CCL155-17 - Council Report - Draft Hurstville City Centre ... · finalisation of the draft Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy. (c) That if no submissions are received on

Georges River Council – Council Meeting Monday, 7 August 2017 Page 1

Item: CCL155-17 Draft Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy

Author: Coordinator Strategic Planning, Rita Vella

Directorate: Environment and Planning

Matter Type: Environment and Planning

Recommendation (a) That the draft Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy attached at Attachment 1 be

publicly exhibited for no less than 28 days in accordance with the Engagement Strategy out lined in the body of the report.

(b) That a further report be presented to Council following the exhibition of the draft Strategy,

including a summary of submissions and recommendations with respect to the finalisation of the draft Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy.

(c) That if no submissions are received on the draft Hurstville City Centre Urban Design

Strategy that the Strategy is submitted to the General Manager for adoption.

(d) That GHD be appointed for the purposes of updating the Hurstville City Centre Transport

Management and Accessibility Plan (the “TMAP”) for the reasons outlined in the body of the report, with the scope of works to be determined but at a minimum for the work to be undertaken as outlined in the body of the report.

(e) That once the TMAP has been updated, a report be presented to Council outlining the

recommendations for the Hurstville City Centre.

Executive Summary

1. The finalisation of planning controls for the Hurstville City Centre has had a long history and the making of Amendment No. 3 to Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (“HLEP”) 2012 (Hurstville City Centre LEP) in July 2015 resulted in a number of sites having a mismatch between the maximum building height and maximum FSR.

2. Council has received nine (9) Planning Proposals within the Hurstville City Centre since the gazettal of Amendment No. 3, including the three planning proposals for the deferred matters, requesting amendments to the existing land use zones and increases in the development standards.

3. In December 2016, Council engaged SJB Architects to prepare a draft Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy to review and update the existing urban design principles for the Hurstville City Centre, review the existing development standards (including maximum building height and maximum FSR) and prepare block by block urban design controls. A copy of the draft Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy in included at Attachment 1.

4. The key objectives of the revised Urban Design Strategy include:


a) To provide a logical approach to the built form controls; b) To reinforce the role of Hurstville as a gateway to southern Sydney; c) To strengthen the use of public and active transport to and within the centre; d) To enhance and strengthen the identity of the centre; e) To improve pedestrian connectivity and movement; and f) To provide block by block planning controls for the centre.

5. The draft Strategy has been informed by an in-depth urban design and planning analysis

and a series of place based considerations. This includes a review of the current and proposed role of the Hurstville City Centre, as well as detailed analysis of the existing urban and environmental conditions within the study area and the surrounding context.

6. The study area has been subdivided into eight character precincts, based on the physical features and predominant uses within each area of the City Centre. The division of precincts is adapted from those included in the current Development Control Plan No. 2 - Hurstville City Centre (Amendment No. 6) (“DCP2”) and informed by the detailed analysis and understanding of the existing and future character of the centre.

7. The findings from the analysis have been categorised as a set of opportunities and constraints that assess the impact of built form on existing features and summarise key considerations for the future growth and development of the Hurstville City Centre.

8. A set of consolidated principles have been adapted from those proposed by the two previous studies; the Hurstville City Centre Master Plan (Government Architect’s Office, 2004) and the Urban Design Options Report (Hassell, 2009). The principles and objectives outlined in these two reports were assessed against the analysis and data collected by SJB and summarised under the following themes:

a) Connectivity b) Public Domain and Open Space c) Built Form and Design Excellence d) Character and Views e) Sustainability and Wellbeing f) Liveability g) Employment

9. Following a workshop undertaken with Georges River Council staff, a renewed vision

was established for the Hurstville City Centre:

“Hurstville is a dynamic and vibrant city centre that reflects the cultural diversity of its community. The centre offers a range of opportunities to live, work and play, as well as excellent connections to other nearby centres. A range of general and civic services and employment uses thrive throughout the centre, enhanced by excellent access to public transport. A commitment to excellence in design and governance will ensure an improved built form and public domain that showcases environmental sustainability, promotes social well-being and contributes to a revitalised Hurstville identity.” (Chapter 4, Section 4.4 - p.59)

10. An overarching strategy was developed to outline the key changes required to achieve the key objective; “…to strengthen the role of the Hurstville City Centre as a vibrant regional centre by improving the day-to-day liveability within the centre.” (Chapter 4, Section 4.5 - p.60) The primary objectives are listed below: a) maintain primacy of Forest Road as a pedestrian high-street with local businesses,

supported by Westfield Shopping Centre;


b) maintain amenity and safety along Forest Road to enhance and support the vibrant street life;

c) create and strengthen existing key gateways to mark the entrances to the Centre; d) improve connectivity to surrounding open spaces; e) encourage public transport as the primary mode of transport; f) ensure amenity is retained through the public domain via built form controls; and g) rationalise Height and FSR controls to allow appropriate built form.

11. A set of four structure plans expand on the conceptual strategy. The plans enable the

renewed vision and principles to be delivered through a series of strategic moves, outlined by key principles for each structure plan. These principles are supported by the analysis and explored through case studies, testing of options and research of precedents. The structure plans address the following:

a) Day and Night Time Activity b) Access and Movement c) Public Domain and Open Space d) Built Form

12. The draft Strategy presents a series of recommendations for the opportunity sites. It is

recommended that Council seek the views of landowners and other affected stakeholder with respect to these recommendations.

Background

13. The finalisation of planning controls for the Hurstville City Centre has had a long history and the making of Amendment No. 3 to Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2012 (Hurstville City Centre LEP) in July 2015 resulted in a number of sites having a mismatch between the maximum building height and maximum FSR.

14. In May 2016, the former Hurstville and Kogarah Councils were amalgamated to form the Georges River Council.

15. Georges River Council has received nine (9) Planning Proposals within the Hurstville City Centre since the gazettal of Amendment No. 3, including the three (3) planning proposals for the deferred matters. These Planning Proposals request amendments to the existing land use zones and increases in the development standards (maximum building height and maximum floor space ratio).

16. The consultant firm, SJB Architects were engaged in December 2016 to prepare a draft Urban Design Strategy for the Hurstville City Centre (the “draft Strategy”). The extent of the study area is indicated in Figure 1 below.


Figure 1: Study Area – Hurstville City Centre [Refe r to Attachment 2 for higher resolution detail]

17. The subject land is zoned B3 - Commercial Core and B4 - Mixed Use under Hurstville LEP 2012 and B4 - Mixed Use under Kogarah LEP 2012.

18. The subject land includes three sites that are identified as a “Deferred Matter” by the Minister under Section 59(3) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979. These sites are marked “DM” and demonstrate the built form requested in the planning proposals lodged on the Map in Figure 1. They include:

a. Hurstville Civic Precinct b. Westfield Hurstville site c. Treacy Street car park site

19. Planning Proposals have been lodged for these “deferred” sites and are currently

undergoing independent assessment. The assessment of these planning proposals needs to be finalised by 10 March 2018.

20. SJB Architects provided urban design advice on the deferred matters in advance to

assist the consultants undertaking independent assessment of the planning proposals and it is anticipated that the consultant’s independent reports on the deferred matters will be presented to Council later this year.

21. The draft Strategy provides a block by block analysis of specific sites (identified as opportunity sites) within the Hurstville City Centre and provides recommendations with respect to height and in some cases, FSR.

22. It should be noted that the recommendations in the draft Strategy generally do not increase the overall FSR within the Centre, rather they aim to rationalise the heights and FSRs across the blocks to allow appropriate built form.

23. The draft Strategy also includes: i. An analysis the metropolitan and strategic context, ii. An overview of the key background documents, iii. A built form analysis iv. Draft urban design recommendations for the Hurstville City Centre.


