Redevelopment of Greenwich Hospital (Concept)

The amended proposal from HammondCare does not address a number of the critical issue which were raised as part of the original development application. My specific concerns are:
- The location of the proposed development will significantly increase traffic on an already notoriously busy road. Apart from additional congestion, I am extremely concerned about safety given the proximity to Greenwich public school and nature of the road (e.g. travelling from the city, there is a hill which reduces visibility).
- The inclusion of residential towers is inconsistent with the zoning of the land.
- The removal of trees and impact on surrounding bushland.
- The sheer scale of the development which would dominate the surrounding area.

Thanks you for considering my objections.

I object to the amended proposal of the ‘Redevelopment of Greenwich Hospital Campus’ in its current form for the following reasons:
1. The proposal is not just a hospital redevelopment, as a large part of the redevelopment still includes a significant high density residential apartment development of two 6 to 7 story apartments with a total of 89 apartments, which is not consistent with the permitted land use zoning of SP2 Health Service Facilities (HSF);
2. The State Significant Development (SDD) approval pathway adopted by the development applicant, Hammond Care, offers the applicant the opportunity to exploit the SSD status of a HSF 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;
3. The applicant is seeking approval for 13,000 m² 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 100m² GFA 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;
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 neighbours and the safety of the school children;
5. 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 surety that the land upon which the apartments are being developed can be used in the future for hospital related services.
6. Such a large scale residential development (by stealth) will reduce the land available for future true HSF infrastructure expansions, for which the site is currently zoned, which will be required as Sydney’s population continues to grow;
7. The apartments are allegedly being offered as over 55s living units but they two bedroom apartment s, so the purported traffic movements in the traffic studies may have underestimated potential occupancy levels and hence future traffic movements.

In addition, I wish to add that the Appendix S of the amended proposal, The Community Consultation Summary for Greenwich Hospital’, says there was a letterbox drop on 21 August 2019 to 1,830 residents with an invitation to a community drop-in event at Greenwich Hospital to preview amended Concept Plan. I live within 400m of Greenwich Hospital on River Road and, along with some of my neighbours, we did not receive this letterbox drop. If I had, I would have attended the drop-in event.

I have no objection to the hospital expansion and redevelopment component of the proposal. However, if Hammond Care wish to build a large high density residential development on the site as well, then it should apply to have the site subdivided and rezoned accordingly so the residential development can be assessed on its own merits with consideration of proper town planning controls, especially given the potential impacts such a development may have on the safety and amenity of the local community.

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.

Re Greenwich Hospital redevelopment

To whom it may concern,

I object to the redevelopment as proposed as the information provided by Hammond Health Care(HHC) has been misleading to me to date.

Some clarity in the HHC presentation(s), as outlined in this note may at least let their neighbours clearly see what is proposed.

1.All I have ever seen is “Artists Impressions” of the development. I would expect that there should at least be a scale model of the buildings proposed so that one could view the site as finished to appreciate the scale of the development. Surely this and other major developments should have such a 3D model as a prerequisite. I’m sure the average person would be able to see what effect, if any, it has on their environment much better than wading through pages and pages of architectural drawings which are hard to comprehend unless you are a developer.

I have a HHC brochure (J001276_Aug2019) which indicates the Hospital building is right on River Rd but a drawing on the HHC website (or submission) shows the Hospital building is set back 33 metres from River Rd. What do I believe?

While drawings show clearly what house numbers in Gore St will be affected they never showed the position of St Vincents Rd or River Rd residences.

Then while the drawings all show horizontal measurements their are no height measurements!

However the Hospital building layout ‘Health area’ goes up to Level 7 followed by a layout drawing of a “typical upper level” How high do we go? I don’t know of any 8 storey dwellings in Greenwich where I can view an 8 storey edifice.

2.HHC seem to think they have allowed for adequate parking for staff, senior residents, visitors etc. Yet they say this new Hospital will TRIPLE the services they provide from this site. So this won’t mean extra staff, deliveries and so on. Have they thought ahead on this?

3.I note that ‘light polution’, ‘noise’ and ‘parking’ in nearby streets was brushed over in reply to previous objections. Let’s hope they give it more thought in the future.

