Agenda of Planning and Development Committee

Planning and Development Committee 5 October 2021

2.1 Items Approved Under the Delegated Authority of Council

RECORD NUMBER: 2021/1947

AUTHOR: Paul Johnston, Manager Development Assessments

EXECUTIVE Summary

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

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

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

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

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

further considerations

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

Reference:	DA 431/2012(6)	Determination Date:	9 September 2021
PR Number	PR29023
Applicant/s:	Icewand Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Icewand Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 31 DP 1272282 - Scarborough Street, Orange (in the subdivision of land formerly known as Lot 210 DP 1177178).
Proposal:	Modification of development consent - subdivision (94 lot residential). The modified proposal sought to adjust the boundaries of seven (7) residential lots to reflect the adjusted site boundary. One (1) additional lot is also proposed.
Value:	$0

Reference:	DA 111/2020(2)	Determination Date:	26 August 2021
PR Number	PR4818
Applicant/s:	Bassmann Drafting Services
Owner/s:	Mr MJ and Mrs JE Truloff
Location:	Lot 2 DP 413484 - 12 Green Lane, Orange
Proposal:	Modification of development consent - dwelling (two storey), attached garage, retaining walls and tree removal. The modified proposal sought to correct a typographical error relating to the consent lapsing date on the Notice of Approval.
Value:	$0

Reference:	DA 117/2020(2)	Determination Date:	30 August 2021
PR Number	PR19435
Applicant/s:	Lindfield Family Trust
Owner/s:	MLPL Investments Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 106 DP 1067744 - 1 Ralston Drive, Orange
Proposal:	Modification of development consent - self-storage units. The modified proposal involved minor reconfiguration to site layout and building design. Works included an additional site access via Ralston Drive; part-covered internal driveway; two additional storage units; changes to storage unit areas; and revised roof pitches. The modified development complied with planning controls applicable to the subject land and proposed land use.
Value:	$0

Reference:	DA 174/2020(2)	Determination Date:	8 September 2021
PR Number	PR10758
Applicant/s:	Mrs DM Swiatkiwsky
Owner/s:	Mr SW and Mrs DM Swiatkiwsky
Location:	Lot 23 DP 770810 - 79 Sampson Street, Orange
Proposal:	Modification of development consent - dwelling alterations and additions, fencing (front boundary fencing) and detached garage with attached carport. The modified proposal sought to alter the roof form of the approved rear garage, by using a hip roof at the back end (western elevation) of the garage, instead of the approved gable end.
Value:	$0

Reference:	DA 382/2020(2)	Determination Date:	24 August 2021
PR Number	PR26334
Applicant/s:	Source Architects
Owner/s:	MLPL Investments Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 202 DP 1190831 - 7 McNamara Street, Orange
Proposal:	Modification of development consent - retail premises and shop top housing. The modified proposal related to approved Apartment 02 and involved a loft addition, inclusion of a pool in the north terrace, new openings and minor internal layout changes.
Value:	$0

Reference:	DA 10/2021(3)	Determination Date:	19 August 2021
PR Number	PR20436
Applicant/s:	Orange City Council
Owner/s:	Orange City Council
Location:	Lot 1 DP 1085646, Lot 1 DP 1275359, and Lot 2 DP 1275359 - 298 Clergate Road, Orange.
Proposal:	Modification of development consent - revised - subdivision (43 lots comprising 40 industrial lots, two lots for stormwater management and one public reserve lot). The modified proposal sought to amend the approved layout via the consolidation of proposed Lots 37, 38, 39 and 40. The change is considered minor, and the overall development is considered substantially the same as the approved development.
Value:	$0

Reference:	DA 141/2021(1)	Determination Date:	26 August 2021
PR Number	PR27563
Applicant/s:	Mr JR Noller
Owner/s:	Mr JR and Mrs KE Noller
Location:	Lot 401 DP 1228050 - 22 Buckland Drive, Orange
Proposal:	Subdivision (two lot Torrens title) and dwelling houses (two)
Value:	$520,000

Reference:	DA 160/2021(2)	Determination Date:	15 September 2021
PR Number	PR23464
Applicant/s:	MAAS Group Properties
Owner/s:	Excelsior Housing 2 Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 122 DP 1139920 - 87 Diamond Drive, Orange
Proposal:	Modification of development consent - group home (permanent). The modified proposal involved deletion of Condition 9 which required laundry facilities be removed from each accommodation unit.
Value:	$0

Reference:	DA 189/2021(2)	Determination Date:	15 September 2021
PR Number	PR28824
Applicant/s:	MAAS Group Properties
Owner/s:	Westhaven Limited
Location:	Lot 301 DP 1268612 - 63 Buckland Drive, Orange
Proposal:	Modification of development consent - group home (permanent). The modified proposal involved deletion of Condition 8 which required laundry facilities be removed from each accommodation unit.
Value:	$0

Reference:	DA 202/2021(1)	Determination Date:	21 September 2021
PR Number	PR26080
Applicant/s:	West Orange Holdings Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	West Orange Holdings Pty Limited
Location:	Lot 102 DP 1187463 - 22-34 Forbes Road, Orange
Proposal:	Vehicle sales or hire premises (vehicle shelter)
Value:	$220,000

Reference:	DA 225/2021(1)	Determination Date:	7 September 2021
PR Number	PR2034
Applicant/s:	Southwell Design Drafting
Owner/s:	Mr WS and Mrs EL Starr
Location:	Lot 6 DP 12699 - 284 Byng Street, Orange
Proposal:	Subdivision (two lot Torrens title)
Value:	$40,000

Reference:	DA 234/2021(1)	Determination Date:	21 September 2021
PR Number	PR3401
Applicant/s:	Mr M Dwyer
Owner/s:	Mr MC Dwyer
Location:	Lot B DP 391205 - 219 Dalton Street, Orange
Proposal:	Subdivision (two lot residential), multi dwelling housing (three dwellings), alterations and additions to existing dwelling, and subdivision (four lot Community title)
Value:	$650,000

Reference:	DA 238/2021(1)	Determination Date:	21 September 2021
PR Number	PR8839
Applicant/s:	Mr I Zhang
Owner/s:	Mrs JM Zhang
Location:	Lot 3 DP 226927 - 2 Moulder Street, Orange
Proposal:	Dual occupancy (alterations and additions to existing dwelling and one new dwelling), subdivision (two lot residential) and demolition (garage)
Value:	$300,000

Reference:	DA 244/2021(1)	Determination Date:	15 September 2021
PR Number	PR25686
Applicant/s:	Cancer Care Western NSW Inc
Owner/s:	Health Administration Corporation
Location:	Lot 500 DP 1175440 - 1582 Forest Road, Orange
Proposal:	Fence (perimeter of Western Care Lodge)
Value:	$20,000

Reference:	DA 248/2021(1)	Determination Date:	26 August 2021
PR Number	PR26462
Applicant/s:	Access Recycling
Owner/s:	Orange City Council
Location:	Lot 105 DP 1194589 - 30 Astill Drive, Orange
Proposal:	Resource transfer station (scrap metal)
Value:	$739,882

Reference:	DA 281/2021(1)	Determination Date:	15 September 2021
PR Number	PR25478
Applicant/s:	Mr SW Rosser
Owner/s:	Mr SW Rosser
Location:	Lot 2 DP 1168899 - 1 Callistemon Place, Orange
Proposal:	Dwelling (two storey) and attached garage
Value:	$350,000

Reference:	DA 286/2021(1)	Determination Date:	7 September 2021
PR Number	PR19100
Applicant/s:	Ihire Northwest Pty Ltd
Owner/s:	Orange Alpine Investments Pty Ltd
Location:	Lot 2 SP 33395 - 2/175 Dalton Street, Orange
Proposal:	Business premises (fitout for commercial laundry) (change of use)
Value:	$10,000

Reference:	DA 299/2021(1)	Determination Date:	9 September 2021
PR Number	PR21525
Applicant/s:	Australian Postal Corporation
Owner/s:	Rotom Holdings Pty Limited
Location:	Lot 100 DP 1110802 - 8 Strathgrove Way Orange
Proposal:	Warehouse or distribution centre (extension of approved operating hours to 24/7 operation)
Value:	$0

Reference:	DA 301/2021(1)	Determination Date:	7 September 2021
PR Number	PR18569
Applicant/s:	Mr D Tracey
Owner/s:	Mr RJ and Mrs DG Carmichael
Location:	Lot 3 SP 80235 - 1/26 Sale Street, Orange
Proposal:	Restaurant or cafe (alterations to shopfront)
Value:	$35,000

Reference:	DA 307/2021(1)	Determination Date:	31 August 2021
PR Number	PR10595
Applicant/s:	Orthodontics Exclusively
Owner/s:	Baptist Churches of New South Wales Property Trust
Location:	Lot 2 DP 302443 - 57 Sale Street, Orange
Proposal:	Medical centre (change of use from office premises)
Value:	$300,000

Reference:	DA 315/2021(1)	Determination Date:	21 September 2021
PR Number	PR6662
Applicant/s:	L-CON Building and Construction
Owner/s:	Roweth Investments Pty Limited
Location:	Lot 53 DP 255071 - 10 Leewood Drive, Orange
Proposal:	General Industry, Business Identification Signage
Value:	$1,211,498

Reference:	DA 332/2021(1)	Determination Date:	9 September 2021
PR Number	PR6237
Applicant/s:	The Scouts Association Of Australia
Owner/s:	Orange Group Scouts
Location:	Lots 14 and 15 DP 758817 - 94 Kite Street, Orange
Proposal:	Community facility (alterations and additions to Scout Hall)
Value:	$15,950

Reference:	DA 343/2021(1)	Determination Date:	9 September 2021
PR Number	PR18456
Applicant/s:	Mr MJ Ryan
Owner/s:	Mr MJ and Mrs SM Ryan
Location:	Lot 67 DP 1043952 - 25 McCarron Place, Orange
Proposal:	Secondary dwelling and deck (part garage conversion)
Value:	$35,000

Reference:	DA 354/2021(1)	Determination Date:	9 September 2021
PR Number	PR26308
Applicant/s:	Source Architects
Owner/s:	The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW)
Location:	Lot 30 DP 1190518 - 59-67 Bathurst Road, Orange
Proposal:	School (alterations to existing covered learning area and new awning)
Value:	$299,134

Reference:	DA 370/2021(1)	Determination Date:	7 September 2021
PR Number	PR29027
Applicant/s:	JKMR Layton Property
Owner/s:	Orange City Council
Location:	Lot 1 DP 1275359 - Clergate Road, Orange
Proposal:	Earthworks (ancillary retaining walls)
Value:	$50,000

TOTAL NET* VALUE OF DEVELOPMENTS APPROVED BY THE CEO UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY IN THIS PERIOD: $4,796,464.00

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

Additionally, since the August 2021 meeting report period (25 August to 22 September 2021), another 24 development applications were determined under delegated authority by other Council staff with a combined value of $8,722,957.

Planning and Development Committee 5 October 2021

2.2 Development Application DA 416/2019(1) - 183 Lords Place

RECORD NUMBER: 2021/2150

AUTHOR: Summer Commins, Senior Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged	10 December 2019 Amended proposal submitted 9 January 2020 563 STOP DAYS
Applicant/s	Ref Group Pty Ltd
Owner/s	Ref Group Pty Ltd
Land description	Lot 105 DP 1218181 - 183 Lords Place, Orange
Proposed land use	Mixed Use Development (hotel or motel accommodation and retail premises (shop)) and Demolition
Value of proposed development	$4,350,000.00

This development application relates to the former Australia Cinema at 183 Lords Place, and involves new use of the building for hotel or motel accommodation and retail premises.

