Planning and Development Committee

 

Agenda

 

3 July 2018

 

 

Notice is hereby given, in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 that a Planning and Development Committee meeting of ORANGE CITY COUNCIL will be held in the Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Byng Street, Orange on Tuesday, 3 July 2018.

 

 

Garry Styles

General Manager

 

For apologies please contact Administration on 6393 8218.

    

 


Planning and Development Committee                                                       3 July 2018

Agenda

  

1                Introduction.. 3

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

2                General Reports. 5

2.1            Items Approved Under the Delegated Authority of Council 5

2.2            Part 5 Environmental Assessment Southern Feeder Road Stage 2. 11

2.3            Expansion of the Heritage Conservation Areas. 27

2.4            Development Application DA 305/2016(1) - 168 Shiralee Road. 31

2.5            Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place. 117

 


Planning and Development Committee                                                       3 July 2018

 

1       Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation

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

 


Planning and Development Committee                                                       3 July 2018

 

 

2       General Reports

2.1     Items Approved Under the Delegated Authority of Council

RECORD NUMBER:       2018/1462

AUTHOR:                       Paul Johnston, Manager Development Assessments    

 

 

EXECUTIVE Summary

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

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “7.1 Preserve - Engage with the community to develop plans for growth and development that value the local environment”.

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

 

Recommendation

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

 

further considerations

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

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

 

Reference:

DA 154/1981(2)

Determination Date

18 June 2018

PR Number

PR14312

Applicant/s:

Mr H Brown

Owner/s:

Mr GL Brown

Location:

Lot 71 DP 832376 – 22-24 Leewood Drive, Orange

Proposal:

Modification of development consent - industry (two stage building for warehousing and industrial purposes). The modification involves the construction of accessible sanitary facilities in the Stage 2 Industrial shed (rear shed).

Value:

$0


 

 

Reference:

DA 314/2008(8)

Determination Date

14 June 2018

PR Number

PR25746

Applicant/s:

Orange Anglican Grammar School

Owner/s:

Anglican Schools Corporation

Location:

Lot 100 DP 1174806 – 7 Murphy Lane, Orange

Proposal:

Modification of development consent – educational establishment (Stage 1). The modification involves modifying Condition (52) to permit pedestrian and bicycle access to and from the school via Hewitt Close. It also seeks to allow rear foot and bicycle access to the school for students, teachers and staff via an existing gate towards the eastern end of Hewitt Close.

Value:

$1,400,000 (being the same value as the original development)

 

Reference:

DA 341/2009(3)

Determination Date

14 June 2018

PR Number

PR25746

Applicant/s:

Orange Anglican Grammar School

Owner/s:

Anglican Schools Corporation

Location:

Lot 100 DP 1474806 – 7 Murphy Lane, Orange

Proposal:

Modification of development consent – educational establishment (Stage 2). The modification involves modifying Condition (26) to permit pedestrian and bicycle access to and from the school via Hewitt Close. It also seeks to allow rear foot and bicycle access to the school for students, teachers and staff via an existing gate towards the eastern end of Hewitt Close.

Value:

$635,000 (being the same value as the original development)

 

Reference:

DA 442/2012(1)

Determination Date

25 May 2018

PR Number

PR28011

Applicant/s:

Mr GC Prevett

Owner/s:

Mr GC Prevett

Location:

Lot 1 DP 1239647 – 4520 Mitchell Highway, Lucknow

Proposal:

Dwelling house

Value:

$350,000

 

Reference:

DA301/2017(2)

Determination Date

13 June 2018

PR Number

PR26105

Applicant/s:

J and J Stojanovic

Owner/s:

Mr J Stojanovic

Location:

Lot 9 DP 1183249 – 225 McLachlan Street, Orange

Proposal:

Modification of development consent – vehicle repair station and vehicle sales or hire premises. The modification involves internal alterations to the floor plan, minor alterations to the building design and varying approved hours of operation.

Value:

$450,000 (being the same value as the original development)


 

 

Reference:

DA 42/2018(1)

Determination Date

12 June 2018

PR Number

PR18292

Applicant/s:

Stimson and Baker Planning

Owner/s:

Aldi Foods Pty Limited

Location:

Lot 500 DP 1033145 – 167-177 Peisley Street, Orange

Proposal:

Shop (alterations and additions to existing building)

Value:

$1,364,000

 

Reference:

DA 72/2018(1)

Determination Date

18 May 2018

PR Number

PR18829

Applicant/s:

Mr B Inwood

Owner/s:

Ms ZY Mardini

Location:

Lot 1008 DP 1047001 – 239 Phillip Street, Orange

Proposal:

Subdivision (two lot residential) and two dwelling houses

Value:

$450,000

 

Reference:

DA 79/2018(1)

Determination Date

20 June 2018

PR Number

PR3401

Applicant/s:

Mr MC Dwyer

Owner/s:

Mr MC Dwyer

Location:

Lot B DP 391205 – 219 Dalton Street, Orange

Proposal:

Subdivision (two lot residential) and demolition (shed)

Value:

$3,000

 

Reference:

DA 111/2018(1)

Determination Date

7 June 2018

PR Number

PR2607

Applicant/s:

Tandy Welding Pty Ltd

Owner/s:

Mr KE and Mrs DK Tandy

Location:

Lot 505 DP 819265 – 140 Clergate Road, Orange

Proposal:

General industry (alterations and additions)

Value:

$75,000

 

Reference:

DA 112/2018(1)

Determination Date

13 June 2018

PR Number

PR743

Applicant/s:

Mr A Percy

Owner/s:

Buchan Percy Properties Pty Ltd

Location:

Lot 1 DP 907566 – 274 Anson Street, Orange

Proposal:

Health services facility (medical centre) ( change of use from dwelling) and business identification signage

Value:

$40,000

 


 

 

Reference:

DA 133/2018(1)

Determination Date

31 May 2018

PR Number

PR5237

Applicant/s:

Ms M Norris

Owner/s:

HL Fox Pty Limited

Location:

Lot A DP 37213 – 58 Hill Street, Orange

Proposal:

Medical centre (change of use from office premises)

Value:

$40.000

 

Reference:

DA 141/2018(1)

Determination Date

25 May 2018

PR Number

PR27464

Applicant/s:

Mr L Bevan

Owner/s:

Transix Pty Ltd

Location:

Lot 233 DP 1224013 – Astill Drive, Orange

Proposal:

Depot and vehicle sales or hire premises (alterations and additions)

Value:

$20,000

 

Reference:

DA 148/2018(1)

Determination Date

6 June 2018

PR Number

PR27557

Applicant/s:

Origin Energy

Owner/s:

Messrs GJ and AJ Vangestel

Location:

Lot 2 DP 1226372 – 390 Clergate Road, Orange

Proposal:

Electricity generating works (solar energy system)

Value:

$35,000

 

Reference:

DA 150/2018(1)

Determination Date

7 June 2018

PR Number

PR27962

Applicant/s:

Contemporary Homes

Owner/s:

Mr SD and Mrs KA Taylor

Location:

Lots 2245 and 238 DP 1238394 – 21 Stevenson Way, Orange

Proposal:

Garage (detached) and tree removal

Value:

$10,000

 

Reference:

DA 158/2018(1)

Determination Date

19 June 2018

PR Number

PR7567

Applicant/s:

Orange City Council

Owner/s:

Crown

Location:

Lot 7 DP 820905 CA M2356 – March Street, Orange

Proposal:

Category 1 remediation work (removal of underground fuel tanks/infrastructure)

Value:

$40,000

 


 

 

Reference:

DA 159/2018(1)

Determination Date

15 June 2018

PR Number

PR14898

Applicant/s:

1883 Investments Pty Limited

Owner/s:

Orange Arcade Pty Limited

Location:

Lot 1 DP 572210 – Sale Street, Orange

Proposal:

Shop (liquor outlet)

Value:

$25,000

 

Reference:

DA 163/2018(1)

Determination Date

12 June 2018

PR Number

PR2152

Applicant/s:

Mr SV and Miss KM Gottschall

Owner/s:

Mr SV and Miss KM Gottschall

Location:

Lot 2 DP 6173 and Lot 11 DP 526841 – 174 and 174A Cadia Road, Springside

Proposal:

Vehicle access

Value:

$0

 

Reference:

DA 171/2018(1)

Determination Date

30 May 2018

PR Number

PR18146

Applicant/s:

Mr JM Battle

Owner/s:

Mr C and Mrs HS Hatumale

Location:

Lot 1 DP 1028865 – 172-174 Summer Street, Orange

Proposal:

Takeaway food or drink premises (alterations to existing premises)

Value:

$3,000

 

TOTAL NET* VALUE OF ALL DEVELOPMENTS APPROVED IN THIS PERIOD:     $2,105,000.00

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

 

  


Planning and Development Committee                                                       3 July 2018

 

 

2.2     Part 5 Environmental Assessment Southern Feeder Road Stage 2

RECORD NUMBER:       2018/1435

AUTHOR:                       David Waddell, Director Development Services    

 

 

EXECUTIVE Summary

Orange City Council is proposing to construct and operate Stage 2 of the Southern Feeder Road (SFR), between Forest Road and Elsham Avenue, Orange, including the southern extension of Edward Street to connect to the Stage 2 SFR. The estimated cost of the project is in the order of $18M which will be funded from a combination of Council, State and Commonwealth funding.

Stage 2 of the SFR involves construction of a predominantly new section of road from the existing signalised Forest Road intersection with Huntley Road through to Dairy Creek Road. As part of these works, a new road bridge will be constructed over the Main Western Railway Line, and Edward Street will be extended south through the former Orange Saleyards site to a new intersection with the Southern Feeder Road. The approximate length of the SFR Stage 2 work is 840 metres, with a carriageway width of 15 metres. In addition, the extension of Edward Street results in a further 440 metres of road construction, with carriageway width of 12 metres.


 

Temporary construction compounds to facilitate construction activities will need to be put into place.

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

Construction work is expected to take about 18 months to complete, with work expected in to begin in 2018/2019 subject to funding.

The broad construction methodology/order of activities is expected to include:

1        Vegetation removal/clearing and grubbing;

2        Service relocations as required;

3        Drainage works and bulk earthworks;

4        Tie in proposed SFR Stage 2 with existing SFR Stage 1;

5        Construction of SFR to the intersection of Dairy Creek Road and Elsham Avenue, including intersections at Huntley Road, Elsham Avenue south and Edward Street;

6        Construction of southern extension of Edward Street from current intersection of Edward Street and McNeilly Avenue (including intersection upgrade works); and

7        Construction of grade separated crossing of the Main Western Railway Line.

It is understood that Stage 3 of the feeder road is likely to occur within the next 10‑15 years, but that the completion of the feeder road, including connection through to Ploughmans Lane, is unlikely to happen within this time frame. However, funding of $4.6M towards Stage 4 of the feeder Road (Anson Street to Pinnacle Road) was announced in the recent State budget suggesting the construction of this section of road can proceed in the near future.

Given the approach taken with this stage, it is anticipated that each stage of the feeder road would be developed as a discrete stage, taking account of the work that has occurred previously (i.e. Stage 1) from an operational perspective only.

 

As Orange City Council is a public authority, works are permitted without consent via Clause 94 of the Infrastructure State Environmental Planning Policy (ISEPP), and the provisions of the ISEPP prevail. Additional requirements are required through John Holland Rail due to the rail crossing component.

 

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

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

The REF examines the Council’s plan to undertake the road project while maintaining traffic through the worksite.


 

The new road and bridge project will link the Mitchell Highway with the employment centres in Orange’s burgeoning health precinct, Orange Base Hospital, Cadia gold mine, Forestry plantations around Mt Canobolas, agricultural regions to the south of Orange and the nearby Leewood industrial estate. Safety and productivity will be increased for commuters and freight by allowing for the closure of a nearby level rail crossing and shortening journey times.

The project forms the second stage of the SFR which will eventually link the city’s newest 1600 lot residential suburb. Eventual connection with the Escort Way to the West in later stages will provide more direct links between the Bathurst Region to the East of Orange, through to the Regional Transport Hub in Parkes on the Newell Highway and the agricultural industry centres of Canowindra and Manildra, thereby increasing productivity by achieving distance and time savings. Although not a focus for the fixing Country Roads programme it should be noted that this road and bridge infrastructure project will stimulate job creation and promote economic growth in the region by enabling the development of highly desirable industrial land in the old Orange Saleyards site at Edward Street.

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

·    Potential noise and vibration impacts to sensitive receivers;

·    Disruption to traffic, pedestrians and cyclists;

·    Potential decline in air quality;

·    Loss of a small number of trees; and

·    Increased risk of spills and contamination.

The REF has identified that the proposal has the potential to result in adverse environmental effects during operation, mainly centred on noise and amenity. This is discussed further in this report.

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

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

The REF concludes that:

An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required if the Review of Environmental Factors concludes the activity is likely to have a significant effect on the environment. Clause 228 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 contains a detailed list of factors that must be taken into account when assessing the impact of an activity on the environment. A checklist of these matters is provided in Appendix A. The assessment demonstrates the activity as proposed, would not have a significant effect on the environment and as such an EIS is not required.

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

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

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

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “1.1 Our City - Provide easily obtainable information on the legal responsibilities of Councillors, Council staff and the community”.

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

 

Recommendation

That Council approves the Southern Feeder Road Project Stage 2 in accordance with its obligations and powers under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

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

Orange City Council is proposing to construct and operate Stage 2 of the Southern Feeder Road (SFR), between Forest Road and Elsham Avenue, Orange, including the southern extension of Edward Street to connect to the Stage 2 SFR.  The estimated cost of the project is in the order of $18m which will be funded from a combination of Council, State and Commonwealth funding.

Stage 2 of the SFR involves construction of a predominantly new section of road from the existing signalised Forest Road intersection with Huntley Road through to Dairy Creek Road. As part of these works a new road bridge will be constructed over the Main Western Railway Line and Edward Street will be extended south through the former Orange Saleyards site to a new intersection with the Southern Feeder Road. The approximate length of the SFR Stage 2 work is 840 metres, with a carriageway width of 15 metres. In addition, the extension of Edward Street results in a further 440 metres of road construction, with carriageway width of 12 metres.

Temporary construction compounds to facilitate construction activities will need to be put into place.

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

Construction work is expected to take about 18 months to complete, with work expected in to begin in 2018/2019 subject to funding.

APPROVAL PATHWAY

As Orange City Council is a public authority, works are permitted without consent via Clause 94 of the Infrastructure State Environmental Planning Policy (ISEPP), and the provisions of the ISEPP prevail.

However, the development would entail construction of a road bridge over the Main Western Railway Line. The Main Western Railway Line is part of the Country Regional Network (CRN), for which Transport for New South Wales (NSW) is the responsible authority, and John Holland Rail (JHR) is the Rail Infrastructure Manager (RIM). As noted, clauses 84 and 86 of the ISEPP require consultation and consideration of comments of the rail authority, in this instance JHR. As such, consultation with JHR has been completed.

 

JHR makes the following recommendations:

·    Orange City Council will be required to apply for Approval in Principle for this project, through a Third Party Works application;

·    If the project is Approved in Principle, OCC will be required to apply for construction through the Third Party Works process;

·    If there will be a requirement for lengthy Possessions of the main west corridor, JHR will need to be involved in the planning at least 12 months out from the commencement of construction to ensure the Train Planning right and meet the expectations of Transport for NSW;

·    Any vegetation removed in the rail corridor must be assessed prior to removal;

·    The assumption is to be made that the railway corridor is industrially contaminated unless proven otherwise;

·    Any soil stabilisation in the rail corridor cannot introduce a latent hazard to rail maintenance staff (i.e. sediment fences).

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

·    Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

·    Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000

·    Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

·    Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995

·    Fisheries Management Act 1994

·    National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974

·    Wilderness Act 1987

·    Heritage Act 1977

·    Native Vegetation Act 2003

·    Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997

·    Water Management Act 2000

·    Water Act 1912

·    Local Government Act 1993

·    Dam Safety Act 1978

·    Roads Act 1993

·    State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017 (Vegetation SEPP)

 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Council commissioned Geolyse to prepare a Review of Environmental Factors (REF) for determination by Council as the proponent and the determining authority under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act). As is required under legislation, the REF has considered impacts as follows:

·    Traffic, transport and access

·    Noise and vibration

·    Water quality, groundwater and flooding

·    Topography, geology and soils

·    Biodiversity

·    Landscape character and visual amenity

·    Aboriginal heritage

·    Non-Aboriginal heritage

·    Waste management

·    Socio-economic effects

·    Energy and greenhouse emissions

·    Air quality

The REF analysis of each of these is summarised below.

Traffic, Transport and Access

The completion of the proposed road improvements would increase the level of safety for the travelling public and local landowners, and decrease driver frustration. By linking SFR Stage 1 with Dairy Creek Road in the east and Edward Street in the north, a more direct route for vehicles heading east, or travelling from the east, is provided. The current alternatives are to either travel east via Huntley Road and Ash Street, before turning north onto Elsham Avenue and then east on to Dairy Creek Road (or the reverse for west bound vehicles), or travel through the Orange CBD via Forest Road/Peisley Street and the Mitchell Highway. This project therefore assists in simplifying traffic connectivity and reducing travel times, as well as removing vehicles from the already congested Orange CBD (particularly in relation to the Mitchell Highway/Peisley Street intersection).

By providing a direct link, the opportunities for conflict at intersections is lessened, as is the need to cross the Main Western Railway Line at grade (at Ash Street or the Mitchell Highway) due to the introduction of a grade separated crossing on the SFR Stage 2.

Water Quality, Groundwater and Flooding

The REF has identified that the Leewood estate both north and south of the project site has the potential to see contamination interdicted. In addition, John Holland Rail has cautioned about work near rail lines with respect to contamination. This would potentially see groundwater or soil contamination needing to be managed. Management procedures will be put in place in this event.

Topography, Geology and Soils

No significant impacts are foreseen, and safeguards and mitigation measures including sediment and erosion control are include in the project plan.

Biodiversity

The impact on trees can be seen below.

The REF concludes that:

The construction of Stage 2 of the SFR is considered unlikely to have a significant impact on the biodiversity of the study area for the following reasons:

·    More suitable habitat is available for many species close by in the open woodland area southwest of the project area within the Gosling Creek Reserve. This habitat is also in close proximity to water and more likely used by species predicted to occur on the project site;

·    None of the trees are noted to contain hollows. The removal of these trees are not likely to lead to any significant impacts on native fauna within the locality;

·    The majority of the area of impact is disturbed grassland comprised of exotic species of groundcover;

·    No threatened flora species were found within the study area;

·    No threatened fauna species were identified within the study area. It is unlikely that the area is highly utilized as habitat for threatened fauna because of its urban location and predation threats such as cats and foxes;

·    No threatened ecological communities occur within the study area

 

Aboriginal Heritage

A Due Diligence assessment of potential impacts to sites or items of Aboriginal heritage has been conducted by Access Archaeology and Heritage (AAH). The due diligence assessment identifies the following recommendations:

1        The proposed development proceed with no further archaeological assessment.

2        If during the course of project works any object is found that may be of Aboriginal origin, works should cease at that location and the NSW OEH should be contacted immediately for further advice.

