Council to consider DAs for Domestic violence centre and new sub-division

By December 20, 2018 January 29th, 2019 DAs on Exhibition, Major DAs, News

Orange City council is to consider two separate Development Applications (DAs), both concerned with the proposed establishment of a new Domestic Violence and Family Support Centre.

UPDATE : The exhibition period for these DAs has now ended. The closing date for submissions was Friday 25 January 2019.

UPDATE : Housing Plus are hosting a Pop-up Information Stall on two days where local residents can ask question face to cafe about the proposed project. Housing Plus has booked an area in the downstairs forum of the Civic Theatre on Monday 21 Jan (2 pm-6pm) and Wed 23 Jan (2pm – 6pm).

One DA seeks approval to build a new centre called ‘The Orchard’, a group home, community facility and hostel which would be built in stages to be operated by Housing Plus as a Domestic and Family Violence Centre.

The other DA proposes a new council-owned 10-lot subdivision alongside the Escort Way. The proposed DV centre would be built on one of the blocks.

The two DAs are now on public exhibition for community comment.

One this page you can :

  • Find out more about each proposal
  • Look at the official documents about the proposals
  • Learn about the deadline for making a comment
  • Find out the best way of getting more information

The Orchard

A DA has been lodged with Orange City Council  (DA 448/2018-1) seeking approval for a transitional group home, community facility and hostel. The centre, to be known as ‘The Orchard’, would be a domestic violence centre. It would be built in stages and operated by Housing Plus. This Media Release – DA Lodged for The Orchard was issued by Housing Plus when the DA was lodged.

It would be built at 20 George Weily Way and Lot 125 of The Escort Way in Orange.

The community centre and hostel are expected to employ approximately eight staff. The centre will be staffed on a 24 hour basis.

The proposal would comprise:

  • The main building which will operate as a community facility and hostel. The building will provide offices, counselling areas, staff amenities, staff sleeping quarters, and emergency sleepover accommodation supported by a common room and shared kitchen, bathroom and laundry facilities.
    Location map of the new centre.

    THE ORCHARD : This map shows the location alongside Escort Way of the new centre.

  • Six transitional group home units (as three duplexes), with two bedrooms per unit that would be occupied by a single household. The dwellings would be designed so as the internal design could be flexible to suit the requirements of each particular occupant. For example, adjacent units can be used as 2 x two bedroom dwellings; as a one bedroom dwelling and a three bedroom dwelling; or a single four bedroom dwelling. Each unit is proposed to be self-contained and will be equipped with its own private open space.
  • 20 off-street car parking spaces, site landscaping and communal open space areas, a playground, a salon ancillary to the transitional group home units, and a shed. Access to the development is proposed via a yet to be constructed cul-de-sac road connecting to George Weily Place, which is subject to a concurrent development application lodged with Council (DA 444/2018(1))

The application may be inspected at the Customer Service Counter, ground floor, Civic Centre – corner of Byng Street and Lords Place, Orange – during ordinary office hours, being 9.00 am to 5.00 pm Monday to Friday from Tuesday, 18 December 2018 to Friday, 18 January 2019. During this period, any person may make written submission on this development proposal to Council.

Because of the holiday season, the deadline for community comments is Friday 18 January, 2019.

Information about the DA and the proposal can be found here :

IC18 24343 DA 448 2018(1) – Supporting information – 20 George Weily Place

IC18 24344 DA 448 2018(1) – Supporting information (BASIX) – 20 George Weily Place

DA 448.2018 – Redacted Plans (amended December 2018) – 20 George Weily Place, Orange

DA 448 2018(1) – further information – 20 George Weily Place and Lot 125…

Noise Impact Assessment DA 448 2018(1)

Preliminary Site Investigation DA 448 2018 (1)

Community advertising 

Ten-lot subdivision

A DA has been lodged with Orange City Council  (DA 444/2018-1) seeking approval for a 10-lot subdivision.

The proposed council-owned subdivision is in the a5rea of 20 George Weily Way and Lot 125 of the Escort Way in Orange.

The subdivision comprises :

  • seven standard residential lots between 908m² and 1,926m²;

    LOTS : This map shows the location of the proposed new 10-lot subdivision alongside Escort Way

  • one large residential lot with a size of 5,260m², to house the new Domestic Violence Centree (which is the subject site for a concurrent development application (DA 448/2018-1)
  • one lot to be used for stormwater management of 495m²; and
  • one residue lot of 5.86 hectares consisting of the alignment of the Northern Distributor Road and all land to the east of the Northern Distributor Road.

No physical changes to the land on the eastern side of the Northern Distributor Road are proposed.

An 80m long cul-de-sac local road would be provided from the west to connect George Weily Place to five residential lots via current Lot 119 DP 1087517.

The three remaining residential lots on the southern boundary would be provided legal access from The Escort Way.

The applicant for the proposed development is Orange City Council. The consent authority is Orange City Council.

This document contains more information about the subdivision proposal :

Residential subdivision – Statement of Environmental Effects

This Community Advertising, issued 20 December 2018, has more information about making a submission. The closing date for submissions has been extended since this advertisement.

The two applications can be inspected at the Customer Service Counter, ground floor, Civic Centre – corner of Byng Street and Lords Place, Orange – during ordinary office hours, being 9.00 am to 5.00 pm Monday to Friday from Tuesday, 18 December 2018 to Friday, 25 January 2019.

During this period, any person may make written submissions on these development proposal to Council.

The deadline for community comments is Friday 25 January, 2019.

Comments and submissions

Because the exhibition period has now ended, the ‘Comment’ feature on this page has been disabled.

A report on these online comments will be considered by council, while formal submissions will be assessed separately in line with state legislation.

Formal submissions should be should be sent to the General Manager at

If you wish to make a submission, please quote reference numbers DA 444/2018(1) – PR20570. Please include your return/postal address and a contact telephone number if you wish to be advised of the progress or the outcome of the application. It would also be appreciated if you could include a contact email address if you have one. If a submission includes objections to the proposal, the grounds of objection must be specified. Submitters are required to comply with section 10.4 (Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.


  • Cherylynn sherlock says:

    I strongly oppose this development and will require more information
    I have small children and have serious health issues and the stress of this development would directly impact my quality of life

  • Nigel Denford says:

    I am strongly opposed to this development. As home owners & rate payers in Ploughman Hill Estate, not only were we unaware of this application, we were never consulted or part of a questionnaire. This estate does not have the infrastructure to support this establishment & this estate is at least 5km from the nearest shopping centre. We bought in this estate as it was safe for our family, which this will jepodise. This type of establishment needs to be in a better suited part of town. Housing Plus & Council need to be transparent in their plans, which has not been the case.

  • Liz says:

    The area is not zoned for this type of building for one also really let’s build a safe haven for victims on a busy open intersection near nothing sounds like a safe spot to me with easy access for violent partners to find oh and no where near medical help , police, and simple groceries and let’s not forget being run over by trucks on the busy intersection oh and let’s throw in the narrow street used to access the mixed business facility boarding house group home whatever when a child or adult is run over because a quiet suburban street is now a main road then maybe another site would be better. Area zoned is only for 1 building and not mixed business just a hint

  • Adrian says:

    We purchased in ploughman estate as it was a safe and family oriented estate on the edge of town. I support housing plus homes in the area but a high density facility like this is in complete contrast to the Rey of the estate. The facilities in the area do not support such infrastructure and I strongly oppose this DA as it puts my family at increased risk.

  • Ron says:

    I think that Orange needs this facility and if Housing Plus, the Council and Police all think that this is the best available and affordable site then they should go ahead. We live about 1 km away so do not expect to be impacted, but I do think that the negative impacts being expressed by others are overstated. Let’s have some compassion for the victims of Domestic Violence rather than self-interest.

  • Libby Seaman says:

    I also live in the area and agree very much with the comments made by Ron. Domestic Violence is a secret cancer affecting people from all walks of life. Children do not have say about what life they are born into. Don’t you think all children have a right to safe living? It really doesn’t matter where it is someone will always object to the location.

