrictions affecting the property such as, but not limited to, rights-of-way, easements for overhangs, easements for electricity etc. These are situated in various locations across the broader site. As the development application only effects a portion of the larger site, only that part of the building concerned with the application is concerned here. According to Councils assets management system, the development will occur over an existing sewer main. Council’s Technical Services Division has recommended conditions relating to raising the sewer manhole and its location within the building.

Council staff are not aware of the development affecting any of the above covenants, instruments or agreements.

It is noted that Post Office Lane was previously a Crown Road. During the assessment of the previous development application that relates to the land (DA 159/2016(1)), the NSW Department of Primary Industries – Lands requested that Council make application to take over the land. This process occurred at that time, and accordingly Post Office Lane is no longer under the control of the State of NSW.

It is noted that there are numerous services within Post Office Lane such as a Council water main, telecommunications, electricity lines etc. Where the development within Post Office Lane affects such services, the applicant will be required to liaise with the respective service owner to have the service relocated if required.

Clause 1.7 - Mapping

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

Land Zoning Map:	Land zoned B3 Commercial Core
Lot Size Map:	No Minimum Lot Size
Heritage Map:	Heritage item and heritage conservation area
Height of Buildings Map:	No building height limit 12m
Floor Space Ratio Map:	No floor space limit 1.5:1
Terrestrial Biodiversity Map:	No biodiversity sensitivity on the site
Groundwater Vulnerability Map:	Ground water vulnerable
Drinking Water Catchment Map:	Not within the drinking water catchment
Watercourse Map:	Not within or affecting a defined watercourse
Urban Release Area Map:	Not within an urban release area
Obstacle Limitation Surface Map:	No restriction on building siting or construction
Additional Permitted Uses Map:	No additional permitted use applies

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

Part 2 - Permitted or Prohibited Development

Land Use Zones

The subject site is located within the B3 Commercial Core zone. The proposed development is defined as commercial premises under OLEP 2011 which means:

commercial premises means any of the following:

(a) business premises,

(b) office premises,

(c) retail premises.

Council would ordinarily seek to characterise a particular development’s land-use to the closest and best fit under the LEP rather than use the higher order uses such as commercial premises. Notwithstanding this, given that the application seeks consent only to create a series of commercial tenancies with the exact uses of the tenancies unknown at this stage, it is considered appropriate to characterise the development as a commercial premises for the purposes of this assessment. It will be necessary, once the proposed tenancies are created, for proponents to seeks development consent for first use and fitout. A relevant condition is attached in this regard.

Commercial premises are permissible with the consent of Council in the B3 Commercial Core zone.

Demolition also requires consent and is addressed below under Clause 2.7.

Clause 2.3 of LEP 2011 references the Objectives for each zone in LEP 2011. The 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 B3 Commercial Core zone.

Clause 2.7 - Demolition Requires Development Consent

This clause triggers the need for development consent in relation to the demolition of a building or work. The applicant has applied for development consent for the demolition of the roof, second, first and ground floors.

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 12.28m; that is, that part of the building that is new - the ridgeline of the new roof. It is noted that the existing parapet exceeds the height limit. Despite the modest exceedance and the fact that existing parts of the building exceed the height limit, the development nonetheless results in a non-compliance with the above clause. The applicant has made application through clause 4.6 exceptions to the development standards as part of the application.

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.

The development will result in a reduction in floor space (given the existing three storey building is proposed to be reduced to a single storey) and thus will reduce the existing FSR of the site.

Clause 4.6 - Exceptions to Development Standards

The objective of this clause is to provide for a degree of flexibility when applying certain development standards and to achieve better outcomes as a result of the allowance of flexibility in particular circumstances. The clause allows development to be granted despite the fact it contravenes a development standard imposed under Orange LEP 2011, unless such a development is expressly excluded from the clause.

Before granting consent to allow a variation under this clause, Council must consider a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating:

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

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

Development consent can only be granted, if:

(a) the Council is satisfied that:

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

· the proposed development will be in the public interest because of:

§ consistency with the objectives of the particular standard, and

§ consistency with the objectives of the zone applying to the site.

The concurrence of the Secretary of the Department of Planning has been obtained^{^[1]}.

The applicant has provided a written request to vary the height of buildings standard pursuant to Orange LEP 2011. As noted above, the new roof at the ridgeline exceeds the height of buildings standard (maximum height 12m) by 0.28m. The request provides justification that seeks to demonstrate that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances; and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

The applicant has provided the following in support of the request to vary the development standard:

As per the decision in Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90, a variation must justify sufficient environmental planning grounds particular to the circumstances of the proposed development and development site rather than grounds that would apply to a similar development on the site or a development in the vicinity.

This Clause 4.6 Statement has been prepared in reference to the above decision. In view of the particular circumstances of this case, strict compliance with Clause 4.3 of the LEP is considered to be both unnecessary and unreasonable on the following environmental planning grounds:

· The proposal results in a more compliant built form outcome than currently exists, especially when viewing the proportion of existing height noncompliance across the site.

· The proposal is consistent with the intent of Clause 4.3 which is to maintain the character of the area and protect the amenity of the surrounding properties and the public domain. As evident in Table 1, the proposal achieves this outcome, notwithstanding the proposed numeric variation.

· The exceedance in height is not GFA attributable. The proposal ensures an appropriate bulk and scale for the site and surrounding context.

· The proposed works including the proposed roof line are supported on heritage grounds through the submission of a Heritage Impact Statement, submitted with the DA.

· In this instance, it is considered that a reduction in the height of the non-complying element to achieve strict compliance would not result in an improved planning outcome – the additional height does not cause any material impact in terms of privacy or view loss to neighbouring properties, or adverse overshadowing to adjoining properties or the public domain. The proposed minor variation of the roofline will allow for the installation of the proposed internal structural bracing ensuring the north and eastern heritage facades are maintained and stabilised. The new roof will ensure the retail facility is watertight whilst ensuring a built form in keeping with adjoining development. Further, implementing a compliant flat roof would not achieve the same architectural quality/form or a design that responds to the environment (i.e. snowfalls) which and in essence, would not result in a better planning outcome.

· Despite the additional height, the scale of development along all frontages will be comparable to the current envelope, thus creating a unified scale in this part of the city centre locality. The height noncompliance would not be perceptible from the public domain as:

- When viewed from Summer Street, the existing height of the façade screens the rear roof

- When viewed from Post Office Lane, the non-compliant ridge line is centralised on the site and would not be seen from ground level

· The extract of the roof plan, in Figure 4 below, demonstrates that the non-compliance is contained in the centre of the site and will not be visible from the public domain.

· The non-compliance does not result in additional floor area or storeys. It is the ridge portion of the new roof only.

The objectives of the height of buildings standard are as follows:

(a) to provide for taller buildings in the City centre and to enable a transition in building height in response to varying urban character and function,

(b) to protect the amenity of neighbouring properties and public places, with particular regard to visual bulk, scale, overshadowing, privacy and views.

The land is within the B3 Commercial Core zone which has the following objectives:

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

· To encourage appropriate employment opportunities in accessible locations.

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

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

In this regard, the proposal in respect to the variation sought is seen to be consistent with the above objects listed under both the applicable development standard and the relevant zone provisions.

In relation to the objectives of the height of buildings standard, the development, with specific reference to the exceedance of building height, will not unreasonably interrupt the existing urban character of the CBD, nor will it alter the existing function of this part of the CBD in a way whereby the integrity of the development standard - in terms of its continued application within the broader locality - would be compromised in the future.

Moreover, the modest nature of the exceedance and its centrally positioned location within the site will mean that existing levels of amenity, particularly with regard to nearby heritage items and the Central Heritage Conservation Area, will be maintained to within acceptable levels. It is noted that the new roof structure will not be seen in Summer Street due to the existing parapet; and will be difficult to view in Post Office Lane due to the width of the laneway resulting in reduced vantage points.

In relation to the objectives of the B3 Commercial Core zone, the proposed exceedance of the height of buildings standard would have a neutral effect on those objectives.

Council, in assuming the concurrence of the Secretary must have regard to the matters contained within clause 4.6(5), which requires the Secretary (or Council in this case) to consider:

· whether the development, with respect to the variation sought; would raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning,

· the public benefit of maintaining the development standard and,

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

In relation to the above, given the development’s minor exceedance Council can be satisfied that the issuing of (assumed) concurrence will not affect State or regional environmental planning matters. The variation to the development standard would have a neutral benefit, again given the modest nature of the exceedance; and finally, Council staff are not aware of any other matter that the Secretary (and therefore Council in assuming the role) ought to consider before granting concurrence.

In summary, the variation to the development standard is considered acceptable. The applicant has made a written request in which justification is presented as to the reasons why it is unreasonable or unnecessary to insist upon compliance with the development standard. Consideration of the variation against the objects of the applicable standard and the relevant zone indicates that the development is not manifestly inconsistent with either set of objectives; and consideration of the concurrence requirements also suggests that the variation is acceptable.

Part 5 - Miscellaneous Provisions

5.10 - Heritage Conservation

The subject land is identified as a heritage item of Local significance and is also located in the Central Heritage Conservation Area and plays an important contributory role in the conservation area. The building is notable for being one of three contiguous elaborate Victorian period buildings and is a key landmark within the City.

The heritage inventory sheet for the property provides the following statement of significance:

An important late Victorian country department store of regional NSW, built and originally owned by James Dalton, notable and prominent early Irish merchant. This building is part of an important group of substantial structures including the Post Office and Palmer's Building (former AJS Bank) as well as a row of Victorian shops and the corner bank from the 1930s, complementing the streetscape in the vicinity and contributing to the Conservation Area as an item of significance.

A heritage Impact statement has been prepared for the development which endeavours to:

assess the potential heritage impact of the proposed works on the subject site, proximate listed items and the conservation area generally.

The Heritage impact statement provides the following statement of significance:

The Myer Building has historic and aesthetic significance in the local area.

The building is located prominently in the heart of Orange. It was originally owned by James Dalton and was built in three stages (1865-1899). It represents early commercial development and growth in Regional NSW from the middle of the 19th century until the turn of the century. The building is a representation of the Victorian Regency style albeit it has been much altered both internally and externally including a central infill section, alterations to the windows and various ground floor and internal refits (see image below). The building is part of a notable early streetscape which comprises such prominent building as the Post Office, Palmer’s Building, a row of Victorian shops and the corner bank from the 1930s.

The following comprises an assessment of the applicable statutory controls under the LEP.

(1) Objectives

The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a) to conserve the environmental heritage of Orange,

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

(c) to conserve archaeological sites,

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

The development as proposed is considered to be inconsistent with the above objectives, particularly objective (b), which seeks to conserve the heritage significance of heritage items ….. including associated fabric ..... Council staff are of the view that, as proposed, the development does not go far enough to conserve the significant heritage fabric of the building and interpret that fabric in an appropriate manner.

To this end, to ensure an appropriate level of conservation occurs and to mitigate the extensive removal of heritage fabric and thereby ensuring the development is consistent with the above objectives, a number of essential conditions of consent relating to the conservation of the heritage value ascribed to the building are imposed. It should be made very clear that in the absence of the recommended conditions relating to the conservation of the heritage item, the development would not be consistent with the objective of this clause and Council staff would not be recommending a favourable outcome.

Other conditions are recommended with the same rationale, but relate to the conservation of the Central Heritage Conservation Area.

(2) Requirement for Consent

Development consent is required for any of the following:

(a) demolishing or moving any of the following or altering the exterior of any of the following (including, in the case of a building, making changes to its detail, fabric, finish or appearance):

(i) a heritage item,

(iii) a building, work, relic or tree within a heritage conservation area,

(b) altering a heritage item that is a building by making structural changes to its interior or by making changes to anything inside the item that is specified in Schedule 5 in relation to the item,

(c) disturbing or excavating an archaeological site while knowing, or having reasonable cause to suspect, that the disturbance or excavation will or is likely to result in a relic being discovered, exposed, moved, damaged or destroyed,

(e) erecting a building on land:

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

The development involves the above components that require consent which the applicant has sought.

(4) Effect of Proposed Development on Heritage Significance

The consent authority must, before granting consent under this clause in respect of a heritage item or heritage conservation area, consider the effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the item or area concerned. This subclause applies regardless of whether a heritage management document is prepared under subclause (5) or a heritage conservation management plan is submitted under subclause (6).

An assessment of the effect of the proposed development upon the heritage significance of the heritage item and the conservation area generally is undertaken below.

(5) Heritage assessment

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

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

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

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

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

A heritage management document was submitted in the form of a Heritage Impact Statement. Council staff reviewed the document and found it to be inadequate in terms of its exploration of alternatives and the absence of extensive significance mapping of the subject tenancy. A subsequent revised HIS was submitted which contained more commentary around options, including a transcript of critical discussions between the heritage practitioner and the structural engineers; along with significance mapping which grades the heritage value of the various parts of the building.

The revised HIS is considered acceptable.

(6) Heritage Conservation Management Plans

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

The preparation of a CMP would be ideal, however is not considered warranted in the circumstances.

(7) Archaeological Sites

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

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

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

The subject land is not a known archaeological site. Notwithstanding this, given the significance of the site coupled with the extent of ground disturbance required for the development, the chances of encountering an object or a relic during construction is considered to be elevated. Accordingly, a precautionary condition is attached that sets out the protocol that is required to be followed in the event that an object or a relic is discovered.

(8) Aboriginal Places of Heritage Significance

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

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

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

An AHIMS search of the subject property concludes that no Aboriginal sites are recorded for the property, nor have any Aboriginal places been declared in or near the subject land.

HERITAGE ASSESSMENT

Applicant’s Response to the PWA Concept

As detailed above, PWA provided Council with an alternate scheme that could be explored which essentially; retained much of the earliest and significant heritage fabric, retained the earliest parts of the building over their original three storeys and reinstated original verandah elements.

The applicant’s structural engineer - Henry & Hymas, and building contractor – Mainbrace, have both reviewed the concept presented by PWA and provide the following conclusions:

Henry & Hymas

The PWA concept does not satisfy any of the 3 key development criteria^{^[2]}. In a similar manner to DA159/2016, the PWA concept strikes difficulties in adequately resolving the challenges associated with the poor condition of the existing building structures.

The PWA concept does not represent a fully developed structural design and does not address all of the structural concerns contained within the H & H Report. Their concept does not reflect a structural design which resolves the limitations of the poor condition of the building structure, which can be certified as compliant to all relevant Codes and Standards, and which can be constructed in a safe manner and allows it to function appropriately as a retail centre.

Key shortcomings of the PWA concept which include:

1. The current PWA proposal is incapable of being certified to comply with all relevant Codes and Australian standards.

2. The structural design for the PWA proposal has not been developed.

3. The staged construction sequence proposal is fundamentally flawed as the stabilisation of the facades is required prior to the redevelopment of the remainder of the site.

4. The method of installation of the independent structural support proposed for the Pods has not been explained.

5. Independent structural support of the Pods would duplicate structure, impact upon retail spaces and infill retail shopfronts on Summer Street.

6. The proposed method to brace the Southern walls of the Pods as proposed is not possible as the concept incorrectly locates the extent of the Western Pod.

7. The existing timber floor structures cannot adequately stabilise the existing facades.

8. Fire rating of the structure required to support the Level 2 Pods would obscure existing floors and support columns, beams, structural bracing and existing ceilings.

9. The existing Roof does not comply with relevant Australian Standards or the BCA.

10. Existing First and Second Floor structures do not comply with relevant Australian Standards or fire rating requirements.

11. The potential exists to preserve more of the prominent heritage fabric than envisaged (E.g. the Summer Street awning).

12. The construction methodology for the PWA proposal has not been developed to ensure adequate safety in construction in a manner compliant with the WHS Act.

In contrast to the above, DA242/2017 has a structural design which resolves the limitations of the poor condition of the building, which can be certified as compliant under all relevant Codes and Standards, and which can be constructed in a safe manner and allows it to function appropriately as a retail centre.

Henry & Hymas have presented some initial structural designs which are intended to show what they believe would be required structurally if the suggestion made by PWA for the reinstated verandahs was to be adopted.

Figure 34: applicant’s structural engineer’s design of structure required

for the reinstated verandah

Figure 35: applicant’s structural engineer’s design of structure required

for retention of Levels 1 and 2

Mainbrace

Conclusion:

Without the facades being stabilized and braced, unstable internal masonry elements and inadequate flooring structures cannot be safely removed. The stability of the existing structure is not being achieved by determinate means and therefore the risk in disturbing any part of the structure poses a high construction risk. The existing level 2 Pods and their support structure cannot be assumed to be self-supporting.

To stabilize the facade high level underpinning would be required with the associated high construction risk during these works. The high level of construction risk involved in this procedure does not satisfy the Work Health & Safety Act legislative requirements and safe work practices.

The Workplace Safety and Health Act (WHS Act) emphasises that the risks inherent in any design also need to be addressed and a means to mitigate risks identified and implemented where possible. In line with the WHS Act, the design must look at the risks to those carrying out the proposed works and others affected by it, such as the public or people using the building or structure in the future (WHS Council Guidelines on Design for Safety).

The works and the sequencing proposed by the PWA do not meet the requirements of the:

a) Work Health & Safety Act 2011;

b) Work Health & Safety Regulation 2011;

c) Safe Design of Structures Code of Practice 2014;

d) Construction Code of Practice 2014; and

e) Work Health and Safety Risks Code of Practice 2011.

In response to the above comments from the structural engineer and building contractor; it should be noted again that PWA were asked to review the proposal and advise if it were possible for an alternate approach to the development that would result in more of the heritage fabric being retained, and thereby the 1860s and 1870s buildings could remain in three levels as has been the case since the building(s) were constructed.

PWA were not asked to fully resolve their options based on time and budget constraints. They were simply asked, in their opinion, and from their experience, could it be done differently.

In consideration of the extensive amount of information and dialogue between various stakeholders, it has become apparent that the proponent is strongly of the view that all options have been explored and the only avenue available to successfully redevelop the subject tenancy in an appropriate manner, is in the manner sought. Whilst it could be equally argued that an alternate design solution could be engineered to suit redevelopment of the site; Council staff and Council’s Heritage Advisor have accepted the point and have concentrated on what mitigation measures can be employed such as façade reinstatements, interpretation and use of salvaged fabric that would ensure the development is acceptable from a heritage conservation perspective.

With the above acceptance that a substantial amount of demolition is required to facilitate the redevelopment, it is of utmost importance to assess what has been put forward with the express objective of providing an acceptable level of mitigation to off-set the substantial loss of fabric. This is a key point and central to the acceptance of the whole application. In the absence of the following mitigation measures / conditions of consent, the development would not be acceptable. The following assessment is based on Council’s Heritage Advisor’s advice. Council’s Heritage Advisor has assessed the proposed development and agreed to the development subject to a number of recommendations and essential conditions relating to the heritage conservation of the place.

Given the complex nature of the assessment, the assessment has been segregated into the various headings based on the separate components of the development.

Demolition

As mentioned throughout the report, the development involves the demolition of a substantial amount of the existing tenancy, which includes an extensive amount of significant fabric. The extent of demolition relates to the following:

· the roof structure, including the four original hip roofs of the original 1860s and 1870s buildings;

· the second floor of the original 1860s and 1870s buildings(first floor ceiling);

· the first floor (ground floor ceiling); and

· ground floor - this will coincide with the ceiling of the original basement. Additionally, a number of large footings are required within cellar space between the existing arches.

The above described demolition will result in the loss of significant fabric, including original timber roof members, pressed metal, decorative columns and timber flooring. The goods pulleys on the first and second floors and the spiral staircase will be relocated from their original locations.

Mitigation Measures

The following is required to mitigate the substantial loss of fabric as a result of the demolition:

· The two original timber goods pulleys are to be relocated to a prominent location within the development site in a way whereby their integrity is maintained and they can be appropriately interpreted. The items should be situated as close as possible to their original location. Display as isolated objects is not considered a suitable form of interpretation and would be considered unacceptable. A relevant condition is attached in this regard.

· The spiral staircase salvaged from the basement is to be located within a prominent location within the development site in a way whereby its integrity is maintained and it can be appropriately interpreted. The staircase is required to be installed over two levels - whether it be to a small mezzanine level or similar. The item should be situated as close as possible to its original location (ie within tenancy NS13 or NS12). The staircase should be accessible by arrangement so that future understanding can be further developed. Display as an isolated object is not considered a suitable form of interpretation and would be considered unacceptable. A relevant condition is attached in this regard.

· The decorative columns and pressed metal are to be reused within the mall space to retain an appropriate level of heritage character that is ascribed to the building. This is further addressed below.

· Salvaged timber flooring from the ground floor in the location above the basement is to be used in the six interpretation windows in Post Office Lane. (It is noted that the plans show three windows. As indicated below, the planter boxes are to be deleted from the design; this would free up blank wall space within the building adjacent to the access ramp to allow three additional interpretation display windows).

A key consideration in the assessment is addressing the possibility of the façade failing during or after the demolition phase. The applicant’s consultants (structural engineer and building contractor) have provided a detailed demolition/construction sequencing strategy that emphasises the point at which the façade will be stabilised and protected when required to do so.

Construction of Portal Frame

The mechanism proposed to restrain the façade and support a new roof is a portal frame. Very simply, this essentially involves pouring a large apron footing around the internal perimeter of the building and installing a series of vertical supports resting on the apron footing; these vertical members are tied together with horizontal members. On top of the vertical supports sits the roof structure. The new portal frame consists of a series of fixings through the existing façade. It is noted that the roof structure does not relate well to the existing fenestration and will pass behind the windows on the upper floor.