3        The proponents should keep a copy of this document on file in the event they are required to produce evidence of having undertaken due diligence

Non-Aboriginal Heritage

An inspection of the area within the immediate vicinity of the proposed SFR did not reveal any significant non-Aboriginal heritage items. Furthermore, a review of the online NSW Heritage Database, which encompasses items listed under the NSW Heritage Register, does not list any heritage items within the immediate vicinity of the site.

Despite the low potential of discovering non-Aboriginal heritage items in the zone of physical disturbance, the precautionary principle must apply.

The entire NSW Heritage Act protects heritage, but historical archaeological remains are additionally protected from being moved or excavated through the ‘relics’ provisions. The provisions protect unidentified ‘relics’ which may form part of the State’s environmental heritage, but which have not been listed on the State Heritage Register. An archaeological site is an area of land which is the location of one or more archaeological ‘relics’. Section 4(1) of the Heritage Act (as amended 2009) defines ‘relic’ as follows:

any deposit, artefact, object or material evidence that; (a) relates to the settlement of the area that comprises New South Wales, not being Aboriginal settlement, and (b) is of State or local heritage significance.(OEH, 2009).


 

The following safeguards are to be implemented to minimise potential disturbance by the proposed bridge demolition and construction works:

·    Orange City Council to confirm the limits of the proposed activity for the construction phase of the SFR prior to the commencement of construction; and

·    Should any historical archaeological remains not identified in this assessment be uncovered during the course of construction, work in that area should cease and be cordoned off. The Office of Environment and Heritage Western Region Office and/or suitably qualified heritage specialist are to be contacted to discuss what to record and how to manage and proceed.

Waste Management

Several types of construction waste will arise from the project which will be disposed of and managed in line with legislation.

 

Socio-Economic Effects

Construction of the proposed SFR Stage 2 would result in a change in land use, with the currently undeveloped open grassland area being transformed to accommodate a local road performing a distribution function. The proposed works would, however, significantly improve the transport function in this area and provide improved connectivity. Those land users on Elsham Avenue would see a drop in through traffic along their road due to the extension of Edward Street and a restriction on Elsham Avenue (north) to local traffic only. This would have a positive impact to these land users.

Occupiers on Edward Street north and Endsleigh Avenue may see some minor increase in traffic volumes due to the provision of the southern connection to the SFR via Edward Street and the closure of Elsham Avenue, on the basis that traffic travelling to or from the east may use this route to access the SFR. However, it is expected that the majority of traffic would utilise the Forest Road connection to the SFR (in either direction) due to the more direct nature of the route.

Air Quality

Air emission sources during construction include particulate matter and mobile vehicle emissions. Particulate matter is a result of fugitive dust sources produced during construction from traffic on paved and unpaved roads, clearing of groundcover and topsoil, earthmoving and transport of construction materials.

The NSW EPA identifies nuisance dust impacts as occurring when annual average dust (insoluble solids) deposition levels exceed 4g/m²/month with unacceptable levels. In assessing the impact of dust emissions from a specific project or construction activity, the NSW EPA uses a level of 2g/m²/month as an acceptable increase over existing dust deposition levels for residential areas. The major emissions to air expected during construction relate to dust emissions. These dust emissions typically have a significant component of larger size fraction particulate matter. For receptors near to the activities, these larger particles have the potential to result in discomfort for local residents and workers in the area and may result in nuisance dust impacts due to deposition onto surfaces (including window sills, furniture, clothes, vehicles and floors).

The quantity of emissions from the construction works are dependent on a range of factors, including the characterisation of the soil materials (eg silt and moisture content), the construction methods adopted, local wind conditions, and the presence and density of vegetation in the area. It is noted, however, that these impacts are likely to be temporary and localised, and best practice management and mitigation measures can adequately address relevant goals for dust deposition, and control and minimise potential impacts.

Mobile vehicle emissions include petrol and diesel-fuelled vehicles and operation of onsite machinery. The emission rates and impact potential would depend on power output of combustion engines, quality of fuel and condition of combustion engines.

Odour may be detected close to the source; however, given the proximity to sensitive receivers, low number of mobile sources and short term nature of the activity, the potential for odour impacts by vehicle emissions is minimal.

Provided the construction contractor meets the requirements of relevant legislation and regulations, emissions from vehicles are unlikely to result in air quality impacts and are therefore not considered to be significant.

Operation

The activity would result in increased driver safety and improved connectivity for traffic users to access the southern areas of Orange, and for users connecting to areas to the south, such as Cadia mines and the Orange Airport.

The proposed activity would result in a change in distribution of vehicle volumes, with some areas expected to reflect minor increases in traffic flow (such as Edward Street north and Endsleigh Avenue), and other areas seeing commensurate reductions (such as Elsham Avenue north). These minor changes to traffic flow have the potential to alter dispersal of vehicle emissions in the general locality. However, as overall traffic patterns would not be expected to significantly change, these impacts would be considered minor.

Existing mitigation measures for reducing road-based air quality emissions include state or region-wide strategies such as progressive tightening of vehicle air emission standards, in‑service inspections to ensure vehicle exhaust systems are well maintained, and integration of transport and land-use planning.


 

Noise

The noise impacts from the proposed road were modelled using unattended noise logger readings during the assessment.

Figure 4 shows the monitoring locations.

Based on the projected traffic information, noise predictions for various modelling scenarios without noise mitigation have been considered. The considered scenarios are as below:

·    Year 2018 Build Scenario; and

·    Year 2028 Build Scenario.

The proposed SFR Stage is proposed to be surfaced with surfacing is dense graded asphalt. Based on the proposed road surface, the following was first predicted:

·    In Year 2018, 4 (Receiver R12, R13, R14 and R15) receiver locations would exceed the relevant base criteria and would qualify for considerations of noise mitigation

·    In Year 2028, 4 (Receiver R12, R13, R14 and R15) receiver locations would exceed the relevant base criteria and would qualify for considerations of noise mitigation.

Then, in order to determine if the identified receiver locations above will qualify for noise mitigation, additional unattended noise monitoring was conducted at R12 to establish the existing traffic noise impact to receiver locations R12, R13 and R14. The monitoring period was from Wednesday, 21 March 2018 to Wednesday, 28 March 2018.

In addition, reference was made to a Geolyse report to obtain the existing traffic noise impact on the receiver locations along Huntley Road.

Based on unattended noise monitoring data, the following can be established:

·    It is established that noise emission levels associated with the SFR Stage 2 project will be less than the existing traffic noise impact from Elsham Avenue at receiver locations R12 and R13.

·    It is established that noise emission levels associated with the SFR Stage 2 project will be less than the existing traffic noise impact from Huntley Road at receiver locations R16, R17 and R18.

·    However based on the predicted noise levels at Receiver location R14 and R15, these two receiver locations will qualify for noise mitigation as exceedance of cumulative limit are predicted during the daytime and night time periods.

If however Council elect to proceed with dense graded asphalt the recommendation (and thus a condition) of this report would be that the project provide at‑property treatments such as façade treatments and localised screens prior to commissioning in consultation with the owners of R14 and R15 and to the satisfaction of the Director Development services.  It is further required that a noise monitoring confirmation test be conducted 6 months after the road opening to confirm mitigation methods have been successful.  Should this not be the case then Council commits to increasing the level of mitigation which may include noise walls or road surface treatment.

Construction Noise

Noise from construction is expected to result in impact at some receiver locations for at least some of the time. It is likely that the noise management levels would be exceeded during project construction.

Vibration will generally be within comfort levels and well within damage thresholds, although perceptible at times. The most significant vibration is expected to occur during the use of vibratory rollers.

In order to minimise the impacts, it is recommended that a Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan be prepared by the contractor prior to undertaking works on site.

 


 

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

The REF was exhibited and two submissions received.

Submissions were received from:

·    John Holland Rail – who provided advice and effectively conditions on the construction in rail land.

·    Mr Callaghan made contact with the Operations Manager and proposed (as understood by the Operations Manager) tunnelling under the land currently used as the rifle range.  Mr Callaghan’s subsequent written proposal suggests the road being “dug BELOW ground level line of fire” with a possible wildlife bridge. He further suggests that material from the excavation would be useful in the approaches to the railway bridge and avoid issues relating to lead contamination from the land’s current use. Council’s Manager Engineering Services assessed Mr Callaghan’s proposal of a tunnel and advised that it was cost prohibitive and drainage issues would result.  Subject to land acquisition and the timing of funding an open cut excavation to the extent proposed by Mr Callaghan can be further explored by Council’s Technical Services Department.

·    Mrs & Mrs Davis of Huntley Road made representation to Council via a letter expressing their concerns with respect to noise and traffic.  The Operations Manager has made contact with Mrs & Mrs Davis and indicated that the future traffic noise is predicted to be less than that currently experienced from Huntley Road. (As a condition of consent it is proposed to offer localised sound mitigation to the Davis’ property).   The Operations Manager also undertook to request the Traffic Committee to consider parking restrictions on the north-eastern side of Huntley Road adjacent to the SFR intersection to reduce possible blind spots when the Davis’ are exiting their driveway.  Further items were discussed with the Davis’ on site including the replacement of a picket fence that would likely be damaged during construction works.

CONCLUSION

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

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

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


 

The REF concludes that:

An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required if the Review of Environmental Factors concludes the activity is likely to have a significant effect on the environment. Clause 228 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 contains a detailed list of factors that must be taken into account when assessing the impact of an activity on the environment. A checklist of these matters is provided in Appendix A. The assessment demonstrates the activity as proposed, would not have a significant effect on the environment and as such an EIS is not required.

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

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

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

 

 

  


Planning and Development Committee                                                       3 July 2018

 

 

2.3     Expansion of the Heritage Conservation Areas

RECORD NUMBER:       2018/1534

AUTHOR:                       Andrew Crump, Senior Planner    

 

 

EXECUTIVE Summary

At the Planning and Development Committee meeting of 6 February 2018 it was resolved: That a report be provided on the options for extending heritage conservation considerations for older areas/buildings in relation to complying development.

This report provides some background on the complying development process and also outlines the process involved in establishing a new / extending an existing heritage conservation area or adding to the schedule of listed items within Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “12.2 Our Environment – Recognise the importance of heritage within the City by ensuring the currency of policies and procedures and seek compliance with regulations”.

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

 

Recommendation

That the report by Senior Planner be acknowledged.

 

further considerations

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

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

The development approval hierarchy

The NSW planning framework, in the majority of circumstances, is segregated into three main development types; exempt development, complying development and merit based development.


 

Exempt Development

Some Environmental Planning Instruments provide a mechanism for certain works that will result in minor or inconsequential environmental impacts to occur without the need for Council approval. Such works include things like letter boxes, clothes lines, under awning business identification signage or some types of changes of use.

If the proposed development does not meet the strict exempt development criteria, then some form of approval will be required.

Complying Development

Certain development (that’s not exempt development) can potentially be undertaken as complying development if the development meets the strict complying development criteria. If the criteria can be met, a Complying Development Certificate can be issued either by the Council or a Private Certifier.

The types of development that can have a Complying Development Certificate issued include residential development, commercial development, industrial development and some infrastructure type development.

The State Environmental Planning Policy (exempt and complying development codes 2008) sets out certain exclusions or circumstances where a complying development cannot occur such as an environmentally sensitive area or where the land is identified as a heritage item. In a heritage conservation area under the residential codes, a Complying Development Certificate can only be issued if the development relates to a detached outbuilding or swimming pool, and meets the specific development criteria for those two development types.

Merit-based Development

For development that does not meet the requirements for exempt development or complying development, a Development Application is required and the consent authority must determine the application based on a merits assessment of the development proposed.

Heritage Conservation

The conservation of Orange’s important built and environmental heritage is protected principally under Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 (OLEP 2011). OLEP 2011 contains a schedule of listed heritage items and a map showing the extent of heritage conservation areas.

The list of heritage items and some of the existing conservation areas were first established in the 1980’s study by Hughes Trueman Ludlow Consultants. A more recent community based heritage study was undertaken by David Scobie Architects around 2010 which increased the number of heritage items and added the duration cottages heritage conservation area. These changes were made to OLEP 2011 via amendment 1.

A heritage conservation area is defined as:

An area which has a distinctive character of heritage significance which it is desirable to conserve.


 

The first step in the process for adding or expanding on the existing extent of heritage conservation areas within the LGA, or adding to the schedule of listed items, is to garner a full understanding of the heritage significance of the place.

Heritage significance of a place is determined by establishing the aesthetic, historic, scientific, cultural, social or archaeological values of the place. If the place is assessed to have sufficient value of one or more of the above characteristics, a statement of heritage significance will be produced which succinctly describes why the place is significant.

The above process of establishing the heritage value of the place would occur as part of an amendment to the community based heritage study, which would involve engaging with the community and heritage practitioners. Depending on the outcomes of the study, it may be necessary to update OLEP 2011 through a formalised amendment process.

An alternative to this is for groups of people or individuals to complete an independent study of the place and present that to Council as part of a planning proposal to amend OLEP 2011, at which point Council staff and Council’s Heritage Advisor would assess the planning proposal.

Should additional areas of the city demonstrate sufficient heritage value to warrant the application of heritage controls, then those areas would have limited opportunities for exempt or complying development to occur on the land.

At this stage, staff consider that Orange has sufficient heritage zone coverage and an extensive list of heritage items. Nonetheless, at the time of the next LEP review it will be appropriate to review matters.

 

  


Planning and Development Committee                                                       3 July 2018

 

 

2.4     Development Application DA 305/2016(1) - 168 Shiralee Road

RECORD NUMBER:       2018/1531

AUTHOR:                       Michael Glenn, Senior Planner    

 

 

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged

8 September 2016

Applicant/s

Byng Administration Services Pty Ltd

Owner/s

Byng Administration Services Pty Limited

Land description

Lots 90 and 100 DP 750401 – 168 Shiralee Road, Orange

Proposed land use

Subdivision (17 lot residential)

Value of proposed development

Not applicable

Council's consent is sought for subdivision of the subject land so as to create 17 urban residential lots and new public roads.

To put into effect the subdivision, it will be necessary to negotiate with adjoining landowners for access to Lots 7-17. To avoid the possibility of conflicts with the purchasers’ of Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17, release of the Subdivision Certificates for these lots will be deferred until such time as the indicated access points have been provided. In the interim, the land relating to these lots will remain part of Lot 5 (containing the approved dwelling under DA42/2016) for the purposes of care control and management effectively as a development lot. Similar restrictions are considered appropriate with respect to securing the water and sewer easements needed across adjoining owners land.

The proposed subdivision is subject to the provisions of Orange LEP 2011 as amended and the Shiralee Development Control Plan 2015.

The proposed subdivision requires a variation of the LEP Minimum Lot Size (MLS) and the Shiralee DCP Masterplan. The applicant’s consultant has provided a justification to support the proposed variation of these planning controls. Given that the overall yields within the subdivision are consistent with the DCP master planning and the density controls of the LEP, and that the lot designs are logical and unlikely to cause significant harm to neighbourhood character and amenity, the variation in this case is considered justifiable. It is considered that under the circumstances it is unreasonable and unnecessary to apply the standard fully as written in this case.

The proposed development is unlikely to generate adverse impacts on nearby development or the amenity of the area. It is consistent with the zoning of the land and considered to be appropriate development in the context of the planned land use pattern as articulated in the DCP.

This report provides an assessment of the proposed development as required under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

Attached is Notice of Determination recommending approval of the subject development.


 

 

Figure 1 - Locality plan

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.

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. The Shiralee DCP and associated masterplans are considered part of the principal DCP (as only a single DCP may apply within a given LGA). Its purpose is to guide development. The Land and Environment Court tends to view it as such. In each area of interest there are often guidelines used. These guidelines indicate ways of achieving the planning outcomes. It is thus recognised that there may also be other solutions of merit. All design solutions are considered on merit by planning and building staff. Applications should clearly demonstrate how the planning outcomes are being met where alternative design solutions are proposed. So one can see that the DCP gives leeway for developers and architects to use design to achieve the outcome in other ways if they can. Stating that DCP guidelines are inflexible can be misleading.

DIRECTOR’S COMMENT

The subject property is located within the developing Shiralee urban village. Development in the Shiralee urban village is generally required to be developed in accordance with the Shiralee Development Control Plan (Shiralee DCP), including the Shiralee Masterplan. The applicant seeks a departure from Council’s adopted DCP as well as a variation to the LEP minimum Lot size controls that relate to this site (discussed in detail in the body of this report.)

While variations from the Shiralee DCP are generally not supported, Council staff in the assessment recognise that the characteristics of the subject property are unique, and the Consultant has put forward a detailed justification as part of the application.

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

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

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

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

 

Recommendation

That Council consents to development application DA 305/2016(1) for Subdivision (17 lot residential) at Lots 90 and 100 DP 750401 - 168 Shiralee Road, Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.

 

 


 

further considerations

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

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Council's consent is sought for Subdivision (17 lot residential) at Lot 90 DP 750401, Lot 100 DP 750401 - 168 Shiralee Road, Orange.

THE PROPOSAL

The proposal involves a subdivision of the subject land to create 17 urban residential allotments and new public roads.

Proposed Lots 1 to 4 and 6 to 17 are vacant and each would be created for urban residential purposes pursuant to the relevant clauses of Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011. Proposed Lot 5 will excise the existing dwelling (which is to be demolished and replaced by a new dwelling pursuant to an approval granted under DA 42/2016).

The urban residential subdivision of the site would involve the following:

·    creation of vacant lots ranging in area from 340m² to just over 3,000m². The existing (and replacement) dwelling will be created on a lot of approximately 9,400m²

·    construction of new roads in accordance with Council requirements outlined in Shiralee Engineering Requirements and additional information

·    connection of each lot to reticulated sewer

·    connection of each lot to the town water supply

·    provision of an inter-allotment stormwater drainage system.

The orientation and configuration of the proposed vacant lots is such that a future dwelling can be designed without unreasonable constraint to optimise solar penetration to internal and external living areas.

Land shaping and finished levels will be subject to final civil engineering design.

The applicant has indicated that the subdivision will proceed in stages subject to demand and provision of services. An indicative staging plan is as follows:

·    Stage 1 – Proposed Lots 1 to 5

·    Stage 2 – Proposed Lots 10 to 17

·    Stage 3 – Proposed Lots 6 to 9

It should be noted that proposed Lots 7-17 will require the provision of services and access through adjoining lands. These lots will not be able to be released until such time that those services have been provided to the land or alternative arrangements to those contemplated in this application are sought.


 

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

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

Development Applications lodged prior to 25 February 2018

Section 1.7 of the EP&A Act 1979 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. The relevant provisions are set out at Part 5A of the historical version of the EP&A Act 1979 dated 24 August 2017.

Having regard to the relevant provisions and based on an inspection of the subject property, it is considered that the proposed development is not likely to have a significant effect on any threatened species, populations or ecological communities or their habitats.

