Agenda of Planning and Development Committee

Planning and Development Committee 1 December 2020

2.2 Development Application DA 402/2020(1) - 114 Moulder Street

RECORD NUMBER: 2020/2329

AUTHOR: Summer Commins, Senior Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged	20 October 2020
Applicant/s	Ms JM McRae and Ms HM Cameron
Owner/s	Ms JM McRae and Ms HM Cameron
Land description	Lot 2 DP 13567 - 114 Moulder Street, Orange
Proposed land use	Dwelling House (part demolition, alterations and additions (two storey))
Value of proposed development	$500,000

Council's consent is sought for proposed dwelling additions at 114 Moulder Street, Orange (see locality at Figure 1). The proposal involves part demolition of the rear of the dwelling; and a new addition comprising ground level living spaces, first floor master bedroom and ensuite, attached double garage and outdoor terrace.

The proposed development will comply with the planning controls applicable to the subject land and particular landuse. Impacts of the development will be within reasonable limit, subject to mitigation conditions. Approval of the application is recommended.

Figure 1 - locality plan

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 provisions of the LEP must be considered by the Council in determining the application. 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. The objectives of each zoning and indeed the aims of the LEP itself are also to be considered and can be used to guide decision making around appropriateness of development.

Orange Development Control Plan 2004 – the DCP provides guidelines for development. In general it is a performance based document rather than prescriptive in nature. For each planning element 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. The DCP enables developers and architects to use design to achieve the planning outcomes in alternative ways.

DIRECTOR’S COMMENT

This Development Application is for a two storey addition to the rear of the existing dwelling at 114 Moulder Street. The proposal is architecturally designed and achieves compliance with the planning controls of the City. This Development Application is referred to the PDC for determination as per Council’s Planning Protocols as one of the applicants is a Councillor. Approval of the Development Application is recommended.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “10.1 Preserve - Engage with the community to ensure plans for growth and development are respectful of our heritage”.

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

That Council consents to development application DA 402/2020(1) for Dwelling House (part demolition, alterations and additions (two storey)) at Lot 2 DP 13567 – 114 Moulder Street, 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 alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house. Proposed works include:

· Demolition of a modern addition at the rear of the existing dwelling comprising living room, bedroom and attached garage.

· Minor internal alterations to the original dwelling.

· Construction of a rear addition comprising living spaces at ground level, and master bedroom and ensuite at first floor.

· Construction of an attached double garage and store, and outdoor terrace.

The proposed site layout and building design are depicted below.

Figure 2 – proposed site layout

Figure 3 – Western elevation section

Figure 4 – view of proposed addition facing north from backyard

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION UNDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979

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

Pursuant to Clause 1.7:

This Act has effect subject to the provisions of Part 7 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and Part 7A of the Fisheries Management Act 1994 that relate to the operation of this Act in connection with the terrestrial and aquatic environment.

In consideration of this section, the proposed development is not likely to significantly affect a threatened species:

· The subject and adjoining lands are not identified as biodiversity sensitive on the Orange LEP 2011 Terrestrial Biodiversity Map.

· The proposal does not involve tree removal. Clearing thresholds prescribed by regulation are not applicable.

· The site is contained within an established urban area and has been highly modified by the urban landuse pattern. The subject land does not contain known threatened species or ecological communities.

Based on the foregoing consideration, a Biodiversity Assessment Report is not required and the proposal suitably satisfies the relevant matters at Clause 1.7.

Section 4.15 Evaluation

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 include:

(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.

The proposed development will not be contrary to the above-listed Aims, as outlined in this report.

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; opposite the Central Orange HCA.
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.

Part 2 - Permitted or Prohibited Development

Clause 2.1 Land Use Zones

The subject land is zoned R1 General Residential.

The proposal is defined as a dwelling house (alterations and additions).

The proposal is permitted with consent in the R1 zone.

Clause 2.3 Zone Objectives

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 proposed development is not contrary to the relevant zone objectives.

Clause 2.7 Demolition Requires Development Consent

Clause 2.7 is applicable and states:

The demolition of a building or work may be carried out only with development consent.

Consent is sought for demolition of a modern addition at the rear of the original dwelling in accordance with this clause.

Part 3 - Exempt and Complying Development

The application is not exempt or complying development.

Part 4 - Principal Development Standards

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

Part 5 - Miscellaneous Provisions

Clause 5.10 Heritage Conservation

The Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) is located opposite the site on the north side of Moulder Street. It is noted that the land is included in the proposed Blackman’s Swamp Creek HCA.

Figure 5 – HCA in red hatching

Clause 5.10 is applicable and states in part:

(4) Effect of Proposed Development on Heritage Significance

In consideration of this clause, the proposed development will not have adverse impact on the significance of the nearby HCA:

· The original dwelling (circa 1920) will be retained.

· The proposal will remove a modern and unsympathetic building addition.

· The proposed addition will be located at the rear of the original dwelling, with nil impact on the streetscape presentation of the site or dwelling.

· The design, detailing and massing of the contemporary addition will relate to the original dwelling.

· The prominence and profile of the original dwelling will be maintained.

· The proposal will have nil impact on views along Moulder Street.

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

Clause 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 onsite infiltration of water, and

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

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

In consideration of Clause 7.3, the proposal will not alter the existing stormwater drainage arrangements that service the subject land.

Clause 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 proposal will not impact on groundwater and related ecosystems.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 Remediation of Land

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land (SEPP 55) is applicable. Pursuant to Clause 7 Contamination and remediation to be considered in determining development application:

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

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

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

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

The subject land has longstanding residential use and is unlikely to be contaminated. Contamination investigation is not required for proposed continuation of the existing residential use.

Provisions of any Draft Environmental Planning Instrument That Has Been Placed on Exhibition 4.15(1)(A)(Ii)

Draft Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 (Amendment 24)

Draft Orange LEP 2011 Amendment 24 is before the Department for finalisation. The Draft Plan involves various administrative amendments to the LEP including updated maps, and new and amended clauses. Amendment 24 has no effect for the proposed development.

Draft Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 (Amendments 25 and 26)

Draft Orange LEP 2011 Amendments 25 and 26 are currently on public exhibition (August 2020). The Draft Plans relate to land at 1 Leewood Drive and 185 Leeds Parade respectively, and have no impact for the proposed development.

Provisions Of Any Development Control Plan S4.15(1)(A)(Iii)

Development Control Plan 2004

DCP 2004-7 Development in Residential Areas

The proposed development will reasonably satisfy the relevant planning outcomes in Part 7 as outlined in the following assessment.

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 proposed addition will be located at the rear of the original dwelling, with nil impact on the streetscape presentation of the site or dwelling. The design, detailing and massing of the contemporary addition will relate to the original dwelling. The prominence and profile of the original dwelling will be maintained. Existing site vegetation will be retained.

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 proposal does not involve alterations to the existing dwelling which presents to Moulder Street. The proposed addition will respect the existing footprint, form and dominant roof lines of the existing dwelling. The addition will be constructed in traditional materials comprising face brick walls (ground level) and painted weatherboard cladding (first floor). External finishes will be sympathetic to the existing house and surrounding buildings. The proposed attached double garage will be located some 30m from the front boundary, and will not have a streetscape presence.

Staff concur with the proponent’s submission that ‘the new works will be subservient to the existing residence and neighbouring residences; will not change the streetscape or be generally visible from the public domain; and will not involve the removal of significant vegetation.’

Setbacks

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

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

The proposal will not alter the front setback to Moulder Street for the existing dwelling.

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 existing front fence to Moulder Street will be renewed, comprising wrought iron infill panels between existing rendered brick piers; and new vehicle and pedestrian gates.

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 visual bulk associated with the proposed development will be suitable as considered below:

· The height of the proposed two storey addition will be consistent with the ridge height of the original dwelling (as depicted in Figure 3 above).

· The proposed addition will be contained within the DCP-prescribed visual bulk envelope plane.

· Nil-negligible earthworks will be required.

· The proposed development (existing dwelling and addition) will comprise a footprint of 233m². Based onsite area of 770m², the proposal will have site coverage of some 30%, in compliance with the maximum 60% prescribed in the DCP.

· The proposed addition will be setback a minimum 1.5m from the western boundary, and 900mm from the eastern boundary. Setbacks are typical to the residential setting, and consistent with the siting of dwellings on adjoining lands.

· The proposed two storey element will be located more than 15m from the Moulder Street frontage, and will not visually encroach upon the streetscape.

· The proposal will not result in unreasonable visual bulk encroachment impacts for adjoining parcels:

- The proposed addition will be setback 1.5m (ground level) and 3m (first floor) from the western boundary, opposing 112 Moulder Street. The proposed setbacks are greater than those for the existing dwelling. The two storey element will have a smaller footprint atop the ground level addition, will which assist to reduce visual bulk. The two storey element will oppose a garage on the adjoining western parcel, and not a primary habitable space.

- The proposed single storey garage will be sited 900m from the eastern boundary opposing 116 Moulder Street. The scale of the garage will be consistent with other outbuildings on adjoining lands. The garage will oppose advanced trees on the opposing parcel to the east.

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 building to any boundary. As outlined in this report, the site layout and building design will not adversely impact on adjoining dwellings in respect of privacy, solar access or visual bulk.

Daylight and Sunlight

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

· Buildings are sited and designed to ensure:

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

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

- consideration of Council’s Energy Efficiency Code.

Shadow diagrams were submitted in support of the proposal. The diagrams demonstrate that internal and external solar access will be provided to the extended dwelling and dwellings on adjoining lands in accordance with the DCP Guidelines.

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.

There are no prominent views or landmarks that require consideration in this setting. The streetscape view corridor will not be altered by the rear addition.

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 the subject and adjoining dwellings.

Privacy will be achieved within the development as follows:

- Openings in the addition will be directed to the rear private open space area.

- The outdoor terrace will be enclosed on the west side by a timber privacy screen.

Privacy for dwellings on adjoining parcels will be maintained as follows:

- Existing perimeter fencing will be retained.

- The proposed addition does not involve ground level openings on the west façade (most affected).

- One window will be located on the first floor of the west façade. A privacy screen will be installed to prevent views to and from the subject window.

- A light void will be located on the first floor of the east façade. The void will not permit views to or from the subject glazing, and will be located some 8m from the opposing eastern boundary.

- The proposal will not alter existing arrangements relating to opposing private open spaces.

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 is contained in a residential area, where ambient noise levels are low. The proposal will not alter the existing acoustic environment for the subject and adjoining 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 regard to safety and security as follows:

· openings in the dwelling will provide for surveillance of Moulder Street, the driveway and rear yard

· the landscape design will not restrict sight lines

· the dwelling will have internal access via the garage

· front fencing/gates and side boundary fencing will be installed/maintained.

Circulation and Design

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

· accessways and parking areas are designed to manage stormwater

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

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

The existing footpath crossover and driveway via Moulder Street will be retained in the current location. Reverse egress to Moulder Street will be required for the extended dwelling, consistent with existing vehicle arrangements. The proposal will not generate additional traffic volumes above the existing situation.

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 3+ bedroom dwellings at a rate of 1.5 spaces per dwelling. An attached double garage will be provided for the extended dwelling in compliance with the DCP.

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 extended dwelling will comply with the DCP Guidelines in relation to minimum area, dimension, orientation, solar access and connectivity.

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.

Existing site landscaping will be retained.

Stormwater

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

· Onsite drainage systems are designed to consider:

- downstream capacity and need for onsite 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.

Existing arrangements for stormwater drainage will be maintained.

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.

Sediment and erosion controls will be employed during construction.

Provisions Prescribed by the Regulations S4.15(1)(A)(Iv)

The proposal is not inconsistent with any matter prescribed by Regulation.

The Likely Impacts of the Development S4.15(1)(B)

The impacts of the proposed development have been considered in the foregoing sections of this report and include:

· Setting, context and neighbourhood character.

· Visual impacts (streetscape presentation, building design and detailing, fencing, landscaping, visual bulk).

· Traffic matters (site access, car parking and manoeuvring, traffic generation).

· Residential amenity (onsite and on adjoining lands, solar access, acoustic and visual privacy, outdoor spaces, visual bulk).

· Crime prevention.

· Environmental impacts (biodiversity, groundwater, stormwater management, sediment control).

The impacts of the development are considered to be within reasonable limit. Conditions are included on the attached Notice of approval to mitigate and managing arising impacts.

The Suitability Of The Site S4.15(1)(C)

The subject land is considered to be suitable for the proposed development due to the following:

· The proposal is permitted on the subject land.

· Utility services are available and adequate.

· The land has suitable road access.

· The local road network is of sufficient capacity.

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

· The site has no particular environmental values.

· The nearby conservation setting will not affect the proposed development.

Any Submissions Made In Accordance With The Act S4.15(1)(D)

The proposal is a notified development pursuant to Council’s Community Participation Plan 2019. At the completion of the notification period, no submissions had been received in relation to the application.

Public Interest S4.15(1)(E)

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

SUMMARY

The proposed development is permitted with consent. The development will contribute to the diversity of housing forms in the precinct in a manner that is consistent with the neighbourhood character. The proposal will provide and maintain a high standard of residential amenity for the proposed dwelling and those on adjoining lands. The proposed development will be consistent with applicable Local planning controls. Impacts of the development will be within reasonable limit. Approval of the application is recommended.

Attachments

1 Notice of Approval, D20/70353 ⇩

2 Plans, D20/70044 ⇩

Planning and Development Committee 1 December 2020

2.3 Development Application DA 210/2019(1) - Woodward Street - Duntryleague Guest House

RECORD NUMBER: 2020/2350

AUTHOR: Andrew Crump, Senior Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged	10 July 2019
Applicant/s	Lucas Stapleton Johnson and Partners
Owner/s	Orange Golf Club Limited
Land description	Lot 16 DP 1120534 - Woodward Street, Orange
Proposed land use	Alterations and Additions to Duntryleague Guest House (including upgrading works and rear extension)
Value of proposed development	$3,200,000.00

Council's consent is sought to undertake alterations and additions to the Duntryleague Mansion that sits within The Orange Golf Club on land described as Lot 16 DP 1120534, known as Lot 16 Woodward Street, Orange.

Figure 1 - locality plan – development site shown red outline

The principle objective of the proposed works are to increase the accessibility to all but three rooms on the upper level, and improvements to the functionality of the guest house.

The land is identified as a state heritage item and accordingly the development is a nominated integrated development application.

After a protracted process through NSW Heritage with various meetings and amendments to plans, General Terms of Approval from NSW Heritage have been obtained and are attached to the consent.

Council staff along with Council’s Heritage Advisor are supportive of the development application and as such the development is recommended for approval.

DECISION FRAMEWORK

DIRECTOR’S COMMENT

Staff have been working with the members of the Orange Golf Club for many years to progress a long term development and maintenance plan for the Duntryleague mansion. This work has resulted in a long term plan that would see alterations to the building to permit disabled access; improved safety and increased room availability, whilst preserving this important building. The Golf Club have spent a considerable amount in designs in order to meet requirements of the NSW Heritage Council. Whilst there is still details that are to be sorted by the Club in order to obtain Heritage Approval, staff and Council’s Heritage Advisor support this proposal. Approval of this Application is recommended.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

That Council consents to development application DA 210/2019(1) for Alterations and Additions to Duntryleague Guest House (including upgrading works and rear extension) at Lot 16 DP 1120534 - Woodward Street, Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Council's consent is sought to undertake alterations and additions to the Duntryleague Mansion which provides guesthouse accommodation and sits within the ground of the Orange Golf Course. The works primarily relate to improving accessibility via the provision of an elevator, improved amenity to guest rooms through the provision of ensuite bathrooms to some of the rooms, and improved operational functionality via provision of rear service corridors.

Period appropriate refurbishment of the rooms is also proposed.

The entire extent of works is summarised in the below table and should be read in conjunction with the accompanying plans. NB where items are struck-out, they were originally proposed but now they no long form part of the application.

