Menangle Road Camden, Affordable Housing

I object to this project. There’s no infrastructure in place to support the amount of people that would be housed at this location. It will worsen traffic and parking, resulting in Menangle Rd being even more unsafe than it already is. There is no train line and it’s a long bus ride to the nearest train station. It’s a long walk to shops and amenities. Schools are at capacity. This development is not consistent with Camden’s historical aesthetic and appeal. The vast majority of Camden residents are not in favour of this. I urge all involved to reconsider.

I object to the Menangle Rd development on the following grounds:
1. The official documents state that there will be 96 apartments and only 58 parking spaces.
Two of these parking spaces are designated for visitors.
In this day and age one could reasonably expect a vehicle for at least 80% of the apartments. It is quite likely that there will be more than one vehicle associated with the apartments as the children grow older, get their drivers licence and purchase a car. Where will these vehicles park? The streets
around the area are already clogged with parked cars as the hospital parking area cannot accommodate the employees and visitor's vehicles.
Allowing two parking spaces for visitors is ludicrous. During a weekend when people are likely to visit their relations/friends etc each visit would mean that at least one vehicle would need to be parked. Where will these extra vehicles be parked? The local streets are full, the hospital parking area is full and if this proposal goes ahead there will be two allowed parking spaces for the entire three buildings to accommodate visitors.
2. The problem of increased volume of traffic on Menangle Rd seems to have been completely ignored. Menangle Rd is quite narrow and when the kerbside lane is occupied by a parked vehicle then two cars have to be driven carefully in order to proceed in opposite directions in the centre two lanes.
If one is driving and meets a bus going in the opposite direction then extreme care has to be taken to avoid a collision.
When two buses going in opposite directions have to pass one another there is a real danger of them colliding or damaging the parked vehicles as there is very little room to manoeuvre a vehicle.
The same could be said of anu larger vehicles that use the road e.g. trucks etc.
Having more traffic on Menangle Rd will only exacerbate an already poor traffic situation.
3. The intersection of Menangle Rd and the Old Hume Highway is not a safe one. It requires drivers who are travelling along Menangle Rd and wish to turn either right or left onto the Old Hume Highway to make that turn although their vision is partially obscured especially when one looks back towards the Camden CBD. Increased vehicular traffic exacerbates this risk.
4. The increased traffic will have to be accommodated at the Menangle Rd/John St intersection. The intersection is not a safe one to use and drivers must take into account the other traffic that enters the intersection from Broughton St.
5. If there are going to be 95 apartments where will their red garbage bins be located on the collection night so that the garbage trucks can empty each one. The problem is also compounded by the fact that each apartment will have a yellow recycle bin which will also have to be emptied. Where will these bins be placed on the collection night? Is this another traffic and pedestrian hazard that was not allowed for in the planning process?
The statement from the documents in the Traffic Section that "The surrounding land uses, including Camden Hospital, are each served by dedicated off-street parking, meaning on-street supply on Menangle Rd is complementary rather than essential" is a damning inditement on the competence of the authors of the report. Did they actually perform any competent and comprehensive survey work before they completed the document?
6. The map and the accompanying information contained in the documents indicate that it is a 600m walk to the CBD of Camden. Again it is obvious that the authors of the document have not ascertained the correct facts and their application and relevance to the proposed development. The actual distance to the intersection of John and Argyle Streets is over one kilometre (even according to the published map). The definition of the Camden Business District seems to have been distorted to suit the author's bias. The Camden Business District does not effectively commence at the Rectory of St Johns. The effective Camden Business District does not go along Menangle Rd alongside the grassed area between the rectory and St Johns Church. The other side of Menangle Rd opposite the grassed area contains normal houses. Certainly no commercial premises are located there. Again it would seem that the facts have been distorted to suit the author's point of view. Did anyone actually visit the site to determine the realistic definition of the Camden Business District?
7. The provision of utilities also needs thorough assessment.
The water pressure in the area is apparently not adequate for the current residents let alone for another 95 apartments. The same could be applied to the waste water provisions. Apparently the waste water treatment plant on Sheathers Lane is near to capacity. Any future demands placed on it could result in compromised service delivery. Have all the aspects of improvement to the infrastructure of the various utiities been evaluated and proposals for their enhancement been developed?
8. I find that the statement in the document in the Conclusion section that Council are "generally comfortable with the proposal development" was certainly not reflected in the public meeting that was held at the Camden Civic Centre recently. Very little comfort seemed to be evident of the part of the Council.
9. It was mentioned at the public meeting that the documents stated that it took about eight minutes to travel to the closest railway station at Menangle. Although Menangle Station exists it is not on the normal electrified train service. The electrification ceases at Macarthur Station. Menangle Station is not a feasible proposition for everyday convenient use. Again did the author do any actual research on the type and suitability of the station? The documentation produced seems to indicate that any practical consideration has been obviously lacking.
10. There are very few reasonably sized parks close by the proposed development. Younger children need open spaces especially in their developmental years. Havin a one house block sized grassed area which has to be shared by residents of all ages is not conducive to the physical and mental and social development of children.
11. Have any other areas of the Camden LGA been assessed for this type of development? It seems counter productive to demolish a perfectly good building which could be refurbished. There are areas located close to Leppington which could be quite suitable for developments such as has been proposed. There would certainly be enough land available for the provision of recreational parks etc. Leppington also has an electrified railway station.

Although I am recently retired I spent more than 40 years of my working life in the property industry, primarily in Campbelltown. During this period I owned (or part-owned) and operated a number of real estate agencies including at Campbelltown, Rosemeadow, Leumeah, Macquarie Fields, Narellan, Mt Annan and Camden as well as others outside our local area. These offices, in the aggregate, managed thousands of rental properties

In this role I was uniquely positioned to observe not only the private rental housing market but also the transition many tenants made from what used to be called Housing Commission properties to those in the private rental market. I worked with, spoke with and heard the stories of those tenants.

In the recent past the NSW Government has divested itself of public housing in areas such as Minto, Rosemeadow, Claymore and Airds. In some cases our offices assisted in the “renewal” of these precincts as they were sold into the private market.

One of the reasons for this large divestment was that social housing policies had matured since the inception of these suburbs in the 1960s. Over time Governments of all stripes learned that grouping what is now known as affordable or social housing led to social disintegration, disharmony and unnecessary friction between residents. Specifically, social conflict in areas such as Minto, Rosemeadow and Claymore are well remembered by many who witnessed this social fragmentation

If this proposed development goes ahead in it’s current format history will repeat itself.

The current proposal is far too large in it’s form for the space available in the area where it is located. It is more than 1.7 kilometres from services in Argyle Street (hardly of any assistance to those who might reside at the property/s) and which only provides 46 parking spots (and laughably, 2 visitor spots) for the 95 units which will conservatively house 200 people. Such an eyesore can only be the product of the understandable political pressure to supply more housing generally in NSW

However, based on all the comments I heard at the public meeting on Monday 17 AUG 2026, I feel sure that the local residents do not object to affordable and social housing being located on the site of the old nurses quarters. Instead, a more suitable alternative can be found by considering, say, 30 townhouses in replacement of the current proposal.

A two-storey townhouses development would provide more space for resident families, provide adequate parking for each of the residents (who will not be able to get to work … or anywhere for that matter, without a car) and would lend itself to a design more in keeping with the heritage qualities of the local area. And at the same time it would provide more housing, especially for those in need of affordable and social solutions.

I am a 20-year resident of Camden and a small business owner in the local community. I object to the proposed development at 72 and 82–86 Menangle Road, Camden, SSD-116982991.

I support the provision of social and affordable housing and recognise the importance of providing secure, affordable homes for people who need them. I understand that 579 households are waiting for social housing, which demonstrates the genuine need for additional housing. My objection is not to social or affordable housing itself, but to the scale, design and suitability of this particular proposal and its impact on Camden.

Having lived in Camden for 20 years and operated a small business in the community, I have a long-standing connection to the town and have seen its character and development change over time. I have a strong interest in ensuring that new development provides much-needed housing while also respecting Camden's heritage, streetscape, infrastructure and the amenity of existing residents and businesses.

