Camperdown Modern Private Hospital

These are the following objections I have as a resident of Mathieson street to the proposed private hospital:

1. The height of the building and minimal setback overlooking and overshadowing our residence causing lack of privacy & safety for our family
2. The height of the building is going to significantly reduce a solar access to our residence
3. Our house will be lit up by the 8 stories of lights from the windows, many of which may be on all night as well the noise & heat pollution from the large air conditioning units facing our property
4. The proposed private hospital will cause lack of parking & removal of existing parking spots on Mathieson Street & Cahill Lane
5. The numbers about traffic flow provided in your report / study seem very low to the actual reality ( Mathieson Street gets very busy with existing traffic)

Overall the proposed site is over - developed and is going to have an adverse effect on the quality of our life and our community.

Regarding SSD-59354958 Camperdown Modern Private Hospital, we oppose the proposal based on the following concerns.
We are a beer brewing business that's operated on Pyrmont Bridge Rd for around 40 years near the proposed site of the Camperdown Modern Private Hospital Proposal. Over the last few years we were heavily impacted by the Westconnex Tunnelling portal adjacent to our building by impacts including high levels of dust, noise, loss of street parking, damage to electrical equipment and even significant damage to the adjoining wall of our building, repair works which are still yet to be completed. Another large construction project on Chester St, Annadale nearby (Kennards) is also having impacts on parking and accessibility in streets near to the brewery. The area has experienced construction fatigue of late and our employees (around 12) have complained of parking shortages and considerable dust in the building/area. Some of our concerns with the Camperdown Modern proposal are below.

Concerns during the construction phase are;
Loss of parking in the area for brewery staff, contractors, and essential service providers due to parking by construction workers
Dust and noise from trucks
Traffic, lane closures and disruption that would affect brewery truck movements
Power outages — costly damage to site equipment if grid is not managed during variations in power usage in the area as we've seen before through the Westconnex project
Impacted fellow local businesses

Concerns once built when operating the facility are;
Considerable visual impact — the proposed building is much taller than existing local buildings
Parking on street being taken by visitors to the facility. If parking in the facility is not free, visitors may not use it.
Shadow and wind effects particularly in winter. The facility is tall and will block out afternoon sun to the brewery.
Would we potentially start to receive odour complaints from the new business operator when operating our brewhouse?
Resultant hospital visiting traffic parking on the street affecting accessibility of essential contractors/visitors to the brewery.

The area needs more public hospital facilities rather than private hospitals.

I live on Water Street, and parking is already almost impossible to obtain just for the residents and this street, let alone anyone visiting for various reasons. If this hospital opens up with only the suggested parking spots, then I’m thinking that I will never be able to park on my own street possibly ever again, in additional to the streets being choked with people looking for spots, and parking illegally. Ideally, I would be happy if the hospital digs down another level so they can double the amount of parking.

Thanks for your time.
Liz Scott

I am a local resident of 18 years who owns a small workers cottage on Mathieson Street, Annandale, and live here with my wife, twin 4 year old daughters and two dogs.

I feel the height and proposed overdevelopment of the site will adversely affect our family’s lives permanently if allowed to go ahead as proposed.

Loss of parking from Mathieson Street: The loss of parking from Mathieson Street will make it difficult for my family and friends to drop off kids, shopping and probably isolate us as.

Increase traffic: danger for family and pedestrians.

Height of 35 metres straight up (8 stories) with little setback will mean loss of privacy from the windows overlooking our property, acoustic noise bouncing off the hard surface (glass), light pollution at night from lights left on and air conditioner noise from the aircon units working 24/7 facing our property.

As a local resident I feel this proposed building lacks design excellence, is backward step for the community and inappropriate for the site considering the burgeoning bulk this huge building presents so close to our boundary.

I am the owner of 2 Water Street Annandale and I object to the proposal of the private hospital on Mathieson Street Camperdown The traffic will be a problem. Already there is a problem.
Next week a school opening on Mathieson Street and that will be enough traffic!!!
I can see that residents will have to move out.
This residential area will be no longer .
The NSWDept of Planning has a big job and I think this development has to go elsewhere.
I have lived on Water Street for 30 years but it is becoming too busy and crowded.

