PLANNING DEVELOPMENT I DEVELOPMENT ......The development application consists of this report, a completed development application form, and the following plans: Annexure A-- Plans

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

Proposed Urban Residential Subdivision (11 Lots and New Road)

Lot 72 DP 1251988 Carwoola Drive, Orange

Prepared for Saran Homes Pty Ltd

December 2019

Ref: DA2PJB18031

343 Summer St, PO Box 1827, Orange NSW 2800 telephone 02 636 l 2955 facsimile 02 6360 4700 mobile 0409 821 016 emoil [email protected] abn 91 558 813 035


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section 1.0 1

INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 OVERVIEW 1

1.2 DOCUMENTATION 1

1.3 APPLICANT 2

1.4 OWNERSHIP 2

Section 2.0 3

THE PROPOSAL 3

2.1 PROPOSED SUBDIVISION 3

2.2 ROAD AND ACCESS 3

2.3 SERVICING 4

2.4 STAGING 4

Section ,.0 5

THE SUBJECT LAND 5

3.1 LOCATION, TITLE AND ZONING S

3.2 SITE DESCRIPTION 5

3.2.1

3.2.2

3.2.3

Configuration 5

Vegetation 6

Topography and Drainage 6

3.2.4 Land Use 6

3.2.5 Easements and Restrictions 6

3.2.6 Site Photographs 7

3.3 SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN 8

3.4 CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES 9

Section +.o 10

TOWN PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 10

4.1 PROVISIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS 10

4.1.1 State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land 16

4.1.2 State Environmental Planning Policy Infrastructure 2007 17

PROVISIONS OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS 18 4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

PROVISIONS OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS 18

4.3.1 Orange Development Control Plan 2004 -7 Development in Residential Areas 18

4.3.2 Orange Development Control Plan 2004 - 00 Transitional Provisions -- Transport Routes

...................................................................................................................................... 24

4.3.3 Orange Development Control Plan 2004 - 10 Special Uses and Road Zones 26

4.3.4 Orange Development Control Plan 2004-00 Transitional Provisions -- Tree Preservation

·················································································· 28 MATTERS PRESCRIBED BY THE REGULATIONS 28

THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT.. 28

4.5.1 Generally 28

4.5.2 Visual Amenity 28

4.5.3

4.5.4

4.5.5

4.5.6

4.5.7

Traffic Impacts 29

Biodiversity 31

Cultural Values 32

Water Quality 32

Air Quality 33


4.5.8 Solar Access 33

4.5.9 Social and Economic Effect 34

4.6 THE SUITABILITY OF THE SITE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT.. 34

4.7 SUBMISSIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACT OR REGULATIONS 35

4.8 THE PUBLIC INTEREST 35

Sectionj.O 36

CONCLUSION 36

Annexure A Plans by Peter Basha Planning & Development

Annexure B Exception to Development Standard, Clause 4.6 Orange LEP 2011

ii


Section 1.O

INTRODUCTION

1.1 OVERVIEW

This Development Application seeks approval to effect a subdivision of the

subject land so as to create 11 urban residential allotments and a new road as

indicated in the attached Figure 3. The proposed lots are all vacant and are

intended for future residential development.

The subject land is zoned R2 Low Density Residential pursuant to Orange Local

Environmental Plan (LEP) 2011. The proposed subdivision is permitted with consent. However, pursuant to clause 4.6 of the LEP, the proposal will require

a minor variation of the Minimum Lot Size, given that some of the proposed lots straddle the boundary between two different minimum lot size zones.

The development is subject to the subdivision provisions of Orange

Development Control Plan (DCP} 2004 - Development in Residential Areas. The proposal will require a minor variation to the Conceptual Subdivision Layout

for Area 3 Ploughmans Valley.

This report provides an assessment of the development pursuant to the relevant matters in Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment

Act. It concludes that there are no aspects of the proposal that would prevent

approval of the application.

1.2 DOCUMENTATION

The development application consists of this report, a completed development

application form, and the following plans:

Annexure A-- Plans by Peter Basha Planning & Development

Figure 1

Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4

Locality Existing Boundaries and Site Detail Proposed Subdivision Ploughmans Valley Area 3 Subdivision Layout (DCP 2004)

Annexure B

Exception to Development Standards (Clause 4.6, Orange LEP 2011)

Peter Basha Planning & Development


Proposed Urban Residential Subdivision (11 Lots and New Road) Lot 72 DP 1251988, Carwoola Drive, Orange Page 2

1.3 APPLICANT

Saran Homes Pty Ltd

cf- Peter Basha Planning & Development

PO Box 1827

1.4 OWNERSHIP

Saran Homes Pty Ltd 8 Braemar Circuit

ORANGE NSW 2800



Section2.0

THE PROPOSAL

2.1 PROPOSED SUBDIVISION

It is proposed to subdivide the subject land to create 11 urban residential allotments plus a new public road (cul de sac) as depicted in the attached Figure 3.

The proposed lots are vacant and each would be created for urban residential purposes pursuant to the relevant clauses of Orange Local Environmental Plan

2011. The proposal involves:

• Creation of 2,000m lots along the Cargo Road frontage and lots ranging from 850m2 to 1,200m? in the remainder of the site.

• Construction of a short cul-de sac with concrete kerb and gutter to provide access to 5 of the proposed lots.

• Connection of each lot to the town water supply.

• Provision of an inter-allotment stormwater drainage system.

• Removal of the radiata pine trees that line the southern (Cargo Road) boundary of the site).

The terrain of the site is very gentle and will not require significant earthworks or land shaping.

The orientation and configuration of the majority of lots is such that a future

dwelling can be designed without unreasonable constraint to optimise solar penetration to internal and external living areas.

2.2 ROAD AND ACCESS

Access to proposed Lots 1 to 5 will be provided via the construction of a short

cul de sac that will extend from the newly constructed public road along the eastern boundary of the subject land.




The new cul de sac will be constructed in accordance with Council's normal

requirements for residential development. The location of kerb laybacks and footpath crossings will be determined at the time of future development

within each lot. As such they will not be provided as part of the subdivision.

Proposed Lots 6, 7 and 8 will obtain access via their direct frontage to Cargo

Road.

Proposed Lots 9, 10 and 11 will obtain access via their direct frontage to Carwoola Drive (noting that Lot 11 is proposed in a battle-axe configuration).

2.3 SERVICING

The proposed lots will be connected to urban utility services. In this regard:

• The internal stormwater drainage system will be designed to convey stormwater runoff from the subdivision at a 1 in 10 year average

recurrence interval design storm as per Council's standard design criteria.

• The subdivision will be serviced by gravity sewer mains. The internal sewer reticulation will be in accordance with Council's standard design criteria.

• Town water, electricity and telecommunications will be provided via street

mains in accordance with the relevant supply authorities.

• Easements to facilitate servicing will be created as required.

2.4 STAGING

It is proposed to release the subdivision in stages as follows:

Stage 1 Proposed Lots 6 and 7 as individual lots and Lots 1 to 5 and 8 to

11 combined as a single englobo lot.

Stage 2 Proposed Lots 1 to 5 and 8 to 11 as individual lots.

The staging is indicative only and may be varied as needed based on servicing,

road access and market demand.