I am concerned about the scale of the proposed buildings in this location. The project proposes buildings of up to five and six storeys, which would represent a significant change in scale from the established character of this part of Camden.

The Statement of Heritage Impact at Appendix N should be carefully considered in assessing whether the proposed height, bulk and visual impact are appropriate for the site and its surroundings.

Given Camden's strong heritage character, including the Camden Heritage Conservation Area and the setting of St John's Church, I am concerned that buildings of this scale could have a substantial visual and heritage impact.

I ask the Department to consider whether the proposed development is genuinely compatible with Camden's existing heritage character and whether the impacts on important views, streetscapes and heritage settings have been adequately assessed.

As a long-term resident and local business owner, I am also concerned about the additional pressure the development could place on Menangle Road and surrounding infrastructure.

The proposal would provide approximately 95 social and affordable homes, resulting in additional vehicle movements, pedestrians, deliveries, visitors and construction traffic.

I ask whether the Traffic, Transport and Accessibility Assessment has fully considered the existing traffic conditions in the area, including the nearby hospital precinct, pedestrian movements, sightlines, parking and the cumulative impact of additional traffic.

I am particularly concerned about pedestrian safety and whether Menangle Road and the surrounding network can safely accommodate the additional activity associated with a development of this scale.

After 20 years of living in Camden, I am concerned that the proposed density and building heights are not sufficiently responsive to the established character of the area.

I support providing more social and affordable housing, but I believe this should be achieved in a way that is sensitive to the existing community. The need for housing should not remove the need to properly consider heritage, infrastructure, traffic, pedestrian safety and the amenity of neighbouring residents and local businesses.

I ask the Department to carefully consider whether this particular site and proposed scale are the most appropriate way to deliver the required housing.

I support social and affordable housing and recognise the importance of addressing the housing waiting list. However, I do not support SSD-116982991 in its current form because of concerns about the proposed scale and height, heritage impacts, traffic and pedestrian safety, and the effect on the established character of Camden.

I respectfully request that SSD-116982991 be refused in its current form.

If additional social and affordable housing is to be provided on this land, I ask that an alternative design and/or reduced scale be investigated that provides housing while better respecting Camden's heritage character, streetscape, infrastructure, traffic conditions and the amenity of the existing community.

Firstly, let me state that I support social and affordable housing especially in NSW which has a very high proportion of resident in much need for housing. I know there are many people in need on the waiting list for a home.
I am Sam Barsby a resident of Deep Pool Way, Mount Annan whose lived in the beautiful Camden area for more than 20 years who frequently drives through and to Camden and visits the Camden hospital.
My objection is not the housing proposal itself, instead I object to the way the application has been assessed. There are questions that need answering first and there are discrepancies in the proposal.
1. Critically about 39% of the site can't be tested for contamination until the buildings have been demolished. I believe roughly 2,831 square metres of 7,184 is untested. 32 pits scheduled after demolition and asbestos has been confirmed already on both parcels of land. So, what happens if testing finds something different to what has been assumed and therefore how do this affect the suitability and reliance on the prior assumptions. It seems to question whether the lands suitability can reasonably be determined at this stage?
2. Why has the demolition been separated from the assessment and what justifies it? The environmental impact statement says the demolition doesn't form part of this application and the impacts section does not note the demolition at all. I ask the department where the combined impact of the demo approval and this application have been assessed, as section 171(o)of the Regulation requires. How can the consult authority assess this proposal without assessing the demolition that clears the site? Also, where has the impact of BH496 and SSD-116982991together been assessed? And why doesn't the Environment impact statement mention the demolition?
3. I note that the minimum standard for landscaped area however what figures can be relied upon as accurate? Which landscape area figure is correct? 4,084 square metres and 57% or 3,306 and 46%. How can these different numbers be reconciled and with measured plans that generate these numbers? Also, given the discrepancies please advise what due diligence and checking was done to reconcile and verify the figures in the Environment Impact Statement compared to the architectural schedules?
4. I note the NSW state goal to reach 40% free canopy by 2040 and I ask what proportion of tree canopy will exist on the site at completion? and how long will the proposed canopy take to reach the coverage claimed? And when will the proposed canopy be planted and will some trees be taller than 3 metres when planting to speed up the stated tree canopy goal? Lastly, will the tree canopy number be confirmed as existing canopy and proposed canopy separately, so the public know the % of canopy at both completion and many years later than the proposed trees are planted and when these trees will reach sufficient growth to help provide sufficient shelter for native species and shade for the community.
I ask for the application to be withdrawn and redesigned to that it is much suitable, sustainable and considers the needs to the community, the hertigate and conservation status including changing it to mixed tenure. Sam Barsby 19 August 2026

I am a 31 year-old primary school teacher who has lived in the Camden area for 20 years and am now beginning a family of my own. I object to the proposed development at 72 and 82–86 Menangle Road, Camden, SSD-116982991.

I support the provision of social and affordable housing and recognise the importance of ensuring people and families in our community have access to secure, affordable homes. I understand that 579 households are waiting for social housing, which demonstrates the genuine need for additional housing. My objection is not to social or affordable housing itself, but to the scale, location and potential impacts of this particular proposal.

Having lived in the Camden area for 20 years and worked as a primary school teacher in the local community, I have a strong personal and professional connection to the area. As someone who is now beginning a family, I am particularly invested in the long-term liveability, safety and accessibility of Camden.

My concerns are not simply about how the development looks. They relate to how a development of this scale could affect access to essential services, particularly Camden Hospital, as well as traffic, pedestrian safety and the broader amenity of the surrounding community.

My primary concern is the potential impact of this development on access to Camden Hospital and the surrounding health services.

The proposed development would introduce approximately 95 additional homes, together with additional vehicles, pedestrians, visitors, deliveries and construction traffic into an area immediately adjacent to the hospital precinct.

As a teacher and someone beginning a family, I understand how important reliable and timely access to healthcare can be. Camden Hospital is an essential service for the local community, and I am concerned that increased congestion or changes to traffic and pedestrian movements around Menangle Road could make access to the hospital more difficult.

I ask whether the Traffic, Transport and Accessibility Assessment has adequately considered the importance of maintaining reliable access to the hospital, including during peak periods and in an emergency.

I would also like the Department to clarify whether the assessment has considered the cumulative impact of the proposed development alongside existing hospital traffic, staff movements, patients, visitors and other development in the precinct.

I believe access to essential healthcare should be treated as a critical consideration when assessing the suitability of this site.

As a primary school teacher, I am particularly conscious of how important safe and accessible pedestrian environments are for children, families and people with mobility difficulties.

The additional population associated with the development will inevitably increase pedestrian activity around Menangle Road and the hospital precinct. I am concerned about whether the existing footpaths, crossings, road layout and pedestrian infrastructure are adequate to safely accommodate this increase.

I ask whether the Traffic, Transport and Accessibility Assessment has adequately considered the needs of pedestrians, including families with young children, older residents and people who may already have difficulty accessing the hospital.

As someone beginning a family myself, safe and accessible footpaths and crossings are particularly important to me. I would not want increased congestion or inadequate pedestrian infrastructure to create additional risks for families accessing schools, shops, parks or healthcare.

After 20 years living in the Camden area, I am concerned about the scale of the proposed development and the effect that buildings of up to five and six storeys could have on the established character of this part of Camden.

I recognise that Camden needs additional housing, including social and affordable housing. However, I believe new housing should be designed in a way that respects the existing community and the heritage character of the town.

The Statement of Heritage Impact at Appendix N should be carefully considered in determining whether the proposed height, bulk and visual impact are appropriate for this location.

I ask whether the proposed scale is genuinely compatible with the surrounding heritage character and whether the impacts on important views, streetscapes and heritage settings have been adequately assessed.

I support social and affordable housing and recognise the genuine need demonstrated by the number of households waiting for housing. However, I do not support SSD-116982991 in its current form.