Section 4.15

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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


 

Clause 1.6 - Consent Authority

This clause establishes that, subject to the 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:

R2 Low Density Residential zone and R1 General Residential

Lot Size Map:

Minimum Lot Size a combination of 200m2(Area B) 3000m2 (Area W1) and 9,000m2 (Area X3)

Heritage Map:

Contains a heritage item under Schedule 5 of the LEP

Height of Buildings Map:

No building height limit

Floor Space Ratio Map:

No floor space limit

Terrestrial Biodiversity Map:

No biodiversity sensitivity on the site

Groundwater Vulnerability Map:

Ground water vulnerable

Drinking Water Catchment Map:

Not within the drinking water catchment

Watercourse Map:

Not within or affecting a defined watercourse

Urban Release Area Map:

Not within an urban release area

Obstacle Limitation Surface Map:

No restriction on building siting or construction

Additional Permitted Uses Map:

No additional permitted use applies

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

Minimum Lot Sizes

Figure 2 – Minimum Lot Size map


 

W1: 3000m2 min

X3: 9000m2 min

B: 200m2 min

Figure 3 - Zoning

Part 2 - Permitted or Prohibited Development

Land Use Zones

The subject site is zoned in a combination of R1 General Residential zone and R2 Low Density Residential zone as indicated in the above map extracts.

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

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

The objectives for land zoned R1 General Residential are:

·    to provide for the housing needs of the community

·    to provide for a variety of housing types and densities

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

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

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


 

The objectives for land zoned R2 Low Density Residential are:

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

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

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

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

The proposed residential subdivision is considered to be consistent with the foregoing objectives. The relevant matters are addressed 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.

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

Clause 2.6 - Subdivision - Consent Requirements

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

Part 4 - Principal Development Standards

Clause 4.1 - Minimum Subdivision Lot Size

With reference to Figure 2 above (minimum Lot size), the subject land is subject to three separate minimum allotment sizes as follows:

·    3000m² in the section of land identified as W1

·    9000m² in the section of land identified as X3

·    200m² in the section of land identified as B


 

The proposed subdivision involves the creation of two lots (being Lots 1 and 4) that do not satisfy the relevant MLS of 9,000m2 (see map below). Therefore a variation of the MLS is sought pursuant to LEP Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards (see below).

All other lots comply with the minimum allotment size requirements. It should be noted that proposed lot 9 will be partly within land denoted as “W1” (3000m²) and partly within land denoted as “B” (200m²). The majority of the subject lot is located on that part of the land requiring a lot size of 3000m² with a smaller amount being located on that part of the land requiring 200m² lots (see map below). There are no objections to this arrangement as it will facilitate the proposed compact lots meeting the required width to depth ratios as contemplated by the DCP masterplan.

Clause 4.6 –Exceptions to Development Standards

Clause 4.6 (Exceptions to Development Standards) provides that development consent may, subject to this clause, be granted for development even though the development would contravene a development standard imposed by this or any other environmental planning instrument (other than a development standard expressly excluded from the operation of the clause).

Clause 4.1 sets out minimum lot size requirements applicable in certain zones which relevantly states the following controls, objectives and considerations for subdivision:

(a)     to ensure that new subdivisions reflect existing lot sizes and patterns in the surrounding locality,

(b)     to ensure that lot sizes have a practical and efficient layout to meet intended use,


 

(c)     to ensure that lot sizes do not undermine the land’s capability to support rural development

(d)     to prevent the fragmentation of rural lands

(e)     to provide for a range of lot sizes reflecting the ability of services available to the area

(f)      to encourage subdivision designs that promote a high level of pedestrian and cyclist connectivity and accommodate public transport vehicles.

(2)     This clause applies to a subdivision of any land shown on the Lot Size Map that requires development consent and that is carried out after the commencement of this Plan.

(3)     The size of any lot resulting from a subdivision of land to which this clause applies is not to be less than the minimum size shown on the Lot Size Map in relation to that land.

(4)     This clause does not apply in relation to the subdivision of any land:

(a)     by the registration of a strata plan or strata plan of subdivision under the Strata Schemes Development Act 2015

(b)     by any kind of subdivision under the Community Land Development Act 1989.

The lot size mapping for the Shiralee precinct has a montage of differing lot sizes that in large measure are intended to facilitate the lot yields, density and outcomes specified in the Shiralee DCP. The LEP remains the skeletal strategic document, designed to achieve residential living densities able to meet the aims and objectives of that zone, and the LEP generally. It is noted that for this proposed subdivision, the yields contained in the proposal, as well as the placement of various lot classifications is more or less consistent with the outcomes of the DCP.

Pursuant to Clause 4.1(3) of the LEP, the size of any lot resulting from a subdivision of land to which this clause applies is not to be less than the minimum size shown on the Lot Size Map in relation to that land.

As indicated in the diagram above (Figure 2), subdivision of the subject land is subject to three separate minimum lot sizes as follows:

·    3,000m² in the section of the land identified as W1.

·    9,000m² in the section of the land identified as X3.

·    200m² in the section of the land identified as B.

With reference to the submitted plans the proposed subdivision involves the creation of proposed Lots 1 and 4 which do not satisfy the MLS of 9,000m2. It is proposed to create these lots each with an area of 3,000m2.

The objectives of Clause 4.6 are as follows:

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

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


 

Council must take into account these objectives.

There is no issue with respect to (a), but with respect to (b) it is important for Council to be able to show in its thinking that a particular and special case or circumstance exists to allow the variation. It is noted that the applicant’s Statement of Environmental Effects puts forward a number of reasons to support the variation. However, at the heart of the variation in this case is the desire to retain the heritage item on the same lot as the approved dwelling under DA42/2016. This will maximise the chances of this building being retained and re-purposed. In doing so the applicant has successfully maintained the overall lot yield in this case.

There are set procedures outlined in guidelines published by the NSW Department of Planning encapsulated in a circular published in 2008, and quite strongly supported and upheld in the Land and Environment Court. For obvious reasons the Department advises all Councils to allow variations only where exceptional circumstances exist and where certain other criteria can be shown be achieved.

When applicant’s lodge development applications and associated requests to vary a development standard, they must give grounds of objection to the development standard. Variation of a development standard may be justified where it is consistent with the objectives that the relevant environmental planning instrument is attempting to achieve.

The applicant has provided written justification for the variation sought. The proposed subdivision is considered to be consistent with the minimum lot size requirements with the exception of proposed Lots 1 and 4. These lots are generally located in an area identified as having a minimum lot size of 9000m2. The submitted plans show that proposed Lots 1 and 4 each have an area of 3000m2. . It is noted that proposed Lot 5 (on which dwelling approved under DA 42/2016 would be located) incorporates a proposed site area exceeding 9000m2 and further the overall lot yield remains the same as is prescribed in the relevant masterplan.

The application must address:

(i)      whether strict compliance with the standard, in the particular case, would be unreasonable or unnecessary and why

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

In order to address the requirements of Clause 4.6(3) the following assessment is provided. The MLS Map in the LEP is an established instrument in regard to the control of lot sizes. The delineation of the various MLS zones has been largely informed by the Shiralee DCP master planning. As such, it can be argued that there is an inter-relationship between the DCP and the MLS provisions. The DCP refers to the potential to vary lot sizes and types (Section 1.8 Exceptional Circumstances). If a variation to lot size and type can be justified under the DCP, it follows that a variation of the MLS may also be contemplated. In this case the applicant submits that the resultant lot yield is entirely the same as is called for under the masterplan, and the variation is simply taking advantage of the existing consent granted for a new dwelling that was recently approved under DA42/2016.


 

The site of proposed Lots 1 to 5 is identified in the DCP Masterplan as a scenic hill which, in conjunction with the existing heritage item, represents an important setting, particularly when viewed from the north. To maintain these values the DCP encourages a lower density of development on this part of the site; hence the MLS of 9,000m². It is submitted that a MLS of 9,000m2 is not required to maintain these scenic and heritage values.

Given that overall yields as specified in the masterplan are adhered to and the integrity of the heritage item located on the site is maximised by retaining it within the same lot as the approved replacement dwelling it is considered reasonable and justified in this case to support the variation. It is considered that the scenic vistas of the Shiralee hill are not affected by the variation and suitable conditions of consent have been recommended to protect the curtilage of the heritage item.

In assessing the appropriateness of a proposal to vary a development standard Council should also satisfy itself that the development is acceptable having reference to the matters set out in the ‘five part test’ established by the NSW Land and Environment Court. The NSW Department of Planning strongly advises Councils to apply the Five Part Test in their assessments of Clause 4.6 matters.

The five part test embodies the following:

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

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

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

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

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

An assessment of the five part test is provided below:

1.       the objectives of the standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard;

Applicant’s Response

Strict compliance with the 9,000m2 MLS would potentially result in a subdivision that does not provide for a range of lot sizes reflecting the ability of services available to the area as encouraged by objective (e) of Clause 4.1. In this sense, this objective of the development standard may be thwarted if compliance with the MLS was required.

The proposal is considered to be consistent with the other objectives of the development standard as explained (elsewhere in the statement).


 

Comment:

In this case the objectives of the standard relate to achieving viable residential yields whilst at the same time taking adequate steps to protect the heritage significance of the site, the semi-rural character, whilst not interfering to the transition to residential, and also to protecting the vista opportunities presented by the hill leading off to the north. It is considered the proposed variation refines and improves the broad planning outcomes enunciated in the LEP and DCP, and the variation results in an improved outcome with respect to those underlying intents.

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

Applicant’s Response

The applicant has not directly addressed this planning principle

Comment:

It is considered the underlying purpose of the standard is to achieve compatible densities (compatible to the preservation of neighbourhood and desired future character, as well as in terms of servicing) whilst at the same time ensuring that constraints such as vistas, heritage, water quality and the like are not placed under threat. In this case, the lot yields as set out in the masterplan are met, and the overall subdivision layout is respectful to existing character whilst also achieving the strategic goals of the DCP.

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

Applicant’s Response

See applicant’s response to (1) above.

Comment:

An insistence on full compliance with the standard would result in a slightly less satisfactory subdivision pattern, in that the masterplan would result in the heritage building being located on a vacant lot and the dwelling approved under DA42/2016 would be unlikely to be built without modification.

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

Applicant’s Response

The development standard cannot be said to be abandoned, particularly as development of the Shiralee area is in its preliminary stages and the pattern of development is yet to emerge.

Comment:

The applicant’s comment is supported.


 

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

Applicant’s Response

Variation of the development standard is justified in this case because it can be demonstrated that the proposal satisfies the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone and the objectives of the MLS.

The proposal does not introduce lot sizes that cannot be found elsewhere within the R2 Zone for the Shiralee area. In this case, the appropriateness of lot size is more to do with the physical characteristics of the site and its relationship to the surrounding area, as expressed in the Shiralee DCP.

The overall lot yields as called up in the masterplan are not exceeded by the proposal.

The inter-relationship between the MLS and the Shiralee DCP cannot be dismissed. Despite the non-compliance with the MLS, the subdivision is acceptable in terms of the more specific provisions of the Shiralee DCP. In this regard, the creation of proposed Lots 1 and 4 can be demonstrated to uphold the aims and principles of the Shiralee DCP pertaining to the protection of landscape and scenic values. The proposed building envelope and height restriction pursuant to Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act will assist in this regard.

Comment:

As indicated elsewhere in this report, it is considered that full compliance is not warranted in this case. The yields achieved in the application correlate to those specified in the masterplan, the location of the heritage items and the approval already granted for the replacement dwelling on the main lot suggest a need for justification in this case.

General observations

The underlying purpose of the standard for which variation is being sought is relevant to the development. Minimum lot size requirements are a blunt assessment tool aimed at achieving good design outcomes whilst at the same time making efficient use of the land at densities likely to achieve a reasonable return for the development; and at the same time ensuring neighbourhood character and amenity is not excessively compromised. Variations based on a wholesale objection to a standard where special circumstances do not exist should be avoided as they weaken the ability to apply the standard at some point for other applications. In this case special circumstances are considered to be evident and support for a variation in this case would not establish an undesirable precedent.

The proposed development with its non-compliance to Clause 4 is not contrary to any of the objectives for the zone; it being noted the close similarities of the proposed subdivision to the outcomes sought in the DCP. Overall, it is considered that the proposed development has a neutral or slightly beneficial effect with respect to achieving the objectives of the zone.

It is considered in an overall and general sense that the proposal, including the variation sought, is consistent with the above objectives.


 

Part 5 - Miscellaneous Provisions

5.10 - Heritage Conservation

According to Orange LEP Schedule 5, the former residence/packing shed within the subject land which lies to the north-west of the main group of existing buildings is listed as a heritage item of local significance.

Figure 4 – Heritage Item north east view

The heritage item is listed in Orange LEP 2011 as having Local significance. The building occupies an exposed slope that is prominent in views from the north towards the subject land and the Shiralee area.


 

 

Figure 5 – Heritage Item north view

Relevant to the identified Heritage Item, the Shiralee DCP Master Plan seeks to:

·    conserve historic items and their settings

·    conserve, maintain, and enhance existing views and vistas to buildings and places of historic and aesthetic significance.

The applicant has provided the following consideration in response to the NSW Heritage Office publication Statement of Heritage Impact Guidelines (Table 7 – Relevant HIS Questions).

The proposal respects the heritage significance of the item as follows:

·    Consistent with the approval granted via DA 42/2016, the heritage item and the replacement dwelling will remain together on the same lot (i.e. proposed Lot 5). The boundary of proposed Lot 5 maintains a generous curtilage for the item, particularly noting that the northern boundary of this lot coincides with the line of the boundary adjustment that was also approved in DA 42/2016.

·    The inclusion of both buildings on the one lot maintains the important relationship between the replacement dwelling and the heritage item due to the following:

-      the replacement dwelling will be sufficiently set back from the item so as to not encroach on its curtilage or setting. The separation between the proposed dwelling and item is such that there would be minimal potential to undermine or cause physical damage to the item


 

-      the replacement dwelling is set to the south of the item. The item remains forward in the important views from the north looking south towards Shiralee and to the item itself. As such, the proposed dwelling will not diminish any key views to or from the heritage item, or public appreciation of the item

-      the proposed subdivision does not involve any works that have the potential to damage the item. In this regard, there is ample opportunity to locate utility service mains well away from the item, and thus not disturb it with excavations or vibration. Further, the proposal does not involve the construction of new roads in close proximity to the item

-      compared to the DCP Masterplan, it is acknowledged that proposed Lot 4 in the subdivision creates the potential for one additional dwelling immediately to the north of the heritage item. However, it is considered that the views from the north towards the item can be respected. A building envelope is proposed within Lot 4 to reduce the potential for a future dwelling to unreasonably obstruct sightlines to the heritage item

-      the ground level in the proposed envelope ranges from approximately 897.5m AHD at its northern end to 901m AHD at its southern end. The ground level in the vicinity of the heritage item is in the order of 907m. As such, the ground level at the heritage items is some 7 to 10m higher than the ground level within the building envelope

-      the difference in ground levels should limit the potential for a future dwelling in proposed Lot 4 to unreasonably obstruct views to or ruin the silhouette of the heritage item. However, to further safeguard against such an impact, the applicant proposes to apply a Section 88B Restriction that requires any future dwelling in Lot 4 to be single storey. This can be imposed or reinforced as a condition of approval in the notice of determination.

The applicant has suitably demonstrated in the assessment above that the proposal has minimal potential to adversely affect the heritage item. Building envelopes and height restrictions for proposed Lots 3 and 4 are recommended in the attached Notice of Approval to ensure that the view corridor from Shiralee Road towards the item is not adversely compromised. Proposed Lot 5 has been designed to accommodate the heritage item itself and new replacement dwelling under DA 42/2016. This allotment will comprise an area of in excess of 9000m² to provide a suitable curtilage to the heritage item and its surrounds. In this case the resultant lot yield is entirely the same as is called for under the masterplan, and the variation is simply taking accommodating the existing consent granted for a new dwelling that was recently approved under DA42/2016 which ultimately seeks to provide a greater level of protection for the listed item of heritage contained within.

It is agreed that any dwelling within proposed Lots 3 and 4 would sit lower in the view corridor than the existing dwelling and shed that are on the adjoining property to the east. The proposed subdivision would create only 1 additional lot/dwelling opportunity in this section of the site (compared to the layout in the DCP Masterplan) which is considered to be acceptable subject to the recommended conditions. Impacts upon the heritage item are considered to be acceptable.


 

Part 7 - Additional Local Provisions

7.1 - Earthworks

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

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

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

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

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

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

(f)     the likelihood of disturbing relics

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

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

No significant earthworks or details relating thereto have been submitted with the application. Clearly there will be earthworks needed in the road construction and provision of utilities, but there are no indications in the submitted material to undertake bulk earthworks for preparation of the individual lots. In this case it is considered that some benefit is derived from the existing amphitheatre effect of the topography when viewed from the south.

Consequently, the following condition is included in the consent:

·    Earthworks for all stages of the development shall be limited to those required for roads, footpaths and the provision of utility services. No approval is granted for bulk earthworks to be undertaken on the site with respect to levelling or cut/filling otherwise, except with the further consent of Council, as the details of such works are not shown in the development proposal submitted to Council for approval.

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

(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 applicant will be required to contribute to the provision of an off-site stormwater detention system for the development. Drainage for Lots 5-17 requires drainage easements over adjoining land prior to the commencement of works. Council is in receipt of submissions in relation to this issue. There is no obligation on an adjoining property owner to provide easements over their land if they choose not to develop at this time.

Conditions are included in the consent to achieve these outcomes.

7.6 - Groundwater Vulnerability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clause 7.11 - Essential Services

Clause 7.11 - Essential Services provides that development consent must not be granted to development unless the consent authority is satisfied that any of the services which are essential for the proposed development are available, or that adequate arrangements have been made to make them available when required. Essential services include the supply of water and electricity; the disposal and management of sewage; stormwater drainage or onsite conservation and suitable road access.

The applicant has indicated that all services have the capacity to be extended to the site. Council’s Technical Services Division has recommended a condition of consent to ensure arrangements can be made for all necessary essential services to be provided to the subject property.


 

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 Remediation of Land

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

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

Given that the subject property has a history of use for the purpose of horticulture, a Preliminary Contamination Investigation (PCI) was submitted with the development application. Based on soil and laboratory analysis, the PCI concluded that the soil sampling program did not detect elevated levels of analysed metals and organochlorine pesticides, and that levels of all substances evaluated were near background environmental levels and below the EPA investigation threshold for residential land use.

Notwithstanding, Council’s Building Surveyor has recommended a precautionary condition of consent requiring that chemical testing of each lot is to be undertaken to demonstrate that the land is suitable for residential use prior to the issue of a subdivision certificate.

PROVISIONS OF ANY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT THAT HAS BEEN PLACED ON EXHIBITION 4.15(1)(a)(ii)

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

DESIGNATED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development is not designated development.

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development is not integrated development.

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

Development Control Plan 2004

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

·    Chapter 0 - Transitional Provisions.

·    Chapter 2 - Natural Resource Management.

·    Chapter 3 - General Considerations.

·    Chapter 4 - Special Environmental Considerations.

·    Chapter 5 - General Considerations for Zones and Development.