I am a resident on Water street and I have great concerns about the proposal. A 24 hour hospital is going to bring so much traffic to a street that quite frankly is tiny and will not be able to cope with the change. Parking is already a challange, however coupled with the new school, the new appartment bulding, and now this new proposed hospital, we don't ever stand to get a parking space which I think is unfair. We have a small child, and another on the way and it is really hard to get a parking space on or close to our house. We don't have the luxury of surrounding streets to park on, there are just the u shaped streets, the nearest other streets that we can park on are about a 5 min walk which is going to be a nightmare with a little baby. It is not only the parking that is my concern, it is the noise that comes with finding parking on a small street. A 24 hour hospital, especially as big as the proposal is going to bring a large volume of unnessisary street noise. Again, I am concerned because I want a peaceful sleep for myself and my small family. It was difficult to tell from the proposal just what kind of activities or specialities the hospital will host and when someone from the development came to my door I asked and was met with a very vague responce. It is concerning to me that this isnt clear. A day surgery would make me feel more at ease but I can not understand exactly what the impact of a 24 hour hospital will bring. Drive past RPA at night time for example and there just is an unfavorable atmosphere late at night, something that I don't want to see for this area. This street and neighbouring streets are filled with families, it's peaceful and friendly and what drew us to the area and to buying our house. I worry that this peacefulness will impacted with the size and scale of the development and the charm of the area will be lost to traffic, noise and a business that comes with a 24 hour hospital. I object to the proposal and want some consideration to the families that live in the area. These streets are small, and will not be able to cope with the proposed change. Why choke our streets unnessisarily. Make the streets resident only parking and no through road only for residents, or provide parking spaces for residents in the plans because we just wont get a spot. Consider reducing the opening hours to not be 24/7.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed construction of a new hospital in our quiet neighborhood, specifically Water street & Mathieson street.
I understand the importance of healthcare facilities, but I believe this project poses significant challenges to our community, especially considering the inadequate parking situation and the impact on the safety of our residents, particularly young families.

Firstly, our one-lane street already struggles with insufficient parking for residents. The addition of a hospital will undoubtedly exacerbate this issue, creating a burden for those living in the vicinity. The increased traffic and limited parking options could lead to congestion, inconvenience, and potential safety hazards for both pedestrians and drivers.

Moreover, the demographic composition of our street is primarily young families. The construction of a hospital in such close proximity raises concerns about the safety of children and parents in the area. The heavy construction machinery, noise, and disruption associated with the project could pose risks to the well-being of our community members, especially considering the presence of a local school under construction nearby.

Speaking of the school, the concurrent development of a local school in our neighborhood further compounds the challenges we will face. The simultaneous construction of both a hospital and a school in the same area is likely to overwhelm our small street and create chaos in terms of traffic management, safety, and overall livability.

I kindly request that the local council reconsider the approval of the proposed hospital construction in our neighborhood. It is crucial to prioritise the well-being and safety of the existing residents, particularly the young families who call Water & Mathieson street home.

I appreciate your attention to this matter and trust that the local council will carefully evaluate the potential impacts on our community before proceeding with the proposed hospital construction.

Thank you for your understanding and consideration.

Sincerely,

Tom Macdonald

I believe that the current height limit for structures along Parramatta Road is 7 stories. From what information is available, it appears the structure surpasses this. I would like to know why a breach, or exclusion, of the established policy is allowed, and how it aligns with the urban planning goals for the area.
Has a shadow diagram been carried out showing the impacts to the surrounding area, and when will this be published?
The location of the building is at the merging of two main roads at what I believe is a dangerous corner (Parramatta Road and Pyrmont Bridge Road) and raises valid concerns about the safety and potential increase in traffic flow. The existing congestion in this area is already a concern and the introduction of a new facility may exacerbate the situation. With vehicles travelling along Parramatta Road, preparing to turn onto Pyrmont Bridge Road, accelerating upon the changing traffic lights from green to orange, I cannot see how vehicles will be able to safely stop without having a collision with vehicles entering the proposed entrance of the facility. When will the traffic impact assessment be published?
I am also concerned as to the adequate parking availability for ambulances and drop-off areas for patients.

