Northern Beaches Hospital Concept & Stage 1

1.destruction of local amenity.
Air pollution, noise pollution, overflow parking in residential streets. Light pollution at night. Loss of bush land and it's air cleaning function.
2. Traffic and transport problems.
- wakehurst parkway and warringah rd already at/beyond capacity. Wakehurst parkway can be closed by flooding. Intersection at hospital site gridlocked everyday. No planned public transport. Substantial additional traffic (ambulances, staff, patients, visitors, suppliers.)
3. Environmental issues.
Destruction of wildlife corridors. Loss of habitat for wildlife. Destruction of one unique area of native forest and wildlife that cannot be redeemed.
4.Health services distribution.
Provision of public beds insufficient, private hospitals focus on profits, not provision of health care for all. Centralising for administrative convenience does not provide health care where needed. Loss of existing public community hospitals at Mona vale and Manly. Proximity of new 10 storey hospital to newly built royal north shore hospital (duplication of services).

Northern Beaches Hospital

We wish to voice our objection to the state significant infrastructure application for the northern Beaches Hospital. We set out our objections below.

Site suitability

The site is not suitable for the proposed development. Access to the site is constrained by flooding on the Wakehurst Parkway. The traffic impacts of the proposed development have not been assessed in the EIS at all. There is no proposed solutions to alleviate the traffic impacts in circumstances when the development is likely to generate significant additional traffic movements.

In addition, the site is located in a predominantly residential area and it contains significant endangered ecological communities.


Traffic

The level of information in relation to the traffic impacts of the proposed development is inadequate. The EIS provides that there is a working group finalising the traffic and transport planning work to support the Northern Beaches hospital. Without this information provided during the time of submissions there cannot be a proper assessment of the environmental impact of this hospital.

If this Application is determined prior to this information being made publicly available, in our view, there will be a high risk of legal challenge on the grounds of failing to take into account a relevant consideration. Once this information is available, the project should be publicly exhibited again to ensure that the public have the opportunity to comment on the proposed plans and that a proper assessment can be made by the determining authority.

The Wakehurst Parkway (one of the main proposed routes to the hospital) and floods significantly during heavy rainfall. It is inappropriate to locate and emergency facility such as a hospital in a location where access is constrained.

The development will contribute to further congestion on local roads and the wider road network from hospital traffic. The potential impacts of this issue have not been properly assessed beyond stating that the existing situation is "generally poor" and that the surrounding intersections are performing on the worst Level of Service. Without provision of any information in relation to the proposed traffic solutions, this concept proposal must be assessed as though the existing traffic network will not be changed despite the substantial increase to the number of vehicles that this development will generate. Undertaking such an assessment must lead to a refusal of the development. It would be improper for a consent authority to consent to the concept proposal without proper assessment of this issue. In our view, such an assessment cannot be made on the information currently publicly available.

Prior to choosing this as the Site, this analysis should have been undertaken.

Parking

The EIS envisages the site will contain 1000 employees. The detail of parking is not included in the EIS. Public transport links to the site need to be improved.
Parking should be minimised to restrict traffic congestion and there should be no parking (through appropriate signage and inspectors) in the surrounding streets (except for residents) to preserve residential amenity and reduce traffic congestion.

Design, height and setback

The height of the proposed development is too high for the surrounding residential uses (that have an existing height of 1-2 storeys). The proposed hospital will affect the residential amenity of the surrounding area. There has not been an adequate visual impact assessment undertaken.

The building mass of 6 to 10 storeys excluding plant is too high in the location, particularly along Frenchs Forest Road.

A greater setback along Frenchs Forest Road and the school boundary should be provided.

The overall proposed GFA should be reduced to take into account the surrounding open space and existing residential nature of the site.
In addition, the amount of floor space dedicated to non-core hospital uses such as car parking and retail should be specified in the EIS. Without this information, it is difficult to make a proper assessment of the environmental impacts of the development. Maximum GFA calculations for all uses should be specified in the concept proposal.

The EIS states that the need for the hospital is driven by the size of Manly and Mona Vale hospital, which are both public hospitals. However the northern Beaches Hospital is proposing a public and private hospital. Perhaps the size of the proposed development could be reduced if the private hospital component was removed.

Without the hospital operator known, there is insufficient information available to the consent authority to determine the adequacy of the operational aspects of the hospital.



Endangered Ecological Community

The site contains significant endangered ecological ecological communities. It is proposed to remove 4.9 hectares of this important vegetation. In our view to remove this vegetation is contrary to the principles of ecological sustainable development, in particular, the principles of intergenerational equity and the preservation of biological diversity.