Mitigation Measures

The following is required to mitigate the construction and positioning of the portal frame:

· The three westernmost windows on the uppermost level are required to have translucent glazing installed so that the structural frame behind will be obscured. A relevant condition is attached in this regard.

· The through-bolt plates on the exterior of the building are to be amended from the proposed 150mm square, 10mm thick plate, to a decorative circular expressed steel bracket anchor plate as shown below.

Figure 36: decorative circular expressed steel bracket anchor plate

· Four of the six proposed pad footings within the basement will impact on the two northern internal basements walls with arched openings. The final location of the pad footings shall be adjusted such that they do not impact the existing internal walls thus reducing the impact on the basement structure. This is shown below with reference to the two arrows. A relevant condition is attached.

Figure 37: basement section and pad footing location - the four northern pad footings are to be adjusted so they are located away from the respective walls they are adjacent to

New Shopfronts

The application involves new shopfronts, including the reinstatement of the main central entrance. The shopfront surrounds include a mix of grey subway tile and composite panel ‘anthracite’. This is considered acceptable subject to the shopfront framing consisting of ‘Modclad’ framing system in bronze finish.

It is noted that the central entrance is slightly recessed behind the main line of shopfronts. It is proposed to have a metal roller shutter that will be down in a locked position when the shopping centre is closed. This is considered unnecessary and will have unacceptable impacts upon the streetscape when in the locked position. It is noted there are very few examples where this type of security device is in place on other similar main entrances to shopping centres. It is further noted that such a device is not required at the Centre’s main Anson Street entrance. A condition is attached that deletes this from the application.

Use of Significant Fabric within Mall Space

The submitted plans show the use of ten significant salvaged columns, four at the Summer Street entrance and six at the entrance to the major tenancy in the new mall space, which are proposed to be integrated with pressed metal as shown in the below image.

Figure 38: except from HIS: conceptual interior of mall space at the entrance

to the major tenancy

The HIS suggests that:

this proposal ensures the retention of 10 original columns. Four of these columns would be situated about the front entrance and 6 would be situated about the entrance to the major ground floor tenancy. The entries have been designed with cognisance for the significance of these columns. Specifically, the entries have been designed with a bulkhead over the openings that will be partially supported by the heritage columns.

Given the proposed height of the internal spaces it is acknowledged that installation of the columns in another area would render them purely decorative. Installation of the columns as proposed is considered to be a positive outcome as they have a functional purpose

Ceilings – The pressed metal ceilings should be salvaged and the most intact pieces used for the entry features. In addition, the ceilings should be utilised as part of interpretation pieces in the Post Office Lane display boxes.

The entries are proposed to feature original sections of ceiling which would be salvaged from the demolition works. These would be prominent at both ends of the circulation spine and would comprise the original fabric (not reproduction).

Urbis recommends that the ceiling fabric is salvaged from the first floor which features the highest degree of intact fabric.

Council staff agree with the use of pressed metal as part of the display windows as an interpretation. In addition to this, original flooring (ideally from over the basement) should also be incorporated into the display windows in Post Office Lane.

In terms of the use of salvaged fabric within the common mall space, Council’s Heritage Advisor recommended the following:

The key to the interior design of this space is that it fully supports the original character and style of the retained and restored exterior façade. Currently the proposal includes a combination of external façade and contemporary arcade space. This mix will detract from the heritage significance of the proposal and is unlikely to meet community expectations. As was noted during the visit to the site by the Councillors, the community has long and deep associations with the Store and the design of the spaces connected with the building. The loss of the heritage fabric in the project is substantial with a majority of the building being demolished. It is therefore a reasonable expectation that the mitigation for this loss be works which capture the character of the Store and its significant elements and design.

The arcade is therefore a logical element of continuity which takes the customers from Summer Street into the heart of the building. The following items are therefore recommended for incorporation:

· The retention or reinstatement of the main roof-light is intended as a major focal point to highlight the arcade and centrepiece of the development

· The mall flooring is recommended as lighter coloured material similar to Terrazzo which is common in similar traditional premises in Orange and allows for simple interpretation to be incorporated into the material and finish.

· The use of face brick on the interior walls and piers between the tenancies is not consistent with traditional Department Stores and the use of a traditional plaster with a marmorina or marbled treatment or pressed metal would be acceptable.

· The use of dark grey surrounds to the tenancy shopfronts is acceptable subject to the use of Modclad Bronze or similar framing.

· The use of the salvaged columns and associated piers and bulkheads and pressed metal ceilings with traditional Old School House pendants is recommended.

Council’s Heritage Advisor also prepared two sketches to accompany the above advice:

myer myer 2

Figure 39: sketches of Internal mall (space plan and section view)

showing appropriate use of salvaged fabric

The applicant was provided with the above and responded with the following:

As prefaced in our letter dated 12 December 2017, there is a balancing exercise required for the redevelopment of a retail centre of this nature. This balancing exercise must take into account the following matters:

a) Heritage: to retain as much of the original significant fabric as practicable. However, in determining what is ‘practicable’, regard must be had to the fragile condition and composition of the building and the issues with construction safety. Most importantly almost all of the heritage material graded ‘highly significant’ is being wholly or partially retained as part of the current proposal;

b) Structural: the inherent fragility of the building means that a holistic structural design solution is the only way to safely and appropriately refurbish the building. it permits a common mall with smaller specialty tenancies in the front, and two mini-major tenancies at the back. It provides column free spaces throughout the retail areas and activates Post Lane; and

c) Retail: in addition to providing active frontages and level floorplates, it is important that the centre is attractive to modern retailers over the long-term so that it is best able to meet the community’s retail needs thereby ensuring its viability in the future. This means that the development must be capable of responding to the numerous challenges facing the traditional bricks and mortar retail industry in Australia including the declining relevance of traditional format department stores, which have been in a state of decline for many years in Australia and overseas. It is not the applicants intention to replicate a traditional department store environment internally but rather to faithfully preserve the department store façade whilst also ensuring that the internal retail environment is both appropriately sympathetic to the building’s history and offers an environment that is attractive to modern speciality retailers and their customers.

Comments from the Council’s heritage advisor

We have considered the comments of the Council’s heritage advisor, however we believe that these concerns ought to be assessed or balanced against the context referred to in our most previous correspondence with Council and which is reinforced [above].

Specifically, we do not believe that a traditional department store appearance of the choice of materials to achieve such an appearance is necessarily appropriate, given the re-purposing of the Myer building for modern specialty retailing, nor that an older style of shopping arcade (which the building has never been) is appropriate either. We maintain that in order to ensure the viability of the centre long-term, it is essential that the centre is attractive to the widest array of modern specialty retailers possible.

Furthermore, the advice from our heritage consultant (Urbis) is that there should be no requirement to reinforce heritage features of an “arcade” in the common mall as the arcade is a new element which has been added to repurpose the Myer building and that the central arcade has no heritage significance.

Our response to the specific recommendations made by the Council’s heritage advisor in relation the common mall design and finishes are as follows:

(a) “The retention or reinstatement of the main roof-light is intended as a major focal point to highlight the arcade and centrepiece of the development.”

Response: the advice from Henry and Hymas is as follows:

“Based upon the structural analysis of other areas of existing roof framing that have been investigated in detail (E.g. the “Pod” roof framing), we know the existing structure was not built with structural engineering input and there is therefore a high risk that the existing skylights would not comply with the current structural standards. (Particularly Snow Loading and Wind Uplift)

There is a high probability that significant temporary bracing would be required in order to relocate any existing skylight structure. There is risk of collapse during relocation and a close attention to the proposed work methods would be required. A builder would need to be consulted with regard to practical concerns regarding the proposed relocations.

It is highly likely that additional and permanent structural elements would be required in order to make the structural frame of the relocation skylight comply with relevant standards. The degree to which such additional structure would ultimately detract from the existing form will depend on the structural capacity of the original skylight framing and the final additional structural frame design implemented.”

Therefore, considering the age, condition/fragility of “the main roof-light”, it’s potential non-compliance with relevant codes or standards and the complexity of retaining it (from a building perspective) it is questionable whether it could be relocated successfully (even with modern construction methods and temporary timber prospering and framing)

Nevertheless, given its designation by Urbis as a “high significance” heritage item, the applicant would be prepared in consultation with our structural engineer, builder and architect, to investigate incorporating this item into the new roof design by substantially replicating it in an approved location using metal pressed ceiling.

(b) “The mall flooring is recommended as lighter coloured material similar to Terrazzo which is common in similar traditional premises in Orange and allows for simple interpretation to be incorporated into the material and finish.”

Response: the existing floors of the building are timber. It is questionable whether imitation of traditional premises in Orange is necessary or desirable. It is considered that a darker coloured floor is consistent with the overall design intent, as illustrated in the application.

(c) “The use of face brick on the interior walls and piers between the tenancies is not consistent with traditional Department Stores and the use of a traditional plaster with a marmorina or marbled treatment or pressed metal would be acceptable.”

Response: it is not the intention of the applicant to recreate a traditional department store. It is unclear what period of traditional Department Store is referred to. With respect to the author, this would appear to be a design recommendation. Further, the significant facades are constructed of brick and there are examples of exposed on several inward facing planes. It is not considered that the use pf face brick would detract from or obscure the character of the building.

(d) “The use of dark grey surrounds to the tenancy shopfronts is acceptable subject to the use of Modclad Bronze or similar framing.”

Response: the advice from our heritage advisor is that altering the proposed framing would not have any notable impact on the character of the building. Putting this aside, the applicant is prepared to agree to the use of Modclad Bronze or a similar material in the tenancy shopfronts.

(e) “The use of the salvaged columns and associated piers and bulkheads and pressed metal ceilings with traditional Old School House pendants is recommended.”

Response: it is of critical importance to the long term viability of the centre that there is flexibility in the common mall for the creation of different shop configurations and sizes over time. The incorporation of the columns into the bulkhead and ceiling design does not give the required flexibility for the movement of intertenancy walls over time and would be extremely problematic.

Furthermore, our heritage advisor makes the following additional comments:

(i) The salvaging and re-use of the ten significant columns and metal pressed ceiling in the entrances (as identified in the significance mapping dated June 2016) ensures that “the re-use of the significant columns has a structural purpose (they support the entrance structure) and therefore that they are meaningfully reintroduced”. If [the council’s heritage advice] was applied to the central arcade in the building (a double height space) the elements would have to be altered or of such a scale that the columns would not present in a rational way.”

(ii) “the existing columns are the wrong height for the arcade and would need to be modified, amended or resized for this to occur. This would detract significantly from any heritage or aesthetic benefit”;

(iii) “there is no evidence which suggests that the elements in the building were ever arranged in the way proposed or that there were pendant lights. It is considered that the arrangement of elements as proposed would confuse the history of the building”.

Council’s Heritage Advisor has reviewed the above comments and has provided the following:

The Central Mall Space

Preamble

Council has been prepared to accept the loss of the majority of the heritage building in order to facilitate a new retail offering with the mitigation that the elements of high heritage significance are retained and that the additional works meet the heritage requirements of the LEP and DCP. This can be achieved without affecting the commercial need to provide a maximum floor space and a commercial environment attractive to contemporary speciality retailers and their customers.

The current proposal as illustrated requires minor modification to ensure that the retained and conserved facade blends into and complements the centre and does not appear to be a two dimensional face applied over a centre with a character which is totally at odds with the streetscape and history of the site. A balance can be struck between contemporary retailing and history and there are many examples of historic buildings re-purposed and adapted which retain the best of both worlds.

To achieve this the mall space is to retain the character of the exterior while being adapted to accommodate the salvaged elements reviewed by Council on their visit. The community has long and deep associations with the site and the design of the spaces connected with the building. The loss of the heritage fabric in the project is substantial with a majority of the building being demolished. It is therefore a reasonable expectation that the mitigation for this loss be works which capture the traditional historic character and its highly significant elements and design.

These are to be skilfully included into the walls and ceilings without appearing as minor features but thoroughly included into pressed metal clad walls and the reinstated roof-light monitor

Recommendation

· The main roof-light has been rated as highly significant and is to be reinstated after sympathetic adaptation to meet current structural requirements as the major focal point highlighting the proposed mall and centrepiece of the development

· While the use of face brick on the interior walls and piers is evident on the upper floors this was not a quality material evident in the public and retail areas of the building and the use of a suitable combination of salvaged and new traditional pressed metal is to be provided to the walls.

· Modclad Bronze or similar framing is to be utilised throughout for the shopfront framing as this is consistent with the period and character of the retained building elements.

· The 12 identified cast iron salvaged columns and associated piers and bulkheads and pressed metal ceilings identified by the Heritage Consultants and reviewed by Council on the site inspection are to be installed on each side of the mall in a layout capable of accommodating the contemporary retail shopfronts and suitable lighting. The elevations of the columns and the ceilings of the mall are to be designed using traditional extended boxed piers above the columns to meet the soffit with traditional horizontal bulkheads to link each pair of columns with the general cladding using suitable salvaged and contemporary pressed metal reflecting and interpreting the former interior details.

Council staff support the recommendation of Council’s Heritage Advisor. The applicant is strongly purporting the need for balance between heritage, structural and commercial interests. Council staff are also of the view that balance is essential in the assessment of the application; however, staff are of the view that there is an imbalance within the application which favours creating an “attractive” retail environment at the expense of a sound heritage conservation rationale. Council staff are of the view that the two are not mutually exclusive and a successful outcome where both can be achieved is possible.

As Council’s Heritage Advisor indicates, staff are prepared to accept a substantial loss of heritage fabric in order for the development to occur. What is achieved to mitigate the loss of heritage fabric will determine whether the development is successful or not in terms of heritage conservation. The above recommendations by Council’s Heritage Advisor will ensure that the development is acceptable in this regard. The above recommended conditions have been incorporated into conditions of consent.

Post Office Lane Structure

As mentioned above, the application as originally submitted proposed to lower the existing floor levels of tenancies NS12 and NS13. This was proposed by the applicant as a means of addressing the differential heights between the subject tenancies and the sloping ground level in Post Office Lane. The change to the floor levels of the subject tenancies as originally proposed would have significantly impacted upon the basement below, to the extent that nominally 500mm-700mm would have been removed from the top of the basement space.

Council staff see the activation of Post Office Lane as a result of this development as critically important, and it will have the potential to provide a significant public benefit.

Council staff initially prepared a concept that sought to change the finished ground levels in the laneway. The concept effectively terraced the laneway by raising the western side, and provided ramps and stairs at the northern and southern ends.

This concept was provided to the applicant to assist in their design response as Council staff requested further consideration be given to the design such that it would avoid the impacts to the significant basement.

The applicant responded with the elevated covered structure, citing that the existence of numerous services in the laneway resulted in the change to ground levels concept being unfeasible.

Council staff accept that a structure would achieve the same intent of the Council concept. However, the design as submitted of the structure is considered to be incongruous with the heritage setting.

Council’s Heritage Advisor provided recommendations and an accompanying sketch of how the structure could be designed in a way that would better fit the context and setting. The recommendation was for a simple structure consisting entirely of glass and dark grey steel. The sketch provided to the proponent is shown below.

post office lane

Figure 40: sketch of amended Post Office Lane Structure (source: Heritage Advisor)

(note the notation of fire panel - this is addressed below separately in another location

The applicant responded to this request with agreement, subject to further details/ clarification. It is not clear what further detail would be required for the applicant to prepare amended drawings. As a design was not forthcoming in the most recent round of correspondence, in the interests of finalising the development application a condition is attached that incorporates Council’s Heritage Advisor’s recommendations with regard to the design and materiality of the structure.

In addition to an alteration to the design of the structure, the proposed planter boxes are to be deleted and a further three heritage interpretation display windows are to be provided within the eastern façade adjacent to the access ramp to the Post Office Lane Structure.

Location of Fire Hydrant Booster and Fire Sprinkler Booster

Related to the above dialogue regarding the Post Office Lane structure. The submitted plans show the fire hydrant and fire sprinkler boosters systems for the development located on the north-eastern corner of the proposed Post Office Lane structure (see below). It should be noted that the positioning of a fire hydrant booster and fire sprinkler booster systems were never part of any pre-application (or pre-submission of a revised application) discussion with Council staff. The focus of the discussion was always about what opportunity there was to improve the functionality of Post Office Lane, along with ways in which the space could be utilised without impacting upon the significant intact basement/cellar below street level.

Figure 41: isometric drawing showing the location of fire hydrant and sprinkler booster

The applicant submits that the existing assembly is located near the loading dock in Colvin Lane, and after discussions between the proponent’s fire engineer and Fire and Rescue NSW, it was decided by those parties that the preferred location for this infrastructure was at the Summer Street frontage. As such, the options then available for the location of the assembly were either where it has been proposed in Post Office Lane (public land), or alternatively on privately owned land (ie within the front of the building).

Council staff wrote to the applicant advising that the selected location was deemed inappropriate for a number of reasons, namely:

· The offer to utilise Post Office Lane was on the premise that doing so would activate the laneway, not enclose it with an imposing solid structure.

· It was not an appropriate use of public land. Such critical infrastructure for private development should be on private land.

The applicant was requested to investigate more appropriate locations, and responded with the following justification:

Fire hydrant booster assembly location

As lodged the Development Application proposes the integration of the fire hydrant booster assembly into the proposed Post Office Lane deck structure. The Council officers have since advised that they do not support the location of the proposed fire hydrant booster in this location.

Importantly the proposed position is capable of complying with the Building Code of Australia and relevant Australian Standards (subject to a performance solution) and is also supported by NSWFR and the principle certifying authority for the project.

The decision to locate the fire hydrant booster assembly in this position was the result of a lengthy investigative process for the redesign of the building as a whole which sought to maximise the retention of high significance heritage fabric and in particular the Summer Street and Post Office Lane facades.

Please note that the location of the fire booster assembly further south within Post Office Lane was discussed at length with NSWFR over the course of 2017 and considerable time was spent trying to convince them to allow us to locate the booster assembly in Colvin Lane in the centres loading dock. Unfortunately, due to fire truck access, NSWFR advised that the booster in this location was unacceptable and insisted that it must be directly accessible from Summer Street.

The other options previously considered are discussed below as well as the reasons for why they are not preferred.

Summer Street

This option considered the location of the fire hydrant booster on Summer Street as indicated in annexure A.

We do not favour this location for the following reasons:

(a) Heritage: the preservation of the heritage fabric in the Summer Street Façade is a major focus of the development application. The location of the fire hydrant booster in this location potentially involves large cuts to be made into the façade top ensure that the fire walls are compliant with the Building Code of Australia. These impacts are not supported by our heritage consultant at Urbis because it:

“would interrupt the rationalised shopfront to the ground floor. A simple consistent treatment of the façade to the ground floor is preferred such that it is neutral in the context of the highly first floor façade. The option to place the booster to the front façade would detract from the overall presentation of the façade and would not be a positive heritage outcome.”

(b) Structural: as you are aware, we have examined the structural fragility of the façade and the extent to which significant structural bracing is required to stabilise the façade. We have concerns that cutting into the wall in this area may have further potential impacts on the structure of the façade. This is particularly relevant considering the significant additional work that would be required if a fire wall up to 4.2m high was required to ensure that the walls have the appropriate fire ratings under the Building Code of Australia.

(c) Detracts from ground floor activation: the location of the fire booster in this location will block out a significant portion of the shopfront of at least one or more tenancies, and is a discordant feature in the façade. We are advised that a deemed to satisfy fire wall may need to extend 2m past each side of the booster arrangement and 3m above the “point of connection”. This would mean that in a worst case scenario, the impact upon the façade would be up to 9.864m of shopfront. This would significantly compromise the retail activation of the affected tenancies and compromise the viability of the tenant(s), for little discernible benefit.

Corner of PO Lane and Summer Street

This option considered the location of the fire hydrant booster on the corner of Summer Street and Post Office Lane as indicated in annexure A^{^[3]}. The fire booster would front Summer Street on the corner of Post Office Lane, with sprinkler booster facing Post Office Lane. That is the location that appears to be favoured by the Council officers.

Unfortunately, this option is not considered a preferred location for the fire hydrant booster for essentially the reasons identified [above], with the following additional comments:

(a) It may also involve additional impacts on the heritage values of the basement (which the development now intends to preserve); and

(b) It potentially compromises access to the sprinkler booster because of the deck and stairs, which are needed to activate PO Lane. Advice from Defire is that where the hoses connect to the coupling of the booster they have very little room for movement under high pressure, which may be deemed unacceptable to NSWFR (annexure B).

In relation to the concerns raised by the Council that the proposed fire booster is to be located on “public land we comment as follows:

(i) In order to activate PO Lane, The Post Office Lane deck structure is to be located on public land. Arrangements in respect of tenure are being negotiated at present and it is considered that an appropriate arrangement can be made with respect to the booster as part of this process;

(ii) The primary reason for the location of the booster in the deck structure is to prevent impacts on the heritage façade of Summer Street and its activation;

(iii) The booster will be integrated into the proposed deck structure, which will have limited visual or heritage impacts in this position; and

(iv) Considering the relative benefits and the limited available options, the proposed location is considered to be an appropriate location for the booster.

In response to the above comments, Council staff’s preferred option is the Summer Street option located to the western end of the building.

Council’s Heritage Advisor has provided the following in relation to this issue:

The Fire Hydrant Booster Assembly Location

Preamble

The constraints are established by the Principal Certifier according to the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and the requirements of Fire and Rescue NSW (FRNSW). Four options have been reviewed: Colvin Lane at the rear (1), within the new deck structure in Post Office Lane (2), within the building on the two elevations of Summer Street & Post Office Lane (3) and within the building at the western end of Summer Street (4). The Applicant prefers Option 2 as it has a reduced impact on the heritage structure and no impact on the building retail floor area.

