Redevelopment of Greenwich Hospital (Concept)

Please find enclosed our submission objecting to the project

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.
Regards
Nicole [email protected]

I support increasing the community hospital, Aged care and hospice at Greenwich Community Hospital. I do not support including a Health Precinct nor Senior Housing.
These inclusions have nothing to do with the concept of a community hospital but are designed to make profit for the owners, at detrement to the Greenwich Community and for the motorists using River Road and St Vincents Road. Seniors housing and a 'Hospital Precinct" will add to the already congested River Rd. Space should be reserved for future old age care requirements. There will be plenty of space for senior housing and a "health precinct" in the St Leonards South and Crows Nest Growth Plan much closer to public transport and other facilities. Greenwich Hospital is isolated from the amenities senior residents require. Compare it to the Seniors housing in Greenwich Rd close to shops, doctors, pharmacy and school (for grandparents). I request that you reject the present application and ensure a revised plan eliminates senior housing (over 55 or over 80?) and a Health Precinct.

Supplementary Objection attached.

Please see attached letter of support.

Greenwich Hospital is zoned as a Health Services facility.
- The proposed development is contrary to that zoning - it proposes two 7-storey residential buildings and is a commercial development.

Greenwich is a low-density residential area and most of the suburb has height restrictions. The scale this proposal fails on a number of grounds:
- the scale and size of the proposed 8-storey hospital building, and the 7-storey residences are not consistent with the area
- the proposed 8-storey hospital tower is on the highest point of the land and will change the skyline of the area quite dramatically, compared to the surrounding suburban dwellings.
- there has been no assessment of the visual impact on the surrounding area - including the Bob Campbell Oval.

Greenwich is a bush-land area.
- The proposal is to remove trees on the west and south of the property: -- this will impact the E2-zoned bush-land.
- Residential units for Seniors are proposed for bushfire prone land, which will necessitate the further removal of trees on land which is zoned bush-land.

I strongly object to the proposed redevelopment application. Many of the “alleged” improvements have not reduced the significant adverse impacts on the community surrounding the site and the huge visual and imposing bulk remains.

I am the owner of a property in Upper Cliff Road, Northwood on the high side and currently have a 180 outlook across the valley to Greenwich Hospital through to the lights at Greenwich Road. Currently there is no structure in the corridor from Northwood Road/Longueville Road through to Greenwich Road which is more than 3 stories in height. This is the case in the surrounding areas across the golf course and down to Longueville. The current zoning has protected the area together with the restriction on the removal of trees of a certain height. This is why we choose to live here.

This corridor (along with the surrounding suburbs) is densely green and appealing to the eye and a pleasant place to live. With the plan proposed this will completely change. Attached is a photo of the current view from Upper cliff Road looking across to the hospital and beyond. This will be blocked and replaced with towering solid buildings, which are imposing commercial looking structures totally out of character with the area. It will be an eyesore and completely change the ambience and visual amenity of this residential area.

The land on which the site is proposed is on a high ridge and elevated – that of itself makes the proposed development so much more imposing and highly visible, even if built in line with the rest of the area – this elevation is a factor which needs to be taken into account.

The proposed development will see the removal of existing trees and vegetation within the development footprint and will totally disrupt the leafy green environment that epitomises this area. I understand about 70 trees, many very old and established will be removed. Any replantings will take decades to grow to replace what will be removed.

I support the building of/redevelopment of hospitals– but they need to be sympathetic to the environment in which they are being located. The land size of the site is large enough to achieve Hammond’s proposal to expand the current hospital to improve the inpatient/outpatient support services AND be built in a way which blends in within the surroundings. It does not and should not be as high as envisaged. It needs to be sympathetic to what is currently in this leafy green corridor.

Achieving this, however, is clearly impeded by that part of the proposal to include what is now submitted as “senior serviced apartments” which are very similar in physical size and height to what was previously proposed - 2 x 7 storey blocks. The land is currently zoned for Health Service Facilities. The proposed “senior serviced apartments” cannot be classified as medical infrastructure or a related use. This is a backdoor attempt to build residential apartments on land which is zoned for hospital use only. Any such development cannot be permitted unless they too comply with the zoning requirements that every other resident in the area needs to meet. Also, allowing these to be built on this site will restrict any future development of the intended use of the site, namely hospital services, which is not in the public interest.

In relation to the proposed redevelopment of the hospital itself, given that there are no height controls on the site, any development must be viewed in context to the surrounding buildings and structure adjoining the site. The proposed height and bulk of the hospital are not in keeping with the low scale residential development surrounding the site and the adjoining suburbs. This is not a commercial area.

