development application - orange city council · peter basha planning & development (refer...

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

Proposed Dual Occupancy (Attached) and Subdivision (2 Lots) Lot 119 DP 1237871

21 Scarborough Street, Orange

Prepared for Hibbards

September 2019

Ref: DA1LCB19062

343 Summer St, PO Box 1827, Orange NSW 2800 telephone 02 6361 2955 facsimile 02 6360 4700 mobile 0409 821 016 email [email protected] abn 91558813 035

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section 1.0 1

INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 OVERVIEW 1 1.2 APPLICANT 1 1.3 OWNER 1 1.4 DOCUMENTATION 1

Section 2. 0 3

SUBJECT LAND 3

2.1 LOCATION, TITLE AND ZONING 3 2.2 SITE DESCRIPTION 3 2.3 SERVICES 4 2.4 URBAN CONTEXT 4 2.5 CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES 4

Section }.0 5

THE PROPOSAL S

3.1 PROPOSED DUAL OCCUPANCY 5 3.2 PROPOSED SUBDIVISION 6 3.3 STAGING 6

Section +.0 1

TOWN PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 7

4.1 PROVISIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS 7 4.1.1 Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011.. 7 4.1.2 State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land 12

4.2 PROVISIONS OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS 13 4.3 PROVISIONS OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS 13

4.3.1 4.3.2 4.3.3 4.3.4 4.3.5 4.3.6 4.3.7 4.3.8 4.3.9 4.3.10 4.3.11 4.3.12 4.3.13 4.3.14 4.3.15 4.3.16 4.3.17 4.3.18

Subdivision 13 Site Analysis 14 Neighbourhood Character 14 Building Appearance 15 Setbacks 17 Visual Bulk 17 Walls and Boundaries 18 Daylight and Sunlight 18 Views 21 Visual Privacy 22 Acoustic Privacy 23 Security 23 Public Transport 24 Circulation and Design 24 Car Parking 25 Private Open Space 25 Open Space and Landscaping 27 Stormwater 28

4.3.19 Erosion and Sedimentation 28 4.4 MATIER PRESCRIBED BY THE REGULATIONS 29 4.5 THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT 29

4.5.1 Generally 29

4.5.2 Visual Amenity 29 4.5.3 Solar Access 30 4.5.4 Traffic Impacts 30 4.5.5 Existing and Future Amenity of the Neighbourhood 30 4.5.6 Soil Erosion 30 4.5.7 Cumulative Impacts 31

4.6 THE SUITABILITY OF THE SITE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT 31 4.6.1 Physical Attributes 31 4.6.2 Servicing 31

4.7 SUBMISSIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACT OR REGULATIONS 32 4.8 THE PUBLIC INTEREST 32

Section 5. 0 33

CONCLUSION 33

Annexure A Plans by Peter Basha Planning & Development

Annexure B Building Design Plans by Sam Morgan Designs

Annexure C BASIX/NatHERS Certificates

Annexure D Request - Exceptions to Development Standards (Clause 4.6, Orange LEP 2011)

ii

Section 1.0

INTRODUCTION

1.1 OVERVIEW

This development application relates to vacant residential land at 21

Scarborough Street, Orange, described as Lot 119 DP 1237871. The proposal involves:

• Construction of an attached dual occupancy on the subject land, as depicted in the attached plans by Hibbards (refer Drawings DAOl to DA15 in Annexure 8).

• Subdivision of the land to create 2 lots as depicted in the attached plans by Peter Basha Planning & Development (refer Figure 3 in Annexure A).

The proposed subdivision relies on a variation to the Minimum Lot Size of 500m2 which applies to the subject land. A formal request to vary this

development standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of Orange LEP 2011 is provided in Annexure D.

1.2 APPLICANT

Hibbards Pty Ltd

c/- Peter Basha Planning & Development PO Box 1827

ORANGE NSW 2800

1.3 OWNER

Enterprise Four Pty Ltd 125 Byng Street

ORANGE 2800

1.4 DOCUMENTATION

The development application consists of this report, a completed application

form, and the following documentation:

Peter Basha Planning & Development

Proposed Dual Occupancy (attached) and Subdivision (2 Lots) 21 Scarborough Street, Orange being Lot 119 DP 1237871 Page 2

Annexure A - Plans by Peter Basha Planning and Development Pty ltd

Figure 1 Location

Figure 2 Existing Boundaries and Site Detail

Figure 3 Proposed Subdivision

Annexure B - Plans by Hibbards

Drawing DA 01 Cover Sheet, Drawing Schedule, BASIX, Construction Notes

Drawing DA 02 Site Plan and Analysis

Drawing DA 03 Services Plan

Drawing DA 04 Subdivision Plan

Drawing DA 05 Slab Layout

Drawing DA06 Floor Plan

Drawing DA 07 Elevations

Drawing DA 08 Section and Typical Details

Drawing DA 09 Landscape Plan

Drawing DA 10 Electrical Plan

Drawing DA 11 Wet Area Details

Drawing DA 12 Wet Area Details

Drawing DA 13 Wet Area and Kitchen Details

Drawing DA 14 Kitchen Elevations

Drawing DA15 Sun Studies

Annexure C

BASIX/NatHERS Certificates

Annexure D

Request - Exceptions to Development Standard (Clause 4.6, Orange LEP 2011)


Section2.0

SUBJECT LAND

2.1 LOCATION, TITLE AND ZONING

The subject land is located on the north side of Scarborough Street in the developing Leeds Parade residential area {refer below and Figure 1). The street

address is 21 Scarborough Street, Orange.

The Real Property description is Lot 119 DP 1237871, Parish of Orange, and

County of Wellington.

The land is zoned Rl General Residential pursuant to Orange Local Environmental Plan {LEP) 2011.