SCOPE OF WORKS

The applicant submits the scope of works involves the following:

*No.*	*Proposed Works*
*GENERALLY*
1	Relocate northern dormer window to main roof to match details of existing.
2	Reduce Dalton Room at south-east corner and construct chair-store (in order to reinstate use of Card Room G10). Open up west end of northern front verandah by removing non-original walling.
3	Generally add additions and alterations to rear (west side) of building to accommodate enlarged lavatories, new servery, new housekeepers (linen/laundry) facilities, plant rooms, table dressing store and rear link passage connecting existing kitchen to servery.
4	As part of above, alter G40 for Male WC.
5	As part of above, rearrange existing Men’s and Women’s Lavatories for accessible Lavatory G17 and Women’s Washroom G18.
6	As part of the above, form Women’s WC G19 and Plant Room G91 in existing Laundry area.
7	As part of the above, construct Link addition no with G81, G81A, G81B and G81C on west side (rear) of building articulated by a lightwell to leave rear wall partly free.
8	As part of the above, alter existing rear entry and Margaret Dalton Lodge (MDL) Kitchen to form Servery G91, Linen-Trolley Room G86, Laundry G87 and Linen Room G88.
9	As part of the above, demolish existing infills and reconstruct original west (rear) verandahs to former Margaret Dalton Lodge area (G28-G31) and original Kitchen/Scullery area forming G28/G36A and G94. As part of the above retain existing Cellar steps and existing rear cistern.
10	Install new lift at Ground Floor level adjusting non-original partitioning.
11	Install new lift at First Floor level and adjust adjacent partitioning and ensuites as shown.
12	Install new lift at Attic level and adjust adjacent partitioning as shown.
13	As part of the above, restore rear Balcony Space F30 and construct light-weight first floor Terrace F32.
14	As part of the above, restore rear Balcony Space F24 and construct light-weight first Floor Terrace F25.
15	Remove old flues, create larger opening to Dalton Room and refurbish bar G39.
16	Remove screen under stair landing and install cupboards beneath Main Stair G12.
17	Restore Cedar Room door assembly D27A to provide access to new Servery.
18	Restore original door opening between Hall G21A and Hall G26.
19	~~New partition to form Spaces G26A and G26.~~
20	~~Demolish part west wall of G23.~~
21	~~Convert space G38 to Ensuite~~
22	Alter D34A to include Fire door retaining existing door assembly.
23	Form new Fire doors at D49E.
24	Construct internal disabled ramp and Fire door at G09D (north-west Dalton Room).
25	Convert G10 from Store Room (table dressings) to Card Room.
26	Redecorate Reception Rooms G05 Colvin Room and G10 Card Room.
27	Redecorate common areas G06 Entry and G11 Lobby (Stair).
28	Redecorate Rear Corridors G21 Hall, G21A Hall and G26A Rear Stairs.
29	Redecorate Function Room G07 Alderton Room and G13 Cedar Room.
30	Convert Old Kitchen G28 to a guest suite including constructing ensuite bathroom at G28A and restoring a door recess at D13B.
31	Conversion of former Margaret Dalton Lodge rooms to Guest Suites G31, G36A including partitioning and converting G35 to 2 no. ensuite bathrooms.
32	Other required BCA works to be determined.
*FIRST FLOOR*
33	Removal of non-original walls at Room 16 Lobby, (F26).
34	~~Redecoration of guest suites F41, F44, F45.~~
34A	Rearrange partitioning to North West wing, construct new ensuite bathrooms and wheelchair lift as shown. Adjust existing rear fire stair to serve rearrangement. Renovate ensuite bathroom F47.
35	Redecoration of Guest Suites F34, F35, F38 including new doorway in wall between F34 and F35 and new doorway to F31.
36	Reconstruction of Room 6, F10, including reconstructing south wall and new opening to west wall.
37	Restore archway D73 (matches D72).
38	Redecoration of guest suites, Main Wing, F07, F08, F17 and F20.
39	Redecoration Room 16, F29 and restore fireplace.
40	Redecoration of hallways F33 and F37.
41	Redecoration of guest spaces Main Wing F06, F12, F14, F15, F16, F22, F23 including removal of cupboard/bathroom in F23.
42	New opening and service duct at Door 59A.
43	Renovation of all ensuite bathrooms except F28.
44	Restore window/door treatment at W48 (South Front Balcony)
45	Other BCA works to be determined.
*ATTIC (SECOND FLOOR)*
46	Rearrange and redecorate guest suites A03, A04, A04C, A07, A09, A10, A11 and A18 as shown.
47	~~Redecoration of guest areas A09, A10, A11, A18.~~
48	Relocate northern dormer structure.
49	New opening and service riser at D115A.
50	~~Strengthening of floors for Plant Room in roof space A19.~~
51	Relocate ensuite bathrooms as shown.
52	Other BCA works to be determined.
*ROOF*
53	See also comments above relating to alterations and additions at lower roof levels.
54	New metal-clad lift enclosure for lift- to be recognisable as modern construction on close inspection.
55	~~New slate roofing for new proposed dormers. See also Item 1.~~
56	Convert hipped roof over space G40 to gable in order to introduce highlight.
*SERVICES*
57	Upgrade electrical services.
58	New power points and other communications points in guest rooms and new areas.
59	New water/oil traditional -style radiators for heating throughout the building.
60	New concealed air-conditioning fan coil units, heat exchangers, piping and conduits for air-conditioning system to serve First and Attic Floors. See A.C. strategy drawing 102B.
61	New concealed fire sprinkler system with stop valves located in garden as shown.
62	Upgrade/extend water, stormwater, sewer, hot water services. Conceal where possible and remove existing surface mounted piping and conduits where possible.
63	Install skylights in floor of north balcony (to light verandah outside Card Room G10).
64	New ramp for disabled access alongside the original northern front verandah.

The proposed elevator on the ground floor will be in an area identified as low heritage significance, located near the existing toilets in the corridor linking the foyer and the Dalton Room as shown below:

duntry elevator location GF

Figure 2 - approximate location of elevator on Ground Floor

The rear link corridor relates the western elevation as shown below:

Figure 3 - rear wall where the rear link corridor is proposed

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 identifies that Part 7 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act) and Part 7A of the Fisheries Management Act 1994 have effect in connection with terrestrial and aquatic environments.

There are four triggers known to insert a development into the Biodiversity Offset Scheme (i.e. the need for a BDAR to be submitted with a DA):

· Trigger 1: development occurs in land mapped on the Biodiversity Values Map (OEH) (clause 7.1 of BC Regulation 2017);

· Trigger 2: development involves clearing/disturbance of native vegetation above a certain area threshold (clauses 7.1 and 7.2 of BC Regulation 2017); or

· Trigger 3: development is otherwise likely to significantly affect threatened species (clauses 7.2 and 7.3 of BC Act 2016).

The fourth trigger (development proposed to occur in an Area of Outstanding Biodiversity Value (clause 7.2 of BC Act 2016) is generally not applicable to the Orange LGA; as no such areas are known to occur in the LGA. No further comments will be made against the fourth trigger.

None of the above triggers are expected to be activated by the development. The development relates to alterations and additions to an existing building, no trees are to be removed as part of the development.

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

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

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

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

The application is considered to be consistent with aims (a), (b), (c) and (f) as listed above.

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:	Land zoned RE2 Private Recreation
Lot Size Map:	No Minimum Lot Size
Heritage Map:	Heritage item
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

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.

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

(b) to any relevant instrument under Section 13.4 of the Crown Land Management Act 2016, or

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

(d) to any Trust agreement under the Nature Conservation Trust Act 2001, or

(e) to any property vegetation plan under the Native Vegetation Act 2003, or

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

(g) to any planning agreement under Subdivision 2 of Division 7.1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

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

Part 2 - Permitted or Prohibited Development

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

The subject site is located within the RE2 – Private Recreational zone. The proposed development is characterised as hotel or motel accommodation under OLEP 2011. Hotel or motel accommodation means:

a building or place (whether or not licensed premises under the Liquor Act 2007) that provides temporary or short-term accommodation on a commercial basis and that -

(a) comprises rooms or self-contained suites, and

(b) may provide meals to guests or the general public and facilities for the parking of guests’ vehicles,

but does not include backpackers’ accommodation, a boarding house, bed and breakfast accommodation or farm stay accommodation.

Hotel or motel accommodation is not permitted in the RE2 zone; however, the development has a long history being used as a guest house dating back to 1936. For a period during the Second World War it was used by the Red Cross as a convalescent hospital. It was returned to a guest house in 1947 and has continued as such over the years.

The use pre-dates the modern planning system and as such the land benefits from existing use rights.

The EP and A Regulations allow the alteration and extension of an existing use but only with development consent.

The development is therefore permissible as an existing use.

Clause 2.3 of LEP 2011 references the Objectives for each zone in LEP 2011. These objectives for land zoned RE2 – Private Recreation are as follows:

1 - Objectives of the RE2 Private Recreation zone

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

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

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

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

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

The development (although not a permissible use in the zone under the current LEP), remains consistent with the objects of the RE2 zone as the development will continue to provide a complementary use supporting main use of the land as a golf course.

Part 3 - Exempt and Complying Development

The application is not exempt or complying development.

Part 5 - Miscellaneous Provisions

5.10 - Heritage Conservation

The subject land is identified as a Heritage Item under schedule 5 of Orange LEP 2011.

The relevant inventory sheet describes the statement of significance as follows:

Duntryleague Mansion (including gateway, gatekeeper’s lodge, entry avenue and stables, but excluding golf course layout).

This two storey house, with tower like chapel above, is significant for the display of wealth and confidence following, and partly the result of, the gold rush to the surrounding fields.

The property now known as Duntryleague was part of one of the first land grants in the Orange area in 1834, located adjacent to the later gazetted township of Orange and comprising a full square mile. The property was grazed for many years by various owners and tenants, but William Sampson, the first grantee who was himself an absent land owner with interests in the Mudgee area, also established his early property called Campdale on the land. The property also included other early buildings important in the history of Orange such as John Peisley's the Coach and Horses which is regarded as the first inn in the Blackman's Swamp (Orange) area.

James Dalton, the prominent Orange merchant, purchased sections of the land from 1872 to establish a substantial family estate of 311 acres that he named Duntryleague after his birthplace in Ireland. In 1876 he commissioned the design and construction of a mansion located on a prominent ridge of the property from Sydney architect Benjamin Backhouse. The house is a splendid example of mid Victorian splendour designed in the Victorian Filigree style with a richness of detail befitting the man of wealth and influence that James had become by that time.

The estate included two gatehouses, an ornate entrance and gates, a stable, a dairy, 2-3 workers' cottages, a fern house, orchards, vegetable gardens for the household and extensive pastures for grazing.

James initially assisted his father in their first shop in Orange after arriving from Ireland at the age of 15. In 1853 he set up his own store at the corner of Post Office Lane which he later managed with his brother Thomas who arrived in Australia in 1858. His father went on to manage the well-known Daniel O'Connell Inn in Orange. The Dalton Bros. business grew to become the largest wholesale merchant business west of the Blue Mountains with interests throughout the Central West, eastwards to Sydney and northwards to the Queensland border at the height of their success in the late 1800s. The store building that James built in Summer Street was significantly added to over the years and was to become one of the landmark buildings in town. The Sydney side of the business was managed by Thomas who lived at Wheatleigh in North Sydney and the company was notable in the city for Dalton House in Pitt Street, and the Dalton Wharf at Millers Point.

Over the years up to 1925 in Orange the family have been associated with a large number of significant homes and also owned and managed a number of extensive pastoral properties. Many of these buildings remain today as testimony to the importance of the family in the region.

The Dalton family was among New South Wales' most influential and wealthy Catholic families. The Irish-Catholic community in Orange was relatively large and particularly wealthy enough to play a dominant role in politics and the social and spiritual development of the town. The Daltons were instrumental in the financing of St. Joseph's Catholic Church in Orange and James Dalton had built Australia Hall in Lord's Place to provide the controversial venue for a group of visiting Irish Nationalists in 1883. James may also have provided funds and leadership for the Irish Nationalist Movement in NSW. Some of the Dalton children later studied in Ireland and returned to Australia to work. The Dalton family were involved in the early civic development of Orange. Some stood on local Council (James Dalton Mayor 1869, Michael Francis Dalton Councillor from 1906 for many years). In 1877 James was awarded the rare honour of being made a Papal Knight by Pope Gregory for his services to the Catholic Church and the large stained glass window in the hall of Duntryleague commemorates his investiture.

After James' death the house and grounds were retained briefly in family ownership and also used as a large convalescent hospital run by the Red Cross. The property was then purchased by the Orange Golf Club in 1935 as a home for the Club, which had originally been established in Orange in 1909, but had outgrown earlier Club premises. James Dalton had in fact opened the Club in 1901.

The Club has made some alterations to the house and grounds over the years but both still retain significant aspects of their history that are still able to demonstrate the original design and use of the once splendid property. The Club has established itself at Duntryleague over the past 70 years as an important golf club in NSW with an exceptional setting for its courses and attracting local, state and international players and visitors (Christo Aitken & Associates, 2003, 66-67).

Duntryleague property has strong historic associations with prominent merchant, pastoralist and townsman, James Dalton, and architect Benjamin Backhouse, its designer, R Scott & JJ McMurtrie, stone masons. Duntryleague has aesthetic significance with its prominent hilltop location, extensive grounds now a golf course, fine collection of magnificent mature trees, original estate elements including an axial entry driveway with gate keeper's lodge, notable house, terraced former gardens and tennis courts.

Duntryleague contains a house of mid Victorian splendour, a good example of Victorian Filigree style by virtue of its ornate cast iron work to the portico and verandahs. It displays high standards of construction and high quality craftsmanship in its joinery an ironwork.

(1) Objectives

The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a) to conserve the environmental heritage of Orange,

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

(c) to conserve archaeological sites,

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

The development is not incongruous with the objects of the clause. The proposed works will provide sympathetic improvements to the accessibility and overall functionality of the guesthouse; which in turn should make the facility a more attractive offering in the tourist market, providing increased revenue which then can be used to conserve the building ongoing.

(2) Requirement for Consent

Development consent is required for any of the following:

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

The development involves altering a heritage item and as such required consent which the applicant has applied for.

(4) Effect of Proposed Development on Heritage Significance

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

The development will not have a detrimental effect on the significance of the Heritage Item. The development has the support of Council’s Heritage Advisor and General Terms of Approval have been issued by NSW Heritage.

(5) Heritage Assessment

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

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

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

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

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

The development is accompanied by a HIS and a CMP is already in place.

(6) Heritage Conservation Management Plans

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

A CMP is already in place for the subject land. The development is not contrary to the CMP.

(7) Archaeological Sites

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

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

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

The subject land is not an archaeological site.

(8) Aboriginal Places of Heritage Significance

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

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

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

The subject land is not an Aboriginal Place of Heritage Significance.

(9) Demolition of Nominated State Heritage Items

The consent authority must, before granting consent under this clause for the demolition of a nominated State heritage item:

(a) notify the Heritage Council about the application, and

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

The site is already state item.

(10) Conservation Incentives

The consent authority may grant consent to development for any purpose of a building that is a heritage item or of the land on which such a building is erected, or for any purpose on an Aboriginal place of heritage significance, even though development for that purpose would otherwise not be allowed by this Plan, if the consent authority is satisfied that:

(a) the conservation of the heritage item or Aboriginal place of heritage significance is facilitated by the granting of consent, and

(b) the proposed development is in accordance with a heritage management document that has been approved by the consent authority, and

(c) the consent to the proposed development would require that all necessary conservation work identified in the heritage management document is carried out, and

(d) the proposed development would not adversely affect the heritage significance of the heritage item, including its setting, or the heritage significance of the Aboriginal place of heritage significance, and

(e) the proposed development would not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity of the surrounding area.

The subject land benefits from existing use rights and as such Subclause (10) is not required.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(f) the likelihood of disturbing relics

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

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

The earthworks proposed in the application are limited to the extent necessary for the footings for the rear link. The extent of disruption to the drainage of the site is considered to be minor and will not detrimentally affect adjoining properties or receiving waterways.

The extent of the earthworks will not materially affect the potential future use or redevelopment of the site that may occur at the end of the proposed development's lifespan.

The site is not known to be contaminated, however, Council’s standard precautionary condition is attached.

The earthworks will be appropriately supported onsite and the change in ground level is not substantial. Therefore the effect on the amenity of adjoining properties is considered to be minor.

The site is not known to contain any Aboriginal, European or Archaeological relics. Previous known uses of the site do not suggest that any relics are likely to be uncovered. However, conditions are imposed to ensure that should site works uncover a potential aboriginal object, relic or artefact, works will be halted to enable proper investigation by relevant authorities and the proponent required to seek relevant permits to either destroy or relocate the findings.

The site is not in proximity to any waterway, drinking water catchment or sensitive area. Given the characteristics of the site and the minor nature of the works sediment and erosion control is not considered relevant.

7.3 - Stormwater Management

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

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

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

Existing stormwater arrangements will be maintained.

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:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 onsite conservation,

(e) suitable road access.

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

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 for consent to carry out development that would involve a change of use on any of the land specified in Subclause (4), the consent authority must consider a report specifying findings of a preliminary investigation of the land concerned. Notably, Subclause (4) refers to ‘child care purposes’.

