Gosford Hospital Redevelopment and Stage 1 Health and Wellbeing Precinct

With in excess of 300 hospital users and visitors already parking on streets in the precinct up to 1km away from hospital entrances, I see car parking and traffic as significant issues that need to be solved - not addressed - actually build a separate 500-space car park FIRST before allowing any development that will increase pressure on existing space. A remote car park with all-day-all-night shuttle service to the hospital could be considered (perhaps somewhere on Showground Road). The Etna St railway overpass upgrade should also be completed before any new hospital works begin. There is no point having a great hospital and health service monstrosity if sick and elderly people (and carers) have to walk a mile to get to it!

I am concerned re the fracture clinic. Your plans show only ambulances accessing the street how are wheelchair, or semi mobile patients on crutches going to get to the fracture clinic They really need to be dropped off by car at the current entry near the clinic; pushing them, - or hobbling from the carpark is too far. You need a drive through 2 lanes wide
3 lanes deep to allow cars and ambulances through .
If possible construct a level high covered all weather walk way for easy access.. (some patients are quite heavy, and ageing)
Also have a sign showing vacant car spaces available so cars don't go into and clog the station ..
Yours,
John Clarkson.

My name is............., the owner of .......................... (Strata Plan...........).

My property ..................adjoins your proposed development and is adversely affected by your proposed development. This property has been in my family since its construction in 1983 and I have either been the joint or sole owner since 1990.

I have examined the relevant SSD15-6913 documents and associated consultant's reports. In my submission I use the word "you" to included Health, Landcom, Gosford Hospital, NSW Planning, its consultants and predecessor instrumentalities. Please note that my views, submission and comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the view of my Strata Plan.......... and/or the other landholders in that development.

In your SSD-6913 documents, I have found several inaccuracies , omitted vital information, and numerous "subjective assessments", all of which I will point out below. Please note that I am only objecting to the Hospital HWP and car park, not the new hospital per se, except where it is linked to the car park.

My submitted concerns about the proposed Hospital car park include:

1) I oppose the closure of both Holden Street and Beane Street West. Both Holden Street and Beane Street West are gazetted public streets under the control of Gosford City Council. These streets are not (yet) the property of Gosford Hospital and should remain in public use. Further, they perform a vital traffic management role in the western Gosford area, apart from hospital access and egress which they both currently handle, adequately. They both provide an alternate route around traffic "choke points" in western Gosford, for example, in the severe afternoon peak from 3.30pm to 5.30pm when the north/east delay in Racecourse Road past the hospital to the Showground Road intersection is a 0.5km long and 25min delay queue, and likewise the northbound delay in Showground road down from the Racecourse road is a 450 metres queue south to well past Beane Street West & often past my property. During this peak traffic period, some northbound traffic partly bypasses the Racecourse Road/Showground Rd/Etna St Bridge roundabout choke point by coming down Faunce St West, then left into Holden Street and right down Beane Street West to turn left into Showground road. There are often 3-5 cars queued down Beane Street West to turn left or right into Showground road. Therefore, closing these two streets will cause total traffic chaos and gridlock in western Gosford, with cars from my property having difficulty accessing Showground Road either northbound or southbound. Also the noise/fumes from additional stationary vehicles along Showground Road in this 2 hour long traffic jam will affect my property's occupant's health/amenity.

2) I oppose the proposed development on many other grounds including excessive size and scale, overshadowing, 24hour noise/antisocial consequences of "drop-off" zone, loss of privacy to my property, excessive car park light intrusion, other traffic management issues, pedestrian safety issues, proposed pedestrian crossing/traffic lights outside my property, loss of two car spaces in street parking for visitors to my property, nigh-time intrusion from new/additional lighting, demolition of a certain tree in which I have an interest, construction noise, damaging vibration, dust, construction zoning, excessive trucks etc as well as altered hydrology issues.

3) I particularly object to you strictly defining the HWP by including only certain lot numbers (ie lots owned by you and lots you are negotiating to buy). This strict definition excludes adjoining properties from prior notification, negotiation etc. Further, at some later stage, you have redrawn the HWP "inclusion zone" to include the footpath and kerbside parking outside my property. This is evidenced by your earlier drawings showing the pedestrian crossing outside your property (with the HWP boundary in line with our common boundary) and later drawings showing the crossing outside my property with the HWP boundary moved outside my driveway. No doubt you will say the earlier drawings are only "indicative". No doubt this change of HWP boundary was caused by you recognising your faulty design of the pedestrian/vehicular entry area, which produced a crossing which was too close to the vehicular entry/exits, to allow room for cars to turn into the carpark entry/drop-off zone. Therefore this necessitated the further separation of the pedestrian crossing; so you just moved the crossing south, from your property to opposite mine and redrew the HWP zone to suit. (see my relevant points 11 and 36 below)

