Agenda of Planning and Development Committee

Planning and Development Committee 2 February 2021

2.1 Items Approved Under the Delegated Authority of Council

RECORD NUMBER: 2020/2492

AUTHOR: Paul Johnston, Manager Development Assessments

EXECUTIVE Summary

Following is a list of more significant development applications approved by the Chief Executive Officer under the delegated authority of Council and the Western Regional Planning Panel. Not included in this list are residential scale development applications that have also been determined by staff under the delegated authority of Council (see last paragraph of this report for those figures).

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

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

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

That Council resolves to acknowledge the information provided in the report by the Manager Development Assessments on Items Approved Under the Delegated Authority of Council.

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.

Reference:	DA 342/2013(4)	Determination Date	25 November 2020
PR Number	PR28557
Applicant/s:	Wakehurst Ashurst Developments Pty Limited
Owner/s:	Northern Managers and Construction Pty Ltd and Wakefield Ashurst Developments Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 230 DP 1260406 - Hallaran Way, Orange (formerly known as Lot 1 DP 833569 - 74 Beer Road, Orange)
Proposal:	Modification of development consent - subdivision (114 lot residential and three public reserve lots) and demolition (ancillary structures). The applicant sought to hold on to a small slither of land on the northern side of Buckland Drive, rather than dedicate it as public reserve, pending the outcomes of the housing strategy that is currently in train. The housing strategy could potentially rezone the land to the north residential.
Value:	Not applicable

Reference:	DA 342/2013(5)	Determination Date	8 January 2021
PR Number	PR28557
Applicant/s:	Wakehurst Ashurst Developments Pty Limited
Owner/s:	Northern Managers and Construction Pty Ltd and Wakefield Ashurst Developments Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 230 DP 1260406 - Hallaran Way, Orange (formerly known as Lot 1 DP 833569 - 74 Beer Road, Orange)
Proposal:	Modification of development consent - subdivision (114 lot residential and three public reserve lots) and demolition (ancillary structures). The modification involved a correction of a miscalculation of development contributions and open space credits.
Value:	Not applicable

Reference:	DA 407/2013(4)	Determination Date	1 December 2020
PR Number	PR22203
Applicant/s:	Statspan Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Statspan Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 1 DP 1109351 - 120-122 Summer Street, Orange
Proposal:	Modification of development consent - food and drink premises, retail premises and demolition (minor). The modified proposal involved modification and extension to the outdoor dining.
Value:	Not applicable

Reference:	DA 247/2017(4)	Determination Date	16 November 2020
PR Number	PR13530
Applicant/s:	Hibbards Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Forest Knoll Pty Limited
Location:	Lot 15 DP 1255866 - 30 Tarawell Crescent, Orange
Proposal:	Modification of development consent - subdivision (29 lot residential) (bulk earthworks and retaining walls). The modification involved carrying out earthworks and retaining walls to create level building pads for future development of the residential allotments.
Value:	$150,000

Reference:	DA 259/2019(2)	Determination Date	18 January 2021
PR Number	PR18317
Applicant/s:	Adam Grant Constructions Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Mr MC and Mrs LE Hansen
Location:	Lot 3 DP 1036031 – 448 Escort Way, Orange
Proposal:	Modification of development consent - subdivision (37 lot residential and one drainage reserve). The modified development will alter the approved subdivision as follows: · deletion of Road 2 · Lots 4 and 6 would be created as battle axe allotments and increased in land size · the land size and configuration of Lots 3 and 7 will also be altered slightly as a result of the removal of Road 2 · the number of approved lots will be remain the same.
Value:	Not applicable

Reference:	DA 372/2019(2)	Determination Date	24 December 2020
PR Number	PR2785
Applicant/s:	Mr RA and Mrs J Cutler
Owner/s:	Mr RA and Mrs J Cutler
Location:	Lot B DP 377280, Lot 1 DP 158411, Lot 2 DP 514361 - 40 Clinton Street, Orange
Proposal:	Modification of development consent - demolition, subdivision, dwelling (alterations and additions). The modification involved amending the development staging and concurrent conditions of consent.
Value:	Not applicable

Reference:	DA 403/2019(2)	Determination Date	12 January 2021
PR Number	PR26330
Applicant/s:	Orange Ex-Services Club Limited
Owner/s:	Orange Ex-Services Club Limited
Location:	Lot 200 DP 1191450 - 225-243 Anson Street, Orange
Proposal:	Modification of development consent - registered club (alterations and additions to existing building). The modification involved changes to the ground floor entry off the existing car park, and enclosing additional floor area and creating a mechanical plant enclosure in the outdoor garden area of the Greenhouse restaurant, and its resulting minor roof reconfiguration.
Value:	Not applicable

Reference:	DA 33/2020(2)	Determination Date	23 November 2020
PR Number	PR28519
Applicant/s:	James Richmark Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	The Proprietors of Strata Plan 100937. James Richmark Pty Ltd
Location:	Lots 1, 5 and 7 SP 100937. Common Property SP 100937. Community Property Lot 1 DP 271257. Lot 4 DP 271257 (formerly described as Lot 1 DP 1258217) – 1521 Forest Road, Orange
Proposal:	Modification of development consent - hospital (fit out works relating to existing building: operating theatres, associated support areas and facilities - Level 4, ground level and rooftop). The modification involved modifying the consent to: · enlarge the hospital’s mechanical plant area on the rooftop of the building · increase the size of the medical gas compound structure at ground level. The modification application was made pursuant to Section 4.55(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The modified development satisfies the Local and State planning controls applicable to the subject land and particular land use.
Value:	Not applicable

Reference:	DA 263/2020(1)	Determination Date	5 December 2020
PR Number	PR6012
Applicant/s:	Mrs AB Burton
Owner/s:	Mrs AB Burton
Location:	Lot 20 DP 234780 - 32 Kenna Street, Orange
Proposal:	Secondary dwelling and associated parking
Value:	$125,000

