I object to the proposal due to the following concerns:

Rezoning and Planning Controls:
The proposal does not appropriately comply with LEP and DCP controls. I request that any development adhere to existing height controls.

Height and Bulk:
The Tyrrell Building should remain within the 14-metre height limit. The proposed eight-storey building is excessive in height and bulk, and the setbacks are inadequate, particularly as the building rises.

Overshadowing:
The proposal would cause unacceptable overshadowing of my dwelling and surrounding properties. The shadow diagrams provided are unclear and difficult to interpret. In particular, they do not clearly show:
• How much direct sunlight private open space for each dwelling will receive
• How private open space has been defined and measured for each dwelling
• The actual extent and duration of overshadowing impacts throughout the day.

Impacts to Regency Park Property:
There is insufficient information regarding stormwater management and potential overflow impacts, including any realignment of stormwater infrastructure on Regency Park property.
There is also no clear information regarding possible access to, or leasing of, Regency Park property, potential permanent impacts to communal assets, changes to easements, or details of proposed grouting works.
These matters should be fully detailed and investigated during assessment and prior to any determination.

Consultation:
Consultation with residents has been inappropriate. Despite repeated requests, the developer refused to provide copies of plans, drawings, or presentation materials shared during meetings. Much of the information was provided verbally only or via PowerPoint, forcing residents to photograph presentation slides to inform other lot owners.
At one meeting, the developer’s engagement representative attempted to record residents without consent for the developer’s own use.
Residents were also previously advised that access to Regency Park property would not be required during construction, which now appears to be inaccurate.
I request further meaningful consultation with the developer, particularly to discuss overshadowing and direct impacts to my dwelling.

HDA process:
This proposal should never have been declared State Significant given the scale of uplift sought in such a sensitive location. Doing so created false hope for the developer that the Department would seriously consider an extreme concurrent rezoning in this area.
Had the EOI submitted to the HDA been subject to more rigorous scrutiny at the outset, the developer, community, planning and agency staff, councillors, MPs, the Minister, and many other stakeholders would not have had to waste so much time on this ridiculous proposal, and could instead have focused on projects that would genuinely and meaningfully contribute to housing supply. For this reason, I ask the developer to withdraw their application before assessment progresses further.

I am writing as a local resident in support of the 47 Darby Street proposal. This is the kind of spot where a bit of height actually makes sense, it is close to the city centre, the places people work, study, eat, and spend time. If we cannot add homes here, near the action, then where exactly are we meant to put them, somewhere that forces everyone into longer drives and fewer options?

I understand the instinct to say “it’s not the character of the area”, but “character” is not a museum label. Cities grow, and good streets stay good by having people in them. More residents nearby means more customers for local businesses, more activity at different times of day, and more life at this end of Darby Street.

In short, this looks like sensible infill in a sensible location. Please do not let not-in-my-backyard arguments carry more weight than the broader public interest.

Increasing the building height from 14m to 35m is a dangerous precedent to set for Darby Street. As a local resident, I am concerned with the possibility of further projects in Cooks Hill and the remaining parts of Darby Street following this example and applying for new height limits. It is not in keeping with the Darby Street Village ideal that is promoted by Newcastle Council, and the development planning laws of the Cooks Hill Heritage precinct that residential dwellings must adhere to.

The neighbourhood has already been changed by the decision to approve increased density on the ‘NBN site’ and a building that will change the cityscape in that location.

Increasing residential high rise in Cooks Hill will exacerbate the current parking issue, with innumerable city office workers and university students parking on residential streets throughout the suburb. A 14 storey residential tower will worsen this problem.

Further, the Newcastle Art Gallery directly opposite 47 Darby Street was a huge investment for Newcastle and New South Wales and a 35 metre high building will directly overshadow this, which should be the centrepiece for the area.

The development proposed for 47 Darby Street represents an extreme and unjustifiable departure from the planning expectations that residents have relied upon for decades. The project seeks approval for a 13‑storey tower and an 8‑storey building, despite the Newcastle Local Environmental Plan limiting the site to 14 metres in height, a fraction of what is being requested. Allowing such a dramatic uplift would effectively dismantle the credibility of local planning controls and signal that compliance is optional for well‑resourced developers. This is not a minor variation; it is a wholesale rewriting of the built form for the area, driven not by community need but by speculative yield.

The proposal is fundamentally incompatible with the established character of Cooks Hill and the human‑scale streetscape that defines Darby Street. Residents value this area for its heritage, walkability, and cohesive low‑rise form. These qualities would be overshadowed, both literally and figuratively, by a tower of this magnitude. The introduction of a high‑rise structure into a neighbourhood of predominantly two‑ and three‑storye buildings would create a visual and physical dominance that erodes the identity of the precinct. Community groups have already warned that this project exemplifies a “no‑rules planning system,” and approving it would confirm those fears by setting a precedent for unchecked vertical creep across Newcastle.

