Redevelopment of Greenwich Hospital (Concept)

I object to the Greenwich Hospital redevelopment for three reasons:

1. Seven storey hire rise residential apartment blocks are not a health services facility and cannot be regarded as incidental to the health facility. They should not be included in the development.

2. The existing traffic on River Road is extremely heavy during peak times and this development will exacerbate this traffic congestion. There are no shops within walking distance and no convenient public transport options for those living in or visiting the seniors accommodation. The nearby buses only have a limited service outside peak hours. Any residents and their visitors will be reliant upon their cars. The existing traffic already makes it hazardous to exit to and from Northwood Road on to River Road.

3. This development will have a significant adverse visual impact on the bushland amenity of Gore Creek Reserve for those accessing and surrounding the reserve.

Objection to this redevelopment given concerns with inadequate zone planning /use and unacceptable negative impact to:
a. safety - increased bush fire hazard and increased vehicle movements near school zone
b. traffic - significant increase in traffic (especially on River Road) with insufficient remediations nor parking capacity
c. environment - unnecessary removal of trees and impact to wildlife
d. amenity - unnecessary change to the amenity of the local area

Dear Madam/Sir,

RE: Redevelopment of Greenwich Hospital (Revised Plans)

I am writing to express my strong objection to the revised plans submitted by HammondCare for the redevelopment of Greenwich Hospital.

Whilst there is merit in updating the Hospital to ensure that quality health care can be provided to residents of the Lower North Shore the revised plans are fundamentally inappropriate on the following grounds:

1. The scale and bulk of the Plans are excessive and are completely at odds with the character of the area, which is defined by low density residential development.

2. The proposed development's visual impact as viewed from the Northwood peninsula will be unreasonably high. The visual dominance of the revised height of the towers is materially incongruent with an area that is uniquely characterised by its leafy aspects and harbour views.

3. The scale of the proposed development is well in excess of what River Road can handle particularity in the morning and afternoon and evening peaks. Additionally, the increased traffic flows will pose an unacceptable safety risk to students of the adjacent Greenwich Public School.

Yours faithfully,

Leo Quintana

this project will increase traffic flows and remove the tree cover onto Gore Creek reserve which will then increase the lights exposure at night.Removing trees and planting new ones does not have a material effect on the protection of noise and light .This is a neighbor hood area not a commercial area and should not be subject to the same conditions.

The scale of the project is out of character with the local low density housing, I object to it's size and bulk. It's visual impact is high on the local community.
As a seniors living location it is not ideal as local shops and services are not close to the development.
I would support a development of a smaller scale, but feel it should continue primarily as a palative care hospital.

I object to the proposed size of the hospital. The reason is the traffic gridlock on River Road. The residents of Lane Cove and Longueville are already struggling with the traffic on River Road presently especially during peak hours. We feel hemmed in on all directions leading in and out of our areas. We cannot handle any more high rise buildings surrounding our suburbs unless the roads are widened to accommodate the traffic flow.

I believe that this project incurs removing more than 70 trees. This will be catastrophic to the leafy environment of the area. I urge you to reconsider the proposal.

This re development will create havoc for the area and the increased traffic along what is already a busy area will be extreme.
The natural bushland will be badly affected and provide a eyesore instead of a an attractive bushland setting.

Please refer to attached submission

1. The use of health zoned land for the development of 2 large 7 storey residential towers as a commercial investment is contrary to zoning.
2. The bulk and scale of development will have a terrible impact visually on Northwood, Gore Creek, River Road and the bushland.
3. Massive traffic increase on an already busy River Road particularly during school zone times.
4.Removal of trees to the west and south , damage to bushland in what is a beautiful habitat.
5. Seniors living in land zoned for health use, how does this work ?
6. Massive unit development in Lane Cove over the last 5 years has created massive traffic problems particularly during peak hours.
7. Will destroy the bushland beauty and sense of living space that currently exists along River Rd.

I wish to submit my objection to the proposed redevelopment of the Greenwich Hospital. The revised plans do not address the issues raised by the local community on numerous occasions directly with the proponent and they are the bulk, size and scale of the proposed development and the major traffic and transport issues that will result if the proposal were to go ahead in its current form.

The proposed 14,500 sqm hospital building is a doubling in the size of the existing facility. On top of that the proponent wishes to build 13,000 sqm of residential apartments on the site. At 80 sqm per unit this would result in 162 apartment being built on the site in addition to the hospital.

This proposal is in an area characterised by 1 and 2 storey low density residential developments and yet the proponent thinks it is appropriate to undertake high density development in this location on a site that is subject to a heritage order and surrounded by trees in a bush fire prone area.

The above proposal is a prime example of gross over development in an area totally unsuitable for such development and it beggers belief that the proponent and their supposed expert advisors feel it is appropriate to propose such a development on this land.

No traffic impact assessment has been undertaken on the surrounding road network. The non-signalised exit will become left-in-left-out resulting in traffic congestion at this junction. 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.