  • Hanna says:

    I support the construction of The Orchard as a much-needed domestic violence centre for Orange. Women and children seeking refuge from a violent relationship need to feel safe and part of the community; not isolated or victimised. A quiet residential area is ideal. Women and children need to rebuild positive relationships with members of the community, safe from abusive and controlling behaviours.

  • Liz says:

    All good comments my question is why is the entrance supposedly proposed in an off street which is narrow already full of families and children playing in the existing dead end street. Have one entry off one of the busy MAIN roads then impact on exsiting Orange families is minimized .

  • Alana says:

    I am in support of the orchard going ahead in this area

  • Alison says:

    While I am not opposed to a DVF in Orange I feel there are better places for a facility of this kind. The hospital precinct would be better suited as its close to medical attention should they require it. The major issue is lack of consultation by council and housing plus with the residents and the traffic flow for what is already a narrow street. Maybe enter off NDr or escort way??? Why are housing plus advertising a facility to begin in February when it hasn’t been approved formally? Needs to go through the proper channels and fill transparency from council and housing plus.

  • Ange says:

    I object to the construction of this compound structure. The location is questionable for the safety of those seeking refuge, thus location is on a major transport intersection with no traffic light s for safe crossing. Also how are the occupants going to source supplies and services so far away from the CBD? Public transport is very limited to this area, and the occupants may or may not have a vehicle to drive to the supermarket for supplies and general services located a number of kilometres away in the CBD. How will the kids of school age get too and from school from this location, there are no facilities within walking distance.

  • Michelle says:

    While I totally support a domestic violence Centre in Orange I’m not sure that it’s to be built in the best location. Seems odd to have a facility like this a long way from the city centre & medical facilities. Also access from George Weilly place is a concern as it is a small & narrow cul-de-sac with lots of children playing in the street. Please rethink the location as it’s a very odd choice.

  • Mel M says:

    I support the DVF, it is an essential service needed in our city.
    My issues with this DA are as follows:
    – Housing Plus has NOT done any community/neighbourhood consultation (despite Mr Fisher’s claims to the contrary)
    – OCC chose to put the DA on exhibition over the Christmas/New Year period, which looks very suspiciously like they were trying to get it through unnoticed (especially given the push back to requests for an extended submission period)
    – neither OCC nor Housing Plus have responded to questions or concerns raises by numerous local residents; such as – is there an option for the facility to house parolees in the future? Will the site be secure (i.e. what’s to stop the violent ex-partners from attending the facility?)?
    – despite the subdivision having been established for well over 6 years, there are still no footpaths (except the wetland walking tracks) within it, nor are there any connecting the development to existing pedestrian paths closer to town.
    – wouldn’t North Orange or closer to CBD be a better location for Facility residents to have easier access to services/supermarkets/medical centres etc?
    If Housing Plus & OCC can openly, honestly and appropriately address these legitimate concerns, and others held by residents, it would go a long way to easing the tensions & even removing some objections to the DA.

  • Christine Lewis says:

    Living in Ploughmans Hill estate for 11 years i have seen many changes in the area and its now a place full of young families and retirees who chose to live out of town and away from the hustle and bustle , the culdesac where the proposed Orchard site is not suitable in any way to accomodate this most needed facility in Orange where mothers and children need to go to escape their nightmare of abuse and im not in anyway against this facility its just not in the right place i live in a street just a few houses away from shared accomodation for the not so lucky in our community that is in the right place.

  • Laura says:

    I support this application. The women and children who will be using the facility will value the safety, peace and quiet of the area just as much as their neighbours. They will be recovering from a significant and traumatic disruption to their lives. The family-friendly neighbourhood will no doubt help them feel as though their lives are getting back to “normal” more rapidly. The CEO of Housing Plus has been very diplomatic in addressing residents’ concerns. I hope the right people listen.

  • S.F.H. says:

    Domestic violence – just dreadful! Of course we need facilities to house the victims of this horrendous abuse. And so although I don’t object to the facility, I object strongly to the location. It’s just a nonsense. George Weilly Place is a quiet cul de sac of like people – they live here in peace and safety. If this facility is to be built here, that peace & safety would be a dim memory, replaced by an element of fear. I note that those who seem in favour of this, don’t live too near George Weilly Place….I wonder why that is?
    I’m not a snob, I am a realist
    Please let common sense and decency prevail, Housing Plus/Orange Council.

  • Bruno says:

    Housing Plus need to consider other options such as, All of the abandoned Riverside buildings that over look the Golf course near Orange Health Service could be restored & renovated.
    Yes Orange requires this type of facility, but can also be added value if it operates closer to other health services.
    West Orange is too far away from a person going through a crisis they might require Health treatment, pharmacy or basic shopping.

  • Bill Lewis says:

    I’m afraid I have to object to the location of this proposal it doesn’t pass the pub test for the way occ and housing plus have gone about trying to get this through . Why hasn’t there been any other sites put forward for proper due process and consideration .

    • Liz Graves says:

      There were 2 sites proposed ????

      • ACC says:

        Two DA for same location. One for office which is open 24/7 for security. Why would you need security if this isn’t going to attract any security issues….. Yep land value will increase if housing plus is to be listened too.

  • Trevor says:

    I have left other emails and they are edited out . It seems that criticisms have to be vetted so that residents are kept
    away from the truth . So be it!

    I object in the strongest terms possible to the DA 444 and DA 448 because they are proposed to located a domestic violence facility in a totally inappropriate location …………… Please try to place these facilities near the CBD

    • Council Communications says:

      Thanks for your comment. Yes, we’ve received a number of online comments from you. As you can see, there is a broad spectrum of valid debate to be read on this page. Comments that are judged to be offensive or that could attract legal action will not be approved to be published here.

    • Julie Machin says:

      I totally agree with Trevor

  • G. Z. H. says:

    The location is definitely NOT ideal for the Domestic Violence victims!
    1) It is not within walking distance to shops – not everyone will have a car when they have to leave home!
    2) It is very close to the busy corner. The traffic noise and car exhausts will put the stressed families into more stressful situation – passing trucks make very loud noise from 6am to midnight, and some drivers are very aggressive.
    3) Did Council consider the traffic solution of this intersection? the T-intersection is pitch black in the night and often half blocked by right-turn vehicles. we need the big roundabout to facilitate the traffic, has Council reserved enough space for that?
    4) why Council needs to rush to sell this piece of land? to get more rates? Everyone in the west will be better off if a few convenience stores be put there.

  • Kira says:

    I strongly oppose this development. The Ploughmans Estate is a family friendly area. Occupants have worked hard to be able to purchase a home in the area. The reason many love it out here is due to the distance from the main city center and these type of centers. It is a great idea to build the centre as it will provide support for those that need it but I believe it should be constructed in the CBD close to resources and away from residents.

  • Bruno says:

    A temporary resident staying at this location say ” I’m off to the shops to buy some coke & cigarettes”
    The 9 kilometre journey begins on foot, walking along traffic on North Distributor Rd to North Orange Shops.
    * Well done, you kept them safe.

  • Donna says:

    I am strongly opposed to the location of this development. Whilst we are all in agreement that a domestic violence crisis centre is required, this is not the location for it.

    I am in total disbelief at how this got so far without an ounce of consultation from Housing Plus or Orange City Council with the affected residents.

    Firstly George Weily Place is a street which is largely made up of young families, due to the absence of footpaths in the area children riding scooters and bikes and parents pushing prams are forced to do this on the road. When a car is parked on the kerb we then have to walk almost on the middle of the road. My children and I were almost hit by a car on christmas eve and also again this morning right on the bend where the entry point to this new subdivision is due to be put. When cars are parked on both sides of the road this street is reduced to single lane. The increased in traffic that this facility is to bring will only put more lives in danger.