The proposal involves building alterations, additions and external works to make the premises suitable for the new uses. The building will contain:

· 31 accommodation rooms over three (3) levels.

· Hotel reception, kiosk/café and function room at ground level.

· Retail space and shopfront to Lords Place.

The adjoining laneway and pathway will be activated via new openings, awning and pavement. The development does not involve onsite car parking.

Figure 1 – artist impression - Lords Place elevation

The following notable planning matters are considered in this assessment report:

· The proposed works will be fully self-supported from within the subject land and will not rely on existing structures or easement through neighbouring lots.

· The proposed building addition will exceed the prescribed maximum building height for the land. The proposal is supported by a Clause 4.6 Exception to Development Standards.

· The site is contained within the Central Orange Heritage Conservation Area. The building is not a listed heritage Item, though does have particular heritage value.

· The proposed development has been subject to extensive assessment by Council’s Heritage Advisor. The proponent and Heritage Advisor have reached agreement on a number of design recommendations, however there are three outstanding matters of contention. Conditions are included in relation to façade detailing.

· The subject land is contained within a flood planning area and subject to inundation during flood events.

· Onsite car parking will not be provided, and the development will rely on historic car parking credits.

The proposed development comprises advertised development in accordance with Council’s Community Participation Plan 2019. At the completion of the exhibition period, one (1) submission was received. The submission maintains that the Australia Cinema should be a listed heritage item as the building is of significance in the social, political, religious and entertainment evolution of Orange. These matters have been addressed in the report.

The proposed development will satisfy the Local and State planning controls that apply to the subject land and particular land use. 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

Notable planning issues for consideration include height of building (application supported by a Clause 4.6 variation to the standard), heritage, flooding and car parking. Council has received 1 written submission during the exhibition period which has also been considered in the report.

Impacts of the development are considered to be within acceptable limit subject to mitigation conditions. The proposal will contribute to the activation and vitality of the CBD and have positive impacts on the heritage setting. Conditions are included to mitigate and manage arising impacts. Approval of the application is recommended subject to the adoption of the Attached draft 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 and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

That Council consents to development application DA 416/2019(1) for Mixed Use Development (hotel or motel accommodation and retail premises (shop)) and Demolition at Lot 105 DP 1218181 - 183 Lords Place, Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Approval.

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

There are two matters of relevance to the proposed development:

1. Amended Proposal

This assessment report is based on an amended proposal. The development as originally submitted involved an amended building design that relied on existing load bearing structures and easements through adjoining property airspace (stratum Lot 106 DP 1218181 – 177 Lords Place, occupied by Hogs Breath Café). Legal opinion confirmed Lot 106 included land to which the original development relates; and the consent of the landowner of Lot 106 would be required.

Following a protracted period, owners’ consent was not obtained, and the development was subsequently amended. The current proposal will be wholly contained/fully supported within the development site.

2. Previous DA

The land has development consent for a place of public worship pursuant to DA 347/2013(1) approved on 1 April 2014. The development involved change of use and building alterations, including remodelling of the Lords Place façade with new cladding and glazing (see Figure 3 below). The development did not proceed and has the consent has lapsed.

Figure 3 – lapsed DA 347/2013(1) – Lords Place façade

THE PROPOSAL

The proposal involves alterations, additions and external works to make the building suitable for new use as hotel or motel accommodation and retail premises.

Proposed works include:

· Demolition of some building elements and structures.

· A building addition to the rear (south-west) to form two new floors for hotel or motel accommodation.

· Removal of internal walls and construction of new internal walls to form the proposed spaces within the building.

· Alterations to openings on the side and rear facades, including new openings, reinstatement of existing openings and removal of openings.

· New roof sheeting including part-operable roof over internal void.

· New façade to Lords Place including awning reconstruction, above awning metal screen and ground level shopfronts.

· New paving to pedestrian laneways on the north and south of the building.

· New and renovated external finishes including:

- aluminium-framed shopfront glazing and painted surrounds to Lords Place

- a fluted profile perforated metal screen over the existing façade above the awning to Lords Place

- lightweight construction (Cemintel Panel) to the building addition

- aluminium framed glazing

- face brick walls (existing or removed render).

The proposed elevations to Lords Place and the northern laneway are depicted below (see Figures 4 and 5).

Figure 4 – Lords Place elevation

Figure 5 - proposed north elevation

The proposed finishes board is shown below and attached.

Figure 6 – proposed finishes

Internal spaces within the building will comprise the following:

At ground level (see Figure 7).

· A retail space at the site frontage to address Lords Place and the laneways. Use of the retail space will be subject to separate DA.

· A kiosk/café/lobby with frontage to the laneways, containing a three storey void and operable roof. Use of this space will be subject to separate DA.

· Hotel reception accessed by the southern laneway, function room and plant/utilities etc.

· Hotel rooms 1-3.

Figure 7 – proposed ground floor

The first, second and third floors will accommodate hotel rooms 4 to 31. Hotel rooms will comprise a mix of single rooms, one (1) bedroom or two (2) bedroom apartments. The proposed first floor (and typical floor plan) is shown here (see Figure 8).

Figure 8 – proposed first floor

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 site is a longstanding and highly disturbed urban setting, devoid of vegetation. A Biodiversity Assessment Report is not required, and the proposal suitably satisfies the relevant matters at Section 1.7.

Section 4.15 Evaluation

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

Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011

Part 1 - Preliminary

Clause 1.2 Aims of Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The application is considered to be consistent with the 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 B3 Commercial Core
Lot Size Map:	No minimum lot size
Heritage Map:	Within a conservation area and nearby to heritage items
Height of Buildings Map:	Building height limit 16m
Floor Space Ratio Map:	Floor space limit 2:1
Terrestrial Biodiversity Map:	No biodiversity sensitivity on the site
Groundwater Vulnerability Map:	Groundwater vulnerable
Drinking Water Catchment Map:	Not within the drinking water catchment
Watercourse Map:	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:	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.

As a matter arising, the subject land overhangs and underlies the rear of the building at Lot 106 DP 1218181 – 177 Lords Place (Hog’s Breath Café) in a stratum (ie. airspace) arrangement. The stratum extent is referred to as notations (x) and (y) on DP 1218181 and shown below (see Figure 9).

Figure 9 – existing building overhang within adjoining Lot 106

The proposed development has been designed so that the building addition will be fully self-supported from within the subject land (Lot 105 DP 1218181) via transfer columns and beams. The proposed development will be wholly contained within Lot 105, and will not rely on the existing load bearing structures or easements that pass through adjoining Lot 106.

This arrangement is demonstrated in the attached architectural drawings and specifically Drawing No. SK 10_001 A (Issue A) (extract below at Figure 10). A supporting engineer’s statement is also provided (Woolacott’s 22 March 2021) demonstrating the structural feasibility of the proposal.

Figure 10 – proposed works wholly within Lot 105

There are various easements, restrictions and covenants that apply to the land pursuant to DP 1218181 in relation to access, servicing, overhangs and support. The proposed development will not be contrary to the listed restrictions.

Part 2 - Permitted or Prohibited Development

Clause 2.1 Land Use Zones

The subject land is zoned B3 Commercial Core.

The proposal is defined as ‘mixed use development’ comprising ‘hotel or motel accommodation’ and ‘retail premises (shop);’ and demolition.

The proposal is permitted with consent in the B3 zone.

Clause 2.3 Zone Objectives and Land Use Table

The objectives of the B3 Commercial Core Zone are:

· To provide a wide range of retail, business, office, entertainment, community and other suitable land uses that serve the needs of the local and wider community.

· To encourage appropriate employment opportunities in accessible locations.

· To maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.

· To promote development that contributes to the role of the Orange CBD as the primary retail and business centre in the City and region.

The proposed development will satisfy the B3 zone objectives:

- The proposal involves new and complementary commercial uses that will serve the needs of the local and wider community.

- The proposal will generate additional employment opportunities in an accessible location, both during and post-construction.

- The building is centrally located in the CBD and accessible via public transport, walking and cycling.

- Adaptive reuse and renewal of vacant premises will contribute to the role of the CBD as the primary retail and business centre for the region.

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.

The proposal involves demolition of some elements of the existing building in accordance with this clause.

Part 3 - Exempt and Complying Development

The application is not exempt or complying development.

Part 3 - Exempt and Complying Development

The application is not exempt or complying development.

Part 4 - Principal Development Standards

Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings

Clause 4.3 applies and states in part:

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

The Height of Buildings Map prescribes a maximum height of 16m for the subject land. As demonstrated in the attached architectural drawings (SK 00_006 Issue A), the proposed south-west addition will have a maximum height of 17.81m. The proposed development will exceed the prescribed maximum building height by 1.81m, being a departure of some 11%. A variation to the height limit is sought pursuant to Clause 4.6 (see below).

Clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio

Clause 4.4 applies and states in part:

(2) The maximum floor space ratio for a building on any land is not to exceed the floor space ratio shown for the land on the Floor Space Ratio Map.

The Floor Space Ratio Map prescribes a maximum floor space ratio of 2:1 for the subject land. The land comprises site area of 1,222m² on ground, and 106m² of stratum airspace. Total developable area is therefore 1,328m². As demonstrated in the attached Drawing No. A00_000 Issue A, the proposed mixed use development will comprise gross floor area of 2,351.4m². FSR for the development will therefore be 1:1.77 in compliance with Clause 4.4.

Clause 4.6 Exception to Development Standards

Clause 4.6 applies and states in part:

(2) Development consent may, subject to this clause, be granted for development even though the development would contravene a development standard imposed by this or any other environmental planning instrument…

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

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

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

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

(a) the consent authority is satisfied that -

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

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

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

In consideration of Clause 4.6:

The development standard for which the variation is sought relates to Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings. The LEP prescribes a building height limit of 16m, and the proposed building addition will have a maximum height of 17.81m. The percentage variation to the development standard is approximately 11%.

The proposal is supported by a written request pursuant to Clause 4.6(3). It is submitted that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary due to the following:

- The rear section of the existing building already exceeds the 16m height control.

- The proposed addition will sit adjacent to the tall element of the existing building.

- The addition will be set back sufficiently from the site frontage and will not be prominent in general streetscape views.

- The pitched roof form will cause the height limit variation. The roof form will match the existing building roof profile and is considered a better design response for uniformity and symmetry.

- The height limit variation is not associated with overdevelopment with reference to FSR compliance.

- The building addition will not affect the amenity of neighbouring properties or the public domain.

It is further submitted that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the departure from the development standard, as follows:

- The proposed building addition will achieve design uniformity and symmetry with the existing building.

- The proposal will satisfy the objectives of the B3 Commercial Core Zone and the objective of Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings.

- The proposal will satisfy Planning Controls in DCP-2004 Part 8 Development in Business Zones.

- The proposal will not have unacceptable impacts in terms of overshadowing, visual bulk or view loss.

- Building height will not rise unreasonably above building height in Lords Place.

It is considered that the written request to vary the height of buildings development standard has adequately addressed the matters is Clause 4.6(3). It is acceptable to vary the development standard based onsite circumstances, the surrounding landuse pattern and streetscape built form. The proposal will not be adverse to the Zone objectives or Clause 4.3 objectives.

In consideration of Clause 4.6(4)(b), the elected Council may assume the concurrence of the planning secretary in varying the development standard, pursuant to Planning Circular PS 20-002 dated 5 May 2020.

Part 5 - Miscellaneous Provisions

Clause 5.10 Heritage Conservation

The subject land is located in the Central Orange Heritage Conservation Area and nearby to local heritage items (see Figure 11).

