Redevelopment of Greenwich Hospital (Concept)

I object to the proposed development because of the unacceptable impact
its height and bulk would have on the views and environmental values
of Gore Ck Bushland Reserve and Bob Campbell Oval. The proposed
development would dominate the views and skyline.

I also object due to the increased traffic safety risks to pedestrians
in the school zone due to both the hospital and the number of senior
residences in the proposal.

This development will forever change the landscape of this area. It will
take greenspace and permanently destroy an area which is adjacent to
bushland reserve and waterways.
The skyline will be significantly altered.
A significant number of trees will be removed, further adding to loss
of wildlife habitat.
This development is about a developer making money at the expense of
the local community. It should not be supported by either local
council or State Government.
There is an election coming up very soon and the way locals will vote
may well be determined by how they perceive council and government
have acted on this and other development matters.

Dear Sir/Madam

I am not happy with the plans for the re development of Greenwich
Hospital. The new heights and size of the redevelopment are too big
for this residential area and for the bushland around. I am also
concerned with the proposed removal of 50 mature trees, gardens and
historic sandstone walls around Pallister House.

regards
Ros Bradley

The current application includes a 9 storey hospital, additional parking,
senior living villas and 2 x 7 storey blocks for independent seniors
living. These are not hospital related but will be privately owned.
The site is zoned SP2 which is designated infrastructure - health
services, by the LCC therefore residential high rise should not be
included.
Additionally I believe that any hospital related infrastructure built
on this site should be owned by the one entity.

I object to the proposed development of the Greenwich Hospital site on
the grounds that it will diminish and negatively impact a significant
Heritage asset in Pallister House.

The proposed height and size of the development is totally out of
character of the bush land and village environment that the local
community and the Lane Cove Council have cherised, enhanced and
preserved for years.

The loss of a significant number of trees, increased traffic and
congestion will have a considerable and negative impact on the local
area and environment.

River Road is a major and congested road now, such an oversized
development will add considerably to an existing problem.

I find the proposal totally unsuitable for the area. The idea of putting
senior citizen units in such a bottle neck position with a high rise
hospital is just insane. The traffic there is already unmanageable and
the children trying to get to school already face serious safety risks
due to traffic volume in that particular landscape. The aged units
should not be allowed and the entire project should meet the height
restriction for the DCP of the zoned area. Residents are just sick to
death of Government faking consultation and then going ahead and
meeting their own agenda. I did not vote for a big Australia and when
polled nor did most voters but regardless our suburbs are being
trashed and congested with endless poor quality high rise placing huge
pressure on roads, services and our quality of life. Voters will not
keep tolerating this decimation to our roads, transport, schools and
environment by Government bodies forcing this overdevelopment on us.

I wish to submit my string objection to the proposed redevelopment of the
Greenwich Hospital. The proposal seeks to increase the number of
hospital beds from 78 to 150 and it also proposes the addition of 89
independent living units in large two towers on the existing site. I
wish to advise that I am very concerned about the traffic and visual
impacts and loss of amenity from the above proposal.

The report by Barker Ryan Stewart (BRS) is very basic and does not
provide an analysis of the impact on surrounding roadways as a result
of the proposal.

The is proposal to almost double the number of hospital beds and add
89 independent living units yet no impact assessment has been
undertaken on the surrounding road network. The non-signalised exit
will become left-in-left-out only so there will be a large increase in
the number of signal changes at the remaining signalised exit.

This will mean that there will be large traffic back-ups in the
morning peak hour along River Road heading east and again in the
afternoon heading west yet nothing is made of this in the report nor
is it estimated how long the signal changes will take. This will
frustrate drivers heading to work and home even more than they are
currently frustrated. I try and avoid River Road between 7.30am and
9.30am and 4.30pm-6.30pm in the afternoon for this very reason.

