I disagree that the Northern Beaches Hospital is the best solution for the growing healthcare needs of the area.

Firstly, I feel that the proposed public/private ownership model will not improve the coverage of public healthcare A private hospital owner has a commercial interest which could potentially reduce the level of care available to patients.

In addition, the location of the hospital is of significant environmental value to the local area, and of NSW. As a wildlife corridor , the loss of Duffy's Forest would a break in the chain between existing environmental areas, such as Garigal National Park and Narrabeen Lagoon.

Lastly, in the surrounding coverage of the hospital, there has not been adequate concern given to the traffic issues surrounding the hospital if it were to go ahead. It is placing a hospital next to a regular traffic jam. Routinely, ambulances that travel on the Wakehurst Parkway, routinely jump between the lanes of a two-lane road. In addition, currently there is little public transport to the site and the specifics surrounding the links between the hospital and public transport is yet to be considered in public.

Whilst this may seem fait accompli to some, there are real concerns that have been raised by the community and hopefully will be addressed by this process

Northern Beaches Hospital

We wish to voice our objection to the state significant infrastructure application for the northern Beaches Hospital. We set out our objections below.

Site suitability

The site is not suitable for the proposed development. Access to the site is constrained by flooding on the Wakehurst Parkway. The traffic impacts of the proposed development have not been assessed in the EIS at all. There is no proposed solutions to alleviate the traffic impacts in circumstances when the development is likely to generate significant additional traffic movements.

In addition, the site is located in a predominantly residential area and it contains significant endangered ecological communities.


Traffic

The level of information in relation to the traffic impacts of the proposed development is inadequate. The EIS provides that there is a working group finalising the traffic and transport planning work to support the Northern Beaches hospital. Without this information provided during the time of submissions there cannot be a proper assessment of the environmental impact of this hospital.

If this Application is determined prior to this information being made publicly available, in our view, there will be a high risk of legal challenge on the grounds of failing to take into account a relevant consideration. Once this information is available, the project should be publicly exhibited again to ensure that the public have the opportunity to comment on the proposed plans and that a proper assessment can be made by the determining authority.

The Wakehurst Parkway (one of the main proposed routes to the hospital) and floods significantly during heavy rainfall. It is inappropriate to locate and emergency facility such as a hospital in a location where access is constrained.

The development will contribute to further congestion on local roads and the wider road network from hospital traffic. The potential impacts of this issue have not been properly assessed beyond stating that the existing situation is "generally poor" and that the surrounding intersections are performing on the worst Level of Service. Without provision of any information in relation to the proposed traffic solutions, this concept proposal must be assessed as though the existing traffic network will not be changed despite the substantial increase to the number of vehicles that this development will generate. Undertaking such an assessment must lead to a refusal of the development. It would be improper for a consent authority to consent to the concept proposal without proper assessment of this issue. In our view, such an assessment cannot be made on the information currently publicly available.

Prior to choosing this as the Site, this analysis should have been undertaken.

Parking

The EIS envisages the site will contain 1000 employees. The detail of parking is not included in the EIS. Public transport links to the site need to be improved.
Parking should be minimised to restrict traffic congestion and there should be no parking (through appropriate signage and inspectors) in the surrounding streets (except for residents) to preserve residential amenity and reduce traffic congestion.

Design, height and setback

The height of the proposed development is too high for the surrounding residential uses (that have an existing height of 1-2 storeys). The proposed hospital will affect the residential amenity of the surrounding area. There has not been an adequate visual impact assessment undertaken.

The building mass of 6 to 10 storeys excluding plant is too high in the location, particularly along Frenchs Forest Road.

A greater setback along Frenchs Forest Road and the school boundary should be provided.

The overall proposed GFA should be reduced to take into account the surrounding open space and existing residential nature of the site.
In addition, the amount of floor space dedicated to non-core hospital uses such as car parking and retail should be specified in the EIS. Without this information, it is difficult to make a proper assessment of the environmental impacts of the development. Maximum GFA calculations for all uses should be specified in the concept proposal.

The EIS states that the need for the hospital is driven by the size of Manly and Mona Vale hospital, which are both public hospitals. However the northern Beaches Hospital is proposing a public and private hospital. Perhaps the size of the proposed development could be reduced if the private hospital component was removed.

Without the hospital operator known, there is insufficient information available to the consent authority to determine the adequacy of the operational aspects of the hospital.



Endangered Ecological Community

The site contains significant endangered ecological ecological communities. It is proposed to remove 4.9 hectares of this important vegetation. In our view to remove this vegetation is contrary to the principles of ecological sustainable development, in particular, the principles of intergenerational equity and the preservation of biological diversity.

It is inappropriate to attempt to offset this area with land at Belrose.

Having lived in the vicinity of the site for over 30 years, we can attest to the fact that this is a significant wildlife corridor. We regularly see native fauna in our garden. To remove vital habitat in this area is unconscionable.

Cumulative impacts

The cumulative impacts of the development and supporting road works and other proposed developments has not been assessed at all in the EIS. This is an essential matter, the assessment of which cannot be deferred.