Figure 11 – Conservation Area (red hatching) and listed items (brown)

The former Australia Cinema is not a listed heritage item under the LEP, but is nonetheless located within the Central Heritage Conservation Area and the building is considered to have local significance for the City. The Orange Heritage Inventory provides the following Statement of Significance for the building:

A prominent place of private entertainment from the early use as a theatre and later adaption as a cinema, the building retains the social and historical values, complement the streetscape and contributes to the conservation area.

Early photographs of the building are depicted below.

Figure 12 – Australia Cinema circa 1890 (courtesy public submission)

Figure 13 – Australia Cinema circa 1928 (courtesy public submission & Heritage Advisor)

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…

In consideration of this Clause, the proposed development has been subject to extensive assessment by Council’s Heritage Advisor (HA).

The HA supports the adaptive re-use of the former cinema building. The proposed development is considered to generally satisfy Council’s DCP Infill Guidelines; and is assessed as suitable in accordance with Statement of Heritage Impact Guidelines (NSW Heritage Office).

Notwithstanding, mitigation conditions are required to ensure “the character and significance of the conservation area are complemented; and the traditional character and social value of the former cinema are celebrated and interpreted in the works.”

The HA conditions/recommendations in relation to building design and detailing were supplied to the proponent. Agreement has been reached on a number of recommendations, however, there are three outstanding matters of contention.

1. Lords Place Facade

The HA does not support the false façade/perforated metal screen to Lords Place above the awning.

It is the proponent’s preference to retain the proposed metal screen/false façade. It is submitted that there are no original details in the current façade that remain for interpretation. The proposed screen will unify the façade and add architectural interest. The screen will be a ‘contemporary intervention that will create a layered treatment.’ The façade will be reminiscent of cinema architecture and acknowledge the historic use of the building. The applicant notes that the above-awning façade was of less importance in the assessment of DA 347/2013(1).

The HA advises that the metal screen is unacceptable in the heritage conservation area and on such a substantial building. There is no contemporary precedent for covering facades. Typical facades in the conservation area have external elevations which reflect their internal functions with associated practical fenestration.

The HA further comments that the above-awning façade approved for the place of worship pursuant to DA 347/2013(1) was arrived at after extended consultation and a number of alternatives. The elevation was resolved with strong elements which modelled the large façade; framed the bulk; addressed the practical requirements for the building interior; and included detailing that was sympathetic to the dominant ground floor.

The HA concludes ‘the proposed false facade does not articulate the bulk and scale of the building; does not have any elements which could be regarded as interpreting traditional character in the setting; has no relationship with the practical requirements and functions of the interior; and no comparable examples of significance in the heritage conservation area.’

To this end, a Condition is included requiring an alternative above-awning elevation to Lords Place incorporating rendered/masonry wall finish; a well-configured set of steel framed windows; and protruding string courses. Amended façade details shall be required for the approval of Council’s HA prior to issue of a Construction Certificate.

2. Removal of render

The HA does not support the removal of render from the original building.

It is the proponent’s preference to remove the render and expose the brickwork. The proponent submits that should removal of the render cause exfoliation of the brickwork, the render will be retained.

The HA advises that the tradition of period commercial buildings in the City used rendered and detailed facades, as is noted on adjoining commercial buildings in Lords Place. Expressed brickwork is not appropriated for the building or context. The existing render should be refurbished with new details to interpret the traditional character.

Conditions are included requiring retention of the render; and any render removal shall be for the purpose of conservation and replaced on a like-for-like basis.

3. Lords Place Shopfront

The HA provides that the DA includes limited details in relation to the shopfront design and detailing to Lords Place.

The proponent advises that these details will be considered at subsequent DA stage for the shop fitout when a tenant is secured.

The HA advises that high quality presentation to the streetscape is necessary for the site and setting. The value of quality shopfronts is demonstrated in the recent development of the Myer building in Summer Street. Standard aluminium commercial shopfronts are not appropriate. Design and detailing at street level need to be well-considered in relation to materials, details, and potential for interpretation of the former cinema character and style.

To this end, Conditions are included requiring the new shopfronts to comprise traditional steel framing with restoration of the perimeter rendered walls and entry details. Amended façade details shall be required for the approval of Council’s HA prior to issue of a Construction Certificate. A further Condition will be included requiring the future shop fitout DA consider the particular heritage design objectives applying to the building for any façade/entry alterations.

Based on the foregoing commentary, it is assessed that the proposed development will have favourable impacts on the significance of the building and conservation setting, pursuant to Clause 5.10(4). In addition to the mitigation Conditions above, other Conditions are included in relation to archival recording, interpretive panels, colour schemes and building materials.

Clause 5.21 Flood Planning

The subject land is located within a flood planning area and Clause 5.21 applies. This clause states in part:

(2) Development consent must not be granted to development on land the consent authority considers to be within the flood planning area unless the consent authority is satisfied the development -

(a) is compatible with the flood function and behaviour on the land, and

(b) will not adversely affect flood behaviour in a way that results in detrimental increases in the potential flood affectation of other development or properties, and

(c) will not adversely affect the safe occupation and efficient evacuation of people or exceed the capacity of existing evacuation routes for the surrounding area in the event of a flood, and

(d) incorporates appropriate measures to manage risk to life in the event of a flood, and

(e) will not adversely affect the environment or cause avoidable erosion, siltation, destruction of riparian vegetation or a reduction in the stability of river banks or watercourses.

In consideration of Clause 5.21, Council’s Assistant Development Engineer (ADE) advises that the proposed development will be compatible with the flood function and behaviour of the land; and will not adversely affect localised flood behaviour. This assessment is based on Council’s recently updated flood data and the findings of a flood report submitted in support of the proposal (Wollacott’s 15 November 2019). Conditions are included in relation to minimum floor levels above the 1% AEP flood level; building materials; heights for electrical connections; and preparation of a flood safety management (evacuation) plan.

Part 7 Additional Local Provisions

Clause 7.2A Flood Planning

The land is contained between the flood planning level and the level of the probable maximum flood. Clause 7.2A applies and states in part:

(3) Development consent must not be granted to development for the following purposes on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that the development will not, in flood events exceeding the flood planning level, affect the safe occupation of, and evacuation from, the land -

(e) commercial premises

(t) tourist and visitor accommodation

In consideration of this clause, Council’s ADE has included a Condition requiring preparation of a flood safety management plan to ensure the safe occupation and evacuation from the land.

Clause 7.3 Stormwater Management

Clause 7.3 is applicable. This clause states in part:

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

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

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

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

In consideration of this clause, the proposal will not increase the existing imperious area over the subject land. Council’s ADE had no comments to make on stormwater management associated with the development. Existing stormwater arrangements that service the land are suitable, subject to retention and upgrading of those arrangements in conjunction with site redevelopment.

Clause 7.5 Riparian Land and Watercourse

The subject land contains a sensitive waterway on the Watercourse Map. Clause 7.5 applies and states in part:

(3) Before determining a development application to carry out development on land to which this clause applies, the consent authority must consider whether or not the development -

(a) is likely to have any adverse impact on the following -

(i) the water quality and flows within a watercourse,

(ii) aquatic and riparian species, habitats and ecosystems of the watercourse,

(iii) the stability of the bed and banks of the watercourse,

(iv) the free passage of fish and other aquatic organisms within or along the watercourse,

(v) any future rehabilitation of the watercourse and its riparian areas, and

(b) is likely to increase water extraction from the watercourse.

The proposal is not contrary to the requirements of Clause 7.5. The subject waterway comprises a piped underground stormwater system. The proposed development will have nil impact on stormwater infrastructure.

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 on-site conservation,

(e) suitable road access.

The listed utility services are available to the land and adequate for the proposal.

In relation to (e) suitable road access, the subject land has frontage to Lords Place. The proposal involves closure of the existing gutter and layback crossing that serves the southern laneway. The laneway will comprise a pedestrian access to the hotel and café/kiosk, and vehicular access will not be provided to the subject land.

As a matter arising, the local road network is of suitable capacity to accommodate traffic associated with the proposed development. Carriageway widths, trafficable lanes and intersection controls in the CBD road network are satisfactory to carry large traffic volumes. The development site has historic traffic generation associated with the former cinema use. Traffic generated by the development will be absorbed within the existing road network, and will not exceed environmental goals for Lords Place and surrounding streets. Council’s Technical Services Division had no comments to make on this matter.

Waste management for the hotel or motel accommodation will be in accordance with Better Practice Guidelines for Waste management and Recycling in Commercial and Industrial Facilities (NSW EPA). The requisite number of waste and recycling bins will be stored in the dedicated waste store on the ground floor. Kerbside collection on Lords Place during non-peak periods will occur, consistent with other CBD premises.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 Remediation of Land

SEPP 55 is applicable and states in part:

7(1) A consent authority must not consent to the carrying out of any development on land unless:

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

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

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

In consideration of this clause, the potential for contamination of the site is considered low. The subject land is well-established for commercial use. The majority of the site is covered by the existing building which has a long history as a cinema or public gathering space. The site is not located within an investigation area and is not known to have been used for a Table 1 purpose to the contaminated land planning guidelines. Further contamination investigation as a precursor to potential site remediation is considered unnecessary for the proposal.

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 subject land is already included within a heritage conservation area. The Draft Plan has no effect for the proposed development.

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. The Draft Plan has no affect 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 residential accommodation; and amend the permitted height of buildings from 12m to 16m. The Draft Plan has no affect 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. Commercial land adjoining the site is not identified or considered to be contaminated.

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

DCP 2004 Orange Development Control Plan

DCP 2004-4A Flood Affected Land

The subject land is contained within a Flood Planning Area, pursuant to Part 4A (see Figure 14).

Figure 14 – Part 4A Flood Planning Map

The following criterion apply to the proposed development:

Step 1: The subject land is within a Floodway (Main Stream Flooding).

Step 2: The relevant landuse category relating to the proposed development comprises Commercial.

Step 3: The Flood Response Development Controls applicable to Commercial landuse within a Floodway include:

Floor Levels

· Habitable floor level to be greater to or equal than the 1% AEP flood level with 0.5m freeboard.

Building Components

· All structures to have flood compatible building and components below the 1% AEP flood level.

Structural Soundness

· Engineers report to certify that any structure can withstand the forces of floodwater, debris and buoyancy up to and including the 1% AEP flood level

· Applicant to demonstrate that any structure can withstand the forces of floodwater, debris and buoyancy up to and including the 1% AEP flood level.

· Geotechnical engineers report required to specify appropriate filling/earthworks…

Evacuation

· The development is to be consistent with any relevant flood evacuation strategy.

Flood Affectation

· Engineers report required to certify that the development will not increase flood affectation elsewhere.

Management and Design

· Applicant to demonstrate that area is available to store goods above the 1% AEP floor level plus 0.5m freeboard.

· No external storage of materials below the design floor level which may cause pollution or be potentially hazardous during a flood.

As outlined in the foregoing section of this report (see Orange LEP 2011 Clause 5.21 Flood Planning), Conditions are included to satisfy development controls above in relation to floor levels, building materials, engineering certification, and evacuation management.

Part 8 Development in Business Zones

The proposal will satisfy the Planning Outcomes applicable to the Central Business District:

· Buildings have a high level of urban design to contribute to the regional status of the CBD with attention given to façade features, external materials, colour and advertising.

This Planning Outcome was considered in the foregoing section of this report (see Orange LEP 2011 Clause 5.10 Heritage Conservation). Subject to mitigation Conditions, the building design and detailing will be of a high standard, and commensurate with the conservation setting and regional centre status of the CBD.

· Urban design demonstrates a clear reference to the CBD Strategic Action Plan.

