Redevelopment of Greenwich Hospital (Concept)

Some aspects of the proposed development have major problems

1, The addition of residential on a hospital site reduces option to
add related medical facilities at a later date.
We have seen how sale schools in earlier times has resulted in major
problems today.
With a growing and aging population there is a need to preserve
options

2. The reduction of tree cover reduces amenity and kills wildlife by
removing habitat.

3. There needs to be a whole a area approach to large developments It
goes against logic and natural justice to approve early developments
and then refuse later ones because no allowance has been made for
cumulative effects

Northern Sydney has the highest proportion of people over 85 in NSW.

Greenwich Hospital makes a huge contribution to the care of palliative
care patients in Northern Sydney. It has dedicated, skilled staff and
a wonderful compassionate ethos, which is so important for people
approaching the end of life and for their families.

HammondCare is a terrific not-for-profit organisation, whose raison
d'etre is helping people. It has particular expertise in dementia
management and dementia is on the increase. This is the time to ensure
that Northern Sydney has places where people in advanced stages of
dementia can be cared for with compassion and expertise.

But the place is shabby and old and access is sometimes difficult.

I strongly support the proposal by HammondCare to redevelop Greenwich
Hospital into an integrated health care campus that will feature a
doubling of inpatient beds across palliative care, rehabilitation,
dementia care and older people's mental health.

Our family home is located at 108 River Road and is directly opposite the
proposed new 9 story hospital. We currently view established trees and
only a small part of small building which is set back (the current
hospital is further west to us now, not directly opposite us) . Based
on the proposal, we will be viewing a 9 story high hospital directly
opposite our home. The hospital is to be built extremely close to the
perimeter of the property. This will affect our light and our view and
devalue our property. Also precious trees will be lost, and cannot be
replanted in front of the hospital due to how far forward to river
road the hospital is proposed to be.

We request that the hospital be set back to allow full trees to be in
front as is the case now. We also request the 9 stories be reduced, 9
stories is far too physically imposing for the sight and area (due to
the site area and the fact the land is already higher than the road).
All the surrounding area is zoned R1 which has a height restriction of
9.5m. This is a huge development and will tower over the communities
of Greenwich and Northwood.

The development is opposite Greenwich Public School which raises
safety concerns for children during the redevelopment (traffic
movement, dust and noise). There is also concern post development due
to current safety issues with kiss and drop and kids walking to school
via River Road, the extra cars will lead to additional safety concerns
of our school children. Our two children both attend Greenwich Public
School and we are extremely concerned about this, as is the school
community.

The plans will result in overshadowing of the Bob Campbell Oval. The
community including our family use this Oval.

The redevelopment has the potential to damage the bushland corridor
which volunteers and Lane Cove Council have been working hard to
regenerate and requires the removal of 50 established trees.

This development not only impacts the immediate surrounding residents,
of which our family is one being directly opposite the 9 story
proposed hospital, but additionally, poses concerns to all members of
the Lane Cove community with potential for major traffic congestion
and hazards on River Road. This section of River Road is notorious for
accidents already. River Road can not accommodate additional traffic
from the expanded development (due to more hospital beds, plus senior
living).

We strongly request the Minister of Planning to reconsider this
development. The scale should be reduced, it should be less physically
imposing, it should be mindful of Pallister House and its bushland
surroundings, it cannot be so close to the border of River Road, it
must be mindful of traffic congestion and the safety of Greenwich Road
Public School children.

Thank you for your consideration.

I strongly object to the current application on the following
grounds:aspects of the project type are not consistent with the use of
the site as medical centre/health research facilities; the proposed
seniors living units are inconsistent with the site for a number of
reasons, the site is currently zoned SP2 - health services facility.
Any erosion of the site for residential use negates the opportunity
for future expansion as a medical facility; the heritage value of
Pallister House must not be encroached upon , the proposed seniors
villas sit within the curtilage; there is significant and unwarranted
removal of trees; loss of amenity to neighbouring properties who will
be adversely affected; River Road already suffer congestion stress in
peak hours and will continue to do so with increased residential units
proposed and currently under construction in the area; Increase in
heavy vehicle movements with "large" deliveries and refuse disposal;

