Redevelopment of Greenwich Hospital (Concept)

Please see attached objection letter

Please see attached letter in support of the redevelopment of
HammondCare's Greenwich Hospital

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

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

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

The proposed development will see the removal of substantial and well
established trees and vegetation within the development footprint and
will totally disrupt the leafy green environment that epitomises this
area.

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

Achieving this, however, is clearly impeded by the significant part of
the proposal to include senior living villas and 2 x 7 storey blocks
for independent seniors living. This must not be allowed unless they
too comply with the zoning requirements that every other resident in
the area needs to meet.

The proposed development will detrimentally impact and change the
character of the area in so many ways. The consequences and flow on
effects of this proposed development are enormous. They have been well
aired by others and I strongly endorse those objections which include:

1.The environmental damage to the surrounding bushland,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.

2.Increased traffic on River Road - which is already congested well
before peak hours. Various sections of the road are well known for
accidents.

3. The significant destruction of trees and greenery due to the
development.

4.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.

5.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.

5.The acoustic impacts - increased noise across the valley due to what
is proposed on the site.

6.Impact on privacy for the surrounding landowners.

7.Incompatibility of the modern and imposing structures with the local
area.

The "Hammond families" should be asked to take a look around the area
and, if they lived here, would they like this built in their backyard?

The development must be built so it is part of the suburb, not looming
over and destroying it.

By all means revamp the hospital, but do it in a way in which the
current community and natural environment are not compromised. Build
something which the locals can be proud to have and support.

My submission is attached.

Submission prepared on behalf of an immediately adjoining resident.

Dear Ms Gizzi,

I am a resident living at 37 Innes Rd, Greenwich. I frequently walk
through the bush, opposite the hospital, to access River Rd. I also
have children at Greenwich Public School.

I strongly object to the current proposal to redevelop Greenwich
Hospital. I regard hospital grounds as being "sacred" & should be
reserved exclusively for hospital use and future hospital expansion,
when relevant as the population increases. To propose constructing
residential developments on hospital land is extremely short sighted
and is seen as being for short term financial gain and not in the best
interests of residents, the wider Sydney catchment area, or retired
people. Hospital land should be exclusively reserved for hospitals,
not residential development.

I note that the land usage is not zoned for residential use. Clearly,
the land usage is for a hospital, NOT residential.

There are other proposed "senior developments" proposed and in final
planning stages for the area. The proposed such development at 266
Longueville Rd is very close to Greenwich Hospital. Unless Council are
intending to saturate the municipality with old age facilities [which
I am sure is not the case], I see no point in contemplating such a
developement at Greenwich Hospital.

I am not opposed to renovating the actual hospital, or building a new
hospital building on the site, providing this is kept consistent with
existing height restrictions. However I note that the height
restrictions proposed in this development are excessively beyond what
is deemed acceptable for this location. There are no similar height
buildings along River Rd. If the proponent really seriously wishes to
build a high rise, I suggest they buy land where this is allowed and
more acceptable to the community. High-rise must be contained to the
St Leonards area of Land Cove, and not be allowed to expand, engulf
and destroy the amenity of our residential streets in Greenwich and
Northwood. The proposed development of Greenwich Hospital, if allowed
to proceed, would open up the floodgates for high rise all the way
along River Rd. This is strongly opposed by residents. Residents will
be severely impacted by this development, if it is allowed to proceed.

Another major concern, is that the current River Rd footpath, which is
on the opposite side of River Rd to the hospital, is very narrow and
hazardous. It is a mere 200 - 300 meters from the pedestrian crossing
which links both sides of River Rd, and is the access way at the
entrance to Greenwich Hospital. This footpath would be the necessary
access way from the Hospital to the Golf Club, tennis courts and
residents who wish to walk further to the Lane Cove Library, shops or
Aquatic Centre. The squeeze point at the cliff is barely wide enough
to allow a pram to pass through. Traffic races by, without a
protective barrier, less than half a meter from the footpath. So to
accommodate elderly pedestrians this footpath would need to be
widened, in line with the existing Shared User pathway that currently
terminates just short of the cliff. It would also be necessary to
construct a barrier, or railing, to prevent elderly pedestrains
stumbling in front of speeding downhill traffic.

I am also extremely concerned about the implications of additional
traffic along River Rd, St Vincents Street and Kingslangley Rd if this
development is allowed to proceed. These streets are already highly
congested, with significant safety concerns for Greenwich Public
School, the staff and parents. Cars can be lined up all the way along
Kingslangley Rd from St Vincents Rd to the school at pick up time.
There is no room for extra congestion which would undoubtedly occur
should the proposed redevelopment of hospital grounds be allowed to
proceed.

Finally, I note that `concretisation' of the existing site would occur
if this development proceeds. This is not in keeping with the
maintenance of a rainforest environment in the existing and
neighbouring Lane Cove Bushland Park, where there are endangered
hygrocybe. Water must be allowed to flow freely through the porous
soil and sandstone, in order to preserve the rainforest immediately
below it. The removal of so many trees will also open up the canopy,
reducing humidity levels, with further environmental impacts and a
significant reduction in aesthetics for residents, neighbours and
hospital inhabitants.

Accordingly, I ask you to reject the current application for the
redevelopment of the Greenwich Hospital site.

Yours Sincerely,

DON MURCHISON.

Please refer to attachment 1 which contains my objection

See Attached pdf of submission - 3181kb
see attached pdf of App 1 -3 - 3846 kb
see attached pdf of App 4 -467 kb

Please see attached submission.

I have tried to send this once already but have receieved no
indication from this site or by email that it has been uploaded
successfully so I am sending it again.

regards
Roger

see attached

1 file - Objection submission
2nd file - attachments to submission

request name withheld

See attached submission.

See attached email to Minister.

See attached

See attached.

See attached

See attached

See attached

Please see attached.

I wish to submit my objection to the proposed redevelopment of the
Greenwich Hospital. The revised plans do not address the issues raised
by the local community on numerous occasions directly with the proponent
and they are the bulk, size and scale of the proposed development and the
major traffic and transport issues that will result if the proposal were to go
ahead in its current form. The increase from 78 to 150 hospital beds and the
75 units proposed on the site in two towers rising some 5-6 stories in an
area defined by 1 and 2 storey developments is a gross over-development.

No traffic impact assessment has been undertaken on the surrounding road
network. The non-signalised exit will become left-in-left-out resulting in
traffic congestion at this junction.

The report estimates a rate of 0.2 x 89 independent living units (18
movements/hour) using the RMS Guide. However, the RMS guide is based
upon sites with good public transport options within the vicinity of
the development and this site has average to poor public transport
options. This means the majority of independent living unit residents
will rely on private vehicles to get to and from the development. The
estimates substantially under-estimate the flow rate and need to be assessed
by an independent traffic assessor. The local bus service is infrequent and the
gradient of the roadway leading from and to the bus stop does not meet the
standard in the Seniors SEPP.

The surrounding residents and homes will be over-looked by the
proposed hospital and apartment buildings and will lose much of their
privacy, amenity and views as a result of the proposed development.
The apartment buildings will tower over the local skyline and be
visible in almost every direction.

The sheer scale of the proposed development is well in excess of
what the location, local roads and infrastructure can handle.