10 Dangar St Wickham Mixed-use development

Dear Assessment Officer,

I work as a building manager in Wickham, and I'm writing to object to the proposed 43-storey development at 10 Dangar Street in its current form.

My main concern is flood risk. I manage buildings in this area and I know how water behaves here when it rains heavily. The application hasn't demonstrated convincingly that a development this size won't make flooding worse for the surrounding precincts. I need to see proper modelling that accounts for how stormwater will be managed at this scale, and what happens to neighbouring properties when the system is under stress.

Beyond the flooding issue, I'm also worried about what this sets in motion. A building of this height and footprint is a significant shift from what Wickham currently looks like, and it will shape how the western edge of the city centre develops. That's a big decision to make without being absolutely certain the infrastructure can handle it.

The applicant needs to provide clearer evidence on flood risk and binding commitments that actually protect the area. Right now, the application asks the community to accept a major departure from the planning framework without that level of certainty. That's not good enough.

work without causing serious problems for Wickham and the surrounding precincts. The location is particularly tricky — it's in a flood-affected area with already stretched infrastructure, which means we need to be really careful about safety, basement design, emergency access, and evacuation arrangements.

Dear Assessment Officer,

I'm writing to object to the proposed 43-storey development at 10 Dangar Street, Wickham.

As a member of the strata committee here in the area, I've been thinking about what this scale of building would mean for our neighbourhood. My main concern is around basement safety. The proposal needs to demonstrate that the basement design actually works safely at this scale — it's not enough to just say the building can be constructed.

The basement sits below existing structures and infrastructure in a densely developed area. I haven't seen proper independent assessment of how the excavation and basement construction will affect neighbouring properties, water management, or structural integrity of surrounding buildings. That matters for safety.

On top of that, the wind impacts the developers mention add another layer of concern. These issues should be properly resolved before anyone decides whether to approve this.

Dear Assessment Officer,

I'm writing to object to the proposed 43-storey development at 10 Dangar Street, Wickham.

As an emergency services volunteer, I've seen firsthand what happens when buildings aren't designed with safety in mind. My concern with this application is specifically around basement safety. A development of this scale needs to prove it won't create risks that emergency responders have to manage, but the application hasn't adequately addressed this.

It's not enough to say a tower can physically be built. What matters is whether the applicant has actually demonstrated a safe outcome — one that's fair and proportionate to what the area can handle. Basement design affects evacuation routes, flooding risk, and how we'd respond if something went wrong. These details matter, and they're not convincingly dealt with here.

The wind impacts add another layer to my concerns. Together, they suggest this application isn't ready for approval yet.

Dear Assessment Officer,

I work in environmental management, and I've spent enough time looking at how developments integrate with their surroundings to know when something doesn't add up. The 43-storey proposal at 10 Dangar Street concerns me because the application just doesn't demonstrate that a building of this scale can operate without creating serious problems in Wickham and Newcastle West.

The streets around here—Dangar, Charles, Hannell—already have a lot going on. Pedestrians, cyclists, delivery vehicles, service access. It's already congested. What worries me is that the loading and servicing assessment is incomplete. The basement safety implications haven't been properly worked through either. These aren't minor details you can sort out later with operational plans. They need to be resolved now, before anyone approves this.

A development this large demands that the consent authority take a careful, evidence-based approach. Right now that's not happening. The applicant needs to actually address these issues properly instead of relying on vague commitments they can defer to future conditions.

Dear Assessment Officer,

I'm writing to object to SSD-89869959 for the 43-storey development proposed at 10 Dangar Street, Wickham.

As a traffic professional, I've spent years managing transport networks in similar precincts, and this application concerns me deeply. The scale of development here — 43 storeys — needs to be matched with realistic transport planning, and I don't think the applicant has done that work.

My main issue is the hotel pick-up and drop-off arrangements. A building this size will generate significant vehicular movements during peak periods, and the application doesn't adequately address where these vehicles will queue or how they'll integrate with the existing road network. The Wickham, Newcastle West and Newcastle Interchange precinct already carries substantial traffic loads. Adding a major hotel without proper analysis of these movements feels like an oversight that will create real congestion problems.

There's also the matter of public domain and road reserve impacts that haven't been properly resolved. These aren't minor details — they're essential to understanding whether the development can actually operate without creating unsafe conditions.

Dear Assessment Officer,

I'm writing to object to the proposed 43-storey development at 10 Dangar Street in its current form.

As an urban planner, I've spent enough time thinking through how cities actually work to know that this application hasn't adequately addressed the traffic and safety issues it will create. The access arrangements as proposed leave several critical problems unresolved. The driveway sightlines don't appear to meet proper standards, and I'm not confident the assessment of heavy vehicle movements has been thorough enough. Then there's the pedestrian and cyclist conflict — Dangar Street functions as a civic street, and the proposal doesn't show how it can safely handle the extra foot traffic, vehicle movements and delivery vehicles a building this size will generate.