    There has also been no communication whatsoever from David Fisher, he has publicly stated that he has met with residents and continues to consult with them, I and many of my neighbours have never heard from David Fisher. Numerous attempts to contact him have also been met with no reply. This shows a complete disregard for the residents given how long this facility has been in planning.

    Whilst David Fisher states that this facility will not hold other parolees and be used as a rehabilitation facility there are really no guarantees once the funding period has been completed. Given the classification of the centre as a Transitional Group home the definition states that it can be used for other purposes such as rehabilitation..

    I always thought the location of a domestic violence centre was to be kept secret to protect residents from perpetrators. Why has this not be done?

    This development does not complement the current streetscape of the area, there are no other units/duplexes anywhere in these the subdivisions adjoining this facility.

    I chose to buy my house in this area because of the quiet residential area that I would be living in I am in disbelief as to why this block is deemed most suitable for this facility. There are certainly more appropriate blocks closer to town than the one being proposed.

    The DA proposal states this building is not strictly a commercial building what does this mean, surely it is either a commercial building or it isn’t. From what I understand given a salon and the other services being operated from this building it is looking more and more like a commercial building.

    How can Housing Plus say that construction will start in February when the DA hasn’t even been approved.

    Please Orange City Council for once look after the residents and put this facility in a more appropriate location.

    • Jane says:

      I’m a little confused; you’re annoyed that noone has been consulted about the proposal but you’re also annoyed because centres for domestic violence victims should be kept secret?
      Unfortunately it is impossible to have a secret centre while still telling everyone about it.

  • Sarah says:

    This is a fantastic idea, the least amount of disruption to women and children who are traumatised the better. a great safe location for them to heal and rebuild their a community we should band together and support this

    • Darcy says:

      Well said, Sarah. Orange needs this center. It is long overdue. Domestic violence is a scourge that in one way or another, hurts us all. Let’s hope sanity prevails and this goes ahead.

  • Lindy Glover says:

    I have only just become aware of this proposal and it closes in less than a week. There has been precious little in the way of information over the Christmas break. A possible conspiracy theory has been suggested – yes, perhaps, it does sound suspiciously like it was being hidden in plain site over a busy period.
    I agree with every point that has been raised – it is needed, but this is definitely not the position for it. There is very little public transport in West Orange and even putting on special transport for the clients, could not meet all their needs. One needs a school drop off at 8.30 another, 9 am or pick up at 3 or 3.30 or 4 , one needs a doctor at 10am, doctor running late and return journey delayed by an hour, but another had a dental appointment at 11 and didn’t get there at all. If it is public knowledge as to where the centre is located, then security would be exactly the same if it was located in the CBD or, perhaps North Orange where there are shops within walking distance. Locating a centre where the clients residing are under extreme stress on one of the busiest corners that caters for big, noisy, smelly, trucks is surely adding to their stress levels. That corner is not suitable for pedestrian crossing towards the CBD and children under stress have been known to wander. George Weilly Place is a quiet cul-de-sac and this development would cause considerable traffic flow into a very narrow street. Jonothan Road is already a traffic snarl in the peak hours and this would add to that problem as well. A very poor choice of location – please rethink the proposal.

  • Bec says:

    I support the proposed development in its current form.
    Women and children fleeing domestic violence should be supported in a residential location. They should be able to continue their work and education in their local community whilst having access to round the clock support.
    An out of site out of mind approach is not in their best interest or the community’s.
    The Orange community has fundraised tirelessly to ensure this development comes to fruition, their circumstances of victims is not their fault. Domestic Violence can happen to anyone regardless of ‘class’ insinuating that this facility should be located on the hospital grounds is suggestive that there is something wrong with them. No!
    I support The Orchards and and am grateful to the majority of the community who has stood up to the minority opposing the development.

  • Sarah says:

    I am completely in support of the approval of this DA. Orange City Council has a responsibility to ensure that Orange has appropriate facilities for its residents, including those who have experienced domestic violence. The DA is well thought out (the result of consultation from a large range of experts), and considers the needs of both potential residents of The Orchard and it’s neighbours. There are no barriers to this being approved that haven’t been addressed in the design and location. In contrast, those opposing this have based their objections on speculation and conjecture. This DA is an opportunity for Orange City Council to progress our city. I hope that our council is able to approve this development swiftly, so that we can focus on the important task of supporting those who have experienced domestic violence.

    • Susan says:

      I agree with Sarah’s comments and I am in support of this application. It appears that there has already been much thought and consultation put into the design of The Orchard and into the location. This is a facility that is very much needed in Orange and I am surprised to see that there are residents who object to having a refuge in their area. Domestic violence touches women and children from all walks of life and those who currently object might find it is their loved ones who in the future need such a refuge.

  • Nathan Howard says:

    I strongly oppose this development of the location. The council should be saving this space until the Northern Distributor/Southern Feeder roads have been 100% complete. Council still has no final pans on how the southern feeder is going to go from here, there is also still no solution to the dangerous Northern Distributor Road/Escort Way and Ploughmans Lane/Escort Way intersections yet. What happens when we develop this space that was put aside for this purpose and then we don’t have the space to complete these roads or they then can’t move the road because of noise and safety issues with having dwellings so close. This is going to make some dangerous intersections just that much worse when the area is filled in and visibility is less.

    • Melissa says:

      Wasn’t the Northern Distributor supposed to be a bypass around Orange? To make traffic movements through & around Orange quicker & easier? Why do they keep building & developing along it? Surely the proposed site is not the best possible location for a DV Crisis Centre?! This seems a really unsuitable & inappropriate location for such a facility. Isolated but very public. Shouldn’t we be looking for a location of the opposite nature? Close to other essential resources i.e. shops, schools, medical facilities, public transport or where these resources could be accessed by a short walking distance. I would have thought somewhere a bit more private would have been preferred too.

  • Liz Graves says:

    Sara it’s is a fantastic idea BUT these women or men will be not be put near any facilities on a main intersection and will easy access for violent partners and you have no consideration for the families who will live nearby . Who purchased homes in what was supposed to be a beautiful safe estate to raise their families

  • Jane says:

    I fully support this application. It is well needed in the community and can provide victims of domestic violence an opportunity that they wouldn’t have otherwise. An absolutely wonderful addition to any part of orange!

    The arguments against the development are upsetting and selfish at best. Some comments touch on the current residents losing their feeling of safety in their community; I am afraid domestic violence is in all communities, no matter how nice your house might be. These people are likely to already be living nearby victims of domestic abuse and are none the wiser. These comments are representative of the type of stereotyping and generalisation that surrounds domestic abuse.

    Those looking to argue that there will be an increase in traffic on the road need to seriously think about the fact that they are suggesting the inconvenience of children having to ride bikes off the road (which is safer anyway) far out ways the “inconvenience” of being a victim of domestic violence and needing a safe place. I am more than happy to walk around a few extra cars if it means people will have a safe place to live. Other traffic arguments are that the intersection isn’t safe; if it’s so unsafe surely the current residents should have looked into improving this before now? Particularly considering the sheer amount of “young families” that are apparently in the area.

    It’s very sad to see so many comments stating “it’s obviously something that’s needed… But not here”. Domestic violence victims aren’t only in need of assistance where and when it’s convenient for you. I sincerely hope this proposal is passed and the residents in the area can see that this will not change their lives in any significant manner, but it will drastically improve the lives of others.

  • Liz Graves says:

    From the meeting with council and the housing plus comment that works will start next month I reckon it’s too …,, Best too get legal advice about residents getting limited information about project

  • Andrew says:

    I honestly have some trust issues around comments made by housing plus.
    House values will increase… False
    He’s been communicating with residents…… Couldn’t be more false
    Zero integrity so my concern then turns to the language in the DA
    2.5meter walls around the facility. Will look like a jail and will stand out bringing attention to victims.
    After 3yrs it will change from a Domestic violence centre to house drug rehabilitation
    It will house parolees after this time as well.
    There’s a reality that this will negatively impact the area and know one should be willing to accept that. Anyone who actually cares about people should understand this is the wrong location. Seriously it’s easy to see housing plus trying to push its agenda untruthfully and it’s disappointing in a word.
    I support this complex in an appropriate location.
    Safe for everyone in the community!
    A comment above says that police support this location, this isn’t the case.
    This facility needs to be close to emergency services and shopping facilities.
    It looks like Council tried to sneak this through, I’m glad that people noticed. I truly hope the right decision for victims and also rate payers gets made and that greed doesn’t win again.

