10 Dangar St Wickham Mixed-use development

1) 14 floors have been turned into 43 floor development but with inadequate parking spaces, there are three levels of parking with not enough spaces allocated to the hotel.
2) There is no improvement to passive surveillance as the ground floor is service handling with empty foyers.
3) The design is elitist, different amenity is afforded to different tenancy conditions in the building. The co-living cannot access the BBQ areas and additional services provided in the building. This is soul destroying.
4) The building at 43 floors is unacceptable for Newcastle and Australia.

As a resident in this neighbourhood there is already a significant issue with parking for both local residents, visitors and members of the community attempting to access local shops and businesses. This development will create additional parking issues with insufficient availability of parking. The height of the building is not in keeping with the other surrounding buildings and does not align with other houses and buildings. The mixed accommodation is a cause for concern in terms of the potential for increased crime as a result of increased numbers of residents sharing common living spaces.

Given the size of the development in terms of numbers housed I think it is important improvements are made for pedestrian access the Newcastle Harborside i.e. Honey Suckle over Hannell St.
Crossing Hannell St is currently poor (traffic lights over divided road) which is not user friendly for pedestrians and cyclists, and I seek consideration for the applicant to assist or to fully fund the appropriate authorities to build a pedestrian overbridge and make it a condition of approval of the development.

I feel there are to many people in this building as there is to little parking in the building. The building is to big for the environment. The shadow will be to big. The scale of the building will cause difficulties for people with disabilities especially in the event of a fire. The scale will be overwhelming for people with disability. It will be difficult for people with mobility restrictions to get from Charles st to station street through the 3m walkway between the building and the station as they have put steps there. There is not indication in the proposal to fix the broken footpaths in along Charles street and Danger Street. These streets are currently unsafe for people of low mobility.

I write to formally object to the proposed development at 10 Dangar Street Wickham.

Whilst I support sensible and well-planned development in Newcastle, I believe this proposal represents an excessive overdevelopment of the site and will create significant adverse impacts on surrounding residents, infrastructure, traffic conditions, public amenities, and the character of Wickham.
My objections are outlined below.

1. Excessive height, scale and bulk
The proposed building height and density appear inconsistent with the existing and emerging character of Wickham and surrounding residential areas. The overall scale of the development is excessive for the site and will dominate the streetscape, creating an imposing visual impact and reducing the human scale of the area.
The development risks setting an undesirable precent for future overdevelopment within Wickham.

2. Traffic congestion and parking impact.
The proposal will significantly increase vehicle movement within an already constrained traffic environment surrounding Dangar Street, Hannell Street, Station Street, and the Wickham Interchange precinct.
Existing congestion during peak periods is already problematic, and the development is likely to worsen:
• Local traffic delays
• Intersection congestion
• On-street parking shortages
• Pedestrian safety risks
Visitors parking provisions also appear inadequate and may result in overflow parking into surrounding residential streets.

3. Overshadowing loss of amenity
The height and bulk of the proposal are likely to cause unreasonable overshadowing of neighbouring properties and nearby public spaces, reducing access to sunlight and impact residential amenity.
There are also concerns regarding:
• Loss of privacy through overlooking
• Visual intrusion
• Reduced outlook for neighbouring residents
• Increased wind tunnel effects between buildings

4. Infrastructure and Service Capacity
There is insufficient evidence that existing local infrastructure can adequately support the increased population generated by development.
Concerns include pressure on:
• Local roads
• Drainage systems
• Public transport capacity
• Public open space
• Community services and facilities
The cumulative impacts of high-density development in Wickham must be properly assessed before approving additional large-scale projects.

5. Flooding and drainage concerns
Wickham has known flooding stormwater management issues. Increased site coverage and density may worsen stormwater runoff and place additional strain on existing drainage infrastructure.
A more detailed and transparent assessment of flooding risk, stormwater impacts, and climate resilience should be undertaken before any approval is considered.

6. Construction Impacts
The likely duration and scale of construction activity will create substantial disruption for nearby residents and businesses, including:
• Excessive noise
• Dust pollution
• Vibration
• Traffic disruption
• Construction vehicle impacts
• Reduced pedestrian accessibility
These impacts may continue for an extended period and significantly dimmish local amenity.