The report estimates a rate of 0.2 x 89 independent living units (18
movements/hour) using the RMS Guide. However, the RMS guide is based
upon sites with good public transport options within the vicinity of
the development and this site has average to poor public transport
options. This means the majority of independent living unit residents
will rely on private vehicles to get to and from the development. In
my opinion, the estimate needs to be increased to a rate of 0.7 (62
movements/hour) during peak hours and even greater outside peak hours
when bus services are far less frequent.

It should be noted that the hospital is situated directly opposite
Greenwich Public School. There is a pedestrian crossing outside the
entrance to the hospital that is used by school children. How will the
increase in traffic and the road changes impact on the safety of the
children and pedestrians using the crossing ? This is not addressed at
all in the BRS report.

The surrounding residents will be over-looked by the proposed hospital
and apartment buildings and will lose much of their privacy, amenity
and views as a result of the proposed development, if it were to go
ahead in its current form. The apartment buildings will tower over the
local skyline and be visible in almost every direction. The developer
is looking to make a profit by selling the units at the expense of the
local community. This is not corporate responsibility, it is profit
for profits sake and nothing else.

The scale of the proposed development is well in excess of what the
location, local roads and infrastructure can handle but this fact has
been conveniently overlooked by the proponent and its supposed
experts.

I hope these issues are not overlooked by the authorities charged with
the power to decide the fate of this poorly designed proposal.

The Longueville Residents Association (LRA) wishes to submit its
objection to the proposed redevelopment of the Greenwich Hospital. The
proposal seeks to increase the number of hospital beds from 78 to 150
and it also proposes the addition of 89 independent living units in
large two towers on the existing site. We are very concerned about the
traffic and visual impacts and loss of amenity from the above
proposal.

The proposal seeks to double the number of hospital beds and add 89
independent living units yet no impact assessment has been undertaken
on the surrounding road network. The non-signalised exit will become
left-in-left-out only so there will be a large increase in the number
of signal changes at the remaining signalised exit.

This will mean that there will be large traffic back-ups in the
morning peak hour along River Road heading east and again in the
afternoon heading west yet nothing is made of this in the report nor
is it estimated how long the signal changes will take. This will
frustrate drivers heading to work and home even more than they are
currently frustrated.

The report estimates a rate of 0.2 x 89 independent living units (18
movements/hour) using the RMS Guide. However, the RMS guide is based
upon sites with good public transport options within the vicinity of
the development and this site has average to poor public transport
options. This means the majority of independent living unit residents
will rely on private vehicles to get to and from the development. In
my opinion, the estimate needs to be increased to a rate of 0.7 (62
movements/hour) during peak hours and even greater outside peak hours
when bus services are far less frequent.

It should be noted that the hospital is situated directly opposite
Greenwich Public School. There is a pedestrian crossing outside the
entrance to the hospital that is used by school children. How will the
increase in traffic and the road changes impact on the safety of the
children and pedestrians using the crossing ?

The surrounding residents and homes will be over-looked by the
proposed hospital and apartment buildings and will lose much of their
privacy, amenity and views as a result of the proposed development.
The apartment buildings will tower over the local skyline and be
visible in almost every direction.

The developer is looking to make a profit by selling the units at the
expense of the local community. This is not corporate responsibility,
it is profit for profits sake.

The scale of the proposed development is well in excess of what the
location, local roads and infrastructure can handle but this fact has
been conveniently overlooked by the proponent and its supposed
experts.

We hope these issues are not overlooked by the authorities charged
with the power to decide on this poorly planned and designed
development.

"I wish to submit my objection to the proposed redevelopment of the
Greenwich Hospital. The proposal seeks to increase the number of
hospital beds from 78 to 150 and it also proposes the addition of 89
independent living units in large two towers on the existing site. We
are very concerned about the traffic and visual impacts and loss of
amenity from the above proposal.

The proposal seeks to double the number of hospital beds and add 89
independent living units yet no impact assessment has been undertaken
on the surrounding road network. The non-signalised exit will become
left-in-left-out only so there will be a large increase in the number
of signal changes at the remaining signalised exit.

