Redevelopment of Greenwich Hospital (Concept)

Please refer attached PDF file.

I question the validity of this development for health facilities zoned land.
It seems like the developer is looking to profit at the expense of the local community
The scale of the development is too big for this residential area, and will dominate and impact the Heritage-registered Pallister House and surrounds
The removal of a large proportion of the site’s trees will result in the loss of habitat for wildlife and resident privacy
The development will result in increased pollution of noise, lights and traffic
Increased traffic during and after construction will put further pressure on local traffic congestion, especially on River Road, which is already well beyond capacity
The impact to safety of residents, especially students at Greenwich Public, who will cross outside the site.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL NEW DEVELOPMENT SUBMISSION

I object to the proposed Serviced Seniors Living apartment blocks, as it is not compliant with zoning law, are too massive for the site and surrounding residential area and consequential unnecessary overlooking impacts. The land should be kept for hospital-only use. It is obvious that that the owners are trying to develop the site and make a profit at the expense of residents.

The visual dominance of the Apartment Blocks and Hospital Tower will affect the privacy of many nearby and those on the North side of River Road & Western side of the site will be overwhelmed by their unacceptable bulk and height, as will Northwood residents.

I object to the removal of a large proportion of the site’s trees, the loss of habitat for wildlife, the loss of privacy and increased pollution of noise, lights and traffic for residents.
The proposed Hospital tower, which is also some 30 metres tall, is unfortunately located on the highest part of the site, only emphasizing its height. This height would be almost 20 metres higher than the ridgeline of the tiled roof of Pallister House.

I object to this development due to the lack of planning for safety of local school children and the much increased hazard to them of large construction vehicles over several years and from vastly increased internal traffic entering and exiting the site directly opposite the State Primary School and the likely blocking of St Vincents Rd for several hours each day, thus isolating Greenwich Peninsula residents.

Being a Northwood resident, it is difficult enough now exiting and entering cnr River Road and Northwood Roads due to the heavy traffic and waiting for a break. There have also been a number of accidents recorded at this intersection.

I believe it is important to retain the Hospital site for what it is intended: rehab, palliative and support care – it is a much needed facility linked to North Shore Hospital for patients who require assisted care, as there are not too many facilities around that can do this. The site certainly needs refurbishment. Earlier in the year I had a long-time friend who was a resident of Lane Cove who had pancreatic cancer and was transferred to HammondCare and provided her with excellent palliative care.

Janette Kay – Northwood Resident
17 November 2019

While I believe the community requires an upgrade of hospital facilities the inclusion of units for seniors on the site I feel is an over development. The area is barely coping now with the traffic. Any increase in traffic will lead to congestion and make the roads and surrounding footpaths very unsafe. The Greenwich Public School is currently being upgraded to increase student numbers. This upgrade will mean many more children will be walking in the area of this proposed development. The roads are barely coping now and an increase in traffic will make the area unsafe and a most unpleasant place to live.
Also the bushland in the area will be lost and the amenity of the area changed forever. Please do not allow developers to continue developments that are making areas unsafe for walking and driving as well as changing areas to concrete jungles.
Thank you

I strongly object to the amended Development Application for the HammondCare Greenwich Private Hospital on several grounds. The size and height of the proposed hospital development alone is an overdevelopment of the site which will dominate and cause major intrusion and loss of amenity to the neighbouring residential precinct.
Other significant issues are loss of trees from the site, traffic congestion, increased heavy vehicle movements, proximity to the Greenwich Public school and loss of curtilage of the heritage building on the site.
I also strongly object to the proposed inclusion of Seniors' Residential Apartments on land that is set aside for medical use. This is purely a commercial activity and is not appropriate for the site and would seriously exacerbate congestion and disruption to the surrounding locality and limit future expansion of the medical facility. Applications for seniors residential housing are currently proposed for nearby sites in Greenwich and Northwood.

An objection is lodged from GSL Action Group.

I object to this new proposal .

To whom it may concern,

As an active Greenwich resident with two young children attending Greenwich Public School and KU Greenwich Community Preschool, I object to the proposed development. It is an overdevelopment of the site that contains buildings that are obtrusive to the local area due to their size and height (visible from so many vantages throughout Greenwich). The proposed high buildings, resembling high rises, would be visible throughout the bushy residential community -- from schools, sport and recreation ovals, residential streets, bush walks...

As a parent, I am concerned with the increased size and number of residences that are proposed. This will inevitably create a great increase in traffic and number of cars along River Road and Gore Street. Many school children and young families opt to walk to school. They walk along these streets daily, traveling by foot to and from the Greenwich Public School campuses and the local preschool. The increased traffic in such close proximity to the school and residences poses a threat to the safety of these highly pedestrian areas.