For adjoining residents, the impacts would be immediate, severe, and irreversible. The proposed tower would loom directly over their homes, stripping away natural light, privacy, and the sense of openness that currently defines their living environment. Overshadowing from a 13‑storey structure would significantly reduce sunlight to balconies, courtyards, and internal rooms, while the elevated sightlines would allow hundreds of new occupants to look directly into private spaces. Noise from increased traffic, service vehicles, and intensified commercial activity would further degrade residential amenity. The cumulative effect is not simply inconvenience but it is a profound loss of quality of life for those who live closest to the site.

Finally, the use of the State Significant Development pathway to push through a project that so clearly contradicts local planning controls raises serious concerns about transparency and fairness. The SSD process was designed to support strategic housing delivery, not to provide a loophole for developments that would never pass local scrutiny. The concurrent rezoning request embedded in this proposal appears engineered to legitimise an otherwise non‑compliant scheme after the fact, undermining public trust in the planning system. Approving this development would not only harm the adjoining residents and the broader Cooks Hill community, it would signal that community expectations, heritage values, and established planning rules can be discarded whenever they prove inconvenient. I strongly object!

Dear sir / madam

I write to formally object to the proposed development of a 45-metre tower at the corner of Darby and Tyrrell Street, Cooks Hill.

This proposal is grossly out of proportion with the existing built environment of Cooks Hill. The suburb is characterised by low- to medium-rise development, heritage terraces, and a human-scale streetscape that contributes significantly to its identity and amenity. A 45-metre tower would dominate the skyline, overshadow neighbouring properties, and irreparably alter the ambient and village character of the area.

Cooks Hill is widely recognised for its heritage significance. The proposal demonstrates little regard for the established architectural character and historical context of the precinct. Rather than complementing the surrounding environment, the development would stand as an intrusive and visually overwhelming structure that prioritises private financial gain over community values.

In addition, local infrastructure is already under considerable strain. Traffic congestion in and around Cooks Hill is a persistent issue, particularly along Darby Street and connecting routes. Parking is limited, and road capacity is constrained. The introduction of a development of this scale would significantly increase vehicle movements, further exacerbate congestion, and negatively impact safety and liveability for residents.

It is also important to note that the community has clearly expressed opposition to this proposal. There is no demonstrated community need for a tower of this magnitude in this location. Development should respond to genuine demand and community benefit, not impose an oversized structure that undermines the character and functionality of the suburb.

I respectfully urge the NSW government to respect the local governments decision to maintain its position in refusing approval for this development. Planning decisions must protect the heritage, scale, amenity, and infrastructure capacity of Cooks Hill for current and future residents.

Thank you for considering this submission.

Yours sincerely

Albert Papichio

I object to this Darby Street development in the strongest possible terms.
The location for this twin tower project is inappropriate, posing a number of threats to the values of nearby residential and cultural centres.
Planning protocols, which have evolved over many decades, allocate specific zones for high rise buildings, working to counter the adverse effects, such as overshadowing and loss of privacy.
However, the development in Darby Street contravenes these principles entirely. Where carefully scribed corridors exist elsewhere for high rise buildings, such as in the Newcastle West Precinct, no such development should be permitted in the Darby Street precinct.
Newcastle Council had made deliberate and careful planning decisions to restrict the height of buildings in this precinct, and on this particular, to a maximum of 14 metres. That this project proposes a height of 45 metres, which may be well negotiated even higher during construction, is outrageous.
This is a denial of normal zoning procedures, and makes a mockery of council's efforts to plan carefully for future construction, and to protect heritage areas.
The proximity to the heritage zone of Cooks Hill is particularly jarring. Immediately adjacent to the proposed development we find Newcastle's only synagogue, a number of architecturally significant churches, a sacred memorial to World War warriors, and the entire cultural and civic precinct of Newcastle. This precinct includes our Town Hall, Civic Park, the Conservatorium of Music, and the city campus of University of Newcastle. The just-completed art gallery, constrained carefully to a two-level height, will be overshadowed grossly by the proposed development.
The building mass, particularly of the higher tower, would be completely out of proportion with the heritage precinct. Cooks Hill's special status, as a protected heritage area consisting primarily of two-storey Victorian cottages, is protected by some stringent development codes. Should this project proceed, the uniformity and consistency of the building fabric would be destroyed. Similarly, the materiality of the proposal, and the colours of its finishes, would be completely at odds with the residences of Cooks Hill.
Intrusions on the privacy of residents seem assured by the proposal. No consideration has been given in the architectural designs to avoiding over-looking existing residences, especially east of the second tower.
The project does not present a solution of the affordable housing crisis. Rather it is billed as exclusive /executive housing for the wealthy. The current housing shortage greatly effects those on low and middle incomes, but this project will be of no assistance to these people.
Despite this, the developer tries to depict the project as a "housing solution".
In fact, the Darby Street proposal would not address the accommodation shortage, and would not provide "the missing link" to inner-city Newcastle, as suggested by Mr Steggles Mendez.
Approval of the current proposal would countenance over-development, would sanction depletion of a valued heritage area, and would be a visual blight.
I urge reviewers of the plan to look at City of Newcastle's recommendation, accepting that building height on this site be limited to 14 metres.

