I object to the proposed size of the hospital. The reason is the traffic gridlock on River Road. The residents of Lane Cove and Longueville are already struggling with the traffic on River Road presently especially during peak hours. We feel hemmed in on all directions leading in and out of our areas. We cannot handle any more high rise buildings surrounding our suburbs unless the roads are widened to accommodate the traffic flow.

I believe that this project incurs removing more than 70 trees. This will be catastrophic to the leafy environment of the area. I urge you to reconsider the proposal.

The scale of the project is out of character with the local low density housing, I object to it's size and bulk. It's visual impact is high on the local community.
As a seniors living location it is not ideal as local shops and services are not close to the development.
I would support a development of a smaller scale, but feel it should continue primarily as a palative care hospital.

this project will increase traffic flows and remove the tree cover onto Gore Creek reserve which will then increase the lights exposure at night.Removing trees and planting new ones does not have a material effect on the protection of noise and light .This is a neighbor hood area not a commercial area and should not be subject to the same conditions.

Dear Madam/Sir,

RE: Redevelopment of Greenwich Hospital (Revised Plans)

I am writing to express my strong objection to the revised plans submitted by HammondCare for the redevelopment of Greenwich Hospital.

Whilst there is merit in updating the Hospital to ensure that quality health care can be provided to residents of the Lower North Shore the revised plans are fundamentally inappropriate on the following grounds:

1. The scale and bulk of the Plans are excessive and are completely at odds with the character of the area, which is defined by low density residential development.

2. The proposed development's visual impact as viewed from the Northwood peninsula will be unreasonably high. The visual dominance of the revised height of the towers is materially incongruent with an area that is uniquely characterised by its leafy aspects and harbour views.

3. The scale of the proposed development is well in excess of what River Road can handle particularity in the morning and afternoon and evening peaks. Additionally, the increased traffic flows will pose an unacceptable safety risk to students of the adjacent Greenwich Public School.

Yours faithfully,

Leo Quintana

Objection to this redevelopment given concerns with inadequate zone planning /use and unacceptable negative impact to:
a. safety - increased bush fire hazard and increased vehicle movements near school zone
b. traffic - significant increase in traffic (especially on River Road) with insufficient remediations nor parking capacity
c. environment - unnecessary removal of trees and impact to wildlife
d. amenity - unnecessary change to the amenity of the local area

I object to the Greenwich Hospital redevelopment for three reasons:

1. Seven storey hire rise residential apartment blocks are not a health services facility and cannot be regarded as incidental to the health facility. They should not be included in the development.

2. The existing traffic on River Road is extremely heavy during peak times and this development will exacerbate this traffic congestion. There are no shops within walking distance and no convenient public transport options for those living in or visiting the seniors accommodation. The nearby buses only have a limited service outside peak hours. Any residents and their visitors will be reliant upon their cars. The existing traffic already makes it hazardous to exit to and from Northwood Road on to River Road.

3. This development will have a significant adverse visual impact on the bushland amenity of Gore Creek Reserve for those accessing and surrounding the reserve.

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.

The Department of Planning, Industry and Environment - Water and the Natural Resources Access Regulator (NRAR) has reviewed the EIS and has no further comments.

See attached