24. In conjunction with the draft Strategy, the consultant has prepared a 3D Model of the Hurstville City Centre that has facilitated the urban design analysis and assisted in identifying built form and spatial outcomes. The model will be handed over to Council in a suitable format and can be utilised by Council to test any future development applications or planning proposals in the City Centre.

25. As background to the preparation of the draft Strategy the following studies were reviewed: i. Hurstville City Centre Masterplan (2004) – NSW Government Architect’s Office. ii. Hurstville City Centre Public Domain Plan (2007) – Environmental Partnership. iii. Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Options (2009) – Hassell. iv. Hurstville City Centre Transport Management and Accessibility Plan (TMAP, 2013) –

GHD. v. Review of Commercial Core Zone in Hurstville LEP, 2012 (2015) – AEC Group and

SJB Planning.

Background to the Preparation of the draft Hurstvil le City Centre Urban Design Strategy

26. The structure of the draft final report captures the process undertaken in the development and preparation of the draft Strategy.

27. Each chapter represents a new phase in the advancement of the Strategy, supplementing and advancing the findings from the previous chapters. Re-evaluation of the project as it evolved has led to an iterative design process with regular input from Council, which has ensured an integrated and cohesive final draft Strategy.

28. SJB Architects worked closely with Georges River Council to develop the final draft Strategy. As part of this process, a series of workshops were undertaken with council to identify the renewed vision and key design principles for the Hurstville City Centre. Testing and refinement of the built form recommendations occurred over several workshops and mark-ups of draft reports by Council, all of which has informed the final strategy presented within the report.

29. The draft Strategy was also presented to the Executive Team at Georges River Council on 12 April 2017 and assessed by the St George Design Review Panel (the “Panel”) on 4 May 2017. The comments and recommendations from these reviews have been integrated into the final draft Strategy.

30. The Panel has provided advice under the nine design principles of the State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development. The Panel have provided in principle support to the draft Strategy and have advised that the proposed height and density be arranged based on agreed urban design principles leading to sustainable built form outcomes that will minimise overshadowing impacts on adjacent public and private spaces.

The Hurstville City Centre Regional Context:

31. The study area is situated in South Sydney, 15km south west of the Sydney CBD.

32. Hurstville is considered a ‘gateway’ to Southern Sydney and is identified as a regional

centre in the southern region. The centre is considered a highly liveable location with good access to services and employment.


33. The centre is well-connected, with the region’s main transport interchange located in the

centre and the nearby M5 Motorway providing easy access to other strategic centres and employment and entertainment opportunities.

LEP Controls:

34. The two Local Environmental Plans that apply in the Hurstville City Centre are:

a) Hurstville LEP 2012 - Area to the north of the rail line. b) Kogarah LEP 2012 (Amendment No. 2) gazetted on 26 May, 2017 - Remaining area

to the south of the rail line.

35. The central part of the City Centre is zoned B3 - Commercial Core, surrounded by B4- Mixed Use and pockets of SP2 - Infrastructure zones.

36. The maximum height and FSR controls vary considerably across the City Centre. The

bulk of the height is focused around the Eastern and Western ends, as well as the Hurstville Station and bus interchange. The current built form controls are generally a result of recent residential developments in these areas.

37. Several heritage items are identified within the area to the north of the railway line,

including churches, houses, substations, significant trees and a fire station. The O’Brien’s Estate Heritage Conservation Area adjoins the study area to the south west, within the former Kogarah LGA.

38. Three sites are identified as ‘Deferred Matters’ in the HLEP 2012 and planning proposals

for these sites are currently under assessment. SJB have provided urban design advice on these proposals separately. The controls outlined in the HLEP 1994 and DCP No.2 (Amendment No.5) currently apply to these sites, located at the:

a) Hurstville Civic Precinct (bounded by Dora Street, Queens Road, Park Road and

MacMahon Street); b) the Hurstville Westfield Shopping Centre (bounded by The Avenue, Humphreys Lane

and Cross Street); and c) 37-41 Treacy Street (existing Council at-grade carpark on Treacy Street).

Strategic Context and Objectives for Future Centre:

39. In a Plan for Growing Sydney (Department of Planning, 2014) the priorities for the Hurstville Strategic Centre are: a) to retain a commercial core in Hurstville, for long-term employment growth; b) to provide capacity for additional mixed-use development including offices, retail,

services and housing.

40. The Draft South District Plan (GSC, 2016), identifies Hurstville as a strategic centre for the South District. The Plan lists a set of priorities that aim to enhance the centre as an important retail destination and transport hub for the South District. The development of this strategy reflects the key objectives of the Draft District Plan Priorities, which focus on achieving “A Productive City; A Liveable City; a Sustainable City.”

Urban Analysis:

41. Analysis of the existing conditions within the study area and surrounding context is included in Section 3 of the draft Strategy. The areas addressed include:


i. High-level analysis of the current role of the centre and the expectations for liveability standard outlined by the Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils;

ii. Demographic profile; iii. Movement and access, including public transport and vehicular movement; iv. Pedestrian access and cycling; v. Public domain and open space, including pavement quality and the existing open

space network within the greater context; vi. Key attractions and amenity; vii. Planned development; viii. Strata titles and land ownership; ix. Topography and views; and x. Obstacle limitation surface.

42. Eight character areas have been identified within the study area identified in Figure 1

above, adapted from those presented in the current Hurstville DCP No.2 to address the existing and future needs of the City Centre.

43. The eight (8) character areas are listed as follows and shown in Figure 2 below:

1) Ormonde Parade Retail and Service 2) Forest Road High Street 3) City East Transition Area 4) Eastern Bookend 5) Retail Centre 6) Civic Centre 7) City West Transition Area 8) Western Bookend

Figure 2: Proposed Character Areas (Chapter 3, p. 4 2) [Refer to Attachment 2 for higher resolution det ail]


44. The urban analysis has been consolidated and sorted into a set of combined constraints (Figure 3) and opportunities (Figure 4), which have helped to determine the renewed strategic vision and urban design approach to the Hurstville City Centre that is presented within this report.

45. The analysis of the existing urban and strategic conditions presented in chapters 1-3 has informed the renewed vision and strategy for the future City Centre

Figure 3: Combined Constraints (Chapter 3, p. 51) [ Refer to Attachment 2 for higher resolution detail]

Figure 4: Combined Opportunities (Chapter 3, p. 52) [Refer to Attachment 2 for higher resolution detai l]

Overview of the Draft Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy

Urban Design Principles

46. The draft Strategy proposes a set of consolidated principles that are organised as objectives under the key urban design themes summarised in Table 1 below (Chapter 4, p.53-60):


Table 1: Draft Urban Design Principles – Draft Hurs tville Urban Design Strategy C

onne

ctiv

ity

C1 Improve pedestrian connections across the rail line. C2 Improve legibility and wayfinding to train station and bus interchange.

C3 Rationalise the traffic system to create greater pedestrian priority and improve legibility of one way streets.

C4 Reduce use of private transport and encourage active, public or shared modes of transport.

C5 Provide increased pedestrian crossings and road markings at signalised crossings.

C6 Provide improved wayfinding to key destinations and open spaces via an interconnected network of safe and comfortable routes.

C7 Provide improved and additional through site links across larger sites.

Pub

lic D

omai

n &

Ope

n S

pace

O1 Reinforce the area between MacMahon Street, Dora Street, Queens Road and Park Road, as an integrated service and community centre and a place to gather and hold community events.

O2 Create a sequence of public open spaces that support the daily needs of the community that can also support cultural and community events.

O3 Establish new parks, play-scapes, green gateways and street trees as part of a centre-wide open space strategy.

O4 Provide a high-quality public domain with a unified approach to paving, street furniture, landscaping and identity.