Section .0

THE SUBJECT LAND

3.1 LOCATION, TITLE AND ZONING

The subject land is located on the north eastern corner of the Carwoola Drive and Cargo Road intersection (refer below and to Figure 1).

kll I

' ! l I I I I

'' I

The real property description of the land is Lot 72 DP 1251988, Parish of Orange, County of Wellington (Refer to Figure 2).

The land is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the provisions of Orange LEP 2011.

3.2 SITE DESCRIPTION

3.2.1 Configuration

The subject land is L-shaped with an area of 1.46 hectares. As a corner lot,

Carwoola Drive forms the western boundary and Cargo Road forms the southern boundary. A newly constructed public road forms the eastern boundary. The northern boundary adjoins another large lot residential

property and the recently created Lot 71 which excised the dwelling from the north western corner of the original parcel.




3.2.2 Vegetation

The land is cleared with grass as the predominant vegetative cover. There is no native vegetation of importance within the site. A row of radiata pine trees

extend along the southern (Cargo Road) boundary and are to be removed as part of the subdivision. Smaller deciduous trees existing along the western

(Carwoola Drive) boundary and are proposed to be retained as part of the subdivision.

3.2.3 Topography and Drainage

The terrain is very gently sloping. The fall from west to east is in the order of 4

metres which represents a slope across the site of less than 3%.

The land is well drained via the natural surface and is not affected by any

natural watercourses. A small open stormwater swale flows through the south

western quadrant.

3.2.4 Land Use

The subject land was created as a 1.8 hectare rural residential allotment in

1985 and was originally registered as Lot 7 DP 715252.

Following the creation of that lot, a dwelling was established in the north western corner and the property was used for residential purposes.

In 2018, Lot 7 DP 715252 was subdivided to create 2 lots as follows:

• Lot 71 DP 1251988 which excised the existing dwelling on a smaller lot of

3,848m2.

• Lot 72 DP 1251988 which was created as a vacant lot for future residential subdivision (being the land that is the subject of this DA).

3.2.5 Easements and Restrictions

The subject land is affected by an easement for effluent disposal in favour of the existing dwelling on the adjacent Lot 71 DP 1251988. This easement will be

released upon connection of the existing dwelling to the proposed sewer reticulation as part of the subdivision.




The land is subject to a Section 888 Restriction under DP 1251988 in favour of Orange City Council which states that no further subdivision or development of the land shall occur until the following works are completed and approved by Orange City Council:

• All infrastructure services (water, sewer, stormwater drainage, gas, electricity, telecommunications) as required by the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code are provided to the land hereby burdened.

• The developer of the land hereby burdened is responsible for gaining access over adjoining lands for services as necessary. Easements are to be created over all mains within and outside the lots they serve.

• Contributions are paid as required by the development contributions plan applicable at the time of development and water and sewage charges as required by Orange City Council in accordance with Division 5 of Part 2 of Chapter 6 of the Water Management Act 2000.

• The Carwoola Drive frontage of the land hereby burdened shall be constructed in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code as half road width including kerb & gutter on the side of the road fronting the land hereby burdened.

3.2.6 Site Photographs

At south east corner looking west across subject land




In Carwoola Drive looking east across subject land

3.3 SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN

Due to the previous rural residential zoning that applied to the western fringe of Orange, large residential lots have been developed around the subject land.

However, the Conceptual Subdivision Layout provided in Orange DCP 2004

shows that Ploughmans Valley is planned to transition to a full urban residential pattern. The subject land is within DCP Area 3. Consistent with the

planning for this area:

• The land to the north of the subject land has been approved for urban residential subdivision down to a minimum lot size of 850m2

• This

subdivision is yet to proceed.

• The properties immediately to the west on the opposite side of Carwoola Drive have been approved for residential subdivision based on a minimum lot size of 850m2 and 2,000m2. These subdivisions are yet to proceed.

• The land to the south on the opposite side of Cargo Road has been

developed for residential subdivision with lots in the order of 1,500m2.




• The land to the east on the opposite of the newly constructed public road is a rural residential property but has approval to be developed for a place of public worship.

3.4 CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES

The proposed subdivision is not constrained by the identified physical features within or around the subject land. In this regard:

• The terrain does not pose a constraint to urban residential development, particularly in terms of construction or servicing.

• The subject land is of low ecological value due to the emerging urban pattern and the absence of native vegetation within this site.

• The land is not low lying or subject to water logging. The existing drainage line in the south western quadrant will be removed and flows will be managed as part of the stormwater drainage system for the subdivision.

• The proposed subdivision pattern relates effectively to the existing road network.

• Due to the existing development pattern all urban utilities including sewer, town water, stormwater, electricity, telephone and natural gas are available for connection.

• The easement for effluent disposal will be released upon connection of the existing dwelling to the proposed sewer reticulation as part of the subdivision.

• The terms of the Section 88B Restriction that apply to the land in favour of Orange City Council will be satisfied as part of the proposed subdivision.



Section +.0

TOWN PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

In determining the application, Council must take into consideration the relevant matters under section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. These are assessed below.

4.1 PROVISIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 (the LEP) applies. The provisions relevant to this proposal are considered below.

Zoning

The land is zoned R2 Low Density Residential. The objectives of the zone are:

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

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

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

to settlement.

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

The proposed development is not adverse to the zone objectives. In particular:

• The proposed subdivision is entirely consistent with the first stated objective because it provides residential allotments of a size that encourage a low density residential environment.

• In consideration of the second stated objective, there are no aspects of the proposed subdivision that would reduce the potential to provide facilities

and services that meet the day to day needs of residents.




• In consideration of the third stated objective, the proposed subdivision will integrate with the existing road and transport networks that serve the

Ploughmans Valley area. The land is in reasonable proximity to encourage cycling and walking to other areas of the City.

• The fourth stated objective relates to the Southern Link Road and is not

relevant to this proposal.

Permissibility

The proposed subdivision is permissible with the consent of Council pursuant

to Clause 2.6.

Clause 1.2 Aims of Plan

The aims of the LEP are as follows:

a) To encourage development that 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 the needs of present and future generations to be met by

implementing the principles of 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 to 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.

In consideration of the aims of LEP 2011, the following comments are provided:

• For the reasons outlined in this report, the proposal will complement and enhance the character of Orange as a major regional centre [General Aim

(a)].




• The proposal would have a neutral effect in terms of the social, economic and environmental resources of the City. There are no aspects of the

proposal that would compromise the principles of ecologically sustainable development [General Aim (b)].

• There are no aspects of the proposal that would represent a direct threat to the City's water resources [General Aim (c)].

• The management of rural land as an environmental resource is not relevant

to this proposal [General Aim (d)].

• The proposal will contribute to the City's range and supply of housing choices [General Aim (e)].

• For the reasons outlined in this report, the proposal will not adversely affect the value of heritage, landscape and scenic features of the City

[General Aim(!)].

Clause 1.9A Suspension of covenants, agreements and instruments

The land is subject to a Section 88B Restriction under DP 1251988 in favour of Orange City Council which states that no further subdivision or development

of the land shall occur until the following works are completed and approved

by Orange City Council:

• All infrastructure services (water, sewer, stormwater drainage, gas, electricity, telecommunications) as required by the Orange City Council

Development and Subdivision Code are provided to the land hereby burdened.

• The developer of the land hereby burdened is responsible for gaining access over adjoining lands for services as necessary. Easements are to be created over all mains within and outside the lots they serve.

• Contributions are paid as required by the development contributions plan applicable at the time of development and water and sewage charges as required by Orange City Council in accordance with Division 5 of Part 2 of

Chapter 6 of the Water Management Act 2000.

