Redevelopment of Greenwich Hospital (Concept)

I'm not opposed to either the villas or the apartments as long as four
reasonable conditions are adhered to;

1) that they are both specifically used for aged care/ assistance
living. As it stands, it's possible for younger generations to live
there as long as an `over 65' is on the title. This isn't condusive to
a successful/ cohesive aged living area (see watermark in Greenwich
for an example of a successful luxury aged living site) and

2) that an equal number of trees are replanted for every tree lost to
the development

3) that the height of apartments remain at 6 stories. Any taller is
not in keeping with the suburb and finally

4) that there are no forced `wasteland' shopfronts such as there will
be in st Leonard's... all the tall buildings have enforced ground
floor shopfronts but no one to fill them, turning the place into a
semi ghetto. Just have ground floor apartments and move upwards. With
plenty of trees.

I object to this development in what is a residential area. The height
and size are way too big. There is a risk to the primary school
children at the nearby school both during the construction period and
subsequently from the increased traffic.

I object to the development as the height and size make it too big for
this residential area, the bushland will be lost forever and school
children will be at risk from both construction and increased traffic

I can understand the upgrading of the hospital and keeping the facility
modern and comfortable for their patients. I can understand the
organisation seeing the opportunity to utilize their property to make
money rather than have nice surrounding for their patients. I do
wonder about the location and how patients get to the nearest shop,
guessing bus to Lane Cove and no support of the local Greenwich shops.
My objection is the proposed height of the apartments and the impact
and precedent set by erecting an eight storey apartment block in
Greenwich. It is just not in keeping with the area and is, I thought
not inline with local planning conditions for height of buildings.

I wish to submit my objection to the Redevelopment of Greenwich Hospital
Concept Proposal Application no: SSD 8699 on the grounds that it
threatens the biodiversity of the area.

As a resident of St Vincents road, I am acutely aware of the
incredible wildlife corridor I live in, home to many different species
of birds and wildlife. In particular, this area is home to a
vulnerable species, the Powerful Owl.

It is my understanding through discussion with experts in the field
that the Powerful Owl requires a large range of bushland, deep hollows
of mature eucalypts or angophoras, and dense groves of trees to
support breeding. The removal at least 50 trees through the wildlife
corridor of the hospital threatens to place the already vulnerable
Powerful Owl on the endangered list.

It is important that we not only retain but increase biodiversity in
NSW. The Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 aims "to conserve
biological diversity... to be achieved by preventing extinction and
promoting the recovery of threatened species, populations and
ecological communities'. This development proposal is in direct
contradiction of The Act.

The Lane Cove Bushland Reserves are also vulnerable. Increased run off
from the hard surfaces which come with development threatens their
ability to thrive. Retaining our bushland reserves is critical to
ensuring the area continues to support its wildlife colonies and the
natural beauty of the landscape.

In particular, I reject to the development proposal for the building
of seniors housing. This would require vast numbers of healthy trees,
home to diverse wildlife species, to be destroyed. It would also ruin
the natural beauty of the landscape, something that can never be fully
recovered. Pallister house and its surrounds are a historical landmark
that need to be protected.

I object to the development as the height & size make it too big for this
residential area, the bushland will be forever lost and school
children will be at danger from both construction and increased
traffic". St Vincents Road will be reduced to a one lane parking lot

I completely object to this overdevelopment by Hammond care
this is a residential area, the loss of 50 or more trees is outrageous
noise, danger to pedestrians and school children in st vincents rd
use of their roadway adjoining onto st vincents rd , the DRIVEWAY MUST
REMAIN CLOSED AS PER THE RESTRICTIONS

I object to the following :
A. the proposed re-development of Greenwich Hospital which shows a
doubling in height and size of the current hospital.

B. the building of 80 new seniors' residential apartments & 9 blocks
of villas on the Greenwich hospital grounds also the cutting down of
50 trees to create these buildings and the necessary parking to
accommodate them.
Hospital grounds are for hospital use, not private apartments.

I object to this development in what is a residential area. The height
and size are way too big. There is a risk to the primary school
children at the nearby school both during the construction period and
subsequently from the increased traffic. I suggest Hammond's rethink
this proposal.

I object to this development in a residential area. The height and size
are way too big. There is a risk to the primary school children at the
nearby school both during the construction period and subsequently
from the increased traffic.River Road is busy enough as it is in the
rush hours and this development will add substantially to the traffic.

