Strathfield Comprehensive STRATHFIELD COMPREHENSIVE LEP ... · Strathfield Comprehensive STRATHFIELD COMPREHENSIVE LEP ... Road Corridor Urban Design AUGUST 2010, reviewed February

STRATHFIELDCOMPREHENSIVELEP-PARRAMATTAROADCORRIDOR1StrathfieldComprehensiveLocalEnvironmentalPlanParramattaRoadCorridorUrbanDesign

AUGUST2010,reviewedFebruary2011

StrathfieldComprehensiveLocalEnvironmentalPlanParramattaRoadCorridorUrbanDesign

STRATHFIELDCOMPREHENSIVELEP-PARRAMATTAROADCORRIDOR2

LEPControlInvestigationsScenarioTestingandDevelopmentReport

1. SpatialHierarchy2. UrbanFormandDevelopmentTesting3. Zoning4. FloorSpaceRatios5. Heights6. TransportandParking7. OtherDevelopmentIssues


1.SpatialHierarchyImplicationsarisingfromspecificlocationsandtheirspatialrelationships

OUTCOME:Developingaspatialhierarchythatguidesthelocationofdensity/intensityofusesandbuiltform.


STAGE2

Urban ContextParramatta Road in context of Strathfield, Olympic Park,Flemington, Concord, Lidcombe


STAGE2

High Level StructureThe Basic High Level Road/Rail network structure - Existing settingup the hierarchy of places from Sydney’s movement perspective

M4NorthStrathfield

FlemingtonHomebush

Strathfield

ParramattaRd

HomebushBayDrive


STAGE2

Public Transport StructureThe Basic Public Transport Network Structure - Existing Bus and Rail -setting up a hierarchy of accessible places to Strathfield

NorthStrathfield

FlemingtonHomebush

Strathfield

BUS

458

459

BUS

525

526

BUS

408 BUS

407

483


STAGE2

Land Use StructureThe Basic Land Use Structure - Existingsetting up a hierarchy of land uses in relation to the corridor

NorthStrathfield

FlemingtonHomebush

Strathfield


STAGE2

Street HierarchyBasic Network Structure - Existing and Potential, setting up the basichierarchy of local places that can work with land uses


STAGE2Spatial Structure Principles for the CorridorCentral Place Types, Connection Types - Existing and Proposedwhich give a focus for use/movement density/intensity. The existingcontrols did not recognise any spatial hierarchy.


2.UrbanForm&DevelopmentTestingTestingtheexistingControls,theresultantBuildings,anddothesecreatethedesiredfutureforthearea?Whatchangesareneededtomaketheareawork?

OUTCOME:Developinganappropriatebuiltformresponsetothearea,itsstructure,itsplaces,andalowcarbon,sustainablefuture.


STAGE2Testing the Controls for Urban Form.The existing (proposed) built form under the current LEP/DCP20controls has been modelled and tested to examine whether theoutcomes reflected the intention in the controls for the built form

PARRAMATTAROADCORRIDOR-DCP20REVIEWPROJECT


STAGE23D Modelling of Existing & Proposed DevelopmentTesting the Massing/Built Form Control as approved (building)against the actual control envelope (yellow massing). All D.A.s inthe area were reviewed for the reality of their performance.

PARRAMATTAROADCORRIDOR-DCP20REVIEWPROJECT


STAGE2

The Issue.

The amount of usable green open space in manybuildings in the Parramatta Road Corridor was foundto be minimal. The Landscape Controls wereresulting in developments that did not genuinelycontribute to the amenity for the residents of the newbuildings.

It was found that buildings with horizontal wingstaking the majority of the rear area of thedevelopment lot produced tokenistic open space atbest in terms of usability and amenity. As can beseen here, they are often more of a green drainagepit than open space.

Issue: Poor Quality Open Space in Developments

OneFamily

Manyfamilies

In some instances combined with on site detention,the result was a tiny space more for storing waterthan being usable green space. This is meant to beused by many people. Compare this to the spacethat a single family has available to them in thearea.


STAGE2

In order to address the issue of providing greateramenity for higher density developments in thearea, the concept of shifting the horizontal wingvertically was developed. This frees up space forprivate open space, creating greater amenity forthe development.