Reference:	DA 277/2020(1)	Determination Date	21 December 2020
PR Number	PR28520
Applicant/s:	Universal Property Group Pty Limited
Owner/s:	Mrs CM Barbagallo and Mrs KL Stevenson
Location:	Lot 200 DP 1258673 and Lot 84 DP 750401 – 91 and 131 Shiralee Road, Orange
Proposal:	Demolition (two dwellings and trees) and subdivision (105 lot residential)
Value:	$4,359,820.83

Reference:	DA 289/2020(1)	Determination Date	17 December 2020
PR Number	PR9813
Applicant/s:	Health-X Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Health-X Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 11 DP 800314 – 86-88 Peisley Street, Orange
Proposal:	Mixed use development (medical centre and office premises) and business identification signage
Value:	$760,000

Reference:	DA 324/2020(1)	Determination Date	18 December 2020
PR Number	PR11579
Applicant/s:	Helix Architects Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Australian Postal Corporation
Location:	Lot 11 Sec 40 DP 758817 – 222-224 Summer Street, Orange Lot 22 Sec 40 DP758817 – Colvin Lane, Orange
Proposal:	Business premises (alterations and additions, and upgrade works)
Value:	$165,000

Reference:	DA 363/2020(1)	Determination Date	11 November 2020
PR Number	PR26594
Applicant/s:	Eastern Developments (NSW) Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Mr SAJ Lane and Mrs KP Johnston
Location:	Lot 100 DP 1198640 - 345 Ophir Road, Orange
Proposal:	Subdivision (three lot englobo)
Value:	Not applicable

Reference:	DA 369/2020(1)	Determination Date	24 November 2020
PR Number	PR17580
Applicant/s:	Orange City Council
Owner/s:	Orange City Council
Location:	Lot 16 Sec 29 DP 5600 - Leeds Parade, Orange
Proposal:	Recreation facility (additions to pavilion for public toilets and canteen)
Value:	$750,000

Reference:	DA 382/2020(1)	Determination Date	5 January 2021
PR Number	PR26334
Applicant/s:	Lindfield Family Trust
Owner/s:	MLPL Investments Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 202 DP 1190831 – 7 McNamara Street, Orange
Proposal:	Retail premises and shop top housing
Value:	$1,100,000

Reference:	DA 383/2020(1)	Determination Date	11 January 2021
PR Number	PR20440
Applicant/s:	Mr BA and Mrs RR Westgeest
Owner/s:	Mr BA and Mrs RR Westgeest
Location:	Lot DP 1083040 - 176 Clergate Road, Orange
Proposal:	Dwelling house (minor demolition works, alterations and additions) and carport
Value:	$150,000

Reference:	DA 384/2020(1)	Determination Date	22 December 2020
PR Number	PR10479
Applicant/s:	Landorange Partnership
Owner/s:	LJ and GM Dwyer, R Coulson, M Sharkey and GE and EJ Saunders
Location:	Lot 11 DP 750401 – 41 Park Road, Orange Lot 86 DP 750401 – 23 Park Road, Orange Lot 88 DP 750401 – 55 Rifle Range Road, Orange Lot 89 DP 750401 – Rifle Range Road, Orange Lot 91 DP 750401 – 158 Shiralee Road, Orange
Proposal:	Demolition (existing dwelling), boundary adjustment and subdivision (85 lot residential)
Value:	$0

Reference:	DA 385/2020(1)	Determination Date	4 January 2021
PR Number	PR2492
Applicant/s:	Moolah Way Pty Limited
Owner/s:	Moolah Way Pty Limited
Location:	Lot 27 DP 241304 - 22 Cecil Road, Orange
Proposal:	Demolition (existing dwelling), dual occupancy, subdivision (two lot Torrens title subdivision)
Value:	$750,000

Reference:	DA 387/2020(1)	Determination Date	24 November 2020
PR Number	PR27081
Applicant/s:	Mr SR and Mrs KA Northam
Owner/s:	Mr SR and Mrs KA Northam
Location:	Lot 131 DP 1207360 - 100 Dean Drive, Orange
Proposal:	Secondary dwelling
Value:	$120,000

Reference:	DA 388/2020(1)	Determination Date	4 January 2021
PR Number	PR22862
Applicant/s:	Mr TJ and Mrs M Wise
Owner/s:	Mr TJ and Mrs MA Wise
Location:	Lot 101 DP 1123499 – 37 Beaumah Road, Spring Hill
Proposal:	Dual occupancy (replacement of one dwelling in an existing dual occupancy with new dwelling housing, garage, swimming pool (indoor and in ground) and rainwater tank (90,000L))
Value:	$450,000

Reference:	DA 396/2020(1)	Determination Date	23 November 2020
PR Number	PR16102
Applicant/s:	Mr DG Martin
Owner/s:	Mr DG and Mrs DA Martin
Location:	Lot 11 DP851657, 4 Melaleuca Way, Orange
Proposal:	Secondary dwelling
Value:	$105,000

Reference:	DA 408/2020(1)	Determination Date	24 November 2020
PR Number	PR28654
Applicant/s:	James Richmark Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	James Richmark Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 7 SP 100937 - 1521 Forest Road, Orange
Proposal:	Business identification signage
Value:	Not applicable

Reference:	DA 411/2020(1)	Determination Date	22 December 2020
PR Number	PR15721
Applicant/s:	Mr J Buchanan
Owner/s:	Mr MF and Mrs JM Rangott
Location:	Lot 5 DP 285202 - 1/63-65 Peisley Street, Orange
Proposal:	Subdivision (two lot residential)
Value:	Not applicable

Reference:	DA 419/2020(1)	Determination Date	20 January 2021
PR Numbers	PR28592 and PR28593
Applicant/s:	Contemporary Homes Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Divlist Pty Limited and Mikell Investments Pty Limited
Location:	Lots 135 and 136 DP1260733 128 and 130 Shiralee Road, Orange
Proposal:	Exhibition village (change of use of two dwellings to exhibition homes) and business identification signage
Value:	$15,000

