Redevelopment of Greenwich Hospital (Concept)

Please see attached submission outlining comments and observations on the
Concept Plan Environmental Impact Statement.

The concept proposal seeks to double the height and size of the
hospital, add 80 new Seniors Living Apartments in two 6 level
(including above ground podium carpark) buildings plus 9 new Seniors
Living Villas, remove in excess of 50 trees from the site and double
traffic volumes on the site.

This Concept Proposal, if approved, is highly likely to have a
significantly adverse effect on my home and family both in the current
quiet enjoyment of our property, privacy and the future value of our
property. The Concept Proposal's inclusion and siting of the Seniors
Living Apartments and villas, which are residential apartments with a
different name, at the height, bulk and scale proposed, offers no
community benefit to the citizens of Greenwich and Northwood.

Also I understand that the State Significant Development approval
pathway is for a hospital for State beneficial infrastructure and the
residential accommodation is not part of a health facility although
the applicant may argue it is through their 'care model'. It has been
included incorrectly in a way to bypass the system.

The proposed development is too dense, too high, too big, destroys the
local area with its size, includes residential apartments disguised as
seniors living and doesn't fit with the area.

Also the extra traffic will also have an unfavourable impact on the
Greenwich Public School which is just undergoing major capital works
to cater for increased enrolments in the area.

Please consider my notes above and also the feedback from the
Greenwich community. The town planning rules are there for a reason
and company's even if they are charitable institutions (that still
function to make a profit) should comply with the law and the rules.

Thanks you in anticipation of your expert consideration and please
consider my detailed submission attached.

Please see attached a more detailed submission for your consideration.

The concept proposal seeks to double the height and size of the
hospital, add 80 new Seniors Living Apartments in two 6 level
(including above ground podium carpark) buildings plus 9 new Seniors
Living Villas, remove in excess of 50 trees from the site and double
traffic volumes on the site.

This Concept Proposal, if approved, is highly likely to have a
significantly adverse effect on my home and family both in the current
quiet enjoyment of our property, privacy and the future value of our
property. The Concept Proposal's inclusion and siting of the Seniors
Living Apartments and villas, which are residential apartments with a
different name, at the height, bulk and scale proposed, offers no
community benefit to the citizens of Greenwich and Northwood.
Further, the 100% increase in traffic generated from the developed
site, the noise and the removal of established trees to cater for the
development are unacceptable.

Also I understand that the State Significant Development approval
pathway is for a hospital for State beneficial infrastructure and the
residential accommodation is not part of a health facility although
the applicant may argue it is through their 'care model'. It has been
included incorrectly in a way to bypass the system.

The proposed development is too dense, too high, too big, destroys the
local area with its size, includes residential apartments disguised as
seniors living and doesn't fit with the area.

Also the extra traffic will also have an unfavourable impact on the
Greenwich Public School which is just undergoing major capital works
to cater for increased enrolments in the area.

Please consider my notes above and also the feedback from the
Greenwich community. The town planning rules are there for a reason
and company's even if they are charitable institutions (that still
function to make a profit) should comply with the law and the rules.

Thanks you in anticipation of your expert consideration.

Please find attached my submission/ objection to the concept proposal for
the redevelopment of the Greenwich Hospital
SSD 8699