I object to the current submission by Hammondcare for development of the
Greenwich Hospital for the following reasons;
1. It appears that very little if any consideration has been given to
the neighbourhood regarding this proposal. The sheer size of this
development is completely out of character with the local area. The
hospital and senior living apartments will tower over the local
residents, be an eyesore to the residents of Northwood and users of
Bob Campbell Oval.
2. It will create a significant impact on local traffic, particularly
during peak times when River Road is already at crawling speed and
blocked up. It is a winding hilly road with massive potential for
increased accidents as people do not anticipate traffic around the
bend or over the crest to be stopped.
The local public school is directly opposite and will feel the impact
and dangers of increased traffic and be significantly affected by
noise during construction phase.
3. This site is a hospital and yet they are proposing to build two
apartment towers. This site is zoned for hospital services not
residential.
This is gross over development of a site.

I object to this development. It is in a residential area and the
proposed height and scale is way too big. There is a risk to the
primary school children at the nearby school both during the
construction period and subsequently from the increased traffic.River
Road is busy enough as it is in the rush hours and this development
will add substantially to the traffic.

Redevelopment of Greenwich Hospital (Concept Proposal) SSD 17_8699

Thank you for the opportunity to comment and for extending the
deadline to April 6 2019.

The local community would welcome re-development of the hospital on
the Greenwich site as many have had good personal associations with
the hospital or with relatives. My Father-in-law passed away in the
palliative section of the hospital in November 1995.

This submission focuses on issues related to biodiversity or bushland
on, adjacent to, or close to the proposed development.



Concerns with the proposal

In summary my concerns are:
1. The appropriate land uses permitted by the zoning for this site
2. The design that puts a very high block (6-7 stories) virtually on
the edge of bushland
3. The landscape impact of the seniors ILUs from any westerly
direction (Northwood, the bush on the Northwood side, the park/oval
below or the foreshore) and the almost non-existent analysis of the
landscape implications of the development from this direction in the
documentation
4. Construction impacts and long-term stormwater and drainage impacts
on the bush below - both their own bush buffer and the reserve
5. Biodiversity impacts of the development
6. The treatment of other trees on site.

1. Permissible land uses
The site is zoned SP2 Infrastructure Zone (Health Services Facility in
Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan (LEP 2009. In Lane Cove's LEP:


I believe this does not include residential uses such as seniors
independent living apartments or villas. It would therefore seem that
this aspect of the development is not a permissible use under the
zoning. Given that the areas for these units and their associated
outdoor areas appear to occupy almost half the total site area, these
cannot even be considered ancillary uses. These units will prevent the
development on this site in the future of further genuine health and
medical facilities which may be sorely needed with expanding
population, and negate the purpose for which the zoning was
designated.

2. Location of southwest seniors ILUs block
Permissible LEP uses aside, in an attempt to apparently squeeze
maximum development out of this site, the design of this proposal
places a large 6-7 storey building right on the edge of bushland. This
has a range of potential adverse impacts, discussed below, and is poor
design on a number of grounds given those impacts. In addition the
villa units are to be constructed within the heritage curtilage of
Pallister House. This is also seems inappropriate and will result in
the permanent loss of a small remnant of Coastal Enriched Sandstone
Dry Forest (further discussed below).

3. Landscape impacts from westerly directions
The seniors ILU apartment blocks will have significant landscape
impacts viewed from any westerly direction, i.e. from Northwood, from
many parts of Gore Creek Reserve, from Bob Campbell oval and its
associated parkland, picnic areas and foreshore. The architectural
plans (Appendix B1) clearly show the height these buildings will reach
above the existing tree canopy level (Street elevation 1 - Drawing
S.03, and Cross-section C - Drawing 5.04, Appendix B1). However, there
are a number of conflicting statements in the documentation relating
to this matter.

Clause 25 in Table 10 Compliance with SREP(SHC) 2005 claims 'the
proposal is not visible from the Sydney Harbour foreshore and will not
impact on the scenic qualities of Sydney Harbour'.

