Uniting War Memorial Hospital Waverley

The proposed FSR considerably exceeds the the LEP maximum of 1.2 with an FSR of 1.7. If this
exceedance is accepted then the affordable housing component should be adjusted accordingly to provide more AH. This is an opportunity to provide additional housing at a time when housing is so desperately needed.Uniting is providing 23 units but with the FSR overrunthe amount of AH could be almost doubled. The additional FSR will deleteriously impact on the streetscapes and dominate nearby buildings.If the community is to bear the impacts of additional building then additional affordable dwellings should be provided.
additional floor space

I wish to object to the development application for Uniting War Memorial Hospital at Waverley.
I have several concerns about the proposal.
It removes large numbers of existing mature trees, including the 140-year-old large fig tree currently in the centre of the site. These trees are part of the heritage not only of the hospital but of the entire area. They also provide homes, food and roosting for a variety of bird and animal life, which will be destroyed along with these trees. Losing this amount of tree cover , to be replaced with multistorey buildings, will be very detrimental to our natural environment as well as our built heritage. Uniting has said it will plant new trees but these cannot replace trees that have flourished for over a century.
This area is already very congested with car traffic and is short of parking. Church Street is a major thoroughfare between Carrington Road and Bronte Road, and during school hours it is often completely blocked by cars dropping off students. This backs up into Bronte Road in both directions, particularly towards Charing Cross. There are already limited parking spaces, between the residents of the area, the staff of the hospital and the courthouse and schools nearby. Adding over 700 new cars in the underground park plus a large amount of of overflow parking in the nearby streets by residents, staff and visitors will create a very difficult and contested parking experience. Those cars disgorging onto Church St, Birrell St and Bronte Rod will make a bad situation much worse.
Finally the height of the buildings will completely dominate the local area. They will be taller and more massive than the existing hospital, diminishing the context of the existing heritage buildings, and will create a wall of tall buildings along Bronte Road, pushed right to the boundary. This will deliver a much less amenable pedestrian experience and create an extended intimidating corridor of tall buildings all the way to Bondi Junction. There is no planned variation in height in the proposal, presumably to maximise commercial returns on the luxury units along Bronte Road.

Dear Planning Authority,
I am writing to express my strong objection to the current development proposal by Uniting for the War Memorial Hospital site in Waverley.
This 3.5-hectare site is one of the last significant green spaces in Waverley, home to 210 mature trees and an essential wildlife corridor that supports over 170 species of birds. The proposed development would result in the removal of 95 of these trees, including one of the majestic 140-year-old fig trees, which should be preserved as a natural heritage landmark.
The plan to construct six- and seven-storey buildings, including a massive central block that will overwhelm the historic War Memorial Hospital and Vickery Mansion, is completely out of scale and inappropriate for this heritage site. These structures will overshadow the central green space, erode the area’s historic character, and significantly degrade the visual and environmental amenity of the site.
While Uniting claims to provide affordable housing, the reality falls far short of expectations. Only 10% of the total units will be affordable, and these are mostly smaller apartments. Based on the high Floor Space Ratio of 1.71, at least 15% — preferably 25% — of the total Gross Floor Area should be allocated to affordable housing. Under these calculations, an additional 10 two-bedroom apartments and all 35 smaller units should be made affordable. Anything less is a missed opportunity and an inequitable use of a site gifted to a charitable organisation.
Moreover, the proposed 478-space underground car park is completely contradictory to the argument for increased height and density based on proximity to Bondi Junction station. Either the development relies on public transport, or it supports private car use – not both. The surrounding streets, particularly Bronte Road and Birrell Street, are already congested, and this influx of vehicles will only exacerbate traffic and safety concerns, especially with the Bronte Road Streetscape Upgrade reducing traffic capacity.
The historic gates at the Bronte and Birrell corner – once an elegant entry to the Vickery estate – should be restored, not neglected. Their continued exclusion from the proposal reflects a broader disregard for the site’s rich cultural and historic significance.
In summary, the current proposal:
1. Is excessively bulky and inappropriate for a site of this heritage value.
2. Destroys important landscape and environmental features, including habitat trees.
3. Offers insufficient affordable housing, despite a generous Floor Space Ratio.
4. Contradicts its own justifications for increased height and density.
5. Will significantly worsen traffic congestion and environmental impacts.
6. Fails to adequately preserve or respect the historic elements of the site.
I urge the Department to reject this proposal in its current form and request a redesign that protects heritage, enhances environmental value, and delivers genuinely affordable housing in line with planning guidelines and community expectations.
Sincerely