2.2 SITE DESCRIPTION

The land is a rectangular allotment with an area of 841.7m2• It has a 21 metre frontage to Scarborough Street which forms the southern boundary. The

eastern and western boundary is some 40 metres. The northern boundary is 21 metres that adjoins vacant commercial land.

The subject land is vacant. There are no trees within the site and the surface cover is grass. The land falls towards the north east. The terrain is gradual with

cross fall in the order of 1.4 metres.



An easement to drain sewage and an easement to drain water (3 metres wide) runs along the northern boundary. An easement to drain water (2 metres wide)

extends along the eastern boundary.

2.3 SERVICES

Typical urban utilities are available to the subject land. Council's sewer and

stormwater mains are located within the identified easements. Town water, electricity, gas and telephone mains are located at the front of the site in the road reserve.

2.4 URBAN CONTEXT

The subject land is located within a relatively new residential release area. The adjoining land to the north is undeveloped (vacant) land in the 87 Business Park

Zone. The adjoining land to the west comprises an attached dual occupancy.

The land to the east comprises a single dwelling house.

On a slightly broader scope, the urban release area development pattern comprises established dwellings; dwellings under construction and vacant lots.

2.5 CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES

A site analysis diagram has been provided in Figure 2. There are certain aspects of the site that present constraints and opportunities for the development.

These are summarised as follows:

• Due to its size and configuration, the subject land represents a suitable site for dual occupancy development and enables the proposal to continue the expected streetscape pattern of single-storey detached dwellings that face the street.

• There is no important vegetation within the site to constrain the development.

• The terrain is reasonably gradual and only a modest retaining wall is required to address the slope.

• The slope of the site and the location of existing services will enable the development to achieve gravity drainage to sewer and stormwater mains

within to the existing easement along the northern boundary. Peter Basha

Planning & Development

Section;.o

THE PROPOSAL

This application seeks consent for development of the land as follows:

3.1 PROPOSED DUAL OCCUPANCY

It is proposed to construct an attached dual occupancy on the subject land as depicted in the attached plan set by Hibbards (refer Annexure 8).

Each dwelling will contain 3 bedrooms (with ensuite to main); open-plan kitchen/dining/living zone; main bathroom; laundry; alfresco area; and attached single garage.

The external finishes of the proposed dwellings will comprise:

• Face brick walls

• Colorbond roof sheeting at 22.5° pitch

• Powder coated aluminium-framed windows

• Colorbond panel style garage doors

The site will be landscaped, and lawn areas will be established. Private open

space with reasonable solar access will be provided. A concrete driveway will be constructed to the garages for each dwelling as indicated in the attached plans.

Colorbond fencing, 1.8 metres high will be established between the proposed dwellings. A 1.8 metre high Colorbond fence in Monument exists along the western and eastern boundary of the site. A rural fence exists along the northern boundary and will be replaced with Colorbond fencing to match other fencing for the site.

A retaining wall will be established where indicated to a maximum height of 400mm and softened with landscaping.


Proposed Dual Occupancy (attached) and Subdivision (2 Lots) 21 Scarborough Street, Orange -~_eirig_L_ot_1_1_9 _D_P _12_3_7_87_1 Pa~g~e_6_

3.2 PROPOSED SUBDIVISION

As shown in the attached Figure 3, it is proposed to subdivide the subject land to create 2 urban residential lots as follows:

Lot Area (m2) subject to survey

1 446.6m2

2 395.lm2

TOTAL 841.7m2

According to Orange DCP 2004, the proposed lots represent Cottage Lots (350- 500m2}.

Proposed Lot 1 will excise Dwelling 1 and proposed Lot 2 will excise Dwelling 2

and both lots will obtain vehicle access from Scarborough Street.

Each of the proposed lots/dwellings will be connected to urban utility services in accordance with the requirements of the relevant supply authority.

3.3 STAGING

The proposal involves the following development staging:

Stage 1 Construction of proposed Dwellings 1 and 2

Stage 2 Subdivision to create proposed Lots 1 and 2


Section+.o

TOWN PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

In determining the application, Council must take into consideration the relevant

matters under section 4.15 ofthe Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

These are assessed below.

4.1 PROVISIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

4.1.1 Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011

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

Zoning

The subject land is zoned Rl General Residential. The zone objectives are:

• To provide for the housing needs of the community.

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

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

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

to settlement.

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

alternative access.

The proposal is consistent with the zone objectives as follows:

• In response to the first stated objective, the proposal would have a positive

effect on the housing needs of the community by increasing the offering

and range of residential accommodation.

• In response to the second stated objective, the proposal contributes to the variety of housing types and densities.

• The third stated objective is not relevant to this proposal. The development involves residential land use only.



• In consideration of the fourth zone objective, the subject land is within an establishing residential area that is to be serviced by public bus routes.

• The fifth stated objective pertains to the Southern Link Road and is not

relevant to this proposal.

Permissibility

According to the dictionary in the LEP, the proposed development would be

defined as residential accommodation (dual occupancy) and subdivision.

According to the Land Use Table in Part 2 of the LEP dual occupancy is

permissible in the Rl Zone subject to obtaining the development consent of

Council.

The proposed subdivision is permissible with the consent of Council pursuant to Clause 2.6 of the LEP.

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. Peter Basha



In consideration of the LEP aims, the following comments are provided in

support of the development:

• 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 (f)].

Clause 4.1 Minimum subdivision lot size

Pursuant to the Lot Size Map, the subdivision of the land is subject to a minimum lot size of SOOm2.

The proposed lots do not satisfy the MLS and a variation is sought pursuant to LEP Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards.

Clause 4.18 Minimum lot size for dual occupancy, multi dwelling housing

Clause 4.18 is applicable to the proposal. The objective of this clause is to achieve planned residential density in certain zones. Pursuant to Clause

4.18{2), the minimum lot size for dual occupancy in the Rl General Residential zone is 800m2.