ESD

The EIS does not contain any detailed analysis of the principles of ecologically sustainable development, being a key objective of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. This is a particular important consideration given the proposed destruction of endangered ecological community and important habitat for other animals, including threatened species. In addition, the EIS proposes to defer essential considerations relating to traffic to a later time.

Consultation

It is noted that no specific consultation has been undertaken with the EPA. This is inadequate particularly in light of the impacts identified on the endangered ecological community.

Site preparation works construction hours

The EIS attempts to defer for later consideration "by the Managing Contractor" the extension of construction hours on Saturdays. This adversely impacts on the amenity of nearby residential areas.

Noise

The clearing will create substantial noise impacts for the school and residents. It is noted that the EIS states that "excessive use of respite periods should be avoided as they would simply prolong the duration of works". In our view, this is inappropriate without other specific mitigation measures applied.

In addition, we note that there has not been a proper assessment of the noise impacts of the development including from helicopters, ambulances and cars.

For the above reasons, in our view, this application should be refused.

Northern Beaches Hospital

We wish to voice our objection to the state significant infrastructure application for the northern Beaches Hospital. We set out our objections below.

Site suitability

The site is not suitable for the proposed development. Access to the site is constrained by flooding on the Wakehurst Parkway. The traffic impacts of the proposed development have not been assessed in the EIS at all. There is no proposed solutions to alleviate the traffic impacts in circumstances when the development is likely to generate significant additional traffic movements.

In addition, the site is located in a predominantly residential area and it contains significant endangered ecological communities.


Traffic

The level of information in relation to the traffic impacts of the proposed development is inadequate. The EIS provides that there is a working group finalising the traffic and transport planning work to support the Northern Beaches hospital. Without this information provided during the time of submissions there cannot be a proper assessment of the environmental impact of this hospital.

If this Application is determined prior to this information being made publicly available, in our view, there will be a high risk of legal challenge on the grounds of failing to take into account a relevant consideration. Once this information is available, the project should be publicly exhibited again to ensure that the public have the opportunity to comment on the proposed plans and that a proper assessment can be made by the determining authority.

The Wakehurst Parkway (one of the main proposed routes to the hospital) and floods significantly during heavy rainfall. It is inappropriate to locate and emergency facility such as a hospital in a location where access is constrained.

The development will contribute to further congestion on local roads and the wider road network from hospital traffic. The potential impacts of this issue have not been properly assessed beyond stating that the existing situation is "generally poor" and that the surrounding intersections are performing on the worst Level of Service. Without provision of any information in relation to the proposed traffic solutions, this concept proposal must be assessed as though the existing traffic network will not be changed despite the substantial increase to the number of vehicles that this development will generate. Undertaking such an assessment must lead to a refusal of the development. It would be improper for a consent authority to consent to the concept proposal without proper assessment of this issue. In our view, such an assessment cannot be made on the information currently publicly available.

Prior to choosing this as the Site, this analysis should have been undertaken.

Parking

The EIS envisages the site will contain 1000 employees. The detail of parking is not included in the EIS. Public transport links to the site need to be improved.
Parking should be minimised to restrict traffic congestion and there should be no parking (through appropriate signage and inspectors) in the surrounding streets (except for residents) to preserve residential amenity and reduce traffic congestion.

Design, height and setback

The height of the proposed development is too high for the surrounding residential uses (that have an existing height of 1-2 storeys). The proposed hospital will affect the residential amenity of the surrounding area. There has not been an adequate visual impact assessment undertaken.

The building mass of 6 to 10 storeys excluding plant is too high in the location, particularly along Frenchs Forest Road.

A greater setback along Frenchs Forest Road and the school boundary should be provided.

The overall proposed GFA should be reduced to take into account the surrounding open space and existing residential nature of the site.
In addition, the amount of floor space dedicated to non-core hospital uses such as car parking and retail should be specified in the EIS. Without this information, it is difficult to make a proper assessment of the environmental impacts of the development. Maximum GFA calculations for all uses should be specified in the concept proposal.

The EIS states that the need for the hospital is driven by the size of Manly and Mona Vale hospital, which are both public hospitals. However the northern Beaches Hospital is proposing a public and private hospital. Perhaps the size of the proposed development could be reduced if the private hospital component was removed.

Without the hospital operator known, there is insufficient information available to the consent authority to determine the adequacy of the operational aspects of the hospital.



Endangered Ecological Community

The site contains significant endangered ecological ecological communities. It is proposed to remove 4.9 hectares of this important vegetation. In our view to remove this vegetation is contrary to the principles of ecological sustainable development, in particular, the principles of intergenerational equity and the preservation of biological diversity.

It is inappropriate to attempt to offset this area with land at Belrose.

Having lived in the vicinity of the site for over 30 years, we can attest to the fact that this is a significant wildlife corridor. We regularly see native fauna in our garden. To remove vital habitat in this area is unconscionable.

