Lingard Private Hospital Expansion

See letter attached

I am responding to the Notice of Exhibition as advised in the NSW Government letter dated 3 April 2024.
I am an affected landowner of the proposed development as well as being a daily transit of the area under consideration.
Accordingly, I wish to lodge my OBJECTION to the proposal in its current form.
There are numerous pedestrian and vehicular issues with the sprawling facility as it currently stands and these need addressing. Further development will cause them to be exacerbated.
The intersection of Lingard and Merewether Streets currently has two give ways signs (for vehicles in Merewether Street). This needs to be upgraded to Stop. Further, pedestrians crossing to/from Lingard and Kingsland Precinct whether staff or patient must cross both roads without the benefit of traffic calming measures. In fact patients on gurneys and persons in wheel chairs have been observed being pushed across Merewether Street. I recommend that traffic calming measures of pedestrian crossings, speed bumps and a lower speed limit be mandated. See SLR document Ref 630.30490.00000-R02 Figure 5 Page 9.
The increase in off-street parking in the Hopkins Street precinct is noted however this will only increase the cross Lingard Street foot traffic with the proposed new 15 consulting rooms in the Kingsland Precinct.
The proposed AIRBRIDGE is yet to be tabled for approval and will not address the many staff, patients, visitors, and members of the passing community as they move about this are.
Might I suggest that a full traffic study needs to be made in this regard as a matter of urgency.
I am generally supportive of the improvement to local facilities but it must be in harmony with the local populace. To date the piecemeal development has been ongoing for the past 26 years that we have lived here.
I have not made financial donations to any Local or State political party nor do I have a financial position in relation to this Submission. I fully accept that my details as well as this submission may be placed on the public record.

Object to project - refer to attachment for details.

I have been a resident of Hopkins St since 1995. I hope my knowledge of the area is taken into consideration.
I have several issues with the proposed development.
I do not agree with the Traffic Impact Assessment in several areas.
1 - Section 10 Safety Assessment fails to mention collisions at the roundabout at the intersection of Lingard St and Railway St. I have witnessed 2 collisions since July 2023. In addition I have witness numerous near misses as vehicles race through the roundabout from Lingard St to proceed through the green light at the intersection of Lingard and Glebe Rd. Also there is also limited vision when entering the roundabout from Morgan St due to the fence from a residential property on that corner.
The report also does not allow for the number of people that walk across the entrance of Hopkins St at Lingard St travelling to and from the Prince of Merewether Hotel. I see people every few days that just walk across the road without checking if it safe to do so. I know this is a matter of personal safety but add the increase vehicle numbers, the risk of serious injury will increase. It is my opinion that people assume that as Hopkins St is so narrow that traffic is unlikely. Add to this the occurrence of intoxicated people the risk is increased. The report does not refer to the volume of pedestrian traffic especially of an evening when the hotel is busy.
2- Section 6.1.1 Servicing Considerations, Lingard Private Hospital, Existing Arrangements states that a survey camera was used to obtain information on one day, Thursday 31 March 2022. I have several issues with this. One day is not sufficient to obtain reliable data. The report bases important decisions on that limited observation. Also the observation day was over 2 years ago, in that time vehicle movements would have increased. The report does not state the hours of observation so is it unclear if the impact of customers of the Prince of Merewether Hotel are included. Please refer the point above for comment on the impact of the hotel.
3 - Table 29 Safety Risk Mitigation Measures suggest that traffic would increase in Hopkins St to one vehicle per minute. This is a substantial increase on the current movements and not safe for a narrow street with only a very narrow footpath for pedestrians. In places the footpath width is less then 1m. The suggested mitigation measure of making Hopkins St one way street would greatly affect the residents for which the project seems to have little regard.
4 - Section 9.3.3 Union Street & Hopkins St. The report does not allow for the limited vision from Hopkins St of vehicles exiting from Merewether St onto Union St. The two intersections are a very short distance apart and vision is restricted from Hopkins St due to vegetation on the property on the corner of Hopkins St and Union St and the angle of the intersection of Merewether St with Union St. Once again with the greater traffic flow there is a great possibility of accidents on the corner.
In summary Hopkins St is too narrow and has too many issues to allow this volume of traffic. I have not taken into account the large volume of illegal parking that occurs in the area on a daily basis and adds to numerous issues. Vehicle access from Merewether St which is wider would be far more sensible!
Loss of Housing
5 - The project will result in the loss of approximately 16 townhouses. The townhouses appear to be in good repair and very liveable. In the current housing crisis it seems to be inappropriate to be removed.
6 - Impact on surrounding homes. The height of the development so close to homes is excessive. The housing blocks in the Hopkins St area are very narrow (mostly less than 10m in width) and small due to the history of the area, as a result the impact is greater than in an average residential area. The development has no buffer zone to the residential area so the impact will be prominent. It is an overdevelopment of the site.