Council staff have reviewed the technical, BCA and heritage matters and accept the case for the impact on the heritage structure [relating to option 4]. Option 4 on the western end of the Summer Street façade is outside the primary high value heritage structure while Options 2 and 3 would negate the expressed Council desire to see the activation of the Post Office Lane space and corner. Option 2 would set a precedent for the removal of public land for a purpose related to private and commercial development. This is undesirable unless there is absolutely no option. Option 4 is therefore the preferred option as it meets the technical issues related to construction, the BCA requirements and the needs of Fire and Rescue NSW. Suitable mitigation using the agreed external materials and details will be sufficient to ensure that the assembly has an acceptable impact.

Recommendation

The Fire hydrant booster assembly is to be located at the western portion of the Summer Street façade within tenancies NS1 & 2 in accord with the requirements of the BCA and FRNSW. The layout and design should be developed to reduce the physical impact on the tenancies and the façade and to be the acceptable minimum dimensions under compliance with the BCA & FRNSW. The external façade elements concealing the fire rated walls are to be the traditional black colour backed glass and the traditional bronze Modclad shopfront framing matching the same shopfront cladding on the Summer Street heritage Elevation.

The above recommended condition has been incorporated into a condition of consent.

Façade Restoration

As noted above, the portal frame proposed by the applicant as the means of restraining the exterior walls requires some way of fixing the two elements together. This is proposed to be achieved by a series of through-bolts, which consist of a metal plate on the exterior of the façade and a bolt through the façade and portal frame. Additionally, the portal frame makes little reference to the fenestration of the existing building and passes behind a number of the second storey windows at the western end of the building. The following are essential for ensuring the development is acceptable in terms of heritage conservation.

Mitigation Measures

To appropriately mitigate these intrusive elements the following mitigation is required.

· It is noted from historic photographs that some of the original decorative façade elements have been removed. These include the prominent central vaulted glazing, first floor arched windows (1860s building), double-hung windows with decorative surrounds 1870s building, central pilasters and pilaster capitals, and the urns that once sat on top of the parapet. These can be observed in the figure below. A condition is attached that requires these original features to be reinstated in a historically accurate way with reference to appropriate photographs.

Dalton Stores 1928, ORG 1928 p

Figure 42: Intact façade during the 1920s (insert: original brick store of the 1860s)

(source: Flynn and Leggo pg. 204)

It is acknowledged that the structural design may need a review where horizontal members of the portal frame fix through the building at the point where the arch window is to be reinstated. Council staff are confident that the applicant’s structural engineer can devise a way of incorporating both elements successfully.

· Another element that is noted from historic photographs is the presence of a large painted wall sign on the eastern façade facing the Post Office. The sign took various forms over the years. Council’s Heritage Advisor has recommended that the “Dalton Brothers” sign be reinstated in a traditional and historically accurate way as an interpretation of the history of the building. This has the potential to be a key focal point within the CBD. The applicant has agreed to this.

· What is also evident from observations of the building is that there are a number of previous openings within the eastern façade of the 1860s building that have been enclosed. As a further interpretation of the history of this important and valued building, it is recommended that those prior openings are expressed in some way so that they are visually identifiable; whether that be by removing the paint to expose raw brick work where the opening once was, for example, or removing the brickwork relating to the prior opening and relaying them recessed in the wall. A condition is attached that requires a suitably qualified heritage practitioner to formulate a way of appropriately interpreting the subject previous openings. These are significant in the history of the building as some openings relate to the internal space where the goods pulley is located for example. The applicant has agreed to this.

· The submitted plans nominate a proposed paint scheme which is considered appropriate to the Victorian period building and is sympathetic with the surrounding heritage items and the Central Heritage Conservation Area. It is noted that with the above requirement to reinstate various decorative elements of the façade, an amended plan showing the paint scheme which includes the reinstated elements within the front façade is also required. A condition is attached to this effect.

Awning Posts

As part of the ongoing dialogue with the applicant, Council staff requested that the original verandahs be reinstated as per the figure below figure. Council staff were of the view that this option could assist with stabilising the façade and provide outdoor dining space upon the first floor verandah that could relate to a series of restaurants or a food court on the first floor. This option was not taken up by the applicant.

Figure 43: example of original verandah treatments to original buildings

as recommended by PWA

(Image: Orange and District Historical Society (courtesy Mr Rob Bartlett))

The applicant provided a detailed response as to why this was not possible as, according to the submitted information, it was very challenging to physically support the existing floors and roof internally within the building. Relevantly, without Level 1 being retained, an occupiable first floor verandah would serve little purpose. So instead, the applicant has offered to install non-structural posts below the awning within the footpath.

Council’s Heritage Advisor has reviewed this aspect of the development and recommends that:

as the awning does not rely upon the columns/false posts it is recommended that these be deleted as they do not reinforce the heritage significance of the elevation, structure or streetscape.

To explain this further, the use of images will assist.

The following image of the building in c1985 shows a full post supported verandah:

Figure 44: c1895 building with posted verandah

(Image: Orange and District Historical Society (courtesy Mr Euan Greer))

The verandah and posts were removed at some point prior to the 1960s, at which time a suspended awning was installed as per the figure below, which still exists today.

Figure 45: the suspended awning c1960

(note the central arch within the awning and the tension rods supporting the awning)

(Image: Orange and District Historical Society (courtesy Mr Euan Greer))

Council’s Heritage Advisor has provided the following:

The Applicant has selected a proposal which retains the current suspended awning, roofing, fascia and pressed metal ceiling. This portion has a level of heritage significance as it relates the Store at its full extent following the last major Inter war upgrade.

The significance of this awning with the elaborate fascias and the pressed metal ceilings is at a High level and retention is warranted.

The provision of false posts to this awning would complicate the historical value and reduce the aesthetic significance of the awning and the Summer Street Elevation. The introduction of verandah posts would only be acceptable if the awning was fully replaced to a structure illustrated in Figure [44]. As this is not the proposal then there is no logic in providing false posts to a shopfront and awning which can be restored.

Should there be a desire for the posts within the footpath to be installed, then a condition should be imposed requiring a reinstatement of the original posted verandah as per the above Figure 44. If not, and the intention is to retain the existing suspended awning, then a condition should be imposed that deletes the installation of posts within the Summer Street footpath from the proposal. As there is no obvious intent within the application to remove the suspended awning, it is considered appropriate to delete the proposed posts from the proposal via a condition of consent.

Interpretation Plan

A heritage interpretation plan is required to be prepared prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. The plan is to be prepared by a suitably qualified person and must be prepared in consultation with people who have previously worked at the premises and also willing members of the Orange and District Historical Society. The plan shall consist of such things as historic murals, memory boards, interpretation signage panels relating to the spiral staircase and goods pulleys, display windows in Post Office Lane, etc. A relevant condition is attached.

Photographic Archival Record

A photographic archival record was required as part of the former consent. It is understood that this work has commenced and some photographs were taken prior to Myer vacating, as well as during the de-fit of Myer. The archival record is to include a professional oral history related to former staff and management who were employed at the premises, as well as community members. The archival record is to include the photographs that have already been collected to date. A relevant condition is attached in this regard.

Part 6 - Urban Release Area

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

Part 7 - Additional Local Provisions

7.2 - Flood Planning

This clause applies to land identified on the Flood Planning Map as a Flood Planning Area and requires that, before any consent is issued, Council must be satisfied that the proposal:

(a) is compatible with the flood hazard of the land, and

(b) is not likely to significantly adversely affect flood behaviour resulting in detrimental increases in the potential flood affectation of other development or properties, and

(c) incorporates appropriate measures to manage risk to life from flood, and

(d) is not likely to significantly adversely affect the environment or cause avoidable erosion, siltation, destruction of riparian vegetation or a reduction in the stability of river banks or watercourses, and

(e) is not likely to result in unsustainable social and economic costs to the community as a consequence of flooding.

The subject land is identified on the flood planning map as being a flood planning area.

Council’s Technical Services Division has assessed the development in terms its flood affectation and the impacts a flood may cause on the development. That Division has advised that the development is acceptable in terms of the impacts on flood water behaviour in the vicinity of the development, given the built form is predominantly (save for the new structure in Post Office Lane) existing; and secondly, the adopted finished floor levels (FLLs) within the development are set at a height that will be above the freeboard level.

The development is acceptable in relation to the above clause.

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 development will not result in additional runoff. Existing stormwater arrangements will need to be incorporated into the new roof and gutters. No external downpipes have been shown on the plans which means they are located in the wall space.

Relevant conditions are attached to ensure that stormwater is managed in an appropriate manner.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7.11 - Essential Services

This clause has the effect of ensuring that the services essential for the development to occur in a satisfactory manner (ie water supply, electricity supply, disposal of sewage, road access and the like) are available, or will be available at an appropriate time.

In regard to the above clause, the subject site is located within a central part of the Central Business District, and as such all necessary services are available to the site.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure)

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) applies to the subject development, specifically Clause 45 - Determination of development applications and Clause 101 - Development with frontage to a classified road.

Clause 45

Clause 45 states:

45 - Determination of development applications - other development

(1) This clause applies to a development application (or an application for modification of a consent) for development comprising or involving any of the following:

(a) the penetration of ground within 2m of an underground electricity power line or an electricity distribution pole or within 10m of any part of an electricity tower,

(b) development carried out:

(i) within or immediately adjacent to an easement for electricity purposes (whether or not the electricity infrastructure exists), or

(ii) immediately adjacent to an electricity substation, or

(iii) within 5m of an exposed overhead electricity power line,

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

(a) give written notice to the electricity supply authority for the area in which the development is to be carried out, inviting comments about potential safety risks, and

(b) take into consideration any response to the notice that is received within 21 days after the notice is given.

The site comprises Essential Energy infrastructure in the form of underground cables and substation. Written notice was provided to Essential Energy and their detailed response (which relates to continued access to the above stated infrastructure and possible upgrade of the services to cater for the development) will be incorporated into the consent as Advisory Notes where appropriate.

Clause 101

Clause 101 states:

101 - Development with frontage to classified road

(1) The objectives of this clause are:

(a) to ensure that new development does not compromise the effective and ongoing operation and function of classified roads, and

(b) to prevent or reduce the potential impact of traffic noise and vehicle emission on development adjacent to classified roads.

(2) 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.

The subject land has frontage to Summer Street, which is a classified road under the Roads Act.

The above clause seeks to ensure that new development will not impact upon, nor jeopardise the continued function of the classified road. No new vehicular access points are proposed. Existing access to the car park will be maintained from Kite Street, and service arrangements (un/loading) will continue to occur from within Colvin Lane. The potential pedestrian impacts in relation to the proposed servicing arrangements are addressed below.

Council staff are of the view that the development will have largely an immaterial effect on the classified road as the building is existing and no significant changes are proposed (save for the façade restoration works required as part of the heritage considerations) to the appearance of the building visible from the travel lanes of the classified road.

Finally, the use of the building is not a sensitive use, and as such traffic noise is not of concern. As such, the development will not unreasonably impact upon the continued operations of the classified road.

Clause 104 - Traffic Generating Development

This clause requires the concurrence of Roads and Maritime Services for certain developments.

Roads and Maritime Services have reviewed the application in respect to Clause 104 of the SEPP (Infrastructure) and have advised of no objections to the development.

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 for consent to carry out development that would involve a change of use on any of the land specified in subclause (4), the consent authority must consider a report specifying findings of a preliminary investigation of the land concerned. It is noted that the development retains the current and longstanding commercial use.

Given that the land has a longstanding historic use for commercial purposes, it is considered that the subject land is suitable for the proposed development and no further investigation of contamination is required. Notwithstanding this, Councils standard precautionary condition is attached which sets out the protocols in the event of an unexpected find.

PROVISIONS OF ANY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT THAT HAS BEEN PLACED ON EXHIBITION s4.15(1)(a)(ii)

There are no draft environmental planning instruments that apply to the subject land or proposed development that have been placed on public exhibition.

DESIGNATED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development is not designated development.

PROVISIONS OF ANY DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN s4.15(1)(a)(iii)

Development Control Plan 2004

Development Control Plan 2004 (“the DCP”) applies to the subject land (Chapter 0 - OLEP 2011, Chapter 8 - Development in Business Zones, Chapter 13 - Heritage and Chapter 15 - Car Parking). 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 3a Regional Centre (Orange LEP 2000) is zone B3 Commercial Core (Orange LEP 2011). As such, Orange DCP 2004 - Chapter 8 - Development in Business Zones is the chapter of primary relevance to this proposal in addition to the other chapters listed above.

CHAPTER 8 - DEVELOPMENT IN BUSINESS ZONES

Planning Outcomes - Central Business District

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

The façades will remain as part of the development and the applicant has proposed a new external paint scheme. In addition to this, as part of the heritage assessment and the subsequent mitigation required to ensure that the development is acceptable, certain reinstatement works are required to be undertaken on the northern façade.

These include; restoration of the first floor windows as per original photographs, restoration of the pilasters and pilaster capitals, reinstatement of the urns on top of the parapet as per original photographs, and reinstatement of the vaulted (arched) window above the main Summer Street entrance.

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

One of the key objectives of the CBD Strategic Action Plan is to activate and reinvigorate Post Office Lane, along with improving key strategic pedestrian links within the CBD. The proposal for outdoor dining space linked to tenancies NS12 and NS13 will go a long way to achieving the stated objective of the plan.

As discussed above, the applicant has proposed a relatively simple structure within Post Office Lane to formulate access and provide outdoor eating opportunities. Council’s Heritage Advisor has evaluated the plans and made recommendations in terms of its design. A condition is attached that requires redesign of this element of the development. The condition requires the structure to be a simple structure constructed entirely from metal and glass, no larger than the footprint shown on the submitted plans.

The former consent incorporated common circulation space in the shape of a ‘T’; providing access to common mall space at both the Summer Street side of the building and Post Office Lane side of the building. This greatly improved the pedestrian permeability on the southern side of Summer Street and was consistent with the objectives of the CBD Strategic Action Plan.

The development application currently before Council has deleted the central mall spaces connected with Post Office Lane in favour of providing amenities and two independent tenancies with their own separate and exclusive accesses.

Council staff as part of Council’s request for additional information requested that further consideration be given to the design in terms of providing central common mall space connection to Post Office Lane. The applicant provides the following justification in support of the submitted design:

We acknowledge Council’s preference to activate and provide access to the retail mall from Post Office Lane. The explanation as to why a connection has not been provided to Post Office Lane, in the DA under assessment, is as follows:

· The current DA proposes two retail tenancies (NS 12 and NS 13) that have direct access to Post Office Lane and will assist in revitalising and activating the laneway. The increased activity and glazing along this façade will in turn provide natural surveillance onto the laneway. These two tenancies will be food and beverage tenancies and as such the DA proposes an outdoor seating area on Post Office Lane as part of the submitted amended drawings, again which will create for a more dynamic frontage and increased activation along the laneway.

· The structural investigations undertaken following the previous DA, recommended substantial bracing to the facades and accordingly the removal of the first and second floors and roof were proposed to be removed to allow this to occur. This meant the scheme has changed from a two storey retail complex (as in DA 159/2016) to a single storey retail format. Previously the amenities were on the second floor, however an alternative location was now required on the ground floor. Accordingly the amenities are proposed on the eastern part of the centre (i.e. where retail floor space is substandard) maximising the number of retail tenancies fronting the internal mall (i.e. prime retail space).

· Post approval of DA159/2016, an additional detailed survey of the land occurred and it was determined that there would be accessibility issues due to the slope of the site and that under DA159/2016, the existing ground floor level would need to be adjusted and lowered. This lead to the current design having an internal mall accessible from Summer Street as well as two distinct tenancies with separate access from Post Office Lane.

This demonstrates that at the time of DA lodgement, the investigations and advice were that there were constraints (of disabled access, heritage fabric, weather protection etc) in providing compliant and level access to the mall from Post Office Lane.

The applicant has prepared amended plans for Post Office Lane at Appendix D, which we feel exhibits a good urban design outcome that will activate the laneway, improve the natural surveillance to the street and importantly provide a positive heritage outcome through the retention of the basement arches which are of heritage significance.

Whilst it would be ideal if the design incorporated direct access from the central mall space on to Post Office Lane, what has been proposed in terms of activation of this space is a marked improvement on the current level of activation. The requirements for additional interpretation within the laneway, together with the repositioning of the fire hydrant and fire sprinkler booster assemblies will further activate the space closest to the subject tenancy. The development is considered acceptable in this regard.

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

This is addressed below under the heading “Provisions Prescribed by the Regulations”, and relevant conditions are attached.

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

The building the subject of this application is arguably one of the most important buildings in the CBD, both for its historic value and also its role in how the CBD functions, with it providing connectivity through the shopping centre to other parts of the CBD. The important role this part of the Orange City Centre plays has been brought to light since the closure of Myer. Council staff are cognisant of this fact and have thus endeavoured to have this application determined as quickly as possible, but not at the detriment of other important considerations such as the heritage conservation of the building.

The proposed development is considered by Council staff to contribute positively to the function of the CBD and will strengthen the role of the CBD as a regional centre.

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

The installation of posts within the Summer Street awning is addressed above under the heading Clause 5.10 - Heritage Conservation.

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

Car parking is addressed below under the heading “Chapter 15 - Car Parking”.

· Advertising comprise business identification signs in accordance with SEPP 64

No advertising is proposed as part of this application. A relevant condition is attached to reinforce this.

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

Existing approved loading arrangements will continue to serve the centre. It is noted that with the increased activation of Post Office Lane as part of this development, there will inevitably be an increase in pedestrian activity in the area, including the area of existing loading docks in Colvin Lane. To ensure the safety of pedestrians and reduce the risk of pedestrian/vehicle conflict, a loading/unloading management plan is required to be prepared for the operation of the loading dock and is required to be implemented every time a loading or unloading function is occurring. A condition is attached in this regard.

With respect to the loading arrangements for “mini major B”, loading for this tenancy will be via the Colvin Lane loading area and through the service corridors.

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

Whilst it would be desirable for landscaping to occur within the site, it is not possible given that the buildings on the land are built boundary-to-boundary.

The plans submitted with the application for the structure in Post Office Lane incorporated two planter boxes - one adjacent to the ramp at the rear of the structure and the other centrally located within the structure.

Council’s Heritage Advisor has recommended that the planter boxes be deleted from the proposal as they are not consistent with character of the area. This is discussed in detail above under the heritage considerations.

CHAPTER 13 - HERITAGE

Planning Outcomes - Heritage Development

· Development relates to the significant features of heritage buildings on or near the site, as reflected in inventory sheets.

· Development conforms with recognised conservation principles.

· Conservation Management Plans are prepared for development having a significant effect on heritage sites.

A detailed assessment of the impact upon the heritage significance against recognised heritage conservation principles has been undertaken above under the heading “Clause 5.10 of Orange LEP”.

CHAPTER 15 - CAR PARKING

Council’s DCP requires parking for shops and shopping centres in the CBD at the rate of 4.1 spaces per 100m² of gross leasable floor area (GLFA).

Development consent was granted on 16 July 1985 for the construction of the City Centre. In that assessment, the entire centre (including Grace Bros, the occupier of the tenancy the subject of this application at that time) required 432 car parking spaces onsite. In later amendments, the number of physical spaces was reduced to 421 and monetary contributions were paid at that time for the equivalent of eight spaces.

Various amendments have occurred within the shopping centre over time, with parking considered at the time of each assessment. As such, the site is compliant for parking across the site under the existing situation.

The current arrangement of the tenancy the subject of this application comprises GLFA across the ground and first floor of 5,018m² and 1,840m² respectively, totalling 6,858m² (figures obtained from Geolsye report titled Traffic Study - In support of a planning proposal).

The total GLFA across the subject tenancy will be significantly reduced as a result of the deletion of the first and second floors and also, the incorporation of non-leasable common mall space. This will mean a significant reduction in car parking demand for the entire site.

The development is therefore considered satisfactory in regard to parking.

INFILL GUIDELINES

Character

The subject land is characterised as a keystone of the CBD and a landmark within the City. The building is one of three contiguous Victorian period buildings, being the subject building, Orange Post Office and the Palmers Building. The three buildings are a main architectural focal point of the CBD and collectively provide a significant level of aesthetic value to the Central Heritage Conservation Area. The recommended conditions that relate to the Summer Street façade restoration/reinstatement will substantially strengthen those values.

Scale and Form

The scale and form of the subject building will, from external appearances, remain as is. The new roof form will not be easily visible from within Summer Street or Post Office Lane. The new mezzanine level within mini major B will be set back approximately 16m from Anson Street and as such will not be easily viewed either.

The scale of the Post Office Lane structure is appropriate. It will be relatively modest in size and will be subordinate in terms of scale to the heritage items surrounding it. As mentioned above, the form of the structure as shown on the submitted plans requires certain changes to ensure it is sympathetic to its setting.

Siting

Siting of the building remains unchanged.

Siting of the structure in Post Office Lane is considered appropriate given it addresses the change in ground levels between the tenancies within the eastern side of the building and the Post Office Lane area; additionally the structure is recessed behind the front building line of the adjoining building (subject land). The development, with respect to the structure in Post Office Lane is considered acceptable in terms of its siting within the laneway and its relationship with the subject tenancy.

Materials and Colour

The proposed external colour scheme is considered satisfactory.

The recommended conditions of consent that relate to the Summer Street façade are considered essential to mitigate the extent of disruption to the heritage fabric internally along with the intrusive new elements related to the portal frame. The condition requiring the façade reinstatement works will necessitate a revised paint scheme to ensure that those elements required as a condition of consent are appropriately incorporated into the proposed heritage paint scheme.