Objection to Staged Redevelopment of Greenwich Hospital
We would like to lodge an objection to the Staged Redevelopment of
Greenwich Hospital. We have a direct line of sight to the existing
Greenwich Hospital and the residential component of the redevelopment
will be an eyesore and will impact on the Gore Creek green corridor
which is the habitat of many native bird and animals as well as the
native flora that has been regenerated by residents on both side of
the Gore Creek Reserve. The green space in Gore Creek Reserve and the
pockets of green space in the existing Greenwich Hospital must be
preserved. It is a legacy for future generations. We have been working
in Gore Creek Reserve with the Lane Cove Council's Bush Friends
program for many, many years in eradicating weeds and noxious plants
and replanting with local native species. The maintenance of the
existing zoning and existing footprint of Greenwich Hospital is
crucial in maintaining the green space in the area.
Our objections are focussed on two main areas that make this
development unacceptable in our opinion. The two areas concern are
* The flagrant use of a site zoned for health uses to include two
high-rise residential towers comprising 80 apartments. The building of
high-rise apartment blocks impacting on Gore Creek reserve should not
be allowed in any Greenwich Hospital development proposal. The
inclusion of high-rise residential development proposal is way outside
of the scope of the existing zoning of the site.
* The impact of two high-rise apartment blocks comprising 80
apartments would have on the adjacent Gore Creek reserve and wild life
corridor joining the harbour to Lane Cove National Park. I understand
that there is an endangered fungi species close by in the reserve
across River Road. We have no expertise in this area but at the very
least; experts should be engaged to advise on whether this development
could impact this species. This is a very narrow wild life corridor
and must be maintained in its current form without shadowing,
overhang, and massive construction of apartment towers.
Please also find attached below a photograph of the existing
development area taken just down the street from where we live
together with a marked in impression of what the development would
look like from our property.
In addition to the above two critical issues that should preclude the
current Greenwich Hospital redevelopment proposal we have other areas
of concern and these are listed under other concerns below.
We elaborate on the key concerns below.
1. High Rise Residential Apartment Buildings not allowed in current
zoning
We understand that the hospital is in a SP2-Health Services Facility
Zone and that this zone should only be used to provide medical or
other services relating to the maintenance or improvement of the
health, or the restoration to health, of persons or the prevention of
disease in or treatment of injury to persons.
Seven story hire rise residential apartment blocks are not a health
services facility and cannot be regarded as incidental to the health
facility. The parcel where the hospital stands
was categorised specifically as Health Services Facility Zone in order
to have facilities that will service the health of NSW residents, not
need for luxury housing.
2. Safeguarding Gore Creek Wildlife Corridor
The Gore Creek Reserve adjacent to the Greenwich Hospital site is a
key access corridor for native animals and birds to access the greater
Lane Cove National Park. The Gore Creek Reserve provides direct access
for animals and birds to connect them from the Lane Cove National Park
to the Harbour. A good example is the pair of powerful owls that we
can hear of an evening within the Gore Creek Reserve. These owls use
the Reserve and corridor as there territory. We also have Tawny
Frogmouths that regularly roost in a tree on our property from time to
time with direct access to Gore Creek Reserve.
The Gore Creek Reserve is of immense value for Lane Cove particularly
with as a buffer against continuing further development in the area.
We must preserve the existing bushland and its flora and fauna and not
allow development along its border as envisaged by the hire-rise
residential towers in the Greenwich proposal.
3. Other areas of concern
a. Parking and Traffic in the Area
The traffic report is grossly inadequate in its assumptions and
conclusions that such a major development will have no adverse
implications on traffic. There is no mention of the traffic patterns
generated by drivers' behaviour to avoid traffic deadlocks in the
area. The existing traffic creates a `parking lot' on river road
during morning peak times and this development will exacerbate this
traffic congestion. Surely adding 80 further apartments in an area
with limited traffic options must adversely impact the traffic in the
area.
b. Additional risks of accidents involving children trying to access
the schools in the area
River Road is a 50km residential road, where a school operates next to
it. The school is a growing school and is currently `busting' at the
seams. Major building works are currently underway to increase the
number of classrooms, which indicates that the Government expects this
school to be a large school for many years to come. The growth of the
school has increased the traffic activity associated with the school
and the addition of two hire rise residential blocks at the pedestrian
traffic lights used by the school will add significant risk to
children accessing school.
c. Overall reduction in existing green space and the removal of many
mature trees
The current proposal will totally change the landscape. The current
site provides an open garden and tree area. The proposed development
footprint will mean the loss of much of this open garden and tree
space. The proposal has noted the removal of 50 mature trees from the
heritage area and it is also mentioning the need of pruning a number
of the remaining trees. The development footprint is double the
existing footprint. The scale of this development should not be
permitted.

I write to voice my objection to the Greenwich Hospital redevelopment at
97 - 115 River Road, Greenwich as proposed in the the Concept Proposal
currently on exhibition at the NSW Department of Planning &
Environment.