I wish to object to the plans for the Uniting War Memorial Hospital development, application SSD-61389706. I am resident at 170 Bronte Road, directly across Church St from the WMH site.
I have three objections:
1. Increased vehicle traffic and pressure on existing parking provision.
Parking in the area is already at a premium. It is consistently difficult to find nearby resident parking, especially during working hours and school hours. Parking spots in Church St are being designated for electric vehicle charging, which I do not have an issue with, however it reduces the already scarce parking even more. Church St is a major thoroughfare and during school pickup and drop-off hours the street becomes choked with traffic due to several nearby schools. Adding more vehicle traffic and 748 new parking spots available only to users and residents of the new development) in addition to the road narrowing works in Charing Cross will exacerbate an already difficult parking and traffic environment in Church St and flowing into Bronte Road. Already southbound traffic frequently backs up from the traffic lights at the corner of Bronte and Carrington roads all the way back to Birrell St, preventing egress from Church St. It is my understanding that Uniting has acknowledged that the scale of the underground car park is driven by marketing needs for the 55 luxury apartments fronting Bronte Road rather than ameliorating the traffic and parking consequences of this development.
2. Loss of mature trees
The existing site contains many mature trees, 95 of which will be removed. While Uniting has said it will plant new trees, some of these trees are older than any in the surrounding area, including Centennial Park. In particular the magnificent fig tree is a beautiful piece of local heritage and it is irreplaceable once lost. New plantings will not replace this. Uniting have not demonstrated that they have addressed alternative options to the destruction of these trees.
3. Setback from Bronte Road
I note that the proposed long 6-storey building along Bronte Road has only a minimal setback from the street. This will present a dominating and unrelieved wall of tall buildings very close to eth boundary along this streetfront and will overshadow the paths on both sides of the road.

While I understand the proposed development provides an opportunity for uplift, the proposal in its current scheme exceeds what is appropriate for the site. The bulk and scale of the proposed developments is not consistent with the existing for future streetscape character along Bronte Road or Birrell Street. Further, the views of these buildings from inside the hospital grounds are overbearing. The hospital functions as a place for rehabilitation but it is hard to see how that can continue when the proposal is completed with the lack of open space and increased traffic and general business of the site. The additional traffic caused by the proposal will have a great impact on the surrouding locality which already suffers great congestion, especially around school time. The site is a short walk from Bondi Junction so the number of proposed parking spaces should be reduced to reflect the site's PT accessibility. The existing vegetation on the site provides habitat for a number of wildlife which thrive off the density of trees on the site. The propsoal to remove 95 trees needs to be reconsidered. Lastly, the site needs to provide more affordable housing. Given that most of the site was gifted to uniting it is only fair they are generous in their development and provide at least 15-20% of the proposed apartments as affordable housing. These apartments should be a range of sizes to accommodate a diversity of people. Development of luxury apartments should be left to developers, not to organisations who are supposed to have the best interest of the community in mind. Waverley doesn't need any more luxury apartments, it needs good sustainable housing that is accessible to the wider community, not just the 1%.

Submission to NSW Planning:
Uniting War Memorial Hospital.
SSD 61389706 125 Birrell St Waverley April 2025

A Perspective from the Local Community
Background

As a long-time resident of Waverley, I have witnessed the community's evolution and understand the potential impact of this development.

Clearly this is a massive development proposal, probably the largest single development in the suburb of Waverley for the last 150 years.

It will have a major adverse impact on the local community.

