10 Dangar St Wickham Mixed-use development

As a local resident, I strongly object to the development application and accompanying rezoning proposal of the Mixed-use development at 10 Dangar Street, Wickham. Newcastle Council envisages a village lifestyle for the suburb of Wickham and establishing a 152m building is not in keeping with that vision. Should the application be approved, there will be negative impacts to the environment and a loss of community character. The current Wickham Masterplan 2021, adopted in 2022, recognised the opportunity of this piece of land and acknowledged this by seeking to increase the FSR and maximum building size – which was subsequently approved. This proposal, however, seeks to grossly expand upon those concessions. Previous approvals of the site to establish a building at 60m in height are far more in keeping with the area whilst balancing the growing housing, social and economic needs.

After perusing the associated materials and noting the repeated arguments in favour of this project outlined by the developer, I highly suspect this project will be approved despite any opposing submissions. My chief fear however is it will set a precedent for further development in the area, which will allow future development applications to cite this development as justification for erecting buildings of this height or above. This fear is compounded by the fact that every time I read an update of this proposal, there is an incremental increase to the size of the project. Evidence of this includes the pre-development application which describes a 38-storey building approximately 117m tall. This increases in the scoping report to a 39-storey building with a maximum height of 133m and FSR of 13:1, whereas the application increases the sizes again to request a 43-storey building with maximum height of 152m and a FSR of 14.4:1. Whilst the current plans appear to be for a 133m building, I suspect should the application be approved, the building design will be amended to ensure the maximum values are reached, further negatively impacting the area.

The Wickham Masterplan reiterates the area adjoining the proposed development to be of village character and supports this by restricting building heights. It designates the Dangar Street site in the Rail precinct and notes that existing structures in this corridor have benefited from ‘generous development standards’ (Wickham Masterplan 2021, p. 13) and future development will ‘maintain a transition down to integrate with the lower scale Village Hub precinct fronting Bishopsgate Street' (Wickham Masterplan 2021, p. 13). Consequently, approving a structure of this size at this site fails to acknowledge the concessions already made to support growth, and conflicts with these future focused principles.

Approval of this application would greatly increase pedestrian and vehicle traffic which would lead to an accumulation of negative environmental impacts to existing and future residents. These include but are not limited to, increased air, noise, and light pollution, along with reduced natural light and increased wind. This application seeks to more than double the previously approved development application and if approved, would greatly extend construction time, which would further negatively contribute to environmental and noise pollution in the area.

A further reason to justify my opposition to this development and rezoning application is because two of the three frontages are on small residential roads which are of insufficient size to accommodate expected traffic generation. Development will also reduce the parking opportunities for visitors of current residents. It is naïve to assume parking spaces in the proposed building will be sufficient for the number of residents, resident visitors, and expected guests and staff of the hotel and commercial spaces. Increased traffic congestion and inability to secure parking for residents and visitors would negatively contribute to the intended village vibe of the suburb.

I consider the conclusion in the scoping report that a building at least 133m tall – and possibly 152m tall – is in keeping with the permitted or actual skyline to be misleading. Whilst acknowledging this area borders the western end of the Newcastle CBD, the suburb of Wickham is not part of said CBD, and thus it is not suitable to compare the maximum heights of the CBD to this proposal. Contrary to the argument it is in keeping with the size of the currently permissible building heights, when viewed in the opposite direction to the western end of the CBD it is almost four times taller than some of neighbouring buildings which already overshadow existing dwellings of the suburb. Additionally, the Visual Impact Report found the development would have a ‘moderate to severe’ impact on two viewpoints and a ‘severe’ impact from another viewpoint which conflicts with the opinion it will blend in with its surroundings.

Finally, I would like to include an observation I consider should be of relevance when new developments are being approved within the Newcastle area. There are already a number of empty ground level retail spaces in recently constructed buildings throughout Newcastle including along Honeysuckle and National Park Street. Elsewhere there is high turnover of failed businesses on ground level retail sites including 38 Hannell St, Wickham. Accordingly, there seems little argument for additional retail space to be established if there is already an oversupply in the area.