My primary concern is ensuring that the development does not compromise safe and reliable access to Camden Hospital, particularly through additional congestion and pressure on the surrounding road and pedestrian network. I am also concerned about pedestrian safety, accessibility and whether the proposed scale is appropriate for the established character of Camden.

I respectfully request that SSD-116982991 be refused in its current form.

If additional social and affordable housing is to be provided on this site, I ask that a substantially revised proposal be considered, with particular attention to reducing the scale and height of the development and demonstrating that safe, reliable and accessible access to Camden Hospital can be maintained.

As someone who has lived in Camden for 20 years, works with local families as a primary school teacher, and is now beginning a family of my own, I want to see Camden continue to grow but I believe that growth needs to be carefully planned so that essential services, accessibility, safety and the character of our community are protected.

I object to SSD 116982991 and the associated rezoning of 72 and 82 to 86 Menangle Road, Camden.

I support the provision of more social and affordable housing in Camden. My objection is not to social housing or to the people who may live there. It is about the size, height and intensity of this particular proposal, and whether a development of this scale is suitable for such a sensitive location in Camden.

The proposal would provide 95 dwellings in three substantial building forms, A1, A2 and B, reaching five and six storeys. This is a major change from the established one and two storey character of this part of Camden and from the scale of the nearby Camden Heritage Conservation Area.

Camden's own Development Control Plan is particularly important. Within the nearby Heritage Conservation Area it states that a two storey height limit must prevail and that views associated with the St John's Church spire must not be compromised. I accept that these controls do not impose a two storey height limit directly on this site because the site is outside the Conservation Area. However, the proposed six storey building would be approximately 200 metres from an area where Camden's planning controls specifically protect this low scale character and the St John's Church view.

I am concerned that there does not appear to be a dedicated surveyed sightline analysis showing what effect these buildings will have on the protected St John's Church view. This issue was specifically raised in NSW Parliament and the Department stated that the SEARs would not be amended to require such an analysis. Given the scale and permanence of the proposed buildings, I believe this should be properly assessed before any approval is given.

I am also very concerned about parking and traffic. The development provides only 48 parking spaces for 95 dwellings, including just 46 resident spaces and two visitor spaces. An earlier preferred version of the same development provided 58 spaces, meaning ten spaces were removed during the design process without any meaningful reduction in the number of dwellings. The proposal will also remove approximately four existing on street spaces on Menangle Road during much of the day for loading and waste collection.

Providing 46 resident spaces does not mean that 95 households will collectively own only 46 cars. Residents may own additional vehicles and those vehicles will need to be parked somewhere. The likely result is additional pressure on surrounding streets unless the applicant can demonstrate otherwise using evidence that reflects Camden's actual circumstances.

This is especially important because Camden is a car dependent area. The traffic assessment forecasts only 12 vehicle trips in the busiest peak hour and acknowledges that part of its methodology uses a substituted peak period rate rather than a directly available AM rate. I am not saying this automatically makes the assessment wrong, but such a low forecast should be tested against actual local conditions, including Camden Hospital shift changes, school periods and traffic on Menangle Road, Broughton Street and the Old Hume Highway.

There are other unresolved matters. The applicant's own infrastructure report confirms that important electricity, sewer and water arrangements still depend on further design work and authority approvals. I accept that every engineering detail cannot be finalised before consent, but the Department should be satisfied that the necessary infrastructure can actually be delivered before approving a development of this size.

There is also an apparent issue with the Community Housing Provider. The environmental assessment requirements called for the provider to be identified, including its ABN and confirmation that it had agreed to manage the affordable housing. The EIS did not identify that provider. The Minister for Housing subsequently confirmed that Homes NSW was still going through the procurement process to select one. This is important because the EIS relies on the future provider to carry out tenancy management, support coordination and other functions.

I am also concerned about the way the proposed planning controls have been developed. The land is currently zoned SP2 Infrastructure and the development is prohibited under the existing zoning. Homes NSW is asking for the land to be rezoned to R3 at the same time as seeking approval for the development, together with new height controls of 22.5 metres and 18 metres. The proposed buildings then reach 22.4 metres and 17.84 metres. The Department should satisfy itself that these new controls represent the appropriate planning outcome for the site, rather than simply accommodating a development that had already been designed to almost exactly those dimensions.

There is a genuine need for social and affordable housing, but that does not mean this particular design is the only way to provide it. A lower and more carefully designed development could still provide substantial social and affordable housing while respecting Camden's heritage, existing residential character, road network and parking limitations. Additional housing can also be provided in more suitable locations elsewhere in the wider Camden area.

For these reasons, I ask the Department to refuse SSD 116982991 and the concurrent rezoning in their current form. If residential redevelopment of the site is to proceed, Homes NSW should be required to submit a substantially redesigned proposal with lower height and bulk, proper assessment of the St John's Church sightline, realistic parking and traffic modelling based on Camden's circumstances, confirmed infrastructure capacity and the Community Housing Provider identified as required.

My attached submission provides the detailed evidence, source documents and specific questions that I ask the Department to address before making its decision.

Exhibition
Menangle Road Camden, Affordable Housing

Project Details
Application Number
SSD-116982991
Assessment Type
State Significant Development
Development Type
Residential
Local Government Areas
Camden
Exhibition Start-End Date
28/07/2026 - 24/08/2026


Peter Riordan
51 Menangle Road, Camden NSW 2570

I OBJECT to the proposal.
I object to the rezoning.
I object to the introduction of the maximum building height control.
I object to the introduction of a maximum floor space ratio.

Reasons
1. The Exhibition notice is inconsistent with the “ever changing” proposals put forward by the Department.
The Exhibition refers to “affordable housing”. No mention of “social housing”.
Why? What is the State Government up to?
It refers to the “construction of two residential flat buildings containing 95 dwellings for the purpose of affordable housing”.
What happened to the proposed 2 buildings on Site A?
Why was the number of building levels changed so drastically?



2. Change of zoning

Site A has been associated with Camden Hospital since the Nurses’ Quarters were erected in the early 1960s. No idea as to when the land was acquired for this purpose.

Whilst Camden Hospital has been stripped of its surgery and maternity functions, there is a pressing need for a modern medical facility to be developed:

Medical clinics and telehealth
Emergency department
Patient care and recovery
Physiotherapy
Radiography
Medical assistance for seniors
End of life care
Mental health facilities
Fitness and wellbeing
Domestic violence care

The list is endless, and only limited by a lack of imagination

The population in the south Camden area will explode in the next 10 years: Cawdor, the Razorback, the Menangle hinterland and Douglas Park will be changed forever.


3. Change in zoning (2)

If the land zoning is changed, I do not object to two 2 storey buildings being erected for social housing and affordable housing.

Camden has a proud record of social housing dating back to the post war period.

I came to Camden in 1960, and grew up with friends from such housing. The housing was, to a large degree, integrated into the township, at Elderslie and South Camden in particular.

I recognise the needs of people who come under the rubric of needing social housing.

There are many other locations within the municipality that can be used for social housing and affordable housing: the State Government owns the EMAI land which, I believe, will eventually be sold to the highest bidder for budgetary reasons. More suitable for housing, but not on a large scale – not wanting to repeat the Minto, Claymore and Airds fiascos.


4. If the proposed development proceeds, there are many fundamental problems. The development will signal the end of the Camden rural community that we cherish. A heritage oasis that supports the recent and continuing growth in the other parts of the municipality, creating a successful, integrated and balanced multicultural community.
Social and voluntary involvement in the community will wither, as we embrace the era of medium to high density living.
Community organisations, such as Rotary, Lions, Lionesses, Inner Wheel, CWA, Camden Historical Society, Camden Area Family History, Friends of Belgenny Farm, (to name a few) are already struggling to survive in this “modern” era. Apex, ADFAS and Red Cross have gone.
If the Camden community is destroyed by high rise buildings, there will be no incentive to develop community spirit and the giving of assistance to others.
The residents of Camden have, in the past, dug deep to support those in need. It continues to do so, through the various Churches, Lifeline, Salvos, Vinnies, Turning Point, the community organisations, and other groups and individuals.