Thank you for your consideration.

I object to the amended proposal from HammondCare for the development of Greenwich Hospital

For the following reasons:
* Two large, seven storey residential towers are proposed as a commercial investment and this is contrary to zoning of the land for health. Seniors Units have been proposed on land zoned ONLY for health use. Defying this zoning will remove any use for genuine health services here In the future.
* A significant part of the development - close to 50% - is effectively residential development. Residential development should be subject to the same rules as any other residential development, not given special treatment because it is added to a hospital development. 
* The character of the area is defined by low density residential development (generally one and two storeys) with only the existing hospital buildings exceeding this height. This amended proposal will dramatically change the character of the area and the visual impact of such an extensive proposed development would be significant and unwelcome.
* This development is too big in the context of the residential neighbourhood in which it’s located. The visual impact on the skyline will seriously dominate the surrounding areas of Northwood, Gore Creek, River Road and bushland nearby. What’s proposed is excessive.
* The building of Senior Units should never be built alongside bush fire prone land which is what is being proposed (facing Northwood). This is an ill considered suggestion and is risky.
* River Road is already a heavily congested roadway, particularly during peak hours throughout any given day. As a result of the proposed development for a substantially expanded hospital, River Road, St Vincents Road and other roads nearby would be impacted with significantly increased traffic movements and congestion.
* The safety of children accessing Greenwich Primary School and pedestrians crossing River Road would be heavily impacted by the increased traffic flow which would result with such a development.
* There will be inevitable damage to E2 zoned bushland if the removal of trees on the western and southern perimeters (facing Northwood) were to be approved. This would be a detrimental and devastating change in this bushland valley and its ecosystem.

Dear Department of Planning and the Environment,

I wish to make known my thoughts and concerns regarding the amended redevelopment plans for Greenwich Hospital currently on exhibition by Hammond Care. In particular I object to the following aspects:

1. Serviced Seniors Living
The proposed serviced seniors living apartment blocks do not appear to be compliant with the intentions of the zoning law (zoned for health services facilities, SP-2, for facilities that promote maintenance or improvement of health, restoration to health or prevention of disease or treatment to injury). The land should be kept for hospital only use for future expansion to provide important healthcare services. The proposed buildings also appear to be substantially larger than surrounding buildings and hence will be not just visually dominant and impact the current landscape but will also impact the privacy of nearby residential properties.

2. Heritage Issue
I have objections with the proposed respite centre as it does not appear to be compliant with the zoning law on Heritage-zoned land and hence should be excluded from that part of the site and kept to hospital-zoned land. The height of the proposed main hospital building will dominate Pallister House and impair the immediate environment of this heritage registered building. There is also no guarantee that a new building once allowed to exist won't be increased in sized at a later date.

3. Environmental Aspects
I object to the proposal for removal of a large portion of the site's trees and the subsequent loss of habitat for wildlife as well as the increase in pollution of noise, lights and traffic. There are already large floodlights used through out the entire night to illuminate parking for the hospital that also illuminate the surrounding bushland and illuminate neighbouring residential properties.

4. Traffic and Associated Dangers
There does not appear to be appropriate planning for the safety of local school children and I have an objection to this. There will be a significant increase to traffic hazards with large construction vehicles over several years as well as increased internal traffic, entering and exiting the site with a State primary school directly opposite as well as other schools in the area. There will also be a major impact on road congestion which is already a concern with no plans for road infrastructure improvements. The intersection of St Vincents and River roads, on the corner of Greenwich Hospital is already a well documented traffic accident black spot, and increasing occupancy on the site will just make this worse.

There are definitely elements of the proposal that are positive. Improving the facilities and service that the hospital can provide to support healthcare is of benefit to the community. Also that the amended proposal reduced the planned tree destruction, just not to a sufficient degree. The overall proposal needs to help and not hinder the community that it is looking to serve.

Yours sincerely,
Adam and Deanne Benjafield

See attached

My objection is attached in a PDF.

Please see the attached objection.

I object to the development. The height and the size is too big for the residential area. The land should be earmarked for future hospital development, not serviced seniors residential apartments. Residents are concerned that these apartments will be, essentially, housing. Sydney is getting bigger and land for public good is vanishing. In the meantime the bushland will be lost, 80 trees will be cut down. St Leonards South proposal will bring thousands of new residents to add to the already vast numbers of apartments already being constructed in St Leonards. We need to protect our green space.