I am not against development in the area and appreciate the favourable location of this site and the opportunities it can provide. What I am opposed to is the inflated size and scope of this project. Amendments to original planning laws and development applications have already been approved to better serve the community through providing additional housing within this development and these should be retained. The increase in building size associated with this application is not in keeping with the character of the suburb and will have greater negative impacts than positive for the local community.

Cited Source
Wickham Masterplan 2021 (https://newcastle.nsw.gov.au/getmedia/097c90a5-55fd-482c-9a0d-5202b97eed9d/Wickham-Masterplan-2021-Update-Adopted-July-2022.pdf)

As an urban planner, I've spent years thinking about how cities actually work on the ground. What concerns me about this application is that it hasn't adequately demonstrated whether infrastructure in Wickham, Newcastle West and around the Newcastle Interchange can genuinely support a development of this scale.

My main objection is around community infrastructure. The real question here isn't whether a tower can technically be built — it's whether the applicant has shown this will deliver a fair, workable and safe outcome for the area.

The proposed height and scale only reinforce this concern. I believe the application is being pushed through before these fundamental questions have been properly answered.

I support the project, I believe it will significantly improve housing affordability and availability in the area.

I would however like to see the number of units and storeys significantly increased as well as units set aside for essential workers.

As a forthcoming owner of The Store at 854 Hunter St one of my primary decisions to purchase on a high floor was that there were no buildings in front, north facing, that would impede the views. 10 Dangar St even after the issues with Bowline had a 45m height restriction with the possibility of 60M with planning incentives. This development going to 38 stories has a significant impact on the views from our new apartment. There are numerous sites along Hunter st that can go to 90M so plenty of development opportunities without having to signicantly breach the well thought out Newcastle Development Plan and Wickham Masterplan. This should remain at no higher than 60M as per the rules.

I object to the project for multiple reasons including:
- the proposed project will not fit in with the current community culture of Wickham in the area
- the building height is double that of any existing buildings in the area and will create a considerable change to the skyline and image of the area. This is not only for the residents of Wickham, but also will change the view of Newcastle from the harbour. Not only is the height of the building an issue, but also the style/shape of the building is different to all the other existing buildings.
- the street and surrounding streets are small and not appropriate for the increased traffic the project will bring. Not only will there be extra traffic, but an increased need for car parking as the proposal does not include enough spaces for the units. Carparking can already be difficult in the area and will only become worse.
- the previous attempt to build on this site ran into issues with drainage/water due to choosing to build an underground carpark. The other local apartment blocks have above ground carparks. Will this drainage issue really be able to be permanently resolved?
- the type of residents proposed will change the character of the area, with potential for increased crime and reduced safety for existing residents.

love it newcastle needs to start going up even taller hope this sets a precedent fo r the future
newcastle nneds to move to the future well deisgned buildings like urban do are great for the city

i did do a supporting submission for this project sorry about having 2 but i would also like to add it is a bit of a missed oppourtunity but a rooftop bar would have been awesome

The proposal isa gross over development and will ruin the village atmosphere of Wickham. The development will dominate the landscape and the Newcastle city. Parking is already a problem in Wickham with little spare parking for visitors. This proposal will only add to the parking problems.
The proposed development is over scale and is not needed or appropriate for this area. .A proposal of half the size would be more suitable

This development is an ideal use of the site. Newcastle needs high density development in the CBD, close to transport

We should all be supporting infill housing in a housing crisis. The HRP 2041 sets a 60% mix of infill vs greenfield development for the region which it has so far failed to meet. This site is incredibly well positioned for such a development given its proximity to the busiest and best served train station in NSW outside of Sydney. It makes sense for a greater density than the already approved DA here for this reason too - this SHOULD be the highest density area in the entire city even if existing planning controls don't necessarily envision that. That being said, why are we providing that many parking spaces in such a prime location? know its fewer than the number of apartments but for land like this the number should really be as close to zero as possible. There is absolutely zero reason for minimum parking to be required in general but for a location like this it's actually a joke. The only real other downside is whether this level of residential development supports the objectives of the commercial centre zoning but tbh Council's submission will probably cover whether or not they think they need the employment land idk. Anyway build it but for gods sake please do not put in that many parking spaces you are literally further entrenching car dependency by forcing people to pay for it in this kind of land (even if not everyone who lives in the building will have one the few that do will be)

I oppose the proposed development and rezoning of 10 Dangar St Wickham.