My concern is extra traffic in Gordon water St, Gordon St is a public Hazzard with no usable foot paths for families living in water street. Families are forced to walk on the road as the footpath is half a metre wide and obstructed with telegraph poles, parking sign and bins blocking access. We have major parking problems at present with commercial deliveries and small business filling the roads. The paid parking of 132 spots will be avoided by most people visiting the hospital and spill out onto the already contested Water street . Noise will increase with traffic being 24 hours a day and pollution as this is a tiny street.

This will impact multiple business and other new projects in the same area. There is already very little parking and this will be the end of a service everyone uses, Not just the wealthy with health insurance.

To whom it may concern,
Please find attached my submission concerning the Camperdown Modern Private Hospital proposal.

Kind Regards,

Alexander

Dear Department of Planning,
I am a local resident in Water St Annandale and i object to the proposed Camperdown modern project because of the impact on residents parking, traffic safety, and the amenity of the local area.
The building is too big and the number of visitors to the hospital will no doubt look for parking in the surrounding streets. We have very limited street parking and the area is already very busy with vehicles from other big construction projects already occupying the available spaces.
There needs to be concessions made to local residents or increased parking restrictions in favour of residents (e.g. timed restrictions) if the project goes ahead. A green travel plan is not enough is the development is not going to be able to stop people from trying to park in the area.

Also the layout of the vehicle entry and exit onto pyrmont bridge road looks very unsafe. it is going to create a major hazard for vehicles turning from Parramatta Road onto Pyrmont Bridge Road and also cause be unsafe for pedestrians.

In general the scale of the development is too big for its location, and it will have too big an impact on local residents. I dont think the developer has given this impact on our community enough consideration. WE are a family with three young kids and i think approval will destroy our area - please dont let this go ahead!

Thank you
Jodi

public safety concern, loss of amenity, no demonstrated need in an area with very poor access and at capacity parking resource. Planned parking makes no reference to specific purpose of hospital. Unsuitable site. Grossly inadequate parking for vague terms of proposed usage. Building process will be disruptive to the surrounding business and residences and major nearby road systems.

I strongly object to the revised application for Camperdown modern based on the basis that the amended application results in a negative affect on local residents through overlooking of private property and public open space , overshadowing of private and public spaces, the poor urban realm outcomes that doesn't conform to deep soil planting. The significant uplift of traffic and negative impacts on local roads generated by this development which are ignored in the transport assessment. The essential privatisation of Cahill street to facilitate vehicle movements for the development requiring the removal of car spaces from local streets to allow the development to operate. all vehicle movements required for servicing this building should be occurring within its own boundary. this is a public safety issue for residents. Non conformity to objectives set out in PRCUTS and the amended DCP from Inner West council. the request for additional GFA and height in this application should be rejected.
I am very happy to discuss and be present at all meetings going forward on this project as I am directly affected and wish to be informed of modifications to this application at my address registered on this planning portal. Regards Anthony Crozier. 17 Mathieson Street, Annandale 2038.

Submission to Planning NSW

Re : Camperdown Modern Private Hospital

Submission made on behalf of:

James Sutton (Jay) Harrison and The Harrison Unit Trust; owner of 1-7/10 Cahill St and 1-11 Water St, on behalf of self and commercial and residential tenants, and specifically, my immediate neighbour to the East, Christina, the elderly owner of 12 Cahill St, who lives there permanently caring for a disabled daughter

She and several noise sensitive land users were omitted by the proponent, primarily educational and residential, though I have business park tenants who work from home and will be severely affected.

The surveying of the area by the proponent was decried by the few I have spoken to who were contacted. There was evidently a brief not to engage and the surveyors excused themselves promptly on being questioned. I was not contacted.

During the survey period the McKillop School had leased their Mathieson St premises. This information it seems was deemed best excluded from the proponent’s submission.

I also note, for the purposes of noise effects categorisation, that the residential neighbourhood beginning immediately to the North comprises more than 100 houses and is exposed to noise and vibration from the site by virtue of topography as well as proximity.