As mentioned above, the proposed new shopfronts are acceptable with the imposition of a condition which specifies a particular framing material.

The materials, detailing and colour of the structure in Post Office Lane require redesign in order for the structure to be deemed acceptable in the context and setting. Relevant conditions are attached in this regard.

Furthermore, conditions relating to the relocation of the fire hydrant booster and fire sprinkler booster assemblies have been included to ensure that this infrastructure can suitably integrate into the historic façade. This includes the use of ‘Modclad’ bronze framing system, traditional black colour backed glass, black coloured cabinet assembly doors, etc.

Detailing

As discussed above under the Clause 5.10(3) considerations, the requirement to reinstate elements to the front façade will return a lot of lost detail to the building.

The condition requiring the large painted wall sign of the original “Dalton Brothers” as an interpretative sign will add a striking feature to the building and will strengthen the building’s landmark status within the CBD.

As discussed above, the internal detailing of the mall space (which incorporates the salvaged significant columns and pressed metal) will make a significant contribution to retaining an acceptable level of the original character of the building.

The above described recommendations and conditions of consent specify the measure that are essential to mitigate the loss of historic fabric. With the recommended conditions of consent, the development is considered acceptable in terms of detailing.

SECTION 64 WATER AND SEWER HEADWORKS CHARGES

Council’s Technical Services Division has advised that as a result of the reduced retail floor area, the land is benefited with 2 equivalent tenements (ETs) for water and sewer which could be utilised if future uses are of a type that generate section 64 charges over and above those that apply at the moment. An Advisory Note is attached instructing of such.

PROVISIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE REGULATIONS s4.15(1)(a)(iv)

Demolition of a Building (clause 92)

The proposal involves the demolition of the ground floor, first floor, second floor and roof structure of the subject tenancy within the shopping complex. A condition is attached requiring the demolition to be carried out in accordance with Australian Standard AS2601 - 1991: The Demolition of Structures.

Fire Safety Considerations (clause 93)

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

Buildings to be Upgraded (clause 94)

Upgrading of the building will be required to ensure that the existing building is brought into partial or total conformity with the Building Code of Australia. Conditions are attached in relation to the required upgrading works.

THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT s4.15(1)(b)

Context and Setting

The subject land is described as an integral keystone in the functionality of the CBD for its connectivity to a major shopping centre and other parts of the CBD (ie Anson Street – now only via the main shopping centre entrance). The building is also a very visually prominent building in the streetscape due its size, appearance and general character. The proposed development will not alter the functionality of the building. If anything, the reinstated central entrance in Summer Street will enhance how the building functions. The separation of the mini major B tenancy will reduce the level of pedestrian connectivity when compared to the previous arrangement, however this is seen to be negligible as the connection will remain from Summer Street to Anson Street (via the main centre entrance). The development will remain an important commercial hub of the CBD. The development is considered appropriate in the context and setting.

Visual Impacts

The development, with consideration of the recommended conditions that require reinstatement of decorative elements to the façade, along with a new sympathetic exterior paint scheme and appropriate shopfronts, will result in acceptable visual impacts and a general improvement to the exterior of the building.

With respect to the presentation of the structure in Post Office Lane, a condition is attached that requires amendments to the design such that it will be more congruous with the character of the area.

The development will have an immaterial impact on Anson Street. The proposed mezzanine level will be sufficiently set back from the street such that it will not be easily viewed form the street or other public places.

The development, with consideration of the relevant conditions of consent, is considered acceptable in terms of the likely visual impacts.

Heritage Impacts

A detailed heritage assessment has been undertaken above under the heading “Clause 5.10 - of Orange LEP 2011”.

Traffic Impacts

All existing vehicle access points will be maintained, so too will existing loading/unloading arrangements. Additionally, the reduction in retail floor area will result in a significant reduction in parking demand. Accordingly, the development will have a negligible impact upon traffic.

Construction Methodology/Sequencing

Given the poor condition of the building, particularly the external masonry walls as purported by the applicant’s team of consultants; a huge amount of community focus and attention will be felt by the building contractor and engineering consultants during the sensitive façade stabilisation phase and further throughout the construction of the development.

Council staff may have accepted the extent of demolition proposed within the application, but what will not be tolerated is a new discovery during the construction or a construction process that requires further demolition. However, given the level of expertise shown by the proponent’s consultancy team, Council staff are confident that the development as proposed can be built in a safe and secure manner. Relevantly, a condition is attached that requires dilapidation reports to be prepared for adjoining development and parts of the building within the subject land that are being retained.

Relevantly, given the possible safety risks, the highly trafficable CBD location and the extent of works proposed, a condition is attached that requires a construction management plan to be submitted to and approved by the principal certifying authority (PCA). The construction management plan should be prepared in line with industry standards and must address matters such as loading/unloading, crane lift protocol, concrete boom location, parking of construction worker vehicles, measures to reduce impacts on the highway and adjacent bus stop, dust, noise and vibration mitigation, etc.

Pedestrian Impacts - During Construction

The schematic drawing provided by the proponent’s building contractor shows the location and type of various hoarding, scaffolding and loading areas. The area concerned will be disrupted in the short term whilst the construction is underway - this is to be expected.

A separate Local Government Act approval will be required for the installation of hoarding, scaffolding and site compound area. An approval would be required prior to work commencing on the site.

To improve the presentation of the area during the construction phase and provide some visual interest, a condition is attached that requires large prints of the building from early photographs to be fixed to the hoarding.

Pedestrian Impacts - Operational

Existing loading and unloading arrangements will be maintained in Colvin Lane. However, with the activation of Post Office Lane as a result of this development, there is likely to be greater pedestrian movements in the location of the existing loading dock area. To ensure that these existing and approved arrangements continue to function appropriately, a condition is attached that requires a loading and unloading management plan that, as the primary objective of the plan, implements measures that ensure the safety of pedestrians during times of loading and unloading, and primarily focuses on managing reversing vehicles through the temporary closure of the laneway and on-the-ground spotters to ensure pedestrian safety. A relevant condition is attached in this regard.

Environmental Impacts

The subject land is located in a highly disturbed urban environment, and the likelihood of the development impacting upon significant vegetation or threatened species and their habitats is very unlikely. As such, the development is acceptable in terms of environmental impacts.

Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED)

The critical aspect in relation CPTED principles relates to Post Office Lane. The proposed fire hydrant booster and fire sprinkler booster assemblies located within the Post Office Lane structure has the potential to create unacceptable impacts by creating secluded / obstructed areas at times outside of business hours. The structure will reduced sightlines down the laneway preventing casual surveillance which has the potential to increase the likelihood of crime and vandalism in the area. It is for this reason also that Council staff do not support the fire safety infrastructure in the proposed location within the laneway. A more open structure would greatly improve CPTED principles in the laneway.

It is noted that Council is in the process of phasing out the existing white way (under awning) lighting in Summer Street. The applicant is required to upgrade the lighting within their awning and incorporate it into the electrical supply for the building and operate the new under awning lighting each evening (dusk till dawn). This would have the mutual benefit of highlighting the respective shopfronts, as well as providing a safer public footpath. Relevant conditions are attached.

Additionally, it is noted that there is existing Council lighting within Post Office Lane that provides illumination of the public spaces. This is to be retained. Relevant conditions are attached.

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts of a development can arise under four typical scenarios, namely:

· time crowded effects where individual impacts occur so close in time that the initial impact is not dispersed before the proceeding occurs

· space crowded where impacts are felt because they occur so close in space they have a tendency to overlap

· nibbling effects occur where small, often minor impacts, act together to erode the environmental condition of a locality and

· synergistic effects, where a mix of heterogeneous impacts interact such that the combined impacts are greater than the sum of the separate effects.

Given the existing and well-established commercial nature of the development and CBD location, the development is not likely to result in any unreasonable cumulative impacts within the locality.

THE SUITABILITY OF THE SITE s4.15(1)(c)

The site is suitable for the proposed development. The development is commensurate with the longstanding commercial use of the site. Furthermore, Council staff are not aware of any natural, physical or technological hazards that would constrain the development in any material way.

ANY SUBMISSIONS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT s4.15 (1)(d)

The proposed development is defined as "advertised development" under the provisions of the Regulations and Orange DCP 2004. The application was advertised for a period exceeding the prescribed period of 14 days allowing for the Christmas/school holiday period. At the end of that period a total of nine (9) submissions were received by Council (two submissions were received from the one company these are addressed as submissions 1a and 1b).

Submissions 1a and 1b - Owner of adjoining property at 210 Summer Street

Submission 1a

The submission outlines the author’s (adjoining owners) serious concerns relating to the potential impacts of the development on the adjoining land.

The submission requests that conditions be recommended on the development that:

(a) Require controls that ensure structural integrity of the adjoining premises at 210 Summer Street, and

(b) Ensure the developer is responsible for any damage that may be caused by the development on the adjoining land to the west.

Council staff response

In relation to point (a), the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation contains prescribed conditions that must be attached to a Notice of Determination, one of which relates to undermining of adjoining land. This condition is attached to the subject consent. It should be noted that the investigations that have taken place by the proponent’s consultancy team have identified quite serious structural problems within the western part of the building, in particular where it sits next to the submitter’s property. Notwithstanding the risks associated with the construction of the development, a do-nothing scenario could have far greater implications on the adjoining land in the future. It could be viewed that the work intended to be undertaken as part of this application would, in fact, result in a positive outcome in terms of impacts external to the subject land. However, the risks during construction are acknowledged and the responsibility of mitigating those risks lies with the owner of the land and the respective contactors undertaking the work.

In response to point (b), any damage upon adjoining development resulting from the development will be a civil matter between the two parties. This would be the same process Council would have to follow in the event Council land is damaged during the construction of a development. Council staff do not recommend a condition to this affect being attached. Notwithstanding this, a condition of consent is attached that requires a dilapidation report be prepared for adjoining buildings, particularly the building the subject of this submission.

Submission 1b

A subsequent submission was received from the same author as Submission 1a. Submission 1b references advice received from their tenant (ANZ bank) in relation to a similar development occurring at another ANZ branch where excessive noise impacted normal business activities of the bank to the extent where the subject branch allegedly experienced financial losses.

The submission requests Council impose conditions that:

(a) ensure the quiet enjoyment of their tenant is not impacted by noise, vibration or other unwelcome consequences of the proposed works, and

(b) the applicant indemnifies the owner of the adjoining premises (the author of the submission) for any financial losses incurred as a result of a claim by their tenant.

Council staff response

In relation to point (a), Council will impose standard conditions upon the beneficiary of the consent in relation to appropriate construction hours. There are mechanisms available under other legislation should the noise associated with the development be deemed excessive. It should be noted that the applicant has a right to undertake lawful construction works on land provided those works are within the terms of a relevant policy document.

In relation to point (b), this would be a civil matter between the two parties. Council would not have the ability to impose such a condition as it would not be for a planning purpose - it would be for a civil claims purpose.

Submission 2

The submission requests Council to “call for a structural assessment by an independent civil engineer to confirm the current building is as unsound as it is”.

The submission also objects to the structure in Post Office Lane providing private business with exclusive use of the public space.

Council staff response

In relation to the first comment it is presumed the author meant “structural engineer” as opposed to a “civil engineer”. A structural engineer was engaged in the form of NSW Public Works Advisory. PWA were selected to carry out the review as they possessed extensive experience working on buildings of similar periods and of similar construction type. Additionally, being a NSW Government department they were appointed as they were seen to be impartial to the project. The outcomes of this process is addressed in detail above.

In relation to the second point, the structure serves two separate but important purposes – firstly, the lease of space in Post Office Lane is seen as a positive outcome from an urban design perspective as it will activate the laneway and impart a level of energy and vitality. It is noted that the lease of Council land in this case (the laneway) is not dissimilar to the lease of footpath land for the purposes of footpath dining, with the obvious difference being the proposed structure, which leads to the second point. Secondly, the elevated structure, as mentioned above, provides a more level transition between the proposed tenancies that address Post Office Lane and the laneway. In order to achieve the objective of activating the laneway it was essential that the proposed tenancies had frontage to the laneway, and given the existing ground level change between the internal FFL and the external ground level, one of two things had to occur to meet accessibility requirements:

(i) the internal floor levels had to be lowered, which would severely impact upon the intact basement below to the point where nominally 700mm would be taken from the top of the basement; or

(ii) Post Office Lane had to rise to meet the tenancies. Council Staff advocated for the latter option, albeit as changes to the ground level rather than a structure. However, the existence of number underground services made changes to the finished ground levels challenging. Accordingly, the applicant has agreed to incorporate the structure into the design.

Council staff are satisfied that the structure in Post Office Lane will provide sufficient public benefit and will result in an avoidance of harm to a significant feature of the heritage building to the extent that its construction and use are justified.

Submission 3 - resident of 243 March Street

The submission objects to the extent of demolition, suggesting the arguments put forward by the applicant could easily be overcome by an experienced architect and modern building practices.

The submission also objects to the Post Office Lane structure, suggesting it is out of character with the laneway, and the location of the fire booster assembly.

The submission requests that Council take a bond from the applicant against the unexpected or accidental collapse of the exterior walls.

Council staff response

The extent of demolition, the process Council staff has followed to review the application and the measures recommended to ensure the development is acceptable have all been addressed in detail above.

In relation to the comment regarding the structure in Post Office Lane, this is addressed above under the response to Submission 2 and generally within the assessment under the heading cl. 5.10 – Heritage Conservation.

In relation to the suggestion that Council take a bond against the applicant in the event of the facades collapsing, Council is not in a position to levy a bond against the applicant for the applicant’s own wall.

Submission 4 - resident of 21 Lawson Crescent

The submission conveys disappointment at the extent of demolition of what the author of the submission purports as the most important building in the history of Orange and poses the question: is an appropriate level of the interior being retained?

The submission suggests two additional preservation requirements:

1 Retain the western wall of the 1863 building up to ceiling height.

2 Raise the level of the new floor to retain the entire fabric of the 1863 cellar.

The submission also requests that Council take a bond against the applicant in the event the façade fails, and that an archival record be required.

The submission also presents a list of mitigation options as follows:

· glazing of the central arch;

· period-style shopfronts;

· reinstated verandah posts be in a period style;

· restoration of sympathetic mouldings around the first floor windows;

· reinstatement of the Dalton Bros sign on the eastern façade;

· more extensive decorative re-use of pressed metal ceilings;

· exploration of commercial use of the historic cellar;

· effective re-use where possible, of excess heritage material by community bodies or individuals.

Council staff response

The first comment is noted, and it is agreed that the building is of very high importance in the development of Orange; and as such Council staff have gone to great lengths to understand if more of the building could be salvaged as detailed above.

In relation to point 1 listed above, this is not possible. PWA agreed that the internal brickwork is of poor condition and should be removed. In relation to the second point, this would be ideal, however the floor level is set across the entire floor space. Council staff have negotiated an option with the applicant that results in a substantial improvement compared to what was proposed initially with this application. Ideally, the timber floor would be retained over the basement section as recommended by PWA, however, the applicant has presented a case as to why this is not possible.

As part of interpreting this space, Council staff have attached a condition that requires a 2m by 2m section of floor to be transparent, with lighting installed in the basement space that would allow the basement to be partly viewed from above. This is a common interpretative measure to improve the understanding of the building for future generations.

Additionally, a condition is attached that requires the applicant to allow occasional access to the basement for historic purposes such as future archaeological studies or similar; or for milestone celebrations of the building such as the building 175^th birthday for example.

In relation to the mitigation the following table is provided:

Mitigation suggestions	Council Staff Response
Glazing of the central arch	This is attached as a condition of consent.
Period-style shopfronts	A relevant condition is attached in this regard as discussed above.
Re-instated verandah posts be in a period style	This is addressed in detail under the heading cl. 5.10 – Heritage Conservation.
Restoration of sympathetic mouldings around the first floor windows	This is required as a condition of consent.
Reinstatement of the Dalton Bros sign on the eastern façade	A condition requiring this is attached.
More extensive decorative re-use of pressed metal ceilings	This is addressed above, along with the use of salvaged columns.
Exploration of commercial use of the historic cellar	This is not something that Council can insist upon at the present time. However, the positive work by Council staff to advocate the cellar’s protection as far as practicable will mean that this could be possible in the future.
Effective re-use where possible, of excess heritage material by community bodies or individuals	This comment is appreciated, however the standard practice is to retain all significant fabric on the site for future possible use. This was a requirement under the previous consent, however a great deal more fabric was being retained under that consent, so less was required to be stored on the property than would be the case under this application.

Submission 5 - resident of 97 Warrendine Street

The submission raises three points which are summarised below:

1 The submission objects to the extent of demolition and asks why only the facades are being retained; and further questions the cost of demolition versus restoration.

2 The submission questions the delay in the application, suggesting the large vacant floor space in the CBD is negatively effecting the retail industry in Orange.

3 The submission commends the applicant for their intent to revitalise Post Office Lane.

Council staff response

The three comments are addressed in turn below:

1 The extent of demolition, the process Council staff have followed to review the application and the measures recommended to ensure that development is acceptable have all been addressed in detail above.

2 As mentioned throughout the report, the development is complex, and as such it has taken time to appropriately review the material and request additional information; and then it has taken further time for the applicant to respond to those requests. It should be noted that Council issued development consent to a re-development of the site back in 2016. As it transpired, the applicant chose not to proceed with that consent for a number of reasons which are outlined above. Also noted throughout the report, Council staff are cognisant of the effect the closure of Myer has had on the CBD; and accordingly this has been a central consideration in the assessment of this application, alongside the heritage considerations.

3 This comment is noted.

Submission 6 - resident of 97 Warrendine Street (not the same author of Submission 5)

The submission notes the significance of the subject building and suggests that too many similar buildings have been demolished. The submission alleges that another Sydney developer is setting the agenda for Orange’s built environment. Finally the submission raises objection to the proposed “façadism”, questioning whether upon further assessment the developer won’t seek total demolition of the building.

Council staff response

The comments within the submission are noted and the seriousness of the comments are not lost on Council staff. In terms of the last point, this is a real concern held by Council staff. However, Council staff can only assess the application as it is presented. Should such an unexpected scenario arise, Council staff will address it at that time.

Submission 7 – president of the Orange and District Historical Society

The submission conveys disappointment towards the development, particularly the extent of demolition. The submission also questions the way the salvaged material will be used and displayed in an interpretive way. In addition to the above, the submission also provides a useful history of the site. The submission concludes with a request that Council carefully consider the arguments presented by the applicant and, furthermore, that as much of the heritage fabric is retained as possible so that future generations can understand and celebrate the building.

Council staff response

The extent of demolition and the process Council staff have followed to peer review the arguments presented have been addressed in detail above.

Council staff have provided detailed commentary around the mitigation required by the applicant to ensure that the development is acceptable in terms of heritage conservation.

Submission 8 - resident of 57 Clinton Street

The submission provides a collection of early photographs of the building to highlight the decorative elements of the front façade that have been lost over the years. The submission provides a doctored photograph with the original elements superimposed on the photograph, suggesting those element ought to be restored. The submission lists the elements as follows:

· reinstate the 8 x urns on the parapet directly above the pilasters;

· reinstate and lengthen 8 pilasters and reinstate capitals as per original features while modifying the awning suspension points to suit;

· render 6 x lower [first floor] east side windows as per second floor windows; and

· render 7 x lower [first floor] west side windows and provide double hung sliding sashes as per second floor windows.

Council staff response

Council’s Heritage Advisor agrees with the above submission and has recommended that reinstatement of the above listed elements be required as a condition of consent. The requirement for the restoration of the above awning portion of the building also includes the re-instatement of the vaulted arched window above the central entrance. As mentioned above under the heading cl. 5.10 – heritage conservation, the above listed façade reinstatements are essential measures to mitigate the loss of heritage fabric as a result of the extensive demolition sought.

PUBLIC INTEREST s4.15(1)(e)

The proposed development is considered to be of significant interest to the wider public due to its prominent location within the CBD and also due to the social heritage ascribed to the building. That being said, with consideration to the recommended conditions of consent, the proposal is not inconsistent with any relevant policy statements, planning studies, guidelines, etc that have not been considered in this assessment.

SUMMARY

The applicant was granted a development consent in 2016 which they subsequently determined through further investigations of the structure, was not possible to undertake and complete.

The applicant has sought an alternate approach to the redevelopment of the site which involves extensive demolition. Council staff engaged NSW Public Works Advisory to determine if an alternate method of redevelopment was possible which would allow a greater amount of the significant heritage fabric to be retained.

Based on the time and budget available to them, PWA advised that an alternate approach was possible, and outlined in a report to Council staff how it could be undertaken conceptually.

The applicant responded to this report from PWA with further justification in the form of additional studies of the building’s structural stability to further reinforce their position, along with a response as to why they were of the view the development could not proceed as recommended by PWA.

It was at this point that Council staff along with Council’s Heritage Advisor, determined that it was best to accept the findings of the applicant and determine what was available from a heritage conservation point of view that could reasonably and appropriately retain an acceptable amount of the heritage character through mitigation requirements. This decision was made as it was very clear that the applicant was firm in their views of how the building was to be re-developed in a way that was: (i) safe to do so from a buildability perspective and be certifiable, and (ii) financially viable in the current retail climate within a regional location; whilst in their mind incorporating appropriate heritage conservation principles.

This was not an easy decision to make. The alternative to this position held by staff is a recommendation for refusal of the application. As mentioned above, the heritage aspects are only one of a number of competing considerations in a very complex application. Most would agree that the CBD has experienced some level of impact since the subject tenancy was vacated in early 2017. Accordingly, the vitality of the CBD and the impacts that would be incurred if the subject tenancy remained vacant for an extended period are also important factors to consider.

