Agenda of Extraordinary Council Meeting

Extraordinary Council Meeting 27 July 2021

Attachment 1 Completed Actions

Meeting and Date	Resolution	Action Taken
Council 1/12/2020	RESOLVED - 20/445 Cr R Turner That Council adopt the Blackmans Swamp Creek and Ploughmans Creek Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan, October 2020 but defer the planning and development controls shown in Section 5.9 of the report until such time that the Department of Planning Industry and Environment allows flood controls on land above the 1% flood.	Final Report submitted to DPIE. Complete.
Services Policy Committee 6/04/2021	MATTER ARISING Cr G Taylor Cr Taylor requested that an audit of footpaths be undertaken where bollards have been installed to ensure mobility scooter access can be maintained and, where identified, bollards are replaced or removed to ensure said access can occur.	Audit scheduled.
Planning and Development Committee 6/04/2021	RESOLVED - 21/092 Cr S Munro That Council resolves: 1 To endorse the attached scope of the Planning Proposal for the Eastside Precinct to amend the Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011. 2 Submit the attached 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. 3 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.	Submitted for Gateway. On public Exhibition until 21 June 2021. Action completed.
Planning and Development Committee 6/04/2021	RESOLVED - 21/096 /Cr S Nugent That Council resolves: 1 To endorse the attached Planning Proposal relating to the Heritage Amendment to the Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 2 That staff finalise inventory sheets before seeking a Gateway Determination 3 To submit 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 4 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.	Submitted for Gateway. Exhibition until 21 June 2021. Action completed.
Council 4/05/2021	RESOLVED - 21/137 n/Cr T Mileto That the CEO be delegated to finalise the contract and enter into an option for the sale of industrial land at 298 Clergate Road as per the detail in this report.	Action completed.
Council 4/05/2021	RESOLVED - 21/138 on/Cr K Duffy 1 That Council sell 30 Astill Drive Orange for the sum of $377,440 inc GST. 2 That permission be granted for the use of the Council Seal on any relevant documentation.	Documents sent to solicitor for preparation of contract for sale. Contract issued to purchaser. Action completed.
Council 18/05/2021	RESOLVED - 21/136 Cr K Duffy/Cr R Kidd 1. That Council endorse the following recommendation: a) the total floor area of the dwelling, excluding any area used for parking, must not exceed— i. 50% of the total floor area of the principal dwelling, and b) the distance between the secondary dwelling and the principal dwelling must not exceed 60 metres, where practicable. 2. That Council direct staff to provide Council’s resolution for the provisions for secondary dwellings on land in rural zones to the Department of Planning Industry and Environment.	Action completed.
Council 1/06/2021	RESOLVED - 21/173 g/Cr S Munro That Council resolves to: 1 Approve the Chief Executive Officer, or his nominee, to enter into a standard contract with Work Control Pty Ltd for the provision of traffic management services; 2 Grant permission to the Chief Executive Officer or nominee to do such things as may be necessary or convenient to give effect to this decision, including affixing the Council Seal to all relevant documents if required.	Action completed.
Council 1/06/2021	RESOLVED - 21/174 ae/Cr R Kidd That Council does not approve the reduction in costs or charges for the 2020/2021 water or sewerage charges for 1-7 Torpy Street, Orange.	Action completed.
Council 1/06/2021	RESOLVED - 21/175 r/Cr K Duffy That this item be deferred to obtain further specifics.	Report to the Council Meeting of 20 July 2021
Council 1/06/2021	RESOLVED - 21/176 r/Cr J Hamling That this item be deferred to obtain further specifics.	Report to the Council Meeting of 20 July 2021.
Council 15/06/2021	RESOLVED - 21/170 ng/Cr G Taylor That staff bring back an instrument of refusal to the next Council meeting for development application DA 284/2020(1) for demolition (existing dwelling and outbuildings) and Centre-based Child Care Facility at Lot A DP 365443 – 4 Kearneys Drive, Orange, based on reasons for refusal including traffic impacts, amenity, noise, safety and appropriateness of the site.	Prepared for Planning & Development Committee - 6 July 2021.
Council 1/06/2021	RESOLVED - 21/178 Cr K Duffy That Council resolves: 1 That the report by the Acting Director of Corporate and Commercial Services be acknowledged. 2 That the land transfer proceed as part of the Crown Land Negotiation Program and as per the details in this report.	Action completed.
Council 1/06/2021	RESOLVED - 21/179 That Council resolves to: 1 Approve the Chief Executive Officer, or his nominee, to enter into a standard contract with Bitupave Ltd for the supply and delivery of bitumen emulsion. 2 Grant permission to the Chief Executive Officer or nominee to do such things as may be necessary or convenient to give effect to this decision, including affixing the Council Seal to all relevant documents if required.	Action completed.
Council 1/06/2021	RESOLVED - 21/180 That Council resolves: 1 To enter into a Contract with Advisian Pty Ltd for the Gosling Creek Dam Geotechnical Investigation for the amount of $163,533 subject to the mutual agreement of the terms and conditions of contract. 2 That the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to negotiate the terms and conditions of contract.	Action completed.
Council 1/06/2021	MATTER ARISING Cr J McRae Cr McRae asked that a report be provided to Council on Code of Conduct Complaints per year for the last terms of Council in order to provide a comparison.	Report provided to the Council Meeting of 6 July 2021. Action completed.
Environmental Sustainability Policy Committee 1/06/2021	RESOLVED - 21/160 That Council resolves: 1 That Council note the Report on Council Electricity Procurement; 2 That Council note the alignment between the advice in this report and Council’s renewable energy plan, energy targets and the NSW Government’s aspirations for Net Zero; 3 That Council contribute a minimum of 50% of Council’s electricity load to a renewable energy power purchase agreement where the pricing is lower than the existing contracted price; and 4 That staff advise Central NSW Joint Organisation of Council’s decision.	Action completed.
Environmental Sustainability Policy Committee 1/06/2021	RESOLVED - 21/161 That Council resolves: 1 To place Strategic Policy – ST149 – Single Use Plastics on public exhibition for a period of 28 days. 2 That Council acknowledge the Single Use Plastics Implementation Plan.	Policy on Exhibition until 5 July 2021. Action completed.
Planning and Development Committee 1/06/2021	RESOLVED - 21/150 /Cr S Nugent That DA 284/2020(1) for Demolition (existing dwelling and outbuildings) and Centre-based Child Care Facility at Lot A DP 365443 – 4 Kearneys Drive, Orange be deferred to allow for a site inspection.	Deferred for Site Inspection, returned to Council 15 June 2021. Action completed.
Infrastructure Policy Committee 1/06/2021	QUESTION TAKEN ON NOTICE Cr J Hamling Cr Hamling asked for information regarding the continuation of the footpath on Ploughmans Lane from Forbes Road and whether it will continue along Cargo Road.	A shared path will continue along Ploughmans Lane to Cargo Road via Riawena Oval in stages as funding permits. Council allocation for shared use pathways is $50,000 annually which should allow for the pathway to be completed in 4 stages. Action completed.
Finance Policy Committee 1/06/2021	RESOLVED - 21/164 d/Cr G Taylor That Council resolves: 1 That funding of $5,000 inclusive of Showground Hire be made from the Event Sponsorship Program to Rotary Club of Orange Inc. for the Orange Sustainable Living Expo Event. 2 That funding of $1,000 be made from the Event Sponsorship Program to Dairy Hill Designs for the Artwork Orange Pop Up Exhibition Event. 3 That Council's intention to donate $1,000 to Dairy Hill Designs be placed on public exhibition for 28 days. 4 That Council's Chief Executive Officer be given delegation to finalise determination for the Event Sponsorship to Dairy Hill Designs post exhibition.	Orange Show Society notified and the Agreement Letter sent. Dairy Hill Designs application public exhibition period finished on 6.7.21. CEO approved through delegation. Dairy Hill Design notified and funding agreement letter sent 7.6.21. Action completed.
Council 15/06/2021	RESOLVED - 21/164 d/Cr G Taylor That Council investigate the feasibility of allowing Fusion Orange to make contingency arrangements to meet the additional homeless requirements through the use of the Church Hall and Carpark, as they arise during winter.	Action completed.
Council 15/06/2021	RESOLVED - 21/166 /Cr G Taylor That staff investigate the possibility of utilising automatic shopping trolley wheel shut off technology at carpark exits and that supermarkets be requested to investigate other methods for the prevention of dumping shopping trolleys.	Smart devices can be fitted to trolleys using a geofencing system. This system triggers and alert or action when a trolley leaves a defined area. These devices can trigger a wheel-locking mechanism that stops the trolley. Council cannot require any business to install this type of system. Council staff have contacted the local businesses with regard to abandoned trolleys not being picked up on a regular basis and any trolleys regarded as being abandoned (and in an area that is regarded as being unsafe for the community) are being impounded by Councils Rangers. Action completed.
Council 15/06/2021	RESOLVED - 21/171 /Cr T Mileto That Council consents to development application DA 42/2021(1) for Demolition (existing structures) and Centre-based Child Care Facility at Lot 2 DP 1202010 - 64 Valencia Drive, Orange, pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.	Action completed.
Council 15/06/2021	RESOLVED - 21/172 S Romano That Council consents to development application DA 339/2020(1) for Boarding House (change of use) and Alterations and Additions at Lots E and F DP 18925 – 3 and 5 Curran Street, Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.	Action completed.
Council 15/06/2021	RESOLVED - 21/173 Cr R Kidd That Council resolves: 1 That the information contained in the report for development application DA 86/2021(1) for proposed General Industry and Business Identification Signage at Lot 1 DP 1085646, 298 Clergate Road, Orange, be acknowledged. 2 That Council makes a positive submission on the application to the Western Regional Planning Panel.	Action completed.
Council 15/06/2021	RESOLVED - 21/175 n/Cr G Taylor That Council resolves to: 1 Direct staff to make a submission requesting the replacement of clause 7.2A Floodplain risk management with the optional clause 5.22 Special Flood Considerations to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment.	Action completed.
Council 15/06/2021	RESOLVED - 21/176 1 That Council note the contents of this report and forwards a copy of the draft LEP documentation (Amendment No 27) to the Department for finalisation consistent with the Gateway determination. 2 That staff prepare the Development Control Plan/masterplan for the site for exhibition as a separate process to the finalisation of the draft LEP.	Action completed.
Council 15/06/2021	RESOLVED - 21/180 Cr S Romano That Council resolves to: 1 Approve the Event Sponsorship Program Round 2 opening date to be 16 June and closing dates to be 16 July 2021. 2 Approve Council's Chief Executive Officer to be given delegation to finalise determination for the Event Sponsorship Round 2 applications post exhibition.	Advertisement advising change of date placed in Newspaper. All past applicants have been advised of the date change. Also included on Councils website, social media and advert in CWD. Action completed.
Council 15/06/2021	RESOLVED - 21/186 er/Cr K Duffy That Council take part in the proceedings by making a formal offer as detailed in this report.	Action completed.
Council 15/06/2021	MATTER ARISING Cr R Turner Cr Turner asked that all of the trolleys located at the Resource Recovery Centre (RRC) inside the front gate to be sent to the steel recycling centre when not collected by supermarkets, in a bid to clean up the entrance to the facility.	Action completed.
Council 15/06/2021	RESOLVED - 21/184 y/Cr J Whitton That Council resolves to: 1 Approve the Chief Executive Officer, or his nominee, to enter into a standard contract with Midwest Traffic Management (Orange) Pty Ltd for the provision of traffic management services; 2 Grant permission to the Chief Executive Officer or nominee to do such things as may be necessary or convenient to give effect to this decision, including affixing the Council Seal to all relevant documents if required.	Successful tenderer notified. Contract executed 1 July 2021. Action completed.
Environmental Sustainability Policy Committee 6/07/2021	RESOLVED - 21/213 ton/Cr K Duffy 1 That Council acknowledge the reports presented to the Companion Animals Community Committee at its meeting held on 10 May 2021. 2 That Council determine recommendations 3.2,3.3 and 3.4 from the minutes of the Companion Animals Community Committee meeting of 10 May 2021. 3.2 That the report be accepted and that a visit for Committee members be organised. 3.3 That the report be accepted and further summarised parts of the Companion Animals Act be included at the next meeting. 3.4 I. That Council investigate the position of the gate and seating at Anzac Park off leash. II. That Council proceed with the off leash fencing area on Ridley Oval adjoining Little Warrendine Street including seating and tree planting. 3 That the remainder of the minutes of the Companion Animals Community Committee at its meeting held on 10 May 2021 be adopted.	Action completed.
Finance Policy Committee 6/07/2021	RESOLVED - 21/216 t/Cr G Taylor That Council resolves: 1 That a donation of $2,500.00 be made from the Small Donations Program to The Shepherd Centre for Community Service (Reach Out and Connect Program 2021). 2 That a donation of $2,500.00 be made from the Small Donations Program to Zonta Club of Orange for Community Service (Supporting Local Women - tertiary education, breast cancer and domestic violence)). 3 That a donation of $1,000.00 be made from the Small Donations Program to Bloomfield Hospital Auxiliary for Community Service (supporting mental health/drug and alcohol patients). 4 That a donation of $2,500.00 be made from the Small Donations Program to Orange Regional Malayalee Association for Community Event (Onam - South Indian Festival). 5 That a donation of $11,464.55 be made from the Small Donations Program to Lifeline Centre West for Community Event (services to the vulnerable in the Orange community). 6 That a donation of $500.00 be made from the Small Donations Program to Australian War Widows NSW (on behalf of Orange War Widows Guild Social Club) for Community Service (Members Outings, Lunches and Events). 7 That a donation of $384.45 be made from the Small Donations Program to Orange Legacy Appeals Fund for Community Service (supporting the families and widows of ex-service persons). 8 That a donation of $500.00 be made from the Small Donations Program to City of Orange Eisteddfod for Prize Giving (Junior Strings Scholarship) 2021. 9 That a donation of $1,151.00 be made from the Small Donations Program to Friday Night Gaming for Community Event (Battle in the Bush (BTB) Warhammer 40,000 Tournament). 10 That a donation of $2,500.00 be made from the Small Donations Program to City of Orange Brass Band for Community Service (equipment for community band performances).	Applicants advised of Council's determination of their applications on 8 July 2021. Payment details to Creditors on 12 July 2021. Action completed.

