10 Dangar St Wickham Mixed-use development

I am lodging an objection to the State Significant Development proposed for 10 Dangar Street, Wickham.
The bulk and scale of the current proposal is excessive and does not fit into Newcastle. It is inconstant with adopted planning controls and will create significant adverse impacts on the surrounding community and for the people who will live in this huge tower.
1. The proposed height of the development is 152 metres which is more than double the existing generous height limit of 60m in the Newcastle Council’s Wickham Master Plan.
This amount of increased elevation is unjustified and undermines the Council’s strategic planning framework for the Newcastle interchange precinct. Overriding the local planning controls will result in excessive bulk, overbearing mass, overshadowing, and wind impacts.
2. Earthquake risks. The word earthquake is hardly mentioned in their proposal. Do people have short memories? The Newcastle Earthquake was in 1989. Ask the developers if they would like to be on the top floor during an earthquake. They have not adequately addressed this issue.
3. This will result in poor urban design and impact on public domains. The overbearing mass will overshadow nearby streets, open spaces and the interchange area. The EIS does not demonstrate that the wind impacts, pedestrian comfort and overshadowing can be mitigated to acceptable levels.
4. Traffic issues. The amount of traffic that this will project will generate, during and after construction will be excessive. This area is already a congested chokepoint in the city. Although it is close to the interchange, it is an idealistic view that people can always catch public transport. Many people especially elderly do not feel safe on public transport. People will still need vehicles. What about people who work in the mining sector and people with young families. They can't rely on public transport. There is insufficient parking at present. This will make the problem excessively worse.
5. Strain on public infrastructure. The proposal does not demonstrate that the local infrastructure can support the increased population, hotel guests and commercial businesses. This overcrowded development will impact on schools, hospitals, sporting facilities et cetera. We do not want third world type overcrowding of urban areas. The local infrastructure will struggle to keep pace with the excessive garbage and pollution into the environment.
6. Dangerous precedent for uncontrolled excessive high rise escalation. Approving this tower through the SSD pathway which is bypassing the Council’s carefully developed Wickham Master Plan will result in an escalation of speculative proposals for massive uplifts ruining any community confidence in the planning system and weakens the role of local strategic planning.
7. There is insufficient justification for State Significant Status, even though the development incorporates affordable housing, it does not justify the bulk, uplift and the planning concessions sought. The SSD pathway should not be used to bypass local council controls without clear demonstrated public benefit.
8. I do support redevelopment of this site; however, this proposal is excessively overbearing, inconsistent with the plans for Wickham and poorly integrated. This is poor planning and will result in an overcrowded city, choking access into the city and with overburdened strain on public infrastructure.

I am supportive of providing additional housing supply, however this projects height submission of 145m is significantly higher than the Wickham masterpla height of 60m. This tower is going to look out of place in the Newcastle skyline and will discourage future development further back from the area. The extensive master planning previously undertaken provided a planned approach to height restrictions to allow future developmemt to have views. This appears to be a knee jerk reaction to supply issues as a short term fix at the ignorance of supporting a sustainable development pipeline over the medium to long term for this area.

The size of such a development in Wickham’s village atmosphere is simply too large and inappropriate. The community has been working hard to ensure the values, family orientation, open to all residents, are not devalued. I do not object to developments of all kinds in the community but the size, style, value to both the economic and visual integrity must not downgraded. The scale is simply out of proportion for this small community and we do not want to be the Gold Coast, Sydney levels of high density. The history and story of a community should be enriched its developments not financial eyesore structures

The information provided doesn't clearly explain how the parking shortfall will actually be managed day to day. There are broad statements about managing it, but no concrete details, drawings, or operational plans that show how it'll actually work.

I'm not against new housing — the area needs it. But that can't mean ignoring real problems like flood risk, traffic flow, wind effects, design quality, public spaces and infrastructure strain. These need proper answers before approval, not vague promises to sort it out later.

Here is a list of my concerns for the proposed 45-storey Mixed-Use development at 10 Dangar Street, Wickham:

• The intended mixed-use of the development:
o This affordable living building is totally out of context in this family recreation and business area. Would it be considered somewhere like Barangaroo or Circular Quay? I think not.
o When you catch a train from Newcastle Exchange to Sydney, you can see ample space and semi-rural areas just minutes away, and these areas are closer to where most Newcastle residents work. Also, the cost of living in these outer areas is less. Bars, restaurants and grocery stores in the city do cost more.
This contradicts the affordability concept.
o There are numerous houses converted to co-living in Shortland, a less central suburb, and more share homes continue to be developed there.

