NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Major Projects Assessment
GPO Box 39, Sydney NSW 2001
Submitted via: NSW Planning Portal
Re: Formal Objection — SSD-89869959 — 10 Dangar Street, Wickham — Proposed 43-Storey Mixed-Use Development
Dear Assessment Officer,
I am an urban designer who has studied and worked in the Newcastle and Hunter urban context for many years. I reside at 2 Bourke Street, Wickham, and I write to object to SSD-89869959 on urban design and public domain grounds.
Built Form Is Incompatible with the Wickham Street Context
The proposed podium presents 0 metre setbacks to Dangar Street, Hannell Street, and Charles Street, with the tower also sitting at 0 metres to Hannell Street. Zero setback podium and tower interfaces on a corner site adjacent to the Newcastle Interchange creates an oppressive street wall condition, particularly in a precinct where pedestrian movement and public domain quality are central to the strategic vision for the Interchange gateway. From an urban design perspective, this massing strategy optimises floor area at the direct expense of street liveability. I ask the Department to require an independent urban design peer review of the podium and tower setbacks, street wall height, interface articulation and pedestrian activation before any determination.
Through-Site Link Quality Is Not Demonstrated
The through-site link and public domain works are presented as major community benefits that partially justify the scale of the uplift. However, Council's pre-DA advice raised concern about ground-floor landscaping being in constant shadow. If the through-site link and public domain areas are substantially shadowed, wind-exposed, and overlooked by a 43-storey tower on all sides, they will not function as high-quality public space. The claimed public benefit should be assessed against demonstrated usability, not paper area calculations. I ask for sun access diagrams, wind comfort data and independent urban design assessment of all proposed public domain areas before determination.
Circular Tower Form Creates Unresolved Interface Issues
The circular residential tower form creates curved balcony geometry that Council's pre-DA advice identified as functionally problematic. Curved balconies may be architecturally striking but they reduce the usable floor plate of outdoor space, complicate furniture arrangement, and create planning and structural difficulties at the perimeter. The visual impact of a circular tower above a rectangular podium at this height also creates a prominent skyline object that the visual impact assessment's "severe" and "moderate-to-severe" ratings confirm is not yet resolved. I ask the Department to require a revised design excellence assessment before any determination.
Conclusion and Request
I ask the Department to refuse the application or require an independent urban design peer review, demonstrated public domain quality including solar access and wind comfort, and a revised design excellence pathway before any determination is made.
Yours faithfully

I write to formally object to the proposed development at 10 Dangar Street Wickham.

Whilst I support sensible and well-planned development in Newcastle, I believe this proposal represents an excessive overdevelopment of the site and will create significant adverse impacts on surrounding residents, infrastructure, traffic conditions, public amenities, and the character of Wickham.
My objections are outlined below.

1. Excessive height, scale and bulk
The proposed building height and density appear inconsistent with the existing and emerging character of Wickham and surrounding residential areas. The overall scale of the development is excessive for the site and will dominate the streetscape, creating an imposing visual impact and reducing the human scale of the area.
The development risks setting an undesirable precent for future overdevelopment within Wickham.

2. Traffic congestion and parking impact.
The proposal will significantly increase vehicle movement within an already constrained traffic environment surrounding Dangar Street, Hannell Street, Station Street, and the Wickham Interchange precinct.
Existing congestion during peak periods is already problematic, and the development is likely to worsen:
• Local traffic delays
• Intersection congestion
• On-street parking shortages
• Pedestrian safety risks
Visitors parking provisions also appear inadequate and may result in overflow parking into surrounding residential streets.

3. Overshadowing loss of amenity
The height and bulk of the proposal are likely to cause unreasonable overshadowing of neighbouring properties and nearby public spaces, reducing access to sunlight and impact residential amenity.
There are also concerns regarding:
• Loss of privacy through overlooking
• Visual intrusion
• Reduced outlook for neighbouring residents
• Increased wind tunnel effects between buildings

4. Infrastructure and Service Capacity
There is insufficient evidence that existing local infrastructure can adequately support the increased population generated by development.
Concerns include pressure on:
• Local roads
• Drainage systems
• Public transport capacity
• Public open space
• Community services and facilities
The cumulative impacts of high-density development in Wickham must be properly assessed before approving additional large-scale projects.

5. Flooding and drainage concerns
Wickham has known flooding stormwater management issues. Increased site coverage and density may worsen stormwater runoff and place additional strain on existing drainage infrastructure.
A more detailed and transparent assessment of flooding risk, stormwater impacts, and climate resilience should be undertaken before any approval is considered.

