Mixed Use Development - Darby St Cooks Hill

We are writing to lodge a formal objection to the SSD application 82276964 for the proposed mixed-use development at 47 Darby Street, including the concurrent rezoning proposal.
We are local residents and parents of young children and are seriously concerned about the significant and adverse impacts this proposal is likely to have on the character, safety and liveability of Cooks Hill for families and the broader community.

The proposal seeks to increase the max permitted height from 14m to 45m, which represents a substantial and unjustified departure from the existing planning controls. The height is grossly inconsistent with the established low-to-mid-rise-built form of Cooks Hill and would result in a dominant and visually intrusive development that overwhelms the surrounding streetscape.

The proposed increase in floor space ratio from 2.5:1 to 3.48:1; combined with the construction of 113 residential units, represents an overdevelopment of the site. This level of density is not in keeping with the capacity of the area and risks setting an undesirable precedent for further intensification that is inconsistent with community expectation and existing controls.
The proposed height, bulk and proximity of the buildings will result in unacceptable impacts on neighbouring properties - privacy, increased overshadowing, wind and noise impacts.

The concurrent rezoning proposal appears to be driven by the development planning rather than strategic planning. Amending the Newcastle Environment Plan 2021 to accommodate the proposal undermines the integrity of the planning framework and raises concerns about ad-hoc, site specific changes that benefit a private development at the expense of the broader community.
Cooks Hill is valued for its human-scale development, heritage character and walkable urban form. A development of this magnitude and scale is incompatible with the established and desired character of the area. It risks eroding the unique qualities that make the area attractive and liveable.
As residents with young children, we are particularly concerned about the increased traffic, congestion and activity generated by this development in an area that is already extremely busy and heavily used by pedestrians, including families and children.
Darby St and surrounding local streets already experience significant traffic congestion and issues with parking. The addition of 113 residents units and ground floor retail will only exacerbate these issues, even with basement parking. Vehicle movement will increase which will reduce on street parking availability and create safety concerns in an already busy precinct.

We respectfully request that this proposed development and associated rezoning is refused for the reasons outlined above.

Yours sincerely,
Elliot and Elisabeth McLeod
Railway Street, Cooks Hill

I strongly object to the development at 47 Darby Street.
Subject: Objection to Proposed Development at 47 Darby Street, Newcastle

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to lodge a formal objection to the proposed development at 47 Tyrell Street, Newcastle. While I understand the need for thoughtful growth and renewal within our city, this proposal represents an inappropriate and excessive form of development that threatens the character, heritage, and civic integrity of its setting.

1. Impact on Newcastle’s Major Civic Square
The site sits in close proximity to Newcastle’s principal civic square — the area formed around Civic Park and fronted by some of the city’s most important civic and cultural buildings: the Town Hall, the Round House, the Conservatorium of Music, the Library, and the newly extended Newcastle Art Gallery. Together, these create a cohesive civic and cultural precinct of exceptional significance. The Margel Hinder fountain, a recognised public artwork and landmark, contributes further to the cultural and aesthetic unity of this square. Any new development in its visual catchment must therefore be sympathetic in scale, form, and materiality. The proposed development fails to respect this context and would detract from the visual coherence and dignity of this important civic setting.

2. Impact on the Heritage Conservation Areas of Cooks Hill and The Hill
The site sits on the edge of, and within view of, two of Newcastle’s key heritage conservation areas — Cooks Hill and The Hill. These areas are valued for their historic streetscapes, human-scale development, and architectural cohesion. The proposed building, by virtue of its bulk, height, and modern form, would be visually intrusive and inconsistent with the established heritage character of these neighbourhoods. It risks undermining the heritage values that have long been protected and celebrated in this part of the city.

3. Availability of Suitable Areas for High-Rise Development
Newcastle has already identified and zoned appropriate precincts for high-rise and intensive urban development, notably in Newcastle West and parts of Honeysuckle. These areas have the infrastructure, planning controls, and urban form suited to such density. The proposed development at 47 Tyrell Street falls outside these designated zones and therefore represents an inappropriate location for high-rise construction.

4. Inappropriate and Overdevelopment of the Site
The proposal constitutes overdevelopment, both in terms of its scale and its disregard for the surrounding urban and heritage context. Its height, bulk, and massing are excessive relative to neighbouring properties and would create overshadowing, loss of visual amenity, and an imbalance in the established built form. The design fails to respond sensitively to the site’s constraints and the broader civic setting.