I'm also concerned about flood risk here. This part of Wickham is already dealing with a lot of pressure from traffic congestion, bus movements, and the number of people moving through the precinct. Adding a development of this scale without properly understanding the flood dynamics feels like we're stacking risks on top of each other.

I'm not opposed to housing in principle. We need more of it. But it has to go somewhere sensible, and the evidence has to stack up. That means traffic patterns need to work, flood risk needs to be genuinely understood and managed, wind impacts need proper assessment, and the public domain can't just absorb whatever gets left over after the building's designed. Right now, this application asks the community to accept too many unresolved risks.

Dear Assessment Officer,

I work as an architect in Newcastle, and I've been following this proposal for the 43-storey development at 10 Dangar Street. I don't think the application has made a convincing case that impacts of this scale can actually be managed well.

My main concern is around the public domain and road reserve. What I'm seeing is a proposal that leans heavily on public-domain outcomes and through-site links, but these don't appear to have proper endorsement or secured agreements behind them. This isn't something that should be sorted out later in the design phase — it's fundamental to whether this application is ready for approval as it stands.

I'm also worried about design excellence. The material submitted doesn't clearly show how this will be delivered. Rather than vague statements about intent, we need actual drawings, specific conditions, and concrete operational commitments so we can see how it will work in practice.

A development this large needs careful, evidence-based assessment from the consent authority. The technical side and the public interest implications both need to be properly worked through before approval.

Dear Assessment Officer,

I use public transport regularly to get around Newcastle, and I'm writing to object to the proposed 43-storey development at 10 Dangar Street in Wickham.

The scale of this project concerns me, particularly whether it can actually be supported without causing serious problems for the wider area — Wickham, Newcastle West, and the Newcastle Interchange precinct included. Just saying the site is near public transport doesn't address whether the infrastructure and surroundings can genuinely handle a development this size.

My main issue is design excellence. The design excellence pathway hasn't been properly resolved. There's still a complete Alternative Design Excellence Strategy missing, and the State Design Review Panel's concerns haven't been fully addressed. This isn't something that should be sorted out later — it's fundamental to whether this proposal should be approved at all in its current form.

I'm also worried about what happens during construction. The application needs to show clearly how construction impacts will actually be managed. That means detailed drawings, specific conditions, and real operational commitments — not just general statements that things will be fine.

Dear Assessment Officer,

I walk through Wickham most days to catch the train, and I'm writing to object to the proposed 43-storey development at 10 Dangar Street.

The height and scale of this building concerns me greatly. A 43-storey tower is completely out of step with what's currently allowed in Wickham, and the application hasn't made a convincing case for why this site deserves such a massive exception. The planners and the community shouldn't have to just accept this kind of departure from the existing framework without solid justification.

I also have concerns about where people will park their bikes and motorcycles. This part of Wickham is already busy with traffic, buses, pedestrians and cyclists all moving through the same streets. Adding a building of this size will only add to that pressure, and I don't see how the application addresses this properly.

Before anything gets approved, the applicant needs to provide clearer evidence about why this exceptional height is necessary. There should be independent peer review of the claims being made, and any approval should come with binding conditions that actually get enforced.

Dear Assessment Officer,

I'm writing to object to the proposed 43-storey development at 10 Dangar Street, Wickham.

I cycle around this area regularly and use the local streets to get to work and around town. What concerns me most is that the application hasn't demonstrated how community infrastructure can actually handle a development of this size. It's not just about whether the tower can physically go up — it's about whether the outcome is fair and workable for the people already living and working here.

The scale of this proposal makes the infrastructure gaps even more glaring. A 43-storey building will generate serious demand on local services, transport networks, and public spaces, but I don't see evidence that these pressures have been properly thought through or resolved.

I'm not opposed to new housing in Wickham. I think the area should grow. But that growth shouldn't come at the cost of ignoring real problems with flooding, traffic flow, wind impacts, design quality, public spaces, and the capacity of basic services to cope. These aren't minor issues that can be glossed over.

Dear Assessment Officer,

I'm writing to object to the 43-storey development proposed for 10 Dangar Street in Wickham.

I have mobility issues that affect how I move around the area, and I'm genuinely concerned that no one's properly looked at what a building this size would actually do to Wickham and the surrounding precincts. The application doesn't adequately address the cumulative impacts—it feels like they've only looked at their own site in isolation.

This proposal would fundamentally change what Wickham looks like and how it functions. Once something this large goes up, it sets the tone for everything that comes after. We need to be clear about whether that's the right direction.

What troubles me most is that the affordable housing and public benefit commitments don't seem to match what they're asking for in terms of the height uplift. The two don't add up to something that justifies the scale of development being proposed.

Dear Assessment Officer,

I've lived in this area for many years now, and I need to express my concerns about whether this 43-storey development at 10 Dangar Street can actually be managed properly.

The scale of what's being proposed here troubles me. A building this size in a flood-prone location with already stretched infrastructure — that's asking for real problems down the line. I'm particularly worried about the basement safety in a flood zone, and whether emergency services can actually get people out if something goes wrong. These aren't small details; they're about keeping residents safe.

