I object to the project in its current state. The building is too tall ie it should be a maximum of 4-5 levels instead of 9 levels. It will overshadow current structures, and will allow residents to look into other nelson bay residents backyards and properties. At present the townhouse development which is across the road from this proposed development, already invades our privacy as they can look into our house and backyard. This proposed development in its current state will further impact our privacy and the peaceful enjoyment of our property.

I have serious concerns regarding the traffic impacts, infrastructure capacity, and cumulative pressure this development will place on Nelson Bay.
Nelson Bay already experiences significant traffic congestion during weekends, school holidays, and peak tourism periods. At these times, roads leading into and through Nelson Bay regularly become heavily congested and can be severely gridlocked. Existing roads leading into the town often reach full capacity during holiday periods, causing long delays and bottlenecks. Local intersections and streets within the CBD already struggle to manage peak seasonal traffic, and there are limited alternative access routes in and out of the area. Adding a large-scale residential development of this size will further increase pressure on an already constrained road network, particularly during peak holiday periods when congestion is already a major issue.
There is also concern that parking provision may not adequately meet demand, particularly for visitors and short-term stays. If insufficient, this may result in overflow parking into surrounding residential streets, further impacting local amenity and access.
In addition, the existing infrastructure in Nelson Bay is already under pressure during peak tourism periods. This development should not be assessed in isolation, but in the context of existing congestion issues, seasonal population surges, and other approved and potential developments in the area. The cumulative impact on roads, parking, and local services does not appear to be fully addressed.
While I support appropriate development, I believe this proposal in its current form does not adequately demonstrate that Nelson Bay’s road network and infrastructure can safely and sustainably accommodate the increased demand.

My objections are based on:
1. The project is over height for the region. Approval will create a precedent that will be impossible to turn back so once again the areas inhabitants are being ignored by any and all governments and their agencies.
2. The project will create traffic chaos as the residents will empty on to one of the busiest streets in Nelson Bay. Even if forced to only turn left out of the development, which won't happen, the increased traffic in Donald & Stockton Sts will be unsustainable.
3. The inhabitants of 3 Church St will be overshadowed by two sizable unit dwellings thus having a detrimental effect on their welfare and privacy.
4. The assertion that this development will aid in the 'housing crisis' is garbage given that the prices of the units are obviously targeting city investors and will do nothing to alleviate the housing shortage and will increase holiday let capacity. Very few locals will be able to afford these units.
4. The developers' disdain for the community in not being willing to engage with the local community directly, threatening local social media groups for having such discussions and deleting any comments from their on social media that don't suit their monetary ambitions.

I am for development provided it doesn't turn the city centre into a series of canyons. CBD centric development is not in keeping with the landscape of the area. There is plenty of opportunity to truly address the local housing shortage such as by simply zoning Salamander Way as medium to high density. The housing blocks are sizable, the the road is serviced by public transport and has shops and medical facilities at both ends.

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

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

Submission Objecting to Development Application

Residential Flat Building – 42 Donald Street and 5–7 Church Street, Nelson Bay

1. Introduction

I make this submission to formally object to the proposed Residential Flat Building at 42 Donald Street and 5–7 Church Street, Nelson Bay.

While I acknowledge that there is no absolute legal right to a view under NSW planning law, the loss of residential amenity, including unreasonable impacts on outlook, sunlight, privacy, and wellbeing, is a legitimate planning consideration. These impacts must be assessed in light of the proposal’s height, bulk, and scale and its cumulative effect on surrounding residences.

2. Existing Views and Impact of the Proposal (Specific View Loss)

At present, my dwelling enjoys valuable and enduring views from main living areas and private outdoor spaces, both while seated and standing.

These views include:

* Open and filtered water views across Port Stephens.
* The natural coastal landform and skyline of Nelson Bay.
* A broad sense of sky, openness, and connection to the coastal environment.

The proposed development would significantly obstruct these views by introducing a large, visually dominant built form into the primary outlook. As a result:

* Key water and skyline views would be substantially or entirely lost
* The outlook would be replaced by building mass rather than coastal landscape
* The sense of openness and natural outlook would be materially diminished

This represents a substantial loss to the most meaningful and frequently used parts of the dwelling, not a minor or incidental impact.