4.HHC say their “Serviced Senior Living” allocates 15% to people with “low means or low assets” So 85% of this thinly disguised retirement village of 89 by 2 bedroom units will be offered to those with money? And you can bet that they all have cars. Seems like a commercial enterprise on a hospital site.

5.There is no way River Rd can be widened in this area so how HHC can get someone to say there will be no adverse affect to traffic flow following development is beyond me. NSW Gov is finishing off enlarging Greenwich Public School across the road from the Hospital. This will add to the traffic problem.

6.I object to the removal of so many mature trees. Even promising to replant some of them they don’t grow overnight and our local wildlife will suffer.

Ken Cooper
River Rd
Greenwich

0418462550

I strongly object to the proposed development.
This particular plan is an absolute disgrace. It will be an eye sore looming over a beautiful part of Sydney .It is ridiculously over developed and should not be allowed. It has not been sympathetically thought through and is definitely not in keeping with the rest of the development of Lane Cove and environs and also does not meet the current Lane Cove Planning. Once this development is given the green light it will open the flood gates to similar over reaching developments. The Greenwich Hospital site as it stands at the moment is in an amazing position with bushland surrounding it. The damage to this surrounding bushland with its once the proposed plan is implemented with be mammoth. Once again development takes a precedence over the environment.
Although I am not directly impacted as I live up in Lane Cove I do drive River Road every afternoon. The traffic crawls its way along that road as it stands so I have absolutely no idea how this plan can even be considered with the increase of cars coming in and out of the development if it is approved and developed.
I would hate to see that a development like this one is allowed to be approved. I know there is a great need to have the hospital renovated/ replaced but I do not believe this is the way to go. The land should be kept for hospital use only. A plan should be developed that is sympathetic to the local surroundings and visually appealing rather than a multistorey monstrosity. Build something that we can all feel proud of.

I object to the amended proposal on the grounds described in my attached submisison.

Good design requires a good relation with the location.
Ramsay Health (NOT HammondCare) acquired and then closed the Northside Psychiatric Clinic on Greenwich Road. The appearance of that building is attractive and looks as if your mind would be untangled before leaving. In order to expand that facility the building was abandoned and Ramsay Health built a colourless replacement building, eight stories, in Artarmon Business Park, which looks like it could chill a troubled mind.
I walked through the Greenwich Hospital Grounds last week and recognised buildings blending in with a very nice landscape. The changes proposed for Greenwich Hospital site are like replacing the cafeteria in the Sydney Botanic Gardens with a Coles Supermarket.
The developers verdict that the existing building fabric has reached the end of its useful life is a big exaggeration. The proposed and existing hospital are not for precision medicine.
Designing a health care facility should not include residential and independent living for an older cohort who are essentially healthy. Their health needs are, rightly, met by doctors from the community and Lane Cove Community Services. Very high density living is better psychologically for a diverse age cohort.
In the context of the neighbourhood, the development is gross, not in keeping with the environment, the residential surrounds or the Primary School opposite.
Concerning the developers response to Submission Report, Clause 23/3 states "build up to the East of the site along River Road which includes a number of residential flat buildings of 4-5 storeys." WRONG. The buildings are 2-3 stories and at a cross roads at the top of steep hills.

I object because,
First
The enviromental impact statement re traffic and green canopy are misleading. River Rd is a narrow, undulating and curving main thoroughfare with double white lines. There is no curbside parking. The residential driveways are all steep making access hazardous. I have lived on River Rd for 38 years. During this time I have witnessed an ever increasing traffic load. Tradespeople and visitors find it difficult to negotiate . We hear screeching brakes at the approach to the Hospital on a daily basis. 80 plus new residential units can only compound this issue. The Hospital indicates they will triple their services following this redevelopment.
Second
Eight storey hospital facility is out of proportion to the landscape, especially as it isto be built almost curbside.
Third
The removal of heritage site trees will severely impact wildlife.
Concerned local resident.

My Submission Opposing the current Redevelopment Plans for Greenwich Hospital is attached and is self-explanatory.

The Bulk and scale of the Hospital and the Seniors Living Apartments is inconsistent with the generally low-density residential character of the area;

The extent of Seniors Living on the site should be decreased with the consequent reduction of vegetation removal, visual impacts and provide space for the hospital to be accommodated in a building of reduced height and visual prominence.