The subject land has an area of 841.7m2 and therefore complies with the

requirements of this clause.


Proposed Dual Occupancy (attached} and Subdivision (2 Lots} 21 Scarborough Street, Orange being Lot 119 DP 1237871 Page 10

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

The proposed lots do not satisfy the MLS of 500m2. Therefore, the applicant seeks recourse to Clause 4.6 of the LEP to vary this development. 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 the MLS is

provided in Annexure D.

Clause 7.3 Storm water management

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. Peter Basha



The proposed development will be connected to the existing stormwater mains in accordance with Council's normal requirements.

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,

c) ifthat impact cannot be minimised-the development will be managed

to mitigate that impact.

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

adverse impact on groundwater resources. In this regard: Peter Basha



• On-site effluent disposal will not occur. The residential development of the land requires effluent disposal to occur via connection to 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

Pursuant to Clause 7.11, 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 development will satisfy the requirements of this clause. The

subject land has frontage to public roads and is connected to available urban

utilities. Adjustment or augmentation of existing service connections will be in

accordance with the requirements of the relevant supply authority.

4.1.2 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. Peter Basha



In terms of potential soil contamination, it is understood that an assessment was undertaken as part of the subdivision requirements that applied in relation

to the creation of the subject land. Since its creation as a residential allotment, the subject land has remained vacant.

On this basis, it is understood that Council would not require further assessment in regard to potential site contamination.

4.2 PROVISIONS OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

There are no known draft regional, state or local planning instruments that are

likely to affect the subject land or proposed development.

4.3 PROVISIONS OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS

Orange DCP 2004-07 Development in Residential Areas is relevant to this proposal. The provisions of Part 7 are considered below.

4.3.1 Subdivision

The DCP sets the following (applicable) Planning Outcomes in regard to Urban

Residential Subdivision:

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

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

• Design and construction complies with the Orange Development and Subdivision Code

This proposal satisfies the above Planning Outcome due to the following:

• Proposed Lots 1 and 2 depict the boundary setbacks for the proposed dwelling in each. As demonstrated in this report, the proposed lots will be of sufficient area to provide a satisfactory standard of residential amenity to the proposed dwellings in respect of solar access and privacy.

• The proposed development will be connected to Council's sewer, town

water and stormwater reticulations in accordance with normal requirements. Power, telephone and natural gas services are available to the development in accordance with the requirements of the relevant

supply authority.



• The subdivision design and construction will comply with the Orange Development and Subdivision Code.

4.3.2 Site Analysis

In accordance with Section 7.6 a Site Analysis has been provided in Figure 2

and the constraints and opportunities explained in Section 2.5 of this report.

4.3.3 Neighbourhood Character

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcomes in regard to Neighbourhood Character:

• Site layout and building design enables the:

Creation of attractive residential environments with clear character and identity

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

• Buildings are designed to complement the relevant features and built form that are identified as part of the desired neighbourhood character.

• The streetscape is designed to encourage pedestrian access and use.

This proposal satisfies the above Planning Outcomes due to the following:

• The site layout and building design is intended to create an attractive residential environment. In this regard:

The neighbourhood character in this release area comprises mostly contemporary, single-storey dwellings with landscaped front yards. The

proposed development displays similar attributes and therefore remains consistent with the expected character of the neighbourhood.

The proposed development is not influenced or constrained by important views, vegetation or landmarks.

The proposal complements the streetscape by providing the appearance of a single dwelling in the streetscape.

The development has been designed to provide internal living areas

and private open space areas with reasonable solar access.


Proposed Dual Occupancy (attached) and Subdivision (2 Lots) 21 Scarborough Street, Orange being Lot 119 DP 1237871 Page lS

• The dwellings adopt a building form and finish that is considered typical of residential development in the City's newer northern residential areas. In

particular, the proposed dwellings comprise the following elements to remain consistent with the expected development form:

Hipped roof lines

Face brick external walls

Panel lift garage doors facing the street

Bulk and scale commensurate with other dwellings

Landscaped front yards

• Notwithstanding the modest increase in traffic movements (due to one additional dwelling), the proposal will not adversely impact on pedestrian access associated with the streetscape, due to the following:

Pedestrian movements are expected to be modest in this neighbourhood.

The reverse egress arrangements for the proposed dwellings will be consistent with those for single dwellings in this neighbourhood and

throughout the City generally.

Adequate driver and pedestrian sight lines will be achieved so that

vehicles entering and exiting the site are visible to pedestrians and vice versa.

4.3.4 Building Appearance

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcomes in regard to Building Appearance:

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

• The frontages of buildings and their entries face the street.

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



This proposal can be demonstrated to be satisfactory in this regard due to the following:

• The external finishes (face brickwork walls; Colorbond roofing; and powder coated garage doors and window frames) are considered appropriate in

this developing residential neighbourhood.

• The scale of the attached dual occupancy, in terms of building footprint and height, will be commensurate with surrounding development.

• The proposed development will address the street with a contemporary fac;:ade comprising windows, front entry door and porch. Landscaping is proposed as indicated in the landscape plan.

• Whilst the entrance to Dwelling 1 does not face the street, the arrangement is considered acceptable due to the following:

- The proposed dual occupancy presents as a single dwelling and addresses the streetscape as such;

- There are several other examples of this dual occupancy building design within the North Orange Residential Area;

- The DCP provides as "guidance" to development proponents and consent authorities. Notwithstanding this, the DCP does not

categorically require all dwellings on a lot to face the street; and

- The arrangement is not dissimilar to a battle-axe arrangement that only

has one dwelling in a dual occupancy presenting to a street.

- The garages will not unreasonably dominate the respective street frontage due to the following:

- The single garage for each dwelling presents as a double garage with

separation of a brick pillar providing articulation and visual interest.