Given that the land has a long history being used for the purposes of a guest house and prior to that, a private residence, with no evidence or knowledge of any contaminating activities occurring in relation to the Duntryleague Manson, Council can be satisfied that the land is unlikely to be contaminated. Furthermore, it is noted the development does not involve a change of use as described in Subclause (4).

Notwithstanding the above, Council’s standard precautionary condition relating to unexpected fines is attached to the consent.

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

From 31 January to13 April 2018 the Department of Planning and Environment publically exhibited an Explanation of Intended Effect (EIE) and Draft Planning Guidelines for the proposed Remediation of Land SEPP, which will repeal and replace State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land (SEPP 55). Of particular note, the Draft Planning Guidelines state:

“In undertaking an initial evaluation, a planning authority should consider whether there is any known or potential contamination on nearby or neighbouring properties, or in nearby groundwater, and whether that contamination needs to be considered in the assessment and decision making process.”

“If the planning authority knows that contamination of nearby land is present but has not yet been investigated, it may require further information from the applicant to demonstrate that the contamination on nearby land will not adversely affect the subject land having regard to the proposed use.” (Proposed Remediation of Lands SEPP - Draft Planning Guidelines, Page 10).

The draft instrument is not applicable to the assessment of the application.

DESIGNATED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development is not designated development.

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT

The development relates to a state listed Heritage Item and as such is a nominated integrated development application through the Heritage Act.

The application was referred to NSW Heritage.

A site visit was convened with officers from NSW Heritage, Council staff, Council’s Heritage Advisor and the applicant on 23 October 2019.

Correspondence was received from NSW Heritage dated 21 January 2020 indicating their refusal to grant General Terms of Approval. The correspondence left open an opportunity to amend the application stating in part:

6. Encourage the applicant to reconsider the proposal and present an amended design to the Heritage Council for consideration. The following guidance should be taken into consideration in the redesign of the proposed works to Duntryleague:

a. Future additions to the rear should be undertaken at the north western wing/corner.

The North Western corner has been modified in the past and any addition to this area would have much lesser impact. Further, consideration should be given to the addition of services within the existing clubhouse building to the North West, not within the Duntryleague building which is intact and has limited ability to accommodate additional services.

b. A redesign of the proposed air-conditioning system within Duntryleague to remove impacts to significant windows, balconies and spaces.

c. Reconsideration of impacts to the attic space and roof planes including removal of the proposed dormer windows and skylights and a redesign of the lift overrun to ensure it is not intrusive and will not impact significant roof fabric and views of Duntryleague when viewed from outside.

d. Any future application should also include provision of detailed information for all the proposed works including the proposed upgrading of heating, water, storm water and hot water services and BCA works to allow assessment of the potential impacts.

Following this further work was undertaken by the applicant, and a subsequent further presentation with NSW Heritage Approvals Committee occurred, where the applicant and the Approvals Committee were able to agree on certain contentions such as the treatment of external cladding of the lift over-run where it projects above the roof scape, and a redesign of the rear link corridor to allow the original fabric in the rear elevation remain exposed to view as a light-well.

Upon these changes being received by NSW Heritage, General Terms of Approval were granted. It is noted the GTAs from heritage do not approve the following:

WORKS NOT APPROVED

2. The following works proposed as part of the application are not approved:

a. The highlight windows on the linkage corridor are not approved. The linkage corridor must be a glazed corridor to view the entire stained-glass window wall.

Reason: To provide the opportunity for users to be able to fully view the entirety of the significant stained-glass window wall.

b. The proposed opening between Rooms 4 and 5 is not approved.

Reason: To minimise unnecessary impact on significant fabric.

c. The second fire egress exit to first floor North West wing must be redesigned to connect directly to an extension off the Hall 10 rather than go through Bedroom 2B and its ensuite.

Amended architecture plans outlining this change must be provided with the s.60 application).

Reason: To ensure a more direct fire access route for guests in the event of an emergency.

d. Any BCA works not included in the scope of works of this application are not approved.

Reason: To avoid/minimise impact on the significant values of the item due to any additional works not documented.

The GTAs also contains a series of conditions requiring additional detail such as construction detail of plumbing, electrical and HVAC services routes. Additionally, standard conditions are also imposed such as heritage consultant to oversee, archival recordings, unexpected finds protocol, etc.

The GTAs are attached to the consent as Annexure “A”.

The development is considered satisfactory with respect to the requirements of integrated development.

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

Development Control Plan 2004

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

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

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

The corresponding zone to zone 6 Open Space (Orange LEP 2000) is zone RE2 Private Recreation (Orange LEP 2011). As such, Orange DCP 2004 - Chapter 11 Land Used for Open Space and Recreation is of primary relevance to this proposal. Notwithstanding this, as the land is zoned for private recreation there are no planning outcomes applicable under the above referenced chapter of the DCP.

Chapter 15 - Car Parking

The development will not generate any additional car parking requirements. It is noted that the application will not increase the number of guest rooms; noting that the additional room on the attic level is offset by the creation of the attic lounge which converts an existing guest room to a communal lounge space.

It is also noted that there is no increase in bar or dining space.

The development is satisfactory with regards to chapter 15 of the DCP.

INFILL GUIDELINES

Council’s Infill Guidelines have been prepared to provide an assessment framework for developments located in heritage settings to ensure good quality and sensitive design outcomes. The framework is structured to guide development in heritage settings under five key heads of consideration, namely:

· Character

· Scale and Form

· Siting

· Materials and Colour

· Detailing

As noted above, the subject land is identified as a heritage item listed within Schedule 5 of Orange LEP 2011.

Objectives of Infill Design

The development is not inconsistent with the objects of the infill guidelines, specifically those listed below:

· To ensure new buildings respond to and enhance the character and appearance of the streetscapes of the Heritage Conservation Areas.

· To ensure contributory heritage items retain their prominence and are not dominated by new development within a Heritage Conservation Area and do not compromise the heritage values of the existing area.

· To ensure new buildings do not adversely affect the significance, character or appearance of the Heritage Conservation Area or heritage items.

· To allow for reasonable change within a Heritage Conservation Area while ensuring all other heritage objectives are met.

The proposed development is not inconsistent with any of the above heads of consideration, nor is it inconsistent with the objects of the infill guidelines.

The proposed development will by sympathetic to the character of the setting, the visible parts (lift over run and rear link) are of an appropriate scale and form and are appropriately sited so as to not impact the heritage significance of the setting.

The materials and colours; and details have been the subject of much dialogue between the applicant and NSW Heritage and subject to the attached conditions, the development is considered acceptable.

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

Demolition of a Building (clause 92)

The proposal involves minor demolition as part of the alterations and additions. A condition is attached requiring the demolition to be carried out in accordance with Australian Standard AS2601 - 2001: The Demolition of Structures and the requirements of Safe Work NSW.

Fire Safety Considerations (clause 93)

A BCA report and addendum have been submitted in support of the application. Council’s Building Surveyor has reviewed the reports and have advised they are satisfactory. Relevant conditions are attached in relation to fire safety.

Buildings to be Upgraded (clause 94)

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

BASIX Commitments (clause 97A)

BASIX is not applicable to the proposed development. A Section J Energy Efficiency Statement will be required with the Construction Certificate application.

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

The development is not expected to give rise to any unacceptable impacts in the locality. The heritage aspects of the application have been considered in considerable detail and NSW Heritage have arrived at a point where they are happy with the development, subject to a number of conditions.

The development is considered satisfactory from an environmental impact perspective.

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

The site has a long history of tourism uses complementing the longstanding recreation use of a golf course. The development benefits from existing use rights and as such the proposed development is permissible with consent.

Council staff are not aware of any physical, technological or natural hazards that may constrain the development.

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

The proposed development is defined as "advertised development" under the provisions of the LEP. The application was advertised for the prescribed period of 14 days and at the end of that period two submissions were received; both of which offered support of the development.

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.

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 and ANNEXURE "A" GTAs, D20/71416 ⇩

2 Plans, D20/70845 ⇩

3 Submissions, D20/70667 ⇩

Planning and Development Committee 1 December 2020

2.4 Development Application DA 133/2020(1) - 155 Kite Street and 115 Endsleigh Avenue

RECORD NUMBER: 2020/2352

AUTHOR: David Paine, Senior Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged	7 April 2020
Applicant/s	Orange CBD Pty Ltd
Owner/s	Orange CBD Pty Ltd
Land description	Lot 11 DP 1002968, Lot 1 DP 770265, Lot 8 DP 1069072 - 155 Kite Street and 115 Endsleigh Avenue, Orange
Proposed land use	Demolition (ancillary structures and rear skillion of existing building), Hotel or Motel Accommodation (four storey building), Alterations and Additions (existing building), and Business Identification Signage
Value of proposed development	$6.2M

Council's consent is sought for the demolition of all buildings (vacant sheds known as the ‘Perway’ Structures) within 155 Kite Street, Orange to create a vacant site for the construction of a new four storey building that will comprise of parking at Ground Level for 67 vehicles (including 21 spaces in car stackers), and accommodation on Levels 1 to 3 for 61 rooms. The proposal also includes the conversion of the existing cottage on the adjoining site at 115 Endsleigh Avenue to provide a reception and restaurant area, as well as the lift lobby that will provide a connection to the proposed motel which is located at the rear of cottage. The conversion work will involve the demolition of the skillion addition at the rear of the existing cottage and additional building works to the original cottage to create the additional space. The building is identified as a local Heritage Item ‘Ivanhoe’ under Council’s Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2011.

The application was advertised on two separate occasions in accordance with Council’s public participation plan. During the first round of notification, Council received eight submissions objecting to the proposed development. The plans were subsequently amended. These plans were re-notified and Council received three submissions. Whilst two of these submissions are still objecting to the development, the third submission was generally supportive of the amended design, although the person still had some reservations about the development exceeding the 12m height limit.

The plans were amended in response to technical issues raised by Council’s Officers and Council’s Heritage Advisor. The amended plans have removed the pool, gym and BBQ area from the Third Floor. Other changes relate to the building’s form and include a new pitched roof at either end of the building, a new clerestory style roof element for the upper floor, and new windows on the North and South of the proposed building. The amended design has also included new ‘French’ style balconies on the eastern elevation – note: these balconies are not accessible and have only been included for articulation purposes. The number of motel units have been reduced by one from 62 to 61.

The development is proposed on land described Lot 11 DP 1002968, Lot 1 DP 770265, Lot 8 DP 1069072 - 155 Kite Street and115 Endsleigh Avenue, Orange.

Figure 1 - Locality plan

DECISION FRAMEWORK

Development in Orange is governed by two key documents being the Orange Local Environment Plan 2011 and the 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 provisions of the LEP must be considered by the Council in determining the application. 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. The objectives of each zoning and, indeed, the aims of the LEP itself are also to be considered and can be used to guide decision making around appropriateness of development.

Orange Development Control Plan 2004 – The DCP provides guidelines for development. In general, it is a performance based document rather than prescriptive in nature. For each planning element 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. The DCP enables developers and architects to use design to achieve the planning outcomes in alternative ways.

DIRECTOR’S COMMENT

Main issues of this hotel proposal centre on the building’s height (almost 4m above height limits for the area); valet parking; heritage; streetscape; character; waste management and building design. The proponent seriously considered these issues during the assessment process, substantially amending the proposal to address concerns of staff and submissions made by residents. The result is a pleasing development that whilst large, will not adversely impact on the surrounding environment, indeed permitting the extra height gives more setback and relief to the nearby heritage rail bridge. This development will provide significant economic benefits to the City both during construction and operation. The recommendation of approval is supported.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

That Council consents to development application DA 133/2020(1) for Demolition (ancillary structures and rear skillion of existing dwelling), Hotel or Motel Accommodation (four storey building), Alterations and Additions (existing building), and Business Identification Signage at Lot 11 DP 1002968, Lot 1 DP 770265, Lot 8 DP 1069072 - 155 Kite Street and 115 Endsleigh Avenue, Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.

further considerations

BACKGROUND/ORANGE EASTSIDE PRECINCT PLAN AND SITE SPECIFIC CONTROLS

Council has recently commissioned a review of the surrounding area given a number of changes that have occurred. The changes include the Department of Primary Industries (DPI) relocating to a new office complex, and the relocation of a motor showroom to larger premises on the outskirts of Orange. Council hired a local planning firm to conduct the review of the area including consideration of existing zonings, land uses, and various planning controls including height, floor space ratio and building design. The review is recommending a number of changes for the area including increasing the height from 12m to 14m to attract new business. The review, named the Orange Eastside Precinct Plan and Site Specific Controls is currently on public exhibition.

The development involves the construction of a four storey hotel or motel and comprises of the following scope of works:

· Demolition of all buildings (vacant sheds known as the ‘Perway’ Structures) within 155 Kite Street, Orange to create a vacant site for the construction of a new four storey building that will comprise of parking at Ground Level for 67 vehicles and accommodation on Levels 1 to 3 for 61 rooms.

· Conversion of the existing cottage on the adjoining site at 115 Endsleigh Avenue to provide a reception and restaurant area as well as the lift lobby that will provide a connection to the proposed motel which is located at the rear of cottage. The conversion work will involve the demolition of the skillion addition at the rear of the existing cottage and additional building works to the original cottage to create the additional space. The building is identified as a local heritage item ‘Ivanhoe’ under Council’s Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2011.

· The main vehicle access will be via 115 Endsleigh Avenue in the form of a one way access point past the proposed reception area. The reception area will be located behind the existing cottage. Vehicles will leave the site via a garage door with access onto Kite Street (exit only).

· The applicant is seeking a variation to Council’s 12m height restriction. The development standard is contained within Council’s Local Environmental Plan 2011. The variation to the height standard ranges from 0.543m to 3.93m. The applicant has submitted a formal written request to Council to vary the development standard via a LEP 4.6 Exception to Development Standards application.

· Associated signage.

· Site landscaping.

AMENDED DESIGN

The overall design of the subject building has evolved since the plans were initially lodged with Council. The evolving nature of the design, culminating in the final design which is being assessed as the proposed building, has been possible because of the proponent’s co‑operation and willingness to work collaboratively with Council staff, Council’s Heritage advisor and feedback from public submissions. Council’s Heritage Advisor indicated in his final comments that:

‘The applicant, architect and consultants are to be congratulated for their approach during the design development of this project. The result will complement the precinct and supplement the design quality and character of the area. It would be excellent if the project primed further conservation and restoration in the precinct’.

The amended design has progressed to a higher quality and more sophisticated design from the initial starting point as a direct result of the collaborative process that has occurred. It should be noted that the proposed development is still exceeding the height limit by around 3.93m. This issue is discussed in more detail under Clause 4.6 Exception to Development Standard.

Figure 2 - design as initially submitted to Council

Figure 3 - amended design

The amended design has included modulation and fine-scale detailing help to reduce the sense of scale and overall bulk of the development, resulting in a more sympathetic development in the context and setting.

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

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

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

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

The application is considered to be consistent with aims (a), (b), and (f) as listed above.

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:	Land zoned B6 Enterprise Corridor
Lot Size Map:	No Minimum Lot Size
Heritage Map:	Local heritage item and adjoins a conservation area
Height of Buildings Map:	Building height limit 12 m
Floor Space Ratio Map:	Floor space limit 1.5:1
Terrestrial Biodiversity Map:	No biodiversity sensitivity on the site
Groundwater Vulnerability Map:	Groundwater vulnerable
Drinking Water Catchment Map:	Not within the drinking water catchment
Watercourse Map:	Not within or affecting a defined watercourse
Urban Release Area Map:	Not within an urban release area
Obstacle Limitation Surface Map:	No restriction on building siting or construction
Additional Permitted Uses Map:	No additional permitted use applies
Flood Planning Map:	Not within a flood planning area

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

Clause 1.9A - Suspension of Covenants, Agreements and Instruments

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

· covenants imposed or required by Council

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

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

· any trust agreement under the Nature Conservation Trust Act 2001

· any property vegetation plan under the Native Vegetation Act 2003

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

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

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

An Easement for Overhead Communications Lines (Variable Width) affects the north western edge of the site. A Council sewer main and stormwater lines traverse the site from south to north west. Council’s Technical Service Division has recommended conditions requiring the sewer line to be renewed and stormwater line to be protected.