The Cahill St façade of 1-7/ 10 is low rise and the noise from excavation and construction travelling North will not be significantly attenuated before hitting medium density residential on the other side of Water St, and beyond, on the rise from Johnsons creek.

Further, there is a “noise channel” to the North from the Northwest corner of the proposed site straight down Mathieson St, across Water St, the reserve, and the storm water drain (that was Johnsons Creek)).

The walls of ‘the channel’ are original heavy masonry walls, straight, approx. 30 metre long and 3 stories high, a virtual ‘wave guide’, opening into the amphitheatrically shaped residential valley. This channel will transmit site noise North virtually unattenuated.


Background Noise measurements at the top of the channel adjacent the site are tabled in the acoustic report by West & Associates.

The noise levels measured were abnormally high adjacent the site.

This is a direct result of the testing being carried out in a period end of May to early June 2023 when there were 3 large machines carrying out rock breaking, excavation and loading from the site at 11-13 Paramatta Rd, some 80 metres WSW of the proponent’s site

This can be confirmed with the site manager, Firat Fatfat on 0426422432. He informed me that during those weeks there were a 35 ton rock breaker and 2 excavators: one at 24 ton and one at 20 ton operating on the site.

It is significant to note from an acoustic point of view that the 11-13 Parramatta Rd site has retained the original multi story façade onto Parramatta Rd, directing a significant proportion of the excavation and construction noise to the rear of the site whence it has unimpeded travel up Cahill St to the intersection of Mathieson St where the background noise measurements were taken

Further background noise tests obviously need to be done. If they are to be done by the proponent, we would like to be advised so they can be independently witnessed. If Planning NSW is not of a mind to have the tests re-done, please advise the undersigned so that independent tests can be arranged for the management of construction noise levels.

If such is the case, the proponent, and Planning NSW will be advised so that you are able to have the tests independently witnessed. Those streets are normally so quiet that the correct measurements will be contentious, but so are they crucial to the process.

The proponent’s consultant’s “future closest sensitive receivers” properties illustration falls sort, specifically with the absence of mention of the residence opposite the site at 12 Cahill St, any of the residences in Mathieson St or the Mackillop School on the NW corner of Cahill and Mathieson Sts

Given the nature of in ground noise in Class IV sandstone, whist not closest, there will be very sensitive receivers in the residences on both sides of Water St, and likely excessive levels of in ground as well as air borne noise to the residences on the Northern side of Johnsons Creek. Again, the total number of affected residences would exceed 100.
The permitted noise levels for the school and the adjacent commercial spaces are well covered in the guideline

it must be noted that the proponent and his consultants have been very unforthcoming on predicted values or likely or proposed durations, though they must be aware the latter to understand the project well enough to cost and fund it.

In summary on noise and vibration, it is unsurprising that a proponent’s consultant would offer no mitigation other than communication and complaints handling which is by its nature after the event. The NSW document advocates sorting these matters out at the planning stage, not after the event as the proponent prefers

Obviously there will be disruption and in convenience abounding given the density of the rock, the closeness of the streets and the general topography, so it will be in the best interests of the project, the community and the planning authority to have clear guidelines in the conditions that are based on the Standards and the Guidelines from the start rather than have the legal and planning mess ensue when early omission and optimistic delusion turns into a formal quagmire.

In terms of mitigating circumstances on offer to entities generating noise and vibration in relevant NSW documentation, it is worth noting for the record that the proponent is not doing urgent or critical maintenance, the project is not public infrastructure, and the duration of the noise and vibration proposed is not “short”

It is obvious that while much is made of “feasible” and “reasonable” mitigation in the Draft Construction Noise Guideline, no amount of imminent noise advice to the neighbours or complaint handling process is going to make any material difference to the extent to which noise and vibration are generated by the proposed works in the existing ground conditions in the tight, densely populated, noise sensitive environment in which the works are proposed. It is disingenuous on the part of the proponent and his consult ant, given the obvious issues that a “quantitative analysis” wasn’t provided with the submission