5. More specifically the site is totally inappropriate for the proposed development

Inadequate parking

Site A – 66 apartments, but only 34 car parking spaces.
Site B – 29 Apartments, but only 14 car parking spaces.

Roughly 1 space for every 2 apartments.
Huge likelihood that people who occupy under the affordable housing criteria will have more than one vehicle per apartment. Large vehicles, and work trucks, or the car of a care helper or agency, for example.

Access to the hospital is of prime importance. I question any report that states that traffic control and hospital access will not suffer if the development goes ahead.

Effect on Menangle Road

Menangle Road is a key arterial road into and through Camden. Living in the street, I am constantly reminded of the potential dangers to car drivers, pedestrians and the electric wheel chairs that use the walkways regularly.

However:
Menangle Road is narrow. It is too narrow for buses to safely pass each other. With parked trade trucks and delivery vans etc., passing vehicles are required to cross the double lines to do so.
The width of the parking lanes on both sides is narrow. [Our side mirror has been dislodged by a passing vehicle, where the vehicle was correctly parked within the parking lane]
Vehicles, both large and small, use the road. Many, including the buses, travel at an excessive speed. [Two years ago, a vehicle crashed directly into the Jacaranda tree in front of our home.]
When the road is full with large parked vehicles, blocking the view in one or both directions, emerging from my driveway onto the road is potentially a serious accident waiting to happen.
There is no room for additional parking on Menangle Road. On busy hospital days, vehicles are parked in various side streets, and unsafely on Broughton Street “around the bend in the road”. Broughton is the alternate arterial road.

A speed maximum of 40kph on both Menangle Road and Broughton Street would be appropriate.

Effect on Menangle Road footpaths
The footpaths are used by people walking to and from the main street, accessing the hospital, going for a run, walking the dogs, pushing strollers, and children cycling.
Motorised wheel chairs are used by at least three local residents.
Children walk on the footpaths to and from school, and at other times.

Effect on residents directly affected by the high rise buildings
.
It is grossly unfair that the current landowners and tenants in Murrandah and Gilbulla Avenues have such buildings imposed on them. Issues of privacy, visibility, shadow effects, access to property, mental health, and so on, do not need to be spelt out.


The historic sightlines between the ridge line of Menangle Road, St John’s Church and Camden Park House are held with respect and love by the people of Camden.




I have not made any reportable political donations in the past two years.

This proposal, if it proceeds, will strongly influence my donations in the next one year.


I accept the Department’s disclaimer and declaration.

Exhibition
Menangle Road Camden, Affordable Housing

Project Details
Application Number
SSD-116982991
Assessment Type
State Significant Development
Development Type
Residential
Local Government Areas
Camden
Exhibition Start-End Date
28/07/2026 - 24/08/2026


Karin Riordan
51 Menangle Road, Camden NSW 2570

I OBJECT to the proposal.
I object to the rezoning.
I object to the introduction of the maximum building height control.
I object to the introduction of a maximum floor space ratio.

Reasons
1. The Exhibition notice is inconsistent with the “ever changing” proposals put forward by the Department.
The Exhibition refers to “affordable housing”. No mention of “social housing”.
Why? What is the State Government up to?
It refers to the “construction of two residential flat buildings containing 95 dwellings for the purpose of affordable housing”.
What happened to the proposed 2 buildings on Site A?
Why was the number of building levels changed so drastically?



2. Change of zoning

Site A has been associated with Camden Hospital since the Nurses’ Quarters were erected in the early 1960s. No idea as to when the land was acquired for this purpose.

Whilst Camden Hospital has been stripped of its surgery and maternity functions, there is a pressing need for a modern medical facility to be developed:

Medical clinics and telehealth
Emergency department
Patient care and recovery
Physiotherapy
Radiography
Medical assistance for seniors
End of life care
Mental health facilities
Fitness and wellbeing
Domestic violence care

The list is endless, and only limited by a lack of imagination

The population in the south Camden area will explode in the next 10 years: Cawdor, the Razorback, the Menangle hinterland and Douglas Park will be changed forever.


3. Change in zoning (2)

If the land zoning is changed, I do not object to two 2 storey buildings being erected for social housing and affordable housing.

Camden has a proud record of social housing dating back to the post war period. The housing was, to a large degree, integrated into the township, at Elderslie and South Camden in particular.

I recognise the needs of people who come under the rubric of needing social housing.

There are many other locations within the municipality that can be used for social housing and affordable housing: the State Government owns the EMAI land which, I believe, will eventually be sold to the highest bidder for budgetary reasons. More suitable for housing, but not on a large scale – not wanting to repeat the Minto, Claymore and Airds fiascos.


4. If the proposed development proceeds, there are many fundamental problems. The development will signal the end of the Camden rural community that we cherish. A heritage oasis that supports the recent and continuing growth in the other parts of the municipality, creating a successful, integrated and balanced multicultural community.
Social and voluntary involvement in the community will wither, as we embrace the era of medium to high density living.
Community organisations, such as Rotary, Lions, Lionesses, Inner Wheel, CWA, Camden Historical Society, Camden Area Family History, Friends of Belgenny Farm, (to name a few) are already struggling to survive in this “modern” era. Apex, ADFAS and Red Cross have gone.
If the Camden community is destroyed by high rise buildings, there will be no incentive to develop community spirit and the giving of assistance to others.
The residents of Camden have, in the past, dug deep to support those in need. It continues to do so, through the various Churches, Lifeline, Salvos, Vinnies, Turning Point, the community organisations, and other groups and individuals.

5. More specifically the site is totally inappropriate for the proposed development

Inadequate parking

Site A – 66 apartments, but only 34 car parking spaces.
Site B – 29 Apartments, but only 14 car parking spaces.

Roughly 1 space for every 2 apartments.
Huge likelihood that people who occupy under the affordable housing criteria will have more than one vehicle per apartment. Large vehicles, and work trucks, or the car of a care helper or agency, for example.

Access to the hospital is of prime importance. I question any report that states that traffic control and hospital access will not suffer if the development goes ahead.

Effect on Menangle Road

Menangle Road is a key arterial road into and through Camden. Living in the street, I am constantly reminded of the potential dangers to car drivers, pedestrians and the electric wheel chairs that use the walkways regularly.

However:
Menangle Road is narrow. It is too narrow for buses to safely pass each other. With parked trade trucks and delivery vans etc., passing vehicles are required to cross the double lines to do so.
The width of the parking lanes on both sides is narrow. [Our side mirror has been dislodged by a passing vehicle, where the vehicle was correctly parked within the parking lane]
Vehicles, both large and small, use the road. Many, including the buses, travel at an excessive speed. [Two years ago, a vehicle crashed directly into the Jacaranda tree in front of our home.]
When the road is full with large parked vehicles, blocking the view in one or both directions, emerging from my driveway onto the road is potentially a serious accident waiting to happen.
There is no room for additional parking on Menangle Road. On busy hospital days, vehicles are parked in various side streets, and unsafely on Broughton Street “around the bend in the road”. Broughton is the alternate arterial road.

A speed maximum of 40kph on both Menangle Road and Broughton Street would be appropriate.

Effect on Menangle Road footpaths
The footpaths are used by people walking to and from the main street, accessing the hospital, going for a run, walking the dogs, pushing strollers, and children cycling.
Motorised wheel chairs are used by at least three local residents.
Children walk on the footpaths to and from school, and at other times.

Effect on residents directly affected by the high rise buildings
.
It is grossly unfair that the current landowners and tenants in Murrandah and Gilbulla Avenues have such buildings imposed on them. Issues of privacy, visibility, shadow effects, access to property, mental health, and so on, do not need to be spelt out.


The historic sightlines between the ridge line of Menangle Road, St John’s Church and Camden Park House are held with respect and love by the people of Camden.




I have not made any reportable political donations in the past two years.

This proposal, if it proceeds, will strongly influence my donations in the next one year.


