Planning and Development Committee
Agenda
2 February 2021
Notice is hereby given, in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 that a Planning and Development Committee meeting of ORANGE CITY COUNCIL will be held in the Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Byng Street, Orange WITH AN OPTION OF ONLINE CONFERENCING PLATFORM ZOOM DUE TO COVID-19 REQUIREMENTS on Tuesday, 2 February 2021.
David Waddell
Chief Executive Officer
For apologies please contact Administration on 6393 8218.
Planning and Development Committee 2 February 2021
2.1 Items Approved Under the Delegated Authority of Council
2.2 Development Application DA 111/2020(1) - 12 Green Lane
2.3 Development Application DA 328/2020(1) - 13-29 Torulosa Way
2.4 Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 - Planning Proposal for a Heritage Amendment
2.5 Development Control Plan - Orange Eastside Precinct Plan - Post Exhibition Report
2.6 Esso Park - Options Testing
2.7 Development Control Plan - West End Precinct
2.8 Orange LEP 2011 - Amendment 17 status update
1 Introduction
1.1 Declaration of pecuniary interests, significant non-pecuniary interests and less than significant non-pecuniary interests
The provisions of Chapter 14 of the Local Government Act, 1993 (the Act) regulate the way in which Councillors and designated staff of Council conduct themselves to ensure that there is no conflict between their private interests and their public role.
The Act prescribes that where a member of Council (or a Committee of Council) has a direct or indirect financial (pecuniary) interest in a matter to be considered at a meeting of the Council (or Committee), that interest must be disclosed as soon as practicable after the start of the meeting and the reasons given for declaring such interest.
As members are aware, the provisions of the Local Government Act restrict any member who has declared a pecuniary interest in any matter from participating in the discussion or voting on that matter, and requires that member to vacate the Chamber.
Council’s Code of Conduct provides that if members have a non-pecuniary conflict of interest, the nature of the conflict must be disclosed. The Code of Conduct also provides for a number of ways in which a member may manage non pecuniary conflicts of interest.
Recommendation It is recommended that Committee Members now disclose any conflicts of interest in matters under consideration by the Planning and Development Committee at this meeting. |
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
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
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
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
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.
Figure 2 – Western elevation of the proposal
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.
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.
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⇩
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
(c) stating that unauthorised entry to the site is prohibited.
Any such sign is to be maintained while the building work, subdivision work or demolition work is being carried out.
(4) In the case of residential building work for which the Home Building Act 1989 requires there to be a contract of insurance in force in accordance with Part 6 of the Act, evidence that such a contract of insurance is in force is to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority before any building work authorised to be carried out by the consent commences.
(5) Residential building work within the meaning of the Home Building Act 1989 must not be carried out unless the principal certifying authority for the development to which the work relates (not being the council) has given the council written notice of the following information:
(a) in the case of work for which a principal contractor is required to be appointed:
(i) the name and the licence number of the principal contractor, and
(ii) the name of the insurer by which the work is insured under Part 6 of that Act,
(b) in the case of work to be done by an owner-builder:
(i) the name of the owner-builder, and
(ii) if the owner-builder is required to hold an owner-builder permit under that Act, the number of the owner-builder permit.
If arrangements for doing the residential building work are changed while the work is in progress so that the information under this condition becomes out of date, further work must not be carried out unless the principal certifying authority for the development to which the work relates (not being the council) has given the council written notice of the updated information.
(6) Where any excavation work on the site extends below the level of the base of the footings of a building on adjoining land, the person having the benefit of the development consent must, at the person’s own expense:
(a) protect and support the adjoining premises from possible damage from the excavation, and
(b) where necessary, underpin the adjoining premises to prevent any such damage.
Note: This condition does not apply if the person having the benefit of the development consent owns the adjoining land or the owner of the adjoining land has given consent in writing to this condition not applying.
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.
(c) The following inspections are required to be carried out by Council as the Water and Sewer Authority:
- internal sewer
- hot and cold water installation
- external sewer
- stormwater drainage
- final on water, sewer and stormwater drainage and Council services.
(d) Hot water shall be stored at a minimum of 60OC and be delivered to all sanitary fixtures used for personal hygiene (bathrooms/ensuites) at a temperature not exceeding 50oC. 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 |
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
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
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
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
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 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,
(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,
(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.
(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 R1 General Residential zone. The proposed development is characterised as a subdivision under the LEP.
Relevantly the EPA Act defines subdivision as the division of land into two or more parts that, after the division, would be obviously adapted for separate occupation, use or disposition.
Pursuant to Clause 2.6 of Orange LEP 2011, subdivision is permissible in any zone with consent which the applicant is seeking.
Clause 2.3 of LEP 2011 references the Objectives for each zone in LEP 2011. The objectives for land zoned R1 General Residential are as follows:
1 - Objectives of the R1 General Residential Zone
· 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 development is not contrary to the objects of the zone; the development will provide for additional housing stock within the south-eastern part of the city. The lots will vary in sizes from 508m2 to 843m2 allowing a mix of lot sizes whilst maintaining a subdivision design commensurate with the broader subdivision pattern.
The subdivision will allow for appropriate non-residential facilities and services that are permitted in the R1 zone.
Future occupants of dwellings on the resultant lots will benefit from existing transport links. The final objective is not relevant.
Clause 2.6 - Subdivision - Consent Requirements
This clause triggers the need for development consent for the subdivision of land which the applicant has sought through the lodgement of this application.
Clause 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 bulk earthworks necessary to achieve road surface levels and service gradients. The extent of earthworks is shown on the below excavation map.
Figure 3 - Bulk Excavation Plan
NB: dark red through to orange is cut; and yellow and green are areas of fill. Maximum cut (dark red) is approximately 1.2m, and maximum areas of fill (green areas) are approximately 800mm.
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 as demonstrated by the submitted preliminary contamination investigation. Notwithstanding this, in line with Council’s standard procedures a precautionary condition is recommended in relation to an unexpected finds protocol. Excavated materials will be reused onsite as far as possible.
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 as confirmed by an AHIMS search. Previous known uses of the site do not suggest that any relics are likely to be uncovered. However, standard conditions are 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. Notwithstanding this, conditions are imposed to require a sediment control plan, including silt traps and other protective measures, to ensure that loose dirt and sediment does not escape the site boundaries.
7.3 - Stormwater Management
This clause applies to all industrial, commercial and residential zones and requires that Council be satisfied that the proposal:
(a) is designed to maximise the use of water permeable surfaces on the land having regard to the soil characteristics affecting onsite infiltration of water
(b) includes, where practical, onsite stormwater retention for use as an alternative supply to mains water, groundwater or river water; and
(c) avoids any significant impacts of stormwater runoff on adjoining downstream properties, native bushland and receiving waters, or if that impact cannot be reasonably avoided, minimises and mitigates the impact.
Council’s Technical Services staff advise the following with respect to stormwater:
The applicant will be required to construct an onsite stormwater system for the development. Preliminary engineering design indicates that a basin can be accommodated in the NE corner.
Relevant conditions are attached to the notice of approval accompanying this report.
7.6 - Groundwater Vulnerability
This clause seeks to protect hydrological functions of groundwater systems and protect resources from both depletion and contamination. Orange has a high water table and large areas of the LGA, including the subject site, are identified with “Groundwater Vulnerability” on the Groundwater Vulnerability Map. This requires that Council consider:
(a) whether or not the development (including any onsite storage or disposal of solid or liquid waste and chemicals) is likely to cause any groundwater contamination or have any adverse effect on groundwater dependent ecosystems, and
(b) the cumulative impact (including the impact on nearby groundwater extraction for potable water supply or stock water supply) of the development and any other existing development on groundwater.
Furthermore, consent may not be granted unless Council is satisfied that:
(a) the development is designed, sited and will be managed to avoid any significant adverse environmental impact, or
(b) if that impact cannot be reasonably avoided - the development is designed, sited and will be managed to minimise that impact,
(c) if that impact cannot be minimised - the development will be managed to mitigate that impact.
The proposal 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, the listed utility services are available and suitable subject to augmentation. Council’s Assistant Development Engineer has included conditions on the attached Notice of Approval in relation to reticulated dual water; reticulated sewer; stormwater detention; and road and footpath construction.
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.
In respect of the above clause, a preliminary contamination investigation has been submitted in support the proposal.
The report, whilst identifying elevated levels of copper within the soil and refuse on the surface of the soil within the site, concludes that the level of copper is below relevant thresholds and thus can be used for residential purposes. The report recommends the refuse be removed from an amenity point of view and does not suggest it causing a contamination problem. As such, the report finds “the investigation area is suitable for proposed residential land-use following removal of refuse.”
Notwithstanding this, in line with standard procedure a precautionary unexpected finds condition is recommended.
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)
Council staff are awaiting the imminent gazettal of an LEP Housekeeping amendment known as Amendment 24. The amendment deals with a variety of changes to the LEP, including the adoption of the new flood study. It is noted that the subject land is affected by the mapped overland flows within the new flood study which correlates with the location of the onsite stormwater detention basin. Council’s Technical Services staff have not raised any objection to the development.
There are no other aspects of the subject amendment of relevance to the assessment of this application.
State Environmental Planning Policy Draft Remediation of Land
Draft Remediation of Land SEPP is applicable. The Draft SEPP requires in part that consideration be given to potential contamination on nearby or neighbouring properties and groundwater. Land adjoining the site has an established landuse history of residential development.
The contaminated status of adjoining residential lands will not impact on the proposed development.
DESIGNATED AND INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT
The proposed development is not designated or 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 (Part 7 – Development in Residential Areas). 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 2a urban (Orange LEP 2000) is zone R1 – General Residential (Orange LEP 2011). As such, Orange DCP 2004 - 7 is relevant to this proposal and is considered below.
PLANNING OUTCOMES FOR URBAN RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
· Subdivision layouts in areas zoned Urban Residential prior to this plan are generally in accordance with the applicable plan maps in Appendix 1.
Not applicable. The development is located in an established area. There are no indicative lot layouts for this site.
· Lots are orientated to optimise energy-efficiency principles.
Whilst the lot layout is largely driven by the curve in Torulosa Way, the majority of lots are orientated in a way that will allow reasonable sunlight for future occupants.
· New roads are planned according to modified grid layouts with restrained use of cul-de-sac roads in new developments according to the UDAS Urban Form principles for Orange.
No cul-de-sacs are proposed.
It is noted that existing pedestrian links within the vicinity of the development are appropriately maintained with practical links/extensions provided within the development.
· Local open space is provided along creek corridors to create open space linkages for environmental conservation and social interaction. Release areas removed from creeks provide for open-space links incorporating substantial stands of native vegetation.
Not applicable.
· Release areas indicate trunk cycle and pedestrian ways that link the area to major open space networks and activity centres (schools, shopping centres and employment areas).
Council’s Technical Services staff have requested footpaths be provided along one side of the new road as well as along the entire frontage of the development.
· Lots below 500m2 indicate a mandatory side setback to provide for solar access and privacy.
Not applicable.
· Lots below 350m2 indicate existing or planned house layouts, which identify how privacy, solar access, vehicular access and private open-space needs are to be achieved.
Not applicable.
· Up to 25% of new subdivisions comprise small lots in dispersed locations.
The development provides a range of lot sizes the smallest being 508m2.
· Lots are fully serviced and have direct frontage/access to a public road.
All lots will comply with this planning outcome.
· Design and construction complies with the Orange Development and Subdivision Code.
Relevant conditions are attached to ensure compliance with Orange development and Subdivision Code.
· Corner lots provide for a house to front one street.
The arrangement of the proposed road and its relationship with the existing Torulosa Way will create corner lots with acceptable width to depth ratios and thus allow a future dwelling to front one street.
· Battleaxe lots provide an adequate access way width for the number of dwellings proposed to be served in order to allow for vehicle and pedestrian access and location of services.
There are two battle-axe lots proposed and both provide a 4.5m wide access handle. This is sufficient to accommodate a single dwelling on the land.
· Lots proposed to be used specifically for dual occupancy or units in new residential areas are identified on development application plans to inform prospective purchasers of the mixed residential form of the area and measures are outlined on how prospective residents are to be informed of these identified sites prior to purchasing land.
The applicant has not nominated any dual occupancy sites. It is noted that only one lot is above the development standard for dual occupancy (800m2 minimum lot size) being Lot 21 which is a battle-axe lot. However, the access handle for this lot is 4.5m and thereby not considered wide enough to support a dual occupancy development. A note to applicant will advise of such.
Section 7.11 - Development Contributions
In accordance with Section 7.11 of
the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Orange
Development Contributions Plan 2017 (Remainder LGA) a contribution towards the
provision of the following public facilities is required:
Open Space and Recreation |
@ 4,106.71 x 32 additional lots |
131,414.72 |
Community and Cultural |
@ 1,109.93 x 32 additional lots |
38,109.76 |
Roads and Traffic Management Facilities |
@ 5,420.71 x 32 additional lots |
173,462.72 |
Local Area Facilities |
-- |
-- |
Plan Preparation and Administration |
@ 321.55 x 32 additional lots |
10,289.60 |
TOTAL: |
|
$353,276.80 |
The development has been charged for 32 lots, comprising a credit for the existing lot. The contribution will be indexed quarterly in accordance with the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017 (Remainder LGA).
A condition is included on the attached Notice of Approval requiring payment of the contributions prior to issue of a Subdivision Certificate.
Section 64 Water and Sewer Headworks Charges
Section 64 water and sewer headwork charges are applicable to the proposed development. The contributions for water, sewer and drainage works are based on 32 lots for water supply headworks and 32 lots for sewerage headworks pursuant to calculations by Council’s Assistant Development Engineer. Conditions are recommended requiring payment of contributions prior to issue of a Subdivision Certificate.
PROVISIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE REGULATIONS s4.15(1)(a)(iv)
The proposed development is not contrary to any matter prescribed by Regulation.
THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT s4.15(1)(b)
Context and Setting
The subject land is contained within an established residential area. The proposed subdivision layout generally accords with the established subdivision pattern of the locality. Pedestrian linkages will be provided to Elliot Close to the west and Eyde Park to the east, as well as a continuation of dwellings facing Torulosa Way to the south.
Visual Impacts
The subdivision itself will have limited visual impacts. Visual impacts associated with the future development will relate to the frontages of subsequent dwellings and private landscaping of the proposed lots fronting the public road. The subdivision design as initially submitted proposed the new road along existing side and rear fences which would negatively impact upon the streetscape presentation of the locality. As such, Council staff requested redesign for a more appropriate streetscape outcome. The amended design now achieves a suitable interface between public roads and the frontages of dwellings, whilst also providing visual and pedestrian links to the public open spaces.