We are the owners of 3/11 Merewether Street, Merewether. Our property shares two boundaries (North & West) with the proposed development site.

We would like to share our concerns and request more information in regards to the development. Please find following details about our concerns in the attachments.

No information on if this will devalue my property, no information on traffic increase, no information on improving the already terrible road condition on Hopkins Street. It’s a narrow street already with limited parking which will be even more limited now. Street is basically a one way street as cannot have 2 way traffic, not suitable for a busy hospital. Need someone to speak to me about how this will benefit my property.contact me anytime as last objection no one contacted me.

I am a local resident living in close proximity to the proposed expansion and I object to the development on the grounds that the additional car parking proposed by the proponent is grossly inadequate. The proposal includes an additional 88 beds, 66 staff and 15 health consulting rooms. This means that their will be at least 173 additional cars looking for a car park around the Lingard Hospital and day Surgery centre. The additional 77 car spaces will come from pay for parking arrangement's that are currently under utilised because of the prohibitive cost. I observe every day of the week staff of the Lingard hospital looking for car parks in the street around the hospital. We have regular all day parkers in Dent Street Merewether and they are mostly hospital staff. Only visiting medical officers get free parking at the hospital. The much lower paid nursing and hospital support staff must fight for free parking around our residence by parking in the streets. The staff and people who attend private healthcare such as Lingard hospital, do not travel by bus as the bus service provided is poorly networked, timetabled and utilised in Newcastle. The Glebe Road/Railway Street/ Lingard St roundabout and intersection is over capacity every working day and the proposed development will make a bad intersection worse by increasing traffic density in the area. The proposed development should be refused unless another 100 free car parking spaces are provided. If this renders the development uneconomic on the basis of cost then the proponent should consider moving the proposed development to the West of Newcastle city where the population is growing at a greater rate and where land values and traffic density are much lower.

We object to the Lingard Private Hospital Expansion (SSD-60316710). As long-term residents of Hopkins Street, we have serious concerns about the impact of the proposed Lingard Private Hospital Expansion, particularly on the residential amenity of Hopkins Street. Our key concerns are:

1. The Hopkins Street Precinct building footprint will be built to within 3m of the existing fenceline (the existing building is 6m from the existing fenceline), which we believe is totally out of scale and context for this quiet residential street. The 10m+ tall buildings will be very imposing, presenting either brick walls or worse, car parking louvres, to the street. Our property will be overlooked and overshadowed. The existing units are set back much deeper, with green and pleasant front gardens buffering the buildings from the street.

2. Parking in Hopkins Street is already an issue for residents, with Hospital staff using it for free parking. With additional staff working in the new precinct, and a street address on Hopkins Street for the Genea Fertility Clinic (Google Maps), the parking issues will only get worse. We have been told there will be no additional incentives for staff to use the paid parking rather than street parking once the development is complete.

3. The new lower ground and ground floor parking in the Hopkins Street Precinct will bring 115 new parking spaces, with multiple vehicle movements per day accessing this parking. With cars travelling down Hopkins Street to Tye Road to access the parking, serious safety issues can be predicted. The Junction Public School children use this quiet street to ride and walk to and from school, and with considerable activity at The Prince Hotel and bottle shop, vehicle, pedestrian and cyclist collisions are inevitable as the hospital's plans offer no risk mitigation strategies or even recognition of the increases it will cause.

4. Servicing vehicles will continue to use Tye Road to access the hospital. The danger of these large commercial vehicles and delivery trucks using our quiet residential street, and the noise they already cause, is considerable. Inevitably this will increase exponentially as the hospital grows and more services are required.

5. The landscaping installed around the other new Lingard Hospital developments (particularly on the Lingard Street frontage) is substandard. There are very few significant trees, and the understory planting has not been effectively maintained since installation. Therefore, we have no confidence the landscaping installed in the extremely narrow 3m set back zone on Hopkins Street will offer screening to the building, and a softening effect from the street. While the exhibited landscape plans show an awareness of the visual impact on Hopkins Street, and an attempt to mitigate and soften the imposing new building, budget constraints are likely to adversely affect the landscape elements and planting installed. Landscaping is the last trade on site, and quality and quantity is routinely sacrificed when building costs inevitably blow out.