I accept the Department’s disclaimer and declaration.

i have been a resident of Camden & sounding districts since the 40s .I am strongly opposed to the development by your government. I am not opposed however to social and affordable housing when it is done in the right location, with the right density and the right supporting services.
The nurse's quarters building can be renovated and repurposed quicker than demolishing it and rebuilding on this site. The nurse's quarters are part of the history of Menangle road, my sister worked in the nurse's quarters. The building is a good brick structure. I understand it has asbestos in it but the process for removing asbestos is the same whether we demolish or renovate the building so i would like it to be renovated. I understand that this building has been approved for demolition separate to this development and I would ask that you halt on demolishing any buildings on this site until an amicable resolution has been sought for what will replace it.
I think the proposed buildings are too tall and are ugly. Menangle road is a heritage conservation area with house form the 1800s and early 1900s, anything that goes on this site should complement that streetscape. This sized development would absolutely destroy the look and feel of one of the main entrances to our heritage town. I would like to know on what date, by whom and by what method the condition of the building on 72 Menangle road was assessed. Was the building entered? if not why not? Will you be doing an internal inspection and condition report be prepared by the heritage consultant before the determination?
The height of the proposed buildings are way to tall for this area of Camden. Everything else in this area is single or double storeys only with a height restriction of 9.5 metres. How did you measure the proposed buildings against the houses around it. It appears you have only measure it against the nurse's quarters to justify the height, but the Nurses quarters are already the highest thing on the street. What is the height proposal relative to each adjoining property. Were any lower scale options tested against this site and where were the results?
This street is a very congested and wouldn't cope with all the extra traffic and cars that will come with 95 units. The reports supporting this DA seem to underestimate the number of cars. What surveys did you do to assess the number of vehicles on this development and where is that data available. Why is the traffic data generated from number of parking spaces rather than number of dwellings? How were the visitor, delivery, carer and support services trips accounted for?
The St Johns Spire is visible from all angles in Camden. This was specifically designed this way when it was built in the early 1800s. These buildings being 5 and 6 storeys tall will take away from the skyline of Camden and the heritage of the town. Where did you specifically test the sightlines from all angles towards and from the church? Where are the photos to support your statement that the development cannot be seen form the church? Why is the Camden development control plan clause 2.16.4 that protects the views associated with St John's spire not mentioned at all anywhere in either the heritage impact statement or the EIS? Will you do a measured sightline analysis and prepare it from all viewpoints testing views towards the site as well as views towards the church? On what evidence to you make the statement that the development will not be visible form the church?

I am not against social and affordable housing. I think you can do it better and cheaper elsewhere. I would love for this site to be preserved with the nurse's quarters renovated and repurposed with the carpark reinstated for our nurses. I feel this would be a better option all round for everyone

I have lived in Camden for 30 years. I like its country atmosphere and its connection to its heritage and founding family. I am not against social and affordable housing when it is in the right place with the right networks of infrastructure and support for the future residents. I am opposed to a multistory high-density housing in a heritage town. we have not got the services required to support this structure.
I would like to see the existing building revamped to accommodate extra services for Camden Hospital as a working hospital necessary for the growing community. The condition assessment relied upon in your reports for part of the justification of demolishing this building was done from the street as an external impression. The buildings were NOT entered. on what date and by whom and what method was the condition of the nurses' quarters on 72 meninge rd assessed? Were the buildings entered? if not why not? Will an internal inspection and condition report be prepared by the heritage consultant before determination?

The height of this building is not fitting in with the surrounding homes in the area and is not in line with the Heritage aspect of the town. The height of this building was compared only to the current nurses quarters building and not to the adjoining residences. How was the proposed building assessing against the existing built form on Menangle road and what is the proposed height compared to existing dwellings adjoining the site. Did you look at any lower scale options and if you did what were the results?

A building with 95 units and only 46 parking space is not acceptable. Parking is already an issue for the area and people trying to access the hospital with narrow streets and private homes. Traffic congestion is already a serious issue for local residents. What traffic impact studies did you do and where is the data published? Will you do a parking occupancy and duration survey on menangle road during hospital peak times before the application is determined? On what evidence do you state that all the cars for the hospital fit in their two off street carparks? why are the times for the loading bay justified against residential hours when they are directly opposite the hospital and should have been tested as park of the peak times for the hospital. Why is the traffic statement compared against number of parking sports versus number of potential residents?

Camden is in a flood zone with times of limited access when it floods and traffic becomes horrendous. Although this building will not get flood impacted it is on the only route out of this area for the streets below towards the river when they flood. This is the only emergency evacuation egress for people to get out and emergency services to get in and this density will adversely affect this if it goes ahead.

Camden does not have railway station and only limited bus service. how did you decide this location is wells serviced by public transport. It is a 40minute bus ride to Campbelltown station and your report says residents can go to menangle station but the trains don't stop there. Realistically this proposal should be compared to distance to Campbelltown station as the nearest railway and it is 40minutes by bus to get to it.

This Will permanently change the historic streetscape and the vision of the St Johns Spire on the hill near the proposed development. The St Johns Spire is the defining landmark of our town and has been since the early 1800s. This is so important to our town that is is included in our Camden development control plan 2.16.4. Why is this not considered in any of your reports. This is the defining landmark of our town and these buildings will change that forever. They are too big and in the wrong location for the people who will live there and for the community who already lives here. Before you make a determination on this DA will you please do a sightline analysis from every angle looking towards St Johns Spire and from it so that we can see just how this will change our historic skyline and streetscapes forever.

I really think we can do this development better for us and the future residents. Leppington is in Camden LGA and has lots of land where we could put many more houses sprinkled in with private house like what is best practice. Please consider my points.
Thank you

LACK OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT , and difficulty getting to public transport stations.
LACK OF PARKING , both Menangle Road and Broughton streets, are very congested with cars parked on both sides of the road. It becomes more congested especially when large vehicles are using these roads. Also, there is a school crossing further East on Broughton Street, not to mention the very dangerous corner access onto Broughton Street, from Menangle Road to go to the hospital.
FLOOD PLAIN The whole Camden township is surrounded by a flood plain. When flooding occurs, the only access is via the long bridge on the Bypass, this is unacceptable in an emergency. More residents will complicate this further.
SERVICES Water, sewerage, garbage etc is not adequate if further population is added to this small area, Also the water pressure is inadequate at the moment.
HERITAGE High Rise in this area, is totally out of character with Heritage, History and architecture, it does not blend at all
VISITORS come out to Camden and experience the beautiful ambiance of this area, with that being said it is so overpopulated with just the day visitors. To have more permanent residents in this small, enclose area, just doesn't make sense.
EMPLOYMENT or the lack of, doesn't encourage people to look for work and how do they get to work out of the area?
DISABILITY Services or lack of, Poor footpaths and busy roads to access Grocery shopping etc.
EMERGENCY Services, such as Police, Fire, or Ambulance are not in Camden itself.
HIGH RISE BUILDING will impact the amount of Sunshine and views for surrounding areas and neibours.
TREES Destruction of mature trees, means increase of greenhouse gas, loss of habitat for our Native birds
CONSTRUCTION. Compacts the surrounding soil, kills beneficial organisms.
The Nurses home appears to be structurally sound and could easily be renovated at a significantly lower cost to house Ancillary Services. Also, as an intermediatory between the two Major hospitals being Liverpool and Campbelltown as both are well over capacity.
This is a beautiful little village, but also very fragile.
This town is not suitable for High Rise
DONT DO IT

I wish to formally object to SSD-116982991 – Menangle Road, Camden Affordable Housing, concerning the proposed redevelopment of 72 and 82–86 Menangle Road, Camden.

I recognise the genuine need for social and affordable housing in NSW. My objection is not to social housing or the people who require it. My concern is the scale, density, built form, concentration and suitability of this development for this particular location.

My strongest concern is the impact on Camden’s historic character and unique country-town identity.

Camden is not simply another suburban centre. It is a historic town characterised by traditional streetscapes, lower-scale development, open landscapes and a strong connection to the surrounding rural countryside. As south-west Sydney becomes increasingly urbanised, this character is becoming more valuable and increasingly important to protect.

The proposal involves approximately 95 social and affordable dwellings across three residential flat buildings, reaching up to six storeys. I believe buildings of four, five and six storeys are an inappropriate scale for this location.

