MODIFICATION APPLICATION€¦ · This application seeks to modify DA 304/2016(4) which granted approval for Demolition, Hotel or Motel Accommodation, Restaurant or Cafe, Retail Premises

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT

MODIFICATION APPLICATION

Application to Modify Consent - DA 304/2016(4) Demolition, Hotel or Motel Accommodation, Restaurant or Caf~,

Retail Premises and Subdivision (44 Lot Strata) 132 - 142 Kite Street and 26 McNamara Street, Orange

Prepared for Eastern Developments Pty Ltd

December 2019

Ref: MASPJB19001

343 Summer St, PO Box 1827, 0ronge NS 2800 telephone 02 6361 2955 focsimile 02 6360 4700 mobile 0409 821 016 email [email protected] obn: 91 558 813 035

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section 1.0 1

THE APPLICATION 1

1.1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.2 APPLICANT 1 1.3 OWNER 1 1.4 LAND 1 1.5 DOCUMENTATION 2

Section 2.0 3 PROPOSED MODIFICATION 3

2.1 MODIFY CONDITION 20 3 2.2 MODIFY CAFE TENANCY 6 2.3 MODIFY RETAIL TENANCIES 7 2.4 MODIFY EXTERNAL FINISH OF MASONRY WALLS 7

Section }.O 10

TOWN PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 10

3.1 PROVISIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS 10 3.1.1 Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011.. 10 3.1.2 State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land 14 3.1.3 State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 14

3.2 PROVISIONS OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS 15 3.3 PROVISIONS OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS 15

3.3.1 Orange Development Control Plan 2004 - 08 Development in Business Zones 15 3.3.2 Orange Development Control Plan 2004 - 13 Heritage 16 3.3.3 Orange Development Control Plan 2004 -15 Car Parking 16

3.4 MATTERS PRESCRIBED BY THE REGULATIONS 17 3.5 THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT.. 17

3.5.1 Traffic 17 3.5.2 Heritage/Streetscape/Visual Impact 17 3.5.3 Overshadowing 17 3.5.4 Noise 18 3.5.5 Lighting 18 3.5.6 Waste Management 18 3.5.7 Water Quality 18 3.5.8 Air Quality 18 3.5.9 Crime Prevention 18 3.5.10 Social and Economic lmpacts 18

3.6 THE SUITABILITY OF THE SITE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT 18 3.7 ANY SUBMISSIONS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS ACT OR THE REGULATIONS 19 3.8 THE PUBLIC INTEREST 19

Section +.o 20

CONCLUSION 20

Annexure A Architectural Drawings

Annexure B Structural Engineering Advice

Annexure C Safe Design of Structures Reports

Annexure D Comments by Quest

Section 1.O

THE APPLICATION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

This application seeks to modify DA 304/2016(4) which granted approval for Demolition, Hotel or Motel Accommodation, Restaurant or Cafe, Retail Premises and Subdivision {44 Lot Strata) at 132 - 142 Kite Street and 26 McNamara Street, Orange

The proposed modification is described in Section 2 of this report. The application is made pursuant to Section 4.55(2) of the Environmental Planning

& Assessment Act, 1979.

This report provides an assessment of the proposed modification as required under Section 4.15 of the Act.

1.2 APPLICANT

Eastern Developments Pty Ltd c/- Peter Basha Planning & Development

PO Box 1827 ORANGE NSW 2800

1.3 OWNER

Eastern Developments Pty Ltd

PO Box 8431 ORANGE NSW 2800

1.4 LAND

The Real Property description is described in the Notice of Determination for

DA 304/2016(1) as Lot 1 DP 197828, Lots 2-6 DP 131416 and Lots 1-3 DP 779111). However, as required by Condition 26 of DA 304/2016(1) the land is now registered as a single consolidated parcel described as Lot 200 DP

1225088.

The street address is 132- 142 Kite Street and 26 McNamara Street, Orange.

Peter Basha Planning & Development

Application to Modify Consent - DA 304/2016(4) Page 2

1.5 DOCUMENTATION

The application consists of this report, a completed application form, and the

following:

Annexure A - Architectural Drawings by Havenhand Mather Architects

DA Modification - Ground Floor Plan DA Modification - Elevations

Plan -- Revised Lease Area 3

Room Detail Plans - Caf~

AnnexureB

Structural engineering advice by Cook and Roe and Freyssinet

Annexure C

Safe Design of Structures Report by Haven hand Mather Architects

Safe Design of Structures Review by Cook and Roe

Annexure D

Comments by Quest


Section 2.0

PROPOSED MODIFICATION

2.1 MODIFY CONDITION 20

Existing Situation

Dot point 2 of Condition 20 requires the following:

Pre-finished metal screens comprising material "J" as shown on exterior finishes plan dated 25" March 2019 shall be fixed to all balconies, and in addition, the same material noted as material "" on exterior finishes plan dated 25' March 2019 must extend vertically between levels 1, 2 and 3 on the outer edge of the five bays of balconies as shown on the below figures.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Although it is not explicit in the wording of the condition, the above figures also show that horizontal screens should be provided to link the easternmost and

central bay of balconies in the Kite Street elevation (as indicated above in red

outline by me).



