Housing & planning · Orange City Council
8 Connemara Drive worship proposal deferred for access review
Orange City Council deferred DA 152/2026(1) to review site access. Staff said a Section 88B title restriction blocks proposed rear access from Gorman Road, and councillors discussed traffic monitoring.
Reporting from public council minutes. How this article was prepared
A proposed place of public worship at 8 Connemara Drive, Orange, was left undecided when Orange City Council deferred the application to review access to the site. The minutes record no votes against the resolution at the Planning and Development Committee’s 1 September 2026 meeting.
The application, DA 152/2026(1), concerns a place of public worship on the Connemara Drive property. Cr M McDonell declared a non-significant non-pecuniary interest because she lives nearby.
Councillor T Mileto asked why the applicant’s initial request for rear access through Gorman Road had been denied. The Interim Director Development Services said a Section 88B restriction on the land title prevented that access.
The Manager Development Assessments told the committee that, when the subdivision was created, council engineering staff determined that access along Gorman Road would increase traffic impacts. The rear-lot restrictions were described as a condition of the subdivision’s consent intended to provide a landscape buffer for the adjoining residential area.
The minutes record differing staff explanations of the restriction. The Interim Director Development Services described it as absolute and referred to a legal impediment to action against it. The Manager Development Assessments said there was a process for Council to consider varying title restrictions at the applicant’s request. The minutes do not reconcile those statements. A question from Cr K Duffy about the timeframe for reviewing access under the instrument was taken on notice.
Traffic safety at the intersection of Gorman Road and Connemara Drive was not a requirement of the development application, staff said. A separate review could be raised with staff if safety concerns required it.
The minutes also record Cr McDonell saying that a traffic-monitoring camera had been placed on Gorman Road to assess vehicle speed and usage. Staff said it would be the applicant’s decision whether to change the plans to accommodate the traffic-assessment data. No timeframe was recorded for the access review or the application’s return for further consideration.
What deserves a closer look
The minutes record a deferral for an access review, not approval or rejection of the application.
The minutes do not establish when access will be reviewed or when DA 152/2026(1) will return.
The minutes record both an absolute-restriction explanation and a process for requesting a variation, without reconciling those statements.
Questions for follow-up reporting
What timeframe will apply to the access review taken on notice?
Will the applicant seek a variation of the Section 88B restriction or amend the proposal in response to traffic-monitoring data?
When will DA 152/2026(1) return for further consideration?
What happens next
Under the recorded deferral, site access is to be reviewed; the minutes give no timeframe for that review or the application's return.
The applicant may consider changes to the plans to accommodate traffic-assessment data.
Any traffic-safety review of the Gorman Road and Connemara Drive intersection may be raised with staff as a separate matter.
Check the record
These passages were matched to the source text. Read them in context in the original minutes.
DA 152/2026(1) for a place of public worship at 8 Connemara Drive, Orange, was deferred to review access to the site.
RESOLVED - 26/455 Cr M McDonell/Cr S Peterson That Council DEFERS development application DA 152/2026(1) for Place of Public Worship at LOT: 404 DP: 1220844 CA: 5189 - 8 Connemara Drive Orange to review access to the site.
Resolution 26/455
Open original minutes ↗The voting list records no votes against.
For: Cr M McDonell (Chairperson), Cr T Mileto (Mayor), Cr T Greenhalgh (Deputy Mayor), Cr K Duffy, Cr G Judge, Cr F Kinghorne, Cr D Mallard, Cr S Peterson, Cr G Power, Cr M Ruddy, Cr J Stedman Against: Nil Absent: Cr J Whitton PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES 1 SEPTEMBER 2026 Page 3 Cr Mileto asked why the applicant's initial request to have entry to the back of the site via Gorman Road was denied, noting that access may alleviate nearby residents' concerns with traffic influx.
Vote following resolution 26/455
Open original minutes ↗Cr McDonell declared a non-significant non-pecuniary interest in the 8 Connemara Drive application because she resides nearby.
For: Cr M McDonell (Chairperson), Cr T Mileto (Mayor), Cr T Greenhalgh (Deputy Mayor), Cr K Duffy, Cr G Judge, Cr F Kinghorne, Cr D Mallard, Cr S Peterson, Cr G Power, Cr M Ruddy, Cr J Stedman Against: Nil Absent: Cr J Whitton 2.3 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION DA 152/2026(1) - 8 CONNEMARA DRIVE TRIM REFERENCE: 2026/1239 Cr McDonell declared a Non-Significant Non-Pecuniary Interest in this item as she resides nearby.