Solution: Move part of the building, vertical

The key change for the area is the increase inheight for smaller “tower” type buildings. Withincreased green space, there is also increasedseparation between buildings. There is alsoimproved outlook over larger internal areas ofgreenery, rather than over more buildings andother apartments.


STAGE2

The Issue.

For part of the length of theParramatta Road Corridor, alarge setback was mandated.Now that a development hasbeen built with this, it can beseen that it does not work thatwell, and can be very poorlydesigned. As it is private space,it has hard to maintain controlover, as against if it was publicspace.

Issue: Poor Quality Frontages in Developments

The other aspect of poor qualityfrontage came from the actualdesign quality of developments,and how the building addressesthe street. Many buildings builthave blind frontages or havevery few entries and shopfronts,that overall do not contribute tothe streetscape, nor to activityon the street, compared to theold style, or historic shopfronts.

On the Gehl scale, thesefrontages would be classified astype “C” or type “D,’ which do notproduce very good results forstreetlife, activity, and safety andsecurity. It is recommended thatthe standard be set at “A” in corelocations, then “B” and then “C” atthe edges. Also thesetback is removed.


STAGE2

The Issue.

With Climate Change, Peak Oil,Carbon Minimisation and all theassociated issues withResource Depletion, the builtform needs to be one that isrobust, adaptable, and one thathas a sustainable operation,that has good natural light andventilation.

Issue: Sustainable Built Form

The original controls did seekthis, however, many applicationswent beyond the controls,producing buildings that havedoubtful sustainabilityperformance. Thus the testing ofFSR and Height has born in mindthe need for sustainablebuildings.

As can be seen from these twoexamples, buildings have beenbuilt much thicker than thecontrols permit, which reducestheir sustainability - their abilityfor natural ventilation and naturallight penetration. This also hasimpacted upon the amount ofuseable open space on each lot,which is tokenistic.


STAGE2

Each Site has been tested for Built Form ParametersFSR, Height, Building Width/Depth, etc.


STAGE2

Each Site has been tested forBuilt Form ParametersFSR, Height, Building Width/Depth, etc.


STAGE2Each Site has been tested for Built Form ParametersIncluding how each of these, FSR, Height, Building Width/Depth, etc.,might vary under the premises of the controls, if flexibility isintroduced in the supporting DCP for building width/depth.


STAGE2The effect of the change.The existing (proposed) built form under the current LEP/DCP20controls has been modelled and tested to examine whether theoutcomes reflected the intention in the controls for the built form


STAGE2

Spatially-appropriate outcomes, recognisingaccessibility and centrality


3.Zoning:ReviewofExistingLandUses&Implicationsofwiderlandusestudies


STAGE2

Residential Land Use StudyThis study makes specificrecommendations that affect thedesignation of possible land usezones within the study area.

Economic Land Use StudyThis study makes specificrecommendations that affect thedesignation of possible land usezones within the study area Theplacement of zones does notreflect the spatial structure of thearea, nor how the existing landuse structure works.


STAGE2

There are significant differences between the Economic and Residential Land Use Studies in the zoning thatthey propose for the various areas across the DCP20 Review area.

The Economic Land Use Study has taken convenient straight lines to define different land use zones, withoutany close examination of what the land uses are on those lots, and how the broad land economics is workingon those lots. Also, it has not examined the network structure, nor the spatial structure, to assist indetermining likely optimal land use locations. This is a serious deficiency, as the combination of spatiallocation and existing land use influences the values, and hence the appropriateness of different buildingtypes (according to land use). For example, given the relatively high value of land in the area, lower valueindustrial/employment uses/buildings would not necessarily be able to replace the existing residences, wherethe Economic Land Use Study has recommended this change of use in Derowie Street which has areasonable amenity. On the other hand, in Telopea Street, where there is already industrial in the street, withpoorer amenity, it may be possible to change uses. It is also noted that there is significant employment usesalong Parramatta Road, where a pure residential zone is proposed. These road frontage lots that have directaccess to a major artery

For the limited blocks that the Residential Land Use Study identifies, they have taken a much closer view ofthe nature of the blocks.