I have been a resident of Greenwich for 20 years and, whilst I
acknowledge that the site in question is under developed and it's
potential should be more fully realised, I believe the proposed plan
has serious faults. I attach a report prepared by Assiduity which
details the issues and which I summaries as:
*The proposed plan will have a significant impact all of the residents
of Greenwich and the children at Greenwich Public School. The plan
does not adequately characterise this impact.
*The inclusion of residential accommodation in the proposal under the
guise of 'a care model' is ingenuous.
*There is a significant part of the plan, 89 new seniors living units,
which have nothing to do with the health facility that the SSD
approval pathway is intended to facilitate. Further, these new seniors
living units will have significant impact on the locals.
*The bulk and scale of the proposal is inappropriate for the
neighbourhood and affects nearby neighbours too much. It's a big
site...use it more sympathetically to the neighbourhood.
*The development scale and footprint has unacceptable impact on green
space, established landscaping, community amenity and the traffic.
*To me the writer of the proposal was wearing rose-coloured
spectacles; the report is prepared in a very "salesy" style presenting
the most favourable story, missing out key information. Some balance
and realism needs to be applied.

I will not stand idly by while the needs of the local community and
residents are sidelined by a fast-track approval pathway that is not
applicable in this instance.

PLEASE REFER TO THE UPLOAD SUBMISSION DOCUMENT.

I object to the proposed development of the Greenwich Hospital site
based on the (draft) Concept Plan, EIS and various Appendices.

I recommend HammondCare purchase another site in the area (such as the
Artarmon/St Leonards area), and develop such a site to accommodate the
proposed development in its entirety, relocate to this new site, and
then sell the Greenwich site for residential housing.

I recommend HammondCare contact the NSW Government about either
co-locating on the under-utilised TAFENSW St Leonards Campus (Pacific
Highways), or purchasing the site outright. The advantage of the St
Leonards Campus is it is next to a major regional health precinct ie
Royal North Shore Hospital, and Ramsay Private Hospital.

The ATTACHED SUBMISSION attempts to highlight the many significant
flaws and failures found in the EIS, and associated documents, for the
proposed development by HammondCare, especially the establishment of
high density residential accommodation on the site which directly
conflicts with the SP2 Land Zone defined for Health facilities and
services, and directly conflicts with many Secretary's Environmental
Assessment Requirements (SEARs) as noted in HammondCare's EIS.

Yours sincerely
Bryan Le Bransky

See the attached file

14 St Vincents Road
Greenwich
NSW 2065
5th March 2019
The Assessing Officer
Department of Planning & Environment
NSW Government

Dear Sir/Madam,
Staged Redevelopment of Greenwich Hospital (Concept Approval)
We live on the eastern side of St Vincents Road, c. 30 metres north of
the access off St Vincents Road into the hospital site.
We write to express concerns surrounding various components of the
proposed redevelopment.
Environmental impact
The impact assessment states that a significant volume of mature trees
will have to be removed form the site. This is particularly the case
on the western side of St Vincents Road where many of the existing
trees are targeted for removal to enable construction of the proposed
independent living units. The removal of these trees will
significantly impact screening and have an adverse affect on the local
environment.
The loss of the mature trees and bush comes at a time when most Sydney
Councils recognise the importance of this scarce resource and are
proactively looking to preserve canopy cover, landscape amenity and
biodiversity within the city.
Traffic concerns
The St Vincents Road/River Road junction is already overloaded:
* Vehicles turning right out of St Vincents onto River Road heading
east have very limited vision of eastern-bound traffic on River Road
* Vehicles westbound on River Road turning north onto St Vincents Road
(North) create a bottleneck on the junction
* Vehicles east bound on River Road turning south into St Vincents
Road are at risk of being shunted from the rear, again due to the poor
sight lines for east bound River Road traffic.
Minor accidents are already common, major incidents not uncommon and
15 years ago my neighbour in No.10 St Vincents Road was killed whilst
crossing it.
Consideration also needs to be given to the large number of Greenwich
school children who use St Vincents Rd as the route to and from school
and the danger than an increase in traffic will pose to them.
The proposed development will significantly increase the volume of
traffic along St Vincents and on the junction. It is our belief that
the current Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment does not adequately
address these concerns.


James and Mary Douglas

I have uploaded my submission in PDF format.

I have also noted below - just in case.

