Skip to main content

State Significant Development

Response to Submissions

Ryde Hospital Redevelopment Concept & Stage 1

City of Ryde

Current Status: Response to Submissions

Interact with the stages for their names

  1. SEARs
  2. Prepare EIS
  3. Exhibition
  4. Collate Submissions
  5. Response to Submissions
  6. Assessment
  7. Recommendation
  8. Determination

Concept development application for the redevelopment of Ryde Hospital, including: a concept proposal for the redevelopment and refurbishment of the existing site; and Stage 1 preliminary works including demolition, earthworks and car parking.

Attachments & Resources

Notice of Exhibition (1)

Notice of Exhibition

Request for SEARs (1)

A Scoping Report RHR

SEARs (1)

Issued SEARs

EIS (31)

1_EIS - Ryde Hospital Redevelopment
A_SEARs Compliance Table - RHR
B_Mitigation Measures - RHR
C_Statutory Compliance Table - RHR
D1_SSDA Design Report - RHR
D2_Stage 1 Early Works Plans - RHR
D3_Concept Proposal - Architectural Plans - RHR
E_Landscape Design Report - RHR
F_Transport and Traffic Report - RHR
G_Sustainability Report - RHR
H_Heritage Impact Statement - RHR
I_Hydraullic and Fire Systems Eng - RHR
J_Electrical and ICT Utilities Report - RHR
K_Civil Engineering Report - RHR
L_Preliminary Construction Man - RHR
M_Biodiversity DAR - RHR
N_Arboricultural Report - RHR
O_Detailed Site Investigation - RHR
P_Engagement Report - RHR
Q_Visual Impact Assessment - RHR
R_Aboriginal Cultural Heritage - PUBLIC - RHR
S_Bushfire Protection Assessment - RHR
T_Hazardous Building Materials Survey - RHR
U_Geotechnical Investigation - RHR
V_Noise and Vibration Impact Assess - RHR
W_Environmental Wind Assessment - RHR
X_Waste Management Plan - RHR
Y_Social Impact Assessment - RHR
Z_BCA Assessment - RHR
AA_Survey Plan - RHR
BB_Historical Archaeological Assessment - RHR

Response to Submissions (1)

Request RTS Letter_23092022_070448

Agency Advice (4)

HNSW (ACH) advice
TfNSW advice
HNSW advice
EHG advice

Submissions

Filters
Showing 1 - 14 of 14 submissions
Name Withheld
Comment
Denistone , New South Wales
Message
I wish to express my grave concerns regarding this planned facility.
I do so as a resident of Ryedale Rd for the past 25 years.

These concerns can be categorised under the following:
a) ITS SITING ON RYEDALE RD,

b)ITS SIZE--HEIGHT AND SPREAD

c)THE NUMBER OF CARS USING IT DAY AND NIGHT

d)THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

e)THE CONSEQUENCES OF ALL THE ABOVE ON THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL STREETS.

In relation to each of these may I ask you to consider the following:-
a)THE SITING ON RYDEDALE RD.
This site is at the top of a steep hill(from West Ryde), a long hill winding from Denistone Station,a nearby, narrow winding hill( Florence Ave).It's at the back of the hospital and neighbours other health facilities--including, significantly, PRP which is next door to the entry and exit of the proposed car park.
This access point has, for several years, been used to a staff car park and has been a constant source of traffic problems e.g.
-turning left in and crossing exit lane,
-turning right out on Ryedale Rd against direction,
-making a u-turn around median strip on top of the hill,
-making a u-turn just inside Fifth Ave.
All of these are conducted under the most challenging of conditions notably the poor lines of vision viz:
-inability to see beyond the crest of the hill,
-parked cars in a winding Fifth Ave,
-entry an d exit manoeuvres into single lane driveway at PRP and from driveways on opposite side of street,
-parked cars to the right along Ryedale Rd.

b)THE SIZE
A building of this height in place of the cottages that were once there must have an imposing and intrusive presence.

c)THE NUMBER OF CARS ACCESSING IT DAY AND NIGHT--the projected plan of increasing the capacity from about 30 to 350 will obviously affect the negative outcomes exponentially.