7. Neighbouring character and liveability
The proposal does not appear to appropriately respond to established character and liveability of Wickham. Large scale development must be balanced with the protection of residential amenity, public spaces, and community wellbeing.
Residents should not be expected to absorb unreasonable impacts simply to accommodate excessive density outcomes.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that the consent authority refuse the application or require substantial redesign and reduction in scale to properly address the significant impacts on the surrounding community.
I ask that these concerns be fully considered during assessment of the proposal.

Yours faithfully,
Robert Terrence Payne
U1202 1 Union Street,
Wickham. NSW. 2293

NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Major Projects Assessment
GPO Box 39, Sydney NSW 2001
Submitted via: NSW Planning Portal
Re: Formal Objection — SSD-89869959 — 10 Dangar Street, Wickham — Proposed 43-Storey Mixed-Use Development
Dear Assessment Officer,
I am an urban designer who has studied and worked in the Newcastle and Hunter urban context for many years. I reside at 2 Bourke Street, Wickham, and I write to object to SSD-89869959 on urban design and public domain grounds.
Built Form Is Incompatible with the Wickham Street Context
The proposed podium presents 0 metre setbacks to Dangar Street, Hannell Street, and Charles Street, with the tower also sitting at 0 metres to Hannell Street. Zero setback podium and tower interfaces on a corner site adjacent to the Newcastle Interchange creates an oppressive street wall condition, particularly in a precinct where pedestrian movement and public domain quality are central to the strategic vision for the Interchange gateway. From an urban design perspective, this massing strategy optimises floor area at the direct expense of street liveability. I ask the Department to require an independent urban design peer review of the podium and tower setbacks, street wall height, interface articulation and pedestrian activation before any determination.
Through-Site Link Quality Is Not Demonstrated
The through-site link and public domain works are presented as major community benefits that partially justify the scale of the uplift. However, Council's pre-DA advice raised concern about ground-floor landscaping being in constant shadow. If the through-site link and public domain areas are substantially shadowed, wind-exposed, and overlooked by a 43-storey tower on all sides, they will not function as high-quality public space. The claimed public benefit should be assessed against demonstrated usability, not paper area calculations. I ask for sun access diagrams, wind comfort data and independent urban design assessment of all proposed public domain areas before determination.
Circular Tower Form Creates Unresolved Interface Issues
The circular residential tower form creates curved balcony geometry that Council's pre-DA advice identified as functionally problematic. Curved balconies may be architecturally striking but they reduce the usable floor plate of outdoor space, complicate furniture arrangement, and create planning and structural difficulties at the perimeter. The visual impact of a circular tower above a rectangular podium at this height also creates a prominent skyline object that the visual impact assessment's "severe" and "moderate-to-severe" ratings confirm is not yet resolved. I ask the Department to require a revised design excellence assessment before any determination.
Conclusion and Request
I ask the Department to refuse the application or require an independent urban design peer review, demonstrated public domain quality including solar access and wind comfort, and a revised design excellence pathway before any determination is made.
Yours faithfully

As a resident of the Wickham area, I strongly object to the proposed 43 storey development as I believe it is significantly out of scale with the existing character of the neighbourhood and will create substantial negative impacts on the local streetscape, skyline and surrounding infrastructure.

I believe the proposed height and scale of the building is excessive and completely inconsistent with both the historical character of nearby heritage buildings and the scale of more recent developments within Wickham, which generally do not exceed 14 storeys. At more than double the height of any existing building in the area, I believe this proposal would dominate the skyline and permanently affect the visual character of the neighbourhood.

I also believe the overall design of the building is bulky, harsh and visually overpowering, particularly at street level. In my view, the proposed structure does not complement the surrounding environment and feels out of place amongst the existing architectural style and scale of nearby buildings.

While I am not at all opposed to progress and development within the area, I strongly support projects that are well considered and visually integrate with the existing character of the neighbourhood, rather than creating an eyesore or overpowering presence. I welcome development that contributes positively to the area and reflects thoughtful planning, however I believe this proposal is unnecessarily bold, drastic and excessive in both scale and appearance.

I have concerns about the capacity of the surrounding road infrastructure to cope with a development of this size. The streets within this part of Wickham are already narrow and challenging. I regularly witness and experience near misses and difficult traffic conditions particularly entering Bishopsgate Street on to Charles Street and the surrounding one way roads of Station & Union Streets. The current traffic flow from Charles Street through to Station Street, including the sweeping bend within this route, already creates challenges for larger vehicles navigating the area safely with high pedestrian activity accessing the public transport interchange.

