Redevelopment of Greenwich Hospital (Concept)

Dear Sir/Madam
I wish to make known my ideas and concerns regarding the Amended Redevelopment plans for Greenwich Hospital currently on exhibition by the proponent, HammondCare.
In particular I OBJECT to the following aspects:
• SIZE, BULK AND SCALE OF THE MAIN HOSPITAL TOWER BUILDING for the following reasons:
- No structure in the corridor from Northwood Road/Longueville Road through to Greenwich Road is more than 3 stories in height. Why should this be any exception

• SERVICED SENIORS LIVING Apartment Blocks for the following reasons:
- the proposal to include senior living villas and 2 x 7 storey blocks for independent seniors living should not be allowed unless they too comply with the zoning requirements that every other resident in the area needs to meet.
• AMENITY AND VISUAL IMPACTS ON RESIDENTS for the following reasons:
- This project is not in keeping with the area – no structure in the corridor from Northwood Road/Longueville Road through to Greenwich Road is more than 3 stories in height. This corridor (along with the surrounding suburbs) is densely green and appealing to the eye and a pleasant place to live. The area will be completely changed with the project and the greenery will be completely overshadowed by towering solid buildings.
- The ambience and visual amenity of the residential area will be totally ruined

• IMPACT ON BUSHLAND AND ENVIRONMENT for the following reasons:
- 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
- The environmental damage to the surrounding bushland, the local habitat and species, creeks and Bob Campbell oval. It will undermine and detrimentally compromise the bush regeneration work which has been done in the area - mostly by dedicated volunteers.

• TRAFFIC AND SAFETY CONCERNS for the following reasons:
- 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.
- Impact on public transport – the area is not well connected to public transport. Currently there is only one bus service, which is not frequent and already overcrowded.

• OTHER MATTERS:
- Impact on privacy for the surrounding landowners
- Incompatibility of the modern imposing structures with the local area
- The development will impact and detrimentally change the character of the area in so many ways
- The acoustic impacts - increased noise across the valley due to what is proposed on the site
- 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.

it has been a low key health facility - totally unexpected by adjoining properties
zone is for health services not for residential development
scale - proposal is not in keeping with its low key residential and harbour bushland environment
inappropriate site for seniors housing

I live in Greenwich directly adjacent to the hospital, and I strongly object to the size and scale of the proposed redevelopment. The hospital is surrounded by one and two storey residences, which will be dwarfed by the redevelopment. This development will be completely out of character with the nature and attraction of the local area.

See attached

Dear Department of Planning, Industry and Environment,

Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission to this proposed redevelopment of the Greenwich Hospital site. We would like to register our opposition to the proposal in its current form due to:
(i) safety concerns for the pedestrians and users of St Vincents Road due to the increase in traffic associated with a development of this scale in a residential area. This will be felt most during the peak periods, when there is also an increased number of users travelling to the Greenwich Public School;
(ii) a decrease of available car parking on St Vincents Road due to increased size of the facility. Visitors and staff of the hospital and associated facilities currently park on St Vincents Road in addition to the parking located within the hospital grounds. This will further increase with this significant increase in patients, residents and staff. An increase to the number of cars parked on St Vincents Road reduces the visibility and accessibility of this road, further increasing risk to safety;
(iii) inappropriate scale of height of development of the hospital building given surroundings and topography of the site. The height of this building is not compatible with the character of the locality, and the slope of the land and neighbouring land further accentuates this incompatibility. The height and bulk of the buildings should be further reduced;
(iv) removal of trees especially those along the St Vincents road aspect, as this negatively impacts the character of the locality;
(v) the height of the new respite care building is not compatible with the character of the locality, and the slope of the land and neighbouring land further accentuates this incompatibility.

We request that the redevelopment be further reduced in size to ensure the safety of users of this local road (especially the children commuting to the local primary school) and to protect the character of the locality.

Kind regards.