- The width of the garage doors opening is less than 50% for the front elevation of the total building facade,

- The garages are setback a minimum of 5.5 metres from the street

boundary as encouraged by the DCP.


Proposed Dual Occupancy (attached) and Subdivision (2 Lots) 21 Scarborough Street, Orange being Lot 119 DP._1_2_37_8_7_1 P~ag~e_1_7~

The frontage for the attached dual occupancy is to be landscaped.

The projecting front dwelling fac;:ade and porch treatment will comprise the dominant design element within the street elevation and reduce

visual emphasis on the garages.

4.3.5 Setbacks

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

• Street setbacks contribute to the desired neighbourhood character, assist with the integration of new development and make efficient use of the site.

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

As required by the DCP, the front boundary setback for each of the proposed dwellings will be a minimum of 4.5 metres. The garage for each dwelling complies with the minimum setback of 5.5 metres required by the DCP.

4.3.6 Visual Bulk

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

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

Side and rear setbacks progressively increased to reduce bulk and overshadowing

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

Building form and siting that relates to /ondform, with minimal land shaping (cut and fill}

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

Building to the boundary where appropriate

In consideration of the DCP Guidelines, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory due to the following:

• The proposed dual occupancy will be single-storey with reasonable

setbacks from side and rear boundaries. The dwellings will complement the height and massing of dwellings in the developing neighbourhood.



• The proposed dwellings are well setback from the site boundaries to ensure that they will be contained within the visual bulk envelope (VBE) generated

by planes projected at 45° over the site, commencing 2.5 metres above existing ground level from each side and rear boundary.

• Whilst Dwelling 2 is closer to the western boundary, it will be sited in cut and therefore at a lower ground level and contained within the VBE which applies to that boundary.

• The proposed dual occupancy will comprise a total building area of 344.06m2• Based on the site area of 841.7m2 the development will have site coverage of just under 41% to comply with the maximum of 50%

prescribed in the DCP.

• The slope of the land will require earthworks and a modest retaining structure within the site and along the western boundary adjoining Lot 120 DP 1237871.

• The proposed finished floor levels for Dwellings 1 and 2 relate reasonably to existing ground levels and are not expected to generate adverse impacts

in respect of visual bulk, solar access or privacy.

4.3. 7 Walls and Boundaries

The DCP sets the following planning outcomes in regard to Walls and

Boundaries:

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

The privacy of neighbouring dwellings and private open space

The access to daylight reaching adjoining properties

The impact of boundary walls on neighbours

As outlined in this report, the proposed attached dual occupancy will not have adverse impacts in respect of privacy, solar access or visual bulk for the proposed and future adjoining dwellings.

4.3.8 Daylight and Sunlight

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



• Buildings are sited and designed to ensure:

Daylight to habitable rooms in adjacent dwellings is not significantly reduced

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

Consideration of Council's Energy Efficiency Code.

Overshadowing of Dwellings

According to the DCP Guidelines and Council's Energy Efficiency Code, sunlight to at least 75% of north-facing living-area windows within the development

and on adjoining land is to be provided for a minimum of 4 hours on 21 June; or not further reduced than existing where already less.

The proposed development satisfies this aspect of the DCP. The shadow diagrams indicate that:

• The north facing living area window in proposed Dwelling 2 will achieve the required amount of direct sunlight on the winter solstice.

• The north facing living are window for Dwelling 1 is below the alfresco roof. As such, this window will not achieve the required amount of direct

sunlight on the winter solstice. However, it is requested that the solar access arrangements for Dwelling 1 be accepted for the following reasons:

A 1200mm x 800mm skylight is proposed above the internal living area. The DCP does not make a distinction between windows in a wall and

windows in a roof. In this case the skylight (roof window} will deliver direct sunlight to the internal living area and thus meet the general

intent of the DCP Planning Outcomes pertaining to Daylight and Sunlight.

In any event, the proposed alfresco should not be discounted as a living area. In effect, it represents an extension of the internal living area to provide residents with improved residential amenity. To remove the alfresco simply to meet the numeric requirements of the DCP would

diminish the amenity of the dwelling in other respects. The alfresco provides an outdoor living opportunity that will enhance residential

amenity by providing shade in summer, shelter in winter, weather protection in general.



• The shadow diagrams indicate that:

- Shadow impact on the adjoining properties to the east and west is

attributed mostly to boundary fencing.

- The impact on the property to the west occurs in the morning period

with no impact by 12:00pm.

- The impact on the property to the east occurs in the afternoon period,

with no impact until 12:00pm.

As such, the development would meet the DCP requirements in regard to

maintaining solar access to dwellings on adjoining land.

Overshadowing of Private Open Space

According to the DCP Guidelines and Council's Energy Smart Homes Code, sunlight is to be available to at least 40% of required open space for dwellings

within the development and on neighbouring properties for at least 3 hours between 9.00am and 3.00pm.

The proposed development satisfies this aspect of the DCP as follows:

• Overshadowing of private open space within the development itself is compliant with the DCP. The floor area is measured from the internal face

of external walls and demonstrated on the site calculation table on Drawing

DA06:

Dwelling 1 has a floor area of 134.39m2 (excluding garage, porch and

alfresco) and thus requires a private open space area of 67.195m2.

Forty percent (40%) of the required open space area is 26.88m2• The

shadow diagrams indicate that the area of direct sunlight will range from 55.6m2 to 96.66m2 between 9:00am and 3.00pm on 21 June.

Dwelling 2 has a floor area of 136.03m2 (excluding garage, porch and

alfresco) and thus requires a private open space area of 68.02m2• Forty percent (40%) of the required open space area is 27.21m2. The shadow diagrams indicate that the area of direct sunlight will range from

44.47m2 to 89.76m2 between 9:00am and 3:00pm on 21 June.