d)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Further to b) and c) it is obvious that the increase in
. emissions
.noise
.lighting, both fixed and moving
.overshadowing
and .water run-off from increased flat, hard surfaces
will have major impacts.

e)THE CONSEQUENCES OF ALL THE ABOVE(especially the siting of the facility) will have major, negative outcomes on the streets surrounding the hospital.
I draw your attention to the following:-
.every street connecting the facility to and from major transport routes will have serious issues in accommodating increased traffic...this as a consequence of the plan to have left in, left out transit from Ryedale Rd.
.from Blaxland Rd traffic will move either in front of hospital or via Dalton Ave and past entrances/exits to Mental Health facilities ility, Graythwaite, medical facility on Fourth Ave,and then past entry/exit to PRP
.from West Ryde....up a very steep hill...to gain entry one must proceed to the roundabout at Fourth Ave.

There are SO many issues in travelling to and from this facility....too many to list...but each causing difficulties for the whole area...hospital and residential.

As you can see, I believe there are problems of great magnitude that MUST be addressed before committing to building this facility in its present form. I cannot envisage appropriate adaptations that would make it even marginally more acceptable.

I urge you to consider my assessments of the problems created by siting the facility as now proposed and to look for alternatives that will reduce what,I see, as distinctly dangerous and ineffective plans.
Name Withheld
Object
Denistone , New South Wales
Message
I object to the proposal based on the below concerns.
In regard to the proposed multi-storey car park I have a few concerns listed below. They largely pertain to the proposed entry via Ryedale Road.
A) The entry being at the apex of the road presents a major safety issue. This is already evidenced by the low visibility and traffic and driver behaviour. Left entry and exit does not alleviate the risk, which I see as high. It is not possible to see upcoming traffic if exiting Fifth Ave, particularly if there are cars parked on Ryedale Road.
B) The road is not suitable for increased traffic. The road is currently unable to cater for heavy vehicle traffic. Many vehicles simply do not make it up the hill! The road was recently repaired as it is not well maintained. Having vehicles stop and stall mid-way up the road presents further safety issues if there was more traffic.
C) the current entry into the hospital via Denistone Road is currently acceptable. The congestion on the streets in the area are already accustomed to it. To move the entry into Ryedale Road will increase congestion in the adjacent streets which are not prepared for such a change.
D) Pay car parks will probably imply time limited parking for the local streets adjacent which are now free.
E) a multi-story car park being placed on the top end of the hospital does not seem the best use of real estate.
F) Vehicles climbing up Ryedale Road will increase noise and pollution levels for the local community.
G) The car park will presumably increase the night lights in the vicinity and hence present a problem to the nearest neighbours, particularly if it is 24/7.
H) Many of the concerns above have a negative environmental impact, least being the increased carbon footprint.
I hope you can take these concerns and hopefully make the necessary changes to better the safety and environmental impact.
Regards
Local resident
City of Ryde
Comment
Marc Morelli
Comment
DENISTONE , New South Wales
Message
Please refer to attached letter providing my comments for review by the development team in relation to this major project.

Kind Regards

Marc Morelli
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
DENISTONE , New South Wales
Message
Ryde Hospital Redevelopment Concept & Stage 1

Submitted 20 September 2022

Local Community Member Submission Opposing the Concept Plan and Stage 1 Works

The redevelopment of Ryde Hospital is truly a wonderful outcome for our community, and will offer many needed services and benefits when completed. However, as a local resident stakeholder on Ryedale Rd, opposite the proposed multi storey car park adjacent to the hospital, I object to the proposed concept plan as being inappropriate given the excessive bulk and location of the car park building. If the development were to proceed, as detailed in the concept plan, Ryedale Road residents will suffer a significant loss of amenity due to significant increased traffic impacts including excessive noise, air pollution and unacceptable levels of overshadowing.

Further, I object to the proposed Concept Plan and Stage 1 works as there has been a grossly inadequate and potentially misleading community consultation.

The approval of the concept plan and stage 1 works should not proceed at least until the broader residential community stakeholders surrounding the proposed development has had the opportunity to properly understand the details of the project concept and respond accordingly.