It is inappropriate to attempt to offset this area with land at Belrose.

Having lived in the vicinity of the site for over 30 years, we can attest to the fact that this is a significant wildlife corridor. We regularly see native fauna in our garden. To remove vital habitat in this area is unconscionable.

Cumulative impacts

The cumulative impacts of the development and supporting road works and other proposed developments has not been assessed at all in the EIS. This is an essential matter, the assessment of which cannot be deferred.

ESD

The EIS does not contain any detailed analysis of the principles of ecologically sustainable development, being a key objective of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. This is a particular important consideration given the proposed destruction of endangered ecological community and important habitat for other animals, including threatened species. In addition, the EIS proposes to defer essential considerations relating to traffic to a later time.

Consultation

It is noted that no specific consultation has been undertaken with the EPA. This is inadequate particularly in light of the impacts identified on the endangered ecological community.

Site preparation works construction hours

The EIS attempts to defer for later consideration "by the Managing Contractor" the extension of construction hours on Saturdays. This adversely impacts on the amenity of nearby residential areas.

Noise

The clearing will create substantial noise impacts for the school and residents. It is noted that the EIS states that "excessive use of respite periods should be avoided as they would simply prolong the duration of works". In our view, this is inappropriate without other specific mitigation measures applied.

In addition, we note that there has not been a proper assessment of the noise impacts of the development including from helicopters, ambulances and cars.

For the above reasons, in our view, this application should be refused.

Northern Beaches Hospital

We wish to voice our objection to the state significant infrastructure application for the northern Beaches Hospital. We set out our objections below.

Site suitability

The site is not suitable for the proposed development. Access to the site is constrained by flooding on the Wakehurst Parkway. The traffic impacts of the proposed development have not been assessed in the EIS at all. There is no proposed solutions to alleviate the traffic impacts in circumstances when the development is likely to generate significant additional traffic movements.

In addition, the site is located in a predominantly residential area and it contains significant endangered ecological communities.


Traffic

The level of information in relation to the traffic impacts of the proposed development is inadequate. The EIS provides that there is a working group finalising the traffic and transport planning work to support the Northern Beaches hospital. Without this information provided during the time of submissions there cannot be a proper assessment of the environmental impact of this hospital.

If this Application is determined prior to this information being made publicly available, in our view, there will be a high risk of legal challenge on the grounds of failing to take into account a relevant consideration. Once this information is available, the project should be publicly exhibited again to ensure that the public have the opportunity to comment on the proposed plans and that a proper assessment can be made by the determining authority.

The Wakehurst Parkway (one of the main proposed routes to the hospital) and floods significantly during heavy rainfall. It is inappropriate to locate and emergency facility such as a hospital in a location where access is constrained.

The development will contribute to further congestion on local roads and the wider road network from hospital traffic. The potential impacts of this issue have not been properly assessed beyond stating that the existing situation is "generally poor" and that the surrounding intersections are performing on the worst Level of Service. Without provision of any information in relation to the proposed traffic solutions, this concept proposal must be assessed as though the existing traffic network will not be changed despite the substantial increase to the number of vehicles that this development will generate. Undertaking such an assessment must lead to a refusal of the development. It would be improper for a consent authority to consent to the concept proposal without proper assessment of this issue. In our view, such an assessment cannot be made on the information currently publicly available.

Prior to choosing this as the Site, this analysis should have been undertaken.

Parking

The EIS envisages the site will contain 1000 employees. The detail of parking is not included in the EIS. Public transport links to the site need to be improved.
Parking should be minimised to restrict traffic congestion and there should be no parking (through appropriate signage and inspectors) in the surrounding streets (except for residents) to preserve residential amenity and reduce traffic congestion.

Design, height and setback

The height of the proposed development is too high for the surrounding residential uses (that have an existing height of 1-2 storeys). The proposed hospital will affect the residential amenity of the surrounding area. There has not been an adequate visual impact assessment undertaken.

The building mass of 6 to 10 storeys excluding plant is too high in the location, particularly along Frenchs Forest Road.

A greater setback along Frenchs Forest Road and the school boundary should be provided.

The overall proposed GFA should be reduced to take into account the surrounding open space and existing residential nature of the site.
In addition, the amount of floor space dedicated to non-core hospital uses such as car parking and retail should be specified in the EIS. Without this information, it is difficult to make a proper assessment of the environmental impacts of the development. Maximum GFA calculations for all uses should be specified in the concept proposal.