That being said, staff have reviewed the proposal in detail and have attached conditions relating to the conservation of the heritage character of the building through requirements to restore certain fabric, interpret certain parts or reinstate historic elements. With the imposition of the relevant conditions, the development can be considered acceptable.

In the absence of those conditions, the development would not be acceptable and the development would not be recommended for approval.

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, D18/11987 ⇩

2 Plans, D18/11927 ⇩

3 Submissions, D18/9067 ⇩

Extraordinary Council Meeting 27 March 2018

2.1 Development Application DA 242/2017(1) - 212-220 Summer Street and Post Office Lane

Attachment 1 Notice of Approval

OrangeCityCouncilNEW#45524E (2)

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

Development Application No DA 242/2017(1)

NA18/ Container PR11580

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 4.18

Development Application
Applicant Name:	Alceon Group Pty Limited
Applicant Address:	C/- URBIS Pty Ltd Level 23, Tower 2, 201 Sussex Street SYDNEY NSW 2000
Owner’s Name:	Alceon Group Pty Limited and Orange City Council
Land to Be Developed:	Lot 564 DP 776383 - 212-220 Summer Street and Post Office Lane, Orange
Proposed Development:	Demolition (ground, first and second floors, and roof of existing retail tenancy), and Commercial Premises (alterations and additions including elevated outdoor dining area)

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

Determination made under Section 4.16
Made On:	27 March 2018
Determination:	CONSENT GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:

Consent to Operate From:	28 March 2018
Consent to Lapse On:	28 March 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) To ensure the utility services are available to the site and adequate for the development.

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

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

Conditions

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

(a) Plans by Alleanza Architecture – project number 16319 – sheet numbers:

DA-0001 – issue 2 – dated 4 May 2017

DA-1001 – issue 2 – dated 4 May 2017

DA-1002 – issue 4 – dated 1 December 2017

DA-1003 – issue 5 – dated 1 December 2017

DA-1004 – issue 4 – dated 22 May 2017

DA-1005 – issue 7 – dated 1 December 2017

DA-1006 – issue 10 – dated 1 December 2017

DA-1007 – issue 4 – dated 11 October 2017

DA-1008 – issue 5 – dated 11 October 2017

DA-1009 – issue 6 – dated 1 December 2017

DA-1010 – issue 10 – dated 1 December 2017

DA-1011 – issue 8 – dated 1 December 2017

DA-1012 – issue 4 – dated 1 December 2017

DA-1013 – issue 3 – dated 1 December 2017

DA-1014 – issue 3 – dated 1 December 2017

DA-1020 – issue 4 – dated 1 December 2017

DA-1021 – issue 4 – dated 1 December 2017

DA-1022 – issue 5 – dated 1 December 2017

DA-1023 – issue 4 – dated 1 December 2017

DA-1024 – issue 4 – dated 1 December 2017

DA-1025 – issue 4 – dated 1 December 2017

DA-1026 – issue 2 – dated 1 December 2017

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

(2) Separate development applications are to be made for the first use and fitouts of individual tenancies created under this consent.

(3) This consent does not provide approval for the erection of signage unless such signage is consistent with the exempt provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes). Separate development consent will be required for all signage that does not meet the abovementioned exempt provisions.

(4) This consent does not provide approval for the proposed security roller shutter located above the central entrance to the mall space from Summer Street, accordingly it shall be deleted from the proposal.

(5) This consent does not provide approval for the proposed under awning posts in Summer Street, accordingly the posts shall be deleted from the proposal.

(6) This consent does not provide approval of the planter boxes within Post Office Lane, accordingly the planter boxes shall be deleted from the proposal.

PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS

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

(8) 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.

(9) 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

(10) Eight Victorian period style urns shall be reinstated on top of the parapet directly above the respective pilasters. The type of urns selected shall be based on reference to the historic photograph contained in ‘Orange and District Illustrated’ Flynn and Leggo 1928 pg. 204. Details of the urns shall be submitted to, and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments and Council’s Heritage Advisor prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

(11) The eight pilasters within the northern façade (Summer Street façade) shall be reinstated where previously removed above the suspended awning. The lengthened/reinstated pilasters shall replicate the design and materials shown in the historic photograph contained in ‘Orange and District Illustrated’ Flynn and Leggo 1928 pg. 204. Details of the lengthened/reinstated pilasters shall be submitted to, and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments and Council’s Heritage Advisor prior to the issue of a construction Certificate.

(12) Eight pilaster capitals within the northern façade (Summer Street façade) shall be reinstated where previously removed. The reinstated pilaster capitals shall be based on reference to the historic photograph contained in ‘Orange and District Illustrated’ Flynn and Leggo 1928 pg. 204. Details of the pilaster capitals shall be submitted, to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments and Council’s Heritage Advisor prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

(13) The six (previously) arched windows that relate to the first floor to the east of the central arch (directly above the suspended awning) within the northern façade (Summer Street façade) shall be reinstated (including the decorative rendered moulding surrounds) where previously removed. The details of the reinstated arched windows on the first floor to the east of the central arch shall be designed based on reference to the historic photograph contained in ‘Orange and District Illustrated’ Flynn and Leggo 1928 pg. 204. Details of the subject windows shall be submitted to, and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments and Council’s Heritage Advisor prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

(14) The seven double hung windows that relate to the first floor (directly above the suspended awning) to the west of the central arch within the northern façade (Summer Street façade) shall be reinstated, including the decorative rendered mounding surrounds. The details of the reinstated windows on the first floor to the west of the central arch shall be designed based on reference to the historic photograph contained in ‘Orange and District Illustrated’ Flynn and Leggo 1928 pg. 204. Details of the subject windows shall be submitted to, and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments and Council’s Heritage Advisor prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

(15) The main central vaulted (arched) glazing within the northern façade (Summer Street façade) above the main central entrance shall be reinstated. The details of the reinstated main central vaulted (arched) glazing above the central entrance shall be designed based on reference to the historic photograph contained in ‘Orange and District Illustrated’ Flynn and Leggo 1928 pg. 204. Details of the subject glazing shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments and Council’s Heritage Advisor prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

(16) The three uppermost windows in the western end of the northern (Summer Street) façade shall have new glazing installed that will be translucent to a level that is sufficient to obscure the frame of the portal structure behind. This detail shall be clearly shown on the plans submitted with the application for a construction certificate.

(17) The proposed 150mm square through-bolt wall plates in the northern (Summer Street) façade and eastern (Post Office Lane) façade shall be replaced with black coloured circular expressed steel bracket anchor plates. Details of the wall plate shall be clearly shown on the plans submitted with an application for a construction certificate.

(18) The positioning of the proposed pad footings located in the significant basement/cellar shall be relocated or adjusted in a way that ensures the pad footings do not impact upon, or cause damage to, the existing internal masonry walls within the basement/cellar. Amended plans showing the revised location of the subject footings shall be submitted with the application for a Construction Certificate.

(19) The new shopfronts within Summer Street and Post Office Lane shall be constructed using ‘Modclad’ bronze finished framing system. This detail shall be clearly shown on the plans submitted with the application for a Construction Certificate.

(20) A heritage interpretation plan shall be prepared for the subject site by a suitably qualified heritage consultant in accordance with NSW Heritage Council guidelines and standard heritage practices. The heritage interpretation plan shall provide such things as murals, memory boards, displays within the Post Office Lane display windows, interpretation signs relating to salvaged fabric etc. The interpretation plan shall include the allowance for occasional future access (by appointment only) of the basement/cellar. The heritage interpretation plan shall be submitted to Council’s Manager Development Assessments for approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

(21) In addition to the heritage interpretation plan, the ground floor above the basement /cellar shall include a clear transparent section of floor above the basement of at least 4m²in size and the basement shall be suitably illuminated from within the basement to allow the basement to be viewed from above. This is to occur either within NS12 or NS13. This detail shall be clearly shown on the plans submitted with an application for a construction certificate.

(22) A large painted wall sign interpreting the previous “Dalton Brothers” painted wall sign located on the upper portion of the eastern (Post Office Lane) façade shall be painted onto the building. The details of the painted wall sign shall be based on reference to historic photographs of the subject sign contained in ‘Orange and District Illustrated’ 1928, Flynn and Leggo. Details of the painted wall sign, including the size, livery, colour, font, location etc, shall be submitted to Council’s Manager Development Assessments prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. The painted wall sign shall be applied to the building using traditional techniques by suitably qualified and skilled tradespeople.

(23) A construction management plan shall be submitted to, and be approved by the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. The plan shall address such things as parking of construction worker vehicles, delivery arrangements, crane lift or concrete boom locations, dust mitigation, noise and vibration mitigation, rubbish and waste removal, complaints handling etc. The plan shall be adhered to for the duration of the demolition/construction phase of the development.

(24) The proposed location of the fire hydrant booster system and the fire sprinkler booster system in Post Office lane is not approved. The fire hydrant booster system and the fire sprinkler booster system shall be wholly located within the subject building. If the fire hydrant booster system and the fire sprinkler booster system is relocated on the Summer Street façade, it shall be located within the western portion of the Summer Street façade. The external façade elements concealing the fire rated walls shall comprise the traditional black colour backed glass and the traditional bronze Modclad shopfront framing matching the same shopfront cladding required for the Summer Street heritage elevation. The fire hydrant booster system and the fire sprinkler booster system shall be designed in a manner that does not alter or affect the integrity of the existing awning over the Council footpath. The fire hydrant booster system and the fire sprinkler booster system shall be enclosed in an enclosure that is coloured black to match the surrounding colour backed glass. Plans shall be amended prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

(25) The original openings (since bricked up / enclosed) within the earliest portion of the east (Post Office Lane) elevation shall be accurately identified. Once identified, a mechanism for interpreting the openings shall be devised either by removing the paint where the opening once was to expose unpainted brick work or recessing the brickwork in the location of the opening. The method of interpreting the openings should be determined by a suitably qualified heritage consultant. Details as to the preferred way of interpreting the former openings shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments and Council’s Heritage Advisor prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

(26) A revised plan that shows the proposed external paint scheme adopting the same proposed colours shall be prepared that also incorporates the required façade reinstatements (vaulted window, reinstated windows, pilasters, pilaster capitals and urns) and shows appropriate colours of those elements also. Details shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments and Councils Heritage Advisor prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

(27) The main roof-light has been rated as highly significant and shall be reinstated after sympathetic adaptation to meet current structural requirements as the major focal point highlighting the proposed mall and centrepiece of the development. The location of the roof-light within the roof shall be above the central mall space between NK2 and the entrance to the Major tenancy.

The use of face brick on the interior walls and piers in the public and retail areas of the building is not approved. The interior walls and piers of the mall space shall comprise a suitable combination of salvaged and new traditional pressed metal.

Modclad bronze finished framing system is to be utilised throughout for the shopfront framing. The 12 identified cast iron salvaged columns, and associated piers, bulkheads and pressed metal ceilings identified by the Heritage Consultant, are to be installed on each side of the mall in a layout capable of accommodating the contemporary retail shopfronts and suitable lighting. The elevations of the columns and the ceilings of the mall are to be designed using traditional extended boxed piers above the columns to meet the soffit, with traditional horizontal bulkheads to link each pair of columns with the general cladding using suitable salvaged and contemporary pressed metal reflecting and interpreting the former interior details.

Detailed plans and specifications showing the above requirements are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments and Council’s Heritage Advisor prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

(28) The applicant shall submit amended drawings to Council’s Manager Development Assessments for approval that shows the outdoor dining pavilion to be located within Post Office Lane comprising an expressed black painted steel frame structure with black colour back traditional glass to conceal the deck down to the ground level, clear glass for the balustrades and a laminated grey tinted glass canopy with a decorative frosted interlayer. Final details and finishes of the steel and glass structure shall be noted on the plans to be submitted with the application for a Construction Certificate. A Construction Certificate must not be issued until such time that details of the final building materials and finishes of the pavilion have been approved by Council’s Manager Developments Assessments.

(29) Three additional heritage interpretation display windows are to be provided within the east (Post Office Lane) elevation. They are to be located in the wall adjacent to the access ramp to the Post Office Lane structure at the southern side of the structure.

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

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

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

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

(33) The existing sewer manhole located within the vicinity of the proposed BOH4 and Major Tenant floor area shall be raised to floor level, installed with a gas tight lid and located wholly within the proposed BOH4 area. The BOH4 area may need to be reconfigured to accommodate the sewer manhole. Engineering plans for modifications to the sewer main and manhole are to be submitted to Orange City Council for approval prior to issuing a Construction Certificate.

(34) 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.

(35) The existing water main and water services located within Post Office Lane shall be relocated clear of the proposed alfresco dining area and associated ramp. Engineering plans for modifications to the water main are to be submitted to Orange City Council for approval prior to issuing a Construction Certificate.

PRIOR TO WORKS COMMENCING

(36) 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.

(37) 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.

(38) A dilapidation report prepared by a suitably qualified engineer is to be submitted to Council addressing the current condition of the buildings that are adjoining the development site, and also the existing building that is to remain as part of this development.

This condition shall not apply in the event that access is refused by those property owners.

(39) The beneficiary of the consent shall complete a ‘Dial Before You Dig’ search of land within Post Office Lane and accurately locate ALL services within the location of the proposed Post Office Lane structure prior to works commencing. Should any existing services require augmentation, relocation, or the like; the proponent shall contact the relevant service provider directly to discuss the required works. Any adjustments to existing services is at the full cost of the proponent.

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

(40) If Aboriginal objects, relics, or other historical items 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 (OEH), representatives from the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council and Orange City Council 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 or otherwise advised.

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

(42) The applicant shall upgrade the heritage white way lighting system within the awning of the building (under awning lights) and incorporate it into the electrical supply of the building. Lighting of the shop front and adjacent footpath area shall meet a minimum design standard of P8 lighting category as per AS/NZS 1158.3.1:2005. The new light fittings within the awning shall match the existing style or alternatively, be appropriately recessed LED downlights.

(43) Large prints of earlier photographs of the subject building shall be affixed to the hoarding within Summer Street and Post Office Lane for the duration that the hoarding is in place. A separate approval from Council for the proposed hoarding is required under the Local Government Act.

(44) 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.

(45) 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.

(46) Building demolition is to be carried out in accordance with Australian Standard 2601:2001 - The Demolition of Structures and the requirements of Safe Work NSW.

(47) Asbestos containing building materials must be removed in accordance with the provisions of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and any guidelines or Codes of Practice published by Safe Work NSW, and disposed of at a licenced landfill in accordance with the requirements of the NSW EPA.

(48) The existing heritage white way lighting (under awning lights) that are located in the awning of the building are currently connected to the street lighting grid that operates throughout the night. The applicant shall ensure that this lighting system is retained and not disconnected during works, unless alternative temporary lighting is provided over the Council footpath and also Post Office Lane. Such measures are to be maintained until such time as these lights are replaced with an upgraded lighting system required by this consent.

Any works involving the awning attached to the building and/or Council’s under awning lights, may only be undertaken following consultation with Council’s Electrician (telephone (02) 6393 8000).

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

(50) 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.

(51) The existing 150mm diameter sewer main that crosses the site is to be accurately located. Where the main is positioned under any proposed building work, measures are to be taken in accordance with Orange City Council Policy - Building over and/or adjacent to sewers ST009.

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

(52) All works required under conditions (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17), (22), (25) and (29) shall be completed prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

(53) A pedestrian management plan shall be prepared for the existing loading area. The pedestrian management plan shall provide appropriate measures that ensure the safety of pedestrians in the vicinity of the loading area during times of loading and unloading of vehicles and the reversing manoeuvre of vehicles entering or exiting the loading area. Measures shall include such practices as temporary barricading and someone on the ground directing the movement of pedestrians. The pedestrian management plan shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority for approval prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate. Once approved the plan shall be implemented for the duration of the development.

(54) An archival recording of the building is to be undertaken for the development in accordance with the guidelines and standards prepared by the NSW Heritage Division and Council's "Guidelines for Photographic Recording of Heritage Buildings and Sites". The building shall be photographically recorded and surveyed during selective periods of both demolition and construction phases such that any significant elements that are discovered during the demolition and construction phases can be recorded. Additionally, the archival record shall include a professionally prepared oral history related to former staff employed at the subject premises and members of the community. Input into the oral history should be obtained from members of the Orange and District Historical Society.

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

(56) 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.

(57) 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.

(58) 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.

(59) 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.

(60) 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

(61) The heritage display windows in Post Office Lane shall be used only for the purposes of heritage interpretation. The heritage display windows shall NOT be used for the purposes of displaying advertising or the promotion of goods, or the like at any time.

(62) The under awning lighting of the building shall operate daily between dusk and dawn.

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

ADVISORY NOTES

(1) If the proposed development changes, there may be potential safety risks and it is recommended that Essential Energy is consulted for further comment.

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

(3) Prior to any demolition works being carried out, any existing electrical infrastructure that is connected will need to be disconnected. Refer to Essential Energy’s Contestable Works Team for requirements.

(4) Satisfactory arrangements are to be made with Essential Energy for the provision of power to the development. It is the Applicant’s responsibility to make the appropriate application with Essential Energy for the supply of electricity to the development, which may include the payment of fees and contributions.

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

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

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

(8) The site has a credit of 2.0 ETs for both water and sewer contributions that are available for future Development Applications.

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 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 gives you the right to appeal to the Land and Environment Court. Pursuant to Section 8.10, an applicant may only appeal within 6 months after the date the decision is notified.

*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 of the Conveyancing Act 1919 -* 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:	28 March 2018

Extraordinary Council Meeting 27 March 2018

2.2 Development Application DA 303/2017(1) - Lots 201 and 808 Astill Drive, and 12A and 363 Phillip Street

RECORD NUMBER: 2018/606

AUTHOR: Kelly Walker, Senior Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged	17 August 2017
Applicant/s	Polpure Pty Ltd
Owner/s	Orange City Council, and Mr PN, Mrs JF and Mr NJ Farrell
Land description	Lot 201 DP1227253, Lot 808 DP1240445, and Lots 1 and 2 DP738478 - Astill Drive, and 12A and 363 Phillip Street, Orange
Proposed land use	Resource Recovery Facility (composting)
Value of proposed development	$300,000

Council's consent is sought for development of land at Lot 201 DP 1227253 – Astill Drive for a resource recovery facility (composting). Polpure Pty Ltd proposes to treat a range of liquid wastes so as to limit the amount of liquid waste that needs to be disposed of via landfill and achieve re-use. The processing of these liquid wastes involves screening, sedimentation, solidification and composting. Composted wastes will be sold as compost soil conditioner. Waste containing non-organic contaminants will be transported to licensed landfill or sewage treatment works.

The liquid wastes for processing include grease trap water, mechanical workshop/oily water, drilling mud, septic tank waste, agricultural processing waste, factory food waste and hydrocarbon contaminated soils. Green waste is also used to supplement the composting process.

The proposal involves site works in two stages:

Stage 1:

· four compost windrows, each measuring 75m long by 4m wide and 2m high;

· construction of two shelters over the windrows;

· construction of a Colorbond work shed;

· construction of a 100,000L wastewater storage tank and discharge pipe to the existing sludge lagoon on the adjoining lot to the north (Lot 808 DP1240445);

· construction of an office with accessible toilet and kitchenette; and

· parking areas for staff and one sealed accessible space, totalling 7 spaces.

Stage 2

· construction of a weighbridge and a Colorbond storage shed.

The proposal also relies on other land for the development, including legal and practical access via existing rights-of-way over adjoining lots to the south (Lots 1 and 2 DP 738478), and discharge to the existing sludge lagoon on the adjoining parcel to the north (Lot 808 DP 1240445), which are all owned by Council. It is noted that at the time the application was lodged, Lot 808 DP1240445 was known as Lot 200 DP127253, as such the submitted plans reference the previous (now historic) Deposited Plan reference.

Figure 1 - locality plan

The proposed development is integrated development under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the ‘EP&A Act’), Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (the ‘POEO Act’), and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (the ‘Regulations’), as it involves the carrying out of a scheduled activity (waste processing – non-thermal treatment of liquid waste) that will necessitate an environment protection licence. The NSW Environmental Protection Authority (the ‘EPA’) has issued General Terms of Approval (‘GTA’) for the required Licence.

The application was originally submitted with uncovered 100m long compost windrows. An amended application was submitted to shorten the windrows to 75m and construct two shelters over them. The original application was exhibited as integrated development for 30 days and seven submissions were received, along with the EPA’s GTA. The amended application was exhibited for another period of 30 days and one further submission was received. The EPA confirmed no changes to their issued GTA. A copy of all submissions are attached, and the issues raised by submitters are addressed in the body of this report.

The proposal does not contravene the planning provisions applying to the subject land. Approval of the application is recommended, subject to conditions of consent. A draft Notice of Approval which includes a condition that requires compliance with the EPA’s GTA is attached.

DECISION FRAMEWORK

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

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

This is a straight forward development application to locate a resource recovery facility in a wholly appropriate location adjacent to Council’s sewerage treatment plant.

RECENT LEGISLATIVE CHANGES

On 1 March 2018 the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) was substantially amended. The most immediate change involves the restructuring and renumbering of the Act, with other more substantive changes to be phased in over time. However, applications that were lodged prior to the changes coming into effect, such as this one, the supporting documentation reference the previous numbering regime. In the drafting of this report, the content and substance of the supporting material has been considered irrespective of which legislative references were used.