The proposal will be consistent with the principals of the CBD Strategic Action Plan and the more recent Future City project. The development will provide an active frontage to Lords Place and the adjoining laneways with façade variations and new openings. The laneways could offer opportunities for street art. Pedestrian amenity to and adjacent the site will be improved. The proposal will contribute to the activation and vitality of the CBD.

As a matter arising, the development is considered suitable in terms of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design principles. The laneways will be activated. Passive surveillance will be improved by new openings and pedestrian connections. External and sensor lighting will be installed. The building will be maintained and upkept.

· Provision of adequate fire-safety measures and facilities for disabled persons (according to the BCA) are addressed at the application stage (relevant for all development but particularly important where converting residential buildings for business use).

A NCC (BCA) Compliance Report was submitted in support of the proposal (Steve Watson & Partners, 12 November 2019). The report confirms the proposed building design is capable of achieving compliance with the BCA in relation to fire-safety measures and facilities for disabled persons. Further details will be required, and assessment undertaken at Construction Certificate stage. Council’s Building Certifier concurs with the report findings.

· Land use complements the role of the CBD as a regional centre for commerce and services.

The proposal involves new and complementary commercial use for tourist accommodation and retail premises. Adaptive reuse of the building, and renewal and expansion of vacant premises will contribute to the role of the CBD as the primary retail and business centre for the region. The proposal will incorporate elements that are inconsistent with the objectives of the Future City project (pedestrian amenity, CBD vitality and activation).

· The reinstatement of verandahs on posts over the footpath is encouraged.

The proposal does not involve a verandah on posts over the Lords Place footpath. The existing awning over the footpath will be removed and reconstructed with similar detail and lighting as an interpretation of the original building. This is considered a suitable design outcome and supported by Council’s HA.

· Car parking is provided to meet demand either as onsite parking areas or through contributions towards public parking in and adjacent to the CBD.

Car parking is addressed below under ‘Part 15 - Car Parking’.

· Advertising comprises business identification signs in accordance with SEPP 64.

The proposal does not involve advertising. Conditions are included requiring further development consent be obtained for signage. The proposal involves retention/renewal of the existing AUSTRALIA CINEMA wordmark on the awning fascia in recognition of the historic use of the building. A Condition is included to effect this intention.

· Where possible, new buildings or external alterations in the CBD include an element of landscaping.

There is no opportunity for landscaping at the site frontage with the existing zero boundary setback to Lords Place to be retained. Small garden areas will be provided at the rear of the building; however, these will not be visible in the public domain. Some landscape softening of the southern laneway could be provided via pots, if favoured by the proponent.

· Loading areas are provided for developments requiring access by large trucks in a manner that doesn’t reduce active frontages for important pedestrian pathways.

A dedicated loading area will not be provided for the proposed development; indeed, vehicular access is not available to the subject land. It is proposed that the Lords Place road formation and public parking at the site frontage provide an informal on-street loading zone. Service vehicles associated with the development are likely to comprise small commercial vehicles. The proposed un/loading arrangement will be consistent with other commercial developments nearby the site in Lords Place and is considered to be acceptable.

Part 13 Heritage

· Development relates to the significant features of heritage buildings on or near the site, as reflected in inventory sheets.

· Development conforms with recognised conservation principles.

· Conservation Management Plans are prepared for development having a significant effect on heritage site.

As outlined above (see Orange LEP 2011 Clause 5.10 Heritage Conservation), the proposal has been subject to extensive heritage assessment and consultation. It is considered that the proposed development will not have adverse impact on the significance of the heritage setting, subject to mitigation Conditions. A conservation management plan is not required for the proposal.

Infill Guidelines

The infill design objectives contained in the Infill Guidelines include:

· Retention of appropriate visual setting.

· To ensure new buildings respond to and enhance the character and appearance of the streetscapes of the heritage conservation area.

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

· To ensure that new buildings do not adversely affect the significance, character or appearance of the heritage conservation area or heritage items.

· To allow for reasonable change within a heritage conservation area while ensuring all other heritage objectives are met.

· To ensure that new development facilitates the retention of significant vegetation…

The Infill Guidelines contain five Assessment Criteria for development within an established historic setting, including Character; Scale and Form; Siting; Materials and Colour; and Detailing. As variously outlined in the foregoing sections of this report, the proposed building alterations, additions and external works will be consistent with the listed design objectives. The infill development will be suitable in this context with regard to height, massing, setbacks and Conditional colours and detailing.

Part 15 Car Parking

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

The subject land has a parking credit of 74 spaces associated with its historic use as a cinema and restaurant. Parking credits for the site were calculated and accepted in conjunction with DA 347/2013(1) for proposed place of worship.

Pursuant to DCP 2004, onsite parking is applicable to the net increase in parking associated with a development, whether for change of use or building additions. The proposed development for hotel or motel accommodation and retail premises (shop) will generate parking demand for 50 car spaces, as follows:

As such, the proposed development will not generate a net increase in parking requirements. Parking credit of 24 spaces will remain with the land.

Notwithstanding, the benefit of parking credit does not preclude the need to formally assess the overall environmental impact on parking availability in the locality. Whilst it would be always desirable to provide at least one parking space per accommodation room for a development of this type, the nature of this particular development being the reuse of a former cinema building will not have car parking available on site. The lack of parking on-site ought not necessarily preclude the ability to consider the possible reuse of the subject building as proposed given the significant credits that have previously been attributed to the site. In order to ensure the proper and functional operation of the development under these circumstances the following parking arrangements are proposed:

· ‘Hotel guests will be encouraged to use the nearby Council (Ophir) car park, which is located approximately 100m to the south at the corner of Kite Street and Lords Place. In this regard, the hotel will purchase parking vouchers from Council and hand them to guests on arrival (currently free of charge).

· To facilitate parking prior to check-in, the applicant proposes to enter into a long-term lease to have two parking spaces immediately at the frontage of the subject land reserved for hotel use.

This would encourage guests to arrive, check-in and then move their car to the public car park. One of these spaces can be created as a new space by deleting the existing kerb layback and footpath crossing that presently serve the driveway along the southern side of the building.’

It is neither Council policy nor practice to dedicate on-street car parking spaces for nearby developments. It may be appropriate instead, to alter the existing timed parking on Lords Place at the site frontage from 1 hour to 15 minutes. This would facilitate high turnover car parking, and may free up parking for guests to check‑in. This arrangement is subject to the approval of Council’s Traffic Committee. An Advisory Note is included on the attached Notice of Approval to this effect.

In the interim, it is considered that the existing public car parking on Lords Place and in the nearby Ophir carpark will facilitate reasonably functional parking arrangements associated with check-in, hotel stay, and retail use for this development. Ophir car park is likely to be underutilised during the overnight period when car parking associated with the accommodation component of the development is required. Ophir car park is conveniently located in relatively close proximity to the subject development. The proposed development in this regard is unlikely to have an adverse impact upon parking in the locality.

DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS

Section 7.11 Development Contributions

Development contributions not applicable to tourist and visitor accommodation including hotel and motel accommodation pursuant to Orange Development Contributions Plan 2017.

Section 64 Headworks Charges

Headworks charges for water, sewer and drainage works apply to the proposed hotel or motel accommodation. The contributions are based on 13.6 ETs for water supply headworks and 18.8 ETs for sewerage headworks. Conditions are included requiring payment of contributions prior to issue of Construction Certificate.

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

Demolition of a Building (clause 92)

The proposal does not involve the demolition of a building.

Fire Safety Considerations (clause 93)

Council’s EHBS advises:

A preliminary BCA assessment report and fire engineering report have been provided. When the CC assessment occurs, there will be approximately nine fire engineered performance solutions to be considered. The preliminary fire engineering report does not go into detail about how the non-compliances raised will be addressed – the acceptability of the performance solutions will need to be determined by the Certifier.

Buildings to be Upgraded (clause 94)

Council’s EHBS advises:

The building will be substantially altered as part of this proposal, particularly as it involves a change of use from a Class 9b cinema to a Class 3 and 6 motel and retail shop building.

BASIX Commitments (clause 97A)

BASIX is not applicable. A Section J report will be required at Construction Certificate stage.

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

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

· Setting and context

- heritage conservation area

- commercial character and function

- interface and public domain

- pedestrian access

· Heritage values

- design and detailing in heritage conservation area

- interpretation of the original building

- mitigation conditions to maintain significance

· Visual impacts

- streetscape presentation

- building design and detailing, bulk and scale

- quality urban design

· Traffic matters

- car parking

- un/loading arrangements

- network capacity

· Environmental impacts

- biodiversity

- groundwater

- stormwater management

- contamination

- waste (construction and operational)

· Social and economic impacts

- regional centre status

- employment opportunities

- adaptive reuse

- crime prevention

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

· the proposal is permitted on the subject land zoning

· the proposal is a complementary landuse within the CBD

· the site is located in a heritage conservation area and contains an important historic building

· the existing commercial building is vacant and underutilised

· all utility services are available

· the site is located in a flood planning area, but may be developed subject to mitigation conditions

· the site is not subject to other known natural hazards

· the land has no particular environmental values

· the local road network has sufficient capacity to accommodate additional traffic volumes

· nearby parking resources will be suitable

· there is no known contamination on the land.

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

The proposal comprises advertised development in accordance with Council’s Community Participation Plan 2019. At the completion of the exhibition period, one (1) submission was received.

The submission rejects the proponent’s contention that the subject building is not a listed heritage item. The submission provides evidence and justification to support the listing of the Australia Cinema as a heritage item. It is submitted that the building is of heritage significance in the social, political, religious and entertainment evolution of Orange.

Furthermore, the submission rejects the proposed above awning façade treatment/screen; and supports retention of the Australia Cinema/Theatre wordmark on the awning and footpath.

In response to the submission, the following comments are provided:

· The subject site is not a listed Heritage item, pursuant to Schedule 5 Environmental Heritage, contained in Orange LEP 2011.

· The land is contained within the Central Orange Heritage Conservation Area, pursuant to the Orange LEP 2011 Heritage Map.

· The site/building is included within the Orange Heritage Inventory, which includes an inventory of heritage items and other buildings located generally in the Central Orange Heritage Conservation Area. The Orange Heritage Inventory is an advisory and information document. Inclusion in the Inventory does not infer a heritage listing under Orange LEP 2011.

· It is concurred that former Australia Cinema is an important historical building that contributes to the heritage setting.

· The provisions contained in Clause 5.10 of Orange LEP 2011 are suitable to protect the heritage values of the building. As outlined in this report, the impact of the proposal on the significance of the site and setting has been a major consideration in the assessment of the proposed development.

· Mitigation Conditions are included on the attached Notice of Approval to maintain the significance of the site and setting.

· Listing of the building as a heritage item in Schedule 5 would require an amendment to Orange LEP 2011. It is noted that Draft Orange LEP 2011 Amendment 28 comprises a heritage amendment and includes new heritage items and conservation areas. Amendment 28 is near to being adopted. Separate amendment would be required for proposed inclusion of the Australia Cinema as a heritage item in the LEP.

· Conditions are included requiring an alternative above-awning façade to Lords Place; and retention or reinstatement of the wordmarks to the footpath and awning fascia.

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 sympathetic and adaptive reuse of an important historic building in the CBD and heritage conservation area. The proposal will contribute to the activation and vitality of the CBD. The proposed development is considered to be in the public interest.