See attached document

Please find attached objection to this development application.

I strongly object to the Proposed Redevelopment of Greenwich Hospital (Concept). My objection is based on the following key points:

1. The overall height and scale of the proposed seniors' living apartment buildings, is completely inappropriate for a largely residential and bushland area. Additionally, as this development is not permitted under current zoning, it should not be permitted through the exploitation of a State Significant Development status. The seniors’ living component of the development application could only be considered a State Significant Development from a developers’ perspective. No nearby resident would consider it as such and nor should any approving authority.

2. The increase in traffic and congestion associated with the overdevelopment of the site will significantly impact local residents, particularly in St Vincents Road and nearby streets and will place children at Greenwich Public School at far greater risk.

3. The green corridor provided by the significant established trees on the Greenwich Hospital site contribute to the residential bushland landscape and create an effective noise barrier and pollution filter between the traffic on Greenwich Road and the residents directly to the south of Greenwich Hospital. While the revised proposal allows for increased tree retention and landscaping, the significant loss of vegetation across the site is of great concern.

While the refurbishment and redevelopment of the health services at Greenwich Hospital as a State Significant Development is understandable, the development of over 80 new seniors' residential apartments should be evaluated separately under the same rules that apply to any commercial property development application.

The proposed seniors' living units are quite simply a stand alone commercial property development and have absolutely no relationship to the redevelopment of Greenwich Hospital and I most vigorously refute the Applicant's conclusion in their original application that "The associated seniors living units are an integral part of the hospital campus and the HammondCare ‘continuum of care’ model”.

The changes Hammondcare have proposed have very little benefit to the local community and the majority of objections we as a community felt with their initial submission still stand.
I lodge my objection to the proposed development of Greenwich hospital as per the following:
• Visual impact on the area
• 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
• Building of residential units in an area zoned for Infrastructure – Health Services

Visual - The visual impact from this development will be significant on the surrounding suburbs. This development is being proposed in an area which is all zoned R2 residential ie height restriction of 9.5m. This is in no way in keeping with the area or immediate streetscape. It appears to be a gross overdevelopment of the site with no consideration taken to the surrounding area and residents.

Zoning - This site is zoned SP2 Health Services and yet the proposal is requesting senior living villas and senior living apartments. This seems to specifically go against what the area has been designated for.

Noise - The additional noise created from the hospital will affect all residents of Northwood. Noise travels freely across the valley area 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 these residents.

Traffic - The Residents of Greenwich, Northwood, Longueville and Riverview have no option but to use River Road to get out of their suburbs as they are all isolated points with their limited entry and exit street leading directly onto River Road. 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 as it is the most direct route from the Crows Nest area to the Hunters Hill, Woolwich or onto the Gladesville Bridge and Victoria Road. These high volumes of traffic particularly during peak times make it difficult for residents to exit their suburbs. In addition to this the winding nature of River Road and limited traffic lights to assist traffic entering River Road generates numerous accidents. A simple crash with no injuries can have a roll on effect and create significant delays on this road.
In previous years the corner of St Vincents Road and River Road Greenwich has been listed in the top 10 accidents sites in the Lane Cove Municipality. The accidents at this intersection are numerous and even the most simple of accidents create significant traffic delays due to the road being only 1 lane west bound. Hazards are created due to various reasons and I fear this would endanger the lives of pedestrians and children who attend Greenwich Public School across the road from the proposed development. Frequently, the traffic wanting to turn right into St Vincent’s Road backs up and drivers come over the crest of the hill to find the traffic stopped. Traffic either entering or exciting St Vincent’s Road will likely become blocked due to parked cars creating a single lane in combination with cars waiting for the traffic to enter or exit before they can continue, creating backups and gridlocks for local residents.
These issues are only likely to increase with an increased traffic volume. During construction the required movement of trucks and trades accessing the site would only exacerbate these problems.