There is a difference between allowing Camden to grow and introducing a distinctly urban apartment form that risks fundamentally changing the character of a historic country town.

This is particularly concerning on Menangle Road, an important approach into Camden. Development here contributes to the transition between the surrounding countryside and Camden township. Buildings reaching six storeys would create a dramatically different urban form at this entrance to Camden.

Once historic character is progressively lost through inappropriate development, it is extremely difficult to restore. Additional housing could instead be provided through lower-rise and sensitively designed medium-density development that better complements Camden’s existing character.

I also question whether concentrating approximately 95 social and affordable dwellings on this site represents the best planning outcome. Consideration should be given to mixed-tenure development incorporating social, affordable and private housing, or distributing additional social and affordable homes across multiple suitable locations.

There are also locations much better suited to development of this density.

Large social and affordable housing developments exist in highly urbanised areas such as Surry Hills and inner Sydney, where multi-storey residential development is already established and supported by extensive transport, healthcare, employment and community infrastructure.

Within Camden LGA, Oran Park has specifically been developed as a major contemporary growth centre. It already contains substantial multi-storey apartment development and has been planned for significantly greater residential density.

This raises an important question: why place a four-to-six-storey development at an entrance to historic Camden when areas such as Oran Park already have the urban form and planning context to accommodate development of this scale?

My concern is not about who occupies these homes. It is about putting the appropriate type of development in the appropriate location.

A six-storey apartment building has a very different impact within a modern higher-density centre than within a historic, lower-scale country town. Camden and Oran Park have deliberately different identities. Protecting historic Camden while directing higher-density development towards centres planned for that density would provide housing without unnecessarily sacrificing Camden’s character.

I am also concerned about the dramatic change in the anticipated scale of this project. The NSW Government initially identified the Menangle Road land in 2024 as expected to provide approximately 10 social and affordable homes, whereas the current proposal is approximately 95 dwellings. An increase of this magnitude warrants particularly careful scrutiny and community consultation.

Traffic and parking are further concerns. Approximately 95 households will create additional vehicle movements from residents, visitors, deliveries and service providers. Camden and Macarthur remain relatively car-dependent, and inadequate on-site parking could place further pressure on surrounding roads and streets. The cumulative impact should be considered rather than simply whether minimum requirements are technically met.

I am also particularly concerned about the capacity of essential services to support Camden’s continued rapid population growth.

I raise this from first-hand experience as a healthcare worker at Campbelltown Hospital.

Through my work, I see the pressure population growth across Camden and Macarthur is already placing on healthcare. We regularly experience bed block and significant capacity pressures and struggle at times to accommodate the number of patients who already require our services. This is not simply a concern about what might happen in the future; these pressures are already occurring.

Camden continues to experience enormous residential growth, with many more homes still planned. Every development cumulatively increases demand for emergency departments, hospital beds, maternity services, ambulances, GPs, specialist care and other essential services.

I am not suggesting these 95 dwellings alone are responsible for healthcare capacity problems. My concern is the cumulative impact of continually approving additional housing while essential infrastructure is already struggling to keep pace.

Each development may appear relatively small when assessed individually, but collectively thousands of additional homes create substantial demand. At some point, infrastructure capacity must become a meaningful consideration when determining further residential density.

Housing cannot be planned in isolation from the services required to support its residents. Additional housing must be accompanied by adequate healthcare, hospitals, ambulance capacity, roads, public transport, schools, emergency services and community infrastructure.

I ask the Department to assess this development within the context of the cumulative growth of Camden and Macarthur, and to consider whether essential services have sufficient capacity or funded plans to expand alongside that growth.

I also request clear information regarding the long-term management of the development, including the future Community Housing Provider, property maintenance, community liaison, complaint procedures and support services.

Ultimately, my concern is about the Camden we are creating for future generations.

Camden will inevitably grow, but growth should not require the loss of its historic identity and country charm or the introduction of the same high-density built form seen in increasingly urbanised parts of Sydney.

I therefore ask that the Department not approve SSD-116982991 in its current form.

If redevelopment proceeds, I request a substantial reduction in building height and density, a design sympathetic to Camden’s historic country-town character, adequate parking and landscaping, proper consideration of cumulative infrastructure and healthcare capacity, and consideration of mixed tenure or alternative higher-density locations such as established growth centres.

I support increasing social and affordable housing, but this should not come at the expense of Camden’s historic identity, country charm, essential services and appropriate long-term planning.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the proposal be refused in its current form or substantially redesigned at a lower scale that is appropriate to Camden’s historic country-town setting.

Submission on SSD-116982991 — Menangle Road Camden Affordable Housing
I object to this application.
I support social and affordable housing. There are 579 households on the Camden waiting list and they need homes. A close work colleague of mine lives in social housing with his young family. Additionally, I have a lot of family members who reside in Camden.
My objection is not to housing. It is to the way this application has been assessed, and I raise three matters.
1. The demolition has been separated from the assessment that justifies it. The cost report excludes demolition because it is a separate approval, the Environmental Impact Statement says the demolition does not form part of this application, and
the cumulative impacts section does not mention the demolition approval at all. My issue with the demolition of the old nursing quarters lies with the foundation of the demolition’s approval for high rises. I question if the heritage laws were considered in this decision. I ask the Department where the combined impact of the demolition approval and this application has been assessed, as section 171(o) of the Regulation requires.
2. Around 39 per cent of the site cannot be tested for contamination until the buildings are demolished. Approximately 2,831 square metres of a 7,184 square metre site is untested, with 32 test pits scheduled after demolition, and asbestos already confirmed on both parcels. When testing the other 39 per cent I wonder who will be held responsible if contaminants are found, and if this will affect the surrounding neighbourhoods. I ask what happens if that testing finds something the assessment has assumed away, and whether the land’s suitability can properly be determined before it is complete.
3. As mentioned earlier, I have a close friend who resides in social housing, and I believe it is a beneficial infrastructure. However, there are 579 households waiting for affordable housing in Camden. I have many friends and family who live near/on Menangle Road, and because of this I often travel along this road. Additionally, as someone who was born in Camden hospital and has lived in surrounding suburbs since, I strongly believe this project will impact the town and it’s integrity.
I encourage the Department to consider alternatives, such as a downsized social housing lot or splitting the site in two with one in Camden and another in a nearby location. In the past we have seen projects redesigned with success, for example Orange, Byamee St Dapto and Old Castle Road in The Hills.
20/08/2026.

I do not support either the rezoning of the properties in Menangle Road, as proposed nor the proposed buildings. I am aware of the need for additional Social and Affordable housing in the Camden LGA, but this development would adversely affect the existing community and not create a healthy living environment for any residents housed under the proposed development.
• Any rezoning must be consistent with the surrounding community R3 height restrictions which has long been supported by the community. Camden Council has resolved to seek exemption from the Low and Medium Housing Strategy within the Camden township area
• Proposed development is of an inappropriate scale, height and bulk for the sites which are on a predominate ridgeline in Camden and would impact upon the vistas too and from the township of Camden
• The design of the buildings does not reflect the township of Camden and are just taken from the Housing catalogue examples found elsewhere in Sydney eg Cartwright
• A model of 100% social housing has been proved to not work either in broad field estates or blocks of units of the scale proposed. Best practice is integration with private housing, as has occurred in the Minto housing estate and at Waterloo. Additional social housing can be accommodated across the Camden LGA NOT all in one place
• Scale and density of buildings will adversely impact on adjoining properties re shadowing and privacy. The plans provided will not remove this impact nor can one believe the shadow diagrams provided. The amenity of the surrounding housing will be adversely impacted
• Inadequate onsite parking will exacerbate exiting parking and traffic issues around Camden Hospital. What rational was used to determine the provision of 80 bicycle storage spaces but only 2 visitor spaces? The proposed tenant demographics will require parking for service providers not bicycles
• Supporting study states that 134 people will be housed in the proposal yet in the main EIS a figure of 164 is used. What is the expected number of residents across the two buildings?
• Flooding in Camden is a major issue with resident’s road access often cut off to one bridge over the Nepean River
• The proposal documents state that a Community Housing provider will be engaged to manage the unit complexes along with providing community development services. NO such provider exists and it cannot be guaranteed to continue for the life of the development
• The Waste Management system proposed depends upon an onsite support by building management, without which waste removal will become a huge problem. Who will have the legal ability to stop vehicles parking on the road frontages that are proposed to allow access by garbage trucks. It will only take one or two vehicles to adversely impact the system proposed
• The carpark between Building A and B is NOT a public Hospital carpark. Only intended to be solely for Health Fleet Vehicles and will be fenced off should any development take place
• The Town Centre indicated as Blue on maps is NOT the area of Camden Town Centre but that of the Camden Historical Conservation Area. Travel to the town area for shopping, medical and community and social facilities is greater than 800 meters walking distance