Proposed Modification

It is proposed to modify Condition 20 by deleting dot point 2 including Figures 1 and 2.

In effect, the proposed modification seeks to:

• Delete the need to provide vertical screens from all balconies.

• Delete the need to provide horizontal screens between the easternmost and central bay of balconies in the Kite Street elevation

Reason/Justification for Proposed Modification

Architecture

It is considered that the screens are not justified in terms of the building's architecture.

Council's concerns that the vertical screens are intended to address the bulk

and scale of the building are noted. However, it is submitted that the bulk and scale is well addressed by the design as a whole (minus the screens). In this

regard, the building as constructed is well articulated via modulated fa~ades;

balconies; balustrades; glazing; awnings; and a mix of materials and finishes that all combine to break down the overall bulk and scale. To some extent, the

vertical screens would hide the articulation and architectural detailing that is currently provided; while at the same time, also contribute to visual cluttering

of the front elevations of the building.

As expressed previously to Council, the applicant engaged Urbis Heritage to provide a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) in relation to certain proposed changes to the originally approved building. With particular reference to the screens, Urbis provided the following comment:

While the previously proposed screens provided some fa~ade interest, they were an unusual architectural item in the townscape context. It is noted that the facade steps in and out along the two main facades and providing verticality to the design, particularly for when oblique sun angles fall across the facade. The facades will now be further modulated by the alternating use of a strong warm terracotta facade colour........with a more neutral traditional hue.



.......... The use of the Dulux Tokomaru Bay for part of the upper floor facades to provide an accent colour is considered to be appropriate because the colour references traditional brick and terracotta tones. The perforated metal balustrade screens in a mid-tone warm grey and the shadows from the balconies will provide additional facade interest and will modulate this accent colour.

As Council is aware, the Dulux Tokomaru colour was accepted by Council's

heritage advisor. It is submitted that this colour in conjunction with the various

architectural elements achieve the effect referred to in the above commentary

by Urbis.

Structural Integrity and Safety

The applicant has obtained structural engineering advice (refer Annexure B)

which suggests that there are some structural engineering limitations in regard to the horizontal spanning screens.

Cook and Roe, Structural Engineers have prepared an engineering detail for the

horizontal screens. In order for them to be structurally adequate, they have

recommended a frame system using relatively heavy sections of RHS (125mm

x 75mm). These sections would conflict with the aesthetic of the building, particularly as the existing balcony framing is steel tube and flat bar. Also,

Freyssinet have provided further advice to state that the design of the cantilever balconies does not allow for additional loads along the perimeter

edge.

Safety

The project architects Havenhand and Mather have prepared a Safe Design of Structures Report (refer Annexure C). The Schedule of Risks in that report

identifies a climbing risk associated from additional screens required under Mod. Condition 20.

Structural Engineers, Cook and Roe have provided a review of the Haven hand Mather report (also refer Annexure C). In their report, Cook and Roe consider the horizontal screens pose a collapse and/or fall risk, should a person climb along the structure. They recommend that the risk be eliminated by not providing the screens.



Maintenance, Practicality and Amenity

The building tenant, Quest objects to the screens for the reasons outlined in

their email to the applicant dated 9 October 2019 (refer Annexure D). In

summary, Quest have expressed the following concerns in respect of the screens:

• Difficulty and expense in cleaning and maintenance.

• Despite being perforated, the screens would disrupt/diminish views from the apartments.

• The screens would diminish natural light to the rooms.

• Screens may encourage climbing, scaling and intrusion.

• Screens may cause birds to roost or perch.

2.2 MODIFY CAF~ TENANCY

Existing Situation

The caf~ tenancy as approved implies a certain level of fit-out with fixtures and fittings.


It is proposed to modify the caf~ tenancy so as to create it as a shell space only. The future fit-out will be subject to a separate DA based on the requirements of a future operator.

The proposed shell space is depicted in the attached drawing in Annexure A titled Room Details Plan - Caf~.


The proposed modification will increase the flexibility in the use of this space and allow a future operator to fit it out in accordance with their needs and vision.

There are no planning impacts generated by this modification as there is no increase in floor area and no change to the approved use.



2.3 MODIFY RETAIL TENANCIES

Existing Situation

The current approval provides for 3 separate retail tenancies on ground floor

facing Kite Street.


It is proposed to modify the retail tenancies by combining Lease Areas 3 and 4

as a single space and relocating the WC and tea room to the western end of

this space. As a result, the door to the space is now positioned at the eastern end of the shopfront.

The proposed modification in respect of Lease Areas 3 and 4 is depicted in the

attached drawings in Annexure A titled Revised Lease Area and DA

Modification - Elevations.


The proposed modification creates a larger single space which may be more suitable to a broader range of potential tenants.

There are no planning impacts generated by this modification as there is no

increase in floor area and no change to the approved use.