Measures are required to be conditioned in any development approval to ensure that any impact on the local community is not just mitigated, but additional provisions are incorporated to fully alleviate all reasonably foreseeable impacts of this once in a generation development


Concerns, Considerations and Suggested Solutions:



Free Parking on site

Concern:

The project's approval may strain the already limited street parking spots in the local area.

Suggested Solutions:

1. Require the engagement of a reputable traffic consulting firm to conduct a comprehensive study ensuring there is a generous supply free parking within the development for all War Memorial users, including staff, visitors, and residents. In particular the number of spots should be adequate to meet peak demand for parking. Further this supply should allow for future potential increases in demand.
2. No existing street parking spots should be lost. If so, any loses should be compensated with free public car parking spots on site adjacent to the street.
3. Given this is a once in generation project, there should be generous provisions for on-site parking spots in the upgrade. Infact, a generous excess should be provided to anticipate future needs and thereby mitigating the impact on the local community well into the future.




Street Vehicular Traffic flow

In order to mitigate traffic flow impact of the massive increase in vehicles that enter and exit the War memorial on Birrel st, Bronte Road (and Carrington Rd), any vehicle ingress and egress should be “left turn only”.

By ‘left turn only” I mean that cars entering the War Memorial can only enter by turning left from Birrel st, Bronte Road (and Carrington Rd). They should not be permitted to ‘turn right’ across the opposing traffic lane into the War memorial. Those right turning cars will have to give way to cars in the opposite lane. As Birrel st, Bronte Road (and Carrington Rd) are one lane traffic only, they will hold up all traffic behind them. This causes horrendous delays especially in peak hours, on roads that are the only access points for traffic flowing in and out of Bondi Junction etc.

Concern:

The proposed vehicle access point on Bronte Rd is ambiguous and needs clarification.

Suggested Solution:

It should be a condition of consent that this is clarified and a “right turn entrance” is not permitted ( ie left turn only) for any vehicles.

Additionally, all vehicle exits should be 'left turn only' to minimize traffic flow impact on main roads




Maintenance of external streetscape (ie nature strips on footpaths)

Concern:

While War Memorial maintains its internal gardens well, it neglects the external streetscape on the street boundaries of its properties (e.g., nature strips on Birrell St, Bronte Rd, Church St, and Carrington Rd). While it may not technically be their responsibility, it is disappointing for a organisation seeking a major development. The War Memorial in its application, identifies itself as an institution of high standing and one that cares for the community. But they clearly disregard the street scape of their properties. In fact in my living memory I can only recall two occasions where it appears the War Memorial has mowed the nature strips, and they occurred just a few days before the 13/3/25 when their SSD went on exhibition, and the other in the last week or so.

Not maintaining nature strips not only gives the local areas a grubby look but also reflects poorly on the War Memorial’s own external presentation. Thousands of cars pass by each hour, hundreds of people walk past each day, and they are presented with weeds and long dishevelled lawns. This woeful disregard reflects poorly on the Uniting Care and impacts the local community. They should step up and do the right thing in their local community.


Suggested Solutions:

War Memorial should take a proactive and ongoing approach in maintaining the external street scape appearance in front of their properties, as most other people do in the local community. Nature strips in front of their properties should be mowed regularly and maintained (say monthly or as required), and regular weed control measures implemented.

This should be incorporated in their ongoing management operation plans and they should be required to show that they will do the right thing by the local community on an ongoing basis, and not just while their proposed project is seeking approval.


Rental E-Bike parking stations near main entrances.

Concern

A large number of E bikes are dumped on public footpaths entrance spots of the War Memorial by people accessing site. This needs to be addressed in this once in a generation development.

Suggested Solution:

Incorporate adequate 'Rental E-bike' parking stations near main pedestrian access points to War Memorial to accommodate staff and public using this mode of transport. They should be accessible from the street so that operators or other passers by the E bikes can access the bikes as required without ‘entering the facility’.
Building G

Concern:

Building G is too tall, too close and protrudes too far to the East, and thereby compromises, the adjacent heritage building to its North.

Suggested solutions for Building G:

Building G needs to be modified so that the visual presence of the adjacent heritage building is not compromised.