6. Environmental and heritage considerations, including the city Heat Island effect, increases in the likelihood of flooding events, additional noise affecting the neighbourhood, heritage interpretation (both European and Aboriginal) and place making and public domain improvements do not appear to be a priority. Each of these factors should be integral to any redevelopment proposal. Currently we see little to assure us these important factors will be addressed.

7. The proposed Hopkins Street Precinct will destroy the cohesive social fabric of the street. The units to be demolished are affordable for the area, and prior to the Hospital taking ownership, low turnover meant people renting the units were an integral part of the Hopkins Street community. With the higher rents and resultant high turnover of tenants under Hospital ownership we no longer know our neighbours living in the units, undermining the sense of community and belonging. The expanded hospital will add nothing to the social fabric of the area.

8. It is very disappointing to note 45 of 49 existing trees are to be removed. The effect on fauna will be considerable. While possums and birds are mobile (as noted by the ecologist), this is a highly developed area with minimal scattered vegetation on private properties. There is nowhere for the possums to relocate to, and a significant reduction in the food source for birds. Additionally, retention of the three Melaleuca quniqenervia (Paperbark Trees) on Hopkins Street and the single Date Palm must be a priority. There is contradiction within various exhibited documents, with some noting two of the Paperbarks for retention, and others stating the retention of all three. Protection of the root zones during construction is paramount and must be enforced. ‘Accidental’ damage to root zones is too easy on building sites.

We restate our objection to this proposal by Lingard Hospital. While we understand the need for more medical facilities as the population ages, this must not be at the expense of the existing, long standing residents who have made Hopkins Street their home. The current redevelopment proposal does not address and respect the social and environmental amenity of this residential area, the safety issues arising from significant increases to vehicle movements, and the place making opportunities to alleviate the bulky, overbearing scale of the proposal.

Attachment A – previous submission to Newcastle City Council

Lingard hospital is an amazing hospital and expansion of this hospital in needed for the growing population in Newcastle.

Not necessary & don’t want my view obstructed

At the last expansion of Lingard Hospital the plans showed a car park for staff & visitors. There was no advice that the car park would be a Wilsons Paid Car Parking Station. This car parking facility is rarely used as staff & visitors do not want to pay for their parking. As a result local streets are constantly filled with cars from staff & visitors. I would not object to the proposed expansion if the proposed new car parks are free. If these car spaces will be on a paid basis I would object to the proposal as staff & visitors have demonstrated their reluctance to pay for car parking in the existing car parking station. This should also be made a free car park for staff & visitors to remove vehicles from local streets.

I own a Unit very close to the hospital. Each time the hospital expands, the parking situation in my street greatly deteriorates. Our unit provides parking space however street parking was relied upon to enable friends and family to visit and socialise. I would strongly encourage that adequate parking be an ongoing consideration for the development. I would also like to object to the very complicated requirements to make a comment about your Developments. To me, it makes it very clear that you do not want people to make a submission. If people sent in emails or letters, you should be able to scan them into your Portals without too much difficulty. I think I will protest to the local member about how difficult it has been made for older people to comment on your proposed Developments.

I have viewed the published documents and it is obvious from the start that its preparation has not been carried out with the proper degree of care: the introductory map showing the strategic concept in section 1.2 has two careless spellings-that of John HUNDER (Hunter) and that of Calvary MASTER (Mater) hospitals.
Aside from that, I have two broad concerns:
1. TRAFFIC and PARKING
Public transport in this area is very limited and almost non-existent. Many patients and hospital visitors are aged and have limitedd mobility. Traffic in surrounding and nearby streets has grown considerably since the last extensions of the hospital and further extensions need to cater for ALL hospital traffic-with sufficient parking for internal staff, operational traffic, patients and visitors.
-On-site hospital parking should be plentiful and FREE to encourage use and discourage parking in local congested streets.
-Whilst on-site carparking is proposed, there are no layout plans in the main Lingard plans for the three levels indicated in the elevation drawings.
-During construction, parking needs to be provided ON SITE for all workers and trade people working on site,
-All local streets should have limited short-term paid parking for visitors and free parking for residents.
2. STORMWATER DRAINAGE.
The general area is very flat and has exhibited poor surface drainage of roads in times of intense rainfall. This poor drainage is exacerbated when ocean and river tides are high. The existing strormwater system is already challenged and further loading will result in significant additional flooding. Designers need to take this into account in the design of all structures and ensure that sufficient rainwater detention of runoff is provided so that council's existing underground drainage system is not further overloaded.