I believe the increased number of residents, visitors, service vehicles and operational traffic associated with a development of this scale will significantly worsen congestion and create additional safety risks for road users and pedestrians. I am particularly concerned about the impact on public transport pick up and drop off areas which are already very minimal. Delivery access, waste removal services and large trucks required to service the proposed retail and hotel operations (plus residential), all within streets that are already limited in width and accessibility is most concerning

I also believe the increased population density generated by such a large development will create broader social and amenity impacts for the local community, both during the construction period and once the building is fully occupied.

Overall, I believe this proposal is excessive in its height, scale and bulk and is not appropriate for the Wickham area. In my opinion, it does not align with the established character of the neighbourhood, the surrounding built environment or the capacity of the local infrastructure to adequately support a development of this magnitude. If the development was more than halved in height and capacity, it would have my support

NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Major Projects Assessment
GPO Box 39, Sydney NSW 2001
Submitted via: NSW Planning Portal
Re: Formal Objection — SSD-89869959 — 10 Dangar Street, Wickham — Proposed 43-Storey Mixed-Use Development
Dear Assessment Officer,
I am the owner of a residential property at 15 Union Street, Wickham, and I am writing to object to SSD-89869959. I wish to be clear that my concern is not about housing supply in general—it is about whether this particular proposal has followed an appropriate planning process and whether its impacts are properly resolved.
Planning Certainty Is Undermined by This Application
I invested in Wickham on the basis of the adopted planning framework, which set height limits and floor space ratios that reflected years of strategic planning and community engagement. If a developer can obtain approval for a site-specific rezoning that doubles the incentive height and floor space, using the HDA pathway as a shortcut around a genuine strategic assessment, then no property owner or investor in Wickham can rely on the adopted planning framework as a basis for their decisions. This is a matter of fundamental planning equity and public trust in the planning system. I ask the Department to require a genuine strategic justification for the concurrent rezoning before any approval is contemplated.
Overshadowing of Neighbouring Properties
A building at RL150.9 metres will cast winter shadows that extend well beyond the immediate site boundary. Council's pre-DA advice raised specific concern about overshadowing of The Store and the Government building adjacent to the Interchange. Properties along Union Street and Hannell Street may also be affected. I ask the Department to require independently verified overshadowing diagrams for a wider area around the site, including all affected properties within a reasonable shadow radius, before any determination is made.
Hotel and Function Venue Noise
A 171-room hotel with restaurant, bar and function facilities on the ground and lower podium levels of a mixed-use building in a predominantly residential and mixed-use precinct raises legitimate concerns about operational noise from late-night functions, deliveries, loading, and patron activity. I ask for a Plan of Management for hotel, function and restaurant operations, including noise controls, hours of operation, loading windows and patron management, to be required and approved before determination.
Conclusion and Request
I ask the Department to refuse this application in its current form and to require a genuine strategic planning assessment, independent overshadowing peer review, and an operational management plan for hotel and function uses before any approval is contemplated.
Yours faithfully,

James Moses

Dear Assessment Officer,
I am a primary school teacher who lives in Mayfield and regularly uses the
Newcastle Interchange as a commuter. I am writing to object to SSD-89869959
because I am concerned about the impacts of the proposed development on the
Interchange environment, public safety, and the community values of the Wickham
area.
Public Transport Infrastructure Is Already Under Pressure
The Newcastle Interchange is one of the busiest transport hubs in the Hunter.
Hundreds of bus services and thousands of daily commuters use the Interchange,
including the school community I serve. Adding 245 apartments, 99 co-living rooms
and 171 hotel rooms immediately adjacent to the Interchange—with acknowledged
parking shortfalls—means that the increased demand on footpaths, bus stops, drop-
off zones and station concourses will be significant. I ask the Department to require
Transport for NSW to provide independent advice on the pedestrian capacity,
interchange capacity, and public transport loading impacts of the proposed
development before any determination.
Community Benefit Must Be Real and Enforceable
As a teacher, I understand the difference between a promise and a guarantee. The
proposed public benefits in this application—42 affordable dwellings for 15 years and
public domain works—are not guaranteed in perpetuity and are not proportionate to
the permanent planning concession being sought. The community deserves
enforceable commitments that are legally secured, independently valued, and
proportionate to the extraordinary scale of uplift being requested. I ask the
Department to require a registered planning agreement before any consent is
granted.
Adequate Information for Community to Assess Impacts
I have tried to read the publicly available planning documents for this application and
found the EIS and appendices complex and difficult to navigate. I am not convinced
that the information has been presented in a way that allows the broader community
to understand the true scale of the impacts. I ask the Department to consider
whether a public hearing or community information session would be appropriate
before determining an application of this significance, given the scale of the planning
uplift being sought.
Conclusion and Request