In conclusion, I urge youl to refuse this application in its current form. The proposal is inconsistent with the character and planning intent of the area and would have lasting negative impacts on Newcastle’s most significant civic and heritage precincts.

Thank you for considering this submission. I would appreciate being kept informed of any future amendments or decisions regarding this proposal.

Yours faithfully,
Margaret Ostinga

I wish to voice my strong opposition to this “development.”
This proposal is to build a huge development 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 current 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 limit - a limit which was established for many, many valid reasons; within the Newcastle City Centre Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) and it would also sit on the boundary of 2 other culturally significant HCA’s (The Hill and Cooks Hill). The impact on the surrounding area would be overwhelming and overbearing, towering over our new Art Gallery, Civic Park and surrounding heritage suburbs.
If the State Government ignores the wishes of inner Newcastle residents by rubber stamping this white elephant, it would open Pandora’s Box for more ill-conceived and completely inappropriate developments to be proposed in areas never before even considered for high rise.
The long term vision for Newcastle is for high-rise in the West End and maintaining one of Australia’s oldest city’s character further East and along the peninsula by remaining relatively low-rise. Sticking to this plan may displease some greedy developers but will ensure that our once beautiful city returns to form – with her soul mostly intact.
Whilst I strongly agree that higher density housing is needed; Newcastle is more than pulling her weight on this with the Newcastle West filling up with apartment towers and Newcastle East has expanded into Hunter Street with hundreds of additional residences (whilst maintaining the character of the area.) The plans for Broadmeadow will also create 3000+ more homes. Accordingly, I feel that proposing that this monolith get a rubber stamp as a State Significant Development is more than pushing its luck and should be declined.
Four or five (maximum) stories would be more reasonable (if they lack the imagination to do something lower but profitable); if the developers build excellent quality and more boutique style residences I’m sure that would attract buyers willing to spend top dollar; they could still make a financial killing without trashing the heritage area.
And, let's be honest here.
They are in it for the money - not to be virtuous and create homes for the underprivileged.

I am writing to lodge an objection to the proposed development at 47 Darby Street, Cooks Hill. While I support the renewal of our city and appreciate the intention to replace ageing buildings with new housing, I am deeply concerned that the current design does not reflect the best interests of the surrounding neighbourhood, its residents, or visitors to Darby Street.

I am a resident of Regency Park, which directly neighbours the proposed development. Regency Park is not simply a collection of residences; it is a close-knit community. Our shared tennis court, adjoining cabana with a 12-seater entertainment area, and outdoor pool are vital communal spaces where residents gather to rest, socialise, exercise, and host local and family events. These spaces are especially important during winter, when many homes are cold and dark — the open areas provide sunlight, warmth and a sense of wellbeing.

According to the overshadowing diagrams in the Concurrent Rezoning Report https://majorprojects.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/prweb/PRRestService/mp/01/getContent?AttachRef=SSD-82276964%2120260115T222510.917%20GMT (page 56), these shared spaces will be fully overshadowed from 10:00 am until 3:00 pm. There are no diagrams beyond this time, but it is reasonable to assume the impact will extend for several more hours. After 2:00 pm, the shadow will also cover the outdoor pool — a space central to our community life. An overshadowed, cold pool is not usable, and this effectively removes a key communal asset for all Regency Park residents. The scale and height of the proposed 12-storey building will not only affect immediate neighbours but the entire Regency Park community.

The height is also inconsistent with the surrounding built form. Darby Street is known as a human-scale neighbourhood where people gather to enjoy coffee, food and conversation in the sunshine. Introducing a building of this height risks creating a darker, wind-affected environment that undermines the very character that makes the area vibrant and welcoming.

I am also concerned that the proposed design does not respect the heritage and architectural identity of the area. Newcastle has many excellent examples of contemporary development that honours its past — particularly in the East End — where new buildings respond thoughtfully to heritage context. In contrast, the concrete balconies and overall form of the proposed building feel dated and visually harsh, reminiscent of 1980s design rather than a modern, considered contribution to the city. It is difficult to see how this improves on the existing Markey building in terms of beauty or civic pride.

Newcastle deserves development that enhances its character — buildings that people want to photograph, share, and talk about with pride. Beautiful, well-considered architecture encourages visitors to stay longer, return often, and invest emotionally in our city.