Part 2 - Permitted or Prohibited Development

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

The subject sites are located within the B6 Enterprise Corridor. The proposed development is defined as hotel or motel accommodation under OLEP 2011 which means:

hotel or motel accommodation means a building or place (whether or not licensed premises under the Liquor Act 2007) that provides temporary or short-term accommodation on a commercial basis and that:

(a) comprises rooms or self-contained suites, and

(b) may provide meals to guests or the general public and facilities for the parking of guests’ vehicles,

but does not include backpackers’ accommodation, a boarding house, bed and breakfast accommodation or farm stay accommodation.

food and drink premises means premises that are used for the preparation and retail sale of food or drink (or both) for immediate consumption on or off the premises, and includes any of the following -

(a) a restaurant or cafe,

(b) take away food and drink premises,

(c) a pub,

(d) a small bar.

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

(a) an advertising structure,

(b) a building identification sign,

(c) a business identification sign,

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

Hotel or motel accommodation, food and drink premises and signage are all permissible in the B6 Enterprise Corridor zone with the consent of Council. It is noted that the proposed restaurant is considered ancillary to the dominant use of the land as a motel, ie they are a typical and expected support facility for many modern motels globally.

The initial demolition component of the development is addressed below under Clause 2.7.

Clause 2.3 of LEP 2011 references the Land Use Table and Objectives for each zone in LEP 2011. These objectives for land zoned B6 Enterprise Corridor zone are as follows:

1 Objectives of zone

· To promote businesses along main roads and to encourage a mix of compatible uses.

· To provide a range of employment uses (including business, office, retail and light industrial uses).

· To maintain the economic strength of centres by limiting retailing activity.

· To provide for residential uses, but only as part of a mixed use development.

The development is consistent with the objectives of the zone. The development is well positioned and is within close proximity to the CBD to encourage cycling and walking and will be well serviced by public transport. The proposed development will further strengthen the status of Orange as a major regional centre and is also expected to generate employment during the initial construction phase, along with ongoing employment in the hospitality industry once the building has been completed.

Clause 2.6 Subdivision – consent requirements

This clause triggers the need for development consent for the subdivision of land. Whilst the proposal has not specifically nominated that the subject land will be consolidated, this issue has been discussed with the applicant and is standard practice when development is occurring over separate parcels of land. A number of conditions are recommended to ensure that proof of lodgement for registration of a survey plan of consolidation of Lot 11, DP1002968, Lot 8, DP 1069072, Lots 1 and DP 770265 with NSW Government Land and Property Information has been undertaken prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, with formal registration of the plan to occur prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

Clause 2.7 - Demolition Requires Development Consent

This clause triggers the need for development consent in relation to a building or work.

The proposal involves demolition of all existing buildings (vacant sheds) on 155 Kite Street, Orange. The proposal also includes the demolition of a skillion addition at the rear of the existing cottage at 115 Endsleigh Avenue.

The demolition works proposed will have no significant impact on adjoining lands, streetscape or public realm. Conditions will be imposed in respect of hours of operation, dust suppression and the need to investigate for, and appropriately manage the presence of any materials containing asbestos.

Part 3 - Exempt and Complying Development

The application is not exempt or complying development.

Part 4 - Principal Development Standards

Clause 4.3 - Height of Buildings

This clause limits the height of buildings (HoB) on land identified on the Height of Buildings Map. The subject land is identified on the Map as having a HoB limit of 12m.

Figure 4 – Height of Building Map – M= 12m (subject land marked in blue)

The applicant submits that the maximum height of the proposed development at the highest point is 15.93m and therefore contravenes the height of buildings standard by 3.93m. This point has been calculated based on existing Ground Levels at the rear of the site.

The applicant has made application pursuant to Clause 4.6 of OLEP 2011 to vary the development standard. The issue is addressed below.

Space Ratio

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

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

· excluding community land and most public places

· lots in a Strata scheme wholly or partly above other lots in the scheme do not increase the site area (ie the site area is the Ground Level of the scheme only)

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

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

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

The subject land is identified on the Map as having an FSR of 1.5:1. The subject land has a total area of 2,080m². The proposed development has a GFA of 2,601.1m².

As such, the proposed FSR is 1.25:1 and is therefore compliant with the FSR requirement of the LEP.

Clause 4.6 - Exceptions to Development Standards

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

The applicant has submitted a detailed request for the variation of the height (Clause 4.3) development standards under Clause 4.6 of the Orange LEP 2011.

To allow variations to development standards under the Orange LEP 2011 the applicant must make a formal request under Clause 4.6 which specifically addresses the terms of Clause 4.6, particularly Clause 4.6(3). Additionally, the consent authority must consider the written request from the applicant for the variation plus be satisfied that the proposal will be in the public interest, is consistent with the objectives of the relevant standards and the objectives of the zone (Clause 4.6(4).

The Clause 4.6 request to vary the height standard, as it applies to the current amended design, is supported and a detailed assessment is included below.

Preliminary

Firstly, it is noted that the subject site has a height standard under the current Orange LEP 2011 provisions, Clause 4.3, of 12m and the submitted proposal is 15.93m.

Clause 4.6(3)

The applicant's written request for the Clause 4.6 variation must demonstrate the proposal is justified under Clause 4.6(3) (a) and (b), as follows:

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

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

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

It is considered that the applicant's Clause 4.6 variation request meets these requirements. The proposed building height exceedance is considered to have only minor impacts on neighbouring properties in terms of privacy and overshadowing. The proposed exception to the height of buildings development standard of OLEP 2011 is considered a minor variation in the context of the site and its locality and, therefore, strict compliance would be unreasonable.

Clause 4.6(4)

The consent authority must not grant consent to a Clause 4.6 variation unless it is satisfied with the matters under Clause 4.6(4) as detailed below:

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

(a) the consent authority is satisfied that:

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

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

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

The detailed assessment below addresses Clause 4.6 and specifically Clauses 4.6(3) and 4.6(4) demonstrating that these clauses have been satisfied.

Height Standard Variation (Cl4.6(3)

The applicant's written submission contends that the variation to the height standard should be supported as the resultant impacts are acceptable and it would be unreasonable and unnecessary in this instance to require strict compliance in this instance.

The applicant has argued that the current development proposal is consistent with the underlying intent of the control based on the following:

‘A development that strictly complies with the 12m height control is unreasonable or unnecessary in this circumstance for the following reasons:

· It would result in a less sympathetic response to the historic rail footbridge that adjoins the site to the south. In this regard:

- Following consultation with Council’s Heritage advisor, the design intent was to provide a building that maintained a reasonable setback and modest building height in deference to the footbridge.

Having regard to the above point, the design adopts the southern boundary building line recommended by Council’s Heritage advisor and adopts a building height near the footbridge that is in the order of 9m (or approximately 3m lower than the allowed building height of 12m).

To achieve a building that complies with the height control and provides the required number of rooms, facilities and support areas proposed by this development, would be likely to require a closer building setback and the full 12m height adjacent to the footbridge.

Appropriate architectural design measures are used to address the building height, including:

· So that it does not appear too tall or imposing, the Upper Level of the building is recessed in relation to the levels below and a recessive roof element is expressed by continuing the roof material along the walls of this level.

· The massing of the proposed hotel is articulated via modulated façades; glazing and varied fenestration; and a mix of materials in order to break down its overall bulk.

· The top level of the building is given a more transparent treatment. It is now proposed as a clerestory/roof lantern element that presents to Endsleigh Avenue with generous glazed walls and a floating roof.

· The development has a FSR of 1.25:1 which is reasonably below the maximum allowed FSR of 1.5:1 pursuant to Clause 4.4 of the LEP. In consideration of this particular aspect, it is clear that the increased height is not due to excessive floor space demands or overdevelopment of the site.

· The proposal adopts a sensible approach to provide the car park on Ground Level, despite the fact that it causes the building to exceed the maximum height limit. Any realistic alternative to the proposed design would require a reduction in the scale of the development. However, according to the applicant, a marked reduction in the number of rooms (i.e. removal of the top floor) would threaten the viability of the project’.

Overall, the proposed increase in height relates to the third level (containing nine motel units) and does not have any significant impact on adjoining neighbours through overshadowing or privacy. The proposed development is considered acceptable in relation to the exceedance in height as compliance with the standard is unreasonable in this instance and there are sufficient environmental planning grounds for the variation.

Height Standard Variation Cl 4.6(4)(a)(i))

It is considered that the applicant has satisfactorily addressed the provisions of Clause 4.6(3).

Height Standard Variation Cl 4.6(4)(a)(ii))

Height Standard Objectives

The height objectives under Clause 4.3 are as follows:

4.3 Height of buildings

(1) The objectives of this clause are as follows -

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

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

(2) The height of a building on any land is not to exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map.

The applicant has argued that the development is consistent with the objectives for the following reasons:

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

‘The building as proposed would achieve reasonable integration in terms of building height because it is within a precinct that comprises a much larger building that is already above the maximum height control.

For the reasons provided earlier in this report and the State Environmental Planning Policy (SoEE) [sic], the building as proposed sits reasonably well in relation to the Peisley Street and Endsleigh Avenue streetscapes; and also respects the heritage values attributed to the historic railway precinct.

The proposed taller building facilitates a better design outcome because it allows the development to provide satisfactory onsite parking arrangements’.

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

‘Despite being taller, the building as proposed does not unreasonably affect the amenity of neighbouring properties and public places.

As addressed in the Statement of Environmental Effects, non-compliance with the standard does not contribute to unacceptable impacts in terms of traffic, parking, overshadowing, visual impacts or view loss’.

Following an assessment of the proposal under the objectives of the Orange LEP 2011 (i.e. zone and height objectives), it has been determined that the scale of the development (i.e. 15.93m) makes a positive contribution to the desired form intended under the adopted planning controls and the hierarchy of the area.

Zone Objectives- Height Cl 4.6(4)(a)(ii)

The proposed development is considered in the public interest and the variation to the height standard is consistent with the objectives of Clause 4.3, as the scale of the development makes a positive contribution towards the desired built form. The proposal also allows for reasonable daylight access to the public domain and nearby developments.

The issue of the proposed height variation was also examined and discussed at length with Council’s Heritage and Urban Design Advisor who has provided the following comments:

‘The current design reflects the objectives and guidelines provided within the LEP and the DCP. In relation to the additional height of the proposal in the central element of the design, the mitigation provided through the use of the traditional clerestorey roof form and associated details is acceptable in terms of the increased height’.

Overall, it is considered that the submitted Clause 4.6 variation request is adequate and support for the variation should be given.

Figures 5 and 6 - above and below indicating the exceedance in height

Part 5 -Miscellaneous Provisions

5.10 - Heritage Conservation

Clause 5.10 of the LEP lists the provisions that need to be considered where an application relates to a heritage setting. The subject land is not within a Heritage Conservation Area but adjoins a number of heritage items:

· The existing dwelling “Ivanhoe” within the subject land at 115 Endsleigh Avenue, is identified as a Heritage Item of Local Significance. Conversion work is proposed of the existing cottage on the adjoining site at 115 Endsleigh Avenue to provide a reception and restaurant area, as well as the lift lobby that will provide a connection to the proposed motel which is located at the rear of cottage. The conversion work will involve the demolition of the skillion addition at the rear of the existing cottage and additional building works to the original cottage to create the additional space.

· Orange Railway Station, including the pedestrian bridge to the south and south west of the site of the proposed accommodation building (Item 22, State Significance).

· The Stationmaster’s House at 158 Peisley Street to the west of the subject land (Item 78, Local Significance).

· The Endsleigh building which adjoins to the south and east of the subject land (Item 249, Local Significance).

Heritage Advisor’s recommendations

The applicant has been working closely with Council staff and Council’s Heritage Advisor to reach an agreement on the overall design of the building. Council’s Heritage Advisor initially raised a number of concerns about the proposed building in terms of the building’s height, bulk and scale and how the built form relates to the adjoining heritage items and the visual impact of the building from Endsleigh Avenue.

Another important aspect of the proposal is the demolition of the structures on 155 Kite Street, known as the Perway Structures.

The issues related to a number of key issues around the bulk and scale of the new building, and the demolition of the ‘Perway’ Structures are discussed below.

Proposed Floor Plans - Recommendation:

‘The Fourth Floor/Third Level consisting of nine rooms and the outdoor recreation facility should be eliminated to reduce the height to a nominally compliant level.

The recreation facility should be relocated to the southern end of the Third Floor/Level 2 at the southern end replacing Rooms 1-5 and 26, where a steel framed pergola structure can be used to interpret the adjoining footbridge.’

Applicant’s response

‘The applicant’s preference is to retain the accommodation rooms on the top level. To this end it was agreed at the Zoom meeting that a more lightweight or transparent structure could be considered. Therefore the top level is now proposed as a clerestory/roof lantern element that presents to Endsleigh Avenue with generous glazed walls and a floating roof’.

Planning Officer’s response

The amended plans have removed the pool, gym and BBQ area from the Third Floor. Other changes relate to the building’s form and include a new pitched roof at either end of the building, a new clerestory style roof element for the upper floor, and new windows on the north and south of the proposed building. The amended design has also included new ‘French’ style balconies on the eastern elevation – note: these balconies are not accessible and have only been included for articulation purposes.

Heritage Advisor’s recommendations

Proposed Floor Plans - Recommendation:

‘A pair of continuous vertical windows as a slot of nominal 300mm should be provided between the service core and the main building to express the element and reduce the overall bulk’.

Applicant’s response

‘This recommendation has been adopted as shown on the north and south elevations’

Planning Officer’s response

The changes have improved the building’s articulation on the northern and southern elevation and are considered a good outcome in terms of the built form.

Heritage Advisor’s recommendations

Proposed East Elevation - Recommendations:

‘The painted masonry wall to the elevation should extend to a nominal 2100mm high with a louvre/lattice or open screen being provided up to the soffit or beam level and the wall and screen provided with climbing wires for creeper planting in order that the elevation presented to the adjoining properties is improved in character and amenity.

Levels 1 and 2 should be clad in the brick cladding system, using a selected brown brick with blue/grey banding related to window head and sill lines as an interpretation of the brickwork in the conservation area’.

Applicant’s response

‘The plans have now been amended to satisfy the above recommendations. The nominated brick cladding is PGH Castlemaine (See drawings No 09 and 16).

This recommendation has been adopted (refer Drawing 16). The selected brown brick is PGH Hotham Standard. The blue grey banding is selected as Dulux Windspray’.

Planning Officer’s response

The amended colour scheme represents a better outcome for the surrounding area.

Heritage Advisor’s recommendations

Proposed East Elevation - Recommendation:

‘All windows should be provided with a ‘French’ style balcony with a pair of external opening full height louvre doors and contemporary flat overhead awning. The elements will model the facade, improve the level of privacy and reduce the overlooking to the adjoining sites and provide shading and an amenity for the occupants.

The revised roof to be an expressed pitched Windspray traditional steel roof with nominal central ridge, traditional rolled flashings and hipped ends to the north and south with the contemporary half round fascia/gutter set at a nominal 877.58 and external expressed circular downpipes.

The staircases to include windows to assist in their modelling and character and be clad in a contrasting blue/grey brick with brown brick banding.

The upper nominal 4m of the stair/lift core is to be clad in composite silver metallic cladding, as selected and a sign graphic revised prepared’.

Applicant’s response

‘The recommendation has been adopted. As indicated in the east elevation drawing, a balcony is provided to every accommodation room window. However, due to safety and NCC requirements, there will be no doors that open onto a balcony. Instead, each balcony is provided with windows that appear as full height doors.

The balustrade treatment includes a perforated steel screen to assist with privacy.

This recommendation has been adopted. However, the level of the half round fascia/gutter will be set higher than the nominal 877.58 because it is proposed to retain the top level.

The last two recommendations has been adopted’.

Planning Officer’s response

The inclusion of the French style balconies on the eastern elevation is a significant improvement to the overall design.

Heritage Advisor’s Recommendations

Proposed South Elevation

‘A simple climber trellis planting is recommended to offset the scale and impact on the adjoining properties’.

Applicant’s response

‘The plans have been amended to satisfy the above recommendation (refer to drawings No 9)’.

Planning Officer’s response

The inclusion of the trellis planting on the southern elevation improves the overall appearance of this section of the building.

Heritage Advisor’s recommendations

The proposal includes the demolition of all buildings (vacant sheds) within 155 Kite Street Orange. The building on the site have been identified as ‘Perway’ depot.

Excerpt from Heritage Impact Statement for Arnott’s site demolition, 2017, James Nicholson

‘In summary, the structures remaining on the subject site were known as the Permanent Way depot or the ‘Perway’ depot. The accommodation was to suit the railway gangers or fettlers who were responsible for maintaining the railway line or ‘permanent way’, including the rails, sleepering and ballast. A store would provide for tools including sledges, spanners and track plates together with their vehicles, known as ‘trikes’. The two sheds consisted of a larger shed to the north of a type to accommodate the ‘trikes’ which were used to take fettlers and inspectors along the lines in addition to the stores areas while the smaller shed was the Inspector’s office for the staff who managed the Perway labour force and tasking.