Public Transport - This area has extremely limited public transport. The bus in the only option and runs infrequently. The two closest stations are not suitable for either aged persons or people requiring hospital services as they are both a long walk requiring significant uphill / downhill gradients depending on direction and no connecting bus services to the stations.

I am against the proposed development of Greenwich Hospital as I do not believe it is in the best interests of the area.

The revised proposed redevelopment is of slightly reduced scale from the original proposal but the major problems of inappropriate use of land zoned for health and the size and therefore impact of the development remain.
I object because land zoned for health services should not be used for residential. Once lost, it is gone forever.
The impact on surrounding residents, users of Bob Campbell Oval and the Lane Cove River foreshore will be significant given that an 8 storey building is proposed to be located on the highest point of the site, alone with 2 x 7 storey towers.
Traffic along River Rd is already congested with Greenwich Primary School located opposite this development. Residents will be unable to leave the area during peak times.
Lane Cove is valued by residents for its green spaces, low density and accessibility, all of which would be destroyed by this development.
I strongly object to it as misuse of land and destruction of the amenity for existing residences and open space users.

The development is just not right for the character of Greenwich. The site is so dominant with its position on River Road, and the height of the buildings being able to be seen from Gore Street. It is just not the right thing for the area.

Derek

I am a resident of Greenwich, and I live on Gore Street which is adjacent to the proposed development.

I object to the proposal on a number of grounds:

1. The inclusion of what is essentially residential high-density development within a State Government hospital redevelopment. The scale and location of the residential portion of the proposal would not be permitted under the zoning and planning rules of the area, and is vastly is out of scale with the single- dwelling nature of the surrounding area. There is no reason that planning laws should be changed to allow what would not be permitted to other residents of the area.
2. I object to the litigated public land reserved for hospital use being given over to residential, commercial use. With an ageing and growing population, the burden of healthcare is only going to rise, and Sydney has limited space to expand hospitals in the future. There is no need to give that land over, and we the taxpayers will never get it back.
3. The residential portion is inappropriately placed very close to existing residential properties, cutting off their northern sunlight in winter and removing their privacy and amenity. These blocks are low density one and two story residences, with bush outlooks in a quiet street. The inclusion of the unnecessarily high density, high- rise residential portion of the development will entirely damage the private, quiet nature of the street, and damage the property values of those properties so overshadowed. other residential developments are not permitted to shadow their neighbours or affect the owners’ amenity and privacy, so it is unreasonable to allow that breach in this case.

Additionally, the size, proposed location and bulk of the proposed residential tower will degrade the prized bush nature of this part of Greenwich. The visual impact from my house, from Northwood on the other side of Bob Campbell Oval, from St Vincent’s Road would be overpowering, and completely out of character with existing development in the area. Surrounding residences are modest and nestle into the bush surrounding, and Council requires and developments to likewise pose no visual damage to the character of th area. This development should not be exempt from this requirement. Street setbacks and heights should be amended to settle into the landscape and not overpower the neighbourhood.
4. Traffic and safety -
- St Vincent’s Road is a narrow road already heavily used as a’rat run’ between Greenwich Road and River Road by local traffic. I drive up it multiple times per day. Likewise, Gore Street is a narrow and steep street which has heavy through traffic. Both only have continuous footpaths on one side. These roads are not suitable to take both additional hospital traffic AND the cars of hundreds of new residents. The intersection of St Vincent’s Road and Gore Street is very narrow and already quite dangerous, as vision is not good on the approaches. The intersection of St Vincent’s Road and River Road is hard to get out of as it is, due to the sped of passing traffic and the lack of visibility over the low hill to the left. Again, these intersections are not suitable for the double increase in traffic.
- the students at the two campuses of Greenwich Public School walk to school via Gore Street and St Vincent’s Road, both to commute to school and as part of supervised movements during school days. Children should be encouraged to walk to school for health benefits, and adding hundreds of additional cars from new residents will create a risk to these local children.
5. Fire - bushfire safety and building requirements have not been sufficiently addressed or clarified. We are in the FLAME Zone - significant APZ is indicated for hospitals and aged care facilities and it is not clear this has been allowed for.
6. Excessive tree clearing has been proposed, which is also out of character for the area and will degrade the bush character of the area.
For these reasons, I strongly object to the current proposal.
Regards,
Emma Sloan