I respectfully ask the City and decision-makers to reconsider the direction of this proposal, particularly its height, massing and design response. Any redevelopment of this site should carefully consider the cumulative impact on Regency Park residents, many of whom stand to lose essential communal spaces that support social connection, health and wellbeing.

Thoughtful growth is possible — growth that respects community life, neighbourhood scale and Newcastle’s unique heritage. I urge that this proposal be revised with these principles at the centre.

Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission and for considering the lived experience of local residents.

RE 47 DARBY STREET, COOKS HILL

Try as I might, I can't improve on the list of concerns, and the description of those concerns, that the Not47DarbyStreet group have assembled. But I would like to add some of my own thoughts and concerns about the Darby Street/Civic Park precinct.

As one who frequently and regularly walks the breakwater wall I am always astounded by the beauty of Newcastle's skyline. It closely resembles the skylines of several of the most beautiful towns that I have visited in France, and I am so delighted that Newcastle actually has the profile of a cathedral as its crown. I also note that the skyline is not as pleasing on the eastern side where two oversized apartment blocks are located, for they disrupt the skyline in both symmetry and beauty. My concern is that a 12 storey - or even a seven storey - building in the Civic precinct will abuse the district permanently. The four storey apartment block built in Dawson Street between Bull and Parry Streets has permanently spoiled that part of Cooks Hill. And there is another example - eight or so storeys this time - on the corner of Parry and Union Streets. There are high-rise precincts in the east and, now, in Newcastle West - the latter being vast - and formidable.

It is important to retain Newcastle's heritage, and its character. To build oversized structures in a heritage and cultural area that gives Newcastle its attraction to locals and visitors alike is a big mistake.

And it is here that I 'poach' the words and Ideas of the Not47DarbyStreet group:

Councils in the past have understood the consequences of their mistakes.

A high-rise development has been proposed for 47 Darby Street, Newcastle — and while the current height limit for the site is 14 metres, this proposal seeks to build to 45 metres.

𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭’𝐬 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭.

This luxury two-tower high-rise is not only vastly oversized, it also encroaches on Newcastle’s culturally and historically significant areas. This proposed development sits within the Newcastle City Centre Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) and is on the boundary of 2 other culturally significant HCA’s (Cooks Hill and The Hill).

It also directly faces one of Newcastle’s most important Civic precincts. A 45-metre building in this location would be completely overbearing and out of scale directly opposite the art gallery and Civic Park and the surrounding streetscape of Cooks Hill.

This isn’t about opposing development. Newcastle needs thoughtful growth.
But development must respect the scale, character, and heritage significance of the area.

A building of this height will:
• Overwhelm the established streetscape and heritage conservation areas
• Impact the character of the Civic cultural precinct including the Art Gallery.
• Set a precedent for excessive height.

We are calling for a development to better consider its context than what is currently proposed.

I don't like some aspects of the development proposed for 47 Darby Street
it dwarfs and minimise the new art gallery by a massive overview of some ten stories higher it will diminish the appearance and attraction of the gallery for visitors and residents,
the stated connection with this section of the proposal with civic park is misrepresented. There is no need to be concerned that the mass of happy picnickers in the park will feel neglected by lack of a restaurant diagonally up the street where there are beautiful restaurants directly across Darby street such as Meet, Lightyears and george darby hotel.
The proposal to have restaurants needed diagonally up the street is misleading .
Whilst the Tyrells section of the development appears to be worthwhile and only breaks the existing planning height restrictions by a huge amount . The main section at 47 ,on the corner of queen and darby is atrous ,going from a suburban environmental saving height of 14 metres to a completely unacceptable 45 metres.
it provides instead a horrible visual entry to the quiet darby street food residential lay out ,which needs to be preserved. It would have shocking visual impairment on the neighbourhood.
Five stories is all that should be endorsed rather than providing a development to complete with the city west newcastle massive towers . These are sufficient areas for high rise development for Newcastle housing in the city west.
There needs to be a distinction between this massive style development for housing . This will provide a distinction between high rise city mas accommodation to a quieter relaxed suburban decor. Injecting high rise concepts into residential id and established food hospitality areas is wrong . This is what planning departments should do, not just back quick profit returns for hungry developers .
It is not needed has a negative impact on the arts centre with a negative impact on car flow and standard of living for existing residents.
As a nearby resident in the quiet, well managed beautiful regency park,
i object to the sun interference and how the shadow impact is presented especially in the shadow pattern in the mid day 0900-1500 period . In summer daylight extends to beyond 2000 so the impact is felt much longer. For the residents the winter sun is important and there the stupid high rise tower has a massive impact as well.
Again as a resident,the lack of car space is atrocious and puts pressure on cars needing to park on cluttered roads to be considered as the volume of cars entering Darby street will impact traffic flow as will that down Queen st that down queen street from the massive nbn development now in progress`.
again as a resident I am concerned about the impact on proposed drains ability to cover flooding and ruun off aspects from storms.
It is a much too big project with too many negative aspects. While the height of the tyrell st section is reasonable the 47 darby street 12 story building is not. I will decrease my standard of living in a quiet newcastle suburb.