These two studies have significant conflict in their zoning proposals. The lack of spatial understanding inhibitsthe Economic Study, and does not lead to confidence in their zoning recommendations.

Key Differences between the Economic and Residential Land Use Studies


STAGE2

Key Differences between the Economic and Residential Land Use Studies


STAGE2

DCP20 Review has examined each lot within the Parramatta Road Corridor in detail, modelling the potentialurban form, and testing development scenarios and the possible land uses that may occur within the lot, atthe different levels of the building, and on the different street faces. The nature of the spatial structure, asinfluenced by the street network is fundamental to how land uses are naturally generated, without theinfluence of planning. This is critical, as this is spatial economics in its purest form, allowing appropriate landuses to occur where the movement economy supports them. In detailed studies of cities, it has been clearlyfound that each street face on a different hierarchy results in different land uses being generated, whichsupports an increased diversity of potential land uses in any one area. The DCP20 Review has taken thisprinciple of natural economic hierarchy and applied it to the built form, and hence the zoning. What has beenfound is that the existing zoning “zones” are too crude and not finely enough tuned to enable an appropriatestatutory guiding of this natural type of development.

Quite broadly, there is general agreement between the Residential Land Use Study, and the DCP20 Reviewon zones, and their location. There is minor agreement between the DCP20 Review and the Economic LandUse Study on zones, as previously outlined.

The justifications for the choice of zone locations is given over the page.

Key Differences between the Economic and Residential Land Use Studies andthe DCP20 Review


STAGE2

DCP20 Review Proposed Zones:These are based upon the spatial structure, the movement economyof the street network, and the resultant spatial economics


STAGE2

Land Use StructureThe Basic Land Use Structure - Existing setting up ahierarchy of land uses in relation to the corridor


STAGE2

DCP20 Review Proposed Zones:The central corridor is a Mixed Use Zone.

The central Parramatta Road Corridor isan Economic Corridor, as recognised bythe Metropolitan Strategy and the SubRegional Strategy. Thus, given themovement economy generateseconomic activity*, this corridor is betterdesignated as a Mixed Use Zone,transitioning into an Enterprise Corridorat the western end.

*The spatial interaction of people moving in allmodes, against the land uses of the corridor,generates economic activity through accessibility,proximity, and opportunity.


STAGE2

DCP20 Review Proposed Zones:The cross corridors as Mixed Use Zones.

There are three key cross movementcorridors that interact with the centralEconomic Corridor. Thus, given how themovement economy generates economicactivity on cross corridors, these corridorare better designated as Mixed UseZones, transitioning into Residential.However, because the B4 zone allows forBulky Goods, etc., this will carry over intothe lower order cross-movement corridors,with mixed-uses in the R4 along thesecorridors continuing as a lower ordermixed use zone.


STAGE2

DCP20 Review Proposed Zones:Using the Mixed Use Zone as a Buffer between the Special Uses/Enterprise Zones and a Residential Zone.

The best place to change use zones isusually along a rear/ mid boundary, whichis the general principle adhered to in theDCP20 Review. However, between somezones, such as the intense EnterpriseZone, and a Residential Zone, there needsto be a “buffer” zone, where the built formcan also act as a transition. In this casehaving ground/first level commercial withresidential over fronting residential.


STAGE2

DCP20 Review Proposed Zones:The Mixed Use Zone as the Urban Centre Zone for Homebush North.

With the majority of the commercial andemployment zoning with the area beingMixed Use, it makes sense to form thecommercial focus for Homebush Northwith the Mixed Use Zone, allowing keyblocks to have commercial opportunitiesclose to public transport.


STAGE2

DCP20 Review Proposed Zones:The Quieter areas away from the main corridors are ideal forResidential, and are in locations are not ideal for commercial.

The remaining back areas, away fromthe movement economy of the mainstreets and secondary cross movementstreets are well suited to residential uses.They are only a short walk away fromemployment, transport and retail/servicesyet their spatial position ensures thatthey are protected from the busyness ofthe movement corridors.