·    Chapter 7 - Development in Residential Areas


 

Chapter 0 - Transitional Provisions

Section 0.2 - General Translation of Zones

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

The table identifies that R1 General Residential Zone and R2 Low Density Residential Zone correspond with the 2a Urban Residential and 2d Urban Transitional Zones.

Chapter 2 - Natural Resource Management

Section 2.1 - Water Quality

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 3 - General Considerations

Section 3.1 - Cumulative Impacts

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

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


 

Chapter 4 - Special Environmental Considerations

Section 4.3 - Land Shaping

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

Land shaping has previously been addressed under “Section 7.1 - Earthworks”. In summary, it is considered that the applicant has not proposed earthworks as part of the development application. Notwithstanding, it is expected that some minor earthworks are likely to be limited to the extent of cut and fill required to construct new internal roads and provide utilities services to the newly created lots. It is accepted that the required earthworks for these services are unlikely to disrupt or have a detrimental effect on the existing drainage patterns and soil stability of the area; detrimentally affect a future use or redevelopment of the land; detrimentally affect the amenity of adjoining properties; or disturb any relics.

Section 4.4 - Contaminated Land

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

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

Shiralee Development Control Plan 2015

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

These objectives are given effect by a series of development controls which generally deal with issues such as desired future character, local infrastructure, the village centre, residential buildings, private and public domains, the environment, and movement networks. There are masterplans that deal with individual parts of the residential precinct, of which the subject site is a part. It is located within Shiralee Masterplan Area E, shown below:


 

 

Figure 6 – Shiralee Area E master plan

The general intent of the development controls for the future development of the Shiralee area is illustrated by the Shiralee Masterplan (Figure 6).

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


 

2.0 - Desired Future Character

2.4 - Subdivision

Section 2.4 Subdivision includes the following controls:

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

The control identifies that subdivision must be ‘consistent generally in accordance with the Masterplan’. The proposal is considered to be generally consistent with the adopted DCP. The applicant has sought a variation to the minimum allotment sizes or certain lots within the proposal. In this case the resultant lot yield is entirely the same as is called for under the masterplan, and the variation is simply accommodating the existing consent granted for a new dwelling that was recently approved under DA42/2016 which ultimately seeks to provide a greater level of protection for the listed item of heritage contained within.

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

Two of the lots are smaller than recommended in the master planning document, whilst one is significantly larger. Overall, for this site, the lot yields remain consistent, and the heritage constraints adequately addressed and respected by the solution offered.

It is noted that this control requires lots’ sizes to be consistent with or greater than the adopted minimum lot size for the land under the LEP. The applicant has submitted a Clause 4.6 variation that establishes that it is unreasonable and/or unnecessary to achieve full compliance with the LEP requirements in this case (see assessment above for detail). This has the effect that the lot layout complies with the intent of the LEP (and hence the DCP) and is reasonable in terms of the outcomes the subdivision is likely to generate.

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

Lot 1 is proposed to be 9000m2, whereas the masterplan only requires an area of 3000m2. However, a building envelope is not considered necessary in this case as an existing approval for a replacement dwelling is already in place for this site. The applicant has suitably demonstrated that the lot size and shape of this lot has been designed to accommodate the new dwelling and respect the listed heritage item.

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

Refer to assessment above.

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


 

Proposed Lots 3 and 17 are corner lots for the purposes of this assessment criteria. Proposed Lot 17 has a width to depth ratio of 1.2.5 and complies, whilst proposed Lot 3 has a proposed width to depth ratio of 1.2:1 (on the assumption that the primary frontage of this lot will be Shiralee Road). It is considered that notwithstanding the non-compliance with the standard, it will still be possible to meet its intent in future applications for development of the site.

2.5 - Lot Typologies

The explanatory notes of this section includes a requirement for the imposition of a building envelope where a lot is proposed that exceeds the lots sizes prescribed in the masterplan. This appears to be intended to ensure development potential of the larger lot more in accordance with the masterplan at some point in the future, so as to maintain overall lot yields and thereby maintain viability of the masterplan.

In this case the lot yield for the subject land is achieved in the subdivision and therefore a need for a restrictive building envelope does not appear warranted.

The masterplan imposes restrictions on future development of the lots in terms of maximum site coverages. As future developments are as likely to be processed as exempt or complying development, in which the application of the DCP is not well known, it is considered appropriate to apply these restrictions as S-88B restrictions to user (so as to inform future landowners).

The restriction will be:

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

·    60% for compact lots

·    45% for medium lots

·    35% for standard lots

·    25% for large Lots

Appropriate restrictions to user shall be applied to each of the proposed lots to reflect these requirements of the Shiralee Masterplan”.

The Lot typology provisions of the DCP include the following:

·    all lots must have a direct street frontage to ensure good access and property amenity. Lots 3,000m² and larger are excepted

·    lots without a street frontage are to have a minimum size of 3000m² providing that boundary landscaping is provided.

The submitted layout complies with these requirements, though Lots 7-17 will not be able to physically comply until such time as the physical link to Rifle Range Road has been established. The submitted plan conforms to that arrangement, though it needs to be acknowledged that the adjoining landowners are not agreeable to the formation of that link at this time. It is further noted that the road construction through adjoining land does not form part of the proposed development. Nevertheless, a condition deferring the release of Lots 7-17 is included in the consent.


 

The proposed lots comply with the solar access guidelines of the DCP.

It is noted that the compact lots located at the eastern end of existing Lot 90 don’t fully occupy the minimum lot size area contained in the LEP, and configured generally so as to generally achieve the lot sizes applicable to compact lots and width to depth ratio as set out in Appendix B of the DCP. Whilst there is a general correlation between the LEP and the DCP, the area set aside for compact lots under the LEP is too large compared to the DCP. Were all the area for compact lots as shown in the LEP used for that purpose, the resulting lots would no longer comply with the definition of a “compact lot’ (ie the size of the lots would exceed 400m²which is the upper limit specified in the DCP for this categorisation). If this were to arise, the layout would not comply with the DCP and issues like width to depth, site coverage and setbacks would be affected.

As a consequence, the submitted plans, with respect to the compact lots, ensures that the compact lots are compliant to the DCP requirements, but this in turn means that some of the high density land has been folded over into the adjoining proposed Lot 9 of the development. There are no objections to this arrangement.

3.1 - Infrastructure Provisions

Controls:

·    Clause 7.11 of the Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 establishes that development is required to be provided with essential services including:

-      the supply of water

-      the supply of electricity

-      the supply of gas

-      the supply of telecommunications infrastructure

-      the disposal and management of sewage

-      stormwater drainage or on-site conservation, and

·    Suitable road access.

·    Provision of essential local infrastructure is at the developers cost and in line with the Shiralee Contributions Development Plan.

·    The design and placement of local infrastructure is to be in accordance with the relevant authorities’ requirements.

·    All power lines are to be located underground.

It is possible for the proposed development to gain access to these services, though it is acknowledged that in the case of the water, drainage and sewer access easements with downstream properties will be required, and for road access, agreement with adjoining land owners is still needed. The proposed development does not actually include those services within the physical confines of the site, and therefore such arrangements are not directly relevant to the assessment of the application. The application is consistent with the master planning for the locality and therefore no impediment exists from the perspective of infrastructure provision under the DCP.


 

3.2 - Ground Levels and Excavation

All forms of development are to respond to the local topography. Excessive cutting and filling of a site is an indication of poor design and is likely to adversely impact streetscapes, alter site drainage, hinder solar access and limit view sharing opportunities.

The application does not show any earthworks beyond those necessary for the provision of roads and utilities. Conditions of consent have been included to address this issue.

3.4 - Staging

The DCP has a broad brush staging plan. The proposed development is not contrary to the staging requirements of the DCP, notwithstanding some of the obvious difficulties presented in achieving road and services access for parts of the proposed development.

4.0 – Neighbourhood Centre

Not directly relevant to this subdivision, however, there are no aspects of the proposed development that would adversely impact on the implementation of the neighbourhood centre provisions of the plan.

5.0 – Residential Buildings

No residential buildings are proposed in this application. The proposed subdivision will create residential lots for the future, and there are no elements of the subdivision likely to generate conflicts with the desired future character of the locality.

6.0 – Private Domain Landscape

Not relevant to this application.

7.0 – Public Domain

There are no public open spaces proposed or required for the subject land under the DCP.

7.4 Street Tree Strategy

Controls:

·    A minimum of one tree per lot for compact lots, two street trees for standard lots and three trees for larger lots, at even spacing along the street

·    Street tree plantings are to be consistent with the Street Tree Strategy Diagram, Species List and Planting Detail and as approved by Council

·    Residential street verges are to be turfed with Council approved species except where Council requires groundcover planting.

Conditions are included in the consent for those sections of public road proposed on the subject land. The condition does not apply to the connections outside the subject land to Rifle Range Road.


 

8.0 - Environmental Management

8.3 - Stormwater and Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD)

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

·    a comprehensive site-wide WSUD strategy is implemented for Shiralee

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

·    WSUD elements are to incorporate native planting.

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

8.4 - Environmental Hazards

Section 8.4 Environmental Hazards includes the following controls:

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

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

9.0 - Movement Networks

9.2 - Pedestrian and Bicycle Network and Associated Facilities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 

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

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

Technical Services Comments:

“Internal Roads

The proposed road layout is satisfactory and is generally in accordance with the Shiralee DCP, however, proposed Lots 7-17 require adjoining land to be developed and/or the construction of roads to serve the lots.

Park Road and Shiralee Road

Shiralee Road may need to be widened by 2.5m along the western frontage of the development (as part of roundabout design). Shiralee Road frontage is required to be constructed with an earth footpath to suit future road design/levels (s94 contributions fund construction of roadway from kerb to kerb).

The applicant will be required to construct Park Road (SFR) with kerb and gutter, footpaths and bitumen sealed parking lane for the full frontage of the development. (s94 contributions fund construction of travel lanes).

Bike Path and Footpaths

The applicant will be required to build bike paths and footpaths in accordance with the Shiralee DCP and Council requirements”.

9.3 - Public Transport Network

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 

9.4 - Street Network and Access

Section 9.4 Street Network and Access includes the following controls:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-      collector Streets

-      the Southern Feeder Road, and

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

Two stage roads

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

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


 

9.5 - Traffic Management

Section 9.5 Traffic Management includes the following controls:

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

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

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

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

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

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

INFILL GUIDELINES

The proposed development is generally consistent with the infill guidelines.

PROVISIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE REGULATIONS s4.15(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 proposal does not involve a change of building use for an existing building.

Buildings to be Upgraded (clause 94)

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

BASIX Commitments (clause 97A)

Not applicable


 

PART 7 – INFRASTRUCTURE CONTRIBUTIONS AND FINANCE

In accordance with Section 7.11 of the Act and Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017 (Shiralee Release Area) a contribution towards the provision of the following public facilities is required:

Open Space and Recreation

@  2,682.73 x 17 lots

45,606.41

Community and Cultural

@     777.99 x 17 lots

13,225.83

Roads and Traffic Management

@  3,541.11 x 17 lots

60,198.87

Local Area Facilities

@ 12,415.64 x 17 lots

211,065.88

Plan Preparation & Administration

@      582.53 x 17 lots

9,903.01

Sub Total

(17 lots)

$340,000.00

Credit for existing allotments

@ 20,000.00 x 2 lots

(-)40,000.00

Net Total

(subtotal less credits)

$300,000.00

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

SECTION 64 (LOCAL GOVT ACT) - WATER AND SEWER HEADWORKS CHARGES

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

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

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

The assessment demonstrates that while the proposed subdivision does not meet some of the specific development controls of the Shiralee DCP 2015, it is generally in accordance with the intent of the document. Generally, any variation from the Shiralee DCP 2015 is due to the previous approval granted for a dwelling under DA 42/2016 and the desire to protect the identified heritage item on a larger parcel of land.

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

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


 

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

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

 

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

The proposed development is not defined as "advertised development" under the provisions of the LEP or DCP, The application was received in 2016 and although not advertised development at the time, attracted three submissions from nearby and surrounding residents. These earlier submissions were made by persons who have since made submissions to the current amended proposal, raising very similar issues to those set out in the following summary. The amended proposal is a subdivision that generally conforms to the provisions of the masterplan, both in terms of layout and also in terms of lot yield. Notwithstanding the fact that advertising was not required Council staff determined as a result of the earlier submissions that the development application would be advertised and notified. During the exhibition period submissions have been received from the following persons:

Liz and Glen Saunders - 158 Shiralee Road

Access to Lots 7-17 of the proposed subdivision would potentially require us (and our neighbour) to trigger development on our land by agreeing to roadways, water lines and sewer lines being built within our boundaries.

The masterplan does call for road and sewer connections that will affect neighbours at some point in the future. However, there is no compunction for the objectors, or any other third party to do anything with their land in relation to the proposed development. If the objector does not want road access to be constructed across their land, or water/sewer connections to be provided, they are not compelled to do so by a consent for this application.

Michael John MacMahon - 11 Park Road

1.    Sewer Main - the planning proposes that a sewer main be placed 1m inside the boundary of my property along Park Road. The gardens on our Land have been established over 40 years and we do not wish them to be destroyed by the installation of a sewer main.

The subdivision plans show the intent is to provide road extensions to Rifle Range Road. Water mains to be located within this future road reserve, an access drive running along the western boundaries of Lots 7-9 and 17, and other services that at some point will require negotiation and agreements to be reached with those nearby and adjoining affected landowners. There is no compunction on the part of those affected neighbours to agree to their land being used for these purposes. The layouts and service provisions for the proposed subdivision is consistent with the masterplan layouts, but until and unless agreements are reached with the neighbours affected, those lots dependant on such arrangements cannot proceed. There are recommended conditions in the consent presented to Council to ensure this outcome is achieved and neighbours rights fully protected. Should at any point in the future the applicant and adjoining residents wish to pursue an alternative proposal. It would be necessary for a separate application be submitted for Council consideration and for that application to be accompanied with sufficient justification against the DCP controls.

 

2.   Stormwater Discharge - the proposed development will drastically increase the amount of hard stand areas which will greatly increase stormwater discharges. Current planning proposal states that the stormwater is to discharge to the natural low point but that will force the increased stormwater runoffs onto my property potentially causing considerable damage.

There are no substantial increases in hard stand areas contained in this actual proposal, although some increase would arise from the roadworks proposed. Clearly the likely future development of the lots for residential purposes will increase the amount of surface runoff, and hence a need for enhanced stormwater management will arise at some point. It is normal practice for residential subdivisions in urban areas, at subdivision, to make allowance in the engineering details for stormwater management, and this can often require negotiation with downstream property owners for the establishment of appropriate drainage reserves. There will not be any increase in terms of ponded or unmanaged runoff onto neighbours land. Conditions are included for the draft consent that require stormwater systems to be designed and installed prior to the release of the subdivision stages.

Council’s Technical Services Division have provided the following comments with regard to the proposed development its implications for stormwater management: “The applicant will be required to contribute to the provision of an off-site stormwater detention system for the development (through s94 contributions). Drainage for Lots 5-17 requires drainage easements over adjoining land prior to the commencement of works”.

3.    Roadways/Access - the development relies on the creation of a number of roadways so that access be granted to Sites 7–17. Until these roadways are put in I cannot see how the development could possibly be approved as there will be no access to these sites.

Until and unless the road connections can be provided, a significant number of the lots cannot be registered. There are conditions recommended in the consent to address this issue.

Gary Coulson - 23 Park Road

Raises no objection to the reduced block sizes and configuration departures from the masterplan

This is noted, however such departures are supported on the basis that unique circumstances are at play for the subject property.  Future variations would need to establish special circumstances in the same way as the subject application.

Has concerns over the proposed sewerage main in Park Road.  With the mains traversing private property, what are the implications for affected landowners with regard to liability and what easements will be involved to service and maintain the main?

Landowners that reach agreement on the positioning of the sewer main will generally not be permitted to build over the main or its zone of influence.  Typically this will be a two or three metre wide strip of land extending over the location of the pipeline.  Conversely, the costs of installing such mains generally falls to the development that initially generates the need for such services, which should be seen as a benefit for nearby and surrounding landowners contemplating future subdivisions.  Those landowners able to gain access to the mains can generally tap into the main after it has been installed.  

 

What will be the compensation to the landowner as it will detract from the land value. Who will cover the cost of for replacement fencing, vegetation and ongoing rehabilitation of sites in which the main is laid?

Compensation is a matter for negotiation between the developer that installs the mains, and the landowner.  With respect to rehabilitation costs like replacement of fencing, this is normally either done or covered by the developer. It is a matter of negotiation between the developer and the landowner however.

Will the contributions for stormwater management be sufficient in years to come. Why isn’t suitable Storm Water Drainage being installed as the subdivision develops to alleviate the 1:100 year events, instead of a contribution to Orange City Council, and why can’t stormwater be discharged directly onto adjoining properties

The solution for stormwater management of the site requires a mix of reticulation works to be undertaken on the site and in the surrounding environs, and some investment in capital works for the overall build-up of local capacities.  This is to allow the collection and disposal of excess runoff.  There is a basic legal presumption that places an onus on developers to ensure that pre and post development flows do not substantially change and that such runoff is eventually discharged to a natural watercourse. Detention works are required as a capital work (which is where the contributions are applicable and will be expended) to facilitate capacity building in the form of such measures as increased detention basin capacity and other strategic capabilities.

SEPP-55 – want soil testing to be carried out

The Site contamination report indicates that some on-site soil testing has been carried out, and the results of this testing are that there is no significant threat from contamination on the site.  As a precautionary measure, Council’s EHBS has recommended a condition for further testing to be undertaken by way of a condition of consent.

The objector points out that the site was used in the 1950’s and 60’s for orcharding purposes and that the chemicals used in these processes were dangerous to human health and wellbeing. This is acknowledged, and has been investigated as part of the site contamination report.

Jenny and Chris Roberts (on behalf of Peter Sharkey) - 55 Rifle Range Road

The impact on our amenity/views, serenity, sense of place and historical sense of place as mentioned in Clause 5.10 Heritage conservation- fabric, settings and views, will be greatly affected.

The submission is not specific as to how this development will adversely affect the objector in the way described. It appears the objections raised are more to do with the overall transition of the locality from a rural environment to a residential village. It is considered the proposed subdivision whilst possessing some differences to the DCP masterplan layout, is substantially the same nevertheless, and at the same lot yield overall. The proposed lot layout respects the listed heritage item on the subject land.


 

Clause 2.10 - variation by 66.6% on block size for Lot 1 and 4, would set a massive precedent for the Shiralee DCP.

It is considered that special circumstances exist and are at work on the subject site that render the proposed variation unique and non-transferrable to other sites. The variation arises because of a desire to utilise an existing development consent that includes retention of a listed heritage building. Overall the lot yields remain the same, and in terms of general layout the proposed development is consistent with the DCP masterplan as it relates to this site. Matters in relation to heritage impacts of the development have been separately addressed in the body of this report.

[The objectors] have no desire to develop nor subdivide in the near future.

