1

SJB ArchitectsSJB Planning

30 January 2015 | Issue 03

Carter Street Urban Activation PrecinctUrban Design Review Lidcombe NSW

SJB ArchitectsSJB Planning

Carter Street Urban Activation PrecinctUrban Design Review

Ref #5094Date issued: 30 January 2015Issue: 04Prepared by: EM + JSChecked by: MB + JK

Contact DetailsSJB ArchitectsSJB PlanningLevel 2, 490 Crown StreetSurry Hills NSW 2010Australia

T: 61 2 9380 9911F: 61 2 9380 9922architects@sjb.com.auplanning@sjb.com.auwww.sjb.com.au

Contents1 Introduction 4

1.1 Introduction 5

2 Approach 6

2.1 Approach 72.2 Assumptions 72.3 Broad Principles 7

3 Methodology 8

3.1 Road Network/Street Reserves 93.2 Indicative Structure Plan 93.3 Open Space Analysis 93.4 Built Form Analysis 93.5 Massing Analysis 93.6 Shadow Analysis 93.7 Yield 93.8 Staging 9

4 Review of Submissions 10

4.1 No.2 Hill Road (Lot 1 DP747776 and Lots 4 and 5 DP1081374) 114.2 Nos. 6 and 8 Carter Street (Design Collaborative) 114.3 Nos. 6 and 8 Carter Street (GLN Planning) 114.4 Goodman Landholdings 114.5 Nos. 12-14 Birnie Ave 11

5 Constraints 12

5.1 Location 135.2 Vehicle Access /Street Network 135.3 Block Layout 145.4 Land Use 145.5 Easements/Legal Constraints/Infrastructure 145.6 Leaseholds 145.7 Built Form 14

6 Urban Design Review Findings 15

6.1 Urban Blocks 166.2 Street Network and Hierarchy 166.3 Road Reservations 186.4 Open Space 186.5 School 196.6 Revised Indicative Structure Plan 206.7 Setbacks 216.8 Building Heights 226.9 Development Yields 236.10 Staging and Delivery 236.11 Planning Tools 236.11.1 Zoning 236.11.2 Height of Buildings 236.11.3 FSR 236.11.4 Other 23

7 Planning Outcomes and Recommendations 24

7.1 SEPP Amendment 257.1.1 Zoning 257.1.2 Height of Buildings 267.1.3 Floor Space Ratio 277.1.4 Key Sites 287.1.5 Active Street Frontages 307.2 DCP Amendments 317.2.1 Typical Street Sections 317.2.2 Other Changes 31

8 Appendix A - Open Space 32

9 Appendix B - Typologies 36

10 Appendix C - Shadow Diagrams 47

11 Appendix D - Capacity Analysis 53

12 Appendix E - Urban Block Study 58

13 Appendix F - Road Sections 64

14 Appendix G - Photomontages 73

15 Appendix H - LEP Maps 78

16 Appendix I - DCP Maps 83

1 Introduction

5

Introduction

SJB Architects

1

1.1 Introduction

In March 2014, the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E) exhibited the Draft Carter Street Urban Activation Precinct Proposal (“draft proposal”) and associated planning framework for the Carter Street Urban Activation Precinct (UAP).

In response to submissions to the exhibition, the DP&E engaged an independent planning and urban design consultancy to undertake a peer review of the proposal and submissions.

The purpose of the peer review was to undertake a critical review of the draft UAP proposal, including the indicative structure plan, ability to comply with SEPP 65, test FSR’s and provide block by block yield analysis and provide recommendations in relation to any amendments to the proposed zonings, development standards and built form controls arising from the review.

In June 2014, SJB Planning, with the assistance of SJB Architects, were engaged to undertake the peer review.

This report provides:

· a summary of the approach and the process undertaken; · a summary of the issues raised in the submissions; · identification of constraints; · the findings of the urban design review, and · recommendations regarding changes to the exhibited

framework.