4) I oppose the construction of the proposed car park on the recommended site. Your own Environmental Impact Statement lists several different proposed sites or "Considerations". Consideration 1 (south of and including Bean St West) appears the most logical as it represents almost direct hospital access from the railway station and Gosford city to the hospital. Cons you listed are either spurious (vehicular distance from Racecourse Rd - an extra 200 metres or 9 seconds!), (overshadowing of southerly properties - metres away) or "difficulties with purchasing properties (ie buying various strata plans including ....... and .........properties etc). Therefore, illogically, you have gone for Consideration 5 (north of and including Bean St West between Holden St and Showground Road) for which you listed no cons - unbelievable! For similar Consideration2 (north of and including Bean St West) you listed as "reduced overshadowing" - that is you consider the SP....... property to be unworthy of retaining its light, air, quietness, privacy, safety and amenity. However in Consideration 1, you consider properties opposite/near the station, including properties in Faunce Street West (some are private medical practices and some are residences) to be worthy. Also, you could have put a new car park on the near level western side by resuming properties (around the area bounded by Cape Street North, Batley Street North, Racecourse Road, Beane St West and Sinclair Street). A multi-storey car park on this extensive near level site would have also assisted with the chronic car parking shortage around/for Henry Kendall High School and Gosford Public School. Such a proposal accords with many town planning criteria that your current proposal does not. Your current proposal is not the first proposed hospital development that has included closing Beane St West and which has potentially impinged on my property. Some 14-15 years ago Health/Gosford Hospital proposed a HWP carpark/offices along Mann St with a "skybridge" over the railway over Beane St West, to which I made an extensive submission (see below). Both that proposal and your present proposal have the common thread of saving money by building over Beane St West and consequently treating adjoining neighbours such as my property as "collateral damage".

5) I object to you statement at SC3.2 (page 99/189) where your parameter is " Have local community been consulted about the policy, plan or proposal". Your answer is "A detailed consultative process has been undertaken with ....local landholders". Likewise at 8.18, you state "Consultation has been undertaken with landowners that form part of the HWP site that are not currently under the ownership of the HAC. This includes ....and private land owners". BOTH (each of) these statements appears to be at odds with historical facts - there has been NO consultation in the last 15 years. In that period the only formal communication that has occurred has been my submission to your "skybridge" proposal, some 14-15 years ago and a letter from Landcom, about 10-11 years ago, offering to either purchase or resume our property and all units in SP............ Subsequently, Landcom purchased 2 units. Whilst I and other unit owners were negotiating in good faith, Landcom suddenly withdrew their offer(s), without any explanation. Then, in approx early 2013 Landcom suddenly sold its 2 units. At the time Landcom did not disclose, to SP........, the reason for the sales. Also, Landcom/Health did not inform the strata plan of any future hospital/HWP plans, under consideration at that time. Over many years, Health has continued to purchase several other properties in the HWP zone. As recent as May/June 2015, our strata plan did hear some rumours about a proposed carpark in Holden Street. Our strata manager approached a leading Central Coast town planner to find out what Health proposed. This town planner was unable to find out anything from Gosford City Council (GCC) regarding DAs etc. However, from reading your SSD proposal, you appear to have already had preliminary discussions with GCC. The ordinary person in the street may well conclude that all the above historical facts are evidence of deliberate secrecy on your part and evidence of your refusal to consult/negotiate with us or other adjacent landowners. And please don't use legalese by stating that my property & SP....... is not part of the HWP (as closely defined by you) , because your own plans - Fig 3 on page 22/189 shows that SP......... is part of the "wider HWP - future plans". With due respect, we appear to be part of the HWP when it suits you and not part of it when it does not suit you.