• The Carwoola Drive frontage of the land hereby burdened shall be

constructed in accordance with the Orange City Council Development and Subdivision Code as half road width including kerb & gutter on the side of the road fronting the land hereby burdened.



Proposed Urban Residential Subdivision {11 Lots and New Road) Lot 72 DP 1251988, Carwoola Drive, Orange Page 13

Clause 1.9A(1) provides that any agreement, covenant or other similar

instrument that restricts the carrying out of a development does not apply to the extent necessary to enable the carrying out of the development.

However, Clause 1.9A(2) does not allow the suspension of a covenant,

agreement or instrument, if it has been imposed by Council. As such, and as

requested by this application, it will be necessary for Council to release, vary

or modify the Restriction to enable the development to be completed as proposed.

Clause 4.1 Minimum Subdivision Lot Size

As indicated in the diagram below, subdivision of the subject land is subject to two separate minimum lot sizes as follows:

• 2,000m2 in the section of the land shaded red.

• 850m2 in the section of the land shaded pink.

+ i ¥

With reference to Figure 3, proposed Lots 5 and 9 straddle the boundary

between the 2,000m2 MLS zone and the 850m2 MLS zone. It is proposed to create these lots with a minimum area of 850m2. Technically they do not satisfy

the relevant MLS of 2,000m2• Therefore a variation of the MLS is sought

pursuant to LEP Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards.




Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

Proposed Lots 5 and 9 straddle the boundary between the 2,000m2 MLS zone and the 850m2 MLS zone. Whilst they satisfy the 850m2 MLS, they do not satisfy

the MLS of 2,000m2•

The applicant seeks recourse to Clause 4.6 of the LEP to allow this development standard to be varied. Clause 4.6 allows development consent to be granted

for development even though the development would contravene a development standard. The objectives of this clause are as follows:

a) to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain

development standards to particular development,

b) to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing

flexibility in particular circumstances.

A formal request to vary the development standard pertaining to MLS is provided in Annexure 8.

Clause 7.3 Stormwater

Clause 7.3 provides as follows:

1) The objective of this clause is to minimise the impacts of urban stormwater on the land to which the development applies and on adjoining

downstream properties, native bushland and receiving waters.

2) This clause applies to all land in residential, business and industrial zones.

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 on-site infiltration of water, and

b) includes, where practical, on-site 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.

Stormwater from the development will be provided in accordance with the

requirements of Council's Development and Subdivision Code.

Clause 7.6 Groundwater Vulnerability

The subject land is defined on the Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011

Groundwater Vulnerability Map as having moderate groundwater vulnerability. Clause 7.6 of the LEP provides as follows:

1) The objectives of this clause are to maintain the hydrological functions of

key groundwater systems and to protect vulnerable groundwater

resources from depletion and contamination as a result of inappropriate

development.

2) This clause applies to land identified as "Groundwater Vulnerability" on the

Groundwater Vulnerability Map.

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 on-site 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.

4) Development consent must not be granted to development on land to

which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that:

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

b) if that impact cannot be reasonably avoided-the development is

designed, sited and will be managed to minimise that impact, Peter Basha

Planning & Development


Proposed Urban Residential Subdivision {11 Lots and New Road) Lot 72 DP 12S1988, Carwoola Drive, Orange Page 16

c) if that impact cannot be minimised-the development will be managed

to mitigate that impact.

There appear to be no aspects of the proposed subdivision that would cause

adverse impact on groundwater resources. In this regard:

• On-site effluent disposal will not occur. Residential development of the land requires effluent disposal to occur via Council's sewer reticulation.

• The residential use of land does not normally involve the storage or disposal of large quantities of liquid waste or chemicals.

Clause 7.11 - Essential services

Clause 7.11 provides that 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 proposed subdivision will satisfy this clause. Council's normal consent

conditions for subdivision will require each of the proposed lots to be serviced with town water, reticulated sewage, stormwater drainage, electricity and suitable road access in accordance with Council requirements.

4.1.1 State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land

Clause 7(1) of SEPP 55 Remediation of Land provides that 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.

Whilst properties within the surrounding area were used for orchards, the

subject land itself does not appear to have been used for such purposes, particularly within the last 30 years. The Orange 1:25,000 Topographic Map

(based on aerial photography 1982 and field revision 1987) shows no orchard within the subject land at the time.

Prior to the land being created in its current configuration it formed part of a

rural residential parcel with a dwelling, domestic sheds and structures,

driveway, lawns, gardens and trees. This use was established circa 1985. Since

that time, the land is not known to have been used for a purpose listed in Table 1 of Managing Land Contamination Planning Guidelines SEPP 55 -Remediation

of Land.

On the basis of the above information, it is requested that Council not require

soil testing or further investigation.

4.1.2 State Environmental Planning Policy Infrastructure 2007

Given that the subject land has frontage to a classified road (Cargo Road),

Clause 101 of State Environmental Planning Policy {Infrastructure) 2007 (the

SEPP) is applicable and provides as follows:

1) The objectives of this clause are:

a) to ensure that new development does not compromise the effective and ongoing operation and function of classified roads, and

b) to prevent or reduce the potential impact of traffic noise and vehicle emission on development adjacent to classified roads.

2) The 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, 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:

c) the design of the vehicular access to the land, or

(i) the emission of smoke or dust from the development, or

(ii) the nature, volume or frequency of vehicles using the classified road to gain access to the land, and

d) 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.

Traffic matters are considered later in this report at Section 4.5.3 Traffic

Impacts.

4.2 PROVISIONS OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

There are no known draft environmental planning instruments that relate to the subject land or proposed development.

4.3 PROVISIONS OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS

4.3.1 Orange Development Control Plan 2004 - 7 Development in Residential Areas

The proposed subdivision is subject to the requirements of Orange Development Control Plan 2004-7 Development in Residential Areas. The DCP sets the Planning Outcomes for subdivision in the Ploughmans Valley residential area.

The relevant Planning Outcomes are considered below.




Planning Outcome 1-The allotment layout is generally in accordance with the Conceptual Subdivision Layout at Appendix 16.7.

The subject land is contained within Area 3 Ploughmans Valley. The proposed

subdivision relies on a minor variation to the Area 3 Conceptual Subdivision Layout. A comparison between the proposed subdivision layout and the DCP

layout is summarised as follows:

• The DCP Layout provides a lot yield of 9 lots for the subject land. The

proposed subdivision involves a lot yield of 11 lots.

• The DCP Layout provides for 3 x 2,000m2 facing Cargo Road. The proposed

subdivision is consistent with this aspect of the DCP Layout.

• The DCP Layout provides for a cul de sac at the north western corner of the subject land to serve 4 lots. The proposed subdivision is more or less

consistent except that it provides for 5 lots off the cul de sac.

• The DCP layout provides for two lots facing Carwoola Drive. The proposed

subdivision also provides two lots that face Carwoola Drive but also seeks

to create a battle axe lot at the rear of these.

It is requested that a variation of the DCP layout be granted based on the following:

• The creation of 2 extra lots will not diminish the low density character that

is planned for the area.

• It is considered a more efficient subdivision design to maximise the utility

of the new cul de sac by creating an additional lot in this part ofthe site.

• The variation of the DCP as proposed by this subdivision is pertinent only to the subject land and will have no impact upon the subdivision potential

of adjoining parcels.