Figure 01: Proposed Streetscape

2 Approach

7

Approach

SJB Architects

2

2.1 Approach

Our approach to this project involved:

· Review and analysis of existing documents and submissions;

· Inspection of the site;

· Identification of key constraints;

· Development of clear urban principles in regards to precinct massing and building arrangements, to test and potentially challenge proposed draft controls;

· Testing the width of the proposed road reserves;

· Testing the size of all open spaces and comparing to known examples;

· Investigation of appropriate massing and building footprints to achieve optimum architectural and urban design outcomes that have the potential to achieve SEPP 65 residential amenity requirements;

· Adaptation of draft massing and planning controls to respond to the submissions where appropriate;

· Testing of the whole precinct and individual development block Floor Space Ratios (FSR) applying SJB’s working knowledge of residential flat buildings to ensure that desired massing outcomes and development yields, generated for the precinct are able to be accommodated;

· Identifying the desired future location of the primary school;

· Providing potential for sites of appropriate sizes that are able to accommodate mixed uses around the town centre;

· Making allowance for car parking to regulatory requirements, and

· Providing a block by block yield analysis.

2.2 Assumptions

The following assumptions have been made:

· The DP&E have identified the precinct as being suitable for a UAP and this was not questioned.

· The accessibility of the location of the UAP will be addressed by the DP&E and the NSW Government and is beyond the scope of this review.

· The NSW Government will facilitate the relocation of the Liquid Waste Treatment Plan (LWTP) to minimise odour impact on the UAP in the future. Decisions in relation to the LWTP are also outside of the scope of this review.

· The future development of land immediately adjoining the UAP (in the ownership of the SOPA) will be reviewed by SOPA to facilitate the redevelopment of the UAP.

· This review only addresses those issues raised in the submissions that relate to the terms of this brief being a peer review of the urban design of the UAP.

2.3 Broad Principles

The broad principles adopted as a framework for this work include:

· Street layout and the hierarchy is a primary driver for the configuration of the entire precinct, and is the subject of considerable design input from the team and DP&E

· Building heights are to identify gateways to and key destinations within the precinct.

· All residential areas within the precinct should be within 200m of an area of local open space.

· Block layouts and building footprints should be designed to comply with SEPP 65.

· Small block grid patterns should be encouraged to ensure a fine grain of development and maximise permeability throughout the precinct.

· Design building footprints to enable gaps and views between buildings to provide for outlook and privacy and to promote permeability.

· Building setbacks should increase in size with distance travelled from the town centre i.e. nil setbacks within the centre increasing to 5m setbacks in outer areas.

3 Methodology

9

Methodology

SJB Architects

3

The method of analysis of key areas is detailed below.

3.1 Road Network/Street Reserves

The review of the precinct’s street layout involved:

· a review of the existing streets and intersections to establish the opportunities and constraints of the road network;

· a review draft proposed road network, and

· a review of the proposed street cross-sections.

3.2 Indicative Structure Plan

A desktop review of the Indicative Structure Plan was undertaken. The key aspects reviewed included the street network/road layout, in particular the angled road intersections with Carter Street, location of parks, general movement patterns through the precinct, street block sizes, building separation and building heights.

The review of the Indicative Structure Plan has been informed by applying typical building footprints reflective of development precedents. These were tested to ensure that building separations satisfied SEPP 65 and that street blocks can accommodate a range of building types.

3.3 Open Space Analysis

An analysis of typical examples of existing urban open spaces within Sydney was undertaken to gain an understanding of the size, area, content and context for comparison purposes.

A copy of this analysis is provided at Appendix A.

The findings of this analysis was then used to inform decisions regarding the proposed open spaces within the precinct.

3.4 Built Form Analysis

To inform the site layout, block layout and building footprint plans, an analysis of eight (8) different built form precedents was undertaken. This ensured that the building envelopes proposed can deliver known outcomes in terms of efficiencies, SEPP 65 compliance, residential amenity and parking provision (etc.).