The EIS states that the need for the hospital is driven by the size of Manly and Mona Vale hospital, which are both public hospitals. However the northern Beaches Hospital is proposing a public and private hospital. Perhaps the size of the proposed development could be reduced if the private hospital component was removed.

Without the hospital operator known, there is insufficient information available to the consent authority to determine the adequacy of the operational aspects of the hospital.



Endangered Ecological Community

The site contains significant endangered ecological ecological communities. It is proposed to remove 4.9 hectares of this important vegetation. In our view to remove this vegetation is contrary to the principles of ecological sustainable development, in particular, the principles of intergenerational equity and the preservation of biological diversity.

It is inappropriate to attempt to offset this area with land at Belrose.

Having lived in the vicinity of the site for over 30 years, we can attest to the fact that this is a significant wildlife corridor. We regularly see native fauna in our garden. To remove vital habitat in this area is unconscionable.

Cumulative impacts

The cumulative impacts of the development and supporting road works and other proposed developments has not been assessed at all in the EIS. This is an essential matter, the assessment of which cannot be deferred.

ESD

The EIS does not contain any detailed analysis of the principles of ecologically sustainable development, being a key objective of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. This is a particular important consideration given the proposed destruction of endangered ecological community and important habitat for other animals, including threatened species. In addition, the EIS proposes to defer essential considerations relating to traffic to a later time.

Consultation

It is noted that no specific consultation has been undertaken with the EPA. This is inadequate particularly in light of the impacts identified on the endangered ecological community.

Site preparation works construction hours

The EIS attempts to defer for later consideration "by the Managing Contractor" the extension of construction hours on Saturdays. This adversely impacts on the amenity of nearby residential areas.

Noise

The clearing will create substantial noise impacts for the school and residents. It is noted that the EIS states that "excessive use of respite periods should be avoided as they would simply prolong the duration of works". In our view, this is inappropriate without other specific mitigation measures applied.

In addition, we note that there has not been a proper assessment of the noise impacts of the development including from helicopters, ambulances and cars.

For the above reasons, in our view, this application should be refused.

I disagree that the Northern Beaches Hospital is the best solution for the growing healthcare needs of the area.

Firstly, I feel that the proposed public/private ownership model will not improve the coverage of public healthcare A private hospital owner has a commercial interest which could potentially reduce the level of care available to patients.

In addition, the location of the hospital is of significant environmental value to the local area, and of NSW. As a wildlife corridor , the loss of Duffy's Forest would a break in the chain between existing environmental areas, such as Garigal National Park and Narrabeen Lagoon.

Lastly, in the surrounding coverage of the hospital, there has not been adequate concern given to the traffic issues surrounding the hospital if it were to go ahead. It is placing a hospital next to a regular traffic jam. Routinely, ambulances that travel on the Wakehurst Parkway, routinely jump between the lanes of a two-lane road. In addition, currently there is little public transport to the site and the specifics surrounding the links between the hospital and public transport is yet to be considered in public.

Whilst this may seem fait accompli to some, there are real concerns that have been raised by the community and hopefully will be addressed by this process

I object to the Concept Proposal for the site on the following basis:

Traffic Considerations
Hospital traffic will contribute further to congestion on local roads, and the wider road network, which are regularly at gridlock in peak times.
The inability of the transport network to cope with increased traffic could place constraints on the hospital's operations.
HI, TfNSW and RMS have not yet developed a preferred solution for supporting roadworks.
It is not reasonable to approve the Concept Proposal and start preliminary siteworks until a traffic solution is prepared and approved.
The risk of the current approval process is that in a worst case scenario a suitable traffic solution will not be found, causing greater travel times on the road network and impacted hospital operations if the hospital goes ahead. If it is decided not to proceed with the hospital if suitable traffic solutions cannot be found, the economic and environmental cost of preliminary site works will already be borne. Either way, it is inappropriate to approve the Concept Proposal until a suitable traffic solution can be approved.
The main entrance and potential road widening on Frenchs Forest Road West is not compatible with the residential nature of this area, nor is it compatible with children accessing the neighbouring Forest High and is extremely dangerous. The main entrance should be from Warringah Road.
Once again, it seems unreasonable that access design principles, such as the location of the main entrance to the hospital, can be agreed with TfNSW and RMS until a traffic solution is approved.