I object to this proposeal. See attached file

I have lived in Greenwich with my wife and family for over 25 years. We are very concerned about the over development taking place in our general neighbourhood particularly in the St Leonards area, Crows Nest and surrounds.
In relation to the proposal for the redevelopment of Greenwich hospital we oppose the new proposal. Greenwich is a low density residential area. Like other residents we have paid our council rates, volunteered our time, and spent our own money to maintain the general amenities of the area and have worked hard to make it so. We feel that we have a right to object to the large scale of the Seniors Living Apartments which are out of character with the low-density residential character of Greenwich. We strongly object to any further development within, or close to, our area - it is already over-developed .

That there will be two large 7 storey residental towers is considered to be a commercial investment and contrary to the zoning of the land of health services facilities. As a ratepayer we fail to understand that a health facility can build residential facilities without going through the more rigorous process to which other residential applications are subjected to.
The visual impact of the hospital tower will dominate the skyline and surrounding area. I do not see why such family residential areas as Greenwich should be spoilt , particularly as there is a developer initiated shrinkage of good family suburbs such as Greenwich.

Of great concern is the increased traffic on River road which is already at grid-lock at peak times. Additional traffic will likely gridlock Gore Street, the only second entry and exit from the Peninsular (other being Greenwich Road) making it a possible concern to emergency vehicles and smooth flowing entry and exit into the peninsular side of Greenwich.
The added traffic is of concern for the safety of school children of Greenwich Primary School and pedestrians using the pedestrian crossing.
At a time of the real concern of loss of native vegetation in general in Sydney and in NSW, any removal of trees on the western and southern perimeters facing Northwood and damage to E2 zone bushland which is a sensitive eco system is of great concern. Protection of our environment rests with developers, commercial enterprises as well as individuals.
Placing residential housing on health zoned land does rule out an expansion of future health services on the site. With an aging population and further medical technological advancement, I believe that only heath services should be built on land which is zoned for health services.

Seniors Units cannot be right besides bushfire-prone land as this will require RFS Asset Protection Zone tree removal - this will mean that precious trees (and they are precious ) from land which is NOT zoned for residential.

There has not been a visual impact survey on the effect on residences adjacent to the south of the site on Gore Street or Bob Campbell Oval, the only operable sports ground in the area. These are the areas which will be most impacted by the towers looming over their boundaries. There is also the issue of cast shade over a wide area which will impact on the natural and exotic vegetation.

The increased seniors population will impact on the services which are available to Seniors in the area which are possibly overstretched. Has this been examined? I assume that senior living on the units will not confine themselves to the hospital grounds or services provided by Hammond Care.

Lastly, there is the perception that Hammond Care is using a loophole in development proposals to make a commercial profit, particularly in a location which is desirable and thus profit from this.

Greenwich cannot support any further over development creep. The proposal should also be seen in light of the other approved and proposed development in the general area.

Thank you for taking my concerns into consideration.

We wish to lodge an objection against the amended proposal from HammondCare for the Staged Redevelopment of Greenwich Hospital.

We lodged an objection to the initial EIS application in March 2019.

Whilst we acknowledge that some positive changes have been made to the original proposal, in reality, the majority of the previously critical issues remain unaddressed.

In our original submission, we noted that as Northwood residents, living in sight of the proposed redevelopment, we recognised that we could simplistically be categorised as NIMBYs.

As such, we endeavoured to assess the proposal objectively and not allow any parochial considerations to interfere with or override that aim. We have again adopted a similar approach.

In addition to being a neighbour, we have had two firsthand experiences with the site as an existing hospital.