A copy of the analysis of the 8 precedent/building studies is provided at Appendix B.

An arrangement of these building footprints enabled typical urban blocks to be created, which formed the basis of the site layout plan. Building efficiencies, development yields and parking provision were assigned to each building type, and directly informed the precinct-wide schedule of areas.

It is noted that no detailed design studies were undertaken as part of this review and the broader urban context was also excluded from this exercise, as it was considered that the UAP report covered this sufficiently.

3.5 Massing Analysis

Based on the site layout plan developed as part of this peer review and proposed building heights, a massing model was constructed using Rhino computer software. This was then used to refine the location and scale of development based on the legibility, gateway statement and impact of overshadowing.

The massing model indicated where the key spaces, centres, movement corridors and gateways are located within the precinct. Given height is an expression of intensive use and activity, height is therefore at its greatest at the town centre and at the gateway entry points to the Precinct.

No visual analysis was undertaken as part of the urban design review.

3.6 Shadow Analysis

Shadow impact analysis studies were undertaken for mid-winter (21 June) at 9am, 12midday, 1pm, 2pm and 3pm. The analysis was undertaken on an hourly basis from midday to gain a better understanding of the shadow impact on the major open space from surrounding buildings.

A copy of this analysis is provided at Appendix C.

Shadow impact studies were also undertaken in relation to the plaza in the town centre, on Uhrig Road, to ensure that any town centre open space receives sunlight during the lunch period i.e. 11am-2:30pm in midwinter. Analysis of the shadow impact on individual buildings was not undertaken as part of this review.

3.7 Yield

Development yields are based on a range of building typologies shown in Appendix B. Building efficiencies, development yields and parking provision were assigned to each building type, and directly informed the precinct-wide schedule of areas. A copy of the yield schedule is provided at Appendix D.

Residential building yields have been aligned with the following building footprints:

· 750m² i.e. 6 to 7 dwellings per level

· 1,000m² i.e. 8 to 9 dwellings per level

· 1,100m² i.e. 9 to 10 dwellings per level

· 1,250m² i.e. 10 to 11 dwellings per level

· 1,400m² i.e. 11 to 12 dwellings per level

· 1,500m² i.e. 13 to 14 dwellings per level

By referencing tested and delivered projects we can be confident in the building efficiencies, yields and deliverability of the master plan.

The total GFA for the precinct is presented on a development plot basis, which typically aligns with ownership, lot and staging boundaries, and are defined by the proposed road layout. For the purposes of the calculation of the total number of dwellings, a conservative figure of 1 dwelling per 100m² of GFA was used in accordance with DP&E requirements.

3.8 Staging

Staging of development within the precinct will largely be dictated by the individual land ownership pattern. However, given over 50% of the Precinct is owned by Goodman, consideration was given to the potential staging of the construction across the Goodman landholdings.

The potential staging of the construction has therefore been informed by the existing property boundaries, existing long term leases, road network and land uses.

4 Review of Submissions

11

Review of Submisssions

SJB Architects

4

A total of forty (40) submissions were received comprising seventeen (17) from government, agency, organisation and/or UAP landowners and 33 submissions from the broader public.

The key issues raised by respective landowners in relation to the proposed planning controls or urban design related issues are summarised below. Note: issues raised in the submission not related to our brief have not been considered.

4.1 No.2 Hill Road (Lot 1 DP747776 and Lots 4 and 5 DP1081374)

· Requests Lot 1 be rezoned to R4 Residential (currently shown as B6 Enterprise Corridor)

· Requests the height be increased to 64m

· Requests the FSR be increased

4.2 Nos. 6 and 8 Carter Street (Design Collaborative)

· Strongly opposed to the UAP due to the likely interface issues/conflicts between existing 24 hour operations of providores/Sydney Market type uses and proposed high density residential north of Carter Street

· Request for existing uses to remain permissible in the B6 zone.