6) I oppose the construction of the proposed development on the grounds of overshadowing/depleted solar access. In your environmental impact statement page 128 & 129 you show in Figs 88-90 the midwinter sun effect. Likewise you mention your consultants report by Fitzpatrick & Partners - Drawings DA34 and the Jacobs Architectural Shadow Diagrams which show the extent of mid-winter sun impingement. Your Jacobs Architecture Shadow Diagrams show 9am mid winter (21 June) - no sun on clothesline area of my upper (western) backyard, 12noon mid winter - same but no sun on the lower backyard either, 3pm mid winter - no sun on the whole house, upper backyard and lower (south eastern) end of my backyard, where I put a second clothesline to catch the winter sun. Likewise, at 3pm mid winter the entire property is adversely solar affected. Your report says that this is "acceptable" because units 4 and 5 get "only limited shadowing" between 9am and 1pm and 2.5 hours of sun between 9am and 11.30am. You forget that mid winter sun has negligible heat between 9am and 11am and useless for clothes drying until 11.30am. Such a subjective assessment, concluding such overshadowing is "acceptable" is patently misleading and without basis. Also you completely omit ANY reference to my Unit ..... Showground Road which is completely overshadowed in the back yard all day with overshadowed rear house after 11am and a completely overshadowed house after 1pm or earlier. Therefore you have disregarded your neighbours in this respect and consider my property and others as "collateral damage" to be sacrificed for the greater community good. The fact is that my property will be cold, dark with no ability to dry clothes on EITHER clotheslines during period May to September at least. Also, the now pleasant kitchen and rear porch, which now catches the mid winter sun will also be dark and externally - moss covered/dangerously slippery after rain, and the porch/paths will never dry and become moss covered. The backyard will never dry out in autumn/winter and will become a weed infested muddy bog. Despite the "spin" you place on this issue, this overshadowing is not "acceptable" to any of the units on the northern side, especially mine. Your inclusion of a (unit 5) backyard photo (on p130) off Domain website is misleading re comments about existing colourbond fence overshadowing, and indicates you made NO actual site inspection. Also, I am particularly concerned at your comment re "...overshadowing...is to be accepted...given the up-zoning of the land in the wider HWP". With due respect, such a comment, ignores the fact that SP....... will remain as is for many years given the slow development of Gosford CBD and the effect of the current Strata laws that only permit re-development if all unit holders agree to sell. In the meantime, my property and adjoining units will be sentenced to many years of coldness and darkness, by your "state significant development". Also, your acceptance of your acoustic consultant's recommendations that a sound reduction wall be constructed along our northern boundary "at least 500mm higher than any doors/windows" would itself create a "shadowing effect on my house and backyard" (especially the eastern clothesline area), probably more extensive than the bulk of the massive proposed development. However, your (unexplained) shadow drawings are so vague as to question whether this issue has been recognised.

7) I oppose the construction of the proposed development on the grounds of height, size and scale as well as view and skyline impingement, "ie Visual Impact......At page 103/189 you accept that the height, size and scale is "excessive". At page 125 you state "...we consider that the proposed ...does not result in any adverse visual impact". With due respect, this statement is patently subjective at best and questionable at worst. How can an enormous 7-9 storey monolith in an otherwise suburban landscape of single level houses, not have a visual impact! For my property, having to look up at an architecturally unattractive, slab-sided monolith, completely out of place on the western side of the railway, is unacceptable. Your Patrick Partners Drawing DA-35...Proposed Development looking South shows the massive overshadowing of my property, whereas your "Potential Future Precinct - looking south" is a misleading futuristic concept view that may never take place in the foreseeable future. It ignores the fact that SP20058 will remain as is for many years given the slow development of Gosford CBD and the effect of the current Strata laws that hinder re-development. Also your (F&P) drawing Fig 83 on page 118/189 is admitted to be an "extract", which carefully does not show the full Showground Rd frontage including the massive development opposite my unit.

8) I oppose this proposal in regard to the proposed car park entry driveway and consequent noise increase. Your Fitzpatrick Partners drawing: Project21421 DA-05/revision B (print date 13/07/2015) shows the driveway only approx eight (8) metres from my property only separated by the associated pedestrian access and a low planter with what appears as mondo grass (on artists impression - Fig 54 & Fig 60 on page 56/189). This driveway would generate excessive vehicular noise. Your noise consultant's report estimates a noise level of 45dba which EQUALS the EPA evening Amenity Criteria noise level but EXCEEDS the night (10pm to 7am) noise level criteria . When combined with cars braking in Showground Rd to access/exit this noise level would be intolerable, especially late at night. At page 152,you state, in Fig 95, that (car park) "open facades ... to be acoustically treated". Whatever that means, appears to be an admission that the architects design is deficient in absorbing generated sound. Also I can't find any reference to the effects on neighbours of your proposed car park ventilation plant, electricity generators and transformers - what is that noise effect? I notice a car park plant room adjacent to the drop-off zone and must assume that my property will be adversely affected by its noise.

9) I oppose this proposal in regard to the proposed pedestrian entry off Showground road. Your Fitzpatrick Partners drawing: Project21421 DA-05/revision B (print date 13/07/2015) shows the pedestrian way only about 1-1.5 metres from my property only separated by a low planter with what appears to be mondo grass (on artists impression - Fig 54 & Fig 60 on page 56/189). Your noise consultant's report does not adequately address this issue. This pedestrian access will be a source of noise from ordinary pedestrian traffic, noise from smokers using this area - as this will be the only available (unofficial) smoking area (neglected in your report), as well as anti-social behaviour. This noise level from this source will be intolerable, especially late at night.