Subsequent dwelling construction and private landscaping on the proposed lots will complement the neighbourhood character, with positive visual impacts for the setting.
Traffic Impacts
The proposed subdivision is considered satisfactory in regard to traffic impacts. As such:
· All lots will have access to a public road.
· All lots will have frontage to a public road, excepting Lots 21 and 29 which comprise battle-axe lots.
· The proposed road layout is satisfactory.
· The development will result in additional traffic in the locality given the increases in residential density at the completion of the subdivision. Notwithstanding this, the surrounding street network will be capable of serving the additional traffic load.
· The access handle of Lots 21 and 29 are 4.5m in width, which does not cater for a dual occupancy development upon these sites. This was raised with the applicant, who did not wish to increase the width of the access handle to 6m to cater for more intensive residential development. As such, a note to applicant has been attached to the draft Notice advising of such.
· A nudge rail fence with pedestrian openings shall be constructed along the eastern side of the new road fronting Eyde Park to ensure all construction related movements are undertaken via the street and not through Council’s Park.
These requirements have been conditioned accordingly.
Biodiversity
The proposed subdivision is unlikely to impact on localised biodiversity values. The subject and adjoining lands have been highly modified by the existing and intensifying residential land use pattern. The site is not identified as ‘biodiversity sensitive’ on the Orange LEP 2011 Terrestrial Biodiversity Map.
Tree Protection zones are to be established on Lot 1 in accordance with AS4970-2009 in order to protect two eucalypts trees from development activities. Furthermore, each lot will require a street tree to be planted and maintained for twelve months. These requirements have been conditioned accordingly.
Cultural Values
The proposed subdivision is unlikely to impact on cultural values. The site is not known to contain any Aboriginal, European or archaeological relics.
Residential Amenity
The proposed lots will be subsequently developed for dwelling houses. The lots will be of area, dimension, orientation and gradient sufficient to provide a high standard of residential amenity. The lots will accommodate dwellings with setback restrictions to the public roads, and remove the dwellings from road traffic noise.
THE SUITABILITY OF THE SITE s4.15(1)(c)
The site is a large underutilised parcel of residential land; this application will see the land being used for its intended purpose. The site is not known to be contaminated, nor are there any known physical, technological or natural hazards effecting the land. All necessary services are available in close proximity of the site.
The site is thus suitable for residential subdivision.
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 four (4) submissions were received from three parties. Their concerns have been summarised below:
Submission 1 and 4
· Will measures be taken to ensure dust does not become an issue during construction?
Conditions of consent have been placed on the development to ensure construction works do not interfere with residential amenity.
· Is there a height restriction for future buildings?
There are no specific height controls that apply in this locality. The Complying development planning provisions contained with the State Environmental Planning Policy advocates a maximum height of two stories. In addition Council has a performance based DCP containing controls in relation to future residential development in the event that development exceeds the complying development controls. These controls include consideration of neighbourhood character, building materials and bulk and scale of development to name a few so as to ensure that future development matches as close as possible to the height and density of development observed in this locality. The specific height of buildings will therefore be assessed at such time that applications are received.
· Will my fence be replaced and if so, to what height? Will it follow the fall of the land to prevent pets escaping?
The provision of fencing is a matter that would ordinarily be determined between future property owners of the land. Council does not specifically require fencing to be provided on an application for subdivision. In the event of a dispute between property owners, over the height style, colour etc. of a fence the matter may be determined by a local magistrate under the Dividing Fences legislation.
Submission 2
· The existing easement on the western boundary has no fencing to stop motor vehicles.
The 4m wide public pathway will be continued from Elliot Close through to the new road to provide pedestrian linkages throughout the neighbourhood.
· Lots 21 and 29 should be deleted and other lots increased in size.
Battle-axe lots are not prohibited, and have been designed to provide an adequate size and shape for residential use.
· The lots adjoining Adina Crescent should be increased in size to match the existing lot sizes.
There are no minimum allotment sizes specified for subdivision in this locality. Whilst there is no formal master plan concept for this site the design and shape of the proposed lots is considered acceptable to support residential development in a manner that is not inconsistent with neighbourhood character. The subdivision design complies with the requirements of Council’s DCP and does not require amendment to lot sizes.
Submission 3
· Will side access still be available to our land?
Given the side boundary of the property will now front a public road and not private property, side access may be possible as a result of the development. Any new access to an allotment would be subject to a separate approval by Council’s Technical Services Department.
· Will there be speed humps on the new road?
A development of this nature does not trigger the need for trafficable speed humps to be required or conditioned.
· Will all properties in Torulosa Way have a footpath?
Council’s works programs indicates the demand and timing for the provision of footpaths across the LGA. Footpaths on one side of the proposed new road will be required.
· Will the developer go halves in the cost of the fence?
The Dividing Fences Act determines cost sharing for neighbours. Council is not authorised to be involved in these arrangements.
· Will the future development be single storey or double storey?
This will be determined when approvals are sought for future dwellings. It should be noted that double storey dwellings are not precluded as a result of this development.
· We have concerns about possible damage to our house during the excavation and construction stage.
All subdivision construction works are required to be undertaken in accordance with safe work practices in place and be sympathetic to the surrounding existing dwellings.
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.
COMMENTS
The requirements of the Environmental Health and Building Surveyor and the Engineering Development Section are included in the attached Notice of Approval.
1 Notice of Approval, D21/3569⇩
2 Plan, D21/3571⇩
3 Submissions, D21/3257⇩
Planning and Development Committee 2 February 2021
Attachment 1 Notice of Approval
|
ORANGE CITY COUNCIL
Development Application No DA 328/2020(1)
NA21/ Container PR12072 |
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Section 4.18
Development Application |
|
Applicant Name: |
Tangarra Holdings Pty Ltd |
Applicant Address: |
Suite 706, Level 7, 109 Pitt St SYDNEY NSW 2000 |
Owner’s Name: |
Tangarra Holdings Pty Ltd |
Land to Be Developed: |
Lot 16 DP 258976 - 13-29 Torulosa Way, Orange |
Proposed Development: |
Subdivision (33 lot residential) |
|
|
Building Code of Australia building classification: |
Class not applicable |
|
|
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 provide adequate public health and safety measures.
(5) Because the development will require the provision of, or increase the demand for, public amenities and services.
(6) To ensure the utility services are available to the site and adequate for the development.
(7) To prevent the proposed development having a detrimental effect on adjoining land uses.
(8) To minimise the impact of development on the environment.
|
|
Conditions
(1) The development must be carried out in accordance with:
(a) Plan numbered: Platform Architects DA 01 E (1 sheet)
(b) statements of environmental effects or other similar associated documents that form part of the approval
as amended in accordance with any conditions of this consent.
PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS |
(2) All building work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE |
(3) A street tree plan shall be submitted and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. The street tree plan shall indicate 1 tree outside each lot (excepting battleaxe lots), of minimum 45litre container size, and of species approved by Council’s Manager City Presentation.
(4) Engineering plans, showing details of all proposed work and adhering to any engineering conditions of development consent, are to be submitted to, and approved by, Orange City Council or an Accredited Certifier (Categories B1, C3, C4, C6) prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.
The following Orange City Council engineering design and construction requirements shall be used in addition to, or taking precedence over, the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code:-
- Council requires elastic rebound deflection testing carried out on road base material prior to the placement of any asphalt to determine maximum deflection in accordance with RMS Test Method T160 utilising the Benkelman Beam or equivalent;
- All road reserves between the back of kerb and property boundary, and areas of public land shall be either hydro mulched or turfed prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate. All allotments shall be spread with topsoil and seed;
- Asphaltic cement wearing surface shall not be included in road pavement depth calculations;
- A 10 day soaked CBR test shall be used for road subgrade pavement evaluations;
- All stormwater drainage design shall be based on ARR2016 calculations allowing +20% for climate change factor.
(5) A Soil and Water Management Plan (SWMP) is to be submitted to Orange City Council or an Accredited Certifier (Categories B1, C3, C4, C6) for approval prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate. The control plan is to be in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code and the Landcom, Managing Urban Stormwater; Soils and Construction Handbook.
(6) The development’s stormwater design is to include stormwater detention within the development, designed to limit peak outflows from the land to the pre-existing natural outflows up to the 100 year ARI frequency, with sufficient allowance in overflow spillway design capacity to safely pass flows of lower frequency (that is, a rarer event) without damage to downstream developments. Where appropriate, the spillway design capacity is to be determined in accordance with the requirements of the Dam Safety Committee.
The design of the detention storage is to be undertaken using the DRAINS rainfall-runoff hydrologic model or an approved equivalent capable of assessing runoff volumes and their temporal distribution as well as peak flow rates. The model is to be used to calculate the flow rates for the existing and post-development conditions. The developed flows are to be routed through the proposed storage within the model so that the outflows obtained are no greater than the flows obtained for the pre-existing natural flows. A report detailing the results of the analysis, which includes:
· catchment plan showing sub-catchments under existing and developed conditions;
· schematic diagram of the catchment model showing sub areas and linkages;
· tabulation detailing the elevation, storage volume and discharge relationships; and
· tabulation for the range of frequencies analysed, the inflows, outflows and peak storage levels for both existing and developed conditions;
together with copies of the data files for the model and engineering design plans of the required drainage system are to be submitted to Orange City Council upon application for a Construction Certificate.
(7) Proposed lots are to be provided with interlot stormwater drainage, including those lots abutting public land, where the surface of the entire lot cannot be drained to the kerb and gutter at the lot frontage. A grated concrete stormwater pit is to be constructed within each lot provided with interlot stormwater drainage. Engineering plans for this drainage system are to be approved by Orange City Council or an Accredited Certifier (Categories B1, C3, C4, C6) prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.
(8) A 150mm-diameter sewer main is to be constructed from Council’s existing main to serve the proposed lots. Prior to a Construction Certificate being issued engineering plans for this sewerage system are to be submitted to and approved by Orange City Council.
(9) A water reticulation analysis is to be carried out by Orange City Council on any proposed water reticulation system for the development. Engineering plans are to be submitted to and approved by Orange City Council prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.
The reticulation system is to be designed to supply a peak instantaneous demand by gravity of 0.15 L/s/tenement at a minimum residual head of 200kPa.
(10) Prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate, a Road Naming Application form is to be completed and submitted with a plan of the whole development defining the stage being released.
(11) All services and access shall be wholly within the Land to be developed. If services and access is to be provided over adjoining properties then, prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, evidence of the registration of any required easements and rights of way over adjoining properties for the provision of services and access shall be provided to the Principal Certifier.
PRIOR TO WORKS COMMENCING |
(12) That a Council-specified nudge rail fence, with 2 pedestrian openings of 1000mm in width (locations to be determined in consultation with Council’s Manager City Presentation) be constructed along the eastern side of the new road fronting Edye Park prior to site establishment (this will comprise approximately 135 lineal metres of fence from the rear boundary of 3 Willow Place to the rear boundary fence of 52 Adina Crescent). This is to ensure that all construction activities and trade related vehicle movements are undertaken via the street frontage and not through Edye Park.
(13) Tree Protection Zones are to be established on Lot 1 in accordance with AS4970-2009 to protect the two Eucalypts from development activities. TPZ’s are to be established prior to site occupancy and shall remain until subdivision construction is complete.
(14) A temporary onsite toilet is to be provided and must remain throughout the project or until an alternative facility meeting Council’s requirements is available onsite.
(15) Soil erosion control measures shall be implemented on the site.
(16) An application for a Subdivision Works Certificate is required to be submitted to, and a Certificate issued by Council/Accredited Certifier prior to any excavation or works being carried out onsite.
(17) The approved Soil and Water Management Plan (SWMP) shall be implemented prior to construction work commencing.
DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS |
(18) In the event of an unexpected find during site 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.
(19) If Aboriginal objects, relics, or other historical items or the like are located during development works, all works in the area of the identified object, relic or item shall cease, and the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH), and representatives from the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council shall be notified. Where required, further archaeological investigation shall be undertaken. Development works in the area of the find(s) may recommence if and when outlined by the management strategy, developed in consultation with and approved by the OEH.
(20) 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.
(21) 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.
(22) Any adjustments to existing utility services that are made necessary by this development proceeding are to be at the full cost of the developer.
(23) The provisions and requirements of the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code are to be applied to this application and all work constructed within the development is to be in accordance with that Code.
The developer is to be entirely responsible for the provision of water, sewerage and drainage facilities capable of servicing all the lots from Council’s existing infrastructure. The developer is to be responsible for gaining access over adjoining land for services where necessary and easements are to be created about all water, sewer and drainage mains within and outside the lots they serve.
(24) Council requires elastic rebound deflection testing carried out on road base material prior to the placement of any asphalt to determine maximum deflection in accordance with RMS Test Method T160 utilising the Benkelman Beam or equivalent.
(25) Proposed Road 1 shall be constructed full width as an 18.0m urban local access road and tie into the existing Torulosa Way road formation. This work is to include road pavement and pavement surfacing, kerb and gutter construction and earth-formed footpath on both sides of the road. Where the road adjoins Edye Park road surface levels shall be adjusted and the footpath reserve battered to Council requirements. Retaining walls shall not be used within or adjoining the road reserve.
(26) For all single access battle-axe blocks, a concrete kerb layback and footpath crossing is to be constructed to a minimum width of 3.0m and to the requirements and standards of the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.
(27) A concrete pathway shall be constructed to connect to the existing pathway in Maxime Place. The pathway shall be constructed to the widths and standards stated in the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.
(28) All proposed residential lots adjacent to the stormwater detention basin or any overland flow paths, are to have a minimum freeboard above the 1-in-100-year flood level in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code and the Floodplain Risk Management Plan.
(29) A water service and sewer junction shall be provided to every lot in the proposed residential subdivision in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.
(30) All services are to be contained within the allotment that they serve.
(31) Concrete footpaths, a minimum of 1.2m wide, shall be constructed on one side of proposed Road 1 and the full frontage of the development to Torulosa Way.
Construction work is to be to the requirements and standards of the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A SUBDIVISION CERTIFICATE |
(32) The payment of $353,276.80 is to be made to Council in accordance with Section 7.11 of the Act and the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017 (Remainder of LGA) towards the provision of the following public facilities:
Open Space and Recreation |
@ 4,106.71 x 32 additional lots |
131,414.72 |
Community and Cultural |
@ 1,109.93 x 32 additional lots |
38,109.76 |
Roads and Traffic Management Facilities |
@ 5,420.71 x 32 additional lots |
173,462.72 |
Local Area Facilities |
-- |
-- |
Plan Preparation & Administration |
@ 321.55 x 32 additional lots |
10,289.60 |
TOTAL: |
|
$353,276.80 |
The contribution will be indexed quarterly in accordance with the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017 (remainder of LGA). This Plan can be inspected at the Orange Civic Centre, Byng Street, Orange.