· Request for substantial buffer across the northern edge of Carter St in the form of a B6 or B7 zoning.

4.3 Nos. 6 and 8 Carter Street (GLN Planning)

· Creation of substantial conflict between land uses

· Constraint on the ability to intensify or expand existing landuses

· FSR of 1.5:1 provides no incentive to redevelop

· Request to concentrate the commercial floor space closer to the station and rezone land south of Carter St as higher density residential

4.4 Goodman Landholdings

· Request a higher FSR of 2.75:1

· Re-alignment of the primary road that extends from John Ian Wing Parade to the town centre (Uhrig Road) to reflect the lot boundaries within Goodman ownership.

· Request that the structure plan allow for the staging of development across the precincts in line with long term leases.

4.5 Nos. 12-14 Birnie Ave

· Amend R4 zone to allow “business premises” below “shoptop housing”, currently limited to neighbourhood shops.

· Request an increase in height up to 20 storeys + 8 storeys on southern half

· Request an increase in FSR to 2.23:1

· Request 40m southern setback for residential development be deleted

· Request the 20m Birnie St setback be reduced to 10m.

CARTER STREET

EDW

IN FLAC

K AVE

BIRNIE

AVE

HIL

L RD

M4 MOTORWAY

UHRIG RD

SYDNEYOLYMPIC

PARK

LEGEND

1-2 STOREYS4 STOREYS6 STOREYS8 STOREYS10 STOREYS12 STOREYS14 STOREYS16 STOREYS18 STOREYS

12

10 16

88

812

12

12

168

188

14

8

2

2

81

25

8

4

416

16

25

12

8

12

1 6

25

12

10

20

30

1

14

18

161412

10

10

12

16

16

1212

1610

12

12

1

1210

8

6

8

8

6

4

81

8

4

8

14

10

6

10

12

10

86

8

10

6

8

6

6

128

10

810

810

4

44

66

6

1

2

12

8

14

12

8

14

16

88

12

F

C

H

K

A2

D

A1

B

G

IJ

L

M

E

LEGENDLEGENDLEGENDLEGENDLEGENDLEGENDLEGENDENDENDLEGENDEGENDLEGENDENDLEGENLEGENDLEGENDENDGENDDENDEGENNDELEGLEGEGGGGGG

1-2 STOSTO1-2 STO-2 STO-2 STO1-2 STO1-2 STOTO1-2 STO STO1-2 STO1-2 STO2 STO1-2 STO1-2 STO2 S1-2 ST STO2 SSTOTOO1-2 STO2 REYSREYSREYSREYSREYSREYSEYSREYSREYSREYSREYSREYSEYSREYSREYSREEYSREYREREYSYS11114 STORE4 STORE4 STORE4 STORE4 STORE4 STORE4 STORE4 STORE4 STORE4 STOR4 STOREOR4 STORE4 STORER4 STORESTORE4 STORESTORER STORE4 STORORR4 S E4 YSYSYSYSYSYSYSSYSYYSYYSSSYSYSSSSSSSSTSTOTSTTSTTTT6 STORE6 STOR6 STORE6 STORE6 STOR6 STORE6 STORESTOR6 STORE6 STOR6 STOSTO6 STORSTORSTOR6 STOREOR6 STORE6 STOSTSTSTOR YSYSYSYSYSYSYSYSYSYSSYSSSYSSREEE8 STORE8 STORE8 STORE8 STO8 STORE8 STORE8 STORE8 STORE8 STORESTORESTORE8 STORESTORE8 STORESTORE8 STOSTORE8 STO8 STOSTOREETOSSTO YSYSYSYSYSYSYYSYSYYSYSYSYSYSYSYSYSYYYSSSSS10 STO10 STO10 ST10 STOR10 STOR0 STOR10 STOR0 STOR10 STO0 STO10 STOR10 STOR10 STOR0 STOR10 STOTO0 STOR10 STORRTORTORRO10 STO EEYSEYSEYSEYSEYSEYEYEYEYYSEYSEYSEYSEYSEYSYEYSEEYSE SEYEYS2 STO12 STOR12 STOR2 STOR12 STOR12 STOR2 STOR2 STOR212 STO2 STO STOR2 STOR12 STOROR12 STOR12 STORSTOR12 STOR2 STOR2 STOR12 STOR12 STOR12 ST2 STOR2 EYSEYSEYSEEYEYEYEYEYSYSEYSSEYSEYEYEYSEYEYSSEYE S