Amenity
The site is currently zoned R2 Low Density Residential and RE1 Public Recreation. Over generations people have moved into this area based on this zoning. The bulk and scale of the hospital is completely incompatible with what is currently allowed in this area - a maximum of 2 storeys.
It will result in loss of amenity to surrounding residents.
Masterplanning for the site has determined an acceptable height for the hospital of 10 storeys (40m) based on the Frenchs Forest Specialised Centre State Significant Site Study prepared by Cox Richardson in 2010 for DP&I and HI. As this proposal was abandoned in 2011 following extensive public opposition it is inconceivable that this is an appropriate standard for the scale of the development. Appropriate building height should be far more sensitive to existing uses.

I oppose the State Significant Infrastructure Application No 5982 for the Northern Beaches Hospital and the clearing of bushland for the hospital in Frenchs Forest for environmental and social reasons:
* Destruction of irreplaceable wildlife corridors 1) between Narrabeen Lagoon Catchment (Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park) to Manly Dam and 2) Narrabeen Catchment and Forestville Park ( Garigal National Park)
* Destruction of pristine and regenerating forest, with unique diversity of flora
* Destruction of the largest southern stand of well-preserved Duffy's Forest Ecological Community
* Death for wildlife, e.g. swamp wallabies, sugar gliders, powerful owl
* I oppose `Environmental Offsets' on principle: The destruction of one pristine area of native forest and its wildlife cannot be remedied by preserving bushland in another unconnected location.
* 10-storey building with overshadowing
* Eyesore on hilltop location
* Loss of bushland and its air cleaning function
* Air pollution from increased traffic
* Noise pollution from helicopter, ambulance and cars
* Overflow parking in residential streets
* Light pollution at night
* Warringah and Wakehurst Parkway Roads already at or beyond capacity
* Intersection at hospital site gridlocked every day
* Planned population increase on Northern Beaches (e.g. Warriewood) which will increase problems
* Substantial additional traffic (expert's estimate 10,000 per day!): ambulances, staff, patients, visitors, suppliers, waste...etc.
* No public transport planned
* Provision of public beds insufficient for future populations
* Privatising hospitals, focuses on profits, not provision of health care for all.
* Centralising for administrative convenience, does not provide health care where needed, e.g. Mona Vale and Manly.
* Loss of existing public community hospitals
* Proximity of new large hospital to existing Royal North Shore hospital
(duplication of services)
With this submission I request that this Development Application be referred to PAC (Planning Assessment Committee)

I object to a 6 to 10 storey building being put in an environment where nothing near that height is currently in existence. Whatever the design, it will be an eyesore. This is a family suburb with plenty of green areas and I do not wish its character to be so drastically changed by a badly placed hospital.
Our house backs on to the lovely bushland on the north east corner of Wakehurst parkway and Frenchs Forest Rd and this development will ruin this beautiful natural environment. In fact at the Community Consultation meeting, my husband asked Brad Hazzard why that bushland had suddenly been included on the development plans and Brad told him that although he wasn't supposed to talk about that, they would probably have to build a road through that bushland while the hospital was being built to assist with traffic flow. This would be an absolute natural disaster.
My neighbour, who has lived in her house for more than 40 years, told me that when they upgraded the crossing at Wakehurst Parkway and Frenchs Forest Rd and put traffic lights there, they had surveyors come around to the houses along this side of the street to see what damage occurred to the houses by all the excavation etc at the intersection. My neighbour told me that after the upgrade they found tiles cracked in their bathroom and other evidence that the works had damaged their houses. I can only imagine what effect the more intense building work will have on this row of houses.
I also object to the development on the grounds that we are being asked to consult when there seem to be no clear plans on the exact nature of the hospital. The only definite is that the infrastructure in the area cannot support the extra traffic etc that would be a result of having a hospital here. As it is, living at the intersection of Nandi Ave and Bimbadeen Crescent, I have difficulty getting out of my drive in the mornings as the cars are backed up along Nandi Ave and Bimbadeen Crescent (and these are only minor roads in the vicinity of the potential development, the knock on effects to Warringah Rd and Forestway etc are going to create even worse traffic jams during rush hours).
My first child will be starting primary school in January and despite trying to get him into Beacon Hill Primary School due to fears regarding the effects of the hospital development on our ability to get him to and from school, we have been told that as we are in Frenchs Forest catchment area, he will have to go there. The potential hospital development will be between us and Frenchs Forest school and will make school pick ups and drop offs an absolute nightmare, not only while the hospital is being built, but afterwards too.
I also object to this potential hospital on the grounds that Manly hospital will be shut down and despite the statement that we will not lose any public beds, I would imagine that we will lose plenty of public support services that are provided by Manly hospital
This area is Frenchs Forest and I feel that by agreeing to this development we might as well drop the "Forest" part of the name and call it Frenchs "Hospital" instead. I have talked to all my neighbours and many people who live in this area and have not spoken to one person who gives this hospital development their full backing. We all seem to agree that a new hospital or major work on existing hospitals would be great, however there is no sense in having this hospital sited here for many many reasons including traffic problems, wakehurst parkway flooding and frequent closures etc.
Yours sincerely,