  • Lowana says:

    This is an absolutely necessary development. A safe space for women and children who are victims of domestic violence is of the utmost importance. I am in full support and believe the community must have faith in the professionals who specialise in the support of domestic violence victims to build a safe house that will have negligible impacts on the surrounding community.

  • Gabrielle says:

    I fully support this application. A quiet, safe, family friendly area would be perfect to aid families returning to normality.

  • Jeff says:

    I strongly oppose the Housing Plus DA at this site and feel that it would be suited closer to medical and police services,
    The reasons for my objections are on the following grounds
    * Traffic Concerns
    * Security Concerns for families and first responders that live in this estate
    *By approving this DV in it’s current form Housing Plus change change it to a Transtional if it’s funding changes as it would be approved for that as well
    * Proximity to Trinity Pre School
    * Lack of transparency- How can Housing Plus be advertising for a Construction Manager when the DA is yet to be approved also on Housing Plus website they are stating the building for the Orchard will start in Feb 2019 again before the DA has been approved
    *The propose buildings do not suit the area, this estate does not have Duplexes but this DA is asking for 3 Duplexes to be built
    * DA does not meet the 50 meters set back from the NDR
    * How was this site chosen by Council and Housing Plus was it due to the fact that it is owned by Council
    * Conflict of Interest – Council owns the land, is approving the DA and has know about this proposal for two years as per Housing Plus web site
    Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns

  • Amy says:

    I strongly support the development of this centre at Ploughmans Hill estate. What a wonderful area for women and children to stay – peaceful and quiet, surrounded by a good community and stable family environments.
    I do hope the community can overcome their objections and assumptions about this centre and come to realise 1). Orange has desperately needed a crisis centre for quite some time and, 2). The families that would be using this centre simply want a safe, quiet and private place to recover and to ensure the safety of their children.

  • The opposition shown here is textbook NIMBYism.

    NIMBY- Not In My Back Yard is defined as opposition by residents to a proposed development in their local area. It often carries the connotation that such residents are only opposing the development because it is close to them, and that they would tolerate or support it if it were built farther away. Like Bourke, perhaps. Except that Burke probably has Nimbys too.

    The cost of domestic violence was 13.8 BILLION in 2009 – which are the latest figures I have seen. That cost has surely only headed one way – up since then. But the more visible and crippling cost is to the victims, their children and their communities.

    The data supports the need for this center. Everyone should get behind it. If anyone thinks the location is unsuited to purpose, it can only be that they are ignorant of the work that is done behind the scenes to make sure it meets all requirements.

    The misinformation I have seen and heard regarding safety issues for locals is just breathtakingly, stupendously Trumpian. Maybe us Mexicans should build a wall around them for the god of all.

    • Andrew says:

      Pop it in your yard pal. Enjoy the break ins and abbussive people coming to cause trouble for victims and residents. What’s wrong with protecting our families? Why then call others names and sling abuse… Odd way about sitting on a high horse.

      • I didn’t have to be Nostradamus to predict that response. It is a very predictable NIMBY response.

        Let me address your “concerns” Andrew, and throw out a challenge and an offer at the same time.

        1. “Pop it in my backyard”. I live in a 4 bedroom house in Calare. If you own a 4 bedroom house and this gets built in “your” backyard, look me up on facebook and get in touch. If the homes are fairly equal in value, I’ll happily do a swap.

        2. “Enjoy the break ins and abbussive people coming to cause trouble for victims and residents.” Show me the data that supports that this is an issue. Doesn’t have to be here. Show me it’s an issue anywhere. Your “feelings”, suspicions, and what you here on Hadley or Jones or Fox News doesn’t count because I’m only interested in facts. Do you have any of those?

        “What’s wrong with protecting our families?” Nothing at all. You just need to show that there is something they will need protection from – apart from paranoid delusions and fear-mongering.

        “Why then call others names and sling abuse… Odd way about sitting on a high horse.” I don’t believe I was abusive. Maybe you just g=have a thin skin? The name is appropriate for those who oppose such developments on on grounds that have no basis in reality, You say I’m on a high horse? Wow. Fact is, the real reason you and others oppose it is that you think you are better than those this development will help.

        I think I have just about convinced myself that the wall needs to be built. You’ll be safe then, cob. I’ll even supply the first brick.

        One day…one day… the national crisis that is domestic violence will attain the same emergency status as farmer’s affected by drought and politicians affected by travel scandals… but I’m not holding my breath in this town.

  • Deirdre says:

    Sadly most of the people who have responded to this do not understand that domestic violence affects the whole community, and occurs across all social sectors. In some of the above responses there is a lot of stereotyping going on.
    Women and children who are victims of DV need compassion, acceptance and understanding, not judgement from neighbours. In my work I see victims of DV regularly – they are no more of a threat to any community than anyone else. Do those who oppose this development also want to ban renters of properties in the area, just in case they are a risk to the safety of the neighbourhood? In my opinion, the DV refuge would pose less of a threat than unknown renters/owners in the area, as police are already involved with protecting DV victims, so would be obliged to intervene if needed.
    As a long time resident of the Ploughman’s Hill area, I also received a notice in my letterbox from the groups supposedly representing the interests of local residents. It made me both sad and angry. The stated reasons for opposing this DA are not based on any evidence or logic.
    1.The supposed negative impact on property values is questionable- in my opinion the location adjacent to the distributor road has a far more negative affect on property values in the proposed location, compared with a safe place for DV victims to live temporarily.
    2. We also have a need for more low cost housing in Orange, and this should be spread across different areas of our town to reduce the risk of further concentrating social problems and continued disadvantage for our less affluent community members.

    I think that the DA should be approved, providing it meets planning and building requirements.

  • THH says:

    I object to the proposed location not the Facility. There has not been any guarantees given re: future possible uses.

    To give the responses that are in favour of this location some credibility it is suggested that a street name, ( ,not a number) may help .

  • THH says:

    We object to the location of the proposed DV compound on the issues surrounding road safety , personal safety
    & loss of serenity , These we expect to be lost. It is also unfair to the victims as they will feel trapped without transport and the personal freedom that they certainly deserve. The victims deserve to be temporarily housed close to all possible services and facilities and of course those things are in the CBD. Eventually, this would be a much more
    efficient, effective & economic solution for Housing Plus and no doubt be the first choice location for the Victims we believe.

    Have the existing victims been consulted with respect to their preferences?

    • A says:

      As you say, the place is quiet, in a safe area, and serene. A perfect place for someone to recover from domestic violence trauma.

      – There is a bus nearby that passes 10 times a day.
      – School buses service the area.
      – just because someone is a victim of DV, doesn’t mean they do not own a car (victims come from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds)

      CBD services are located only 4km away, this is hardly in the sticks.

    • Melissa says:

      Great question!

  • TJF says:

    I object to this location for a dom. violence centre , it is not appropriate and 2.5 metre fencing does sound too flash .
    I see enough of that after drive past the golf course at Bathurst. There was no talk of this type of facility before we moved here and that is why we did move here. Maybe the solution could be to suggest that Housing Plus approach
    a developer in Nth Orange before anyone builds , with a view of obtaining a large plot . Then prospective new home owners could purchase knowing what is proposed. They would be selling like hotcakes

  • Bernadette Allen says:

    I Strongly support the DA Proposal for the Domestic and Family Violence Center. (The Orchard) I feel that the community and residents surrounding the center will expose woman and their family’s to the ideal healthy relationships that they have previously had lacking from their lives these residents will be able to Model healthy behaviour and relationships to woman most at need of them.