Kind Regards

Stephen Loomes

Submission - Staged Redevelopment of Greenwich Hospital
Stephen & Margaret Loomes
To Whom it May Concern
This document examines the submission and various reports for the
Staged Redevelopment of Greenwich Hospital.
In reviewing the submission, it is extremely disappointing and of
significant concern that this proposal bares no relation to that
presented to the community by Hammondcare some 18 months ago? One
would ask was this an attempt at misleading the community and
government (Lane Cove Council and State Govt) or a change in focus?
The fact that this submission is all about Hammondcare making money
through residential accommodation (hospital care seems secondary to
the proposal) and giving nothing back to the community or Greenwich
neighborhood, gives a clear indication of their intent.
The submission examines the negative impact this development will have
on parking and traffic in the area. It brings to your attention the
grave bushfire hazards from developing an industrial site next to a
reserve, the additional risks for accidents from children trying to
access the schools in the area and more importantly, the significant
detrimental impact on the bushland environment and the native animals
that live in that habitat.
Finally, the submission argues that the planned senior living
buildings will destroy the heritage value of the landscape, taking
away a part of our local history.
This submission also points out that the area cannot accommodate such
a development, as we are already suffering from the shortcomings of
the existing arrangement, especially the unforeseen hospital traffic
using St Vincent's Road, a road designated by the council and the
school (built the footpath for this purpose) as a "safe zone:" for
children to walk to school safely. Doubling up the size of the current
development to the point of including residential housing and greater
street access into St Vincent's Road is incomprehensible to the local
residents and I am sure a significant concern to the school for safety
reasons. The Applicant should reconsider the scale of the development,
and plan to redevelop the site to a hospital of the current size, but
with parking and traffic management options that will correct the
mistakes of the past. Applying for a development of double the size of
the current hospital and without even addressing the current site
issues is simply not acceptable.
Regards,
Stephen & Margaret Loomes. Greenwich
e: [email protected]






Submission- Staged Redevelopment of Greenwich Hospital
Stephen & Margaret Loomes
Contents:
1. Senior living housing on LEP SP2 land
2. Native Bushland and Animals
3. Inadequate Parking and Impact on Access Road at St Vincent's Road
4. Heritage
5. Traffic
6. Bushfire Hazard
7. Greenwich Public School
8. Construction

1. Senior living housing on LEP SP2 land
Submission- Staged Redevelopment of Greenwich Hospital - Stephen
Loomes
The hospital is in a SP2-Health Services Facility Zone. State
Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 defines as health
services facility a facility used to provide medical or other services
relating to the maintenance or improvement of the health, or the
restoration to health, of persons or the prevention of disease in or
treatment of injury to persons, and includes the following:
(a) day surgeries and medical centres,
(b) community health service facilities,
(c) health consulting rooms,
(d) facilities for the transport of patients, including helipads and
ambulance facilities,
(e) hospitals.
A considerable part of the redevelopment (nearly two thirds) is for a
residential development. This is contrary to the idea of the planning
instrument which is designed to encourage public infrastructure. The
residential development should be subject to the same to the same
planning rules as any other residential development.
Senior living is not a health services facility. The State
Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a
Disability) defines as seniors' people aged 55 or more years. In the
proposed senior living housing, any person above 55 years old could
occupy those new dwellings. SP2 is not for residential living and
people over 55 years old are not in need of health services by
default. Most of them will experience ten more years of employment
before they even retire.
If we consider every healthy person above the age of 55 as in need to
live near a health services facility, then SP2-Health Services
Facility Zone can be used to build any other type of commercial
activity that a 55 years old person would want to access, including
entertainment venues, restaurants and supermarkets.




Submission- Staged Redevelopment of Greenwich Hospital
Stephen & Margaret Loomes

The parcel where the hospital stands was categorised specifically as
Health Services Facility Zone in order to have facilities that will
service the health of NSW residents, not need for luxury housing.
On these grounds, we are against the proposal for developing senior
living housing, as it is not applicable to the LEP SP2 zone.
2. Native Bushland and Animals
Lane Cove Council notes that "Lane Cove bushland is a significant part
of the local character and has many values which make it significant
to the people of Lane Cove and to the broader community".
"Aesthetic Values
Bushland reserves are easily accessible to most residents with many of
the walking tracks running from suburban areas past parks, creeks and
the Lane Cove River, often with stunning views.
It reduces noise, air and visual pollution, creates a feeling of peace
and space. The proximity to bushland creates a suburb identity,
provides a bushland frame to many views, and makes Lane Cove an
attractive place in which to live.
Natural Heritage, Habitat and Scientific Values
Bushland is our natural heritage. It determines the visual identity of
the landscape.