10) I oppose this proposal in regard to the proposed driveway associated "drop off zone", and consequent noise increase especially late at night. Your Fitzpatrick Partners drawing: Project21421 DA-05/revision B (print date 13/07/2015) shows the drop off area approx only 6 (6) metres from my property only separated by the associated pedestrian access and a low planter with what appears as mondo grass (on artists impression - Fig 54 and Fig 60 on page 56/189). The Acoustic Logic SSD Acoustic report estimates a noise level of 45dba which EQUALS the EPA evening Amenity Criteria noise level but EXCEEDS the night (10pm to 7am) noise level criteria. The report also "predicts" (estimates) the Sleep Arousal Assessment Noise Level (car door slamming/engine noise) at 57dba for hours 10pm to 7am. The Acoustic Logic SSD Acoustic report at p28 - Recommendations recommends construction of a solid wall along the boundary of 62=64 Showground Road ("for control of late night noise from the drop off zone"). This recommended wall is to be constructed of sound absorbent materials to a height AT LEAST 0.5 metres ABOVE any doors/windows in the adjoining properties. However, the recommended "colorbond, lapped and capped timber or similar" ignores modern sound absorption external wall materials currently available (internet -searching reveals many more effective, more attractive sound absorbent wall materials). Also the recommended timber fencing is not suitable as timber shrinks and warps - allowing gaps between palings, which in turn allows sound to travel through, unless the palings overlap by at least 50mm. These recommended noise mitigation solutions regarding the "drop-off zone" noise and its effect are discussed in your Environmental Impact Statement at page 151 but your Fitzpatrick Partners drawing: Project21421 DA-05/revision B (print date 13/07/2015) does not appear to show this sound proof fence, neither does artist impression drawings - Fig 54 & Fig 60 on page 56/189. Likewise your P & F drawing DA-18/B appears to show only a boundary wall of only about 1m high opposite my property. I trust that I will be given some input into the design/construction of such a wall.

11) I also oppose moving the pedestrian crossing on the grounds of pedestrian safety, especially school students . Gosford High School is a selective high school with a catchment down to and including northern Sydney. As a consequence, a large proportion of GHS students travel from northern Sydney or the Central Coast by train and then walk to school. This pedestrian crossing is also used at times by Henry Kendall High School students and Gosford Public School students, as well as the public. To my untrained eye, your proposed pedestrian street crossing location will seriously compromise school student safety because (a) the students will have to walk directly across your three car park driveway vehicular entry and exits (ie 3 vehicle crossings or 4 vehicle lanes) whilst competing with turning vehicular traffic - unsafe and (b) the school students will be crossing where cars (especially southbound, downhill) are travelling faster. In conclusion, you appear to have shown diminished regard for the safety of school students versus your own clients - Gosford Hospital visitors, for whom you have provided a lovely tree-lined wide pathway safely separated from the vehicular entry . If the crossing was approximately in its present position, school students would be safer but then your Gosford Hospital visitors would have to walk (southwards) directly across your three car park driveway entry and exits (ie 3 vehicle crossings or 4 vehicle lanes) whilst competing with turning vehicular traffic - ie unsafe. The northern vehicular exit/egress is particularly dangerous as drivers are coming down a ramp and out of a darkened car park, being vision obscured by sudden light, concentrating on joining street traffic and then possibly/probably neglecting to observe pedestrians on the footpath. Even a stop sign in the car park exit will not remove this danger. You have created both/two unsafe pedestrian options by your faulty design of the pedestrian/vehicular interface at the Showground Rd entrance/egress to your car park. Either, you should redesign the whole Showground Road streetscape interface (with the car park exit at the southern end, drop off zone car entry/exits, car park entry, both pedestrian entry and pedestrian street crossing at the northern end - ie reverse of your arrangement) or move the whole car park complex- see my point 36 below. Having the crossing in approximately the present position (ie approx northern end of 78 Showground Road) , north of all your proposed car park driveway entry and exits is a much safer option for school children. With due respect, I suggest you should urgently discuss these serious safety ramifications with the Education dept, Roads and Traffic, Transport NSW, NSW Road Safety Advisory Council, GHS , Henry Kendall High School, Gosford Public School and their respective P&Cs, before design work is completed. You state that you consulted GCC and GCC has raised no objection - not acceptable. On page 176/189 you state that "in our view consultation with the Education Dept is not necessary for this project" - despite the clearly identified serious safety ramifications for their students. This "view" is not acceptable.