(33) All street trees must be planted, at a minimum 45L pot size, and protected with a suitably approved tree guard, prior to the issue of the Subdivision Certificate.
(34) Application shall be made for a Subdivision Certificate under Section 6.3(1)(d) of the Act.
(35) 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 32 ETs for water supply headworks and 32 ETs for sewerage headworks. A Certificate of Compliance, from Orange City Council in accordance with the Water Management Act 2000, will be issued upon payment of the contributions.
This Certificate of Compliance is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate.
(36) Evidence from a registered NATA laboratory is to be submitted prior to the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate stating that the filling of all dams and low-lying areas has been carried out in accordance with Australian Standard 3798-2007.
(37) Application is to be made to Telstra/NBN for infrastructure to be made available to each individual lot within the development. Either a Telecommunications Infrastructure Provisioning Confirmation or Certificate of Practical Completion is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority confirming that the specified lots have been declared ready for service prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate.
(38) 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.
(39) An easement to drain sewage and to provide Council access for maintenance of sewerage works a minimum of 2.0m wide is to be created over the proposed sewerage works. The Principal Certifying Authority is to certify that the easement is in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code prior to the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate.
(40) 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.
(41) A Certificate of Compliance, from a Qualified Engineer, stating that the stormwater detention basin comply with the approved engineering plans is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate.
(42) A Maintenance Security Deposit, in accordance with the provisions and requirements of the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code, is to be provided to Orange City Council prior to the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate.
A Certificate of Compliance, from Orange City Council, certifying that the maintenance security deposit has been paid, is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate.
(43) Where stormwater crosses land outside the lot it favours, an easement to drain water is to be created over the works. A Restriction-as-to-User under section 88B of the NSW Conveyancing Act 1919 is to be created on the title of the burdened lot requiring that no structures are to be placed on the site, or landscaping or site works carried out on the site, in a manner that affects the continued operation of the interlot drainage system. The minimum width of the easement is to be as required in the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.
(44) Certification from Orange City Council is required to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate stating that all works relating to connection of the development to Council assets, works on public land, works on public roads, stormwater, sewer and water reticulation mains and footpaths have been carried out in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code and the foregoing conditions, and that Council will take ownership of the infrastructure assets.
(45) 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 |
(46) Street trees are to be maintained by the proponent for an establishment period of minimum 12 months from issue of Subdivision Certificate. Should any tree fail during this period, it shall be replaced on a like for like basis at the cost of the proponent.
NOTE TO APPLICANT |
(1) Given the proposed width of access for both battle-axe shaped allotments 21 and 29, future development within each allotment shall be limited to a single dwelling and associated outbuildings only.
|
|
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: |
3 February 2021 |
RECORD NUMBER: 2020/2553
AUTHOR: Alison Phillips, Town Planner ( Strategic)
EXECUTIVE Summary
This report commences the process to amend the Orange Local Environmental Plan (LEP) in regards to heritage matters considered by Council in 2020. To this end, a Planning Proposal has been drafted that reflects Council’s resolutions for new Heritage Conservation Areas (HCAs), extensions of the existing HCAs, including their renaming, and also the inclusions of a number of properties to be adopted as Local Heritage Items within the Orange Local Government Area. (Attachments 2 and 3). In addition, the Planning Proposal seeks to correct several heritage anomalies that have been identified in Council’s resolution of 2 December 2020.
The proposal has also been drafted to include the area of ‘The Springs‘ in the Shiralee area south of the City, for the purposes of heritage listing in accordance with actions detailed within the Springs Archaeological Assessment and Heritage Study, Conservation Management Plan and the Heritage Landscape Plan that Council adopted on 7 July 2020 (Attachment 1).
These matters are outlined in the attached draft Planning Proposal which will form the basis for the amendment and public exhibition process. Formal LEP maps, where relevant, will be prepared prior to public exhibition.
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
That Council resolves: 1 To endorse the attached scope of the Heritage Amendment to the Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 2 That staff prepare a formal Planning Proposal accordance with Section 3.33 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 3 That staff finalise inventory sheets before seeking a Gateway Determination 4 To send the Planning Proposal to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment to seek a Gateway Determination in accordance with Section 3.34 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 5 That staff proceed to address any conditions or requirements of the Gateway Determination and then place the draft Planning Proposal on public exhibition in accordance with the Gateway determination |
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
Following on from the work undertaken in the Springs Archaeological Assessment and Heritage Study, Conservation Management Plan and the Heritage Landscape Plan and also the major works recently undertaken with the Heritage Conservation Area Review, a draft Planning Proposal has been prepared to give effect to this work via amendments to the Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011.
This includes the following recommended amendments:
· Amend Schedule 5 - Environmental heritage – Part 1 to correct several anomalies that have been identified.
· Amend Schedule 5 Environmental heritage – Part 1 and maps to include The Springs Travelling Stock Reserve (TSR), as described in the Springs Archaeological Assessment and Heritage Study, Conservation Management Plan and the Heritage Landscape Plan (December 2019).
· Amend Schedule 5 Environmental heritage – Part 1 and maps for the Former Bluestone Quarry (Bluestone lakes) to reflect the recent subdivision pattern.
· Amend Schedule 5 Environmental heritage – Part 2 Heritage Conservation Areas and maps to include the Bletchington, Newman Park and Blackman’s Swamp HCAs as described in the Heritage Conservation Area Review (November 2020)
· Amend Schedule 5 Environmental heritage – Part 2 Heritage Conservation Areas and maps to include the extension to the existing Central, Duration Cottages and Glenroi HCAs as described in the Heritage Conservation Area Review (November 2020)
· Amend Schedule 5 Environmental heritage – Part 2 Heritage Conservation Areas to rename the following:
- The Heritage Conservation Area known as Central Heritage Conservation Area, be renamed Dalton Central Heritage Conservation Area
- The Heritage Conservation Area known as the Duration Cottages Heritage Conservation Area be renamed Glenroi Duration Cottages Heritage Conservation Area
- The Heritage Conservation Area known as Glenroi Heritage Conservation Area be renamed Endsleigh Heritage Conservation Area
- The Heritage Conservation Area known as East Orange Heritage Conservation Area be renamed Bowen Heritage Conservation Area.
· Amend Schedule 5 Environmental heritage – Part 1 Heritage Items and maps to include numerous properties as Local Heritage Items as described in the Heritage Conservation Area Review (November 2020)
1 Correction of several anomalies
Amend Schedule 5 - Environmental Heritage – Part 1
1a Correction of misspelt address under Schedule 5 – Environmental Heritage as shown below.
Calare |
Dwelling |
545 Frost Street |
Lot 3, DP 36132 |
Local |
I181 |
Correction:
Calare |
Dwelling |
54 Frost Street |
Lot 3, DP 36132 |
Local |
I181 |
1b Correction of misspelt address and incorrect Lot and DP under Schedule 5 – Environmental Heritage as shown below.
Huntley |
“Carramar” dwelling |
148 Shiralee Road (corner of Rifle Range Road) |
Lot 92, DP 750401 |
Local |
I285 |
Correction:
Huntley |
“Carramar” dwelling |
26 Kinghorn Lane (note there are two 26 Kinghorn lanes) |
Lot 2, DP 828893 |
Local |
I285 |
1c Correction of missing Heritage Conservation Area under Schedule 5 – Part 2 Heritage conservation areas
Correction:
Glenroi |
Glenroi Duration Cottages Heritage Conservation Area |
Local |
C6 |
2 The Springs Travelling Stock Reserve (TSR)
Amend Schedule 5 Environmental heritage – Part 1 and maps.
Shiralee |
‘The Springs’ Traveling Stock Reserve (TSR) |
Located between Forest Road, Shiralee Road, Hawke Lane and Rifle Range Road |
Lot 114 DP 750401 Lot 115 DP 750401 Lot 116 DP 750401 Lot 117 DP 750401 Lot 118 DP 750401 Lot 119 DP 750401 Lot 125 DP 750401 Lot 126 DP 750401 Lot 127 DP 750401 Lot 128 DP 750401 |
Local |
TBC |
3 The Former Bluestone Quarry (Bluestone lakes) to reflect the recent subdivision
Amend Schedule 5 Environmental heritage – Part 1 and maps
Calare |
CSR Readymix site (Bluestone quarry) |
Laurel Street, off Racecourse Road |
Lot 10, DP 112243; Lots 167–174, DP 979328 |
State |
I58 |
Amendment:
Calare |
CSR Readymix site (Bluestone quarry) |
Cedar Street, Laurel Street, off Racecourse Road |
Lot 1, DP 271090 |
State |
I58 |
4 Inclusion of the new Bletchington, Newman Park and Blackman’s Swamp HCAs
Amend Schedule 5 Environmental heritage – Part 2 Heritage conservation areas and maps
Orange |
Bletchington Heritage Conservation Area |
Local |
C7 |
Orange |
Newman Park Heritage Conservation Area |
Local |
C8 |
Orange |
Blackman’s Swamp Heritage Conservation Area |
Local |
C9 |
5 Extension of the existing Central, Duration Cottages and Glenroi HCAs
Amend Schedule 5 Environmental heritage – Part 2 Heritage conservation areas and maps
5a The Heritage Conservation Area known as Central Orange Heritage Conservation Area, be renamed Dalton Central Heritage Conservation Area
Orange |
Central Orange Heritage Conservation Area |
Local |
C1 |
Amendment:
Orange |
Dalton Central Heritage Conservation Area |
Local |
C1 |
5b The Heritage Conservation Area known as the Duration Cottages Heritage Conservation Area (LEP) be renamed Glenroi Duration Cottages Heritage Conservation Area. Note: Duration Cottages Heritage Conservation Area is not included in Schedule 5 but is mapped. This is to be rectified in through the addition of the Glenroi Duration Cottages Heritage Conservation Area.
Amendment:
Orange |
Glenroi Duration Cottages Heritage Conservation Area |
Local |
C6 |
5c The Heritage Conservation Area known as Glenroi Heritage Conservation Area be renamed Endsleigh Heritage Conservation Area
Orange |
Glenroi Heritage Conservation Area |
Local |
C3 |
Amendment:
Orange |
Endsleigh Heritage Conservation Area |
Local |
C3 |
5d The Heritage Conservation Area known as East Orange Heritage Conservation Area be renamed Bowen Heritage Conservation Area
Orange |
East Orange Heritage Conservation Area |
Local |
C2 |
Amendment:
Orange |
Bowen Heritage Conservation Area |
Local |
C2 |
6 Include a number of properties as Local Heritage Items
Amending Schedule 5 Environmental heritage – Part 1 Heritage Items and maps
Suburb |
Item name |
Address |
Property description |
Significance |
Item No (TBC) |
Orange |
Dwelling |
117 Sampson Street |
Lot 8 DP 6662 |
Local |
|
Orange |
Dwelling |
49 Prince Street |
Lot 21 DP1249171 |
Local |
|
Bowen |
Dwelling |
5 Hawkins Lane |
Lot 14 DP 36258 |
Local |
|
Bowen |
Dwelling |
9 Hawkins Lane |
Lot 1 DP 997995 |
Local |
|
Bowen |
Dwelling |
11 Hawkins Lane |
Lot 1 DP 194886 |
Local |
|
Bowen |
Dwelling |
3 Hawkins Lane |
Lot 1 DP 711668 |
Local |
|
Bowen |
Dwelling |
6 Hawkins Lane |
Lot 1 DP 996035 |
Local |
|
Bowen |
Dwelling |
4 Hawkins Lane |
Lot B DP 154127 |
Local |
|
Bowen |
Dwelling |
2 Hawkins Lane |
Lot A DP 154127 |
Local |
|
Bowen |
Dwelling |
20 Nile Street |
Lot 1 DP 780854 |
Local |
|
Bowen |
Dwelling |
22 Nile Street |
Lot 11 DP 1086301 |
Local |
|
Bowen |
Dwelling |
24 Nile Street |
Lot 1 DP 797882 |
Local |
|
Bowen |
Dwelling |
26 Nile Street |
Lot 1 DP 738846 |
Local |
|
Bletchington |
Dwelling |
171 Margaret Street |
Lot 20 DP 507333 |
Local |
|
Bletchington |
Dwelling |
110 Matthews Avenue |
Lot 23 DP 36258 |
Local |
|
Orange |
|
125 Prince Street |
Lot B DP 345070 |
Local |
|
Suburb |
Item name |
Address |
Property description |
Significance |
Item No (TBC) |
Bletchington |
‘Former Railway Level Crossing Keepers Cottage’ |
125 Dalton Street |
Lot 2 DP 1038981 |
Local |
|
Bowen |
|
112 Dalton Street |
Lot 1 DP 744247 |
Local |
|
Orange |
Dwelling |
121 Gardiner Road |
Lot 105 DP 831875 |
Local |
|
Orange |
Dwelling |
123 Gardiner Road |
Lot B DP 363624 |
Local |
|
Orange |
Dwelling |
102 Gardiner Road |
Lot 112 DP 456165 |
Local |
|
Orange |
Dwelling |
106 Gardiner Road |
Lot 121 DP 561111 |
Local |
|
Orange |
Dwelling |
108 Gardiner Road |
Lot 2 DP 220822 |
Local |
|
Bowen |
Dwelling |
105 Spring Street |
Lot 1 DP 371538 |
Local |
|
Huntley |
‘Former Butter Factory’ Dwelling |
15 Capps Lane |
Lot 452 DP 810173 |
Local |
|
Huntley |
‘Waverton’ and the former Dairy buildings |
76 Blunt Road |
Lot 2 DP 1038589 |
Local |
|
Huntley |
‘Homeleigh’ dwelling |
359 Phoenix Mine Road |
Lot 56 DP 750387 |
Local |
|
Curtilage mapping for ‘Waverton’ 76 Blunt Road, Huntley as described in the Heritage Conservation Area Review (November 2020)
Anticipated Timeline and Next Steps
Gateway Process
Should Council resolve to proceed, the planning proposal and associated documents will be supplied to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for evaluation under the Gateway process. This typically takes 4–8 weeks, but can vary considerably in both direction. Once issued the Gateway Determination will outline the remainder of the process. This typically includes:
· Whether the Minister will delegate the power to make the plan to Council or withhold such delegation (typically in cases where the Council has a direct interest in the site or matter concerned).
· Any additional information or changes to the planning proposal required before consultation and exhibition can proceed.
· A list of government departments and agencies that are to be consulted.
· The public consultation and exhibition periods (typically 28 days).