I write to formally object to the proposed development at 47 Darby Street. This proposal represents a profound and irreversible change to Newcastle’s Civic Precinct and raises serious concerns in relation to height, bulk, heritage, strategic planning, traffic, mine subsidence, public benefit, and community consultation.

1. Excessive Height and Bulk

The existing legal height limit for this site is 14 metres. The developer is seeking to increase this to 45 metres through a “spot rezone” — more than triple the permissible height.

This dramatic uplift is not a minor variation; it is a fundamental rewriting of the planning controls that apply to this location. A 45-metre tower would introduce a scale entirely inconsistent with the established built form of Darby Street and the surrounding Civic Precinct. The result would be a visually dominant and overbearing structure that permanently alters the character of this part of the city.

Planning controls exist to provide certainty and protect community expectations. A spot rezone of this magnitude undermines both.


2. Impact on Public Spaces and Civic Landmarks

The proposed front tower would visually dominate Newcastle’s most significant civic and cultural spaces, including:

• Civic Park
• Newcastle Art Gallery
• Newcastle Civic Theatre

The two-storey scale of the Art Gallery and surrounding historic buildings creates a cohesive civic setting of gardens, memorials, places of worship, and cultural landmarks. A 45-metre tower at the edge of this space would visually overpower these buildings and diminish their prominence.

This precinct is regionally significant. Its scale, openness, and human proportion are central to its identity. Once compromised, this character cannot be restored.

3. Poor Design and Inadequate Setbacks

Both proposed buildings appear to have inadequate setbacks, contributing to a bulky and overbearing presence.

Rather than responding sensitively to adjacent streets and heritage structures, the proposal pushes built form to the boundaries. The lack of meaningful setbacks intensifies overshadowing, reduces visual relief, and exacerbates the perception of excessive bulk.

The outcome is not a carefully integrated civic building, but an oversized insertion into a sensitive urban setting.

4. Strategic Planning Failure

Newcastle’s long-standing planning strategy has been to concentrate high-rise development within dedicated corridors and identified precincts.

This site is not within one of those established high-rise zones. Allowing a 45-metre tower here represents a departure from that strategy and sets a precedent for ad hoc height increases across the city.

Strategic planning only works if it is consistently applied. Approving this proposal would undermine confidence in the integrity of Newcastle’s planning framework.

5. Minimal Public Benefit

While housing supply is important, the public benefit offered by this proposal is minimal relative to its impact on a regionally significant civic space.

There is no substantial civic infrastructure, public open space enhancement, or meaningful community asset provided in exchange for the requested tripling of height controls. Housing alone does not justify the permanent alteration of one of Newcastle’s most important public precincts.

6. Traffic and Pedestrian Pressures

The proposal would intensify traffic pressures on:
• Tyrrell Street
• Laman Street
• Darby Street

These streets already experience congestion and carry significant pedestrian movement, including school and pre-school traffic. Increased density at this location will exacerbate vehicle movements, loading demands, and pedestrian safety risks within an already constrained civic environment.

7. Inadequate Community Consultation

It is deeply concerning that the developer failed to publish an artist’s impression of the design until the current 14-day public exhibition period.

Given the significance of the location and the lasting impact on the Civic Precinct, consultation has not met the standard expected of a State Significant Development. The community cannot meaningfully assess visual impact without timely and transparent visual material.
This process does not reflect best-practice engagement for a proposal of this scale and consequence.