12) I oppose the location of the proposed Pedestrian crossing in Showground Road on other grounds. Your Fitzpatrick Partners drawing: Project21421 DA-05/revision B (print date 13/07/2015) shows the pedestrian crossing directly adjacent/opposite the wall of my property's backyard. Therefore you have moved the existing pedestrian crossing, recently constructed in Showground Road, some 150 metres south, not opposite your proposed development but in a location opposite my property! This is despite there being at least 100 metres of frontage on your property or that shown as Future HWP Development Site, close to the location of the recently constructed crossing. Obviously, Gosford CC and the relevant Roads Authority examined the location of the present crossing before recently constructing that crossing, mainly for the safety of Gosford High School students. That crossing keeps student and other pedestrian noise away from my property, as well as protecting students. Also, at the present time the 40km/hour school zone starts at the present school crossing; whereas under your proposal that school zone would have to start 200 m south down Showground Road - outside my property. Also the proposed crossing will need extra street lighting which will shine straight into my east facing living room window.

13) I point out that your proposed pedestrian crossing location will also draw pedestrian noise, car braking and antisocial behaviour to the narrow path directly outside the living room window and backyard of my property - at all hours as a hospital is a 24 hour facility - not to mention lack of privacy. You appear not to had your Noise consultant prepare a report into the ramifications of his additional noise. With due respect, I propose nothing less than a 3.5-5 metre high privacy/sound attenuation/reduction wall, constructed on Gosford Council's Showground Road land alongside my brick fence/wall, adjacent to the footpath, for the full length of SP20058, from the driveway to the northern boundary. Further, I strongly object to your proposed concrete traffic calming island next to the kerb resulting in my property losing all three currently available street parking places for my visitor's cars, which are essential, with so little off-street visitor parking. Also this proposed concrete island would prevent collection of our Council refuse bins and periodic refuse collection.

Again, this issue and relevant noise mitigation solutions are not discussed in your Environmental Impact Statement or anywhere else - why? . Also, I object to your misleading drawings - ie Fig 2,3, 4 and 63 in your Environmental Impact Statement which show the crossing opposite your development (as do some of your consultants' reports), whereas Fig 57 and other drawings, suddenly shows the crossing opposite my property, where you have included my footpath and street visitor car spaces in your SSD development.

14) I oppose the location of the proposed Pedestrian crossing in Showground Road and the consequential pedestrian crossing traffic lights location. Fitzpatrick Partners drawing: Project21421 DA-05/revision B (print date 13/07/2015) shows the pedestrian crossing and associated traffic calming concrete traffic islands. It is obvious to the most casual observer that you have designed the crossing and car park access/exits with traffic lights (signals) in mind. In fact it is obvious to the most casual observer that your proposed works will only work with traffic lights (signals) to "protect" the pedestrian crossing and cars turning into and out of the car park. Otherwise, there would be traffic/pedestrian crossing accidents there every day. Even the proposed traffic islands appear to have been designed for traffic light signal posts. Such traffic lights would produce even more traffic congestion outside my property, car braking noise and the beep beep beep noise of the hearing impaired pedestrian buzzer. It is obvious to the ordinary person in the street that you will request this unstated "improvement" (traffic signals) from the relevant authority(s) once the SSD is approved and the dust settles.

15) I object to the proposal(s) on the grounds of diminished privacy for my property due to the corner of my property being in the middle of a pedestrian access thoroughfare for your hospital. Fitzpatrick Partners drawing: Project21421 DA-05/revision B (print date 13/07/2015) show this dramatically. It also shows that if you had purchased SP......, you could have straightened out and widened the pedestrian thoroughfare. However you have chosen to make my property an "island" in the middle of a hospital pedestrian entrance way.

16) I oppose your Crime Prevention/Anti-social behaviour strategy using lighting as announced on page122 &123/189. This alludes to a use of excessive lighting along Showground Road, on the pedestrian crossing, on the pedestrian access and car drop off area only a metre or so from my property. This will mean that the rear bedrooms of my property will be lit up by excessive security floodlighting all night. Also my backyard will be subject to your CCTV with impingement of privacy. Lighting and CCTV will not prevent such illegal/anti-social behaviour; only a 24 hour patrolling security guard would be acceptable to me.

17) I object to you completely ignoring the issue of your hospital visitors smoking in the pedestrian entry and car-park drop-off zone. Visitors will smoke there (even with non-smoking signage) because they can't smoke in other enclosed areas or in elevators. This will produce drifting cigarette smoke and thousands of smelly cigarette butts being dropped (at best), placed in the garden bed, or thrown over my fence into my property (at worst). Only a 24 hour patrolling security guard would be acceptable to me.