2.4 MODIFY EXTERNAL FINISH OF MASONRY WALLS

Existing Situation

The current stamped approved DA plans show a textured paint finish and

horizontal coursing for:

• The masonry wall around the shopfronts of the currently approved Lease Areas 3 and 4 (i.e. the ground floor retail tenancies) facing Kite Street; and

• The masonry wall at ground level at the southern end of the McNamara

Street elevation.


Application to Modify Consent -- DA 304/2016(4) Page 8


With reference to the attached elevation drawing and the excerpt below, it is

proposed to modify the wall finish as follows:

• Delete the horizontal coursing from the section of wall at ground floor level

at the easternmost end of the Kite Street elevation (i.e. the eastern side of the currently approved Lease Area 4 shopfront); and

• Provide a stone tile cladding to the section of wall at ground floor level

between shopfront of the currently approved Lease Area 2a and Lease Area 3 in the Kite Street elevation.

• Delete the horizontal coursing from the section of wall at the southernmost end of the McNamara Street elevation at ground floor level.

port.fret 4.l 0st0root tog pint

p 0»o$

NORTH ELEVATION - KITE STREET

WEST ELEVATION - McNAMARA STREET



It should be noted that the above finishes have already been provided as described in this modification. Retrospective approval for this aspect of the

modification is sought on the basis of the decision in Windy Dropdown Pty Ltd v Warringah Council {NSW Land & Environment Court 2000}. In that case, the Court ruled that s.96 (now s4.55) can be used to retrospectively approve unauthorised works already carried out, saying that s.96 (now s4.55) is a broad

and facultative provision "that enables a consent authority to deal with unexpected contingencies as they arise during the course of construction of

development or even subsequently".


The provision of horizontal coursing to the nominated sections of wall was

considered unnecessary in the context of the well varied mix of materials and textures that present on both street elevations of the building.

The additional section of stone type wall cladding in the Kite Street elevation

is considered reasonable as it continues an already approved finish.


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.

3.1 PROVISIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

3.1.1 Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011

The modification is subject to Orange Local Environmental Plan 2011 (the LEP). A consideration of the relevant matters is provided below.

Zone Objectives

The land is zoned B3 Commercial Core. The objectives of the B3 Zone are:

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

and wider community.

• To encourage appropriate employment opportunities in accessible

locations.

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

• To promote development that contributes to the role of the Orange CBD as

the primary retail and business centre in the City and region.

The proposed modification is not adverse to the zone objectives, as it does not involve a significant change to the nature, scale or general arrangement of the approved development.

Permissibility

DA 304/2016(4) was approved under Orange LEP 2011 as a permissible use and remains as such.



Pursuant to Section 4.55(2) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979 it is proposed to modify the consent in the manner described in this

application.

In order for Section 4.55 to apply, it must be determined whether or not the proposed development is substantially the same as the development for which

consent has been provided.

In other modification applications, Council has referred to Tipalea Watson Pty

Ltd v Kuringai Council 2003 and the matters that ought to be considered when determining whether or not the proposed modified development is

substantially the same as the development for which consent has been provided. These matters are considered below.

Significant change to the nature or intensity of the use

The proposed modification does not change the nature of the use. It retains the basic or inherent features, character, and qualities of the approved development. The uses, key activities and operation will remain largely as

approved and would not radically transform the development to the extent

that it would fail the "test".

Significant change to the relationship with adjoining properties

The proposed modification will not significantly change the relationship to adjoining properties. The interface of the site with adjoining properties

remains unaltered.

Adverse amenity impacts on neighbours from the changes

The proposed modification would not generate additional impacts on neighbours in terms of land use conflict, privacy, visual impact,

overshadowing, noise or amenity.



Significant change to the streetscape

The proposed modification will alter how the currently approved building will

appear in the streetscape. However, the proposal to leave off the screens as described earlier in this report would not radically transform the development

to the extent that it would fail the "test".

Reasonable justification has been provided to demonstrate that the proposed

omission ofthe screens would not cause a significant change to or diminish the contribution that the building makes to the streetscape.

Change to the scale or character of the development, or the character of the locality

The proposed modification is only for minor external and internal changes to

the building. As such, it does not change the scale or character of the development; or the character of the locality.

In particular:

• The approved and use, scale, capacity and associated activities remain fundamentally the same.

• The proposed modification retains the character and key attributes of the approved hotel. There is nothing about the modification to suggest otherwise.

• The modification does not introduce any new elements that would significantly change expectations about the approved development.

• The proposed modification would not generate additional impacts on neighbours in terms of land use conflict, privacy, visual impact, overshadowing, noise or amenity.

On the basis of the above information, it is appropriate for the proposed modification to be dealt with pursuant to Section 4.55(2) of the Environmental

Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.



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 for Orange,

e) to provide a range of housing choices in planned urban and rural locations

to meet population growth,

f) to recognise and manage valued environmental heritage, landscape and

scenic features of Orange.

The proposed modification is not adverse to the aims of the LEP, as it does not involve a significant change to the nature, scale or general arrangement of the

approved development.