Carpark Alternatives

As you are already aware there are three options for the multi storey carpark outlined in the supporting documents. Two of the alternative carpark options are situated on Denistone Rd, which has been historically the main access point to the Hospital. Both of these options are far more appropriate for the increased scale of the redevelopment given Denistone Roads’ proximity to Blaxland Road and its flat terrain is far better suited to the volume of vehicles and service trucks that will visit the site.

Full details of my objections and critical points are outline in the attached Ryde Hospital Redevelopment Concept and Stage 1 Works Submission and needed to be brought to the attention of the local community so that a proper assessment of the project’s impact can be made.

In conclusion, the Engagement Report demonstrates that community engagement has been minimal and inadequate, and I ask that the approval process should be delayed until proper Community Consultation can occur.

The Concept Plan and Stage 1 works should not be approved and the whole development should be put on proper display in the local area shopping centres together with full disclosure details sent to all residents impacted by the proposal to allow proper scrutiny and community feedback. The process has been a sham!
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
,
Message
I do not object to the hospital redevelopment as a whole. It is the lack of protection for the critically endangered trees and the car park location and its dangerous entrance I object to.

Car Park Option 1 Issues
Ryedale Road is very steep, with a blind crest and ~15° slope. I have seen trucks/utes and vans with heavy loads struggle both directions. Many stopping and changing down gears, or even reversing back down the hill and taking a run up to try again for the upwards route. Downhill I have observed difficulties controlling speed and trailers. Ryedale Rd is not a good choice for a logistics entrance, especially given the weight, delicacy and/or dangerousness of some hospital deliveries. Additionally during construction, multiple vehicles have lost paint or concrete before - as can be observed outside 50 Ryedale Road. Even if “Left in/Left out” vehicles will likely end up trying to use the roundabouts to still come up the hill if they don’t have experience driving this way with heavy loads and are not prevented from it. Exiting vehicles will be heading down a road with a blind crest/reduced sight distance and incredible steepness.

I did not see from the plan how the car park being located at option 1, which appears to be the lowest point within the site, will enable those with mobility challenges to make it uphill to the hospital proper.

The Car Park Envelope, even if not given an APZ, appears to infringe directly on an area marked for the conservation of critically endangered Blue Gums. Likely either requiring tree removal or moving the building so close that once assessed later, the trees will be removed.

If the car park is located here and plated in cladding etc, what impact will this have on the nearby Blue Gums? Radiated heat and reduced airflow could cause the nearby trees to potentially die. Has the impact on the microclimate of this critically endangered forest been examined?

Given that the location of this carpark is an 8 minute walk to Denistone Station and a 15 minute walk from Eastwood Station, it seems odd to build such a massive car park given instead of a small carpark an invest in public transport, such as a shuttle from stations or to pick up patients for the hospital.

Bushfire Protection Assessment
Given that the Heritage Impact Statement says “The existing Critically Endangered Blue Gum High Forest (BGHF) which dominates the southern slopes of the site will be retained and enhanced where possible under the guidance of bushfire engineering to manage this existing natural asset of the place in the context of the masterplan for the site.” It is important to establish what trees will be lost for the different proposed options.
The Bushfire Protection Assessment contains some assumptions such as “given the likely support by the RFS on the soon to be finalised APZ footprint” and the assumptions about the designs which are not yet finalised, the sentence in the concluding paragraph “It is therefore not considered necessary to undertake a comprehensive Design Brief process prior to reaching agreement among stakeholders on the proposed tree retention…” appears to leave considerable room for decisions to be made which could greatly change how many critically endangered blue gums will be cut down.
Fire is a major risk for hospitals as they are not able to evacuate, climates are becoming more unstable, and fires more common – it appears worthwhile to me that the impact to the forest of the different options be considered now, rather than once decisions have been made that lead to increased losses.