I was born in Camden in the 50s and this has been my home ever since. I love the country feel of this town, the landscape and the connection to the heritage of our ancestors. I am not against social and affordable housing when it is done correctly for the current community and the future residents.
I have many concerns about the proposed design and will mention a few now.
Parking
Camden as a town already has a parking problem and this is especially apparent when you need to visit the hospital. With 95 apartments and only 46 parking spots and 2 visitor parking spots this will make parking at the hospital and in the surorunding residential streets even worse. The overflow parking from this development will flow into surorunding streets which are already overloaded by the staff and visitors to the hospital. If this development is going to house disadvantaged people it is likely that they will need medical help and carers. Where will these people be parking? The traffic impact assessment in the proposal concludes that the increase in traffic volume will be negligible relative to existing volumes but the existing volumes are not quantified anywhere. No parking surveys, kerbside inventory or parking duration surveys appear anywhere in the documents. Will you complete a parking occupancy and duration survey of menangle road during peak hospital times before this application is determined? What are the existing traffic volumes on menangle road and where are they published? It is stated that the hospital is served by adequate off street parking, what evidence supports this? Some of menangle road is to be taken away for loading zones and this is justified against residential traffic not the hospital when this part of the road is directly opposite the hospital. why was it not compared to hospital peak times? The increase in vehicles was calculated based on parking spots and not number of apartments or future residents. Why was it done this way? What is the forecasted number of trips when using the number of dwellings as the indicator? How were the visitor, carers, delivery and support worker trips calculated and accounted for? I noted you stated that the people who live there will not have cars, on what basis did you find this when it is also stated in your documents that 87 percent of all travel in Camden is by car.

Heritage
Camden is a town full of pride and 175years of history. Sally Quinell in one of her government speeches at Parliament even talks about how beautiful the town is and this specific street. Why would the government want to destroy a heritage town by placing 5-6 storey buildings right on the heritage conservation area. What about the stigma the future residents are going to feel having being shoved in one place with no places to work, no support infrastructure and no wrap around services. How will they feel safe and valued. The heritage report is confusing. In one section it states there is no significant heritage items but then in the same report further down it identifies St John's precinct. The heritage report states that there is minor adverse impact and also states there is little to no adverse impact. Which conclusion is being assessed? Will the executive summary be corrected and re-exhibited so the public can comment on an accurate version. St John Spire is a defining landmark in our town. Under the Camden development control plan all views of the spire are protected under clause 2.16.4. This clause is never mentioned or named at all in Appendix N or the EIS. Will you do measured sightline analysis from identified viewpoints, testing views towards the site and St Johns as well as views out from the St Johns precinct? On what evidence is it concluded that the development will not be visible from St Johns? Why was this very important clause 2.16.4 not identified or addressed in the heritage impact statement?

Water pressure
As a Camden resident I know that the water pressure in Camden is not very good. I read in your reports that currently the water pressure will probably only be able to service 3 storeys. How will the sized development affect the water pressure for the existing neighbours? Will a fire truck have enough water pressure to put a fire out for this size building in this location. Does Camden even have a fire truck that can reach 6 storeys?

Concurrent rezoning
The DA seeks to change the current SP2 zoning to R3 with height of over 22 metres and higher ratios. This part of Camden is currently R3 zoned as maximum height of 9.5 metres and town house density. If the land must be rezoned away from health I would like it to comply with the current R3 zoning for this area according to the Camden HOB maps and zoning maps. 22 metres is far too big for this part of Camden and will have detrimental future impacts if it was to proceed. The government needs to understand that having places like Camden to escape to is good for mental health. People escape the "rat race" by visiting our quiet country town. This is a destination town for not only Australians but for people from overseas too. Increasing height and density zonings will change camden forever. Once the streetscape is gone we will never get it back.

As I said I am not against social and affordable housing. This design in this location with lack of infrastructure and wrap around services is not right for the current community or the future residents. Camden as an LGA has heaps of land in Leppington and Oran Park where we can build thousands of private dwellings mixed with hundreds of social dwellings like the best practice example of Macquarie park NSW. Lets get this right for everyone.
Thank you for your consideration of my thoughts.

NSW Planning Portal
http://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/.../menangle-road...

We share the concerns of many of our neighbours and friends around the Camden area that the State Significant Development process is being used to fast-track a high-density proposal that would see three buildings of up to six storeys constructed in a highly sensitive and historic part of Camden. Camden's heritage and character are part of what makes our town special, and any planning decision of this scale should be community-led, respectful of the area's history, and genuinely responsive to the views of residents who will have to live with the consequences.

Our objections are based on:
• The current land footprint is zoned S2 Medical and Allied services which is planned to be rezoned R3 residential without collaboration with the Camden LGA planning authorities.
• The new Rezoned classification is proposed to include building heights up to 24 Metres while Council has restricted all other R3 zoning to 9.5 Metres.
• The proposal to build 95 Social and Low Cost housing units is extremely excessive and will lead to a reduction in Community standards.
• The current proposal to provide 46 off road, car parking spaces is ludicrous as a very large proportion of residences in Camden have a minimum of 2 cars. The idea that social housing tenants cannot afford cars therefore don’t need provision for parking is ridiculous, even if the tenants don’t own a vehicle their support workers and services will need parking and there is very little available in and around the site. These support workers are not going to use the Hourly Bus Service in Menangle Road to carry out their support.
• There is a limited Public Transport service in the form of an hourly bus service into Camden CBD which takes 50-60 minutes to travel to the nearest railway Station, Campbelltown.
• A 5-6 storey residential building erected on Windmill Hill will present an imposing eyesore and blot on the Camden Streetscape and result in many current residences in Murrandah Ave being overlooked and also block natural sunlight for many hours of the day.
• While we recognise the need for Social and Low-Cost Housing we do not believe the proposed location to be suitable and a building restricted to 2 storeys with basement parking would be a much more acceptable proposal to the residents of Camden.



We will continue to stand with our neighbours and friends in the Camden community in opposing inappropriate overdevelopment and advocating for planning outcomes that are sustainable, balanced and respectful of Camden's unique heritage.

Yours Sincerely
Warren & Glenda Sims

I strongly object to this project for these reasons:
1. The land in Menangle Rd, formerly owned by the Department of Health, should never have been on sold to the Department of Lands. It should be re-purposed to provide ancilliary medical resources to support the operations of Camden Hospital.
2. To support this use, the former nurses quarters should not be demolished. The building is very sound, asbestos (if any) can safely be removed and it would not take much to repurpose the building. eg. Consulting rooms for all sorts of medical and para medical practioners.
3.The site is not well-located in terms of the likely residents access to shops and services.
4.The 5/ 6 storey buildings proposed exceed the prescribed height limit for buildings in the area. Their existence would set an untenable precedent for building heights in the historic township of Camden.
5. Parking around Camden Hospital is difficult at anytime. The proposed development would rob the present Camden Hospital area of parking areas used by the Hospital's medical staff. The thought of say 150 tenants trying to use the proposed development's 48 car spaces suggests that an area already robbed of parking spaces could now have an addtional 100 cars seeking parking spots.
6.As suggested above, the proposed development is totally out of character with the surrounding area which consists of single and two storey dwellings. The development proposes buildings that are excessive in height, bulk and scale. Residents in Murrandah Ave would face the prospect of having their homes in shadow for the greater part of a day. Some would have their solar systems rendered inoperable.
7. Social and affordable housing developments should be located in well-serviced areas. Areas with full amenities, easy access for pedestrians and accessible public transport. Camden Council has already identified such areas at the Leppington Town Centre and the Oran Park Town Centre.
8. Other than the sheer impracticality of the proposed development, its whole concept is an insult to the citizens of Camden who value the heritage of this unique Australian historic town. Those who have proposed it have no idea of how the town functions or how the proposed development would maroon its occupants on a hill isolated from useful public transport. The suggestion Menangle Station would be in the mix of possible public transport for residents is ludicrous as there is no bus service to it from Camden and it is serviced by the infrequent Moss Vale /Goulburn rail motor.
8. In sum, the proposed development in Menangle Rd should be immediately aborted before anymore of Government funds are needlessly expended.