Planning Outcome 2- Subdivision design and construction complies with the Orange City Development and Subdivision Code.

This Planning Outcome will be met at the Construction Certificate stage.




Planning Outcome 3-The allotment layout provides for transitional development of the Valley:

• In Areas 2, 3 and 4, lots along Forbes Road and Cargo Road have a minimum area of 2,000m2;

• In Area 2, lots adjoining land zoned 1(c) Rural Residential have a minimum area of 1,500m;

• In Area 3, lots adjoining land zoned 1(a) General Farming and comprising parent parcels Lots 19, 20 and 23 DP 791830 have a minimum area of 1ha;

• In Area 3, lots to the west of Gartrell Way and comprising parent parcels Lot 18DP 791830 and Lots 21-22 DP 791830 have a minimum area of 2,000m2

generally in accordance with the conceptual subdivision layout at Appendix 16.7;

• In Area 4, lots adjoining land zoned 7 Water Supply catchment have a minimum area of 1,500m. Those parcels zoned part 2(a) Urban Residential and part 7 Water Supply catchment identify a building envelope wholly contained within land zoned 2(a) Urban Residential.

In consideration of the above Planning Outcomes:

• The proposal complies with the first dot point as proposed Lots 6, 7 and 8, each with frontage to Cargo Road, have a minimum area of 2,000m2.

• The second dot point is not applicable to this development as the subject land is not in Area 2 and does not adjoin zoned Rural Residential (or now

Large Lot Residential) land.

• The third dot point is not applicable to this development as the subject land does not adjoin zoned 1(a) General Farming (or now RU1 Primary

Production) land.

• The fourth dot point is not applicable to this development as the subject land is not west of Gartrell Way.

• The fifth dot point is not applicable to this development as the subject land does not adjoin zoned water supply catchment land.




Planning Outcome 4 - The allotment layout provides a high standard of residential amenity:

• In Areas 2, 3 and 4, lots have a minimum allotment size of 850m;

• In Area 2, lots adjoining the Distributor Road alignment have a minimum area of 2,000m2 and minimum frontage of 30m;

• In Area 4, lots adjoining the railway line have a minimum area of 1,500m2 •

In consideration of this Planning Outcome and with reference to Figure 3,

proposed Lots 5 and 9 straddle the boundary between the 2,000m2 MLS zone

and the 850m2 MLS zone as identified in Orange LEP 2011. It is proposed to

create these lots with a minimum area of 850m2• Technically they do not satisfy

the relevant MLS of 2,000m2.

Pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the LEP, a formal request to vary the MLS

development standard is provided in Annexure B.

Planning Outcome 5 - The allotment layout maximises energy-efficiency principles. Where practicable, lots are rectangular rather than splay shaped and oriented to provide the long axis within the range N200W to N300E or E200N to E300S.

The proposed lots are of a size and configuration to satisfy this Planning

Outcome.

Planning Outcome 6 - Subdivision design retains significant landscape features and minimises disturbance to natural vegetation, landform and overland-flow paths.

The proposal is not adverse to this Planning Outcome. The proposed lots are

not unreasonably constrained by the existing landscape features.

The existing overland drainage line in the south western quadrant will be

removed and flows will be managed as part of the stormwater drainage system

for the subdivision.




Planning Outcome 7 - The road layout comprises a modified grid layout with restrained use of cul-de-sacs, generally in accordance with the Conceptual Subdivision Layout.

The proposal is not adverse to this Planning Outcome as the proposed cul de

sac is identified on the DCP Layout for the subject land.

Planning Outcome 8 - Future road connections to adjoining land are provided and located generally in accordance with the Conceptual Subdivision Layout.

The proposed subdivision does not conflict with the future road connections depicted in the Conceptual Subdivision Layout for Area 3 in Plough mans Valley.

The proposed cul de sac is identified on the DCP Layout for the subject land.

Planning Outcome 9 - Local collector roads connect to Cargo Road, Forbes Road and Ploughmans Lane generally in accordance with the locations shown on the Conceptual Subdivision Layout.

The proposal is consistent with this Planning Outcome.

Planning Outcome 10 - Lots have direct frontage or access to a public road.

The proposed subdivision satisfies this Planning Outcome.

Planning Outcome 11 - Lots adjoining the Distributor Road alignment do not have frontage or access to the Distributor Road. Access to lots is via internal streets.

This Planning Outcome is not relevant as the subject land does not have

frontage or access to the Distributor Road.




Planning Outcome 12- Stormwater runoff from the site is consistent with pre development stormwater patterns.

The proposal is not adverse to this Planning Outcome. The relevant

requirements will be met at the subdivision design and Construction Certificate stage of the development.

Planning Outcome 13- Drainage systems are designed to consider catchment and downstream capacities, on-site retention and reuse and overland-flow paths.

The proposal is not adverse to this Planning Outcome. The relevant requirements will be met at the subdivision design and Construction Certificate stage of the development.

Planning Outcome 14- All utility services are provided to the proposed lots.

The proposal is not adverse to this Planning Outcome. The relevant servicing

requirements will be met at the subdivision design and Construction Certificate

stage of the development.

Planning Outcome 15 - Public open-space linkages are provided across the subdivision. Approximately lha of public open spaces for each development area is provided in the form of local parks, drainage paths and creek corridors. Public open space provides opportunities for passive and active recreation.

The proposal is not adverse to this Planning Outcome as it does not impact upon the public open space areas identified in the DCP Layout.

Planning Outcome 16 - Allotments intended for dual occupancies are identified on development application plans. Dual occupancy lots range in area between 1,200m2 and 1,450m.

Proposed Lots 1 and 5 are identified as potential dual occupancy sites.



Proposed Urban Residential Subdivision (11 Lots and New Road) Lot 72 DP 12S1988, Carwoola Drive, Orange Page 24

Planning Outcome 17 - Development proposals shall demonstrate the appropriate retention of existing trees in order to protect the visual backdrop of the City.

The proposed subdivision requires that removal of the existing radiata pine

trees that extend along the southern (Cargo Road) boundary of the site. The trees that are to be removed are not prescribed in Orange Development Control Plan 2004. As such, they may be removed without the consent of

Council.

It is proposed to retain the smaller deciduous trees that extend along the western (Carwoola Drive) boundary of the site.

Planning Outcome 18 - Dual occupancy development within Ploughmans Valley may be subdivided, upon completion of building works, to create two separate allotments with areas less than 850m.

This Planning Outcome is not relevant to the proposal.

4.3.2 Orange Development Control Plan 2004 - 00 Transitional Provisions - Transport Routes

Cargo Road is identified in Orange LEP 2011 as a Classified Road. As such the proposal represents development along a transport route. DCP 2004 -- 00 sets

certain Planning Outcomes for development along transport routes. These are

considered below.

Planning Outcome 1-The development provides a high standard of visual appeal to motorists, cyclists and pedestrians as well as adjoining property owners.

The proposal is not adverse to this Planning Outcome, as it does not involve any works that would generate visual impacts upon this road corridor.

Proposed Lots 6, 7 and 8 are of sufficient configuration to accommodate the 15 metre building setback from Cargo Road as required under Orange DCP

2004 - 07 Development in Residential Areas (Refer item (m) PO 7.7-4 Planning

Outcomes - Setbacks).




Planning Outcome 2-The visual appearance of the development, including any signage, lighting or other ancillary element, must not generate a distraction to motorists.