STAGE2

This plan is future looking, and is not seeking to codify what exists, but what is desired for the future. As setout on the previous pages, the approach to the allocation of zones has been generated out of the spatialstructure and street network interacting with the existing land uses and movement patterns, as well as thedesired ones for the future:1. The core corridor is identified as mixed use, as it represents the strongest movement economy;2. The key cross corridors will also be influenced by the movement economy, either now or in the future, andthus should be mixed use - unfortunately there is no gradient in mixed use zones, otherwise these would be alower order mixed use zone, thus R4 is used.3. The area adjacent to the Enterprise Corridor and Special Uses - Produce Market Zones needs to be atransition zone, in which both the built form and the use act as a transition from the more intense commercialuses and their externalities to the quieter residential pockets that have been identified, thus B4 is used here,as that enables a better transition than R4.4. The Homebush Centre, north, is a defined area that provides for several blocks being the commercial andemployment focus for Homebush.It is noted that along the rear laneway, within the residential area, there is a 12m zone for R4 mixed use thatallows lower order businesses, workshops to exist as live-work situations.

Outside of this, there are left a number of quieter, back areas that become well suited to becomingResidential, as they lack the potential arising from the movement economy to generate active commercialfrontages. However, active residential frontages will ensure that the area has amenity and activity.

The DCP20 Review Approach to Allocation of Zones


3.FloorSpaceRatios:ReviewofStudiesandBuiltFormrecommendations

OUTCOME:WhatsetofFSRsgivesthebestoutcomesforthearea,andrepresentstheoptimalappropriatelocationforrelativedensity.


STAGE2

Recommended ultimate FSRs for key sites/non-key sites:based on modelling the 3D form of potential development


Background Land Use Studies: FSR RecommendationsThe Residential Land Use Study makes specific recommendations that affect the allocation of possibleFSRs within the study area. It only examined some locations, without 3D modelling or capacity testing.The Economic Land Use Study made no recommendations that affect thedesignation of possible FSRs within the study area.


STAGE2

Key Differences between DCP20 Review andthe Residential Land Use Study

*14

*1 *2

*3

*4*5

*8


STAGE2

Overall Difference.DCP20 Review has examined each lot within the Parramatta Road Corridor in detail, modelling the potential urbanform, testing of FSRs across the area in multiple scenarios, examining the interaction between the proposed built form,heights, open space and comparing that to the current built form and its estimated FSRs, whereas the ResidentialStudy has examined areas more generally.

Residential Study Area 1.A key difference is a boundary is drawn differently between the two FSR areas. As part of the detailed investigations,site amalgamations were investigated to see which lots were optimal to amalgamate into development parcels. This lotboundary reflects this investigation, and represents the stepping down, spatially, from the higher order area atParramatta Road, stepping down along Bridge Road, and lower still to the background areas.

Residential Study Area 2.There is only a small difference in FSR between the DCP20 Review and the Residential Land Use Study of only0.05:1. Across the entire area, consistency in FSR is sought, allowing for a stepping down from central places withinthe corridor, reinforcing the hierarchy. The actual FSR numbers reflected particular sites that had a defined capacity inthe area, thus the 2.25:1 comes from capacity testing through the 3D modelling.

Residential Study Area 3.The difference for this location comes from the Review’s distinct spatial vision for the area, with its resulting designtested urban form, that has generated the range of FSRs used. Thus this section of Bridge Road is set at 2.5:1, beingclose to the proposed Residential Study FSR of 2.45:1. This reflects the aim to minimise the number of FSR stepswithin the area, and have a consistent approach to how these step down.

Residential Study Area 4.The approach taken was to establish a local hierarchy of places. One such place was identified as the intersection ofBridge and Parramatta Roads. Development potential along with height and FSR would step down from this locationwith the strongest urban form lining Parramatta Road and secondary urban form lining Bridge Road. The differencebetween the Residential Study and the Review here is the Review ‘s distinct spatial vision for the area, with clearresulting urban form that has been design tested, generating a range of FSRs, asnoted previously. Thus this section of Bridge Road steps down from 2.5:1 to 2.25:1.The second FSR being close to the proposed Residential Study FSR of 2:1.