I urge the Department to refuse this application or defer determination until all
outstanding transport, public benefit and community impact matters are resolved
through independent review and community engagement.

To the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,
I wish to formally object to the proposed increase in height and scale of the mixed-use development at 10 Dangar Street, Wickham (SSD-89869959).
My family purchased an apartment in the surrounding area on the understanding that the approved or anticipated development for this site was to be approximately 12 storeys in height. This understanding formed an important part of our decision to purchase property and invest financially in the area.
In addition, we have also purchased another apartment directly behind this proposed development, which is due for handover in January 2027. At no stage during this purchase process where we advised of the proposed increase in height and scale of the development at 10 Dangar Street. Had this information been disclosed or known, it may have significantly impacted our purchasing decision. However putting our own financial concerns aside the area cannot handle anymore traffic, crime or parking woes until the current mess is sorted.

The proposed increase in height and density beyond what residents and purchasers were originally led to expect will significantly and negatively impact surrounding owners and residents in several ways, including:

• Increased traffic congestion in an area that is already heavily impacted by vehicle movement and limited infrastructure capacity.
* Crime in the area is already unmanageable. Our current apartment Stella has break in’s weekly as do the other apartments in the area
• Existing severe parking shortages, which are already causing ongoing issues for residents, workers who commute into Newcastle and visitors. Additional density will only worsen these conditions.
• Growing concerns regarding crime and safety within the area, including break-ins and security issues occurring within apartment car parks and residential complexes, which residents already feel are not being adequately addressed.
• Concerns regarding overdevelopment and the precedent this proposal sets for future developments that exceed originally communicated planning expectations.
• Loss of amenity through increased overshadowing, reduced natural light, wind impacts, and decreased privacy.
• Reduction in property values caused by obstructed views, increased building bulk, and overdevelopment.
• Loss of views and outlook currently enjoyed by neighbouring properties.
Many owners have invested substantial amounts of money into their homes and units based on the reasonable expectation that surrounding developments would remain broadly consistent with the originally indicated height limits. Changing these expectations after residents have committed financially is unfair and undermines confidence in the planning process, transparency of development information, and future urban planning decisions.
Wickham is already experiencing significant pressure on parking, traffic flow, public infrastructure, and community amenity. Approving a development of substantially greater height and density than originally anticipated will place further strain on an area already struggling with congestion and residential impacts.
I respectfully request that the Department carefully consider the cumulative impacts on existing residents and reject any proposal that substantially exceeds the originally anticipated height and scale for this development.
Thank you for considering this submission.
Yours sincerely,
Bec Phillips

Objection – 10 Dangar Street, Wickham (SSD‑89869959)
To the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure

I wish to lodge an objection to the State Significant Development proposed for 10 Dangar Street, Wickham. While the site is appropriate for redevelopment, the scale and form of the current proposal are excessive, inconsistent with adopted planning controls, and likely to create significant adverse impacts on the surrounding community.

1. Extreme height and density departure
The proposal seeks a height of 152 metres, more than double the already generous 60 m height limit in the Wickham Masterplan. This level of uplift is unjustified and sets a precedent that undermines the strategic planning framework for the entire Newcastle Interchange precinct.

The proposed FSR of 14.4:1 is also far beyond what the local planning controls contemplate and would result in unacceptable bulk, overshadowing, and wind impacts.

2. Poor urban design and public domain impacts
The tower’s scale will dominate the public realm, overshadowing nearby streets, open spaces, and the Interchange precinct. The EIS does not adequately demonstrate that wind impacts, pedestrian comfort, or overshadowing can be mitigated to acceptable levels.

3. Traffic and infrastructure strain
Despite its size, the development still generates significant traffic and service demand. The surrounding road network—particularly Hannell Street, Stewart Avenue, and the Interchange access points—is already congested. The proposal does not demonstrate that local infrastructure can support the increased population, hotel guests, and commercial activity.