Reference:	DA 429/2020(1)	Determination Date	14 December 2020
PR Number	PR25394
Applicant/s:	Ms J Hines
Owner/s:	Ms M Doueihi and Mrs EJ Doueihi
Location:	Lot 206 DP 1157955 - 22 Robinson Court, Orange
Proposal:	Home business
Value:	Not applicable

Reference:	DA 433/2020(1)	Determination Date	22 December 2020
PR Number	PR27531
Applicant/s:	Eastern Developments (NSW) Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Eastern Developments Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 200 DP 1225088 – 4/132 Kite Street, Orange
Proposal:	Office premises (change of use from retail premises and associated fit out)
Value:	$30,000

Reference:	DA 437/2020(1)	Determination Date	8 December 2020
PR Number	PR18435
Applicant/s:	Mr YS Choi
Owner/s:	Mr YS and Mrs RJ Choi
Location:	Lot 2 DP 1038469 - 1349 Millthorpe Road, Millthorpe
Proposal:	Recreation facility (outdoor) (tennis court with lighting)
Value:	$100,000

Reference:	DA 462/2020(1)	Determination Date	3 December 2020
PR Number	PR27808
Applicant/s:	Saran Holdings Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Northern Managers and Construction Pty Limited and Wakefield Ashurst Developments Pty Limited
Location:	Lot 10 DP 1234801 - 270 McLachlan Street, Orange
Proposal:	Depot (alterations and additions) and signage
Value:	$750,000

Reference:	DA 463/2020(1)	Determination Date	4 January 2021
PR Number	PR4193
Applicant/s:	Designs@m
Owner/s:	Mr TS and Mrs I L Figuero
Location:	Lot A DP 371431 - 25 Franklin Road, Orange
Proposal:	Secondary dwelling and attached garage, dwelling alterations and additions, and rainwater tanks (3 x 4,000L)
Value:	$400,000

Reference:	DA 466/2020(1)	Determination Date	22 December 2020
PR Number	PR18664
Applicant/s:	DDM (NSW) Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Rossi Orchards Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 1 DP 1048249 – 121-125 Moulder Street, Orange
Proposal:	Office premises (change of use from shop)
Value:	$56,000

Reference:	DA 468/2020(1)	Determination Date	12 January 2021
PR Number	PR22640
Applicant/s:	Newcrest Mining Ltd
Owner/s:	Fawcett Ridge Pty Limited
Location:	Lot 502 DP 1122616 - 30-44 Edward Street, Orange
Proposal:	General industry (temporary) and storage premises (change of use from recreation facility)
Value:	Not applicable

TOTAL NET* VALUE OF DEVELOPMENTS APPROVED BY THE CEO UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY IN THIS PERIOD: $10,335,820.83

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

Additionally, since the December 2020 meeting report periods (19 November 2020 to 20 January 2021), another 46 development applications were determined under delegated authority by other Council staff with a combined value of $4,759,014.

ITEMS APPROVED BY THE WESTERN REGIONAL PLANNING PANEL

Reference:	DA 423/2019(1)	Determination Date	8 December 2020
PR Number	PR26437
Applicant/s:	ITP Development Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Mr A and Mrs EB Ruggiero
Location:	Lot 200 DP 1194585 - 643 Mitchell Highway, Orange
Proposal:	Electricity generating works (solar farm)
Value:	$8,965,861 (exc GST)

Reference:	DA 259/2020(1)	Determination Date	13 December 2020
PR Number	PR7567
Applicant/s:	Orange City Council
Owner/s:	Crown, March Street
Location:	Lots 7 and 8 DP 820905 – March and Peisley Streets, Orange
Proposal:	Mixed use development (community facility (conservatorium) and information and education facility (planetarium))
Value:	$20,000,000

TOTAL NET* VALUE OF DEVELOPMENTS APPROVED BY THE WESTERN REGIONAL PLANNING PANEL IN THIS PERIOD: $28,965,861.00

Planning and Development Committee 2 February 2021

2.2 Development Application DA 111/2020(1) - 12 Green Lane

RECORD NUMBER: 2020/2332

AUTHOR: Melissa Maccallum, Manager Building and Environment

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged	19 May 2020
Applicant/s	Bassmann Drafting Services
Owner/s	Mr MJ and Mrs JE Truloff
Land description	Lot 2 DP 413484 - 12 Green Lane, Orange
Proposed land use	Dwelling (two storey), Attached Garage, Retaining Walls and Tree Removal
Value of proposed development	$850,000

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council's consent is sought for a new double storey dwelling with an attached double car garage, retaining walls and vegetation removal for a well-established neighbourhood of Orange City, namely Green Lane.

This neighbourhood is characterised with a mixture of size and designs for residential development but generally of quality design and construction for their period.

The streetscape character along this section of Green Lane is also categorized by sloped topography, with multilevel houses arising from the fall of each parcel to the west. The natural slope of the subject lot is 8m fall from East to West.

Historically the site was part of the garden for the neighbouring property (10 Green Lane) so is extensively landscaped as a garden extension of the neighbouring property. The site was subdivided in 2015.

Currently a vacant subject lot with a generous amount of vegetation and shrubbery, accompanied by a number of small ancillary structures such as a retaining wall, garden shed and patio. A significant Eucalyptus viminalis tree stands towards the front boundary along other trees at the rear of the site.

Detailed description of the proposal

The proposed development is a contemporary mixed cladded (timber, stone, blockwork and glass) design of a two storey dwelling with an attached double spaced garage.

The proposed house frontage would have a single storey appearance when viewed from the street but maintains similar level throughout whilst incorporating a lower ground floor as the building footprint extends westerly.

The Floor Plan itself can be best described in two parts distinguished between the two floors.

Part 1 (First Floor) – contains comprises of the main section of the dwelling, being the garage, master bedroom, kitchen, dining/living room that leads to an upper floor alfresco area that extends around the North to North-Western end of the building.

Part 2 (Ground Floor) – consists of a laundry, Children’s Activities Room, Bedrooms and a ground floor deck area.

The proposal includes the removal of the Eucalyptus viminalis, several small trees and shrubbery. The proposed vegetation removal is supported by the submission of an external Arborist Report.