8. Mine Subsidence Risks

Newcastle has a long and complex history with mine subsidence. However, this site presents greater risk than most. It sits above an additional undermined coal seam — the Yard Seam — a known constraint at the time the land was acquired.

The need for additional grouting or ground stabilisation should not be used as justification for increasing building height or bulk. Engineering complexity does not warrant rewriting planning controls.

There are many less constrained sites across Newcastle suitable for higher-density development. The Civic Precinct should not bear the burden of compensating for geotechnical challenges inherent to this site.

9. Loss of Heritage – Former Electrical Machine Shop

The proposal involves demolition of the 1930s Interwar Period former electrical machine shop on Tyrrell Street.

This building is classified by City of Newcastle as a “Contributory 2” Historic Building. It forms part of the former Shortland Electricity depot and is an important surviving element of Newcastle’s industrial and civic infrastructure history.

Historic photographs from 1953 show the machine shop within its broader civic and cultural context, reinforcing its longstanding presence in this precinct. Demolition would permanently erode this layer of Newcastle’s interwar industrial heritage.

10. Demolition of the Markey Building (Former Channel 10 Building)

The proposal also seeks demolition of the brutalist-style Markey Building (former Channel 10 building).

Newcastle’s brutalist architecture is identified in the draft Newcastle City-wide Thematic History (2025) as an important part of the city’s architectural evolution. The loss of this building would further diminish the diversity of Newcastle’s post-war built heritage.

Brutalist buildings are increasingly recognised for their cultural and architectural significance. Their demolition should not be treated lightly or as expendable.

Conclusion

This proposal represents:

• A tripling of the permitted height through spot rezoning
• An overbearing and visually dominant insertion into a regionally significant civic space
• The loss of identified contributory heritage buildings
• Increased traffic and pedestrian safety pressures
• Development on a highly constrained mine subsidence site
• Inadequate public consultation
• A departure from Newcastle’s established strategic planning framework

The Civic Precinct is one of Newcastle’s most important and symbolic public spaces. Decisions made here will shape the city for generations.

For the reasons outlined above, I strongly object to the proposed development at 47 Darby Street and request that it be refused.

To Whom It May Concern,

I write to formally object to the proposed 12- and 7-storey luxury apartment complex proposed under the new planning pathway introduced by the Minns Labor Government.

This proposal represents a profound and irreversible threat to Newcastle’s most culturally and historically significant precinct. The scale, height, and intensity of the development are fundamentally at odds with the established character of the area and would set a dangerous precedent for future applications under these recently amended planning laws.

1. Destruction of Established Planning Principles

For decades, careful urban planning has protected Newcastle’s heritage streetscapes and human-scale character. These long-standing controls were designed to ensure that new development complements, rather than overwhelms, existing buildings and public spaces.

The newly introduced fast-track planning framework effectively overrides these safeguards, granting developers extraordinary discretion to pursue excessive height and bulk. Approving this proposal would signal open season on established height limits and planning controls across Newcastle — extending well beyond the city centre into our valued town centres and heritage precincts.

2. Irreversible Impact on Cultural and Heritage Significance

The proposed 12-storey tower would dwarf the surrounding built form and visually dominate the precinct. Most concerning is its impact on our two-storey art gallery — a civic and cultural anchor that contributes significantly to Newcastle’s identity.

A development of this magnitude would:

* Visually overpower and overshadow the gallery.
* Diminish the architectural prominence of existing heritage buildings.
* Undermine the historic scale and streetscape character of the precinct.
* Permanently alter important view corridors and the cultural setting of the area.

Built heritage is not simply about individual structures — it is about context. Once that context is destroyed, it cannot be restored.

3. Overdevelopment and Incompatibility

A 12- and 7-storey luxury complex is clearly inconsistent with the surrounding two- to three-storey built form. The proposal represents overdevelopment of the site, prioritising maximum yield over community benefit.

There is no demonstrated public interest in allowing such extreme height variation in this location. The primary beneficiary of this proposal is the developer — not the residents, not local businesses, and not the cultural life of Newcastle.

4. Precedent and Long-Term Consequences

If approved, this development will not stand in isolation. It will establish a precedent for similar height exceedances throughout Newcastle, accelerating the erosion of carefully developed planning frameworks.

Decisions made under this new fast-track system will shape our city for generations. Once approved and constructed, these impacts are permanent.