4. Precedent risk for uncontrolled high‑rise escalation
Approving a tower of this magnitude through the SSD pathway risks bypassing the carefully developed Wickham Masterplan and encourages speculative proposals seeking similar uplifts. This undermines community confidence in the planning system and weakens the role of local strategic planning.

5. Insufficient justification for State Significant status
While the inclusion of affordable housing is welcome, it does not justify the scale of planning concessions sought. The SSD pathway should not be used to override local controls for private development of this magnitude without clear, demonstrated public benefit.

Conclusion
I support redevelopment of this long‑vacant site, but the current proposal is far too large, poorly integrated, and inconsistent with the strategic vision for Wickham. I request that the Department refuse the application in its current form or require a substantially reduced scheme that aligns with the established planning framework.

Yours sincerely,

Our objection to this development is not that we think it overly ugly, but that it has a number of disadvantages to the local community and other properties around it, and that in essence it is unduly excessive in size creating negative consequences. Our specific concerns are these:

TOWN UTILITIES
We are concerned the areas utilities (water, electricity, sanitation, and telecommunications) were developed in a far earlier time when the primary development was low and low rise population, therefor are very concerned that there enough capacity of these services and utilities to cater for this building and indeed the number of other developments currently being built and planned.
It would seem to us that Wickham and Newcastle may well be already oversupplied with high rise developments and with the others will certainly stress or overload the original infrastructure.

SIZE and IMPACT
This development is overkill and the size is inordinate at 43 (38?) stories given that 17 stories were originally planned for this site.
At a height of 117 meters there will be considerable sunlight shadowing of surrounding properties particularly early morning and afternoon, is this fair given that many property owners in Charles and Bishopgate, Union, Railway or Throsby Streets all of which are narrow and none of which were originally designed to carry this amount of traffic, worst of all of this extra traffic will need to enter Hannell Street to able to move away the development.

TRAFIC AND PARKING
Residents and businesses surrounding who have invested in the area long before this development was ever mooted will be subjected to excessive and negative effects.
For example, it should be noted that the development indicates capacity for 240 car parks, however the maintenance and service requirements of the building would indicate a lot more traffic coming and going, which will also stress the limited parking in the streets nearby.
Also having hotel guests (how many rooms?) shops and residents coming and going will involve very significant increase in traffic around the development.

Traffic in this area can be extremely heavy as Hannell Street it is a major route to and from areas surrounding Newcastle, fortunately and unfortunately this development’s entry and exits Dangar Street (an extremely narrow street) this means that traffic to and from it will need to go via Charles, Station, Bishopgate, Grey, Dickson, Railway and or Throsby Streets all of which are streets that were developed in the 1920s and are narrow streets indeed.

ARCHITECTURE AND AESTHETICS
This development is clearly out of character with other buildings in the area i.e. it is significantly higher, above its plinth than adjacent buildings, this development has a rounded shape totally different to the Stella building, the nearby Knight Frank building or the Newcastle Interchange, and certainly doesn’t complement the nearby two heritage school buildings.

POTENTIAL WATER INGRESS ISSUES
As far as we know the previous owner of the Bowline land went into liquidation at least partly because water ingress into the foundations and had spent an enormous amount of money to solve the problem.

THE NEWCASTLE EARTHQUAKE
It is not beyond the realms of possibility that Newcastle will once again experience an earthquake as in the not-so-distant past, one would assume that engineering would reflect a great deal of caution.

POSSIBLE SOLUTION A PAUSE
At this juncture it seems Newcastle well be over supplied with apartment development, given the extraordinary amount of nearby building development that is planned (another 1400 apartments at Marketown) and a considerable amount already underway, we would ask if is appropriate that should there be a pause until water, electricity, sanitation, telecommunication, roads and parking facilities catch up with the demand that will occur with this development?

As a bye-the-bye we think that the allowance for affordable housing at is 15 years duration too short to attract essential workers able to commit long term to the city, we should be encouraging much longer term residency.

This project is too high. What is the point of codes and when developers want to go way beyond what was originally planned for the site. I have an investment property in the Westend apartment, which is situated behind the current proposal. The view will be of a wall created by this oversized apartment block will de-value my property, not to mention increased traffic and lack of parking. When we purchased the property, nobody said there would be a 40+ high-rise apartment in front of us. We purchased this on good faith that developers stick to local council guidelines. Please cancel this project or reduce the height.