Meeting and Date	Resolution	Action Taken
Council 1/10/2019	RESOLVED - 19/504 1 That the report by the Manager of Corporate and Community Relations be acknowledged. 2 That Council continues to support the establishment of an asphalt plant in Orange when opportunities arise. 3 That discussion take place between the Chief Executive Officer, Director Technical Services, Cr R Kidd and Cr J Whitton.	Meeting to be scheduled. Also meeting Downer this week and Boral have shown renewed interest in submitting a DA for a plant at Shadforth's.
Council 17/12/2019	RESOLVED - 19/638 That Council resolves not to write off the debt for Debtor Account 150 008 804, and the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to agree on a satisfactory payment plan.	To be finalised.
Council 17/12/2019	RESOLVED - 19/639 That Council resolves not to write off the debt for Debtor Account 150 008 083, and the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to agree on a satisfactory payment plan.	To be finalised.
Council 18/08/2020	QUESTION TAKEN ON NOTICE Cr Mileto requested a risk audit report be provided to Council on the risk for all Council owned sporting amenity facilities with fibro/asbestos risks identifying a capital works list for repair.	Report to be provided.
Council 6/10/2020	MATTER ARISING Cr Duffy requested that Council be provided with an update in relation to indigenous street names being added to signs.	Report to be drafted outlining GNB Guidelines.
Council 20/10/2020	RESOLVED - 20/365 1 That Council prepare a report on options available to achieve greater use of recycled materials in our roads and pavements, with particular reference to Local Government NSW’s publication Recycled Materials in Roads and Pavements: A Guide for Local Councils. 2 That Council requests the Central NSW Joint Organisation to research ‘Paving the Way’, the biggest local government-led procurement of recycled road-making materials in NSW history through a collaboration of 15 Sydney metropolitan councils led by the Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils, and determine the relevance and applicability for the Central NSW JO.	Report to be provided to Council.
Council 2/02/2021	RESOLVED - 21/028 1 That Council investigate options for additional promotion of the Botanic Gardens and Adventure Playground precinct as a premier rest stop for travellers on the Northern Distributor. 2 That Council prepare a report on options for the triangular block of land to the west of the new Hill Street extension including the possibility of further tree plantings with the aim of enhancing and complementing the Botanic Gardens and Adventure Playground precinct.	Report to be provided.
Council 16/02/2021	RESOLVED - 21/044 That staff investigate the feasibility of a safe off road or shoulder cycle loop on Huntley and Forest Roads.	To be investigated.
Council 16/02/2021	RESOLVED - 21/043 1 That Council investigate the feasibility, viability, costs and funding options for the construction of a roundabout to replace the current traffic lights on the corner of the Northern Distributor Road and Telopea Way. 2 That a report be provided to Council, inclusive of a pedestrian access option.	To be investigated.
Council 2/03/2021	RESOLVED - 21/063 That Council; 1 Create community awareness location maps of existing Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs). 2 Investigate a location app for AEDs. 3 Arrange community promotion to have businesses and other groups locate AED in their business or facilities for community access. 4 Investigate funding opportunities to assist in placing AEDs in strategic locations where there are zero AEDs nearby / community high use location in the accessible areas.	Investigations pending.
Council 6/04/2021	RESOLVED - 21/120 That Council resolves to: 1 Endorse the taxi rank remaining in its existing position and the marked zebra pedestrian crossing being moved to midblock in Lords Place. 2 Endorse removing the proposed new loading zone, reducing the pop-up shops to one and removing a number of street trees from the design to minimise the loss of parking in McNamara Street.	Finalisation of arrangements.
Council 20/04/2021	MATTER ARISING Cr Kidd requested that a public awareness campaign be run on pedestrian safety using the islands and traffic awareness of the new islands.	This matter to be investigated.
Employment and Economic Development Policy Committee 4/05/2021	QUESTION TAKEN ON NOTICE Cr Duffy asked how the city faired with the Job Keeper payments and what the impact has been on Council as well as if Council received any money from these payments.	Report to be provided.
Infrastructure Policy Committee 4/05/2021	RESOLVED - 21/130 That staff review the need for traffic lights on Bathurst Road between the Wellness Centre on Allenby Road and Glenroi Avenue intersections and the need for the existing traffic lights in front of Kinross Wolaroi School.	Investigation underway.
Council 18/05/2021	RESOLVED - 21/130 That Council investigate the logistics, costs and community interest in establishing a youth art trail around Orange including the following considerations: · promotion of a diversity of youth-led public art by First Nations young people and people from a variety of cultural backgrounds · mapping of existing youth-led/youth-supported public art works including the murals at the John Lomas Skate Park and Orange headspace, as well as the painted rocks in Glenroi’s Cootes Park · input from existing youth advisory groups such as Council’s Youth Action Council, Orange headspace’s Youth Reference Group and the Skate Park Committee · input from the Youth Services Interagency · identification of possible locations for additional youth-led/youth-supported public art works · consideration of a youth art trail ‘virtual tour’ with direction and videography by interested young people · consideration of a youth art trail brochure that would be available from the Visitors Centre.	To be prepared.
Council 18/05/2021	QUESTION TAKEN ON NOTICE Cr Mileto asked how many parks and reserves are in the Orange Local Government area and the total sizes of each.	Information to be provided.
Council 18/05/2021	QUESTION TAKEN ON NOTICE Cr Kidd asked for further clarification on internal garbage charges and would like to confirm the actual amount below budget. QUESTION TAKEN ON NOTICE Cr Kidd asked for further clarification on internal garbage charges and would like to confirm the actual amount below budget.	Information to be provided.
Services Policy Committee 1/06/2021	RESOLVED - 21/170 1 That Council develop plans and obtain detailed cost estimates for the establishment of a Native regeneration zone and walking / cycling trails on the eastern portion of the Lot 101 DP 1224248 as identified in 2019 Concept Masterplan; 2 Council make application for participation in the Emissions Reduction Fund; 3 A report on the outcome be provided to Council.	To be investigated
Council 15/06/2021	RESOLVED - 21/174 That Council defers development application DA 126/2021(1) for Landscaping Material Supplies at Lot 640 DP 789668 - 16 Old Forbes Road, Orange, to allow for a site inspection.	Matter deferred to a later date.
Council 15/06/2021	RESOLVED - 21/163 That Council write to Edwina Bone congratulating her on her recent selection in the Australian Womens Hockey Team for the Tokyo Olympic Games.	Draft completed for Mayor's original signature.
Council 15/06/2021	QUESTION TAKEN ON NOTICE Cr Kidd asked that staff investigate the installation of CCTV in Matthews Park to deter vandalism.	To be investigated.
Council 15/06/2021	MATTER ARISING Cr Munro asked that staff investigate options to secure the storm water drain in Matthews Park to make it safer for visitors to the park.	To be investigated.
Council 15/06/2021	MATTER ARISING Cr Whitton asked that a Real Estate sign placed on the road verge on Forest Road be inspected and action taken to move the signage as it is obstructing the view of traffic at the intersection.	To be inspected.

Extraordinary Council Meeting 27 July 2021

5.7 Statement of Investments - June 2021

TRIM REFERENCE: 2021/1405

AUTHOR: Julie Murray, Financial Accountant

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to provide a statement of Council’s investments held as at 30 June 2021.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan strategy “17.2 Collaborate - Ensure financial stability and support efficient ongoing operation”.

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

That Council resolves:

1 To note the Statement of Investments as at 30 June 2021.

2 To adopt the certification of the Responsible Accounting Officer.

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

Section 212(1) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires that a written report be presented each month at an Ordinary Meeting of the Council detailing all money that Council has invested under Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993.

As at 30 June 2021, the investments held by Council in each fund is shown below:

	30/06/2021	31/05/2021
General Fund	71,093,680.85	68,935,438.25
Water Fund	66,401,978.22	65,108,818.59
Sewer Fund	57,772,656.23	56,859,126.27
Total Funds	$195,268,315.30	$190,803,383.11

A reconciliation of Council’s investment portfolio provides a summary of the purposes for which Council’s investments are being held. The summary is as follows:

	30/06/2021	31/05/2021
Externally Restricted
- General Fund	30,212,309.42	30,002,666.95
- Water Fund	66,401,978.22	65,108,818.59
- Sewer Fund	57,772,656.23	56,759,126.27
Internally Restricted	27,304,520.65	24,691,137.44
Unrestricted	13,576,850.78	14,241,633.86
Total Funds	$195,268,315.30	$190,803,383.11

Externally restricted funds are those funds that have been received for a specific purpose and may only be used for the purpose that they have been received, for example, the money received for Water access and usage charges by legislation ae only available to be spent for the operation, maintenance and expansion of the Water supply network.

Internally restricted funds are those that Council has earmarked for a particular purpose but Council also has the ability to have that purpose changed.

Unrestricted funds are those available for use to continue the day to day operations of Council, made up of General Fund investments and cash only.

The increase in the internally restricted funds during June is due mainly to the prepayment of 50% of the Financial Assistance grant for the 2022 Financial year ($2,422,814.00).

The unrestricted cash position movements during the month are normal as projects commence and income is received. Movements may also arise following processing of income received between funds or into restricted assets to appropriately allocate for the purposes Council has determined. Council’s cash flow is monitored on a daily basis and some investments may be redeemed rather than rolled over to support operational requirements.

Portfolio Advice

Council utilises the services of an independent investment advisor in maintaining its portfolio of investments. Council’s current investment advisor is Imperium Markets, an independent asset consultant that works with wholesale investors to develop, implement and manage their investment portfolio. Imperium Markets is a leading provider of independent investment consulting services to a broad range of institutional investors including government agencies, superannuation funds and not-for-profit organisations.

Imperium Markets major services provided to Council include:

· Quarterly portfolio summary reports

· Advice on investment opportunities, in particular Floating Rate Note products

· Advice on policy construction

· Year-end market values for Floating Note Rate products held by Council.

Portfolio Performance

Council’s current Long Term Financial Plan establishes the benchmark for Council’s interest on investments at “75 basis points above the current cash rate”. The cash rate as at 30 June 2021 remained at 0.10 per cent. The weighted average interest rate of Council’s investment portfolio at the same reporting date was 0.88 per cent which continues to exceed Council’s benchmark i.e. the cash rate of 0.10 per cent plus 0.75 per cent (or 85 basis points).

Council has also utilised the AusBond Bank Bill Index to provide a further benchmark focused towards long term investments. As at 30 June 2021, the AusBond rate was 0.90 per cent. The weighted average interest rate of Council’s investment portfolio at the same reporting date was 0.88 per cent.

Council’s Investment Policy establishes limits in relation to the maturity terms of Council’s investments as well as the credit ratings of the institutions with whom Council can invest.

The following tables provide a dissection of Council’s investment portfolio as required by the Policy. The Policy identifies the maximum amount that can be held in a variety of investment products or with institutions based on their respective credit ratings.

Table 1 shows the percentage held by Council (holdings) and the additional amount that Council could hold (capacity) for each term to maturity allocation in accordance with limits established by Council’s Policy.

Table 1: Maturity – Term Limits

Term to Maturity Allocation	Maximum	Holding	Remaining Capacity
0 - 3 Months	100.00%	10.07%	89.93%
3 - 12 Months	100.00%	50.03%	49.97%
1 - 2 Years	70.00%	11.22%	58.78%
2 - 5 Years	50.00%	28.69%	21.31%
>5 Years	25.00%	0.00%	25.00%

Table 2 shows the total amount held, and the weighted average interest rate (or return on investment), by credit rating. The credit rating is an independent opinion of the capability and willingness of a financial institution to repay its debts, or in other words, the providers’ financial strength or creditworthiness. The rating is typically calculated as the likelihood of a failure occurring over a given period, with the higher rating (AAA) being superior due to having a lower chance of default. However, it is generally accepted that this lower risk will be accompanied by a lower return on investment.

The level of money held in the bank accounts has been added to the table to illustrate the ability of Council to cover the operational liabilities that typically occur (for example payroll, materials and contracts, utilities).

Table 2: Credit Rating Limits

Credit Rating	Maximum	Holding	Remaining Capacity	Value	Return on Investment
Bank Accounts	100.00%	9.96%	90.04%	$19,444,910.12	0.10%
AAA	100.00%	0.00%	100.00%	N/A	N/A
AA	100.00%	43.66%	56.34%	$85,256,160.00	0.87%
A	60.00%	19.15%	40.85%	$37,400,000.00	0.87%
BBB & NR	40.00%	27.23%	12.77%	$53,167,245.18	1.14%
Below BBB	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	N/A	N/A

Certification by Responsible Accounting Officer

I, Jason Cooke, hereby certify that all investments have been made in accordance with Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993, Clause 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and Council’s Investment Policy.

Extraordinary Council Meeting 27 July 2021

5.11 Part 5 Environmental Assessment East Orange Harvesting Wetland

RECORD NUMBER: 2021/1560

AUTHOR: Ben Hicks, Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Orange City Council is proposing to construct and operate Stage 2 of the Blackmans Swamp Creek Stormwater Harvesting Scheme (BSCSH) as part of the City’s raw water scheme.

The proposal involves the construction of an off line wetland upstream of the existing harvesting weir (Stage 1) near the intersection of Jilba and Phillip Streets (Figure 1). The proposal is designed to extract specific flows from the Blackmans Swamp Creek. These specific flows will be diverted from the creek system through a constructed swampy meadow and filtered through reed beds into a deep pool designed to store 13 megalitres (ML) of water permanently. An additional area (air space) with the capacity of 30ML will surround the deep water pool. This area will be utilised for capturing a portion of the high flows into Blackmans Swamp Creek during storm events to be then transferred into the nearby Suma Park Dam to add to the City’s water supply.

In addition to the stormwater harvesting component of the project, Orange City Council identified that there was an opportunity to incorporate additional functional aspects of the wetland to provide broader cultural, educational and recreational benefits for the community. This has been achieved through the provision of raised boardwalks, walking trails, meeting places, viewing platforms, seating, touch pool and BBQ areas around the wetland area (Figure 2).

Pursuant to Clause 110 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure 2007) the activity proposed is a stormwater management system, which is defined as:

- works for the collection, detention, harvesting, distribution or discharge of stormwater (such as channels, aqueducts, pipes, drainage works, embankments, detention basins and pumping stations), and

- stormwater quality control systems (such as waste entrapment facilities, artificial wetlands, sediment ponds and riparian management), and

- Stormwater reuse schemes.

As Orange City Council is a public authority, the works are permitted without consent via Clause 111 of the Infrastructure State Environmental Planning Policy (ISEPP), and the provisions of the ISEPP prevail.

Notwithstanding, Orange City Council has an obligation under Section 5.5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to examine and take into account to the fullest extent possible all matters affecting or likely to affect the environment by reason of the proposed activity. In this regard, the proponent commissioned Premise Pty Ltd to prepare a Review of Environmental Factors (REF) to address the heads of consideration outlined in Clause 228 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 and to inform the determination process.

Whilst not required, the REF was exhibited for 28 days. Following the closure of the exhibition period, five public submissions were received. The submissions received represent a range of stakeholders with a direct and legitimate interest in the impacts of the proposed wetland.

These include downstream water licence holders and rural land owners with basic rights to water; the Summer Hill Creek Landcare Inc., Ophir Reserve Trust; Orange and Region Water Security Association, and Environmentally Concerned Citizens of Orange (ECCO). Principally, the concerns raised by the submission writers relate to impacts on the downstream environment including water flows and quality and aquatic and terrestrial ecology including habitat. A copy of all submissions received are included in the attachments.

The REF was also externally referred to the Department of Primary Industries (Fisheries) and the Natural Resources Access Regulator (NRAR) for comment. These agencies provided comments/advice relating to the REF assessment on Key Fish Habitat, hydrology, aquatic ecology, geomorphology and monitoring/maintenance components. These matters have been addressed by the proponent’s environmental consultants via an addendum report. It needs to be noted that some of the comments received by NRAR and DPI Fisheries relate to requirements for approvals/permits under the Water Management Act 2000 and Fisheries Management Act 1994 which are required to be obtained following the determination of the REF.