Clause 4.3 Height of buildings

Pursuant to Clause 4.3, the development is subject to a maximum building

height of 16 metres.

The proposed modification does not impact upon building height.

Clause 4.4 Floor space ratio

Pursuant to Clause 4.4 applies the development is subject to an FSR of 2:1.

The proposed modification does not impact upon FSR.



Clause 5.10 Heritage Conservation

Pursuant to Clause 5.10(4) Council is required to consider the potential impact

that the development as modified may have on the conservation area or any

heritage item.

Heritage matters are addressed at Section 3.5.2 of this report.

Clause 7.3 Stormwater management

The objective of Clause 7.3 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.

The proposed modification does not alter the stormwater drainage

arrangements for the approved development.

Clause 7.6 Groundwater vulnerability

The objectives of Clause 7.6 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.

There proposed modification does not impact on groundwater resources.

Clause 7.11 Essential services

Clause 7.11 requires development to be have adequate arrangements in terms

of essential services and road access.

The proposed modification does not alter the approved service provision and

road access arrangements.

3.1.2 State Environmental Planning Policy 55 - Remediation of Land

The requirements of SEPP 55 were addressed as part of the original DA

determination. The proposed modification does not generate the need for

further consideration.

3.1.3 State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

The approved project represents traffic generating development pursuant to

Section 104 of State Environmental Planning Policy Infrastructure 2007.



The currently approved development was referred to NSW Roads and

Maritime Services pursuant to the requirements of the SEPP.

It is suggested that further consultation with NSW Roads and Maritime Authority would not be warranted as the proposed modification does not generate additional traffic because it does not increase the size or capacity of

the approved development.

The originally approved development was also subject to Section 45 of SEPP (Infrastructure). The currently approved development was referred to

Essential Energy pursuant to the requirements of the SEPP. Essential Energy advised that they had no objections to the development.

There are no aspects of the proposed modification that would warrant further consultation with Essential Energy.

3.2 PROVISIONS OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

There are no known draft regional or state planning instruments that apply to

the subject land or proposed modification.

3.3 PROVISIONS OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS

3.3.1 Orange Development Control Plan 2004 - 08 Development in Business Zones

Orange Development Control Plan 2004 -- 08 Development in Business Zones

sets the following planning outcomes for development in the B3 Zone. These are outlined as follows.

• Buildings have a high level of urban design to contribute to the regional status of the City's Central Business District with attention given to fa~ade features, external materials, colour and advertising.

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

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



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

• The reinstatement of verandahs on posts over footpaths is encouraged.

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

• Advertising comprise business identification signs in accordance with SEPP 64.

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

The only relevant Planning Outcome for the proposed modification pertains to

the facade features (i.e. the first dot point listed above). It is submitted that the proposed omission of the screens as described in Section 2.1 of this report

does not cause the development to contravene this Planning Outcome.

3.3.2 Orange Development Control Plan 2004 - 13 Heritage

Orange DCP 2004-13 Heritage sets the following Planning Outcomes:

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

• Development conforms with recognised conservation principles.

• Conservation Management Plans are prepared for development having a significant effect on heritage sites.

The proposed modification is considered satisfactory in relation to these Planning Outcomes. The heritage impacts of the proposal are considered later in this report at Section 3.5.2.

3.3.3 Orange Development Control Plan 2004 - 15 Car Parking

The proposed modification has no impact whatsoever upon the approved

parking arrangements for the development.


Application to Modify Consent- DA 304/2016(4) Page 17

3.4 MATTERS PRESCRIBED BY THE REGULATIONS

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 prescribes

certain matters that must be considered by Council. There are no relevant prescribed matters that apply to the proposed modification.

3.5 THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT

The potential impacts of the proposed modification are considered below.

3.5.1 Traffic

There are no aspects of the proposed modification that would cause adverse

or additional impacts in terms of traffic.

3.5.2 Heritage/Streetscape/Visual Impact

The proposed omission of the screens is the only aspect of this modification that has implications in terms of heritage/streetscape/visual amenity.

In this regard, it is important to note that the subject land is not within the

Central Orange Heritage Conservation Area and is not not identified as a

heritage item. Thus, the potential heritage impacts of the development relate mainly to the listed heritage items in the vicinity, being the former Canobolas Shire Council Chambers to the west, and the Great Western Hotel to the east.

It is understood that the subject screens were preferred by Council as a device to mitigate the impacts resulting from the bulk and scale of the building;

presumably to achieve satisfactory integration in the streetscape and harmony

with the nearby heritage items.

It is submitted that the building as it currently stands comprises a number of attributes that work to the same effect and that the screens are not required. In this regard, it is submitted that the proposal to omit the screens is acceptable

for the reasons/justification provided in Section 2.1 of this report.

3.5.3 Overshadowing

There are no aspects of the proposed modification that would cause adverse or additional impacts in terms of overshadowing.



3.5.4 Noise


or additional impacts in terms of noise.

3.5.5 Lighting


or additional impacts in terms of lighting.