This will mean that there will be large traffic back-ups in the
morning peak hour along River Road heading east and again in the
afternoon heading west yet nothing is made of this in the report nor
is it estimated how long the signal changes will take. This will
frustrate drivers heading to work and home even more than they are
currently frustrated.

The report estimates a rate of 0.2 x 89 independent living units (18
movements/hour) using the RMS Guide. However, the RMS guide is based
upon sites with good public transport options within the vicinity of
the development and this site has average to poor public transport
options. This means the majority of independent living unit residents
will rely on private vehicles to get to and from the development. In
my opinion, the estimate needs to be increased to a rate of 0.7 (62
movements/hour) during peak hours and even greater outside peak hours
when bus services are far less frequent.

It should be noted that the hospital is situated directly opposite
Greenwich Public School. There is a pedestrian crossing outside the
entrance to the hospital that is used by school children. How will the
increase in traffic and the road changes impact on the safety of the
children and pedestrians using the crossing ?

The surrounding residents and homes will be over-looked by the
proposed hospital and apartment buildings and will lose much of their
privacy, amenity and views as a result of the proposed development.
The apartment buildings will tower over the local skyline and be
visible in almost every direction.

The developer is looking to make a profit by selling the units at the
expense of the local community. The scale of the proposed development
is well in excess of what the location, local roads and infrastructure
can handle but this fact has been conveniently overlooked by the
proponent.

I hope these issues are not overlooked by the authorities charged to
decide on this poorly designed development".

I object to the development as the size and height make it too big for
this residential area and the bushland which residents and Lane Cove
Council have tried so hard to preserve, will be lost forever.

I wish to object to the proposed development. Whilst supportive of
development / upgrading of the Hospital, I strongly object to the
inclusion of residential accommodation (especially at scale and height
proposed, the loss of green space and likely significant traffic
impact which will add to the increased traffic flows from the expanded
school across the road.

I am totally opposed to this gross OVER-DEVELOPMENT

- Traffic impact on already busy River Rd. Gridlocks in peak times

- Visual pollution of this and nearby areas

- The proposal is really just for more apartments masquerading
as a private hospital


Second Submission received 5 April 2019

I am strongly opposed to the proposed development of Greewich
Hospital.
- It is far too large in bulk and height in relation to the site and
surrounding neighbourhood

- 2/3 of the site will be for Apartments which reduces the
capacity for Hospital to expand. It will be apartments with a
hospital, rather than the reverse

- this is a con job--it is really an apartment development
camouflaged as a Hospital development

I object to the development as the height and sheer size make this
project too big for this residential area and the bushland which
residents and Lane Cove Council have tried so hard to protect and
preserve will be forever lost.

I do not agree with the planning development proposal at Greenwich
hospital. It is zoned SP2 therefore residential high rise should not
be included in the development. It is a hospital site and should focus
on this not the development of private residences. The surrounding
area is zoned R1 which has height restrictions on developments and
they should not be allowed to exceed this zoning for private use! Our
local community schools and local parks will be significantly affected
and I live here because I value the community I live in and how we
support each other and what we stand for as a community. I have
watched local council replant 50 new trees into our local area and am
horrified that my money will have been wasted on developers wanting to
build to suit their own personal needs and with no regard for local
residences. The trees that I have seen proposed to be removed are
completely unnecessary. The traffic on River road is going to be
significantly impacted by creating major congestion and hazards to the
people in the area. There is a local school opposite the site which is
vital to our area that will definitely be impacted and put our local
children at risk by creating unnecessary hazards during the
construction phase. I am totally against this development and I hope
that my local council will see fit to represent its community and
reject any of the submissions that are being proposed.

Greenwich Hospital is a valued asset. Upgrades to its function as a
centre for health services is appropriate.