• The height of the construction:
o Surrounding owners, including investors in The Store and the Dairy Farmers building, paid for views and the expectation of Bowline apartments staying within the current set height limits. This unexpected height change could devalue surrounding properties by $150,000 to $450,000. This could devastate the lives of 100s, if not 1000s, of nearby owners - robbing many people of their planned standard of retirement, while diminishing family plans for the younger home owners just from devaluing their homes.
o A single building jutting out like that represents more of an ego statement than a benefit to communities. Why be so vertical when there is a lot of vertical space above the squarer bottom floors?

• The social aspects:
o The area is highly regarded as, a place for family outings and business activities. It has been carefully planned out for low-rise buildings and facilities for aesthetic, recreational and cultural purposes.
o The high standard of community and quality of life around here will diminish due to congestion and increases in crime – no denying, that’s what crammed in, cheap accommodation brings with it. I lived in Sydney for 20 years in various parts, and crime was higher in such areas - locals knew it and the police knew it.

• Wickham train station is different:
o Wickham station is used by passengers coming into Newcastle to work or to enjoy the Harbour. Day to day, most people who live here stay here, or drive/bus elsewhere - as it is far more convenient in this spread out town to use other forms of transport as the train line is limited. There is no reason to build here to commute to outer stations which are in less congested areas anyway. Why not build affordable living where it’s more convenient and more affordable to live?

• Congestion:
o Trucks for removalists and shop supplies already struggle to find access and often block the roads.
o The number of residents on such a small footprint is way beyond the usual limits. It will be way too congested.

Thank you for taking the time to read my response. I hope my points are taken into consideration.

I strongly object to the proposed development on the following grounds:

- Excessive departure from established planning controls:
The proposal seeks a substantial increase beyond the current Newcastle LEP controls for the site, including an extreme increase in both prescribed building height and floor space ratio. It is also not in keeping with the strategic intent for the area as defined by the Wickham Master Plan. It is frankly preposterous that the proposed development intends to exceed the current LEP prescribed building height by more than double the allowable limit. With such an enormous departure from the LEP (which has been carefully developed through comprehensive local community engagement/feedback) and no relevant strategic planning or urban design analysis informing this, were the development to be approved it would risk seriously undermining the integrity of the existing planning framework structures that are in place for not only Wickham but the Newcastle region as a whole. The blatant disregard of such planning instruments which reflect local community values and preferences, would establish an irreversibly damaging precedent for privatised development in the area, under the false pretence of any REAL community benefit.

- Inadequate public benefit relative to private gain:
The proposed development advertises the false public benefit of limited temporary affordable housing outcomes that are restricted to only a 15 year period. This fails to provide any enduring public benefit which is proportionate to the scale of the planning concessions sought and is inconsistent with the strategic intent of the Housing SEPP and broader public interest principles underpinning NSW planning policy.

- Adverse impact on local character and urban environment:
The scale of the proposed development is fundamentally incompatible with the intended scale character and built form transition objectives for Wickham. The disproportionate height and bulk would create a visually dominant structure that permanently distorts the skyline character, existing urban environment and the regional character of Newcastle. The proposed building's aesthetic is also highly unsightly and unbelonging of a modern 21st century building. It is more reminiscent and befitting of a 20th century Gold Coast high rise and would become a permanent eye sore. For such a critical transport gateway into the city, this is not the future vision the local community desires for Newcastle.

- Insufficient planning assessment:
The exhibited planning documents lack comprehensive overshadowing analysis, detailed wind impact assessment and adequate cumulative infrastructure assessment. The proposal suggests that these will be considered in the EIS which has not been completed for this submission. This prevents the community from properly evaluating the true environmental and public domain impacts of the proposal and represents an incomplete planning assessment process.
The submission claims that "the development will have limited overshadowing impacts to existing residential developments" as "the site is bordered to the south by a rail line and a series of roads". This highlights the lack of depth and detail which has been considered within the exhibited planning assessment documents, as the idea that a 150m tall building will have limited overshadowing impacts to adjacent residential developments is farcical. Such unsubstantiated claims as this call into question the legitimacy of any of the planning assessments completed for the development to date.

- Environmental Amenity
For a development of such scale, the submission fails to properly assess the amenity impacts on the surrounding locality in any reasonably sufficient level of detail. This includes assessments of solar access, visual privacy, view loss, infrastructure demand, as well as wind, lightening and reflectivity impacts.