The height of this is completely out of sync with the rest of Wickham. The road will not sustain that many cars, it will make it extremely dangerous as the roads are too narrow. I got a letter from the council after the last builder failed on that site as it filled up with water twice saying that these are ex coal mine sites. I feel that this development is putting existing buildings in danger not to mention blocking out the sun for existing units. 43 levels in irresponsible, this cannot be allowed.

Subject: Feedback on Proposed 39-Storey Mixed-Use Tower – 10 Dangar Street, Wickham [HDA Pathway]

To: Housing Delivery Authority / NSW Government

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed 39-storey mixed-use tower at 10 Dangar Street, adjacent to the Interchange.

I am writing to raise concerns about the scale, housing model, and long-term implications of this proposal for Wickham and Newcastle. My comments are offered in the spirit of constructive feedback to support good planning outcomes for the city.

Lessons from Australian high-density public housing:
The Victorian Government has announced the demolition of 44 public housing towers by 2051, citing poor liveability, design limitations, and entrenched disadvantage.
Independent researchers argue that retrofitting these towers is often more cost-effective and socially responsible than demolition.
Where demolitions have occurred, nearly 1 in 5 households have been displaced into the private rental market, raising affordability and stability concerns.

International evidence on concentrated high-rise housing:
The demolition of Cabrini-Green in Chicago and Pruitt-Igoe in St. Louis shows how large-scale, concentrated high-rise developments can concentrate disadvantage and become unviable over time.
The UK’s Grenfell Tower Inquiry identified systemic regulatory failures in high-rise safety and management, with catastrophic consequences. These findings underscore the risks of prioritising height and density over long-term safety and management.

Risks of co-living and high transience:
Co-living models with small private rooms and shared facilities tend to produce high resident turnover. This undermines neighbourhood cohesion and reduces engagement with local services and community networks.
Sustained co-living relies on continuous, well-resourced management. History shows this is rarely guaranteed over a building’s lifecycle.

Implications for Wickham:
A 39-storey tower with 100 co-living units and 200 apartments risks repeating design and management failures documented elsewhere.
The proposed scale appears inconsistent with Wickham’s existing urban fabric and the Wickham Master Plan, and would place additional pressure on local services and infrastructure.
I note that a social impact assessment is underway. I urge that its findings directly inform the design and scale of the project.

Request:
In light of the above, I respectfully request that the Housing Delivery Authority:
Reconsider the proposal in favour of smaller, up to mid-rise, mixed-tenure developments that integrate better with the existing community.
Prioritise long-term liveability, safety, and affordability over short-term density targets.
Apply lessons from Melbourne, international housing failures, and the Grenfell Tower Inquiry to avoid repeating known risks in high-rise residential design and management.

This building will be a significant addition to Newcastle’s skyline and urban fabric. The community is seeking planning that learns from past mistakes and delivers housing that is safe, liveable, and well-integrated for the long term.

Thank you for considering this feedback. I am available for further discussion at [email protected]

Yours sincerely,
Wes Phillips

This is such a significant overreach of planning rules in place. As a purchaser in The Store at 854 Hunter Street, my marquee views will be significantly obstructed. I made decisions on the basis of the planning rules which meant the highest a building could be on 10 Dangar would be 60M. Approving this project means there are essentially no planning rules that buyers and investors can rely on when making lifetime or business decisions in Newcastle city.

I own 17/10 Grey St Wickham, with a view to living there. I support the development in Dangar St. I consider that it is in keeping with the amenity of the Honeysuckle precinct, whilst not impinging on the miners' cottages in Grey St/Bishopgate, which add a unique charm to this suburb. Whilst it is taller than surrounding buildings, it will add value to neighbouring properties with a modern upmarket hotel and retail premises. Speciality and boutique shops are lacking nearby, and this will fill that need.

There is nil requirement for a 43 storey development in this area. There is currently multiple apartment buildings in development with many not fully sold, highlight the lack of need. If this development is going to take a social housing angle there is not enough ‘affordable’ housing being offered. Currently this area has a parking issue and too much traffic for what is already developed adding a hotel is not something these streets can maintain as well.
This area is known for hight winds and a massive wind tunnel as it stands adding in another building of this size will only make it worse and more unsafe for those who currently live in the area

Further consultation is required with Newcastle council and local residents, please.