The loss of the structures will require mitigation. The Applicant may be able to access via the NSW Railways and their various agencies, the study that would have been completed prior to the sale. Studies are required from the Authority under NSW Heritage Act, where the sale affects a heritage listed place.

The site occupied by the former Perway depot will require an archival recording in addition to the site history. If no study is evident, James Nicholson – Adaptive Architects, completed a study of East Fork and has access to much of the relevant material related to the origins of the Perway depot.

Applicant’s response

The applicant has agreed with the recommendation of Council’s Heritage Consultant to mitigate the loss of these structure:

‘Mitigation for the loss of the Perway Structure should include the provision of an outline marked in the ground floor car park surface of an outline of the two main structure using a steel element similar in size to a rail, so as to interpret the former buildings and use. An interpretive panel is to be designed and prepared in conjunction with O&DHS illustration the significant of the Perway deport and placed within the space at an agreed location’.

The applicant has also agreed to name the dining area ‘Perway’ Restaurant.

Planning Officer’s response

The agreed outcome for the loss of structures known as the ‘Perway’ structures is considered a good outcome in terms of the proposed development. A number of conditions have been included in the notice of determination to ensure that an archival recording has been completed prior to any demolition works.

Planning Officer’s concluding comments

The proposed development has undergone a number of design changes since the initial design was lodged with Council. The applicant and their consultants have worked closely with Council’s Heritage Advisor over the last couple of months to try and resolve all outstanding issues. Council’s Heritage Advisor indicates that:

‘The use of traditional but contemporary details in the exteriors and the use of appropriate materials and colours will complement the design and acknowledge the vicinity including the Railway precinct, the residences and the local business accommodation while the larger Heritage Conservation Area should benefit from the project.

The applicant, architect and consultants are to be congratulated for their approach during the design development of this project. The result will complement the precinct and supplement the design quality and character of the area’.

The amended plans have addressed all the outstanding issues that have been raised by Council’s Heritage Advisor and, overall the proposal is considered a good design on a constrained site.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(f) the likelihood of disturbing relics

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

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

The earthworks proposed in the application are limited to the extent of cutting and filling required for the proposed building or structure. The extent of disruption to the drainage of the site is considered to be minor and will not detrimentally affect adjoining properties or receiving waterways.

The extent of the earthworks will not materially affect the potential future use or redevelopment of the site that may occur at the end of the proposed development's lifespan.

A preliminary contamination report was obtained for the site. The site is not known to be contaminated and conditions may be imposed requiring the use of verified clean fill only. Excavated materials will be reused onsite as far as possible and conditions may be imposed to require that surplus materials will be disposed of to an appropriate destination.

The earthworks will be appropriately supported onsite and the change in Ground Level is not substantial. Therefore the effect on the amenity of adjoining properties is considered to be minor.

The site is not known to contain any Aboriginal, European or Archaeological relics. Previous known uses of the site do not suggest that any relics are likely to be uncovered. However, conditions may be imposed to ensure that should site works uncover a potential relic or artefact, works will be halted to enable proper investigation by relevant authorities and the proponent required to seek relevant permits to either destroy or relocate the findings.

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

7.3 - Stormwater Management

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

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

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

The existing area is almost 100% impervious. As the proposed development does not increase the impervious areas onsite stormwater detention is required. The existing stormwater pipes crossing the site shall be retained from boundary to boundary. The proposed building will dispose of stormwater via the existing system.

7.6 - Groundwater Vulnerability

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

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

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

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

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

Clause 7.11 - Essential Services

Clause 7.11 applies and states:

(a) the supply of water,

(b) the supply of electricity,

(c) the disposal and management of sewage,

(d) storm water drainage or onsite conservation,

(e) suitable road access.

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

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 Remediation of Land

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land (SEPP 55) is applicable. Pursuant to Clause 7 Contamination and remediation to be considered in determining development application:

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

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

In regard to 155 Kite Street, a Preliminary Site Investigation was undertaken by Environmental Earth Sciences in December 2018. The assessment makes the following conclusion and recommendations:

‘Environmental Earth Sciences consider that there is an overall Low risk relating to contamination onsite associated with current and former uses. Minor spillages of engine fuel likely from vehicles which had been previously parked in the underground carpark are considered to pose a very low risk and there were no records of bulk chemicals being stored or licensed to be used at the site. The chances of any contamination impact to underlying soils or groundwater is very low, with the site being constructed over a sealed carpark.

As a result of this PSI, further investigation to assess for potential chemical contamination is not recommended at this stage.

In relation to potential ACM, if this material is required to be disturbed and removed, it is recommended that any hazardous building materials which may be disturbed should be removed by an appropriately licensed contractor prior to the commencement of works.

During any proposed redevelopment there is a potential for unexpected subsurface finds (as is the case for any site), and consequently Environmental Earth Sciences recommends that these occurrences can be manage accordingly through the implementation of appropriate management documents (such as an Unexpected Findings Protocol)’.

Based on the preliminary contamination report, Council’s Environmental Officer is satisfied that the contamination issue identified can be addressed by way of condition.

The subject land and buildings at 115 Endsleigh Avenue have been used for the purposes of a dwelling. The land is well established with the dwelling, garage, driveway, lawns and gardens. A site inspection of the area does not indicate any areas or sources of potential contamination.

State Environmental Planning Policy 64 - Advertising and Signage

State Environmental Planning Policy 64 - Advertising and Signage (SEPP 64) is applicable and states in part:

3 Aims, Objectives etc

(1) This Policy aims:

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

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

(ii) provides effective communication in suitable locations, and

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

(8) Granting of Consent to Signage

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

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

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

The proposal includes one business identification sign. The sign is located on the upper section of the eastern elevation of the lift (facing Endsleigh Avenue) with the wordmark CBD Hotel. The signage will be of brushed stainless steel lettering and will be illuminated from behind with lighting.

The business identification sign has been carefully considered in terms of the adjoining area. The proposed business identification sign is an appropriate scale for the proposed building. The sign will have no impact on views or streetscape and any illumination will be minimal. The business identification sign is considered appropriate in its context and consistent with the aims and objectives of the SEPP No 64 Adverting and Signage.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY (INFRASTRUCTURE) 2007

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (ISEPP) was introduced to facilitate the delivery of infrastructure across the State by improving regulatory certainly and efficiency.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) applies to the subject land, specifically Clause 85, 86 and 87.

Concurrence was required from Transport for NSW under the above ISEPP given the close proximity of the site and the potential impact on the rail network. The applicant was requested to provide additional information to Transport for NSW to ensure that the proposed development does not have any implications for the safe operation of the rail network. The additional information was given to Transport for NSW who are satisfied with the additional information. Concurrence has been obtained from Transport for NSW and their requirements have been integrated as conditions of consent within the attached notice.

The applicant was provided with a copy of the concurrence.

Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Remediation of Land)

The draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Remediation of Land) aims for better management of remediation works by aligning the needs for development consent with the scale, complexity and risks associated with the proposed works. Once the policy is adopted, the SEPP will provide a state-wide planning framework for the remediation of land and requires consent authorities to consider the potential for land to be contaminated with determining development applications.

As mentioned above, contamination investigation carried out on the site has determined the site can be made suitable for the proposed.

DESIGNATED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development is not designated development.

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development is not integrated development although concurrence was required from Transport for NSW under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. Concurrence has been obtained from Transport for NSW and their requirements have been integrated as conditions of consent within the attached notice.

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

Development Control Plan 2004

Development Control Plan 2004 (“the DCP”) applies to the subject land. Chapters of the DCP relevant to the proposed use and development include:

· Chapter 3 - General Considerations;

· Chapter 8 - Development in Business zones

· Chapter 13 - Heritage;

· Chapter 14 - Advertising; and

· Chapter 15 - Car Parking.

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.

Cumulative impacts of the proposed development are addressed under the heading “Likely Impacts of the Development”.

Section 3.2 - Scenic, Landscape and Urban Areas

Section 3.2 -Scenic, Landscape and Urban Areas identifies that in urban areas consideration should be given to the character of the locality, whether that locality is recognised as having heritage character with formal plantings of exotic trees, or whether the locality comprises areas developed as suburban release areas where informal native planting is common.

Council’s Heritage advisor has indicated that the proposed development will complement the existing area.

Section 3.4 - Waste Generation

Section 3.4 - Waste Generation requires that applications involving demolition indicate measures that will be implemented for reuse and recycling of waste, and that development involving demolition is carried out in a manner that optimises reuse and recycling of waste materials consistent with waste-minimisation principles.

A waste management plan has not been submitted with the application for the demolition phase of the development. However, this is addressed via a condition of consent which requires a waste management plan to be prepared and submitted to Council prior to works commencing onsite.

The development is considered satisfactory with regards to waste generation.

Community Participation Plan 2019

The development is categorised as advertised development given the 4.6 variation is greater than 10%. Accordingly, the development application was advertised on Thursday, 23 April 2020 and exhibited between Friday, 24 April 2020 and Friday, 8 May 2020. During the first round of public notification Council received eight (8) public submissions. The concerns raised during the first round included concerns about the variation to the 12m limit, the potential impact on the adjoining heritage items and the loss of the ‘Perway’ structure, privacy, bulk and scale, overshadowing, car parking and waste disposal.

The amended plans were renotified from 30 October to 13 November 2020 and three (3) submissions were received in response.

A detailed assessment of the issues raised by the submitters is provided under the heading “Any Submissions Made in Accordance with the Act”.

CHAPTER 8 - DEVELOPMENT IN BUSINESS ZONES

Section 8.1 - Orange CBD

Section 8.1 - Orange CBD outlines planning outcomes for the Orange Central Business District, with an emphasis on design, character, parking and loading. The relevant planning outcomes are addressed below.

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

Given the scale of the proposed development and the relationship to nearby heritage items, Council staff considered it appropriate to refer the development application to Council’s Heritage Advisor for his assessment and recommendations.

Council’s appointed Heritage advisor has assessed the proposed development against Council’s adopted Orange Development Control Plan 2004 Infill Guidelines. In summary, the Heritage advisor considers that the amended development has provided a suitable response to each of the applicable design criteria, including character, scale and form, siting, materials and colours, and detailing.

Based on the advice and recommendations provided by Council’s Heritage advisor, it is considered that the proposed development has been appropriately designed with regard to the site’s context within the Orange CBD, particularly the development’s relationship with surrounding heritage buildings.

CHAPTER 13 - HERITAGE

Sections 13.1-13.06 of Chapter 13 - Heritage of the DCP address heritage matters in detail, including heritage objectives, heritage items and heritage conservation areas, heritage consideration for development, development in the vicinity of heritage items, heritage proposals as advertised development, and incentives for heritage conservation.

These matters have previously been addressed in detail under the heading “Clause 5.10 - Heritage Conservation”.

It is considered that the requirements of the DCP have been adequately addressed.

CHAPTER 14 ADVERTISING

An assessment of the suitability of the proposed signage has been addressed in the SEPP 64 assessment above. It was concluded that the proposed signage is consistent with the character of the surrounding area, and is therefore acceptable.

CHAPTER 15 - CAR PARKING

Section 15.4 - Parking Requirements

Section 15.4 - Parking Requirements sets out the minimum parking requirements for specific land uses. The application car parking requirements were calculated based on the following rates:

· One space for every three seats in the restaurant.

· One space per room for Hotel Accommodation.

· One space per manager and one space per two employees for Hotel Staff.

A number of recent approval for restaurants in Orange CBD have had the rate of 1 space per 40m² of GFA. This is the same approach taken for the Quest apartments in Kite Street.

Based on the above requirements the proposed development generates the following parking demands:

DCP Parking Rate

Hotel or Motel Accommodation

Proposed

Spaces

One space per unit, plus

61 rooms

1 space per resident manager, plus

One space per two employees, plus

maximum 4 staff at any one time

One space per 40m² of GFA for restaurant

137.8m²

3.45

Total provide = 67 including 21 stacked spaces

67.4

The applicant was requested to provide additional information regarding how the proposed car parking system was going to operate. The applicant provided the following plan of management to explain how the valet parking system is proposed to work:

· ‘As requested by Council, a one way traffic flow arrangement will be adopted whereby guest vehicles will enter the hotel car park via the Endsleigh Avenue driveway and exit via the Kite Street lane way.

· The above traffic flow arrangement reinforces the site design which requires guest to attend hotel reception for check in before they enter the car park.

· The car park provides 37 independent spaces for guest (plus 1 for the manager). The number of spaces for guest will be increased to 46 with 9 tandem spaces; and then further increased to 67 spaces with the use of car stackers.

· The valet system will be triggered when advanced accommodation bookings indicate that the number of rooms (with parking booked) exceeds 37.

· The hotel booking software will automatically alert reception when parking for more than 37 cars is required, at which point the valet system will operate.

· In valet parking mode, guest will drive their car to the parking area adjacent to reception where they will be met by a valet. The valet will place the guest’s luggage on a trolley for delivery of their luggage to their room and direct the guest to the reception. The valet will proceed to park the guest’s car in any of the identified valet spaces (tandem or stacker as appropriate).

· Guest’s keys will be labelled and securely stored in a safe at reception.

· Guest will be advised at check in to contact reception 10 minutes before their planned departure to arrange for their car to be moved into the parking zone in front of reception on advance of their departure.

· The hotel has a resident’s manager (and thus staffed 24/7) should a vehicle have to be moved out of hours.

· Reception staff can monitor the car parking via the CCTV monitors on the reception desk.

· Reception staff and management will be trained on valet parking’.

Car parking arrangements for hotels are different to parking in other types of commercial developments. The typical arrangement for motel guests is that, on arrival, they park their vehicle and check into the accommodation via reception. The use of valet parking for motel accommodation is therefore considered appropriate when compared to other forms of commercial development.

The proposed car parking arrangement in terms of valet and tandem parking is similar to other hotel accommodation in Orange. While the inclusion of a car stacker is new for Orange, the use of car stackers is becoming more common where sites are constrained in area.

A number of conditions will be included in the notice of determination to ensure that the car stackers are installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s specification and are appropriately maintained.

Figure 7 - car parking layout

Section 15.5 - Parking Area Design and Layout

Section 15.5 - Parking Design and Layout identifies that the design and layout of parking areas are to comply with the applicable Australian Standard.

It is noted that the operation of the proposed car parking layout would rely on the use of a ‘tandem’ and ‘valet’ style parking system depending on the occupancy of the hotel.

While Council’s Development Engineer has indicated that the proposed ‘tandem’ and ‘valet’ style car parking would not meet the applicable Australian Standard, he has confirmed that such an arrangement is a common method of maximising the capacity of a private car park and that the design is acceptable. The implications of the ‘tandem’ and ‘valet’ style car parking spaces have been discussed above and it is deemed appropriate subject to a number of specific conditions

Section 15.6 - Parking Area Construction

Section 15.6 - Off-Street Car Parking sets out the following planning outcomes:

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

The requirements for off-street car parking have previously been addressed under “Section 15.4 - Car Parking Requirements”.

Car parking areas are designed according to Australian Standard.

The implications of the ‘tandem’ and ‘valet’ style car parking spaces and Council’s options have been set out in the foregoing “Section 15.4 - Parking Requirements”.

Car park areas include adequate lighting and landscaping (preferably deciduous shade trees), which provides for the personal security of users.

All off-street car parking will be provided internally on the Ground Level of the proposed development. While it is likely that a prospective developer would ensure that adequate lighting is provided, a condition of consent is recommended requiring that lighting be provided for the personal security of users.

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

No provisions have been made for bicycle parking. Notwithstanding this, a condition is attached that requires the provision of a minimum of five bicycle parking spaces within the site without impacting upon vehicle circulation or parking spaces.

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

The bins will be wheeled along the Kite Street laneway to Endsleigh Avenue for collection by an approved contractor. The intention is to have waste collection occur regularly during the week at non-peak periods. Other delivery and collection for food and catering and laundry supplies can all be provided via light commercials (vans and utilities).

SECTION 64 WATER AND SEWER HEADWORKS

Council Technical Services staff have provided the advice in relation to water and sewer headworks charges. Water and sewer contributions are based on Water Directorate rates for motel rooms. The development generates a demand for 17.3 equivalent tenements for water supply headworks and 26.45 equivalent tenements for sewer headworks.