This is not relevant as a planning consideration to the subject application. The subject application has no impact or in no way forces the objector to subdivide their land. As discussed above there is no compunction for the objectors, or any other third party to do anything with their land in relation to the proposed development. If the objector does not want road access to be constructed across their land, or water/sewer connections to be provided, they are not compelled to do so by a consent for this application.

Obviously, as the character of the locality changes, residents may choose to voluntarily seek to have their land subdivided, however, such future subdivisions, as applies to the subject land should be consistent with the master planning set out in the new DCP.

Our views towards the west will be impacted and detract from our sunset viewing and photo taking.

Whilst the subdivision itself will not have an adverse impact upon views it is acknowledged that the construction of future buildings within the new subdivision will have some effect on the objector’s views, from the juxtaposition of simply being there. It is considered the implementation of the Shiralee Masterplan will have some effect. However, it is not considered that the proposed development will have an excessive effect on view loss and that substantial proportions of existing views would be retained after the development is carried out.

The following mapping extract shows the position of the objector, the position of the proposed development and the primary view line in the direction of Mount Canobolas and the Pinnacle.


 

 

Figure X – view analysis for 55 Rifle Range Road

As can be seen from the attached basic view analysis, the primary view lines for the objector, as identified in the DCP, are of Mt Canobolas. The proposed development does not affect those primary views. The views enjoyed by the objector in other directions cannot be considered the primary views for that person. Moreover, with the larger lot to be located on 168 Shiralee Road, and the compact lots lower in elevation relative to the crest at Shiralee Road, it is considered that views in the westerly direction for the objector will not be significantly affected.

The Land and Environment Court have ‘planning principles” with regard to view loss assessments. The value of views are linked to whether the thing being viewed is iconic or essential to the inherent value of the property benefitting from that view. Where views are of a more general or panoramic value the Land and Environment Court “planning principles” promote the idea of view sharing. In this case it is obvious that the proposed development will not completely eradicate the objector of all their views, and will not affect at all the primary viewing lines that may be open to the objector.

Proposals to encroach on the northern boundary of 55 Rifle Range Road for stormwater drainage, sewage and future roads will clearly impact on mature white gums, a highly functioning and vital underground bore for our potable water and agricultural land.


 

The positioning design of stormwater drainage lines will require discussions and agreement with the relevant landowner(s). Stormwater flows may not be simply discharged onto neighbours land, and an approval for the subject application does not remove or impinge upon the private property rights of other landowners to withhold their agreement to the positioning of stormwater lines or other infrastructure across or over their land. The issues of concern that have been raised would need to be considered in detail if and only when a decision was made by those persons to further develop their land for residential purposes. The status quo would remain if a decision was made to not development that land at this time.

Groundwater vulnerability is rated as high. We request further investigation in this area especially in regards to the proximity of bores and adjoining downstream properties which are vulnerable to contamination.

It is considered the proposed subdivision possesses little risk to groundwater quality or the quality of water extracted from the aquifers in the locality.

Groundwater vulnerability.

The subject property is mapped as having groundwater vulnerability. This arises principally because of the relatively high water table across much of Orange, including the subject site. It is considered that the subject property is under no greater risk than other properties with similar ground water vulnerability issues. It is further considered that, given that surface runoff, and effluent disposal will both be managed principally by removal via articulated networks linking back to Council infrastructure that the risks to water quality are very low.

Clause 7.11 - Essential services- e) Suitable road access

It is noted that this objector has similar concerns as expressed by other residents with respect to access for Lots 7-17. These have been previously commented upon.

C Smith, PO Box 1272, Orange

Objects to the Compact Lots.

The compact lots are consistent with the masterplan contained in the Shiralee DCP.

Roads and Access.

Mr Smith is concerned about safety arising from the increased road usage. However, the roads layout on which the subdivision is based is a direct facsimile of the DCP requirements.

Stormwater - stormwater system be designed for the 1 in 10 year storm event.

Council’s stormwater standards that are applicable to the proposed development are generally to a higher standard than the 1 in 10 year event. Notwithstanding, a detailed engineering drawing will be required to be prepared for approval adhering to Council’s Subdivision and Development Code prior to works commencing.


 

Location – slope and elevation creates a highly visible development.

The subject property is particularly visible from the north, with the views of the heritage item located on the site of particular interest. To address this issue and minimise the impacts of both the existing development and future development of the new lots, conditions are included in the attached schedule to limit the extent of earthworks, height restrictions where appropriate and setbacks for the compact lots that are proposed.

Landscaping – some arrangement for revegetation should be included in the proposal.

Conditions are included in the consent for the provision of landscaping as specified in the DCP.

Remediation of Land.

A site contamination report submitted with the application indicates the site is not contaminated and is suitable for purpose as residential land.

Laurie and Graeme Dwyer – “Hillview” Park Road

Blocks 1, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 do not comply with the street frontage requirements for a large lot classification.

There are some variations in relation to the DCP masterplan, however this arises due to the existing approval granted for DA42/2016. In terms of general layout the proposed subdivision is consistent with the DCP. In terms of lot yield the proposed development is consistent with the DCP. Clause 1.8 does allow for certain variations to the DCP where the outcomes remains remain generally acceptable and underlying objectives are being achieved.

Request that driveway access for Lots 2, 3, 4 and 6 be identified.

It is standard for Council to determine the location of driveways at dwelling application stage.

Objects to the location of the sewer main and stormwater lines on their property. Same objection for proposed road access.

As owners of that land, the objectors can refuse sewer mains (and/or stormwater lines) being installed on their land. Those lots requiring sewer and/or storm water access across the objectors land may not be developed until such access is provided, but the objector is under no obligation to allow such access. The same conclusions can be drawn with respect to roads access. It is noted that the proposed development, with respect to water, sewer, stormwater and roads is consistent with the LEP as well as the DCP masterplan. The negotiations between landowners needed to put into effect those masterplan are not relevant to the assessment of the layout.

Compact Lots will require excessive cut and fill.

The compact lots are consistent with the masterplan layout of the DCP in terms of size, shape and location. There are no bulk earthworks proposed for the sites under this application.


 

The most appropriate time to assess whether future development complies with the cut and fill requirements is if and when cut and fill is actually part of the site works ie, when applications for buildings are received. The overall cross fall is from north-west to south-east for the compact lots is in the order of 10m, which equates to an average drop for each of the proposed compact lots of 1.25m. Depending on the style of construction used and whether or not split level buildings are adopted, the cut for future dwellings can be expected to be under 1m. This is not considered excessive.

Fencing.

The objection points out that “larger lots require open rural style fencing with high visual permeability. The objectors are concerned that the large lots with open style permeable fencing will not achieve adequate privacy for them. At the same time they point out that they run cattle on their holding, suggesting that residential opaque fencing like Colorbond or palings would not prevent their cattle pushing the fencing over.

The DCP is in fact concerned with trying to manage the transition of the locality from a semi‑rural environment, to a residential environment. The land has been rezoned generally to residential purposes, and a masterplan to manage the transition. However, it is noted that with a residential zoning, the use of the properties for any form of Extensive Agriculture is no longer a permissible land use under the LEP. Existing use rights would, however, apply in circumstances where the activity has been continuous.

There are no details of any fencing to be provided on the site which indicates that no new fencing is at this stage proposed. Future applications for dwellings on the sites can be assessed as to their impacts on privacy, versus the impacts of solid fencing on neighbourhood character. In future, devices and techniques such as screen planting/landscaping, positioning and orientation of buildings and the like are possible so as to minimise privacy impact. These can be assessed on their merits.

For this application it is considered appropriate to impose the following condition:

·    For all stages of the development and any future development on the new lots, where any existing fencing at the perimeter of the site needs to be removed, or is of a type which does not ensure the occupants of any adjoining residence adequate privacy, new fencing that is compliant to the requirements the Section 6.2 of the Shiralee DCP shall be provided, and where necessary shall include arrangements for screening landscaping or privacy devices as necessary to suit the style of development and its constraints at that time.

Tree Removal.

The objector raises concern about the loss of one gum tree from the site. This tree is not proposed to be removed under this application. It appears that approval to remove the significant vegetation from the site was granted under DA42/2016. The vegetation existing on the site is not significant from a biodiversity management perspective.

This DA should include soil testing.

A site and soil analysis was submitted with the application by Envirowest Consulting.


 

Future Development.

The objector’s land holding is affected by the reservations for roads and services as set out in the DCP, to which the proposed subdivision of the subject application is entirely consistent with. Since the adoption of the DCP the objector’s land has been subject to those land acquisitions for roads and services in the areas so shown in the masterplan. As such, the parts of the objectors holding affected by road and services acquisition has no real potential for any substantive alternative development. The land owner has a choice to basically keep using the land as they are, or to develop their holding as set out in the DCP. The proposed development currently before Council does not interfere with that choice.

Compact Lots are not in keeping with the Desired Future Character of the locality.

The compact lots as proposed in this application reflect closely the layouts contained in the DCPs masterplans for this locality, as shown in the following Figures 7 and 8.

Figure 7 – DCP Masterplan (drawing by Applicant)


 

 

Figure 8 – Proposed subdivision layout

PUBLIC INTEREST s4.15(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 development is permissible with the consent of Council. The proposed development complies with the relevant aims, objectives and provisions of Orange LEP 2011 (as amended) and DCP 2004. The applicant has sought a variation to the minimum allotment size controls pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the LEP. 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 considered appropriate to ensure that the development proceeds in an acceptable manner.

COMMENTS

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

 

Attachments

1          Notice of Approval, D18/33180

2          Plans, D18/33070

3          Submissions, D18/32971

 


Planning and Development Committee                                                                3 July 2018

2.4                       Development Application DA 305/2016(1) - 168 Shiralee Road

Attachment 1      Notice of Approval

 

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

 

Development Application No DA 305/2016(1)

 

NA18/                                                                       Container PR12742

 

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 4.18

 

Development Application

 

  Applicant Name:

Byng Administration Services Pty Ltd

  Applicant Address:

C/- Peter Basha Planning and Development

PO Box 1827

ORANGE  NSW  2800

  Owner’s Name:

Byng Administration Services Pty Limited

  Land to Be Developed:

Lots 90 and 100 DP 750401 - 168 Shiralee Road, Orange

  Proposed Development:

Subdivision (17 lot residential)

 

 

Building Code of Australia

 building classification:

 

Not applicable

 

 

Determination made under

  Section 4.16

 

  Made On:

3 July 2018

  Determination:

CONSENT GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:

 

 

Consent to Operate From:

4 July 2018

Consent to Lapse On:

4 July 2023

 

Terms of Approval

 

The reasons for the imposition of conditions are:

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

(2)      To maintain neighbourhood amenity and character.

(3)      To ensure compliance with relevant statutory requirements.

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Conditions

 

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

 

(a)      Plans by Heath Consulting numbered 16039-SERV01. Plan by Peter Basha numbered 15061 dated 28.11.2017. Figure 6 Subdivision Layout, (1 sheets)

 

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

as amended in accordance with any conditions of this consent.

 

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

 

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

·    street verges are to be fully turfed with cool climate species and trees to the satisfaction of the Manager of City Presentations.

·    road infrastructure planting.

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

The landscape plan shall include details on watering, weed control and temporary protective fencing as well as staking and planting details for street trees incorporating any principals set out in the Shiralee DCP.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

(6)      Proposed Lots 1 to 17 are to be provided with interlot stormwater drainage, including those lots abutting public land, where the surface of the entire lot cannot be drained to the kerb and gutter at the lot frontage. A grated concrete stormwater pit is to be constructed within each lot provided with interlot stormwater drainage. Engineering plans for this drainage system are to be approved by Orange City Council or an Accredited Certifier (Categories B1, C3, C4, C6) prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

 

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

 

Stormwater discharging from Lots 6 to 17 shall be piped to the natural watercourse located adjacent to the intersection of Park Road and Rifle Range Road.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

(10)    The existing residence is to be connected to the proposed reticulated sewer. The existing septic tank is to be accurately located and indicated on the submitted engineering plans.

 

(11)    Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate evidence of the registration of any required easements and rights of way over adjoining properties for the provision of services and access shall be provided to the Principal Certifier.

 

PRIOR TO WORKS COMMENCING

 

(12)    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.

 

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

 

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

 

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

 

(15)    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.

 

(16)    If Aboriginal objects, relics, or other historical items or the like are located during development works, of any of the stages for the development works in the area of the identified object, relic or item shall cease, and the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH), and representatives from the Orange Local Aboriginal Land 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.

 

(17)    Earthworks for all stages of the development shall be limited to those required for roads, footpaths and the provision of utility services.  No approval is granted for bulk earthworks to be undertaken on the site with respect to levelling or cut/filling otherwise, except with the further consent of Council, as the details of such works are not shown in the development proposal submitted to Council for approval.

 

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

 

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

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

 

(20)    The 19.0m wide road fronting Lots 7 to 17 is to be constructed as half road width for the full frontage of the proposed development. This work is to include road pavement and pavement surfacing to the centreline, kerb and gutter construction and earth-formed footpath on the development side of the road. Boxing out and pavement construction of the roadway on the opposite side of the development is to also be carried out.

 

Proposed Lots 7 to 17 shall be provided with public road access to Rifle Range Road at no cost to Orange City Council. The public road shall be a minimum of 19.0m wide for two way access and 9.5m wide for one way access. The public road shall be constructed to full urban standard.

Park Road is to be constructed as part road width for the full frontage of the proposed development. This work is to include road pavement and pavement surfacing to the edge of the carriageway, underground stormwater pipes, kerb and gutter construction and earth-formed footpath on the development side of the road. Works are to be generally in accordance with Council drawing R00442 (as amended).


 

 

Shiralee Road is to be constructed as part road width for the full frontage of the proposed development. This work is to include an earth-formed footpath on the development side of the road to suit the future road levels. Works are to be generally in accordance with Council drawing R00446 (as amended).

 

(21)    A heavy-duty concrete kerb and gutter layback and footpath crossing is to be constructed for proposed Lot 1 and the existing dwelling on proposed Lot 5. The driveway is to be shown on the plan submitted with the Construction Certificate application. The works are to be carried out to the requirements of the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.

 

(22)    Concrete pathways are to be constructed to the widths and standards stated in the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code and the Shiralee DCP.

 

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

 

(24)    Water and sewer services, including mains construction, pumping station construction, easements and all associated materials and works, are to be provided for the development at the cost of the developer.

 

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A SUBDIVISION CERTIFICATE

 

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

 

(26)    The maximum site coverage ratios allowed for each type of lot under the Shiralee Masterplan are:

·    60% for compact lots

·    45% for medium lots

·    35% for standard lots

·    25% for large Lots

 

A Restriction as to User under Section 88B of the NSW Conveyancing Act 1979 consistent with the above shall be applied to each of the approved lots for all stages of the development to reflect these requirements of the Shiralee Masterplan.

 

(27)    A Subdivision Certificate for Lots 7-17 shall not be released by Council until road access that conforms to the requirements of the Shiralee Masterplan have been provided (generally a road link to Rifle Range Road). The land allocated to Lots 7-17 shall, as an interim arrangement, be retained as part of Lot 1.

 

(28)    Landscaping required to be installed under this consent shall be completed in accordance with the approved landscape plan and maintained in good condition delivered as such prior to release of the subdivision certificate. Thereafter, landscaping is required to be maintained in good order during the construction period for buildings at all times by the future landowners and their builders.

 


 

(29)    In accordance with Section 7.11 of the Act and Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017 (Shiralee Release Area) a contribution towards the provision of the following public facilities is required:

 

Open Space and Recreation

@  2,682.73 x 17 lots

45,606.41

Community and Cultural

@     777.99 x 17 lots

13,225.83

Roads and Traffic Management

@  3,541.11 x 17 lots

60,198.87

Local Area Facilities

@ 12,415.64 x 17 lots

211,065.88

Plan Preparation & Administration

@      582.53 x 17 lots

9,903.01

Sub Total

(17 lots)

340,000.00

Credit for existing allotments

@ 20,000.00 x 2 lots

(-)40,000.00

Net Total

(subtotal less credits)

$300,000.00

 

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

 

(30)    A Restriction as to User under Section 88B of the NSW Conveyancing Act 1979 shall applied to each of the approved lots for all stages of the development to reflect the requirements of the Shiralee Masterplan as it relates to building setbacks and garage presentation of future buildings. Building setbacks for future development of the approved lots shall comply to the requirements of the Shiralee DCP (Appendix B) for Lot typology that is applicable to that lot.  Garages may not occupy more than 50% of the building frontages. The terms of this restriction are to be submitted to the Manager of Development Assessments for approval prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate.

 

(31)    Application shall be made for a Subdivision Certificate under Section 6.3(1)(d) of the Act.

 

(32)    Payment of contributions for water, sewer and drainage works is required to be made at the contribution rate applicable at the time that the payment is made.  The contributions are based on 17 ETs for water supply headworks and 17 ETs for sewerage headworks.  A Certificate of Compliance, from Orange City Council in accordance with the Water Management Act 2000, will be issued upon payment of the contributions.

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

(39)    The existing residence is to be connected to the proposed reticulated sewer.

 

The contents of the existing septic tank are to be removed by a licensed contractor for disposal into Council’s sewer system. The septic tank is to be excavated and disposed of at a licensed landfill and the absorption trench is to be drained and the voids limed and backfilled with clean compacted material.

 

Evidence of such work is to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

(43)    Proposed Lot 3 shall dedicate 2.5m width along the full length of the western boundary and a 5m splay at the intersection of Park Road and Shiralee Road, and Lot 17 shall dedicate a 2m splay at the road intersection as public road at no cost to Orange City Council.

 

(44)    A Restriction-as-to-User under section 88B of the NSW Conveyancing Act is to be registered on the Deed of Title of Lot 2 where vehicular access is to be located adjacent to the eastern boundary only and Lot 3 where vehicular access is to be located adjacent to the southern boundary only.

 

(45)    A Restriction as to User under Section 88B of the NSW Conveyancing Act 1979 shall be created on the title of proposed Lots 3 and 4 that limits the height of future buildings to single storey. A building envelope to the satisfaction of the Manager of Development Assessments shall also be applied to these lots. The building envelope shall be designed having regard to the view corridor along Shiralee Drive towards the listed heritage item within proposed Lot 5.

 

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

 

(47)    For all stages of the development and any future development on the new lots, where any existing fencing at the perimeter of the site needs to be removed, or is of a type which does not ensure the occupants of any adjoining residence adequate privacy, new fencing that is compliant to the requirements the Section 6.2 of the Shiralee DCP shall be provided, and where necessary shall include arrangements for screening landscaping or privacy devices as necessary to suit the style of development and its constraints at that time.