In addition to Council’s Development Services staff and government agencies reviewing the adequacy of the REF, water consulting firm Entura was engaged to provide a high level review of the REF and public submissions. The review by Entura has been included as an attachment to this report.

The REF and associated addendum reports and briefing notes concludes that no significant adverse downstream impacts of the proposed stormwater harvesting wetland is likely, subject to the recommended mitigation measures and operational rules as outlined in these documents. These, together with Council's standard conditions, form part of the determination.

It is concluded that Orange City Council has satisfied its obligations under Part 5 of the EP&A Act 1979 and that the project can proceed.

Figure 1 – Site Context and Locality Plan (Premise)

Figure 2 – Wetland Concept (Premise)

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Council’s Integrated Water Cycle Management Evaluation Study in 2013 identified the potential to expand the Blackmans Swamp Creek Stormwater Harvesting Scheme (BSCSHS) with Stage 2 being an off-line wetland in East Orange providing permanent water storage with harvesting capacity. Since then, the concept has been advanced through the completion of field studies, the conduct of community consultation and workshops and calibrated hydrological modelling to assist in determining whether the proposal is likely to have a significant effect on the environment.

Orange City Council completed construction of the Blackmans Swamp Creek Stormwater Harvesting Scheme (BSCSHS) Stage 1 in March 2009. The project was the first large scale stormwater harvesting scheme in Australia which intentionally harvests stormwater for drinking water supplies.

The Blackmans Swamp Creek Stormwater Harvesting project was a direct response to the Millennium drought (2000-2010) when the City’s combined water storages reached a record low of 23% in 2007/08. The scheme harvested its first stormwater in April 2009 and continues to play an important role in supplementing the City’s water needs.

Furthermore, the multi-year rainfall deficiencies that accumulated over the period 2017‑2020 saw drought conditions again return to Orange. This had a significant impact on the City’s raw water storage supplies. Although the City has had a steady recovery from this drought since La Niña started to develop in mid−2020, a more variable climate with cycles of prolonged dry spells and acute water shortage is anticipated, and while Council continues to pursue non-structural water saving initiatives, such as water restrictions, rainwater tank subsidy, installation of water saving devices, community education and compliance initiatives in an effort to reduce water usage, additional structural resources are also needed to alleviate threats to the City’s water security now, and into the future, and to support the growth and development of Orange.

Following the successful demonstrations of Blackmans Swamp Creek Stormwater Harvesting Scheme (Stage 1) and the Ploughman’s Creek Harvesting scheme, it is clear that stormwater harvesting from an urbanised catchment is a sensible option to supplement the City’s water supply needs, given the City’s location high in the catchment, the lack of any substantial river system and limited groundwater supplies. Therefore, the proposed stormwater harvesting wetland represents an important extension of the City’s stormwater harvesting system and water supply network.

PROPOSAL

It is proposed to construct a stormwater management system for the purposes of harvesting stormwater from the urban catchment to supplement the City’s water supply. From a structural and operational perspective, the stormwater management system will include the following components:

· Construction of an artificial off-line wetland (constructed wetland) that would incorporate:

- an inlet zone

- a swampy grass meadow zone that would only be periodically inundated

- shallow macrophyte zones

- open water zones

- an outlet zone.

· The wetland would have a permanent water volume of 13ML and 30 ML airspace above the wetland normal water level that provides the stormwater harvesting capacity. The airspace is the volume above the normal water level to the spillway level.

· A second off-line pond will be provided to the north of the main wetland that would be used to recirculate water. Water would be drawn from the main wetland and pumped to the offline pond from where it would then return to the main wetland via an open rocked lined man-made creek. This would provide water aeration and turnover of the stored wetland water.

· Construction of an inlet control structure that controls water flow along Blackmans Swamp Creek and into the wetland. This would include:

- a compound weir in the creek that has a central v-notch section and level crest

- a lateral weir with level crest to control flow into the wetland

· Construction of an outlet control structure consisting of a box inlet pit (the top of the pit would control the wetland normal water level), a 375mm diameter outlet pipe with control valve and a rock lined overflow spillway and channel to direct wetland spill back to Blackmans Swamp Creek.

The REF provides that the proposed wetland would form part of the existing Blackmans Swamp Creek Stormwater Harvesting Scheme providing a ‘storage component’ to the existing system. This is to compensate for the change that was required during the approval process to meet (the then) NSW office of Water licensing requirements. To the meet these requirements, the volume of the on-stream storage was reduced and this impacted directly on the volume of the scheme could harvest. The capacity of the harvest pumps were then increased to accommodate for the loss in on-stream storage.

The REF specifies that having storage as part of an urban stormwater harvesting scheme improves the harvest capacity. Most runoff events from urban catchments have short hydrographs which reduces the time that harvest pumps can operate. If a portion of the runoff hydrograph can be captured it can then be harvested over a longer period following the runoff event. Otherwise, extremely large capacity pumps are required to extract water as the hydrograph passes downstream. This effect was observed in the initial operation of the BSCSHS. Specifically, it was recognised that providing storage in the system improves the harvest capability for short runoff events. It also allows smaller extraction pumps to be used.

The elements of the Orange raw water supply system are shown schematically in Figure 3.

Figure 3 – Orange Raw Water Supply System (Premise)

DECISION FRAMEWORK & STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS

Development in the Orange LGA is governed by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the accompanying Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000. Sitting below the Act and Regulations is State-wide Environmental Planning Instruments (SEPPs) and the Orange Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2011. There are three main approval pathways being Exempt Development, Development that needs consent and Development that does not need consent:

1. Exempt development – which requires no formal environmental assessment as it has been identified as having minimal environmental impact.

2. Development that needs consent – subject to Part 4 of the EP&A Act. This includes both local and state significant development (Part 4.1). The consent authority is usually Council.

3. Development that does not need consent - subject to Part 5 of the EP&A Act, which requires the full range of environmental impacts associated with an activity to be considered before it may proceed. The ‘determining authority’ is usually a public authority, such as Council, planning to undertake the activity, or whose statutory approval is required.

The proposed activity is defined as a stormwater management system. Pursuant to Clause 111 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007, development for the purpose of stormwater management systems may be carried out by or on behalf of a public authority without consent on any land. Where the activity is permitted without consent, there is an obligation under Section 5.5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to ‘examine and take into account to the fullest extent possible all matters affecting or likely to affect the environment by reason of that activity’. The minimum statutory requirements that must be considered are set out in Clause 228 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (EP&A Regulation).

Orange City Council is a public authority and is the determining authority for all its activities that are assessed by way of an REF under Part 5 of the EP&A Act. Orange City Council has developed internal systems to ensure separation and transparency in decision-making, as outlined by the General Manager's delegation GM004 adopted by Council 19 January 2015. This provides that the responsibility for the final determination of REFs and decisions to proceed with a project are at a sufficiently senior level, tailored to the size and scale of the project, and independent of proponent and the person preparing the REF.

Although not required, the proposed activity was publicly exhibited for 28 days and referred to the Department of Primary Industries (Fisheries) and the Natural Resources Access Regulator (NRAR). All submissions and comments have been considered in the review of this REF.

While Council is the determining authority for the REF, works cannot commence until NRAR issues a Water Supply Works Approval under the Water Management Act 2000 and DPI Fisheries issue a permit under the Fisheries Management Act 1994. Furthermore, given the proposed activity will be undertaken in a high-risk environment (watercourse and residential receptors) there is a potential for pollution (air, water, and noise) to occur resulting from construction works.

Therefore, as a precautionary measure, Council will require the contractor undertaking the works to secure an Environmental Protection Licence (EPL) under the provisions of Section 47(d) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 from the New South Wales Environment Protection Authority before works commence.

Furthermore, the REF has considered and addressed the relevant provisions of:

· Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

· Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000

· Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016

· Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

· Fisheries Management Act 1994

· National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974

· National Parks and Wildlife Regulation 2009

· Heritage Act 1977

· Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997

· Water Management Act 2000

· Water Act 1912

· Local Government Act 1993

· Roads Act 1993

· State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

· State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

The recommendation in this report relates to the Delivery/Operational Plan Strategy “8.1 Preserve - Identify and deliver essential water, waste and sewer infrastructure to service the community into the future”.

Financial Implications

This report relates only to the assessment of environmental impacts arising from the construction and operation of the East Orange Harvesting Wetland (EOHW). It does not consider the financial implications of construction and operation of the EOHW. This is a matter to be considered at a later date by Council once all funding opportunities and budgets are determined.

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

That Council approves the East Orange Harvesting Wetland (EOHW) in accordance with its obligations and powers under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, subject to inclusion of additional recommendations of Entura dated 2 & 3 June 2021.

further considerations

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS & MITIGATION MEASURES

Council commissioned Premise to prepare a Review of Environmental Factors (REF) for determination by Council as the proponent and the determining authority under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act). A high-level review of the REF was also undertaken by water consulting firm Entura.

As is required under legislation, the REF has considered impacts as follows:

· Hydrology including water quality, groundwater and flooding.

· Aquatic Ecology.

· Terrestrial Ecology.

· Topography, geology, soils & geomorphic assessment.

· Air quality.

· Noise and vibration.

· Aboriginal heritage.

· Non-Aboriginal heritage.

· Waste management.

· Socio-economic effects.

The REF analysis of each of these is summarised below.

Hydrology

The headwaters of Blackmans Swamp Creek rise in the foothills of Mount Canobolas. The creek flows for approximately 5km and enters the urban area where it is then channelised and piped. There is very little of this creek remaining in its natural state through the City until it reaches down stream of Dalton Street where it reverts to a semi-formal channel through to Jilba Street where it returns to informal/natural creek system (location of proposed wetland). The creek continues to flow through Orange in a generally north‑easterly direction before joining Summer Hill Creek just north of the City limits, just below the first crossing on Ophir Road, and then ultimately flows into the Macquarie River forming part of the Macquarie Bogan Catchment.

Whether there is a likelihood for significant adverse downstream impact with respect to water flows once the wetland is operational was a key factor for consideration in the REF. Harvesting of too much stormwater at inappropriate times, has the potential to cause a significant impact downstream. However, the REF provides that the proposed wetland will be subject to a series of operating controls to ensure general river health including water flows and quality, riparian health and associated wildlife corridors are maintained and other water users are not affected as specified in Section 3.2.4.3 EOHW Operation and Section 8 Operations Mitigation of the REF.

Notwithstanding, following a review of the operational impacts of the proposed wetland by Entura, it was identified that additional operational controls were necessary to make certain that environmental values are maintained (and where possible enhanced) downstream and that there is no long term, significant impact of the EOHW would occur. The additional operating controls recommended by Entura will form part of the determination of the REF. It should also be noted that the existing operating controls for the Blackmans Swamp Creek Stormwater Harvesting Scheme (BSCSH) Stage 1 will remain unchanged.

Furthermore, the REF identifies that bulk earthworks will be required for the construction of the wetland, and given the proximity to the creek system, it represents a water pollution risk; albeit a manageable one. Appropriate controls and safeguards can prevent such water pollution from happening. Prior to works commencing, the contractor undertaking these works will be required to do the following to ensure its proposed controls and safeguards are adequate:

· Provide construction detail on how the works will be undertaken in accordance with DPI–Fisheries (Update 2013) Policy and guidelines for fish habitat conservation and management and NRAR’s (2018) Guidelines for controlled activities on waterfront land Riparian corridors to the satisfaction of Fisheries and NRAR respectively.

· Secure an environment protection licence (EPL) to ‘control the carrying out of a non‑scheduled activity for the purpose of regulating water pollution’ pursuant to Section 122 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

· Amongst other requirements, the EPL application will need to include a Soil and Water Management Plan consistent with the Blue Book (Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and construction, Landcom, 4th Edition, 2004), to the satisfaction of the EPA.

· Prepare and submit for Council approval a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).

Flood modelling has been undertaken to define existing flooding patterns in the vicinity of the EOHW site for a full range of design flood events. The results of this modelling indicate no significant impact off-site in terms of flow velocity or inundation in the 1%, 2%, 5%, 10% and 18% AEP storm events.

Lastly, the REF has considered the impact on groundwater. The REF does not consider an aquifer to be present at the site of the EOHW. Further, the report advises that the construction and commissioning of the EOHW is not considered to require assessment as an 'aquifer interference activity' based on the following hydrogeological aspects:

· Deeper excavations of the EOHW are to be lined with low hydraulic conductivity material (e.g. compacted clay with conductivity less than 10-9m/second).

· The hydraulic conductivity of geology underlying the EOHW has been recorded to be in the order of 10-11m/second.

· Based on liner hydraulic conductivity, the footprint of deeper excavation areas (~7000m²), and effective porosity of compacted clay (2%), annual flux between surface water ponds and the underlying strata is estimated at less than 0.005 ML/year.

· Groundwater bearing zones proximal to the site have not been recorded to exist at depths less than 17m below ground level.

Aquatic Ecology

The REF includes a detailed aquatic ecology assessment including Key Fish Habitat assessment, aquatic flora and fauna and threatened species analysis. The assessment included initial desktop studies by way of database searches, mapping tools and literature searches. This was followed by onsite surveys.

With respect to Key Fish Habitat and aquatic fauna, the REF identifies that Blackmans Swamp Creek is an extensively modified watercourse. It has numerous in-stream structures (built and natural) that prevent fish passage. Within the reach of the proposed EOHW, this includes two concrete weirs, a concrete encased sewage pipe traversing the creek, and culvert under the Northern Distributor. Further downstream, there is the existing harvesting weir with 300mm diameter unrestricted through pipe and pumps associated with the Blackmans Swamp Creek stormwater harvesting, and beyond this (but above the confluence with Summer Hill Creek) a 5-6m high rock waterfall. All of Blackmans Swamp Creek is mapped as Key Fish Habitat (Figure 4).

Figure 4 – mapped Key Fish Habitat (Premise) location of proposed EOHW indicated in red

Following onsite surveys at nine key sites along the Blackmans Swamp Creek system (Figure 5), the REF concluded that:

· Although BSC is classified as Type 2 Moderately Sensitive Key Fish Habitat and Class 3 Minimal Fish Habitat according to NSW Fisheries Policy and Guidelines, BSC in the study area is not considered Key Fish Habitat due to its degraded habitat and disconnection from viable populations of fish.

Notwithstanding, comments received by DPI Fisheries suggests that despite the waterway having a number of fish barriers present and consisting of an extensively modified watercourse, it still contains habitat features of TYPE 2 (Moderate Sensitivity) CLASS 3 Minimal Key Fish Habitat.

DPI Fisheries advise that should fish passage mitigation be required, suitable fish passage mitigation strategies are to be developed to the satisfaction of NSW DPI Fisheries that align with the Policy and Guidelines for Fish Habitat Conservation and Management (2013) including the potential for fish passage offsets (generally within the same catchment). No works can commence on the proposed wetland until DPI Fisheries issues a permit under the Fisheries Management Act 1994 and this approval process will assess the need for any fish passage mitigation strategies.

