Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Kogarah
,
New South Wales
Message
Hi, please see my objection letter attached.
Attachments
Safir Hossain
Support
Safir Hossain
Support
MINTO
,
New South Wales
Message
I believe that this will help the community a lot! An expansion for surgical care is needed!
Daniel Mendes
Support
Daniel Mendes
Support
Chatswood
,
New South Wales
Message
I support the project
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Kogarah
,
New South Wales
Message
To: Alexander Scott
Director
Freight Assessments
Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
9/3/2026
Re: SSD-86969958 - Objection to the proposed expansion of St George Private Hospital
We object to the proposed St George Private Hospital expansion on the grounds that it fails to demonstrate genuine demand, strategic merit or public interest, particularly considering the recently completed St George Public Hospital Stage 3 Redevelopment.
In addition, the proposal does not meet the relevant Georges River Local Environmental Plan (LEP) objectives and design requirements. Impact assessments conducted for the proposal is fundamentally biased/flawed, making deliberate and selective choice to downplay the impacts. The proposal will result in adverse impact on my property including permanent loss of valued water views and impacts the property value.
Given that the proposal can not demonstrate genuine demand, meet strategic merit or provide public interest, not meeting LEP requirements, biased and incomplete impact assessment, and having significant impact on my property. This development application should not be approved at the proposed scale.
See below detailed reasons to support the refusal of this development application at the proposed scale.
Expansion does not demonstrate genuine demand and represents capacity duplication
The proposed private hospital expansion fails to demonstrate evidence-based demand for additional emergency, acute patient and inpatient services in the proposed scale.
The St George Public Hospital has recently completed its Stage 3 redevelopment to meet the current and future health needs of the community. This redevelopment, along with Stage 1 and Stage 2, delivers renewed and expanded emergency department, acute services, multi-level inpatient beds, pathology services, outpatient services etc.
The private hospital proposal did not adequately justify why additional capacity is required in the same catchment with a highly duplicative medical services proposed. With the completion of St George Public Hospital Stage 3 redevelopment, patient demand is likely to be better serviced rather than increased.
The development proposal is therefore not filling a gap in the healthcare provision or meeting public interest, it duplicates existing public healthcare capacity without demonstrating genuine and unmet demand in the same catchment.
Expansion does not meet strategic merit
The proposed expansion fails to demonstrate strategic merit in the context of the broader health system planning and workforce constraints. It also failed to address the strategic considerations recently released in the draft Sydney Plan.
The draft Sydney Plan identifies that hospital workforce account for only 4% of the total Sydney jobs, which represents a long-term labour shortage across doctors, nurses, surgeons and paramedics. Expanding the private hospital in immediate proximity to a major public hospital, particularly one that has recently received substantial NSW Government investment risks intensifying competition of medical staff and potential undermining the outcome of the NSW Government’s investment in the St George Public Hospital redevelopment.
The proposed development, once built, will see an increase of 234 full-time equivalent staff, this is a direct resource competition with the St George Public Hospital with such high duplicative medical services proposed.
View loss and residential amenity concerns
The private hospital expansion fails to adequately address visual, and amenity impacts on surrounding residential properties.
Previous multi-storey medical tower developed by the St George Private Hospital, along South Street, have already caused adverse visual impacts, including partial loss of water views and reduced residents’ amenity, particularly those residing in buildings facing Montgomery Street and overlooking Brighton-Le-Sands water view. This earlier multi-storey development proceeded without community consultation whatsoever, resulting in permanent partial view loss when viewed from the living rooms, bedrooms, and balconies of my property.
The expansion proposal will compound these impacts by introducing an unjustifiable development height and footprint that would fully obstruct valued water views from my property in 59 Montgomery Street. The development will result in permanent and complete loss of water views, diminishing enjoyment of private living spaces, and negatively impact on property value.
The proposed development has not demonstrated sensitivity to surrounding residential context and failed to recognise and address the loss of residents’ amenity.
Relevant Land and Environment Court planning principles (Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council [2004] NSWLEC 140), highlight that water views are generally afforded higher value than land views, and that the loss of whole or substantial views carries greater weight than partial obstruction. Given the previous hospital development has already reduced views and residential amenity, the cumulative impact of this development proposal is significant. Once constructed, the loss of remaining water views will be permanent, which is serious and unacceptable impact on quality of life and property value.
We do not support the proposed development in the current scale and height.
Do not meet LEP principal development standards and design excellence requirements
The proposed development breaches clause 4.3 Height of buildings and clause 6.10 Design excellence under the Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2021.
Clause 4.3 Height of buildings
While the site zoned SP2 Infrastructure do not attract a maximum height provision, the objectives of clause 4.3 specified that the development to minimise the impact of overshadowing, visual impact, disruption of views and loss of privacy on adjoining properties and open space areas, as well as to ensure an appropriate height transition between new buildings and adjoining land uses.
The proposed development will have adverse visual impact, disruption of views on adjoining properties, and do not provide an appropriate height transition. The proposed development will be significantly higher and bulkier than the existing medical tower on South St.