 

 

 

 

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:

 

4 July 2018

 


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.4                       Development Application DA 305/2016(1) - 168 Shiralee Road

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF CreatorPDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.4                       Development Application DA 305/2016(1) - 168 Shiralee Road

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.4                       Development Application DA 305/2016(1) - 168 Shiralee Road

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.4                       Development Application DA 305/2016(1) - 168 Shiralee Road

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.4                       Development Application DA 305/2016(1) - 168 Shiralee Road

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.4                       Development Application DA 305/2016(1) - 168 Shiralee Road

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.4                       Development Application DA 305/2016(1) - 168 Shiralee Road

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.4                       Development Application DA 305/2016(1) - 168 Shiralee Road

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.4                       Development Application DA 305/2016(1) - 168 Shiralee Road

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.4                       Development Application DA 305/2016(1) - 168 Shiralee Road

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.4                       Development Application DA 305/2016(1) - 168 Shiralee Road

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                       3 July 2018

2.4                       Development Application DA 305/2016(1) - 168 Shiralee Road

Attachment 3      Submissions

PDF CreatorPDF Creator


 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                       3 July 2018

 

 

2.5     Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

RECORD NUMBER:       2018/1533

AUTHOR:                       Summer Commins, Senior Planner    

 

 

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged

20 April 2018

Applicant/s

Mr I Zhang

Owner/s

Dinkum Exporting and Importing Pty Limited

Land description

Lot 211 DP 1229307 - Lily Place, Orange

Proposed land use

Multi Dwelling Housing (15 dwellings) and Subdivision (two Torrens lots, six Community lots and nine Community lots)

Value of proposed development

$1,800,000

Council's consent is sought for staged residential development of land at Lot 211 Lily Place, Orange. The completed development will involve 15 single-storey two bedroom dwelling houses, each on a separate Torrens or Community lot.

The proposal comprises advertised development pursuant to Development Control Plan (DCP) 2004-5.3. At the completion of the public notice and exhibition period, three submissions had been received in relation to the proposed development. The submissions generally relate to overdevelopment of the site and the associated impacts on the neighbourhood (traffic, servicing and character).

The proposal does not contravene the planning regime that applies to the land. Impacts of the development are considered to be within reasonable limit, consistent with applicable standards and addressed by appropriate conditions of development consent. Approval of the application is recommended.

Figure 1 - Locality plan


 

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.

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, albeit dense in form, is in line with the residential and compact nature of the area around it and serves one of the segments of the residential market in Orange.  The development complies in general with Orange’s environmental planning instruments and is recommended for approval.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

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

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

 

Recommendation

That Council consents to development application DA 138/2018(1) for Multi Dwelling Housing (15 dwellings) and Subdivision (2 Torrens lots, 6 Community lots and 9 Community lots) at Lot 211 DP 1229307 - Lily Place, Orange, pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.

 

further considerations

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

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

The proposal involves residential development of land at Lot 211 Lily Place, Orange. The completed development will involve 15 dwelling houses, each on a separate Torrens or Community lot.

The proposed dwellings will be single-storey and detached, excepting Dwellings 2 and 3 which will be semi-detached. Each dwelling will contain two bedrooms, two bathrooms, open-plan kitchen/dining/living zone and attached single garage. Separate private open space will be provided for each dwelling. External finishes for the dwellings will comprise face brick walls with decorative rendered porch piers; Colorbond roof sheeting and roller doors, and aluminium-framed glazing. Dwellings 1 and 7 will present to Lily Place, as depicted below:

Figure 2 – Dwelling 1 front elevation


 

 

Figure 3 – Dwelling 7 front elevation

Separate access via Lily Place will be provided for Dwellings 6 and 7 at the site frontage, with two shared accesses via Lily Place provided for other dwellings within the development. Visitor car parking spaces and waste storage facilities (bin bays) will be available onsite. Perimeter and internal fencing will be erected and site landscaping installed.

The subject land will be subdivided to excise each dwelling on a separate Torrens on Community lots. The residential lots will range in area between 238.5m2 and 318.5m2.

The development will proceed in stages as follows:

Stage 1:      Construction of Dwellings 1-7

Stage 2:      4 Lot Torrens subdivision:

                   Proposed Lot 101 containing Dwelling 6

                   Proposed Lot 102 containing Dwellings 1-5

                   Proposed Lot 103 being a vacant development lot

                   Proposed Lot 104 containing Dwelling 7

Stage 3:      Six lot Community subdivision to excise Dwellings 1-5 on separate lots with vehicle areas to comprise Lot 1 Community Property

Stage 4:      Construction of Dwellings 8-15

Stage 5:      Nine lot Community subdivision to excise Dwellings 8-15 on separate lots with vehicle areas to comprise Lot 1 Community Property.

The proposed site layout for the completed development is depicted below.

Figure 4 – Proposed site layout

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

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

Section 1.7 of the EP&A Act 1979 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.

Council staff inspected the site to ascertain the biodiversity value of existing vegetation over the land. The inspection revealed that the site has been graded in preparation for re‑development. This is entirely consistent with its recent subdivision and zoning. There is some regrowth on the site, consisting mostly of invasive and exotic ground coverings. There are some isolated native species on the site, however these species are common and offer little or no habitat value for other species. The regrowth does not constitute native grasslands and show no signs that could be reasonably construed as consistent with pioneer return of native vegetation. Visually, the vegetation is of low value, adding little or nothing to the neighbourhood character and amenity of the locality.

It is considered then, that the proposed development is not likely to significantly affect a threatened species.

Section 4.15

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.

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 particular aims of Orange LEP 2011 relevant to the proposal are:

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

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

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

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

The application is considered to be consistent with the above objectives as outlined below and in the following sections in this report:

·    there are no aspects of the proposal that would adversely impact on the character of Orange as a major regional centre. Indeed, ongoing development of residential lands would contribute to the role of the City as a major centre (General Aim (a))

·    there are no aspects of the proposal that would compromise the principles of ecologically sustainable development (General Aim (b))

·    the proposal will contribute to the City’s range and supply of housing choices (General Aim (e))

·    the proposal will not adversely affect the value of heritage, landscape and scenic features of the city (General Aim (f).

Clause 1.6 - Consent Authority

Clause 1.6 is applicable and states:

The consent authority for the purposes of this Plan is (subject to the Act) the Council.

Clause 1.7 - Mapping

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

Land Zoning Map:

Land zoned R1 General Residential

Lot Size Map:

No minimum lot size

Heritage Map:

Not a heritage item or conservation area

Height of Buildings Map:

No building height limit

Floor Space Ratio Map:

No floor space limit

Terrestrial Biodiversity Map:

No biodiversity sensitivity on the site

Groundwater Vulnerability Map:

Groundwater vulnerable

Drinking Water Catchment Map:

Not within the drinking water catchment

Watercourse Map:

Not within or affecting a defined watercourse

Urban Release Area Map:

Not within an urban release area

Obstacle Limitation Surface Map:

No restriction on building siting or construction

Additional Permitted Uses Map:

No additional permitted use applies

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

Clause 1.9A is applicable and states in part:

(1)     For the purpose of enabling development on land in any zone to be carried out in accordance with this Plan or with a consent granted under the Act, any agreement, covenant or other similar instrument that restricts the carrying out of that development does not apply to the extent necessary to serve that purpose.

(2)     This clause does not apply:

(a)     to a covenant imposed by the Council or that the Council requires to be imposed, or

(b)     to any prescribed instrument within the meaning of section 183A of the Crown Lands Act 1989, or

(c)     to any conservation agreement within the meaning of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, or

(d)     to any Trust agreement within the meaning of the Nature Conservation Trust Act 2001, or

(e)     to any property vegetation plan within the meaning of the Native Vegetation Act 2003, or

(f)      to any biobanking agreement within the meaning of Part 7A of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, or

(g)     to any planning agreement within the meaning of Division 6 of Part 4 of the Act.

In consideration of this clause, Council staff are not aware of the title of the subject property being affected by any of the above.

The subject land adjoins a public reserve to the south, which contains a TransGrid transmission line easement (refer below).

Figure 5 – TransGrid transmission line easement


 

TransGrid was provided with written notice of the proposed development pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) (Infrastructure) 2007 (as considered later in this report). TransGrid determined that the proposal was acceptable, subject to conditions which are included on the attached Notice of Approval.

Part 2 - Permitted or Prohibited Development

Clause 2.1 - Land Use Zones

The subject site is located within the R1 General Residential Zone. The proposed development is defined as ‘multi dwelling housing’ and ‘subdivision.’

The proposed development is permitted in the R1 zone.

Clause 2.3 - Zone Objectives and Land Use Table

The objectives of the R1 General Residential Zone are:

·    to provide for the housing needs of the community

·    to provide for a variety of housing types and densities

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

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

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

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

·    the proposed dwellings will provide additional housing stock to accommodate the housing needs of the community

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

·    the proposal involves residential land use only

·    the North Orange residential area is serviced by public transport

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

Clause 2.6 - Subdivision - Consent Requirements

Clause 2.6 is applicable and states:

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

Consent is sought for Torrens and Community subdivision to excise each proposed dwelling on a separate lot in accordance with this Clause.

Part 3 - Exempt and Complying Development

The application is not exempt or complying development.


 

Part 4 - Principal Development Standards

4.1B - Minimum Lot Sizes for Dual Occupancy, Multi Dwelling Housing and Residential Flat Buildings

Clause 4.1B applies and states in part:

(2)     Development consent may be granted to development on a lot in a zone shown in Column 2 of the Table to this clause for a purpose shown in Column 1 of the Table opposite that zone, if the area of the lot is equal to or greater that the area specified for that purpose and shown in Column 3 of the Table.

Column 1                                        Column 2                                  Column 3

Multi dwelling housing                R1 General Residential           1250m2

In consideration of this clause, the proposal is acceptable. The proposed development is situated on land zoned R1 General Residential. The subject land comprises a site area of 5,267m2, and exceeds the minimum area of 1,250m2 required for a multi dwelling housing.

Part 5 - Miscellaneous Provisions

The Part 5 Miscellaneous Provisions do not relate to the subject land or proposed development.

Part 6 - Urban Release Area

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

Part 7 - Additional Local Provisions

7.1 - Earthworks

Clause 7.1 applies. This clause states in part:

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

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

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

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

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

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

(f)      the likelihood of disturbing relics,

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

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


 

In consideration of this clause, the proposal is considered to be acceptable. Some earthworks will be required to create level building pads for the proposed dwellings, open spaces and vehicle areas. The earthworks will be supported onsite and the change in ground level is not substantial. Disruption to drainage is considered to be minor and will not detrimentally affect adjoining properties or receiving waterways.

The site is not known to be contaminated, nor is the site known to contain any Aboriginal, European or archaeological relics. The site is not in proximity to any waterway, drinking water catchment or sensitive area. Conditions are imposed that require sediment control measures to be implemented onsite prior to works commencing to ensure that loose dirt and sediment does not escape the site boundaries.

7.3 - Stormwater Management

Clause 7.3 is applicable. This clause states in part:

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

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

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

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

Council’s Development Engineer has recommended conditions requiring stormwater detention within the development, designed to limit peak stormwater outflows from the land to pre-existing natural outflows. The conditional stormwater design will not result in adverse discharge impacts for downstream parcels. The proposed development is consistent with the requirements of Clause 7.3.

7.6 - Groundwater Vulnerability

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

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

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

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

In consideration of Clause 7.6, there are no aspects of the proposed residential development that will impact on groundwater and related ecosystems.


 

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.

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

Council’s trunk water main is located 1.8m from the western boundary of the development site, within the public reserve. Council’s Water and Sewer Manager advises that Dwellings 7, 8 and 15 will be affected by the zone of influence of the main. The affected dwellings will be re-sited 1m from the boundary and be piered to a depth of 2m. Conditions are included on the attached Notice of Approval to this effect.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 Remediation of Land

SEPP 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.

In consideration of this clause, contamination investigation was undertaken in conjunction with subdivision of the land. Since its creation as a residential allotment, the subject land has remained vacant. Further investigation as a precursor to site remediation is considered unnecessary in conjunction with the current proposal.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

The subject land adjoins a TransGrid electricity transmission line / easement and SEPP Infrastructure 2007 (Division 5 Electricity transmission and distribution) applies.


 

Clause 45 Determination of development applications – other development states in part:

(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:

(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.

In accordance with the clause, the proposal was referred to TransGrid for consideration and comment. TransGrid raised no objection to the proposal, subject to conditions which are included on the attached Notice of Approval.

PROVISIONS OF ANY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT THAT HAS BEEN PLACED ON EXHIBITION 4.15(1)(a)(ii)

Following the release of a discussion paper in 2015 “Options for low rise medium density housing as complying development” the State government exhibited a draft “Medium Density Guide and Explanation of Intended Effect” document between 12 October and 23 December 2016. This consultation in turn informed preparation of a new “Low Rise Medium Density Housing Code” that will be added to the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 taking effect on 6 July 2018. The following additional consequential amendments will also be made:

·    Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000

-    Allowing Complying Development Certificates (CDC’s) for Medium Density Housing (MDH) with concurrent subdivision

-    Introducing the concept of a “Design Verification Statement” (DVS) to be provided by the architect/designer.

·    Standard instrument LEP

-    Adding two new definitions “Manor Houses” and “Multi Dwelling Houses (Terraces)”

-    Amending the current MDH definition

-    Enabling the new definitions in R1, R2, R3 and RU5 zones where councils have allowed existing MDH

·    A new “Low Rise Medium Density Design Guide” will also take effect.

-    Providing design requirements similar to a DCP

-    Establishing what a DVS needs to address and respond to.


 

The current DA was lodged prior to the above MDH reform package coming into effect. As such there is no requirement for the proponent to have designed in response to the new design guide or to provide a DVS. The existing provisions of the Orange LEP and DCP, as considered within the body of this report, form the assessment framework by which the proposal needs to be considered.

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

DESIGNATED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development is not designated development.

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development is not integrated development.

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

Development Control Plan 2004

The planning outcomes applicable to the proposal are considered below.

DCP 2004-7.2 Residential Subdivision

The DCP sets the following (applicable) Planning Outcomes in regard to urban residential subdivision:

·    lots below 500m2 indicate a mandatory side setback to provide for solar access and privacy

·    lots below 350m2 indicate existing or planned house layouts, which identify how privacy, solar access, vehicular access and private open space needs are to be achieved

·    lots are fully serviced and have direct frontage and access to a public road

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

The proposal will satisfy the above planning outcomes as follows:

-      The subject land will be subdivided to excise each dwelling on a separate Torrens or Community lot. The residential lots will range in area between 238.5m² and 318.5m². As demonstrated in the following section of this report, the proposed lots will be of sufficient area to provide a high standard of residential amenity to the proposed dwellings, in compliance with the DCP (Part 7.5 - Merit-Based Approach to Residential Development in Orange).

-      The proposed development will be connected to urban utility services. The proposed lots will have direct street frontage and legal and practical access to Lily Place. Separate access via Lily Place will be provided for Dwellings 6 and 7 at the site frontage, with two shared accesses via Lily Place provided for other dwellings within the development.

-      The subdivision design and construction will comply with the Orange Development and Subdivision Code. A condition is recommended in relation to this matter.

DCP 2004-7.7 Design Elements for Residential Development

Neighbourhood Character

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

Site layout and building design enables the:

·    creation of attractive residential environments with clear character and identity

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

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

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

The North Orange/Botanic Way residential precinct is defined by contemporary single‑storey, brick veneer dwellings and dual occupancies. The proposed development involves a higher density residential development than generally prevails in the neighbourhood, however, will complement the medium density development in Majestic Way, on the southern side of the public reserve. The applicant submits that the proposal will suitably integrate within the surrounding residential neighbourhood due to the following:

The spatial setting affords the site an opportunity to create a distinct residential environment, with a defined character and identity. Due to the position of the Hill Street corridor to the east; the Botanic Way and Kearneys Drive road reserves to the north and west; and the public reserve/transmission line easement to the south west, the subject land is within a relatively compact and well defined residential precinct. As such, it is able to accommodate a slightly higher development density, without disrupting established built form in the broader North Orange residential area.

Council officers concur that the subject land is well located for a more intensive form of residential development. The surrounding road formations and public reserve provide the development site with a physical and spatial separation for adjoining residential lands.

The proposed dwellings will adopt a building form and finish typical to the neighbourhood, with use of design elements consistent with the prevailing development form including:

·    detached configuration (excepting Dwellings 2 and 3)

·    hipped roof profiles

·    contemporary finishes

·    front elevation garages and dwelling entrances

·    landscaped front setbacks.

The proposal will not adversely impact on pedestrian access associated with the residential street. Excepting Dwellings 6 and 7, vehicles associated with the development will enter and exit the site in a forward direction. Sight lines within Lily Place are appropriate to avoid conflict with pedestrians.

Multi dwelling housing is a permitted and complementary land use in the zone. The development is sited and designed to reasonably integrate in this setting, without adversely impacting on the neighbourhood character or function.

Building Appearance

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

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

·    the frontages of buildings and their entries face the street

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

The design and detailing for the proposed dwellings are appropriate in this neighbourhood and will complement the streetscape built form in respect of massing, footprint and external finishes.

Proposed Dwellings 1, 6 and 7 will be located at the site frontage and address Lily Place. The front elevation for the dwellings will comprise portico, front entry doors, windows and single garages (excepting Dwelling 1).

Front façade openings to Lily Place for Dwelling 6 comprise bedroom and ensuite windows as follows:

Figure 6 – Street elevation for Dwelling 6

It is considered that the building aesthetics at the street frontage would be improved by inclusion of an additional vertical opening to the main front building façade. A condition is recommended to this effect.

Front elevation garages for Dwellings 6 and 7 will satisfy the DCP guidelines in respect of design, siting and width. Garages for other dwellings within the development will be located at the rear of the site and will not present to Lily Place.


 

Heritage

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

·    heritage buildings and structures are efficiently re-used

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

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

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

Setbacks

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

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

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

Proposed Dwellings 1, 6 and 7 will have frontage to the Lily Place cul-de-sac. The dwellings will be sited 4.5m from the street frontage, and complement the siting of the adjoining dwelling to the north-west at No. 7 Lily Place.

Single garages at the site frontage for Dwellings 6 and 7 will be sited 5.5m from the front boundary, and provide tandem car parking wholly within the subject land.

It is proposed to locate the shared waste storage facility for Dwellings 1-5 within the front setback for Dwelling 6, adjacent to the shared driveway (refer below). While the bins will be stored in the facility on collection days only, the bin bay is not considered a suitable visual element within the streetscape. Furthermore, the waste storage facility will utilise land that could provide additional site landscaping and beautification. Conditions are recommended requiring relocation of the storage facility behind the main front building line for Dwellings 1 and 6, and additional landscaping, including an advanced tree be provided in the Dwelling 6 front setback adjacent to the access driveway.


 

 

Figure 7 – Bin storage bay in front setback of Dwelling 6

Front Fences and Walls

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

·    Front fences and walls:

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

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

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

The proposal does not involve the erection of front fencing to Lily Place. Perimeter fencing to enclose the respective lots for proposed Dwellings 1, 6 and 7 at the site frontage will not project forward of the main front dwelling facades. The open front setbacks will complement those for nearby dwellings in Lily Place.

Perimeter and internal fencing will be erected, and generally comprise 1.8m high Colorbond panels, consistent with fencing on adjoining residential parcels. TransGrid require a timber paling fence on the common boundary with the public reserve. A condition is recommended to this effect.


 

Visual Bulk

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

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

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

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

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

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

-    building to the boundary where appropriate.