18) I oppose the lack of anti-Graffiti measures in your proposal, including the lack of anti -graffiti finishes which encourages graffiti artists. Gosford CBD and the railway in particular have been the centre of graffiti attacks for years, as gangs travel by train from afar. My own property has been attacked on numerous occasions. Yet your report ignores the problem/issue except to state that CCTV monitoring and lighting will control anti-social behaviour - unacceptable. In future, graffiti artists will be attracted by your unprotected walls/facias and will attack my property on the way, from the station, to attack yours. Again, only a 24 hour patrolling security guard would be acceptable to me.

19) I oppose the excessive lighting emanating from the car park. You only have to drive down Racecourse Road at night, past the current Hospital car park to see the intrusive lighting from car-park fluro lights, let alone car headlights, despite the use of mesh screens. Your proposed perforated metal plate etc for your new car-park will be totally ineffective! The current car-park excessive lighting is partly absorbed by the open ground to the north down to Racecourse Road, whereas your proposal will flood my property with similar light but much greater intensity. This would shower my property with sleep-depriving light all night long.

20) I oppose the ramifications/recommendations of your consultant Tree IQ and their Arboricultural Impact Assessment - Tree Protection.....report, which you have incorporated into your proposed (SSD) development. On page 12 reference is made to Camphor Laurel tree - "Tree number 8" (photo - Plate 2 on page 28) with a recommendation ("Implication") for its removal. Fig 51 on page 49/189 also shows this tree being earmarked for demolition. This historic old tree provides shade, privacy and amenity to my property, especially the back yard. This tree also has sentimental family memories for me. I have in my possession, a recent letter from Gosford City Council which confirms that (a) this tree is almost entirely on my/strata property and that (b) I am solely responsible for its arboreal management (pruning to clear power lines is a different issue of course). I will continue my vigil over this historic tree and I will do whatever is required to ensure that it continues to thrive for many years to come. Also, when you eventually purchase 68 Showground Road, please ensure that your contractors on that block or on the footpath HWP zone do not interfere with the tree or damage its root system. Therefore, I politely request you to delete any reference to this tree and its removal from your proposal.

21) I object to the Jacobs Traffic Modelling Study on which this proposal relies. Your report appears to give average delays of 32.5 seconds at Racecourse Rd/Showground Road roundabout and 38.2 seconds at Racecourse Road/Etna St/Mann Street. Anyone living in the Gosford/Central Coast area knows of or experiences delays of 15 to 20 minutes travelling north/east along Racecourse Road between 3pm and 3.30pm and between 3.45pm and 5pm. Likewise the delay northward along Showground Road between 3.45pm and 5pm is 5 to 10 minutes with the northbound traffic queued back from Racecourse Rd/Etna St bridge roundabout back past my property. Your proposed closing of Holden Street and Beane St West AND the inclusion of a massive car park entry and exit in Showground Road will only exacerbate a near gridlock situation to complete gridlock outside my property for 2-3 hours every weekday afternoon, with my vehicular access to/from Showground Rd - very difficult .

22) I object to the Acoustic Logic SSD Acoustic Assessment, especially regarding "Construction Impacts" . It recommends augury piling versus vibratory piling (due to possible building damage etc to adjoining properties by the latter) and the use of rock saws, but nowhere can I see this recommendation being made mandatory of the successful construction contractor. At page 22 it recommends letterbox drops as acceptable community consultation - not "acceptable" to my mind. At page 25 it says that they "cannot guarantee COMPLIANT noise levels". In other words the neighbours will have to endure unacceptable noise and vibration levels in excess of statutory permitted levels! It recommends implementing a noise monitoring regime, but again there is no imposition on the constructor to comply. Also, it recommends a complaint notification system, but again this appears to be another "motherhood" statement with no teeth to insure compliance. There is nothing included for a formal process to ensure that if a neighbour finds damaging cracks etc caused by your pile driving/excavations etc, that the neighbour can call a halt to construction whilst an external consultant is engaged to examine the damage. Likewise there is no formal process to call a halt over excessive noise or dust etc. Also, more importantly, at page 27 at 7.2.2 there is the statement that "ANY piling or EXCAVATION activities WITHIN ten (10) metres of the ...south boundary will have the potential to exceed EPA vibration levels". Yet, you intend to excavate right up to the boundary of SP20058 and (I assume) to put piles down along/near that boundary ......despite the warnings of your own consultant - this is not acceptable to me. On pages 149/189 and 150/189 you mention a "detailed construction noise and vibration management plan.....You intend to have remote vibration and noise sensors along the boundaries with SMS messages to the construction contractor if acceptable/EPA levels are exceeded. I suggest that identical SMS messages also be sent to affected neighbours and owners and a "hotline" number be provided to neighbours/owners to permit immediate cessation of work if levels are exceeded. I also suggest, as a minimum, that you should engage/pay a Qualified civil engineer inspect our properties just prior to excavation and report on any existing brickwork/concrete cracks. Likewise, that engineer should inspect the properties after construction to ascertain if there was subsequent cracking/damage etc, as well as hydrology effects. I request that you also instigate a formal compensation scheme, to cover such damage, rather than forcing us neighbours to start expensive civil suits against you and your contractors, in the event of damage.