In terms of threatened fauna species, the REF provides that database searches and DPI Fisheries distribution mapping indicate six (6) threatened aquatic fauna species within 50km of the study area, including the Southern Purple-spotted Gudgeon (Morgunda adspersa), Trout Cod (Maccullochella macquariensis), Murray Cod (Maccullochella peelii), Macquarie Perch (Macquaria australasica), a population of Eel-tailed Catfish (Tandanus tandanus) and Silver Perch (Bidyanus bidyanus). However, following onsite aquatic surveys, the REF states that none of the species are considered likely to occur in Blackmans Swamp Creek between Dalton Street and the confluence with Summer Hill Creek due to the degraded aquatic habitat and barriers to fish passage at the natural waterfall and at the Harvesting Weir. The report advises that no aquatic fauna were observed in the water during site visits on 21 April and 25 May 2020.

Figure 5 – location of aquatic site assessment (Premise)

With regard to aquatic flora, the REF provides that a total of 56 flora species were identified in the riparian area of Blackmans Swamp Creek in the study area during the field survey on 25 May 2020, including 41 introduced species and 15 native species. The REF confirms that there are no threatened flora species or vulnerable ecological communities are listed in the study area under the Fisheries Management Act 2000 or the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Terrestrial Ecology

A detailed terrestrial ecological assessment including a Five Part Test has been prepared as part of the REF in accordance with the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and Commonwealth Environmental Protection Conservation Act 1999.

The assessment provides that a total of 86 flora species were recorded over the study area, of which ten (10) (11.6%) are native, six (6) are planted native (7%) and 70 (81.4%) are introduced species. The study area has been cleared historically for agriculture and is now a vacant block dominated by exotic grassland, with some native trees on the eastern side of BSC and native plantings in the northern section and along a small section of the riparian area. The riparian area is dominated by exotic trees and grasses, with some native reeds and instream aquatic flora (Figure 6).

The report identifies that Blackmans Swamp Creek was most likely once vegetated by PCT 1100 Ribbon Gum-Snow Gum grassy forest on damp flats, eastern South Eastern Highlands Bioregion, which falls under the EEC Monaro Tableland Cool Temperate Grassy Woodland in the South Eastern Highlands Bioregion classified as Critically Endangered under the EPBC Act. The vegetation within the study area has been degraded to the extent that it is no longer representative of these plant communities. The study area contains a mix of exotic and native in-stream vegetation and predominantly exotic species along the creek banks and flats. The report advises that no Threatened Ecological Communities are considered present on the study area.

Figure 6 – Terrestrial Ecology Study Area, Sample Locations and Vegetation types (Premise)

In terms of terrestrial fauna and habitat, the REF states that the study area has been highly modified from its original form via 200 years of European occupation.

There were no hollow-bearing trees with large or small hollows observed within the study area, nor were there logs or fallen branches, cliffs or rocky outcrops. There were some surface rocks at the base of the remnant Ribbon Gum trees to the east of the site, however, these provide very little habitat value for reptiles as they are shadowed by very tall exotic grasses. The drainage line running from the end of Phillip Street to Blackmans Swamp Creek provides limited habitat for amphibians due to choking by reeds and grasses. One frog species was heard calling onsite, identified as the Common Eastern Froglet (Crinia signifera). Tall seeding grasses were present on the site, which provide important food resources for parrots. There was no mistletoe observed on the study area. Introduced fruit trees, likely garden escapees from nearby gardens, were producing apples and pears at the time of survey in February 2021. These fruits would provide food for parrots and possums.

Notwithstanding, three (3) threatened fauna species were identified which may have suitable habitat on the study area. These include the Blue-billed Duck, Superb Parrot and Grey‑headed Flying Fox. The REF provides the following significance assessment:

· The Blue-billed Duck relies on large permanent water bodies with dense reeds and rushes for shelter and nesting. While Blackmans Swamp Creek is not a large dam or lake the species has been recorded from Spring Creek Reservoir near Orange. The species is partly migratory and there is potential for the species to use the creek on the study area while travelling between overwintering and breeding sites.

· Superb Parrots inhabit eucalypt woodlands and open forests and require tree hollows for nesting and breeding. Their diet consists of grass seeds, nectar, fruits and herbaceous plants. The species has been recorded many times in urban areas of Orange where it forages particularly in dry periods. There is no breeding or nesting habitat available for the species on the study area.

· The Grey-headed Flying Fox has a resident population in Cook Park in Orange. Flowering eucalypts are present on the study area, and close proximity to a water source is a feature of camp sites used by the species. However, the lack of native flowering shrubs such as Banksia., Callistemon or species which produce soft, fleshy fruit means that the site is unlikely to be a permanent ‘camp site’ and will only provide seasonal forage when trees are in flower.

In addition, the impact of the proposed activity has been assessed using the five part test and it was concluded that the proposed Activity is not considered likely to have an adverse impact on the life cycle or habitat of any of the three threatened species. Nor will the proposed activity remove, modify or fragment the habitat of the subject species. A Species Impact Statement or triggering of the Biodiversity Offsets Scheme is not required for any of the three fauna species.

Lastly, REF has recommended that the following strategies are employed to ensure minimal impact on biodiversity:

· Machinery will be stored away from riparian areas to minimise compaction and disturbance of riparian vegetation where possible.

· Machinery, equipment and materials will be stored away from the base of trees and beyond the drip line of trees where practical.

· Retain the three mature Eucalyptus trees identified in the area east of the Creek to be utilised for placement of surplus excavation from construction of the wetland.

· Topsoil will be stockpiled onsite to be reinstated at the completion of works.

· Fauna searches will be conducted prior to earthmoving (inspection of trees, timber on the ground, rocks). Any fauna identified or injured will be handled by WIRES.

· Dust suppression measures will be put in place during earthworks.

· Excavated material will be transported to the overburden sites using designated tracks.

· Ground exposed during construction will have topsoil replaced and be planted with native species to stabilise the soil and assist with restoration of native groundcovers.

Topography, Geology, Soils & Geomorphic Assessment

Whilst there will be a substantial volume of soil excavated and moved as a result of the proposed wetland, the REF concludes that no significant impacts are foreseen, and safeguards and mitigation measures including sediment and erosion control are include in the project plan.

Furthermore, a geomorphic assessment of Blackmans Swamp Creek and Summer Hill Creek is proposed as part of the EOHW operations. This assessment will be undertaken to determine the magnitude of fresh required to mobilise sediment, scour algae and maintain habitat in lower reaches of the Summer Hill Creek system.

A Preliminary Site Investigation has also been undertaken on the western side of the creek where excavation will occur pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land. Asbestos material was identified in an area of 40m x 60m (Figure 7). Remediation of asbestos-contaminated soil is required to be conducted in accordance with the requirements for removal of friable asbestos (based on the weathered condition of fragments), as documented in Section 7.1 ‘Removing asbestos-contaminated soil’ of the SafeWork NSW (August 2019) ‘Code of Practice – How to safely remove asbestos’. Following remediation of asbestos impacted soil, a clearance inspection of the remediation area is required to confirm the residual soil surface is consistent with VENM, or that no asbestos fibres/fragments are present in validation samples collected from the residual soil surface.

Figure 7 – Site Investigation

Naturally occurring asbestos has been assessed in an area surrounding the site. The REF advises that geotechnical investigations being undertaken across the site have identified traces of serpentinite rock at depths of greater than 2.2m toward the southern end of the site. In accordance with the Work Health and Safety Act and Regulation, and also Section 3 of the Orange City Council’s Asbestos Management Plan (2014), a site specific Asbestos Management Plan is to be required to be developed and implemented prior to the commencement of any works on the site.

With the exception of the presence of asbestos, the REF advises that concentrations of chemicals of potential concern (COPC) in soil and sediment samples across the site were less than the assessment criteria for the respective analyses. The soil investigation levels for this investigation are consistent with those described within the National Environment Protection Council (NEPC), Amended National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (Amended ASC NEPM) 2013.

Air Quality

Air emission sources during construction include particulate matter and plant/vehicle emissions. Particulate matter is a result of fugitive dust sources produced during construction from, clearing of groundcover and topsoil, earthmoving and transport of construction materials.

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

Vehicle emissions include petrol and diesel-fuelled vehicles and operation of onsite machinery. The emission rates and impact potential would depend on power output of combustion engines, quality of fuel and condition of combustion engines. Odour may be detected close to the source; however, given the short term nature of construction works, the potential for odour impacts are minimal.

Provided the construction contractor meets the requirements of relevant legislation, regulations, and operates in accordance with the Environmental Protection Licence, the proposed works are unlikely to result in air quality impacts and are therefore not considered to be significant.

Noise and vibration

Wetland construction works will entail the operation of various earthmoving plant and equipment, including scrapers, dozers, excavators, graders and haul trucks. Given residential receptors on two sides of the site of the proposed works, there may be some community reaction to noise. In this regard, the REF provides the following mitigation measures to ensure noise impacts are kept at a minimum:

· No works outside the recommended standard hours.

· The contractor, based on its construction program, submit a Noise Management Plan consistent with the ICNG, for inclusion in the CEMP and EPL application.

· Inform all potentially impacted residents of the nature of works to be carried out, the expected noise levels and duration, as well as contact details for reporting complaints.

It is also noted that securing an EPL from the EPA will contain licence conditions with respect to noise.

Aboriginal Heritage

An archaeological survey of the site was undertaken by OZArk Environmental and Heritage Management (OzArk), Premise Pty Ltd and with participation by the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council (OLALC), consistent with the requirements of the Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales.

The report advises that visual inspection did not record any Aboriginal sites or identify any landforms that have potential to contain subsurface archaeological deposits. Further, there are no previously recorded sites that will be harmed by the activity. The archaeological assessment concluded that there is a low likelihood that the proposed work will adversely harm Aboriginal cultural heritage items or sites.

Furthermore, the REF determined that no Aboriginal objects or intact archaeological deposits will be harmed and that works may proceed without further archaeological investigation, subject to adoption of mitigation measures. These measures include

· All staff and contractors involved in the proposed work should be made aware of the legislative protection requirements for all Aboriginal sites and objects.

· If Aboriginal artefacts or skeletal material are noted, all work should cease and the procedures in the Unanticipated Finds Protocol should be followed.

· Work crews should undergo cultural heritage induction to ensure they recognise Aboriginal stone artefacts, particularly those commonly found within the Orange area and are aware of the legislative protection of Aboriginal objects under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 and the contents of the Unanticipated Finds Protocol.

Non-Aboriginal Heritage

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

The REF, however, advises that an extant partial structure is located onsite within Lot 101 DP 857925. A review of historic aerial imagery shows that several buildings had been constructed in this lot as early as 1954, consisting of a dwelling and agricultural use sheds, with associated access roads and tracks. These structures were relatively still intact up until 1989, however, some buildings have been demolished between 1993 -2003. By 2014 the structures are mostly gone, with only the partial structural remnants extant on the land today. The historic built fabric in this area does not retain any heritage significance and is in poor condition. This structure is scheduled to be demolished in conjunction with construction of proposed wetland. The removal of this structure will need to be undertaken in accordance with Australian Standard AS 2601—1991: The Demolition of Structures.

There were no other heritage items were observed during the inspection and the potential for discovering other non-heritage items in this area is relatively low. Notwithstanding, a precautionary principle must apply.

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

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

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

· All land-disturbing activities must be confined within the assessed proposal. Should project impacts change such that the area to be impacted is altered, then additional assessment may be required.

· While no items of historic heritage were identified, work crew employed in ground disturbing work within the impact footprint should be made aware of the legislative protection of historic sites and relics.

· In the even any historic relics are discovered during excavation or drilling, work will cease immediately at the specific location and the NSW Heritage Council contacted for further directions.

Waste Management

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

Socio-Economic Effects

Construction of the proposed East Orange Harvesting Wetland would result in a change in land use, with the land currently being undeveloped open grassland. However, post‑construction, and as the landscaping and amenities across the precinct become established, the ecological, cultural, educational and recreational values in the locality will be enhanced with benefits for the community.

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

The REF was exhibited between 27 March 2021 and 26 April 2021 receiving five (5) public submissions. The submissions received represent a range of stakeholders with a direct and legitimate interest in the impacts of the proposed wetland. These include downstream water licence holders and rural land owners with basic rights to water; the Summer Hill Creek Landcare Inc., Ophir Reserve Trust; Orange and Region Water Security Association, and Environmentally Concerned Citizens of Orange. (ECCO). Principally, the concerns raised by the submission writers relate to impacts on the downstream environment, including water flows and quality and aquatic and terrestrial ecology including habitat. A copy of all submissions received are included in the attachments.

The Department of Primary Industries (Fisheries) and the Natural Resource Access Regulator were also consulted.

These agencies provided comments/advice relating to the REF assessment on Key Fish Habitat, hydrology, aquatic ecology, geomorphology and monitoring/maintenance components. It needs to be noted that some of the comments received by NRAR and DPI Fisheries relate to requirements for approvals/permits under the Water Management Act 2000 and Fisheries Management Act 1994 which are required to be obtained following the determination of the REF. A copy of the advice received from these agencies are included as attachments.

The matters raised by public and government agencies have been addressed by the proponent’s environmental consultants via an addendum report (attached).

CONCLUSION

Under Section 5.5 of the EP&A Act, Orange City Council is responsible for assessing all matters affecting or likely to affect the environment from this activity. In this regard, the proponent commissioned Premise Pty Ltd to prepare a Review of Environmental Factors (REF) to address the heads of consideration outlined in Clause 228 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 and to inform the determination process.

The REF provides a comprehensive outline of the project, neatly summarising pages of analysis as well as clearly determining that the project will not cause undue impact to the downstream environment. The REF concludes that it’s “not likely” there will be a significant adverse downstream impact because:

· Low flows in Blackmans Swamp Creek will continue to be protected.

· There is no need or intent to change the current operating rules that regulate the existing Blackmans Swamp Creek Stormwater Harvesting Scheme.

· The (wetland) will enhance Council’s capacity to provide the licensed environmental flow releases into Summer Hill Creek from Suma Park Dam.

· Spills from Suma Park Dam into Summer Hill Creek will be more frequent as a result of the EOHW.

· The wetland will be subject to monitoring, reporting and adaptive management as part of the Orange Raw Water Supply Operation Environmental Management Plan (OEMP). This management plan incorporates a decision making framework that sets out specific actions that may be required to be implemented in order to reduce impacts identified as a result of the required monitoring.

Council is required to implement reasonable and feasible mitigation measures where the need for action is identified through the monitoring programs. One of the specific objectives of the approved Adaptive Management Strategy forming part of the OEMP is to determine if environmental flow releases maintain or enhance the key values of water quality, aquatic biodiversity, river health and the general ecological condition of Summer Hill Creek. These requirements are visible and enforceable and provide the capacity, science and obligation for Council to operate the wetland in a manner that avoids a significant downstream impact.

The REF also recommends mitigation measures to minimise impacts and to protect the environment. These, together with Council's standard conditions, form part of the determination.

Staff concur with the findings of the REF. It is concluded that Council has satisfied its obligations under Part 5 of the EP&A Act 1979 and that the project can proceed. However, works cannot commence until NRAR issues a Water Supply Works Approval under the Water Management Act 2000 and DPI Fisheries issue a permit under the Fisheries Management Act 1994. An Environmental Protection Licence will also need to be secured.