3.5.6 Waste Management

There are no aspects of the proposed modification that would cause adverse or additional impacts in terms of waste management.

3.5. 7 Water Quality


or additional impacts on water quality.

3.5.8 Air Quality


or additional impacts on air quality.

3.5.9 Crime Prevention

The proposed modification does not diminish the potential for the

development to meet CPTED principles.

3.5.10 Social and Economic Impacts

The proposed modification is considered neutral in terms of social and

economic effects.

3.6 THE SUITABILITY OF THE SITE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT

The proposed modification is not constrained by any factors relating to the

suitability of the site.



3.7 ANY SUBMISSIONS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS ACT OR THE REGULATIONS

With reference to Council's Planning & Development Community Participation

Plan 2019, it is understood that application will be advertised as it has been

made pursuant to Section 4.55(2) of the EPA Act, 1979.

3.8 THE PUBLIC INTEREST

The proposed modification is considered to be of only minor interest to the

wider public due to the relatively localised nature of potential impacts.


Section 1.0

CONCLUSION

It is requested that the proposed modification as submitted be approved on the

following grounds:

• Based on the information provided in this report and the supporting documentation, it is demonstrated that the development as modified is substantially the same development for which the consent was originally granted.

• Following consideration of Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and

Assessment Act, 1979, the potential impacts of the proposed modification are

considered to be minimal.

• Accordingly, the proposed modification may be considered pursuant to Section 4.55(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

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:

PETER BASHA


Annexure B

Structural Engineering Advice

Peter Archer

From: Sent: To: Subject:

ACIC Michael < > Friday, 4 October 2019 10:57 AM Peter Archer RE: Quest

Hi Peter,

The design of the cantilever balconies does not allow for additional loads along the perimeter edge.

Regards,

Michael Acic BE(Bl) -NSW Building Manager Freyssinet Australia Ply Ltd

- rReyssiner

From: Kristoffer Olofsson <Sent: Thursday, 3 October 2019 4:30 PM To: Peter ArcherSubject: FW: Quest

Hey Peter,

I remembered that I sent this through to you a while back.

KRISTOFFER OLOFSSON

COOK

From: Kristoffer Olofsson Sent: Thursday, 22 August 2019 3:28 PM To: 'Peter Archer' Subject: RE: Quest

Hey Peter,

See attached certification

Regarding the balustrades and additional frames spanning between balconies (I believe the larges span will be approximate 6.3m) the additional point load will be approximately SkN on the corners of the balcony.

The frames will likely be 125x75 RHS members fully welded with 12575 RHS verticals as shown below.

2

Annexure C

Safe Design of Structures Reports

COOK p E

WWW.COO KANDROE.COM .AU

Our Ref: 33382-13

25 November 2019

Saran Engineers & Managers Suite 4/113 Byng Street Orange NSW 2800

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 132-142 KITE STREET STRUCTURAL SAFETY IN DESIGN

Cook and Roe have reviewed the Safe Design of Structures Report prepared by Haven hand Mather (ref: 1605 revision B). Cook and Roe endeavour to address safety in design throughout all aspects of the design life, utilising standard construction where possible and providing structural advice where we feel we could eliminate a potential risk during the construction, use or maintenance of various structural elements. This letter addresses the risk associated with the installation of the screens between balcony balustrades and is intended to satisfy the Work, Health and Safety Act 2011 No. 10, Section 22; and the Safe Design of Structures Code of Practice July 2012.

Risk On a standard risk level matrix (see attached in Appendix A) it is our opinion that these screens create an incentive for climbing between balconies and would present a High risk (D/1) for falling from height.

Likelihood The likelihood of fall would be low as it would require a guest to climb over the balustrade and intentionally climb along the screen. This would not be deemed as normal use for the screens however the screens would need to be designed for the loads imposed by a person climbing along the structure to ensure the screens do not collapse under this load.

Consequence The consequence of fall from height based on the levels of the balconies would be deemed as catastrophic, with extensive personal injury or fatality the most likely outcome from falling.

Risk Mitigation There are ways the tenant could reduce the risk such as signage and/or making hotel guests aware of the dangers of climbing on the screens and recommending that that children are supervised when on the balconies, however this does not eliminate the risk. As the screens provide no structural or safety purpose and are an aesthetic structure only, it is our opinion that the most practical way the risk can be completely eliminated by the removal of the screens.