1. It’s too close, the small 2-meter girth provided on the south side is inadequate.
2. Its too tall, and the top 2 floors should be removed, and Building G should sit below the roof line of the heritage building to its North.
3. Building G should be set back on the Eastern side, so that it sits slightly set back to the west of the eastern side of the heritage building to its North. This way the heritage building front façade can be seen from the south side

Conclusion

While we recognize the commercial advantage for Uniting Care by upgrading War Memorial, it is imperative that the planning process considers its impact on the local community.

This is a once in a generation upgrade, and this is the opportunity to address known issues listed above, as well as provisioning now for predictable future impacts.

We respectfully request the NSW Planning Department to consider these concerns and incorporate our suggestions into the approval conditions.

With a small amount of effort and a considerate attitude, we can all enjoy a harmonious and thriving environments for all to co-exist.

Thank you for your consideration.

Affordable housing

I am 61 years old and live in a 2-bedroom flat at 1/105 Birrell St Waverley with my young daughter, who is on the spectrum. I also have significant health problems. If the development is approved I will lose my housing. I am a low-income household and cannot afford to rent another property in the area.

The proposed development does not adequately take into account the loss of housing to those that live here (particularly the loss of affordable housing).

Traffic and parking

The development is proposed in an already busy area.

The development will have 231 independent living units and a 105-bed aged care facility operated by 85 staff. In addition, traffic will be generated by non-staff operations (i.e. deliveries, services, contractors) and visitors. However, the EIS only forecasts an additional 22 inbound trips and 19 outbound trips in the morning peak and an additional 42 inbound and 27 outbound in the evening peak (EIS, p. 115). Those figures seem significantly understated for a development of this magnitude and suggest that the traffic modelling ratios used are not appropriate for this site.

The parking assessment also appears to be understated in that a car park will only be provided for every 5 independent living units and with no visitor parking for such units (EIS, Table 26).

The proposed development therefore does not adequately take into account the effect of traffic and parking.

For example, in the immediate vicinity, there are five schools (Waverley College, Waverley College Junior School, Waverley Public School, St Clare’s College and St Charles’ Primary School) which have not been properly considered in the proposed development. The traffic generated by these schools is already considerable, particularly at peak times.

Visual amenity & heritage

The scale and extent of the development will dwarf the neighbouring structures (see, e.g., EIS, Views 07 - 010 on p. 97 – p. 100). That visual effect is then compounded by the loss of existing building with heritage character, and the conflict between the modern development and what heritage character does remain. The proposed site is prominently in the public domain. Changes to the amenity of the site will therefore be significant for the community.

The proposed FSR for the R3 zone along Bronte Rd and Birrell St of 1.7 is far in excess of the LEP maximum of 1.2. If this is permitted the affordable housing proportion should be at least 15%. The SEPP formula would give 25%.

Further the affordable housing proportion should be applied to Gross Floor Area, not number of units. Uniting is aiming to allocate 1br units to affordable housing in a complex of predominantly 2br and 3br units. Consequently the proportionate number of affordable units should be well in excess of the GFA proportion. Uniting have offered 23 affordable units (10% of 231 units). The correct allocation at 15% of GFA should exceed 40 units.

Affordable housing

My Mum lives in a 1-bedroom flat at 2/101 Birrell St Waverley with her dog. If the development is approved she will lose her housing. She is a low-income household and cannot afford to rent another property in the area.

The proposed development is causing her a huge amount of stress and anxiety. She has health problems and having to move would be very difficult for her, emotionally and physically.

The proposed development does not adequately take into account the loss of housing to those that live here (particularly the loss of affordable housing).

Traffic and parking

The development is proposed in an already busy area.

The development will have 231 independent living units and a 105-bed aged care facility operated by 85 staff. In addition, traffic will be generated by non-staff operations (i.e. deliveries, services, contractors) and visitors. However, the EIS only forecasts an additional 22 inbound trips and 19 outbound trips in the morning peak and an additional 42 inbound and 27 outbound in the evening peak (EIS, p. 115). Those figures seem significantly understanded for a development of this magnitude and suggest that the traffic modelling ratios used are not appropriate for this site.