The proposed dwellings will be single-storey, with reasonable setbacks from side and rear boundaries. The dwellings will complement the bulk and scale of dwellings nearby to the site in Aloe Vera Place and Lily Place.

Dwellings adjacent to external site boundaries (Dwellings 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 15) will be contained within the DCP prescribed visual bulk envelope plane.

The proposed dwellings will comprise a total building footprint of 1961.69m2. Based on a site area of 5,271m2 the development will have site coverage of 37.2%, in compliance with the maximum 50% prescribed for multi dwelling housing development.

The subject land falls towards Lily Place, with overall cross fall in the order of 4m. Minor earthworks and land shaping will be required for the establishment of the dwellings and private open spaces. Retaining walls will be erected on the rear (east) and side (north) boundaries. Finished levels will relate to natural ground level on this site and neighbouring parcels, and be less than the DCP-prescribed 1.5m above natural ground level. Visual bulk encroachment impacts are not anticipated for adjoining dwellings.

Walls and Boundaries

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

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

-    the privacy of neighbouring dwellings and private open space

-    the access to daylight reaching adjoining properties

-    the impact of boundary walls on neighbours.

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


Daylight and Sunlight

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

·    Buildings are sited and designed to ensure:

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

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

-    consideration of Council’s Energy Efficiency Code.

Overshadowing of Private Open Space

According to the DCP Guidelines, sunlight is to be available to at least 40% of required open space for dwellings within the development and those on adjoining lands for at least three hours between 9am and 3pm.

Shadow diagrams and a table of compliance (refer below) were submitted in support of the proposal. Council officers concur that solar access to private open space areas for Dwellings 1-15 will satisfy the DCP requirements.

(over page)


 

 

Figure 8 – On-ground solar access for Dwellings 1-8

(Source: Peter Basha Planning and Development)


 

 

Figure 9 – On-ground solar access for Dwellings 9-15

(Source: Peter Basha Planning and Development)

The proposed dwellings will not overshadow private open space areas for dwellings adjoining the site.

Overshadowing of Dwellings

According to the DCP Guidelines, sunlight to at least 75% of north-facing living area windows within the development and on adjoining land is to be provided for a minimum of 4 hours on 21 June; or not further reduced than existing where already less.

Shadow diagrams and window shadow elevations were submitted in support of the proposal. The drawings demonstrate that solar access to northern windows for the proposed dwellings will satisfy the DCP requirements, excepting Dwelling 7. Solar access to northern living room windows for Dwelling 7 exceed the required 75% at 10am, 11am, 12pm and 1pm. At 2pm, however, sunlight to available to only 71.2% (refer below).


 

 

Figure 10 – 2pm window shadow elevation for Dwelling 7

This is considered a minor variation on the DCP requirement, and acceptable on the basis that solar access is otherwise generous throughout the day.

The proposed dwellings will not affect north-facing living room windows for any adjoining dwelling.

Views

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

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

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

Based on proposed finished levels and building heights, the proposed dwellings will not unreasonably diminish views to or from the Orange Botanic Gardens. The proposed development will have acceptable visual impacts within the view corridor formed by Hill Street, being compatible with the neighbourhood built form in terms of design, massing and footprint.

Visual Privacy

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

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

-    building siting and layout

-    location of windows and balconies

and secondly by:

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

The proposed site layout and building design will provide acceptable visual privacy for dwellings within the development and those on adjoining parcels due to the following:

·    living room windows will overlook associated private open space areas

·    there will be nil – limited interface between living room windows and opposing open space areas


 

·    there will be nil – modest interface between opposing private open space areas

·    highlight windows will be provided to living room windows adjoining internal vehicle areas or entrances for opposing dwellings

·    perimeter and internal fencing will be installed

·    front entrances will be recessed

·    finished floor levels will relate to natural ground level

·    site landscaping will be installed

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

Acoustic Privacy

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

·    Site layout and building design:

-    protect habitable rooms from excessively high levels of external noise

-    minimise the entry of external noise to private open space for dwellings close to major noise sources

-    minimise transmission of sound through a building to affect other dwellings.

The subject land has (rear) frontage to Hill Street. The development is unlikely to be adversely affected by road noise, as the annual average daily traffic volume along Hill Street does not exceed 40,000 vehicles (pursuant to SEPP Infrastructure 2007 and Development near Rail Corridors and Busy Roads – Interim Guidelines (NSW Department of Planning 2008)). The subject land sits at a lower contour than the road formation and a solid panel fence will be installed to the Hill Street frontage. This will assist to reduce traffic noise. It is noted that noise attenuation measures have not be installed to adjacent residential parcels with frontage to Hill Street.

The subject land is contained in a residential area, where ambient noise levels are expected to be low. Excepting Dwellings 2 and 3, the dwellings will be detached, thus limiting the potential for sound penetration between them. Appropriate construction of Dwellings 2 and 3 will prevent noise transfer between the dwellings.

Security

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

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

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


 

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

·    the design of the dwellings will offer reasonable opportunities for surveillance of Lily Place, front yards and private open space areas

·    the site has reasonable access control due to internal garages and perimeter and internal fencing

·    the landscape design will not restrict sight lines.

Circulation and Design

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

·    accessways and parking areas are designed to manage stormwater

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

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

Proposed Dwellings 6 and 7 will have direct frontage and separate access to Lily Place. Reverse egress to the street will be required for Dwellings 6 and 7, consistent with manoeuvring arrangements for single dwellings throughout the City.

Access to proposed Dwellings 1-5 and Dwellings 8-15 will be via two shared private roadways from Lily Place. The internal roadway will have a minimum formed width of 4.5m and accommodate two-way passing of cars (B85 vehicles) within the site. Sufficient manoeuvring area will be available within the internal roadway to permit a reverse manoeuvre from garages, onsite turning and forward direction egress to Lily Place. Furthermore, the proposed site layout will facilitate the functional movement of a 6.4m service vehicle (Small Rigid Vehicle (SRV)) through the site (refer below).

Figure 11 – Turn path analysis – B85 and SRV

Landscaping of the common vehicle areas is proposed. Additional plantings should be installed to provide softening of extensive hardstand vehicle areas. A condition is recommended to this effect.


Car Parking

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

·    Parking facilities are provided, designed and located to:

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

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

·    Car parking is provided with regard to the:

-    the number and size of proposed dwellings

-    requirements of people with limited mobility or disabilities.

Pursuant to DCP 2004, onsite parking is required for two bedroom dwellings at a rate of 1.2 spaces per dwelling; with visitor parking required at a rate of 0.2 space per dwelling. Based on 15 dwellings, the proposed development will require 21 car parking spaces.

Twenty-four (24) parking spaces will be provided for the development, in compliance with the DCP as follows:

·    Fifteen single garages for each of Dwellings 1-15

·    Four tandem spaces adjacent to the single garages for Dwellings 4, 5, 6 and 7

·    Five visitor parking spaces.

Private Open Space

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

Private open space is clearly defined for private use.

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

·    Private open space is:

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

-    accessible from a living area of the dwelling

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

-    orientated to optimise year round use.

Private open space for the proposed multi dwelling housing will comply with the DCP Guidelines in respect of minimum area, dimension, orientation, solar access and connectivity:

·    each of the proposed dwellings are provided with open space that complies with the minimum requirement in terms of area (ie. 50% of the gross floor area of the dwelling


 

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

·    the private yards of Dwellings 1-15 can accommodate an area of 5m x 5m

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

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

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

Open Space and Landscaping

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

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

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

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

-    allow cost effective management.

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

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

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

A landscape plan has been submitted in support of the proposal. In order to provide improved integration of the dwellings in the streetscape, softening of hardstand vehicle areas and internal privacy screening, a condition is recommended requiring an amended landscape plan be submitted and implemented.

Stormwater

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

·    Onsite drainage systems are designed to consider:

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

-    scope for onsite infiltration of water

-    safety and convenience of pedestrians and vehicles

-    overland flow paths.

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

Conditions are recommended in relation to stormwater management (including stormwater detention) of the development.


Erosion and Sedimentation

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

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

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

DCP 2004-00 Transitional Provisions – Orange Botanic Gardens

The subject land is partly shown hatched on the Scenic Area Map 2 – Orange Botanic Gardens.

Figure 12 - DCP 2004 Scenic Area Map 2 – Orange Botanic Gardens

The following planning outcomes are applicable to the proposal:

·    buildings are located at a sufficient distance from the boundary of the Orange Botanic Gardens to preserve public views of the Botanic Gardens

·    building heights do not unreasonably intrude on the landscape features and views from the Orange Botanic Gardens.

·    a view corridor analysis that demonstrates the visual impacts of the proposal is provided for any substantial building.


 

The proposal is not contrary to the planning outcomes. The development site is removed from the Botanic Gardens by some 40m, with the intervening area comprised of the Hill Street road corridor and other residential development. The subject land is located at a lower contour than the Gardens. Based on proposed finished levels and building heights, the proposed dwellings will not intrude upon landscape features or diminish views to or from the Botanic Gardens. The proposed dwellings are compatible with the neighbourhood built form and appropriate in this setting.

DCP 2004-00 Transitional Provisions – Transport Routes

Hill Street forms part of the City’s distributor road network and is therefore considered a transport route. The following planning outcomes apply:

·    the development provides a high standard of visual appeal to motorists, cyclists and pedestrians as well as adjoining property owners

·    the visual appearance of the development… must not generate a distraction to motorists

·    any signage must not be animated whether by movement or flashing lights

·    where land has more than one street frontage, the street with the lower volume of traffic is to provide the principal access to the development, subject to safety considerations

·    where access is provided onto an arterial road… the access point must point must have appropriate safe sight distances for the prevailing speed limit and clear and unimpeded entrance/exit signage must be displayed

·    where onsite customer parking is provided that is not immediately visible from a public road, clear and unimpeded directional signage must be displayed

·    where the proposal is residential… appropriate noise mitigation measures to limit the development from traffic noise must be demonstrated.

The proposal is not contrary to the planning outcomes. The proposed dwellings are compatible with the neighbourhood built form in terms of design and massing. The visual impacts of the development are consistent with other residential development nearby to the site. There are no aspects of the proposal that would generate a distraction to motorists. The proposal does not involve advertising signage. Access to the land is not available via Hill Street. Onsite visitor parking will be visible and accessible. As outlined previously, the development is unlikely to be adversely affected by road noise, based on road traffic volumes, site topography and solid fencing to Hill Street.

DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN 2017

Development contributions are applicable to the proposed staged development, pursuant to Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017 (North West Orange contributions area). Conditions are included on the attached Notice of Approval requiring payment of contributions at the applicable stages.


 

Stage 1 - Construction of Dwellings 1-7

Open Space and Recreation

7 x 2 bedroom dwellings @ $2,230.68 less

1 x standard lot @ $3,907.24

11,707.52

Community and Cultural

7 x 2 bedroom dwellings @ $646.89 less

1 x standard lot @ $1,133.10

3,395.13

Roads and Traffic Management

7 x 2 bedroom dwellings @ $3,033.77 less

1 standard lot @ $5,157.43

16,078.96

Local Area Facilities

7 x 2 bedroom dwellings @ $3,623.66 less

1 standard lot @ $6,347.18

19,018.44

Plan Preparation & Administration

7 x 2 bedroom dwellings @ $283.37 less

1 standard lot @ $496.36

1,487.23

TOTAL:

7 x 2 bedroom dwellings @ $9,818.37 less

1 x standard lot @ $17,041.31

$51,687.28

Stage 2 - 4 lot Torrens Subdivision

Open Space and Recreation

1 x additional standard lot @ $3,907.24

3,907.24

Community and Cultural

1 x additional standard lot @ $1,133.10

1,133.10

Roads and Traffic Management

1 x additional standard lot @ $5,157.43

5,157.43

Local Area Facilities

1 x additional standard lot @ $6,347.18

6,347.18

Plan Preparation & Administration

1 x additional standard lot @ $496.36

496.36

TOTAL:

 

$17,041.34

Stage 3 – 6 lot Community Subdivision to excise Dwellings 1-5 on separate lot

Development contributions are not applicable to this stage. Contributions for Dwellings 1-5 were charged at Stage 1.

Stage 4 – Construction of Dwellings 8-15

Open Space and Recreation

8 x 2 bedroom dwellings @ $2,230.68 less

1 x standard lot @ $3,907.24

13,938.20

Community and Cultural

8 x 2 bedroom dwellings @ $646.89 less

1 x standard lot @ $1,133.10

4,042.02

Roads and Traffic Management

8 x 2 bedroom dwellings @ $3,033.77 less

1 standard lot @ $5,157.43

19,112.73

Local Area Facilities

8 x 2 bedroom dwellings @ $3,623.66 less

1 standard lot @ $6,347.18

22,642.10

Plan Preparation & Administration

8 x 2 bedroom dwellings @ $283.37 less

1 standard lot @ $496.36

1,770.60

TOTAL:

8 x 2 bedroom dwellings @ $9,818.37 less

1 x standard lot @ $17,041.31

$61,505.65


 

Stage 5 - 9 lot Community subdivision to excise Dwellings 8-15 on separate lots

Development contributions are not applicable to this stage. Contributions for Dwellings 8‑15 were charged at Stage 4.

Section 64 Water and Sewer Headworks Charges

Section 64 water and sewer headwork charges are applicable to the proposed development. The contributions for water, sewer and drainage works are collectively based on 15 additional ETs for water supply headworks and 15 ETs for sewerage headworks, less two standard lots. Conditions are recommended requiring payment of contributions prior to issue of a Subdivision Certificate.

PROVISIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE REGULATIONS s4.15(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 proposal does not involve a change of building use for an existing building.

Buildings to be Upgraded (clause 94)

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

BASIX Commitments (clause 97A)

A BASIX assessment has been submitted in support of the proposal. The proposed dwellings will satisfy the provisions of BASIX in respect of water, thermal comfort and energy.

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

Neighbourhood Amenity

The proposal will provide and retain a reasonable standard of residential amenity for the proposed dwellings and those on adjoining lands in respect of solar access, privacy etc. The proposed development will provide for a continuation of residential land use, albeit in a more compact form, and will not alter the function of the neighbourhood. The development will not have adverse impacts on neighbourhood amenity.

Visual Impacts

The visual impacts of the proposal are considered acceptable, as outlined in the foregoing sections of this report. Conditions are included on the attached Notice of Approval to improve the presentation of the development to Lily Place, including additional landscaping, relocated bin bay and additional openings to Dwelling 6 front façade.


 

Traffic Impacts

The proposal is considered to be satisfactory in terms of traffic impacts. Traffic generation associated with the development will be in the order of 60-75 daily vehicle trips, based on 4‑5 daily vehicle trips for two bedroom dwellings (RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Development, Roads and Traffic Authority 2002). Traffic associated with the development will have peak morning and evening periods and be otherwise distributed throughout the day. Council’s Development Engineer advises that the capacity of the local road network is sufficient to accommodate traffic generated by the development, and will not exceed environmental goals for peak volumes on local streets.

As outlined previously, site accesses and onsite manoeuvring areas are appropriate and will accommodate standard and service vehicles associated with the development. Onsite car parking will comply with the requirements of DCP 2004.

Cumulative Impacts

The proposal is considered to be satisfactory in terms of cumulative impact. The proposed dwellings will complement the neighbourhood built form in respect of bulk, form, design features and external finishes. The proposed development will not reduce the open space, solar access or privacy afforded to neighbouring properties. Similarly, the site layout and building design will provide a reasonable standard of residential amenity for the proposed dwellings in terms of open space, solar access and privacy. The development will contribute to the diversity of housing forms in the precinct in a manner that is consistent with the neighbourhood character.

Environmental Impacts

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

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

The subject land is suitable for the development due to the following:

·    the land is zoned R1 General Residential. The proposal is permitted with consent

·    the site is of sufficient area and dimensions to accommodate multi dwelling housing and provide a high standard of residential amenity

·    the site has direct frontage and access to Lily Place

·    there is no known contamination on the land

·    all utility services are available and adequate

·    the site is not subject to natural hazards

·    the subject land has no biodiversity or habitat value

·    the site is not in proximity to any waterway, drinking water catchment or sensitive area

·    the site is not known to contain any Aboriginal, European or archaeological relics.


 

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

The proposed development is defined as "advertised development" pursuant to DCP 2004-5.3. The application was advertised for the prescribed period of 14 days and at the end of that period 3 submissions were received. The issues raised in the submissions are outlined below and have been considered in the foregoing sections of this report.

The proposal will generate additional localised traffic.

Comment: Council’s Development Engineer advises that the local road network is of sufficient capacity to accommodate additional traffic generated by the proposal.

The proposal comprises an overdevelopment of the site.

Comment: The proposal satisfies the applicable density provisions contained in DCP 2004.

The subject land contains native vegetation regrowth.

Comment: The Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 does not contain provisions for the protection of native regrowth. The native regrowth over the subject land is not considered to have particular biodiversity value.

A lower density of development would allow for additional site landscaping and thereby complement the scenic values of the nearby Botanic Gardens

Comment: The proposal satisfies the applicable density provisions contained in DCP 2004. Conditions are recommended requiring additional site landscaping in order to provide site beautification and integration of the development in the neighbourhood.

The proposal is contrary to the aims of Orange LEP 2011.

Comment: The proposal is not considered to be adverse to the aims of the LEP.

Stormwater discharge associated with the development will adversely impact on adjoining properties.

Comment: The conditional stormwater design for the development (incorporating stormwater detention) will not result in adverse discharge impacts for downstream parcels.

On-street garbage collection will be difficult in the cul-de-sac.

Comment: Bins will not be placed on the kerb, with contractor collection from the onsite waste storage facilities on a ‘run cost arrangement.’ Bins will be placed on the bin storage facilities on collection days only, and otherwise stored with dwellings in respective Torrens or Community lots.

Inadequate parking will be provided for residents and visitors.

Comment: Car parking will be provided for the development consistent with the provisions of DCP 2004.


 

The proposal is inconsistent with the neighbourhood character in terms of density.

Comment:  The subject land is considered well-located for a more intensive form of residential development. The surrounding road formations and public reserve provide the development site with a physical and spatial separation for adjoining residential lands. Multi- dwelling housing is a permitted and complementary land use in the zone. The development is sited and designed to reasonably integrate in this setting, without adversely impacting on the neighbourhood character or function.

Traffic along Hill Street will have adverse acoustic impacts for residents within the development.

Comment: The development is unlikely to be adversely affected by road noise, as the annual average daily traffic volume along Hill Street does not exceed the prescribed maximum of 40,000 vehicles.

The development should not be extended into the public reserve.

Comment: The proposal does not involve extension of the land into the public reserve. This triangular portion is contained within the development site, and was purchased by the proponent in 2017.

The development site should be fenced.

Comment: Conditions are recommended requiring perimeter fencing of the subject land. Notably, TransGrid have required timber paling fencing to the common boundary with the public reserve/transmission line easement.

PUBLIC INTEREST s4.15(1)(e)

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

SUMMARY

The proposed development is permissible with the consent of Council. The proposed development complies with the relevant aims, objectives and provisions of Orange LEP 2011 (as amended) and DCP 2004. 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 considered appropriate to ensure that the development proceeds in an acceptable manner.