O5 Create opportunities for temporary and permanent public artworks within the public domain, and along view corridors within the centre.

O6 Ensure that public domain areas and open spaces are easily accessible and distributed across the centre.

Bui

lt F

orm

& D

esig

n E

xcel

lenc

e

B1 Respond to the topography of the site with increased heights and tower forms on the peaks and ridges to the city fringe areas.

B2 Prioritise and support retail activity along Forest Road.

B3 Retain the character and subdivision pattern of Forest Road to reflect the history of the area.

B4 Locate larger developments to the city fringe areas to retain the character of Forest Road.

B5 Locate taller buildings at key intersections and gateways to serve as legibility markers, and to contribute to the character and identity of Hurstville.

B6 Promote design excellence through policies, expert panels and competitions.

B7 Support design excellence through active engagement between Council and applicants to achieve a shared vision for each site that aligns with the vision for the Hurstville City Centre.

Cha

ract

er &

Vie

ws

CV1 Existing local view corridors are to be considered in the design of the public domain and proposed developments, particularly the North/South views.

CV2 Local land marks (new and existing) and key facades should be emphasised and improved.

CV3 Shop front improvements are to be promoted along key streetscapes.

CV4 Development must seek to retain heritage listed buildings and facades.

CV5

Reinforce the regional significance of the centre by creating a strong and unique skyline.


Sus

tain

abili

ty

and

Wel

lbei

ng

S1

Reduce the urban heat island effect by: ⋅ Increasing the tree canopy within the centre; and

⋅ Providing water features to cool surrounding areas and create features for play.

S2

Increase opportunities for incidental exercise by: ⋅ Prioritising pedestrian and cycle movements; ⋅ Locating residential development at the edge of the centre; and ⋅ Creating new public open spaces as part of a network of coordinated and

connected spaces.

S3

Reduce the consumption of resources throughout the centre through: ⋅ The introduction of WSUD features within the streetscape and open

spaces; ⋅ Utilising recycled water for the public domain; ⋅ Planting native species where possible; ⋅ Utilising smart poles; and ⋅ Introducing new methods of decentralised resource production.

S4

Increase opportunities for social interaction and activities by: ⋅ Providing playscapes for children to play and learn; ⋅ Providing safe places for youth to gather; and ⋅ Considering all age groups and abilities in the design of public spaces.

Live

abili

ty

L1 Strengthen the existing range of services and retail to support the local community.

L2 Designate several ‘meeting places/destinations’ within the centre where people can meet, socialise and shop.

L3 Provide opportunities for well-designed housing in a range of tenures at appropriate locations throughout the centre and suitable to all age groups.

L4 Consider options for affordable housing and housing for key workers that can be adapted to all age groups.

L5 Provide a greater range and diversity of dwelling typologies throughout the centre.

Em

ploy

men

t

E1 Provide a greater range and diversity of dwelling typologies throughout the centre.

E2 Identify opportunities for flexible commercial floor-space, which may serve other functions in the short term.

E3 Reinforce the centre’s function as a regional retail destination.

E4 Continue to support local businesses through improvements to the public domain, traffic and pedestrian circulation, servicing and parking provision.

47. The Strategy identifies a proposed vision for the Hurstville City Centre, which was developed in conjunction with Council staff.

48. The proposed vision and principles reflect the desire to create a high quality transit-orientated centre that responds to the current metropolitan and district plan for the Region. The vision and principles also reflect the need to improve pedestrian amenity and connectivity, as well as improve the provision of open space around the train station.

49. Consistent with the vision, Figure 5 identifies a Conceptual Strategy which is to maintain and strengthen the role of the Hurstville City Centre as a vibrant regional centre by improving the day-to-day liveability within the centre. The key strategies are: � Maintain the primacy of Forest Road as a pedestrian high street with local

businesses, supported by Westfield Shopping Centre. � Maintain amenity and safety along Forest Road to enhance and support the vibrant

street life.


� Create and strengthen existing key gateways to mark entrances to the Centre � Improve connectivity to surrounding open spaces � Encourage public transport as the primary mode of transport � Ensure amenity is retained through the public domain via built form controls � Rationalise height and FSR controls to allow appropriate built form

Figure 5: Conceptual Strategy (Chapter 4, p.60) [Re fer to Attachment 2 for higher resolution detail]

Structure Plans

50. The draft Strategy has been founded on a set of structure plans that address the areas of activity, access and movement, public domain and built form.

51. Each structure plan is supported by key principles and objectives, which can be implemented through the recommendations provided (Chapter 5, p.61-70).

Activity

52. This section investigates strategies to allow Hurstville City Centre’s vibrant street life to flourish (p. 63-70).

Principles:

Day Time Activity (Refer to Figure 6 below)

� Medium-High Density Residential should be located primarily at the east and west

bookends within the Hurstville City Centre.

� Active retail uses and the commercial centre should be focused around the Forest Road High Street, Civic Precinct and Westfield Shopping Centre.


� Transition areas should be marked by gateways and urban markers, articulated through built form and the streetscape.

Figure 6: ‘Day Time Activity’ Structure Plan (Chapter 5, p.64) [Refer to Attachment 2 for higher resolution detail]

Night Time Activity (Refer to Figure 7 below)

� Activation and amenity should be provided for night time use and safety of public spaces.

� Night time activity should be focused along the Forest Road High Street, extending out to other key attractions, such as the future Central Plaza and other public domain and open space areas.

Figure 7: ‘Night Time Activity’ Structure Plan (Cha pter 5, p.65) [Refer to Attachment 2 for higher res olution detail]


Implementation:

58. The following recommendations are made to enhance the day and night time activity within the Hurstville City Centre:

(i) Temporary closure of Forest Road, between MacMahon Street and Treacy Street, to

host day/night markets or special events. (ii) Support for the development of an Eat Street within the future Hurstville Central Plaza

along Diment Way.

(iii) Opportunity for recreational activities, small markets and social events at the existing council-owned open space in front of the ramp access to Hurstville Station.

(iv) Improve amenity of laneways, particularly Humphrey’s Lane to the south of the Hurstville Westfield.

(v) Retain and reinforce the fine grain active retail along Forest Road.

(vi) Improve and enhance access through arcades and through site links within the City Centre.

(vii) Night time active retail, outdoor dining and restaurants and entertainment/performance centres. Night time activity should be focused around the areas between the transit hub and key attractors identified as the existing Club Central (Corner of Crofts Avenue and Cross Street), Westfield Sky Garden and Hurstville RSL Club, as well as planned projects for the Hurstville Central Plaza and Civic Precinct.

SJB Recommendations � That Council to prepare a Place Management Strategy based on the activity areas

outlined in Chapter 5 in the Strategy.

� That Council prepare a DCP amendment to address activation within the City Centre.

Access and Movement 59. This section investigates circulation through the centre to propose streamlined solutions

(p. 71- 76). (Refer to Figure 8 below)

Principles:

� Improve north-south pedestrian connections across railway line. � Prioritise pedestrian movement along Forest Road High Street. � Rationalise traffic system within the centre. � Encourage active travel and public transport.


� Improve key intersections for pedestrian access and safety.

Figure 8: ‘Movement and Access’ Structure Plan (Cha pter 5, p.72) [Refer to Attachment 2 for higher resolution detail]

Implementation:

60. Initial investigations have been carried out to identify ways to deliver the above principles, summarised in the following key recommendations. These are anticipated to form part of the scope of the future TMAP update, and include:

(i) Improve amenity and accessibility of the pedestrian rail crossings at Treacy Street

and The Avenue. These crossings are highlighted for further investigation for potential road widening as part of the revised TMAP - the draft Strategy reflects the Disability Inclusion Action Plan prepared by Council, which addresses accessibility throughout the LGA.