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

Demolition of a Building (clause 92)

The proposal involves the demolition of existing sheds. A condition is attached requiring the demolition to be carried out in accordance with Australian Standard AS2601 - 2001: The Demolition of Structures and the requirements of Safe Work NSW.

Fire Safety Considerations (clause 93)

The proposal involves a change of building use for an existing cottage. Council is satisfied that the fire protection and structural capacity of the building are appropriate for the proposed new building use. Relevant conditions are included.

Buildings to be Upgraded (clause 94)

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

BASIX Commitments (clause 97A)

BASIX is not applicable to the proposed development.

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

Context and Setting

The context and setting of a particular area is established by taking into account the surrounding situation, having regard for adjoining land-uses, scenic qualities, scale of surrounding development, previous land-use, etc.

The locality immediately surrounding the subject land, as well as the subject land itself, is characterised as an area of mixed land uses including commercial land, residential land-uses and public spaces including the Park to the south of the site.

In terms of the compatibility with adjoining land-uses, the development is considered acceptable. An acoustic report has been prepared that indicates the development will achieve the relevant noise criteria, subject to a number of conditions. The scale of the development is considered appropriate for the site and its commercial zoning.

Visual Impact

The applicant has provided a series of photo montages which has demonstrated that the proposed development is considered appropriate in the context of the surrounding settings.

Overshadowing Impacts

The applicant has submitted shadow diagrams for 21 June at 9.00 am to 12.00 pm for the proposed development. The shadow diagrams indicate that the existing Endsleigh building is already affected by overshadowing by the building itself. The proposed development increases the amount of overshadowing from 9am to midday. Whilst overshadowing diagrams were not produced for the afternoon period, it is expected that the proposed development will continue to impact the Endsleigh building from midday onwards.

The applicant has provided a breakdown of the proposed building and the potential impact on the north facing Endsleigh building (refer to Figure 8).

Figure 8 - Shadow Diagram

The proposed alterations and extensions to the existing dwelling at 115 Endsleigh Avenue will increase the overshadowing impact on the adjoining building. However, the proposed overshadowing impacts are considered acceptable given the commercial zoning. In general, the level of residential amenity within commercial zones is considered a less significant factor because the zoning is aimed at promoting business and generating employment.

Privacy Impacts

The proposed development is likely to have privacy implications for some of the adjoining neighbours. Most of the adjoining buildings along Endsleigh Avenue are commercial based businesses although the site at 111-113 Endsleigh Avenue contains a mixed use building with commercial on the ground floor and five residential units above. The proposed development contains a significant number of windows along the Eastern elevation which will have privacy impacts for the residents of the ‘Endsleigh’. The amended design has increased the width of these window, in line with the recommendation of Council’s Heritage Advisor. However, the new ‘French’ style balconies on the eastern elevation are not accessible and have only been included for articulation purposes (refer to Figure 9).

Figure 9 - balcony design

In addition, the perforated metal balustrade will provide some privacy protection for the residents mixed use development known as the Endsleigh. The applicant has provided a number of sight line diagrams which indicates that the views of the neighbouring property will be partially screened (refer to Figure 10 below).

Figure 10 - Sight Line Diagram

The Upper Level (Third Floor) contain another nine motel units of which four are located on the eastern side facing Endsleigh Avenue. The units on the third level all have access to accessible balconies on the eastern and western elevations. The location of these balconies is not expected to have any significant privacy implication for the adjoining mixed use development, given that they have been setback from eastern boundary. The balconies also have solid balustrade which would prevent overlooking onto adjoining properties.

The amended design has also included a number of additional windows on the Eastern elevation to help create a more compatible building design. The inclusion of the additional windows were a suggestion from Council’s Heritage Advisor to help with the visual impact of the building. The additional windows are generally located within the stairways and lift area and are not expected to have any significant impacts on privacy.

It is acknowledged that the proposed development will have privacy impacts for the residents of the Endsleigh building. However, these impacts are considered acceptable given the surrounding land is zoned for commercial use (B6 Enterprise Corridor). The level of residential amenity within the commercial zones is generally considered a less significant factor because the zone is aimed at promoting business and generating employment. The amended proposed development has made some significant improvement to the design to try and lessen the potential impact on the adjoining neighbours. The proposed development is therefore considered acceptable.

Heritage Impacts

The issues of heritage impacts have been addressed above. The amended design has demonstrated there will be no significant impacts on the adjoining Heritage Items.

Traffic Parking and Access

Council’s Development Officer (Engineering) has considered the proposal to be acceptable.

Concerns were raised in public submissions about the potential implications given the proposed use of a car stacker for the development. The main area of concern is what would happens if the car stacker broke down and is not repaired.

The use of car stackers is increasing given that they offer a viable option for limited space. While the concept is relatively new to Orange car stackers have been successfully used in development in some larger towns and cities. A condition will be included in the Notice of Determination to ensure that the car stacker is maintained.

The proposal enables all vehicles to enter the site via the main access point on Endsleigh Avenue and leave the site in a forward direction, via Kite Street. The development is not expected to have any significant impact on pedestrian safety given that it is likely to be a low speed environment.

In summary, the access and parking areas are well integrated into the development and are considered acceptable in relation to the DCP guidelines.

Waste Generation

The applicant has undertaken an assessment of likely waste generation for the motel which concludes that there is sufficient capacity to store the number of bins (waste and recycling) within bin area on ground floor.

The bins will be wheeled along the Kite Street to Endsleigh Avenue for collection by arrangement with an approved contractor.

Safety, Security and Crime Prevention

The proposed development provides for passive surveillance of the street and surrounding area. The internal driveway design should ensure low speed traffic movements to facilitate pedestrian safety.

Initial discussions with NSW Police recommended that any approval should include a condition for closed-circuit television (CCTV). A relevant condition has been included in the draft schedule of conditions.

As such, the proposed development is considered acceptable in relation to safety and security.

Social- economic Impacts

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

Economic Impacts

The development has the potential to result in positive economic impacts for the City. The development will create additional competition in the motel/hotel industry. The development will also generate employment during the construction phase and ongoing employment within the hospitality sector.

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

Adequate services are available to the site to facilitate the proposed development. The site is considered suitable for the proposed development.

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

The proposed development is defined as "advertised development" under the provisions of the LEP. The application was originally advertised for the prescribed period of 14 days and at the end of that period eight (8) submissions were received in response. The plans were subsequently amended and these plans were renotified to the eight objectors and to neighbouring properties for 14 days. At the end of the period three (3) submissions were received in response.

Issue	Comment
Visual privacy	As discussed in this report, it is considered that visual privacy impacts are acceptable.
Overshadowing	As discussed in this report, it is considered that the overshadowing impacts are acceptable.
Bulk and scale	The proposed development complies with the maximum floor space ratio for this site. Bulk and scale considerations have been addressed in this report.
Height	The variation to the 12m height limit is discussed within this report and is considered appropriate in the context of the site.
Car parking and pedestrian safety	The issues of car parking and pedestrian safety have been considered and are satisfactory.
Noise - Objection was raised to the proposed development on the grounds that it would result in increased noise impacts upon surrounding properties	The development will clearly lead to an increase in noise levels compared to the existing vacant land. A number of conditions have been included in the draft conditions to ensure that any noise generated by the Hotel complies with the relevant guidelines. The Acoustic Assessment identifies that the mechanical plant associated with the development has not been selected and thus no external noise emissions have been assessed as part of this assessment. A condition has been included to ensure that all equipment proposed to be installed complies with the relevant guidelines.
Waste Management	The applicant has indicated that waste and recycling will be collected by a Council/private contractor from Endsleigh Avenue. A condition has been placed on the consent in relation to waste management.
Character/Heritage	The character, suitability and density of the proposal have been discussed in this report, in the context of the OLEP 2011, DCP controls and the surrounding heritage items. The proposed development is considered acceptable.

Impacts on property values	This concern is not a matter of consideration pursuant to Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
Concerns regarding the nature of notification process	The application was notified/advertised in accordance with Council’s Community Participation Plan.
Concerns about the location of the rooftop pool, gym and BBQ area.	The plans have been subsequently amended to remove the facilities from the roof top area.
Signage and lighting	Concerns were raised about the potential impact of the illumination of the proposed sign and light spillage from the rooms and windows in general. A condition will be included in the notice of determination to ensure that any lighting will comply with the relevant standard.
Traffic Generation	Under the RTA guidelines (Guide to Traffic Generating Development) motels have the potential to generate the following: · Daily vehicle trips three per unit · Evening peak hour vehicle trips 0.4 per unit It is assumed that the restaurant will be mainly used by motel guests and is unlikely to generate significant additional traffic. This is supported by the applicant who has indicated that: ‘As an experienced operator, the applicant has found that the incidence of non-motel guests using the restaurant in this style of motel is minimal’. The proposed development at full capacity is likely to generate around 183 vehicle trips per day and 24 evening peak hour vehicle trips On this basis the additional traffic generated by this development is considered minor in terms of the operation of surrounding road network.
Pedestrian Safely	The pedestrian gate has now been relocated to the northern side of Kite Street to align with the footpath. This enables guests and staff to exist the building and walk into town via the existing railway foot bridge. Concerns were raised regarding pedestrian safety entering and leaving the building via the pedestrian gate. The increase in traffic is not expected to have any significant impact on pedestrian safety given the low speed environment. Concerns were also raised for the existing residents entering and leaving the garages which have direct vehicle assess onto Kite Street. The increase in vehicle traffic is not expected to have any significant impact on vehicles safety given the low speed environment.

Crime Risk	Initial discussions with NSW Police recommended that any approval should include a condition for closed-circuit television (CCTV). A condition has been included in the draft schedule of conditions. As such, the proposed development is considered acceptable in relation to safety and security.
Orange Eastside Precinct plan and Site Specific Controls	Concerns were raised about the timing and public exhibition of the Orange Eastside Precinct Plan. The submission expressed concern that the proposed development appears to have endorsed the proposed development on the draft documents.
Concerns about the loss of former ‘Perway’ structure. Note: The submission that initially raise concerns about the loss of these structure put in a second submission indicating that the outcomes as a good outcome for railway history.	The applicant has agreed with the following suggestions from Council’s Heritage Consultant to mitigate the loss of these structure: ‘Mitigation for the loss of the Perway Structure should include the provision of an outline marked in the ground floor car park surface of an outline of the two main structure using a steel element similar in size to a rail, so as to interpret the former buildings and use. An interpretive panel is to be designed and prepared in conjunction with O&DHS illustration the significant of the Perway deport and placed within the space at an agreed location’. The applicant has agreed to name the dining area “Perway Restaurant.
Concerned about noised being generated from the proposed gym which was included on the amended plans which were renotified.	The gym was subsequently removed from the amended plans.

PUBLIC INTEREST s4.15(1)(e)

SUMMARY

The proposed development is permissible with the consent of Council. The proposed development complies with the relevant aims, objectives and provisions of the LEP. It is recommended that Council supports the request to vary the height control applicable to the subject development pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the LEP. A detailed assessment of matters pertaining to parking and heritage has been provided in the body of the report.

COMMENTS

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

Attachments

1 Notice of Approval, D20/71463 ⇩

2 Plans, D20/70578 ⇩

3 Submissions for 1st and 2nd exhibition period - 155 Kite Street and 115 Endsleigh Avenue, D20/71059 ⇩

Planning and Development Committee 1 December 2020

Attachment 1 Notice of Approval

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

Development Application No DA 133/2020(1)

NA20/ Container PR17385

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 4.18

Development Application
Applicant Name:	Orange CBD Pty Ltd
Applicant Address:	C/- Peter Basha Planning & Development PO Box 1827p ORANGE NSW 2800
Owner’s Name:	Orange CBD Pty Ltd
Land to Be Developed:	Lot 11 DP 1002968, Lot 1 DP 770265, Lot 8 DP 1069072 - 155 Kite Street and 115 Endsleigh Avenue, Orange
Proposed Development:	Demolition (ancillary structures and rear skillion of existing building), Hotel or Motel Accommodation (four storey building), Alterations and Additions (existing building), and Business Identification Signage

Building Code of Australia building classification:	Class to be determined by the PC

Determination made under Section 4.16
Made On:	1 December 2020
Determination:	CONSENT GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:

Consent to Operate From:	2 December 2020
Consent to Lapse On:	2 December 2025

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 prevent the proposed development having a detrimental effect on adjoining land uses.

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

Conditions

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

(a) Amended Plans prepared by McKinnon Design. Sheets No 1 to 3, Rev: F, Sheet No 4, Rev: J, Sheet No 5 Rev: G. Sheets 6 to 12 Rev: H, Sheets 13 to 14 Rev: F, Sheets 15 to 17 Rev: H, Sheet 18 Rev: F. Job No: 19033, dated 13 October 2020

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

as amended in accordance with any conditions of this consent.

PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

(5) The applicant shall provide the Principal Certifying Authority and Council with a report from a qualified Acoustic Consultant that identifies all mechanical equipment, including the car stackers, and attenuation solutions (such as acoustic shielding) to be installed within the development. The Report shall confirm that the operation of such plant will comply with the NSW State Industrial Noise Policy. Plans must be amended to include any recommendations and design requirements of the Acoustic Consultant prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

(6) The development is to comply with the conditions of concurrence issued by Transport NSW letter dated 23 October 2020.

(7) A detailed plan showing landscaping is to be submitted to, and approved by, Council’s Manager Development Assessments prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate

(8) 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.

(9) The applicant is to submit a waste management plan that describes the nature of wastes to be removed, the wastes to be recycled and the destination of all wastes. All wastes from the demolition and construction phases of this project are to be deposited at a licensed or approved waste disposal site.

(10) Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, evidence shall be submitted to Council of the lodgement of plans with Land & Property Information to consolidate Lot 11 DP 1002968 and Lot 8 DP 1069072 into one parcel.

(11) A water and soil erosion control plan is to be submitted to the principal certifying authority 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.

(12) Engineering plans providing complete details of the proposed driveway and car parking areas within the site are to be submitted to the principal certifying authority for approval prior to the issuing of 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. The carpark plans shall also detail the following signage and line marking:

· Signage to indicate ‘No Entry’ to traffic approaching the carpark exit from Kite Street; and

· Directional and ‘Exit’ signage within the carpark; and

· 45 parking spaces line marked to dimensions specified in AS 2890.1 Off-street car parking, with 7 stack parking spaces and manoeuvring area clearly line marked.

(13) The existing 150mm-diameter sewer main located on 115 Endsleigh Avenue shall be renewed from boundary to boundary. Prior to a Construction Certificate being issued evidence of payment to Orange City Council for the sewer main relining works, new sewer junction and any associated sewer main works shall be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority.

(14) The existing 150mm diameter sewer main that crosses the site is to be accurately located and indicated on the plans. Where the main is positioned under or adjacent to any proposed building work, measures are to be taken in accordance with Orange City Council Policy - Building over and/or adjacent to sewers ST009 (the policy). A structural engineers design for footings / piers / slabs in the vicinity of the sewer main and sewer vent demonstrating compliance with Clause 4 of the policy shall be submitted to Orange City Councils Water and Sewer Engineer for approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

(15) The existing stormwater main that crosses the site shall be protected from construction traffic from the southern boundary and kerb inlet pit in Kite Street to the pit located in the railway reserve. A new grated kerb inlet structure shall be constructed in Kite Street to tie into the carpark vehicle exit driveway. Where the main is positioned under or adjacent to any proposed building work, measures are to be taken to protect the pipe from building imposed loads. A structural engineers design for footings / piers / slabs in the vicinity of the stormwater main shall be submitted to Orange City Councils Manager Engineering Services for approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

(16) A Liquid Trade Waste Application is to be submitted to Orange City Council prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate. The application is to be in accordance with Orange City Council’s Liquid Trade Waste Policy. Engineering plans submitted as part of the application are to show details of all proposed liquid trade waste pre-treatment systems and their connection to sewer.

Where applicable, the applicant is to enter into a Liquid Trade Waste Service Agreement with Orange City Council in accordance with the Orange City Council Liquid Trade Waste Policy.

(17) 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 17.3 ETs for water supply headworks and 26.45 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 Construction Certificate.

(18) A dedicated fire main and water supply shall be provided for the development. Engineering plans of the proposed water main connection are to be submitted to and approved by Orange City Council prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

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

(20) A Road Opening Permit in accordance with Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 must be approved by Council prior to a Construction Certificate being issued or any intrusive works being carried out within the public road or footpath reserve.