14 STOR14 ST14 STOR4 STOR14 STOR14 STOR14 STOR14 STORSTORSTTOTOTOTOR14 STOR14 STOR14 STOR4 STOR14 STOR14 STO4 STORTO4 STOR1 EYSEYEYSEYSEYSEYSEYSYSYSEYSEYSE SYSYSYSYSYY16 STOR16 STOR16 STOR16 STOR6 STOSTOSTOSTOSTOTOSTOR6 STOR16 STORSTO16 STOR6 STOR16 STOROSTSTORSTO EYSEYSEYSEYSEYSEYSEYSEYSEYSEYSSSEYSSEYSYEEYS8 STO818188 STOO8 STORSSTORSSTORTOR8 STORSTORORE SSEYYEYEYSEYEYYS8 STORO8 STO188 STO8 STOOTTORSTORSTORSTORSTORSTOR18 STOR18 STO18 STOSTOR YSEYEYEYSEYSEYEYSEYSEYSSEYSSE

LEGEND

1-2 STOREYS4 STOREYS6 STOREYS8 STOREYS10 STOREYS12 STOREYS14 STOREYS16 STOREYS18 STOREYS25-30 STOREYS

Figure 02: Goodman Submission - Concept Masterplan (Drawing 4359_SK072, April 2014)

Figure 03: Goodman Submission - Height Map (Drawing 4359_SK061, April 2014)

5 Constraints

13

Constraints

SJB Architects

5

The key observations, constraints and considerations identified in the urban design review are detailed below.

5.1 Location

· The majority of the Precinct is located outside of the 800m radius of the Olympic Park Station and therefore does not have the same level of accessibility as the Olympic Park Centre Precinct.

5.2 Vehicle Access /Street Network

· Vehicular access to the Precinct is currently restricted to Hill Road, Birnie Avenue and Uhrig Road.

· Improved road connections between Hill Road and the M4 Motorway are being contemplated at the south-western corner of the Precinct, which may result in road widening at the southern end of Hill Road.

· Access to and from Carter Street into Hill Road will need to be limited to “left in” and “left out” movements only in the future due to queuing issues associated with southbound access onto Parramatta Road and the M4 Motorway.

· The delivery of the extension of John Ian Wing Parade into the Precinct could potentially be significantly delayed, as it traverses adjoining Sydney Olympic Park (SOP) owned land which is the subject of an existing 99 year lease at Nos. 1-5 Hill Road, Sydney Olympic Park.

· Due to the limitation of the Carter Street/Hill Road intersection and the potential delays to the John Ian Wing Parade extension, a new signalised junction on Hill Road will be required to serve as the primary western road connection into the Precinct

· New road access to Old Hill Link is restricted by the existing bus parking on the adjoining SOPA land.

· Minimise the number of junctions on Hill Road;

· The alignment of the existing roads within the Precinct i.e. Hill Road, Uhrig Road and Birnie Avenue are to be retained.

· There is potential to locate local streets within the easements on the Swire site.