My main concern with regards to the building of the Hospital in Frenchs Forest is that despite what we are told during public meetings or any objections that the community on a whole raise the project appears to be going ahead regardless of any feedback. I read with interest that it is being proposed that the hospital will be between 6 and 10 stories in height. This is despite being told originally that it will be designed to fit into the existing environment. During a public meeting requesting feedback, the common point by all people was a concern about the hospital fitting into the existing environment. Why bother asking for feedback when a decision clearly has already been made and no correspondance will be entered into. Are you simple checking the box that says you must consult with the community? I've no doubt this note will also be ignored as I'm certain the people running the project have already made up their mind.

This intersection, plus Allambie rd and Forest Way are already grid locked.The 40km per hr SCHOOL ZONE and parent pick up increases this choke point. The Forest Way shopping centre is another major obstruction to traffic flow.You are putting the cart before the horse.
The geographical location selected will only exacerbate the problem to the whole of the local community and further increase the discomfort in this area.Many locals believe this potential site is a very big mistake and that moving it further north to Belrose would have greater advantages to all.
The corner of Forest Way and Mona Vale road would be a far more sensible site as local opinion would have it. Access buy emergency ambulances and parking could not work at the proposed site in French's Forest, delaying the ambulance would be life threatening.Listen to locals.

I strongly object to the proposal on the grounds that the level of planning that has gone into the proposed development in relation to traffic and transport has been grossly inadequate.

Previous (now outdated) traffic reports have clearly stated the key roads surrounding the proposed site are already at or beyond their intended capacity.

It has been estimated that the hospital will generate many thousands of additional journeys per day , with most of those journeys predicted to be by car. in addition to this an additional 29,000 new homes have been earmarked for the Warringah region by 2036. The roads around the hospital will simply not be able to cope with the resulting additional traffic volumes and traffic is likely to grind to a halt, notably during the morning and afternoon peak travel periods.

Yet despite these obvious facts, stage 1 , which relates to clearing of the proposed site, has been tabled before the detailed traffic reports have been completed.

The Nrma wrote to minister Hazzard earlier this year (2013) expressing their concern about traffic. As part of this they stated that a detailed assessment of the traffic situation, both for the projected opening date and 15 years beyond this date, should be completed before any further work is undertaken on the proposal. Yet despite the Nrma's expertise in the field of transport and traffic, the planning for stage 1 has been progressed prior to the completion of this assessment.

The scale of the proposed hospital development at Frenchs Forest should only be determined when a detailed traffic impact assessment has been undertaken as this will determine what scale of development, if any, will be feasible for this site.

It already takes just a minor a breakdown or accident for the traffic to grind to a halt , notably during the am / pm rush hour. I have also experienced first hand the difficulties that emergency vehicles already have in trying to work their way through the traffic during the peak periods. It doesn't bear thinking about what it will be like for emergency vehicles and commuters should the large hospital that is being proposed be built at Frenchs Forest.

in view of the above, a full and proper assessment of the traffic must be undertaken before any further work, such as clearing of the site, is undertaken.

See submission attached

I strongly oppose the State Significant Infrastructure Application No 5982 for a 10-storey Northern Beaches Hospital concept proposal and destruction of endangered forest, for the following reasons:

TRAFFIC - traffic is already congested without this hospital being built. Dropping my daughter off at Frenchs Forest Primary should be a 5 minute drive (1.8km); but is a 20 /30 minute drive in the peak hour congested traffic. Most mornings, Frenchs Forest Rd East is so congested, it is hard to even drive on to it from the cross streets. And when you finally do, you're stuck at 'green lights' on Wakehurst Pwy & Frenchs Forest Rd, with no where to go. We watch the light turn green and we can't move anywhere.

When it's raining, it's 10 times worse - the traffic backs up around the corner past skyline shops. And when we `watch the green light' and can't turn left onto Wakehurst Parkway, it just keeps backing up. This traffic obviously ten-folds when Wakehurst Parkway is closed (which is basically anytime it rains, there's an accident or a bush fire!!)