· Whether a public hearing is required (typically only applies to reclassification of Council owned or controlled land under the Local Government Act 1993).
· Formal drafting of the amendment through Parliamentary Counsel.
· Finalisation of the amendment by publishing the change on the legislation website.
Agency Consultation
Given the site location and nature of the planning proposal, it is anticipated that the Gateway Determination may require consultation with Heritage NSW.
Community Consultation
Typically a 28 day public exhibition period is required. All materials will be made available on Council’s website and at the Civic centre for inspection during the required period.
Subject to the terms of the Gateway Determination and consistent with a standing resolution of Council a community information session is intended midway during the exhibition period.
Directly affected landowners will also be advised in writing of the commencement of the exhibition period. This will include properties within the new and expanded conservation areas, new heritage item listings as well as properties affected by correction of anomalies.
Note: Most of the affected landowners will have already been consulted during the heritage study and review process, but some properties may have changed ownership in the interim.
Post Exhibition Evaluation
Once the exhibition period has concluded, all submissions received (from both the community and agencies) will be collated and reviewed. Issues identified in the submissions are then evaluated for significance, and where appropriate the proponent will be invited to respond, which may include relevant changes.
Report and Finalisation
Once all submissions have been reviewed, a further report to Council will be prepared to outline the response of agencies and the community, as well as any suggested adjustments. Council retains the option to reject a planning proposal at any time up to and including the final report. However, if endorsed the matter is then finalised, either by the CEO under delegation from Council or by the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment in cases where the Gateway Determination withheld delegations from Council.
1 The Springs Archeology and Heritage Study, D21/3734⇩
2 Heritage Study Review November 2020, D20/71784⇩
3 Heritage Study Review - HCA maps November 2020, D20/71786⇩
4 Planning Proposal Amendment 28 - Heritage Amendment, D21/2441⇩
5 Draft Inventory Sheets, D21/2442⇩
Planning and Development Committee 2 February 2021
Attachment 1 The Springs Archeology and Heritage Study
Attachment 3 Heritage Study Review - HCA maps November 2020
Planning and Development Committee 2 February 2021
Attachment 4 Planning Proposal Amendment 28 - Heritage Amendment
Orange City Council, as the Planning Proposal authority, has prepared this Planning Proposal describes a proposed amendment to the Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 (‘the LEP’). The Planning Proposal has been prepared in accordance with Division 3.4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (‘EP&A Act’), A Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals (December 2018) and A Guide to Preparing Local Environmental Plans (December 2018) issued by the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE).
The Planning Proposal seeks to include the Springs; a former non-indigenous and indigenous fringe camp on the outskirts of south Orange during the 1930s – 40s, new Heritage Conservation Areas (‘HCAs’), extensions of existing HCAs, including renaming, and the inclusions of a number of properties to be adopted as Local Heritage Items within the Orange Local Government Area (‘LGA’). This is in response to the Springs Archaeological Assessment and Heritage Study, Conservation Management Plan and the Heritage Landscape Plan (revision 4 August 2020) adopted 7 July 2020 and the Heritage Conservation Area Review (November 2020) and maps adopted 2 December 2020
Further commentary on these matters can be found in the report, including under Part 2 – Explanation of Provisions.
Part 1 – Objectives and intended outcomes
The objectives of this Planning Proposal are to:
· To amend the LEP in response to the Springs Archaeological Assessment and Heritage Study, Conservation Management Plan and the Heritage Landscape Plan (August 2020) and the Heritage Conservation Area Review (November 2020)
· To expand the HCAs that had been identified by Council, the
community and the community based Heritage Study (2013)
· To clearly identify HCA within their particular settings and in the context of the local history
Part 2 – Explanation of Provisions
The objective of this Planning Proposal will be achieved by:
· Amending Schedule 5 - Environmental Heritage correct several anomalies that have been identified and are outlined in attachment 1.
· Amending Schedule 5 Environmental heritage – Part 1 and maps to include The Springs Travelling Stock Reserve (TSR), as described in the Springs Archaeological Assessment and Heritage Study, Conservation Management Plan and the Heritage Landscape Plan (August 2020) outlined in attachment 2.
· Amending Schedule 5 Environmental heritage – Part 1 and maps for the Former Bluestone Quarry (Bluestone lakes) to reflect the recent subdivision and new housing outlined in attachment 3.
· Amending Schedule 5 Environmental heritage – Part 2 Heritage conservation areas and maps to include the Bletchington, Newman Park and Blackman’s Swamp HCAs as described in the Heritage Conservation Area Review (November 2020) refer to attachment 4.
· Amending Schedule 5 Environmental heritage – Part 2 Heritage conservation areas and maps to include the extension to the existing Central, Duration Cottages and Glenroi HCAs as described in the Heritage Conservation Area Review (November 2020) refer to attachment 5.
· Amending Schedule 5 Environmental heritage – Part 2 Heritage
conservation areas to rename the following (refer to attachment 6):
o The Heritage Conservation Area known as Central Orange Heritage Conservation Area, be renamed Dalton Central Heritage Conservation Area
o The Heritage Conservation Area known as the Duration Cottages Heritage Conservation Area be renamed Glenroi Duration Cottages Heritage Conservation Area
o The Heritage Conservation Area known as Glenroi Heritage Conservation Area be renamed Endsleigh Heritage Conservation Area
o The Heritage Conservation Area known as East Orange Heritage Conservation Area be renamed Bowen Heritage Conservation Area
· Amending Schedule 5 Environmental heritage – Part 1 Heritage Items and maps to include the following properties as Local Heritage Items refer to attachment 7:
o 117 Sampson Street - Lot 8 DP 6662
o 49 Prince Street – Lot 21 DP1249171
o 139 Margaret Street – Lot 14 DP 36258
o 5 Hawkins Lane – Lot 1 DP 1004764
o 9 Hawkins Lane – Lot 1 DP 997995
o 11 Hawkins Lane – Lot 1 DP 194886
o 3 Hawkins Lane – Lot 1 DP 711668
o 6 Hawkins Lane – Lot 1 DP 996035
o 4 Hawkins Lane – Lot B DP 154127
o 2 Hawkins Lane – Lot A DP 154127
o 20 Nile Street – Lot 1 DP 780854
o 22 Nile Street – Lot 11 DP 1086301
o 24 Nile Street – Lot 1 DP 797882
o 26 Nile Street – Lot 1 DP 738846
o 171 Margaret Street – Lot 20 DP 507333
o 110 Matthews Avenue – Lot 23 DP 36258
o 125 Prince Street – Lot B DP 345070
o 125 Dalton Street – Lot 2 DP 1038981
o 112 Dalton Street – Lot 1 DP 744247
o 121 Gardiner Road – Lot 105 DP 831875
o 123 Gardiner Road – Lot B DP 363624
o 102 Gardiner Road – Lot 112 DP 456165
o 106 Gardiner Road – Lot 121 DP 561111
o 108 Gardiner Road – Lot 2 DP 220822
o 105 Spring Street – Lot 1 DP 371538
o 15 Capps Lane, Huntley – Lot 452 DP 810173
o ‘Waverton’ 76 Blunt Road, Huntley (as per the described curtilage) Lot 2 DP 1038589
o ‘Homeleigh’ 359 Phoenix Mine Road, Huntley – Lot 56 DP 750387
Part 3 –
Justification
Section A - Need for the Planning Proposal
Q1. Is the Planning Proposal a result of an endorsed local strategic planning statement, strategic study or report?
The Planning Proposal is a result of the Heritage Conservation Area Review
(November 2020) adopted by Council 2 December 2020.
Q2. Is
the Planning Proposal the best means of achieving the objectives or intended
outcomes, or is there a better way?
The Planning Proposal intends to update the Schedule 5
Environmental heritage and mapping. Due to the administrative nature of the
Planning Proposal and its response to the Heritage Study Review (2020) and
housekeeping amendments the Planning Proposal is the only possible response to
amend the LEP.
Section B – Relationship to strategic planning framework.
Q3. Will the Planning Proposal give effect to the objectives and actions of the applicable regional, or district plan or strategy (including any exhibited draft plans or strategies)?
The Central West and Orana Regional Plan 2036
The Central West and Orana Regional Plan 2036 (‘CWO Regional Plan’) (June 2017) by DPIE will guide the NSW Government’s land use planning priorities and decisions in the region up to 2036. The CWO Regional Plan provides an overarching framework to guide subsequent and more detailed land use plans, development proposals and infrastructure funding decisions and is accompanied by an Implementation Plan. The goals of the CWO Regional Plan are:
· The most diverse regional economy in NSW
· A stronger, healthier environment and diverse heritage
· Quality freight, transport and infrastructure networks
· Dynamic, vibrant and healthy communities
For each goal, the CWO Regional Plan identifies directions and associated actions to assist in achieving the goal.
Table 1 below summarises the relevant directions of the CWO Regional Plan, provides comment on the directions and actions of the Plan that are directly relevant to the Planning Proposal, and indicates whether the Proposal is considered to be consistent or inconsistent with the Plan.
Table 1. Central West and Orana Regional Plan |
||
Goal 2: A stronger, healthier environment and diverse heritage |
Planning Proposal response – is the Proposal consistent with the Strategy? |
|
DIRECTIONS & APPLICABLE ACTIONS |
TIMEFRAME OF IMPLEMENTATION |
COMMENTS |
Direction 16: Respect and protect Aboriginal Heritage assets
|
Ongoing |
The Planning Proposal is considered to be consistent with the intent of this Direction.
The Planning Proposal seeks to include the Travelling Stock Reserve (TSR) of the ‘the Springs’ Fringe Camp an area of importance to both the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal community. |
Direction 17: Conserve and adaptively re-use heritage assets Action 17.2 Prepare, review and update heritage studies in consultation with the wider community to recognise and conserve heritage assets and items, and include appropriate local planning controls.
|
Ongoing |
The Planning Proposal is considered to be consistent with the intent of this Direction.
The Planning Proposal is in direct response to the Heritage Study Review (2020) adopted by Council 2 December 2020. The Planning Proposal seeks to amend the LEP to include the proposed HCAs and the extension of the existing HCAs to further recognise and conserve heritage assets and items with the Orange LGA.
The Planning Proposal also seeks to correct anomalies and errors in Schedule 5 of the LEP. |
Goal 4: Dynamic, vibrant and healthy communities |
Planning Proposal response – is the Proposal consistent with the Strategy? |
|
DIRECTIONS & APPLICABLE ACTIONS |
TIMEFRAME OF IMPLEMENTATION |
COMMENTS |
Direction 29: Deliver healthy built environments and better urban design
Action 29.3 Reflect local built form, heritage and character in new housing developments. |
Ongoing |
The Planning Proposal is considered to be consistent with the intent of this Direction.
The Planning Proposal seeks to include the new HCAs, extensions of the existing HCAs and heritage items that are of importance and significance within the Orange LGA. The mapping of these HCAs will ensure the retention of the heritage character through alterations or adaptive re-use, and sympathetic responses of new developments within or adjoining the HCAs. |
Better Placed (May 2017) & Better Placed – Design Guide for Heritage (2019)
Better Placed (May 2017) sets a framework and collective approach for how practitioners and government agencies delivery good design in our cities and towns. With a focus on the built environment, public places and environments the policy outlines seven objectives to good design. The Planning Proposal responds to the following objectives identified in table 2.
Table 2. Better Placed |
||
Objective 1. Better Fit - contextual, local and of its place |
Planning Proposal response – is the Proposal consistent with the Policy? |
|
APPLICABLE OBJECTIVES |
TIMEFRAME OF IMPLEMENTATION |
COMMENTS |
Heritage places create the setting for contemporary life, connecting communities to the past, and helping to shape futures. |
Ongoing |
The Planning Proposal is considered to be consistent with the intent of this objective.
The Planning Proposal seeks to amend the LEP to include a number of new HCAs, the extension of a number of HCAs and the inclusion of a number of heritage items. These amendments will make strong contributions to the character of the Orange LGA and will be vital in ensuring that future development contributes positively to these areas and items. |
Objective 2. Better Performance - sustainable, adaptable and durable |
Planning Proposal response – is the Proposal consistent with the Policy? |
|
APPLICABLE OBJECTIVES |
TIMEFRAME OF IMPLEMENTATION |
COMMENTS |
The protection and ongoing use of heritage places is an important strategy for sustainability in our cities, towns, and places. This retains embodied energy, reduces waste, and minimises consumption of natural resources. Adapting heritage places uses and extends their inherent durability and integrates these buildings into contemporary life. |
Ongoing |
The Planning Proposal is considered to be consistent with the intent of this objective.
The Planning Proposal seeks to include a number of new HCAs, the extension of a number of HCAs and the inclusion of a number of heritage items. Through including additional areas and items, adaptive reuse and retention is being encouraged. |
Objective 3. Better for Community |
Planning Proposal response – is the Proposal consistent with the Policy? |
|
APPLICABLE OBJECTIVES |
TIMEFRAME OF IMPLEMENTATION |
COMMENTS |
Heritage buildings, structures, and sites help create a sense of place and provide tangible links to the past. They have local character and identity, and many in the community feel strongly about what happens to them. Our built environment heritage can make a strong contribution to social sustainability, and help to build robust and engaged communities. |
Ongoing |
The Planning Proposal is considered to be consistent with the intent of this objective.
The Planning Proposal amendments will expand upon the existing HCAs and heritage items that builds on Oranges’ local character, identity and connection to its past. |
Objective 4. Better for People - safe, comfortable and liveable |
Planning Proposal response – is the Proposal consistent with the Policy? |
|
APPLICABLE OBJECTIVES |
TIMEFRAME OF IMPLEMENTATION |
COMMENTS |
Many heritage buildings and sites are beautiful, engaging places in which people are keen to live, work, or play. They may be built of fine materials, exquisitely detailed, or have the robust appeal of a former industrial space. They could be set in mature gardens, or be part of a valued streetscape with a strong sense of place. |
Ongoing |
The Planning Proposal is considered to be consistent with the intent of this objective.
The Planning Proposal amendments will expand upon the existing HCAs and heritage items that builds on Oranges’ local character, identity and connection to its past. |
Objective 5. Better working - functional, efficient and fit for purpose |
Planning Proposal response – is the Proposal consistent with the Policy? |
|
APPLICABLE OBJECTIVES |
TIMEFRAME OF IMPLEMENTATION |
COMMENTS |
Expectations of buildings and places can change dramatically over time. Some heritage places have outlived their functional life – either because the use is outdated, or because the building no longer meets current requirements. Buildings and sites that are not in use are likely to deteriorate rapidly, which can lead to “demolition by neglect” and poor social and economic outcomes for surrounding areas and communities. |
Ongoing |
The Planning Proposal is considered to be consistent with the intent of this objective.