Attachments

1 Entura Review and Addendum, D21/44106 ⇩

2 DPI Fisheries comments, D21/44114 ⇩

3 NRAR comments, D21/44116 ⇩

4 Response to NRAR comments, D21/44118 ⇩

5 Submissions, D21/44130 ⇩

Extraordinary Council Meeting 27 July 2021

5.12 Development Application DA 138/2021(1) - 85-87 March Street

RECORD NUMBER: 2021/1411

AUTHOR: Summer Commins, Senior Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged	7 April 2021
Applicant/s	Southwell Design Drafting
Owner/s	Mr SJ Alford and Miss TL Harrison
Land description	Lot 1 DP 779381 – 85 March Street, Orange
Proposed land use	Dwelling Alterations and Additions (change of use from restaurant), Subdivision (two lot Torrens title), and Dwelling and Attached Garage (new construction - two storey)
Value of proposed development	$1,200,000.00

Council's consent is sought for redevelopment of the site and building known as the former 1870 Restaurant at 85 March Street.

Figure 1 – subject building

The proposal involves the following works:

· Change of use of the restaurant to a dwelling house, including part demolition, internal alterations and a pavilion addition to the west with frontage to March Street.

· Two lot Torrens subdivision of the land to excise the dwelling (former restaurant) on a separate parcel, and create a vacant development lot with frontage to Hill Street.

· Construction of a dwelling house on the development lot, containing three (3) bedrooms, two (2) bathrooms and basement level double garage.

The proposal comprises advertised development pursuant to Council’s Community Participation Plan 2019.

At the completion of the public notice and exhibition period, three (3) submissions had been received. The issues raised in the submissions generally relate to the suitability of the building design for the proposed and converted/extended dwelling.

The subject building is a Local heritage item, and located in the Central Orange Heritage Conservation Area. Council’s Heritage Advisor has assessed the proposal and considers that the development is acceptable subject to minor mitigation measures. The proponent is amenable to the recommendations, which are included as Conditions.

As outlined in this report, the proposal is considered to reasonably satisfy the Local and State planning controls that apply to the subject land and particular landuse. Impacts of the development will be within acceptable limit, subject to mitigation conditions. Approval of the application is recommended.

Figure 2 – locality plan

DECISION FRAMEWORK

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

Orange Local Environment Plan 2011 – The provisions of the LEP must be considered by the Council in determining the application. LEPs govern the types of development that are permissible or prohibited in different parts of the City and also provide some assessment criteria in specific circumstances. Uses are either permissible or not. The objectives of each zoning and indeed the aims of the LEP itself are also to be considered and can be used to guide decision making around appropriateness of development.

Orange Development Control Plan 2004 – the DCP provides guidelines for development. In general it is a performance based document rather than prescriptive in nature. For each planning element there are often guidelines used. These guidelines indicate ways of achieving the planning outcomes. It is thus recognised that there may also be other solutions of merit. All design solutions are considered on merit by planning and building staff. Applications should clearly demonstrate how the planning outcomes are being met where alternative design solutions are proposed. The DCP enables developers and architects to use design to achieve the planning outcomes in alternative ways.

DIRECTOR’S COMMENT

The proposal involves redevelopment of the heritage site and building known as the former 1870 Restaurant at 85 March Street. The existing heritage building is proposed to be converted and extended to a dwelling, subdivision is proposed to create an additional lot and the construction of a new dwelling on the new vacant parcel. Council staff together have assessed the proposal and consider that the development is acceptable subject to the inclusion of additional minor design features. The applicant is amenable to the design features. The garage and house additions that front March Street is similar in design to other houses in the area, as is the proposed cottage fronting Hill Street.

Three (3) public submissions were received objecting to the DA. The issues raised in the submissions generally relate to the suitability of the building design and detailing. The matters raised in the submissions have been addressed in the report. Impacts of the development will be within acceptable limits, subject to mitigation conditions being adopted. Approval of the application is recommended.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

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

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

That Council consents to development application DA 138/2021(1) for Dwelling Alterations and Additions (change of use from restaurant), Subdivision (two lot Torrens title), and Dwelling and Attached Garage (new construction – two storey) at Lot 1 DP 779381 – 85 March Street, Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

THE PROPOSAL

Consent is sought for a staged residential development of the subject land as follows.

Stage 1

The proposal involves change of use of the former restaurant to a dwelling, and alterations and additions to the building.

The northern (recent) portion of the building will be demolished and internal commercial fittings and fixtures removed. A metal shed and hardstand carpark in the northern portion of the site will also be removed.

The original building will be converted to a dwelling house. The building will be extended to the north at the Hill Street frontage to provide a new bedroom and bathroom. A pavilion addition on the west side with frontage to March Street will connect to the original building via a link, and contain a double garage, bedrooms and wet areas.

The converted and extended dwelling will contain five (5) bedrooms, three (3) bathrooms and living spaces.

Stage 2

The proposal involves two lot Torrens subdivision of the land.

The converted and extended dwelling will be excised on proposed Lot 1b. This lot will comprise site area of 669m². The parcel will have access and primary frontage to March Street, and secondary frontage to Hill Street.

Proposed Lot 1a will be created as a vacant development lot. The parcel will have site area of 523m², and access and frontage to Hill Street.

Stage 3

The proposal involves construction of a dwelling house on proposed Lot 1a. The dwelling will contain a basement double garage, and ground level accommodation including three (3) bedrooms, two (2) bathrooms, separate guest/study and open plan living spaces.

The dwelling will present a traditional form at the site frontage with hip and gable roof profile, verandah decoration and symmetrical openings. The rear portion of the dwelling will be contemporary in styling with skillion roof profile and expansive northern glazing.

The proposed site layout and building designs are depicted below.

Figure 3 – proposed site layout

Figure 4 – proposed March Street elevation – pavilion addition to the left of image

Figure 5 – proposed Hill Street elevation – new dwelling on Lot 1a

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION UNDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979

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

Pursuant to Section 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 development is not likely to give rise to any significant impact upon any endangered ecologically communities, threatened species or their habitat. The subject and adjoining lands are not identified as biodiversity sensitive on the Orange LEP 2011 Terrestrial Biodiversity Map. The proposal does not involve removal of native vegetation. The land is a highly disturbed urban environment. A Biodiversity Assessment Report is not required in support of the proposal.

Section 4.15 Evaluation

Provisions of any Environmental Planning Instrument S4.15(1)(a)(i)

Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011

Part 1 - Preliminary

Clause 1.2 Aims of Plan

The particular aims of Orange LEP 2011 relevant to the proposal include:

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

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

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

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

It is considered that the proposed development will not be adverse to the above-listed Aims, as outlined in this report.

Clause 1.6 Consent Authority

Clause 1.6 is applicable and states:

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

Clause 1.7 Mapping

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

Land Zoning Map:	Land zoned R1 General Residential
Lot Size Map:	No Minimum Lot Size
Heritage Map:	A Local heritage item, nearby to other Local heritage items and within the Central Orange Heritage Conservation Area
Height of Buildings Map:	No building height limit
Floor Space Ratio Map:	No floor space limit
Terrestrial Biodiversity Map:	No biodiversity sensitivity on the site
Groundwater Vulnerability Map:	Groundwater vulnerable
Drinking Water Catchment Map:	Not within the drinking water catchment
Watercourse Map:	Not within or affecting a defined watercourse
Urban Release Area Map:	Not within an urban release area
Obstacle Limitation Surface Map:	No restriction on building siting or construction
Additional Permitted Uses Map:	No additional permitted use applies
Flood Planning Map:	Not within a flood planning area

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

Clause 1.9A Suspension of Covenants, Agreements and Instruments

Clause 1.9A is applicable and states in part:

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

In consideration of this clause, Council staff are not aware of the title of the subject property being affected by a relevant agreement, covenant, etc.

Part 2 - Permitted or Prohibited Development

Clause 2.1 Land Use Zones

The subject land is zoned R1 General Residential.

The proposal is defined as:

· Dwelling house (change of use, and alterations and additions)

· Subdivision of land

· Dwelling house (new construction).

The proposal is permitted with consent in the R1 zone.

Clause 2.3 Zone Objectives and Land Use Table

The objectives of the R1 General Residential zone are:

· To provide for the housing needs of the community.

· To provide for a variety of housing types and densities.

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

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

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

The proposed development will satisfy the relevant R1 zone objectives. The proposal will provide additional housing stock to accommodate housing needs. Infill housing represents orderly development of land. Infill housing nearby to the CBD is good planning practice.

Clause 2.6 Subdivision - Consent Requirements

Clause 2.6 is applicable and states:

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

Consent is sought for a two (2) lot Torrens subdivision of the land in accordance with this clause.

Clause 2.7 Demolition Requires Development Consent

Clause 2.7 is applicable and states:

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

Consent is sought for part demolition of the former restaurant (later additions) and detached shed in accordance with this clause. Conditions are included in relation to waste management and compliance with applicable Standards.

Part 3 - Exempt and Complying Development

The application is not exempt or complying development.

Part 4 - Principal Development Standards

The Principal Development Standards do not apply to the subject land or proposed development.

It is noted that the proposal involves Torrens subdivision. The land is not subject to a minimum lot size on the Lot Size Map pursuant to Clause 4.1.

Part 5 - Miscellaneous Provisions

Clause 5.10 Heritage Conservation

The development site and building comprise a Local heritage item: Item 31 – Restaurant (former inn). Furthermore, the subject land is located within the Central Orange Heritage Conservation Area, and nearby to other Local heritage items.

Clause 5.10 is applicable and states in part:

(4) The consent authority must, before granting consent under this clause in respect of a heritage item or heritage conservation area, consider the effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the item or area concerned…

The proposed development was referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor (HA) for advice. The HA provided the following paraphrased comments in relation to each element of the proposed development:

· Change of use to a dwelling house is supported.

· Non-significant (recent) elements of the former restaurant will be removed during demolition works.

· The design of the western pavilion addition offers mitigation in the form of supplementary planting and traditional pergola. Garages at the street frontage feature in this streetscape.

· Minor design modifications are required to the proposed dwelling at the Hill Street frontage, in order for the dwelling to be understood as a contemporary design.

· Landscaping is required on the northern boundary (and elsewhere) to screen the contemporary character of the proposed dwelling within the conservation setting.

The Heritage Advisor considers that the proposed development will not adversely impact on the significance of the site or setting, subject to the following mitigation measures:

· Archival recording of the former restaurant prior to part-demolition.

· In relation to the converted and extended dwelling:

- a colour scheme appropriate to the period and style shall be nominated on the drawings

- traditional rolled flashings with painted timber fascia, smooth unperforated quad gutters in galvanised steel shall be nominated on the drawings

- circular downpipes painted to match the wall colour shall be nominated on the drawings

- windows on Hill Street façade to be timber construction.

· In relation to the western pavilion addition:

- driveway to be gravel-finished concrete driveway surface

- pergola detailing to include timber battens beneath the main cross beams

- the garage doors to comprise painted timber

- the roof to be hipped at the two ends

- windows on the March Street elevation to be timber construction.

· In relation to the new dwelling to Hill Street:

- the garage door to comprise painted timber

- windows on the Hill Street facade to be timber construction

- verandah balustrade to comprise simple steel flats

- window canopy to comprise a contemporary frame without replica details

- alternative detail to sheeted gable

- window fenestration to gable on Hill Street façade to comprise three (3) contemporary windows.

· Preparation and implementation of a landscape plan relating to the site perimeters, particularly the street frontages and on the northern boundary adjoining the dwelling at 115 Hill Street.

Conditions are included on the attached Notice of Approval to reflect the specific requirements of the Heritage Advisor, as they relate to materials, colours, finishes and landscaping. The proponent is amenable to the above-listed recommendations.

Subject to compliance with conditions, it is considered that the proposed development will not adversely impact on the significance of the heritage site or setting pursuant to Clause 5.10(4). Furthermore, the proposed development will satisfy the Assessment Criteria contained in the DCP Infill Guidelines as they relate to Character; Scale and Form; Siting; Materials and Colour; and Detailing.

Part 6 - Urban Release Area

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

Part 7 - Additional Local Provisions

Clause 7.3 Stormwater Management

Clause 7.3 is applicable. This clause states in part:

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

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

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

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

Council’s Assistant Development Engineer has recommended conditions to satisfy the requirements of Clause 7.3.

Clause 7.6 Groundwater Vulnerability

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

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

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

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

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

Clause 7.11 Essential Services

Clause 7.11 applies and states:

Development consent must not be granted to development unless the consent authority is satisfied that any of the following services that are essential for the proposed development are available or that adequate arrangements have been made to make them available when required:

(a) the supply of water,

(b) the supply of electricity,

(c) the disposal and management of sewage,

(d) storm water drainage or onsite conservation,

(e) suitable road access.

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

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 Remediation of Land

SEPP 55 is applicable and states in part:

(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.

It is unlikely that the subject land is contaminated. The site has historic use for the purposes of an inn and restaurant. The land is not known to have been used for a Table 1 listed purposes to the Contaminated Land Planning Guidelines; and is not contained within an investigation area. Further investigation is not warranted.

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 28) – Heritage Amendment

Draft Orange LEP 2011 (Amendment 28) involves new heritage conservation areas; expansion to existing heritage conservation areas; and new heritage items. The Draft Plan has no effect for the proposed development. The subject land is already located in the Central Orange heritage conservation area, and contains a Local heritage item.

Draft Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 (Amendment 29) – Park and Rifle Range Roads, Shiralee

Draft Orange LEP 2011 (Amendment 29) relates to the rezoning and amendment of minimum lot size for various sites at Park and Rifle Range Roads, Shiralee (part Lot 11 DP 750401 and part Lot 88 DP 750401). The Draft Plan has not effect for the proposed development.

Draft Orange Local Environmental Plan (Amendment 31) – Eastside Precinct

Draft Orange LEP 2011 (Amendment 31) relates to the Eastside Precinct, comprising land to the east of the railway line and south of Bathurst Road. The Draft Plan seeks to include additional permitted uses in the precinct including multi dwelling housing, residential flat buildings, attached dwellings, secondary dwellings, seniors housing and centre-based child care facilities. It is also proposed to amend the permitted height of buildings from 12m to 16m. The Draft Plan has not effect for the proposed development.

Draft Remediation of Land State Environmental Planning Policy

Draft Remediation of Land SEPP has been publicly exhibited. The Draft SEPP will repeal and replace SEPP 55 Remediation of Land. Of particular note, the Draft SEPP requires consideration of the contamination status of nearby and neighbouring properties, and its impact on the proposed use. Residential land adjoining the site is not identified or considered to be contaminated.

Provisions of any Development Control Plan S4.15(1)(A)(Iii)

Development Control Plan 2004

DCP 2004-7.2 Residential Subdivision

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

· Subdivision layouts… are generally in accordance with the applicable plan maps…

· Lots are oriented to maximise energy-efficiency principles.

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

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

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

The proposal will satisfy the above planning outcomes as follows:

- The proposed subdivision layout will complement the residential cadastre in March and Hill Streets; and have nil impact on the existing road network.

- Proposed Lots 1a and 1b will be within the acceptable orientation range to provide reasonable internal and external solar access to the proposed dwellings.

- As outlined in the following sections of this report, the proposed lots will be of suitable area and dimensions to provide a high standard of residential amenity to the proposed dwellings.

- All utility services are available to the proposed lots. Legal access will be provided to Lot 1a via Hill Street; and to Lot 1b via March Street.