SUMMARY

This development application relates to the former Australia Cinema at 183 Lords Place, and involves new use of the building for hotel or motel accommodation and retail premises. The proposal involves building alterations, additions and external works to make the premises suitable for the new uses. The development is subject to particular constraints associated with planning controls and site circumstances. As outlined in this report, the proposal will satisfy the Local and State planning controls that apply to the subject land and particular landuse. The proposal will contribute to the activation and vitality of the CBD and have positive impacts on the heritage setting. Conditions are included to mitigate and manage arising impacts. Approval of the application is recommended.

COMMENTS

This report and the attached Notice of Approval have been partly informed by the following:

· Director Development Services

· Assistant Development Engineer

· Environmental Health and Building Inspector

· Heritage Advisor

Attachments

1 Notice of Approval, D21/62351 ⇩

2 Plans, D21/61026 ⇩

3 Submission, D21/61034 ⇩

Planning and Development Committee 5 October 2021

2.3 Development Application DA 201/2021(1) - 68-70 Peisley Street

RECORD NUMBER: 2021/2158

AUTHOR: Ben Hicks, Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged	13 May 2021
Applicant/s	Mr R Felli
Owner/s	Amica Property Group Pty Ltd
Land description	Lot 100 DP 1178894, 68-70 Peisley Street, Orange
Proposed land use	Office Premises (four offices) and Serviced Apartments (22 apartments)
Value of proposed development	$2,800,000.00

Council's consent is sought for an Office Premises and Serviced Apartments at 68-70 Peisley Street, Orange (see locality at Figure 1).

The proposed development will involve the construction of a multi storey building comprising of four (4) offices and 22 serviced apartments on the subject land. The apartments are designed to be self-sufficient to cater for short and long-term corporate stays and tourist and visitor accommodation. The proposal will also include onsite car parking, site landscaping and signage.

A variation to the Height of Building (HoB) and Floor Space Ratio (FSR) development standards are requested as part of this Development Application. Specifically, a 6.74% variation is sought for the building height and a 9.73% variation is sought for FSR. The use of Clause 4.6 to enable an exception to these development controls is considered appropriate in this instance and Council can be satisfied that all requirements of Clause 4.6 have been fulfilled in terms of the overall merits of the proposed development.

The proposal comprised advertised and notified development pursuant to Council’s Community Participation Plan 2019 for a period of 14 days. At the completion of the advertisement/notification period, two (2) submissions had been received. Key concerns raised include car parking, waste management, construction impacts and vehicle access. Concerns raised in submissions can be satisfactorily addressed via conditions of consent.

In accordance with the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007, advice and concurrence were sought from Transport for NSW (TfNSW) in relation to works within proximity to the rail corridor as well as works within a classified road. TfNSW raise no significant concerns with the proposal subject to imposition of recommended conditions.

The proposal has a capital investment value exceeding $2.5 million ($2.8m). Accordingly, the application has been tabled to Council for determination, pursuant to Clause 4.10 Delegations of Orange City Council’s Declaration of Planning and Development Assessment Procedures and Protocols (Vers 5, 2019).

Overall, the application provides a development that is consistent with the zoning of the land and will ultimately provide Orange with a quality designed development that will contribute to employment and economic improvements for the City. The application has demonstrated compliance with most of the relevant controls, and where variations exist, has demonstrated that no significant amenity or environmental impacts will arise, and as such the application is recommended for approval.

Figure 1 - Locality and Site Context 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 proposed development will involve the construction of a multi storey building comprising of four (4) offices and 22 serviced apartments on the subject land.

The apartments are designed to be self-sufficient to cater for short and long-term corporate stays and tourist and visitor accommodation. The proposal will also include onsite car parking, site landscaping and signage.

Key planning issues involved with this application include consideration of car parking, access and specific development standards relating to Height of Building (HoB) and Floor Space Ratio (FSR). The use of Clause 4.6 to enable an exception to these development standards is considered appropriate in this instance, as proposal is only 694mm above the height controls of this site, this exceedance would be neither noticeable, nor would it adversely impact on the surrounds.

Two (2) submissions were received during the exhibition period, which raised include car parking, waste management, construction impacts and vehicle access. These matters have been with conditions of consent.

It is recommended that Council supports the subject application.

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 DA201/2021(1) for Office Premises (four offices) and Serviced Apartments (22 apartments) at Lot 100 DP 1178894, 68‑70 Peisley Street, Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Determination.

further considerations

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Use/Operational Details

Development Consent is sought for the construction of a three-storey building and subsequent use as a serviced apartments and office premises comprising 22 serviced apartments and four (4) offices.

Supporting material submitted with the development application, provides that the apartments are primarily designed for short- and long-term corporate stays and tourist and visitor accommodation. All apartments are designed to be self-sufficient. The apartments are one (1) bedroom, one (1) bath with either a combined kitchenette and sitting area or separate kitchen and sitting areas. All apartments have access to either a private balcony or courtyard.

The office premises combined offer a leasable area of 528.39m². Each office space will contain a kitchenette and will have access to shared sanitary facilities.

The applicant advises that private waste collection contractors will be responsible for providing a waste removal service for the serviced apartments and offices, including the supply and maintenance of all equipment and the coordination of this service with the cleaning service.

Ancillary car parking, site landscaping and building identification signage also forms part of the proposal.

Composition of the Development/Built Form

The development consists of the following:

Level	Use /Detail
Basement	32 car parking spaces, storage areas. laundry and linen room, plant/services, lift and stairs
Ground Level	17 car parking spaces, site landscaping, three (3) apartments including one accessible, two (2) offices, shared amenities
Level 1	Eleven (11) apartments including one accessible, two (2) offices, shared amenities
Level 2	Eight (8) apartments including one accessible

The proposed building has been designed in a contemporary style (Figure 2). The building is well-articulated through the use of balconies, awnings, and staggered façade. The building is also positively presented to Peisley Street incorporating a mix of material including brick, glazing, metal screens and cladding material. The varied palette and materiality are also used to provide a clear identity for the development as well as to define the differing components of the building. The building will have a flat roof and incorporates a parapet extending above the roofline and screening the roof top from the street. This parapet will ensure that no visual impact occurs as a result of the plant platform and lift overrun to be located on the roof.

Landscaping will also assist in providing an appropriate level of visual interest and activation within the streetscape.

Figure 2 – perspective illustration

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING ASSESSMENT

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

Section 1.7 of the EP&A Act identifies that Part 7 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act) and Part 7A of the Fisheries Management Act 1994 have effect in connection with terrestrial and aquatic environments.

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

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

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

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

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

Having regard to the relevant provisions and based on an inspection of the subject property, it is considered that the proposed development is not likely to significantly affect a threatened species. A Biodiversity Development Assessment Report is not required in this instance.

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,

The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the relevant aims of Orange LEP 2011. In particular, the proposed development will assist in reinforcing Orange as a major regional centre; and will contribute to the social and economic development of the City.

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:	B4 Mixed Use
Lot Size Map:	No minimum lot size
Heritage Map:	Not a heritage item or conservation area
Height of Buildings Map:	9m
Floor Space Ratio Map:	0.75:1
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:	Blackmans Swamp PMF

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 B4 Mixed Use under the Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011. The Land Use Table for the B4 Mixed Use zone permits the proposal with consent of Council. The proposal is defined as Office Premises and Serviced Apartments under the Orange LEP:

serviced apartment means a building (or part of a building) providing self-contained accommodation to tourists or visitors on a commercial basis and that is regularly serviced or cleaned by the owner or manager of the building or part of the building or the owner’s or manager’s agents.

office premises means a building or place used for the purpose of administrative, clerical, technical, professional or similar activities that do not include dealing with members of the public at the building or place on a direct and regular basis, except where such dealing is a minor activity (by appointment) that is ancillary to the main purpose for which the building or place is used.

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 B4 Mixed Use zone are:

· To provide a mixture of compatible land uses.

· To integrate suitable business, office, residential, retail and other development in accessible locations so as to maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.

· To promote, where possible, the retention and reuse of heritage items as well as the retention of established buildings that contribute positively to the heritage or cultural values of the land in the zone.

· To promote development that supports the role of Orange Central Business District (CBD) as the primary retail and business centre in the region.

The proposal is not adverse to the relevant B4 zone objectives. Infill development is a complementary land use in this spatial setting. The proposal represents the continued redevelopment and upgrading of the Peisley Street precinct and thereby strengthening the social and economic role of Orange City in the region.

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

· Clause 4.3 – Height of Buildings – The Height of Buildings Map prescribes a maximum height of 9m for the subject land. The proposed building has a maximum height of 9.694m. This represents a variation of 7%. The height exceedance is a result of the lift over-run and site levels. The applicant has made application to vary the development standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the LEP.

· Clause 4.4 – Floor Space Ratio – The Floor Space Ratio Map prescribes a maximum floor space limit of 0.75:1 for the subject land. As demonstrated in the plan-set and supporting information, the proposed building will have gross floor area of 1,411.61m². Based onsite area of 1719m², the building will have FSR of 0.821:1 exceeding the allowable GFA by 9.73%. The applicant has made application to vary the development standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the LEP.

· 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 of exceedances to prescribed height and floor space limitations.

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 reasons listed by the applicant justifying why the development standard is unreasonable/unnecessary in this circumstance and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to support the proposal are described below:

Height of Buildings

· The non-compliance is within the centre of the building and will not be seen from the street.

· The development remains consistent with the objectives of the B4 zone.

· The development is generally consistent with the provisions of the Orange Development Control Plan 2004.

· The standard unreasonably restricts effective utilisation of the land to achieve the objectives of the zone.

· The standard unreasonably restricts the maximisation of infill development and utilisation of existing infrastructure resources.

· The standard will unnecessarily restrict the achievement of highest and best yield of the land resource.

· The standard unnecessarily restricts the transitioning of the land to a locally significant landmark.

Floor Space Ratio

· The development remains consistent with the objectives of the zone.

· The development is consistent with the provisions of the Orange Development Control Plan.

· The variation sought is relatively minor (9.73%).

· There is significant amount of landscaping proposed on the site.

· The number of car parks provided far exceeds DCP requirements.

· The standard will unreasonably prevent accommodation and office space supply to be provided into the local market close to the CBD.

· The standard unreasonably restricts effective utilisation of the land to achieve the objectives of the zone.

· The standard unreasonably restricts the maximisation of infill development and utilisation of existing infrastructure resources.

· The standard will unnecessarily restrict the achievement of highest and best yield of the land resource.

Assessment of Clause 4.6 request

Height limits are one control used to define the size of a building. Height limits are important because they help shape the character of an area while the FSR standard endeavours to control the scale and bulk of development so as to reduce the likelihood of adverse impact on streetscape/character of the area. FSR controls work somewhat in tandem with the applicable height controls. The FSR standard determines how much floor space is appropriate on the land and the height controls determine how the floor space can be distributed on the land in a vertical plane from a design point of view. These controls also ensure that sufficient area is provided onsite for car parking, manoeuvring, and landscaping.

The applicant’s argument for the additional height and floor space is that the proposed building height achieves the objectives of the height of building clause, the B4 zone, DCP provisions and that the variation is appropriate in its context.

The extent of the non-compliance in relation to height is shown in Figures 3 and 4 below. Figure 5 shows the height of the proposed building in the context of adjoining properties/developments.

Figure 3 – extent of HoB non-compliance (Height Blanket)

Figure 4 – extent of HoB non-compliance (section view)

Figure 5 – general building heights relative to ground levels

on the eastern side of Peisley Street

In considering the submitted documentation and inspection of the site, compliance is unnecessary in this circumstance given:

· The development responds appropriately to the topography of the site and surrounds, as well as height and setbacks established by adjoining development north and south.

· The proposed lift overrun does not derogate from the design quality of the building and will not be visible from the public domain at ground level.