(ii) Propose cycle routes through the City Centre which are integrated with the green

links identified by the Greater Sydney Commission in the Draft South District Plan.

(iii) Reinforce and improve access to the existing transport hub.

(iv) Strengthen pedestrian connectivity within the City Centre via improved through-site links and reinforcing the Forest Road High Street as a pedestrian-friendly retail strip.

(v) Retain and strengthen existing hierarchy of streets that ranges from major roads to

service lanes, considering both vehicular and pedestrian movement.

(vi) Divert traffic around the City Centre’s core retail and transit hub to Queens Road, The Avenue and Park Road to the north of the railway and along Railway Parade and Woniora Road to the south. This will allow the streets within the centre to prioritise pedestrians and the use of active and public transport, limiting vehicular access to local traffic, bus routes and service vehicles.


(vii) Ensure pedestrian priority - A case study of the Forest Road High Street between MacMahon Street and Treacy Street presents two options for traffic flow. Both scenarios include the removal of existing parking bays to the north for the widening of the footpath and the addition of a dedicated cycle lane to the south:

Option 1: Single lane traffic along Forest Road High Street – bus and vehicular access permitted. Option 2: Bus only access along Forest Road High Street – vehicular access limited to buses with the exception to service vehicles, for which parking bays are retained to the south.

(viii) Upgrades, including additional signalised crossings, are proposed for the following intersections:

Woniora Road, Hillcrest Avenue and Railway Parade; Ormonde Parade, West Street and Railway Parade; Ormonde Parade, Wright Street and Durham Street.

SJB Recommendations

� That Council to undertake a revision of the TMAP that investigates traffic management, improved intersections, and car parking locations within the City Centre. Three key areas are identified for further testing are: the minimisation of traffic along Forest Road; intersection improvements; and rationalisation of one-way streets within the centre.

Public Domain and Open Space 61. This section investigates a strategy for the public domain and open spaces within the city

to support Hurstville’s active and social public life. (p. 77-84) (Refer to Figure 9 below) Principles:

� Ensure direct solar access to public domain areas. � Improve passive and active amenity


Figure 9: ‘Public Domain’ Structure Plan (Chapter 5 , p.78) [Refer to Attachment 2 for higher resolutio n detail]

Implementation:

62. The public domain structure plan identifies a green network of spaces and connections, focusing on improved pedestrian amenity and reinforcing the strategies proposed in the previous structure plans for activity and connectivity.

63. The following recommendations are made:

(i) Ensure built form controls outlined in the DCP and LEP allow solar access into open

spaces and the streetscape.

(ii) Improve the public domain quality through a new coherent, high quality material palette for footpaths and provide considered street furniture and amenity items.

(iii) Enhance planting along streets and within open spaces across the City Centre, linking

key open spaces, e.g. between Palm Court and Memorial Plaza.

(iv) Prepare a landscape plan to detail planting types and design strategies for the public domain and future open spaces identifying different treatments for varying street typologies, character precincts and activities.

(v) Prepare a WSUD strategy to investigate the potential use of a connected water

collection and filtration system and strategies for evaporative cooling in the public domain.

(vi) Enhance and improve existing and future open spaces within the City Centre - Case

studies and concept plans are presented for the spaces located at: � Existing council-owned land on Forest Road, in front of the ramp access to

Hurstville Station. � Hurstville Central Plaza adjacent to Diment Way � Proposed Palm Court at corner of Forest Road and Treacy Street - replacement of

the council carpark with an urban park. � Retain and enhance existing Memorial Plaza on Forest Road.


� Proposed plaza within the Civic Precinct bordered by Queens Road, Dora Street and McMahon Street – proposed as part of the Planning Proposal for the subject site.

SJB Recommendations

� That Council update the current Public Domain Plan (2007) in conjunction with the Place Management Strategy.

Include a plan for a consolidated material palette within the public domain across the City Centre.

� That Council investigate WSUD treatments and other sustainable initiatives and that these be applied through the Public Domain Plan and DCP No. 2 – Hurstville City Centre (Amendment No. 6).

� That Council investigate and implement the permanent and temporary open space solutions outlined within this report, including:

� Recommended closure of the at-grade council carpark at Palm Court (corner of Treacy

Street and Forest Road) to convert the space into a public park.

� Upgrade the vacant Council-owned space on Forest Road, in front of the ramp access to Hurstville Station. It is recommended that the site remain as a permanent public open space.

� Proposed removal of the existing Westfield pedestrian ramp at the intersection of Crofts Avenue and Cross Street to improve access to the future Central Plaza.

� The provision of open spaces and amenity within the public domain to be closely aligned with the findings and recommendations of the other structure plans within this report, as well as the overall projected growth for Hurstville.

� Along with the closure of Palm Court, a car parking study should be undertaken as part

of the revision of TMAP to ensure adequate parking supply within the centre.

Built Form 64. This section provides a review of the existing LEP and DCP controls influencing built form

within the Hurstville City Centre (p. 85-114) (Refer to Figure 10 below)

Principles:

� Maintain Forest Road as a street for people. � Urban Thresholds into the centre have height and open space. � Urban Markers within the centre are framed by view corridors. � Ensure building height follows topography. � Ensure public open spaces receive direct solar access. � Maximise amenity to adjacent and nearby buildings.


Figure 10: ‘Built Form’ Structure Plan (Chapter 5, p.87) ) [Refer to Attachment 2 for higher resolutio n detail]

Implementation:

65. The built form structure plan draws together the principles and strategies presented in the three previous structure plans.

66. The structure plan also considers the desired future character areas, proposed in chapter 3 of the report, as well as the potential future context regarding projected growth and proposed development in the area.

SJB Recommendations

� That Council prepare a Planning Proposal to amend the HLEP 2012 to reflect the recommendations made in Section 6.2, Chapter 6 of the Strategy in relation to: - Land Use Zoning - Maximum Height of Building - Maximum Floor Space Ratio

� That Council prepare an amendment to the DCP No. 2 – Hurstville City Centre that reflects

the changes outlined in Section 6.2, Chapter 6 of the Strategy.

� That Council undertake a feasibility study for the transition areas outside the study boundary.

67. The following recommendations are made as part of an overarching built form strategy for the Hurstville City Centre:

(i) Retain the high density residential precincts at the eastern and western bookends, to

emphasise the topography of the Centre and allow the centre’s core to be retained primarily for commercial and retail use.

(ii) Retain and strengthen the fine grain quality within the’ Forest Road Fine Grain’ character

area.


(iii) Promote density in the area adjacent to the Forest Road Fine Grain area and near the transport hub, to attract people to the centre and encourage public transport use to and from.

(iv) Transition height downwards to the surrounding residential precincts to the north and south-east between the Core and the high density residential precincts.

(v) Identify key gateways to mark the entrance into the City Centre. These have been identified as either urban thresholds or urban markers:

i. An urban threshold denotes the entrance to the City Centre via landscaping, public artworks, open spaces and key views.

ii. An urban marker provides a recognisable built form that marks the end of a view corridor and identifies the entry to the City Centre.

Additional Built Form Testing 68. As part of the implementation of the built form strategy, a review of the existing Hurstville

LEP 2012 built form controls was undertaken by the consultants. Recommendations are provided for recommended amendments to the HLEP 2012, to be realised via a planning proposal.

69. The methodology of testing is outlined in Table 2 below: Table 2: Methodology of Testing for Identification of Opportunity Sites

Steps Methodology of Testing Identify opportunity sites These were determined as sites that:

� have a feasible single or amalgamated lot size; � are not heritage items; � do not have 8 or more strata titles; � have not been recently developed; and � are not subject to a current development

application or planning proposal.