The bulk and scale of the Hospital and Seniors Living accomodation are inappropriate and unacceptable in a suburban context.

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.

Loss of trees and bushland

I would like to object to the Redevelopment of Greenwich Hospital due to the following:
1. The State Significant Development approval pathway adopted by the development applicant, Hammond Care, 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 and seek approval for non health related commercial activities.
2. The redevelopment includes the development of residential apartment buildings which are not a permitted use under the current zoning of the site. The site is zoned Special Purpose which permits only health related uses. The applicant states that the seniors living apartments are integral to the 'continuum of care model' for the residents. Seniors living apartments are being developed in a number of other places within the area such as Waterbrook, Greenwich and Northwood as well as numerous other sites throughout Sydney. The proximity to an aged care facility is not integral to seniors living developments and this link is being exploited by the applicant to justify the mass development.
3. The applicant notes that the apartments will remain under the ownership of Hammond Care and be used under leasehold. This is the same solution employed by developers of retirement living apartments who effectively sell the leasehold rights to a buyer for a 99 year lease term. The purchaser enjoys the same benefits as a freehold strata lot owner. This development funding model does not offer surity that the land upon which the apartments are being developed can be used in the future for hospital related services. The sale of the leasehold of the developed lots diminishes the land available for the expansion of future hospital and health related services.
4. The bulk and scale of the residential apartments does not fit into the surrounding area which is R2 zoned. There is no justification for overdevelopment of the site to this scale. Further this density in the residential area and opposite a local primary school will increase traffic movements to the area significantly which has a detrimental effect on the surrounding neighbors and the safety of the school children.
5. The bulk and scale of the seniors apartments offers no privacy to the neighbouring properties on the western boundary. Currently there are no overlooking issues from the site however this development deprives the western residential properties of the privacy amenity they currently enjoy. It is acknowledged that the current submission has increased the setback to the residential properties to the west and that the upper levels have also been setback further to mitigate the intrusion of the bulk on the residential properties to the west.
6. The applicant is seeking approval for 13,000m2 GFA for the seniors living apartments yet states that the number of dwellings is 89 two-bedroom apartments. This is an average of 146m2 GFA per dwelling. The typical residential apartment is 100m2GFA per average 2 bedroom-dwelling. Accounting for minor areas of shared area GFA, it appears that the building envelope can cater for significantly more dwellings than the applicant is noting in their submission.

Thank you in anticipation of your support in preserving the planning control rules and legislation in NSW with respect to the use of Special Purpose zoned land.

I would like to object to the Redevelopment of Greenwich Hospital due to the following:
1. State Significant Development planning approval pathway.
• 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 and seek approval for non health related commercial activities.
• The applicant is seeking to include the seniors living accommodation under the State Significant Development approval pathway noting that “The proposed development is predominantly a hospital campus with a main hospital facility that includes inpatient hospital beds, palliative care beds, residential care beds and outpatient services. The associated seniors living units are an integral part of the hospital campus and the HammondCare ‘continuum of care’ model”. This statement should be challenged as the utilisation model proposed by the applicant is for the accommodations units to be occupied under a sale of a 99 leasehold interest in an apartment which is the typical funding model for seniors living and retirement living developments.
• The SSD pathway is detrimental to the local community in this instance as the Senior Living Apartments 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.

2. EP&A Act compliance.
• It is noted in the EIS in section 7 .1.1 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in Table 6 (g) that “The proposed development is appropriately located and proportioned and will assist in creating visual interest and contribute to public amenity”. As noted throughout this submission, the bulk and scale of the proposed development is not sympathetic to the surrounding urban context and has significant adverse impact on the surrounding residents.
• Further in Table 7 (b) it is noted that “The proposed development has been designed with regard for potential impacts on both the natural and built environment. Appropriate mitigation measures and recommendations have been sought”. As noted above and throughout this submission, the mitigation measures fail to properly address the impact of this development, its bulk and scale, the increase in traffic and the elimination of mature and established landscaping which should be preserved to mitigate the impact.

3. Height of the proposed seniors living apartment buildings.
• The current planning controls for the site do not have height limits and the Concept Proposal exploits this without any proper regard to the surrounding urban context of the site.
• The building heights for the Seniors Living Apartment buildings to be located to the west of the site, are excessive and will have a detrimental impact to the surrounding area.
• This is further extenuated with the proposed location of the buildings to the west of the site.
• The height and bulk of the buildings to the west will impact the privacy of the neighboring residential properties. These properties currently do not have any issues with overlooking or privacy and this development will adversely impact this important amenity in a residential R2 area.
• It is noted that the setback to the building from the residential property's along the western boundary has been increased and the upper floors have also been setback further in the revised submission.