The estimates substantially under-estimate the flow rate and need to be assessed by an independent traffic assessor. The local bus service is infrequent and the gradient of the roadway leading from and to the bus stop does not meet the standard in the Seniors SEPP.

The surrounding residents and homes will be severely impacted 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 sheer scale of the proposed development is well in excess of what the location, local roads and infrastructure can handle.

Thank you for allowing me to submit my objection

I have previously lodged an objection, and continue to believe that the amended plan continues to be detrimental to the local environment.
The proposal seems to be highlighting that the hospital will receive many benefits in up-grade and amenities, and as an aside there will be a lot of housing appear on-site. I continue to object that the local roads cannot take the increased traffic and that the housing is too high and too dense.
I note in one of the reports a photograph taken from the corner of Gore Street and Carlotta Street - with a comment that the houses at the upper side of Gore Street will not see the new high rise flats. The observation seem to have missed that these houses also have a back to them, and the new construction will be very much in view from the upper levels of the housing and from the decks at the rear of these buildings.
I do find the photographs supplied as alarming, ugly and totally against the local character of Greenwich Seeing these new high rise apartments from the road as we drive around is just bad - and fuelled by money.

Not in favour at all.

Derek

I do not have an issue with the responsible refurbishment and capital development of the health services at the hospital, however I do have an issue with the approval pathway the applicant is using, the content and bulk and scale of the proposal, the inclusion of residential accommodation in the proposal under the guise of 'a care model', the development footprint impact on green space, established landscaping and community amenity and the traffic impact.

1. Serviced Seniors Living Issues
- The proposed Serviced Seniors Living apartment blocks do not meet the objectives of the SEPP; Serviced Seniors Living does not meet the objectives of the special uses zoning of the site for hospital use
- The use of land for seniors living will prevent this land being used for hospital expansion in the future.
- The height, bulk and scale of the development will result in loss of amenity to many nearby residents and is incompatible with the current expectation of residents, the landscape and of residential dwellings of only either 1 or 2-storeys.

The proposed Serviced Seniors Living apartment blocks are not compliant with zoning law, are too massive for the site and surrounding residential area and consequential overlooking impacts. The land should be kept for hospital use only.

The visual dominance of the apartment blocks and hospital tower will affect the privacy of many nearby, particularly those on the north side of River Rd, Western side of the site and parts of Northwood will be overwhelmed by their unacceptable bulk and height.

2. Heritage Issue
- The height of the proposed main hospital building causes it to dominate Pallister House and will forever impair the immediate environment of this heritage-registered grand residence.
- The removal of trees and the building of a Respite Centre is inappropriate on Pallister House's heritage-zoned land.

The proposed Respite Centre is not compliant with zoning law on heritage-zoned land and should be excluded from that part of the site.

3. Environmental, Amenity, & Bushland Preservation Issues
- The removal of over 40% of the trees on the site will drastically change the nature of the site and remove its 'bush environment' forever.
- The effect that buildings, internal roads, paving, landscaping and terracing, and storm-water works will have on the surrounding bushland is incalculable.
- Additional to the visual overbearing by the over-sized hospital and Serviced Seniors Living appartment blocks, local residents will suffer privacy intrusion from residents and patients, lights operating 24 hours per day and increased noise from the activities associated with these buildings.
- The building and improvement of roads in the hospital grounds will cause vastly increased traffic with its consequent noise and lights, thus damaging the amenity of nearby residents. The St Vincents Rd access to the car park will cause bottlenecks at that road's interface with River Rd making it very difficult for local residents to access River Rd.

I object to the removal of a large number of trees on the site, the loss of habitat for wildlife, the loss of privacy, increased pollution of noise, lights and traffic for residents. The proposed hospital tower is approx 30m high and is located on the highest part of the site, further emphasising its height ; this building would be far taller than the current tree line and will be visually dominant.

4. Traffic Issues
- The increased danger to Greenwich Public School pupils using the crossing outside the hospital due to huge numbers of vehicles - commercial, industrial and residential - entering and leaving the hospital grounds during the construction phase.
- There will be large traffic back-ups in the morning peak hour along River Rd heading east and again in the afternoon heading west - this will frustrate drivers even more than is currently the case.
- The impact on residents on the Greenwich peninsula using St Vincents Rd will be enormous as it is likely to become a 'car park' for several hours each day.

The development has a lack of planning for the safety of school children from the increased hazard of large construction vehicles during the construction period, from increased internal traffic entering and exiting the site directly opposite Greenwich Public School and the likely blockages in St Vincents Rd during peak periods each day.

The development is too tall and bulky for a low rise residential area. It overpowers the heritage-listed Pallister House. I don’t believe Hammond Care should be providing Seniors Housing on this site without abiding by existing planning requirements. The overdevelopment of this Site will increase traffic into StVincents Rd both during construction and following completion. Greenwich Peninsular has only 2 exit points: StVincents Rd and Greenwich Rd and we also have a major oil terminal which, in an emergency, could cause the evacuation of the Peninsular which would have to be via these two narrow roads. Thi s is alarming.