· The subject site has the capacity to absorb the modest increase in density without compromising the character of the area.

· The bulk and scale of the building is adequately resolved by breaking up the building mass and in articulated building facades.

· The careful spatial arrangement of built and landscape elements has demonstrated that an alternative floor space ratio is appropriate.

· The increased floor space beyond the control does not result in any additional adverse impact on the adjoining properties or the public domain e.g., shadowing, parking, privacy etc.

Furthermore, there are sufficient environmental grounds to justify the non-compliance as:

· The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the zone.

· The proposal is consistent with the Orange Development Control Plan 2004.

· The policy framework for dealing with variations to development standards is geared to enable minor departures from development standards.

· The extent of the variations have been kept to a minimum, sufficient only to enable a practical and compliant site design and to ensure a viable development.

· The proposal demonstrates no unacceptable amenity impacts.

In summary, the variation to the development standards is considered acceptable in this instance. The applicant has made a written request in which justification is presented as to the reasons why it is unreasonable or unnecessary to insist upon compliance with the development standards. Consideration of the variation against the objects of the applicable standards and the relevant zone indicates that the development is not manifestly inconsistent with either set of objectives; and consideration of the concurrence requirements also suggests that the variation is acceptable.

· Clause 7.1 Earthworks – Clause 7.1 of the OLEP aims to ensure that earthworks for which development consent is required will not have a detrimental impact on environmental functions and processes, neighbouring uses, cultural or heritage items or features of the surrounding land.

The proposal includes the construction of basement parking (one level) which will require approximately 4,377.6m³ of excavated material. Appropriate conditions regarding excavation, dilapidation/shoring are included in the recommended conditions of consent to ensure minimal impact.

Conditions of consent will ensure appropriate stormwater management of the site.

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 will be required to protect adjoining lands during construction works.

· Clause 7.2A – Floodplain risk management - The site has been identified on the flood planning map as being within the Blackmans Swamp Creek PMF and listed as a land use requiring Council to be satisfied that the development will not, in flood events exceeding the flood planning level, affect the safe occupation of, and evacuation from, the land. While Council’s Technical Service raise no concerns with flooding, it is considered appropriate to require the proponent to prepare and implement a flood emergency response plan in the event of a flood exceeding the flood planning level to ensure the safe evacuation of occupiers from the site and to protect the operational capacity of emergency response facilities in such events.

· Clause 7.3 - Stormwater Management – The development of the site will involve a significant increase of impervious surfaces and therefore it is essential that the engineering design results in post development stormwater levels that are equal to or less than pre-development levels. Council’s Technical Services Division have attached conditions of consent in this regard.

· Clause 7.11 - Essential Services – All utility services are available to the land. These utility services will however need to be made adequate for the proposal. Additional water and sewer headwork charges are also applicable to this development. Council’s Technical Services Division have attached conditions of consent in relation to upgrading of services and contributions. TfNSW have also requested that certain road upgrades to Peisley Street to accommodate to the proposed development. These matters have been included as conditions of consent.

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 Index: BASIX) 2004

· SEPP (Concurrences and Consents) 2018

· SEPP (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017

· SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008

· SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004

· SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007

· SEPP (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) 2007

· SEPP (Primary Production and Rural Development) 2019

· SEPP (State and Regional Development) 2011

· SEPP (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017

The following SEPPs are specifically relevant to the assessment of the proposed development:

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

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

A preliminary hazard investigation was prepared by GCA to determine the soil contamination status and suitability of the site for the proposed land-use. The report concludes that based on the site investigation and laboratory testing results at the selected locations within the site, the land is considered suitable for its proposed use. The report also recommends that:

· Any soils requiring excavation, onsite reuse and/or removal must be classified in accordance with “Waste Classification Guidelines Part 1: Classifying Waste” NSW EPA (2014).

· A site specific ‘Unexpected Finds Protocol’ is to be made available for reference for all occupants and/or site workers in the event unanticipated contamination is discovered, including asbestos.

These recommendations have been reinforced in the conditions of development consent.

Council’s EHO has also reviewed the proposal and site and confirms that there little to no risk of extensive contamination that would require remediation works in order to be suitable for the development.

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 (Infrastructure) 2007

Division 15 of the ISEPP provides commentary regarding development involving railways. As the site is located adjacent to the Main Western Railway corridor, Clause 85 and 86 of the ISEPP are to be considered. Clause 85 states:

1) This clause applies to development on land that is in or adjacent to a rail corridor, if the development -

a) is likely to have an adverse effect on rail safety, or

b) involves the placing of a metal finish on a structure and the rail corridor concerned is used by electric trains, or

c) involves the use of a crane in air space above any rail corridor, or

d) is located within 5m of an exposed overhead electricity power line that is used for the purpose of railways or rail infrastructure facilities.

In consideration of these matters:

a) The proposal is unlikely to have an adverse effect on rail safety and will not involve placing a metal finish on a structure where the rail corridor is used by electric trains.

b) The use of cranes is expected as part of construction works. The proposal was referred to TfNSW who advised that in the event of use of cranes and equipment in the air space over the rail corridor, the applicant must submit an application to John Holland Rail (JHR), the Rail Infrastructure Manager of Country Regional Network (CRN), for approval of Transport Asset Holding Entity of New South Wales (TAHE) prior to any use of cranes and equipment in the air space over the rail corridor. Furthermore, TfNSW advise that the use of cranes and equipment must be in accordance with the AS 2550 series of Australian Standards, Cranes, Hoist and Winches, including AS2550 15-1994 Cranes – Safe Use - Concrete Placing Equipment. These matters have been addressed via conditions of consent.

c) The site is not located within 5m of an exposed overhead electricity power line that is used for the purpose of railways or rail infrastructure facilities

Furthermore, Clause 86 of the SEPP states:

1) This clause applies to development (other than development to which Clause 88 applies) that involves the penetration of ground to a depth of at least 2m below ground level (existing) on land -

a) within, below or above a rail corridor, or

b) within 25m (measured horizontally) of a rail corridor, or

c) within 25m (measured horizontally) of the ground directly below a rail corridor, or

d) within 25m (measured horizontally) of the ground directly above an underground rail corridor.

The plans submitted with the Development Application identify that the extent of earthworks associated with the development are in the order of 2m cut from the existing Natural Ground level (NGL) within 25m of the rail corridor. In this regard, the proposal was referred to TfNSW. TfNSW provided its concurrence, subject to a number of conditions relating to the proposed earthworks.

Clause 87 of the SEPP requires the consent authority to consider the likely impact of noise and vibration from rail operations on sensitive developments. While the proposed office premises and serviced apartments are not specifically listed as a development requiring consideration of this clause, a noise and vibration assessment has been prepared for the development. That assessment found that vibration impacts are within acceptable levels and no further action is required. The report however recommends that measures be undertaken to ensure noise is within acceptable limits. This includes requirements for external wall construction, glazing, doors, and seals. Conditions will be included requiring the construction of the building to be undertaken in accordance with the noise and vibration report.

Clause 101 of SEPP Infrastructure states that a Consent Authority must not grant consent to development on land that has a frontage to a classified road unless it is satisfied that:

a) where practicable and safe, vehicular access to the land is provided by a road other than the classified road, and;

b) the safety, efficiency and ongoing operation of the classified road will not be adversely affected by the development as a result of -

i. the design of the vehicular access to the land, or

ii. the emission of smoke or dust from the development, or

iii. the nature, volume or frequency of vehicles using the classified road to gain access to the land, and;

c) the development is of a type that is not sensitive to traffic noise or vehicle emissions, or is appropriately located and designed, or includes measures, to ameliorate potential traffic noise or vehicle emissions within the site of the development arising from the adjacent classified road.

In consideration of the above matters:

· The site is bounded by Peisley Street to the west which is classified a regional road and a rail corridor to the east. Therefore, access can only be obtained from Peisley Street. The site has one existing vehicular access, which will be altered as part of this proposal. An additional access point is also proposed.

· TfNSW is the road authority and as such the application was referred to TfNSW for concurrence. Concurrence was granted pursuant to Section 138(2) of the Roads Act 1993 subject to a range of conditions to ensure access to the site is appropriate and the safety and efficiency of the road network is not adversely affected.

· A Traffic Impact Assessment was prepared to support the proposal which confirms that Peisley Street has the capacity to accommodate the increase in traffic generated by the proposed development.

· The development is not of a type that is sensitive to traffic noise or vehicle emissions. Construction activities will however need to be managed to ensure safety and efficiency of the road is not adversely affected.

State Environmental Planning Policy 64 - Advertising and Signage

State Environmental Planning Policy 64 - Advertising and Signage applies to the subject development. This SEPP aims to ensure that outdoor advertising and signage is compatible with the desired amenity and visual character of an area, provides effective communication in suitable locations and is of high-quality design and finish.

The policy is structured such that the general heads of consideration are listed in Clause 13 of the policy. This clause for the purposes of the assessments acts to enable assessment against the criteria set out in schedule 1 of the policy. The general assessment standards applicable to all signage affected by this policy are set out in Schedule 1.

In addition, the policy has provisions that apply to certain types of signs, making it important to classify the signs before making an assessment of them. Not all sign types have additional assessment criteria applied to them. Moreover, certain definitions have overlapping meanings that can be applied. The proposed signs to be erected on the building are consistent with the definition of business identification signs, meaning:

a sign -

(a) that indicates-

(i) the name of the person or business, and

(ii) the nature of the business carried on by the person at the premises or place at which the sign is displayed, and

(b) that may include the address of the premises or place and a logo or other symbol that identifies the business, but that does not contain any advertising relating to a person who does not carry on business at the premises or place.

The proposed development involves the erection of four Business Identification Signs to be located on the northern and western elevations of the proposed building. Two signs display the text: AWCON and one displaying the text: AMICA APARTMENTS.

The proposed Business identification signs are consistent with the intent of the assessment criteria set out in Schedule 1 Assessment Criteria of SEPP 64 as discussed below:

Schedule 1 Assessment Criteria

1 - Character of the Area

· Is the proposal compatible with the existing or desired future character of the area or locality in which it is proposed to be located?

· Is the proposal consistent with a particular theme for outdoor advertising in the area or locality?

The character of the area is mixed containing both commercial and residential development. Most of the signage in the area comprises flush wall signs, or window signage. The proposed signage associated with this application is consistent with theme of lawful signage in the area and is not expected to detract from the character of the area.

2 - Special Areas

· Does the proposal detract from the amenity or visual quality of any environmentally sensitive areas, heritage areas, natural or other conservation areas, open space areas, waterways, rural landscapes or residential areas?

The location is considered to be a sensitive area as there are residential dwelling houses located directly opposite the site. However, as noted above the proposed signs are similar to those which they replace, and as such will not detract from the amenity or visual quality of the area.

3 - Views and Vistas

· Does the proposal obscure or compromise important views?

· Does the proposal dominate the skyline and reduce the quality of vistas?

· Does the proposal respect the viewing rights of other advertisers?

The proposed signage will be wall mounted and therefore will not dominate the skyline or reduce the quality of vistas. No viewing rights of other advertisers will be affected by the proposed signage.

4 - Streetscape, Setting or Landscape

· Is the scale, proportion and form of the proposal appropriate for the streetscape, setting or landscape?

· Does the proposal contribute to the visual interest of the streetscape, setting or landscape?

· Does the proposal reduce clutter by rationalising and simplifying existing advertising?

· Does the proposal screen unsightliness?

· Does the proposal protrude above buildings, structures or tree canopies in the area or locality?

· Does the proposal require ongoing vegetation management?