Works covered by a ROP include:

a) Installation, maintenance, repairs/replacement or upgrading of utilities (water, gas, electricity or telecommunications).

b) Any type of stormwater or sewer connection works and repairs.

c) Construction of any temporary/permanent driveway access to a property for construction vehicle access. Replacement of redundant driveways with new footpaths.

d) Reinstatement / upgrading the road pavement, road surfacing, or kerb and gutter associated with a development site approved by the Orange City Council.

A Road Opening Permit Certificate of Compliance is to be issued for the works by Council prior to any Occupation/ Final Certificate being issued for the development.

PRIOR TO WORKS COMMENCING

(21) The buildings known as the ‘Perway’ structures are s to be photographically recorded and surveyed prior to demolition in accordance with Council's "Guidelines for Photographic Recording of Heritage Buildings and Sites". One set of photographs showing the features and construction methods of the Guildry shall be provided to Council for its records along with a detailed site plan.

(22) 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.

(23) 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.

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

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

(26) Prior to works commencing, the applicant shall prepare a structural Dilapidation Report identifying the condition of all public infrastructure in the vicinity of the site (including roads, gutters, footpaths, sewer manholes, water main valves and hydrants etc.) in Kite Street and Endsleigh Avenue and an internal video camera inspection of the stormwater line crossing the site. A copy of the Dilapidation Report shall be submitted to the principal certifying authority and Orange City Council.

(27) Prior to works commencing, a Traffic Management Plan shall be prepared for the construction phase of the project. A copy of the Traffic Management Plan shall be submitted to the principal certifying authority and Orange City Council.

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

(28) On-site car parking accommodation is to be provided for a minimum of 67 vehicles and such being set out generally in accordance with the details indicated on the submitted plans except as otherwise provided by the conditions of consent.

(29) 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.

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

(31) All construction works are to be strictly in accordance with the Reduced Levels (RLs) as shown on the approved plans.

(32) 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.

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

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

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

(36) 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.

(37) 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.

(38) Heavy-duty concrete kerb and gutter laybacks and footpath crossings are to be constructed for the entrances to the proposed development in Endsleigh Avenue and Kite Street. The location and construction of the laybacks and footpath crossings and any footpath construction / reinstatement works are to be as required by the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code and Road Opening Permit.

(39) The water and sewerage services to the existing building, where they are not proposed to be used as part of this development, are to be sealed off at their respective Council mains.

(40) All services are to be contained within the allotment that they serve.

(41) The pedestrian access to the carpark from Kite Street shall have a concrete path constructed a minimum of 1.2mwide and tied into the existing public footpath. Construction work is to be to the requirements and standards of the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.

(42) The fit-out of the food preparation and storage areas are to be installed in accordance with the requirements of Food Safety Standard 3.2.3 "Food Premises and Equipment" of the Australian New Zealand Food Standards Code and Australian Standard 4674-2004 "Design and construction and fit-out of food premises".

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

(44) All construction/demolition work on the site is to be carried out in accordance with the EPA’s Interim Construction Noise Guideline 2009.

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

(45) The proposed floodlighting of the premises is to be designed, positioned, and installed, including appropriate shielding and orientation of the lighting fixture, as to not give rise to obtrusive light, interfere with traffic safety or detract from the amenity of surrounding properties in accordance with Australian Standard 4282:1997 - Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting..

(46) A total of 67 off-street car parking spaces are to be provided upon the site in accordance with the approved plans and the provisions of Development Control Plan 2004. The parking spaces are to be constructed in accordance with the requirements of Council's Development and Subdivision Code, prior to the issuing of an Occupation Certificate.

(47) The proposed mechanical stack parking systems shall be regularly serviced and maintained to the requirements set out by the manufacturer of the system. In this regard the owner or the occupier of the building is to enter into an annual service and maintenance contract with the manufacturer’s service agent for the life of the system. A copy of the initial service and maintenance contract is to be provided to Council prior to issue of an Occupation Certificate.

In the event of permanent failure of the system (which is unable to be remedied by servicing), the owner of the building is to immediately replace the mechanical stack parking system.

(48) 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 sewer main and vent. Evidence that the easement has been registered is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to issuing of an Occupation Certificate.

(49) Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans and shall be permanently maintained to the satisfaction of Councils Manager Development Assessments

(50) An easement, to drain stormwater and to provide Council access for maintenance, a minimum of 2.0 metres wide and height limited to the underside of the first floor concrete slab is to be created over the stormwater main crossing the site. Evidence that the easement has been registered is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to issuing of an Occupation Certificate.

(51) 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.

(52) A Road Opening Permit Certificate of Compliance is to be issued for the works by Council prior to any Occupation/Final Certificate being issued for the development.

(53) Prior to an Occupation Certificate being issued, the applicant must engage a suitably qualified person to prepare a Post-Construction Dilapidation Report at the completion of construction. This report is required to ascertain whether the construction created any structural damage to adjoining infrastructure.

This report is to be submitted to the principal certifying authority who shall compare the Post-Construction Dilapidation Report with the Pre-Construction Dilapidation Report required by these conditions and obtain written confirmation from the relevant authority and/or land owners that there is no adverse structural damage to Council infrastructure and/or roads.

A copy of the Post-Construction Dilapidation Report is to be provided to Orange City Council.

Where the Post Construction Dilapidation Report identifies damage to infrastructure as a result of the construction works, the applicant shall pay the full cost of “make good” repairs to the satisfaction of the Director, Technical Services.

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

(55) The applicant shall provide Council with an Operational Management Plan. The Plan shall include measures to appropriately mitigate operational noise from the development including noise from plant, patrons/pedestrians entering/leaving the site; noise from private areas such as balconies; waste collection times; delivery times; general access and security gate operations, along with measures to mitigate odours and fumes that could be emitted from the kitchen or waste storage areas.

(56) 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.

(57) The owner of the building/s must cause the Council to be given a Final Fire Safety Certificate on completion of the building in relation to essential fire or other safety measures included in the schedule attached to this approval.

(58) 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.

(59) Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, evidence shall be submitted to Council of the registration of plans with Land & Property Information to consolidate Lot 11 DP 1002968 and Lot 8 DP 1069072 into one parcel.

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A SUBDIVISION CERTIFICATE

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

(61) 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 lot(s) have been declared ready for service prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate.

(62) 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.

(63) 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 sewer main and vent. Evidence that the easement has been registered is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to issuing of a Subdivision Certificate.

(64) 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.

(65) All engineering conditions of development consent as it relates to the provision of services to the development are to be completed prior to the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate.

(66) An easement, to drain stormwater and to provide Council access for maintenance, a minimum of 2.0 metres wide and height limited to the underside of the first floor concrete slab is to be created over the stormwater main crossing the site. Evidence that the easement has been registered is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to issuing of a Subdivision Certificate.

(67) 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.

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

MATTERS FOR THE ONGOING PERFORMANCE AND OPERATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT

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

(70) An assessment of noise emissions from the premises is to be provided to Council within 3 months from the issue of any Occupation Certificate. This commissioning report is to indicate noise levels through the monitoring of noise emanating from the normal peak use of the premises and determine any necessary noise mitigation measures. Any identified mitigations works shall be carried out within 1 month of the commissioning report, and the operation of the premises shall be carried out in accordance with any recommendations set out in the report.

(71) Operating hours of the restaurant or café are restricted to between 6am - 11pm Monday to Sunday, inclusive.

(72) All garbage bins must be stored within the garbage bay at all times, other than on garbage collection days.

(73) A closed circuit television system (CCTV), incorporating digital video surveillance cameras and recorders, being installed and maintained on the premises (restaurant and reception area) and car parking area and to be operated during trading hours (Motel 24 hours).

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:	2 December 2020

Planning and Development Committee 1 December 2020

2.5 Heritage Study Review - Post Exhibition and Adoption

RECORD NUMBER: 2020/2362

AUTHOR: Andrew Crump, Senior Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Council recently resolved to place the draft Heritage Study Review on public exhibition for a period of 40 days.

During the exhibition period 11 submissions were received.

Council’s Heritage consultants have been provided the submissions and they have been considered in the finalisation of the attached report.

Subject to the exceptions detailed below in body of the report, it is recommended the study be adopted.

The next step in the process is for Council’s strategic planning staff to commence the process of amending the Local Environmental Plan to enshrine the outcomes of this review document in to Council’s planning scheme.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan Strategy “10.2 Preserve - Preserve our diverse social and cultural heritage”.

Financial Implications

The Heritage Study Review is listed within Council’s operational delivery plan. There is a financial implication with respect to the preparation of the required planning proposal that updates the Local Environmental Plan (LEP) to reflect any adopted heritage changes.

Policy and Governance Implications

It will be necessary to amend Orange LEP 2011 following Council adoption of the Final Report from the consultants.

DIRECTORS COMMENT

Following extensive community consultation, the Heritage Study Review has now been completed by Council’s Heritage Advisor, David Scobie and local Heritage Architect James Nicholson. The Review recommends the renaming of some of the existing Heritage Conservation Areas to reflect their heritage, along with extension of the Heritage Conservation Areas and list of Heritage items.

Once adopted by Council, the Study would then feed into a Planning Proposal, to have the changes identified in the Orange Local Environmental Plan.

Of particular interest to Council will be the expansion of the HCA of Newman Park that takes in site that in the past has been the subject of a boarding house proposal, along with the area of Spring Street and Summer Place, which recently received publicity due to investigations by NSW Land and Housing Corporation into affordable housing. That is these sites area included in the Newman Park HCA detailed in Figure 2 of this report. Adoption of the Heritage Study Review is recommended.

Recommendation

1 That the report by Council’s Senior Planner be acknowledged.

2 That the following recommendations be adopted:

· The proposed Heritage Conservation Areas known as Bletchington, Newman Park and Blackman’s Swamp Heritage Conservation Areas as described in the Heritage Study Review and as shown on the accompanying maps be adopted.

· The extension to the existing Central, Duration Cottages and Glenroi Heritage Conservation Areas as described in the Heritage Study Review and as shown on the accompanying maps be adopted.

· The name of the existing Heritage Conservation Area known as Central Heritage Conservation Area, be renamed: Dalton Heritage Conservation Area.

· The name of the existing Heritage Conservation Area known as the Duration Cottages Heritage Conservation Area be renamed: Glenroi Duration Cottages Heritage Conservation Area.

· The name of the existing Heritage Conservation Area known as Glenroi Heritage Conservation Area be renamed: Endsleigh Heritage Conservation Area.

· The name of the existing Heritage Conservation Area known as East Orange Heritage Conservation Area be renamed: Bowen Heritage Conservation Area.

· The following properties are recommended to be adopted as Local Heritage Items:

o 117 Sampson Street

o 49 Prince Street

o 139 Margaret Street

o 5 Hawkins Lane

o 9 Hawkins Lane

o 11 Hawkins Lane

o 3 Hawkins Lane

o 6 Hawkins Lane

o 4 Hawkins Lane

o 2 Hawkins Lane

o 20 Nile Street

o 22 Nile Street

o 26 Nile Street

o 171 Margaret Street

o 110 Matthews Avenue

o 125 Prince Street

o 125 Dalton Street

o 112 Dalton Street

o 121 Gardiner Road

o 123 Gardiner Road

o 102 Gardiner Road

o 106 Gardiner Road

o 108 Gardiner Road

o 105 Spring Street

o 15 Capps Lane, Huntley

o ‘Waverton’ 76 Blunt Road, Huntley (as per the described curtilage)

o ‘Homeleigh’ 359 Phoenix Mine Road, Huntley

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Hughes Trueman Ludlow completed the City’s first Heritage Study in 1986 which identified the majority of the conservation areas we have today, along with approximately a third of the Heritage Items still listed today.

In 2010 David Scobie Architects were engaged to undertake a Community Based Heritage Study. The study was adopted in 2012 and was incorporated into the LEP as part of Amendment 1 in 2014.

In line with Council’s obligations to carry out periodic reviews and updates of Council’s Planning Strategies and Policies, in mid-2019 Council engaged David Scobie of David Scobie Architects and also James Nicholson of Adaptive Architects to carry out a periodic review of the study.

The purpose of the review is to determine if the existing mapped Heritage Areas and listed Heritage Items are adequate and capture everything that is deemed to carry heritage significance; or if not, identify the areas that should be expanded or recalibrated; or whether new areas need to be included along with whether or not additional items need to be included.

The review was to going to explore the possibility of reducing the mapped area of certain large Heritage Items such as Charles Sturt University Water Tower for example. A test case has been identified with the Waverton listing in Huntley.

Should this new way of listing large properties prove successful and useful from a heritage management perspective, a review of Heritage Items on large parcels of land would be recommended to be commissioned.

Public Engagement

Council staff hosted two inception workshops which the public was invited to. In addition to the general public, Council staff invited the members of the Cultural Heritage Community Committee, along with members of the community who have showed an interest in heritage conservation within the City.

At this time, notices were placed in the local press inviting the community to assist with the process by nominating areas or properties that Council’s consultants could investigate the significance of as part of the review.

Following this, all the information was collated by the consultants and a draft report was prepared.

The draft report was placed on public exhibition for a period of 40 days in July 2020.

During the exhibition period a drop-in information session was held with Council consultants and staff.

During the first week of the exhibition period, Council’s consultants and Council staff also met with the owners of properties in the Huntley area that were identified in a submission at the initial invite of submission at the beginning of the review.

At the conclusion of the exhibition period 11 submissions were received these are addressed below.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

The following is a summary of recommendations out of the draft Heritage Study Review. There are four main groupings of recommendations to come out the draft heritage study review; namely:

· Three new proposed Heritage Conservation Areas.

· Extensions to existing Heritage Conservation Areas; namely, Central, Glenroi and Duration Cottages HCAs.

· Changes to the names of existing conservation areas.

· Inclusion of 30 locally listed Heritage Items.

Proposed Heritage Conservation Areas

The Heritage Study Review recommends three new Heritage Conservation Areas, namely; the Bletchington HCA which is shown below:

Figure 1 - proposed Bletchington Heritage Conservation Area

The Newman Park HCA shown below:

Figure 2 - proposed Newman Park Heritage Conservation Area

The Blackman’s Swamp HCA as shown below:

Figure 3 - proposed Blackman’s Swamp Heritage Conservation Area

The justification to list the above areas as heritage conservation area is provided within the attached Heritage Study Review. Council staff agree and the above areas are recommended to become Heritage Conservation Areas.

Extension to existing Heritage Conservation Areas

The Central HCA

The review recommends an extension of the existing Central Heritage Conservation Area in the south east corner of the existing mapped are shown below.

Figure 4 - proposed extension to Central Heritage Conservation Area

The exhibited draft review document recommended an extension to the western boundary as shown below.

Figure 5 - as exhibited proposed extension to Central Heritage Conservation Area

no longer proposed

Upon receipt of a submission objecting to this extension and a review by Council’s consultants the review was updated to delete this and in lieu of the extension it was recommended to list 143 and 147 Woodward Street as Heritage Items.

It is noted that 143 Woodward Street is already an item and as such the recommendation is superfluous.

In relation to 147 Woodward Street, as previous notification to the owners of this property was indicating an intent to include their property in a conservation area, and not be listed as a Local Heritage Item, the owners have not had the opportunity to be fully consulted on this at this point in time; and as such, Council staff are not recommending this property be listed as a Heritage Item at this stage. The property should form part of any future studies.

Glenroi HCA

The review recommends an extension of the existing Glenroi Heritage Conservation Area to the South as shown below.

Figure 6 -proposed extension to existing Glenroi Heritage Conservation Area

Duration Cottages HCA

The review recommends an extension of the existing Duration Cottages Heritage Conservation Area to the South east and a small extension to the east above Churchill Avenue as shown below.

Figure 7 - proposed extension to existing Duration Cottages Heritage Conservation Area

Council staff support the proposed extension to the above referenced Heritage Conservation Areas.

CHANGES TO THE NAMES OF EXISTING HERITAGE CONSERVATION AREAS

Council’s Consultants have recommended new names to identify the existing conservation areas. The proposed changes are identified below:

*Current Name*	*Proposed Name*
Central HCA	Dalton HCA (recommended additional area shown in Red on the study map)
Duration Cottages HCA	Glenroi “Duration Cottages” HCA (recommended additional area shown Amber on the study map)
Glenroi HCA	Endsleigh HCA (recommended additional area shown purple on the study map)
East Orange HCA	Bowen HCA (no changes other than name)
**	Blackman’s Swamp HCA (yellow study map)
**	Newman Park HCA (Orange study map)
**	Bletchington HCA (Blue study map)

As exhibited the review recommended that the existing Glenroi HCA become known as the East Orange HCA.

A matter arising out of the most recent Cultural Heritage Community Committee, the committee recommended staff discuss with the consultants the following amendments to the proposed HCA names.

