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.

Council: Orange City Council

Meeting: 1 Sep 2026 6:00 PM

Recorded status: deferred


BRIEF

Minutes record Orange City Council’s deferral of DA 152/2026(1), a proposed place of public worship at 8 Connemara Drive, to review access. Staff identified a title restriction affecting the requested Gorman Road entrance, but gave differing advice about varying title restrictions. A separate traffic-safety review may be raised; no monitoring results or return date are recorded.


KEY FACTS

- 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.


ANALYSIS OF THE RECORD

- 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?


RECORDED NEXT STEPS

- 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.


SOURCE PASSAGES

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)


SOURCES

https://orange.infocouncil.biz/RedirectToDoc.aspx?URL=Open/2026/09/PDC_01092026_MIN_16022.PDF

https://minutesradar.com/news/orange-infocouncil-planning-development-policy-committee-1-sep-2026-6-00-pm-1-sep-2026-6-00-pm-minutes-connemara-worship-proposal-held-up-b-01d1f42473/


Prepared from public council minutes using automated drafting and checks. No meeting attendance or interviews are implied. Check the original record and seek comment before republishing claims or analysis. Illustrations are generic, not depictions of actual projects.