The development is “contrary to Clause 33. 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.
The proposed development does not complement and sensitively harmonise with the heritage-listed Pallister House.

• Validity of building on “health services facilities” zoned land – Hospital zoned SP-2. They do not meet the objectives of the SEPP which is to provide facilities used to promote the maintenance or improvement of health, or restoration to health, or prevention of disease or treatment to injury to persons. The building of two massive blocks of residential “Serviced Seniors Living ” apartments thus does not meet the objectives of the special uses zoning of the site for hospital use & there is no guarantee that the residents will need those facilities, as they only have to be 55+ years of age;
• The use of hospital land for seniors living will cause that land to be lost to public infra-structure forever and “sanitise” the land so as to prevent the hospital evermore from expansion when needed in the years to come;
• Height, bulk, scale – loss of amenity to hundreds of nearby residents due to this and in- compatible with current expectations of residents, the landscape and of neighbouring residential dwellings of only either one- or two-storeys; this is not an area zoned for industrial buildings such as a hospital – it is an anomaly in the area & should be kept in keeping with its surrounds.
• The removal of over 40% of the trees on the site*, most associated with the “Serviced Seniors Living” apartments and landscaping, roads, etc, will drastically change the nature of the site and remove its “bush environment” forever. Removal of much of the under-storey will exacerbate that. *N.B. The currently-proposed number of trees has been reduced from the first Concept Plan which is excellent, however this number could easily increase once detailed site building plans are prepared, or some just removed to make it easier for the builders to move around the site.
• The affect that the proposal will have on the surrounding bushland. The development includes buildings, internal roads, paving, landscaping and terracing and storm-water works. It is incalculable what the effects will eventually be on the surrounding bushland and Gore Creek Valley;
• Habitat destruction. Many large and important trees are slated for removal to build these buildings and that will destroy the habitat of many kinds of aves (birds), reptiles, insects, arachnids (spiders), and so on and their breeding territories will be forever gone. In particular, the consultants have identified endangerment to the breeding pairs and territories of several species;
• Additional to visual overbearing by the over-sized hospital and Serviced Seniors Living apartment blocks, local residents will suffer privacy intrusion from residents & patients, lights operating 24 hours per day and increased noise from the activities associated with these buildings – all incompatible with normal residential living endemic to this area;
• 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; It is noted that St Vincents Road will be used as access for the Underground Car Park, causing bottlenecks at that road’s interface with River Road and making it almost impossible for local residents to access River Road.

SUBMISSION example: (1) We object to this development with 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.
(2) 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” (current ridgeline RL 60.65; proposed height RL 80). Although set to the north of Pallister, this building would be far taller than the current tree line and will be visually dominant.

TRAFFIC AND ASSOCIATED DANGERS
• The increased danger to Greenwich School children using the crossing outside the hospital due to huge numbers of vehicles – commercial, industrial and residential - entering and leaving the hospital grounds and many heavy, high vehicles (with limited sight-lines to people including small children) during the construction phase; these must be well-researched and provision made for safety of crossing users;
• This development 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, potentially leading to accidents.
• Impact on residents on the Greenwich peninsula using St Vincents Rd to leave and enter the area. St Vincents Rd likely to become a “car park” for several hours each day and a left-only turn-out possible; it is only one lane most of the day due to parked cars along its length;
• The above issue will generate further traffic to that already using the internal roads of the hospital to exit the peninsula, causing danger to school children crossing next to that exit opposite the Primary School and walking down St Vincents Road;
• Impact on St Vincents Rd residents of vastly increased traffic flow, especially if current exit from hospital is permitted to be open after daylight hours;
• Northwood and Longueville residents will also be affected by the much heavier traffic associated with the site.

1. Over development of the site
The proposed development includes 3 towers up to 8 stories in height being significantly higher than what is already on the site.
The developer states that the amended development has significantly scaled back the bulk and scale of the original plan, this is clearly not the case with the hospital and senior living building essentially retaining the same size and scale as in the original plan.

2. In appropriate use of the site
The senior living building comprises 13,000 sq.m, essentially the same square meterage as the proposed hospital building 14,000 sqm, this means nearly 50% of the site is for residential use not hospital use as per the land zoning.