This is not true and is contradicted in other parts of the
documentation. The site analysis (p.17 EIS) claims views from the
apartments 'through reserve to Lane Cove River and beyond' (for both
blocks), which means the blocks must be able to be seen from those
locations, and the river and the foreshore at Gore Creek are part of
Sydney Harbour. Furthermore the Architectural Design Statement,
Appendix C, section on Topography states "The steep slope means there
is a relatively clear outlook to the mouth of the Lane Cove River.
Conversely there are some clear views towards this part of the site
from parts of the surrounding suburbs". Given the height of the blocks
above existing trees shown in the proponents plans as outlined above,
they would be very obtrusively visible,

Clause 26 further claims:

This is not true. As above, the seniors ILUs will have a major
landscape impact on public places - Gore Creek Reserve and Bob
Campbell Oval. Section 10.2 View Impacts (p76 EIS) repeats the claim
of no adverse view loss and the softening effect of vegetation. The
seniors ILU blocks rise well above any neigbouring vegetation
(deliberately, to enhance views from those blocks). Trees well
downslope cannot soften this.

However, there are no drawings and only one poor photo montage (from
46 Upper Cliff Drive strategically located to have foreground trees)
to demonstrate how these blocks will impact the landscape when viewed
from the west. A Lane Cove resident with professional skills in this
area has developed drawings using the RLs and other details provided
in the project documentation and these are attached in Appendix 1.
They illustrate how devastatingly obtrusive these blocks are in the
local treed and bush landscape. The lack of any such analysis by the
proponent, given the level of analysis of views from River Road and St
Vincents road is very deceptive and misleading.

4. Construction impacts and long-term stormwater and drainage impacts
Given the steep slopes, both on the proponent's land and below into
the reserve, the construction impacts on the bush below (both their
own and in the reserve) of demolition of existing structures and
subsequent building of a raised road and podium for these blocks above
such a slope are likely to be considerable. These include mobilisation
of soil and the deposition of sediment downslope in Gore Creek and
beyond, movement downslope of larger rocks and escaped material and
destruction of rock outcrops. While these may be able to be addressed
through careful building methods and tight monitoring and enforcement
of protections and protocols, some damage is still likely.

While plans to deal with the increase in impervious surfaces and
consequent stormwater generation have been addressed, the loss of
water to bushland slopes has not. Carving basement carparks out of the
higher ground will result in major disruption to water flow in the
rock shelves and to the percolation of water downhill into the bush,
potentially resulting in permanent drought conditions for that bush
and its trees, resulting in eventual tree death.

5. Biodiversity impacts
The EIS (p102) says the following:

Yet the Biodiversity Assessment Report (Appendix N1) lists substantial
on-site impacts in the loss of almost half a hectare of Coastal
Enriched Sandstone Dry Forest, PCT 1776 (within a heritage curtilage
zone), the loss of foraging habit for several bat species actually
recorded on site and the loss of 4 of 11 precious hollow-bearing
trees, while the Arborist's Report details many native trees for
removal that are likely to be important remnants. Key local species to
go are:
Sydney Blue Gum, Eucalyptus saligna: tree nos. 17, 27, 35 &40
Blackbutt, Eucalyptus pilularis: trees 39, 176, 177 & 184.
Sydney Red Gum, Angophora costata: trees 38, 52, 54, 57, 63, 64, 66,
71, 72, 73, 77, 78, 163.
Red Mahogany, Eucalyptus resinfera: trees 53, 58
Forest She Oak, Allocasuarina torulosa: tree no. 74

In addition, there has been little consideration of birds in the
biodiversity assessment.

Purchasing offsets which may be within 100km of the development site
for the vegetation and anywhere in NSW for the animals is totally
inadequate. In Lane Cove, loss of any remnant of native vegetation is
serious as there is so little and all remnants are precious as both
historical records and in the provision of networked habitats and
corridors. Historical records cannot be replicated by replacement
planting and the local bats have so little habitat that the loss of
anything they use locally may bring on a tipping point for their
viability.

In addition, there has been no assessment of biodiversity and impacts
in the bushland adjacent to the site in the Gore Creek Reserve. Noise
and construction impacts, light shedding from the completed seniors
ILUs and significantly increased shadowing downslope from the ILUs in
spring and summer (see diagrams Appendix B1), the main growing seasons
could all be predicted to impact on both vegetation and animals, in
addition to any loss of habitat through soil or rock movements down
slope, or change in vegetation with drier conditions.