However is not appropriate for this site to be used for 145 seniors 55
+ Independent Living Units. Such development is NOT permissable usage
as set out for this SSD Project Type. This part of the project should
be withdrawn immediately.

The EIS does not show height 6 - 7 stories, and bulk of two blocks of
ILU's, their position on the block at the edge of steeply sloping land
adjacent to bushland and visible from Gore Creek oval, Northwood and
the Lane Cove River and foreshore. It will destroy the secluded
bushland amenity of Gore Creek Reserve forever.
Biodiversity impacts are ignored, even though Land Cove Council has
been maintaining and improving biodiversity in Gore Creek Reserve
through Bush Regeneration contracts and Bushcare since 1988
identifying and recording flora and fauna including rare microbats and
the Powerful Owl, vulnerable under the NSW TSC Act 1995. Many of us
have contributed to LCC species list over this time, a rich resource
as the EIS demonstrates..
Excavation and construction will have major impacts on drainage, run
off, siltation and destruction of tree roots , expecially from the
ILU's. Irreplaceable tall canopy trees will be lost forever.
The EIS states there are no nationally listed threatened species,
however upstream in Bushland Park there is a protected refugia for a
nationally listed rare and endangered species of fungi.
We do not know the full range of flora and fauna in Gore Creek
Reserve, but we do know that this is one of only a very few reserves
which show us what Lane Cove was like before white settlement , and
every factor which reduces the resilience of the these reserves is a
threat to biodiversity.

Given that there is so much development in the Crows Nest, Greenwich and
Lane Cove areas, it is vital that we conserve as many trees as
possible.
Such a large re-development as is proposed for Greenwich Hospital will
sadly mean the removal of many trees.
We should be especially concerned about the mature Sydney Red Gums,
Sydney Blue Gums and Port Jackson Figs.
Also, it is proposed that two Gingko Biloba trees be removed -
although not native, they are Endangered according to the IUCN Red
List. The Wollangarra White Gum which has borer damage should be
retained and treated as it is Vulnerable according to the EPBC list.
Thank you.

I am concerned about the development based on its general height and size
but specifically am concerned about:
- the number of parking space.s allowed to accommodate on site all
staff and visitors
- the removal of well established trees; this site is a bit of a green
sanctuary as we see many birds of the area flocking to the site


I am more than willing to meet with planners to discuss our family
concerns; this is written on behalf of the 4 family members who reside
in nearby Gore St

I oppose the Redevelopment of Greenwich Hospital.
Lane Cove is a beautiful green suburb despite the overbuild of units
around the shopping centre , Epping Rd and Little St. We do not need
another 7 story 41 new apartments in the area that will dominate the
Northwood skyline.
Lane aCove is very environmentally conscious. This development will
result in the destruction of trees facing Northwood plus environmental
damage to E2 zoned bushland reserve and waterways.
The peak hour traffic on River Rd is getting worse. In the morning its
often backed up from Lane Cove Golf course to the Pacific Hwy. This is
the time children are going to the ever expanding Greenwich Public
school. I also note the increased number of children has resulted in
the loss of their playing field as more classrooms are built.
The site is totally inappropriate for Seniors living. There are no
shops within walking distance. The public transport to Lane Cove shops
is by 261 and 265 bus routes both of which have limited service
outside peak hours. Therefor seniors would need to use their cars
adding further traffic to River Rd.
I note the Seniors Living proposal is on land currently zoned for
health use only.
I hope our local member,Anthony Roberts, Minister for Planning and
Housing ,hearing community concerns does not allow this development to
proceed.

This Concept Proposal, if approved, is highly likely to have a
significantly adverse effect on homes and families both in the current
quiet enjoyment of their property, privacy and the future value of
their properties. The Concept Proposal's inclusion of the Seniors
Living Apartments at the bulk and scale proposed and the siting of the
Seniors Living Apartments, offers no community benefit to the citizens
of Greenwich and Northwood.