3. Impact on local amenity. With the hospital building being 8 stories in height, and significantly higher than the existing hospital, the new development will tower over the local residential community and therefor is well out of character within the locale of Greenwich and adjoining neighbourhoods.

4. The size and scale of the project will significantly impact local traffic, especially vehicle movement into and out of the site, adding to a very congested River Road at perk periods and increase traffic during school drop off and pick up times as the Greenwich public school is directly opposite the hospital's main entry off River road.

As a homeowner in a neighbouring street, I object to the redevelopment of Greenwich hospital on the grounds of:
- significant increased traffic congestion along St Vincents Rd and Gore St.
- loss of privacy for neighbouring properties.
- respite care facility will increase number of visitors requiring to park locally hence adding to number of parked cars on the streets.
- River Rd will become more congested than it already is at peak hour and at school pick up times.
- the development is out of character with surrounding buildings.
- the inconvenience for neighbours when building/construction work commences especially in relation to noise, dust pollution and major traffic congestion along River Rd and St Vincents Rd.

kind regards

I object to the Redevelopment of Greenwich Hospital - please find my specific objections below:
1. The development applicant, Hammond Care, is exploiting the The State Significant Development approval pathway, its status of a health facility development and and inability for the Council to effect town planning controls on the site under the Special Purpose zoning to seek approval for development of extensive non-health related commercial activities. By doing this, the Project planning and process will not undergo Local Council checks and controls normally applied to residential developments therefore the district is at risk of serious negative consequences to the area: Over-development, traffic, loss of trees and vegetation, natural water course and invasion of privacy.
2. The redevelopment includes the addition 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 surety 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 neighbours 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.
7. The concept plans outline significant removal of trees and loss of vegetation from the site and with the addition of a significant increase in the size and bulk of the buildings, will result in a facility that does not fit with the area and have a negative impact on the natural water course through the site to the neighbouring residential properties.

The project is an overdevelopment of the site.

Hammondcare are a community service organisation. I am requesting that they abide by the Lane Cove Council LEP, or seek approval from them on merit.

The buildings should be no more than 4 storeys high, not 7.
The setbacks should be increased.

The RFS should have the final say on the setback from the bush land reserve. What is set out would seem to be inadequate in a serious fire event.

Major gum trees are a vital part of the character of Lane Cove and these should be retained.

There is no transition between residential properties to the west and east - major buildings are right on top of houses. That is appalling behaviour from a neighbour.

The visual impact from my property will be very significant. I have low confidence that the mooted additional landscaping will ever occur as commercial motives to maximise views will, I anticipate, over rule sensitivity to neighbours. Please do not allow it to be approved as is.

It is sad to see a good charitable organisation overtaken by aggressive and greedy tactics.

I have lived in the suburb a long time. As a lad, I can recall looking from my bedroom window and seeing the existing hospital being built. I will not forget the amazement I felt as the vast building was constructed. It appeared then to be a gross and unsympathetic development. That disappointment tempered over the years through the good service the Deaconesses provided to the wider community. This current proposed development again has the hallmarks of overdevelopment. The significant difference is that this time a very large proportion of it relates essentially to private housing. As presented it should not be approved.

Properly constrained the renewing of the site should proceed. The correct people to handle the complexity of it are the planners and elected representatives on Lane Cove Council. If they are not going to get a look in, then their views should be given special consideration and the project moderated accordingly.

I live in Northwood, near River Road. The traffic is already bumper to bumper during peak times. It’s dangerous already making a right hand turn onto River road from Northwood road. High accident spot for both drivers and pedestrians. The scale of the development means more people and more local traffic. With two other developments in the local area Northwood / Longueville and Greenwich, it’s an over development of this gorgeous natural environment. This area is unable to sustain these developments unless you can fix the traffic issue and how traffic can safely flow. The extra traffic will bring more pollution to this area. The development must be made at a smaller scale.

This is a necessary and welcome addition to the infrastructure and services for the community. As a local resident and neighbour, I wish there were not so many NIMBY’s ready to knock this considered proposal from a good organisation that is HammondCare. Sure there will be a few trees removed (but many more plantings added) yet that is consistent with what so many residents do in their own properties. More traffic, yes, this is an arterial road with an expanding school across the road.
This updated facility will be an improvement to a site that is under-utilised and offer more unfortunate patients a nice environment.
Please proceed as soon as possible, Sydney and the lower north shore needs more facilities just like this.

