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

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 been extended. The closing date for submissions is Friday 25 January 2019.

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

In the interests of facilitating community discussion, this web page includes a ‘Comment’ feature.

While anyone can make an online comment here, and a report on these online comments will be considered by council, a formal submission 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 .

  • 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.

  • 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

Leave a Reply