Objections were received to both the original design and amended designs. The proposal is considered to be complaint with Council’s development controls.

Background of the Proposal

The original development application was lodged with Council in March 2020. The proposed development was not compliant with several planning guidelines expressed in the Orange Development Control Plan (2004) for Visual bulk, Daylight and Sunlight (overshadowing), Visual/Acoustic Privacy and Open Space and Landscaping.

Neighbours were notified in April 2020. One submission was received.

During the Neighbour Notification exhibition period, a submission was received that also identified the issues already raised in the current assessment.

Staff have been in regular contact with the applicant negotiating amendments to the design to address matters of compliance and objections raised.

Three amendments have been submitted by the applicant to address the issues raised in the initial assessment and the objection.

Amendments made to the proposal reduced the height of the building by 500mm; altered windows within the main bedroom; redesigned the size and shape of the balcony; and provided privacy screens to the balcony.

Staff met with the submitter on site and advised them of the final amendments to the plan that were made by the applicant in an attempt to address their concerns. Verbally the submitter raised the same concerns to the amended designs during this onsite meeting. To date no written comment has been received to reflect the verbal objections.

This report includes detailed information gathered during the assessment of the final design that has led to the recommendation for approval to Council’s Planning and Development Committee.

LOCALITY AND SITE CONTEXT MAP

sflm - 12 Green lane

Figure 1 - locality plan

SITE INSPECTION

Date: 1 April 2020

- A tight and narrow allotment sandwiched between two existing and well established residentially developed lots.

- Natural slope from East to West. Front boundary has an existing 2m high brick retaining wall. The side southern boundary has another existing retaining wall of approximately 1.4m.

- The lot filled with several trees and shrubbery that may need clearing, especially around the proposed building footprint. A large Eucalyptus tree near the front boundary.

- The shape and slope of the lot leaves minimal room for a generic dwelling design but requires one that suits and complements the ‘lay of the land’ in order to minimise impacts on the existing adjoining properties.

- Number 10 Green Lane has significant landscaping to its rear and side yard that has extended onto the subject lot, in a green belt flow appearance with landscaping features and small retaining walls on the edge of the dividing boundary line.

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 COMMENTS (in this case from MDA Johnston)

The topography and slenderness of this site makes it a difficult site to develop. Whilst it has taken the applicant a considerable time to amend plans adequately since lodgement so that this application may progress, amendments are considered to have taken into account concerns of the neighbours. Due to the significant slope to the rear, this site provides significant challenges for development. The proposed two storey dwelling is not unlike other dwellings in the area that have taken advantage of the slope to provide a lower ground floor.

The final design, whilst providing a building that will certainly be prominent, especially when viewed from the neighbour to the north, takes into account the challenges of the site’s topography; the northern sunlight opportunities, neighbours privacy, bulk, scale and the existing vegetation to a level that achieves compliance with Council’s planning controls. It is noted that the submitter continue to express significant objection, however given the proposals compliance with planning controls, the recommendation of approval of this application is supported.

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

That Council consents to development application DA 111/2020(1) for Dwelling (two storey), Attached Garage, Retaining Walls and Tree Removal at Lot 2 DP 413484 – 12 Green Lane, Orange pursuant to the attached Notice of Approval.

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 (ie 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.

Trigger 1

Site does not occur within land mapped on the Biodiversity Values Map (https://www.lmbc.nsw.gov.au/Maps/index.html?viewer=BOSETMap).

Trigger 2

No major clearing/disturbance associated with this proposal. Even with the proposed tree removals for the building footprint and associated works, the threshold for the site is not exceeded. An Arborist Report and advice from OCC Manager of City Presentation has clearly identified that in order for the development to proceed, it subsequently needs to remove the earmarked trees in the lot. (See site plan).

Trigger 3

With regard to the third trigger, the test for determining whether proposed development is otherwise likely to significantly affect threatened species is listed in the BC Act 2016, under s7.3:

(a) in the case of a threatened species, whether the proposed development or activity is likely to have an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species such that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,

(b) in the case of an endangered ecological community or critically endangered ecological community, whether the proposed development or activity:

(i) is likely to have an adverse effect on the extent of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction, or

(ii) is likely to substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,

(c) in relation to the habitat of a threatened species or ecological community:

(i) the extent to which habitat is likely to be removed or modified as a result of the proposed development or activity, and

(ii) whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other areas of habitat as a result of the proposed development or activity, and

(iii) the importance of the habitat to be removed, modified, fragmented or isolated to the long-term survival of the species or ecological community in the locality,

(d) whether the proposed development or activity is likely to have an adverse effect on any declared area of outstanding biodiversity value (either directly or indirectly),

(e) whether the proposed development or activity is or is part of a key threatening process or is likely to increase the impact of a key threatening process.

The subject lot is not mapped in the OLEP 2011 Biodiversity layer. Also mentioned above in Trigger 2 – it is not mapped in the Biodiversity Values Map.

There are no known native fauna species/habitats within the subject site or any known potential linkages to any close Biogeographic sensitive areas.

An external Arborist Report was submitted to support the proposal and allow for the removal of smaller trees (many less than the required 300mm trunk width), shrubbery and one substantial native Eucalyptus tree. The Arborist Report provided evidence that the Eucalypt has recently dropped large limbs, appears to be damaged, and is now out of balance thus presents a significant safety risk.

Orange City Council’s Manager of City Presentation has also given advice for the tree removal, along with comments on the Arborist Report.

The removal of vegetation on this site was always likely to permit the construction of a house following the site’s subdivision in 2015. The dwelling design does all it can to maintain trees in the rear of the site. The removal of the vegetation proposed, including the Eucalypt that is unsafe, is supported.

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,

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

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

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

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

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

The application is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011.