Clause 6.10 Design excellence
The proposed development does not meet the relevant clause 6.10 design excellence requirements, for land in MU1 Mixed Use zone if the building concerned is 3 or more storeys or has a height of 12 metres or greater above ground level.
Clause 6.10(4) specify that development consent must not be granted for development to which this clause applies unless the consent authority considers that the development exhibits design excellence. The proposed development should not be approved due to it breaches the following design excellence requirements:
Clause 6.10(5)(c) whether the development detrimentally impacts on view corridors: the proposed development will detrimentally impact on view and will result in permanent loss of valued water views.
Clause 6.10(5)(d)(iv) the relationship of the development with other development on the same site or on neighbouring sites in terms of separation, setbacks, amenity and urban form: the proposed development will have adverse impact on neighbouring residential properties by result in permanent loss of water views, reducing residents’ amenity.
Clause 6.10(5)(v) bulk, massing and modulation of building: the proposed bulk and scale of the development can not be justified by evidence-based demand analysis, particularly when the St George Public Hospital Redevelopment had been recently completed which provide the same medical services at a greater capacity.
Clause 6.10(5)(vii) environmental impacts such as sustainable design, overshadowing and solar access, visual and acoustic privacy, noise, wind and reflectivity: the visual impact assessment is biased to downplay potential impacts (explained below).
Clause 6.10(5)(viii) pedestrian, cycle, vehicular and service access and circulation requirements, including the permeability of pedestrian networks: when the hospital is fully operational, all vehicular entry and exit is proposed via the very narrow Bank Lane. The Bank Lane is a narrow local road and is not designed to accommodate the anticipated traffic, particularly during peak hours.
Clause 6.10(5)(xii) the provision of communal spaces and meeting places: the proposed design is exclusive in nature, do not provide a welcoming feature that integrates with local amenities and character, no outdoor communal spaces or meeting places provided. The hospital entry is proposed to be on the corner of Bank Lane and Hogben St, which is disconnected and not integrating with the current St George Private Hospital entry.
Given the development do not meet the LEP height objectives and design excellence requirements, this development application should not be approved at the proposed scale and height.
Biased assessment that downplays visual impact
The visual impact assessment in the EIS is fundamentally biased due to the selective choice of viewpoints and photomontages modelled. Locations and angles were deliberately chosen to minimise the apparent impact of the development where angles are chosen from the ground floor only, creating the impression of low visual risk.
Critically, no assessments were conducted from the residential building of 59 Montgomery Street, who currently enjoy the Brighton-Le-Sands water views. This ignores the complete and permanent loss of water views and impacts on residents at different levels. This selective approach undermines the validity of the assessment and can not be relied upon as an accurate assessment of the development’s visual impact.
We request a visual impact assessment be redone to consider impacts to each level of units in 59 Montgomery Street that currently have a water view. This will provide a more comprehensive understanding on the visual impact of the proposed development and discuss
Director
Freight Assessments
Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
9/3/2026
Re: SSD-86969958 - Objection to the proposed expansion of St George Private Hospital
We object to the proposed St George Private Hospital expansion on the grounds that it fails to demonstrate genuine demand, strategic merit or public interest, particularly considering the recently completed St George Public Hospital Stage 3 Redevelopment.
In addition, the proposal does not meet the relevant Georges River Local Environmental Plan (LEP) objectives and design requirements. Impact assessments conducted for the proposal is fundamentally biased/flawed, making deliberate and selective choice to downplay the impacts. The proposal will result in adverse impact on my property including permanent loss of valued water views and impacts the property value.
Given that the proposal can not demonstrate genuine demand, meet strategic merit or provide public interest, not meeting LEP requirements, biased and incomplete impact assessment, and having significant impact on my property. This development application should not be approved at the proposed scale.
See below detailed reasons to support the refusal of this development application at the proposed scale.
Expansion does not demonstrate genuine demand and represents capacity duplication
The proposed private hospital expansion fails to demonstrate evidence-based demand for additional emergency, acute patient and inpatient services in the proposed scale.
The St George Public Hospital has recently completed its Stage 3 redevelopment to meet the current and future health needs of the community. This redevelopment, along with Stage 1 and Stage 2, delivers renewed and expanded emergency department, acute services, multi-level inpatient beds, pathology services, outpatient services etc.
The private hospital proposal did not adequately justify why additional capacity is required in the same catchment with a highly duplicative medical services proposed. With the completion of St George Public Hospital Stage 3 redevelopment, patient demand is likely to be better serviced rather than increased.
The development proposal is therefore not filling a gap in the healthcare provision or meeting public interest, it duplicates existing public healthcare capacity without demonstrating genuine and unmet demand in the same catchment.
Expansion does not meet strategic merit
The proposed expansion fails to demonstrate strategic merit in the context of the broader health system planning and workforce constraints. It also failed to address the strategic considerations recently released in the draft Sydney Plan.
The draft Sydney Plan identifies that hospital workforce account for only 4% of the total Sydney jobs, which represents a long-term labour shortage across doctors, nurses, surgeons and paramedics. Expanding the private hospital in immediate proximity to a major public hospital, particularly one that has recently received substantial NSW Government investment risks intensifying competition of medical staff and potential undermining the outcome of the NSW Government’s investment in the St George Public Hospital redevelopment.