    Having the Center in a residential area will instill a sense of normalcy to woman, and not making them feel institutionalised. A DV refuge should not be an institute or confused with being an option for one. These woman are not “crazy” or unwell they are victims of violence and should not be confused and placed with other people that need other specialised help, within Health and mental health.
    woman in Domestically violent situations will benefit greatly for being exposed to safe and healthy living conditions.

  • Tracey Holdsworth says:

    As a resident who lives off The Escort Way I fully support the development of this domestic violence centre in this location. The experts at Housing Plus and Council have the ability to address and resolve the reasonable concerns of residents who believe they may be negatively affected. A huge number of Orange residents, who also live close by have spent many years fund raising and attending community events to raise the profile of this community need. Let’s get this done FOR our community.

    I would also like to note I live directly across the road from an assisted living share home where people with high needs are cared for. It is not invasive nor negative nor dangerous – it is part of living in a community with people who have different needs at different times in their lives. Yes people who work there park their cars on the street, there a buses and vans and other transport coming and going at all times of day and night – as do a host of all residents, visitors, tradespeople for all the other houses in our street. It is part of living in a community.

    Please support a much needed resource, it will make a positive difference in the lives of those people directly affected by violence.

  • A says:

    I strongly support the Domestic Violence Crisis Centre. I live within 200m of the proposed location.
    A community setting is the best place for this type of facility. I see no reason why the development would cause significant disruption to the area, or adversely affect neighbours.

    At present the land is regularly used as a truck stop, with semitrailers parked there days at a time. And residents use it to park their cars/utes.

    A DA assessment is not a question of where this facility should be built, but to assess the scale and potential impacts of a development and location (such as on traffic, noise, privacy and solar access).

    There are many examples of disability group homes, aged care settings in residential areas of Orange. These facilities are located in residential areas because it reduces isolation and improves outcomes. They are of similar size, and do not adversely affect traffic, noise etc.

    The proposed location is serviced well by public transport, with bus services stopping nearby 10 times a day.

    Traffic will be minor as it is towards the edge of the estate, ie cars do not need to drive throughout the estate to access. Additionally, it will positively improve noise from the northern distributor road for residents in the area, as it will form a noise barrier.

    I see no major impact on direct neighbours, as the DA calls for a new subdivision between existing houses and the development.

  • Damon says:

    I support the location and development for this domestic violence center.

  • trevor says:

    I object to the proposed location………… not the DV facility for many reasons and one that has a great deal of merit whether you’re for or against the location is the fact that the plans do not meet stipulated set back rules in this case from the NDR. The requirement is 50 M and that has not been accomplished in the DA. So it should not be permitted to go ahead in its’ present form. DAs are always being knocked back for non-compliance . Why are the blinkers on in this case. Furthermore, the Council will in the future act on the need to provide a round-a-bout where the NDR intersects The Escort Way. The NDR will very likely need to be moved closer to the site in question and of course closer to the proposed DV Facility ,and this will naturally lessen the set-back further. If the DA is given the green light, a precedence will be set whereby any resident in the future will be able to encroach on set-back areas in any way that they see fit , which could create safety compromises, and of course delete the need for DA in the first place. There is no need for rules if they not going to be complied with &/or enforced.
    The whole thing needs a total rethink . In conclusion, we should not change the rules on projects no matter who is involved.

  • Serena wood says:

    I fully support the Development of the DV service center and the location

    • Liz Graves says:

      On a busy road and no access to amenities and I full view of violent partners

      • Laura says:

        Liz, they will have the same access to amenities that their neighbours have. This has all be considered by people who know a lot more about their needs than you or I.

        • Liz says:

          Having been a victim of DV it is proposed in the wrong area and having experience helping others it proposed for the wrong place

  • Alex says:

    I am a resident of the Ploughmans Hill Estate and, after reviewing all the information provided by the Proponent, object to the proposed development. As is the case with the majority of those objecting, I am not opposed to the development of a domestic violence support facility, rather the location proposed.
    The objective of the proposed facility should be to provide the best possible care for those affected by domestic and family violence who have nowhere else to go. I believe this objective is being lost on many of those so stridently supporting the facility (build it at any cost!). A poorly located facility would reduce the value it provides to those who most need it, whilst imposing significant social, environmental and safety impacts on the community into which it is placed. I am staggered that (based on the information which is available as part of the DA), there does not appear to have been any legitimate review of other potential locations for the facility. Given the key objective noted above, as well as the fact that there is considerable tax payer and community funding being allocated to this proposal, surely a review and preliminary analysis of the constraints and opportunities should have been undertaken. Such a review would certainly have identified a number of other potential sites, on both private and public land, which would be available for consideration. Evidence of such a review, and clarification as to the criteria used to identify the most appropriate site, would provide some level of comfort to those of us who stand to be impacted by the development.
    Following from the above, the ‘consultation’ undertaken by the Proponent has been poor. On review of the funding received by the Proponent, it would appear that this particular site has been the target site since 2017. However, the first the majority of those living in the streets directly affected or surrounding the site heard of this development was Council’s notification in the second week of December! Perhaps if the Proponent had entered into open and honest discussion with the community to be affected when the site was first identified, we may be having a very different discussion about this facility.
    In assessing any development application, regardless of what it is for, it is incumbent on the Proponent to demonstrate that the development is permissible, the site is suitable and the residual impacts are acceptable when considering the overall benefit of the development.
    There is not room enough to properly discuss the how the DA fails on each of these fronts. I intend on discussing in detail when making a formal submission on the proposed development. I strongly believe that any fair minded person, when considering the facts either presented (or not presented) by the DA, would conclude that the proposal fails on all three fronts. It is easy to say such a facility is needed but this shouldn’t whitewash proper consideration of a. the objective of the facility, and b. the impacts of the facility on those surrounding it. I know I will be accused of NIMBYism. However, perhaps those who make these accusations might consider whether they are not suffering from a case of GINIMBYism (Glad its not in my back yard).
    Thanks for reading😊

  • Bruno says:

    Incidentally the intersection of Northern distributor and Escort Way has been earmarked by council to construct a roundabout soon. This explains why selling their land now to Housing Plus secures funds to do road upgrades. Wonder why no other locations were ever considered? I believe council has their own agenda on this DA.
    Other more suitable locations need to considered, available sites such as land opposite North Orange shopping centre, Old Cattle Yards in Edward Street or a Redevelopment of Riverside buildings Bloomfield Golf club.

  • JJ says:

    People need to understand that EVERYONE, even those who are objecting this Development want a domestic violence crisis centre. The proposed location is not the answer though. There are so many alternatives that should have been considered, one of those is North Orange where access to supermarkets, childcare and medical services is available.

    People need to to stop personally criticising the objectors, nobody knows the background of these people, the professions that they are involved in and whether any of these people or members of their families have suffered from Domestic Violence.

    Just because these people are opposing the location, doesn’t for one minute give people the right to personally attack these people.

  • Olivia says:

    I strongly agree that this location is ideal for a shelter to help those who clearly need the support. These are NOT the violent people but yet victims who are struggling to remove themselves from these situations. Housing plus is doing an amazing job. No matter the location, these are good people seeking refuge.

  • Tori Evans says:

    I strongly support the DA centre being established in the current location, the people accessing the facility will benefit from living within a residential area and give a sense of normalcy to their lives.
    We as residents of orange should be supporting and commending Housing Plus and there efforts to get this much needed community resource to our region!