23) I object to the proposed "construction hours of work" in Point 10 on page .. given as 7am to 6pm (including demolition) and 8am to 1 pm Saturday with the proposal to extend these hours in Peak construction times. These hours are completely socially unacceptable - they should be restricted to 8am to 4.30 pm Monday to Friday only. Many residents are shift workers and need uninterrupted morning , evening and weekend sleep.

24) I object to the proposal for "construction zones" in Showground Road, each proposed to be 60 metres long for two giant trucks with trailers during excavation and 3 concrete trucks during construction. Not only would such construction zones full of diesel smoke emitting trucks impinge on my amenity but also it would make safe access/egress from my property near impossible. They would also completely destroy all visitor street parking and prevent our Council refuse bins from being collected. Consequently, I recommend that all construction trucks should park at/near Gosford Showground and be called up one by one as the previous truck departs the site.

25) I object to the scale of construction truck movements which your consultant anticipates during demolition (25 trucks and dogs/day), excavation (50/day) and construction (15 cement trucks or semi trailers/day). Such movements in and around Showground Road would make the residents lives hell during months of construction due to noise, dust, truck noise, vibration and fumes. Your consultant anticipates covered load trucks, (but not mandatory), keeping a complaints register (which is manifestly inadequate) and avoiding peak traffic periods - impossible due to 3 schools starting and finishing periods and the afternoon traffic peak period 3-5.30 pm. Also, GHS students use the present footpath and crossing all day from 8am to 4pm.

26) Hydrology/ Drainage - There appears to be no/inadequate subterranean drainage alongside the southern wall with connection the stormwater system, with potential resulting runoff and drainage/wetness problems in my front yard and the front of my property .

27) I object to the lack of groundwater drainage/hydrology effects on my property. This is as a result of you cutting into a hill in a massive way and altering natural drainage patterns. This will be worse when you eventually develop along Holden St. Water has an unpredictable way of finding its way down slopes and around obstacles. I expect increased drainage into my property and through adjacent units in SP...... and into my property causing rising damp, sodden backyard etc. Again, you have failed to take this into account or to monitor the unintended effects. I request that you place well points and groundwater monitoring equipment along the northern boundary of SP ........ (and in backyards) to monitor changes in groundwater/seepage during construction and post-construction with results available to the strata plan.

28) I object to the references to "possibly leasing" the Gosford Golf Club car park for a temporary 320 place car park for "hospital staff and construction personnel". Gosford Golf Club members have a current difficulty finding vacant car spaces for ourselves . The only available car-parking areas near the Gosford CBD are the back of Gosford Showground and "Kibbleplex", both a kilometre distant.

29) I object to the Health Urban Development Checklist. At H1 - parameter "encourage housing that supports human and environmental health"; Your answer - N/A - does not involve housing! What about your neighbours - surely they are entitled to human and environmental health"?.

30) I object to the "denial of natural justice" promoted by you and Health as evidenced by lack of consultation, lack of a published summary of deleterious effects on adjoining properties, lack of time to submit an objection etc. You should have also made available a qualified town planner to explain this extensive proposal to local residents, to consult, as well as holding public forums. Luckily for me I was not away during this tiny 4 week window to submit an objection/submission, otherwise I would have missed out . A 3 month submission period should have been provided.

31) Flooding etc - Your reports and conclusions fly in face of 160 year history of Gosford. There was once a natural creek that flowed along the line of the railway down to Brisbane Water. Alteration of natural flows and building in the CBD resulted in the famous 1974 floods in the CBD including the Imperial Centre shopping centre. There is currently regular flooding outside the WorkCover building and other low areas of the CBD. Your proposals will only add to the Gosford CBD flooding potential and closer to flooding in Showground Rd. You talk about a proposed 385mm stormwater pipe, to handle 1 in 100 year rainfall events, linking into the council Showground Road stormwater system. This is an acknowledgement by you that your rainfall harvesting systems etc won't handle 1 in 100 year rainfall events. Yet such weather events are occurring more frequently, due to whatever reasons. In May 2015 there was a East Coast Low event that flooded large areas of the Central Coast and damaged Gosford. In such an event the Showground Rd stormwater system would be overloaded and the street flooded - not acceptable.

32) I am concerned about your comments regarding the current Health shuttle bus from Gosford Station. Discontinuing this service would fly in face of your often stated "equity " principles regarding elderly, sick, infirm and partly disabled clients. Without this service, hospital clients would have to walk several hundred metres, across a busy intersection to the car park entrance and a lift, then walk to the hospital proper. Going back is worse, as they would have to walk up quite a steep hill in Showground Road, to the station.