I support proceeding with the existing development consent under DA2018/01197 (as amended by DA2022/00448), permitting the construction of a 17-storey mixed-use development based on the existing planning controls. This approved DA is more befitting of the local community's vision for the site, as defined by the existing planning framework for Wickham and Newcastle.
Ultimately the proposal is founded upon false claims of public benefits, as well as being a necessity to meet NSW new housing targets. However, it fails to provide any meaningful or enduring public benefit, proportional to the scale of the planning concessions sought. It is simply another project targeted to fill the pockets of private developers. In regard to new housing targets, the recently announced Honeysuckle HQ development will provide ample new residencies within a suitable area, that has for the long-term been earmarked by local planning instruments and the community for this scale of development and which will adhere to appropriate LEP controls.

Overall, the permanent negative impacts of this proposal cannot be adequately mitigated through conditions of consent or minor design amendments. At its core the development is an inappropriate planning outcome for the site and should be rejected in its current form.

In theory I support the project. People need to have somewhere to live and this is a good location for this type of dwelling.
However, I feel a 40 plus story building is much too tall and not in keeping with the existing and approved buildings in the locality. Perhaps around 30 stories would be more appropriate. Also the streets in the vicinity are mostly narrow and I have concerns re lack of parking; appropriate footpaths for the proposed residents and others; and free flow of traffic.

This area has already got heavy density apartment buildings. The proposed application of 43 storeys is above the recommended height for this area. The proposal front busy Hannell Street with no access via this main road to the proposed site. Dangar Street is a short dead end street, Charles Street is a one way street where the proposal is situated. I am worried about water pressure, current sewerage being sufficient . It is just too much infrastructure for the area which is already high density living.

Excessive Building Height

This site falls within the Wickham Masterplan, a carefully considered planning instrument developed over several years through extensive consultation with the community, elected Councillors, and Council staff. The Masterplan establishes a base height limit of 45 metres, with a conditional maximum of 60 metres available only where a developer delivers demonstrated public benefits to the area.

The current proposal by Urban Property Group flagrantly disregards these controls. While the application nominates a height rezoning of 117 metres, the submitted designs depict a 43-storey building with a reduced level (RL) of approximately 152 — representing an actual built height of between 145 and 150 metres.
To state this plainly:

The proposed height is more than 250% of the Masterplan's base limit of 45 metres. It exceeds the Masterplan's maximum conditional height of 60 metres by approximately 150%.

The discrepancy between the nominated rezoning height (117 m) and the height shown in the design drawings (145–150 m) means the proposal lacks basic transparency and precision.

This is an extreme proposal that bears no reasonable relationship to Newcastle's established planning controls and should be refused on height grounds alone.

Affordable Housing Must Be Permanent, Not Temporary

Under the Housing Delivery Authority (HDA) pathway, a developer who provides 15% affordable housing for a period of 15 years may access a 30% height uplift — bringing the permissible height to approximately 78 metres. Even this concession is vastly exceeded by the current proposal.

More fundamentally, I object to the temporary nature of any affordable housing offered under the HDA pathway. A 15-year tenure does not constitute genuine affordable housing provision. Affordable housing secured through planning concessions must be maintained in perpetuity to deliver lasting community benefit. Temporary arrangements simply defer the loss of affordability and allow developers to ultimately extract full market value from dwellings built on the back of public planning entitlements.

The proposal also appears to make no reference to Newcastle City Council's Affordable Housing Contribution levy, which requires developers to provide 1% affordable housing in perpetuity. The application should be required to demonstrate full compliance with this existing obligation before any further consideration is given.

Conclusion

I urge the consent authority to refuse this application. The proposed height is excessive by any measure and incompatible with the Wickham Masterplan. Any affordable housing component must be secured permanently, not for a fixed term, and the applicant must demonstrate compliance with Council's existing affordable housing levy.