  • TJF says:

    What is wrong with everyone ? All most people need to know is ,……… are we going to remain as safe in and out of our homes as we are now . Surely , there’s no reason to think that safety is going downhill just because there is a 2.5M wall proposed around the compound with a manned security gate plus all night lighting. No nothing strikes me that as a sane person I should have doubts that there is some reason to ask , why would anyone go to so much trouble with security if there’s nothing to be concerned about, no risks whatsoever! And to top it all off nobody will answer the one Question and that is , WHAT WILL THE FUTURE USE OF THIS COMPLEX BE? Meaning what types of rehab will be occurring down the track . We might all be being sold a lemon and it is too late once we decide that we want to do the right thing, and then discover, we weren’t smart enough to insist on the answer to the original question, that we have been asking from day one.
    I do not feel easy about this whole scenario, and it is for this reason that I must go with my conscience and object in the strongest possible terms to both DAs until we are given a guarantee after the question has been answered. I
    don’t think that’s being unreasonable at all. Just answer one question and I’ll be content, if it’s the right answer of course .

    • Bernadette Allen says:

      Its a purpose built facility! one purpose, that purpose being DV. it will always remain a DV refuge and there is NO plan for it to change. it will be the first of it kind in NSW, state of the art.

  • Kath Logan says:

    I have read the entire DA in fully support the construction of The Orchard.

  • Tegan says:

    The Orchard is a much needed community resource for not violent, but suffering victims of Domestic Violence. A community setting is ideal for these women seeking a stable family environment. Through reducing isolation we as a community can accept and support in a time of need. I strongly agree and support the DA proposal for the Domestic Violence Center and commend the efforts of the people involved to make it happen!

  • Donna R says:

    This is a really important development for the women and children of Orange which I wholeheartedly support. Although at the same time I regret that it is necessary.

  • L says:

    Zoned R2 not B4 only lived her a few months have seen PLENTY of empty buildings in town just rotting away – close to the needs of these families -fix the old and leave the beauty

  • trevor says:

    I really would like to be “a goodie two shoes” along with all the others who don’t live too close to the proposed DV compound site. Unfortunately, I do live very close & I see my safe , peaceful chosen lifestyle going down the gurgler. I don’t want to live in silence , I don’t want to live in fear. Who knows what the compound will be used for in the future. That’s the problem everyone is concerned about. There have been no guarantees given despite the incessant requests, It seems an easy problem to address. Why is this not happening?
    Until the guarantee is given, it’s an objection from me to the DA for the location .
    I certainly hope the Councillors can appreciate this point of view and vote accordingly.

  • Natalie Rush says:

    Wow, what a fantastic idea for the Orange community and it’s surrounding towns. This proposal means much for those in need. Every woman and child deserves the right to feel safe and secure and such a proposal will ensure their safety and increase their chances of living a life free of Domestic and Family Violence.
    69 Woman were killed in Australia in 2018 due to Domestic and Family Violence and it can happen to anyone. Statistics also indicate that DFV rates are higher in rural and regional NSW.
    Well done Orange Council and Housing Plus, well done!!!!!

  • THH says:

    With the council being the developer and the decision maker on the compliance of the DAs, I can see no reason why a change of the entry point to the DV compound can not be made and resubmitted for endorsement and or comment by the community. George Weily Place is not a safe option for the entry. Whilst not the perfect solution a better way to go would be to re-gig the entry from The Escort Way and the two remaining (probably unsaleable) blocks on either side of the new roadway could be used for a mix of green space / turning areas / off street parking . The present entry proposed is unacceptable and impractical and as such I object to the sub-division DA in its’ present form. Lets not add to the traffic problems / volumes in the Ploughman’s Hill area that is already completely over the top due to inadequate forethought in initial road planning DAs.

  • DEAN says:

    I object to the to the location of the compound not the DV Facility. I believe that these victims should without coercion be allowed to make the decision where they would like to reside temporarily. Whether in the CBD, or near north Orange shops ,north ,south, east or west

    • a says:

      there will be transport for the victims and unfortunatley there is no crsis centre in Orange at the moment and it may be delayed due to uneducated people, so currently people who live in Orange have to leave work and pull there children out of school to go to either Forbes or Dubbo, i think the victims would be more then happy to be at this proposed location!

  • Grant says:

    What a great asset a Domestic Violence Centre would be to the residents of Orange and surrounds. I strongly support the Orange City Council in this development. I believe this facility will have a massive impact on victims and families of those effected by Domestic Violence. Regional areas are often found wanting when it comes to support and facilities for our vulnerable persons. This facility will be an excellent resource for combating the effects of DV related issues across a broad section of the community. Well done to all involved in the planning of this great initiative.

  • David Douglass says:

    I agree that a town like Orange definitely however unfortunately requires a domestic violence facility. Women, men and children who are victims of domestic violence deserve the support of our community.
    That said I appose the location and yes I am a resident of West Orange. I agree with many that in an area where traffic and parking is already an issue a facility of any description with the access as proposed will put peoples safety and lifestyles at risk. I also agree that anyone in need of this type of a facility would benefit by being closer to all the conveniences of shopping, medical and police.

  • Kath Logan says:

    I fully support Housing Plus’ Development Application for The Orchard.

    Many of the objections show that people have neither read the description of the DA on the website, looked at the images of The Orchard or read the DA.

    Transport to the CBD, traffic volumes, lighting, parking and security are covered in detail in the DA and are more than adequate.

    Concerns about perpetrators attending the centre to hunt down former partners are also covered in the DA. Most perpetrators who have driven their partners into hiding are on charges, under ADVOs and are known to police. They suffer serious consequences if they break ADVOs and are highly unlikely to go to a place that is staffed 24 hours a day and has security cameras that will record evidence of their offending.

    Concerns about parolees possibly being housed in the centre clearly imply that women who have been in prison and have suffered domestic violence are less deserving of protection. Like all of us, the (unsubstantiated) 300 members of the Ploughman’s Hill group are in contact with parolees as part of living in the community. They just don’t know it.

    Concerns about the centre being near children are illogical. There will be children living at the centre. It appears that children who, through no fault of their own, have suffered domestic violence will have negative effects on this middle class suburban neighbourhood. Some children are more equal than others it seems.

    Many of the women and children using The Orchard will have come from middle class suburban neighbourhoods. Evidence shows that domestic violence is a not class issue, nor is there any evidence that these people will have a negative effect on the neighbourhood.

    I lived near the Elsie Refuge in Glebe. It made our neighbourhood better. We had neighbours who were grateful to be there and were trying hard to make a go of things. The ratbag element stayed away because they knew law enforcement were quick to respond to anything untoward in the neighbourhood.

    Having lived near a DV facility I can truly say it was nothing but a positive for our neighbourhood.

    • Sad Times says:

      Thanks Kath for the comments especially the following..

      “they knew law enforcement were quick to respond to anything untoward in the neighbourhood”

      For the record that’s great to know.. however, in all the years I’ve lived in this area I’ve never seen a police officer or policd car in the estate.. nice to think we might now moving forward.. hmmm… i’m now wondeing what the emergency response time would actually be??

  • James Smith says:

    We, like many that have voiced their opinions here; agree that it would be acceptable to have such a facility in Orange.
    But we do not agree that it should be located in a residential area.
    We are residents of West Orange, and have already experienced living within a few hundred meters of a “Youth Safe House”.
    Over that period of time, heard and saw more obscenities, than should be experienced in a residential location.
    There was loud Cussing of all sorts of foul language.

    From past experience with our council. They have a tendency to cover up the deeper truths of development applications. Will this center (that has a few different names given to it) house other level 2 category people?

    The name of the DA sounds all nice and friendly. But where is OUR guarantee that this center will not house violent Women, with their aggressive teens?
    Lets be honest….Many children that grow up in a domestic violence house hold, will exhibit the same traits themselves.

    In closing. People that spend big money on their land and house, generally have more respect for the area they live in. While people that get shipped here for free, are more likely to have little respect for our area!

  • Concerned citizen says:

    A question that has not been raised, and I don’t know the answer. Have council put The land out to tender to give others the potential to develop the land and potentially increase the amount they get for it? I would have thought they have the obligation to maximise the dollars they get for the land so all ratepayers of Orange can benefit.

  • Leah says:

    I strongly support this development.

