Housing & planning · Orange City Council
Orange worship-site proposal deferred for access review
Minutes record the deferral of a proposed place of public worship at 8 Connemara Drive to review site access, with staff identifying a title restriction affecting a possible rear entrance from Gorman Road.
Reporting from public council minutes. How this article was prepared
Orange City Council deferred a proposed place of public worship at 8 Connemara Drive to review access to the site, according to minutes of its 1 September 2026 committee meeting.
The recorded resolution, 26/455, concerns DA 152/2026(1). During the discussion, the Interim Director Development Services said a Section 88B restriction on the title prevented the applicant’s requested rear access via Gorman Road.
The Manager Development Assessments linked the restriction to the subdivision. Council engineering staff had determined that access from Gorman Road would increase traffic impacts, and restrictions on the rear lots were intended to provide a landscape buffer for the adjoining residential area.
The minutes record differing staff advice about title restrictions. The Interim Director described them as absolute, while the Manager Development Assessments said a process exists for Council to consider a variation at the applicant’s request. The minutes do not reconcile those statements, record such a request or provide a timeframe for reviewing street access. The application was deferred to review access, not approved or refused.
Traffic safety at the Gorman Road and Connemara Drive intersection was discussed separately. Staff said it was not a requirement of this development application, but a review could be raised if safety required it. Cr McDonell said a traffic-monitoring camera had been put on Gorman Road to assess vehicle speed and usage, but the minutes do not record the results or a date for the application to return.
The deferral was recorded with councillors voting for the resolution and none against. Cr McDonell, who moved the motion with Cr S Peterson, declared a non-significant non-pecuniary interest because she lives nearby. The same meeting approved dual occupancies at 2 Mallard Way and 73 Scarborough Street, along with a dwelling, subdivision and group-home proposal at 21 Honeyman Drive and 6 Duncanson Drive, subject to consent conditions.
What deserves a closer look
The source records a title restriction affecting the proposed Gorman Road access and a possible separate traffic-safety review. It does not establish that either will result in a particular access arrangement.
The minutes record differing staff advice about title restrictions. The story reports that advice without establishing whether this restriction can legally be varied.
The recorded outcome was a deferral rather than an approval or refusal.
Questions for follow-up reporting
Has the applicant requested a variation of the Section 88B restriction?
What did the Gorman Road traffic monitoring show, and has the applicant decided to change its plans in response?
When will DA 152/2026(1) return for consideration?
If another access is proposed, what changes to the existing design would be required and who would bear the cost?
What happens next
The recorded deferral is to review access arrangements for DA 152/2026(1); the minutes specify no timetable.
Council could consider a title-restriction variation process at the applicant's request, according to the recorded advice; the minutes do not record such a request.
A separate traffic-safety review of the Gorman Road and Connemara Drive intersection may be raised if safety requires it.
The applicant may decide to change its plans to accommodate traffic-assessment data.
Check the record
These passages were matched to the source text. Read them in context in the original minutes.
Resolution 26/455 deferred DA 152/2026(1) for a place of public worship at 8 Connemara Drive to review site access; Cr M McDonell and Cr S Peterson are recorded with the resolution.
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.
Item 2.3, Resolution 26/455
Open original minutes ↗Cr Mileto asked about the applicant's requested rear entry via Gorman Road, and the Interim Director Development Services said a Section 88B 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 Gorman Road access
Open original minutes ↗The Interim Director Development Services described restrictions on a land title 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, advice on title restrictions
Open original minutes ↗The Manager Development Assessments said engineering staff had identified increased traffic impacts from Gorman Road access when the subdivision was created; rear-lot restrictions provided a landscape buffer and were a subdivision consent condition.
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, subdivision and landscape-buffer explanation
Open original minutes ↗The minutes record advice that Council can consider a process to vary title restrictions at the applicant's request, followed by Cr Duffy's question taken on notice about the timeframe for reviewing street access under the Section 88B instrument.
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 DA, but a review could be raised with staff as a separate matter 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, intersection traffic safety
Open original minutes ↗Cr McDonell said a traffic-monitoring camera had been put on Gorman Road to assess speed and usage; the Manager Development Assessments said the applicant could decide whether to change its plans to accommodate traffic-assessment data.
*Cr Ruddy left the meeting with the time being 8.02pm* Cr McDonell noted that a traffic monitoring camera had been put on Gorman Road to assess vehicle speed and usage and asked if the results of this will impact the DA. The Manager Development Assessments advised that it is the applicant's decision if they want to make changes to their plans to accommodate the data from the traffic assessment. *Cr Ruddy returned to the meeting via AudioVisual Link with the time being 8.07pm* Cr Duffy asked if the burden of cost for another access to the development is on the applicant.
Item 2.3, traffic monitoring and possible plan changes
Open original minutes ↗The recorded vote lists councillors in favour and none 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 on Resolution 26/455
Open original minutes ↗Source record
This report is based on the supplied minutes of the Orange City Council Planning & Development Committee meeting held on 1 September 2026. Their confirmation status is not established by the supplied record.
Key facts from the minutes
- Resolution 26/455 deferred DA 152/2026(1) for a place of public worship at 8 Connemara Drive to review site access.
- Staff said a Section 88B restriction prevents the requested rear access via Gorman Road. The minutes also record differing advice about whether title restrictions are absolute or can be varied through a process considered at the applicant’s request.
- The restriction was described as a subdivision condition intended to provide a landscape buffer for adjoining residential land.
- Traffic safety at the Gorman Road and Connemara Drive intersection is not required by this DA, but a separate review may be raised if needed.
- The minutes record no return date for the application or traffic-monitoring results.
Why it matters
- The recorded decision leaves the proposed worship site undecided pending an access review. Staff identified a title restriction affecting the possible Gorman Road entrance, but the minutes do not resolve the differing advice about varying it. A separate intersection traffic-safety review was raised as a possibility, not a requirement of this DA.