Key Differences between DCP20 Review and the Residential Land Use Study


STAGE2

Residential Study Area 5.The difference for this location between the Residential Study and the DCP20 Review, is that the DCP20 Review isworking from a distinct spatial vision for the area, with clear resulting urban form that has been design tested, that hasgenerated the range of FSRs used, as noted previously. Thus this section of Loftus Crescent is set at 2.25:1, beingclose to the proposed Residential Study FSR of 2:1. This reflects the aim to minimise the number of FSR steps withinthe area, and have a consistent approach to how these step down across the area from a node or corridor, in this casealong Loftus Crescent, away from Bridge Street.

Residential Study Area 8.A core aim of the DCP20 review was to achieve a consistent urban form, one that represented the spatal location, aswell as the proposed built form across the area. In the case of this area, achieving consistent built form at theintersection of Park and Parramatta Road, ie the 6 & 4 storey street walls resulted at this intersection in a much higherFSR than the lots that can only achieve one street wall building. Thus it was decided that as this was a continuation ofcentral Homebush area, it could potentially accommodate a higher FSR, 3.15:1 and the remainder of the site wouldstep down to the next FSR step of 2.95:1. In general, these average out at 3:1 across this area, thus this reasonablyconsistent, but design tested to circumstances of the lots.

Residential Study Area 14.The Residential Study sets a consistent FSR across this area of 2.7:1. For the majority of this area, this is notdisagreed with in the DCP20 Review. The DCP20 Review did take note that there is a continuation of George Streetproposed into this area, and this in effect is a continuation of the Bakehouse Quarter, which has a centre designation ofa “Village” under the Inner West Sub Regional Strategy, the highest in the immedaite area. Thus it was considered thatthis immediate continuation of George Street should represent a step up to the Bakehouse Quarter. Thus the next stepup in FSR, 2.95:1 was set for this area, recognising that the Bakehouse Quarter itself would step up from this with itscontrols.



STAGE2

Existing FSRs based on the Built Form Controls:based on modelling the 3D form of proposed development.


STAGE2

Recommended FSRs:Average increase by Block from DCP20 FSR to recommended FSR


4.Heights:Urbanformreviewrecommendations;Implicationsofwiderlandusestudies


STAGE2

Height: A Section of the building is vertical


STAGE2

DCP20 Review Recommended Height ZonesThese have been based on detailed built form modelling


STAGE2

Urban Form Review Recommended Height ExceptionsTo deal with Open Space/Liveability Issues, Vertical Wingswere developed as a solution over horizontal wings.


STAGE2

Residential Land Use StudyThis study makes specific recommendationsthat affect the designation of possibleheights within the study area. Onlyexamining some locations.

Economic Land Use StudyThis study makes norecommendations that affect thedesignation of possible heightswithin the study area.


STAGE2

Overall Difference.DCP20 Review has examined each lot within the Parramatta Road Corridor in detail, modelling the potential urbanform, and testing development scenarios, whereas the Residential Study has examined areas more generally.

The Residential Land Use Study generally recommended a range of heights for any particular area that it wasexamining. The DCP20 Review, tested a range of built forms, to examine both the FSR and Height implications ofdiffering combinations of building type/form and height. This was in the context of an identified spatial hierarchy, thatset the key places where there was to be either higher buildings, but more likely, more dense urban form.

Quite broadly, there is general agreement between the Residential Land Use Study, and the DCP20 Review on height.The DCP20 Review sees the predominant height as the Street Wall Building, with the exception being the vertical wing.The vertical wing is a vertical projection above the street wall building, in place of a horizontal wing that takes upvaluable private open space that is needed in dense urban areas, such as this one. This issue was raised through adetailed examination of all past DAs approved under the current DCP20, as well as an on-site inspection of eachdevelopment. It was recognised that only token open space was being provided, in the main unusable, poorly designedand placed. Thus it was considered that the nature of the building footprint needed to be changed to facilitate betterprivate open space in these developments. This has meant that the vertical wing, in some instances may exceed theResidential Land Use Study’s recommendations.