The proposal is not adverse to this Planning Outcome, as it does not involve

any such elements that would distract motorists along Cargo Road.

Planning Outcome 3 - Any signage must not be animated whether by movement or flashing lights.

This Planning Outcome is not relevant as there is no signage proposed by this development application.

Planning Outcome 4- Where land has more than one street frontage the street with the lower volume of traffic is to provide the principal access to the development, subject to safety considerations.

The proposal is not adverse to this Planning Outcome. Proposed Lots 6, 7 and

8 have frontage to Cargo Road and are consistent with the Ploughmans Valley Conceptual Subdivision Layout for Area 3.

However, it should be noted that proposed Lots 6 and 8 are corner lots and are able to obtain access via the relevant secondary road. Only proposed Lot 7 will

rely on direct access to Cargo Road.

Planning Outcome 5 - Where access is provided onto an arterial road, distributor road or major collector road, the access point must have appropriate safe sight distances for the prevailing speed limit and clear and unimpeded entrance/exit signage must be displayed.

Proposed Lot 7 benefits by clear driver sightlines in both directions along Cargo

Road; and is assisted by a low speed traffic environment due to the 60km/h speed limit.




Planning Outcome 6- Where on-site customer parking is provided that is not immediately visible from a public road clear and unimpeded directional signage must be displayed.

This Planning Outcome is not applicable to this development.

Planning Outcome 7-Where the proposal is residential, or another noise sensitive form, appropriate noise mitigation measures to limit the development from traffic noise must be demonstrated.

The proposed development is satisfactory in terms of this Planning Outcome. Specific noise mitigation measures seem unnecessary due to the following:

• The proposal is consistent with the existing and planned residential land

use pattern along Cargo Road.

• Notwithstanding its Classified Road status, Cargo Road is not a highway or

distributor road and does not involve the high traffic volumes and heavy

vehicles typically attributed to such roads.

4.3.3 Orange Development Control Plan 2004 - 10 Special Uses and Road Zones

Cargo Road is zoned SP2 Classified Road under Orange LEP 2011. As such the proposal represents development near a major road. DCP 2004- 10 Special Uses and Road Zones sets certain Planning Outcomes in regard to development

near major roads which are considered below.

Planning Outcome 1- Development on land fronting and visible from a major road or distributor road provides for quality design on the highway and/or distributor road through landscaping, building setbacks fa~ade design, external colours and materials and siting.

The proposal is not adverse to this Planning Outcome, as it does not involve

any works that would generate visual impacts upon the Cargo Road corridor. Such matters are more relevant at the time that future development is

proposed within proposed Lots 6, 7 and 8.




Planning Outcome 2 - Residential buildings address potential noise impacts in design from adjacent main roads.

This Planning Outcome has been addressed above in Section 4.2.2 under Planning Outcome 7.

Planning Outcome 3- Direct access to major roads is limited and is constructed to the requirements of the relevant roads authority.

This Planning Outcome has been addressed above in Section 4.2.2 under Planning Outcomes 4 and 5.

Planning Outcome 4 - Residential lots are set back from planned distributor roads to provide a reasonable separation between future roads and residential land.

This Planning Outcome is not applicable to the proposed development.

Planning Outcome 5 - Where direct access to a main or arterial road is denied by the Roads Authority and comprises residential subdivision, any rear or side fences are set back and screened with dense landscaping.


Planning Outcome 6 - Commercial buildings adjoining a distributor road are setback from the property boundary by at least 10m.


Planning Outcome 7 - Lighting and signage visible from a distributor road is not animated and is designed so as not to distract motorists beyond glance recognition.

This Planning Outcome is not applicable to the proposed development. Peter Basha




4.3.4 Orange Development Control Plan 2004 - 00 Transitional Provisions - Tree Preservation

The Transitional Provisions pertaining to tree preservation are relevant to the development, only to confirm that the proposed removal of the radiata pine

trees as part of this development does not require the consent of Council.

The Tree Preservation Table in the DCP identifies radiata pines as trees that

may be removed regardless of size.

4.4 MATTERS PRESCRIBED BY THE REGULATIONS

Clause 92 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000

prescribes certain matters that must be considered by Council in determining

a development application.

There are no relevant prescribed matters that apply to this proposal.

4.5 THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT

The potential impacts of the development are considered below.

4.5.1 Generally

The proposed lots are to be used for residential purposes. A subdivision of this

nature is permissible in the zone and the creation of the proposed lots is unlikely to generate any impacts that would adversely affect the quality of the

environment of the locality.

4.5.2 Visual Amenity

The proposed subdivision will alter the visual amenity of the area due to the construction of the new cul de sac. Changes to landform would be minimal given the gentle terrain. In the context of this emerging urban residential

development pattern, the visual impact of such work is considered reasonable.

Future dwellings or buildings within the proposed lots will be required to meet

the Planning Outcomes pertaining to visual amenity provided in Orange Development Control Plan 2004-7 Development in Residential Areas.




4.5.3 Traffic Impacts

The proposal is considered to be satisfactory in terms of traffic impacts.

Development Traffic

According to the RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Development Updated Traffic Surveys a standard urban residential allotment in a regional city may generate

7.4 daily vehicle trips; and 0.71 to 0.78 weekday peak hour vehicle trips. Based

on 11 lots, the completed development has the potential to generate 81 daily vehicle trips; and 7 to 9 weekday peak hour vehicle trips.

The estimated total daily traffic generated by the development would not be concentrated. Outside the peak periods, other vehicle trips are estimated to

be distributed over the remainder of the day. When daily traffic volumes are spread/distributed over the 24 hour period (excluding 1 hour morning peak

and 1 hour evening peak) the impact on local traffic levels is considered

reasonable.

Due to the nature of the development and the surrounding residential land use

pattern, typical traffic is expected to comprise predominantly cars or light

commercial vehicles.

Capacity of Road Network

The predicted development traffic is expected to be reasonably distributed

across Carwoola Drive, Cargo Road and the new public road along that

connects to the cul de sac.

Table 4.6 (below) of the RTA Guide sets out recommended Environmental Capacity performance standards for streets with direct access to residential

properties

Table 4.6 Environmental capacity performance standards on residential streets

Road class Road type Maximum Speed Maximum peak hour volume (veh/hr) (km/hr)

Access way 25 100

Local 200 environmental goal Street 40

300 maxmum

Collector Street 50 300 environmental goal

500 maximum




Carwoola Drive is regarded as a Collector road. Whilst formal traffic counts

have not be undertaken, it is unlikely that the proposed subdivision, in conjunction with existing traffic, would generate peak hour volumes along Carwoola Road that would exceed the environmental goals for a Collector road

(i.e. peak hour maximum of 500 vehicles per hour).

The new public road along the eastern boundary of the site is regarded as a Local road. Whilst formal traffic counts have not be undertaken, it is unlikely

that the proposed development, in conjunction with future traffic, would generate peak hour volumes along the new public road that would exceed the

environmental goals for a Local road (i.e. peak hour maximum of 300 vehicles

per hour).

It is also submitted that predicted total traffic generation would integrate

satisfactorily with the existing traffic levels and capacity of Cargo Road.

On the basis of the above, it is submitted that the additional traffic generated by the proposed subdivision is expected to integrate with the existing road network without unreasonable impact.