- The subdivision design and construction will comply with the Orange Development and Subdivision Code, as required by conditions.

DCP 2004-7.7 Design Elements for Residential Development

Neighbourhood Character

Site layout and building design enables the:

· creation of attractive residential environments with clear character and identity

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

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

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

The proposal involves infill development on a heritage site within an established residential neighbourhood in the Central Orange Heritage Conservation Area. The prevailing development form comprises historic dwellings circa 1900-1920 on separate lots. The built form is generally single-storey, with hip and gable roof profiles of steep pitches, verandah decoration, symmetrical fenestration and chimneys. As outlined in this report, the design, detailing and massing of the new dwelling and additions to the converted dwelling are considered to be suitable in this setting. The prominence and profile of the heritage dwelling will be maintained.

Building Appearance

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

· the frontages of buildings and their entries face the street

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

The design and detailing for the proposed dwelling will relate to adjoining improvements in relation to roof height and pitch, external finishes and decorative treatment. As outlined above, Council’s Heritage Advisor has recommended minor design modifications to the front façade, in order that the dwelling may be understood as a contemporary design. Furthermore, Conditional landscaping in the rear yard will provide softening and screening of the contemporary rear skillion element in the conservation setting.

The proposed additions to the converted dwelling will be sited and designed so as to maintain the prominence and profile of the heritage building. The link will provide a separation between the historic building and new addition. The pavilion will contain design elements that relate to the historic building including symmetrical openings to March Street, pergola across the front façade (quasi verandah) and Conditional roof profile.

The proposed and converted dwellings will each feature double garages to address the public roads. As outlined above, Council’s Heritage Advisor accepts the garage presentation subject to design mitigation amendments. Both garages will be set back behind the front building façade for each dwelling, and be integrated within the dwelling design. It is noted that the adjoining dwelling at 83 March Street features a double garage visible at the site frontage.

Setbacks

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

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

The heritage building at the corner has existing zero lot boundaries to March and Hill Street.

The small northern addition to the heritage building will be set back 3m from the Hill Street frontage. Similarly, the proposed new dwelling will have a minimum setback of 3m to Hill Street. The proposed new improvements at the Hill Street frontage will suitably integrate within the streetscape building line. Furthermore, the siting of the addition and new dwelling will not dominate the heritage building.

The pavilion addition on the west side of the heritage dwelling will be set back 5.2m from the March Street frontage. The addition will be set behind the heritage dwelling and the adjoining dwelling to the west at 83 March Street. The recessed addition will not dominate the site frontage or heritage dwelling. Existing hedge plantings on the street boundary forward of the pavilion addition (excluding the access and garage) will be retained.

Garages for the new dwelling and pavilion addition will be sited to permit tandem car parking wholly within the subject lots.

Front Fences and Walls

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

· Front fences and walls:

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

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

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

The proposal does not involve new fencing to March or Hill Streets. The existing low retaining wall to March Street and rendered and brick walls to Hill Street will be retained.

Visual Bulk

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

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

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

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

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

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

- building to the boundary where appropriate.

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

· The proposed dwelling will have a height and massing consistent with the adjoining dwelling to the north at 115 Hill Street (see below).

Figure 6 – Hill Street elevation

· Similarly, the proposed pavilion addition will complement the bulk and scale for the adjoining dwelling to the west at 83 March Street (see figure below).

Figure 7 – March Street elevation

· The DCP prescribes the following visual bulk envelope plane:

Buildings are contained within an envelope generated by planes projected at 45^o over the site, commencing 2.5m above existing ground level from each side and rear boundary.

As demonstrated in the submitted elevation drawings (see Figure 8), the proposed pavilion addition will encroach the VBE plane on the south elevation, when projected from the western boundary.

Figure 8 – VBE encroachment

As outlined above, a Condition is included requiring the roof of the pavilion addition to be hipped. A hip roof would contain the building addition within the prescribed bulk plane, comply with the DCP and minimise impacts on the March St neighbour.

In relation to the proposed dwelling on Hill Street, the submitted section drawings demonstrate that the front portion of the building with traditional hip and gable roof profile will encroach within the VBE plane projected from the side (north and south) boundaries. The rear skillion element, however, will be wholly contained with the bulk plane (see Figure 9).

Figure 9 – proposed dwelling within VBE plane

The proposed departure from the DCP control is considered to be minor and within reasonable limit. Arising visual bulk encroachment impacts for adjoining dwellings are unlikely. In this regard, the adjoining dwelling to the north at 115 Hill Street will be largely offset from the VBE encroachment, as the adjoining northern dwelling has a greater front setback to Hill Street. Habitable spaces and openings within the converted Harrison’s dwelling to the south will be well set back (some 7m) from the encroaching portion of the proposed new dwelling.

· Site coverage for the proposed extended dwelling on Lot 1b, and new dwelling on Lot 1a will not exceed 50% site coverage in compliance with the DCP.

Dwelling

Floor Area (m²)

Site Area (m²)

Site Coverage

Harrison’s Extended/

Converted Dwelling

319

669 (Lot 1b)

47.7%

Proposed Dwelling

211

523 (Lot 1a)

40.3%

· Negligible earthworks will be required.

Walls and Boundaries

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

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

- the privacy of neighbouring dwellings and private open space

- the access to daylight reaching adjoining properties

- the impact of boundary walls on neighbours.

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

Daylight and Sunlight

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

· Buildings are sited and designed to ensure:

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

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

- consideration of Council’s Energy Efficiency Code.

Overshadowing of Private Open Space

Pursuant to the DCP Guidelines:

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

As demonstrated in the submitted shadow diagrams and as outlined in the following table:

· On-ground solar access will be provided to the proposed dwelling consistent with the DCP Guidelines.

· On-ground solar access to the converted Harrison’s dwelling will not comply with the DCP. Sunlight will be available to some 25% of the required open space area for the prescribed time.

Dwelling

GFA / POS required (m²)

40% POS (m²)

Solar access (m²⁾

DCP Compliance

Proposed Dwelling

211 / 105.5

42.2

>50 between 11am and 2pm

Yes

Harrison’s Extended /Converted Dwelling

272 / 136

10.30am: 24 (or 18%)

11.30am: 33 (or 24%)

12.30pm: 37 (or 27%)

1.30pm: 34 (or 25%)

[It is noted that the proponent has provided unshaded calculations based on dwelling footprint (319m²), rather than GFA (272m²). The numbers shown in the table above relate to GFA as prescribed in the DCP.]

Figure 10 – noon shadow – unshaded POS

Notwithstanding the DCP non-compliance relating to on-ground solar access for the converted dwelling, it is considered that reasonable amenity will be provided to this space. The sunny portion of the rear yard will have a broad northern aspect. On-ground solar access will be immediately adjacent to the dwelling and its northern openings, rather than dislocated. Furthermore, the sunny portion will be useable, functional and private.

As outlined in this report, the proposal involves adaptive reuse of a heritage building that will reinstate the original use of the building. The proposal is not considered to be over‑development of the site. Concessions that will not compromise residential amenity are considered reasonable in this regard. The depicted shadows represent those cast on-ground on the winter solstice, and will progressively improve throughout the year.

Lot orientation will not result in unreasonable overshadowing of private open spaces for other dwellings beyond the development site.

Overshadowing of Dwellings

Pursuant to the DCP Guidelines:

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

The converted and proposed dwellings will each contain generous north-facing living room windows. As demonstrated in the submitted shadow diagrams, internal solar access will be provided to the dwellings consistent with the DCP Guidelines.

Figure 11 – noon shadow – unshaded northern windows

Lot orientation will not result in overshadowing of northern living room windows for other dwellings beyond the development site.

Views

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

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

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

Views of the corner heritage building will be retained. The proposed dwelling and additions will suitably integrate within the streetscape view corridors.

Visual Privacy

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

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

- building siting and layout

- location of windows and balconies

and secondly by:

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

The proposed site layout and building design will provide acceptable visual privacy for the subject and adjoining dwellings.

In relation to the proposed dwelling:

· Negligible earthworks will be required.

· Perimeter fencing to proposed Lot 1a will be retained/installed.

· Habitable room windows will be set back some 5m from the northern boundary, and well-removed from the south-façade openings in the opposing dwelling at 115 Hill Street. An established tree on the adjoining parcel between the dwellings will assist to disrupt views between the dwellings.

· Habitable room windows will overlook the north-facing private open space area.

· Openings to the south façade will comprise narrow windows and/or be associated with bedrooms or wet areas.

· Finished levels will relate to existing natural ground level and will not result in overlooking of adjoining dwellings.

In relation to the extended heritage dwelling:

· Negligible earthworks will be required.

· Perimeter fencing to proposed Lot 1b will be retained/installed.

· Habitable room windows will be set back some 5.7m from the northern boundary, and well-separated from the non-habitable openings in the south façade in the opposing proposed dwelling.

· Habitable room windows will overlook the north-facing private open space area.

· The pavilion addition will not contain any openings in the west façade opposing the dwelling at 83 March Street.

· Finished levels will relate to existing natural ground level and will not result in overlooking of adjoining dwellings.

Acoustic Privacy

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

· Site layout and building design:

- protect habitable rooms from excessively high levels of external noise

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

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

The subject land is contained in a residential area, where ambient noise levels are low. The proposal will not alter the existing acoustic environment for the subject and adjoining dwellings.

Security

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

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

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

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

· openings in the proposed and extended dwelling will provide for surveillance of the public roads and rear yard

· the landscape design will not restrict sight lines

· the dwellings will have internal access via the garages

· perimeter fencing will be installed/maintained.

Circulation and Design

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

· accessways and parking areas are designed to manage stormwater

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

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

The existing vehicle crossing and driveway on March Street will be relocated slightly to the west to provide access for the extended dwelling. The existing crossover and driveway on Hill Street will be retained in the current location. Conditional upgrading of the concrete kerb and gutter layback and footpaths shall be undertaken.

Reverse egress to the public roads will be required for both dwellings, consistent with vehicle arrangements for single dwellings throughout the city. Traffic volumes associated with one additional dwelling will be imperceptible within the context of existing vehicle movements in this setting.

Car Parking

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

· Parking facilities are provided, designed and located to:

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

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

· Car parking is provided with regard to the:

- the number and size of proposed dwellings

- requirements of people with limited mobility or disabilities.

Pursuant to DCP 2004, onsite parking is required for three plus (3+) bedroom dwellings at a rate of 1.5 spaces per dwelling. An attached double garage will be provided for the proposed and extended dwellings in compliance with the DCP.

Private Open Space

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

Private open space is clearly defined for private use.

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

· Private open space is:

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

- accessible from a living area of the dwelling

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

- orientated to optimise year round use.

Private open space for the heritage dwelling and proposed dwelling will comply with the DCP Guidelines in relation to minimum area, dimension, orientation, solar access and connectivity.

· Each of the proposed dwellings will be provided with open space that complies with the minimum requirement in terms of area (ie. 50% of the gross floor area of the dwelling):

Dwelling	GFA (m²)	POS Required (m²)	POS Provided (m²)	DCP Compliance
Extended / converted dwelling	272	136.2	197	Yes
Proposed dwelling	211	105.5	209	Yes

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

· Private open space for each dwelling will accommodate an area of 5m x 5m.

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

· The private open space areas will have access to northern sunlight.

Open Space and Landscaping

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

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

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

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

- allow cost effective management.

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

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

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

As outlined in the foregoing sections of this report, Conditional site landscaping will be required to complement the neighbourhood character and heritage setting.

Stormwater

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

· Onsite drainage systems are designed to consider:

- downstream capacity and need for onsite retention, detention and re-use

- scope for onsite infiltration of water

- safety and convenience of pedestrians and vehicles

- overland flow paths.

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

Council’s Assistant Development Engineer has included Conditions in relation to stormwater infrastructure to service proposed Lots 1a and 1b.

Erosion and Sedimentation

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

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

Conditional sediment and erosion controls will be employed during construction.

DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS

Section 7.11 Development Contributions and Section 64 Headworks Charges

Development contributions are applicable to the proposed development, pursuant to Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017 (LGA).

The contributions are based on the net increase of one (1) additional residential lot, as follows:

Open Space and Recreation	One additional lot at 4,168.54	4,168.54
Community and Cultural	One additional lot at 1,208.86	1,208.86
Roads and Traffic Management	One additional lot at 5,502.32	5,502.32
Local Area Facilities	-
Plan Preparation & Administration	One additional lot at 326.39	326.39
TOTAL:		$11,206.11

Headworks charges will also apply to the proposal. The contributions are based on 1.0 additional ET for water supply and sewerage services.

Conditions are included requiring payment of applicable development contributions.

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

Demolition of a Building (clause 92)

The proposal involves demolition of an existing outbuilding and part of the former restaurant. Conditions are included requiring preparation and implementation of a waste management plan; and demolition works to be carried out in accordance with Australian Standard AS2601 - 2001: The Demolition of Structures and the requirements of Safe Work NSW.

Fire Safety Considerations (clause 93)

Council’s Building Certifier advises:

The proposed buildings will be adequately setback from existing and proposed boundaries to satisfy BCA requirements.

Buildings to be Upgraded (clause 94)

Council’s Building Certifier advises:

Some fire services that were in the former restaurant can be removed as part of the renovations. The building will need to be fitted with domestic smoke alarms in appropriate locations.

BASIX Commitments (clause 97A)

A compliant BASIX Certificate has been submitted for the proposed dwellings.

The Likely Impacts Of The Development S4.15(1)(B)

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

· Heritage Values

- impact on significance

- design suitability

- mitigation conditions

· Setting and context

- public domain

- landuse

- interface

- presentation

· Visual impacts

- neighbourhood character

- streetscape presentation

- building design and detailing

- landscape character

· Neighbourhood amenity

- acoustic privacy

- visual privacy

- solar access

- crime prevention

· Traffic matters

- site access

- manoeuvring

- car parking

- traffic generation

- network capacity

· Environmental impacts

- waste management

- sediment and erosion control

- biodiversity

- groundwater

- stormwater management

- cultural values

- contamination.

It is considered that the impacts of the proposed development will be within reasonable limit. Conditions are included on the attached Notice of Approval to mitigate and manage arising impacts.

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

· The proposal is permitted on the subject land zoning.

· The site has direct frontage and access to Hill and March Streets.

· The local road network has sufficient capacity to accommodate additional traffic volumes associated with one additional dwelling.

· There is no known contamination on the land.

· All utility services are available and adequate.

· The site is not subject to natural hazards.

· The subject land has no particular environmental values.

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

The proposed development is defined as "advertised development" pursuant to Council’s Community Participation Plan 2019. Written and public notice of the application was given for the prescribed period. At the end of that period, three (3) written submissions had been received, with a total of five (5) signatures). The issues raised in the submissions are considered below.

The proposed lots are too small and inconsistent with lots sizes in the area.

The proposed lots will comprise site areas of 523m² (Lot 1a) and 669m² (Lot 1b). The subject land and neighbourhood are not subject to minimum lot sizes pursuant to Orange LEP 2011.

The residential cadastre in the vicinity of the site is comprised of a range of lot sizes, as depicted below (see Figure 12). Parcels in March and Hill Streets nearby to the site range between 270m²-1205m²; furthermore, lots in the order of 500m² prevail in the neighbourhood.