What really bothers me is that the application hasn't sorted out the CPTED and management issues, or properly explained how loading and servicing will work. These are fundamental questions that need independent review before anyone should sign off on this.

The applicant keeps talking about proximity to the Interchange and housing supply, but that's not the same as showing this specific proposal won't create unacceptable problems for Wickham and Newcastle West. The location itself has constraints that need to be honestly addressed, not glossed over.

43 stories is just way too high.
Suggest the developer matches the max height of neighbouring buildings already approved (Stella, The Store etc). These seem to have found a way to make these heights commercially viable, suggest this developer does the same.

A 43‑storey building is fundamentally out of scale for this area and sits well outside the intended scope of development for Wickham. The character of Wickham is defined by its community feel and street-level vibrancy, not by high-rise density of this magnitude.
While additional housing is welcomed and necessary, a proposal of 43 floors—almost double the current height limit—represents a significant and unjustified departure from established planning controls. This is not a minor variation; it is a substantial escalation that risks undermining the identity and liveability of the precinct.
Describing such a scale of development as acceptable in this context is difficult to support. It would have a dominating visual impact and would alter the human scale that makes Wickham unique.
There is no shortage of expertise, innovation, or design capability available. With the level of talent, tools, and experience at hand, we should expect outcomes that are more considered, more context-sensitive, and better aligned with both planning intent and community expectations.
In its current form, this proposal is not an appropriate response to the location and should be reconsidered.

It is important to be transparent and honest about the intentions behind proposing a building design of 43 floors, which represents more than double the existing height profile of the area. Such a significant increase is not a minor variation but a fundamental change to the scale, character, and impact of the development.
Clarity around the purpose of this height—whether driven by commercial yield, urban densification, or design ambition—is essential for informed assessment. Stakeholders, including the community and regulators, should be provided with a clear justification for why this level of intensification is necessary and how it aligns with established planning controls, strategic objectives, and amenity expectations.
Without this transparency, there is a risk that the proposal may be perceived as exceeding reasonable planning intent rather than responding to it. Open disclosure of the design rationale, impacts, and trade-offs will support a more balanced and credible evaluation process.

I object to the project for the following reasons:
1) The project is far too large for the infrastructure, the access roads are narrow, already congested and in no way will accommodate the large number of residents intended for the building.
2) The building fronts a major arterial road with with no provision for stopping so tiny residential streets must be used.
3)The building appears to be a tower of approximately 40 stories while the surrounding buildings do not exceed 14, it will be an eyesore.
4) The building is to be built on reclaimed swamp land and and a failed attempt has already been made to build a 19 story building on the site. There will certainly be major engineering difficulties and there is a possibility that the building will be unsafe.
In conclusion,I disagree with the project on the grounds that;
it is not appropriate for the existing infrastructure, the design and size is not consistent
with the surrounding neighbourhood and I do not believe that the building will be safe.
George Anderberg

We live in Newcastle not New York. The height of this building is off the scale even compared to the new developments, The Store and Dairy Farmers which it will dwarf. It does not fit in with any part of the city skyline. We cannot even be sure how tall it really will be as there are different heights on different parts of the application.
Wickham is an old suburb with narrow one way streets. Someone in their wisdom closed the Railway St exit to Hunter Street so that the only exit to the south is down Throsby St. It is congested at peak traffic times now. Parking Wickham is a nightmare as most units in the area have 1 parking space and 2 vehicles. Older houses have no off street parking. The development does not fit in with the Wickham Village Plan.
No evidence of substrata safety. The site has already proved unstable and that was for a much smaller building. We don't want a 43 story building collapsing onto the suburb or the station.
Who will oversee the construction of this massive tower? We know first hand about the regulators not regulating resulting in shoddy and unsafe buildings.
Does the city's emergency services have the capability of dealing with an emergency in a building so large?
Can the aged sewer, water and electricity infrastructure cope with a development as large as this especially with The Store and Dairy Farmers coming on line. Wickham floods is heavy rain events.
There are already numerous empty ground floor commercial spaces in the new residential blocks along Honeysuckle and businesses there fail regularly. We don't need more empty commercial spaces especially around the station which attracts homeless people.
I am concerned that the development will lead to even greater social divide. The size and number of apartments plus hotel should be in a park or somewhere where people have green space, easier access by cars. Charles, Station, Wickham and Bishopsgate Streets already struggle to work with current traffic loads. Garbage collection is also a challenge in the narrow streets. How do we know the owners of the building won't use the car parking for private income or let another company lease it and not use it for parking for residents and hotel guests?
these are just some of my concerns. Sandra Anderberg

Please find attached my submission.

I've lived and worked in Wickham as an artist for many years, and what worries me most is the visual impact this tower will have. A building of this height will fundamentally change the skyline we see from Wickham, Honeysuckle, Newcastle West and the harbour edge. It's not something that can be tidied up with tweaks later—it's a core issue about whether this development should go ahead at all in its current form.

The parking shortfall is another major problem. The application doesn't adequately explain how this will actually work. I need to see concrete drawings and clear operational commitments, not just vague statements that it'll be managed somehow.