I oppose the concept proposal of the Greenwich Hospital by HammondCare in
its currently exhibited format. As a resident of the locality, my
opposition is based on the following points;
1. The residential aged care and seniors housing facilities are in
contrary to the land's use as Health Services and Facilities.
2. With several existing and even more planned senior's living and
aged care facilities within a 5km radius, such facilities are not a
pressing community need.
3. Options for future extensions of the current health services and
hospital facilities, however, will be a pressing need with Lane Cove's
population increasing. The site of the Greenwich Hospital should be
preserved for such continuous future use.
4. The proposed buildings, including the new hospital building, are
much taller in height and bigger in bulk than current built form. They
are also closer to the site's boundaries on all front, which is
especially dominating and unpleasant from view of the harbour, the Bob
Campbell sport grounds below, and all the residential properties
surrounding the hospital site and in Northwood. This bulk would
diminish the current amenity of the area.
5. The proposal removes approximately 50% of the current tree canopy
from the site, which is extreme. While some trees will need to go in
order to expend the hospital, the rate of 50% tree loss is
unacceptable. It is also in contrary of the GSC's initiative and
guidelines on preserving tree canopy.
6. Pallister House as part of the site is heritage listed, which
listing includes the gardens/grounds surrounding the house, to which
the concept plan has less than satisfactory regard.
7. The concept does not touch on the extra traffic such a development
would generate, both as a residential and commercial entity. The local
roads, especially River Road that links suburbs along the shoreline,
is close to capacity as it is with increased volume of traffic,
limited public transport (1 bus line) and bad pedestrian access around
the site.
Overall, the concept is an example of overcapitalising on a site's
capacity while cutting off future expansion for its primary use.

This proposal consists of two main elements:-
* Re-development of hospital facilities Estimated cost of work
$72,465,000
* Residential apartments/ villas Estimated cost of work $69,035,000

The apartments are not ancillary to the function of the hospital.

The proposal should be rejected on the following grounds:-

1. Failure to meet the requirements of a State Significant Development
in terms of Section 14 of Schedule 1 of the State Environmental
Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011

2. The proposed development of residential apartments/ villas is not a
permitted use in SP2 - Health Services Facility zone in the Lane Cove
Council Local Environmental Plan 2009.

I do not object to the hospital and health care facilities in the
proposal but I definitely object to the height of the hospital tower
block, especially due to its location on the highest point of the
site.

This site should be retained entirely for hospital use as the
inclusion of units and villas will make it impossible to expand the
hospital in the future.

Future expansion of the hospital vertically (due to loss of land to
units) would significantly impact neighbours views.

I am against any proposal or application to subdivide the site to
allow for Seniors' living, units or villas to be built there -
reducing future expansion of the hospital for the population increases
already planned for the nearby St Leonards area & LGA.

I object to the degradation of the natural environment by this
development proposal for several reasons:
>The scale of development dramatically reduces the tree canopy over
much of the site. Trees cannot be planted due to the large increase in
the footprint of proposed buildings and hard surfaces/ paved
courtyards.
>It does not comply with the Northern Sydney District Plan.
>There is no consideration or reference to water patterns (sub-surface
or surface flows) for the site's bushland, south of the units; or the
flows to the heritage area down to St Vincents Road and to and the
escarpment down to Gore Creek.
>Bio-diversity has not been considered.
>The loss of trees from villas being built in the heritage areas.
>Thee towers will be extremely visible and impact the amenity and
character of the area. They will be seen from Lane Cove River contrary
to the document's assertions.

I object to the scale of the development. It is too high and will destroy
existing tree cover. The number of trees being removed from Lane Cove
is destroying the natural character of the suburb and removing habitat
for wildlife.

I believe that this site should be retained entirely for hospital use
as the inclusion of units and villas will make it impossible to expand
the hospital in the future.
Also future expansion of the hospital vertically (due to loss of land
to units) would significantly impact neighbours views

The main purpose of the zoning is for `hospital' and so due to their
huge footprint and cost, the Seniors' living units and villas are not
`ordinarily incidental or ancillary' (as per the LEP).

I am against any proposal or application to subdivide the site to
allow for Seniors' living, units or villas to be built there -
reducing future expansion of the hospital for the population increases
already planned for the nearby St Leonards area & LGA.

I strongly object to the degradation of the natural environment by
this development proposal for several reasons:

The scale of development dramatically reduces the tree canopy over
much of the site. Trees cannot be planted due to the large increase in
the footprint of proposed buildings and hard surfaces/ paved
courtyards.

It does not comply with the Northern Sydney District Plan

There is no consideration or reference to water patterns (sub-surface
or surface flows) for the site's bushland, south of the units; or the
flows to the heritage area down to St Vincents Road and to and the
escarpment down to Gore Creek.

Bio-diversity appears not to have been considered?

The loss of trees from villas being built in the heritage areas.

Thee towers will be extremely visible and impact the amenity and
character of the area. They will be seen from Lane Cove River contrary
to the document's assertions.