Remnant bushland vegetation of past ecosystems has an important
scientific, educational and community heritage values.
Bushland provides a habitat for native plant and animal species,
conserves rare and endangered flora and fauna, and enables the
long-term survival of existing animal and plant communities.

Lane Cove bushland forms part of a vital link and wildlife corridor
extending from Sydney Harbour to the expansive areas in the upper Lane
Cove valley and further to the city outskirts."

I have never submitted an objection before and at times questioned a
development being stopped due to a rare frog etc Having now lived in
this beautiful area and woken to the wonderful chorus of bird life
(Kookaburra's, Rosellas, Magpies, Currawongs, parakeets etc) and being
blessed to see an Owl sitting on our fence or the electrical wires
outside our place of an evening, I think it would be a travesty to
allow this development as it will result in all the native animals (a
lot of them) leaving this beautiful area.

More than 50 mature trees are being removed and not replaced. Apart
from the privacy of nearby residents being significantly impacted by
this development, the very essence of this privacy and native bushland
environment is being removed.


Submission- Staged Redevelopment of Greenwich Hospital
Stephen & Margaret Loomes


Should this redevelopment be approved than another part of the
bushland and it's animals will be lost and it will only be time before
developers look to another bit of bushland and before we know it,
Lance Cove will be a concrete jungle like so many other parts of
Sydney today.

On these grounds, we are against the proposal for developing senior
living housing or any other housing that results in the mature trees
and animals being removed from the environment.
3. Inadequate Parking and Impact on Access Road at St Vincent's Road
The current access road at St Vincent's was built with a promise to
the residents that it will be used only as an emergency. Today it is
used by all staff to bypass the traffic deadlocks at River Road during
peak time.
The current hospital has 78 beds, supported by significant
administration and staffing requirements which means the current 150
parking spots, have just not been adequate to accommodate, hence, St
Vincent's Road has been used to accommodate the remaining parking
needs, creating major traffic on this small local road. The new
development will have 150 beds and 89 senior living units, bringing
the total to 239 beds. Following the current resident to parking ratio
of 1.92, which is already inadequate, the new parking spots should be
458. This means that the new development is short of 129 new spots, as
it only proposes the allocation of a total of 329 parking places.
The parking assessment notes the minimum public transport available in
the area.
The State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People
with a Disability) defines as senior's people aged 55 or more years.
These proposed senior living units will have residents that will be
more than able to have cars and willing to visit all the nearby
shopping areas or have friends to visit them all through the week. The
topography around the Villas and the elevation of St Vincent's Road
will make it impossible for seniors with disability to move around
without a car. These units are targeting abled and mobile residents of
55 years old and older. The traffic they will generate will be greater
than any in-hospital patient.
The proposal will not only generate more traffic on that access road,
but it will change it from timed access that it is today to 24 hours
access to the residents of the new villas.
St Vincent's Road is a local road that already experiences heavy
traffic loads at peak times, making it difficult for residents to
enter and exit their driveways. The change of the time-controlled
access road to 24 hours usage for the residents of the villa will
create even more traffic and make it even more hazardous for local
residents to use St Vincent's Road.
On these grounds, we are against the proposal, as St Vincent's Road
cannot accommodate the increased of traffic and parking needs this
proposal will generate.