The proposed lots will not be incongruous with the prevailing allotment layout or area. It is noted that an objective of the R1 General Residential zone is to ‘provide for a variety of housing types and densities.’ The proposed development will satisfy this objective.

Figure 12 – cadastre nearby the development site

The proposed building density will not complement the neighbourhood character.

As outlined above, the proposed subdivision layout will complement the residential cadastre nearby to the site in March and Hill Streets. Site coverage for the proposed dwellings on the proposed lots will be less than 50%, and not exceed the maximum site coverage of 60% for single dwellings, pursuant to DCP 2004-7.7-6.

The proposed building design will be consistent with the heritage area, particularly the basement garage to the proposed dwelling on Hill Street.

As outlined in the foregoing sections of this report, Council’s Heritage Advisor considers the design for the proposed dwelling will be suitable; however, minor design modifications will be required in order for the dwelling to be understood as a contemporary design. Conditions are included to this effect.

Council’s Heritage Advisor raised no objection to the front elevation garage, noting that Council has consented to other garage doors in the conservation area in recent times.

Insufficient private open space area will be provided for the proposed dwellings.

Private open space for the proposed dwellings will exceed the minimum area required, pursuant to DCP 2004-7.7-16.

A northern aspect is essential for residential amenity.

North-facing internal and external habitable spaces will be provided for the proposed dwellings.

The garage in the pavilion addition will be inconsistent with the streetscape.

As outlined in the foregoing sections of this report, Council’s Heritage Advisor considers the design and siting for the garage will be acceptable in the streetscape, subject to mitigation conditions relating to detailing. It is noted that the adjoining dwelling at 83 March Street has an example of a standard suburban garage door (see below).

Figure 13 – garage at 83 March Street

Existing landscaping at the March Street frontage is required to screen the pavilion addition garage.

The proposal involves part removal of the hedge at the March Street frontage (see Figure 8 above) to facilitate access to the proposed pavilion garage. The hedge will be removed for a distance of 5m to support a 5m wide driveway at the front of the double garage.

A hip roof should be provided to the pavilion addition to complement adjoining roof profiles.

Council’s Heritage Advisor concurs with this submission. A Condition is included to this effect.

Public Interest S4.15(1)(E)

The proposal is not inconsistent with any relevant policy statements, planning studies, guidelines etc. that have not been considered in this assessment. The proposal involves adaptive reuse of a Local heritage item and is considered to be in the public interest.

SUMMARY

The proposal involves redevelopment of the heritage site and building known as the former 1870 Restaurant at 85 March Street. A new dwelling will be constructed, and the existing heritage building will be converted and extended to a dwelling. Council’s Heritage Advisor has assessed the proposal and considers that the development is acceptable subject to minor mitigation measures. The proponent is amenable to the recommendations, which are included as Conditions. Three (3) public submissions were received objecting to the DA. The issues raised in the submissions generally relate to the suitability of the building design and detailing. As outlined in foregoing sections of this report, the proposal is considered to reasonably satisfy the Local and State planning controls that apply to the subject land and particular landuse. Impacts of the development will be within acceptable limit, subject to mitigation conditions. Approval of the application is recommended.

COMMENTS

The requirements of the following experts are included in the attached Notice of Approval:

· Environmental Health and Building Inspector

· Assistant Development Engineer

· Environmental Health Officer

· Manager City Presentation

· Heritage Advisor

· Senior Planner – Development Assessment

Attachments

1 Notice of Approval, D21/38840 ⇩

2 Plans, D21/43222 ⇩

3 Submissions, D21/38828 ⇩

Extraordinary Council Meeting 27 July 2021

Attachment 1 Notice of Approval

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

Development Application No DA 138/2021(1)

NA21/474 Container PR7456

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

issued under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Section 4.18

Development Application
Applicant Name:	Southwell Design Drafting
Applicant Address:	35 Crowson Street MILTHORPE NSW 2798
Owner’s Name:	Mr SJ Alford and Miss TL Harrison
Land to Be Developed:	Lot 1 DP 779381 - 85-87 March Street, Orange
Proposed Development:	Dwelling Alterations and Additions (change of use from restaurant), Subdivision (two lot Torrens title), and Dwelling and Attached Garage (new construction - two storey)

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

Determination made under Section 4.16
Made On:	20 July 2021
Determination:	CONSENT GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DESCRIBED BELOW:

Consent to Operate From:	21 July 2021
Consent to Lapse On:	21 July 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) Drawings by Southwell Design and Drafting Drawing Nos. A03-DA01: 01(B), 02(A), 03(A), 04(A), 05(A), 06(A), 07(A), 08(A), 09(B), 10(A), 11(A), 12(A), 13(A), 14(B), 15(A) dated 29/03/2021 (15 sheets)

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

as amended in accordance with any conditions of this consent.

PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STAGE 1 - ALTERATIONS/ADDITIONS TO EXISTING DWELLING

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

(7) Prior to demolition works commencing, the building is to be photographically recorded in accordance with ‘Photographic Recording of Heritage Items Using Film or Digital Capture’ (Heritage Office 2006). The photographic record shall be provided to Council prior to issue of a Construction Certificate.

(8) The following details shall be provided on the Construction Certificate drawings to the satisfaction of the Manager Development Assessment:

· In relation to the converted and extended dwelling (former restaurant):

- A colour scheme appropriate to the period and style shall be nominated on the drawings.

- Traditional rolled flashings with painted timber fascia, smooth unperforated quad gutters in galvanised steel shall be nominated on the drawings.

- Circular downpipes painted to match the wall colour shall be nominated on the drawings.

- Windows on Hill Street façade to be timber construction.

· In relation to the western pavilion addition:

- Driveway to be gravel-finished concrete driveway surface

- Pergola detailing to include timber battens beneath the main cross beams

- The garage doors to comprise painted timber

- The roof to be hipped at the two ends

- Windows on the March Street elevation to be timber construction

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

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

(11) 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

(12) 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.

(13) 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.

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

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

(15) All construction/demolition work on the site is to be carried out between the hours of 7.00 am and 6.00 pm Monday to Friday inclusive, 7.00 am to 5.00 pm Saturdays and 8.00 am to 5.00 pm Sundays and Public Holidays. Written approval must be obtained from the General Manager of Orange City Council to vary these hours.

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

(17) 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.

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

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

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

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

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

(22) All driveway and parking areas are to be sealed with bitumen, hot mix or concrete and are to be designed for all expected loading conditions (provided however that the minimum pavement depth for gravel and flush seal roadways is 200mm) and be in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.

(23) A concrete kerb and gutter layback and footpath crossing is to be constructed in the position shown on the plan submitted with the Construction Certificate application. The works are to be carried out to the requirements of the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code and Road Opening Permit.

(24) The existing kerb and gutter layback that is not proposed to be used shall be replaced with standard concrete kerb and gutter and the concrete / bitumen footpath reinstated to the requirements in the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code.

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

(25) 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.

(26) 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.

(27) 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.

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

STAGE 2 - TWO LOT SUBDIVISION

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

(29) A 150mm-diameter sewer junction, interlot stormwater pit, and water service shall be constructed from Council’s existing sewer, stormwater and water mains to serve proposed lots 1A and 1B. Prior to a Construction Certificate being issued engineering plans for this work shall be submitted to and approved by Orange City Council.

(30) 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

(31) 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.

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

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

(33) 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.

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

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A SUBDIVISION CERTIFICATE

(35) The payment of $11,206.11 is to be made to Council in accordance with section 7.11 of the Act and the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017 (LGA Remainder) towards the provision of the following public facilities:

Open Space and Recreation	One additional lot at 4,168.54	4,168.54
Community and Cultural	One additional lot at 1,208.86	1,208.86
Roads and Traffic Management	One additional lot at 5,502.32	5,502.32
Local Area Facilities	-
Plan Preparation & Administration	One additional lot at 326.39	326.39
TOTAL:		$11,206.11

The contribution will be indexed quarterly in accordance with the Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017 (LGA Remainder). This Plan can be inspected at the Orange Civic Centre, Byng Street, Orange.

(36) Prior to the issuing of the Subdivision Certificate, a Surveyor’s Certificate or written statement is to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority, stating that the buildings within the boundaries of the proposed Lot 1b comply in respect to the distances of walls from boundaries.

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

(38) Payment of contributions for water, sewer and drainage works is required to be made at the contribution rate applicable at the time that the payment is made. The contributions are based on 1.0 ETs for water supply headworks and 1.0 ETs for sewerage headworks. A Certificate of Compliance, from Orange City Council in accordance with the Water Management Act 2000, will be issued upon payment of the contributions.

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

(39) 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.

(40) 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.

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

(42) 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.

(43) The existing dwelling on proposed Lot 1B shall be connected to the sewer. Evidence of the satisfactory completion of such work by a licensed plumber shall be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Subdivision Certificate.

(44) Where stormwater crosses land outside the lot it favours, an easement to drain water is to be created over the works. A Restriction-as-to-User under section 88B of the NSW Conveyancing Act 1979 is to be created on the title of the burdened Lot(s) 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.

(45) 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.

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

STAGE 3 - DWELLING

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

(47) The following details shall be provided on the Construction Certificate drawings to the satisfaction of the Manager Development Assessment:

- The garage door to comprise painted timber

- Windows on the Hill Street facade to be timber construction

- Verandah balustrade to comprise simple steel flats

- Window canopy to comprise a contemporary frame without replica details

- Alternative detail to sheeted gable

- Window fenestration to gable on Hill Street façade to comprise 3 contemporary windows

(48) A detailed landscaping plan prepared by a suitably qualified professional shall be submitted for the approval of Council’s Manager Development Assessment.

Landscaping shall be established at the street frontages to March and Hill Streets; and on the northern boundary (adjoining 115 Hill Street). Planting on the northern boundary shall be of a type and size sufficient to provide screening of the proposed dwelling from the adjoining northern dwelling.

The landscape design (including vegetation type and location) shall be consistent with the landscape character in the setting.

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

(50) Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate evidence shall be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority that proposed Lot 1A has been registered with NSW Land and Property Information.

(51) 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

(52) 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.

(53) The tree immediately adjoining to the north in close proximity to the common boundary of Lot 1 DP194882 and the subject site shall have a tree protection zone (TPZ) in accordance with AS4970 – 2009 established upon the development site. Where works that have been identified on the submitted plans are proposed to occur within the TPZ, the TPZ fencing shall be established at the maximum limit (distance from the centre of the trees trunk) to enable such works to be enacted. Should excavation be required within the TPZ a project arborist must be engaged to oversee such excavation work and ensure that any tree roots greater than 50mm in diameter are pruned on the side of attachment to the tree in accordance with AS4373 – 2007. TPZ fencing must be inspected by Council’s Manager City Presentation prior to works commencing.

(54) 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.

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

DURING CONSTRUCTION/SITEWORKS

(56) 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.

(57) A Registered Surveyor’s Certificate identifying the location of the building on the site must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the pouring of the slab or footings.

(58) 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.

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

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

(60) Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans and shall be permanently maintained to the satisfaction of Council's Manager Development Assessments.

(61) 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.

(62) Where Orange City Council is not the Principal Certifying Authority, a final inspection of water connection, sewer and stormwater drainage shall be undertaken by Orange City Council and a compliance certificate issued, prior to the issue of either an interim or a final Occupation Certificate.

(63) 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.

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

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:	21 July 2021

Extraordinary Council Meeting 27 July 2021

5.13 Development Application DA 67/2021(1) - 11 Borrodell Drive

RECORD NUMBER: 2021/1417

AUTHOR: Ben Hicks, Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged	24 February 2021 Additional Information received 19 May 2021
Applicant/s	Developed Pty Ltd
Owner/s	Mr MG and Mrs T Sangster
Land description	Lot 3 DP264431, 11 Borrodell Drive, Orange
Proposed land use	Subdivision (11 lot Torrens title and 5 lot Community title)
Value of proposed development	Not applicable

Council's consent is sought to subdivide land described as Lot 3 DP264431 known as 11 Borrodell Drive, Orange. The application seeks to subdivide the aforementioned land into eleven (11) Torrens title residential lots and five (5) Community title lots. The development presents a range of lots sizes varying from 850m²up to 1,538m²for the Torrens title lots and lot sizes of around 1000m² for the Community title lots. Ancillary works will also be undertaken to facilitate the subdivision including earthworks, provision of utility services and road construction. The applicant proposes to carry out the development in two stages. Stage 1 comprising the subdivision of the existing dwelling and the creation of a development lot and Stage 2 relating to the remainder of the subdivision.

The proponent seeks a departure to the Conceptual Subdivision Layout for Area 3 Ploughmans Valley under the Orange Development Control Plan 2004. The proponent is also seeking a variation to the minimum lot size under the Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011; therefore, the application has been tabled to Council for determination.

The departure to these instruments is to accommodate an anomaly between the mapped minimum lot size zones in the LEP and the Conceptual Subdivision Layout for Area 3 Ploughmans Valley in the DCP. The minimum lot size zones as mapped do not correspond with the intended subdivision layout/property boundaries and thus the mapped minimum lot sizes do not allow the intended subdivision pattern to be sensibly achieved and strict compliance would result in a poor planning outcome. The variation is therefore supported in this instance.

The applicant also proposes to increase the lot yield along the western fringe of the property by one (1) additional lot. Council in considering the intended lot layout for this area purposely limited the number of lots on the western fringe to ensure the future development on the land integrates with the scenic qualities of the locality. This increase in lot yield and subsequent reduction in lot sizes (Community Title lots) will increase the density of development in this locality, potentially impacting the landscape character and scenic values of the area. Thus, the variation for an increase in lot yield along the western fringe of the site is not supported. It is recommended that the number of Community Title lots is reduced by one (1) lot.

Approval of the application is recommended subject to conditions of consent as outlined in the attached Notice of Determination.

Figure 1 - locality and site context plan

DECISION FRAMEWORK

DIRECTOR’S COMMENT

The proposal seeks to alter the adopted concept plan for this precinct and the minimum lot size pertaining to the subject land. The proposal has a mixture of Torrens title and Community Title allotments. The alteration to the Torrens title lots is considered to be acceptable and would provide more appropriately shaped allotments fronting the proposed new road. As the subdivision moves westward, up the hill (where the community title lots are), the visual impacts arising from the density of the estate become more significant. Visual impacts in such areas are managed by maintaining larger allotments on the hillside. To provide adequate scenic protection to this precinct, it is recommended that the number of Community title lots proposed along the western fringe of the development be reduced by one (1) allotment. It is considered that the slight reduction of lots would provide for appropriate/economic development and use of land, whilst protecting the desired character of the area beyond this individual subdivision. It is recommended that Council supports the proposed development subject to the adoption of the attached Notice of determination.

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/GOVERNANCE IMPLICATIONS

Nil

Recommendation

That Council consents to development application DA67/2021(1) for Subdivision (11 lot Torrens title and 5 lot Community title) at Lot 3 DP264431, 11 Borrodell Drive, Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Determination.

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

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

The subject land is not identified as biodiversity sensitive on the Orange LEP 2011 Terrestrial Biodiversity Map or mapped on the Biodiversity Values Map.