The scale of the proposed signage is considered appropriate in relation to the host building and will result in reasonable streetscape compatibility. The signage is expected to increase the amenity of the building façade and contribute to the visuals along Peisley Street.

5 - Site and Building

· Is the proposal compatible with the scale, proportion and other characteristics of the site or building, or both, on which the proposed signage is to be located?

· Does the proposal respect important features of the site or building, or both?

· Does the proposal show innovation and imagination in its relationship to the site or building, or both?

The proposed signage is of suitable scale for the site, building and the surrounding land uses. It is not considered to be out of proportion with the surrounding locality and an acceptable way of identifying the business/building. The signage is also considered acceptable in its design and material selection.

6 - Associated Devices and Logos with Advertisements and Advertising Structures

· Have any safety devices, platforms, lighting devices or logos been designed as an integral part of the signage or structure on which it is to be displayed?

No safety devices, platforms, lighting devices or logos are proposed.

7 - Illumination

· Would illumination result in unacceptable glare?

· Would illumination affect safety for pedestrians, vehicles or aircraft?

· Would illumination detract from the amenity of any residence or other form of accommodation?

· Can the intensity of the illumination be adjusted, if necessary?

· Is the illumination subject to a curfew?

The signage is not proposed to be illuminated.

8 - Safety

· Would the proposal reduce the safety for any public road?

· Would the proposal reduce the safety for pedestrians or bicyclists?

· Would the proposal reduce the safety for pedestrians, particularly children, by obscuring sightlines from public areas?

The proposed signage is appropriately located within the site and sits flush with the building, so it will not reduce pedestrian access or public safety, or restrict sightlines for vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians.

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

The proposed development is not contrary to any matter contained within Draft Amendments currently on exhibition.

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

Development Control Plan 2004

The following parts of DCP 2004 are applicable to the proposed development:

· Chapter 0 – Transitional Provisions

· Chapter 2 - Natural Resource Management

· Chapter 4 - Special Environmental Considerations

· Chapter 5 – General Considerations for Zones and Development

· Chapter 8 – Development in Business Zones

· Chapter 15 - Car Parking

The relevant matters in Chapters 2 and 4 were considered in the foregoing assessment under Orange LEP 2011. The relevant matters in Parts 5 are addressed under the Any Submissions section of this report. The relevant matters contained under Chapters 0, 8 and 15 are addressed below:

Chapter 0 - Tree Preservation

The DCP prescribes the following Interim Planning Outcomes for Tree Preservation:

1. Trees prescribed by this DCP must not be ringbarked, cut down, topped, lopped or wilfully destroyed without the Council’s approval and landowner’s consent.

2. This clause applies to Eucalypts of any size belonging to the White Box, Yellow Box and Blakely’s Red Gum Endangered Ecological Communities, including species indicated as affected in the tree preservation table.

3. This clause applies to any tree, native or exotic, with a trunk diameter equal to or greater than 300mm at breast height.

4. This clause does not apply to species indicated as exempt in the tree preservation table.

5. An application for the Council’s approval must be accompanied by an appropriately qualified specialist (arborist) report.

The applicant has sought approval for the removal of two (2) Eucalypt Street trees on the Peisley Street frontage of the subject property for vehicle access. The request was referred to Council’s Manager City Presentation who advises:

I support the removal of the two Eucalypt street trees on the Peisley Street frontage of the subject property. Refer to the attached image which clearly shows one of the trees in serious decline.

The following condition of consent shall be imposed on the development:

The applicant shall plant three (3) new 150 litre container sized street trees on the Peisley Street frontage of the site; two (2) trees in locations as marked on Drawing LPDA21-280 drawn by Conzept Landscape Architects and a third tree to the southern end between the driveway and the property’s southern boundary. Species is to be determined in consultation with Council’s Manager City Presentation. Note that Nyssa sylvatica (Tupelo) have not grown successfully in the Orange climate and will not necessarily be the species chosen.

Chapter 8 - Business Services Areas

· Applications clearly demonstrate that the development will not detract from the role of the CBD as a regional centre.

The use of the land as an office premises and serviced apartments in a peripheral CBD location. The proposed offices premises and serviced apartments are complementary land uses in the fringe CBD precinct, and will reinforce the role of the CBD as a regional centre for commerce and services. The core CBD is retained for primary retail functions. The development is consistent with the above planning outcome.

· Provision of adequate fire-safety measures and facilities for disabled persons (according to the BCA) is addressed at the application stage (relevant for all development but particularly important where converting residential buildings for business use).

Relevant conditions are attached in this regard.

· Heritage streetscapes are conserved and enhanced through adaptive re-use of heritage buildings, restrained advertising and landscaped gardens.

Not applicable. The site is not within or adjoining heritage conservation area, listed heritage item.

· Areas on the main roads into and out of Orange (such as Molong Road and Bathurst Road) provide a high level of architectural design to enhance the visual character of the City entrances.

The subject land is not located on a main road. Notwithstanding this, the development presents a sophisticated design approach that, by and large, responds positively in the context and setting.

· All sites contain an element of landscaping. Landscaping provided is of a bulk, scale and height relative to buildings nearest the front property boundary so as to provide beautification and visual relief to the built form proposed or existing on the site. The depth of the landscape bed at the site frontage is sufficient to accommodate the spread of plantings that meet the abovementioned outcomes but, where practicable, a minimum depth of 3m is provided. Plantings are designed to provide shade for parking areas, to break up large areas of bitumen, to enhance building preservation and to screen against noise.

A detailed landscaping plan has been prepared by Conzept Landscape Architects. Landscaping is in scale and context with the proposed development, street, other buildings, and landscape elements within the streetscape. The proposed landscaping beds at the site frontage range from 3.8m to 2.5m in width containing a mix of trees, shrubs and ground covers. Plantings are also proposed along the entire length of the rear boundary. Council’s Manager City Presentation has reviewed the proposed landscaping plan and advises that Anigozanthos sp (Kangaroo Paws) do not grow successfully in the Orange climate and as such should be substituted for another form of accent plant. This matter has been addressed via conditions of consent.

Furthermore, it is proposed to remove two existing Eucalypt street trees on the Peisley Street frontage of the subject property for vehicle access. Council’s Manager City Presentation raises no objections on the basis they are replaced by suitable species. A condition is included addressing this matter.

Overall, the proposed landscaping is acceptable within the context of the locality, will improve and enhance the overall space, provide integration, and will serve to activate a section of street frontage.

Chapter 15 - Car Parking

The DCP prescribes the following applicable Planning Outcome for Car Parking:

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

· Car-parking areas are designed according to Australian Standard.

· Car-park areas include adequate lighting and landscaping

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

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

Pursuant to DCP 2004, the proposed development will generate demand for 35 onsite parking spaces as follows:

Land Use	DCP 2004 Minimum Requirement	Proposed Development	Carparking spaces required
Serviced apartment	1 space/apartment	22 apartments	22 spaces
Office premises	1 space/40m² GFA	528.39m² of office space	13.2 spaces
TOTAL			35.2 spaces

Parking for a total of 49 cars is proposed, provided at grade (17) and within a basement car park (32). Onsite parking for the development will comply with the provisions of the DCP.

Parking, access, and manoeuvring areas including loading facilities have been designed to the applicable standards. The standards have been reinforced via conditions of consent.

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

Demolition of a Building (Clause 92)

The proposal does not involve the demolition of any structures.

Fire Safety Considerations (Clause 93)

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

Buildings to be Upgraded (Clause 94)

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

BASIX Commitments (Clause 97A)

BASIX is not applicable to the proposed development.

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

Context and Setting

The subject site currently vacant land. The surrounding locality is characterised by various commercial, health and residential development typical of a mixed-use/transitional zone. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the zone and is reflective of the locality which provides a broad range of land uses within a mixed-use setting. It is not expected that the office premises and serviced apartment complex will create significant impacts on the context and setting of the area. The design responds appropriately to the context and setting through the materiality and site design.

Access, Traffic and Parking

The potential traffic impacts of the development relate to traffic generation; capacity of the road system; access arrangements; internal layout and servicing; and parking provision.

Peisley Street is the road system that services the subject site. Peisley Street is a collector road which runs in a north-south direction between Phillip Street and Forest Road providing generally one lane in each direction and kerbside parking.

The road serves a mixed-use precinct comprising residential, commercial, and industrial development and connects the Orange urban centre to major land uses to the south including the Leewood Industrial Estate; the Orange Base Hospital; sporting fields; and the Cadia mines.

A Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) which included traffic counts and swept path analysis was prepared by Safeway Traffic Management Solutions to support the proposed development. This assessment shows that the proposed office component will generate 58 daily vehicle trips while the serviced apartment component (assuming each apartment is occupied) will generate 66 vehicle movements per day. In total the proposed development would generate 15.14 movements in the PM peak which equates to one (1) vehicle movement every four (4) minutes. Of these movements, it is assumed that 50% travel north and 50% travel south along Peisley Street. This results in an additional eight (8) vehicles traveling in each direction during the peak hour. However, the report concludes that the additional traffic generated by the development is considered negligible and is not expected to have notable impact on the surrounding road network. The report also provides that due to the serviceability of the site some employees and visitors are expected to utilise alternate transport measures such as public transport, cycling and walking. Based on the conclusions of the TIA, it is considered that the traffic generated by the proposed commercial premises would integrate reasonably with established traffic levels along Peisley Street and the immediate road network. Council’s Technical Services Division and Transport for NSW also raise no concerns with the additional traffic generated by the development.

Access to the site will be via two (2) new driveways from Peisley Street. TfNSW advise that the southern access will need to be restricted to left in left out due to the existing concrete median prohibiting the right turning movements into and out of the site, they also advise that lane markings for the centre lane in Peisley Street will be altered to the satisfaction of Orange City Council (as the Road Manager) to provide for both directions turning from the centre lane in Peisley Street.

Sufficient off-street parking will be provided for development and the site layout allows vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward direction at all times. Council’s Technical Services division has reviewed the internal layout, manoeuvring and servicing arrangements for the development and advise that they are adequate, provided that the one-way ramp is provided with a traffic light system (prioritising cars entering the underground car park) and an automated car park space numbers available sign in lieu of the proposed convex mirror arrangement.

Noise and Vibration

The ambient noise levels of the locality are considered to be typical of an area that lies in a mixed-use precinct and along a key transport routes (road and rail). Construction of the development is likely to be disruptive in the vicinity of the subject site. Any impacts will be temporary and short term and there are no long-term impacts from construction that raise concern. Given the nature of the proposed development (Office and Serviced apartments), it is not expected there will be any ongoing impacts in the locality in relation noise and vibration. Council’s Environmental Health Officer has advised that air conditioning units are enclosed and well separated from the boundaries/adjoining properties. The location of the other mechanical plant is also considered appropriate by the EHO.

Noise and vibration impacts resulting from the operation of the adjoining rail corridor have been considered by the proponent and noise attenuation measures are proposed to be incorporated into the design/construction of the building. These measures will be reinforced via conditions of consent.

Air & Microclimate

The construction phase of the development may generate some dust. Dust suppression and sediment controls will need to be in place during works to ensure minimal impact to adjoining properties and public during this period. Because of the specific nature of the proposed use, it is not expected that there will be any ongoing issues relating to air quality in the locality.

Social Impacts

The development is likely to have a neutral effect on the social cohesion of the city. There are no aspects of the development that would lead to unacceptable social impacts.

Economic Impacts

The development will present a boost to the economy through job creation and economic stimulation during the construction phase. On post-construction the development has the potential to create jobs related to the office use as well as stimulating and supporting the Orange tourism sector through the serviced apartments. There are no aspects of the development that would result in unacceptable economic impacts in the locality.