I reside in a nearby apartment building and am not opposed to high-density living in general. For this application I have several comments and concerns.

- The decision to allow this development application as a SSA is disappointing, and discards the effective planning and development programs run by City of Newcastle. This includes the Wickham Masterplan, which has been effectively delivering housing in the Wickham area.

- The building height is not in keeping with the character of the area. Perhaps the strongest evidence for this is found in appendix R1, showing the absurd visual impact (e.g. page 34) of the proposed development on the Newcastle skyline. The building negatively impacts the visual appearance of the area, despite the claims made in the visual impact report.

- Community consultation was undertaken and concerns were noted, but it doesn’t appear that any feedback has been taken on board to revise the application. Such a disregard for the community is insulting.

- Proximal to the train station, there is significant pedestrian and vehicular activity along Station St, Charles St, Dangar St and Bishopsgate St at all hours of the day. The increased vehicular activity with the underground car park and hotel will significantly complicate pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular movement through the area. The uplift to enable green travel seems to be negligible beyond encouragement to occupants.

- The 215 new car parks allocated are not sufficient for the approximately 640 new residents (442 in units, 198 in co-living units) housed in the site, let alone the 171 new hotel rooms. My evidence for this claim lies in my residence in a nearby apartment, and knowledge of the car parking struggles in my own building.

I support the original DA for the site (D2018/0119 then DA2022/00448) and strongly urge a return to this design, or something of similar envelope and scale. Alternatively, I would suggest the development consist only of the units and hotel, or units and co-living, with an corresponding scale-down of the building size.

I object to the proposed 43 storey mixed development project for the following reasons:
1. A 43 storey building complex is totally out of character with existing buildings, both in height and use. For example, the new Store complex is 26 storeys high, the complex I live in is 4 storeys high, other existing apartment complexes are between 10 and 20 storeys high. The proposed complex is double that of the neighbouring buildings in the precinct. If the planners want an example of a building that "fits" the existing environment, I would suggest the developers look carefully at the Little National Hotel on Honeysuckle Drive. For the area, it is the right size with little impact parking-wise for surrounding residents.
2. There is very little street parking near the proposed complex. For example, the drop off at Newcastle Interchange is 3 car spaces long and has a 5 minute drop off time! Residents of the proposed complex (hotel patrons and apartment residents) will not be able to park out the front of the complex because one cannot stop in Hunter Street or Stewart Avenue, so non- residents will be forced into already congested space surrounding the complex. The last large car park on Honeysuckle Drive is slated for development in the near future. That's it, no additional car spaces along Honeysuckle Drive at all.
3. When the Store complex is finished there will be congestion in the area of Hunter Street. A 43 storey complex will only add to existing parking congestion.
4. For years Newcastle City Council and the Hunter Development Corporation have promoted the idea of a "village atmosphere" in the area of the proposed 43 storey building ie Wickham, Carrington, Tighes Hill etc. How would a 43 storey building possibly "fit" that concept??
My suggestion to the developers would be to go back and trim the building plans to match the existing height structures in the surrounding areas, ie the Store complex. I do not want to see some 43 storey Sydney eyesore.

Wickham is a small village with increasing crime and many high rise buildings. A plan was put in place to protect this village and now this plan has been overridden by the State Government. While I am totally in favour of public housing to have co living rooms with shared bathrooms for this amount of rooms is a disgrace for these people to endure. Is it safe for a single lady to be going across a public hallway in the middle of the night in pyjamas? Would you?. This is a boarding house disguised as affordable housing. From my experience renting in affordable housing, this increases stress and animosity between renters. My suggestion is to remove some of the “luxury apartments” and at least put a small bathroom in these rooms. Also the number of car parking spaces is insufficient for the number of residents. Parking is difficult in Wickham now, but adding more residents with inadequate parking is wrong. Just because someone needs housing does not mean they dont t own a car. The public transport from the interchange is insufficient now. Our crime rate and safety is at risk and this development adds to my stress where at my age of 75 I need politicians to ensure my safety.