We have seen much of the hospital first hand through the eyes of a rehabilitation patient, and recognise and acknowledge that a significant overhaul is well overdue. As such, we have no in-principle objections to a new or refurbished single purpose hospital.

We have also seen the existing hospital through the eyes of a close friend (and her family) who was a palliative care patient. This highlighted to us the unique nature and requirements of a hospital specialising in palliative care. Specifically, our experience was that relatives and friends invariably spend extended periods in and immediately around the hospital. The importance of space, along with a peaceful and pleasant garden environment in close proximity to the hospital are pivotal. The current plans would suggest that this feature will largely disappear under the proposed redevelopment, given the significant increase in building density.

Furthermore, since our initial objection, we now appreciate that with the proposed building of commercial residential buildings on land zoned for health use, the opportunity in future to build additional genuine health services will be eliminated, or at least significantly curtailed. Given the inevitable future need for further health resources, this does not seem either sensible or logical.

In summary, a new or refurbished medical or health services facility on a site currently zoned for such purposes would seem reasonable. A major residential development, with relatively small accompanying area allocated for a hospital, would seem totally inappropriate – especially as it falls well outside the present zoning for the site.

Further concerns for us are the impacts on the surrounding area.

The first concern is an obvious one; traffic. With River Road already regularly gridlocked at critical times of the day, the impact of vehicles belonging to, and servicing the additional occupants of the site will be self-apparent.

We are also worried about the potential impact on the existing Gore Creek Bushland Reserve and hospital surrounds. In conjunction with Lane Cove Council, a number of local residents (including ourselves) have worked for a number of years to preserve and rehabilitate the existing bushland. Such areas are so important to the health and wellbeing of the city and local community. As such, anything that jeopardises this green corridor should be subject to the strictest scrutiny, before any development proceeds.

Finally, the visual impact of the project is one that will be of concern for all impacted Northwood residents, along with anyone enjoying both Bob Campbell Oval and the Gore Creek Bushland Reserve. We have seen a photo mock-up of the development, as it currently stands, and the impact is significant. Replacing the current pleasant mix of bushland, residential houses and hospital, will be a massive residential block that will absolutely dominate the skyline.

We would be happy to elaborate further on any of the above points, if this were to be of any assistance.

In the meantime, we appreciate the opportunity to have provided some input into the process.

Yours sincerely

Peter & Rosemary Richards

Dear Madam/Sir,

We wish to object to the scale of the proposed redevelopment of the Greenwich Hospital.

Our objection is based on the following grounds:
- Change of Residential feel to the area - this is now quite clearly a Commercial area which completely changes the residential nature of this suburb'
- Size of development - this is a very big bulk and completely changes the visual landscape particularly from our house which is across the road. This large building creates a large number of traffic - both car and foot and which has implications on safety and privacy (see below)
- Bulk and Streetscape. The current profile of the streetscape on River Road is low rise and compliments the gentle tree-lined undulating hills in the area. The imposition of a such a high risk bulk structure where currently proposed facing River Road will destroy the organic flow of the streetscape and have a harsh visual impact as well as adversely affect the environment of the area. The overall hospital site is massive and there are numerous choices available for the location of larger buildings that will eliminate this impact on the streetscape, environment and community. Council should require a re-design an re-orientation of the site accordingly.
- Privacy! This is a mjor issue for us as the house most of the proposed development will look upon. Not only is the everyday coming and goings of our property now very easily visible to a large community which is not currently there, but we have a pool in the back yard and 2 young girls - the higher levels of this building I believe may be able to see into our backyard and see some personal and private moments we are not comfortable with. Not to mention the view into the primary school next door which our children also attend. I am not comfortable with a large community being able to watch my children at school at any time.
- Over shadowing and bulk. The current high rise structure is located close to River Road and will un-necessarily impact shade, privacy and noise for local neighbouring residents on River Road. This can easily be avoided as the site is very large and there are numerous choices for the location of larger structures. The higher rise structures should be located further back on the site away from existing residences and facing sideways not directly into neighbouring properties. There is clear availability for the developing owner to make these amendments given the size and nature of the site. This would mitigate shade issues, privacy and streetscape bulk. We are predominantly single dwelling landscapes with a maximum of 2 storeys. The 8 storey proposal completely changes the nature of the neighbourhood.
- Traffic and community safety impact. The orientation of the main entrance is on River Road. This is problematic and traffic assessments have underestimated two key aspects of this:
1. River Road is currently beyond capacity at peak hours. Adding additional traffic via the scale of this development will be unsustainable and have a massive impact on traffic flow through the suburb.
2. Safety. The main entrance is located directly opposite Greenwich Primary school. Further increasing traffic flow and possible use by emergency vehicles presents a danger to children in an already difficult environment. This is a major concern and we believe has been totally underestimated by the assessments to date.
As a result we believe the entrance to the facility should be on …. Street and the design of the site should be re-oriented accordingly at a minimum.
Major issues I fear are the impact on traffic, privacy and visual streetscape of a non-commercialised community.
I appreciate your consideration of our very serious concerns around the development proposal of this property.
Kind Regards,