Visual Impact Assessment
The visual impact assessment has not considered the viewpoint for those walking up Rydedale Rd the hospital from Denistone Station (or those driving up the road or living upon it) In the examples given, but this will be one of the most common and most dramatic changes.
The view will turn from a Blue Gum Forest to a multi-story car park. A double blow to those using trains and walking to the hospital that money was spent putting in a massive car park instead of improving public transport services.
Given how much the car park, likely to be run for profit by a private company, is responsible for the negative views and removal of, what was supposed to be, conserved trees - it would seem that a shuttle bus service for local stations would be a solution that could lower the demand for this multistorey car park in low-density residential Denistone.
Name Withheld
Object
DENISTONE , New South Wales
Message
Ryde Hospital Redevelopment Team,

I object to the planned Multistorey Car Park Access point at the northern most point of site. There appears to be insufficient stopping sight distance (SSD) to mitigate collision hazards from Multistorey Car Park vehicles turning left out onto Ryedale Road. I request that the access to the Multistorey Car Park to be via Denistone Road rather than Ryedale Road.

In accordance with Austroad Guidelines Part 3 Geometric Design Ed. 3.4, sight distance is calculated based on Equation 1 under Clause 5.3.

Based on the change in elevation recorded on Google Maps, Ryedale Road between the existing hospital parking lot entry to the southern intersection of Fifth Avenue with Ryedale Road produces a longitudinal grade of approximately 24.4% (39m of elevation over approx. 161m of length).

Adopting a 1.5s reaction time, 0.36 deceleration coefficient and 30kph operating speed, the stopping sight distance required at the crest is 31 metres. If the speed is increased to the signposted 50kph, the required stopping sight distance is increased to 85 metres.

When the geometry of Ryedale Road geometry is projected along the vertical alignment of the road (see attached), it is seen to be highly geometrically constrained and 0 metres of sight distance is available. No sight distance is achieved because the driver cannot observe an object at 0m or 0.2m from the road surface from their position at the crest (see attachment).

This follows, that it is not possible for drivers departing the Multistorey Car Park to perceive vehicles or persons at mid-slope on Ryedale Road between the two intersections of Fifth Avenue. This means that the design of Multistorey Car Park exit on Ryedale Road exposes and significantly increases the likelihood of collision hazard to Car Park users, road users and residents of Ryedale Road due to the substantial increase of vehicles traversing a road with severely limited sight distance.

Although the project team has raised that Ryedale Road functions as a collector road, the existing classification of a road does not make existing conditions safe or suitable for proposed changes nominated by the project.

It is requested that an independent body with relevant competencies in road alignment design and road safety is engaged to review the hospital development’s multi storey car park options. This would provide an objective assessment on safety recommendations and provide advice on the safest car park option for the benefit of the community.

As the project is funded by public money, project design solutions should be safe for community use and should not result in the exposure of users to undue risk due given the alternative options available to mitigate safety risk.

The objectives of the project should be a lower priority in comparison to considerations of public safety when acknowledging the Project Team’s obligations under WHS legislation that Safety "So Far As Is Reasonably Practicable" is achieved. The project has not presented factual information demonstrating that “reasonably practicable” elimination of risk exposure to members of the public was achieved in the nominated solution.