This submission argues that only stringent conditions placed on the proponent will add sufficient meaning to the complaint handling process so that NSW Planning won’t itself be involved in contentious matters that will no doubt result from existing occupiers of adjacent lands not being provided their legal entitlements in respect of noise and vibration levels (as well as working hours, traffic, control of fumes, silica dust and any other nuisance or threat to health and well being)

At the business end of the November 2020 Draft Construction Noise Guideline, actual mitigation strategies abound. Whist there is accepted clarity around acceptable construction hours (albeit none of it supporting the proponents wish to secure the right to work 6 full days doing excavation) there is little prospect in my view, having spent 50 years in the industry and having spoken to my own Geotech. and Civil advisors, that airborne noise will be able to be effectively controlled without something significant, like a noise wall such as the one shown in the 2009 Noise Guideline that the proponent refers to.

Whilst I am aware that it is not Planning NSW’s remit to so prescribe a solution, nor should you be deterred by objections to any effective mitigation by the proponent due to cost and time. The community will be investing plenty in his financial future

The document makes provision for non-compliances for urgent or infrastructure projects, or for unacceptable noise or vibration levels for a short duration, a week was mentioned.

For this project there would be many months of excavation, and while it is in keeping with state and local governments’ plan for the area, it is a private developer seeking a great reward.

The NSW Construction Noise documents refer to feasible and reasonable mitigation strategies.
“Feasible means a mitigation measure that can be engineered and is practical to build and/or implement, given project constraints, such as safety, maintenance and reliability requirements. And Reasonable means measures that involves judging whether the overall noise benefits from a feasible option outweigh the overall adverse social, economic and environmental effects.”
Note that there would be no adverse social or environmental effects from say a noise wall, which also meets another recommendation of the document, controlling the noise at the source. The ‘economic’ argument that it will cost the proponent to mitigate meaningfully will compete with the economic argument that the community will still be able to function during the construction period if there is sufficient mitigation to meet the standards.
The equity argument supports the community, as the upside is all with the proponent.

The proponent may have better engineering solutions. I mention the above as one option that will attenuate ‘in air’ noise and improve air quality adjacent the site

Vibration

A noise wall will not fix the vibration issue.

Reasonable requirements for acceptable vibration are clearly outlined in “Assessing Vibration” issued by the NSW Department of Environment and Conservation in Feb 2006

The vibration is as big a challenge to the proponent and the neighbourhood as the noise. Whilst the document gives the approval authority the option of not holding the proponent to meet the VDV’s specified in the various circumstances, at the measured distances, they will likely be well in excess of levels deemed consistent with life and c o-existence of various human functions the community is entitled to perform. Thi

I am writing to provide feedback about the Camperdown modern proposal at 122-130 Pyrmont Bridge Rd and 206 Parramatta Road Annandale. I am a nearby resident on Water St and I thank you for providing the opportunity to give feedback.

My main concerns are as follows:

1. Loss of Vehicle Parking: Parking for residents in the area is already extremely limited and as a parent with a young family we often struggle with carrying large loads from our vehicle to our home because nearby parking is all full. This development will only make this situation worse as there is no doubt that visitors and workers at the hospital will park on the streets surrounding the development (Cahill, Mathieson and Water St), regardless of whether basement parking is available. Please work with Council to increase parking restrictions in the area in favour of residents - there are currently too many unrestricted parking spots in the vicinity of the development which are abused by contractors for existing nearby projects (e.g. Abbie's Lane and the Waranara school project) . The cumulative impacts of all these projects places an unfair burden for parking on local residents. I would like to see 1 to 2hr timed parking restrictions in all areas surrounding the project unless vehicles have an A1 residential permit from Council.

2. The size of the proposal - 37 m is too tall, in my opinion and is higher than what is permissible in the LEP. The number of occupants will have too great an impact on traffic and parking in the area.