I object to the proposal of the `Redevelopment of Greenwich Hospital
Campus' in its current form for the following reason:
- The proposal is not just a hospital redevelopment, as a large part
of the redevelopment includes a significant high density residential
apartment development of two 6 to 7 story apartments and residential
villa's of 4 stories with a total of 89 apartments, which is not
consistent with the permitted land use zoning of SP2 Health Service
Facilities (HSF);
- The proposed new floor area medical purposes (13,900 sqm) is less
than the proposed residential floor area (14,400 sqm);
- Such a large scale residential development will reduce the land
available for future true HSF expansions for which the site is
currently zoned;
- The apartments are allegedly being offered as over 55s independent
living units but there is little or no detail on:
(i) how ownership of the apartments will be managed and over 55
occupancy guaranteed, i.e. will it remain under the control of Hammond
Care and/or the `hospital campus' management or sold off separately
(in which case it could not be considered part of the HSF hospital
campus)?
and (ii) the number of bedrooms in each apartment and hence potential
occupancy levels, which begs questions of the purported traffic
movements in the traffic studies.

I could say much more but I'm sure much more of what I have to say
about the residential component of the development has probably been
said in many other objecting submissions.

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,
especially given the potential impacts such a development may have on
the amenity of the local community.

Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission.

I object to this proposal due to the following points:

(1) the large number of trees that are planned to be removed from the
site. Removing the proposed 131 trees would forever change the
character of the area.
(2) the number of appartments planned to be built on the site. The
height and size of the proposed construction is unsuitable for the
surrounding residential area.
(3) The increased traffic both during and after construction.

I totally oppose the State Significant Development 17-8699
Staged Development of the Greenwich Hospital (Concept Proposal).
The proposed application is for a redevelopment of the site for
residential housing being apartments and villas. This site should only
be used for a hospital. The proposal would result in a total over
development of the land.The topography is also inappropriate for
senior living or for those with disabilities.
The height and scale of the proposed building is inappropriate and
totally out of character for the area.
I also oppose the loss of over 50% of the tress on the site.
The site is not suitable for senior or disabled people as it is not
near to any shops, doctors or community services. It would be very
difficult for visitors considering the transport constraints and the
congestion of the surrounding roads.

I oppose the redevelopment of the Greenwich Hospital site for apartments
and units. It is imperative that this site is retained for hospital
use only, given that the local population is ramping up rapidly due to
other developments in the area. I would have thought that Hammond Care
would have been in the business of providing premium health services
to the local population rather than attempt to profit by proposing
this outrageous unsuitable residential development

I totally object the proposed application for the building of apartments
and villas at the Greenwich Hospital site.This area should be retained
for use as a hospital only considering the rapid increase in the local
population. I further oppose the proposed destruction of over 50% of
the trees on this site.

OBJECTION

I object to the proposal on the following grounds:

BULK AND SCALE
The Proposal seeks to double the height and size of the existing
hospital. It is disproportionate to the existing site and not
sympathetic to the surrounding urban context and has significant
adverse impact on the surrounding residents. In particular the
excessive heights of the Seniors Living Apartment buildings are
especially detrimental to the surrounding area.

APPROPRIATE USE
The current hospital is accepted by the local community and is
considered to be in balance with the local area. The Proposal however
not only seeks to destabilize that balance by doubling the height and
size of the existing hospital it further seeks to introduce apartments
for seniors. The latter is a separate commercial venture which is non
health related.

ENVIRONMENT
The Proposal is to remove a significant number of established trees
with associated landscaping impacting the site and neighboring
properties. The area is bounded by sensitive bushland flowing to
Sydney Harbour which is already under stress with overdevelopment and
population pressures.

TRAFFIC
The immediate area is already heavily congested with traffic flows yet
the Proposal suggests that there will be an increase of 100% by the
development.

PARKING
Local streets are already impacted by the overflow from the hospital
due to insufficient onsite capacity in the hospital yet the Proposal
is for an intensification of the site.

OBJECTION of the Application


Zoning:
The current hospital is on land that is zoned SP2 Health Services
Facility Zone. Senior living housing is not a health service facility
SP2 is not for residential living. Senior living housing is not
applicable to the LEP SP2 zone.


Heritage:
The proposal includes building of senior living villas At lot 4 DP
584287 (which is contrary to zoning of the land) the land and building
on Lot 4 is heritage listed and the proposal will significantly change
the landscape surrounding the house.


Appropriate Use:
The current hospital is accepted by the local community and is
considered to be in balance with the local area. The Proposal however
not only seeks to destabilize that balance by doubling the height and
size of the existing hospital it further seeks to introduce apartments
for seniors. The latter is a separate commercial venture which is non
health related.


Bulk & Scale:
The Proposal seeks to double the height and size of the existing
hospital. It is disproportionate to the existing site and not
sympathetic to the surrounding urban context and has significant
adverse impact on the surrounding residents. In particular the
excessive heights of the Seniors Living Apartment buildings are
especially detrimental to the surrounding area.


