Greenwich Hospital Stage 2

12/02/2024

Comment

Email

roger-and-judi-apte-greenwich-submission-redacted.pdf (PDF, 1.31 MB)

04/02/2024

Comment

Email

northwood-resident-submission--obj--greenwich-hosp-stage-2.pdf (PDF, 2.34 MB)

New South Wales

02/02/2024

Comment

Website

See attached

submission-greenwich-hospital-design-and-modification-ssd13610238pdf.pdf (PDF, 792.43 KB)

01/02/2024

Comment

Email

margaret-curley-for-northwood-action-group-inc-objection-greenwich-hospital.pdf (PDF, 139.78 KB)

31/01/2024

Comment

Email

valerie-le-bihan-greenwich-hospital-redevelopment-objection-redacted.pdf (PDF, 105.27 KB)

29/01/2024

Comment

Email

greenwich-hospital-redevelopment-lane-cove-council-submission-redacted.pdf (PDF, 103.8 KB)

New South Wales

27/01/2024

Comment

Website

I am a Councillor for East Ward in the Lane Cove LGA. The proposed Greenwich Hospital Re-development is located in East Ward. I note that Lane Cove Council has made submissions in respect of the re-development proposal. I make this submission in my own right in respect of the modification of the approved concept proposal in SSD-8699-Mod-1 and SSD -13619238. I do not seek to represent the views of Lane Cove Council. 1. Clarification is sought as to the basis on which the hospital and seniors living project are deemed to be elements of a single SSD. The DPE Assessment Report dated December 2023 is based on the assumption that the project has already been approved as a Concept DA by the Commission on 10 November 2020. However, the grounds given by the Commission in support of its approval of the Concept DA appear to be significantly different from the grounds offered in support by DPE in its Assessment Report for the Detailed Design DA. The Concept DA was supported on the basis of ‘relatedness’ – both physical and operational. https://majorprojects.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/prweb/PRRestService/mp/01/getContent?AttachRef=SSD-8699%2120201110T061034.629%20GMT p 10 The DPE has adopted a different approach in its Assessment Report dated December 2023. In essence, it states that the seniors’ living element is permissible as of right under Section 4(1)(a)(iii) of the Seniors Housing SEPP. It has advised that the seniors’ housing element may be assessed under the Seniors Housing SEPP because it is a staged development for which Concept DA approval was granted before commencement of the Housing SEPP. Given that the two elements are, arguably, permitted under different instruments – the hospital by virtue of LEP controls and the seniors’ living complex by virtue of the Seniors Housing SEPP – it is submitted that each element should be separately determined:- • the Hospital as an SSD determined by the IPC • the seniors’ living element by Council or, if above the $30 mill threshold, by the SNPP. The fact that seniors’ housing is depicted as critical to the funding of the Hospital works should not be a consideration. 2. Clarification is sought as to how residents of the seniors’ living units will be guaranteed access to all services to allow them to ‘age in place’, including access to rehabilitation services, palliative care services and accommodation in the residential aged care unit in the Hospital The Greenwich Hospital re-development is modelled on an ‘age in place’ concept which I understand is relatively untested in the Australian context. In earlier meetings with the applicant, I sought more information about the operation of similar facilities in Australia in an effort to better understand how the proposed facility will actually operate to provide this ‘age in place’ support. I understood the applicant’s response to be that that there is no such facility in operation in Australia but that there is one facility under construction in Caulfield in Victoria. It is presumed that the seniors’ living units will be marketed around ‘age in place’ incentives. Given that the Seniors Housing SEPP has a threshold of age 55, many licensees in the units may not require services or specialist accommodation for some time but many are likely to need them as they become frailer. The material available in support of the SSD includes no specifics as to how such services and specialist accommodation will be guaranteed to all licensees, the cost of such services and contractual arrangements proposed if one licensee wishes to remain in a unit whilst the other licensee moves to specialised care. I am unable to locate draft consent conditions to ensure that the right of licensees to such services/specialist accommodation is protected. I submit that the consent conditions should be amended accordingly. In the absence of such consent conditions, I object to both SSD-13619238 and the modification of the approved concept proposal in SSD-8699-Mod-1.