6. The treatment of other trees on site
Over 230 trees have been described, some are weeds and some exotic but
most are listed as only in 'fair' condition by the Arborist's report,
with some 'poor' condition. If this statement is indeed correct, I
have little faith in Hammondcare's ability to protect and conserve any
of its trees. In addition, none are classified as W (weeds), despite
quite clearly being so.

There is also quite inconsistent treatment of problem/weed species.
For example:
Camphor Laurel - some are to be removed, noted as an inappropriate
species e.g. trees 8, 32, 67, 68. Others are to be retained and
protected e.g. trees 1, 60 and 61. This species is a major source of
weed seed into bushland and is definitely an inappropriate species.
Acer negundo is sometimes shown as retain and protect (151, 152, 199,
81B) and sometimes to remove and replace with new plantings (153, 175,
203). This species is regarded as invasive, particularly for riparian
areas. it is difficult to understand why this would be retained when
important natives are going.

Conclusion
This proposal represents an overdevelopment of this site with
residential uses not appropriate under the special uses zoning,
preventing any future genuine health and medical uses. The residential
apartment blocks on the edge of bushland will have major landscape
impacts and potentially significant impacts on bushland downslope,
while the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) documentation is highly
flawed in the lack of visual presentation of the development as viewed
from any westerly direction. The loss of even small pockets of
bushland on site, as well as other remnant native trees will reduce
the wildlife habitat of Lane Cove, much of which is to be lost for
residential development, not health facilities. Such losses cannot be
replaced by biodiversity credits out of the Lane Cove area.

I object to the development and the continued overdevelopment of our
suburb.

1. The height of the building is too big for a residential area.
2. LCC has a very strict tree protection policy - I am sick and tired
of Council approving the cutting down of trees for development. It is
unreasonable that 50% of the trees on this site will be removed.
3. Bushland is what makes our suburb unique - stop destroying it.

I object to the proposal for the following reasons:
1. The site is zoned to be used for health services, and the major
part of this proposed development is for residential units. The units
are described as "seniors living", however that is for persons over 55
who are most likely still working, perhaps have children living with
them, and would have no requirement of living next door to a hospital.
2. The proposal is for much larger buildings than any others in the
vicinity and will dominate and overshadow the surrounding homes,
bushland and parkland.
3. It will cause considerable additional traffic congestion.
4. There is inadequate provision for access and parking for such a
major over-development of the site.

I lodge my objection to the proposed development of Greenwich hospital
for the following reasons:

Proposed building of residential units in an area that is currently
zoned for Infrastructure - Health Services
Clear potential for environmental damage to adjacent bushland corridor
Safety concerns for school due to increased traffic
Visual impact on the area - not fitting
Noise impact
Traffic impact both during and after completion
Lack of public transport

I object to the proposed plan of development on the Greenwich Hospital
site as an over development. Eight storey units on River road with
little if any setback will dominate the relatively narrow roadway
through the valley and the Greenwich Public School opposite and be
totally out of keeping with the existing local single-storey housing.
Re development of the hospital site is important but does not require
such a degree of aged cared and private dwellings on the site. Too
great an amount of the trees and vegetation will be lost and endanger
the bush land nearby.

I object to this proposal on the following grounds.
1. The proposal is for "Seniors Living", which is not incidental ot
ancillary to the existing hospital, nor is it consistent with the
site's zoning SP2 (Health Care Facilities).
2. The site is unsuitable for a substantial development of this kind
in terms of access to public transport facilities. In addition,
vehcile access to the site will exacerbate traffic problems at a
difficult part of River Road.

I object to the purposed plans as it does not include any planned
infrastructure changes to support nor the low/mid density buildings
within the area.

It is positive that the hospital is evaluating its needs and ability to
upgrade as well as extend its facilities to meet the expected growing
population for the future. What I object to regarding this proposal is
the development of high rise apartments and villas on this land which
is for "health service facilities". By the proposal to build these
significant bulk and scale residential buildings will limit the future
opportunities for the hospital to continually expand to cater for the
increase in requirements in the longer term. Given the size of the
"residential facilities" it becomes clear that this project is more
than expanding the requirements for the hospital and as such I believe
should be treated separately to ensure the residential facilities meet
the normal development pertaining to that type of development.
This area is surrounded by many properties which are zoned as R2 and
as such are restricted in height and FSR of 0.5:1. This will not only
cause substantial overshadowing but potentially set a precedent for
other residential developments.