Model building envelopes for the opportunity sites (Refer to Figure 11 below)

Building envelopes for the opportunity sites were modelled based upon:

� existing Height, FSR and Land Use Zoning from the Hurstville LEP 2012;

� built form controls from the Hurstville DCP 2; and � the objectives and design criteria outlined in the

Apartment Design Guide.

Identify sites for further investigation determined by built form controls (Refer to Figure 12 below – the sites in the red are those where the existing

Sites requiring further investigation have been identified determined by built form controls that are:

� inconsistent with the built form principles and overarching urban design strategy for the City Centre;


Steps Methodology of Testing LEP height controls are incongruent with the principles and those marked in light pink are those which are congruent with the principles)

� in-congruent with the sites on the same urban block; and

� unable to achieve the maximum height and FSR permitted in the Hurstville LEP 2012.

Rationalise controls based on the outcomes of the built form testing and provide recommendations for controls to be retained or altered.

Testing rationale Height vs. Floor Space Ratio (FSR): 70. The testing of built form has prioritised the existing FSR controls over existing height

controls to retain development value. 71. Accordingly, recommendations in the Strategy generally relate to amendments on

rationalised height controls, with the maximum FSR being retained, except for two (2) sites, where it is recommended that the FSR is rationalised to ensure consistency with the proposed height.

72. The two (2) sites where FSR changes are proposed are:

• Cluster 03, Block 17A (No. 282 Forest Road – SP.66662) from 9:1 to 6:1; • Cluster 07, Block 30B (No. 185B Forest Road – Lots 3, 4 and 5) from 5:1 to 3:1.

Block by block DCP reference 73. As part of the initial investigation process, the Hurstville City Centre study area has been

identified using a block numbering reference system, adopted from DCP No. 2 – Hurstville City Centre (Amendment No. 5).

74. The sites where further testing has been undertaken as part of the Strategy are identified

using this numbering system and identified as part of a ‘cluster’ of blocks. 75. Figure 13 below identifies the block by block numbering and includes the location of

opportunity sites. Refer to Figure 13 in Attachment 2 for a high resolution detail Additional Capacity Study 76. As part of the Strategy an additional capacity study was undertaken investigate

appropriate built form transition and additional uplift close to the City Centre. 77. This investigation identifies blocks to the north of the City Centre, which are identified for

further consideration and economic testing due to their direct connectivity to the City


Centre, proximity to public transport and services and are orientated to receive good solar access.

78. The area to the south of the City Centre was not considered appropriate for further

consideration for additional uplift due to:

- the topography of this area would make increased development difficult due to narrow road network and hilly nature of the streets, and would result in poor solar access for new developments;

- the location of two Heritage Conservation Areas to the south-west; - there being significant strata development, which would make redevelopment difficult; - access to services and amenity is decreased due to the rail line and limited crossings

79. The analysis undertaken as part of the Strategy is consistent with the recent work undertaken for the preparation of the amendment to Kogarah LEP 2012 (Amendment No 2 – New City Plan) which has been recently gazetted.

80. It is recommended that additional testing and economic analysis be undertaken with respect

to those blocks identified as part of the Additional Capacity Study.

Figure 12: In-congruent Envelopes – Extrusions of E xisting LEP Height Controls (Chapter 5, p.91) [Refe r to Attachment 2 for higher resolution detail]


Figure 13: Block by Block DCP Reference Map – City Centre Study Area (Chapter 5, p.92) [Refer to Attachment 3 for higher resolution detail]

81. The consultants, SJB Architects have undertaken an investigation of the following Blocks

and their recommendations have been identified as outlined below. 82. The following Tables below provide a summary of the consultant’s recommendations,

along with the rationale behind the recommendations. The table also includes a recommendation by Council staff.

83. The City Centre Study Area is identified by Blocks as outlined in Figure 13 above. Each

Block is within a Cluster. Cluster 01, Block 22 84. Block 22 includes three (3) sub-blocks, being Sub-block 22A, 22B and 22C as indicated in

Figure 14 below:


Figure 14: Cluster 01, Block 22 (Refer to Figure 5 .28.1 in Urban Design Strategy) 85. Table 3 below provides an overview of the current controls in Hurstville LEP 2012 (HELP

2012) against the recommendations of the consultants for Block 22: Table 3: Existing and Proposed (Consultant’s Recomm endation) Height and FSR – Block 22 Existing/Proposed Height and FSR

Cluster 01 Existing Hurstville LEP 2012 Proposed (a s recommended by SJB)

Block 22 Height FSR Height FSR

15m street wall

23m behind street wall

Between 3:1 – 4:1

11m street wall


No change


Figure 15: Recommended Controls (SJB) – Block 22 Cluster 01, Block 22 – Refer to Figure 15 SJB Recommendation

Rationale Officer’s Comment

Lower the street wall height from 15m to 11m along the length of Forest Road, between Park Road and MacMahon Street to ensure a consistent street wall height. The general setback depth for the street wall height that is recommended is approximately 10m.

Built form controls along Forest Road currently require a street wall height of 15m, with a 23m setback. It is recommended that the street wall height be reduced to 11m to create a more intimately scaled human experience and to ensure that the public domain receives direct solar access and reinforces Forest Road as a walking street

It is considered that the reduction from 15m to 11m for the wall height will achieve a 2-3 storey wall height as opposed to a 4 storey wall height (15m). This is considered more appropriate in ensuring that Forest Road retains a human scale. Recommendation supported

Amend the DCP to include an additional provision to ensure that development responds to the adjacent parapet height.

See comments above It is recommended that the DCP include a provision to ensure a consistent parapet height along Forest Road. Recommendation supported

Cluster 02, Block 25

86. Block 25 includes two (2) sub-blocks, being Sub-block 25A and 25B as indicated in Figure

16 below:


Figure 16: Cluster 02, Block 25 (Refer to Figure 5. 29.1 in Urban Design Strategy) 87. Table 4 below provides an overview of the current controls in Hurstville LEP 2012 (HELP

2012) against the recommendations of the consultants for Block 25: Table 4: Existing and Proposed (Consultant’s Recomm endation) Height and FSR – Block 25 Existing/Proposed Height and FSR


Block 25 Height FSR Height FSR

15m - 23m 4.3:1 23m No change


Figure 17: Recommended Controls (SJB) – Block 25 & 29 Cluster 01, Block 25 – Refer to Figure 17 SJB Recommendation


Amend the LEP to increase the height from 15m to 23m to be consistent across Block 25. This will assist in the consolidation of the blocks from Nos 117 to 123-125 Forest Road and create a more consistent built form

The height for Block 25 is inconsistent ranging from 15m – 23m. By increasing the height of Block 25 to 23m across the whole site, an improved built form outcome can be achieved and will allow for a more consistent street frontage to Forest Road.

Proposed increase in height from 15m to 23m is supported. Recommendation supported

Amend the DCP to include site amalgamation provisions for Block 25 to prevent isolation of adjoining lots.

Site amalgamation to require a larger block size will result in a better built form outcome and will prevent isolation of lots

Site amalgamation will generally depend on the ownership pattern. Although it is recognised that a larger site will result in a better built form outcome, it is considered that amalgamation requirements are reasonable, however may not be achieved. Recommendation supported

Amend the DCP to include requirements to provide breaks in the built form, to

In order to maintain the fine grain along Forest Road and retain the human scale of Forest

Recommendation supported


Cluster 01, Block 25 – Refer to Figure 17 SJB Recommendation


ensure that the fine grain quality is retained along the street wall.

Road, which has been identified as a walking street

Cluster 01, Block 29 – Refer to Figure 17 Amend the DCP to include requirements to provide breaks in the built form, to ensure that the fine grain quality is retained along the street wall. This may be achieved by creating openings for view corridors and through site links.