• The development would meet the DCP requirements in regard to maintaining reasonable solar access to the private open space of

surrounding properties due to the following: Peter Basha


Proposed Dual Occupancy (attached) and Subdivision (2 Lots) 21 Scarborough Street, Orange be_in-g_Lo_t_1_1_9 _D_P_1_23_7_8_71 Pa~g~e_2_1 _

The shadow diagrams indicate that no shadowing impact will occur to the adjoining property to the west after 12:00pm.

The shadow diagrams indicate that shadowing impact on the adjoining property to the east would only occur in the afternoon period and be mostly attributed to the fence.

Energy Performance Statement

BASIX/NatHERS certificates have been prepared {refer Annexure C). The dual occupancy will comply with the relevant provisions in respect of water, thermal comfort and energy.

The proposed development is considered satisfactory in terms of Council's Energy Efficiency Code due to the following:

• Energy efficient influences in the design include northerly orientation of living areas; slab on ground; and only necessary glazing along the southern and western sides of the dwellings.

• Energy efficient influences in the landscape design include the provision of species or plantings with low water demand. All beds are recommended to

be mulched.

• The appropriate star rated water saving devices will be installed.

• Rainwater tanks will collect roof water as an alternative water supply system.

• The hot water system for each dwelling will be of a type that achieves the star rating recommended in the BASIX certificate for each dwelling.

4.3.9 Views

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

• Building form and design allow for residents from adjacent properties to share prominent views where possible.

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


Proposed Dual Occupancy (attached} and Subdivision (2 Lots} 21 Scarborough Street, Orange being Lot 119 DP 1237871 Page 22

Being single-storey and with finished floor levels reasonably commensurate with existing ground level, the proposed dual occupancy would not

unreasonably diminish views for other properties in the vicinity.

4.3.10 Visual Privacy

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

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

Building siting and layout

Location of windows and balconies

And secondly by:

Design of windows or use of screening devices and landscaping.

In consideration of the DCP Guidelines, the proposal is considered to be

satisfactory due to the following:

Privacy within the Development

• The principal living room windows for proposed Dwellings 1 and 2 will overlook their respective private open space area and will not directly

oppose each other.

• The proposed site levels assist to maintain privacy. Generally, the finished floor levels of the dwellings are reasonably commensurate with existing ground level and well below the DCP guideline of 1.5 metres above natural

ground level at which point additional privacy measures should be

implemented.

• The front door for each dwelling are orientated on separate facades to ensure that occupants achieve reasonable privacy when entering or exiting

their residence.

• The retaining wall and proposed 1.8 metre Colorbond fence will visually obstruct overlooking between the proposed common boundary.

• Due to the attached configuration of Dwellings 1 and 2, there will be minimal active interface between the dwellings.



Privacy in relation to Neighbours

• Privacy in relation to the property to the west will be achieved as follows:

The existing Colorbond 1.8 metre fence along the western boundary

will break direct line of sight between the two properties and will have a height similar to the proposed eave height of Dwelling 2.

Proposed Dwelling 2 will be set at a lower finished ground level than

the finished ground level of the adjoining property to the west.

• Privacy in relation to the property to the east will be achieved as follows:

The existing Colorbond 1.8 metre fence along the eastern boundary will break direct line of sight between the two properties and will have a

height similar to the proposed eave height of Dwelling 1.

Dwelling 1 has a setback of 3 metres to the eastern boundary providing

greater separation between dwellings.

The alfresco area and glass sliding door for the living area of Dwelling 1 faces north west, orientated away from the dwelling and its respective

private open space for the property to the east.

4.3.11 Acoustic Privacy

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

• Site layout and building design:

Protect habitable rooms from excessively high levels of external noise.

Minimise the entry of external noise to private open space for dwellings close to major noise sources.

Minimise transmission of sound through a building to affect other dwellings.

In consideration of the DCP Guidelines, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory. Ambient noise levels are low due to the predominant residential

land use pattern. The siting of bedrooms adjacent the side boundaries will assist to maintain internal acoustic privacy.

The proposed fire wall that separates the town dwellings is expected to provide reasonable acoustic privacy between internal spaces.



4.3.12 Security

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

• The site layout enhances personal safety and minimises the potential for crime, vandalism and fear.

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


satisfactory in this regard due to the following:

• The proposed building design will offer reasonable opportunities for surveillance. The dwellings have been designed to encourage effective

passive surveillance from the dwelling to public areas.

• The site has reasonable access control. The lock-up garages with internal access will enhance security. The private open space areas will be fenced so as to provide a physical barrier for intruders.

• The proposed landscaping limits the opportunity for potential offenders to conceal themselves.

4.3.13 Public Transport

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcome in regard to Public Transport:

• Residential unit development is accessible to public transport.

The proposal is considered to be satisfactory in this regard. The subject land is

located within an establishing urban residential area that is to be serviced by

public bus routes.

4.3.14 Circulation and Design

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

• Accessways and parking areas are designed to manage stormwater.

• Accessways, driveways and open parking areas are suitably landscaped to enhance amenity while providing security and accessibility to residents and visitors.

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


Proposed Dual Occupancy (attached) and Subdivision (2 Lots) 21 Scarborough Street, Ora_ri~bein..,__g_Lo_t_1_1_9_D_P_1_23_7_8_7_1 _ Page 25

The proposal is considered to be satisfactory in this regard, due to the following:

• A reverse exit will be required for each dwelling as is the case for the majority of new estate residential development throughout the City.

• The driveways will be located a sufficient distance from the intersection to

avoid vehicle conflicts.

4.3.15 Car Parking

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

• Parking facilities are provided, designed and located to:

Enable the efficient and convenient use of car spaces and accessways within the site.

Reduce the visual dominance of car parking areas and accessways.

• Car parking is provided with regard to the:

The number and size of proposed dwellings.