The proposed development will detrimentally impact and change the character of the area in so many ways. The consequences and flow on effect of this proposed development are enormous. They have been well aired by others and I strongly endorse those objections which include:
• Increased traffic on River Road – which is already congested early in the mornings before peak hour. Various sections of the road are well known for accidents. There will be increased traffic safety issues for locals and children at Greenwich School.
• The significant destruction of trees and greenery due to the development
• Light pollution – the amount of light which will be emitted from the site 24/7 and particularly at night across the current dark landscape. The significant destruction of greenery on the current site will increase this pollution.
• Impact on public transport – the area is not well connected to public transport. There is only one bus service, which is not frequent (particularly on weekends with no services on Sundays) and already overcrowded. Users of the site will be dependent on cars.
• The acoustic impacts - increased noise across the valley due to what is proposed on the site
• Impact on privacy for the surrounding landowners and significant detrimental visual impact to the existing residences in Greenwich and Northwood
• The complete incompatibility of the imposing structure with the local area

The “Hammond families” and anyone dealing with this development application should be asked to take a look around the area and, if they lived here, would they like this built in their backyard? The development must be built so it is part of the suburb not looming over it and destroying it. By all means, revamp the hospital but do it in a way in which the current community and natural environment are not compromised. The current proposal is poor and inconsiderate design.

Build something which the locals can be proud to have and support.

See attached submission

One of the reasons I love living in Greenwich is the fact that it has not been destroyed by over development. When you compare the aesthetic of Greenwich to nearby St Leonards and Lane Cove it is indisputable that Greenwich is uniquely untouched and beautiful, a setting of tranquility with thriving wildlife and bush land. I reject this proposal which proposes to remove over 80 trees. This would be an absolute travesty, not only to the wildlife that depend upon them, but to the whole aesthetic. When you remove those trees you take away the homes of hundreds of species that depend upon them. If this wildlife is lost we also lose the tranquility of sound; the birds, the owls, the cockatoos, the kookaburras...its an endless symphony of sound that cannot be replaced and provides residents and visitors to Greenwich a respite from the industrial landscape the redevelopment will inevitably create. Please do not allow this to happen! One tree removed is one tree too many.

As someone who grew up in this neighbourhood, with family and friends still living in immediate proximity to the hospital, I'm writing to express my concern about these plans.

The size and scale of both the hospital and seniors living apartments don't fit the neighbourhood's low density, residential feel. An eight-storey hospital tower will dominate the skyline, while traffic growth will increase both gridlock for cars and safety risks for pedestrians including Greenwich Public school children. Add in the inevitable damage to the nearby bushland valley -- including tree removal to meet RFS Asset Protection Zone standards -- and it's clear that this proposal is not designed with the setting in mind.

Further, several aspects of the process to date are concerning and require a full review. For example, the current proposal of two seven-storey towers as a commercial investment goes against the zoning for a health services facility. Also, no visual impact survey has been done for residences south of the site, or for the oval which is well-used by the community as the main sporting grounds in the area. 

As a fomer resident and family member of current residents, I objec to this style of development. The development is substancially out of character with the area, is not consistent with health services zoning and has a high impact on neighbouring properties, heightended by the removal of tree cover to meet RFS Asset Protection Zone requirments. The submission is missing a visual impact survey for the southern boundary.

My family and I, who live directly opposite the proposed development, remain strongly opposed to the revised Greenwich Hospital proposal on the following grounds:

- The scale of the proposed hospital building is too great for the area, and still involves too much loss of trees. We live directly opposite (at 108 River Road) where the large new hospital is planned for, this will completely overshadow and create excess noise to our family home, and affect our family's privacy. It will also directly affect the value of our house - we currently look at large gum trees, not a mammoth hospital sat upon elevated ground. Additionally it is not in keeping with the leafy low rise density in the area (and its zoning).

- In the visual study presented, our home was showing of having the highest adverse visual impact from the proposal. We would request a review of the plans to lessen the severity of the impact to us and our neighbors on River Road.

- We request that the bulk and scale of the proposed hospital be further decreased, and for it to be set back further from the River Road Boundary, and for the existing large trees to be preserved. Due to the ground already being elevated from street, the proposed height is of great concern to us.

- The residential development proposed (Seniors Living) needs to abide by residential development rules that anyone else would need to - what is proposed is not supportable with traffic, noise and congestion of the area. River Road is already an extremely busy road, and already has issues with student safety on River Road for Greenwich Public School (a School about to be extended - already approved and currently being built by the NSW Government). How can River Road and surrounding streets handle both of these projects with the increased car and foot traffic they will bring? The seniors living areas need to replanned in keeping with the low density of the area.

-Pallister House will be dwarfed by the proposed Hospital and senior living blocks. This is a heritage listed house and needs to be sensitively built around.