COMMENTS

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

 

Attachments

1          Notice of Approval, D18/33041

2          Plans, D18/32817

3          Submissions, D18/32946

 


Planning and Development Committee                                                                3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 1      Notice of Approval

 

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

 

Development Application No DA 138/2018(1)

 

NA18/                                                                      Container PR27649

 

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 4.18

Development Application

 

  Applicant Name:

Mr I Zhang

  Applicant Address:

C/- Peter Basha Planning & Development

PO Box 1827

ORANGE  NSW  2800

  Owner’s Name:

Dinkum Exporting and Importing Pty Limited

  Land to Be Developed:

Lot 211 DP 1229307 - Lily Place, Orange

  Proposed Development:

Multi Dwelling Housing (15 dwellings), Subdivision (2 Torrens lots, 6 Community Lots and 9 Community lots)

 

 

Building Code of Australia

 building classification:

 

As determined by Certifier

 

 

Determination made under

  Section 4.16

 

  Made On:

3 July 2018

  Determination:

CONSENT GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:

 

 

Consent to Operate From:

4 July 2018

Consent to Lapse On:

4  July 2023

 

Terms of Approval

 

The reasons for the imposition of conditions are:

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

(2)      To maintain neighbourhood amenity and character.

(3)      To ensure compliance with relevant statutory requirements.

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

Conditions

 

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

(a)      Plans by Peter Basha Planning and Development Ref. 18003DA Sheets 3-8, dated 17.04.2018 (6 sheets). Plans by Designs@M, Job No. 17-154, Drawing Nos. 1-31 (31 sheets)


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

 

as amended in accordance with any conditions of this consent.

 

PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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


STAGE 1 - CONSTRUCTION OF DWELLINGS 1-7

 

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

 

(7)      The payment of $51,687.28 is to be made to Council in accordance with Section 7.11 of the Act and the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017 (North West Contributions Area) towards the provision of the following public facilities:

 

Open Space and Recreation

7 x 2 bedroom dwellings @ $2,230.68 less

1 x standard lot @ $3,907.24

11,707.52

Community and Cultural

7 x 2 bedroom dwellings @ $646.89 less

1 x standard lot @ $1,133.10

3,395.13

Roads and Traffic Management

7 x 2 bedroom dwellings @ $3,033.77 less

1 standard lot @ $5,157.43

16,078.96

Local Area Facilities

7 x 2 bedroom dwellings @ $3,623.66 less

1 standard lot @ $6,347.18

19,018.44

Plan Preparation & Administration

7 x 2 bedroom dwellings @ $283.37 less

1 standard lot @ $496.36

1,487.23

TOTAL:

7 x 2 bedroom dwellings @ $9,818.37 less

1 x standard lot @ $17,041.31

$51,687.28

 

The contribution will be indexed quarterly in accordance with the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017 (North West Contributions Area). This Plan can be inspected at the Orange Civic Centre, Byng Street, Orange.

 

(8)      Prior to issue of a Construction Certificate, an amended landscape plan shall be submitted to Council for approval.  The plan shall incorporate:

·    border plantings to both shared access driveways, forward of the front facades for Dwellings 1, 6 and 7

·    garden beds adjacent to the main front dwellings facades for Dwellings 1, 6 and 7

·    a small tree in the front setback for Dwelling 6 in the location of the removed waste storage facility

·    tall hedges to internal fences adjacent to visitor parking spaces

·    garden beds at the frontage of Dwellings 10, 11 and 12.

 

(9)      The following revised opening for Dwelling 6 shall be reflected in the Construction Certificate plans:

·    A full length vertical window to the Bed 1 WIR on the south elevation, of consistent dimensions with the full length window in the adjacent ensuite.

 

(10)    The waste storage facility (bin bay) for proposed Dwellings 1-5 shall be relocated behind the main front building line for Dwellings 1 and 6.  The relocated facility shall be to the satisfaction of the Manager of Development Assessments  and shall be shown on the Construction Certificate plans.

 

(11)    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.

 

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

 

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


(14)    The development’s stormwater design is to include stormwater detention within the development, designed to limit peak outflows from the land to the pre-existing natural outflows up to the 100 year ARI frequency, with sufficient allowance in overflow spillway design capacity to safely pass flows of lower frequency (that is, a rarer event) without damage to downstream developments. Where appropriate, the spillway design capacity is to be determined in accordance with the requirements of the Dam Safety Committee.

 

The design of the detention storage is to be undertaken using the ILSAX/DRAINS rainfall-runoff hydrologic model or an approved equivalent capable of assessing runoff volumes and their temporal distribution as well as peak flow rates. The model is to be used to calculate the flow rates for the existing and post-development conditions. The developed flows are to be routed through the proposed storage within the model so that the outflows obtained are no greater than the flows obtained for the pre-existing natural flows. A report detailing the results of the analysis, which includes:

·    catchment plan showing sub-catchments under existing and developed conditions

·    schematic diagram of the catchment model showing sub areas and linkages

·    tabulation detailing the elevation, storage volume and discharge relationships

·    tabulation for the range of frequencies analysed, the inflows, outflows and peak storage levels for both existing and developed conditions

 

together with copies of the data files for the model and engineering design plans of the required drainage system are to be submitted to Orange City Council upon application for a Construction Certificate.

 

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

 

(16)    Proposed Dwellings 1 to 7 are to be provided with interlot stormwater drainage, including those lots abutting public land, where the surface of the entire lot cannot be drained to the kerb and gutter at the lot frontage. A grated concrete stormwater pit is to be constructed within each lot provided with interlot stormwater drainage. Engineering plans for this drainage system are to be approved by Orange City Council or an Accredited Certifier (Categories B1, C3, C4, C6) prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

 

(17)    A 150mm-diameter sewer main is to be constructed from Council’s existing main to serve the proposed Lots 103 and 104. A sewer manhole and 150mm junction shall be constructed to serve proposed Lot 103. Prior to a Construction Certificate being issued engineering plans for this sewerage system are to be submitted to and approved by Orange City Council.

 

Internal sewer lines servicing dwellings on proposed Lots 102 and 103 shall be constructed as private sewer lines. Prior to a Construction Certificate being issued plans for this sewerage system are to be submitted to and approved by Orange City Council.

 

(18)    Payment of contributions for water, sewer and drainage works is required to be made at the contribution rate applicable at the time that the payment is made.  The contributions are based on water supply headworks, sewerage headworks and stormwater for 7 x two bedroom dwellings (the existing Lot 211 has a credit for a single 3 bedroom dwelling which will be applied at the time of payment). A Certificate of Compliance, from Orange City Council in accordance with the Water Management Act 2000, will be issued upon payment of the contributions.

 

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


(19)    Water services are to be located in the common driveway area. Engineering plans of the water reticulation layout and sizing are to be submitted to Orange City Council for approval prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

 

(20)    Dwelling 7 is to be located 1.0m clear of the boundary and the western wall is to be piered to a depth of 2.0m. The piering is to be designed and certified by a structural engineer. Plans for this work are to be submitted to Orange City Council prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

 

 

PRIOR TO WORKS COMMENCING

 

(21)    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.

 

(22)    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.

 

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

 

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

 

 

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

 

(25)    All services (water, sewer and stormwater) shall be laid outside the easement unless there is a direct connection to the main within that easement.

 

(26)    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.

 

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

 

(28)    No portion of the building - including footings, eaves, overhang and service pipes - shall encroach into any easement.

 

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

 

(30)    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.

 

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


(32)    Dual water and sewerage reticulation is to be provided to every dwelling in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.

 

 

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

 

(33)    A 1.8m high fence shall be provided around the perimeter of the development excluding the frontage. A 1.5m high fence shall be provided between each unit. The height of the fence shall be measured from the highest finished ground level adjacent to each part of that fence.

 

(34)    Landscaping adjacent Dwellings 1-7 shall be installed in accordance with the amended approved landscaping plan and shall be permanently maintained to the satisfaction of Council's Manager Development Assessments.

 

(35)    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.

 

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

 

(37)    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.

 

(38)    A Certificate of Compliance, from a Qualified Engineer, stating that the stormwater detention basin complies with the approved engineering plans is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issuing of an Occupation Certificate.

 

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

 

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

 

 

STAGE 2 - FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION

 

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

 

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

 

 

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A SUBDIVISION CERTIFICATE

 

(42)    The payment of $17,041.34 is to be made to Council in accordance with Section 7.11 of the Act and the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017 (North West Contributions Area) towards the provision of the following public facilities:


 

Open Space and Recreation

1 x additional standard lot @ $3,907.24

3,907.24

Community and Cultural

1 x additional standard lot @ $1,133.10

1,133.10

Roads and Traffic Management

1 x additional standard lot @ $5,157.43

5,157.43

Local Area Facilities

1 x additional standard lot @ $6,347.18

6,347.18

Plan Preparation & Administration

1 x additional standard lot @ $496.36

496.36

TOTAL:

 

$17,041.34

 

The contribution will be indexed quarterly in accordance with the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017 (North West Contributions Area). This Plan can be inspected at the Orange Civic Centre, Byng Street, Orange.

 

(43)    Prior to the issuing of the Subdivision Certificate, a Surveyor’s Certificate or written statement is to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority, stating that the buildings within the boundaries of the proposed Lots comply in respect to the distances of walls from boundaries.

 

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

 

(45)    Payment of contributions for water, sewer and drainage works is required to be made at the contribution rate applicable at the time that the payment is made.  The contributions are based on 1.0 ETs for water supply headworks and 1.0 ETs for sewerage headworks.  A Certificate of Compliance, from Orange City Council in accordance with the Water Management Act 2000, will be issued upon payment of the contributions.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

(48)    A Restriction-as-to-User under section 88B of the NSW Conveyancing Act is to be registered on the Deed of Title on all lots where vehicular access is to be denied to Hill Street.

 

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

 

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

 

(51)    All engineering conditions of development consent as required by the approved engineering plans as it relates to the servicing of the development are to be completed prior to the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate.

 

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

(53)    An easement for water supply and to provide Council access for maintenance a minimum of 2.0 metres wide is to be created over the existing trunk water main. The Principal Certifying Authority is to certify that the easement is in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code prior to the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate.

 

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

 

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

 

 

STAGE 3 - COMMUNITY TITLE SUBDIVISION

 

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

 

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

 

 

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A SUBDIVISION CERTIFICATE

 

(57)    A Surveyor’s Certificate or written statement is to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority, stating that the buildings within the boundaries of proposed Lots comply in respect of the distances of walls from boundaries and the common wall construction prior to the issuing of the Subdivision Certificate.

 

(58)    Application shall be made for a Subdivision Certificate shall be made in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and associated Regulations.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

(62)    All engineering conditions of development consent as required by the approved engineering plans as it relates to the servicing of the lots are to be completed prior to the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate.

 

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

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

 

 

STAGE 4 - CONSTRUCTION OF DWELLINGS 8-15

 

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

 

(65)    Dwellings 8 and 15 are to be located 1.0m clear of the boundary and their western wall is to be piered to a depth of 2.0m. The piering is to be designed and certified by a structural engineer. Plans for this work are to be submitted to Orange City Council prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

 

(66)    The payment of $61,505.65 is to be made to Council in accordance with Section 7.11 of the Act and the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017 (North West Contributions Area) towards the provision of the following public facilities:

 

Open Space and Recreation

8 x 2 bedroom dwellings @ $2,230.68 less

1 x standard lot @ $3,907.24

13,938.20

Community and Cultural

8 x 2 bedroom dwellings @ $646.89 less

1 x standard lot @ $1,133.10

4,042.02

Roads and Traffic Management

8 x 2 bedroom dwellings @ $3,033.77 less

1 standard lot @ $5,157.43

19,112.73

Local Area Facilities

8 x 2 bedroom dwellings @ $3,623.66 less

1 standard lot @ $6,347.18

22,642.10

Plan Preparation & Administration

8 x 2 bedroom dwellings @ $283.37 less

1 standard lot @ $496.36

1,770.60

TOTAL:

8 x 2 bedroom dwellings @ $9,818.37 less

1 x standard lot @ $17,041.31

$61,505.65

 

The contribution will be indexed quarterly in accordance with the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017 (North West Contributions Area). This Plan can be inspected at the Orange Civic Centre, Byng Street, Orange.

 

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

 

(68)    Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate evidence shall be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority that proposed Lot 103 has been registered with NSW Land and Property Information.

 

(69)    Payment of contributions for water, sewer and drainage works is required to be made at the contribution rate applicable at the time that the payment is made.  The contributions are based on water supply headworks, sewerage headworks and stormwater for 8 x two bedroom dwellings (proposed Lot 103, upon registration, will have a credit for a single 3 bedroom dwelling which will be applied at the time of payment).  A Certificate of Compliance, from Orange City Council in accordance with the Water Management Act 2000, will be issued upon payment of the contributions.

 

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


 

(70)    The development’s stormwater design is to include stormwater detention within the development, designed to limit peak outflows from the land to the pre-existing natural outflows up to the 100 year ARI frequency, with sufficient allowance in overflow spillway design capacity to safely pass flows of lower frequency (that is, a rarer event) without damage to downstream developments. Where appropriate, the spillway design capacity is to be determined in accordance with the requirements of the Dam Safety Committee.

 

The design of the detention storage is to be undertaken using the ILSAX/DRAINS rainfall-runoff hydrologic model or an approved equivalent capable of assessing runoff volumes and their temporal distribution as well as peak flow rates. The model is to be used to calculate the flow rates for the existing and post-development conditions. The developed flows are to be routed through the proposed storage within the model so that the outflows obtained are no greater than the flows obtained for the pre-existing natural flows. A report detailing the results of the analysis, which includes:

·    catchment plan showing sub-catchments under existing and developed conditions;

·    schematic diagram of the catchment model showing sub areas and linkages;

·    tabulation detailing the elevation, storage volume and discharge relationships; and

·    tabulation for the range of frequencies analysed, the inflows, outflows and peak storage levels for both existing and developed conditions;

 

together with copies of the data files for the model and engineering design plans of the required drainage system are to be submitted to Orange City Council upon application for a Construction Certificate.

 

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

 

(72)    Engineering plans providing complete details of the proposed driveway and car parking areas are to be submitted to Orange City Council or an Accredited Certifier (Categories B1, C3, C4, C6) upon application for a Construction Certificate. These plans are to provide details of levels, cross falls of all pavements, proposed sealing materials, structural engineer’s details of the driveway indicating compliance with the NSW Fire Brigades Guidelines for Emergency Vehicle Access, proposed drainage works, and are to be in accordance with Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code. The driveway within the battle-axe handle shall be a minimum clear width of 4.5m and designed in accordance with NSW Fire Brigades Guidelines for Emergency Vehicle Access.

 

(73)    Proposed Dwellings 8 to 15 are to be provided with interlot stormwater drainage, including those lots abutting public land, where the surface of the entire lot cannot be drained to the kerb and gutter at the lot frontage. A grated concrete stormwater pit is to be constructed within each lot provided with interlot stormwater drainage. Engineering plans for this drainage system are to be approved by Orange City Council or an Accredited Certifier (Categories B1, C3, C4, C6) prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

 

(74)    Internal sewer lines servicing dwellings on proposed Lot 103 shall be constructed as private sewer lines. Prior to a Construction Certificate being issued plans for this sewerage system are to be submitted to and approved by Orange City Council.

 

(75)    Plans detailing compliance with NSW Fire and Rescue – Fire Hydrants for Minor Residential Development and NSW Fire and Rescue – Guidelines for Emergency Vehicle Access is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

 

(76)    Water services are to be located in the common driveway area. Engineering plans of the water reticulation layout and sizing are to be submitted to Orange City Council for approval prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

 

 

PRIOR TO WORKS COMMENCING

 

(77)    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.

 

(78)    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.

 

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

 

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

 

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

 

(81)    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.

 

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

 

(83)    No portion of the building - including footings, eaves, overhang and service pipes - shall encroach into any easement.

 

(84)    All services (water, sewer and stormwater) shall be laid outside the easement unless there is a direct connection to the main within that easement.

 

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

 

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

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

 

(87)    Dual water and sewerage reticulation is to be provided to every dwelling in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.

 

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

 

(88)    A 1.8m high fence shall be provided around the perimeter of the development excluding the frontage. A 1.5m high fence shall be provided between each unit. The height of the fence shall be measured from the highest finished ground level adjacent to each part of that fence.

 

(89)    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.

 

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


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

 

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

 

(93)    A Certificate of Compliance, from a Qualified Engineer, stating that the stormwater detention basin complies with the approved engineering plans is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issuing of an Occupation Certificate.

 

(94)    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.

 

(95)    Landscaping adjacent Dwellings 8-15 shall be installed in accordance with the amended approved landscaping plan and shall be permanently maintained to the satisfaction of Council's Manager Development Assessments.

 

STAGE 5 – COMMUNITY TITLE SUBDIVISION (9 lots)

 

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

 

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

 

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A SUBDIVISION CERTIFICATE

 

(97)    A Surveyor’s Certificate or written statement is to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority, stating that the buildings within the boundaries of proposed Lots comply in respect of the distances of walls from boundaries and the common wall construction prior to the issuing of the Subdivision Certificate.

 

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

 

(99)    Application shall be made for a Subdivision Certificate under Section 6.3(1)(d) of the Act.

 

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

 

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

 

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

(103)  All engineering conditions of development consent as required by the approved engineering plans as it relates to the servicing of the lots are to be completed prior to the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate.


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

 

 

REQUIREMENTS OF TRANSGRID

 

(1)      TransGrid Conditions of Approval:

1.   TransGrid notes the proposed Colourbond fence adjacent to TransGrid’s easement corridor will now be constructed of timber materials only.

2.   The only underground service connections that will be required in the easement will be inter-allotment stormwater for Dwellings 7 and 8. This will involve PVC pipes and concrete pits. Buried services shall not come within 20m of the structure and buried services on the easement should be non-metallic.

3.   The section of the site that is within the TransGrid easement is only the private open space for Dwellings 7 and 8. Please note the area within TransGrid’s Easement corridor will be subject to restrictions as per TransGrid’s Easement Guidelines (attached).

4.   Proposed works must follow the Work Near Overhead Power Lines Code of Practice 2006 and TransGrid’s Easement Guidelines for Third Party Development (V10) (attached).

5.   Any trees and/or vegetation proposed to be planted within the easement are not to exceed the 4M mature height limit and must not impede on access to the structure. These should also not be planted within 30M of the structure.

6.   Safe Approach distance must be maintained when working near overhead power lines as per Work Near Overhead Power Lines Code of Practice 2006.

7.   Mobile plant is required to be earthed when operated within the easement.

8.   Please ensure access to TransGrid’s infrastructure and easement corridor is maintained at all times.

9.   Please advise TransGrid formally of any amendments or modifications to the proposed work.

 

 

 

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:

 

4 July 2018

 

 


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                                                 3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 2      Plans

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Planning and Development Committee                                                       3 July 2018

2.5                       Development Application DA 138/2018(1) - Lot 211 Lily Place

Attachment 3      Submissions

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator