Twenty-eight members of the public registered to speak on the development at Tuesday night’s Orange City Council meeting.

During the two-hour public forum, town planner Andrew Saunders said the development should be refused because the glass, steel and concrete design of the extension to Yallungah made no reference to surrounding heritage buildings in its form and scale, parking shortages, and impact on neighbours.

“The shadow diagrams clearly show a significant increase in overshadowing to the east - similar overshadowing by dual occupancy in north Orange would not be supported by council for the same level of affectation,” he said.

“The proposed building footprint is 13 times larger than 87 Byng Street, seven times larger than 85 Hill Street, and 10 times larger than 79 Hill Street.”

Mr Saunders said the council could not charge parking contributions because the development could not benefit from nearby parking facilities and the reversing space was inadequate.

Councillors took on his recommendations after an hour-long debate, setting aside council staff’s recommendation to approve the development.

Councillor Reg Kidd said the council’s cultural heritage advisory committee had suggested a redesigned building of bricks with a pitched roof.

“I can’t support the DA in its present form, but I do support the development provided we get a design that achieves the heritage values that exist in the [local environmental plan] and [development control plan],” he said.

“We have to be consistent.”

Councillor Glenn Taylor said the Pigot Miller Wilson building, the former town hall and council chambers and the Croagh Patrick building were examples of how restorations should be done.

“It cost $50,000 to restore the chamber room - we could have had a coat of paint for $2000, but we brought the specialists in and we did it right,” he said.

“I only had to look [at this site] once - all their sunlight would have been cut out, there was no doubt about that.”

However, mayor John Davis supported the development.

“If the rules and regulations don’t allow it we should sack our staff, and that’s with a consultant as well,” he said.

Developer David Nock said he was not surprised the hotel was refused, but he would not make a decision on whether he would redesign the development, challenge the decision in the NSW Land and Environment Court or walk away until the council sent the official notice of refusal, which is due to be brought back to the council for endorsement on May 17.

“It’ll mean the council officers have got to put in a report saying the first report was totally wrong, so it’ll be interesting to see what they say the second time,” he said.

danielle.cetinski@fairfaxmedia.com.au