Further, I recommend the project team to consider the following:
- Austroads Part 3 clause 8.5.1: On vertical grades, casualty crashes increase as the road grade increases, particularly on downhill grades, with a significant increase in the number of crashes and the severity of the crashes when the grade is greater than 6% (Austroads 2014b) Note that Ryedale Road has a grades of approx. 24%
- Austroads Part 3 Table 8.2: Effect of grade on vehicle type states that grades of 15% to 33% results in a non-negotiable downhill slope for heavy vehicles (noting that this is a risk for construction vehicle use) and the road type suitability is “Only to be used in extreme cases and be of short lengths (no commercial vehicles)” I do not believe that the hospital redevelopment can be considered as an extreme case which warrants this when there are safer alternatives available.
- Austroads Part 3 Table 8.3 nominates a maximum 10% grade for mountainous terrain in a 60kph operating speed. Note that Ryedale Road has a grades of approx. 24%
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
,
Message
Hi, I am writing this on behalf of my elderly grandmother, who has been residing at Denistone for over 35 years.
We are very concerned with the proposed redevelopment plan for Ryde Hospital as it appears that there has been an inadequate amount research in understanding the location and its surroundings was conducted prior to creating the proposed plans. It suggests there was no considerations on what the redevelopment would have on the local environment and community and how it will impact on their daily lives.
Our concerns lie in three key areas as outlined below:
1. Multi-deck carpark location
The proposed multi-deck location and size will significantly increase the light being flooded into the two bedrooms at our property. The current single level carpark lights are already quite strong and intrusive, even with the blinds shut. A larger carpark would mean more carpark lights and car headlights causing further unnecessary disturbance. In addition to this, the suggested location is very close to the nature reserve which will also cause disruption to the wildlife in the area (owls, brush turkeys, magpies etc). Our recommendation is to create an underground carpark underneath the hospital (similar to what has been done with the Graythwaite Rehabilitation Centre.
2. Location of Carpark entrance/exit
Ryedale Road is a very steep road. The suggested location for the carpark entrance/exit is not only impractical, but extremely dangerous as it sits on a top of the hill. In the 35 years my grandmother has lived in Denistone, several accidents have occurred due to the blind spot at the intersection with Fifth Avenue. With the additional traffic in the area and the implementation of an additional juncture, this would only increase unnecessary incidents adding to the already strenuous workload for the hospital. Our recommendation is to create an underground carpark underneath the hospital utilising the existing entrance/exit on Denistone Road.
3. Height of proposed building
The hospital is located in a residential area, surrounded by one or two storey houses. At the proposed height of eight storeys, the new hospital building will tower over the neighbouring houses, not only invading their privacy but also overshadowing their properties which will significantly devalue the price of their properties. Additionally, the significant reduction in their natural sunlight will also mean residents will have to increase their use dryers and heaters which will in turn increase their electricity and gas bills.
To summarise, we do not agree with the proposed design of the hospital as it will considerably impact the daily life of my grandmother and surrounding residents. We feel the planning of this redevelopment has not explored all options and not considered what is best for everyone involved. There are alternative solutions to alleviate the concerns above whilst still meeting the hospital’s needs.
Name Withheld
Comment
,
Message
Subject Line: Notification of exhibition – Ryde Hospital Redevelopment Concept and Stage 1 (SSD-36778089)

Hi, I am writing on behalf of my aunt, who has resided with my elderly grandmother, for over 35 years.

We are very concerned with the proposed redevelopment plan for Ryde Hospital as it appears that an inadequate amount research in understanding the location and its surroundings was conducted prior to creating the proposed plans. It suggests there was no considerations on what the redevelopment would have on the local environment and community and how it will impact on their daily lives.

Our concerns lie in three key areas as outlined below:

1. Multi-deck carpark location

The proposed multi-deck location and size will significantly increase the light being flooded into the two bedrooms at our property. The current single level carpark lights are already quite strong and intrusive, even with the blinds shut. A larger carpark would mean more carpark lights and car headlights causing further unnecessary disturbance. In addition to this, the suggested location is very close to the nature reserve which will also cause disruption to the wildlife in the area (owls, brush turkeys, magpies etc). Our recommendation is to create an underground carpark underneath the hospital (similar to what has been done with the Graythwaite Rehabilitation Centre).

2. Location of Carpark entrance/exit

Ryedale Road is a very steep road. The suggested location for the carpark entrance/exit is not only impractical, but extremely dangerous as it sits on a top of the hill. In the 35 years my aunt and grandmother have lived in Denistone, several accidents have occurred due to the blind spot at the intersection with Fifth Avenue. With the additional traffic in the area and the implementation of an additional juncture, this would only increase unnecessary accidents adding to the already strenuous workload for the hospital. Our recommendation is to create an underground carpark underneath the hospital utilising the existing entrance/exit on Denistone Road. There is also a possible fire risk to hospital staff and patients, with the close proximity to reserve which has caught on fire a number of times.

3. Height of proposed building

The hospital is located in a residential area, surrounded by one or two storey houses. At the proposed height of eight storeys, the new hospital building will tower over the neighbouring houses, not only invading their privacy but also overshadowing their properties which will significantly devalue the price of their properties. Additionally, the significant reduction in their natural sunlight will also mean residents will have to increase their use dryers and heaters which will in turn increase their electricity and gas bills.

To summarise, we do not agree with the proposed design of the hospital as it will considerably impact the daily life of my grandmother and surrounding residents.

The planning of this redevelopment has not explored all options and not considered what is best for everyone involved. We ask that alternative solutions are properly explored to alleviate the concerns above whilst still meeting the hospital's needs.