Yours faithfully COOK AND ROE

Kristoffer Olofsson Senior Structural Engineer BE (civil} MIEAust

RISK MATRIX

PROJECT: DESIGN PHASE: DATE:

RISK LEVEL MATRIX

CONSEQUENCES (C)

n 0 0 ~

LIKELIHOOD (L)

A.- Likely expected 8 · Probable could C.-Possible mght e.a'Sl!\I oc l ur tmdu-r occur under nrn rnal normal circumstances circumstances

C • PoHibte · m,ght D • Unlikely may Occur but requites unusual circumstances

1.- Catastrophic ex1ens11,·e personal (nJury or fata111y and.'or will also disrupt the wer general environmnent an/or cause cessalior of all organisation actrvtes for an indefrte period an/or serous an extensive irreversible environmental harr

2.- Major personal injury fequnng medical aid an/or will also disrupt the local cn;,'1HJonme11t and,'or disrupr gcnc,al work acttv1t1t.-s ;mt! dfh~cl !rm oryarnsahor• rjetmnenlaHy ior s:Jn extended pE!'ft{)l'' an/or irreversible but Armited environmental harm

3.- Moderate - ,rnnnr personal lnJ\ff)' raq,Jtriny first iild only and/or localised drsrupton of work actrvrties but only for a limited period 0t oxtr:n: ano,·or rrw10f localis.e-d ro1Jors1blc onvironrncmal ht1ft11

4.• Minor per50nal 1ncor,vemence (no 1n1urv) that wt!I no1 a1srupt actuates and'or minor short termn enwr onrnental nuisance

E E A (A/1) (B/1) (C/1)

A A (A/2) (B/2)

A (A!3)

H (D/1)

H (cr2)

H (or2)

H (A!4)

(D/3)

M (8/4)

RISK RANKING E Extreme A Acute H High M Medium L low

LIKELIHOOD / CONSEQUENCE Requires preventive action prior to commencement of any work whatsoever - unacceptable risk. Requires immediate and ongoing systemised preventive action • constant active watching brief. Requires active monitoring and systemised preventive action as required • regular reviews. Requires passive monitoring for systemised preventive action as required - periodic reviews. Requires general preparedness for preventive action as required • general training.

RISK RANKING TECHNIQUES ARE HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE AND THESE RANKINGS ARE BASED ON CONSENSUS I PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE. RESIDUAL RISKS RANKED 'H' AND ABOVE REQUIRE PROJECT SPECIFIC 'SAFE WORK METHOD STATEMENTS' (SWMS) AND REGULAR ONGOING ACTION BY RELEVANT DESIGNATED PERSONNEL.

HavenhandMather A R C H I T E C T S P L A N N E R S

SAFE DESIGN OF STRUCTURES REPORT

PROJECT NAME: QUEST APARTMENTS ORANGE

LOCATION: 132 Kite Street, Orange NSW 2800

CLIENT: Eastern Developments (NSW) Pty Ltd

HM Job Number 1605

Purpose of this Report This report is intended to satisfy the Work, Health and Safety Act 2011 No. 10, Section 22; Clause 61 (3) and Clause 295 of the Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011; and the Safe Design of Structures Code of Practice July 2012.

This report does not relieve the building contractor of any duties under the legislation.

Process Havenhand and Mather have endeavored to eliminate or minimize risk through the design process in consultation with the client and consulting engineers.

The report as required by Clause 296 of the Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011 should be kept by the building owner for the life of the structure.

Under the legislation, the building owner is required to issue this report to the building contractor. The building contractor shall prepare their own assessment of risks for construction and provide Work Method Statements and other documents to manage safety on site as required by the WHS legislation.

Limitations As required by the legislation, this report is limited to project specific risks that would not normally be associated with this type of structure. This report is not intended to identify all risks.

As required by the legislation, the report considers the impact on the safety of parties involved in: • The construction of the structure or demolition of existing structures • The use of the structure • The maintenance of the structure • Any future modifications of the structure • The demolition of the structure

Reference Legislation & Codes Work Health and Safety Act 2011, NSW Work Health and Safety Amendment Act 2011, NSW Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011, National Construction Code of Australia, Australian Standards.

Work Cover Codes of Practice can be found at http://www.workcover.nsw.qov.au

Document Distribution Record Rev.No. Date of Issue: Stage / Comment: ·To: A 19032018 Construction Certificate Client/Owner B 04.11.2019 Practical Completion. Client/Owner

Havenhand & Mather Architects Ply. Lid. ABN 25 003 153 553 PO B0x 208 Bathurst NSW 2795 T. 02 6331 7155 E. [email protected]

Director / Nominated Architect Derek F. Moses, B.ARCH (Hons). B.App.Sc (Env. Design) M.Planning Architect Registration Board No. 6799

SAFE DESIGN OF STRUCTURES REPORT Project Name and Address Quest Apartments Orange, 132 Kite Street Orange NSW 2800 Client Eastern Developments (NSW) Pty Ltd Description of Project New apartment building in Orange CBD. Description of Structure Four storey apartment, post-tensioned concrete floor, steel roof frame. Stage of Development Construction Certificate. Documents Construction Certificate Documents. Role of Architect Design and Documentation. Advisory role as required during construction.

SCHEDULE OF RISKS NOT USUALLY ASSOCIATED WITH TYPE OF STRUCTURE RISK LEVEL of the Design Refer risk Level Matrix

Factors What is the risk or What is the detailed Initial Construction Operation and Final Demolition Mitigation by Residual Risk to be issue? nature of the risk or Phase (including Maintenance Phase Phase Designer brought to the

issue? any demolition attention of required for Contractors and construction) asset owner

Site Considerations No unusual risks.