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:	R1 General Residential
Lot Size Map:	No Minimum Lot Size
Heritage Map:	Not a heritage item or conservation area
Height of Buildings Map:	No building height limit
Floor Space Ratio Map:	No floor space limit
Terrestrial Biodiversity Map:	Not in a biodiversity sensitive area but removal of 1 Eucalyptus tree and a few trees/shrubbery.
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 R2 Low Density Residential zone. The proposed development is defined as a new two storey dwelling with an attached garage, retaining walls and a tree removal under OLEP 2011 and is permitted with consent for this zone. This application is seeking consent.

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

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

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

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

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

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the R2 zone. The proposal will continue to provide a housing type which will accommodate the needs of the community and maintain the nature of streetscape. The subject land is accessible to public transport routes. The site does not have access or frontage to the Southern Link Road.

Part 3 - Exempt and Complying Development

The application is not exempt or complying development.

Part 4 - Principal Development Standards

Part 5 - Miscellaneous Provisions

Nil

Part 7 - Additional Local Provisions

Clause	Comment
Clause 7.1 - Earthworks	Not applicable.
Clause 7.2 - Flood Planning	Not applicable.
Clause 7.3 – Stormwater Management	The proposal has been designed to include permeable surfaces and includes onsite retention of stormwater through the use of detention basins/easement pits. It is therefore considered that the post development runoff levels will not excessively exceed the predevelopment levels.
Clause 7.4 - Terrestrial Biodiversity	Not mapped in the OLEP 2011 Biodiversity layer but application for the removal of a native tree is supported by an Arborist Report.
Clause 7.5 - Riparian Land and Watercourses	Not applicable.
Clause 7.6 - Groundwater Vulnerability	The installation of the signage 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 7.7 - Drinking Water Catchments	Not applicable.
Clause 7.8 - Salinity	Not applicable.
Clause 7.9 - Airspace Operations	Not applicable.
Clause 7.10 Development in areas subject to aircraft noise	Not applicable.
Clause 7.11 - Essential Services	All utility services are available to the subject lot.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

There are no SEPPs or REPs which relate to the proposed development.

DESIGNATED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development is not designated development.

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development is not integrated development.

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

Development Control Plan 2004

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. Pursuant to Orange DCP 2004 Part 7.7 – Development in Residential Areas- Design Elements for Residential Development Streetscape is considered below:

It is important to note that the below planning guidelines are inter-related and that triggered impacts may overlap.

PO 7.7-1 – Neighbourhood Character

The site layout of the proposed dwelling allows for the maintenance of the majority of existing vegetation. Extensive vegetated areas are part of the characteristic of the neighbourhood. The setout of the dwelling on the site does requires the removal of several trees. The removal of the native tree in the frontage is for safety of the proposed residence and an Arborist report recommending removal has been provided. Councils City Presentation Manager has also supported that the damaged large tree is not suitable for the residential area. An established pine is also indicated for removal. The removal of these trees in the frontage will reduce the density of the plantings across the street frontage. This is considered as acceptable due to the existing dense plantings and the proposed approved use of this lot for residential development.

The dwelling will appear as single storey from the street and increases to two storey as the lot falls away to the west. This is considered similar to the character of other dwellings within the street due to the gradient of the land.

The modern style design with flat roof and clean lines is emerging as the neighbourhood character as the older homes are renovated and rebuilt.

It is considered that the design of the dwelling adequately deals with the site constraints of the vegetation and the gradient of the site and will maintain the character of the neighbourhood.

PO 7.7-2 – Building Appearance

The modern style dwelling with mixed external cladding and finishes is emerging as the neighbourhood character. The mainly 60s/70s style of the dwelling within the street are being modernised with the renovation of several dwellings within the neighbourhood. The adjoining residence to the north is an older style two storey red brick and is an original dwelling set on a larger allotment.

The dwelling to the south is and older style brick dwelling with a hardi plank clad upper storey extension. The proposal is relatively different in character to these adjoining dwellings. However, the proposed dwelling is still considered as suitable in appearance and of appropriate scale due to the modern style of the design and the constraints of the lot.

Existing vegetation is being maintained where possible. Two mature trees are proposed for removal at the frontage and one towards the rear. Due to the dense plantings on this lot the removal of these trees and protections of the remaining trees will be conditioned.

The frontage of the dwelling has been raised to provide compliant vehicle access to a double garage and pedestrian access. The garage FFL is below the street level and with the mix of cladding materials along the frontage and the 8.3m front boundary setback the extent of the double garage door is minimised.

It is considered that the proposed dwelling achieves the outcomes of the DCP

PO 7.7-4 – Setbacks

The street is splayed at the frontage of the proposed dwelling and garage. Therefore the setback increases from the garage – 8.349m to 14.7m at the northern side of the dwelling. The proposal is setback further than the adjoining dwelling to the north and south. This assists with the integration and prominence of the proposed dwelling. The setback allows for the front garden with substantial trees to remain.

This is considered as appropriate for the Green Lane streetscape.

PO 7.7-6 – Visual Bulk

A small portion of the proposed dwelling’s ensuite and balcony roof/parapet is slightly outside the bulk and scale envelope along the northern elevation. These encroachments are considered as acceptable due to the nature of the lot; articulation of the dwelling design; the encroachment would not result in impacts on neighbours such as overshadowing; and general design compliance.

The centre section of the dwelling has a departure of 1.0m outside the envelope while the rear of the dwelling has a 1.2m encroachment. Both encroachment are described as being the roof cladding of the façade.

This encroachment has been reduced by the applicant with the lowering of the dwelling and increasing the distance of the dwelling from the northern side boundary.

The side walls of the proposed dwelling are articulated and provide increased side boundary setbacks for living areas towards the rear. The progressive narrowing of the dwelling and the increase in side boundary setbacks towards the rear of the lot reduces the visual bulk of the dwelling when viewed from the neighbouring properties.

12 green3

Figure 2 – Western elevation of the proposal

12 green2

Figure 3 – Eastern elevation of the proposal

The dwelling is designed to the fall of the lot with single storey to the street and two storey at the rear. At the access road of Green Lane the dwelling will maintain a suitable height in relation to the street and adjoining neighbours This is a common feature of the Green Lane properties and is considered as appropriate for this site.