Dear Assessment Team,Objection to State Significant Development Application: SSD-89869959
I am writing to formally lodge my strong objection to the proposed mixed-use development at 10 Dangar Street, Wickham.
While I acknowledge the need for strategic growth near key transit nodes, the scale, density, and execution of this specific proposal represent a severe overdevelopment of the site that will negatively impact the future of the Wickham precinct.My objections are based on the following critical planning and environmental grounds
1. Substandard Architectural Quality and Urban Design.
The architectural design appears to be of poor and dated design with a high potential to create a future slum. Rather than delivering an iconic, forward-thinking gateway building for Newcastle, the current design relies on a repetitive, high-density layout that risks rapid aesthetic and functional degradation.
A 43-storey tower requires world-class, enduring architecture; instead, this proposal threatens to become a visual blight that diminishes the long-term liveability and value of the surrounding neighbourhood.
2. Absence of Adequate Public Benefit and AmenityThe current layout fails to provide the civic infrastructure necessary to support its massive projected population of residents, hotel guests, and co-living tenants.
The proposal does not include appropriate public space and facilities for such a high profile space.
By failing to integrate meaningful green space, plazas, or community infrastructure, the development privatises a prominent transit-adjacent location without offering any counterbalancing public utility to the existing Wickham community.
3. Excessive Scale, Height, and Precinct Incompatibility.
The proposed 43-storey height vastly exceeds the established local planning controls and height limits set for the Wickham precinct.
Introducing a tower of this unprecedented massing will permanently disrupt the local streetscape, create severe overshadowing on neighbouring properties, and set an undesirable precedent that undermines the integrity of local strategic planning frameworks.
4. Traffic, Transport, and Infrastructure StrainPositioning a high-density development of this magnitude immediately adjacent to the Newcastle Interchange will severely exacerbate traffic congestion on local arterial roads like Hannell Street. Furthermore, the surrounding stormwater, sewage, and utility networks lack the demonstrated capacity to absorb a high-density influx of this scale without impacting current service levels for existing residents.
ConclusionFor the reasons outlined above, the development in its current form represents a significant overdevelopment that prioritises yield over quality urban outcomes. I urge the Department to refuse the application or require a comprehensive redesign that drastically reduces scale, elevates architectural merit, and integrates genuine public space.

This is an objection, on behalf of the owners committee at Stella Apartments, to the of the development due to the scale, density, traffic and social impact on the amenity of the local community. The development proposed is in conflict with the existing and approved developments in the area and the proposed urban Honeysuckle HQ plan. The attached objection submission outlines these key objection points and we request the development be reviewed and reduced in scale, to align with community outcomes and expectations.

Overall, excited to see this happen. As a family with young children on Grey St, we hope this will positively impact the crime rate in the area. However, I am concerned about the infrastructure impacts: need for more local parks/green spaces, recreational facilities, bike paths, better footpaths throughout the suburb, upgrades to roads, etc.. which will be required to cater for the increase in population in the suburb. The local council must receive adequate contribution to upgrade these facilities and infrastructure to handle population growth.

I work in flood risk assessment, and I'm concerned that the proposal hasn't demonstrated this scale of development can be built here without creating serious problems for Wickham, Newcastle West and the Newcastle Interchange precinct.
There's also the flood risk angle. This location is already under considerable stress with the amount of traffic, public transport, foot traffic, cycling, and other development happening. Adding a 43-storey building without addressing flood impacts properly doesn't seem acceptable to me.

My concerns re SSD - 89869959
1. Administrative Errors & Careless Work
The developer's documentation contains clear errors that indicate generic copy-pasting from old templates without proper local context:
Appendix D (Mitigation Measures): Lists Sydney Water as the responsible authority for wastewater instead of Hunter Water (10 Dangar ... p. 2).
Appendix EE (NABERS Form): Lists Sydney as the town/city instead of Newcastle (10 Dangar ... p. 3).
Appendix H (Engagement Report): Claims the engagement ran from September 2026 – February 2026, which is an impossible, backwards timeline (10 Dangar ... p. 4).

2. Lack of Detail on NDIS Accommodation
The Issue: Appendix MM (Social Impact Assessment) notes that 15 two-bedroom units will be for NDIS accommodation, alongside 1 one-bedroom unit for overnight assistance (10 Dangar ... p. 5).
The Critique: Despite these figures, there is no clear design integration or structural details showing how these units satisfy physical accessibility. Appendix WW (Accessibility Compliance Report) reads more like a "list of things to do" rather than a binding, detailed promise or strategy (10 Dangar ... p. 9).

3. Inadequate Construction Complaint Mechanisms
The Issue: While Appendix U (PCTMP) promises that nearby residents will get regular updates and a phone number for the site manager, it provides no clear framework for accountability (10 Dangar ... p. 8).
The Critique: There are no formal, transparent protocols or escalation pathways detailed for when the developer breaches their strict consent conditions, such as blocking external street access, storing items off-site, or ignoring delivery time limits (10 Dangar ... p. 8).