6. Construction Impacts
The likely duration and scale of construction activity will create substantial disruption for nearby residents and businesses, including:
• Excessive noise
• Dust pollution
• Vibration
• Traffic disruption
• Construction vehicle impacts
• Reduced pedestrian accessibility
These impacts may continue for an extended period and significantly dimmish local amenity.

7. Neighbouring character and liveability
The proposal does not appear to appropriately respond to established character and liveability of Wickham. Large scale development must be balanced with the protection of residential amenity, public spaces, and community wellbeing.
Residents should not be expected to absorb unreasonable impacts simply to accommodate excessive density outcomes.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that the consent authority refuse the application or require substantial redesign and reduction in scale to properly address the significant impacts on the surrounding community.
I ask that these concerns be fully considered during assessment of the proposal.

Yours faithfully,
Robert Terrence Payne
U1202 1 Union Street,
Wickham. NSW. 2293

I feel there are to many people in this building as there is to little parking in the building. The building is to big for the environment. The shadow will be to big. The scale of the building will cause difficulties for people with disabilities especially in the event of a fire. The scale will be overwhelming for people with disability. It will be difficult for people with mobility restrictions to get from Charles st to station street through the 3m walkway between the building and the station as they have put steps there. There is not indication in the proposal to fix the broken footpaths in along Charles street and Danger Street. These streets are currently unsafe for people of low mobility.

Given the size of the development in terms of numbers housed I think it is important improvements are made for pedestrian access the Newcastle Harborside i.e. Honey Suckle over Hannell St.
Crossing Hannell St is currently poor (traffic lights over divided road) which is not user friendly for pedestrians and cyclists, and I seek consideration for the applicant to assist or to fully fund the appropriate authorities to build a pedestrian overbridge and make it a condition of approval of the development.

As a resident in this neighbourhood there is already a significant issue with parking for both local residents, visitors and members of the community attempting to access local shops and businesses. This development will create additional parking issues with insufficient availability of parking. The height of the building is not in keeping with the other surrounding buildings and does not align with other houses and buildings. The mixed accommodation is a cause for concern in terms of the potential for increased crime as a result of increased numbers of residents sharing common living spaces.

1) 14 floors have been turned into 43 floor development but with inadequate parking spaces, there are three levels of parking with not enough spaces allocated to the hotel.
2) There is no improvement to passive surveillance as the ground floor is service handling with empty foyers.
3) The design is elitist, different amenity is afforded to different tenancy conditions in the building. The co-living cannot access the BBQ areas and additional services provided in the building. This is soul destroying.
4) The building at 43 floors is unacceptable for Newcastle and Australia.

The reason I object is because UrbnSurf cannot be relied upon to uphold the social part of their submission in terms of prolonged and ongoing disturbance to residents. I have attached a detailed summary of emails and a document with my experience in trying to get the business to stop its noise disturbance which was constant and, in the end, despite a promising early engagement with the business, they did nothing to listen to me or the community and effectively told us that they will not do anything about it i.e. social impact and remediate it until the government bodies had to step in. I still retain videos of all the noise over many months referenced in my attached note/s. It caused me significant stress and anxiety and mental ill health.
This proposed hill is going to be quite tall; sound and noise will catch the wind more and transmit it over long distances. I am okay with this development subject to lowering the height of this hill and having strict conditions that reiterate that there will be absolutely no noise pollution for residents surrounding the facility including speaker systems, there will be no lights and brightness being shone beyond the facility (which by the way along with noise is also cruel to the surrounding reserve and birds and animals).
In short, due to the terrible track record in upholding basic social considerations of light and noise pollution, and the risk this poses to further accentuate this not only to residents but also the wildlife in the reserves surrounding the facility, this development proposal should only be agreed based on the limitations I have noted.
It is also quite disturbing that there was no notification sent to potentially impacted residents about this development and I am writing this to you only because I found out by chance from a neighbour. This is not what a proper and fair planning and approval process would do.

Local Newington residents are letter dropping and advocating objection to the project.
Reason being noise and as stated in print-"Newington residents are currently enjoying 'Quiet Living' but this may change again with UrbnSurf current application.
My apartment is close to UrbnSurf and I have no issue with noise from the facility.
On the other hand I receive noise from traffic on Holker St. At times loud vehicles & motor bikes from Hill Rd. Emergency vehicles on both. UrbnSurf is beyond these streets.
Events at ACCOR and Showgrounds create noise far greater than UrbnSurf can generate.
The apartments have double glazing and can cut out most of noise. As can a TV or radio.
I am sure all the above would apply to any resident objectors.
I support the project.
Good Luck UrbnSurf.