Access

The proposed subdivision is satisfactory in terms of access provision due to the

following:

• The majority of the proposed lots are able to obtain direct access from a road other than Cargo Road. Only proposed Lot 7 relies on direct access to

Cargo Road.

• The provision of access to Lot 7 via Cargo Road is satisfactory due to the following:

Proposed Lot 7 benefits by clear driver sightlines in both directions along Cargo Road; and is assisted by a low speed traffic environment

due to the 60km/h speed limit.

- Proposed Lot 7 is large enough for vehicles to manoeuvre on site and exit in a forward direction




4.5.4 Biodiversity

Section 1. 7 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979 requires consideration of Part 7 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act, 2016 in relation

to terrestrial environments; and Part 7A of the Fisheries Management Act,

1994 in relation to aquatic environments.

The proposal does not involve an aquatic environment. As such, only

Biodiversity Conservation Act, 2016 requires consideration.

There are four matters that may trigger the Biodiversity Offset Scheme to

determine whether or not a Biodiversity Assessment Report (BDAR) is

required. These are considered below.

Whether the development occurs on land identified on the OEH Biodiversity Values Map

The proposal does not involve the clearing of native vegetation (or any other action prescribed by clause 6.1 of the Biodiversity Conservation Regulation 2016) on land included on the Biodiversity Values Map published under clause

7.3 of the Biodiversity Conservation Regulation 2016.

Whether the amount of native vegetation being cleared exceeds a threshold area based on the minimum lot size associated with the property

The proposal does not involve the clearing of native vegetation.

Whether the development or activity is "likely to significantly affect threatened species"?

The natural state of the site and surrounding area has been highly modified by the urban (residential) land use pattern.

The subject land itself has been predominantly cleared for rural residential purposes and is virtually devoid of native timer. The potential for the site to

attract less common native species is considered minimal.




The habitat value of the site is low and it does not have realistic potential to

re-establish into providing a habitat of value.

As such, the proposal is not likely to have an adverse effect on a threatened species; endangered ecological community; or a critically endangered

ecological community or their habitat.

Whether the development or activity development or activity will be carried out in a declared area of outstanding biodiversity value?

No. The subject land is not a declared area of outstanding biodiversity value.

4.5.5 Cultural Values

The archaeological value of the site is considered minimal. It has been highly

modified for several years from its original state due to previous and present land use.

In the event that unrecorded Aboriginal relics are uncovered during

development, work should immediately stop and both the NSW National Parks

and Wildlife Service and the Local Aboriginal Land Council be notified.

The European Heritage of Orange is recognised in Schedule 5 of Orange Local

Environmental Plan 2011 which lists items of environmental heritage that are

to be protected and conserved in accordance with the relevant provisions of the LEP. With reference to Schedule 5 and the LEP mapping, there are no

identified items of environmental heritage within or near the subject land that require heritage assessment.

4.5.6 Water Quality

Stormwater from the site is to be connected to Council's urban stormwater

drainage system in accordance with Council's normal requirements.

Construction of road works and services for the subdivision has the potential to generate impacts upon water quality. The following measures would

mitigate potential impacts:

• Erosion and sediment control devices should be placed during the construction phase. Retention of existing vegetation around disturbed

areas where practical would reduce mass movement of sediment.




• Immediately after construction works have been completed the exposed areas should be re-sown with appropriate grass species. The erosion and

sediment control devices installed at the construction phase should remain in place until revegetation of the exposed areas has occurred.

• Prior to any earthworks or development, an erosion and sediment control plan should be prepared. The plan is to cover all aspects of erosion and

sediment control during the construction and post-construction phases of

the development.

4.5.7 Air Quality

The potential for impacts upon air quality relate to raised dust as a result of works during the construction phase. In this regard, it is recommended that

the following measures be implemented:

• Water cart to be readily available to suppress raised dust particularly during

dry and windy periods.

• Exposed areas to be minimised and revegetated or stabilised as soon as

practicable.

• During high wind periods, construction is to be delayed or postponed.

It is suggested that these safeguards be incorporated as part ofthe erosion and

sediment control plan.

4.5.8 Solar Access

A review of lot design and orientation was undertaken in accordance with the

publication Guidelines for Solar Efficient Residential Subdivision in NSW. In consideration of the "Design Guidelines for Solar Access" the following

comments are provided:

• The proposed lot layout is within the acceptable orientation range of east west and north-south.

• The proposed lots accord with the Lot Width Guidelines to ensure that each achieves a reasonable solar access rating.


I I I I I I I I I I I I I


• Table 1 was used to assess the solar rating for each lot as there is no height limitations proposed for neighbouring dwellings to the north of each lot. In summary:

Proposed Lots 1, 2, 3, 5, 9 and 10 are in the east-west orientation range. Each has a width of more than 17.5 metres at the effective building line and would achieve a 5-star rating.

Proposed Lots 4 and 11 are in the south orientation range. Each has a width of more than 16.2 metres at the effective building line and would achieve a 5-star rating.

Proposed Lots 6, 7 and 8 are each greater than 1,000m2 and would therefore achieve a 5-star rating regardless of orientation range.

4.5.9 Social and Economic Effect

The proposed subdivision has the potential to generate positive social and economic effects due to the following:

• Increases the range and supply of low density residential land.

• Compliments and enhances the existing and developing Plough mans Valley residential area.

• Increases expenditure and economic activity in Orange during the I subdivision construction period.

I I I I I I I

• Provides land for future housing which when under construction will also increase expenditure and economic activity in Orange.

4.6 THE SUITABILITY OF THE SITE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT

The site is considered suitable for the proposed development as follows:

• The subject land is zoned for residential purposes.

• The terrain does not pose a constraint to urban residential development, particularly in terms of construction or servicing.



Proposed Urban Residential Subdivision (11 Lots and New Road) Lot 72 DP 12S1988, Carwoola Drive, Orange Page 35

• The subject land appears to be of low biodiversity value due to the surrounding urban pattern and the absence of native habitat.

• There are no areas within the site that are low lying or waterlogged to the extent that they would pose an unreasonable constraint to the future development of the land for residential purposes.

• The proposed subdivision relates effectively to the existing road network.

• Due to the existing development pattern all urban utilities including sewer, town water, stormwater, electricity, telephone and natural gas are available for connection.

4.7 SUBMISSIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACT OR REGULATIONS

With reference to Council's Planning & Development Community Participation

Plan 2019, the application will be advertised as it involves a variation of a development standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of Orange LEP 2011.

4.8 THE PUBLIC INTEREST

The proposed development is considered to be only of minor interest to the wider public due to the relatively localised nature of potential impacts.



Section 5.0

CONCLUSION

The proposed subdivision as submitted could be supported on the following grounds:

• The proposal can be demonstrated to comply with the relevant provisions of Orange LEP 2011.

• The proposal is acceptable in terms of the relevant planning outcomes provided in Orange Development Control 2004.

• The proposal is considered satisfactory in terms of Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The potential impacts of the

proposal are considered to be acceptable and may be addressed by appropriate design, responsible management practices and relevant Conditions of Consent.

• There are no aspects of the development that warrant refusal.

Should you wish to discuss any matter further please do not hesitate to contact our office on 6361 2955.

Yours faithfully


Per:

PETER BASHA


Annexure B CLAUSE 4.6- EXCEPTIONS TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

Address:

Proposal:

Carwoola Drive, Orange, being Lot 72 DP 1251988 Parish of Orange and

County of Wellington.