New South Wales

01/02/2024

Object

Website

SUBMISSION TO THE NSW INDEPENDENT PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING THE HAMMONDCARE PROPOSAL FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND THE CREATION OF SENIORS LIVING APARTMENTS AND RESPITE CENTRE – STAGE 2 Reference No. - SSD-13619238 and SSD-8699-Mod-1 Dear Sir/Madam I wish to lodge my comments relating to the above proposed development and make a submission regarding my particular concerns and objections – and some support - to certain aspects of it, as follows: 1. WATER MANAGEMENT, PARTICULARLY STORM WATER RUN-OFF With reference to the Ethos Urban response to submissions report, dated 6 February, 2022 (2190376), I make reference to SD1 on page 57. This reads as follows: “Stormwater impacts of the proposal were addressed in detail in the Stormwater Management Report exhibited at Appendix BB of the EIS. The Stormwater Management Report confirms through flood modelling that the proposed development will not worsen flooding conditions to downstream properties when compared to existing site conditions and will not generate unacceptable stormwater impacts onto downstream properties. The proposed development meets all required stormwater obligations. The report notes that on-site detention (OSD) is not required at the site, by virtue of the site being locate (sic) within an OSD exclusion zone as nominated under the Lane Cove Council DCP. A number of submissions noted that their properties are currently subject to stormwater runoff; however, the management of these impacts are the responsibility of each individual landowner and outside the scope of this SSDA”. As being one of the property owners affected by excessive water run-off, I object most strenuously to the proposition that the owners of Greenwich Hospital site have no obligation to retain their own storm water, but can just allow it to affect we owners to the south who suffer so badly from it. Whether or not they have an “exemption” for this, it seems to me that they have a more than neighbourly obligation to divert some, at least, of this water to the creek in the west, or elsewhere, so that it does not constantly flood my property and that of others on the southern boundary, but particularly INCLUDING MY HOUSE, RUINING MY CARPETS, FLOORING AND FURNITURE, which has happened twice in six years. This is an intolerable position to be in, as the water just sheets off all the cleared areas, road and car parks, also from the rock faces on the site’s boundary, then just pours down, unimpeded, onto and into my property without let. There are two drains at the base of the current lower western carpark, but they are frequently blocked by leaves from the vegetation adjacent and the gumtrees above, so are rendered ineffectual. Even so, at full functionality, they are insufficient to handle the volumes of water that currently run off the site in any kind of summer rainstorm or high-rate rainstorm throughout the year. I stress that this is a regular matter, one happening in the present, but it could worsen as the years go by, as climate change occurs and while the development is taking place. Clearly, residents have few ways of managing this, excepting by putting in larger drains (which I have done, but they are still insufficient in times of very high fall, especially over a short period), so I am pleading with the developers to have consideration to our plight and use this opportunity of the new development to finally address this matter. It might simply take the installation of a pipe catching the water near the southern boundary and diverting it to Gore Creek, down the cliff face. It could also present as a danger to cars using the through roadway, especially those unused to its curves, so they might brake, then slide off its surface and crash. I object to the current (mis-)management of water on site and the denial of an obligation by the developers to address the matter of improving catchment of high water flow, especially storm water, and its seriously deleterious effect on neighbours on the southern boundary and I request that plans be put into place to address this important issue. 2. HOURS OF WORK DURING THE PROJECT’S OPERATION It is noted that the developers wish to side-step the Council’s regulated hours of work and, instead of limiting Saturday work to between the latter’s stipulated work hours of 7:30am and 12:00 noon, they wish to extend them to 15:30pm. This would be a burden, in terms of noise, traffic, etc. on close neighbours on all sides of the project and I strongly ask that the developers be limited to the Saturday hours of 7:30 to 12:00pm for the duration of their works. I object to any plans to allow work to continue on site on Saturdays past 12:00 noon and request that the developer be made to limit its Saturday work hours to between the hours of 7:30am and 12:00pm. 3. MANAGEMENT OF LIGHT SPILL AND FOOTPATH I refer to the External Lighting Services report by JHA Services.com. On p. 10 of that report is a diagram Fig. 4 of