I wish to object to the current proposal for 2 x 7 storey apartment blocks. This proposal is wrong on many levels, Impact on Greenwich Public School, Noise, Privacy, Traffic issues on River Road and St.Vincents Road and the large scale removal of trees.

I have lived in Upper Cliff Road, Northwood for nearly 60 years.

I look directly across the gully to the existing hospital. Most of the western end of the hospital building is clearly visible.

The proposed development will dwarf the existing buildings, along the same gully boundary and further destroy the bush land feel of my home.

The methodology of the Visual Impact Statement is perplexing.

The chosen locations don’t fully and properly represent the visual impact of the development. For example, the impact on my home. Why choose a (Lower) Cliff Road, Northwood location, with a diagonal aspect across the gully, and from where the full bulk of the site and structures are hidden behind existing trees standing on the Northwood side!!?? One can only speculate.

I also object to the proposed development as follows:

* Visual impact
* Zoning
* Noise impact
* Traffic impact both during and after completion
* Lack of public transport
* Potential for environmental damage to adjacent bushland corridor
* Safety concerns for school due to increased traffic

Visual - This development is being proposed in an area which is all zoned R2 residential ie height restriction of 9.5m. The 9 storey hospital and 2 x 7 storey residential building will tower above everything else. It will loom over local residents, be an eye sore to the area of Northwood and the users of Bob Campbell Oval which sits below it. As mentioned little or no consideration has been given to the view aspect from Northwood, whose residents enjoy a bush outlook over the gully.

Zoning - This site is zoned SP2 Health Services and yet the proposal is requesting senior living villas and senior living apartments. This is contrary to what the area has been designated. When the developer acquired the site, they should not have felt any “entitlement” to commercialise the site. If approved, why then have planning laws at all!?

Noise - The additional noise created from the hospital will affect all residents of Northwood. Noise travels freely across the gully and can readily be heard from all of the east side of the suburb. The additional noise during construction would have a significant impact on the amenity of residents.

Traffic, safety and parking - The Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment conclusion that the development will have "negligible effect" is rejected. The residents of Greenwich, Northwood and Longueville have no option but to use River Road to get out of their suburbs as they are all isolated points. River Road is a small 50Km/hour residential road frequently with only one lane of flowing traffic in either direction but continues to become busier and busier with the increasing apartment population in Lane Cove, Macquarie Park and Ryde etc. These issues are only likely to increase with an increased traffic volume from the redevelopment and thereby safety issues for residents and school children. During construction the required movement of trucks and trades accessing the site would only exacerbate these problems – see the current problems during the construction at Greenwich Public School (I note construction workers/contractors currently park in the hospital grounds because of the lack of available parking).

The site does not have convenient access to public transport. The 261 Bus operates no more than every 20 minutes over a 2 hour peak period until 8.30am Outside of peak hours Monday to Friday it only runs once per hour. Additionally, it operates once an hour on Saturdays and there is no Sunday service at all. St Leonards Station is a 25min up-hill walk from the hospital and no bus route exists to connect the station to Greenwich hospital. This will exacerbate ongoing traffic, parking and safety issues

I object to the proposed redevelopment of Greenwich Hospital.

I support the amended plans for the Greenwich Hospital expansion as they have addressed the key community concerns of tree reduction, reduction in the bulk of the buildings and the removal of the senior villas. The increased benefit to the community of having expanded medical facilities on our doorstep will be significant, especially given the proximity to the RNSH medical precinct and increasing population in the area. I do not believe the expansion will affect Greenwich's charm, amenity or accessibility, and will be a great positive for our community.

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 welcome the reduction in scale of the residential development of this scheme, however it still contains a very substantial residential component. The site is wholly unsuitable for such residential development, as it is largely unserviced by public transport, and particularly trains. It will generate a great deal of traffic and place substantial demands on parking (both on and off the site), despite the principle having been firmly established that large scale residential development needs to be to proximate to public transport services. The residential development will also restrict the future development of the site as a health facility, which is its function. I cannot object to the further development of the site as a hospital, but I believe that it is wholly wrong to fund such development through inappropriate residential construction.