- The removal of large trees and damage to sensitive bushland is deeply upsetting. In this time of rapid climate change, the Government has a responsibility to work around these beautiful trees and bushland in any approvals it grants.

We appreciate some changes made to the proposal since the last, but reiterate the bulk and scale is still far too great for Greenwich. Please reduce the building floor levels and substantially set the hospital building back from the River Road boundary to retain much more trees and not impose on the visuals of our leafy area. Please also decrease amount of senior livings units to manage congestion, noise and traffic, which is already a safety concern to our local school children and members of the public in general.

Regards
The Naylor Family

NSW Department of Planning and Environment
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2000

December 16 2019

https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/major-projects/project/12171


Redevelopment of Greenwich Hospital Site SSD 17- 8699

Dear Planner
I yet again strongly object to this proposal and reiterate my April submission. In addition I further strngly object on the basis of the following:

There has been little if any true consultation on the part of HammondCare (since the submission of the first proposal) with the local community (including myself) and its representative groups. So, I am unsure if HammondCare can assert that the revised proposal has been changed to take into account community concerns. For the record and as an active member of my community, I am aware that HammondCare has been unwilling to hold any form of combined community group meeting on its proposal.

On 10 December 2019, the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel approved a 92 bed Residential Aged Care Facility at 33 Greenwich Road. Yet this Greenwich Hospital proposal makes no mention of this development nor of the existence of the Glenwood Nursing home on Greenwich Road.

The proposed Serviced Seniors Living apartment blocks are not compliant with the intentions of zoning law, and their size is too large for this site and the surrounding residential area.

The site cannot meet the current 2004 standards required by the NSW Environmental Planning Policy for seniors housing due to both its specific topography and its location. It does not have good access to retail and health services, good public transport services nor community facilities.

This land will be much-needed for future hospital expansion and therefore should be preserved for hospital-only purpose. It is essential to keep this land as designated hospital facilities land. Surely the lessons must be learnt from all the school land that was sold off by the NSW government in the 1980s and the issues now created with our expanding population and increasing demand for schools. The reality is that more hospitals will be needed in the future.

The dominance of the Apartment Blocks and Hospital Tower (30 metres) is completely out of keeping for this area and will affect the privacy of many nearby; those on the North side of River Road and Western & Southern sides of the site will be overwhelmed by their unacceptable bulk and height, as will Northwood residents. The proposed Hospital Tower (proposed to be located on the highest point of the site) would be far taller than the current tree line and will be visually far too prominent as its height would be almost 20 metres higher than the ridgeline of the tiled roof of the heritage listed “Pallister House” (current ridgeline RL 60.65; proposed height RL 80).

The proposed Respite Centre is not compliant with zoning law on Heritage-zoned land. This Centre should be excluded from the heritage part of the site and more appropriately placed in the hospital-zoned land area.

The development would result in the removal of a large proportion of the site’s mature trees, the loss of habitat for wildlife (which is considerable to the bush environment of our area), the loss of privacy and increased noise, lights and traffic pollution. Finally, there is no consideration of the safety of local school children attending Greenwich Primary School who must use the adjacent pedestrian crossing across River Road. This will potentially be compromised.

In summary, it is apparent that this proposal by HammondCare is purely being driven by the profit to be made from this development at the expense of our local community. The scale of the proposed development is well in excess of what the location, local roads and infrastructure can support but this fact has been conveniently overlooked by HammondCare.

Based on the reasons outlined above, I request that the Minister refuse this proposal in its current form.

However, I would have no objection to a development proposal that maintains and improves the use of this site as a hospital facility and provides services and supports for older people.

Yours sincerely

Greenwich Resident

I object to some aspects of the project, but support the overall plan to upgrade Greenwich Hospital, which is a valued health care provider in this area.
Greenwich Hospital is a well situated centre for a number of health services, many of them meeting the needs of an ageing population.

I have made a submission previously and this time would like to state that having the date for submissions so close to Christmas does not suggest a genuine interest in feed back from the public. Most people are distracted and many believe that having made one submission their views would continue to be considered on matters where no real change has been made to the plan.
My main objection was and remains the use of land for profit; land which should be preserved for the expansion of health related services to meet expanding needs in years to come.
To have a high rise block of apartments which is private and for profit on such well located land designated for health related purpose is unacceptable. Such land will become more and more valuable for health related services.

I would also suggest that this development does not meet the criteria for a State Significant Development and must not be shepherded through under this guise.

In addition I believe that the increased school population at both Greenwich Primary School sites will bring even more traffic to an already heavily congested River Road.

Most of all I object to the 5 - 7 storey unit block destroying the integrity of the Gore Creek bushland and also the oval, which provides an oasis of calm for many people in this increasingly noisy and stressful city where mental health is in decline.