See attached objection

I object to the scale and significant alteration of the visual outlook and feel of the neighbourhood.
Specifically - the respite living which is within the curtilage of pallaster house .
Due to the natural landscape of the block - I specifically am concerned by the height of the repite living in comparison to our hourse . (accross the road to proposed living .

see objection submission file attached

OBJECTION
Objection to Amended Redevelopment of Greenwich Hospital

I am very concerned about aspects of the amended proposed development and this letter is an objection to the proposed amended development. Please find below my objections which are as follows:-

1. I Object to the destruction of the natural environment and habitat for many animals and wildlife due to cutting down over of the trees.
2. I Object to building on such a large footprint and how it will effect the drainage of rain water and run off generally and especially on my own home on he south west tip of the boundary of the site.
3. I Object to the huge increase of electric light output at night from the hospital and residential tower and lit pathways and the fact that this will be all the more obvious because of the lack of filtering from tree which will be cut down for the development as hospitals operate all day and all night.
4. I Object to the size and height of the development. There is no precedent for a development of this size and height on River Rd between Crows Nest and Northwood.
5. I Object to the marked increase in noise pollution due to servicing the new development with its 3-4 fold increase in population, cars (residents and visitors to both residents and hospital patients), services and delivery trucks.
6. I Object to bringing so many extra people to this site. At present there are about 220 people and this development proposes to increase that to upwards of 600.
7. I Object to the residential tower as it is not a part of core hospital business and should not be allowed as part of the new development. If built it will take up a lot of space which will then not be available for necessary expansions of the hospital in the future and the future is never a long way off. It should remain a hospital although I can see how nice a second stream of income would be for the developers.
8. I Object to the traffic congestion that this development will cause. This is a huge consideration as it effect traffic on the site itself, traffic on the local roads and also on River Road which is a main road with only one lane in each direction in that area.
9. I Object to a residential tower where a large number of its residents will be trapped with lack of public transport and a lack of the sort of facilities (some of which are very basic like food shops) which make for a rich and fulfilling life in their old age.
10. I Object to he residential tower as it will cause overshadowing of my home reducing natural light especially in the winter months thereby reducing the amenity of my home.
11. I Object as the residential tower will be be overwhelming in size dominating the site and be a huge eyesore viewed from he other side of River Road.

The redevelopment of Greenwich Hospital has the potential to be a wonderful facility bringing first class specialty services to the local community and the region.
However this hugely overreaching and overbearing development is not in the best interest of this historic site set in a quiet residential area and the people of the immediate locality.
There are more suitable areas near transport hubs and near desirable facilities for our senior citizens.

Regards

Dr Peter Vince