Requirements of people with limited mobility or disabilities.

The proposal meets the DCP requirements. According to the car parking table in the DCP, 3.4 (4) spaces will be required for the dual occupancy (based on 1.5 spaces per 3-bedroom dwelling and 0.2 visitor spaces per unit).

As indicated in the site plan, four (4) off-street car spaces will be provided for

the development, comprising a single garage and 1 tandem spaces for each proposed dwelling.

4.3.16 Private Open Space

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

• Private open space is clearly defined for private use.

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

• Private open space is:


Proposed Dual Occupancy (attached) and Subdivision (2 Lots) 21 Scarborough Street, Orange being Lot 1_1_9_D_P_1_23_7_8_71 Pa~g~e_2_6_

Capable of being an extension of the dwelling for outdoor living, entertainment and recreation.

Accessible from a living area of the dwelling.

Located ta take advantage of outlooks; and ta reduce adverse impacts of overshadowing or privacy from adjoining buildings.

Orientated to optimise year round use.

The DCP Guidelines require open space to:

• Be provided at a rate of at least SO% of the gross floor space of each

dwelling;

• Have a minimum dimension of 3 metres;

• Include at least one area with minimum dimensions of S metres x S metres directly accessible to a living area preferably orientated to the north or east

of the dwelling;

• Be adjacent to dwellings and located behind the primary front wall of the

dwelling; and

• Be allocated to individual dwellings where practicable to minimise the need for management and maintenance of communal open space.

The following table demonstrates that each of the proposed dwellings is

provided with open space that complies with the minimum requirement in terms of area.

Dwelling Living Area (ex. Garage, Private Open Space Private Open porches, patios etc) (m2) required by DCP (m2) Space Provided

(m2)

1 134.39m2 67.195m2 126m2

2 136.03m2 68.05m2 112m2

The site plan confirms that the private open space for each dwelling will have

a minimum dimension of 3 metres and each yard will be able to provide an area of Sm x Sm.



As outlined above (see 4.3.8 Daylight and Sunlight) the solar access to each area of private open space on the winter solstice is considered satisfactory.

The internal living area for each dwelling will connect to its respective area of private open space via glass sliding doors and an alfresco area. Each private

open space area will be enclosed by fencing.

The private open space for each dwelling will be located behind the primary front wall.

4.3.17 Open Space and Landscaping

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

• The site layout provides open space and landscaped areas which:

Contribute to the character of the development by providing buildings in a landscaped setting.

Provide for a range of uses and activities including storm water management.

Allow cost effective management.

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

• Major existing trees are retained and protected in a viable condition whenever practicable through appropriate siting of buildings, accessways and parking areas.

• Paving is applied sparingly and integrated in the landscape design.


• Landscaping will be provided as indicated in the submitted site plan {Drawing DA09 Landscape Plan).

• The proposed landscaping includes species that are suitable to the Orange area with plantings that are of appropriate foliage and of intermediate and taller height to maximise screening and aesthetic appeal.



4.3.18 Stormwater

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

• On-site drainage systems are designed to consider:

Downstream capacity and need for on-site retention, detention ond re-use.

Scope for on-site infiltration of water.

Safety and convenience of pedestrians and vehicles.

Overland flow paths.

• Provision is made for on-site drainage which does not cause damage or nuisance flows to adjoining properties.


satisfactory due to the following:

• The submitted landscape plan provides for garden beds and lawn areas which will assist with on-site infiltration.

• Preliminary engineering investigations indicate that easements to drain

water over adjoining land will not be required.

• Stormwater from the development will be directed to existing drainage infrastructure.

4.3.19 Erosion and Sedimentation

The DCP sets the following Planning Outcomes in regard to Erosion and

Sedimentation:

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


• An erosion and sediment control plan will be prepared as part of the engineering design plans for the development.

• It is acknowledged that a construction certificate will not be issued until Council is satisfied that adequate arrangements have been

proposed/implemented in regard to management, stabilisation and revegetation of disturbed areas.



4.4 MATTER PRESCRIBED BY THE REGULATIONS

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 prescribes

certain matters that must be considered by Council in determining a development application. The following information is provided in respect of

the prescribed matters:

Demolition of a Building (Clause 92)

Not applicable.

Fire Safety Considerations (Clause 93)

Not relevant.

Buildings to be Upgraded (Clause 94)

Not relevant.

BASIX Commitments (Clause 97A)

BASIX/NatHERS certificates for the proposed dual occupancy are attached at Annexure C. The proposed dwellings will satisfy the relevant provisions in

respect of water, thermal comfort and energy.

4.5 THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT

The potential impacts of the development are considered below.

4.5.1 Generally

The proposed development is unlikely to generate any impacts that would

adversely affect the quality of the environment of the locality; particularly as such development is considered to be entirely consistent with the zone objectives and would achieve reasonable integration with the surrounding land use pattern.

4.5.2 Visual Amenity

The visual impact of the proposed dwellings is considered satisfactory and has been addressed above in the relevant considerations under DCP 2004.



4.5.3 Solar Access

As assessed above, the proposed dwellings are considered satisfactory in terms of solar access.

4.5.4 Traffic Impacts

The proposal is considered to be satisfactory in terms of traffic impacts due to the following:

• The proposal involves the creation of only 1 additional lot that is required to be serviced by the existing road system. The capacity of the local road

network in the vicinity of the site is sufficient to cater for the minor traffic

increase that would be generated by this proposal.

• The level of increase as a result of the development would represent only

a minor proportion of the total traffic volume that the local road network is subject to.

• The access arrangements for each dwelling are satisfactory. Reverse egress is consistent with manoeuvring arrangements for the majority of street

facing residential development throughout the city.

• Adequate driver and pedestrian sight lines can be achieved so that vehicles

entering and exiting the site are visible to pedestrians and other vehicles and vice versa.