4. Specific Critiques of the Requested Appendices
Appendix AA (Landscape Design Report): Implies a bike thoroughfare through public ground levels, but lacks detail on how high density and pedestrian safety will interact (10 Dangar ... p. 2).
Appendix D (Ongoing Mitigation Measures): Demonstrates careless work by naming the wrong water utility provider (Sydney Water) (10 Dangar ... p. 2).
Appendix E (DCP Assessment Table): Highlights massive density over-saturation with 245 apartments, 99 co-living units, and 177 hotel rooms crammed onto the site (10 Dangar ... p. 3).
Appendix EE (NABERS Embodied Emissions): Erroneously identifies the city location as Sydney (10 Dangar ... p. 3).
Appendix G (Community Housing Provider Letter): Relies on MyLife Community Housing. While registered, CHPs can lose registration for insolvency or mismanagement, risking affordable housing operations (10 Dangar ... p. 3).
Appendix I (Pre-DA Meeting Advice): City of Newcastle officers explicitly stated the building is not supported due to extensive, fundamental, and structural issues with height and safety (10 Dangar ... p. 4).
Appendix K1 (SDRP Advice Meeting 1): The State Design Review Panel made numerous critical suggestions on the developer's earlier structural layout (10 Dangar ... p. 4).
Appendix K2 (SDRP Advice Meeting 2): The panel noted that the ground plane, colonnade, and landscape must be further developed to handle the proposed density safely (10 Dangar ... p. 5).
Appendix KK (CDWMP): Shows the developer is only committing to the 15% affordable housing layout for a minimum of 15 years, rather than a permanent community benefit (10 Dangar ... p. 5).
Appendix MM (Social Impact Assessment): Reveals highly elevated population statistics and fails to fully resolve community concerns raised during early feedback rounds (10 Dangar ... p. 5).
Appendix N (Connecting with Country Report): Admits that Awabakal Traditional Custodian engagement is still "currently being developed," showing minimal initial input (10 Dangar ... p. 5).
Appendix OO (CPTED Report): Concludes with three full pages of security recommendations, proving the current design inherently invites high crime risks (10 Dangar ... p. 6).
Appendix S (Transport Impact Assessment): Outlines a massive traffic generation of 213.2 vehicles per hour in AM peaks. Notes that a high water table prevents building extra basement parking (10 Dangar ... p. 7).
Appendix U (PCTMP): Admits the building is built-to-boundary, meaning trucks cannot load inside the site and must block parts of the Charles Street frontage compound (10 Dangar ... p. 8).
Appendix WW (Accessibility Compliance Report): Fails to provide concrete, binding spatial layouts for disabled access, functioning purely as a generic checklist (10 Dangar ... p. 9).

Newcastle's harbour edge is almost fully built, and the few sites still to be decided will shape the city's waterfront for generations. The land at 10 Dangar Street is one of them, and a proposal for a site of that consequence deserves to be held to a high standard. This one does not meet it. I write as a resident who would welcome more housing in Newcastle, including on this site. My objection is not to development, but to a building that asks for a significant exception to the rules every other project on this waterfront must observe, and justifies that exception with reasons that do not bear weight.

A decision the city will live with for a long time

Whatever is approved here will stand for the rest of our lifetimes and well beyond, and it will set the reference point for every application that follows on the surrounding land. A building permitted to exceed the agreed height on this block becomes the argument the next developer uses to exceed it on theirs. Decisions of this kind are where a city either keeps faith with the plan it has set for itself or surrenders it in increments. That is why the scale of this proposal matters well beyond the boundaries of the site.

A height the controls do not permit

The planning controls for this part of Wickham set a clear ceiling on building height, and the proposal stands well above it at roughly 38 to 40 storeys. The site was previously approved at a far lower scale. A departure of this magnitude is not a minor variation to be waved through on the strength of housing numbers. It is a wholesale change to what the area was planned to accommodate, and the onus rests on the applicant to show it is warranted. That case has not been made in its EIS statements - and the case for substantially higher density is weakened heavily by the new honeysuckle HQ .


The benchmark across the road

The State Government has just announced Newcastle Quay, the redevelopment of the Honeysuckle HQ land immediately to the north. It is a masterplanned precinct expected to deliver around 1000 homes, a hotel and substantial public space, and it achieves this while keeping its buildings within the waterfront's height limits, lowering them towards the water and holding open deliberate view corridors through the site. The Government's own flagship project therefore demonstrates that this waterfront can absorb very large quantities of housing without exceeding the agreed scale. If 1000 homes can be delivered next door within the rules, the argument that this single tower must break them to make its far smaller contribution does not survive. The additional height is not the price of delivering housing but additional saleable floor area, and the public is being asked to absorb the cost of it in overshadowing, in lost outlook, and in the precedent it leaves behind.

Sunlight taken from homes that already exist

The applicant's own environmental impact statement makes the most immediate harm plain. The shadow study prepared for the application shows the tower casting shadow across a number of residential buildings immediately to its south, through the morning hours. In examining the EIS the study is modelled on the spring equinox, the midpoint of the solar year. The impact will be worse through winter, when the sun sits lowest and direct light is most valued,

A form that gives little back to the street

The design compounds these problems rather than easing them. The proposal is a single very large cylindrical tower that makes little concession to the lower scale and heritage character of Wickham, or to the buildings already established around it. Set against the Newcastle Quay approach, which breaks its bulk into separate buildings and steps them down at the sensitive edges, the contrast is not a flattering one. Newcastle is assembling a new skyline in real time, and the buildings that compose it should be judged on what they contribute to the city, not on the floor area they extract from a site.