  • Jo says:

    I am a resident close by to this proposed facility. I am so disappointed at the lack of transparency from the Council and Housing Plus. As residents we found out on the 20th December when we received a letter in the mail.
    I may be naïve, but it would have been wonderful if the Council and Housing Plus had included the residents of Ploughmans Estate in the planning of this proposed facility. Imagine the community spirit to be involved in a great initiative to help victims of domestic violence. Instead we’ve been blindsided and a huge can of worms has been opened. Its quite sad actually as I want to support this project but cannot until the Council and Housing Plus become more honest and open to suggestions from residents of the area.
    My questions and issues are as follows:
    I disagree with the entrance being off George Weily Pl. Its a narrow street with a tight left hand bend just where the entrance to the new road is. To be honest, it should never have been developed that way. The amount of pedestrian traffic is huge.
    There will be an estimated increase of up 107 vehicles per day, and by their own admission (in the DA), there has not been a formal traffic survey done.
    There is a DA for residential blocks next the facility. Who’s going to buy them ? Housing Plus ??
    Why can’t the extra space be made into parkland and greenspace for the community to share and use. This will make the facility look nicer with gardens and trees around it, rather than more intrusive housing blocks.
    According the DA the definition of a transitional group home can include the housing of residents for drug and alcohol withdrawal, ex prisoners who need halfway accommodation . Are housing plus willing to sign a contract or affidavit to confirm it will always be a DV centre ?
    Is this a conflict of interest from the Council? Lets face it they are going to benefit greatly long term from this project, with ongoing rates etc.
    Orange Council why don’t you include us rather than exclude us, and together I’m sure we can come up with a great facility that we would be proud to have nearby. By claiming that we’ve been included (not true) you’ve created quite a monster and have tainted the project for everyone.

  • Alison says:

    I support the development of the Housing Plus Domestic and Violence centre. It is a much needed community resource.

  • Tamara says:

    I am for this development. There is a desperate need for DV housing. Many women and children are enduring horrible situations because of a lack housing options and/or viable opportunities to leave safely.
    To all those that are voicing their opinions against this development, I am extremely happy that the horror and atrocities of domestic violence have not touched your lives . I’m glad to hear that you and/or your children have never had to sleep with one eye open, never quite sure what version of your significant other you might get to deal with today.

  • Marissa A says:

    I fully support the Development of the DV service center, including its location. HAVE A HEART PEOPLE

  • TJF says:

    If those who are in favour of this proposed DV compound are interested, and can afford it, there are a number of properties coming on the market if these DA s are approved. And only for that reason. Residents who are now happy with their chosen homes and environment will be forced to seek what they enjoy now , some where else. So if this compound goes ahead they then have become victims of domestic violence as well and they will pay a Big price for the privilege by having to move and find something resembling what they had in the first place . An unnecessary problem created . Our council is supposed to have the best interests of the ratepayer in their charter, however, it not being portrayed with respect to these DAs and of course I OBJECT to the DAs , that are the subject to this DV compound. The Real Estate agents would have many ways to sell these properties and I guess their top three points would not be position ,position, position but rather things like, all night lighting , 2.5M fencing around compound, manned gates secure facility with possible anytime at night or day sirens , a air of total safety , a perfect family location, the list goes on and on what more could you possibly want . Heaven to those want the compound in their own front yard and are proud to be an anti -nimby.

  • Sharna says:

    I support the development and location of this DV centre. Children dont get a choice in the life they are brought into, they need a place to feel safe and secure.

  • Jacqualine W says:

    I support the Development of a Domestic Violence Service Centre at this location.
    If the community can guarantee a safe haven for women and children in need there’s no option here, it needs to be done!!

  • Karen Eagleston says:

    I strongly support the DA Centre and the location of it. What an amazing facility for our community.

  • Tony says:

    Please read.
    Unfortunate events waiting to happen..
    Almost a certainly every woman staying at this facility would have taken out an AVO against their former partner.
    If any of these men are spotted in the vicinity I imagine protocol would be to put the compound (Group home) into Lock down and call the police.
    Will there be stand off with Police?
    Will this happen in my front yard?
    Will your kids be playing in the street ?
    Will this event happen monthly, weekly or daily?
    Be sure it will happen. These women are escaping violent – unpredictable men.
    George Weily residents, Lock your doors twice.
    It is frightening but a reality.
    If you live in this area, please voice your opinion. There are so many other suitable sites in this city. I will suggest –
    Land opposite North Orange shopping mall.
    Large battle axe block on Bathurst Road opposite Ambassador Motel.

  • Vicki Pearson says:

    I fully support a Crisis Centre for Orange but I do not agree with the proposed site.
    My reasons are as follows:
    1. George Wiely Place is a culdesac where it has been safe for children to play. It is a narrow street and when 2 cars are parked opposite each other it makes it very dangerous and vision is obstructed. Having the entrance to the Centre in this street is ridiculous. It should be from Escort Way or the Distributor.
    2. Public transport is limited in this area.
    3. It is a long way from the City Centre.
    4. It is a long way from medical centres
    5. It is a long way from the hospital.
    6. It is a long way from the closest school.
    7. There is already a group home in George Wiely place.
    I think that Council should be looking at somewhere closer to all amenities so that it is possible to walk to these amenities.

  • Kristy kelly says:

    I support the location and development for this domestic violence center. 💙

  • Therese says:

    I support the development of this DV centre, including the location.
    Every woman and child deserves the right to feel safe and secure.

  • Regan Ferguson says:

    I strongly support the development of a DV centre at this location because I believe that an enormous amount of thought, planning and expertise would have gone into the proposal. Residents who are vocally opposed to this proposal are most likely responding from a place of fear and misinformation. It would be be devastating to see the development of this much-needed facility delayed after so much hard work has gone into getting it funded.
    These poor women have already been isolated. They need to be welcomed into the community to enjoy the peace and safety they have been robbed of by their perpetrators.

    • Sad Times says:

      I too would like to believe your comments around “an enormous amount of thought, planning and expertise would have gone into the proposal.” But sadly, if it had the current issues and concerns around proposed location wouldn’t have appeared, maybe it’s a case of back to the drawing board for a more suitable location..

  • Kirsten says:

    I strongly support this proposal. I understand the fears that underlie most of the objections put forward by opponents and accept that these are real concerns for those people.
    Unfortunately, during processes such as these, people can also feel unheard in their concerns, as seems to have happened in this case. This is disappointing as it causes scepticism and distrust, and does not provide a solid foundation for what is needed – compassion and empathy for those who this facility may serve, and an ability to trust that Housing Plus and Orange Council have the specialist knowledge, and have taken into account all the factors affecting a decision such as this. As the immediate past president of the Central West Women’s Health Centre, I can state that there are precious little resources in the Central West for DV victims (women, children and men). This currently gives services limited options, and ways to support in a meaningful way, these victims. It is extremely difficult to respond to the national call for ‘doing something about DV’, without resources such as this development.

  • LOUISE says:

    I support the construction of this facility. Women and children seeking refuge from a violent relationship need to feel safe and part of the community. There will never be an ideal location in the eyes of some community members. When you consider 1 in 3 women will experience DV in their life it is needed in this area. Being out of town makes it a bit harder for perpetrators to locate women or have transport to do so. Ideal location.

  • Oloa says:

    To have a safe facility in any community for women and children experiencing DFV is a great idea and with the full community support will make it a very successful and pleasant place to regather and restart anyone’s life.
    Hope this community bands together to be one of the safest and caring community in NSW.

  • Michele says:

    Like many others I support the construction of The Orchard as a much-needed domestic violence centre for Orange. Women and children seeking refuge from a violent relationship need to feel safe and having a shelter in a familiar environment (suburbs where the majority usually live) does alleviate additional stress, especially for children. A quiet residential area is ideal, safe from their abusers. I suggest we offer support to these women and children, not blame or rejection. Issues with violent men should be put squarely on them and them alone, not projected onto their traumatised victims.