The parking assessment also appears to be understated in that a car park will only be provided for every 5 independent living units and with no visitor parking for such units (EIS, Table 26).

The proposed development therefore does not adequately take into account the effect of traffic and parking.

Visual amenity & heritage

The scale and extent of the development will dwarf the neighbouring structures (see, e.g., EIS, Views 07 - 010 on p. 97 – p. 100). That visual effect is then compounded by the loss of existing building with heritage character, and the conflict between the modern development and what heritage character does remain. The proposed site is prominently in the public domain. Changes to the amenity of the site will therefore be significant for the community.

Whilst acknowledging the proposal incorporates plans for the expansion of existing aged care and seniors living uses, including affordable housing options - all of which are important to the Waverley community - I do not believe the plans in their current form work to maintain the unique heritage and environmental significance of this historic site nor do they maintain the amenity of the surrounding neighbourhood.

The site is positioned as an important gateway to the suburb of Waverley when approached from Bondi Junction. Both the historical features as well as the well established treescape, create a distinct transition from the built-up commercial area of Bondi Junction (north of Birrell St) to the residential and community areas of Waverley.

The existing street frontages of this site are either in keeping with the local, historical appearance of the Waverley area, or largely unseen due to the well established trees and set-back from the roadway.

The proposed buildings, particularly Building D, will take away from this transition and no longer be in keeping with the streetscape of the Waverley area south of Birrell St - the boundary of Bondi Junction with Waverley and Queens Park. Remarks by the proponent that Building D matches the existing buildings around the intersection of Bronte Rd and Birrell St are incorrect. Buildings on the south-western side of Bronte Rd, with the exception of the single-storey commercial premises occupied by Jaycar, are all set back from the roadway, predominately 2 or 3 storeys high, with most set below the road height. One building is 4 storeys high but is significantly set back from the road.

The proposal shows construction of Building D will require removal of several well established trees. Whilst not noted as significant, these trees currently provide screening and privacy to residents of both Birrell St and Bronte Rd. Retention of existing trees would maintain privacy for residents of established properties as well as future residents of any independent living units on the War Memorial Hospital site. Whilst the landscaping plans of this proposal include the planting of new trees along the property boundaries adjacent to Bronte Rd and Birrell St, it would take decades for any new trees to provide a canopy and screening to the same extent of the existing trees, and the positioning of buildings, and any pruning activities, is likely to prevent screening and privacy to return to the existing state.

As has been the case with other significant developments in Waverley, it would be beneficial if this included providing funding from the proponent to bury the existing electricity poles and wires along each side of the property. This would improve the quality of the streetscape whilst also allowing the existing and future trees planted along the nature strips to increase in height and canopy. These trees are not able to grow whilst the electricity lines are suspended above them as they are regularly pruned by contractors for Ausgrid.

Opening of the heritage gates on the corner of Birrell St and Bronte Rd is unlikely to provide improved amenity or improved interaction with this heritage item. If abandoning this plan in favour of simply restoring the gates without a pocket park would see retention of existing trees in the immediate vicinity, I would support this amendment.

The bulk form of the proposed buildings is likely to significantly change the local microclimate and impact from wind. The undertaking and analysis of qualitative wind assessment by an appropriate consultant would not only provide analysis on the potential impact of changed wind conditions to existing residents, but also to residents of the proposed development and suitably influence the design of the buildings, including balconies. Wind tunnels in other areas where bulky construction has been allowed provides poor amenity for people in both adjacent public spaces as well as occupants.

Despite the end-state landscape plan, I believe the proposed development is detrimental to the existing Habitat Corridor that runs through the site. Construction of dwellings with fewer storeys or further adaptive reuse of existing buildings could assist in maintaining this corridor and reducing the impact on the local environment.

I acknowledge that some of the existing buildings are currently in a condition that does not meet the current requirements or expectations of the community but don’t believe the applicant has demonstrated how this has been determined or how adaptive reuse is not a suitable option. This is particularly the case for the Conrad Beard Court Building that was only constructed in 1991 to a high standard for seniors’ living with significant updates to individual ILU kitchens and bathrooms in recent years. This building was constructed within the existing landscape and maintained established and mature vegetation without the need to clear and replant. The statement within the proposal relating to accommodation not meeting current market expectations does not consider the fact this ILU accommodation has not been actively made available to new residents for many years and existing residents (owners and tenants) were content and not wanting to relocate.