Development consent is sought for a subdivision of the subject land so as

to create 11 urban residential lots and a new public road as indicated in the attached Figure 3.

1. INTRODUCTION

This is a written request pursuant to Clause 4.6 - Exceptions to Development Standards of the Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 (the LEP).

The development standard for which the variation is sought relates to Clause 4.1 - Minimum Subdivision Lot Size (MLS) under the LEP.

This request has been prepared in accordance with:

• The relevant considerations in Clause 4.6 of the LEP.

• The matters in Appendix 3 of the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure publication Varying Development Standards: A Guide August

2011 (the Guidelines).

• The five part test referred to in the Guidelines.

2. DESCRIPTION OF PLANNING INSTRUMENT, DEVELOPMENT STANDARD AND PROPOSED VARIATION

2.1 What is the name of the environmental planning instrument that applies to the land?

Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 (the LEP)

2.2 What is the zoning of the land?

The subject land is zoned R2 Low Density Residential.

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards -- Minimum Subdivision Lot Size (Clause 4.1 Orange LEP 2011) Proposed Subdivision, Lot 72 DP 1251988, Orange Page 2

2.3 What are the objectives of the zone?

The objectives of the R2 Zone are:

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

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

• To ensure development is ordered in such a way as to maximise public

transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling in close proximity to settlement.

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

2.4 What is the development standard being varied?

The development standard being varied is the MLS.

2.5 Is the development standard a performance based control?

No.

It should also be noted that Clause 4.1 of the LEP represents a development

standard and not a prohibition in respect of development.

2.6 Under what clause is the development standard listed in the environmental planning instrument?

The development standard is listed under Clause 4.1 of the LEP.

2.7 What are the objectives of the development standard?

Pursuant to Clause 4.1(1) of the LEP, the objectives of the development standard

are:

a) To ensure that new subdivisions reflect existing lot sizes and patterns in the

surrounding locality,

b) To ensure that lot sizes have a practical and efficient layout to meet intended

use,


Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards -- Minimum Subdivision Lot Size (Clause 4.1 0range LEP 2011) Proposed Subdivision, Lot 72 DP 1251988, Orange Page 3

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

d) To prevent the fragmentation of rural lands,

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

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

2.8 What is the numeric value of the development standard in the environmental planning instrument?

Pursuant to Clause 4.1(3) of the LEP, the size of any lot resulting from a subdivision of land to which this clause applies is not to be less than the minimum size shown on the Lot Size Map in relation to that land.

As indicated in the diagram below, subdivision of the subject land is subject to two separate minimum lot sizes as follows:

• 2,000m2 in the section of the land shaded red.

• 850m2 in the section of the land shaded pink.

F i qr 3


Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards - Minimum Subdivision Lot Size (Clause 4.1 Orange LEP 2011) Proposed Subdivision, Lot 72 DP 1251988, Orange Page 4

2.9 What is the proposed numeric value of the development standard in the development application?

With reference to Figure 3, proposed Lots 5 and 9 straddle the boundary between the 2,000m2 MLS zone and the 850m2 MLS zone. It is proposed to create these lots

with a minimum area of 850m2• Technically they do not satisfy the relevant MLS of 2,000m2.

2.10 What is the percentage variation between the proposal and the environmental planning instrument?

Proposed Lot 5 with an area of l,206m2 seek to vary the MLS of 2,000m2 by 39. 7%.

Proposed Lot 9 with an area of 853.lm2 seeks to vary the MLS of 2,000m2 by 57%.

3. ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSED VARIATION

3.1 Overview

Clause 4.6 - Exceptions to development standards establishes the framework for varying development standards applying under an LEP and provides as follows:

1) The objectives of this clause are as follows:

a) to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development,

b) to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances.

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. However, this clause does not apply to a development standard that is expressly excluded from the operation of this clause.

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:


Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards -- Minimum Subdivision Lot Size (Clause 4.1 Orange LEP 2011) Proposed Subdivision, Lot 72 DP 1251988, 0range Page 5

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 Secretary has been obtained.

5) In deciding whether to grant concurrence, the Secretary must consider:

a) whether contravention of the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and

b) the public benefit of maintaining the development standard, and

c) any other matters required to be taken into consideration by the Secretary before granting concurrence.

6) Development consent must not be granted under this clause for a subdivision of land in Zone RU1 Primary Production, Zone RU2 Rural Landscape, Zone RU3 Forestry, Zone RU4 Primary Production Small Lots, Zone RU6 Transition, Zone RS Large Lot Residential, Zone E2 Environmental Conservation, Zone E3 Environmental Management or Zone E4 Environmental Living if:

a) the subdivision will result in 2 or more lots of less than the minimum area specified for such lots by a development standard, or

b) the subdivision will result in at least one lot that is less than 90% of the minimum area specified for such a lot by a development standard.



Note. When this Plan was made it did not include Zone RU2 Rural Landscape, Zone RU3 Forestry, Zone RU4 Primary Production Small Lots or Zone RUG Transition.

7) After determining a development application made pursuant to this clause, the consent authority must keep a record of its assessment of the factors required to be addressed in the applicant's written request referred to in subclause (3).

8) This clause does not allow development consent to be granted for development that would contravene any of the following:

a) a development standard for complying development,

b) a development standard that arises, under the regulations under the Act, in connection with a commitment set out in a BASIX certificate for a building to which State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 applies or for the land on which such a building is situated,

c) clause 5.4,

ca) clause 6.1 or 6.2.

3.2 Response to Clause 4.6 Matters

Clause 4.6 - Exceptions to development standards establishes the framework for varying development standards applying under an LEP.

In consideration of subclause (1):

A clear aim of Clause 4.6 is for flexibility in the application of a planning control

where it can be demonstrated that strict compliance is unreasonable and

unnecessary. This proposal relies on such flexibility to have the development approved at the lot sizes proposed in the DA.

Flexibility in this matter would result in a better outcome for and from the

development for the reasons outlined in support of subclause (3) below.


A variation of the MLS is a development standard that may be considered within

the ambit and operation of this clause.




The matters contained in subclause (3) (a) and (b) are addressed in detail in Sections 3.3 and 3.4 below.


The information submitted in Sections 3.3 to 3.9 below provides reasonable justification to contravene the development standard.


The matters contained in subclause (5) (a) to (c) are addressed in Sections 3.3 to 3.9 below.


This subdivision involves land in the R2 Low Density Residential Zone. As such, subclause (6) above is not relevant.


The requirements of subclause (7) above are a matter for Council as the consent authority.

In consideration of subclause (B):

The proposal does not involve any of the matters referred to in (a) to (ca) above. As such, subclause (8) above is not relevant.

3.3 Is compliance with the development standard unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?

Is a development which complies with the standard unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?

A development that strictly complies with the relevant MLS is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of this case for the reasons explained below.

• There is enough area within the subject land to achieve the proposed lot yield of 11 lots. However, in this case, strict adherence to the delineation of the MLS boundary would result in a less than optimum subdivision layout.



• Lot 5 could be contained entirely within the 850m2 MLS by rolling the areas around the cul de sac to create each lot with a minimum area of 850m2.

However, this would compromise lot shape and result in Lot 6 being much

larger than it needs to be.