*Current Name*	*Proposed Name*	*CHCC Recommended names*
Central HCA	Dalton HCA (recommended additional area shown in Red on the study map)	Stay as Central HCA
Duration Cottages HCA	Glenroi “Duration Cottages” HCA (recommended additional area shown Amber on the study map)	No Change
Glenroi HCA	East Orange HCA (recommended additional area shown purple on the study map)	This become the Endsleigh HCA
East Orange HCA	Bowen HCA (no changes other than name)	This stay as the East Orange HCA

This was put to the consultants and they provided the following response:

East Orange - I went with this for lack of any alternative. I'm actually happy to call it The Endsleigh HCA as it connects to important historic value of the area. It was either that or some association with the railway.

Bowen - I disagree with leaving this as "East Orange" because it isn't historically accurate. The East Orange municipality extended across Endsleigh, Bowen, Newman Park and some of Bletchington. We have named one HCA after a suburb name (Bletchington), and so in this case the best name for this area is The Bowen HCA. It is more precise, it uses a term already understood for the area and it makes better sense.

Duration Cottages - We already made the recommendation to change this to Glenroi Duration Cottages - once again utilising the existing suburb name that is well understood.

Central - It is not true that the remainder of the names are geographical. Newman Park is named after a Mayor of the town who fought to create East Orange. Bowen is named after Henry Thomas Bowen. Endsleigh is named after a house. I think that the Dalton's had such an enormous impact in making the Orange CBD what it is, that it is a fair and reasonable thing to honour their memory in this way. I'm surprised that there is opposition to it. I think we should stay with Dalton Central HCA.

Should Council wish for the existing Central HCA and East Orange HCA to remain the status quo, the relevant recommendations relating to those name changes would need to be deleted.

The existing Glenroi HCA has been amended to reflect to wishes of the Cultural Heritage Community Committee and is recommended to become the Endsleigh HCA.

Proposed Heritage Items

· The Heritage Study Review nominates the following properties to be listed as Heritage Items:

o 117 Sampson Street

o 49 Prince Street

o 139 Margaret Street

o 5 Hawkins Lane

o 7 Hawkins Lane

o 9 Hawkins Lane

o 11 Hawkins Lane

o 3 Hawkins Lane

o 6 Hawkins Lane

o 4 Hawkins Lane

o 2 Hawkins Lane

o 20 Nile Street

o 22 Nile Street

o 26 Nile Street

o 171 Margaret Street

o 110 Matthews Avenue

o 125 Prince Street

o 125 Dalton Street

o 112 Dalton Street

o 121 Gardiner Road

o 123 Gardiner Road

o 102 Gardiner Road

o 106 Gardiner Road

o 108 Gardiner Road

o 105 Spring Street

o 15 Capps Lane, Huntley

o ‘Waverton’ 76 Blunt Road, Huntley (as per the described curtilage)

o ‘Homeleigh’ 359 Phoenix Mine Road, Huntley

All but one of the above properties are recommended by staff to become Local Heritage Items.

The exception, 7 Hawkins Lane. The owners made submission objecting to the listing indicating extensive alterations and additions having been carried out to the property including a two storey rear extension. Upon review by Council staff it is considered that the subject property has undergone such changes that would reduce the heritage significance of the property to the extent that heritage listing is not recommended.

Save for 7 Hawkins Lane, all of the recommended properties identified in the Heritage Study Review are agreed to by staff and recommendations are attached accordingly.

It is notated that ‘Waverton’ 76 Blunt Road, Huntley has been recommended to be listed but rather than list the 200+ acres of the rural parcel, the most significant buildings and a sufficient curtilage has been nominated.

This will be a test case for the way in which Council lists and described large properties into the future.

At the time of preparing the planning proposal to amend the LEP, special consideration will need to be given to how this particular property is to be listed.

SUBMISSIONS

During the exhibition period of the draft Heritage Study Review eleven Public Submissions were received.

The following provides a summary and commentary of the received submissions.

Submission 1

The submitter offers general support to the review process, but indicates he owns a medical centre located in one of the proposed conservation areas and requests leniency should they wish to extend their building in the future.

Staff comment

Council staff appreciated the support offered by the submitter.

In relation to the request for leniency for a possible future extension of their building, any extension or new building would be assessed against the requirements of Council’s LEP, DCP and Infill Guidelines. An appropriate design would most likely be able to be achieved within the confines of the relevant controls without needing to apply leniency. However, in saying that, the controls that sit within the DCP and Infill Guidelines are just that guidelines, and there is flexibility afforded to quality design that demonstrates an appropriate outcome where a departure is sought.

Submission 2

The submission is from an owner of a property in Huntley.

The submitter indicates no objection to the listing of their property but consideration is requested to be given to listing only the significant buildings/improvements on the land, rather than listing boundary to boundary.

Staff Comment

Council staff have obliged, and a reduced listing is recommended where only the significant buildings are identified and a suitable curtilage defined.

Submission 3

The submission offers general support to the review. The submitted does offer some suggestions in relation to the proposed name changes of conservation areas.

Staff Comment

The support is appreciated and in relation to HCA name changes a discussion of this is provided above.

Submission 4

The submission offers general support of the review, in particular the Blackman’s Swamp HCA.

Staff Comments

The support within the submission is acknowledged.

Submission 5

The submission draws attention to the as exhibited proposed extension to the Central HCA to the west and a discrepancy in the relevant map where half a strata listed was included in the proposed HCA and half was not.

Staff Comment

In response to this submission, Councils Consultants reviewed the subject area and altered their recommendation by deletion. Further commentary on this is provided above.

Submission 6

This submission is from the National Trust and the author expresses strong support to the review.

Staff Comment

The strong support is appreciated.

Submission 7

This submission offered strong objection to the extension of the HCA, specifically the Blackman’s Swamp HCA.

The submitter disputes the recommendations on the grounds the area does not meet the necessary threshold test of significance under the four stated criteria namely Historic, Aesthetic, Social, and Representativeness.

Staff Comment

In response directly to this Submission, Council’s Heritage Consultants have provided the following:

The character of the extended area is different and more diverse with increased contemporary building. This does not of itself alter the level of significance of the area or make it less worthy of protection. The lack of analysis of both rarity and recreation in the area is acknowledged and should be scheduled for further work. The need for consultants on typical residential works is not required given the free heritage advice available to property owners.

In addition to the above, heritage significance of a place is assessed against seven criteria, namely; Historical, Association, Aesthetic, Social, Research, Rarity and Representativeness. In order for a place to meet the test of heritage significance and warrant a listing, only one of the above criteria needs to be met.

As established in the Heritage Study Review, Council’s expert Heritage consultants have determined that the area in question meets the threshold for listing based on their expertise.

Accordingly, Council staff support the proposed HCA and a recommendation for adopting the Blackmans Swamp HCA is attached.

Submission 8

Submission 8 objects to their property being included in the Bletchington HCA. Siting their property is a contemporary property and does not fit in the context of a HCA.

Additionally, the submitter states that the listing of their property in a HCA will reduce their ability to modernise, renovate etc. and invites staff to their property to advise how this may be undertaken.

Staff Comment

A Heritage Conservation Area is a collective group of buildings or places that, together retains sufficient significance to necessitate conserving the area for future generations. It is not practical to pick out and exclude every contemporary house or a house with intrusive additions from a previous era.

In response to the invitation, Council has a heritage advisor who can provide free advice to people who own heritage listed properties or properties in a HCA, should a draft HCA be recommended over their property the owner is encouraged to make contact with Council staff to arrange an appointment with Council’s Heritage Advisor.

Submission 9

The submission makes some general recommendations in relation to squaring up boundaries and the proposed changes to the names of HCAs.

The submitter also purports that, in their opinion, there are dwellings in East Orange that are better examples than those proposed to be listed in Gardiner Road.

The submitter suggests the Bletchington HCA be extended to include Legacy Avenue.

Staff Comment

The Consultants have provided the following in respect to this submisison.

Further rationalisation of boundaries has been undertaken as a result of the review and submissions. The naming convention is generally accepted. The more diverse boundaries are complex and this is the price of addressing significance and character of buildings over general history. The war service and State housing issues have been addressed with additional listings and aboundary extension in Bletchington. The specialist knowledge is greatly appreciated.

Additionally, in response to the above, the boundaries of the HCA should be set by significance, rather than a simplistic squaring up of boundaries. This suggestion is not supported.

In relation to the comments of new names of the existing HCAs, this is addressed in detail above.

This review does not contemplate extension to Legacy Avenue.

Submission 10

The submission strongly objects to the listing of their property being listed within the proposed Bletchington HCA.

The submission poses a series of questions taken from a FAQ prepared by Council staff as part of the exhibition material that was available on Council’s website which are addressed below. The submission rejects some of the assertions made in the FAQ. The matters relate to; strict heritage controls, cost and difficulties with having future development applications dealt with, increase in rates, increase in insurances, decrease in property values.

The submission also suggests that the timing of the review is “tone deaf” given the current situation with Covid-19.

Staff Comment

The consultants have reviewed the submission and provide the following:

The subject property adjoins the Motor Lodge and is a double fronted brick house with flat roofed verandah, hipped metal roof with brick chimney and paling/masonry piered fence. It forms the important bookend of the northern streetscape. The arguments in the objection do not relate to significance. A site meeting should be extended to investigate resolution of any perceived constraints in relation to future works.

In response to the submission; the heritage controls are there to conserve the character of a building or place. The controls sit within Council’s DCP so there is flexibility built into them and they are able to be departed from. Most renovation works require a development application to be lodged regardless of whether or not the property is located in a Heritage Conservation Area. Council has a Heritage Advisor on staff who can provide free architectural advice to property owners.

In relation to rates, rates are calculated on the unimproved value of land, as such, a heritage listing would not affect rates.

In relation to insurances, Council staff have indicated that increases may arise due to insurance companies misunderstanding of heritage conservation. They may incorrectly assume Council would expect a building to be replaced like for like. This would not be the case, a replacement dwelling following a fire or some other event would be required to be sympathetic to its context and setting, but could be built using contemporary methods and materials.

In relation to property values, there are so many variables and contributing factors such as the current situation where median house prices have increased by 7.7% in the last twelve months.

There is no evidence to suggest that Council’s intent to expand the Heritage Conservation Area is having a negative effect on property values within the city.

In relation to the comment around the timing of this heritage review process during a pandemic, Council staff commenced to review process halfway through 2019, well before the pandemic and Council has an obligation to complete the process.

Submission 11

The submitter requests their property not be listed as a heritage item on the basis that the property was all but rebuilt in 2006 including a two storey rear extension.

Staff comment

A review of the file confirms an extensive extension around 2006. On this basis staff are not recommending the subject property be listed as a Heritage Item.

YourSay Data

The Heritage Study Review was placed on Council’s YourSay Platform which generated 432 visits over the course of the exhibition period. A small sample size of 13 people participated in the survey which presented questions such as “Do you support the Heritage Review”. The majority of responses, although quite a small size, were in favour of the Heritage Study Review.

The Next Steps

This study forms the body of work necessary to support a planning proposal (a change to Councils Local Environmental Plan). So once this Heritage Study Review is adopted by Council, it will then be necessary for Council’s Strategic Planner to commence the planning proposal process.

As part of this process there will another round of community consultation where people can provide submission and Council will then need to decide on that planning proposal.

Attachments

1 Heritage Study Review FINAL November 2020, D20/71784 ⇩

2 HCA Maps FINAL, D20/71786 ⇩

3 Submissions, D20/71836 ⇩

Reference:	DA 362/2017(2)	Determination Date	18 November 2020
PR Number	PR7095
Applicant/s:	Orange City Council
Owner/s:	Orange City Council
Location:	Lot 701 DP 1001618 – Wade Park, Lords Place, Orange
Proposal:	Modification of development consent - recreation facility (indoor) in association with the existing recreation facility (major) and demolition. The modification sought to alter and reduce the level of plantings and delay the installation of required onsite landscaping; delay the installation of disabled and bicycle parking on the site, provide disabled parking on Lords Place instead; and alter the stormwater detention basin arrangements.
Value:	$0

Reference:	DA 376/2019(2)	Determination Date	4 November 2020
PR Number	PR28331
Applicant/s:	Mr J Simpson
Owner/s:	Keronga Developments Pty Limited
Location:	Lot 20 DP 271090 - Cedar Street, Orange
Proposal:	Modification of development consent - subdivision (eight lot Community title residential). The modified proposal will remove the originally proposed retaining wall. The applicant proposed to remove the retaining wall due to the significant cost associated with its construction and certification. The proposed retaining wall was originally included for the purpose of landscaping, however, it has no benefit to any of the adjacent lots or services other than aesthetics, and therefore its removal will not burden or compromise any of the adjacent lots or services.
Value:	$0

Reference:	DA 427/2019(1)	Determination Date	30 October 2020
PR Number	PR27304
Applicant/s:	Mr A Grant
Owner/s:	Mrs F Grant
Location:	Lot 413 DP 1218556 - 25 Hughes Street, Orange
Proposal:	Demolition (tree removal), earthworks, subdivision (four lot community title), dwellings (three), and outbuildings (two detached sheds)
Value:	$1,050,000

Reference:	DA 173/2020(1)	Determination Date	19 October 2020
PR Number	PR10021
Applicant/s:	Mr MA Lindfield
Owner/s:	Mr MA Lindfield
Location:	Lot 12 DP 210766 - 753 Pinnacle Road, Canobolas
Proposal:	Mixed use development (kiosk, information and education facility and roadside stall) and demolition (tree removal)
Value:	$380,000

Reference:	DA 276/2020(1)	Determination Date	25 September 2020
PR Number	PR14995
Applicant/s:	Mr NS and Mrs MY Thornton
Owner/s:	Mr NS and Mrs MY Thornton
Location:	Lots 57 and 222 DP 750360 – 676 Cadia Road, Orange
Proposal:	Farm stay accommodation
Value:	$200,000

Reference:	DA 306/2020(1)	Determination Date	28 October 2020
PR Number	PR83
Applicant/s:	Orange City Council
Owner/s:	Orange City Council
Location:	Lot 1 DP 723218 - 4631 Mitchell Highway, Lucknow
Proposal:	Community facility (restoration of fire damaged building)
Value:	$230,000

Reference:	DA 331/2020(1)	Determination Date	27 October 2020
PR Number	PR25817
Applicant/s:	Peter Basha Planning & Development
Owner/s:	Mrs KA Tilston
Location:	Lot 13 DP 1176470 – 6 Atlas Place, Orange
Proposal:	General industry and depots, and business identification signage
Value:	$1,200,000

Reference:	DA 332/2020(1)	Determination Date	19 October 2020
PR Number	PR26464
Applicant/s:	AR Design Studio
Owner/s:	Orange City Council
Location:	Lot 200 DP 1195298 - 136 Aerodrome Road, Huntley
Proposal:	Air transport facility (hangar)
Value:	$250,000

Reference:	DA 334/2020(1)	Determination Date	5 November 2020
PR Number	PR25982
Applicant/s:	Kueb Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Mr IG, Mr GC, Mr RK and Mr WD McDonald
Location:	Lot 2 DP 1180945 - 4 Hamer Street, Orange
Proposal:	Demolition (former service station) and Category 1 Remediation
Value:	$30,000

Reference:	DA 360/2020(1)	Determination Date	27 October 2020
PR Number	PR1945
Applicant/s:	Mr I and Mrs HS Britton
Owner/s:	Mrs HS Britton
Location:	Lot 1 DP 770751 - 65 Byng Street, Orange
Proposal:	Demolition (tree removal)
Value:	$0

Reference:	DA 367/2020(1)	Determination Date	26 October 2020
PR Number	PR27531
Applicant/s:	Titung N Rumba Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Eastern Developments Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 200 DP1225088, 2/132 Kite Street, Orange
Proposal:	Restaurant or cafe and business identification signage
Value:	$300,000

Reference:	DA 378/2020(1)	Determination Date	19 October 2020
PR Number	PR27987
Applicant/s:	Orange City Council
Owner/s:	Orange City Council
Location:	Lot 804 DP1240445 - 36 Astill Drive, Orange
Proposal:	Animal shelter (ancillary kennels)
Value:	$10,000

Reference:	DA 386/2020(1)	Determination Date	5 November 2020
PR Number	PR28631
Applicant/s:	James Richmark Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Community Association - Deposited Plan 271257
Location:	Lot 1 and Common Property SP 100937 Lot 1 DP 271257 - 1521 Forest Road, Orange
Proposal:	Hospital (alterations and additions to ancillary cafe)
Value:	$15,000