• The provision of adequate off-street parking will assist to maintain traffic amenity. Tandem parking spaces will be wholly located within the subject land.

4.5.5 Existing and Future Amenity of the Neighbourhood

The potential impact upon the amenity of the neighbourhood is considered

satisfactory and has been addressed above in the relevant considerations under DCP 2004.

4.5.6 Soil Erosion

Provided that adequate measures are implemented during the construction phase, the proposed development would not generate adverse impacts in terms of soil erosion.


Proposed Dual Occupancy (attached) and Subdivision (2 Lots) 21 Scarborough Street, Orange b_ei~ng~L_o_t _11_9_D_P_1_2_37_8_71 _ Page 31

4.5.7 Cumulative Impacts

The proposal is considered to be satisfactory in terms of cumulative impact due to the following:

• The development pattern for the area is yet to become established.

• The design and detailing of the dwellings will complement the expected neighbourhood character. The proposed external finishes, bulk and form of

the dwellings are considered typical of development in the newer residential areas throughout Orange.

• The proposed development will not reduce the open space, solar access or privacy afforded to neighbouring properties. Similarly, the site layout and building design will provide a reasonable standard of residential amenity to the proposed dwellings in terms of open space, solar access and privacy.

• Landscaping will be established for both dwellings and is expected to

complement future private landscaping in the streetscape.

• As outlined previously, the proposal is considered satisfactory in terms of traffic impact and amenity.

• The proposal provides for a continuation of residential land use, albeit in a more compact form. A variation in housing forms and choices is encouraged by Orange DCP 2004 and Orange LEP 2011.

4.6 THE SUITABILITY OF THE SITE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT

4.6.1 Physical Attributes

As indicated in Section 2.5 of this report, there are no aspects of the site that would suggest that it is not suitable for the proposed development.

4.6.2 Servicing

The proposed development will be connected to Council's sewer, town water and stormwater reticulations in accordance with normal requirements.


Proposed Dual Occupancy {attached) and Subdivision {2 Lots) 21 Scarborough Street, Orange being Lot 119 DP 1237871 Page 32

Power, telephone and natural gas services will be connected to the development in accordance with the requirements of the relevant supply authority.

General waste, green waste and recycling for each dwelling will be collected

from the site frontage as part of Council's kerbside service.

4.7 SUBMISSIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACT OR REGULATIONS

According to Orange Development Control Plan 2004 - 05 General

Consideration for Zones and Development the proposal represents Advertised Development. As such, Council will invite and consider submissions on the proposal.

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.

The proposal is not inconsistent with any known Local or State planning policy, code or guideline that has not been considered in this assessment.


Section5.0

CONCLUSION

The proposal as submitted could be supported on the following grounds:

• The proposal is a permissible use in the zone and generally complies with the relevant provisions of Orange LEP 2011.

• Clause 4.6 of the LEP provides a mechanism for discretion to be exercised in

making sound planning decisions based on the merits of individual cases. Based on the formal request provided in Annexure D, the creation of proposed Lots 1 and 2 is considered to represent an acceptable planning outcome despite not adhering to the MLS development standard.

• Assessment of the proposal pursuant to Orange DCP 2004 - 7 Development in

Residential Areas demonstrates that the development would satisfy the relevant Planning Outcomes.

• The proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. Appropriate conditions may be imposed to ensure the development proceeds in accordance with Council's

normal requirements.

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

We trust that this application will be given favourable consideration by Council. Any further enquiries may be directed to our office on 6361 2955.

Yours faithfully Peter Basha Planning & Development

Per:

LUCIE BARNETT


Annexure D CLAUSE 4.6 - EXCEPTIONS TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

Address:

Proposal:

21 Scarborough Street, Orange, being Lot 119 DP 1237871

Dual Occupancy (Attached) and Subdivision (2 Lots)

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 Rl General Residential.

2.3 What are the objectives of the zone?

The objectives of the Rl General Residential Zone are:

• To provide for the housing needs of the community.

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

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards - Minimum Subdivision Lot Size {Clause 4.1 Orange LEP 2011) Proposed Dual Occupancy {attached)and Subdivision (2 Lots), 21 Scarborough Street, Orange Page 2

• 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 Clause 4.1 Minimum Lot Size.

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,

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.


Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards - Minimum Subdivision Lot Size (Clause 4.1 Orange LEP 2011) Proposed Dual Occupancy (attached)and Sl,Jl:l_diyision (2 Lots), 21 Scarborough Street, Orange Page 3

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.

The subject land is subject to a minimum lot size of 500m2.

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

With reference to the submitted plan of proposed subdivision (Figure 3) the proposed

subdivision involves the creation of proposed Lot 1 with an area of 446.6m2 and proposed Lot 2 with an area of 395.lm2. The proposed lots do not satisfy the MLS of

500m2.

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

Proposed Lot 1 with an area of 446.6m2 seeks to vary the MLS by 10.68%.

Proposed Lot 2 with an area of 395.lm2 seeks to vary the MLS by 20.98%.

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:

4.6 Exceptions to development standards

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.


Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards - Minimum Subdivision Lot Size (Clause 4.1 Orange LEP 2011) Proposed Dual Occupancy (atta~~sfl~~d Subdivision (2 Lots), 21 Scarborough Street, Orange Page 4

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 Secretary has been obtained.

S) 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 RUl 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


Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards - Minimum Subdivision Lot Size (Clause 4.1 Orange LEP 2011) Proposed Dual Occupancy (attached)and S_ubdivision {2 Lots), 21 Scarborough Street, Orange Page 5

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.


Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards - Minimum Subdivision Lot Size (Clause 4.1 Orange LEP 2011) Proposed Dual Occupancy (attached)and Subdivision (2 Lots), 21 Scarborough Street, Orange -----~- Page 6


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. It is understood that Orange

City Council has delegation on behalf of the Secretary of the Department of Planning & Environment to deal with the request.