PO 7.7-7 – Walls to Boundaries

The dwelling is indicated to have a minimum side boundary setback to the southern boundary ranging 1.5mm at the front to 2.1m at the rear. Privacy of the southern adjoining premises is considered to be maintained due to any glazed openings being to service areas and the existing landscaping.

On the northern boundary the setback is 3m at the front to 4.9m to the rear elevated deck. The glazed openings to the northern side of the proposed dwelling may appear close to the adjoining southern property as there is currently a well-established vacant landscaped site that the southern dwelling currently overlooks.

The existing dwelling on the northern boundary will view the complete proposed dwelling from the southern side of their dwelling/site. Due to the slope of the lot the proposed dwelling will have some impact on the adjoining open space.

The applicant has made concessions to the design and this has provided increased privacy measures.

The potential loss of the existing landscaped area and the scale of the development will have some visual impact on the northern neighbour, however it is considered that this impact would not be adverse and is therefore acceptable. It is accepted that the construction of any dwelling on this infill site would create some impact.

The proposed development achieves compliance with the DCP Planning Guidelines (7.7-7) for setback of walls and roofed structures to the boundaries. The dwelling is positioned to retain the majority of the mature vegetation on the site, thus contributing to the amenity of the area.

PO 7.7-9 – Views

The existing residential garden views of the surrounding lots in Green Lane will be moderately impacted by the loss of three mature trees required for removal, to allow for the proposed development.

However, the shared general garden and residential views will not be impeded.

The minor visual impact of the proposed dwelling from the adjoining southern property is mainly due to the existence of a large deck constructed to the common boundary. The southern property has enjoyed the views of this landscaped vacant allotment for some year and it is considered that any construction on this adjoining lot would cause some impact on the residential views.

The impact to the existing adjoining dwellings is considered as acceptable and remain as shared residential views. There are no highly valued views, as defined in DCP2004, available from this lot.

PO 7.7-10 – Visual Privacy

The final submitted plans significantly improve the impact on the privacy of the residence to the northern boundary.

The modified plans have increased the dwellings northern boundary setbacks by, on average by >1m.

In addition, the north open deck has been re-designed and relocated to the western end of the dwelling increasing the distance from the open deck to the private open space of the northern boundary neighbour. The alfresco area along the northern side of the proposed dwelling has substantial screening enclosing the outdoor area and reducing the impact of overlooking of the adjoining neighbour.

Figure 4 – Northern elevation of the proposal

A walkway provides access from the screened alfresco area to the rear deck. The proposal indicates stacking sliding opening doors from the dining area to the walkway, therefore a min height 1.6m privacy screen is to be conditioned on the consent to extend partially along the walkway edge from the alfresco room to the open deck. Thus restricting direct view from the internal habitable rooms to the adjoining neighbours open space.

The open deck at the western end of the dwelling is 4.993m from the northern boundary and is greater than 9m from any habitable rooms and the main private open space in the adjoining northern residence.

The 9m setback described in the guidelines of the DCP notes that an off-set sufficient distance with limited direct views is and acceptable outcome and this is achieved by the use of the screens and the location of the upper floor living areas in relation to the adjoining private open space.

The windows in the northern wall of the front bedroom is considered as having minimal impact on the adjoining neighbours privacy. Although habitable, the windows are narrow and being a bedroom would not be considered as a daily living area of the dwelling. Other windows on the northern side, with floor levels above 1.5m is a bathroom area with opaque glazing.

Given the topography of this site, it is considered as unreasonable for the adjoining neighbours to have expectations of 100% privacy on the whole of the rear yard (as open space) on a large residential lot. The area directly alongside the northern dwelling has been considered as the private open space.

A condition will be placed on the consent to ensure that the privacy screen along the walkway is extended to increase the direct overlooking from the dining area.

With the addition of the walkway screening the dwelling is considered to achieve compliance with the guidelines of the DCP.

PO 7.7-11 – Acoustic Privacy

It is considered that the future noise/sounds emitted from the proposal would have a minimal impact to the Northern adjoining property, mainly due to the normal domestic noise expectations of a residential development.

PO 7.7- 17 – Private Open Space

The lot has private open space to the rear of the proposed dwelling at ground level.

A screened alfresco area and open deck accessed from the living areas on the upper floor also provides adequate private open space for outdoor living. Any adverse impacts of privacy from adjoining residences is reduced with the use of screening.

The private open space for the proposed dwelling is considered as meeting the requirements of the DCP for Private open space.

PO 7.7- 17 – Open Space and Landscaping

Subject lot is not mapped in the OLEP 2011 Biodiversity Area.

The site is currently landscaped with extensive mature planting. The applicant has applied for the removal of some trees and shrubs to allow for the construction of the dwelling.

A substantial Eucalyptus tree, near the street frontage, and a few smaller trees and some shrubbery is required for removal.

An external Arborist’s Report identifies that the Eucalyptus tree cannot be maintained along with the build and the Manager of City Presentation, although questioning the ambiguity of the report in terms of the Eucalyptus tree’s exact significance to the subject area and the community, confirms that the vegetation needs to be removed for the purpose of the development or keeping the vegetation renders the proposal unfeasible.

All trees not applied for removal are to be protected during construction.

Conditions are to be placed on a consent requiring TPZs around in particular, the large native gum at the rear of the proposed dwelling and the medium tree located between the walkway decking and the northern boundary.

In consideration of the guidelines set in the ODCP 2004 for Open Space and Landscaping, this proposal is considered to be acceptable due to the need to remove vegetation for the required build.

INFILL GUIDELINES

The proposed development is consistent with the provisions of Council’s Infill Guidelines.

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

Demolition of a Building (clause 92)

The proposal does not involve the demolition of a building.

Fire Safety Considerations (clause 93)

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

Buildings to be Upgraded (clause 94)

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

BASIX Commitments (clause 97A)

A BASIX Certificate has been submitted in support of the proposed development.