Bulk and scale of the Hospital and the Seniors Living Apartments is inconsistent with the generally low-density residential character of the area.
Traffic and safety concerns, the scale of the proposed development is well in excess of what the location, local roads and infrastructure can handle.
Impact on bush land and environment, 86 trees are to be removed resulting in immediate habitat impact.

Dear Sir/Madam
I object to this development application on grounds as follows,
1. The use of health-zoned land for the development of two (2) large seven (7) storey residential towers as a commercial investment contrary to zoning.
2. The bulk and scale of the development - its visual impact will dominate the skyline of Northwood, Gore Creek, River Road and the bushland.
3. Increased traffic on River Road and surrounding areas, including peak hour gridlock.
4. Health and safety of children accessing Greenwich Public School and pedestrians using River Road crossing.
5. Removal of trees on the western and southern perimeters facing Northwood with inevitable damage to sensitive E2 zoned bushland.
6. Creating Seniors accommodation Units on land zoned only for health use, destroying any future use for genuine Health Services to the site.
7. Seniors accommodation Units should not be approved and constructed adjacent to bushfire prone land (facing Northwood), recklessly creating risk to life and fundamental conflict wherein trees'removal can be justified by RFS asset protection zone.

I’m very worried about the effects this development will have on surrounding roads and on the ability to be able to leave Greenwich quickly in an emergency. There are only 2 roads out of Greenwich, StVincents Rd is very narrow and there is an oil terminal on Greenwich Rd. The development is far too large and too tall and out of character with the residential nature of Greenwich.

I wish to object to the Greenwich Hospital redevelopment proposal.
I have attached my submission

Attached submission file.

AS it is proposed the project represents an overdevelopment of the site due to:
The topography of the land which is not suited to htis scale of development
The loss of visual link between Greenwich and the Lane Cove River
The proximity to the local school which will have a negative impact on students due to increased traffic
The lack of road infrastructure - River Road is one lane outside the Greenwich School. There is already inadequate access to the school, exacerbated by the Department of Education's refusal to make adequate provisions for school access on Kingslangley Road. There is no additional capacity for traffic on River Road.
St Vincents Road is a narrow road with already limited footpath capacity for children to walk along to safely get to school. The proposed redevelopment would further compromise their safety by increasing traffic on this road.
St Vincents Road is a narrow road and when cars are parked there it obstructs the view, the road has limited capacity to safely handle existing traffic
The intersection between St Vincents Road and Gore Street is already dangerous with the current level of local traffic due to the sharp turns and the intersection at this point of four roads. It could not safely handle additional traffic
Greenwich is a peaceful quiet suburb. The proposed development is not in character with the existing buildings or amenities of Greenwich, or this area of Lane Cove River
The proposed development will dominate this site of the suburb
The proposed development will be hazardous for additional residents due to the bushfire risk and there only being one road for access. In case of an emergency this will not provide adequate capacity for required evacuation transport
This area of Greenwich is already served by a school. Those children deserve to get to and from their school safely and to have that school located in a way that is consistent with the character of their suburb
The proposed development represents outside interests that are not considerate of, or interested in collaborating with the community to create something acceptable to all. Their approach to date demonstrates their lack of care about the surroundings of their development.

I strongly object to the redevelopment. I am the owner and resident of Gore Street Greenwich. My property is a detached 2-story dwelling that adjoins and shares a common boundary with the Greenwich Hospital site. My reasons are; (1) The application does not qualify as a State Significant Development, because the applications is predominately residential apartments and thus does not meet the requisite hospital use test. (2) Any attempt to use Seniors Living SEPP must note that the Greenwich Hospital site is surrounded by R2 Low Density Residential and/or bushland, and this attempt to put a high rise residential apartment block in this location is not acceptable. (3) Lot 4 of Greenwich Hospital site is zoned as Heritage listed land, let me be clear, the ENTIRE LOT 4. Thus I strongly object to the proposed "respite facility" being built on Lot 4. The applicant need to re-read to the Q2 2019 objection letter from the NSW Department of Environment & Heritage which clearly states the curtilage of Pallister House must be retained and not built on. (4) The destruction of trees is still too significant. The 2018 Greater Sydney Commission, North District Plan planning priority N19 calls upon State and local authorities to increase urban tree canopy cover and facilitate Green grid connections. Furthermore, this revised application is grossly inaccurate in its underestimation of how many mature trees would actually need to be destroyed to build necessary underground services to the new buildings, in particular to the respite centre (5) The applicant needs to stop proposing seniors living on the property, there is no business case for why. (6) Traffic increases and street parking demand would increase (7) This site does not have frequent State bus services, the inhabitants would be living in an isolated site without access to good public transport nor shops (8) There are Powerful Owl on the Hammond Care land, I know this because I hear them every night, they are vulnerable species and must be protected. (9) This proposal would significantly change the existing character of this precinct and to adjoining properties. In conclusion, the applicant should use precious hospital land to build more hospitals, and not waste all our time on this unlawful, unjust, and unethical attempt to build unnecessary residential apartments on land that must be used for hospitals now and into the future. Thank you for your consideration.