Thanks,
Name Withheld
Object
,
Message
I’m a resident of Denistone living close to the hospital and closely impacted by the proposed redevelopment along with many other neighbours. I’m glad to see the hospital staying and redeveloped, it means a lot to the community. However, I must object the proposal given concerns over the proposed plan that is badly reviewed and totally lacking of consideration of our neighbourhood living along Ryedale Road who will be severely impacted.

On the high level, many documents on exhibition look internally inconsistent and outdated, for e.g. here are what I found:
• The Geotechnical Investigation is dated 2019 and was done for a totally different design of the Hospital layout (page 96 and 97) than what is proposed in SSDA design report.
• The BCA assessment states that “The drawings assessed are those prepared dated 3rd March and 7th April “, which refer to REV 3 and 4 of the SSDA design, while the one on exhibition is REV 8 dated 16th Aug, so there are many changes that had not been covered in the BCA assessment, including amendments to the car park which is of great concern to our neighbourhood.

The proposed plan needs to be better reviewed to ensure all the assessments are up to date to reflect the latest design, before Stage 1 can proceed further.

The masterplan is proposing a multi-story car park to be located off Ryedale Road, it is proposed to be the main entry and exit for all 350 parking spots and all maintenance trucks. I (and all our neighbours) believe that:

1. It’s a horrible idea relocating the car park to Ryedale Road, as it will cause dangerous traffics due to the really steep hill and blind spots right next to the proposed carpark entry. My wife is pregnant and many neighbours are elders, they shouldn’t be expose to higher traffic risks.
Hence, we think the carpark should be located elsewhere, or at least the access to the carpark should not be from Ryedale Road. Why the project team think there aren’t any other options than to access carpark from this geographically challenged place?
We also require a lot more detail on how it propose to guarantee the safety of the nearby residents from the foreseeable traffic risks before Stage 1 can proceed further.

2. The current plan fails to consider the detailed impact of the car park on the lifestyle of our neighbourhood in the long term.

• The Visual Impact Assessment suggest incorporation of substantial setbacks to surrounding streets. However, the Design report shows that the proposed carpark to Ryedale Road only has a very small setback of 8.8m, that’s less than the setback of most single level residential houses built on the Ryedale road and the proposed carpark is a 25 meters tall building. The setback of the proposed carpark to Ryedale road needs to be at least 20m to be considered reasonable for the scale of this building. We demand the setback of the propose car park to be moved back to at least 20m before Stage 1 can progress further.

• The design report shows our neighbourhood (Residential houses along Ryedale Road and Fifth Avenue) completely overshadowed by the new building at 21June 9am which is worrying. The report shows no additional information on how many days a year and how many hours a day we will be affected by these, we are disappointed by the lack of transparency hiding this vital information. We demand to see detailed Shadow diagram for every month of the year and at a half an hour interval of the day starting from sunrise to have a better understanding of how this will affect us, before Stage 1 can progress further.

• The Visual Impact Assessment (page 51, Figure 16) shows that there will be significant impact on our neighbourhood. Yet we see no information at all on how this carpark is going to look like. The proposed plan simply says “recommended that consideration be given to more detailed matters such as modulation and articulation of externally visible building elevations and landscaping as part of the subsequent detailed DA process to further mitigate visual impact…” but given how significant this is going to be for our neibourhood we require to see a clearer design and plans to mitigate the visual impact to us, at this stage we must object the proposal and demand detailed car park information before Stage 1 can progress further.

• The visual impact assessment excludes consideration of night-time impact yet it is expected that the carpark will generate constant light pollution 24/7 which will affect the entire community located near Ryedale Road. We require to see assessment and mitigation plans on this before Stage 1 can progress further.

• The new car park will be a paid parking, we can foresee that it will discourage hospital staff to actually use it and forcing them to park on our streets 24/7, and our street already gets busy during the day due to visitors to nearby PRP and specialist centre. I fear that my child will not be able to safely play in front of the house like any other kids on our street do today. We require to see plans on how to ensure no non-residential parking on Fifth Avenue before Stage 1 can progress further.

3. The project plan lacks details on how to reduce impact to the life of our neighbourhood during construction period and we were not actively engaged.