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

Generally:

The proposed development is unlikely to generate any more than minor, short-term environmental impacts and it is considered that environmental issues have been addressed by the applicant (reduced energy and water demand) and through the application of conditions of consent (demolition/noise etc).

Visual impact:

It is considered that the Dwelling (two storey), Attached Garage, Retaining Walls and Tree Removal would not adversely affect the quality of the existing streetscape.

Figures 5 and 6 - view of the front boundary

Traffic impacts:

The proposed Dwelling (two storey), Attached Garage, Retaining Walls and Tree Removal would have minimal impact on the future traffic levels associated with the local road network. If approved, the traffic movements would be congested due to the increase in building work vehicles during the construction phase on the narrow lanes on this section of Green Lane.

Water quality:

Due to the natural steep slope of the subject site, the overland flow path runs East to West.

Presence of substantial vegetation on the site assists in the adsorption of water.

Off-site sediment and erosion impacts are likely if the proposal is allowed and soil erosion control would be required prior to works and during the construction phase.

Impacts on adjoining development:

Development in the locality generally consists of residential properties and associated dwellings. The proposed Dwelling (two storey), Attached Garage, Retaining Walls and Tree Removal will not interfere with or be affected by adjoining residential properties, as already discussed in this report.

20200401_144415

20200401_143658 (1)

Figures 7 and 8 – view of the adjoining properties from within sections of the site

Landscaping and preservation of trees:

The proposed Dwelling (two storey), Attached Garage and Retaining Walls would require removal of a native Eucalyptus tree, several smaller trees and shrubbery. An Arborist Report is accompanying this proposal.

Substantial landscaping of the neighbouring properties has formed a neighbourhood character for adequate and well planned landscaping to this section of Green Lane.

Soil erosion:

The proposed Dwelling (two storey), Attached Garage, Retaining Walls and Tree Removal does involve major earthworks in the form of fill for the formation of the building footprint and associated works. Soil erosion measures are expected if approval is given by the committee

Existing and future amenity of the neighbourhood:

The existing amenity of the neighbourhood is typical of a residential area with low ambient noise and pollution levels.

Figure 9 – view of the Eucalyptus tree from within the lot

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

It is considered that the site of the proposed development is suitable for the right design and positioning of a similar development to the current proposal. The site is appropriately serviced and but there are known physical attributes such as topography, shape and size of the subject lot which constrain the site. This needs to be addressed through adequate and appropriate design.

Availability of Utility Services:

Electricity and telephone services are available to the site. The scale of the development does not require upgrading of any existing services.

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.

One submission had been received in relation to this application. The applicant was given the opportunity to respond to the matters raised in the objection. The issues and the responses can be summarised as follows:

· All planning matters expressed in the submission are discussed thoroughly in this report.

· The submission was generally against the proposal.

· Objecting to the proposal via the PO 7.7 – 2 – Building Appearance:

Particularly for the removal of vegetation, building design, visual bulky appearance due to minimal setbacks.

Comment – This concern is considered in more detail in this report. The design, height and positioning of this two storey proposal is considered as acceptable with increased setback being part of amended plans. The tree removal is necessary for the access to the site and the building platform.

· Objecting to the proposal via the PO 7.7 – 6 – Visual Bulk

In particular for - the proposal is out of the bulk and scale envelope, the setback of the upper balcony and height from NGL increases direct overlooking, visually bulky design is considered intrusive to adjoining properties.

Comment – This concern is considered in more detail in this report. The dwelling height and design has been amended since the objection has been received. This has reduced the impact to an acceptable level.

· Objecting to the proposal via PO 7.7-7 – Walls and Boundaries

In particular for the proximity of the proposal to the Northern boundary lessens the privacy to and from the Northern neighbour. No physical dividing features to indicate perimeters of the subject lot and the Northern adjoining property.

Comment – the design and location of the proposal is and are considered as acceptable with regard to the positioning of the dwelling on the site. This concern was discussed in this report.

· Objecting to the proposal via PO 7.7-10 – Visual Privacy

In particular for concerns of direct overlooking and visual privacy infringements due to the minimal setback and the height/location of the upper floor alfresco area.

Comment – amendments to the original plans have been considered in the final assessment and are considered as acceptable with regard to any visual privacy to and from the proposal to the adjoining properties. This concern was conversed in more detail in this report.

· Objecting to the proposal via PO 7.7-11 – Acoustic Privacy

In particular for the 4m setback and the positioning of the proposal’s upper floor living spaces.

Comment – residential noise is expected from the property. This concern was discussed in more detail of this report.

PUBLIC INTEREST s4.15(1)(e)

The proposed development is considered to be not in the interest of the wider public due to the in-compliance of the proposal to the localised potential planning impacts expressed in this report. The proposal is not consistent with any relevant policy statements, planning studies, and guidelines etc. that have been considered in this assessment.

SUMMARY

The proposed development is recommended for approval and is seeking a final decision on the consent from the Planning and Development Committee. The proposed development does not comply 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 not acceptable in this instance. Attached is a draft Notice of Approval with an option for re- design.

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, D21/3596 ⇩

2 Plans, D21/3595 ⇩

3 Arborist Report, D20/70307 ⇩

4 Submission, D20/70283 ⇩

5 Applicant response to submission, D20/70542 ⇩

Planning and Development Committee 2 February 2021

Attachment 1 Notice of Approval

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

Development Application No DA 111/2020(1)

NA21/ Container PR4818

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 4.18

Development Application
Applicant Name:	Bassmann Drafting Services
Applicant Address:	25-27 McNamara Lane ORANGE NSW 2800
Owner’s Name:	Mr MJ and Mrs J E Truloff
Land to Be Developed:	Lot 2 DP 413484 - 12 Green Lane, Orange
Proposed Development:	Dwelling (two storey), Attached Garage, Retaining Walls and Tree Removal

Building Code of Australia building classification:	Class - as determined by Certifier

Determination made under Section 4.16
Made On:	2 February 2021
Determination:	CONSENT GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:

Consent to Operate From:	3 February 2021
Consent to Lapse On:	3 February 2026

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 ensure the utility services are available to the site and adequate for the development.