Conclusion

This proposal is excessive, inappropriate, and fundamentally incompatible with the character and cultural significance of the precinct. It undermines decades of strategic planning and places short-term development gain above long-term community value.

I respectfully urge the consent authority to:

* Reject this proposal in its current form.
* Uphold established height and character controls.
* Protect Newcastle’s heritage, cultural institutions, and human-scale streetscape.
* Ensure that any future development genuinely enhances — rather than overwhelms — this significant precinct.

Newcastle’s identity is not expendable. Once lost, it cannot be rebuilt.

Yours faithfully,
Cooks Hill Resident

The proposed development is too high for the location where it is. A building of 45m high is out of character with other iconic buildings in the vicinity and will have a negative impact on the local area which is the cultural centre of Newcastle. The development will overshadow civic park and the art gallery, be visually unappealing and cause further congestion to the already strained parking availability. If the project is to proceed a height limit of 30m would have less impact on the local area.

To Whom it may concern
I email to object to the proposed 12 story building on Tyrell st. Building height at three times the legal limit will sit uncomfortably with surrounding areas in the heritage sensitive suburb, ignoring the careful planning by NC around any developments being in keeping with the area.
Local planning controls have been ignored by cynical developers who have taken advantage of the new fast tracked process ( intended to support first home buyers etc) to build luxury apartments.
Additional pressure on infrastructure, traffic, public transport.

I would like to object to the height of the proposed mixed use development in Darby St Cooks Hill. On the grounds that it will change the public green space, heritage sites, and tower over the new art gallery. Developments in Newcastle should be more considered alongside the precinct in which they sit. From streetscape to traffic congestion. This build will also mean a significant loss of heritage: The 1930’s, Interwar Period former electrical machine shop will be demolished to make way for the rear building on Tyrrell Street considered a Historic Building by City of Newcastle.

I both live and work within 600m of the proposed development site. I was born in Newcastle and am a passionate Novacastrian. I am generally supportive of development in the city of Newcastle and agree density and housing supply must increase. However, I am deeply concerned by the height and density of this proposed development.
Concerns:
Impact on traffic - the corner of Tyrrell and Darby Streets is already a challenging corner, especially with people often turning from Tyrrell on to Darby then directly onto Laman Street. Adding 80 odd units will only make this worse. And it’s across the road from a childcare centre. If this proposal goes ahead there should be significant consideration of changes to traffic flow and how to manage it safely. I cross that street as a pedestrian most days and am concerned about the impact on my safety as a pedestrian.
Height - this is my principle concern. My understanding is that the proposed development is 45m high. This is taller than the tax office building (266 King St) and the same height as the University building. That’s absurd. It’s nearly the same height as the Kingsley Building (former Newcastle Council building). The university and Kingsley buildings are both architecturally significant. This proposed development is just a pretty standard apartment block yet it will have the same impact on the skyline. Both the university and Kingsley buildings provide significant public amenity and spaces, education and restaurants. This is not the case for the proposed development at 47 Darby Street. I’m concerned it will impact sunlight at the wonderful and recently renovated Newcastle Art Gallery and Civic Park, which the development will tower over. I’m am really at a loss to see why this development is considered to be of public significance in any positive way that justifies such an impact. Darby Street is a culturally significant area of new adult and the proposed development is totally out of touch with the character of the area. Contrast this with just how careful and sensitive the Art Gallery Redevelopment was in this regard.
Public amenity - the buildings in Hunter St Mall are tall. However, they provide significant public amenity (eg the courtyard at 169 Hunter St. I can’t see from the documents of this proposal what public amenity and public space this building provides. It just over shadows Civic Park and what do we the community get for that? As far as I can see, nothing! Which leads to my final point…
Social/affordable housing - I have read that this development won’t include social or affordable housing, but rather the developers will make a financial contribution to support social / affordable housing. This is a copout. If (and it’s a big if) this development it’s going to be so tall and so dense then it should include social / affordable housing within the unit block itself. This is exactly the kind of location where we need social / affordable housing. I’d feel less aggrieved by the impact on the local amenities if I knew it was for a good cause.

Sydney should not be able to dictate local development in Newcastle . It destroys democratic process when local planning controls are ignored.
This development overrides local council

The building height is 3 times the legal limit in this area and is totally disrespectful to heritage

High-rise luxury apartment towers are not the answer to lack of housing. A labour government should Look at the impact of negative gearing and Airbnb on the availability of housing in NSW

To whom it may concern,
I am writing to object to the proposed State Significant Development (SSD‑82276964) at 47 Darby Street, Cooks Hill, on the grounds of excessive height and bulk that are wholly inconsistent with the Newcastle Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and the existing character of Cooks Hill.