Affordable housing, and what it is being used to justify

I recognise that affordable housing forms part of the case for the additional height, and more affordable housing in Newcastle is something I strongly support. The difficulty is one of proportion. The affordable component is modest measured against the size of the building, yet it is being used as the lever to unlock a height the controls would otherwise refuse. If the genuine objective is more affordable housing on the harbour, this is an inefficient way to secure a small amount of it

Conclusion

I am asking for a building that observes the same controls as every other project on this waterfront, designed with proper regard for sunlight, outlook and the character of the area. A building of that kind would still bring new homes to Wickham. It would do so without taking light from the homes beside it, and without establishing that the height limits on Newcastle's harbour are available to any developer willing to ask for more. I ask that the application be refused in its current form, or amended substantially so that it sits within the controls that govern the rest of this waterfront.

I'm concerned this application hasn't adequately demonstrated that a building of this scale can be built without causing serious problems for the area, the Newcastle Interchange precinct, and Newcastle West more broadly.

My main concern centres on wind impacts. The wind tunnel testing has flagged significant safety issues on the upper-level balconies, and the mitigation strategy still needs verification. I don't think it's reasonable to ask the community to accept this kind of impact without much stronger evidence that it can actually be managed.

I write to formally object to the proposed development at 10 Dangar Street, Wickham.
My objection is not to development, urban renewal, or appropriate residential growth within Wickham. Growth is an important part of Newcastle's future, and well-designed development can contribute positively to the community. However, this particular proposal represents an extreme level of density and intensity that is disproportionate to the site, surrounding area, and existing community infrastructure.
The application repeatedly refers to community benefits and positive urban outcomes. However, upon review, the overwhelming beneficiary of this proposal appears to be the developer rather than the existing or future community. The scale of the project suggests a focus on maximising residential yield and financial return rather than creating a balanced, sustainable and liveable environment.
The density proposed for this site is excessive. Regardless of broader planning objectives, there must be a point at which density becomes unreasonable and begins to undermine the very outcomes that development is intended to achieve. This proposal crosses that threshold.
A development of this scale will introduce an extraordinary concentration of residents into a relatively small footprint. The result will be increased pressure on local streets, public spaces, transport networks, parking availability and community facilities. While the application presents density as a positive planning outcome, it fails to adequately acknowledge the cumulative impacts of concentrating such a large number of people within a confined area.
The proposal also appears inconsistent with the concept of creating a healthy and connected community. Healthy communities are not simply measured by the number of dwellings delivered. They are created through thoughtful design, appropriate population levels, access to infrastructure, adequate open space, manageable traffic volumes, and environments where residents can enjoy a reasonable quality of life.
This proposal instead risks creating an environment characterised by overcrowding, congestion and declining amenity.
Of particular concern is the impact on local streets and public spaces. Wickham is already experiencing significant pressure from population growth and increased residential activity. The introduction of such a large number of additional residents in a single development will inevitably intensify existing issues relating to traffic, parking demand, noise and overcrowding.
Parking availability throughout the area is already limited. Residents frequently compete for available spaces and surrounding streets are often congested. The addition of a development of this magnitude is likely to further increase parking pressures, regardless of whether minimum planning requirements are technically satisfied. The lived reality for residents often differs significantly from modelling assumptions presented in development applications.
The proposal also raises concerns regarding noise and community amenity. The sheer number of residents proposed within one structure will inevitably increase activity levels, vehicle movements, deliveries, visitors and general impacts on surrounding properties. These impacts should not be dismissed simply because they are difficult to quantify.
Importantly, the development's scale appears fundamentally disconnected from the character and capacity of the surrounding area. It is not the existence of a residential building that is problematic; it is the extraordinary intensity with which this site is being developed. The proposal seeks to accommodate an exceptionally large population within a single structure, creating a built form that feels driven by maximising development potential rather than integrating appropriately into the existing community.
The application promotes concepts such as community, connectivity and activation. However, there is little evidence that the development will genuinely strengthen the Wickham community. Community is not created through density alone. Community is created through balanced growth, quality public spaces, manageable population levels, social cohesion and a built environment that supports resident wellbeing.
This proposal risks achieving the opposite outcome. Rather than enhancing community, it may contribute to increased congestion, competition for limited resources, reduced amenity and a diminished sense of place.
The development also sets a concerning precedent for future proposals. If a development of this scale and density is considered acceptable on this site, it sends a message that there are effectively no meaningful limits on the intensity of development that can be pursued within Wickham. Planning controls exist to ensure growth occurs in a way that balances economic outcomes with community interests. In this case, that balance appears to have been lost.
Ultimately, this proposal asks the community to absorb the impacts of an extraordinarily dense development while offering limited tangible benefits in return. The primary outcome appears to be the creation of a highly profitable development rather than a project that meaningfully improves the lives of existing residents or contributes positively to the long-term future of Wickham.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that Council refuse the application. The scale, density and intensity of the proposed development are excessive, inconsistent with the creation of a healthy and sustainable community, and place private development interests ahead of broader community outcomes.
Yours faithfully
Monique Davison