Hi,

Please refer attached objection Letter.
Regards,

Please see attached objection letter

See attached objection

I object to the proposed redevelopment.
The area should be retained for hospital purposes, not residential.
The proposal is an over development of the site which will create traffic issues and have other adverse impacts on the area.
The visual impact on Northwood where I live , is unacceptable.

In response to the proposed amendments by Hammond Care to the proposed Concept Plan, the proposed redevelopment of Greenwich Hospital remains focused on the provision of residential accommodation, therefore continuing to IGNORE and CONTRAVENE the Lane Cove Council LEP, in that the zone type and land use, SP2, can only permit Medical/Health Services and Facilities. Hammond's key amendments do little to REDUCE the extreme and excessive bulk and brutality of this proposed redevelopment, and ignore the primary reason for the redevelopment - health and wellbeing services for the community at large.
Hammond Care does NOT offer either a SOCIAL IMPACT STUDY or ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY. It is clear from the significant negative community and agency reaction that these two missing studies should be independently produced by authorised and qualified professionals, and exhibited for public scrutiny, given the proposal by Hammond Care represents such a large impact and influence on the sustainability of its (health) business operations, as well as impacting on community and environmental expectations and outcomes for future decades.
The concept plan indicates a VERY HIGH DEPENDENCE on an intensive commercialisation of Hammond Care services, reliance on sick/unhealthy Seniors/Retirees/Aged to maximise profit, and a reliance on a short-medium term payback period. In this proposal, there is no effort or evidence given by Hammond Care to proactively support the future improvement in health and wellbeing of seniors in the community through exercise, nutrition or lifestyle choices.
So far Hammond Care has decided the concept plan should either remain unchanged or involve a few minor adjustments, like:
1) changing labels/names for some built facilities, like "respite care" facilities instead of seniors living villas. BUT ... the reason for the name change is unclear, lacks clarity about intended services and facilities from Hammond Care.
2) still retaining so-called "seniors living accommodation"co-located on site. BUT ... these apartments directly conflict with the land zone requirements (SP2/medical/hospital/health services), and are designed to maximise the profit margin for Hammond Care operations. The proposed dwellings have negligible co-relationship to the health care services delivered on site, or any expected transition of patients back to the community such as semi-dependent or independent living arrangements. These proposed dwellings remain a visual and physical eyesore across the site. The proposed dwelling characteristics are retained: not easily accessible; not easily affordable; isolate a large concentration of elderly people from community services and family interaction; excessive building footprints and dimensions, with massive bulk and density, extremely brutal design and delivery both visually and physically. The enormity, height, width and disproportionate scale of these buildings are most obvious from the western side of the site, such as the Gore Creek Reserve and Northwood. Expectation remains for significant increases in noise due to amplification (and echo/rebound) originating from 24/7 River Road vehicles, and aircraft traffic (emergency and curfew). There are no vertical gardens or roof gardens proposed. There is no attempt to integrate such facilities with the natural habitat/ecosystem.
3) still ignoring usage and congestion impacts on local transport and travel mode networks, corridors and services. BUT ... the proposed development will escalate road and pedestrian traffic and likely contribute to escalating traffic congestion and road/pedestrian accidents. The Concept Plan fails to provide a proper evaluation of future traffic movements and congestion forecasts because it is clear Transport NSW depends on River Road to serve as a major arterial route for private and public vehicles.
4) still expanding and retaining extensive hard surface areas, including new buildings, traffic ways and artificial landscapes. BUT ... the proposal is rapidly increasing and expanding the horizontal and vertical array of artificial hard surfaces to the detriment of natural, porous landscapes. There is minimal effort to retain, as well as increase garden settings and natural landscapes to integrate and support local ecosystems/habitats of mostly fragile fauna and flora. Because Hammond Care proposes a rapid escalation in urban development across the majority of the whole site, a massive extinction of site habitat will occur, and this event will no doubt severely impact adjacent and nearby ecosystems/habitats, and impact on the wellbeing of the hospital residents and neighbouring community residents.
5) offering a few more new seedlings/saplings, and even retaining a few more trees/plant (whatever survives severe drought, and an ongoing climate change emergency). BUT ... such minimal efforts show the resolve by Hammond Care to destroy the local habitat of the site, and shows this organisation has no care or empathy for the consequences of the proposed development on the local environment or community - also see [4] above. Note, the exhibited biodiversity study demonstrates ineptitude and negligence and should be re-commissioned according to a proper evaluation of the fragile ecosystems/habitats onsite and adjoining the site.

I object to the proposal due to the inclusion of seniors living apartments. This land should be used as a health care facility as it is zoned. In the future we are going to need more health care facilities as the population increases and ages so it is important to maintain this. Some transition housing where patients could live temporarily after being discharged but before returning home would be good or alternatively more respite beds but not permanent housing.