1. The Proposed Height Massively Exceeds the LEP Controls
The development proposes a 13‑storey (44.99m) tower on Darby Street and an 8‑storey (27.7m) building on Tyrrell Street—far above the 14‑metre height limit set by the Newcastle LEP.
This represents a dramatic and unjustified escalation in scale that fundamentally conflicts with the established planning framework for this precinct. Even City of Newcastle planning officers have previously expressed concern that the uplift sought—up to 45 metres—is “beyond what could be justified under existing LEP exceptions.”

The proposal therefore undermines the integrity of the LEP, setting a dangerous precedent where planning controls become meaningless.

2. Excessive Bulk and Overdevelopment of the Site
The application seeks a floor space ratio (FSR) of 3.48:1, significantly exceeding the current 2.5:1 limit established for this area.
The resulting bulk is out of scale for a 3,566 m² site and will dominate the surrounding neighbourhood, which is predominantly low‑to‑mid‑rise and human‑scaled.
The excessive bulk will:
• Create overshadowing and loss of natural light for nearby properties
• Overwhelm the heritage‑significant streetscape of Cooks Hill (notably with heritage issues already flagged by Council)
• Reduce visual permeability and long‑valued view corridors
• Intensify traffic, parking and pedestrian congestion in a precinct not designed for high‑rise loading
This is not a “sensitive infill” project—it is a major tower complex shoehorned into a fine‑grain heritage setting.

3. Incompatibility With Surrounding Character
Cooks Hill is one of Newcastle’s most historically intact and community‑oriented neighbourhoods. The proposal would “tower over” the character of the precinct, which is defined by small‑scale commercial buildings, low-rise housing, and well‑preserved heritage assets.
Even the proponent’s own Statement of Heritage Impact acknowledges that the site sits within an area with identified cultural significance requiring sensitive treatment.
The proposed scale is therefore fundamentally incompatible with:
• The village‑like nature of Darby Street
• The fine-grain character of Cooks Hill and The Hill.
• The heritage values of nearby contributory buildings
• The community expectations for development in Cooks Hill

4. Precedent Risk to the Wider Newcastle Community
This project is being progressed under the Housing Delivery Authority’s State Significant Development pathway, which has already been identified by residents as a “no‑rules” system threatening the planning integrity of Newcastle.
Approving towers more than triple the allowed height in such a sensitive location sets a dangerous precedent:
• It paves the way for high‑rise encroachment into low‑rise heritage precincts
• It erodes public confidence in the planning system
• It encourages developers to pursue extreme variations, knowing they can bypass local controls
• It risks cumulative overdevelopment far beyond the intent of the LEP
Once such a precedent is set, there is no going back.

5. The Proposal Does Not Justify the Scale Sought
Though additional housing is important this project is driven by developer yield rather than strategic planning outcomes.
More appropriate alternatives exist that:
• Respect the LEP
• Maintain heritage context
• Reinforce, rather than damage, the character and social fabric of Cooks Hill

There are nearby corridors within Newcastle CBD where such height and scale are allowed. If the developer wants to build such a large building, they should build it within the existing dedicated corridors and precincts for such high-rise.

Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I strongly oppose the proposed development at 47 Darby Street in its current form. Its excessive height, excessive bulk, and clear inconsistency with established planning controls make it incompatible with the character, heritage values, and liveability of Cooks Hill and The Hill.

I urge the Department of Planning and relevant authorities to reject the proposal or require a dramatically reduced scheme consistent with the LEP and the expectations of the community.

I oppose the State Significant Development proposed for 47 Darby Street and Tyrrell Street because it sidesteps long‑standing local planning rules and weakens the role of the community in shaping development outcomes. The MU1 zone clearly limits building height to 14 metres, yet this proposal seeks permission for structures reaching 45 metres, more than three times what the local planning framework permits. Using the SSD process to advance a project so far outside established controls restricts genuine community engagement and risks normalising the override of democratically created planning standards.