Submission regarding SSD89869959 at 10 Dangar Street Wickham
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed development located at 10 Dangar Street Wickham. As a resident of Bishopsgate Street living in the immediate vicinity of the site, I witness the daily consequences of overdevelopment in our neighbourhood. Our community is already struggling with narrow roads, damaged footpaths, poor drainage, severe traffic congestion, illegal parking, graffiti, anti-social behaviour, and dropping water pressure. This application does not represent a reasonable affordable housing initiative. Instead, it introduces an extreme high rise tower to a small suburb that cannot sustain it. The proposal outlines a massive 43-storey mixed-use development containing roughly 200 dwellings including 42 affordable housing units, alongside 99 co-living units, minimal parking facilities, retail spaces, hotel rooms, and a public plaza. This is an immense structure that does not belong here.

The scale is inappropriate for Wickham:
The City of Newcastle has highlighted major concerns regarding how heavily this proposal departs from the Newcastle LEP and the Wickham Masterplan. Local planning strategies designed building heights to decrease as they transition into the suburb and the Village Hub, rather than spiking upward with an isolated tower. The developer is requesting a height of 133 meters, which completely dwarfs the current 60 meter height limit and the 7 to 1 floor space ratio. Under normal circumstances without incentives, this site is restricted to 45 meters and a 6 to 1 floor space ratio. This massive departure contradicts the strategic vision for the Wickham Masterplan and fails to justify the requested density. A building of this size will overwhelm Bishopsgate Street, Grey Street, Charles Street, and Station Street. Wickham is already struggling to absorb major redevelopments like The Store and Dairy Farmers Corner, and it cannot handle another massive high rise project.

Local roads are unsafe:
The current traffic volumes on Bishopsgate Street, Grey Street, Charles Street, and Station Street are already unmanageable. Some of these roads are narrow one way streets. Motorists frequently drive the wrong way down Bishopsgate and Grey Streets just to escape gridlock. Traffic regularly backs up toward Hannell Street while drivers attempt to exit safely. Access to the Interchange is already compromised. We constantly deal with double parking, poor compliance with traffic laws, delivery vans, rideshare vehicles, taxis, and commuter drop offs on narrow residential roads. Adding hundreds of new residents, hotel patrons, co living occupants, visitors, and commercial vehicles will worsen these conditions.
Footpaths along Bishopsgate Street are narrow and uneven. Many residents are forced to walk on the road because the pathways are too uneven to navigate safely. A project of this magnitude should never be approved until functional footpaths, proper drainage, street lighting, pedestrian crossings, and accessibility upgrades are fully implemented.

Utility services are already compromised:
Before granting any approval, the Department must demand independent verification that the water, sewerage, and firefighting networks can handle this development alongside all other approved and pending local projects. Hunter Water guidelines require a pressure and flow statement to confirm network capacity, and servicing strategies must account for neighboring developments. Current households should not suffer from degraded utility services just because developers are permitted to overload local infrastructure.

Social impacts and safety needs to be addressed:
While I support well planned and genuinely integrated affordable housing, I cannot support concentrating affordable housing, co living spaces, hotel units, and high density apartments into a single tower without matching social infrastructure. Newcastle is already experiencing a shortage of support services for mental health, homelessness, and domestic violence, and we see people sleeping rough on nearby streets. Introducing a large transient population of co living occupants and short term hotel guests raises safety concerns regarding neighborhood cohesion, noise, anti social behavior, and safety for women and children. A single building manager is completely inadequate for a complex of this size. The social impacts of this project need to be recognised and planned for.

Community benefits versus developer's gain:
The Wickham Community Infrastructure Plan requires that increases in height and floor space must be balanced by tangible community contributions. Council has noted that any planning agreement must reflect the massive uplift in height and floor space ratio being requested. A tiny laneway or a token public plaza is not enough for a tower of this scale. If the developer stands to make massive financial gains, Wickham must receive significant lasting infrastructure upgrades including advanced drainage, upgraded footpaths, better lighting, green spaces, traffic calming measures, and genuine community hubs.