Trigger 2

The prescribed clearing threshold for the site is 0.25ha (based on minimum lot size for the subject land of less than 1ha (Cl. 7.2 Biodiversity Conservation Regulation 2017). The environment assessment prepared by Envirowest Pty Ltd confirms that surface cover across the site consists of pasture grasses and broadleaved weeds. Ornamental trees are located in the northern section surrounding the existing dwelling. The proposed development will not the removal of any native vegetation including trees or grasses and therefore will not trigger the prescribed clearing thresholds.

Trigger 3

The subject land is contained within an established urban area and developing residential release area. The development site does not contain or adjoin mapped biodiversity sensitive lands. The natural state of the site and surrounding area have been highly modified by the urban landuse pattern. The development is unlikely to adversely fragment or disturb the biodiversity structure or ecological functions of the development site or surrounding lands. Although subdivision is considered to be a key threatening process, there are no known or threatened ecological communities on the land, nor is it likely to contain any habitat for such species or communities.

In summary, a BDAR is not required and the proposal suitably satisfies the relevant matters at Clause 1.7 EPAA 1979.

Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

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,

(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.

In consideration of the above, the application is considered to be consistent with objectives of the LEP. The proposed subdivision will provide for additional residential lots for dwelling stock that will accommodate for the housing needs of the community. The proposed lot size and layout is appropriate for the setting and will have negligible environmental impact.

Clause 1.6 - Consent Authority

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

Clause 1.7 - Mapping

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

Land Zoning Map:	R2 Low Density Residential
Lot Size Map:	Minimum Lot Size 850m² and 1500m²
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 significant biodiversity sensitivity on the site.
Groundwater Vulnerability Map:	Groundwater vulnerable
Drinking Water Catchment Map:	Not within the drinking water catchment
Watercourse Map:	No mapped 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 mapped on flood planning map

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 site of the proposed development is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011. The Land Use Table for the R2 Low Density Residential zone permits the proposal with consent of Council. The proposal is defined as subdivision of land, which means:

The division of land into two or more parts that, after the division, would be obviously adapted for separate occupation, use or disposition (Section 6.2 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).

Clause 2.3(2) of the Orange Local Environmental Plan (OLEP) 2011 provides that the Council shall have regard to the objectives for development in a zone when determining a development application in respect of land within the zone. The objectives of the R1 General Residential are:

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

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

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

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

The development is considered to be generally consistent with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone. It is recommended however that the number of Community Title lots be reduced by 1 allotment so as to ensure that the development remains consistent with the intended development outcome envisaged under the Ploughman’s valley DCP. The subdivision will provide for additional lots for dwelling stock to accommodate the housing needs of the community.

The subject land is located between recently established residential developments and will integrate with the existing road and transport networks, including public transport services. The land is accessible to open space linkages for walking and cycling in the area. The proposed lot sizes and resulting pattern of development is generally consistent with that of the locality and surrounding residential development.

The development is not located adjacent to the Southern Link Road.

The following provisions of the OLEP 2011 have been especially considered in the assessment of the proposal:

· Clause 2.6 - Subdivision - Consent Requirements – Clause 2.6 subdivision of the OLEP 2011 states that the subdivision of land may be permitted, but only with development consent. As such, the applicant has applied for development consent via Development Application DA 67/2021(1) for the subdivision of land.

· Clause 4.1 – Minimum Subdivision Lot Size – Clause 4.1 minimum subdivision lot size of the OLEP states that the size of any lot resulting from the subdivision of land is not to be less than the minimum lot size shown on the lot size map in relation to that land. The subject allotment is zoned R2 Low Density Residential, and there is a in a minimum lot size of 850m²and 1500m² (Figure 2). The 850m² lot size applies along the eastern and southern fringe of the land while the 1500m² lot size applies to the more elevated western section of the property.

· The applicant seeks recourse to Clause 4.6 of the LEP to allow the 1,500m² development standard to be varied. Clause 4.6 allows development consent to be granted for development even though the development would contravene a development standard. The variation has been addressed in detail below under Clause 4.6. It should be noted that the proposed Community title lots (under the Community Land Development Act 1989) are not subject to a minimum lot size pursuant to Clause 4.1(4)(b).

Figure 2 – minimum lot size areas

· Clause 4.6 – Exceptions to development standards - Clause 4.6 exceptions to development standards of the Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 provides flexibility in the application of certain development standards in particular circumstances, where compliance with a development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary. In the context of this application, consideration of Clause 4.6 is necessary because Stage 2 subdivision works will involve the creation of Torrens title lots that have an area below the minimum lot size being 1500m².

In determining whether development consent may be granted, the Consent Authority must consider a written objection by the applicant to the development standard. The written objection must demonstrate:

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

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

Council may grant consent only if the concurrence of the Director General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure has been obtained and Council is satisfied that:

· the written request has adequately addressed the above, and

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

- consistency with the objectives of the particular standard, and

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

The DA is accompanied by a Clause 4.6 request to vary the lot size development standard. The proposed variations are summarized in the table below and indicated diagrammatically on Figure 3:

Lot	Area	Comment	Compliance
201	851m²	This lot fits the pattern of having 850m² lots front Borrodell Drive. The majority of this lot is within the 850m² MLS. However a slight intrusion (3.4%) of the 1,500m²MLS causes a slight non-compliance.	Non-compliance with 1,500m² MLS. Clause 4.6 variation required.
202	1201m²	This lot fits the pattern of having 850m² lots front Borrodell Drive. The majority of this lot is within the 850m² MLS. However a slight intrusion (4%) of the 1,500m² MLS causes a slight non-compliance.	Non-compliance with 1,500m²MLS. Clause 4.6 variation required.
204	856m²	This lot fits the pattern of having 850m² lots front Centennial Crescent. However, approximately 75% of this lot is within the 1,500m² MLS zone.	Non-compliance with 1,500m² MLS. Clause 4.6 variation required.
205	857m²	This lot fits the pattern of having 850m² lots front Centennial Crescent. However, approximately 65% of this lot is within the 1,500m² MLS zone.	Non-compliance with 1,500m²MLS. Clause 4.6 variation required
207	850m²	This lot fits the pattern of having 850m² lots front Centennial Crescent. However, approximately 10‑20% of this lot is within the 1,500m² MLS zone	Non-compliance with 1,500m² MLS. Clause 4.6 variation required.
208	850m²	This lot fits the pattern of having 850m² lots front Centennial Crescent. However, approximately 10‑20% of this lot is within the 1,500m² MLS zone.	Minor non-compliance with 1,500m² MLS. Clause 4.6 variation required.
209	1253m²	This lot fits the pattern of having 850m²lots front Borrodell Drive and complies with the 850m² MLS. However a slight intrusion of the 1,500m² MLS Zone (approximately 20% of the lot) causes a slight non-compliance in that regard.	Minor non-compliance with 1,500m² MLS. Clause 4.6 variation required.

210

1251m²

This lot fits the pattern of having 850m² lots front Borrodell Drive and complies with the 850m² MLS. However a slight intrusion of the 1,500m² MLS Zone (approximately 20% of the lot) causes a slight non-compliance in that regard.

Minor non-compliance with 1,500m² MLS.

Clause 4.6 variation required.

Figure 3 –subdivision layout superimposed over MLS map

Assessment of Clause 4.6 request

Clause 4.6(3)(a) - Is the compliance with the development standard unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?

Compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in this circumstance due to the following:

(a) There is an anomaly between the minimum lot size mapping and the property boundaries/DCP Masterplan. The MLS zones as mapped do not allow the lot layout in the DCP Masterplan to be achieved and strict adherence to the MLS zones would result in a poor subdivision layout and insufficient use of land and infrastructure.

(b) The DCP Masterplan sets the Centennial Crescent extension entirely within the subject land and as a result consumes much of the land that could otherwise have been developed to comply with the minimum lot under the LEP.

(c) The proposed lot layout will generally achieve the original objective of the Ploughman’s Valley Masterplan Area 3 in that the proposal will create lot sizes of 850m² + at the front of the new public road (Centennial Crescent) and will continue the pattern of regular frontages, consistent building setbacks and landscaped front yards that characterise the Ploughman’s Valley residential area.

(d) The DCP Masterplan intended larger lots along the elevated western fringe to preserve the landscape character and scenic values of the area.

In doing so, Council planned to only have four (4) large lots along this section of the property. The applicant has however proposed to introduce an additional lot to this area. This has created four (4) community title lots with a land area of around 1000m² each. Whilst the minimum allotment size of 1500m² technically does not apply to this style of lot the increase in density is expected to have an undesirable impact on the scenic amenity as a result of reduced setbacks, space around properties/landscaped areas/opportunities, site coverage, views etc. Therefore, the increase in lot yield for the proposed Community Title lots is not supported. It is recommended that the community title lots are reduced to three (3) and increased in land area to be more compatible with the intended Masterplan outcomes. This matter has been addressed via conditions of consent.

(e) The proposal is unlikely to significantly impact on the desired future character of the area, provided that the number of lots within the community title is reduced and lot sizes increased.

Clause 4.6(3)(b) - Are there sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard?

It is considered that there is sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the non-compliance due the following:

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

(b) The proposal does not introduce lot sizes that cannot be found elsewhere within the R2 Zone for the ploughman’s Valley Area 3.

(c) The development is generally compliant with the DCP provisions that apply for urban residential subdivision (notwithstanding the proposed departure to the DCP Layout for Area 3).

(d) Non-compliance with the standard does not generate unacceptable impacts in the locality, discounting the proposed increase in lot yield as discussed above.

Clause 4.6(4)(a)(ii) - Is the proposed development in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and objectives within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out?

The objectives of the minimum lot size are as follows:

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

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

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

(d) to prevent the fragmentation of rural lands,

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

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

In terms of the objective (a) the proposed subdivision is partly consistent with the desired/existing lot pattern. Specifically, the proposal reflects the broader 850m² MLS urban residential pattern that was originally planned for the eastern fringe of the site. Lower density lots are however encouraged along the more elevated western ridge. The proposed subdivision layout does not meet this intended outcome.

The applicant has proposed to increase the density on the elevated western ridge by an additional lot. While it is acknowledged that a different design response has been required, the increase in lot yield is beyond what Council originally planned for and the increase in density is expected to have a negative impact on the landscape and scenic values of the area. It is therefore recommended that the lots within the community title subdivision be reduced to three and increased in size (excluding the lot for the access road) to be more compatible with the intended subdivision layout for this area.

In terms of objective (b) it is considered each lot is of appropriate width and depth to enable a future dwelling to be reasonably located and orientated to achieve privacy, effective solar access and satisfactory residential amenity. Generally, the lots will contribute to the diversity and housing options that are encouraged for the area. However, the increase density of the lots along the western fringe of the property is expected to compromise landscape and scenic character and thus not supported as outlined above.

Objectives (c) and (d) are not relevant as the subject land is not within a rural zone.

In relation to objective (e) it is considered that strict adherence to the development standard would hinder the ability to meet this particular objective. The proposed variation of the MLS would satisfy this objective to a more effective extent than the current DCP layout, excepting the increase in lot yield along the western fringe of the property, which is not supported due to landscape and scenic amenity reasons.

In relation the final objective, the lot will have satisfactory access to a public road for servicing and vehicle and pedestrian access and connectivity.

With regard to the zone objectives, the development has been previously assessed as meeting the requirements of the zone in that it will provide for additional lots for dwelling stock to accommodate the housing needs of the community, while integrating with the existing road and transport networks, including public transport services. The lots within the proposed subdivision will be accessible to open space linkages for walking and cycling in the area. Furthermore, the proposed lot sizes and resulting pattern of development is also generally consistent with that of the locality and surrounding residential development.

In accordance with Clause 4.6(4)(b), concurrence of the Planning Secretary has been obtained via PS 20-002 dated 21 February 2018. The assumed concurrence notice stipulates Council staff have assumed concurrence to assess and determine Clause 4.6 variations where the variation sought does not exceed 10% of the development. Where the variation is greater than 10% of the standard, the application is to be determined by full Council. In this case, the application will be tabled to a Council meeting for determination.

In summary, the proposed departure from the development standard is not likely to result in an unacceptable precedent where supported. The proposed lots logically recognise the existing constraints of the site and anomaly between mapping, function and servicing requirements.

· Clause 5.10 Heritage Conservation - The site is not identified as a Heritage Item or within a Heritage Conservation Area. The development site is however adjacent to two local Heritage Items, namely Item 196 (Packing Sheds) and Item 194 (dwelling).

The proposed subdivision is not expected to cause any unreasonable impact on these items. Specifically, the proposed subdivision does not involve any works or structures that would interrupt views to or from the identified heritage items and therefore will not diminish public appreciation of the identified heritage items. A reasonable curtilage will also be maintained for these items.

· Clause 7.1 Earthworks – Earthworks will be required in conjunction with civil and construction works required to create the proposed lots, new roads, installation of services etc. The extent of disruption to the drainage of the site is considered to be reasonable. Existing overland/natural stormwater flows will be redirected to underground stormwater infrastructure and managed through Council’s stormwater network. Therefore the disruption to natural overland flow paths are not expected detrimentally affect adjoining properties or receiving waterways.

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 site is not known to contain any Aboriginal, European or Archaeological relics. Previous known uses of the site do not suggest that any relics are likely to be uncovered.

Overall, the extent of the earthworks are not expected to materially affect the potential future use or redevelopment of the site that may occur at the end of the proposed development's lifespan and appropriate sediment controls, including silt traps and other protective measures be required to protect adjoining lands during subdivision works as a condition of development consent.

· 7.3 - Stormwater Management – The applicant will be required to contribute to the provision of an onsite stormwater system for the development to limit post development peak flows to that of pre-development peak flows. The applicants have proposed an onsite underground basin located on Lots 209 and 210 with a s88B restriction on the title of the lots requiring the OSD to remain in place and operational until a suitable alternative site can be located downstream to the satisfaction of Council. Council’s Director Technical Services has advised that the stormwater detention basin will not become a Council asset.

· Clause 7.6 - Groundwater Vulnerability – The site has been mapped as being groundwater vulnerable. 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.

· Clause 7.11 - Essential Services – All utility services will be augmented to the land and made adequate for the proposal. The development, including the existing dwelling, will be required to connect to Council’s reticulated water system and gravity sewerage system.

The proposed road layout is satisfactory, allows adjoining land to be developed and is generally in accordance with DCP 2004. The applicant will be required to construct Borrodell Drive and Centennial Crescent half road width including kerb and gutter, piped stormwater, footpaths and asphalt sealing for the full frontage of the development.

Electricity will be provided as per Essential Energy’s requirements. Appropriate stormwater management infrastructure will be provided to the required allotments and the proponent will be required to contribute to the provision of off-site stormwater detention through Section 7.11 Contributions.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

The following State Environmental Planning Instruments (SEPPs) apply to the Orange Local Government Area:

· SEPP 21 - Caravan Parks

· SEPP 33 - Hazardous and Offensive Development

· SEPP 36 - Manufactured Home Estates

· SEPP 50 - Canal Estate Development

· SEPP 55 - Remediation of Land

· SEPP 64 - Advertising and Signage

· SEPP 65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

· SEPP 70 – Affordable Rental Housing (Revised Schemes)

· SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

· SEPP (Building Sustainability