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

Conditions

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

(a) Plans numbered: Bassman Drafting 18.109 Drwg 00 issue B, 01 issue B, 02 issue B, 03 Issue A04 issue B, 05 Issue C, 06 issue B, BASIX Cert 1025036S

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

(7) 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.

PRIOR TO WORKS COMMENCING

(8) 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.

(9) 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.

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

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

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

(12) 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.

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

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

(15) 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.

(16) No portion of the building - including footings, eaves, overhang and service pipes - shall encroach into any easement.

(17) Should the root system of the protected trees be disturbed or exposed during the excavation for any reason the following treatment must be adheard to;

· With a root diameter more than 20mm in diameter are to be dealt with in accordance with AS4373-2007

· With a root diameter more than 20mm – 100mm in diameter are to be dealt with in accordance with AS4373-2007 and

· Any root diameter greater than 100mm requires advice from a qualified arborist prior to pruning

If unsure the builder is to contact a qualified arborist to seek advice so as to reduce disturbance of the tree root system.

(18) A TPZ (restricted area) is to be installed and delineated by a protective fence around the tree located between the proposed alfresco area and the northern boundary, and the large native Gum located to the rear of the dwelling. This fence is to be installed prior to site works commencing and must remain in-tact until completion of all works. The fence must not be altered or removed without approval of a project arborist.

If access is required or minor activities are to be undertaken within the TPZ, it must be approved by the project arborist. No routing of services, parking of vehicles, stacking of builder’s materials / equipment, is to occur within the TPZ.

The protective fence is to be constructed from ridged chain wire mesh panels (or similar), 1.8m in height, and securely anchored without penetrating the ground. Signs identifying the TPZ should be placed on the fencing and be visible from within the development site on all angles.

The root zone within the TPZ is to be mulched with tree chip to a depth of 75mm.

Soil moisture levels is to be regularly monitored during dry periods by the project arborist. Temporary irrigation may be installed.

An example of the above is available in AS4970-2009.

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

(19) 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.

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

(21) 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.

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

(23) 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.

ADVISORY NOTES

(24) 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.

Other Approvals

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

Water, Sewer and Stormwater

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

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

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

- internal sewer

- hot and cold water installation

- external sewer

- stormwater drainage

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

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

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

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

(f) All services (water, sewer and stormwater) shall be laid outside the easement unless there is a direct connection to the main within that easement.

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

Right of Appeal

If you are dissatisfied with this decision, Section 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:	3 February 2021

Planning and Development Committee 2 February 2021

2.3 Development Application DA 328/2020(1) - 13-29 Torulosa Way

RECORD NUMBER: 2021/44

AUTHOR: Rishelle Kent, Senior Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Land description	Lot 16 DP 258976 - 13-29 Torulosa Way, Orange
Proposed land use	Subdivision (33 lot residential)
Value of proposed development	Not applicable

Council's consent is sought to undertake a subdivision of residential land at 13–29 Torulosa Way. The land is described as Lot 16 DP 258976. A Locality Plan is provided below.

Figure 1 – Locality Plan

The proposal comprises 33 residential lots, the construction of a new ring road and a detention basin in the north-eastern corner. The design of the subdivision is shown below in Figure 2.

Figure 2 – Subdivision Plan

The size, shape and orientation of the proposed lots; along the gentle sloping nature of the parent parcel, will result in parcels of land suitable for the construction of future dwellings once the lots are created.

The proposed new road will not cause any unreasonable impacts in terms of traffic.

The subdivision, during both construction and ongoing phases of the development is not expected to give rise to any unsatisfactory environmental impacts in the locality.

Two existing mature eucalyptus trees in the south-western corner of the site will be retained and protected, both during construction and future residential development.

The application is consistent with Council’s relevant planning controls and policies and is recommended for approval subject to necessary conditions of consent.

DECISION FRAMEWORK

DIRECTOR’S COMMENT

The proposal involves a 33 lot Torrens subdivision of land within an established residential neighbourhood. The proposed subdivision complies with the LEP and DCP objectives. The land has been vacant for some considerable time. The design of the subdivision is consistent with the established urban area and will be a welcomed development to the neighbourhood. The development of this vacant land would be positive for this area of the City. It is recommended that Council supports the proposal.

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 328/2020(1) for Subdivision (33 lot residential) at Lot 16 DP 258976 - 13-29 Torulosa Way, Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

The land is a large irregular shaped parcel of land in an established residential neighbourhood. The land has a curved frontage to Torulosa Way and is bound by existing residential dwellings on the western, northern and south eastern boundaries. The land shares a boundary to the east with Eyde Park, an area of passive recreational open space.

THE APPLICATION

Council's consent is sought for a 33 lot residential subdivision of an existing 5.59ha parcel of land in Torulosa Way. The proposal also includes a new ring road, footpaths and a detention basin. The applicant and owner is Tangarra Holdings Pty Ltd.

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

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 clearing or disturbance of native vegetation; clearing thresholds prescribed by regulation do not apply.

· The site is contained within a developed urban area and has been highly modified by the urban land use 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

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,

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

The application is considered to be consistent with aims (a), (b), (c) and (e) 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 R1 General Residential
Lot Size Map:	No Minimum Lot Size
Heritage Map:	Not a heritage item or conservation area
Height of Buildings Map:	No building height limit
Floor Space Ratio Map:	No floor space limit
Terrestrial Biodiversity Map:	No biodiversity sensitivity on the site
Groundwater Vulnerability Map:	Groundwater vulnerable
Drinking Water Catchment Map:	Not within the drinking water catchment
Watercourse Map:	Not within or affecting a defined watercourse
Urban Release Area Map:	Not within an urban release area
Obstacle Limitation Surface Map:	No restriction on building siting or construction
Additional Permitted Uses Map:	No additional permitted use applies
Flood Planning Map:	Not within a flood planning area

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

Clause 1.9A - Suspension of Covenants, Agreements and Instruments

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.