• Given that this whole area is classified as zones with landslide risks, we need more detailed information and assessment on how the project team can guarantee the proposed construction won’t cause risks to our houses near the construction site?

• I am expecting a newborn baby and our neighbours who live close to the proposed construction site entry are mostly elderlies who are also suspectable to noise. The current plan only gives high level mitigation measures and quote “A comprehensive Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan will be prepared prior to the commencement of construction works”, “Prior to the commencement of construction works all stakeholders (including surrounding residents) will be made aware of the timing and likely impact of the construction period. Opportunities for feedback and to ask questions will also be provided.” Etc.

Given how significant this is going to be for our neighbourhood for many years to come, we demand clearer and detailed plans how to mitigate these potential impact to our lives before Stage 1 can progress further, at this stage we must object the proposal.

The current proposal lacks the important details on all the above and mostly says “Further investigation will be undertaken”, “More details designs will be considered” etc. We cannot accept these, all these ‘details’ are vital to the safety and living conditions of our neighbourhood. Many of us living along Ryedale Road and Fifth Avenue are being very disappointed at the proposed plan, the project team has not considered our interests and failed to engaged our neighbourhood since inception, yet we are the ones who will be worst off amongst all households living around the hospital.

Hence, we must object the proposal and request a pause to the Ryde Hospital Redevelopment plan until these vital concerns of our neighbourhood become clearer and satisfactory to us.
Attachments
David Dunkerley
Support
EASTWOOD , New South Wales
Message
Section 2 -Stormwater Drainage and Section 3 - Flooding - I sat as a committee member on all Ryde Ccls flood studies.
We live below Fourth Ave ( see address) with Council Stormwater pipe in our yard. We are subject to overland flow regularly, washing away plants and landscaping. In events approaching 20 year ARI , we have lost fences as well. It would assist the community if flows from the site, were detained to reduce discharge to 1 in 5 ARI flow events.
Mario Constantinou
Object
,
Message
I object to the proposal based on the below concerns.

In regards to the proposed multi-storey car park I have the following safety and environmental concerns listed below. They largely pertain to the proposed entry via Ryedale Road.

A) The entry being at the apex of the road presents a major safety issue. This is already evidenced by the low visibility and traffic and driver behaviour. Left entry and exit does not alleviate the risk, which I see as high. It is not possible to see upcoming traffic if exiting Fifth Ave, particularly if there are cars parked on Ryedale Road. Already cars are performing u-turns at the intersection of Fifth Ave and Ryedale Rd (due to the left only exit out of the current staff parking area). I have also witnessed cars turning right out of said carpark to circumvent the 'left only' turn , and yes, this means that drivers are for a short time driving on the wrong side of the road.
B) The road is not suitable for increased traffic. The road is currently unable to cater for heavy vehicle traffic. Many vehicles simply do not make it up the hill! The road was recently repaired as it is not well maintained. Having vehicles stop and stall mid-way up the road presents further safety issues if there was more traffic.
C) the current entry into the hospital via Denistone Road is currently acceptable. The congestion on the streets in the area are already accustomed to it. To move the entry into Ryedale Road will increase congestion in the adjacent streets which are not prepared for such a change.
D) Pay car parks will probably imply time limited parking for the local streets adjacent which are now free. It would be expected that staff and visitors would circumvent the 'pay carpark' if 'free parking is available outside! Placing more parking signs in our currently esthetic neighbourhood would be unwelcomed.
E) a multi-story car park being placed on the top end of the Ryedale Road goes against current building construct restrictions in a GeoTechnic landscape. Currently no more than two levels above ground is permitted! This construct will set a dangerous precedent.
F) Vehicles climbing up Ryedale Road will increase noise and pollution levels for the local community.
G) The car park will presumably increase the night lights in the vicinity and hence present a problem to the nearest neighbours, particularly if it is 24/7.
H) Many of the concerns above have a negative environmental impact, least being the increased carbon footprint.
I ) Many Medical Centre and PRP Diagnostic Patients cross Ryedale Road (many of which are elderly and physically impaired individuals). Increased traffic flow in this area will increase the danger enormously.