Site Planning No unusual risks. I

Building Design /:

Demolition risk. Post tensioned- Not applicable. Not Applicable. H Refer to structural Any demolition will concrete structure (C/2) engineers used for upper level assessment. e safe work floor slabs. method for to suit the

post-tensioned concrete structure.

Maintenance Access. Roof mounted Not applicable. L Not Applicable. AC equipment Safe work methods equipment. (D/4) mounted on flat required for all

safety platform away maintenance access. from edge of roof.

Ease of Construction

No unusual risks.

HAVENHAND & MATHER ARCHITECTS Page 2 of 6 Rev B-04/11/2019

SAFE DESIGN OF STRUCTURES REPORT RISK LEVEL of the Design

Refer risk Level Matrix Factors What is the risk or What is the detailed Initial Construction Operation and Final Demolition Mitigation by Residual Risk to be

issue? nature of the risk or Phase (including Maintenance Phase Phase Designer brought to the issue? any demolition attention of

required for Contractors and construction) asset owner

Building Materials Floor Finishes Slip risk for Not Applicable High Not Applicable Specified floor Floors must be

occupants. (C/3) materials in maintained in good accordance with slip condition by owner. resistance standards. Surfaces should not

be modified. Spills on floor to be attended to promptly. Floors to be slip tested periodically.

Others Falls from heights. Balconies. H H H Balustrades specified Children to be

(D/1) if construction (D/1) if safe work (D/1) if construction in accordance with supervised on safety barriers in practices followed to safety barriers in Building Code of balcony areas. place as per Workcover place as per Australia. Balustrades to be Workcover guidelines. Workcover periodically checked guidelines. guidelines. Windows openings and maintain.

specified to comply Safe method with building code. statements required

for window cleaning.

Climbing risk associated rom additional screens required under DA Mod .. Condition 20.


APPENDIX A- RISK CONSIDERATION

Site Considerations Relevant Notes (YIN)

Consider conditions particular to the site which may create a risk, including:

• Flood, bushfire, mine subsidence, contamination, geotechnical issues, sea level rise N

• Demolition of hazardous materials N

• Adjacent buildings and associated risks e.g. Chemical warehouse N

• Underground and overhead services y ..

• Environmental -e.g. Noise, extreme weather, hail, lightning, earthquake N

• Human created disaster N

• Access and egress e.g. possible obstructions N

• Proximity to busy roads or traffic generating development N

• Existing large trees y Neighbouring property.

Site Design Relevant Notes (YIN)

Consider how the design for the whole site impacts on risk including:

• Access/ egress - consider all stages and consider number and sizes of access and y egress points

• Way finding and signage y

• Separation of pedestrian and vehicle traffic e.g. through use of kerbs, wheel stops etc y

• Adequate external lighting and signage y New lighting and signage.

• Trip issues - levels, edge definition and appropriate materials y

Design for visiting workers e.g. waste collection, emergency services y Waste collection on • street. • Consider serviceability- e.g. location of meters and access space, max 1 in 6 slope y

for mowing

HAVENHAND & MATHER ARCHITECTS Page 4 of 6 Rev B- 04/11/2019

APPENDIX A- RISK CONSIDERATION

Building Design Relevant Notes (Y/N) Consider how the design of the structure impacts on risk including:

• Brief requirements - operational and service needs y

Client input - e.g. explore with the client any additional requirements y Client consulted • throughout design • BCA Compliance e.g. classification, construction type, exits, fire separation, y Refer BCA Report accessibility • Other relevant standards e.g. AS 3959 - 2009 Construction of Buildings in Bushfire N Prone areas

Potential falls from high level verandahs, balconies, walkways and windows. y Balconies and • windows.

Detailed Design Impact on Construction (including pre-construction demolition)/ Relevant Notes Operation and Maintenance / Demolition at end of life. (Y/N)

Consider how the detailed design of the structure impacts on risk to workers including

• Pre-construction demolition -e.g. does the existing building contain hazardous N materials or pretensioned concrete?

• Excavation - e.g. need for shoring or risk of collapse of adjoining structures N

Standardisation -e.g. are the proposed construction details, method and equipment Common • y construction required common within the building industry with low risk of failure? methods used. • Familiarity - is anything non-standard used e.g. hoists which require reinforcement of y Post tensioned

trusses? concrete..

• Noise: e.g. will the technique required have an increased noise impact? N

• Manual handling e.g. does the design require additional manual handling, are parts N standard size?

• Occupied premises e.g. what measures need to be put in place? N Vacant site

• Work at heights e.g. does the design preclude the use of normal safe work practices? N Safe work practices can be used.

• Critical loads/ load-bearing elements e.g. an unusual design which introduces the N need for construction loads which exceed loads at completion. • Location of components requiring regular maintenance and inspection - have they y Roof mounted AC.

been located for servicing by a maintenance worker using normal work practices? Platform access. • Confined spaces such as subfloor and ceiling spaces, hydraulic and detention tanks

e.g.- have they been located for servicing by a maintenance worker using normal y work practices?