In order to maintain the fine grain along Forest Road and retain the human scale of Forest Road, which has been identified as a walking street. Also to protect existing view corridors


Cluster 03, Block 11, Block 16, Block 17 88. Cluster 3 includes three (3) blocks:

� Block 11 – Sub-block 11F and 11G � Block 16 – Sub-block 16C and 16D; and � Block 17 – Sub-block 17A

as indicated in Figure 18 below.


Figure 18: Cluster 03, Block 11, 16 & 17 (Refer to Figure 5.30.1 in Urban Design Strategy) 89. Table 5 below provides an overview of the current controls in Hurstville LEP 2012 (HELP

2012) against the recommendations of the consultants for Blocks 11, 16 & 17: Table 5: Existing and Proposed (Consultant’s Recomm endation) Height and FSR – Block 11, 16 and 17 Existing/Proposed Height and FSR


Height FSR Height FSR

11F 60m overall 6:1 11m street wall


No change

11G 15m – 60m 3:1 – 6:1 11m street wall

11m – 45m behind street wall

No change

16A - C 23m – 45m 3:1 – 5:1 11m street wall to Forest Road


No change

17A 45m 9:1 45m – subject to DA

Reduce FSR to 6:1 to correspond with


height

Figure 19: Recommended Controls (SJB) – Block 11F, Block 11G, Block 16, Block 17A Cluster 03, Block 11, Block 16 and Block 17 – Refer to Figure 19 SJB Recommendation


Block 11F and Block 11G Reduce the street wall height for sub-blocks 11F and 11G to 11m, with an average depth of 6m, in keeping with the street wall height established along Forest Road.

It is recommended that the street wall height be 11m to create a more intimately scaled human experience and to ensure that the public domain receives direct solar access and reinforces Forest Road as a walking street

It is considered that the 11m wall height will achieve a 2-3 storey wall height which is considered more appropriate in ensuring that Forest Road retains a human scale. Recommendation supported

Amend the LEP to reduce the height for sub-blocks 11F and 11G from 60m to 45m to create a built form consistent with the surrounding development. It should be noted that the narrow block depth and servicing to these sites does not facilitate large developments

The varying height controls do not create a human scale for the Forest Road walking street and are not consistent across the blocks.

It is considered that further consideration be given to the reduction in height from 60m to 45m for sub blocks 11F and 11G. It is recommended that further design work be undertaken for this Block

Block 16

Reduce the street wall height for Block 16 to 11m, with an average depth of 8m, in keeping with the street wall height established along Forest Road


It is considered that the 11m wall height will achieve a 2-3 storey wall height which is considered more appropriate in ensuring that Forest Road retains a human scale.


Cluster 03, Block 11, Block 16 and Block 17 – Refer to Figure 19 SJB Recommendation


Recommendation supported for reduction in wall height. Further analysis and review will be undertaken on the reduction in height from 45m to 35m

Amend the LEP to rationalise the overall height for sub blocks 16A – 16C from 15m – 45m to 35m and retain the FSR as existing in Hurstville LEP 2012.

Note: A pre Planning Proposal meeting has been held which proposes a height of 70m and FSR of 13.3:1 – Concept has been reviewed by SJB

The current height controls do not align with lot boundaries and may result in an undesirable built form outcome. In this regard and to create consistency across the Block the height has been rationalised. The modelling undertaken has identified that the FSR can be achieved within the 35m height envelope

Further analysis and review of the height on this block will be undertaken to ensure a better built form outcome and to ensure consistency across the block including solar analysis on the public open space.

Block 17A

Amend the LEP to reduce the height for sub-block 17A from 60m to 45m to appropriately frame the Hurstville Central Plaza and to ensure that any future building does not overshadow Forest Road and the Hurstville Central Plaza (future open space).

The existing height of 60m will have adverse impacts on the adjoining Central Plaza (open space) and is out of context with the surrounding development

There is an existing DA which has been assessed and is fully compliant with the existing height of 60m. Although the rationale for a reduction in the height for this block is supported to protect the solar access to Central Plaza, it is considered that a height reduction pending determination of a fully compliant DA for the subject site should not be supported. Recommendation: No change to existing height for Block 17A

Amend the LEP to reduce the FSR for sub-block 17A from 9:1 to 6:1 to ensure that the yield corresponds with the proposed height in Recommendation (ix) and to ensure an appropriate built form outcome

See comments above Reduction in height is not supported. Therefore, it is recommended that the FSR be retained at 9:1

Cluster 04, Block 11 & Block 12


90. Cluster 4 includes two (2) blocks:

� Block 11 – Sub-blocks 11D and 11E � Block 12 – Sub-blocks 12A and 12B

as indicated in Figure 20 below:

Figure 20: Cluster 04, Block 11 & 12 (Refer to Figu re 5.31.1 in Urban Design Strategy) 91. Table 6 below provides an overview of the current controls in Hurstville LEP 2012 (HLEP

2012) against the recommendations of the consultants for Blocks 11 & 12: Table 6: Existing and Proposed (Consultant’s Recomm endation) Height and FSR – Block 11 and 12 Existing/Proposed Height and FSR



11E 15m 3:1 11m street wall height

23m – behind street wall height

No change

11D 30m 3:1 30m No change

12A Between 15m – 40m

4.5:1 11m street wall height

No change



12B Between 15m – 23m

3:1 11m street wall height


No change

Figure 21: Recommended Controls (SJB) – Block 11 & Block 12 Cluster 04, Block 11 & Block 12 and Block 17 – Refer to Figure 21 SJB Recommendation


Block 11

Apply a street wall height for sub block 11E of 11m in keeping with the street wall height established along Forest Road.


It is considered that the 11m wall height will achieve a 2-3 storey wall height which is considered more appropriate in ensuring that Forest Road retains a human scale. Recommendation supported for the 11m wall height.

Amend the LEP to increase the height for sub block 11E from 15m to 23m.

To permit development and allow upgrades to the shops and public domain, additional height is proposed

Further analysis and review will be undertaken on the heights ranges within blocks 11 and 12.

Retain the existing 30m height for sub-block 11D to create an urban marker, as the heritage building terminates the view corridors along both MacMahon Street and Forest Road.

Retention of the current controls allows the Block to remain as a key urban marker site that terminates the view corridors along MacMahon Street and Forest Road

Further analysis and review will be undertaken on the heights ranges within blocks 11 and 12


Cluster 04, Block 11 & Block 12 and Block 17 – Refer to Figure 21 SJB Recommendation


Block 12

Apply a street wall height along Forest Road for sub block 12A of 11m in keeping with the street wall height established along Forest Road.


It is considered that the 11m wall height will achieve a 2-3 storey wall height which is considered more appropriate in ensuring that Forest Road retains a human scale. Recommendation supported

Amend the LEP to increase the height of sub-block 12A from 15m to 40m to ensure consistent built form outcomes across the block and to ensure that future development frames the bus interchange in Woodville Road.

The height increase to 40m to the rear of the site (to Dora Street) is to provide an edge to the Bus Interchange at Woodville Street


Amend the LEP to increase the height of sub-block 12B from 15m to 23m across the site to ensure consistent built form outcomes to Forest Road.