3. Pedestrian and traffic safety needs to be maintained throughout construction and operation. The proposal predicts an additional 120 vehicle trips during each AM and PM peak , which cannot be accommodated on the corner of such a major intersection, and adjacent to residential areas. Even the modelling predicts that this intersection will be heavily and detrimentally impacted. Also the development site is on the corner of an extremely unsafe intersection for pedestrians, will likely force pedestrians onto Pyrmont Bridge Road and Parramatta road during construction. I also note that the proposal aims to send all vehicles into the project via Pyrmont Bridge Rd, but i don't see any measures to prevent entry via Mathieson St. If Mathieson St becomes an access point, this will create traffic safety issues at the Parramatta Road and Pyrmont Bridge Road intersection. This needs to be addressed

4. High noise activities should only be carried out during daytime hours on weekdays. I do not support construction occurring on weekends or holidays.
5. I don't support 24 hour operation of the hospital. There is a residential area just across the road and around the corner and these will be severely impacted by 24-hour oepration.

Overall i think this proposal is very dismissive of the impacts it will have on the local residents. The EIS claims that the development "will not result in any unacceptable amenity impacts to surrounding properties or the public domain", which is untruthful, particularly in relation to parking and overall amenity impact on what is a long-established and unique residential area. I would only be able to support the proposal if there was certainty around parking restrictions in favour of residents being agreed to with Council.

I trust you will consider these comments in making your decision.

thank you.

steven tan

I believe this to be an essential new development and one which will bring the suburb into a more positive light.

The building's proposed height.
I am under the understanding that the current height limit for structures along Parramatta Road is 7 stories. The design, as far as I can see, is higher than this. I am anxious to know why this breach of the established policy is allowed and how it aligns with the urban planning goals for the area.
Has a Shadowing diagram been done and showing the impacts surrounding the area?
The location of the building is on a very dangerous corner raises valid concerns about the potential increase in traffic flow. The existing congestion in this area is already a cause for concern and the introduction of a new facility may exacerbate the situation. with traffic speeding around the corner into Pyrmont Bridge Road to beat the lights and I cannot see how they will be able to pull up in time if traffic is turning into the proposed entrance way off Parramatta Road/Pyrmont Bridge Road.
Can you please let me know if a thorough traffic impact assessment has been implemented and the results of same.
I am also concerned as to the adequate parking for ambulances and drop off areas for patients.
Furthermore, the limited circulation space around the proposed building is also worrisome. This could create an environment conducive to accidents and potential hazards. Adequate planning and provisions for safe circulation must be addressed to mitigate any risks.

We are writing to object to the currently presented scheme known as Camperdown Modern.

While we fully support the redevelopment of the Camperdown Tech Precinct, the Camperdown Modern proposal raises several concerns that have not been adequately addressed.

Our main concerns relate to the impact of the proposal on the inadequate parking resulting in loading on parking impact on surrounding residential streets, the impact of the proposed entry and exits on the intersection of Parramatta road and Bridge Road and the lack of consideration of the larger impact on local roads and residential communities.

Employment and health services drive a high load of transitional and out of area traffic to an area (as evidenced from Randwick). The concern is that that this visitor traffic is unfamiliar with the area will have an undue and dangerous effect on the surrounding area. We believe that a realistic traffic assessment and strategy needs to be undertaken to resolve the increased transport, traffic, and parking loads both within the site and within the precinct generally. The surrounding roads and residential areas should not unduly burden the load of commercial development.

The proposed Camperdown Modern site forms the first part of a much larger Camperdown Tech Central Precinct development that aims to add over 1,500 residents and over 25,000 research, health, and service jobs.

We understand the oversight to be an apparent lack of master planning of the Camperdown Tech Central Precinct, integration with green space, transport, and the precinct overall.

This site and proposal will form a prominent central lynch pin in the suburb and should correctly address several issues relating to traffic, parking, green space, hydrology, and urban design.