Revised Submission: SSD-82276964 – 47 Darby Street & Tyrrell Street
​To the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,
​I am writing to formally object to the proposed State Significant Development (SSD-82276964) at 47 Darby Street and Tyrrell Street, The Hill. My objection centers on the inappropriate massing of the proposal, which fails to respect the established architectural language and topographical flow of Newcastle’s civic and heritage core.
​1. Failure of Massing and the "Canyon Effect"
The combined impact of the Darby Street and Tyrrell Street developments creates a continuous "wall" of apartments. This design choice ignores the natural "slope" of the suburb, effectively boxing in the Civic Park precinct and severing its visual and physical connection to "The Hill".
​Contrast with Existing Precedents: The proponent's justification of height based on nearby structures is fundamentally flawed. Existing tall buildings in this precinct—such as the University (NUspace), the Town Hall with its clock tower and various churches—utilize a stepped massing approach. They feature large, activated bases with a gradual reduction in footprint as height increases. This creates depth, allows for light penetration, and maintains a sense of "breathability" in the skyline.
​Inappropriate Footprint: Unlike these established precedents, the 47 Darby Street proposal maintains a bulky, consistent footprint across its height, creating a monolithic barrier rather than a tiered addition to the city.
​2. Erosion of Cultural Reverence and Civic Grandeur
In Newcastle’s CBD, height has historically been reserved for buildings of significant cultural and civic reverence.
​Architectural Hierarchy: Structures like the City Hall Clock Tower and the nearby ecclesiastical buildings utilize height to signal their importance to the community. Their architecture reflects a level of grandeur and craftsmanship appropriate for their status.
​Diminishing the Art Gallery: By contrast, the proposed residential towers offer no such civic contribution. In fact, they threaten to diminish the $40+ million public investment in the Newcastle Art Gallery expansion (due to open February 2026). The gallery’s prominence will be overshadowed by a private residential development across the street that lacks the architectural merit to justify such a dominant position on the skyline.
​3. Critical Infrastructure and Flood Risk
I remain deeply concerned regarding the relocation of easements and the management of stormwater.
​Existing Failures: The intersection of Darby and Tyrrell Streets is already a flood risk. The manhole on Darby in front of Tyrrell Street is a known failure point, frequently overflowing during standard heavy rain events.
​Cumulative Impact: The proposed changes to drainage, combined with the massive increase in non-porous surfaces, pose a direct threat to the surrounding low-rise properties. This development risks "locking in" a permanent flooding issue for the sake of a high-density footprint.
​4. Opaque Planning and Community Exclusion
The complexity of the provided shadow diagrams makes it nearly impossible for local residents to calculate the true loss of solar access. Furthermore, utilizing the SSD pathway to bypass the City of Newcastle’s carefully planned height corridors ignores years of ratepayer-funded urban design work. This development seeks to profit from the "cultural precinct" atmosphere while simultaneously destroying the very elements (views, light, and connectivity) that make the precinct valuable.
​Conclusion
The 47 Darby Street proposal is an exercise in over-development that lacks the stepped massing and architectural grandeur required for this sensitive location. It creates a physical wall where there should be a topographical transition. I urge the Department to reject this proposal and demand a design that respects the cultural hierarchy of Newcastle’s skyline.

The project changes the street scape and character of Cooks Hill in a negative way and thereby the heart of Newcastle. It’s an overwhelming building far beyond accepted dimensions of developments in that area.

Hello, I object to this proposal. I think Newcastle City Council and the Newcastle public should be involved in a big planning decision. The proposal will dominate the arts precinct . I think there are many places that can be developed that won't impact a community place . A four story development would not impose. Thank you for listening.

I wish to make a submission objecting to the proposed redevelopment of 47 Darby St for the following reasons:
I. I believe that it is a gross, opportunistic overdevelopment of the site - three times Newcastle Council’s height restrictions for the locale.
2. Unacceptable visual impact and overshadowing.
Its insensitive overbearing presence would overwhelm the surrounding public and heritage buildings as well as the amenity of the public green space that is Civic Park.
3. The height, scale and bulk of the proposed building is inappropriate. It will be at odds with the area’s village-like community, its dining venues and the relaxed vibe that the Darby St precinct is renowned for.
4. The “Darby” building residents will be entering and exiting onto Darby Street contributing to the existing traffic congestion in the street.
The commercial spaces on the lower floor would also contribute to the already problematic traffic and parking and impact on the safety of the area.
5. This proposal completely disregards and disrespects the considered, long term planning of Newcastle Council which has plans and rules in place to protect our community from overreach such as this.
6. The height of this building needs to be limited to 14m - the height that complies with Newcastle Council’s DCP.
7. The need for more residential apartment housing can be more appropriately addressed in the many areas in inner city Newcastle where high rise development is already permitted - Honeysuckle, Hunter Street, Wickham and the western end of Hunter Street.
In conclusion, I request that the State Government Consent Authority reject this proposal.