� Block 10 – Sub-block 10A � Block 11 – Sub-blocks 11A, 11B and 11C



Figure 22: Cluster 05, Block 10 & 11 (Refer to Figu re 5.32.1 in Urban Design Strategy) 93. Table 7 below provides an overview of the current controls in Hurstville LEP 2012 (HLEP

2012) against the recommendations of the consultants for Blocks 10 & 11: Table 7: Existing and Proposed (Consultant’s Recomm endation) Height and FSR – Block 10 and 11 Existing/Proposed Height and FSR



10 Between 15m – 45m

3.5:1 – 6:1 23m part street wall height

45m – height behind street wall

No change

11A 40m 3.6:1 23m No change

11B 23m 3.6:1 23m No change

11C 15m 3:1 23m No change


Figure 23: Recommended Controls (SJB) – Block 10 & Block 11

Cluster 05, Block 10 & Block 11 – Refer to Figure 23 SJB Recommendation


Block 10

Increase the street wall height along Forest Road for Block 10 from 15m to 23m to ensure that the FSR can be achieved.

Built form testing indicates that Block 10A cannot achieve the FSR within the height limit. To allow for this it is recommended that the height be increased to 23m, with the exception of the street wall height to Forest Road


Amend the LEP to rationalise the height of Block 10 from 15m-45m to 45m

Further analysis and review will be undertaken on the proposed height increase within this block.

Block 11

Amend the LEP to reduce the height of sub-block 11A from 40m to 23m to ensure a consistent street wall along Forest Road and to achieve consistency in height with Blocks 11B and 11C.

Further analysis and review will be undertaken on the proposed height increase within this block.

Retain the existing height of 23m for sub-block 11B to ensure a consistent street wall along Forest Road.

This area is part of the Forest Road High Street Character Area


Amend the LEP to increase the height of sub-block 11C from 15m to 23m to ensure a consistent street wall along Forest Road.




Cluster 06, Block 2, Block 3, Block 4 & Block 5

94. Cluster 6 includes four (4) blocks:

� Block 2 – Sub-block 2C and 2D � Block 3 � Block 4 � Block 5 - Sub-blocks 5C and 5D


Figure 24: Cluster 06, Block 2, Block 3, Block 4 an d Block 5 (Refer to Figure 5.33.1 in Urban Design Strategy) 95. Table 8 below provides an overview of the current controls in Hurstville LEP 2012 (HLEP

2012) against the recommendations of the consultants for Blocks 2, 3, 4 & 5:


Table 8: Existing and Proposed (Consultant’s Recomm endation) Height and FSR – Block 2, Block 3, Block 4 & Block 5 Existing/Proposed Height and FSR



2D 23m 3:1 60m and 40m No change

3 40m 5:1 40m No change


5C 23m and 45m 4.5:1 40m No change

5D 23m and 40m 4:1 40m No change

Figure 25: Recommended Controls (SJB) – Block 2, Bl ock 3, Block 4 & Block 5 Cluster 06, Block 2, Block 3, Block 4 & Block 5 – Refer to Figure 25 SJB Recommendation


Block 2 Amend the LEP to increase the height of sub-block 2D from 23m to 60m at the western end of the site, stepping down to 40m at the eastern end.

The built form at Block 2D demonstrates an appropriate stepping in height that could occur between the 60m height limit at Block 2C, and the built form at Blocks 3, 4, 5C and 5D. This creates a transition between the Western Bookend and Civic Centre Precinct and accentuates the topography

Further analysis and review will be undertaken on the proposed height ranges within this block.

Block 3

Retain the existing height of 40m for Block 3 but undertake further analysis to ensure an appropriate residential transition to future



Cluster 06, Block 2, Block 3, Block 4 & Block 5 – Refer to Figure 25 SJB Recommendation


development to the north of the site.

Block 4

Amend the LEP to increase the height of Block 4 from 23m to 40m to ensure consistency with the surrounding development.

See comments above Recommendation supported

Block 5

Amend the LEP to rationalise the overall height for sub block 5C from 23m & 45m to 40m to ensure consistency with development to the north of Forest Road and to ensure a more appropriate built form outcome.

Note: Any redevelopment of this site should ensure that access to the railway line is maintained.


Amend the LEP to rationalise the overall height for sub block 5D from 23m – 40m to 40m to ensure consistency with development to the north of Forest Road, achieve the development yield (existing FSR) and to ensure a more appropriate built form outcome.


For sub block 5D allow an adequate envelope to create an urban marker building and terminate the views along Forest Road and Queens Road.

The built form modelling identifies the difference between the FSR and Height controls, with Block 5D not able to achieve the allocated FSR within the permitted height


Cluster 07, Block 28, Block 29 & Block 30

96. Cluster 7 includes three (3) blocks:

� Block 28 � Block 29 – Sub-blocks 29A and 29B � Block 30 – Sub-blocks 30A and 30B



Figure 26: Cluster 07, Block 28, Block 29 and Block 30 (Refer to Figure 5.34.1 in Urban Design Strateg y) 97. Table 9 below provides an overview of the current controls in Hurstville LEP 2012 (HLEP

2012) against the recommendations of the consultants for Blocks 28, 29 and 30: Table 9: Existing and Proposed (Consultant’s Recomm endation) Height and FSR – Block 28, Block 29 & Block 30 Existing/Proposed Height and FSR




29A 15m 3:1 23m No change

29B and DM

(deferred matter)

Between 15m – 23m

3:1 – 4:1 53m No change

30B 45m 5:1 23m Reduce FSR to correspond with height – 3:1

Figure 27: Recommended Controls (SJB) – Block 28, B lock 29 & Block 30


Cluster 07, Block 28, Block 29 & Block 30 – Refer to Figure 27 SJB Recommendation


Block 28 Amend the LEP to increase the height of Block 28 from 23m to 40m to ensure consistency with the surrounding development

The majority of these sites have recent approvals, are under construction, or are the subject of planning proposals to raise heights to similar height


Block 29

Amend the LEP to increase the height of sub-block 29B (including Deferred Matter site) from 15m- 23m to 53m to ensure consistency with the recently approved and/or constructed development. This additional height allows for views to the Sydney CBD and Botany Bay to be captured and will compensate for the loss in amenity from being in close proximity to the railway line.


Amend the LEP to increase the height of sub-block 29A from 15m to 23m to create a transition to the Forest Road walking street and to mark the threshold of the entrance over the rail corridor, into the heart of the City Centre



Block 30

Amend the LEP to reduce the height of sub-block 30B from 45m to 23m to ensure a consistent building height with adjoining blocks and to mark the threshold of the entrance into the heart of the City Centre.


Undertake further review of justification for the reduction in height

Amend the LEP to reduce the FSR for sub-block 30B from 5:1 to 3:1 to ensure that the yield corresponds with the proposed height in the Recommendation above and to ensure a future good built form outcome.

Undertake further analysis and review on the proposed reduction in FSR.




� Block 1 – Sub-block 1A � Block 2 – Sub-blocks 2A and 2B


Figure 28: Cluster 08, Block 1 and Block 2 (Refer to Figure 5.35.1 in Urban Design Strategy) 99. Table 10 below provides an overview of the current controls in Hurstville LEP 2012 (HLEP

2012) against the recommendations of the consultants for Block 1 and Block 2: Table 10: Existing and Proposed (Consultant’s Recom mendation) Height and FSR – Block 1 & Block 2 Existing/Proposed Height and FSR



1A 23m street wall


2.5:1 – 3:1 40m No change

2B 23m 3:1 40m No change


Figure 29: Recommended Controls (SJB) – Block 1 & B lock 2 Cluster 08, Block 1 & Block 2 – Refer to Figure 29 SJB Recommendation


Block 1

Amend the LEP to increase the height of sub-block 1A from 23m – 30m to 40m to match the heights of the adjacent sites in the Eastern Bookend.

Note: It is also recommended that the height on the remainder of the block to 40m is create a transition to the Forest Road walking street and to mark the threshold of the entrance over the rail corridor, into the heart of the City Centre

The existing envelopes in terms of heights are currently inconsistent. The recommendations aim to create consistency in height across the whole block.