Whilst there is an opportunity to improve or expand the aged care services available on this site, I believe further review of options and a more appropriate offering that takes in the needs of the community and recognises the significance of this estate would benefit all stakeholders in the long term.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Affordable housing

I am 67 years old and live in a 1-bedroom flat at 2/101 Birrell St Waverley with my dog. If the development is approved I will lose my housing. I am a low-income household and cannot afford to rent another property in the area.

The proposed development does not adequately take into account the loss of housing to those that live here (particularly the loss of affordable housing).

Traffic and parking

The development is proposed in an already busy area.

The development will have 231 independent living units and a 105-bed aged care facility operated by 85 staff. In addition, traffic will be generated by non-staff operations (i.e. deliveries, services, contractors) and visitors. However, the EIS only forecasts an additional 22 inbound trips and 19 outbound trips in the morning peak and an additional 42 inbound and 27 outbound in the evening peak (EIS, p. 115). Those figures seem significantly understanded for a development of this magnitude and suggest that the traffic modelling ratios used are not appropriate for this site.

The parking assessment also appears to be understated in that a car park will only be provided for every 5 independent living units and with no visitor parking for such units (EIS, Table 26).

The proposed development therefore does not adequately take into account the effect of traffic and parking.

Visual amenity & heritage

The scale and extent of the development will dwarf the neighbouring structures (see, e.g., EIS, Views 07 - 010 on p. 97 – p. 100). That visual effect is then compounded by the loss of existing building with heritage character, and the conflict between the modern development and what heritage character does remain. The proposed site is prominently in the public domain. Changes to the amenity of the site will therefore be significant for the community.

i fully support this project. more seniors housing is needec in this area. i would be keen to move from strata apartment living into an apartment in this complex. i am existing member of the uniting seniors gym located onsite & have been pleased with the way this is run.

The “sheer-faced, severe” frontages and heights of the proposed 6 storey over-55s development buildings on Bronte & Birrell Streets do not fit in with the neighbouring buildings of these streets and will severely affect amenity to sunlight and open sky viewing to neighbouring buildings across the road, some of which are low cost/affordable housing. The proposed buildings need a bigger setback from the streets for green plantings to reduce heat increases from the proposed buildings and to increase sunlight and open sky amenity for neighbouring buildings. The top floors on each of the proposed buildings should be set back to reduce any further overshadowing of surrounding buildings and neighbouring buildings.
Regarding the above proposed buildings, why is Uniting, a charity which was donated the land, building luxury over-55s apartments. There is an oversupply of these types of developments in the Eastern Suburbs and nearby. Low cost and affordable housing is needed instead so Uniting needs to allocate more of this latter accommodation than is currently proposed of 10%, instead it should be at least 25%, as this is what is really needed in this area to offset the number of those type of past and current residents who have to been removed or are in the process of being forced to leave with no opportunity to return as the cost of the proposed over-55s development won’t be affordable. One resident, currently living in the proposed development site, has lived in low cost housing there for over 30 years and has deep community ties.
The proposed massive underground carpark for over 400 cars will affect deepsoil needs of current and proposed trees to be able to create a tree canopy to reduce heat increases from the proposed buildings. With climate change currently increasing daily & yearly temperatures, any new developments need to offset any heat temperature increases onsite so ensuring historic and current green tree canopies remain will assist. The proposed number of cars will further increase our standstill, gridlock and polluting vehicle traffic currently on Bronte and Birrell Streets. Proposed heights are supposed to be linked to 8 minute walks to nearby transport hubs so why does the development need that many car spaces?
The loss of 95 trees for the development will affect the current bird and native bat population being able to use it as the important wildlife corridor between Waverley Oval park and on to Centennial Park/ Royal Botannic Gardens several times a day. New plantings will take too long to replace the current dense green tree canopy which currently supports many bird species such as kookaburras, galahs, black cockatoos, white sulfur crested cockatoos, rainbow lorrikeets. Where will the current wild native bird population nestled within these trees go and what trees will they use as rest stops for the constant flying back and forth use between these dense tree canopy and historic green spaces?
I am not opposed to any development as I’ve outlined in my suggestions above, instead I’m opposed to development which ousts its’ low cost residents who have developed strong community ties, including for their multiple medical needs and doesn’t allow them to return; leads to overshadowing and loss of amenity to sunlight for neighbouring properties; removes historic protected trees which currently provide an important green wildlife corridor and which would offset some of the heat increases which will be emitted by the proposed buildings.