The development’s height and massing are at odds with the character and heritage of the surrounding neighbourhood. Positioned between The Hill and Cooks Hill Heritage Conservation Areas, the proposed towers would overshadow and visually overwhelm these historically significant precincts. Their scale, bulk, and abrupt shift in height relative to nearby properties would produce an unsuitable streetscape and cast extensive shadows, including over the Newcastle Art Gallery and other cultural institutions. These impacts diminish the amenity, cultural value, and environmental quality of the wider precinct.

There are also unresolved environmental and safety concerns. The site’s former use as the Shortland Electricity Depot suggests a real possibility of contamination, including hazardous materials that require thorough investigation and management. The presence of the Dudley and Borehole coal seams beneath the site introduces subsidence risks, which are further complicated by Newcastle’s seismic history. Construction activities such as grouting, dewatering, and prolonged excavation could endanger nearby buildings especially heritage structures through vibration, noise, ground movement, and structural strain. Wind effects generated by the twin‑tower design also demand detailed analysis to ensure safe conditions for pedestrians.

Despite its scale, the project does not offer meaningful public benefit. It does not contribute to affordable housing, instead delivering high‑priced apartments that do little to support renters or first‑home buyers. Traffic and parking pressures on Darby and Tyrrell Streets would intensify, affecting both pedestrian safety and the viability of local businesses. Considering the excessive scale, the adverse impacts, and the unresolved risks, this proposal is not appropriate for the site. I therefore strongly object to the development and urge that approval be refused.

Get this monstrosity of a building off of Darby. 12 stories is an insanely greedy overreach. You will be destroying the view for most residents on Tyrrell st, change the heritage and small town vibe/aesthetic of Darby st, and make a street already short on street parking more competitive.

Are we in a race to make Newcastle as packed and full of traffic as possible? I know we can’t wait to fill the building with immigrants and displace novocastrians, but how about just don’t build it on Darby?

Proposal excessively high (from 14 to 45 metres!) & excessively bulky for proposed location & surrounds - will have major negative impacts on local public spaces, historic landmarks & cultural places of interest - the poor setback design is inadequate for that location, and overall design is lacking connection with this cultural corridor - this is a dedicated cultural environment precinct & these buildings do not belong - traffic pressures will increase in an already busy location - mine subsidence already identified in that location so what are developers doing to overcome this?

The proposed development raises the following concerns. I would like to see the development height reduced to a height that is suitable to the setting.
Excessive height & bulk: The legal height limit at this location is 14 metres. The developer wants to in increase it to 45m through a ‘spot rezone’.
Impact on public spaces: The front tower will visually dominate the two-storey art gallery, Civic Park, gardens, landmarks, and historic and cultural buildings, war memorials and places of worship.
Poor design & setbacks: Inadequate setbacks on both buildings, making the buildings appear bulky and overbearing.
Strategic failure: Conflicts with Newcastle’s long-standing strategy to concentrate high-rise in dedicated corridors and precincts.
Minimal public benefit: The proposal provides low public benefit relative to its impact on a regionally significant civic space, regardless of the provision of housing.
Traffic pressures: Adds strain to Tyrrell, Laman, and Darby Streets, including school and pre-school road and foot traffic.
Poor consultation: The developer failed to publish an artist impression of the design until this 14-day public exhibition period. Given the significance of the location and lasting impact on the Civic Precinct, consultation has not met the standard of consultation required of a State Significant Development.
Mine subsidence: Newcastle has long dealt with mine subsidence, but this site is worse than most. It sits over an additional undermined coal seam (the Yard Seam), a known risk when the land was bought. The cost of extra grouting/ground stabilisation shouldn’t be used as an excuse to push for bigger buildings at the expense of our Civic Precinct when there are other, less constrained sites across the city

The 12 and 7 storey apartment complex would irreversibly change Newcastle’s most culturally and historically significant precinct.
It is unethical for Newcastle to have its local plan controls ignored. Our heritage would be completely disrespected. The wonderful cultural institutions would be dominated and towered over. Building height 3times the legal limit being completely ignored is unacceptable to Novacastrians and visitors who currently enjoy our neighbourhood.

The development’s scale and density are incompatible with existing traffic networks in this precinct. The amount of traffic this development would create will exacerbate congestion on already constrained streets, creating safety risks for pedestrians and cyclists. Also straining local infrastructure.
The three times over the legal height limit erodes the heritage conservation.
Newcastle, specifically Darby Street deserves protection from developers interests.