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 Rl General 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.


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 development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of this case for the reasons explained below:

• The subject land satisfies the minimum lot size to permit a dual occupancy pursuant to Clause 4.lB of Orange LEP 2011.


Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards - Minimum Subdivision Lot Size {Clause 4.1 Orange LEP 2011) Proposed Dual Occupancy {attached)and Subdivision (2 Lots), 21 Scarborough Street, Orange Page 7

• As indicated in the Statement of Environmental Effects, the proposed dual occupancy satisfies the relevant Planning Outcomes for dual occupancy development pursuant to Orange DCP 2004 - 07 Development in Residential

Areas.

• The subdivision of each dwelling onto a separate lot is a reasonable planning outcome and expectation for a dual occupancy development that is demonstrated

to satisfy the relevant LEP and DCP provisions.

• Subdivision of the proposed dual occupancy can actually occur via Clause 4.1(4) of Orange LEP 2011 either as strata subdivision or as community title subdivision

because these forms of subdivision are not subject to a MLS.

However, the proposed subdivision layout, comprising regular lots each with direct

street frontage and access is not conducive to strata or community subdivision.

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

Strict compliance with the 500m2 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 Leeds Parade Conceptual Subdivision Layout appears to depict several lots that are less

than 500m2.

Further the development standard becomes irrelevant if the subdivision was to be

undertaken as strata or community title.

Is the zoning of the land unreasonable or inappropriate?

The zoning of the land is reasonable and appropriate for the site.

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

There are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify a variation of the

development standard. These are as follows: Peter Basha


Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards - Minimum Subdivision Lot Size (Clause 4.1 Orange LEP 2011) Proposed Dual Occupancy (attached)and Subdivision (2 Lots), 21 Scarborough Street, Orange Page 8

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

Residential Zone and the objectives of the MLS (refer Section 3.5 below).

• The proposed lots are demonstrated to accommodate each dwelling in a dual

occupancy development that is entirely compliant with the relevant LEP and DCP provisions.

• As mentioned previously, Clause 4.1(4) of the LEP would actually permit the subdivision either as a community title or strata subdivision. However, it is considered that a subdivision of the land as proposed by this application is more

appropriate given that each lot has direct road frontage and does not rely on common or shared elements that typify community or strata schemes.

• As indicated throughout the SoEE, the proposed dual occupancy is entirely compatible with the expected residential land use pattern in this area. A variation

of the MLS to allow each proposed dwelling to be excised on a conventional

allotment (as opposed to a strata or community lot) does not diminish this aspect of the development.

• The Statement of Environmental Effects demonstrates that non-compliance with

the MLS development 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?

Objective of the Minimum lot Size Standard

The proposal, including the proposed variation to the MLS would uphold the

objectives of the development standard due to the following.

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

The proposed lots may not necessarily reflect the majority of existing lot sizes in this

precinct. However, once the dual occupancy is completed, the two dwellings will become part of the development pattern. The creation of proposed Lots 1 and 2 to

excise each of these dwellings would indeed reflect this element of the development

pattern. Peter Basha



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. Each lot is intended to excise the proposed dwellings in a dual occupancy development, both of

which are demonstrated to satisfy the relevant LEP and DCP provisions. The proposed

lots logically recognise each proposed dwelling and its associated private open space,

access, and servicing requirements.

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,

The proposed subdivision is consistent with this objective as the servicing

arrangements for each of the proposed lots are readily available.

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 Rl General Residential Zone as explained below.

To provide for the housing needs of the community.

The proposed variation to the MLS is not adverse to this objective. The ability to create smaller housing lots in a logical manner would provide for the housing needs of the

community because such lots have the potential to contribute to housing affordability.

To provide for a variety of housing types and densities.

The proposed variation to the MLS is not adverse to this objective. The proposed lots would excise dwellings in a dual occupancy development and therefore provides for a

variety of housing types and densities.

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

This objective is not relevant. The development involves residential land use only.

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.

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

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

The objective pertains 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 development standard. The public would benefit from an increase in the choice of residential

accommodation.

The creation of proposed Lots 1 and 2 would not compromise the broader aims and principles of Orange LEP 2011; or the relevant Planning Outcomes of Orange DCP 2004

- 07 Development in Residential Areas.

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 ofthreatened 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.

Strict compliance with the development standard may not necessarily hinder attainment of the relevant objects of the Act, because if the subdivision was to occur as a strata or community titles subdivision, the development could proceed without having to vary the development standard.

In any case, the development as proposed would not contravene any of the objects in Section 1.3 of the Act. Specifically, the proposed development promotes affordable

housing.

3.9 Is the objection well founded?

Based on the information provided in this statement, 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 variation to the MLS will not result in unacceptable impacts upon the existing and

future amenity of adjoining properties or the broader precinct.

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

unacceptable precedent. In this regard:


Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards - Minimum Subdivision Lot Size (Clause 4.1 Orange LEP 2011} Proposed Dual Occupancy (attached}and Subdivision (2 Lots),_21 Scarborough Street, Orange Page 13 _

• The subject land (and certain other land in the Leeds Parade residential area)

permits dual occupancy or multi dwelling housing development; and the excision of such dwellings on individual lots that do not satisfy the MLS is already allowed

to occur.

• The fact that this proposal actually seeks to excise the dwellings via another form of subdivision would be largely indiscernible in terms of impact and public perception of the development.

• The only reason a conventional subdivision pattern is sought in this case is due largely to the corner site and the fact that each proposed dwelling has separate and independent public road access and servicing arrangements. In this case,

strata or community title subdivision is considered less appropriate.

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.


development application - orange city council · peter basha planning & development (refer...

Documents