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 303/2017(1) for Resource Recovery Facility (composting) at Lot 201 DP 1227253, Lot 808 DP1240445, and Lots 1 and 2 DP 738478 – Astill Drive, and 12A and 363 Phillip Street, Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

THE PROPOSAL

The proposal involves development of land at Lot 201 DP 1227253, Lot 808 DP1240445, and Lots 1 and 2 DP 738478 – being land in Astill Drive, and 12A and 363 Phillip Street, Orange for a resource recovery facility (composting).

Polpure Pty Ltd proposes to treat a range of liquid wastes so as to limit the amount of liquid waste that needs to be disposed of via landfill and achieve re-use. The processing of liquid wastes involves screening, sedimentation, solidification and composting. Composted wastes will be sold as compost soil conditioner. The liquid wastes for processing include grease trap water, mechanical workshop/oily water, drilling mud, septic tank waste, agricultural processing waste, factory food waste and hydrocarbon contaminated soils. Green waste is also used to supplement the composting process. Waste containing non-organic contaminants that are unsuitable for the composting process will be solidified and transported to landfill, and liquids will be discharged to sewage treatment works or licensed facilities.

The proposal involves site works in two stages as shown in Figure 1 below.

Stage 1:

· construction of two shelters over the windrows, each measuring 78m long by 25m wide and 8.2m high, which are open on all sides, held up by posts with Colorbond roofs;

· construction of a Colorbond work shed with roller doors, measuring 16.5m by 30m and 7.45m high;

· construction of a 100,000L wastewater storage tank and discharge pipe to the existing sludge lagoon on the adjoining lot to the north (Lot 808 DP1240445);

· construction of an office measuring 6m by 10m and 4.1m high, which includes an accessible toilet and a kitchenette; and

· parking areas for staff and one sealed accessible space, totalling 7 spaces

Stage 2

· the construction of a weighbridge; and

· construction of a Colorbond storage shed with roller doors, measuring 16.5m by 30m and 7.45m high.

Figure 2 - proposed site plan

The work shed will provide an area for processing and storage of the various waste streams. The primary treatment processes will be screening and sedimentation. The processes will require a latent standing period dependent on the waste. Storage and processing of liquids and solids will require a range of tanks. Temporary storage of the liquid wastes may be required whilst chemical analysis occurs to evaluate suitable options for end use. The shed will have a bunded concrete floor draining to a sump.

Part of the storage and processing area will be outside the shed. External gravelled areas will be used for storage of sealed containers comprising either drilling mud waste undergoing settlement or treated waste waiting disposal. Impervious pads for composting will be located north of the work shed. The beds are mixed at 1-3 day intervals and water is added to obtain the optimum moisture for the microorganisms. The composting stockpiles are maintained at high temperatures and aerated for optimum digestion, and are transformed into peaty compost in a period of 8-12 weeks. The facility will produce around 4,320 tonnes of compost each year.

Detailed descriptions of the composting process, environmental objectives, design and monitoring are set out in a report prepared by Envirowest Consulting, numbered R7542-2, labelled Proposed Waste Treatment and Recycling Facility, Environment Management Plan, and Water Management Plan, and dated 15 August 2017.

Proposed hours of operation are generally daylight hours, 7 days a week. Occasional operations may occur outside of these hours due to emergencies or peak periods, and will usually only involve the collection or return of a vehicle, rather than processing or operational activities. The facility will employ 6-8 full time staff, including drivers and site employees. At most times it is expected that no more than 2-3 staff members would be onsite at any one time.

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

Section 1.7 Assessment

Section 1.7 of the EP&A Act identifies that Part 7 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and Part 7A of the Fisheries Management Act 1994 have effect in connection with terrestrial and aquatic environments.

Notwithstanding, Section 28 of the Biodiversity Conservation (Savings and Transitional) Regulation 2017 states that the former planning provisions continue to apply to the determination of a pending planning application, being an application for planning approval made before the commencement of the new Act, but not determined before that commencement.

In this instance a site inspection reveals that the subject property has no biodiversity value, being a vacant block that has recently undergone subdivision and earthworks. As such, there is unlikely to be any adverse effect on threatened species, populations or ecological communities or their habitats as a result from the proposed development.

Section 4.15 Evaluation

Section 4.15 of the EP&A Act requires Council to consider various matters, of which those pertaining to the application are listed below.

Designated Development

Part 9, Clause 93 of the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2014 (The Compost Order 2016) defines compost as:

“any combination of mulch, garden organics, food waste, manure and paunch that has undergone composting”.

The proposal involves compost derived from other materials such as oily waters, hydrocarbon contaminated soils, drilling mud, septic waste, agricultural product waste etc, therefore is not defined as ‘composting’.

Pursuant to Schedule 3 of the Regulations the proposed development is considered to be ‘waste management facilities or works’ as follows:

32 Waste management facilities or works

(1) Waste management facilities or works that store, treat, purify or dispose of waste or sort, process, recycle, recover, use or reuse material from waste and:

(a) that dispose (by landfilling, incinerating, storing, placing or other means) of solid or liquid waste:

(i) that includes any substance classified in the Australian Dangerous Goods Code or medical, cytotoxic or quarantine waste, or

(ii) that comprises more than 100,000 tonnes of “clean fill” (such as soil, sand, gravel, bricks or other excavated or hard material) in a manner that, in the opinion of the consent authority, is likely to cause significant impacts on drainage or flooding, or

(iii) that comprises more than 1,000 tonnes per year of sludge or effluent, or

(iv) that comprises more than 200 tonnes per year of other waste material, or

(b) that sort, consolidate or temporarily store waste at transfer stations or materials recycling facilities for transfer to another site for final disposal, permanent storage, reprocessing, recycling, use or reuse and:

(i) that handle substances classified in the Australian Dangerous Goods Code or medical, cytotoxic or quarantine waste, or

(ii) that have an intended handling capacity of more than 10,000 tonnes per year of waste containing food or livestock, agricultural or food processing industries waste or similar substances, or

(iii) that have an intended handling capacity of more than 30,000 tonnes per year of waste such as glass, plastic, paper, wood, metal, rubber or building demolition material, or

(c) that purify, recover, reprocess or process more than 5,000 tonnes per year of solid or liquid organic materials, or

(d) that are located:

(i) in or within 100 metres of a natural waterbody, wetland, coastal dune field or environmentally sensitive area, or

(ii) in an area of high water table, highly permeable soils, acid sulphate, sodic or saline soils, or

(iii) within a drinking water catchment, or

(iv) within a catchment of an estuary where the entrance to the sea is intermittently open, or

(v) on a floodplain, or

(vi) within 500 metres of a residential zone or 250 metres of a dwelling not associated with the development and, in the opinion of the consent authority, having regard to topography and local meteorological conditions, are likely to significantly affect the amenity of the neighbourhood by reason of noise, visual impacts, air pollution (including odour, smoke, fumes or dust), vermin or traffic.

In consideration of the provisions above, the proposal does not involve:

· the disposal of solid or liquid waste that includes substances classified in the Australian Dangerous Goods Code or medical, cytotoxic or quarantine waste (Clause 1(a)(i)). The proposal does not involve these wastes.

· the disposal of solid or liquid waste that comprises more than 100,000 tonnes of “clean fill” (Clause 1(a)(ii)). The proposal does not involve clean fill waste.

· the disposal of solid or liquid waste that comprises more than 1,000 tonnes per year of sludge or effluent (Clause 1(a)(iii)). The applicant states that septic waste represents sludge or effluent, however the proposed facility would only process approximately 500 tonnes a year, which is less than this threshold for designated development.

· the disposal of solid or liquid waste that comprises more than 200 tonnes per year of other waste material (Clause 1(a)(iv)). The applicant states that the proposed facility would process approximately 100 tonnes a year of other waste, which is less than this threshold for designated development.

· the handling of substances classified in the Australian Dangerous Goods Code or medical, cytotoxic or quarantine waste (Clause 1(b)(i)). The proposal does not involve these wastes.

· an intended handling capacity of more than 10,000 tonnes per year of waste containing food or livestock, agricultural or food processing industries waste or similar substances (Clause 1 (b)(ii)). The applicant states that that the proposed facility would process approximately 1,350 tonnes a year of waste involving grease trap and agricultural product waste, which is less than this threshold for designated development.

· the handling of waste such as glass, plastic, paper, wood, metal, rubber or building demolition material (Clause 1 (b)(iii)). The proposal does not involve these wastes.

· the processing of more than 5,000 tonnes per year of solid or liquid organic materials (Clause 1(c)). The applicant states that the proposed facility would process approximately 1,350 tonnes a year of organic waste, which is less than this threshold for designated development.

Furthermore, the proposed development site is not located:

· in or within 100m of a natural waterbody, wetland, coastal dune field or environmentally sensitive area (Clause 1(d)(i)). Blackmans Swamp Creek is a sensitive waterway, which is located approximately 107m from the boundary of the area of the development site. It is noted that ‘development site’ and ‘waterbody’ are defined in the Schedule, as well as how to measure distances. The development site can be the whole of the land (which in this case would be all four lots), or the part of the land that the application identifies as the site of the proposed development. In this case, the application nominates the main site (Lot 201), and part of the adjacent lot involving the sludge lagoon (Lot 808). The waterbody is measured from the top of the bank to the boundary of the development site. As such, the proposal satisfies this locational threshold.

· in an area of high water table, highly permeable soils, acid sulphate, sodic or saline soils (Clause 1(d)(ii)). The Schedule defines ‘high water table’ as areas where groundwater depth is less than 3m below the surface at its highest level. The ground water table depth of the site is 8m (established by Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment Report, undertaken by Transpacific Industrial Solutions, February 2012), which meets the locational threshold for designated development.

· in a drinking water catchment, an estuary catchment or on a floodplain (Clauses 1(d)(iii), (iv) and (v)).

· within 500m of a residential zone, or 250m from the nearest dwelling (Clause 1(d)(vi)). The Schedule sets out that residential zones are measured as the shortest distance between the boundary of the residential zone and the facilities or works to which the application applies (excluding access roads). Residential dwellings are measured as the shortest distance between the edge of the dwelling and the boundary of any development or works to which the application applies. The proposed development is located at least 553m from the closest residential zone which is to the south, and at least 588m to the closest residential dwelling which is to the southeast. As such, the proposal satisfies this locational threshold.

On this basis, it is the opinion of Council staff that the proposed development is not designated development pursuant to Section 4.10 of the EP&A Act and Schedule 3 of the Regulations 2000.

Integrated Development

As noted in the “Designated Development” assessment above, the proposal is not considered to be ‘composting’. Although defined as ‘resource recovery’ under Orange LEP 2011, the POEO Act has different definitions for the various types of waste facilities. The EPA considers the proposal to be ‘waste processing (non-thermal treatment of liquid waste)’ with ancillary activities of waste storage, composting, contaminated soil treatment and resource recovery activities.

Schedule 1 of the POEO Act sets out thresholds as to what constitutes a scheduled activity, for which a licence is required for a premises, as follows:

Schedule 1 Scheduled Activities

41 Waste processing (non-thermal treatment)

(1) This clause applies to the following activities:

non-thermal treatment of general waste, meaning the receiving of waste (other than hazardous waste, restricted solid waste, liquid waste or special waste) from off site and its processing otherwise than by thermal treatment.

non-thermal treatment of hazardous and other waste, meaning the receiving of hazardous waste, restricted solid waste or special waste (other than asbestos waste or waste tyres) from off site and its processing otherwise than by thermal treatment.

non-thermal treatment of liquid waste, meaning the receiving of liquid waste (other than waste oil) from off site and its processing otherwise than by thermal treatment.

non-thermal treatment of waste oil, meaning the receiving of waste oil from off site and its processing otherwise than by thermal treatment.

non-thermal treatment of waste tyres, meaning the receiving of waste tyres from off site and their processing otherwise than by thermal treatment.

(2) However this clause does not apply to the processing of any of the following:

(a) stormwater,

(b) contaminated soil,

(c) contaminated groundwater,

(d) sewage within a sewage treatment system (whether or not that system is licensed).

(2AA) This clause also does not apply to the receiving of waste at premises from off site and its processing if:

(a) the waste is to be sold or supplied from those premises as landscaping material (that is, as lawful soil amendments or for landscape gardening) and nothing else occurs in respect of the waste at the premises other than blending, mixing, packaging or storage of the waste for the purpose of that sale or supply, and

(b) the waste is virgin excavated natural material or meets all of the conditions of a resource recovery order (made under clause 93 of the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2014) at the time it is received, and

(c) the waste does not include any liquid waste or biosolids that are not general solid waste (non-putrescible), and

(d) no other activity is carried out at the premises that would result in the premises being a scheduled waste facility within the meaning of the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2014.

(2A) The activity of non-thermal treatment of liquid waste is declared to be a scheduled activity if it meets the criteria for that activity set out in Column 2 of the Table to this clause.

(3) Each other activity referred to in Column 1 of the Table to this clause is declared to be a scheduled activity if:

(a) it meets the criteria set out in Column 2 of that Table, and

(b) 50% or more by weight of the total amount of waste received per year requires disposal after processing.

(4) For the purposes of this clause, 1 litre of waste is taken to weigh 1 kilogram.

Table

*Column 1*	*Column 2*
*Activity*	*Criteria*
non-thermal treatment of general waste	if the premises are in the regulated area: (a) involves having on site at any time more than 1,000 tonnes or 1,000 cubic metres of waste, or (b) involves processing more than 6,000 tonnes of waste per year if the premises are outside the regulated area: (a) involves having on site at any time more than 2,500 tonnes or 2,500 cubic metres of waste, or (b) involves processing more than 12,000 tonnes of waste per year
non-thermal treatment of hazardous and other waste	involves having on site at any time more than 200 kilograms of waste (other than clinical and related waste), or involves having on site at any time any quantity of clinical and related waste
non-thermal treatment of liquid waste	involves having on site at any time more than 200 kilograms of liquid waste (other than clinical and related waste), or involves having on site at any time any quantity of liquid waste that is clinical and related waste
non-thermal treatment of waste oil	involves having on site at any time more than 2,000 litres of waste oil, or involves processing more than 20 tonnes of waste oil per year
non-thermal treatment of waste tyres	involves having on site at any time (other than in or on a vehicle used to transport the tyres to or from the premises) more than 5 tonnes of waste tyres or 500 waste tyres, or involves processing more than 5,000 tonnes of waste tyres per year

The proposal involves the non-thermal treatment of liquid waste, and involves having more than 200kg of waste onsite at any one time. On this basis, the proposal comprises a scheduled activity (waste processing – non-thermal treatment of liquid waste) that will necessitate an environment protection licence pursuant to Sections 43(b) and 48 of the POEO Act. As such, the proposal is integrated development pursuant to Section 4.46 of the EP&A Act.

The application (the original and the amendment) was referred to the EPA in accordance with the relevant Acts and Regulations. The EPA has reviewed the proposed development and raised the following matters:

“1. Development Application and Accompanying Documentation:

The EPA agrees that the proposal is Integrated Development as it involves the carrying out of scheduled activities. However the EPA notes the development application and accompanying documentation makes reference to a proposed resource recovery facility. The EPA considers the proposal to be a scheduled Waste Processing – non-thermal treatment activity with ancillary activities of waste storage, composting, contaminated soil treatment and resource recovery activities. Schedule 1 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act (POEO) defines Waste Processing – non-thermal treatment of liquid waste, as “meaning the receiving of liquid waste (other than waste oil) from off site and its processing otherwise than by thermal treatment”.

The accompanying documentation refers to the Environmental Guidelines – Use and Disposal of Biosolids Products EPA 2000 (Biosolids Guideline). The EPA has previously informed the proponent that as per Section 1.2.2 Exclusions, p.4, the Biosolids Guideline does not apply to septic tank sludge (septage) and night soil. The appropriate reference should be the various Resource Recovery Exemptions and Orders under Part 9 of the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2014.

It should be noted that the EPA Resource Recovery Order under Part 9, Clause 93 of the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2014 (The Compost Order 2016) defines compost as “any combination of mulch, garden organics, food waste, manure and paunch that has undergone composting”. As such, the proponent can only be permitted to supply compost for application to land that is derived from these materials. Compost derived from the other materials including J120 oily waters, hydrocarbon contaminated soils, drilling mud, septic waste and possibly agricultural processing waste may only be disposed of at waste facilities licensed to accept such wastes.

The proponent may only supply compost derived from these materials, intended to be applied to land as a soil amendment, where the proponent has obtained a specific resource recovery order from the EPA.

2. Potential for odours/offensive odour:

Under Section 129 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 the occupier of any premises at which scheduled activities are carried on under the authority conferred by an environment protection licence, must not cause or permit the emission of any offensive odour from the premises to which the licence applies. As the activity is Scheduled, Section 129 will apply.

The EPA recommends the proponent be required to prepare a management plan for activities at the premises and that the plan detail management actions to be implemented at the premises to ensure activities at the premises do not cause or permit the emission of offensive odour beyond the boundary of the premises. In the case where an odour management action is found to be inadequate and offensive odour is detected beyond the boundary of the premises, and options for correcting the odour on site also prove inadequate, the management plan should also include a commitment to promptly remove material(s) causing the offensive odour from the premises to a licensed waste facility.

3. Composting of Septic and other Wastes:

The proponent proposes to compost septic and other wastes following pre-treatment, with characterisation of the end compost product to be undertaken to determine classification in accordance with the ‘Environmental Guidelines – Use and Disposal of Biosolids Products ‘ (EPA 2000). As per the definition in the biosolids guidelines, biosolids are the solid product produced by the municipal sewage treatment process when they come out of a digester or other treatment process. Septic and other wastes are not biosolids and as such the key guidance material for the composting process must be the Environmental Guidelines – Composting and Related Organics Processing Facilities (DECC 2004).

Compost derived from septic tank and other wastes is considered waste that can only be supplied to a consumer for land application at a premises for which the consumer holds an environment protection licence that authorises the carrying out of the scheduled activities on the premises under clause 39 ‘waste disposal (application to land)’ or clause 40 ‘waste disposal (thermal treatment)’ of Schedule 1 of the POEO Act. Alternatively, the consumer of compost derived from septic and other wastes may only do so if a Resource Recovery Exemption has been issued”.

These issues have been raised with the applicant, and have been acknowledged.

In terms of the amended application, the EPA notes the following:

- “It is now understood that the development will not produce leachate as a result of revised management practices and therefore will not discharge to the existing Council dam to the north of the development site.

- It is also understood that the proponent has approached Council to enter into a trade waste agreement which is an acceptable arrangement provided all waste produced by the proposal can be accepted by Council or any other approved facility that accepts waste.

- The stormwater management controls are noted.

- In the absence of any application for a Resource Recovery Exemption and Order under Part 9, of the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2014, only compost produced by the facility derived from a combination of mulch, garden organics, food waste, manure and paunch can be applied to land without a licence. Compost produced from biosolids must be managed and handled in accordance with the Environmental Guidelines – Use and Disposal of Biosolids Products. (EPA 2000). All other composted waste must be disposed of at facilities authorised to accept such wastes.

- All other conditions as raised in the GTA’s dated 28 November 2017 remain”.

The amendment proposes shelters over the compost windrows to assist in managing leachate, which eliminates the need for the applicant to discharge leachate to the adjacent sludge lagoon. Council and the EPA consider this to be a better outcome for the proposed facility. While wastewater will still be discharged from the storage tank to the lagoon, this will be treated prior to discharge and the process will be managed by the Trade Waste Agreement currently being processed by Council.

Overall, the EPA has determined that it is able to issue an environment protection licence for the proposal, subject to a number of conditions. The applicant will need to make a separate application to the EPA to obtain this licence following approval of the development application by Council.

EPA’s GTA and licence conditions include the following:

- that the applicant apply for and hold an in-force environment protection licence issued by the EPA and comply with any additional requirements imposed by the licence;

- that the licence must be carried out in accordance with the proposal set out in this application, and where any conflicts exist, the conditions of the development consent and licence prevail;

- that the applicant develop and implement a Management Plan to ensure the proposal complies with relevant guidelines and standards, and does not cause or permit the emission of odour beyond the boundary of the premises, with a commitment to promptly remove any material found to be causing offensive odours beyond the boundary of the premises, prior to undertaking any activities;

- construction hours of operation, operational hours of operation, and noise limit conditions;

- waste restriction conditions;

- compliance with Section 120 of the POEO Act in terms of water;

- operating conditions;

- that working surfaces are constructed to achieve a minimum in-situ permeability rating, and a soil compaction test (or similar) of the installed liner specifications are provided to the EPA prior to commencement of any composting activities;

- monitoring and recording conditions including up-gradient and down-gradient groundwater monitoring bores sampled and analysed every 6 months where liquid is present for a range of contaminants; and provision of a telephone complaints line and record of all complaints;

- reporting conditions which involves the completion and supply of an Annual Return – Statement of Compliance, and Monitoring and Complaints Summary; and notifying any environmental harm to the Environmental Line service.

A draft Notice of Approval which includes a condition that requires compliance with the EPA’s GTA is attached.

PROVISIONS OF ANY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT SECTION 4.15(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

The application is considered to be consistent with objectives (a) and (b) as outlined in this report.

Clause 1.6 - Consent Authority

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

Clause 1.7 - Mapping

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

Land Zoning Map:	Land zoned IN1 General Industrial and SP2 Infrastructure
Lot Size Map:	Minimum Lot Size 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
Flood Planning Map:	Not within a flood planning area

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

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. Numerous easements are located on the land, however the proposed development is sited clear of these easements and will not have any impacts on the operation of the easements. Council staff are not aware of the title of the subject property being affected by any of the other instruments above.

Part 2 - Permitted or Prohibited Development

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

The subject site is located within the IN1 General Industrial and SP2 Infrastructure zones, as shown in Figure 2 below. The majority of Lot 201 DP 1227253 (the development site) is zoned IN1, and a narrow strip along the northern fringe is zoned SP2.