As a member of the Vickery family, I fully support the redevelopment that is being proposed for this site by Uniting (NSW, ACT) . Edina is a magnificent example of a Victorian Italianate mansion which we still have and can enjoy today, thanks to the Methodist, now Uniting, Church being prepared to accept this gift from our family, and maintain it as much as possible as well as develop other areas of the site for the War Memorial Hospital.
I am especially encouraged that the heritage houses are being retained and repurposed as my grandmother, Freda Vickery, was born in Wych Hazel in 1891 and lived there until the family moved to Strathfield. I have no doubt that the family members that are no longer with us, would be pleased to see that the family-significant buildings and areas of the site are going to be substantially retained and developed with the aim still to support the needs of others - in this case, senior citizens, for whom there is a growing need for integrated housing, support and also community. I am particularly pleased to see that there will be some affordable housing units - there is an even greater need for affordable housing in our city.

i support the project. I am a regular attendant of the Senior Gym and casual attendant of the Menshed.

Too big!! Too many levels! Must have smaller capacity and less height - 21m is outrageous.

I have worked at WMH for 16 months and welcome the redevelopment on the grounds which will enhance the lives of elderly people in the Eastern Suburbs. The project respects the heritage buildings on site whist focusing on future needs which are very much needed -independent living units, a residential aged care facility, affordable housing and modern community and ancillary uses. I particularly support the concept of creating a 'village' community. Great detail with sustainability initiatives and green spaces whilst incorporating much more parking which is essential

I am not supportive of the scale of this development. Whilst there may be a need to modernise some of the site, I do not believe that the proposed buildings and development overall will complement the War Memorial Hospital. The War Memorial Hospital buildings and grounds are a significant part of Waverley’s heritage and I do not think that the proposed design and scale of the apartments proposed are sympathetic to the existing architecture. The removal of so many large and significant trees to build more apartments is very sad as they are never replaced with the same type of tree which offer so much for local wildlife and have been a part of the local landscape for decades. As a local resident, we are very very concerned about the amount of traffic at the intersection of birrell and Bronte road this development will cause especially with the roads being v busy currently with local schools surrounding the site. We do not think there have been enough parking spaces included for the number of apartments and the cars will no doubt park in nearby streets reducing available spots for residents. The height of the apartment blocks should be reduced to be more in keeping with surrounding heritage and not be 7 storeys.

I wish to make a submission in support of the development of the Uniting War Memorial Hospital Waverley for the proposed Residential Aged Care Facility, Independent Living Units, Community Facilities and Ancillary Land Use.

My wife and I live in Queens Park, less than one kilometre from the development site. We are looking at downsizing into a retirement style development in the not too distant future. This site, with a proposal for a great variety of living options would be extremely attractive to us. We would be able to move in to an Independent Living Unit making our existing house available for family purchase and living whilst we do not have to move away from our community and local services that we know and rely upon.

I currently utilise The Mens Shed on the site and understand that it will ultimately replaced which is great news. My wife has previously worked as a physiotherapist in the rehab department of the Hospital and is very happy with the proposed development maintaining the historic and heritage buildings.

We believe that the proposed development is a logical and appropriate use of the site and will have a positive social impact. We are happy with the proposal to build this development ad both sustainable and affordable housing which will enhance the feeling of a village providing a sense of community and wellbeing.

We are looking forward to the approval and development of this retirement village.

Regards,
Graham and Dolores