The project is too large for the Newcastle landscape and lot size. It will encroach upon the surrounding area and produce a large eyesore.
There are insufficient parking spaces in the building project.

It needs to be downsized and parking spaces doubled.
No matter what developers and the government say the majority of humans are lazy and rarely walk. Plus public transportation in Newcastle is abysmal.

The development is too intensive - this causes traffic significant issue, espectially around the interchange and right the main and business T-intersection. It is too high which is much high than the height limit the Newcasty le has been managed for overall the city development for future. All other building in the same street/front row is around under 20 story height and and higher in the back street/row. This will shape the city look and management and development is better.

Also, historically the previous developer had an issue with water when they dug up for foundation and went broken. It is concern if the foundation with water/flood naturally like this will be a good foundation for such high story building Or it could result to leaning/sinking by time. This will impact the entire environment and the interchange - public service for people's safety.

In addition to this, I concern whether or not their idea to offer some affordable housing = like housing commission to gain the approval as housing shortage has been an issue. Because the location is right the most expensive areas in Newcastle CBD, as well as the housing commission will be mixed within they fancy hotel room and mall complex? Does not make sense.
A
i would request to take very careful consideration into this

We are renting across the street at number 17, and this house is old. like really old.
Ever since construction on this eyesore has started our house has been non stop shaking, plaster falling off, photos breaking and technology wobbling and now there is a solid slant to our foundation that is huge and noticeable and was not there previously.
We understand that the construction wont stop, but this build will destroy our house.

As a civil engineer, I've spent years working on projects across Newcastle, and I'm concerned this application doesn't adequately demonstrate that a 43-storey development can be accommodated here without creating serious problems for the precinct. The proposed height and FSR are well beyond what the current planning controls allow, and I haven't seen a compelling justification for why this particular site warrants such a significant departure from the existing framework.

Height and scale are my primary concern. The sheer uplift being requested needs to be backed by stronger evidence than what's been provided. The community shouldn't be expected to absorb this level of impact without understanding why it's necessary or what it will actually mean on the ground.

I'm a delivery driver working in the Wickham area, and I've got real concerns about this 43-storey proposal at 10 Dangar Street. The scale of this development just doesn't feel like it's been properly thought through for what the neighbourhood can actually handle.

My main worry is the aviation and crane risk. This isn't just about whether they can technically build it — it's about whether they've actually proven it can be done safely. I drive through this area regularly, and adding a tower that tall with all the construction and operational risks that come with it feels like a lot to take on without proper answers.

There's also the heritage and townscape side of things that makes me think this application needs more work before anyone should sign off on it.

The proposal provides limited public benefit relative to its scale, with insufficient contribution to streetscape improvements, public space, landscaping, and pedestrian infrastructure.
The development significantly exceeds local planning controls relating to height, scale, setbacks, and built form, undermining the intent of the Newcastle LEP and DCP.
Approval of a 43-storey tower would create a precedent for further excessive height and density in Wickham and Newcastle West.
The scale and design of the tower are inconsistent with Wickham’s existing character and industrial-maritime identity.
The height and bulk of the building will dominate the skyline, increase overshadowing, and impact the visual character of the area.
The inclusion of a large number of co-living units may increase resident turnover and reduce long-term community cohesion.
Large-scale co-living accommodation requires strong long-term management to avoid issues relating to noise, waste, security, and amenity.
The proposal appears to provide insufficient parking for the scale of development, increasing pressure on surrounding streets and local parking availability.

This project is totally out of character with the surrounding environment, it will overshadow every other building in Newcastle as it exceeds all existing building heights.
As a regular user of the waterfront, I know that the building will block all late afternoon sun on the waterfront area.
Newcastle city council have spent years coming up with a master plan for the Wickham area, and this building will not just change the feel to the area, but also create a precedent that will allow the huge amount of work that the council has done to be overridden by allowing this crazy development.
Surely maintaining some control over the limits of inevitable changes to the landscape of our city is a right that should be afforded to the people and regulators who run our city, not by bureaucrats from Sydney who will never live near the development nor have to put up with the consequences of their decisions.