Item 2.3 declaration of interest
Open original minutes ↗Cr Mileto asked why the applicant's initial request for rear access via Gorman Road had been denied; the Interim Director Development Services said a Section 88B land-title restriction prevented that access.
For: Cr M McDonell (Chairperson), Cr T Mileto (Mayor), Cr T Greenhalgh (Deputy Mayor), Cr K Duffy, Cr G Judge, Cr F Kinghorne, Cr D Mallard, Cr S Peterson, Cr G Power, Cr M Ruddy, Cr J Stedman Against: Nil Absent: Cr J Whitton PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES 1 SEPTEMBER 2026 Page 3 Cr Mileto asked why the applicant's initial request to have entry to the back of the site via Gorman Road was denied, noting that access may alleviate nearby residents' concerns with traffic influx. The Interim Director Development Services advised there is a Section 88b restriction on the land title that prevents that access. Cr Mileto asked if the Section 88b instrument is flexible or if it can be varied as the adjoining property also does not have curb and guttering but is allowed street access.
Item 2.3 discussion of rear access
Open original minutes ↗The Interim Director Development Services described land-title restrictions within Section 88 as absolute and referred to a legal impediment to action against them.
The Interim Director Development Services advised that restrictions on a land title within Section 88 is absolute and that there is a legal impediment on actions being undertaken against this.
Item 2.3 discussion of title restrictions
Open original minutes ↗Council engineering staff determined when the subdivision was created that Gorman Road access would increase traffic impacts; rear-lot restrictions were described as a subdivision consent condition providing a landscape buffer for the adjoining residential area.
Cr McDonell asked if that restriction was part of the subdivision as the house that was there prior to the land being subdivided had access. The Manager Development Assessments advised that when the subdivision was created, Council engineering staff determined that access along Gorman Road would increase the impact on traffic. The restrictions placed on the rear of the lots are there to provide for a landscape buffer for the adjoining residential area, and that this was a condition of consent on the subdivision.
Item 2.3 discussion of subdivision restrictions
Open original minutes ↗The minutes record a process for Council to consider varying title restrictions at the applicant's request, and Cr K Duffy's question about the timeframe for reviewing street access under the Section 88B instrument was taken on notice.
He further explained that there is a process of varying the restrictions on a title that Council can consider on request of the applicant. QUESTION TAKEN ON NOTICE Cr K Duffy Cr Duffy asked what the timeframe is on reviewing street access under the Section 88b instrument.
Item 2.3 variation process and question taken on notice
Open original minutes ↗Staff said consideration of traffic safety at the Gorman Road and Connemara Drive intersection was not required by the development application, but a separate review could be raised with staff if safety required it.
Cr McDonell asked if the consideration for traffic safety at the intersection of Gorman Road and Connemara Drive is a requirement of this DA. The Manager Development Assessments advised that it is not required, but if safety requires a review it can be raised with staff as a separate matter.
Item 2.3 discussion of intersection safety
Open original minutes ↗Source record
Reporting from the supplied minutes of Orange City Council’s Planning and Development Committee meeting held on 1 September 2026. The supplied record does not establish whether the minutes have been confirmed.
Key facts from the minutes
- The committee deferred DA 152/2026(1) for a place of public worship at 8 Connemara Drive under resolution 26/455.
- The deferral’s voting list records no votes against. A separate declaration records Cr M McDonell’s non-significant non-pecuniary interest because she lives nearby.
- Staff said a Section 88B land-title restriction prevents the proposed rear access via Gorman Road.
- Staff described the restriction as absolute but also identified a process for Council to consider a variation at the applicant’s request; the minutes do not reconcile those explanations.
- The rear-lot restrictions were described as a condition of subdivision consent providing a landscape buffer for the adjoining residential area.
- Cr McDonell said a traffic-monitoring camera had been placed on Gorman Road to assess vehicle speed and usage. No timetable for the access review or application return was recorded.
Why it matters
- The deferral left the proposed place of public worship at 8 Connemara Drive awaiting a decision on consent, with site access to be reviewed. Any separate intersection traffic-safety review would need to be raised with staff.