Parking allowance – impact on adjoining residents and businesses

It is anticipated that most of the site’s basement parking would be allocated to visitors and patients who are unfit to travel via public transport.
• The proposal includes parking rates where it is intended that the staff will use public transport due to the difficulty of accessing parking. Although aspirational and altruistic, this is heavily flawed logic disproved by experience and resulting in an unreasonable expectation which does not cater for staff who will inevitably park in surrounding streets.
• The area already accommodates the load of staff working at RPAH which illustrates the inadequacy of the public transport network to address the commuting and the unrealistic expectation that over 150 staff in the building at one time, on rotating shifts, will use public transport.
• The parking and traffic does not consider staff shift changeover periods when double the number of staff vehicles are present.
• Parking rates do not consider the disproportionate shift in mode share of patients, visitors and staff cars that are apparent with hospital care with a higher proportion of cars parking.
• The proposed removal of existing on street parking on Cahill St and Mathieson St further exacerbates the overloaded neighbourhood parking issue.
• Need to establish rates in similar facilities. Comparison is made to Randwick and St Vincents where the facilities heavily impact local traffic and parking.
• The above, when considered in combination with the proposed employment projection and increased residential loads generated by the projected Camperdown precinct will result in the surrounding residential areas being unduly affected by heavily increased traffic and parking densities.
• The application acknowledges that staff will be driving and parking on surrounding residential streets and solves this through an unrealistic proposal of a managed carpool.
o 5. Encouraging staff that drive to work and park on surrounding roads to carpool through creation of a carpooling club or registry/ forum.
• The projected additional traffic and parking needs to be principally resolved within the lots and the precinct where the development is occurring and not pushed onto the surrounding residential areas which do not directly benefit from the development.

Transport – impact on Parramatta road and bridge road intersection.

• The intersection of Parramatta Road and Pyrmont Bridge Road has been identified as a high-volume traffic area and a crash hotspot. The proposed entry/exit will exacerbated the dangerous corner and increase confused traffic and is too close to an existing busy intersection. The proposal has not adequately considered the site /context.
• The Proposal will include additional traffic generation at peak times when Parramatta Road and Pyrmont Bridge road at their most congested.
• The proposal does not consider the bigger picture of on the network of traffic entering from the east or departing to the west and subsequent impact on surrounding streets and traffic. By traffic only being able to enter via eastbound parramatta road and exit via eastbound Pyrmont Bridge Road the proposal will have a major impact on the broader road network by adding vehicles to Mallet, Booth St, and Johnston st. This broader network impact has not been considered.
• As the parking rates are underestimated, similarly the proposed traffic impact will be underestimated as an increased number of cars will be entering and exiting a full carpark.
• The drawings indicate that several of the proposed basement parking do not comply with AS 2890.1 implying that the actual number of parking spaces is lower than that stated.

Overall impact

• The proposal is excessive as it exceeds both LEP FSR and LEP Height controls.
• LEP FSR exceeded – Although the claim is that the non-compliance is minor (6%) the real impact (627sqm) is major in terms of additional occupation and associated loading on parking, transport, building envelope bulk, massing, and articulation and does not represent the public’s interest..
• LEP height exceeded – when combined with the FSR exceeded, the increased height makes unreasonable impact on building envelope bulk and massing and articulation and does not represent the public’s interest. This is evident when compared to the surrounding development in the Visual Impact Statement.
• The exceedance in the LEP undermines the LEP in a formative stage and is not in the public interest.
• The Inner west council has not released an overall plan for the precinct, and this should be established first to guide future development.

Conclusion
In conclusion we are concerned that the proposal is excessive in floor space and height, does not adequately address vehicle access and parking and will cause unreasonable impact on the surrounding residential areas.
We believe that, like the surrounding residential areas, stricter controls should be used to control environmental impact and impact on surrounding development.

I write to object to the proposal for Camperdown Modern Hospital.

I am a nearby resident of Annandale / Forest Lodge and am reporting an absence of community consultation of the project. There haven't been letterbox drops to notify us of the proposal. In fact, I found out about the project from an Annandale residents' Facebook page today.

On reviewing the proposal, I object to the height and bulk of the new building. It is inconsistent with surrounding 2-3 storey commercial and light industrial buildings. There are no setbacks, and the scale and granularity required for new development adjacent to heritage conservation areas has not been met by this proposal.

In addition, this is a very busy junction (Pyrmont Bridge Rd and Parramatta Rd). This site is inconsistent with a use that requires high levels of traffic (medical, patient, and visitor).

This proposal requires significant redesign to make a hospital work on this site.