• Whilst the variation of the development standard seems high in terms of a percentage, it should be recognised that extent of variation is distorted

because each of the subject lots straddle the boundary between the MLS zone of 2,000m2 and the MLS zone of 850m2. Scaling from the attached Figure 3, it

is estimated that:

- 40% (or 482m) of Lot 5 lies in the 2,000m2 MLS zone; and 60% (or 724m) lies in the 850m2 MLS zone.

14% (or 120m) of Lot 9 lies in the 2,000m2 MLS zone; and 86% (or 733m) lies in the 850m2 MLS zone.

• It is assumed that the intention of the 2,000m2 MLS is to create large lots fronting Cargo Road, to encourage a low-density character along this approach to the City. The proposal achieves this through the creation of proposed Lots

6, 7 and 8. All of the 850m2 MLS lots are positioned behind these lots.

• Despite the variation:

The proposed lots that front Cargo Road are able to accommodate the 15 metre building setback line encouraged by Orange DCP 2004 -07

Development in Residential Areas.

The proposed lots that front Carwoola Drive are able to accommodate the 6 metre building setback line encouraged by Orange DCP 2004 - 07

Development in Residential Areas.

Would the underlying objective or purpose be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required?

Strict compliance with the 2,000m2 MLS would not necessarily defeat or thwart

the underlying objective or purpose of the development standard.

However, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the development standard as explained below in Section 3.5.



Has the development standard been virtually abandoned or destroyed by the Council's own actions in departing from the standard.

The development standard cannot be said to be abandoned. However, the

proposed lot sizes are consistent with the lot sizes that are encouraged within Area 3 of Plough mans Valley.

Is the zoning of the land unreasonable or inappropriate?

The zoning of the land is appropriate for the site.

3.4 Are there sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard?

In the circumstances of the case, there are sufficient grounds to justify a variation of the development standard. These are as follows:

• A variation of the development standard is justified in this case because it can be demonstrated that the proposal satisfies the objectives of the R2 Low

Density Residential zone and the objectives of the M LS.

• The proposal does not introduce lot sizes that cannot be found elsewhere within the R2 Zone for the Plough mans Valley Area 3.

• As explained in the Statement of Environmental Effects, the development is

compliant with the DCP provisions that apply in Ploughmans valley.

• As addressed in the Statement of Environmental Effects, non-compliance with the standard does not generate unacceptable impacts in the locality.

3.5 Is the proposed development in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development in the zone?

Objectives of the Minimum Lot Size Standard

The proposal, including the proposed variation of the MLS would uphold the objectives of the development standard due to the following.


Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards - Minimum Subdivision Lot Size (Clause 4.1 Orange LEP 2011) Proposed Subdivision, Lot 72 DP 1251988, Orange Page 10

a) To ensure that new subdivisions reflect existing lot sizes and patterns in the surrounding locality.

The proposed variation of the MLS remains consistent with this objective due to the following:

• Proposed 5 and 9 reflect the size of other lots that are planned for the immediate area.

• The proposal does not require a variation of the road pattern or the general

layout of the Plough mans Valley Area 3 Concept Plan.

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

The proposed variation of the MLS remains consistent with this objective as

proposed Lots 5 and 9 will function appropriately as residential parcels. In this regard:

• They are of appropriate width and depth to enable a dwelling to be reasonably

located and orientated.

• They will contribute to the diversity and housing options that are encouraged

for the area.

• They do not compromise landscape and scenic character.

c) To ensure that lot sizes do not undermine the land's capability to support rural development.

This objective is not relevant as the subject land is not within a rural zone.

d) To prevent the fragmentation of rural lands.

This objective is not relevant as the subject land is not within a rural zone.



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

Strict adherence to the development standard would thwart the ability to meet

this particular objective. The proposed variation of the MLS would satisfy this objective to a more effective extent than the current DCP layout because the modest increase in lot yield as a result of the MLS variation encourages a more

efficient use of servicing and infrastructure.

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

There are no aspects of the proposed MLS variation that would be adverse to this

objective.

Objectives of the Zone

The proposal including the proposed variation of the MLS remains consistent with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone as explained below.

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

The proposed subdivision is entirely consistent with the first stated objective

because it provides residential allotments of a size that encourage a low density

residential environment.

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

In consideration of this objective, there are no aspects of the proposed subdivision that would reduce the potential to provide facilities and services that meet the

day to day needs of residents.



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

In consideration of this objective, the proposed subdivision will integrate with the

existing and planned road and transport networks that serve the area. The land is

in reasonable proximity to encourage cycling to other areas of the City.

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

This objective relates to the Southern Link Road and is not relevant to this

proposal.

3.6 Whether contravention of the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning?

The contravention of the development standard does not raise an issue of State or regional planning significance as it relates to local and contextual conditions.

3.7 Is there public benefit in maintaining the development standard?

There is public benefit in maintaining development standards. However,

consistent with the objectives of Clause 4.6(1), there is also public benefit in

maintaining flexibility in specific circumstances.

Public benefit would not suffer as a result of the variation to the MLS due to the

following:

• The provision of residential land in suitable locations is considered to be for the public benefit. In this regard, the proposed variation would represent a modest increase in the lot yield without compromising desirable residential

amenity.

• Proper utilisation of public infrastructure is considered to be for the public benefit. In this regard, the proposal will result in a more efficient use of roads

and utility services.

• There would be no discernible difference to the public use or appreciation of the site.



3.8 How would strict compliance hinder the attainment of the relevant objects specified in Section 1.3 of the Act?

The objects of Section 1.3 of the Act, are as follows:

a) to promote the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment by the proper management, development and conservation of the State's natural and other resources,

b) to facilitate ecologically sustainable development by integrating relevant economic, environmental and social considerations in decision-making about environmental planning and assessment,

c) to promote the orderly and economic use and development of land,

d) to promote the delivery and maintenance of affordable housing,

e) to protect the environment, including the conservation of threatened and other species of native animals and plants, ecological communities and their habitats,

f) to promote the sustainable management of built and cultural heritage (including Aboriginal cultural heritage),

g) to promote good design and amenity of the built environment,

h) to promote the proper construction and maintenance of buildings, including the protection of the health and safety of their occupants,

i) to promote the sharing of the responsibility for environmental planning and assessment between the different levels of government in the State,

j) to provide increased opportunity for community participation in environmental planning and assessment.

A development that strictly complies with the MLS may result in an inferior planning outcome due to the following:

• Limits the choice of residential land on a site that can be demonstrated to sustain the proposed modest increase in lot yield.

• Prevents more efficient utilisation of public roads and services.

In this sense it may be said that compliance with the standard would hinder the

attainment of objectives (c) and (d) of the Act. Peter Basha



3.9 Is the objection well founded?

Based on the information outlined in previous sections, it is considered that the objection is well founded and that granting an exception to the development

standard can be supported in the circumstances of the case.

4. CONCLUSION

The proposed variation is based on the reasons within this formal request to vary the MLS controls that apply to the subject land.

A development that strictly complies with the development standard would not

necessarily result in a better planning outcome.

The proposed departure from the development standard is not likely to result in

an unacceptable precedent for future development within the Plough mans Valley

area given the particular circumstances of the subject land.

The variation to the MLS will not result in unacceptable impacts upon the existing

and future amenity of adjoining properties.

It is concluded that the variation to the MLS is well founded and that compliance with the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable in the circumstances of the

case.


Documents

PLANNING DEVELOPMENT I DEVELOPMENT ......The development application consists of this report, a completed development application form, and the following plans: Annexure A-- Plans