Figure 3 - LEP Zoning Map

(KEY: yellow = SP2, purple = IN1, blue = subject site)

Under the LEP, the proposed development is defined as a ‘resource recovery facility’ (composting). Pursuant to the Dictionary:

Resource recovery facility means a building or place used for the recovery of resources from waste, including works or activities such as separating and sorting, processing or treating the waste, composting, temporary storage, transfer or sale of recovered resources, energy generation from gases and water treatment, but not including re-manufacture or disposal of the material by landfill or incineration.

The LEP Dictionary also provides that ‘resource recovery facilities’ are a type of ‘waste or resource management facility’. As noted previously in this report, the POEO Act has different definitions for waste facilities that do not exactly align with the land use definitions set out in the LEP. Notwithstanding, it is considered that the proposal meets the definition of ‘resource recovery facility’ set out in the LEP.

The proposed development will be carried out predominately in the IN1 General Industrial zoned part of the site, with the exception of the Stage 2 storage shed and some related infrastructure (drainage, manoeuvring areas etc) which will be in the SP2 zone. According to the Land Use Table in Part 2 of the LEP, ‘waste or resource management facilities’ (which include ‘resource recovery facilities’) are permitted in the IN1 zone, but are prohibited in the SP2 zone.

However, ‘resource recovery facilities’ are permissible in the SP2 zone with recourse to State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (the SEPP). Clause 121(1) of the SEPP states that development for the purpose of waste or resource management/recovery facilities may be carried out by any person with consent on land in a prescribed zone.

In consideration of the requirements of this clause, the applicant submits the following:

· “The proposed development represents a waste or resource management facility (resource recovery facility) as defined in the SEPP.

· The proposed development is not a type of development referred to in Clause 121 and subclause (2) of the SEPP.

· The SP2 Infrastructure Zone is a prescribed zone pursuant to Clause 120 of the SEPP”.

In conclusion, the proposed ‘resource recovery facility’ represents permissible development in the IN1 zone under the LEP, and in the SP2 zone under the SEPP, subject to obtaining the development consent of Council. This application seeks consent

The objectives for land zoned IN1 General Industrial are as follows:

· To provide a wide range of industrial and warehouse land uses.

· To encourage employment opportunities.

· To minimise any adverse effect of industry on other land uses.

· To support and protect industrial land for industrial uses.

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

The objectives for land zoned SP2 Infrastructure are as follows:

· To provide for infrastructure and related uses.

· To prevent development that is not compatible with or that may detract from the provision of infrastructure.

The proposal is consistent with the relevant IN1 and SP2 zone objectives as set out below, and as outlined in this report:

- The proposal landuse is permitted in the zones, and will support and complement other industrial landuses in the surrounding area (such as the sewage treatment plant, resource recovery centre, quarry etc).

- The proposed development facilitates the growth of an existing local business and may generate employment opportunities.

- The proposed development is unlikely to conflict with surrounding industrial and infrastructure uses, but may involve processes or activities that could conflict with nearby residential landuses. Potential impacts can be mitigated through operational conditions of consent and conditions of the EPA Licence.

- The proposed development does not diminish the potential for the land to be used for infrastructure (sewage treatment) purposes in the future, and the amount of SP2 land used by the proposal is minimal.

- The proposal is compatible with the purpose of this SP2 zone (which is for sewer treatment infrastructure) and will reduce the amount of liquid waste that may be disposed of via the sewer treatment plant and landfill.

- The site is not in proximity to the Southern Link Road.

Part 3 - Exempt and Complying Development

The application is not exempt or complying development.

Part 4 - Principal Development Standards

The LEP Principal Development Standards are not relevant to this application.

Part 5 - Miscellaneous Provisions

These provisions are not relevant to this application.

Part 6 - Urban Release Area

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

Part 7 - Additional Local Provisions

7.1 - Earthworks

Clause 7.1 is applicable and states in part:

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

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

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

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

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

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

(f) the likelihood of disturbing relics,

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

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

Earthworks have previously been carried out to create a level block of land, therefore only minor earthworks will be required to construct the buildings, pipes and structures. In consideration of the relevant matters under Clause 7.1, the earthworks are unlikely to affect localised drainage patterns, soil stability, future land use, or the functions of adjoining properties. The subject land is located nearby to Blackmans Swamp Creek, and conditions are recommended requiring sediment and erosion controls during construction to ensure that loose dirt and sediment does not escape the site boundaries.

The site is not known to be contaminated. The site is not known to contain any Aboriginal, European or archaeological relics, and previous known uses of the site do not suggest that any relics are likely to be uncovered.

The subject land is located within an area identified as containing serpentinite rock formations, which can contain chrysotile, a naturally occurring asbestos. As most of the earthworks have already been carried out, the likelihood of encountering asbestos during construction is low. Notwithstanding this, Council’s Development Engineer recommends a condition of consent to ensure that a written plan (Asbestos Management Plan) for the site is prepared.

7.3 - Stormwater Management

Clause 7.3 is applicable. This clause states in part:

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

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

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

The EPA and Council’s Environmental Health Officer and Development Engineer have reviewed the proposal, and recommended conditions in relation to stormwater management to satisfy the requirements of Clause 7.3. Specifically, compact clay liners are required to achieve minimum permeability; and all stormwater from the site outside of the composting areas needs to be directed to a stormwater treatment system for detention and treatment to limit peak outflows and ensure that no contaminated stormwater leaves the subject land. It is noted that the proposal has been amended to include the construction of shelters for the composting windrows, which will reduce impacts on clean water flows.

Furthermore, where stormwater crosses land outside the lot it favours, an easement to drain water needs to be created, and a Restriction-as-to-User under Section 88B of the NSW Conveyancing Act 1979 is to be created on the title of the Lot 808 DP 1240445 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 stormwater storage/drainage system.

7.5 - Riparian Land and Watercourses

This clause seeks to preserve both water quality and riparian ecological health, and applies to land identified as a “Sensitive Waterway” on the Watercourse Map. While the subject land does not contain such a waterway, it is located nearby to Blackmans Swamp Creek (see Figure 3), and therefore Council must be 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, or

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

Figure 4 - LEP Sensitive Waterway Map

(KEY: dark blue = subject site, hashed blue = sensitive waterway)

It is considered that post-development runoff is unlikely to pose an adverse risk to the watercourse for the following reasons:

- the proposal has been designed to site the buildings, vehicular access and manoeuvring areas at least 128m from the waterway, which is a suitable separation distance;

- the recommended conditions of consent relating to stormwater (discussed above) will ensure that contaminated stormwater will not leave the site prior to suitable treatment;

- a condition of consent requires a Trade Waste Agreement to be entered into with Council to sufficiently deal with liquid discharges, and this has already been submitted and is currently being assessed by Council;

- the licence required by the EPA will include conditions relating to adhering to a Management Plan; providing barriers and linings; carrying out testing; monitoring, recording and reporting etc, which will assist in minimising impacts; and

- conditions are recommended requiring sediment and erosion controls during construction to ensure that loose dirt and sediment does not escape the site boundaries.

It is noted that the original application and the amendment were referred to NSW Office of Water as a potentially interested party due to the proximity of Blackmans Swamp Creek, as well as the land being ‘groundwater vulnerable’. However, the Authority has not raised any concerns or made any recommendations in relation to the proposed development.

Overall, while there will always remain a risk to the waterway under extreme circumstances such as record storms and the like, it is considered that the risk of adverse impact can be appropriately managed to an acceptable level of risk.

7.6 - Groundwater Vulnerability

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

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

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

In consideration of Clause 7.6, the recommended conditions of consent from Council’s Development Engineer, licence conditions from the EPA, and the Trade Waste Agreement with Council will ensure that the proposal is acceptable in this regard. Specifically, the development can be appropriately engineered to ensure stormwater, discharges, bunding, sealing, liners etc will be to an appropriate standard, and that ongoing monitoring and reporting will take place.

As noted above, the NSW Office of Water has not raised any concerns or made any recommendations in relation to the proposed development.

On this basis, the facility is unlikely to cause groundwater contamination, impact on groundwater dependent ecosystems, or contribute to groundwater depletion, and is therefore considered acceptable.

Clause 7.11 - Essential Services

Clause 7.11 applies and states:

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

(a) the supply of water,

(b) the supply of electricity,

(c) the disposal and management of sewage,

(d) storm water drainage or on-site conservation,

(e) suitable road access.

The application involves numerous lots on which the proposed development will occur. The main composting activity will take place on Lot 201 DP 1227253. While no utilities currently exist on this lot, adequate services can be made available, such as connection to town water, electricity and sewer, and on site stormwater detention and treatment. Conditions of consent are recommended in this regard.

The main lot does not have direct road frontage or direct access to Astill Drive, and relies on existing rights-of-way over the adjoining parcels to the south (Lots 1 and 2 DP 738478), which are owned by Council and form part of the development site and this application. This provides legal and practical access to the subject land and is considered acceptable.

An existing right-of-way also provides access to the adjoining parcel to the north (Lot 808 DP 1240445) where it is proposed to discharge to the existing sludge lagoon by way of a new pipe. This lot is also owned by Council and forms part of the development site and this application. A Trade Waste Agreement will manage the proposed discharging to the lagoon.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

State Environmental Planning Policy 33 - Hazardous and Offensive Development

State Environmental Planning Policy 33 - Hazardous and Offensive Development (SEPP 33) identifies that in determining whether a development is a hazardous storage establishment, hazardous industry or other potentially hazardous industry; or an offensive storage establishment, offensive industry or other potentially offensive industry; consideration must be given to current circulars or guidelines published by the Department of Planning relating to hazardous or offensive development. The applicable guideline is the Hazardous and Offensive Development Application Guidelines Applying SEPP 33 (SEPP 33 Guidelines).

For the purpose of SEPP 33, the proposed development should be considered as a ‘Potentially Offensive Industry’ as it processes waste, in particular grease trap waste, which has possible air and water pollution impacts. The SEPP 33 Guidelines identify that the key consideration of a potentially offensive industry is that the consent authority is satisfied that there are adequate safeguards to ensure that emissions from a facility can be controlled at levels which are not significant. The SEPP 33 Guidelines identify that an important factor in making this judgement is the view of the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW) for those proposals requiring a pollution control licence under DECCW legislation. If DECCW considers that its licence requirements can be met, then the proposal is not likely to be an ‘offensive industry’.

The EPA has identified that it is able to issue an environment protection licence for the proposal subject to conditions. While the proposal has the potential to cause offensive odour, the EPA requires that the applicant prepares and implements a Management Plan covering all activities and measures to ensure compliance with the licence, and ensure that the facility does not cause or permit the emission of offensive odour beyond the boundaries of the site.

On this basis, it is considered that the proposal should not be considered a potentially offensive industry.

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land (SEPP 55) is applicable. Pursuant to Clause 7 Contamination and remediation to be considered in determining development application:

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

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

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

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

The applicant submits that the subject land was once the site of an asphalt plant, and the potential for the subject land to be affected by soil contamination was considered as part of the previous subdivision process to create the subject lot. A Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment Report was undertaken by Transpacific Industrial Solutions in February 2012 and is summarised as follows:

“The investigation included the installation of forty soil bores across the site between 29 January –1 February 2013. The soil bores were drilled or hand augered to depths of between 0.5m bgs and 11.5m bgs. Three of the bores were converted into groundwater monitoring wells (MW1 – MW3). All three newly installed monitoring wells purged and sampled on 7 February 2013. Additionally, surface water was sampled from three sedimentation ponds, whilst sediments were sampled from one large sedimentation pond in the north eastern corner of the site.

Evidence of widespread contamination has not been identified during the current investigation. Fill material, although placed across the majority of the central and north to north eastern areas of the site was found to be relatively inert.

Localised petroleum hydrocarbon (as TPH C10-C36) impacted surface and near surface soils have been identified above the adopted commercial/industrial assessment criteria adjacent to the pug mill and bitumen ASTs in the central portion of the plant as well as adjacent to the diesel AST in the northern portion of the plant. Impacts are anticipated to be related to historical spills during the asphalt production process or vehicle refuelling.

Given that the identified contamination within surface and near surface soils is localised in nature and no volatile TPH fractions have been reported, human contact with the soils is unlikely (particularly given the land use setting i.e., commercial/industrial), and impact to groundwater is unlikely (given the larger chain semi volatile fractions at near surface in highly compacted soils), the depth to groundwater (>8m bgs), there is unlikely to be an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment.

Dissolved heavy metal concentrations (as copper and zinc) were identified above the adopted site assessment criteria in water extracted from each of the three surface water bodies, whilst copper was identified above the nominated assessment criteria in sediments sampled from the sediment pond in the north eastern corner of the site. Further concentrations of chromium, copper and zinc were reported above the nominated groundwater acceptance criteria in groundwater sampled form each of the monitoring wells during the current investigation.

Review of soil analytical data from the current investigation confirms that concentrations of chromium, copper and zinc were uniformly distributed in both fill and natural soils analysed during the current investigation.

Additionally, surface water concentrations of copper and zinc were of the same order of magnitude as those reported in groundwater during the current investigation. Sediment concentrations were also of the same magnitude as the assessment criteria and were reported below the EILs. To this end, it is likely that such concentrations are representative of background concentrations with the locality and as such unlikely to pose a significant risk to human health or the surrounding environment.

Based on the results of the Phase 2 ESA, and subject to the limitations in Section 12 (of the assessment report), it is unlikely that the identified TPH impacted soils, heavy metal impacted groundwater, surface waters or sediments pose a significant risk to future site occupiers or the surrounding environment and as such do not preclude continued commercial and industrial use of the site.

It is however recommended that should the land use change to a more sensitive land use in the future that TPH impacted soils are appropriately managed”.

The land is proposed for an industrial purpose (resource recovery facility (composting)), and based on the information in the report, further assessment of the site in terms of potential contamination is not warranted. Council considers that the proposal satisfies SEPP 55.

It is noted that the subject land is contained within an area of naturally occurring asbestos, and conditions are recommended requiring an Asbestos Management Plan to be prepared and implemented for the development.

PROVISIONS OF ANY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT THAT HAS BEEN PLACED ON EXHIBITION SECTION 4.15(1)(a)(ii)

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

PROVISIONS OF ANY DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN SECTION 4.15(1)(a)(iii)

Development Control Plan 2004

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

Chapter 0 - Transitional Provisions

Section 0.4-01 - Interim Planning Outcomes - Residential Proximity

This clause applies to development on land within the IN1 General Industrial zone that is within 800m of residential zones or established dwellings in any zone. The proposed development is around 532m from the closest residential zone and 618m to the closest residential dwelling. The relevant outcomes are discussed below.

Siting

· The design of industrial and commercial development is consistent or compatible with nearby residential areas in terms of design, siting and landscaping.

· Car park and security lighting is positioned and shielded to prevent direct light spill onto residential properties.

The subject site is reasonably secluded from public areas and views from other properties, has no road frontage, proposed buildings are of modest bulk and are sited below the ridgeline. In this context, architectural design and site landscaping are not warranted as visual impacts are unlikely. This is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 9 below. The car parking areas are well separated from nearby residential properties, and as such it is unlikely that there will be any light spill or glare. Furthermore, Council’s Environmental Health Officer recommends conditions of consent to ensure that litter, pests and vermin are controlled on the site so to not impact on neighbouring properties.

Noise and Operation

· The hours of operation, traffic and noise generation do not interfere with reasonable expectations of residential amenity.

· Noise-generating activities are contained within the building where practicable.

The proposed facility does not involve any activities that are likely to cause unacceptable noise impacts in the locality. Access, parking and manoeuvring areas are adequate, as discussed in Chapter 9 below. The potential sources of noise include trucks entering, exiting and moving on the site, use of pumps, and the operation of the tractor and compost turner.

The applicant submits that the potential noise impacts are considered satisfactory due to the following:

- “The site is well separated from sensitive land uses. Due to the northerly aspect of the site and the lay of the land to the south, reasonable topographical screening occurs between the development and the nearest residential areas to the south and east.

- The site is within an established infrastructure precinct comprising the Orange STP and waste disposal facility. It is adjacent to an established industrial zone. As such, the proposal is unlikely to involve any noise generating activities that would be out of character or unreasonable in the context of land uses in the area.

- Activities will be confined to daylight hours only. There will be no operation at night time when background noise levels are typically lower.

- Pumps will be operated within the shed.

- The proponent will ensure that vehicles associated with the development are well maintained and properly fitted with suitable exhaust systems.

- Staff will be directed to drive responsibly when entering, exiting and manoeuvring on the site so as to minimise engine revving”.

Council’s Environmental Health Officer concurs with these comments, and notes that issues relating to noise have been adequately addressed by the EPA in their licence conditions. A summary of these conditions are as follows:

- hours of operation for construction;

- hours of operation for operational activities limited to 7am to 6pm Monday to Saturday, and 8am to 6pm Sundays and Public Holidays;

- maximum noise levels at sensitive receivers and how to measure compliance; and

- recording and reporting complaints.

Air Quality

· Measures to prevent dust, odour and chemical spray from reaching or affecting residential properties must be demonstrated.

The applicant submits the following in regards to air quality:

“The subject land is reasonably removed from sensitive receptors.

Potential impacts on air quality are addressed in the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) by Envirowest Consulting (Annexure C of this report) and are summarised as follows:

Odour

The source of odour in composting facilities comes from problems with:

· Process control

· Containment of odorous areas

· Odour control technology

· Siting

Under aerobic conditions the main gaseous product of composting and mulching is carbon dioxide characterised by an earthy or woody odour.

High peak odour emissions generally occur during mixing and aeration processes. Odour emissions can also occur from rapidly biodegrading organics such as food and animal organics or poorly managed stockpiles.

The facility will be designed to ensure the Polpure composting facility does not cause offensive odours outside the boundaries of the facility. The plant used for processing and storage and/or movement of raw organics and products will be maintained and operated in an efficient manner to prevent air pollution from the premises. The compost windrows will be managed to ensure aerobic conditions. Management of the compost pile to reduce the potential for offensive odours include:

· Porosity to ensure air circulation

· Moisture levels adequate for composting

· Adequate carbon to nitrogen ratio

· pH in optimum range

· Oxygen concentration in optimum range

Envirowest Consulting report that the Ylad facility in Young has been observed to not produce offensive odours outside the treatment area. This has been confirmed from inspections by the NSW EPA, local government and representatives of Envirowest Consulting Pty Ltd. The odour produced is organic in nature, is not considered offensive and is not detectable 20 metres from the composting windrows. No potential receptors are located within 20 metres of the windrows.

Particulate matter

High concentrations of particulate matter occur during pre-treatment when shredding and mixing of fresh organics may be undertaken as well as during mixing and aeration processes. Particulate matter concentrations may also increase in summer when organics are dry.

The facility will be designed and operated to ensure that composting does not cause high levels or particulate matter. Management of particulate matter will be undertaken by:

· Gravel access roads throughout the facility

· Regular turning of the compost pile to ensure adequate aeration

· Moisture content of >25%

Methane gas management

The compost windrows will be managed to prevent oxides and organic compounds by regular turning. Methane gas is produced when decomposition of organics occurs in the absence of oxygen (anaerobic conditions). Uncontrolled emission of methane gas can pose a fire risk and other potential hazards to humans. Methane can be toxic or highly odorous at low concentrations and is reported as the principal greenhouse impact of concern for composting facilities.

Quantities of methane gas are not sufficiently generated in open windrow systems which are well maintained with correct moisture and oxygen levels.

The facility will be designed to minimise the generation of methane. The composting pads will be constructed on slightly raised surfaces in external areas. The compost pile will be operated, managed and maintained so that anaerobic conditions are mitigated.

Emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides and non-methane organic compounds

The composts windrows will be managed to prevent oxides and organic compounds by regular turning.

Emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides and non-methane organic compounds are to be minimised whenever gas flare or electricity generating equipment is used. Gas flare and electricity generating equipment is not proposed within the facility”.

Council’s Environmental Health Officer notes that odour has the greatest potential to impact on air quality and the amenity of nearby receivers, and that these impacts have been adequately addressed by the EPA in their GTA and licence conditions. In particular, the EPA requires the applicant to develop and implement a Management Plan to ensure that the proposal complies with relevant guidelines and standards, and does not cause or permit the emission of odour beyond the boundary of the premises, with a commitment to promptly remove any material found to be causing offensive odours beyond the boundary of the premises.

Subject to licence conditions and conditions of consent, the proposed development is unlikely to interfere with reasonable expectations of residential amenity and meets the relevant Residential Proximity Planning Outcomes.

Chapter 2 - Natural Resource Management

Section 2.1-1 Stormwater Quality and 2.1-2 Groundwater Quality

Stormwater and groundwater have already been discussed in the LEP assessment section of this report. It is considered that impacts are unlikely subject to conditions of consent.

Chapter 4 - Special Environmental Considerations

Section 4.1-1 Sewage Disposal

Relevant planning outcomes for sewage disposal include:

· Development within the urban area of Orange as defined above is connected to sewerage facilities or arrangements to the satisfaction of Council have been made for the provision of sewerage services prior to occupation.

· Where sewerage services are not provided, on-site disposal of effluent is designed and implemented in accordance with the relevant guidelines for on-site sewage management systems.

· Suitable areas for on-site disposal of effluent are defined prior to:

o issue of a construction certificate for a building; or

o issue of a subdivision certificate for new lots.

Council’s Development Engineers have reviewed the proposal and consider it necessary to construct a sewer main from Council’s existing main to service the development. Relevant conditions of consent are attached.

Section 4.4 - Contaminated Land

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

The DCP sets the following planning outcomes with regard to contaminated land:

· Land subject to development is clear from contamination.