Carter Street

M4 Motorway

Parramatta Road

Uhrig Road

Dawn Fraser Avenue

Birn

ie A

venu

e

Edwin Flack Avenue

Hill

Roa

d

Hill R

oad

Bom

bay

St

Del

hi S

t

Plat

form

St

Jellic

oe S

t

Mon

s St

Ost

end

St

John Ian Wing Parade

Shane Gould Avenue

Old Hill Link

M4 Motorway

Figure 04: Illustrative Masterplan

14

Constraints

SJB Architects

5

5.3 Block Layout

· The structure plan/block layout in the draft UAP proposal is designed square to the Edwin Flack Avenue frontage. Given Edwin Flack Avenue has a north-west/south-east alignment, the resultant block layout meant buildings on the proposed long edges of street blocks would be either north-west or south-east facing.

· The grid would be required to be re-orientated in order to maximise solar access to any Residential Flat Building built forms, whilst also needing to minimise the over-shadowing of adjoining properties, with the exception of the land adjacent to the Edwin Flack Avenue boundary.

· The visual axis along Dawn Fraser Avenue and Uhrig Road, connecting into Carter Street should be maintained.

5.4 Land Use

· Commercial development/employment uses are to be maintained along the southern edge of the site adjacent to the M4 to provide a separation to the M4 Motorway.

· A preferred site area of 1.2ha was required for the school site.

· The Hill Road Park, as identified in the draft UAP proposal, is partly reliant on land outside of the Precinct i.e. part of Nos. 1-5 Hill Road.

· The Hill Road Park will serve both an open space and detention function, but was of insufficient size to provide for any sporting fields.

· The full delivery/design of the Hill Road Park could be significantly restricted by the existing 99 year lease on Nos. 1-5 Hill Road. Furthermore, an open space use over part of Nos. 1-5 Hill Road would provide no incentive for this site to be redeveloped.

· There was the potential to provide a larger parcel of open space in a more central location within the Precinct, that could also accommodate formal recreation uses (sport) and be directly accessible by the school.

· The existing open space owned by Auburn Council on the corner of Hill Road and Carter Street is of little amenity and may be affected by future road improvements and/or widening of Hill Road for M4 Motorway connections.

· The school could be potentially located within the excavated part of the Goodman site.

· The school is to be co-located with the open space so as to enable dual use.

· Given its more limited accessibility, the Uhrig Road town centre would provide a subsidiary role to the Sydney Olympic Park Town Centre, which is focussed around the railway station.

5.5 Easements/Legal Constraints/Infrastructure

· Development on the southern side of Carter Street is restricted by a 40m wide easement for underground gas and oil pipelines and electricity lines – building cannot be built over the easement.

· Development on Lot 1 DP802749, being 12-14 Birnie Avenue, is also heavily burdened by easements, including a 40m wide easement for gas and oil pipelines and electricity lines which traverse the centre of this property and along the eastern boundary.

· Development on Lot 1 DP747776 and Lots 4 and 5 DP 1081374 (being No.2 Hill Road) is also significantly restricted by the gas and oil pipelines and electricity lines.

· Sydney Water requires a 10m wide setback on either side of the Arthur Street Branch across Lots 4 and 5 DP 1081374 (being No.2 Hill Road).

· Sydney Water requires a minimum 10m setback along the southern edge of the Haslams Creek Main Channel.

· The south western corner of the Precinct contains a Sydney Water waste water pumping station at Lots 1-3 DP1081374 and Lot 1 DP632266.

· A further Sydney Water waste water pumping station is located on the northern side of Carter Street at Lot 1 DP 234801.

· DEC recommended that the future school site should not be located along Carter Street, and would be better located on a local street.

5.6 Leaseholds

· The Goodman landholdings have a number of leases with expiry dates varying between short term leases and leases expiring in 2015, 2017 and 2020. These longer term leaseholds obviously affect the practical commencement date of any works within the leaseholds and therefore affect the staging of development.

5.7 Built Form

· Landscaped setbacks are required to be maintained along the northern side of Carter Street to provide opportunities to mitigate potential impacts from the operations of the commercial properties on the southern side of Carter Street.

· Landscaped setbacks are required to be maintained along both sides of Hill Road to mitigate potential traffic noise impacts and allow for potential widening of Hill Road.