Cumulative impacts

The cumulative impacts of the development and supporting road works and other proposed developments has not been assessed at all in the EIS. This is an essential matter, the assessment of which cannot be deferred.

ESD

The EIS does not contain any detailed analysis of the principles of ecologically sustainable development, being a key objective of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. This is a particular important consideration given the proposed destruction of endangered ecological community and important habitat for other animals, including threatened species. In addition, the EIS proposes to defer essential considerations relating to traffic to a later time.

Consultation

It is noted that no specific consultation has been undertaken with the EPA. This is inadequate particularly in light of the impacts identified on the endangered ecological community.

Site preparation works construction hours

The EIS attempts to defer for later consideration "by the Managing Contractor" the extension of construction hours on Saturdays. This adversely impacts on the amenity of nearby residential areas.

Noise

The clearing will create substantial noise impacts for the school and residents. It is noted that the EIS states that "excessive use of respite periods should be avoided as they would simply prolong the duration of works". In our view, this is inappropriate without other specific mitigation measures applied.

In addition, we note that there has not been a proper assessment of the noise impacts of the development including from helicopters, ambulances and cars.

For the above reasons, in our view, this application should be refused.

1.destruction of local amenity.
Air pollution, noise pollution, overflow parking in residential streets. Light pollution at night. Loss of bush land and it's air cleaning function.
2. Traffic and transport problems.
- wakehurst parkway and warringah rd already at/beyond capacity. Wakehurst parkway can be closed by flooding. Intersection at hospital site gridlocked everyday. No planned public transport. Substantial additional traffic (ambulances, staff, patients, visitors, suppliers.)
3. Environmental issues.
Destruction of wildlife corridors. Loss of habitat for wildlife. Destruction of one unique area of native forest and wildlife that cannot be redeemed.
4.Health services distribution.
Provision of public beds insufficient, private hospitals focus on profits, not provision of health care for all. Centralising for administrative convenience does not provide health care where needed. Loss of existing public community hospitals at Mona vale and Manly. Proximity of new 10 storey hospital to newly built royal north shore hospital (duplication of services).

See attachment

Please see the attached document outlining my strong objections to the proposal of the 10 - storey Northern Beaches Hospital due to the destructive impact on the following areas near my home in Frenchs Forest:
- Destruction of local amenities
- Traffic and transport problems
- Environmental issues
- Distribution of health services

This is a very simple submission to write. The Northern Beaches Hospital is to be sited in the wrong place. It will destroy a vital natural area of bushland which needs to be retained. The transport and traffic conditions in the immediate area will cause absolute many ongoing problems.
The dismissing of the Mona Vale Hospital as the site for the new Northern Beaches Hospital is rather short sighted and has not been completely researched. The Frenchs Forest site for the new hospital goes right against public opinion.
It appears that the idea for the Frenchs Forest site has been handed down by previous State Governments with no thought being given to current thinking and demand.

I am 100% against this hospital being built in Frenchs Forest,
Clearly the politicians who came up with this idea don't live in Frenchs forest. There is always bumper to bumper traffic on Warringah road and the parkway gets closed on a regular basis so how are people from Mona Vale ment to get to the hospital if it is closed? They will just make Frenchs Forest a nightmare, people will be sitting in Traffic for most of the day, The Forest High School will suffer and not to mention the Residents who have lived here for years.

I wish to object to the Hospital proposal. I have lived in FF all my life and feel the traffic congestion on Warringah Rd and the Wakehurst Parkway could not cope with the increased traffic. How will ambulances get up the Parkway when traffic is heavy, I had to move to the side of the road one afternoon when an ambulance was screaming up behind me to get to Narrabeen. How many lives will be lost due to Parkway closure when flooding occurs? This is a residential area that will be destroyed if this hospital goes thru, there is plenty of land available at the Mona Vale Rd/Terry Hills near Super Centre Belrose that could house a large Hospital and those roads could easily be upgraded without buying up peoples houses for road improvements.
I walk to work when I can due to the congestion of our roads but I also fear for my life each time I cross the pedestrian crossing at the start of the Parkway Narrabeen side as the cars speed to beat the oncoming traffic and don't observe the crossing. There will be many accidents if there is a hospital to contend with as well. This plan was put on the table 40 odd years ago FF has changed and increased in population since then. Plan for the future growth and move the Hospital some where else.

While a new hospital is needed, Frenchs Forest is not the place for the following reasons:-

Once bushland is destroyed, it is lost forever, and the site is the habitat of various native animals.

There will be massive traffic problems, as the Wakehurst Parkway and Warringah Rd are regularly gridlocked, and the Wakehurst Parkway is regularly closed due to flooding which has occurred at least 6 times this year, including this last Monday. No plans have been exhibited for fixing this.

Land already exists for a hospital at Mona Vale, which could be built without closing the present hospital.

Public transport already exists along Pittwater and Mona Vale roads. where as Frenchs Forest is not easy to access.

The focus seems to be mainly on private operation and private beds, resulting on the loss of public beds. the hospitals Frenchs Forest is to replace are public hospitals.