Block 2

Amend the LEP to increase the overall height for sub block 2B from 23m to 40m to match the heights on the neighbouring blocks and to provide an appropriate transition from the 60m height at the Western Bookend.

The existing envelopes in terms of heights are currently inconsistent. The recommendations aim to create consistency in height across the whole block.



Update to the TMAP 100. The TMAP report for the Hurstville City Centre was prepared by GHD and released in

June 2013. 101. The purpose of the TMAP was to inform planning controls for the Hurstville City Centre

LEP (Amendment No. 3 to HLEP 2012) in response to the vision for Hurstville as a major centre for the South subregion. The TMAP established an action plan for managing travel and shape growth in and around the City Centre by identifying potential opportunities and constraints for the Hurstville area. The TMAP tested six land use scenarios and provided recommendations for the preferred scenario 5 under the following themes:

1. Land Use 2. Road Network 3. Public Transport 4. Active Transport 5. Travel Demand Management

102. Since the time the TMAP was finalised in 2013, a number of changes have occurred,

requiring an update of the TMAP to retain its relevance as a planning tool. 103. The draft Hurstville City Centre Local Environmental Plan (HCCLEP) was made in July

2015 as Amendment No. 3 to Hurstville LEP 2012. Since Amendment 3 was made, Council has received a number of Planning Proposals within the Hurstville ward of the Georges River Council, specifically the Hurstville City Centre.

104. These Planning Proposals request amendments to the exiting land use zones, and key

planning controls - building heights and floor space ratios. Thus, there is a need to review and update the TMAP. The outcome of this work would provide a modelling tool through which the traffic and transport implications of development applications and planning proposals will be tested.

105. A preliminary scope of works has been sought from GHD to update the TMAP. The

proposed tasks include:

� Modelling of Existing Approvals and Planning Proposals

106. In order to recalibrate the TMAP to 2017, both the current development approvals and planning proposals will need to be modelled through the TMAP modelling tool and the implications for traffic management and required works identified.

� Modelling of Urban Design Strategy Recommendations

107. Any proposed changes to the development standards (building heights and FSR) need to be modelled and any required works identified:

- Specifically test the height and FSR, and - Test any Development Applications that have been approved and/or constructed within

the City Centre that did not comply with the height/FSR of the Hurstville LEP 2012;

� Updated costing schedule

108. A separate costings schedule for the transport improvements (identified in both the existing approvals and planning proposals and urban design strategy recommendations) will need to be prepared and is to address both the initial costs of the individual element


and future maintenance/replacement costs; these indicative costs will inform the preparation of the future Hurstville City Centre S94 Contributions Plan. This would include SIDRA modelling with a view to recommending network improvements (may include signalised crossings) for the following intersections:

- Queens Road/Park Road - Park Road/Woodville Street - Queens Road/Dora Street - Ormonde Parade, Wright Street and Durham Street.

109. Additionally, there is a need to identify, in conjunction with Council the scope for assessing

the following intersections and recommendations from the draft Urban Design Strategy, including:

- Railway Parade/Treacy Street/Ormonde Parade and West Street; - Railway Parade/Hillcrest Avenue; and - King Georges Road/Forest Road - Diversion of traffic around the centre’s core retail and transit hub to Queens Road, The

Avenue and Park Road to the north of the railway and along Railway Parade and Woniora Road to the south.

- Ensuring pedestrian priority 110. It is recommended that rather than going to Tender on the appointment of a consultant to

undertake the update to the TMAP, that GHD be appointed for the following reasons:

� GHD undertook the original traffic modelling of the Hurstville City Centre and have the TMAP model, which has already been developed;

� GHD has significant intellectual property relating to the traffic assessment within the Hurstville Town Centre and this will relate in cost savings for Council.

� GHD have an understanding of the Hurstville City Centre and the implications of development within the City Centre on traffic movements and intersection capacity etc;

� As GHD already have all the modelling data, the review of the TMAP could be undertaken in a timely manner; and

� GHD would be more cost effective as they have the background to the development of the TMAP model, have all the modelling criteria already inputted into their modelling system and have a detailed understanding of the work that needs to be undertaken.

111. In order to undertake this work it is recommended that a budget of $85,000 be allocated from the Consultant’s Budget - Strategic Planning and that GHD be appointed to update the TMAP.

Engagement Strategy

111. Prior to finalising the draft Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy, it is recommended that consultation be undertaken with the owners of affected properties and the broader community.

112. The draft Strategy provides a detailed analysis of the key opportunity sites within the Hurstville City Centre and makes recommendations for each of these sites.

113. It is recommended that the draft Strategy be made available for public comment for a period of no less than 28 days and that the following Engagement Strategy be endorsed for the purposes of the exhibition of the draft Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy.

114. A report will then be presented to Council on the feedback received during the exhibition phase.


Engagement Strategy

Stakeholders Proposed Action

General Consultation

� Information to be included on Council’s website

� Information to be placed at Council’s Customer Services Centres and in local libraries

� 2 x advertisements to be placed in the local newspaper (1st week of the exhibition and 3rd week of the exhibition)

� Council’s Strategic Planning staff will be available during office

hours to answer telephone and face to face enquiries.

Affected Landowners

� A letter will be sent to all affected property owners within the Hurstville City Centre advising them of the exhibition of the draft Strategy. The letter will advise of the proposed recommendation relating to the affected property as recommended by SJB

� The letter will also advise of Drop-In Sessions which will be available at selected dates and times during the exhibition period.

Drop-in Sessions � A drop in session where the Strategic Planning Staff will be available for a period of 6 days for the following times - Monday – Friday (excluding Thursday) from 10am – 2pm, Thursday from 10am – 7pm and one (1) Saturday between 10am – 1pm. It is proposed that these sessions will be held within a premises within the Hurstville City Centre.

� The information in the draft Strategy will be displayed at the Drop-In and Council Strategic Planning officers will be available to answer questions

� The details of these sessions will be included in the information sent to affected landowners and will be included in advertised material on Council’s website and in the advertisements included in the local newspaper

St George Business Chamber

� Letter sent to the Chamber advising them of the exhibition and making an offer for Council staff to present an overview of the draft Strategy to a Chamber meeting

Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC)

� Presentation made to a future EDAC

� Summary document prepared and distributed to members of the EDAC prior to presentation

Media � Media Release to be sent to the local paper prior to the commencement of the exhibition advising of the exhibition of the draft Strategy


Stakeholders Proposed Action

Internal Council Departments

� Email to relevant stakeholders within Council advising them of the exhibition of the draft Strategy

Next Steps 115. It is recommended that the draft Strategy be placed on public exhibition in accordance with

the Engagement Strategy outlined in the body of the report so as to encourage landowners and other stakeholders to have an opportunity to provide comment and feedback. Landowners will be encouraged to undertake their own analysis on the heights and FSR based on the intent and principles of the Strategy. Prior to finalisation of the strategy further assessment will be undertaken to ensure a “workable relationship” between the proposed FSR and heights.

116. It is also recommended that GHD be appointed to commence an update of the TMAP in accordance with the recommendations outlined and a budget of $85,000 has been allocated to undertake this work.

117. Once the engagement phase has been completed, a further report will be presented to Council. This report will provide an overview of the issues raised during the exhibition phase and may result in further work/studies having to be undertaken.

Financial Implications

118. Within budget allocation - $85,000 has been allocated from the Consultant’s Budget – Strategic Planning Budget.

File Reference 16/1127

ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1

Draft Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy - SJB Architects August 2017

Attachment 2

High Resolution Maps - Figures 1 - 13 (Draft Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy)

Attachment 3

Figure 13 (A3 size) - Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy

Documents

CCL155-17 - Council Report - Draft Hurstville City Centre ... · finalisation of the draft Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy. (c) That if no submissions are received on