The Planning Proposal amendments have been identified through the Heritage Conservation Area Review (November 2020), in which these HCA and Heritage items have been deemed contributory to the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal character of Orange. |
Objective 6. Better value – creating and adding value |
Planning Proposal response – is the Proposal consistent with the Policy? |
|
APPLICABLE OBJECTIVES |
TIMEFRAME OF IMPLEMENTATION |
COMMENTS |
The value and benefits of heritage places accrue to the broad community as well as to individual owners. Heritage places have different values to different people. For the owner, a place has a practical and market value as well as heritage value. For the wider public, heritage value is usually paramount, but not all heritage places are equally loved. Design for the re-use of a heritage site can play an important role in bringing it back into public favour, negotiating multiple agendas, and providing amenity for neighbours and visitors as well as the owners. |
Ongoing |
The Planning Proposal is considered to be consistent with the intent of this objective.
The Planning Proposal amendments will expand upon the existing HCAs and heritage items that builds on Oranges’ well known heritage value. |
Q4. Will the Planning Proposal give effect to a council’s endorsed local strategic planning statement, or another endorsed local strategy or strategic plan?
Orange Community Strategic Plan 2018
The Orange Community Strategic Plan (CSP) provides a 10 year vision for the Orange LGA and a series of long-term strategic goals and outcomes. The CSP outlines the importance of a balanced natural and built environment in ensuring natural, cultural, social and historical aspects of the community are preserved whilst recognising the need for growth and development.
Table 3 below summarises the relevant Planning Priorities, provides comment on the priorities and actions of the plan that are directly relevant to the Planning Proposal, and indicates whether the Proposal is considered to be consistent or inconsistent with the Plan.
Table 3. Orange Community Strategic Plan 2018 |
||
Objective 4: A creative community participation in arts and cultural activities. |
Planning Proposal response – is the Proposal consistent with the Strategy? |
|
APPLICABLE ACTIONS |
TIMEFRAME OF IMPLEMENTATION |
COMMENTS |
4.4 Celebrate and conserve the diverse cultural heritage of the urban, village and rural communities |
Ongoing |
The Planning Proposal is considered to be consistent with the intent of this direction.
The Planning Proposal seeks to include the new HCAs, extensions of the existing HCAs and heritage items that are of importance and significance within the Orange LGA. |
Objective 10: Celebrate our cultural, social, natural and built heritage assets |
Planning Proposal response – is the Proposal consistent with the Strategy? |
|
APPLICABLE ACTIONS |
TIMEFRAME OF IMPLEMENTATION |
COMMENTS |
10.1. Engage with the community to ensure plans for growth and development are respectful of our heritage |
Ongoing |
The Planning Proposal is considered to be consistent with the intent of this direction.
The Planning Proposal is in response to the Heritage Study Review (2020) that built on the Community based Heritage Study (2013). The Heritage Study Review (2020) was subject to an extensive consultation period and exhibition period (40 days) in which Council received submissions from the community and local groups. |
10.2. Preserve our diverse social and cultural heritage |
Ongoing |
The Planning Proposal is considered to be consistent with the intent of this direction.
The Planning Proposal seeks to include the three new proposed HCAs, extension of the existing HCAs, change names of the existing HCAs to reflect the social and cultural heritage that has influenced the morphology and development of the Orange LGA. |
Orange Local Strategic Planning Statement (July 2020)
The Local Strategic Planning Statement (‘LSPS’) identifies planning priorities and subsequent actions for the next 20 years. The LSPS identifies a vision for the Orange LGA and outlines growth and change will be managed through future planning.
Table 4 below summarises the relevant Planning Priorities, provides comment on the priorities and actions of the plan that are directly relevant to the Planning Proposal, and indicates whether the Proposal is considered to be consistent or inconsistent with the Plan.
Table 4. Orange Local Strategic Planning Statement |
||
Planning Priority 1: Capitalise on Orange’s character, lifestyle and heritage to enhance tourism and attract new residents. |
Planning Proposal response – is the Proposal consistent with the Strategy? |
|
APPLICABLE ACTIONS |
TIMEFRAME OF IMPLEMENTATION |
COMMENTS |
Action 2: Review the Local Environmental Plan on a regular basis to update the heritage listings. |
Ongoing |
The Planning Proposal is considered to be consistent with the intent of this direction.
The Planning Proposal seeks to update the LEP in response to the Heritage Study Review (2020) which includes a number of new HCAs, extensions to existing HCAs, name changes and new heritage items. |
Action 4. Review and update heritage study, amend LEP to include recommendations. |
2019/2020 |
The Planning Proposal is considered to be consistent with the intent of this direction.
The Planning Proposal seeks to update the LEP in response to the Heritage Study Review (2020). |
Planning Priority 12: Protect and conserve the natural, built and Aboriginal cultural heritage of Orange. |
Planning Proposal response – is the Proposal consistent with the Strategy? |
|
APPLICABLE ACTIONS |
TIMEFRAME OF IMPLEMENTATION |
COMMENTS |
Action 1: Regularly review and update the heritage inventory and associated heritage listings in the Local Environmental Plan. |
Ongoing |
The Planning Proposal is considered to be consistent with the intent of this direction.
The Planning Proposal seeks to update Schedule 5 Environmental heritage of the Orange LEP and the heritage inventory in response to the Heritage Study Review (2020) to include a number of new HCAs, extensions to existing HCAs, name changes and new heritage items. |
Action 2: Consult on a regular basis with the Local Aboriginal Land Council and broader Aboriginal community in relation to indigenous heritage matters. |
Ongoing |
The Planning Proposal is considered to be consistent with the intent of this direction.
The Springs Archaeological Assessment and Heritage Study, Conservation Management Plan and the Heritage Landscape Plan were adopted on 7 July 2020 by Council. There was consultation with the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council and community as part of this process from 3 June – 25 June 2019. The Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council will be consulted as part of the Planning Proposal process and the exhibition phase will provide additional opportunity for the Aboriginal community to provide comment on the amendments proposed in the Planning Proposal. |
Q5. Is the Planning Proposal consistent with applicable State Environmental Planning Policies?
Yes. There are no applicable State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPP) that relate to the nature of the Planning Proposal. Any future works occurring within the HCAs or heritage items will be assessed against the applicable SEPP.
Q6. Is the Planning Proposal consistent with applicable Ministerial Directions (s.9.1 directions)?
Yes, the Planning Proposal is consistent with the Ministerial directions. Table 5 below summarises the relevant Ministerial Directions (s9.1 directions), provides comment on the directions that are applicable to the Planning Proposal, and indicates whether the Proposal is considered to be consistent or inconsistent with the Plan.
Table 5. Ministerial Directions (s9.1 directions) |
||
2. Environment and Heritage |
||
Direction |
Consistent? |
Comments |
2.3 Heritage Conservation |
Yes |
The Planning Proposal is consistent with the objective of this Direction, it involves the inclusion of several new HCAs, the extension of several existing HCAs and the several new heritage items that are not currently protected by a draft or existing environmental planning instrument. The Planning Proposal also aims to rectify several mapping errors and anomalies. The Proposal therefore responds satisfactorily to this Direction. |
6. Local Plan Making |
||
Direction |
Consistent? |
Comments |
6.1 Approval and Referral Requirements |
Yes |
The Planning Proposal is consistent with this Direction. The Planning Proposal does not propose to require concurrence for additional uses or reservations. |
Section C – Environmental, social and economic impact
Q7. Is there any likelihood that critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats, will be adversely affected as a result of the proposal?
It is considered
unlikely that critical habitats or threatened species/populations/ecological
communities will be adversely affected as a result of the Planning Proposal.
Q8. Are
there any other likely environmental effects as a result of the Planning
Proposal and how are they proposed to be managed?
Groundwater
Orange has a high water table and large areas of the LGA are identified as groundwater vulnerable in the Groundwater Vulnerability Map of the LEP.
None of the amendments to Schedule 5 – Environmental Heritage or mapping, or other matters in the Planning Proposal are considered to effect groundwater.
Flooding
Parts of the Orange LGA are flood affected, due to Ploughmans Creek, Blackmans Swamp Creek, and their tributaries. Council is in the process of undertaking a new Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan.
None of the amendments to Schedule 5 – Environmental Heritage or mapping, or other matters in the Planning Proposal are considered to impact flood affect land.
The Planning Proposal
does not seek to materially alter the development potential of any land.
Theoretically the Planning Proposal will increase the number of properties that
could seek a non-conforming land use via the conservation incentives of clause
5.10(10), however it is considered that this potential would be unlikely to
result in new, or exacerbate existing, adverse environmental effects.
Q9. Has
the Planning Proposal adequately addressed any social and economic effects?
European and Aboriginal Heritage
The Planning Proposal will have a positive impact on Aboriginal and European heritage items and conservation areas. The Springs has been identified as an area of heritage significance to the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal community. A number of HCAs and heritage items have been identified in this Planning Proposal that will contribute to the retention of Oranges’ European heritage. Additionally, a number of mapping and schedule errors have been identified and will be rectified through this Planning Proposal.
Residential Growth
The Planning Proposal will have negligible-to-minimal impact on residential growth.
Employment
The Planning Proposal will have little impact on employment within the Orange LGA. A heritage listing enables consideration of non-conforming land uses under clause 5.10(10) of the LEP where it is demonstrated to result in positive heritage outcomes, such uses are often of a commercial nature and as such may marginally enhance employment opportunities. Clause 5.10(10) does not negate the need for all other matters to be satisfactorily addressed.
Social Infrastructure
The Planning Proposal will have negligible-to minimal impact on social infrastructure.
Retail Centres
The Planning Proposal will have negligible-to minimal impact on retail centres. A heritage listing enables consideration of non-conforming land uses under clause 5.10(10) of the LEP where it is demonstrated to result in positive heritage outcomes, such uses could include an element of retail activity but this is unlikely to significantly impact upon the Orange retail hierarchy. Clause 5.10(10) does not negate the need for all other matters to be satisfactorily addressed.
Tourism
The Planning Proposal will likely have a positive impact on the tourism related industry. Orange is highly valued for its heritage character which will be maintained and further expanded through this Planning Proposal.
Section D – State and Commonwealth interests
Q10. Is
there adequate public infrastructure for the Planning Proposal?
Utilities
The Planning Proposal is likely to have a negligible-to-minimal impact on the utilities network.
Water/sewer
The Planning Proposal is likely to have a negligible-to-minimal impact on the water and sewer service network.
Public Transport
The planning proposal is not anticipated to unduly impact on the operation of transport services.
Roads
The Planning Proposal is likely to have a negligible-to-minimal impact on roads.
Waste Management and Recycling Services
The Planning Proposal is likely to have a negligible-to-minimal impact on waste management and recycling services. Encouraging the adaptive re-use of buildings, and the avoidance of demolition, may minimally reduce the amount of material going to landfill.
Emergency Services Provision
The Planning Proposal is likely to
have a negligible-to-minimal impact on emergency services provisions. Heritage status does not preclude the ability or
requirement for buildings to include appropriate safety measures such as smoke
alarms, sprinkler systems or the like.
Q11. What are the views of state and Commonwealth public authorities consulted in accordance with the Gateway determination?
Preliminary views of State or Commonwealth public authorities have not been
obtained prior to preparing this Planning Proposal. Having regard to the
Ministerial Directions and overall scope of the Planning Proposal, no
recommendations are made as to agencies that should be consulted in connection
with progressing the Proposal. The Gateway Determination may stipulate
additional consultation requirements in the planning proposal process.
Part 4 – Mapping
The Planning Proposal seeks to amend the LEP maps including:
· Amendment to the Heritage map to include ‘the Springs’ TSR as identified in attachment 2.
· Amendment to the Heritage item the bluestone quarry as identified in attachment 3.
· Amendment to the Heritage map to include the proposed HCAs identified in attachment 4.
· Amendment to the Heritage map to include the proposed Heritage items identified in attachment 6.
Part 5 – Community Consultation
Community consultation will be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the Gateway Determination. It is, however, anticipated that an exhibition period of 28 days will be required per the default in Schedule 1 of EP&A Act 1979.
Consultation will commence by giving notice of the Planning Proposal via:
• an advertisement in a local newspaper,
• a notification on the Orange City Council website (www.orange.nsw.gov.au), and
• social media.
All forms of the notice will include:
• a brief description of the objectives and intended outcomes of the Planning Proposal,
• an indication of the land affected by the Planning Proposal,
• the location and dates where the Planning Proposal may be inspected,
• the contact name and address at Orange City Council where submissions may be directed, and
• the closing date of the submission process.
During the exhibition period, the following materials will be made freely available for public inspection:
• the Planning Proposal, in the form approved for community consultation by DPE,
• the Gateway Determination, and
• any studies and supporting material relied upon by the Planning Proposal. This will primarily be the Heritage Conservation Area Review.
Following the exhibition period, a report will be prepared analysing any submissions received and making recommendations as to any appropriate changes or adjustments to the Planning Proposal, for the consideration of Orange City Council.
Where contact details have been provided, all persons and organisations making a submission will be advised of the date and time of the relevant Council (or committee) meeting where the report is to be considered, and subsequently advised of the determination.
Part 6 – Project Timeline
The anticipated project timeline for completion of the Planning Proposal is outlined in Table 6.
Table 6. Project timeline
Project stage |
Commencement |
Completion |
Gateway Determination |
Early 2021 |
|
Government Agency consultation |
March 2021 |
March 2021 |
Public Exhibition Period |
Feb 2021 |
March 2021 |
Public Hearing |
Not anticipated to be required |
|
Consideration of Submissions |
March 2021 |
March 2021 |
Consideration of post exhibition proposals (Report to Council) |
May 2021 |
|
Seeking and obtaining legal opinion from Parliamentary Counsels Office |
May and June 2021 |
May and June 2021 |
Submission to DPE to finalise |
July 2021 |
|
Anticipated date Council will make the plan (if delegated) |
August 2021 |
|
Anticipated date Council will forward to DPE for notification |
August 2021 |
Attachments
Attachment 1. Amend Schedule 5 Environmental heritage to correct several anomalies that have been identified.
1a. Correction of miss spelt address under Schedule 5 – Environmental Heritage as shown below.
Calare |
Dwelling |
545 Frost Street |
Lot 3, DP 36132 |
Local |
I181 |
Correction:
Calare |
Dwelling |
54 Frost Street |
Lot 3, DP 36132 |
Local |
I181 |
1b. Correction of miss spelt address and error in Lot and DP under Schedule 5 – Environmental Heritage as shown below.