Construction Impacts

The proposed development has the potential to create short-term impacts associated with noise, dust, parking of construction worker vehicles; deliveries to site etc. These impacts are unavoidable for a construction of this size in an urban environment, but whilst they are unavoidable, they are only short-term for the duration of the construction phase. Notwithstanding this, given the context and setting of the development site, the construction impacts need to be carefully managed and as such a condition is attached that requires a construction management plan to be prepared that addresses such things as parking of construction workers; site deliveries; dust mitigation etc.

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts of a development can arise under four typical scenarios, namely:

· time crowded effects where individual impacts occur so close in time that the initial impact is not dispersed before the proceeding occurs

· space crowded where impacts are felt because they occur so close in space they have a tendency to overlap

· nibbling effects occur where small, often minor impacts, act together to erode the environmental condition of a locality and

· synergistic effects, where a mix of heterogeneous impacts interact such that the combined impacts are greater than the sum of the separate effects.

The construction phase of the development could potentially create one or more of the above situations; however, appropriate conditions are attached to ensure the development occurs in a satisfactory manner.

The development, once operational, is not expected to result in any of the above scenarios that would lead to unsatisfactory environmental impacts. This is due to the design, operation, and relevant conditions of consent.

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

The proposed development is located in the B4 Mixed Use zone and is permissible with the consent of Council. The subject land is considered to be suitable to undertake the proposed development due to the following:

· The development is permissible and compliant with the relevant provisions of the LEP.

· The development is considered to be satisfactory in regard to Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

· The potential impacts of the development can be managed appropriately through the conditions of consent.

· The development of the site will not create significant adverse impacts on the context and setting of the area.

· The development of the site will not detrimentally affect adjoining land and is unlikely to lead to land use conflicts.

· All utility services are or can be made available, including suitable road access.

· The subject land has no significant biodiversity or habitat value.

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

The proposed development was advertised and notified to adjoining landowners for a period of 14 days under the provisions of Council’s Community Participation Plan 2019. Following the closure of the exhibition period, two (2) submissions were received. Details of the public submissions received are identified below, followed by a Council planning assessment response:

Issue: Floor Space Ratio and Height of Building

Assessment Response: it is noted that the submission supports the FSR and HOB exemption requests.

Issue: Carparking, Basement Carparking Construction, Driveways

Assessment Response: Submissions raise the concern that the construction of the basement car park will undermine the structural integrity of adjoining buildings. Submission’s question what level of protection is there for adjoining buildings in the event that a vehicle has an accident and collides with the adjoining building. Concerns have also been raised in relation to the amount of car parking needed for the development (too many provided) and driveway positioning.

In response to these concerns, any works associated with the construction of the driveway and basement car park will be in accordance with geotechnical and structural engineering recommendations to ensure the structural integrity of neighbouring buildings are not compromised.

Standard conditions of consent will also ensure that dilapidation/shoring measures are in place during works to ameliorate any impact on adjoining buildings. Furthermore, the entrance down into the underground car park is a ramp that will have appropriate kerbs included to ensure that the potential for damage to the neighbouring building is alleviated. The applicant also advises that there will be also a structural wall comprising of piles, capping beam and shotcrete concrete wall which will be in between the ramp and the neighbouring building. This wall will be minimum 400mm thick. The car park will also be a low-speed environment which further reduces risk of collision.

In relation to car parking, the development will comply with the minimum amount of onsite parking needed for such a development with an appropriate surplus. The applicant submits that the provision of additional spaces is considered a positive especially considered issues previously made with parking congestion within the general Peisley Street precinct between Warrendine Street and Franklin Road.

Lastly, a submission suggests that one of the driveways should be removed due to the potential collision zones between pedestrians and vehicles. Council’s Technical Services Division and TfNSW raise no concerns with the two access points proposed – they are well separated from each other and adjoining driveways and will achieve appropriate sight distances.

Issue: Construction Impacts (Parking, Noise etc)

Assessment Response: In relation to construction impacts, the proposed development has the potential to create short-term impacts associated with noise, dust, parking of construction worker vehicles; deliveries to site etc. These impacts are unavoidable for a construction of this size in an urban environment, but whilst they are unavoidable, they are only short-term for the duration of the construction phase. Notwithstanding this, given the context and setting of the development site, the construction impacts need to be carefully managed and as such a condition is attached that requires a construction management plan to be prepared that addresses such things as parking of construction workers; site deliveries; dust, noise mitigation etc.

Issue: Waste Management

Assessment Response: Conditions of consent will require bins bays to be appropriately enclosed/screened, as well as having waste removed and the area cleaned on a regular basis.

PUBLIC INTEREST s4.15(1)(e)

The proposal is assessed to pose no significant impacts on the public interest.

DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS

Section 64 Local Government Act 1993

Council’s Assistant Development Engineer advises:

1. Development contributions for water, sewer and drainage works are applicable to the proposed development;.

2. The subject land has one (1) ET credit which will be allocated to the development.

3. Headworks charges will apply to the proposed serviced apartments and offices as follows:

- Serviced Apartments - 6.6 ETs for water and 9.9 ETs for sewer

- Office premises - 5.2 ETs for water and 5.2 ETs for sewer

Conditions are included on the attached Notice of Determination requiring payment of applicable contributions prior to CC.

SUMMARY

The proposed development is permissible with the consent of Council. The proposed development complies with the relevant aims, objectives and provisions of Orange LEP 2011 (as amended) and DCP 2004, save for the contravention of the applicable FSR and HOB development standards under the LEP. Notwithstanding the contravention of the aforementioned standards, the applicant has made application to vary the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the LEP and, as outlined above the variation is considered acceptable.

A Section 4.15 assessment of the development indicates that the development is acceptable. Attached is a draft Notice of Approval outlining a range of conditions considered appropriate to ensure that the development proceeds in an acceptable manner. It is recommended that Council supports the application subject to the adoption of the attached Notice of Determination.

Attachments

1 Notice of Approval and Annexure A, D21/61723 ⇩

2 Plans, D21/61329 ⇩

3 Acoustic Report, D21/61338 ⇩

4 Submissions - public, D21/61120 ⇩

5 TfNSW (Rail and Traffic) Concurrence Advice, D21/61169 ⇩

Planning and Development Committee 5 October 2021

2.4 Development Application DA 357/2021(1) - 38 Astill Drive

RECORD NUMBER: 2021/2159

AUTHOR: Ben Hicks, Planner

EXECUTIVE Summary

Application lodged	11 August 2021
Applicant/s	Orange City Council
Owner/s	Orange City Council
Land description	Lot 806 DP 1240445, 38 Astill Drive, Orange
Proposed land use	Subdivision (four industrial lots and one residue lot) and Earthworks
Value of proposed development	Not applicable

Council's consent is sought for a five (5) lot industrial subdivision of land and bulk earthworks at 38 Astill Drive, Orange, described as Lot 806 DP 1240445 (refer to Figure 1).

The proposal comprises four industrial allotments and one residue lot. Bulk earthworks will be undertaken as part of the subdivision works to ensure the new lots to achieve appropriate site levels for their future development. The industrial lots will have access to a public road, reticulated sewer and water.

The applicant has submitted a written request in accordance with Clause 4.6 of the LEP to vary the development standard relating to the minimum lot size provision set out in Clause 4.1 of the LEP. The proposed lots will be of a regular configuration and the applicant has demonstrated that the lots can accommodate the larger building footprints and vehicle turn paths that are typically associated with development in the General Industrial zone. The use of Clause 4.6 to enable an exception to these development controls is therefore considered appropriate in this instance.

The application is reported to the Planning and Development Committee pursuant to Council’s Declaration of Planning Procedures and Protocols that requires the determination of the application to be made by Council for ‘any significant Council development where Council will be financial beneficiary’.

The assessment of the proposal concludes the development fits in the locality and there are no significant impacts on the site or on adjacent lands. All construction aspects can be adequately managed/controlled as per the submitted Development Application (DA) information, or under recommended conditions of consent.

Figure 1 - Locality and Site Context Plan

DECISION FRAMEWORK

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.

DIRECTOR’S COMMENT

Council's consent is sought for a five (5) lot industrial subdivision of land and bulk earthworks at 38 Astill Drive, Orange, described as Lot 806 DP 1240445. Bulk earthworks will be undertaken as part of the subdivision works to ensure the new lots achieve appropriate site levels for their future development.

A minor variation to the 2000 square metre minimum lot size development standard is sought by the applicant for proposed Lots 400 and 401. The subject Lots 400 and 401 represent a negligible numerical non-compliance of 4.4% and 4.85% respectively. The development standard is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary in this circumstance. A detailed assessment of the proposed variation has been provided in the body of this report.

Link To Delivery/OPerational Plan

Financial Implications

Nil

Policy and Governance Implications

Nil

Recommendation

That Council consents to development application DA 357/2021(1) for Subdivision (four industrial lots and one residue lot) and Earthworks at Lot 806 DP 1240445, 38 Astill Drive, Orange pursuant to the conditions of consent in the attached Notice of Determination.

further considerations

APPLICATION/PROPOSAL

The proposed subdivision involves the creation of four industrial parcels and one residue lot and provision of Council and Non-Council services. No new roads are proposed. The proposed lots are depicted diagrammatically in Figure 2 and described below:

· Lot 400 is a regular rectangle shape with a spayed corner and has an area of 1912m². This lot will be located on the corner of Elwin Drive and the future extension of Astill Drive.

· Lot 401 is regular rectangle shape and will have an area of 1903m² with frontage to Elwin Drive.

· Lot 402 will have an area of 2301.6m² with frontage to the cul-de-sac bowl in Astill Drive. The lot will be wedge shape widening out to the rear.

· Lot 403 will have an area of 2808m² with frontage to the cul-de-sac bowl in Astill Drive. The lot will be wedge shape widening out to the rear.

· Lot 404 is the residue lot and will make up the balance of land and will be approximately 3.84ha. Legal access will be maintained to the residue via Astill Drive in the north-west corner of the site.

Bulk earthworks are proposed at the subdivision stage to provide level building pads and appropriate access arrangements for each lot. The applicant advises that the amount of material required to be excavated to achieve the desired design levels is in the order of approximately 8800m³ of surplus material. The greatest extent of cut is in the order of 3.1m, with an average cut depth of nominally 1m. The maximum amount of fill required is minimal at 0.4m with an average of 0.039m fill as required within the site. All surplus material will be kept within the subject land and redistributed/stockpiled within Lot 404 as required.

This application also seeks approval to set design levels of RL 871 AHD across the north-western portion of proposed Lot 404 in anticipation of future subdivision stages of the residue lot. The applicant advises that achieving the proposed design levels (RL 871AHD) within Lot 404 may require additional VENM imported to the site from other Council projects.

Figure 2 – proposed lot layout

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING ASSESSMENT

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

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

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

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

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

The site is highly disturbed and has been dominated by historical agricultural use and land clearing and is currently zoned for industrial land uses. Adjoining parcels have been subdivided and developed for industrial purposes. Having regard to the relevant provisions, historical and adjoining uses, and an inspection of the subject property, it is considered that the proposed development is not likely to significantly affect a threatened species or ecological communities, or their habitats. A Biodiversity Development Assessment Report is not required in this instance.

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,

The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the relevant aims of Orange LEP 2011. In particular, the proposed development will assist in reinforcing Orange as a major regional centre; will contribute to the social and economic development of the city.

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:	IN1 General Industrial
Lot Size Map:	2000m²
Heritage Map:	Not a heritage item or conservation area
Height of Buildings Map:	N/A
Floor Space Ratio Map:	N/A
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 within flood planning map