5.Transport&ParkingTraffic,TransportandParkingissuesarisingoutofincreaseddevelopmentanddensity


STAGE2

Spatial Structure Principles for the CorridorCentral Places, Connections - Existing and ProposedThe new north-south bridge over the M4 is an important link


STAGE2

Public Transport StructureThe Basic Public Transport Network Structure - Existingsetting up a hierarchy of accessible places to Strathfield

NorthStrathfield

FlemingtonHomebush

Strathfield

BUS

458

459

BUS

525

526

BUS

408 BUS

407

483


STAGE2

Transport and Traffic:With the increase in Density and Employment Potential, therewill come an increase in demand for car access. It is proposedthat this be managed and limited. It is noted that to managevehicle access, there needs to be a gentle spreading of trafficinstead of highly concentrating it in a few traffic conduits. Thus,the new bridge over the M4 will increase higher level connectionsand will help spread the traffic load.


STAGE2

This plan is future looking, and is not seeking to codify what exists, but what is desired for the future.

It is recognised that with any increase in density, there is an increase in demand for car access. It is alsorecognised that most urban areas cannot handle the average increase that is usually generated by highdensity development, unless some of the demand for movement choice is handled by other modes, or otherchoices of mode - walking, cycling, bus and train. As this area is served by 3 railway stations and one centralbus route from Olympic Park to Strathfield, with a potential route down Parramatta Road, this area has thepotential for a high degree of accessibility from the local area to key places in and around the area foremployment, recreation, shopping, schools and the like. With local services provided within walking distancewithin the corridor, it becomes feasible for there to be a limit on how many new cars per apartment or perXsqm of commercial floorspace are allowed within a development. Thus it is considered that there will needto be a limit of 1 car per apartment.

Also, when a Residential or Mixed Use development is located within 400m of both a railway station and atrunk bus route, it is feasible to allow car-free developments, where there is no car parking allowed within thedevelopment, and no allowed car parking on the street for this development. Demand for car use is met byhaving a Car Share facility on site, along with good bicycle facilities within the development. This has provenfeasible elsewhere in Australia, and overseas, and thus is a proven approach. This also goes somewaytowards addressing affordability as well, as not needing to provide car parking saves considerableconstruction costs.

The DCP20 Review Approach to Traffic


STAGE2

To meet the wider needs, good quality bicycle paths would be developed from the area to Olympic Park, thekey schools within the wider area, and Strathfield Town Centre and possibly through to Burwood andRhodes.

The footpaths would be upgraded, and key green linkages designed to encourage walking within the area.

In addition to car-free buildings, there is the potential for buildings to have some apartments with no carparking, while others have some, where the car parking place is purchased separately from the apartment.

The bus frequency would be increased to 6 buses per hour, one every ten minutes in order to ensure thatresidents do not need to worry about a timetable in order to catch a bus to key destinations.

It is also recognised that the majority of the corridor is within a reasonable walking distance to one of threetrain stations, although the north western sector of the corridor has the greatest distance from any station anddoes not have direct access as the Markets site forms a barrier to direct movement to the station.

The DCP20 Review Approach to Traffic


6.OtherDevelopmentIssues:Services,Utilities,PublicSpace…


STAGE2

This is an area that fragmented ownership. The review has taken this into account when designing anddeveloping the controls for the area.

Other issues that have come up during the process of examining this area in detail has been how to movethis area to a Low-Carbon future. The form of energy and utilities that will be needed will be different today.There will also be increased demand for these utilities, including water, and thus an area wide approachcould be developed to co-ordinate these, a central utilities framework. This will be needed to ensure that allservices, including waste, are managed as scare resources, and the maximum value is extracted from them,in order to minimise carbon generation.

Access to education, sports, and regional level open space is not a great issue in this area, given theproximity of Sydney Olympic Park and its facilities, as well as the open spaces at Mason Park, and all theschools within easy public transport distance of this area. What will need to be considered is the capacity ofthese facilities, and the increase from the expected growth in population for this area, will need to be factoredin, in terms of the long terms plans for these places and facilities.

With the growth in employment opportunities in the corridor itself, and adjacent areas, includingBakehouse Quarter, Sydney Olympic Park, Flemington and Strathfield, there will be more than enough scopefor employment to be provided locally. The same applies to retail and services, with all of these centres.

Other issues raised in the review.

Documents

Strathfield Comprehensive STRATHFIELD COMPREHENSIVE LEP ... · Strathfield Comprehensive STRATHFIELD COMPREHENSIVE LEP ... Road Corridor Urban Design AUGUST 2010, reviewed February