Huntley |
“Carramar” dwelling |
148 Shiralee Road (corner of Rifle Range Road) |
Lot 92, DP 750401 |
Local |
I285 |
Correction:
Huntley |
“Carramar” dwelling |
26 Kinghorn Lane (note there are two 26 Kinghorn lanes ) |
Lot 2, DP 828893 |
Local |
I285 |
1c. Correction of missing Heritage Conservation Area under Schedule 5 – Part 2 Heritage conservation areas
Correction:
Glenroi |
Glenroi Duration Cottages Heritage Conservation Area |
Local |
C6 |
Attachment 2. Amend Schedule 5 Environmental heritage – Part 1 heritage items and mapped to include the Springs TSR.
The Springs TSR to be included in Schedule 5 Environmental heritage and mapped.
Schedule 5 – Part 1
Shiralee |
‘The Springs’ Traveling Stock Reserve (TSR) |
Located between Forest Road, Shiralee Road, Hawke Lane and Rifle Range Road |
Lot 114 DP 750401, Lot 115 DP 750401, Lot 116 DP 750401, Lot 117 DP 750401, Lot 118 DP 750401, Lot 119 DP 750401, Lot 125 DP 750401, Lot 126 DP 750401, Lot 127 DP 750401, Lot 128 DP 750401 |
Local |
TBC |
Formal LEP mapping to be provided prior to public exhibition.
Attachment 3. Amend Schedule 5 Environmental heritage and mapped to include the Bluestone Quarry (Bluestone Lakes).
The Bluestone Quarry is to be amended in Schedule 5 Environmental heritage and mapped.
Calare |
CSR Readymix site (Bluestone quarry) |
Cedar Street, Laurel Street, off Racecourse Road |
Lot 1, DP 271090 |
State |
I58 |
Formal LEP mapping to be provided prior to public exhibition.
Attachment 4. Amend Schedule 5 Environmental heritage - Part 2 Heritage conservation areas and maps to include the Bletchington, Newman Park and Blackman’s Swamp HCAs
The HCA of Bletchington, Newman Park and Blackman’s Swamp to be included in Schedule 5 Environmental heritage and mapped.
Formal LEP mapping to be provided prior to public exhibition.
Orange |
Bletchington Heritage Conservation Area |
Local |
C7 |
Orange |
Newman Park Heritage Conservation Area |
Local |
C8 |
Orange |
Blackman’s Swamp Heritage Conservation Area |
Local |
C9 |
Attachment 5. Amend Schedule 5 Environmental heritage - Part 2 Heritage conservation areas to rename the existing HCAs.
5a. The Heritage Conservation Area known as Central Orange Heritage Conservation Area, be renamed Dalton Central Heritage Conservation Area
Orange |
Central Orange Heritage Conservation Area |
Local |
C1 |
Amendment:
Orange |
Dalton Central Heritage Conservation Area |
Local |
C1 |
5b. The Heritage Conservation Area known as the Duration Cottages Heritage Conservation Area (LEP) be renamed Glenroi Duration Cottages Heritage Conservation Area. Note: Duration Cottages Heritage Conservation Area is not included in Schedule 5 but is mapped. These anomalies are to be rectified through the addition of the Glenroi Duration Cottages Heritage Conservation Area.
Amendment:
Orange |
Glenroi Duration Cottages Heritage Conservation Area |
Local |
C6 |
5c. The Heritage Conservation Area known as Glenroi Heritage Conservation Area be renamed Endsleigh Heritage Conservation Area
Orange |
Glenroi Heritage Conservation Area |
Local |
C3 |
Amendment:
Orange |
Endsleigh Heritage Conservation Area |
Local |
C3 |
5d. The Heritage Conservation Area known as East Orange Heritage Conservation Area be renamed Bowen Heritage Conservation Area
Orange |
East Orange Heritage Conservation Area |
Local |
C2 |
Amendment:
Orange |
Bowen Heritage Conservation Area |
Local |
C2 |
Attachment 6. Amend Schedule 5 Environmental heritage - Part 1 Heritage Items to include the following properties.
Suburb |
Item name |
Address |
Property description |
Significance |
Item (TBC) |
Orange |
Dwelling |
117 Sampson Street |
Lot 8 DP 6662 |
Local |
|
Orange |
Dwelling |
49 Prince Street |
Lot 21 DP1249171 |
Local |
|
Bowen |
Dwelling |
5 Hawkins Lane |
Lot 14 DP 36258 |
Local |
|
Bowen |
Dwelling |
9 Hawkins Lane |
Lot 1 DP 997995 |
Local |
|
Bowen |
Dwelling |
11 Hawkins Lane |
Lot 1 DP 194886 |
Local |
|
Bowen |
Dwelling |
3 Hawkins Lane |
Lot 1 DP 711668 |
Local |
|
Bowen |
Dwelling |
6 Hawkins Lane |
Lot 1 DP 996035 |
Local |
|
Bowen |
Dwelling |
4 Hawkins Lane |
Lot B DP 154127 |
Local |
|
Bowen |
Dwelling |
2 Hawkins Lane |
Lot A DP 154127 |
Local |
|
Bowen |
Dwelling |
20 Nile Street |
Lot 1 DP 780854 |
Local |
|
Bowen |
Dwelling |
22 Nile Street |
Lot 11 DP 1086301 |
Local |
|
Bowen |
Dwelling |
24 Nile Street |
Lot 1 DP 797882 |
Local |
|
Bowen |
Dwelling |
26 Nile Street |
Lot 1 DP 738846 |
Local |
|
Bletchington |
Dwelling |
171 Margaret Street |
Lot 20 DP 507333 |
Local |
|
Bletchington |
Dwelling |
110 Matthews Avenue |
Lot 23 DP 36258 |
Local |
|
Orange |
Dwelling |
125 Prince Street |
Lot B DP 345070 |
Local |
|
Bletchington |
‘Former Railway Level Crossing Keepers Cottage’ |
125 Dalton Street |
Lot 2 DP 1038981 |
Local |
|
Bowen |
Dwelling |
112 Dalton Street |
Lot 1 DP 744247 |
Local |
|
Orange |
Dwelling |
121 Gardiner Road |
Lot 105 DP 831875 |
Local |
|
Orange |
Dwelling |
123 Gardiner Road |
Lot B DP 363624 |
Local |
|
Orange |
Dwelling |
102 Gardiner Road |
Lot 112 DP 456165 |
Local |
|
Orange |
Dwelling |
106 Gardiner Road |
Lot 121 DP 561111 |
Local |
|
Orange |
Dwelling |
108 Gardiner Road |
Lot 2 DP 220822 |
Local |
|
Bowen |
Dwelling |
105 Spring Street |
Lot 1 DP 371538 |
Local |
|
Huntley |
‘Former Butter Factory’ Dwelling |
15 Capps Lane |
Lot 452 DP 810173 |
Local |
|
Huntley |
‘Waverton’ and the former Dairy buildings |
76 Blunt Road |
Lot 2 DP 1038589 |
Local |
|
Huntley |
‘Homeleigh’ dwelling |
359 Phoenix Mine Road |
Lot 56 DP 750387 |
Local |
|
Curtilage mapping for ‘Waverton’ 76 Blunt Road, Huntley as described in the Heritage Conservation Area Review (November 2020)
RECORD NUMBER: 2021/2
AUTHOR: Alison Phillips, Town Planner ( Strategic)
EXECUTIVE Summary
The Orange Future City (May 2020) project identified a wide range of projects, concepts and opportunities to guide the development and growth of the central business district over the next several years. Within Future City the overall CBD area was divided into a series of precincts with recommendations for each.
Figure 1. Location Plan – Eastside Precinct
Comprising an area east of the railway line and south of Bathurst Road, this area was selected for the first CBD precinct plan due to significant changes occurring in the area. With the DPI headquarters relocated and a number of car yards moving or considering a move to other parts of Orange it was recognised that Council has an opportunity to put in place a framework to help guide the precinct as it adapts to this generational change.
The Draft Orange Eastside Precinct Plan and Site Specific Controls (Precinct Plan) (Attachments 1 and 2) identifies that Council investigate alternative zones or consider additional permitted uses within the current zone, and change the height of building in part of the precinct to achieve the Precinct Plan. In order to reflect these recommendations, subject to adopting the Precinct Plan, a planning proposal and site specific development control plan, to be derived from the site specific controls, would need to be developed.
The Precinct Plan was placed on exhibition between the 27 October 2020 and 30 November 2020 for a period of 28 days. During the exhibition period, in accordance with Council‘s resolution to provide public information sessions on major planning matters, a public forum that was attended by approximately 6 or 8 residents. A total of 7 submissions were received during the exhibition period (Attachment 3). Submissions received were generally supportive of the Precinct Plan with site specific considerations being raised in regards to pedestrian amenity, building siting, design, bulk and scale, land use, relationship to railway infrastructure and commercial operations.
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
That Council resolves: 1 That Council note the contents of this report and attached submissions and adopt the Draft Orange Eastside Precinct Plan and Site Specific Controls. 2 That a draft Planning Proposal to amend the Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 and Development Control Plan with site specific controls be prepared, and reported back to 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.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
SUBMISSIONS
A total of 7 submissions were received during the exhibition period. Submissions primarily were supportive of the Orange Eastside Precinct Plan. Submissions were focused on the key themes of pedestrian movement, bulk, scale and overshadowing of the built form, less prescriptive controls, B6 zoning and permitted uses and railway infrastructure. Submissions noted objection to the Precinct Plan due to concerns relating to amalgamation, current ownership, economic impacts of rezoning to residential, and the interface with the surrounding area.
Pedestrian Movement and Prioritisation
One submission noted general concern with lack of pedestrian amenity and priority within the Town Centre. The submission noted support for the four new pedestrian crossings at Bathurst Road. The submission noted the following as dangerous and time consuming crossings:
· Bathurst Rd/McLachlan Street intersection is not easy to cross for pedestrians
· Edward Street lights do not feature a pedestrian crossing on the East side
· Peisley/Franklin intersection is time consuming
· Footbridge (over the railway line at Endsleigh Park) terminates Kite and Peisley, noted as a dangerous intersection
Comment: Future City identifies a number of initiatives for improving pedestrian amenity and priority across the CBD. It further identifies area requiring streetscape improvement and improved fine grain pedestrian connections at Bathurst Road/McLachlan Street, Edward Street and Kite and Peisley Street is identified as an active transport route. Whilst these do not have any identified works these will be continued to be focused on as improvements required under Future City. It is noted that the submission raising concerns with the Peisley/Franklin intersection timing, however this is beyond the scope of works considered by the project.
2 Strategic Intent and Representation
One submission objected to the Draft Orange Eastside Precinct Plan and Site Specific Controls (the ‘Precinct Plan’), however does note support for the broader objectives including increasing activity and vibrancy across the CBD. The submission noted concerns regarding DA approvals that are closer to the CBD and negate any proposed changes at the subject site, limiting the success of the Draft Eastside Precinct Plan.
Comment: Future City incorporates the Orange CBD and surrounds. It sets the strategic intent for how various precincts interlink and support the imperatives of attracting, compacting and making the Centre a safe and attractive place for visitors and residents to walk around. The Orange Eastside Precinct, included in Future City as the Enterprise Corridor Precinct is part of a broader strategic intent to enhance Orange as a regional destination that is connected and liveable. The Enterprise Corridor provides opportunities for the site to support the retail and commercial functioning of the Orange CBD through residential and accommodation opportunities.
The Precinct Plan as part of this investigation derives from these principles, and whilst existing approvals may not have been subject to scrutiny against these documents, any upgrades to the public domain and assessment of any future DA’s against this intent will support the implementation of Future City and the success of the Precincts.
Submission: Concerns were raised regarding the prescribed land uses and envelopes requesting these be removed and that a principle-based structure plan is applied to the precinct.
Comment: The concerns raised through this submission are understood, and it is noted that the Precinct Plan is aiming to identify possible urban outcomes that may be possible for the site. From the Precinct Plan a set of land use controls can be derived that identify opportunities for open space and public domain opportunities. Staff will continue to develop these plans to ensure these are responding to the site and not restricting future outcomes.
Built form controls, i.e. setbacks and building design controls are identified to ensure amenable outcomes are achieved. It is important to note that the Precinct Plan does not dictate the final urban form, however provides a basis for which site specific controls for a Development Control Plan can be derived.
3 Built form (siting, bulk, scale, interface and overshadowing)
One submission noted a lack of information and potential consideration for the siting of buildings in relation to prevailing winds in winter.
Comment: These concerns are noted and any DA will be assessed against such issues through building siting, setbacks and building design reflect the site conditions.
Submission: Concerns were raised by submissions regarding the potential overshadowing of existing properties from the proposed built form in the Precinct Plan.
Comment: Any new residential development or development affecting existing residential development will be subject to DA assessment that will require accordance with section 07 Development in Residential Areas:
Planning Outcomes 7.7-6 – 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;
Planning Outcomes 7.7-7 - Walls and Boundaries: Building to the boundary is undertaken to provide for efficient use of the site taking, into account:
· the access to daylight reaching adjoining properties;
Planning Outcomes 7.7-8 - 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;
Submission: One submission also expresses concern with the interface to adjoining properties regarding the bulk and scale of the building, stating further work should be completed on the envelopes presented in the draft.
Comment: As previously mentioned, any development will be subject to DA assessment that will require accordance with the controls proposed within the draft Orange Eastside Precinct Plan and Site Specific Controls.
It was noted that there is an error in drawing SK09 with the shadows, staff are liaising with the consultant to rectify this error.
4 Land use
One submission requested that the existing permitted uses within the B6 zone are retained:
· Residential use, including shop top housing, multi-dwelling housing
· Educational establishments
· Restaurants and cafes, and
· Hotel and motel accommodation
In addition the submission requested the following uses are considered for the B6 zone:
· Seniors living
· Retail premises, and
· Other types of residential accommodation currently prohibited such as residential flat buildings
Comment: Any consideration for additional permitted uses on site would be subject to a planning proposal to rezone the land. Consideration will also be given as to whether alternative zones would be compatible with the objectives of Future City and the Orange Eastside Precinct Plan and Site Specific Controls.
Submission: One submission also noted the rezoning of land to residential stating that this would impact on commercial development and leasing, decreasing land value, loss of income to commercial owners due to zoning if developers do not decide to build residential developments.
Comment: There is no evidence provided to suggest that residential development rezoning would decrease land value.
The concerns by the submitter are noted and new proposals regarding changes in use can create some uncertainty. Any new development would be subject to landowners either selling or redeveloping their land.
It is noted that additional land is available throughout Orange for commercial development and that the Orange Eastside Precinct Plan and Site Specific Controls are proposing uses that are aligned with the strategic intent of Future City. Ultimately the zone selection can be reviewed further during preparation of the Planning Proposal, which will go through a public exhibition process in due course.