Submission- Staged Redevelopment of Greenwich Hospital
Stephen & Margaret Loomes
4. Heritage
The proposal includes the building of senior living villas at Lot 4,
DP 584287. That area is a Heritage Listing area in the State Heritage
Register. The heritage item is not just the house in the middle of
that lot, but the whole landscape, as the reason why it is significant
is that Lot 4 is all that is left as an example of European
settlement, including the use of the gardens and driveways, fenced
paddock and pools.
The heritage report states that the context of this heritage area will
be affected by the new development: "The development does alter the
context of the heritage item by creating a denser built context,
however Pallister can still be clearly understood and interpreted as a
former substantial Victorian residence."
The heritage reports focus on the house and the views FROM the house.
Those views are only enjoyed by hospital staff, as the house is not
open to the public. The heritage views are for the whole landscape, as
it is enjoyed by the local residents. It is the whole Lot 4 with the
heritage restrictions, not just the house. Pallister house is not
visible from St Vincent's Road, but the whole landscape is.
The current proposal will totally change the landscape, as from an
open garden and trees area it will become the setting for two large
housing complexes. The proposal has the removal of 50 trees from the
heritage area and it is also mentioning the need of pruning down the
remaining trees. Besides this affecting the connectivity of the local
bushland corridor, it will translate this heritage area to a totally
different landscape.
In addition, there is the proposal of the construction of new visitors
parking at Pallister House and new landscaping within the heritage
lot, changing the heritage landscape with new cemented footpaths,
roadways and modern landscaping. The heritage report calls as an
improvement the changing of the existing landscape by creating a
formalised car parking arrangement. This might be an improvement of
the car park arrangements, but it is also a degradation of the
heritage value of the landscape. Heritage control is applied to
maintain the heritage aspects of the area, not improve parking
arrangements.
Through the years, to assist with growth and development of the area,
most of the land that used to be part of the Standish property were
given for resident housing and then to the hospital. The only space
left was Lot 4, clearly marked as a heritage listed area, as a
historic example of how the area was during the first century of
European settlement.


Submission- Staged Redevelopment of Greenwich Hospital
Stephen & Margaret Loomes
Allowing the development of those villas within this heritage listed
landscape will steal from future generations the ability to experience
the landscape of that significant period in Australia's history.
On these grounds, we are against the proposal, as the senior villas
will destroy the heritage value of Lot 4.
5. Traffic
The traffic report is grossly inadequate for the development and the
area. It refuses to calculate the traffic patterns generated by
drivers' behavior to avoid traffic deadlocks in the area and more
importantly, the impact it measures the impact based on bed numbers
and not the fact the car park will be more than doubling in size. The
report concedes that "This rational behavior of drivers optimizing
their travel times is not reflected in the model as SIDRA is a
micro-analytic tool". The traffic issues in the area are largely
generated because of drivers' behavior.
River Road is a 50km residential road, where a school operates next to
it. However, the road network at the north shore of Sydney is
funneling a vast number of cars to this small residential road. The
reason is that River Road is the first and quickest access drivers
have entering the North Shore from Gladesville Bridge heading to North
Sydney, Neutral Bay or the City. St Vincent's Road also experiences
heavier traffic volumes than normal. There is a one kilometer stretch
of road at River Road in front of the hospital that there are no left
or right turnst Vincent's Road is the first exit off River Road to the
Greenwich peninsula. East bound drivers will turn right at St
Vincent's Road, to avoid the traffic deadlock at the top of the hill
at Greenwich Road. Those are the drivers to Greenwich peninsula,
including parents driving their children to Greenwich School (K-1
Campus), private school buses picking up children from Greenwich and
staff accessing the hospital from the side access road.
Cars must wait behind parked cars for the oncoming traffic to clear
and local residents have to be extra careful when they exit their
driveways and parked cars block the view to the oncoming traffic.
The additional traffic issue from the intersection of St Vincent's and
River Road is that the two lane east bound traffic becomes just one
lane when cars turning right into St Vincent Road must wait for the
oncoming traffic to clear. This creates even more traffic issues
during peak time, as the two-lane road becomes one lane. The cars
waiting to turn are piling up and after 5 or more cars are stopped,
the tail reaches the top of the hill, which becomes a traffic hazard
when cars find suddenly that lane blocked with no early visual warning
due to the crest.
This is exactly the reason why the traffic report suggests blocking
the right turn to the Emergency hospital entry for east bound traffic.
However, this will just push all that traffic at the St Vincent's
Road, 100 meters down the road. It will not help the traffic on River
Road at all, as those cars will still turn right at St Vincent's Road
and it will make the traffic at St Vincent's Road even heavier.