• Appropriateness of materials e.g. slip resistant, flammability, fabric fire resistance y

• Do door swings, stair treads and risers, handrails etc allow safe movement of y workers?

• Space/ access for equipment/ plant - is it sufficient for a maintenance worker using y normal work practices?

• Hazardous materials such as new materials which are known to produce toxic fumes N Conventional and require new safe work practices. materials used.

• Steep roof pitches on roofs with unusual designs for which normal safe work practices N cannot be applied.

Demolition at the end of life e.g. is the roof trussed or are internal walls load bearing. y Post Tensioned • slabs.


r > < rT z r > z 0 go z > --i r m :;o )> :;o o r = rT o --i Cl)

0 ti) co CD Ol

0 Ol

:::0 CD < CJ I 0 > -- ..... ..... rJ 0 ..... CD

RISK MATRIX PROJECT: DESIGN PHASE: DATE:

RISK LEVEL MATRIX LIKELIHOOD (L)

CONSEQUENCES (C)

1.- Catastrophic - extensive personal injury or fatality and/or will also disrupt the wider general environment and/or cause cessation of all organisation activities for an indefinite period and/or serious and extensive irreversible environmental harm.

- - - -- - - 2.- Major - personal injury requiring medical aid and/or will also disrupt the local environment and/or disrupt general work activities and affect the organisation detrimentally for an extended period and/or irreversible but limited environmental harm.

3.- Moderate - minor personal injury requiring first aid only and/or localised disruption of work activities but only for a limited period or extent and/or minor localised reversible environmental harm.

4.- Minor - personal inconvenience (no injury) that will not disrupt activities and/or minor short term environmental nuisance.

A.- Likely - expected to occur in most circumstances

B.- Probable -- could easily occur under normal circumstances

C.- Possible - might occur under normal circumstances

D.- Unlikely -may occur but requires unusual circumstances

H (D/1)

H H (C/2) (D/2)

H H M (B/3) (C/3) (D/3)

H M (A/4) (B/4)

RISK RANKING E Extreme A Acute H High M Medium L Low

LIKELIHOOD/CONSEQUENCE Requires preventive action prior to commencement of any work whatsoever - unacceptable risk. Requires immediate and ongoing systemised preventive action - constant active watching brief. Requires active monitoring and systemised preventive action as required - regular reviews. Requires passive monitoring for systemised preventive action as required - periodic reviews. Requires general preparedness for preventive action as required - general training.

RISK RANKING TECHNIQUES ARE HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE AND THESE RANKINGS ARE BASED ON CONSENSUS I PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE. RESIDUAL RISKS RANKED 'H' AND ABOVE REQUIRE PROJECT SPECIFIC 'SAFE WORK METHOD STATEMENTS' (SWMS) AND REGULAR ONGOING ACTION BY RELEVANT DESIGNATED PERSONNEL.

> 0 0 rT z 0 X CJJ

I 70 (/) 75

< > -I 70 X

Annexure D

Comments by Quest

Peter Archer

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Amy Van De Ven Wednesday, 9 October 2019 12:33 PM Peter Archer External Screens, Quest Orange

Hi Peter,

Please see below our comments and concerns regarding the proposed external screens at Quest Orange.

Our main concern would be with the WHS cleaning process either for our team or the contractors involved. We strongly believe it would also detract from the overall guest arrival experience once checked into the room as the view from most apartments with this new screen would be blocked almost completely. From an energy saving perspective too, the natural light that comes into a building especially on the north and west facing rooms (which is where the suggested screens will be installed) will be reduced, resulting in lights being left on for a good portion of the day.

Other items we feel would be impacted by the screens include:

l. Security, these additional screens could be used by intruders to scale the building or climb from one balcony to the other, we've all invested heavily on security cameras throughout the property however there are no front facing cameras on each balcony and the consequences for all if an intruder or guest was to fall trying to climb the vertical or horizontal screens.

2. WHS cleaning the vertical and Horizontal screens. Not to mention the cost of hiring boom Lifts to access the screens. Many other Quest Locations have mentioned this cost being unnecessary to the operations of the business especially if they screens can be avoided at this stage.

3. Birds using the screens for roosting will be difficult to control with waste will be unsightly and smelly. 4. The blocking of the view from within the room, although the screens are perforated and would let some

light through they have a negative effect on the views from rooms. Especially as mentioned above from an energy saving perspective.

5. The single rooms are recessed without balconies there view is greatly affected. 6. All comments regarding the look of the building to date have all been very positive, especially when

speaking with potential corporate clients in the area and local tourism bodies.

I have also reached out to other Quest Franchisees who have similar screens on their properties and all have advised they are extremely difficult to maintain to an appropriate cleaning standard. And being mindful of the weather conditions in Orange, especially recently with the dirty rain coming in from the west, this would be a huge cost to keep this maintained.

Kind Regards,

Amy van de Ven Franchisee

Quest Orange - OPENING October 2019 132 Kite Street Orange, NSW, 2800