5 Surrounding Rail Infrastructure
One submission states that the railway corridor and its associated infrastructure should be further recognised as a strategic anchor within the precinct with potential to expand. The submissions refers to NSW Future Transport 2056 identifying the 2023 Regional Fleet and Main Western Line upgrades.
Comment: The railway station itself is outside of the study area of this precinct plan. However, Future City recognises the importance of the railway station identifying the site for public domain upgrades, active transport routes to and from and is identified in the Special Project - McNamara Street South Precinct 2. The Precinct Plan under section 11. Local infrastructure and public domain identifies improved equitable access to the railway line from the precinct as part of the precinct upgrades.
6 Ownership and Amalgamation
Concerns were raised regarding current land ownership and site amalgamation for redevelopment being unlikely given the ownership patterns and feasibility.
Comment: The Precinct Plan identifies options that could occur as staged outcomes. The Precinct Plan is also focused on the redevelopment potential of the precinct, and in particular illustrating what can be achieved when landowners coordinate with neighbours rather than strictly limiting their focus to developing in isolation. The majority of concepts in the Precinct Plan are therefore focused on larger lots within the precinct which would be more likely to be amalgamated and developed, which is common practice in urban planning particularly when the planning framework provides support for bolder initiatives.
ZONE ANALYSIS AND HEIGHT OF BUILDING
The Precinct Plan recommends the consideration of Additional Permitted Uses through a Planning Proposal to include:
· Multi dwelling
· Residential flat buildings
· Attached dwellings
· Secondary dwellings
· Seniors housing
However, staff have identified that the best practice approach may be to change the zone, from B6 Enterprise Corridor to B4 Mixed Use, to reflect the objectives of the Precinct Plan and ensure the above uses are permitted with consent in the zone. An analysis of the zones has been undertaken is provided in Table 1 – Zone Analysis. The below table indicates the differences between the B6 Enterprise Corridor and B4 Mixed Use land use zoning. The bold entries are unique to that zone, and therefore these are the uses that would be applicable to the site depending on the zone chosen. Uses not indicated in bold are the same across both land use zones.
Table 1 – Zone Analysis
B6 Enterprise Corridor |
B4 Mixed Use |
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.
|
Objectives of zone • To provide a mixture of compatible land uses. • To integrate suitable business, office, residential, retail and other development in accessible locations so as to maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling. • To promote, where possible, the retention and reuse of heritage items as well as the retention of established buildings that contribute positively to the heritage or cultural values of the land in the zone. • To promote development that supports the role of Orange CBD as the primary retail and business centre in the region. |
Permitted with consent Business premises; Community facilities; Garden centres; Hardware and building supplies; Hotel or motel accommodation; Kiosks; Landscaping material supplies; Light industries; Multi dwelling housing; Neighbourhood shops; Oyster aquaculture; Passenger transport facilities; Plant nurseries; Restaurants or cafes; Roads; Rural supplies; Self-storage units; Shop top housing; Take away food and drink premises; Tank-based aquaculture; Timber yards; Tourist and visitor accommodation; Vehicle sales or hire premises; Warehouse or distribution centres; Any other development not specified in item 2 or 4 |
Permitted with consent Artisan food and drink industries; Boarding houses; Centre-based child care facilities; Commercial premises; Community facilities; Educational establishments; Entertainment facilities; Function centres; Home industries; Hotel or motel accommodation; Information and education facilities; Medical centres; Oyster aquaculture; Passenger transport facilities; Recreation facilities (indoor); Registered clubs; Residential accommodation; Respite day care centres; Restricted premises; Roads; Seniors housing; Shop top housing; Tank-based aquaculture; Any other development not specified in item 2 or 4 |
Prohibited Agriculture; Air transport facilities; Airstrips; Amusement centres; Animal boarding or training establishments; Boat building and repair facilities; Boat launching ramps; Boat sheds; Camping grounds; Car parks; Caravan parks; Cemeteries; Centre-based child care facilities; Charter and tourism boating facilities; Correctional centres; Crematoria; Depots; Eco-tourist facilities; Entertainment facilities; Exhibition homes; Exhibition villages; Extractive industries; Farm buildings; Forestry; Heavy industrial storage establishments; Helipads; Highway service centres; Home occupations (sex services); Industrial training facilities; Industries; Jetties; Marinas; Mooring pens; Moorings; Open cut mining; Pond-based aquaculture Registered clubs; Research stations; Residential accommodation; Resource recovery facilities; Respite day care centres; Retail premises; Rural industries; Rural workers’ dwellings; Sex services premises; Storage premises; Truck depots; Vehicle body repair workshops; Waste disposal facilities; Water recreation structures |
Prohibited Agriculture; Air transport facilities; Airstrips; Amusement centres; Animal boarding or training establishments; Boat building and repair facilities; Boat launching ramps; Boat sheds; Camping grounds; Caravan parks; Cemeteries; Charter and tourism boating facilities; Correctional centres; Crematoria; Eco-tourist facilities; Exhibition homes; Exhibition villages; Extractive industries; Forestry; Freight transport facilities; Heavy industrial storage establishments; Helipads; Highway service centres; Home occupations (sex services); Industrial retail outlets; Industrial training facilities; Industries; Jetties; Marinas; Mooring pens; Moorings; Open cut mining; Pond-based aquaculture Recreation facilities (major); Research stations; Resource recovery facilities; Rural industries; Rural workers’ dwellings; Sex services premises; Storage premises; Transport depots; Truck depots; Warehouse or distribution centres; Waste disposal facilities; Water recreation structures |
The Precinct Plan also nominates an increase in building height from 12 metres to 14 metres to allow for commercial uses at ground level and three levels of residential development above where appropriate.
The above recommendations would be subject to detailed analysis as part of the planning proposal process.
PROCESS
Should Council adopt Eastside Precinct Plan and accompanying Site Specific Development Controls the next steps in the process are:
1 Preparation of a detailed Planning Proposal to amend the LEP consistent with the Eastside Precinct Plan – this involves zone selection, building height limits, floor space ratio controls and the like.
2 Additionally preparation of a draft Development Control Plan, largely derived from the Site Specific Development Controls.
3 Both the Planning Proposal and Draft DCP would return to Council to confirm support for the direction taken.
4 If supported by Council a Gateway Determination would be sought, any requirements of which would be addressed to allow public exhibition of both the Planning Proposal and the draft DCP.
5 Post exhibition both the Planning Proposal and DCP would be reported back to Council addressing any matters raised by the public or relevant government agencies.
1 OCC Eastside Precinct Plan - Site Specific Development Controls (17 Sept 2020), D20/58454⇩
2 OCC Eastside Precinct Plan Set (17 Sept 2020), D20/58452⇩
3 Submissions, D21/3235⇩
Planning and Development Committee 2 February 2021
Attachment 1 OCC Eastside Precinct Plan - Site Specific Development Controls (17 Sept 2020)
Attachment 2 OCC Eastside Precinct Plan Set (17 Sept 2020)
RECORD NUMBER: 2021/5
AUTHOR: Alison Phillips, Town Planner ( Strategic)
EXECUTIVE Summary
At the Council Meeting 3 November 2020 a notice of motion was passed requiring Council staff to investigate the potential for the relocation of a portion of Esso Park to the corner of Woodward Street and Summer Street, and explore the potential of residential options for a section of the park fronting Hamer Street (Attachment 1).
Analysis of the proposal has been undertaken and options developed for the relocation and change of use of land front Hamer Street are detailed below.
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
1 That Council note the contents of this report and the attached options. 2 That Council determine whether or not it wishes to continue to further investigate any options for the use of Esso Park. |
further considerations
The recommendation of this report has been assessed against Council’s other key risk categories and the following comments are provided:
Image and Reputation |
Consideration should be given to the potential publicity that may arise with such a proposal. It is common that the rezoning of public land for residential purpose can draw significant attention. |
Political |
Council should have consideration for the public’s reaction regarding reclassification and rezoning of public land for housing purposes. |
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
1. Background
Esso Park is located within the Orange Town Centre bordering the suburb of Calare. The Park is approximately a 15 minute walk from the Orange CBD. The Park is located across from Orange High School and provides 7,864m2 of passive recreation space. Esso Park has two frontages, Hamer Street (approx. 82 meters in length) and Woodward Street (approx. 69.8 meters in length).
2. Analysis
Zoning
Esso Park is currently zoned RE1 Public Recreation with the surrounding residential area zoned R1 General Residential.
Access and Egress
The Park is primarily accessed from Hamer Street when walking from the Orange CBD or the pedestrian crossing at Woodward Street providing access to and from the suburb of Calare and Orange High School. The Hamer Street frontage is fenced and provides one access point to the north-eastern most corner of the site.
Amenity and Safety
Esso Park provides a range of opportunities for shade given the number of mature trees across the site. The trees also act as a buffer to traffic noise from Woodward Street and enhance the visual appeal of the Park. The Park lacks clear signage and direct routes of access across that may have an impact on the passive surveillance opportunities.
Use
The Park contains some seating areas and a small swing set with the majority of the park grassed. The hardscape section of Esso Park is used for informal parking at the High School at pick up and drop off times. The park does not appear to have significant usage.
Tree Planting
The East most portion of the park contains majority of mature trees ranging in health and condition. The following tree species are located in the Eastern portion of the park subject to this investigation are:
· Golden Elm
· Beech
· Tulip Tree
· Liquid Amber
· Deodara
· Prunus
· Conifer spruce
· Tulip tree
1 Summer Street & 160 Woodward Street
1 Summer Street and 160 Woodward Street are two parcels owned by Council and adjoining Esso Park. The parcels are irregular in shape and have a total area of 2080m2.
The parcels have a majority of the frontage along Woodward Street (approx. 72.3 meters in length) and a small frontage along Summer Street (approx. 16.2 meters in length). The lots recesses approximately 16 metres on the southern lot and 49 meters back into the site on the northern lot which adjoins Esso Park.
Refer to Attachment 2 for the analysis drawing.
3. Option Testing
The following three options explore the subdivision of Esso Park to relocate the east most portion of the Park to 1 Summer Street and 160 Woodward Street. The total area of Esso Park under the following options is 7,864m2. The options identify the subdivision area as 2,610 m2 which includes residential frontages ranging from 10 – 15 meters, with a lot depth of 36 meters, consistent with the surrounding lot sizes and urban fabric. All options have varied impact on the existing trees in this portion of Esso Park however impact could be negated following further resolution of the subdivision layout and detailed design solutions.
Whilst the options provided within this report certainly provide an indication of basic options for the site, it is important to note that the options were initially developed leading into a site meeting with residents and represent only early conceptual ideas for discussion. Were there to be support for further investigations, option details would need to be considered in more detail at a later date.
Option 01
Option 01 proposes a central through site link of 6 meters wide. This link provides direct connection to the pedestrian crossing and clear visual sightlines. The proposal includes 6 lots including:
· 3 x 360m2 lots
· 1 x 450m2 lot
· 2 x 540m2 lots
This option would likely result in the removal of at least 4 trees, however would require further investigation.
Please refer to Attachment 3 for the subdivision plan.
Option 02
Option 02 proposes a meandering through site link of 6 meters wide. This link connects to the pedestrian crossing and provides access and egress at the southernmost corner of the site. The proposal includes 5 lots including:
· 1 x 450m2 lot
· 4 x 540m2 lots
This option would likely result in the removal of at least 3 trees, however would require further investigation.
Please refer to Attachment 4 for the subdivision plan.
Option 03
Option 03 retains the existing through site link. The proposal includes 6 lots including:
· 3 x 360m2 lots
· 1 x 450m2 lot
· 2 x 540m2 lots
This option would likely result in the removal of at least 3 trees, however would require further investigation.
Please refer to Attachment 5 for the subdivision plan.
Option 04
Option 04 is to retain the uses of the existing parcels and Council to investigate development/divestment options for 1 Summer Street and 160 Woodward Street. This option would retain Esso Park as a consolidated parcel of land which can be more broadly utilised for a range of passive and active recreation activities by the public.
Generally, sites that are irregular and located along major roads are not considered appropriate for public recreation due to safety and amenity issues that arise from the layout and location.
Option 04 would maintain the current amenity shared by the residents directly across from the Park that have been enjoyed since the dedication of the area as a Park in the 1980’s.
There has been some interest to purchase the site and if this option was preferred an expression of interest process would commence.
4. Reclassification Process
If Council were to proceed with subdivision of the site, Council must resolve under the Local Government Act 1993, Section 30 to reclassify the land from community land to operational land.
This would require Planning Proposal to be prepared by Council staff as per Division 3.4 Environmental Planning Instruments – LEPs of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) to amend the Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 (the LEP), to include the site in Schedule 4 Classification and reclassification of Public Land, Part 2 Land classified, or reclassified, as operational land – interest changed.
The Planning Proposal would need to also include the rezoning of the subject land from RE1 Public Recreation to R1 General Residential, and 1 Summer Street and 160 Woodward Street from R1 General Residential RE1 Public Recreation. This would also likely require a site specific Development Control Plan/Masterplan.
In addition to the standard exhibition period under Schedule 1 (4) of the EP&A Act, Council must also arrange a public hearing as per Section 29 Public Hearing into Reclassification of the Local Government Act 1993. This is a process that occurs after the formal exhibition period is completed.
1 Attachment 1 - CCL 3 November 2020 Notice Of Motion - Esso Park, D21/3753⇩
2 Attachment 2 - Analysis Diagram - Esso Park, D21/3770⇩
3 Attachment 3 - Option 01 - Esso Park, D21/3771⇩
4 Attachment 4 - Option 02 - Esso Park, D21/3772⇩
5 Attachment 5 - Option 03 - Esso Park, D21/3774⇩
Planning and Development Committee 2 February 2021
Attachment 1 Attachment 1 - CCL 3 November 2020 Notice Of Motion - Esso Park
Planning and Development Committee 2 February 2021
Attachment 2 Attachment 2 - Analysis Diagram - Esso Park
Planning and Development Committee 2 February 2021
Attachment 3 Attachment 3 - Option 01 - Esso Park
Planning and Development Committee 2 February 2021
Attachment 4 Attachment 4 - Option 02 - Esso Park
Planning and Development Committee 2 February 2021
Attachment 5 Attachment 5 - Option 03 - Esso Park
RECORD NUMBER: 2021/39
AUTHOR: Alison Phillips, Town Planner ( Strategic)
EXECUTIVE Summary
The Former Orange Base Hospital (FOBH) Design Report (Attachment 1) was prepared by Allen Jack + Cottier, and recommends design strategies and development options within the existing planning controls and context. Council resolved at 3 November 2020 Council meeting to prepare a Development Control Plan in line with the FOBH Design Report. Council staff subsequently engaged consultants, GHD, to prepare the Development Controls (Attachment 2) that form the basis of an amendment of the Orange Development Control Plan 2004.