33) I object to the Parking and Traffic Consultants report especially page 55 where it mentions two proposed bus stops - one on either side of Showground Road adjacent to the HWP pedestrian entry. This would produce even more additional street congestion, bus noise, pedestrian noise etc, not taken into account in any of the other noise/traffic assessments. Please see my point 36 below regarding how the northbound bus stop could be accommodated at least partly off-street. Likewise this report suggests replacing the Racecourse Road/Showground Road roundabout with traffic lights. The present roundabout allows some south to north (and vice versa) flow even when the intersection is jammed by west to east traffic due to the blocked traffic over the Etna St rail bridge due to the light phasing of the Mann St intersection lights. Your consultant's suggestion would completely bring the Showground Road traffic to a complete halt for HOURS in the PM peak because the northbound traffic would never be able to turn right over the Etna St rail bridge due to light phasing and intersection blocking. Further this report suggests a "whole of government approach" to solve an ever-worsening traffic situation, caused by increasing vehicle population, and which your proposed road closures and new car park will only exacerbate. This "whole of government approach" appears to be wishful thinking that would entail widening Racecourse Road by two (2) lanes, demolishing historic Gosford High School and possibly Gosford Golf Club, constructing a massive new Etna St bridge and a new Mann St intersection with the resumption and demolition of at least the four businesses on each corner. This would cost many millions and is unlikely in the foreseeable future.

34) I object to the City Plan Services Risk Assessment which subjectively judges Overshadowing on adjoining properties as only a "moderate" 3, light spill from the car park as a "Minor" 2 and Construction noise as a "Minor" 2 with Mechanical Plant and Car park noise intrusion as a "Moderate" 3. This subjective risk assessment appears to trivialise/minimise real inconveniences and amenity destroying activities.

35) I object to the construction sediment control regime you suggest as this will not be effective in rain, especially heavy rain, due to the extreme slope of the construction site and the huge excavation needed. Recently, I have noticed deep sand on the footpath outside 68 Showground Road, caused by inadequate sediment control on that demolition site, which in turn has made the footpath slippery and dangerous. This is unavoidable on such a steep site.

36) I object to your proposal, or perhaps more accurately your "non-proposal" for a "Future HWP Development Site" building in Showground Road between the car park and the street footpath. The zoning would allow for another multi-storey commercial building on this site with all the attendant traffic, lighting, noise issues that brings. Retaining that vacant site would have been a much more viable option as its size would have been sufficient for a re-aligned car park egress (about 8-10 metres south of your designed egress) inclusion of a pedestrian crossing and pedestrian entry, a bus stop "lay-by" and a car drop off zone. Without any other explanation, the only reason for "commercialising" this pocket size block, may have something to do with partly offsetting the $cost of the overall project. Whatever the reason for its retention,this view has blindsided you into ignoring the benefits of including this vacant block's area into the overall design; and has prevented you properly designing the car park/pedestrian entry interface with separate pedestrian, vehicle entrance and exits, and hence has created the unsafe pedestrian footpath situation as defined in my point 11 above. This represents a compelling case for a "back to the drawing board" re-think into the whole project design (see my point 11 above). In the short term, if you go ahead as planned, your Showground Rd artist impression - Fig 54 and Fig 60 page 56/189 -shows this site as some sort of landscaped garden, which in itself would pose a both a law and order safety issue for pedestrians using the footpath (especially late at night) as well as providing a haven for graffiti artists & anti-social behaviour.

37) With regard to the helicopter landing platform and helicopter flight paths, I have no objection to the inclusion of this vital health asset, but politely suggest that the proposed flight path over uninhabited Gosford Golf Course be the primary used flight path, subject to weather conditions, rather than that over North Gosford.

38) In summary, you have decided to massively extend Gosford Hospital despite its poor location on the side of a steep hill. As per my point 4 above you could have put a new car park and hospital entrance on the near level western side by resuming properties (around Cape Street North, Beane St West and Sinclair Street) but have decided (contrary to logic) to excavate a whole hill, close several streets and increase traffic congestion in Showground Road (and Racecourse Road) to the point of gridlock, made the adjacent footpath unsafe for pedestrians, whilst making my property virtually uninhabitable. You also could have sensibly built this complex, with hospital pedestrian entry, so that it was directly between the railway station and hospital but you have missed that opportunity. You have never consulted with us and other HWP residents, even regarding responsibility for any damage to adjoining properties caused by your excavations/vibratory pile driving etc. Thanks for the opportunity of making the community aware of all the above ramifications of this proposal .

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

see attached

see attached