I hope you can take these concerns and hopefully make the necessary changes to better the safety and environmental impact.
Name Withheld
Comment
DENISTONE , New South Wales
Message
Hi - while I support the proposed upgrade to the Ryde Hospital, I am very concerned about the positioning of the proposed new car park and the probable issues that will result from car park ingress/egress onto Ryedale Road. I note that the current traffic plan has proposed "left hand entry/left hand exit only" into the new car park. This restriction is already in place for the existing staff car park but is often ignored. I request that the "entry and exit" traffic plan for the new car park be urgently reviewed.
My main concern is that the entry /exit from the new (and existing) car park is at the top of a very very steep hill on Ryedale Rd. There are signs directing exiting traffic "left turn only". Unfortunately on a daily basis I witness cars:
a. exiting the car park RIGHT - ignoring the left turn only sign and exiting onto the wrong side of the Rydedale Rd traffic barrier and into the face of oncoming traffic (and only returning to the correct side of Ryedale Rd once they reach the end of the existing concrete safety barrier) , or
b. Exiting left as required, but then immediately making a U turn at the end of the existing barrier . The barrier ends on the crest of the steep hill on Ryedale Rd and at the entrance to Fifth Avenue . The U turn manouevre places those cars directly into the path of cars travelling north up the steep hill - drivers are completely blind to the U turn being conducted at the top of the hill. Quite dangerous and there are often fender benders or close calls, as cars coming up the hill seem to need to accelerate to reach the crest of the hill so are unable to stop easily , Or
c. Exiting left (as required) but then turning into the adjacent Fifth Ave, perhaps stopping to check for oncoming traffic but then reversing back into Ryedale Rd and then proceeding north on Ryedale Rd. Maybe a little less dangerous than a U turn but heart stopping for those travelling up the hill (usually at speed !)

I believe that these problems will be significantly worse with the new cark. The new car park will create more than double the current traffic in and out of it. Not only is the new car park double the capacity of the existing staff car park, there will be more short term users given the existing hospital car parks that are now entered from Denistone Road will no longer exist.

I note that the new traffic plan calls for an extension of the existing barrier in the middle of Ryedale Rd. This is supported to discourage the current illegal right turns, but perhaps that barrier should be extended as far as Fourth Ave to discourage those who want to ignore the "left turn only " sign. However the extended barrier does not solve all the issues as I do not believe the plan is for the barrier to be extended to prevent access to Fifth Avenue. This means traffic will still be permitted to exit the car park and quickly turn right into Fifth Ave - meaning the U turn/reverse manoeuvre on the crest of the hill will remain an option.

A roundabout at the entrance would get rid of some of the current issues, however I consider that solution would not be practicable given the roundabout would need to be positioned at the top of a very steep hill and thus create new and dangerous traffic issues .
My suggestion is that the existing road barrier be extended further south and past the Ryedale Rd/Fifth Avenue junction. This would prevent any traffic access to Fifth Ave from Ryedale Rd - effectively making "no right turn" into Fifth Ave.
This would also make Fifth Avenue a "left turn only" for those exiting the street - which would be an improvement as it is quite dangerous for those currently turning right (to travel south) on Ryedale Rd (it is at the crest of that very steep hill).

A new left hand only turn from Fifth Ave would mean that those residents exiting Fifth Ave who wanted to travel south on Ryedale Rd would first need to turn north (ie left) then proceed to the Fourth Ave roundabout and legally turn back along Ryedale Rd to continue their journey. About 1 minute of additional travel time but much safer.
I acknowledge that a new "no right hand turn" into Fifth Avenue may be an inconvenience for some residents as without the right hand turn into Fifth Ave, they would need to travel further along Ryedale Rd, until the Sixth Avenue intersection, then travelling along Sixth Avenue to access Fifth Avenue . As a long term resident of Fifth Avenue, I believe this is a much safer plan and I would have no objection to only exiting Fifth Ave "left turn only" and accessing the street from Sixth Avenue only.

I look forward to receiving feedback on my submission or providing further amplification if required,
Name Withheld
Support
MACQUARIE PARK , New South Wales
Message
Good for community

Pagination

Project Details

Application Number
SSD-36778089
Assessment Type
State Significant Development
Development Type
Hospitals, medical centres and health research facilities
Local Government Areas
City of Ryde

Contact Planner

Name
Megan Fu