Parking:
Local streets are already impacted by the overflow from the hospital
due to insufficient onsite capacity in the hospital yet the Proposal
is for an intensification of the site. The proposed development does
not have enough parking spaces included in the plans and this will put
even more pressure on parking in the surrounding areas.


Traffic:
The immediate area is already heavily congested with traffic flows yet
the Proposal suggests that there will be an increase of 100% by the
development. The traffic on River Road and surrounding streets is
already significant with bumper to bumper traffic in the morning and
afternoon peak periods which are getting longer. The traffic generated
by the size and scope of this development would hugely exacerbate the
current extensive back up of traffic with its resulting delays of
traffic we are already enduring.


Safety:
The hospital is opposite Greenwich Public School (which is currently
being redeveloped and expanded to accommodate the need for more
students) and the increase in traffic would place the students' safety
at risk as they enter and leave the school not to mention the parking
problems for parents trying to drop off and pick up their children.


Environment:
The Proposal is to remove a significant number of established trees
with associated landscaping will be removed negatively impacting the
site and neighboring properties. The landscape will be severely
altered this will take away the bushland setting that makes this area
a beautiful place to live and the current site unobtrusive and hidden
from its boundary. The change to the landscape will remove key habitat
for the many birds and animals that inhabit the area.The area is
bounded by sensitive bushland flowing to Sydney Harbour which is
already under stress with over-development and population pressures.


Construction:
Construction of this size development will be an absolute nightmare as
the noise and dust and traffic will be horrendous. River Road is
already a very busy and congested road at most times and the movement
of heavy vehicles and the cueing of the trucks waiting to be loaded
and unloaded (which is happening on the Pacific Highway now for work
on RNS Hospital) would cause enormous traffic and safety problems for
residents and the school children. I think a report on the materials
used in the construction of the buildings slated for demolition should
be carried out to identify asbestos (which has now been identified in
Greenwich Public School) and other dangerous materials. They should be
removed safely and local residents should be kept informed during the
whole process.

OBJECTION TO PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF GREENWICH HOSPITAL.

I am one of the owners of the property at 24 Gore St Greenwich and
have been for some 42 years.
My property shares a common boundary with the proposed Greenwich
Hospital Redevelopment in the south west corner near the now derelict
swimming pool.

I am strongly in favour of the idea of keeping the Greenwich Hospital
upgraded to cutting edge standards in order to keep up with the rapid
advances in science and medicine and the provision of modern health
care services so it benefits the community especially with the aging
of the population as The Boomers are starting to reach advanced age.

Having affirmed that, I am very concerned about certain aspects of the
proposed development and this letter is an OBJECTION to the
development. Below are some of my OBJECTIONS. This is not a
comprehensive list and is as follows:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. I Object to the destruction of the natural environment and habitat
for many animals and wildlife due to cutting down over 130 trees which
represents more than 55% of the trees.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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 more than 130 tree which will be cut down for the
development as hospitals operate all day and all night.

9. I Object as The residential tower will be be overwhelming in size
dominating the residential homes around it and even be a huge eyesore
viewed from he other side of River Road.

10. 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.

11. 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.

The redevelopment of Greenwich Hospital has the potential to be a
wonderful facility bringing first class specialty services to the
local community and the whole region.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to object to this hugely
overreaching and overbearing development which 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 desirable
facilities for our senior citizens.

Please see attached submission and photos

I object to this proposal and my submission is attached

My submission requests that approval for the two, six-storey residential
buildings containing 89 apartments be refused or significantly
re-scaled on the basis that it is significant overdevelopment.

The current plans on exhibition set out plans for essentially a knock
down and re-build of Greenwich Hospital. Laudable as it is for the
re-build of existing old facilities, the project re-development
objectives are more based on what will be a major residential play
(old people's apartments, not medical facilities). This residential
component does not exist currently.

My considered interpretation is that the objective of the development
seems to be significant financial gain to the applicant through
residential development.

The applicant has taken advantage of the site having no planning
controls and an approval process that limits local community oversight
or commentary. They provided no opportunity for a masterplan process
to evolve with community support on a key site within Lane Cove.
Ordinarily the discussion and approval of 89 units, to 6 storeys in
Greenwich / Lane Cove would necessitate major community consultation.

The 6-storey residential towers have no relationship to the hospital
and set new residential height limits south of River Road. The
applicant has failed to show any relationship or provide in any detail
how the residential population has a connection to the hospital. There
is no case made for the need to provide for older people's
accommodation in the immediate area. Indeed, there is significant new
development in the area that could meet this need.

In summary, the 89 residential apartments have no relationship to the
hospital, it sets poor development precedent in this locality, there
has been no meaningful community consultation and its' height and
scale is excessive.