the External Light Layout showing planned lighting across the site, including along the Access Roadway (PP2 category, both Vertical and Horizontal) and a Footpath on the southern border (PP3 category, Horizontal category). My concern is two-fold. Firstly, the Access Roadway lighting is, in some places, very close to the southern boundary. No consideration seems to have been given to the downward strength of the lighting here, yet it is likely to spill across to the bushland and affect the usage of that by local creatures, including the nesting brush turkey, several types of possums and the passage through it by a number of native animals, perhaps deterring them from using it as they do normally. I believe that the light intensity here should be held to A2 level, or PP3. Also, vertical lighting may well upset all the many arboreal creatures whose habitat is in the trees nearby. Secondly, I note the presence of a Footpath that I was previously unaware of. I do not recall having seen this portrayed in any other site-map drawings. (I see it is drawn in the section of Amended Landscape Plans on the Landscape Architecture Documents by TaylorBrammer, No. 3 of 38, also on the Overall Site Plan No. 6 of 38.) It is extremely close to the southern boundary of the property, just where that abuts my own land. I presume that it will have to be kept lit throughout the night, thus this will most likely spill across the bushland, as mentioned above and also into my property. Again, no consideration has been given to the downward fall of these lights and I ask that this be attended to. Light intrusion into my property from that region of the site is likely to fall into the living room and also the bedroom on that boundary and severely affect the amenity of my household. I consider that this footpath runs far too close, at times, to the site’s southern boundary close to my property, such that my privacy would be infringed upon by the movement, noise and night lighting on this path and it is inappropriate to be so placed. This is also the case regarding the lightfall downward from the southern Seniors Living Tower onto the bushland and properties close to the boundary. This should be reduced, I believe, from the A3 level to A2. The light overflow/spill should be closely considered in regards to these three separate elements and adjustments made accordingly, so as to eliminate its deleterious effects on neighbours and wildlife. I object to the current light plan insofar as it affects properties on the site’s southern boundary, the native wildlife living there and the amenity of some households there, including my own. I also object, most strongly, to the presence of the footpath so close to my property. The land there is steep, so is unfriendly to walkers, it is too close to the remnant bushland there, so walkers would upset native wildlife and the noise and night lighting would disturb both the latter and residents of my property. I urgently ask that this footpath be re-designed to run higher up the site and the proposed night lighting levels be reduced. 4. INCREASE IN SIZE OF BUILDINGS a. Firstly, it is proposed that the Main Hospital Building be increased in size from 12,750 sq.m. to 13,900 sq.m., an increase of 1,150 sq.m. or 9%. I am unconcerned about this increase in size, as hospital care is the chief function of the project and the main building has been moved further back into the site so will not loom too high over the road or neighbours. This seems like an improvement on the currently approved design. b. The Seniors Living Buildings will also be increased in size from 10,990 sq.m. to 12,243 sq.m., an increase of 1,253 sq.m., or 11.4%, although their envelope remains as before. This increase is a concern, as it means that there will be an increase in persons dwelling there, possibly in the number of cars moving in and around the site and in general activity, noise and use of lighting at late hours. Greater density of occupants will most likely impact on the living standards of the other seniors living there and quite possibly on the amenity of adjacent property owners and dwellers. This despite the statement of reason for the design modifications blithely being stated as not giving any additional impacts on the amenity of users or neighbours – whilst providing NO EVIDENCE for that statement. (See p. 18 of the Section 455 (1A) Modification Application, Para. 7.3 Reasons for Giving Assent.) Obviously, squashing more people into the same size of building is unlikely to produce the same happy amenity as it would in the original plan. I also consider that the height of the Southern Seniors Living apartment block is still too high for the position that is planned for it to be built. My viewpoint is based on the existing height of Pallister House compared with my house and this is that it absolutely towers over mine and so too will the new planned Southern apa

letter-accompanying-submission-redacted.pdf (PDF, 107.57 KB)

submission-to-ipc-refarding-hammondcare-propos.pdf (PDF, 156.66 KB)