The proposed development, once built, will see an increase of 234 full-time equivalent staff, this is a direct resource competition with the St George Public Hospital with such high duplicative medical services proposed.
View loss and residential amenity concerns
The private hospital expansion fails to adequately address visual, and amenity impacts on surrounding residential properties.
Previous multi-storey medical tower developed by the St George Private Hospital, along South Street, have already caused adverse visual impacts, including partial loss of water views and reduced residents’ amenity, particularly those residing in buildings facing Montgomery Street and overlooking Brighton-Le-Sands water view. This earlier multi-storey development proceeded without community consultation whatsoever, resulting in permanent partial view loss when viewed from the living rooms, bedrooms, and balconies of my property.
The expansion proposal will compound these impacts by introducing an unjustifiable development height and footprint that would fully obstruct valued water views from my property in 59 Montgomery Street. The development will result in permanent and complete loss of water views, diminishing enjoyment of private living spaces, and negatively impact on property value.
The proposed development has not demonstrated sensitivity to surrounding residential context and failed to recognise and address the loss of residents’ amenity.
Relevant Land and Environment Court planning principles (Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council [2004] NSWLEC 140), highlight that water views are generally afforded higher value than land views, and that the loss of whole or substantial views carries greater weight than partial obstruction. Given the previous hospital development has already reduced views and residential amenity, the cumulative impact of this development proposal is significant. Once constructed, the loss of remaining water views will be permanent, which is serious and unacceptable impact on quality of life and property value.
We do not support the proposed development in the current scale and height.
Do not meet LEP principal development standards and design excellence requirements
The proposed development breaches clause 4.3 Height of buildings and clause 6.10 Design excellence under the Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2021.
Clause 4.3 Height of buildings
While the site zoned SP2 Infrastructure do not attract a maximum height provision, the objectives of clause 4.3 specified that the development to minimise the impact of overshadowing, visual impact, disruption of views and loss of privacy on adjoining properties and open space areas, as well as to ensure an appropriate height transition between new buildings and adjoining land uses.
The proposed development will have adverse visual impact, disruption of views on adjoining properties, and do not provide an appropriate height transition. The proposed development will be significantly higher and bulkier than the existing medical tower on South St.
Clause 6.10 Design excellence
The proposed development does not meet the relevant clause 6.10 design excellence requirements, for land in MU1 Mixed Use zone if the building concerned is 3 or more storeys or has a height of 12 metres or greater above ground level.
Clause 6.10(4) specify that development consent must not be granted for development to which this clause applies unless the consent authority considers that the development exhibits design excellence. The proposed development should not be approved due to it breaches the following design excellence requirements:
Clause 6.10(5)(c) whether the development detrimentally impacts on view corridors: the proposed development will detrimentally impact on view and will result in permanent loss of valued water views.
Clause 6.10(5)(d)(iv) the relationship of the development with other development on the same site or on neighbouring sites in terms of separation, setbacks, amenity and urban form: the proposed development will have adverse impact on neighbouring residential properties by result in permanent loss of water views, reducing residents’ amenity.
Clause 6.10(5)(v) bulk, massing and modulation of building: the proposed bulk and scale of the development can not be justified by evidence-based demand analysis, particularly when the St George Public Hospital Redevelopment had been recently completed which provide the same medical services at a greater capacity.
Clause 6.10(5)(vii) environmental impacts such as sustainable design, overshadowing and solar access, visual and acoustic privacy, noise, wind and reflectivity: the visual impact assessment is biased to downplay potential impacts (explained below).
Clause 6.10(5)(viii) pedestrian, cycle, vehicular and service access and circulation requirements, including the permeability of pedestrian networks: when the hospital is fully operational, all vehicular entry and exit is proposed via the very narrow Bank Lane. The Bank Lane is a narrow local road and is not designed to accommodate the anticipated traffic, particularly during peak hours.
Clause 6.10(5)(xii) the provision of communal spaces and meeting places: the proposed design is exclusive in nature, do not provide a welcoming feature that integrates with local amenities and character, no outdoor communal spaces or meeting places provided. The hospital entry is proposed to be on the corner of Bank Lane and Hogben St, which is disconnected and not integrating with the current St George Private Hospital entry.
Given the development do not meet the LEP height objectives and design excellence requirements, this development application should not be approved at the proposed scale and height.
Biased assessment that downplays visual impact
The visual impact assessment in the EIS is fundamentally biased due to the selective choice of viewpoints and photomontages modelled. Locations and angles were deliberately chosen to minimise the apparent impact of the development where angles are chosen from the ground floor only, creating the impression of low visual risk.
Critically, no assessments were conducted from the residential building of 59 Montgomery Street, who currently enjoy the Brighton-Le-Sands water views. This ignores the complete and permanent loss of water views and impacts on residents at different levels. This selective approach undermines the validity of the assessment and can not be relied upon as an accurate assessment of the development’s visual impact.
We request a visual impact assessment be redone to consider impacts to each level of units in 59 Montgomery Street that currently have a water view. This will provide a more comprehensive understanding on the visual impact of the proposed development and discuss