The State Significant Development approval pathway adopted by the
development applicant, HammondCare, offers the applicant the
opportunity to exploit the State Significant Development status of a
health facility development and combine this with the lack of existing
town planning controls on the site under the Special Purpose zoning.
This pathway is detrimental to the local community in this instance as
the Senior Living Apartments and Villas which are included in the
Concept Proposal are not health related accommodation. In effect this
pathway enables the bypassing of planning application processes
legislated in New South Wales that seek to protect the interests of
the community and local citizens.

We currently have a harmonious relationship with the hospital despite
its 24 hour 7 day a week operations without complaint however the
Concept Proposal appears to have little regard for the impact its
neighbour immediately adjacent to the hospital.

The residents of ###, ### and ### River Road do not object to
development and refurbishment of the hospital in some form and the
continued delivery of high quality aged care services to the community
however the bulk, scale and density of the proposal is
disproportionate to the surrounding urban context, is not required for
a health facility and the siting of the development heavily impacts
your properties as well as those other properties to the west of the
hospital.

Objection to Staged Development of Greenwich Hospital.

I Clynton Bartholomeusz, owner of 53 Gore Street, a home that shares a
rear boundary with the hospital object to the nature and size of
development on the following grounds:

Impact on landscape and views from 53 Gore Street.

The proposal includes the building of senior living villas at Lot 4,
DP 584287. That area is known locally as Pallister House, an example
of a substantial Victorian mansion which is subject to a Heritage
Listing in the State Heritage Register. The heritage item is not just
the house in the middle of that lot, but the whole landscape. The
reason why it is significant is that Lot 4 is all that is left as an
example of European settlement, including the use of the gardens and
driveways, convict stone fences and pools. My property has views of
Pallister House and its gardens from the kitchen and rear bedrooms on
the second storey.
The current proposal will totally change the landscape, from an open
garden and treed area into the setting for two large housing complexes
and parking. The proposal has the removal of 50 trees from the
heritage area and it is also mentions the need of pruning down the
remaining trees. Besides this affecting the connectivity of the local
bushland corridor, it will translate this heritage area to a totally
different landscape.

Traffic on River Rd and St Vincent's Rd

River Road is a 50km residential road, where Greenwich Public school
has rear access from, almost directly opposite the development.
Traffic congestion on River Rd is already at a standstill morning and
evening, so scheduling of major works will undoubtedly cause major
disruption for resident trying to go about their normal daily
routines. Any attempt to for building vehicles to access the site via
St. Vincent's Rd. will be very dangerous given how narrow the street
is combined with a rise where it joins with River Road. This narrow
road carries large volumes of Traffic on Saturday and Sunday as
sporting teams make their way to the Bob Campbell oval.

Construction
The construction site will be of a major scale. It has two major
issues: access and disturbance to residents.
There is only access for heavy vehicles from the main entrance with
very limited access on the side entry due to large elevation from the
road. The entrance to the hospital is from the very busy River Road
and any vehicles accessing the street after 7 am will create a
deadlock. In addition, any traffic interruption to the slow flow of
River Road will create traffic that will see cars at a
standstill from outside the suburb wanting to pass through. There is
no "rear access" that can be utilised unless the hospital purchases
the homes at its rear and demolishes them. The whole construction will
take place right in front of the main street, at the footpath that
children use to access their school. Development approval should not
be granted until the applicant can produce a working solution that
will not block access to the whole suburb.
The construction will have major impact on all of the neighbours and
potentially all users of River Rd. Strict controls should be placed on
hours of work, the days of the week, and the total duration of the
project. Local residents should be screened off from noise and dust.
If houses are affected by dust or mud, cleaning services should be
offered on a regular basis to upkeep the houses to a liveable state.
Any landlords affected should be entitled to rent compensation as
undoubtedly tenants will not want to rent next to a major construction
site. I would also have a concern that large scale construction will
affect the value of my property and that any plans to sell my home in
the next twelve months will be serious impacted by this proposal.