  • Casey says:

    I strongly support the facility being built in the proposed location. Residents of this neighbourhood have stated that they selected it to live here because it was child friendly, safe and serene. Victims of family violence deserve to live in this type of community too.

  • Tanya says:

    There will always be concerns for where a service such as a refuge is built. I’m sure that the people involved in this project have put a lot of thought into where it would be. This would not have been made without significant considerations. I support this refuge in where it should be as I have faith in the providers of the refuge and their capacity to consider all options. As said previously, no matter where you put it there will be angst from residents. Women and their children need safe neighbourhoods to regroup and start again after living in Domestic Violence. Isn’t this what this area can offer?

  • Lauren says:

    I support the construction of this facility in this location.

  • Fiona says:

    I strongly support this proposal. What a fantastic facility that is very much needed in our community.

  • Nicole says:

    I strongly support the DA as proposed for the domestic violence crisis centre and trust that full consideration has been put into the location and logistics by professionals, all of which are addressed in the application.
    I think it is vital that we support fellow residents of Orange to be embraced by members of their community as they heal. This has been a long time coming and is well overdue.
    Given the disturbing statistics and high rate of abuse happening in Orange, people need to realise that DV does not discriminate by demographic and this crime is taking place all over Orange. These people are your colleagues, your friends and your family members.
    I am proud that my city is building a state of the art facility and ensures women and children can feel safe and comfortable.

  • Vickie says:

    I totally support this proposal it needs to be constructed sooner rather than later DV isn’t going anywhere soon.

  • L says:

    I strongly appose the proposed DV location old Bunnings site old hospital new hospital old TV station you don’t realize how run down Orange is till you move here and I agree people have paid alot of money to live in these suppose tranquil estates but does council care NO but they are quick to take your money. The state of the roads and gutters are shocking . Again plenty of rotting sights around Orange to build the centre.

  • L says:

    Pop up information next 2 days are they serious what is going on. Council passing the buck. Hope everyone is back from holidays

  • Kayla says:

    I am in support of the DV refuge to be build in the location chosen in orange. Women and children seeking refuge from a violent relationship need to feel safe and part of a community; not isolated or victimised. A quiet residential area is a perfect spot for the woman and children seeking assitance to rebuilt their lifes.

  • L says:

    Old tip top factory site looks like it’s been vacant for years prefect location near everything

  • Karen says:

    I fully support the DA and Housing Plus to build the Domestic Violence refuge in Orange on the proposed site. I really think people of Orange who are opposed to this centre, need to put themselves in the shoes of the victims and children who are going through Domestic Violence, which might I add, can be anyone – not just from the lower socio economic backgrounds, these victims come from all walks of life – maybe then you would understand the need for such a building in Orange.
    As it says in the DA application, there will be staff at the centre 24 hours a day, there won’t be women and children running around all over the highway or in the streets or walking into town to the shops like some have suggested. I am sure the staff will be the ones transporting these families to appointments, shopping, health facilities if they have no other way to get there. The refuge will be a place for women and children to be safe and be supported until they can get their lives back to some sort of normality. They will then be able to move onto their own accommodation and be independent – which might be next door to those who are so opposed to the idea – you just never know.
    I think we all need to recognise the Domestic & Family Violence is a big issue in all towns all across Australia – not just Orange. There are refuges in many town across Australia for a reason – because the towns need it,
    As for the perpetrators “hanging around”, they would have very strict AVO conditions that prevent them from going anywhere near the centre. The centre would be equipped with duress alarms as would the staff and all safety measures needed would be in place. Just a reminder – perpetrators walk amongst us everyday, you just don’t know it !
    I think it’s a small price to pay having the centre where it is proposed, rather than the results of what could happen if these women & families have nowhere else to go.
    You only have to listen to the news on a weekly basis to hear that victims of Domestic & Family Violence are killed by the perpetrator – it’s a fact !
    If a centre like this can prevent this from happening – then I am all for it.

  • Neil says:

    I fully support the DA’s listed above. This is a service which is greatly needed in Orange and a quiet, residential area is highly appropriate for families who have escaped family violence to rehabilitate.
    I note the many concerns raised above and feel that the application addresses all reasonable concerns appropriately. It is sad to note that several comments appear to be designed to promote panic and hysteria, rather than address the stated purpose and design of the centre. This is a domestic violence refuge – not a drug treatment centre, nor a parole centre.
    I am a proud resident of West Orange, and my children regularly play near where the proposed centre will be developed. I do not believe that some of the hysterical comments above reflect the opinion of the majority of residents of this area. I firmly believe that the vast majority of local residents are caring, supportive people, who would welcome the development of such a wonderful initiative.

  • Sandra Katbau says:

    As we know, Orange has one of the highest right a of domestic violence in the state. As someone with 15plus years of experience in the DV Sydney and rural areas, we know the location will always be workable doesn’t matter where then accomodation is placed.
    There are a number of women who experience DV from the proposed area and of course they won’t be comfortable using the facility as it will literally be too close to home however the majotyy of women fro
    Orange and surrounds would appreciate a residential area such as the proposed to relocated their children to even in a temporary measure.
    Orange city Council needs to properly prioritise the needs of the community and for 20 plus years Orange has been advocating for a purpose built service. 20 plus years!
    Housings Plus will address the needs of noise, floodlights etc. As a community and council we need to address and prioritise the needs of Domestic Violence. I would happily live and buy a house next to DV victims as I have lived next door to them many times before in Sydney and in Orange.

  • KB says:

    I STRONGLY object to the DV proposal in George Whiley Place!! The location is innappropriate when there are plenty of other locations around Orange that should be considered. Hard working people have worked hard to afford to buy in this area and now we all face the possibility of our homes being devalved.

  • Patricia Logan says:

    I support the DA. Having lived on the Ophir Road when the group house was planned after the Richmond Report’s recommendations were being implemented, I know how hysterical people can be when they think “dangerous people” may come near their homes. When the group home was occupied, someone even poinsoned the water in their tank! And guess what? There have been no incidents there ia all the intervening years! Surely we can accept that the supervision of this new facility will keep the area as safe as any other area. There are women and children in Orange and district who desperately need this support. Let’s think iof them and welcome them with the kindliness they so desperately need, rather than being fanciful.

  • Patricia Browne says:

    I write as the current President of the Board of the Central West Women’s Health Centre in support of the Orange City Councils initiative, to establish a Domestic Violence Crisis Centre within the local government area of Orange NSW.
    The concern surrounding Domestic Violence within any community is naturally very emotive and therefore, reqiires very sensitive conversation and consideration by everyone. I am confident most community members would support an outcome which will provide support and protection for both potential victims, their families and members of the community.

    The city of Orange has a long history of addressing and finding solutions to deal with the difficult issues of protecting vulnerable members of the community and I’m sure, with continued support of the community, the best solutions will be found to address this current matter.

    The Central West Women’s Health Centre is in support of the efforts of the Orange City Council to address the local issue of Domestic Violence.

  • Penny says:

    I oppose the location of the domestic violence centre, as a close by resident I believe this is not a viable location both for current residents and the people who will access the facility. Firstly it is to be accessed from a narrow road on the bend causing traffic flow issues. There are no footpaths making this a very unsafe road for our children who currently are able to walk home safely from the bus. Also, there is uncertainty with the blocks that are to surround this new development, will they also be sold off to housing plus to recover the cost of the development? Is there permission on these blocks to sub divide? Is there restrictions on single story only?
    I also have concerns in regards to the 2.5metre high wall that needs to be constructed at council (rate payers) expense as part of this development. Surely there are better locations that do not require this kind of expense in order to make it safe.
    Why not look at a location that is closer to amenities for those in the refuge who may want to take the kids for a stroll to get an ice cream or a play in the park. I for one would feel very iscolated in this current proposed location.

  • Debarah Mina says:

    As Director/Treasurer of the Central West Women’s Health Centre, I fully support the DA’. These are desperately needed facilities to help keep women and children from all socio, ecomic circumstances safe, and enable them to be supported and empowered to transform their lives.