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
The FOBH Design Report and associated development controls will guide the future direction of this precinct.
1 That Council acknowledge the attached site specific development controls and resolve to place the controls on public exhibition for a period of 28 days. 2 That staff draft an amendment the Orange Development Control Plan 2004 to: · Insert reference to the attached Site Specific Controls under chapter DCP 07 Residential Areas - 7.17 West End Precinct · Insert the DCP 17 Site Specific Controls – West End Precinct as an attachment 3 That post exhibition the matter return to Council for consideration of submissions with a view to amending the Orange Development Control Plan 2004. |
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 FOBH site has been subject to a masterplan in 2012 and has subsequently been updated to be consistent with the rezoning in 2017 and the DPIE development. The FOBH Design Report identifies a set of principles and design options that respond to the existing planning controls, opportunities and constraints of the site. These principles and design outcomes have been translated into a Development Control Plan to be attached to the Orange DCP 2004.
Figure 1: Indicative Structure Plan – AJ+C FOBH Design Report
Key themes considered within the draft controls includes the existing and desired future character, built form typologies, building setbacks, landscaping requirements, access and movement outcomes, public domain considerations, and sustainable and efficient design and management.
The draft controls aim to provide design guidance beyond what is considered in the Apartment Design Guide (State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development) for apartment buildings. Design criteria, objectives and controls have also been developed for the townhouse typology. Key objectives are to facilitate high quality medium density housing that exhibits design excellence and innovation in Regional Cities, high quality public and private open space and equitable, clear access to the site for those living and working in the area.
Additionally, the draft DCP controls set objectives and controls regarding the public park in the centre of the site. The park will provide key linkages from the DPIE site and acts as an extension of the natural buffer to the west of the site. Opportunities for passive recreation use and play areas will be provided for use by community and DPIE workers.
The draft controls attached have been reviewed by staff and it is recommended that the following section be included within chapter DCP 07 in Residential Areas:
7.17 West End Precinct
The West End Precinct is located north of the Orange Central Business District (CBD) and is positioned adjacent Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) office and car park complex.
The objective of the West Precinct is to provide a quality urban outcome consistent with the Former Orange Base Hospital Residential Development Design Report (2020) by Allen Jack + Cottier.
Site specific controls pertaining to this site are provided in the chapter DCP 17 Site Specific Controls –West End Precinct.
NEXT STEPS
The draft controls are a clear translation of the FOBH design report and are to be presented to the public for comment. Public submissions will be reviewed by Council and responded to through a post-exhibition report to Council. Once adopted Council staff will amend the Orange Development Control Plan 2004.
1 The West End - Former Orange Base Hospital Site Design Report, D20/75247⇩
2 Draft DCP Controls, D21/3129⇩
Planning and Development Committee 2 February 2021
Attachment 1 The West End - Former Orange Base Hospital Site Design Report
RECORD NUMBER: 2021/43
AUTHOR: Craig Mortell, Senior Planner
EXECUTIVE Summary
Amendment 17 to the Orange LEP relates to the creation of the Towac Equine Precinct. This was previously considered by Council at the 17 September 2020 meeting, where Council resolved:
1 Note that items 2, 3 below will override items 1 and 3 of the resolution of 17 March 2020 in relation to Towac Equine Precinct.
2 Instruct the Chief Executive Officer to place the Planning Agreement on public exhibition for 28 days.
3 Subject to there being no objections to the planning agreement, authorise the Chief Executive Officer to enter into the planning agreement and pursue finalisation of Amendment 17 with the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment.
The remaining item from the 17 March 2020 resolution was:
2 Endorse and adopt the draft Development Control Plan provisions, to be known as chapter 6A of Orange DCP 2004.
The planning agreement was completed and entered into in accordance with the resolution of 17 September 2020. Council has now been advised of the agreement being registered on all relevant titles and will proceed to seek final gazettal of the amendment through the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment.
In reviewing this matter it has been noted that clause 21 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 requires the adoption of Development Control Plans be publicly notified within 28 days of the resolution. Due to the delay generated by switching from a contributions cap variation to a Planning Agreement and the time required to negotiate that agreement the adoption of the DCP on 17 March 2020 now needs to be reaffirmed to confirm its validity.
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
1. That Council endorse and adopt the attached draft Development Control Plan provisions, to be known as chapter 6A of Orange DCP 2004. 2. That Council adopt the attached Towac Precinct Concept Plan to be the formal Equine Precinct Map as defined in the draft chapter 6A |
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
At the time of the 17 March 2020 meeting it was anticipated that a variation to the contributions cap would have resolved the outstanding issue of funding the horse and rider underpass and that this would occur relatively quickly. However, advice from the Department of Planning Industry and Environment necessitated a change in approach to use a Planning Agreement, as reported to Council 17 September 2020.
This created an unforeseeable delay and the window of time to publicly notify the adoption of the DCP provisions, to be known as chapter 6A of DCP 2004, has now expired. Council may reaffirm this earlier decision enabling public notification of the DCP adoption. A copy of the DCP provisions is attached.
On 20 January 2021, council was advised that the planning agreement has now been registered on all relevant titles. With this now confirmed staff are proceeding to instruct DPIE to pursue finalisation of the amendment. It is therefore important to ensure that the DCP provisions are in place to provide the assessment framework for any relevant development applications.
1 Towac Equine Precinct Draft DCP (chapter 6A), D20/12168⇩
2 Towac Precinct Concept Plan, D20/54555⇩
Planning and Development Committee 2 February 2021
Attachment 1 Towac Equine Precinct Draft DCP (chapter 6A)
6.13 ANIMAL BOARDING OR TRAINING ESTABLISHMENTS
HORSE BREEDING OR TRAINING ESTABLISHMENTS
6.13.1 General
1. “Animal boarding or training establishment” means a building or place used for the breeding, boarding, training, keeping or caring of animals for commercial purposes (other than for the agistment of horses) and includes any associated riding school or ancillary veterinary hospital.”
2. This part of the DCP applies to all Animal Boarding or Training Establishments used for the purposes of keeping, breeding or training horses.
6.13.2 Minimum Site Area
Objective
(a) To permit horse breeding or training establishments upon certain sized rural and non-urban landholdings, to minimise potential land use conflicts with rural residential and other rural land uses in a particular locality.
Development Controls
1. The minimum site area for any horse breeding or training establishment shall be 2 hectares.
2. Notwithstanding this, the minimum site area for any horse breeding or training facility within the landholdings known as Lots 192 and 144, DP 750401, and lot 1 DP310621 bounded by James road and Pinnacle Road may be a minimum of 1 hectare provided the facility is operated by the occupants of each rural residential dwelling only, for their own private recreation purposes.
6.13.3 Maximum Number of Horses – Towac Equestrian
Estate
Objective
(a) To restrict the number of horses within any horse boarding, breeding or training establishment within the Towac Equestrian Estate, in order to maintain the amenity of the locality and in the interests of animal welfare.
Development Controls
1. The maximum number of horses for any animal boarding, breeding or training establishment within the Towac Equestrian Estate shall be restricted to a rate of not more than 1 horse per 4,000m2 of the site area. Veterinary hospitals may exceed this rate where the horses are kept on premises temporarily for treatment or examination.
6.13.4 Minimum Setback Requirements for Horse Stables & Shelters
Objective
(a) To ensure horse stables and shelters are appropriately setback from common property boundaries, in order to maintain the amenity and character of the surrounding locality.
Development Controls
1. Any horse stable or horse shelter shall be setback from property boundaries and adjoining land uses in accordance with Table 4 below.
Minimum Setback Requirements for Horse Stables & Shelters
Land Use Minimum Setback Requirement
Front Building Line Setback to Primary Road |
Behind the building line of the associated dwelling |
Secondary Road Frontage |
10 metres |
Side and Rear Building Line Setback |
20 metres |
Adjoining Dwelling not associated with the facility |
20 metres |
2. Within the setback areas stated in the table above a 5m wide landscaped area is to be included along the relevant boundary, comprising trees that mature to between 4 – 8 metres in height and spaced so that at maturity the drip lines of foliage connect to form a continuous vegetative screen.
3. Trees planted as part of the vegetative screen required by control 2 are to be protected from grazing during establishment with tree guards or similar devices until the trees achieve a minimum height of 1.5m.
6.13.5 Horse Stable, Exercise Yard & Shelter Requirements
Note: According to the RSPCA an average 500kg (approx. 15hh) horse drinks around 30 – 50 litres a day. This amount can increase based on hot weather, dry feed or being heavily worked/exercised. Additionally, a mare with foal can need between 1.8 to 2.5 times as much water as normal. For this reason it is highly recommended that the yard and shelter be designed to provide ample shade and placement of watering troughs in shaded areas to limit evaporation is also preferred. Consider including rainwater tanks to collect runoff from stables and shade structures as a way to help reduce overall water consumption.
Objectives
(a) To ensure horse stables and shelters are well designed and constructed to provide suitable all weather protection for horses.
(b) To ensure horse stables and shelters are sympathetic to the rural landscape and the scenic environmental amenity of the locality.
(c) To ensure horse breeding and training establishments provide suitable exercise training yards.
Development Controls
1. Each horse should be provided with a suitable horse stable and exercise training yard.
2. The minimum size for any horse stable should be 3.7 metres wide and 3.7 metres deep. The height of any horse stable should be a minimum of 2.75 metres up to 3.4 metres, depending upon the height of the horse.
3. The roof of the stable shall provide all weather protection and should incorporate appropriate guttering and down pipes to convey stormwater into rainwater tanks and into appropriately designed stormwater drainage systems or drinking troughs.
4. The walls of the horse stable should be of a masonry construction for a height of at least 1.2 metres with either masonry or solid galvanised iron sheeting provided for the upper wall panelling. Any concrete masonry blocks should be reinforced with vertical steel rods and the cores filled with concrete. Some form of window or air passage between the roof and the walls is needed for cross-ventilation purposes.
5. The wall height shall range between 2.75 metres up to 3.4 metres high, depending upon the height of the intended horse. The external walls of the stable shall be appropriately sealed and waterproofed. The internal walls of the stable should be lined with plywood sheeting or rubber material to prevent injury to horses and to also protect the walls from pawing or kicking.
6. The doors of any horse stable shall be at least 1.2 metres wide and 2.4 metres high with no protrusions which may cause potential injury to the horse. Any latches to the doors should be strong and have no protrusions which may injure the horse.
7. The floor of any horse stable must be constructed of an impervious material which is graded towards the doorway to permit drainage and with no low spots where urine can collect.
8. A 100mm thick reinforced concrete slab is the preferred flooring method. Clean bedding such as straw or sawdust should be provided daily to prevent any foot or leg problems caused by the horse standing on concrete.
9. Feeders and water troughs should be raised to a height of 1.05 metres aboveground and placed within a corner of the stable. The feeders and water troughs should be smooth finished and free of any protrusions.
10. Any horse shelters shall be constructed to fulfil the same requirements as a horse stable regarding walls, floor and roofing but should be provided without any doors, in order to allow free passage of horses to / from the shelter, at all times.
11. The external finishes of any horse stable or horse stable shall be painted in a muted green, light brown or grey colour, in order to maintain the rural character of the surrounding locality.
6.13.6 Horse Paddocks
Objectives
(a) To ensure horse paddocks are of a sufficient size and are provided with appropriate feed and shade trees.
(b) To ensure horse paddocks are properly fenced (both internally and externally) to minimise any injury to horses and to encourage rotational grazing of the paddocks.
Development Controls
1. The minimum paddock size for each horse should be 3,000m2 with a preferable size of 1 hectare or more.
2. Any horse paddock must contain a horse shelter as well as shade trees.
3. Horse paddocks should be internally fenced, wherever possible to allow for the rotational use of the grazing area, in order to minimise any potential overgrazing.
4. Supplementary feed must be provided, where necessary.
5. Post and rail fencing for horse paddocks is preferred. The use of wire or barb wire is not recommended because of its tendency to cause injury to horses. Electric fences are suitable but should be supported with some type of sight barrier (eg a painted tin lid) attached to the electric wire, in order to improve the visibility of the electric fence.
6.13.7 Liquid & Solid Waste Collection and Treatment
Objective
(a) To ensure all horse boarding, breeding or training establishments have appropriate liquid and solid waste collection and treatment systems.
Development Controls
1. All liquid wastes are to be led to a settling pond area, prior to discharge into any watercourse, stormwater drainage system or Sydney Water Corporation sewerage system. The settling pond area shall have a minimum capacity of 1.5% of the total site area with a maximum depth of 1.2 metres. Any pond overflow shall meet the water quality criteria set out in the ANZECC guidelines for the particular receiving waterway.
2. All solid manure should be removed regularly and placed in a suitable waste storage bin. The solid waste storage bin should be a large metal bin with a flanged-fitting metal lid which is waterproof and prevents access to flies and / or vermin. This bin should be emptied and disinfected weekly.
3. The full details of the proposed liquid and solid waste treatment process including the settling pond area are to be submitted with the Development Application for an animal boarding or training establishment.
4. In the event that the proposal is ultimately supported, a condition of consent may be imposed requiring an appropriate water sampling program to be implemented to monitor the water quality of any waters discharging from the settling pond.
5. The sampling regime is likely to involve quarterly sampling and sampling after each heavy rainfall event.
The sampling of the water at a registered NATA laboratory should include the following parameters:-
(a) pH;
(b) Suspended solids;
(c) Dissolved Oxygen;
(d) Total Phosphorous;
(e) Ammonia;
(f) Total Nitrogen; and
(g) Faecal Coliforms.
6. The preparation of an annual environmental management plan may also be required for any approved horse boarding, breeding or training facility which outlines the performance of the settling pond bearing in mind the sampling regime.
6.13.8 Equine Precinct Subdivision
Objective
(a) To provide and preserve opportunities for the keeping of horses and related activities in a residential context within specific locations.
Development Controls
1. This section of the DCP applies to land within the Towac Equine Precinct, as defined in the Equine Precinct Map.
2. Subdivision of land within an Equine Precinct is to identify and include on all newly created lots a restriction as to user under Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919 that:
a. Nominates an area of land within the lot suitable for the erection of a stable and exercise yard, sufficient for the keeping of at least 1 horse.
b. The area of land nominated must be consistent with the setbacks and other controls in this part of the DCP.
c. The area of land nominated is to be restricted so as to prevent the erection or maintenance of any buildings other than a horse stable and associated tack room.
3. Subdivision of land within an Equine Precinct shall be required to undertake post-and-rail fencing of the area nominated in the restriction as to user required above.