Hello, my name is Roslyn Baldwin, and I have lived in Camden for most of my life.

I support the need for social and affordable housing in our area due to the fact I that people struggle with cost of living when times are tough. I believe in our area alone, we have over 500 people waiting on affordable housing, and this will continue to increase as the cost of living continues to rise. We need to do something.!!!!!!

However, I am objecting to SSD-116982991 Menangle Road Camden, Affordable Housing, as I think this development is in the wrong location to repatriate residents and also too bulky for our historical town.

Why? Camden is a unique historic town, surrounded by flood plains. With the rapid expansion of subdivisions in surrounding Harrington Park, Oran Park, Gregory Hills etc., it was deemed to move essential services to be more accessible to the new growth areas, so the township of Camden has lost a lot of services in the town centre, (except for the Hospital and Post Office).

Distance to services from the proposed Menangle Road sites are:
Train station Campbelltown (19 min drive by car, or public transport 26 minutes), Menangle maybe closer but there is no parking.
Banks – Commonwealth Bank is soon to leave Camden main street, then all banks will then be in the Narellan Town Centre (11 min drive, or 13-minute by public transport)
Post Office is a 17 minute walk into town or 7 minute bus ride.
Coles supermarket is a 15 minute walk or a 6 minute bus ride, which is great, however, walking back up either John Street to the Menangle Road site from the town centre, or Park Street from Coles and Woolworths with kilograms of groceries, would be arduous. Both routes are quite steep. Even if maps say it is mostly flat (it lies).

Work Prospects for the new residents are key
With the expansion of our neighbouring areas, much of the admin jobs have moved away to the growth areas, so our town is mainly cafes, Real Estate Agents, a couple of supermarkets, library, small retailers and some small businesses. Job opportunities aren’t plentiful in the actual town centre, as there are more prospects in the newer surrounding growth areas. It is even more than likely from the Menangle Road site, you would need a car or access services or rail transport to get to work.

If I needed affordable accommodation, I would want to be close to a rail network, which has been a proven benefit in many social and affordable housing projects such as Midtown Mac Park, Waterloo Renewal Project etc to increase my chances of employment!!!! This proposed development in this location, will give 95 homes, showing action on behalf of the government, but in my opinion, not catering for proximity to nearby services, or a thriving hub offering a plethora of work opportunities to help the residents get back on their feet.

Size of the build and why it is out of place
I strongly disagree with the rezoning the site from SP2 Infrastructure (Hospital) to R3 Medium Density Residential allowing a height of maximum building height control of 22.5m which will have the new units towering over neighbouring homes and the historic surrounds that are currently one and two storeys.
I agree something needs to be done with the site; however, I think the property should retain its connection to our hospital to add facilities in the medical area to ensure the longevity of the only emergency service we have left in our town.

Parking
Given the time and distance to different services and work opportunities from Menangle Road, you will see an increased number of residents needing cars if they find employment. For the 95 units, I could not find information on the unit bedroom count, or the specific mix of units in your proposal. I would gather it would be imperative for the residents have an above average number of cars to access employment and services. Even if we approximate 1 car per unit, there are 95 car spaces needed and given there are 2 and 3 bedroom units in the complex, this I would think would just be the base number, with the multiple bedroom units needing more cars. The number of cars are impossible to work out without unit sizes. The one thing I do know, is the hospital is in more need of parking than this new development, so there should be parking included for the hospital in this development.

NSW Transport Minister John Graham stated in a report published in The Daily Telegraph on August 11, 2026, that parking shortages at train stations are a direct result of past planning decisions that placed housing far from public transport hubs. He noted the government is working to alleviate this issue by adding thousands of new car spaces. So, if the residents of the new proposed development did have cars, there are not the number of car spaces yet in place at the train stations. This further makes me think this development is in the wrong location. You need to put large developments near services.

To seek work in the city, from Menangle Road, it would be a daily 52 minutes just to get to and from the train station, plus a couple of hours public transport each way adding to the city, so 3 hours a day minimum commute. I would feel the need to seek employment as soon as I was on my feet, does this mean the residents would only avail themselves to local employment, or very long commutes on public transport? Living closer to train travel would help people to seek opportunities wider afield, which in turn helps them to improve their financial independence...

Shadowing from the proposed development for Murrandah Avenue is appalling during winter solstice at 3pm, on the east side of the road that would have been bathed in sunshine are now in total shadow!!! Figure 26 Summary of existing and proposed overshadowing to Murrandah Avenue (Source: DKO) Page 75 FPD Planning EIS.

In summary

This site in my opinion is not in a good enough location for affordable access to shops and services for the residents to repatriate into the community.
I don’t think it is an appropriate use of the land as this should remain with the hospital to be incorporated into our prized hospital for the future.
The bulk of the project is overpowering the surrounding historic area and removing precious sunshine from the Murrandah Avenue homes.
The scale and bulk of the project sitting upon the hill will detract from our historic surrounds and overshadow our historic St. John’s church.
In Camden LGA, we have Leppington Train Station which the Minns Government has unlocked around 11,500 new home potential for the next 20 years and this is an unbelievable potential for access to the rail, which I believe is a must for reactivating potential repatriation into the work force.
This proximity to rail transport and job hubs, would lessen the need for a vehicle or paying for public transport and thus allowing residents to build up funds for other living opportunities. Sites here should be utilized.
The loss of the site for car parking associated with the Camden Hospital, coupled with the lack of car parking provided for the proposed development, will result in excessive parking congestion in the surrounding area when people need ease of parking to attend the hospital!!!
The proposed development is completely out of character with the surrounding area, which generally, consists of single and two storey dwelling houses.

Camden is of historical significance with just one emergency service (the hospital) in the town centre. With this development, we open the doors to many more oversized developments and we lose our point of difference as a historic town.

Return the block to SP2 Hospital zoning, so we can build on our only remaining emergency service in the Town Centre.

FULL SUBMISSION ATTACHED

Submission on SSD-116982991 — Menangle Road Camden Affordable Housing
Name: Michael Georgeson
Address: 50 Lerida Ave., Camden NSW, 2560
I object to this application.
I support the objective to provide social and affordable housing along with the need to improve housing access in general. I understand there are over 570 households on the waiting list for access to such homes in Camden. There is no reason, as I see it, that Camden should not accommodate the need for such housing delivered in an appropriate manner and level.

I am a local resident who lives approximately 500m walking distance from the proposed development. I drive past the proposed development almost every day and walk past regularly and occasionally through the middle of what would be the result of the final development as proposed. I also utilize Camden Hospital Emergency as required.

My objection is not to the housing or its purpose. It is to the way this application has been assessed and the scope / size of the proposed development and I wish to raise the matters as outlined in the attached submission, and seek answers and clarification on the items raised as indicated.
I ask that the application be withdrawn or redesigned. The original ten dwelling structure/s is substantially more appropriate for purpose and position. The project as proposed is entirely inconsistent with Camden’s own building controls, will have a substantial impact on the heritage value of the adjacent precinct and moreover the proposal in inappropriate to its stated purpose.
Michael Georgeson, 21/08/2026