· Development complies with the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997.

· Applications for development consent on land used or likely to have been previously used for uses in the table below include contamination assessment and where necessary a proposed remediation strategy to make the site suitable for the proposed use.

· An independent site audit at the applicant’s cost is carried out to assess the information provided with an application where Council considers that:

- Information may be incorrect or incomplete;

- It needs to verify that the information adheres to appropriate standards, procedures guidelines; or

- The type or level of contamination requires an independent technical review.

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

Section 4.2-1 - In the Vicinity of Major Industry or Utility Installations

The subject land falls within the Major Industry and Utility Buffer associated with the Orange Sewage Treatment Plant and Council quarry, as identified on the Major Industry and Utility Buffer Map 1 in the DCP (see Figure 4).

Figure 5 - DCP Major Industry and Utility Buffer Map

This clause identifies that the continued operations of major industry and utilities are important to the growth and future of the City, and seeks to protect the continued operation of major development from encroachment of incompatible development.

The DCP sets out the following outcomes:

· Development applications indicate measures proposed with development on land within the hatched area to minimise associated impacts.

· Development on land affected by the hatched area around major industries and utilities incorporates effective measures to minimise potential impacts from those industries or utilities.

It is considered that the proposed resource recovery facility is compatible with the surrounding major industry and utilities, is not a sensitive receiver, and has been designed to ensure that it does not impact on the continued operations of those industries.

The proposed development triggers the requirement for a Trade Waste Agreement to be entered into with Council, and the application has been made and is currently being processed by Council, with concurrence from the NSW Office of Water. This will ensure that the facility is appropriately managed and does not adversely impact on Council’s Sewerage Treatment Plant and sludge lagoon on the adjacent land to the north and east. A condition of consent is recommended in this regard. Conditions are also included in regards to stormwater management, as discussed earlier in this report.

Chapter 5 - Special Environmental Considerations

Section 5.3 - Advertised Development

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

The EP&A Act and Regulations identify that designated development and nominated integrated development must be advertised. Accordingly, the original application was advertised in the local press on 28 September 2017 and neighbouring properties were notified on 22 September 2017. The 30 day exhibition period ended on 30 October 2017, and seven (7) submissions were received at the end of that period.

Pursuant to Section 90 of the Regulations, Council was of the opinion that the amended application differed in more than minor respects from the original, and therefore notice requirements could not be dispensed with. As such, the amended application was advertised in the local press on 25 January 2018 and neighbouring properties re-notified on 19 January 2018. That 30 day exhibition period ended on 28 February 2018, and one (1) further submission was received.

Submissions received during the advertising periods are addressed in this report under “Any Submissions Made in Accordance with the Act”.

Chapter 9 - Development in the Industry & Employment Zone

Section 9.3-1 Industrial-Site Development

· Buildings are set back a minimum of 10m from front boundaries (5m to a secondary boundary on a corner lot) for lots greater than 1,000m² or … otherwise to a setback consistent with existing setbacks in established areas.

· Buildings cover up to 50% of the site area.

· Landscaping is provided along boundaries fronting roads, including trees with an expected mature height at least comparable to the height of buildings on the site. All sites contain an element of landscaping.

· Advertising involves business identification signs within the front façade and/or by a pole sign comparable to the relative height to the main building on the site.

· Security fencing is located or designed in a manner that does not dominate the visual setting of the area.

The set back outcome is not relevant to the development as the subject land does not have road frontage. Notwithstanding this, distances to boundaries are considered acceptable.

Including both stages of the proposed development, the buildings (sheds, shelters and office) will comprise a footprint of 4,965m². Based on site area of 1.918ha, the development will have site coverage of 25.9%, being well within the DCP-prescribed maximum of 50%.

No landscaping is proposed for the site, where the applicant provides the following justification:

“This Planning Outcome is not considered relevant to the development as the subject land does not have road frontage. Further, the subject land is not easily visible from public areas or properties that may be sensitive to the visual impacts of the development. As such the need for site landscaping is unwarranted”.

Council officers concur with this justification and consider that landscaping is not necessary in this case.

The proposal does not involve advertising signage.

The site is fenced along its eastern and southern boundaries with chainwire security mesh, and the applicant proposes that any new fencing will match the existing. Such fencing is typical of the area and will not generate unacceptable impacts upon the industrial setting, and is therefore considered to be acceptable.

· Architectural features are provided to the front building façade to provide relief using such elements as verandahs, display windows, indented walls, etc.

· External materials consist of non reflective materials.

The applicant provides the following comments in this regard:

“It is acknowledged that the proposed buildings are virtually devoid of architectural detailing. However, this Planning Outcome is not considered important in this case. The site is adjacent to the City’s STP; is reasonably secluded from public areas and views from other properties; and has no road frontage. In this context, the architectural embellishment of the proposed buildings is not warranted”.

Council concurs with these comments. It is considered that the proposed overall built form will reasonably relate to the predominant building form surrounding the site in respect of scale and siting. It was originally proposed to use Zincalume on some external finishes, however the application has been amended to use Colorbond and Custom-orb steel cladding and roofing for all buildings, which is considered to be more suitable as it is non-reflective.

· Adequate parking and onsite manoeuvring is provided.

Pursuant to Chapters 9 and 15 of the DCP, onsite parking is to be provided for industry/warehouse/depot (being the best-fit landuse for the proposal) at a rate of 1 space per 100m² of gross floor area (GFA), or 1 space for every 2 employees, whichever is the greater.

Based on proposed GFA of 1,050m²(being 2 sheds and the office) 10.5 onsite car parking spaces are required. Based on up to 8 employees, 4 onsite car parking spaces are required. Floor area generates the higher demand in this case.

The applicant contends that the second shed (to be built in Stage 2) does not generate car parking demand as it will only be used for storage purposes and the parking of vehicles and equipment, and will not be occupied by staff. On this basis, the applicant requests that Council only impose a parking requirement for the main work shed and office.

Based on a GFA of 555m² (work shed and office only) 5.6 onsite car parking spaces are required. Floor area generates a greater demand compared with employees. The proposal provides for 7 car parking spaces, including 1 accessible space adjacent to the office building. This is considered ample to provide for anticipated staff levels, and will allow for additional parking for any visitors to the site.

The proposed site layout and building design will accommodate onsite circulation and forward-direction egress of all vehicles likely to be associated with the resource recovery facility, up to and including a 12.5m heavy rigid vehicle. Vehicle turn path drawings have been submitted demonstrating that this can be achieved. A condition of consent is recommended that ensures outdoor storage does not obstruct onsite vehicle parking and manoeuvring areas.

Section 9.6-1 - Industries Near Residential Areas:

· Applications for development that has the potential to impact on residential areas in the vicinity identify likely impacts and outline reasonable mitigation measures.

· Industries with potentially significant off-site impacts are located well-away from areas zoned residential or rural residential and take into account the proximity to existing houses.

Potential impacts on nearby residential areas were discussed previously in “Section 0.4-01 - Interim Planning Outcomes – Residential Proximity”.

Chapter 15 - Car Parking

Car parking has been addressed in “Chapter 9” above.

PROVISIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE REGULATIONS SECTION 4.15(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 proposed buildings are adequately set back to allow compliance with the BCA in terms of fire separation. More details will be required at Construction Certificate stage to determine compliance within the buildings. Annual Fire Safety Statements will be required. Relevant conditions are attached.

Buildings to be Upgraded (clause 94)

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

BASIX Commitments (clause 97A)

BASIX is not applicable to the proposal. A Section J energy efficiency statement will apply at Construction Certificate stage.

THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT SECTION 4.15(1)(b)

Visual Impacts

As outlined in this report, the proposed development is unlikely to have any adverse visual impacts due to the following:

· The site is reasonably secluded from public view, where it is not easily visible from public areas, the street or nearby properties that may be sensitive to the visual impacts of the development (ie residential dwellings).

· The proposed buildings are of modest bulk, height and scale, and are sited below the ridgeline.

· The compost piles are relatively low in height (approximately 2m) and due to their earthen appearance will blend reasonably within the landscape.

· The site is reasonably well separated from residential areas, being at least 532m from the closest residential zone (which is to the south), and at least 618m to the closest residential dwelling (which is to the southeast).

Traffic Impacts

The proposal is unlikely to have any adverse traffic impacts as discussed in this report, and as summarised as follows:

· The localised road network is of sufficient capacity to accommodate traffic associated with the proposed development.

· Rights-of-way exist over the adjacent land to the south, which provides for legal and practical access to the site.

· Traffic associated with the development will utilise the Narrambla industrial estate road network and the Northern Distributor Road. Traffic volumes in nearby residential streets will not be impacted by the proposal.

· Onsite car parking will be provided to accommodate the parking demands generated by the proposal, and sufficient onsite manoeuvring area will be available to permit functional reverse manoeuvring from parking spaces and forward direction egress.

· The proposed site layout will accommodate onsite circulation and forward-direction egress of all vehicles likely to be associated with the development.

· The compacted gravel hardstand surface is considered appropriate for the proposed use, subject to engineering conditions relating to stormwater.

Impacts on Residential Amenity and Human Health

As outlined in this report, the proposed development is unlikely to adversely impact on residential amenity for nearby dwellings in respect of visual and traffic impacts (which have been addressed above), or noise, odour, litter, pests and vermin (which are discussed below).

Noise Impacts

As discussed in the body of this report, the proposed facility does not involve any activities that are likely to cause unacceptable noise impacts in the locality. Issues relating to noise have been adequately addressed by the EPA in their licence conditions, including hours of operation for construction, hours of operation for operational activities, maximum noise levels at sensitive receivers and how to measure compliance, and recording and reporting complaints.

Odour

As detailed in this report, odour has the potential to impact on air quality and the amenity of nearby receivers. These impacts have been reviewed by Council’s Environmental Health Officers and the EPA, and can be adequately addressed by the EPA’s GTA and licence conditions. In particular, the applicant shall develop and implement a Management Plan to ensure that the proposal complies with relevant guidelines and standards, and does not cause or permit the emission of odour beyond the boundary of the premises; with a commitment to promptly remove any material found to be causing offensive odours beyond the boundary of the premises.

Litter, Pests and Vermin

Council’s Environmental Health officer has reviewed the proposal and recommends conditions of consent to ensure that litter, pests and vermin are controlled on the site.

Environmental Impacts

Water Quality

As discussed in the body of this report, water quality is unlikely to be adversely impacted for the following reasons:

- the proposal has been designed to site the buildings and vehicular access and manoeuvring areas at least 128m from the nearby waterway, which is a suitable separation distance;

- the proposal has been amended to include shelters over the compost windrows, which will reduce leachate produced on the site;

- conditions of consent relating to stormwater will ensure that contaminated stormwater will not leave the site prior to suitable treatment;

- a Trade Waste Agreement will be entered into with Council (with the concurrence of the NSW Office of Water), which will ensure that liquid discharges are sufficiently dealt with;

- the licence required by the EPA will include conditions relating to adhering to a Management Plan, providing barriers and linings, carrying out testing, monitoring, recording and reporting etc, which will assist in managing and minimising impacts; and

- conditions requiring sediment and erosion controls during construction will ensure that loose dirt and sediment does not escape the site boundaries.

Air Quality

Odour has been discussed above and in the body of this report, and has been adequately addressed by the EPA in their GTA and licence conditions. It is considered that, subject to conditions, the proposed development is unlikely to have adverse air quality impacts.

Ecological Impacts

It is considered that the proposed development is unlikely to generate adverse ecological impacts as the subject land was previously used as an asphalt plant, and more recently it has undergone considerable earthworks to establish a series of compacted gravel pads across its surface. The site is therefore devoid of native vegetation or any natural features of note, and as such habitat potential is minimal and the development will not have a significant effect upon threatened species, populations or ecological communities.

Naturally Occurring Asbestos

As discussed in the report, the subject land is located within an area identified as containing serpentinite rock formations, which can contain chrysotile, a naturally occurring asbestos. As most of the earthworks have already been carried out, the likelihood of encountering asbestos during construction is low. Notwithstanding this, Council’s Development Engineer recommends a condition of consent requiring an ‘Asbestos Management Plan’ for the site in accordance with the provisions of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011.

Social and Economic Impacts

Positive social effects include the facilitation of a development that encourages the sustainable treatment and reuse of waste, subsequently reducing the amount of waste going to landfill and to the sewer. The development may also generate positive economic spin-offs as a result of building construction, employment opportunities, and purchases of fuel, equipment etc.

Negative social effects relate to the potential adverse amenity and environmental impacts that may be generated by the development. However, if the development operates in the manner discussed in this report, and in accordance with conditions of consent and licence conditions, the potential for adverse social impacts are considered to be minimal.

THE SUITABILITY OF THE SITE SECTION 4.15(1)(c)

The subject land is suitable for the proposed development due to the following:

· The proposed landuse is permitted in the zone.

· Suitable utility services can be made available to the site.

· The site has legal and practical access to Astill Drive via a right-of-way over the adjoining lot to the south.

· The local road network is of sufficient capacity to accommodate traffic volumes associated with the proposal.

· The site does not have any particular environmental sensitivity, and potential impacts to nearby sensitive areas can be managed through conditions of consent and ongoing monitoring.

· The subject land is contained within an area of naturally occurring asbestos, and a condition is recommended that an Asbestos Management Plan be prepared and implemented for the development.

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

· The proposal is not considered ‘potentially offensive’ as the EPA is willing to issue an environment protection licence for the scheduled waste activity, which will manage and monitor impacts.

ANY SUBMISSIONS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT SECTION 4.15(1)(d)

Pursuant to Section 90 of the Regulations, Council was of the opinion that the amended application differed in ‘more than minor’ respects from the original, and therefore notice requirements could not be dispensed with. As such, the amended application was advertised in the local press on 25 January 2018 and neighbouring properties re-notified on 19 January 2018. That 30 day exhibition period ended on 28 February 2018, and one (1) further submission was received.

A total of eight (8) submissions were received during both exhibition periods. Three (3) submissions are in support of the proposal, and include representation from the Orange and Region Water Security Alliance and the Environmentally Concerned Citizens of Orange (ECCO Orange). Two (2) submissions object to the proposal. The remaining three (3) submissions provided general comments on the proposal. Issues raised are summarised as below.

Environmental and Health Impacts

Submissions have been received supporting the processing of wastes into useable products providing that the development is carried out responsibly. Conditions of consent and licence conditions will ensure that the proposed facility will be carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and standards.

Submissions have been received suggesting that the composting windrow shelters be enclosed sheds rather than open-sided to achieve better environmental outcomes. Council officers and the EPA consider the amended proposal to cover the windrows with open shelters as a suitable means to reduce leachate, when coupled with engineering solutions to be provided on the site for lining, bunding, treating stormwater etc as discussed in the body of this report.

Submissions raise concerns in regards to processing contaminated waste, including potential heavy metals and asbestos; and recommend testing and monitoring procedures, and that records are kept in perpetuity. The EPA sets out licence conditions for the ongoing monitoring and reporting required for the activities, which suitably covers this issue.

Submissions have been received in regards to the potential health impacts of odour, which are addressed below.

Amenity of Surrounding Properties

Submissions have been received in relation to potential access, visual, odour and noise impacts on surrounding industrial and residential properties. Some submissions note that the subject site is not appropriate due to the proximity to residential areas, whereas other submissions note that the site is appropriate, being industrial land where environmental threats can be managed.

As discussed in the body of this report:

- the zoning of the land permits waste activities and the land is within the ‘Major Industry and Utility Buffer’ which supports the proposed development;

- odour and noise impacts can be appropriately managed through EPA conditions such as requiring a Management Plan for odour, and limiting operation activities including acceptable waste to be processed and hours of operation;

- visual impacts are unlikely due to the separation distance to residential dwellings and residential zones; and

- the proposal will not impact on access to neighbouring land, where the development relies on rights-of-way across Council land to the south to access the site, which has been arranged in consultation with Council.

It is noted that a submission has been received supporting the amended materials from Zincalume to Colorbond.

Peer Review

A submission recommends that the application is peer reviewed. Council officers are of the opinion that this application does not require peer review given the EPA is willing to issue an environment protection licence, a Trade Waste application is currently being processed with Concurrence from the NSW Office of Water (separately to this application) and potential impacts can be controlled by conditions of consent and licence. Furthermore, only two (2) objections have been received in relation to the proposed development.

Relocation of Polpure

A number of submissions have been received supporting the re-location of Polpure’s business activities from Spring Terrace to the subject site. Submitters note that the subject site is a better location than the existing site, and that Council should require the existing site to cease waste activities. This application seeks consent for a resource recovery facility (composting) at the subject site in Astill Drive, and does not relate to the applicant’s existing or future activities on other sites.

It is noted that the applicant currently holds an active development consent and EPA licence for the Spring Terrace operation, however as those activities are not relevant to the assessment of this application, they have not been considered. The issues raised in regards to the operation of the Spring Terrance facility are being dealt with separately to this application.

Decreased Property Value

A number of submissions indicated that the proposed development may reduce the land value of nearby properties. Property value is not considered to be a relevant consideration under the EP&A Act, and as such has not been considered in any further detail.

PUBLIC INTEREST SECTION 4.15(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 resource recovery facility (composting) is permissible with the consent of Council. The proposed development complies with the relevant aims, objectives and provisions of the LEP, SEPPs and DCP. A Section 4.15 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 Council considers appropriate to ensure that the development proceeds in an acceptable manner. The draft Notice also a condition requiring compliance with the General Terms of Approval set out by the EPA.

COMMENTS

The requirements of the EPA, Council’s Environmental Health and Building Section and Council’s Engineering Development Section are included in the attached Notice of Approval.

Attachments

1 Notice of Approval, D18/11986 ⇩

2 EPA General Terms of Approval and Licence Conditions, D18/11634 ⇩

3 Plans, IC18/4012 ⇩

4 Submissions, D18/11983 ⇩

[1] Planning Circular PS 17-006 – variations to development standards provides the procedure in relation to the assumed concurrence of the Secretary NSW Department of Planning and Environment. The circular notifies Council to inform them that; a) developments involving a variation to the development of > 10% or non-numerical development standards must be determined by “a full Council”; and b) the Council must take into account the Secretary’s mandatory considerations when assuming the Secretary’s concurrence (ie clause 4.6(5)).

[2] The reference to “development criteria” refers to the analysis table complied by Henry & Hymas which uses three criteria, being i) Retail Design (Compliance with brief), ii) Structural Principles, standards and code and iii) safety in construction to compare and contrast four options; do nothing or as is, the previous consent, PWA concept and the proposed concept.

[3] Annexure A is a reference to the attached plan titled ‘Booster Configuration Option 1 and 2’ – 16319 - sk-050 issue 1.

Policy	Updates
ST046 – Liquid Trade Waste	· Updating the name of the regulator and clarification on applicable clauses/sections as a result of this change · Update to reference material (Australian Sewerage Quality Management Guidelines, July 2012) · Inclusion of method codes to Table 2.1 Guideline Limits for acceptance of Liquid Trade Waste into Sewerage Systems · Benzene limit reduced from 0.04 mg/L to < 0.001 mg/L · Additional clauses have been added to Appendix C.
ST002 – Central West Libraries	· Addition of reference to Tutoring in the Library Policy
ST059 – Public Interest Disclosures and Internal Reporting	· Addition of 1.1.7 - The internal reporting system established under this policy is not intended to be used for staff grievances, which should be raised through Council’s grievance policy. If a staff member makes a report under this policy which is substantially a grievance, the matter will be referred to Human Resources to be dealt with in accordance with the grievance policy. · Police Integrity Commission (PIC) has been replaced by the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission (LECC) · Updates to Public Interest Disclosure Officers · Removed reference to RSPCA Officers in applicability of Policy
ST011 – Community Engagement	· Addition of reference to Councillor and community workshops
ST083 – Access to information held by Council	· Replacement of term “Administrative Decision Tribunal” with “NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT)”. · Page 7 – Additional Sub-heading – “Discount in Processing Charges – Formal Access Applications” and description of 3 categories where discount will apply. · Annexure C – Access to Information Form updated

Service Delivery	There will be no interruption to service delivery. The current positions operating from the Community Information and Services Centre are the Manager Community Services, various Children’s Services administration positions and the Community Resource and Information Officer. These positions will operate efficiently in the newly named Orange Community Services Centre. Additional service provision will be provided from the Child Care Centres, Choices at Home, Glenroi Community Centre and Marang Gunya facilities.
Image and Reputation	The more comprehensive cluster of Council community services in one location will improve community access to information and services. Information regarding the relocation will be provided to the community through a range of methods: letters, emails, Council Facebook, Council website and Council Visitor Information Centre to allow community members notice in advance and for a six month period following the relocation. By providing information regarding the benefits and opportunities created with the consolidation of the Community Services Branch there will be minimal negative publicity.
Environmental	Improved environmental efficiencies will be achieved through the consolidation of services to one facility.
Health and Safety	Improved access and health and safety measures will be achieved through the relocation of office spaces to a more accessible, safe and purpose built building. The current Community and Information Centre building has been assessed as being non-compliant for fire escape or emergency evacuation purposes for first floor offices. Four Council officers are currently placed in the first floor officers. The requirement to relocate these officers is mandatory.
Employees	There will be minimal impact to employees. Workstations are available to all staff to relocate to the newly named Orange Community Services Centre – Giyalang Ganya.
Stakeholders	Current hirers will be transitioned to hire space in the newly named Orange Community Services Centre – Giyalang Ganya. A mapping process has identified that most regular hirer needs can be accommodated at the newly named Orange Community Services Centre – Giyalang Ganya with some requiring to be relocated to Nguluway Ngurang” Seniors and Pensioner Centre on Kite Street.