DESTROYING AN ECO-SYSTEM and habitats to many animals, including owls, wallabies and sugar gliders. You can not `move' them to another area and expect them to flourish. Animals inhabit an certain area because they evolve to survive in that habitat; their food source is close, their homes/burrows/nests are in the `perfect' spot for them to survive and the climate is well suited. You can NOT guarantee the `new location' is perfect for them and you can NOT guarantee their survival, if you move them.

WE NEED OUR TREES - we have far too many cars driving through this area as it is. Building this hospital will increase the car pollution and decrease the trees to help `suck up' our pollution. That makes no sense at all!

Lastly, we have 2 hospitals, perfectly spaced out for the Northern Beaches. What happens if Wakehurst Parkway is closed and people from Bayview, Warriewood, Narrabeen, Palm Beach need to make this trip? Drive the long way around? Doesn't it make more sense for them to go to Mona Vale hospital? As you are well aware, the State Government has targeted Warriewood Valley for major residential development which has seen The Meriton Development (and more to come); with all these new residents - wouldn't it make more sense to have a hospital closer to these fast growing suburbs and redevelop Mona Vale Hospital? Both Manly and Mona Vale Hospitals are not located on major traffic thoroughfares and redevelopment would not impact the traffic. Frenchs Forest has 3 major thoroughfares and this hospital is right in the middle of all of them.

How about put the millions of dollars you would spend on demolishing Duffy's Forest, building the 10-storey hospital and fixing the surrounding roads, into revamping the 2 perfectly placed hospitals we already have?

I oppose the State Significant Infrastructure Application No 5982 for a 10 Storey Northern Beaches Hospital concept proposal and the associated destruction of endangered forest;
The 10 storey hospital building was not previously published and a building of this size (vertically) is not in keeping with the current precinct landscape. This size building will create an eyesore (alla North Shore Hospital old building) on top of a hill in a predominately residential area. The previous submissions have had lower height buildings planned and with the retention of trees would at least be more sympathetic with the local area surrounding building landscape.
The location of a major hospital in this location with its appalling traffic congestion is not in the best interests of the community or Sydney. The traffic and accompanying parking congestion in narrow already congested local streets is also an area of major concern and there is no plan to address this. Staff, patrons and visitors to the hospital will use local nearby streets to park in rather than pay at the hospital parking station. The area cannot handle that volume of additional traffic and street parking.

Fundamentally, the hospital is not needed in the Frenchs Forest area as the Pittwater, Warringah and Manly municipalities have relatively quick access to Royal North Shore, Mona Vale and Manly hospitals.

The logical solution would be to upgrade the Mona Vale hospital that already has multiple traffic corridor access, the grounds and basic infrastructure. Alternatively, Mona Vale Terrey Hills would provide a far better location for a major hospital as this has better road access is also accessible from the Ryde and the Lower/Upper North Shore. There is also greater opportunity for widening the Mona Vale Rd corridor which is something the Warringah Rd/Wakehurst Parkway corridors do not have.

I object to the proposed Northern Beaches Hospital for the following reasons:

1. The proposed location already suffers from severe traffic congestion. There doesn't appear to be a plan to upgrade the infrastructure to cope with the inevitable increase in traffic.

2. The proposed hospital will degrade the public health provision in our area as it will provide predominantly private health beds.

3. There will be a negative impact on our local area with a 10 storey hospital built on a ridge top location. It will be an eyesore that will result in noise, light & air pollution along with traffic & parking congestion.

4. The proposed hospital site is too near the Royal North Shore hospital and too far away from the northern part of the peninsula.

5. The proposed hospital will have an irreparable effect on the environment by cutting a crucial nature corridor between the Narrabeen Lagoon Catchment and Garigal National Park.

I urge you to reject the proposal in its current form.

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed Northern beaches hospital - Frenchs Forest (SSI 5982) for the following reasons:
* The proposed hospital will cause irreparable damage to the protected Duffys Forest Ecological Community. The Government's proposal to offset this devastation will not provide corridors for threatened species
* Proposed location is unreasonably close to RNS Hospital.
* Road network hopelessly inadequate. Wakehurst P'way subject to flooding and only one lane access. Ridiculous!

I believe this is an appalling site for the construction of the new hospital for three reasons, all of which, by themselves, are sufficient reasons not to proceed with this folly.