Low income/ assisted housing needs infrastructure and special supports. Look at the disaster in South Hamilton and Beaumont Street! Do we want to bring those problems to our beautiful foreshore?
This is building is too high- about 20 stories too high. We don’t want that type of high rise.
Has thought been given to future earth quakes?

Submission regarding proposed State Significant Development at 10 Dangar Street, Wickham

Property affected: 14 Beresford Lane, Newcastle West

I am writing to raise concerns about the proposed State Significant Development at 10 Dangar Street, Wickham, particularly the potential overshadowing impact on my property at 14 Beresford Lane, Newcastle West.

My property contains a first-floor north-facing living room and adjoining courtyard area facing Beresford Lane. This is the primary living space of the dwelling. The lounge room includes north-facing glazing, and the adjoining courtyard is the main private open space connected to that living area.

The submitted winter solstice shadow diagrams appear to show the proposed development casting shadow toward my property, particularly around 11am, 12pm and 1pm on 21 June. The 12pm diagram is of particular concern, as the shadow appears to extend toward the northern side of my property, where the living room and courtyard are located.

The Newcastle Development Control Plan 2023 requires existing adjacent dwellings to maintain appropriate solar access to north-facing living area windows between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. The DCP also requires solar access to be considered for the principal area of private open space of adjoining properties.

Based on the submitted material, it is not clear that the proposed development satisfies these requirements in relation to my property.

The current shadow diagrams appear to be too broad to allow this issue to be properly assessed. They do not clearly identify:

* my property at 14 Beresford Lane, Newcastle West
* the north-facing living area windows of my dwelling
* the principal private open space connected to my living area
* the existing shadow condition
* the proposed shadow condition
* the number of hours of direct sunlight currently received by my living room and courtyard
* the number of hours of direct sunlight that would be retained after the development
* the extent or percentage of any loss of solar access caused by the proposed development

Without this information, it is difficult to see how the Department or consent authority can be satisfied that the proposal complies with the relevant solar access requirements as they apply to my residential property.

Before the application is determined, the applicant should be required to clearly demonstrate that my property at 14 Beresford Lane will retain appropriate solar access under the relevant planning controls.

This should include clear and legible plans, supported by computer-generated 3D shadow modelling, showing the impact of the proposed development on my north-facing living room windows and principal private open space. The modelling should show the existing and proposed shadow conditions between 9am and 3pm on 21 June, and should quantify:

* the hours of direct sunlight currently received
* the hours of direct sunlight that would be retained
* the extent and percentage of any loss of solar access caused by the proposed development

A broad shadow diagram is not enough in this case, as it does not show the actual impact on the relevant living room windows or the private courtyard space.

The NSW Land and Environment Court has recognised that solar access impacts need to be assessed in context. In The Benevolent Society v Waverley Council [2010] NSWLEC 1082, the Court set out a planning principle for access to sunlight, including consideration of existing sunlight, the degree of impact, the density of the area and the reasonableness of the proposed development.

The Court has also recognised in Meriton v Sydney City Council [2004] NSWLEC 313 that impacts arising from poor design may be unacceptable, even where the impact is relatively small. This is relevant here because the applicant should be required to show that the building envelope and design have been properly tested and optimised to reduce unnecessary overshadowing of my residential living space.

I also understand that in Construction Development Management Services Pty Ltd v City of Sydney [2023] NSWLEC 1620, the Court recognised that solar access controls may need to be considered in context in dense urban environments. However, this does not remove the need for the applicant to properly demonstrate and quantify the actual solar access impact on an existing neighbouring residence.

At this stage, the submitted shadow diagrams appear to indicate a potentially significant solar access impact on my north-facing living room and courtyard. However, the material does not provide enough detail to allow this impact to be properly assessed.

I ask that the application not be determined until the applicant has properly demonstrated the solar access impact on my property and compliance with the relevant planning controls.

If the assessment confirms that the proposed development would reduce solar access to my north-facing living area windows or principal private open space below the required standard, or would result in an unreasonable loss of existing solar access, I request that the proposal be amended to reduce the overshadowing impact on my property.

Regards,

Dr Ramsey Awad
14 Beresford Lane
Newcastle West