Technical risks remain unaddressed:
Council has rightly recommended that this proposal requires extensive independent studies covering stormwater management, water cycle impacts, flood risks, social impacts, crime prevention through environmental design, accessibility, acoustics, wind tunnel effects, visual impacts, and traffic flow. These are critical safety evaluations that directly affect the lives of current residents.

Conclusion:
This development application should be rejected in its current form because it is simply too large and dense for Wickham. It will severely worsen traffic congestion, pedestrian hazards, flooding, parking shortages, water pressure issues, and community stress. It ignores the strategic direction of the Wickham Masterplan and forces existing residents to bear the costs of overdevelopment. At the very least, the height and density must be drastically reduced or just utilise the existing approved DA. No approval should be considered until utility capacity, stormwater systems, traffic management, and social support services are independently proven and fully funded.

With the additional units that have been popping up over the years in this once quite suburb, it has become congested and the once friendly vibe has cooled to indifference, this tower will be the final nail, there is already enough development here and a tower that size is overkill, the historic roads can't take the capacity, the area is inadequate, biggest mistake was stopping the rail at Wickham, just caused more issues. Dealing with enough here, build it elsewhere.

I am writing to object to the proposed development at 10 Dangar Street, Wickham, currently being assessed under the State Significant Development Housing Diversity and Affordability (HDA) pathway.

As a resident whose east‑facing outlook directly adjoins this site, I will be severely impacted by the scale and nature of this proposal. The original concept for this site was 13 storeys—a height that aligned with the character and planning expectations of the area. The current proposal for 43 storeys is an extreme and unjustified departure from what residents were ever led to believe would be built here.
1. Extreme Height Increase and Departure from Planning Controls
The developer seeks a rezoning to 117m, yet the design shows a tower reaching 145–150m (43 storeys). This is:
- 250% higher than the original 45m limit, and
- 150% higher than the 60m height allowed under the Wickham Masterplan.
This proposal ignores the Masterplan entirely and undermines years of community, Council, and expert planning work.

2. Direct Impact on My Property
A 43‑storey tower immediately east of my home will:
- Remove natural light,
- Dominate and overshadow my outlook,
- Reduce privacy,
- Create a canyon‑like environment,
- Significantly diminish amenity and liveability.
Residents purchased and invested in this area with the understanding that development would follow the Masterplan and the previously approved 13‑storey concept. This proposal fundamentally changes the character and conditions of the neighbourhood.
3. Misuse of Affordable Housing Incentives
Under the HDA pathway, a 30% height uplift is permitted only if 15% affordable housing is provided for 15 years, allowing a maximum height of 78m
This proposal far exceeds that and does not address the City of Newcastle’s requirement for 1% affordable housing in perpetuity**.
Affordable housing should not be used as a loophole to justify extreme height.

Additional Concerns
4. Water Pressure and Essential Services
There is no evidence that Newcastle’s water infrastructure can support a tower of this height, which requires specialised pumps and pressure systems.
5. Inadequate Management of Communal Living
Communal kitchens and shared living areas are proposed without any clear management standards, raising concerns about hygiene, safety, and long‑term maintenance.
6. Emergency Evacuation Risks
There is no explanation of how elderly or mobility‑impaired residents would be evacuated down dozens of flights of stairs during an emergency.
7. No Supporting Infrastructure
The proposal offers no new infrastructure to support the density—no open space, community facilities, or transport upgrades.
8. Segregated Entries
Separate entries for different housing types create a socially divisive “poor door” arrangement.
9. Traffic Impacts
The development will worsen congestion on Hunter Street, Stewart Avenue, Hannell Street, Wharf Road, and the Interchange precinct—already critical arteries for the Hunter Region.
10. Solar and Energy Impacts
A tower of this height will cast extensive shadows over surrounding buildings, reducing solar access and increasing energy consumption.
11. Fire Safety and Response Capacity
There is no evidence that Fire & Rescue NSW has the equipment or reach to respond effectively to a fire in a 43‑storey building.
Conclusion

This roposal is excessive, unsafe, and inconsistent with Newcastle’s planning controls and the Wickham Masterplan. It places developer interests above community wellbeing, liveability, and safety.

I urge the Department to reject the proposal and require any future application to comply with the established planning framework and the expectations set when this site was originally proposed as a 13‑storey development.

Thank you for considering my submission. Please keep me informed of all future updates.

Sincerely,
Dr Kristy Lane