A two-month exhibition of the plans, which ended this week, attracted three comments from residents and three submissions from government agencies.

Wollongong man Peter Nyers and an unnamed Unanderra resident both wrote in support of the development, while Wollongong Neighbourhood Forum 5 voiced concern over the lack of parking arrangements.

The Heritage Council of NSW, the Office of Environment, Climate Change and Water, and Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) rounded out the list of submissions.

Planning documents show additional staff and patient numbers after the expansion will generate the need for almost double the number of parking spaces now available on site.

However, there are no short or medium-term plans to include more on-site parking.

Instead, patients, visitors and staff will have to park on nearby residential streets, which consultants claim have ‘‘high’’ spare capacity.

In its submission to NSW Planning, Wollongong Neighbourhood Forum 5 claimed the parking provisions were ‘‘untenable’’, without putting further pressure on the surrounding road network.

The group called for an additional 300 off-street parking places to be included in the proposal immediately.

RMS agreed the lack of on-site parking would present a problem, pointing to the ‘‘existing heavy utilisation’’ of on-street parking and the long, uphill walk to the hospital once parking had been found.

The agency also lodged concerns over pedestrian safety around the hospital.

‘‘RMS does not consider the pedestrian network in and around the hospital to adequately cater for pedestrians or encourage safe pedestrian behaviour,’’ it said.

Meantime, a submission from the Heritage Council of NSW failed to take a strong stance on the future of part of the state heritage-listed Elouera House.

NSW Health proposes to demolish a 1941 extension jutting from the western side of the dilapidated 1937 art deco building to make way for a new six-storey, 120-bed hospital wing.

The Heritage Council said while the retention of the old wing was ‘‘desirable in view of its heritage significance’’, the arguments for removal - its poor state and the fact it was not part of the original house - were noted.

NSW Health will now review the submissions and prepare its response.