4. Traffic
• The Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment report notes that the development will increase traffic generated by the development by 100%.
• It is noted that the traffic studies were conducted over one day being Thursday 12th October 2017. This data is not representative due to the limited sample dates and the fact that a Thursday is the lightest traffic day for River Road as experienced by the local Greenwich residents.
• River Road has become a major road with increased traffic since the State Government altered Epping Road in an effort to force traffic into the Lane Cove Tunnel. Traffic that is travelling to Burns Bay Road that would have used Epping Road now use River Road.
• If the Department is to properly assess this development proposal then it should rely on accurate and balanced data and the Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment report is not such a document.
• The proposal sees the west road as the main roadway for the hospital employees, service vehicles and patients.

5. Impact on Greenwich State School
• The NSW State Government is currently investing substantial capital expenditure in increasing the size of the Greenwich Public School to cater for the increase in school enrolments.
• Greenwich Public School is located on the north side of River Road opposite the hospital.
• The combination of the increased traffic generated form the Greenwich Hospital Development with the increased traffic, both pedestrian and vehicle, that results from the Greenwich Public school has the potential to compromise the health and safety of the schools pupils.
• The Traffic Management Report makes no reference to the Greenwich Public School works and does not address this impact.
• Further the bulk and scale of the senior living apartments combined with the eradication of mature and established trees and landscaping compromises the visual amenity available to the pupils.

6. Proposed widening of western access road
• It is noted that the proposed widening of the western access road has now been altered with the roadway not being placed any closer to the residential property at 117 River Road.

7. Volume of residential GFA
• The applicant is seeking approval for 13,000m2 GFA for the seniors living apartments yet states that the number of dwellings is 89 two-bedroom apartments. This is an average of 146m2 GFA per dwelling. The typical residential apartment is 100m2GFA per average 2 bedroom-dwelling. Accounting for minor areas of shared area GFA, it appears that the building envelope can cater for significantly more dwellings than the applicant is noting in their submission.

I trust that the NSW planning legislation and zoning will be upheld and the residential apartment buildings are not approved.

I object to this 27,000 square metre development, of substantial bulk and scale which is not appropriate given that it adjoins 1-2 storey homes on every side. Contrast this to Royal North Shore Hospital which is buffered from residential areas by a cemetary, a football field, the TAFE, a train station, shopping complex, the Pacific Highway and a light industrial area.
A substantially expanded hospital will lead to a dramatic increase in traffic along an already busy River Rd and St Vincents Road.
A significant part of the development - close to 50% - is effectively residential development. Residential development should be subject to the same rules as any other residential development, not given special treatment because it is tacked on to a hospital development.
The proposed development does not complement and sensitively harmonise with the heritage-listed Pallister House.
By Hammond Care's Consultants own admission - In 69% of the locations they assessed the visual impact will be high, moderate-high or moderate. In addition, the consultant noted that "The Proposal will introduce a significant new level of built-form and development to the site. The upper levels of the proposed buildings form the most noticeable element to the surrounding area."

GREENWICH HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
I wish to lodge my strong objection to the current DA lodged by Hammond Care for redevelopment of their land adjacent to River Road, Greenwich.
Let me say, at the outset, that I have been a Greenwich Resident for over 40 years, and thoroughly support the enhancement of that site for better hospital facilities. I am quite familiar with the current hospital, having visited patients there many times.
I object strenuously, however, to the proposed construction of multiple so-called ‘Seniors Living’ units on that site under SEPP 5 provisions. The land is zoned for Hospital use.
As I understand it, anyone over the age of 55 can acquire such units once built in spite of being in good health and not in real need of hospital services for 20 years or more.
This is plainly a commercial proposal intended to finance the hospital reconstruction. The placement of multiple housing units on the site will prevent expansion of genuine hospital facilities on the site in future, and must be resisted.
It should be obvious to all that:
• The need for hospital facilities in this area can only increase as Sydney’s population is forecast to rise at the rate of almost 100,000 per annum, and
• The land zoned for hospital use is now scare and precious, and will become increasingly rare.
To allow a large part of this land to be surrendered now for housing use would be a serious error of judgement that would create difficulties for future generations that will be increasingly hard to overcome.
Please reject this application to build seniors living units on this hospital land. It must be preserved for hospital use and for very elderly persons in genuine need of regular hospital care.

Please find attached my submission/objection to the latest proposal