Firstly, there is no suitable traffic management plan in place to address the huge problem of peak-hour traffic gridlock specific to the immediate area, exacerbated by regular interruptions on Wakehurst Parkway due to flooding and accidents. I am a retired bus driver and have first-hand experience of the mayhem that regularly attends the roads around the proposed site, which will only increase with increasing population in the area. A helicopter shuttle service for emergency patients has been suggested as a solution, but it is a partial solution at best, and creates its own problems, not the least of which relate to local amenity.

Secondly, the site itself is of truly crucial ecological value as part of the nature corridor between Narrabeen Lagoon Catchment and Garigal National Park. We have reliable accounts of endangered species being recently found at the site (echidna and quoll), and it would be a tragedy to destroy the area. No proposal to off-set the ecological impact could possibly mitigate the damage caused.

Thirdly, the proposed hospital will lead to the downgrading of comprehensive public health care in the region, and is in my opinion one more step in delivering our precious universal system of health care into the hands of the private operators, who serve their shareholders before they serve the public. We need an increase in public hospital infrastructure on the northern beaches, well beyond the handful of additional public beds that I understand the proposed new facility will supply in aggregate. The health minister was headlined in the Manly Daily as saying that 60 percent of northern beaches residents have private health cover, and will thereby be accommodated under the proposed arrangements: Minister, what about the 40 percent who do not have it?

I respectfully urge you to reject this proposal in its current form.

I object to the State Infrastructure Application No. 5982 for a six to ten storey Northern Beaches Hospital proposal.

I am particularly concerned with the loss of bushland on the site of the proposed development site. The bushland acts as a link between Garigal National Park, Manly Dam & Narrabeen Lagoon Catchment. Without this area remaining intact, I fear the loss of habitat for many of our native wildlife. My family and I only live a few streets away, I don't want to loose visitations of such animals as the swamp wallabies and sugar gliders that we currently enjoy.

I don't believe the proposed hospital is keeping with what is already here in the local community. One of the main reasons we bought a property in Frenchs Forest, was because of its beautiful natural landscape, dense bushland and richness in native animal life. The word "Forest" is significant in the suburb name of French Forest. It accurately describes the nature, feeling & vibe of this aesthetically pleasing Northern beaches suburb. If a hospital is built here, Frenchs Forest as we know it will be lost. Not only for us, but for all future generations. Do we really want to exchange bushland for concrete? I know I don't.

I believe Mona Vale & Manly Hospitals should instead be rebuilt. As the sites already exist, there would be very little impact on local residences lifestyle and environment.

Frenchs Forest already has three very accessible hospitals within kilometers being the RNS, Mona Vale & Manly Hospitals. If Mona Vale or Manly hospital are scaled back, people will loose their lives. Put yourself in the shoes of a seriously injured person at Palm Beach. The extra distance taken to get to Frenchs Forest instead of Mona Vale, could mean the difference between life and death.

The quality of life that the Frenchs Forest community and the surrounding suburbs presently enjoys is being threatened by this development proposal. This beautiful leafy, wildlife rich, natural landscape will be lost forever. To be replaced with a concrete jungle, of bitumen road underpasses, overshadowing tall building structures, and increased noise from helicopters, ambulances and increased cars and trucks.

Please reconsider.

Submission regarding proposed Hospital in Frenchs Forest

My family and I have been residents of Frenchs Forest Road East, located approximate 0.75km from the proposed site, for over 17 years. As such we are very familiar with the area, we are well qualified to make comment on the proposed new hospital. My submission is in 3 parts:

1. The proposed site is not the best for a new hospital
The area immediately surrounding the proposed site is almost equidistant from 3 public hospitals (Mona Vale, Manly and North Shore). It is only about 15 minutes drive from each. As such this area of the peninsular is very well served for hospitals, as my family can attest, having had children at Manly and North Shore respectively, and having used the emergency facilities at both North Shore and Mona Vale. Building a hospital here is wasted on the locals, and will disadvantage the rest of the peninsular when Mona Vale and Manly inevitably are downgraded.

2. The environmental impact statement is fundamentally flawed
The EIS focuses almost exclusively on endangered flora and fauna. Whilst this may be all that is required by law, it falls well short of community expectations of such a report. There are 2 key issues here:
a. The loss of local environmental amenity which will result from the destruction of this area of bushland has been completely ignored. This area provides considerable enjoyment for both local residents and visitors. The bushland provides a green buffer and relief from the built up environment of the business park, and the noise and pollution of the busy roads. It is also a wildlife corridor which will not adequately be served by the remaining areas. The wildlife currently enjoyed by the locals (including bandicoots, blue tongue lizards, powerful owl, tawny frogmouth, brush turkeys, numerous frogs etc) will be decimated. The elimination of wildlife and flora (regardless of its endangered status) from this area is unacceptable.
b. By focusing only on endangered flora and fauna the EIS is extremely short-sighted and ignores the fundamental cause-and-effect that underlies the problem. The act of destroying the habitat of non-endangered species is the cause of those species becoming endangered at a later time. By removing yet another piece of Duffys Forest and its inhabitants, it is pushing it one step closer to extinction.
There is no need or justification for the hospital at this site, and therefore no need to destroy the bushland.