Submission- Staged Redevelopment of Greenwich Hospital
Stephen & Margaret Loomes

All these issues are current. The traffic deadlock and hazards at St
Vincent's Road are current. The application has no suggestions to
address the current traffic issues and on top, suggested that doubling
the traffic will create no additional hazards.
A proper traffic report would include comparison traffic volumes to
similar residential roads in the area that are not affected by this
preferred drivers' route. That would have brought up that River Road
and St Vincent's Road are not typical residential roads, but main
traffic arteries in the area, serviced by basically a one lane access
lane.
On these grounds, we are against the proposal, as the locality that
the hospital is built upon has special traffic needs that cannot
accommodate a development of the size the proposed one is.
6. Bushfire Hazard
The area is next to a reserve which already has Bushfire hazards
associated with the development. While the Bushfire Hazard Assessment
considers how to minimise risk from a bushfire, we all need to
understand that if a fire does occur from one of those new buildings
within that area, the results
could be catastrophic.
The fire can spread to the adjacent reserve and threaten many
residential houses next to it. It can also engulf other buildings in
the hospital, asking for the evacuation of 600 patients and staff. It
is one thing to consider the risk of fire from a residential building
and the way to control it, and another to have a fire generated from
industrial hospital machinery. It is unwise to allow this heavy
industrial development so close to a reserve.
Hammondcare has not been bushfire sensitive on the current Lot 4,
where the area has accumulated bushfire fuel, with bark, leaf litter
and cut-off logs creating a hazardous blanket in the area. Lot 4 is
left unmaintained, to prepare it for the intended flattening (see
attachment "photos"). Paid bushfire reports could be voluminous, but
they do not ensure that the written suggestions are followed. It will
only take a small oversight, like what we can witness today in Lot 4,
and the whole area will be lost forever, even taking human lives in
the process. This is why we need to look beyond reports and do a risk
analysis on the damage that the worst case scenario can create. This
is why it is not prudent to allow these building to be developed so
close to the reserve.
On these grounds, we are against the proposal, as the hospital
extending its building closer to the reserve will elevate the danger
of fire spreading throughout the reserve.









Submission- Staged Redevelopment of Greenwich Hospital

Stephen & Margaret Loomes


7. Greenwich Public School
The hospital is opposite to Greenwich Public School. As noted in my
submission on "traffic" the limited parking in the area and traffic
conditions on River Road, makes it almost impossible for parents to
access the school via the intersection at St Vincent's Road.
Submission- Staged Redevelopment of Greenwich Hospital - Stephen
Loomes

In addition, the Council (following representations from the School)
have specifically built a footpath alongside the hospital property in
St Vincent's Road as it is considered a safe passage for school
children walking to school from the Greenwich peninsular (more
appropriate and safer) than Greenwich and River Road. Schoolchildren
coming from Greenwich peninsula have been taught only one crossing to
reach the school: the main traffic lights at the hospital. Having
accommodation and the ensuing driveways on St Vincent's Road will
create a safety hazard for children and increasing the volume of
traffic to double will mean that children will have to navigate daily
through all the extra traffic, both pedestrian and cars accessing the
hospital car parks.
Based on the above, we are against the proposal, as there has been no
accommodation for the safety of the children attending the school
opposite to the hospital.
8. Construction
The construction site will be of a major scale. It has two major
issues: scale and access.
The scale of the development is grossly over the top given the
residential neighborhood in which the hospital is located. It will
diminish Pallister House and be an eyesore (and impact living
standards) for residents and visitors as far away as Northwood.
The construction will have major impact on the residents. As the land
is at the top of the hill and with construction extended many levels
up, the noise and dust pollution will affect residents from many
blocks away. Strict controls should be placed on hours work will take
place, the days of the week, and the total duration of the project.
Residents should be screened off from noise and dust. If houses are
affected by dust or mud, cleaning services should be offered on a
regular basis to upkeep the houses to a livable state. If roads and
footpaths are affected during construction, they should be fixed on
the day, not at the end of the project. As this is not an industrial
area, but a residential area, construction should take place with
extra care not to affect the enjoyment of living in the area of the
local residents.
As no serious allowances are made to ensure that residents will not be
affected by the construction of the development, we oppose this
proposal.

See attached

File attached

Please refer attached PDF.

Hi
I have attached my objection in PDF. Please read. Thank you.

See attached PDF

We have attached our objection to this SSD.

Please find my objection attached

Please see attached.

Dear Sir/Madam

Please see my attached objection to the proposed redevelopment of
Greenwich Hospital, River Rd, Greenwich 2065.

See attachment

Please see attachment