3. Traffic and safety
As a long-time resident of Frenchs Forest Road East, I know the traffic patterns intimately. There are two parts to my submission in this respect:
a. Safety. There are two major concerns - the intersection of Romford Rd and Frenchs Forest Rd East, and the far Eastern end of Frenchs Forest Rd East at Skyline Shops. Both these are sites of numerous accidents and are fatalities waiting to happen. Increased traffic due to the hospital will increase the risk and will result in deaths. I do not believe there has been sufficient attention paid to traffic and safety implications East of Wakehurst Parkway.
b. Congestion at the hospital entrances. At certain times, especially during school term time, the area of Frenchs Forest Rd West adjacent to the proposed hospital entrances becomes very congested. The proximity of the hospital, Forest High School, Frenchs Forest Police Station and the business park on the other side of Wakehurst Parkway will create the perfect storm of private traffic, public transport and emergency vehicles resulting in regular gridlock situations.
If the hospital goes ahead, these specific issues must be dealt with. This is my suggested solution:
i. Frenchs Forest Rd East at Wakehurst Parkway to be closed to through traffic, except buses and emergency vehicles. Allow left and right turns at Wakehurst Parkway, but do not allow traffic to cross between Frenchs Forest Rd East and West. This will eliminate the biggest cause of congestion on Frenchs Forest Rd West, and alleviate the safety issue at Romford Rd.
ii. Place a roundabout at the intersection of Frenchs Forest Rd East, Patanga Rd and Allambie Rd. Close the intersection of Frenchs Forest Rd East with Warringah Rd, and upgrade the intersection of Allambie Rd and Warringah Rd to compensate. This will completely eliminate the very dangerous situation which already exists at Skyline Shops where parked cars have to reverse across two lanes of traffic to exit the area. This situation would only get worse with the building of the hospital.

Conclusion:
Build the hospital at Mona Vale. It already has the land and infrastructure, will destroy no bushland, and will ensure all residents of the Peninsular have good access to a hospital within reasonable proximity of their home.

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed Northern Beaches Hospital at Frenchs Forest for the following reasons.
The Proposed hospital will destroy a vital green corridor connecting two major bush areas that is used by the areas Sydney based flora and fauna not to mention destroy the protected Duffys Forests which is valued by the residents of the area.

The proposed area does not allow enough room for expansion as it is boarded by three roads, two of which are major arterial roads and Forest High. Since the closure of Beacon Hill High, Forest High school now caters for many children from further up the beaches and with the local high schools now at capacity Forest High is an essential teaching centre and should not be considered as an area of expansion as it will be needed in the future to accommodate the growing population.

The surrounding roads are at gridlock each morning and afternoon. The added traffic which will be caused by the positioning of the hospital will negatively impact of the local residents and businesses. Also how will people from Narrabeen and beyond reach the hospital when the Wakehurst Parkway is often closed due to flooding even since the apparent upgrade which was meant to stop it flooding.

Placing the main entrance, bus stops and ambulance bays on the small local road, Frenchs Forest West, will severely impact on the residents directly opposite the proposed hospital. Currently local and commuter traffic blocks this road each day during peak times. It is only one lane each way and dumps traffic onto the Wakehurst Parkway and Forest Way. Two roads that are also blocked with traffic each day. How will this road cope with the added traffic movements of people entering the hospital, Buses and ambulances when it is barely coping now?

I also object to the proposed size of the hospital as it will be an eye sore positioned on the crest of a hill and the suggestion of a helipad again more noise pollution.

I feel that this proposal has been rushed through with out enough impact studies being completed prior to decisions being made and with no proper consultation with the local area and neighbouring residents. I feel that our concerns have not been taken seriously.

Thank you.

I object strongly to the proposal, which I consider will destroy the amenity of a quiet residential area, cause massive traffic problems and destroy important wildlife habitat. I think Manly and Mona Vale hospitals should be significantly upgraded instead!