3. Assessment Under the “Tenacity” Planning Principle

Under the "Tenacity principle", the impacts of view loss must be assessed having regard to view quality, viewing position, and the reasonableness of the proposal.

* "View Quality:" The views are high‑quality coastal and water views, central to the identity and amenity of Nelson Bay.
* "Viewing Position:" The impacts occur from main living areas and private open spaces, not secondary or peripheral locations.
* "Reasonableness:" The proposal’s bulk, height, and lack of sufficient stepping or setback directly intercept established view corridors. The loss results from a design that is excessive rather than unavoidable.

When weighed against these factors, the severity of view loss is **disproportionate to the purported development outcome**.

4. Height, Bulk and Scale – Unreasonableness of the Design

The fundamental issue is not the presence of development, but the unreasonable built response on this site.

The proposal:

* Presents excessive bulk relative to surrounding residential development
* Fails to sufficiently reduce visual impact when viewed from neighbouring dwellings
* Exceeds what is necessary to achieve a reasonable residential flat building outcome

A more sensitive design—through reduced height, increased setbacks, or reconfigured massing—could significantly reduce impacts, indicating that the amenity loss is not an inevitable consequence of development, but the result of design choice.

5. Combined Amenity Impacts

The planning impacts of the proposal must be considered cumulatively.

Overshadowing

The building’s height and mass will reduce access to sunlight to adjacent dwellings and private open spaces, particularly during winter months, diminishing residential comfort.

Visual Privacy (Overlooking)

Upper‑level balconies and windows introduce unacceptable overlooking into neighbouring living areas and private spaces, resulting in loss of privacy.

Visual Bulk and Character

The development appears visually imposing and risks eroding the established coastal residential character of the area.

Traffic and Parking

The increased residential density will add pressure to local roads and parking resources, further impacting residential amenity.

6. Mental Health and Wellbeing Impacts (Residential Amenity)

In addition to physical amenity impacts, the proposal raises serious concerns regarding mental health and wellbeing, which form an important part of residential amenity.

The existing views provide:

* A strong sense of connection to nature and the coastal environment
* Daily visual relief, calm, and openness from within the home
* A meaningful contribution to emotional wellbeing and enjoyment of the dwelling

The loss of this outlook—replaced by a dominant built form—would:

* Increase feelings of enclosure and visual confinement
* Reduce access to restorative natural views
* Diminish overall living quality within the home

These impacts are not abstract or trivial. The NSW Land and Environment Court has recognised that outlook, sunlight, and environmental quality contribute directly to the health and wellbeing of residents. A development that unnecessarily removes these qualities imposes a real and ongoing burden on occupants of surrounding dwellings.

When such wellbeing impacts arise from an "excessive and avoidable design outcome", they weigh strongly against approval.

7. Conclusion

For the reasons outlined above, the proposed development:

* Causes "unreasonable loss of residential amenity", including significant view loss
* Fails to adequately address the Tenacity planning principle
* Is excessive in height and bulk for its context
* Results in cumulative impacts to privacy, sunlight, outlook, and wellbeing

I respectfully request that Council refuse the application or require substantial redesign to reduce its height, bulk, and impacts on surrounding residents before any approval is considered.

I object to the project on the following grounds:

1. Side Setback to eastern boundary
The proposal does not comply with Building Separation within the Apartment Design Guidelines adjacent eastern boundary.
A side setback to this boundary of only 3.6m & 3.64m for 8+ levels is totally inadequate & unacceptable for an external wall with windows to a habitable room and for deck/terrace spaces. For the first 4 levels a setback of 6.0m should be imposed (total shared setback 12.0m between the two adjacent sites), and for the remainder of the proposed building a setback of 9.0m should be imposed (total shared setback 18.0m between the two adjacent sites).
This will significantly impact the future development potential of the adjacent site and has allowed the proposal to achieve an additional unit on most levels at the expense of future development to the east.
2. Natural Cross Ventilation
The cross ventilation compliance table & diagrams on page 21/34 within Appendix L show apartment 308 as having compliant cross ventilation which is not in line with the Apartment Design Guidelines given this unit is not a corner unit or through-apartment. Apartments 108, 208 & 308 are considered non-compliant.
3. Deep Soil Zone
The proposed Deep Soil Zone does not have a minimum dimension of 6.0m as required by the Apartment Design Guidelines and therefore the proposal does not comply with the ADG requirements at all. If the side setback to the east boundary (relating to the required Building Separation) was increased from 3.64m to 6.0m then both non-compliances would be addressed.
4. Minimum width of Living Room
The proposal indicates living room dimensions which fall well short of the minimum 4.0m width requirement of the Apartment Design Guidelines. Dimensions shown in red on the floor plans indicate widths of 3.474m, 3.669m,3.729m, 3.778m, 3.783m, 3.8m & 3.868m which is considered to provide inadequate amenity.
Removing a unit from the northern frontage would assist resolve this and other issues outlined in this submission.
5. Minimum width of Bedrooms
The proposal indicates bedroom dimensions which fall well short of the minimum 3.0m width requirement within the Apartment Design Guidelines. Dimensions shown in red on the floor plans indicate widths of 2.71m & 2.8m which is considered to provide inadequate amenity. I suggest that bedroom area calculations indicating compliance with the ADG also be requested. Removing a unit from the northern frontage would assist resolve this and other issues outlined in this submission.
6. Single Fire Stair & Exit per level
The proposal indicates a single fire stair & exit per upper level is questionable in terms of achieving compliance with the National Construction Code and potentially will present issues with acceptance from Fire Brigade, performance solution or not. It is anticipated that significant redesign work will be required at some point in the future. I suggest it is better practice to request this detail prior to any approval.
7. Inadequate Plant Areas
The proposal does not appear to provide adequate plant area for electrical, mechanical and hydraulic plant, which is anticipated to require significant redesign work in the future. In particular hydraulic plant related to fire at the upper most level or mechanical -stair pressurisation does not appear to be spatially allowed for. I suggest it is better practice to request this detail prior to any approval.
8. Waste Truck
It appears as if the waste truck shown on the Basement 1 floor plan enters the site in a forward direction from Donald Street and then it is proposed it reverses out onto Church Street which is quite a dangerous proposition for pedestrians & vehicular traffic on such a steep street. I suggest an alternative waste management approach be considered with a smaller vehicle associated with waste collection entering the site, turning on site and exiting the site in a forward direction. This would be as per Port Stephens Council requirements which have been achieved at other significant residential apartment buildings in the town centre.

Whilst personally I am all for housing supply particularly within designated town centres, design quality & residential amenity must be present together with respectful consideration of adjacent future development sites. In these respects, I am of the opinion the proposal falls well short, and I would encourage further design development & amendments be requested to resolve the issues outlined above.

I am submitting comments on this proposal as an apartment owner within the 5 Adonis Avenue complex, which will be directly adjacent to the proposed development.

My primary concern with the development application is the request to amend the Height of Buildings Map under Clause 4.3 of Appendix 8 – Area 20 Precinct Plan, increasing the permitted building height from 12 metres to 31 metres.

The south-facing units at 5 Adonis Avenue already experience significant issues with internal condensation and mould. A major contributing factor is the lack of direct sunlight on this side of the building, which results in persistently damp ground conditions and elevated humidity levels. Within our unit, we are required to operate a dehumidifier continuously at high power to maintain acceptable indoor humidity and mitigate mould growth. Prior to implementing this measure, we experienced significant mould growth throughout the unit.

I am concerned that the proposed increase in building height will further reduce the already limited access to natural light, exacerbating damp conditions and significantly increasing the risk of mould in adjacent properties, including my own.

As an experienced medical researcher and scientist, I am aware that the health risks associated with mould exposure are well established. This proposal raises serious concerns regarding potential impacts on residents’ health and living conditions.

I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these concerns further and am available to provide additional information or submissions if required.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed building height of up to 27 metres for the above development.

The proposed height represents a significant departure from the established and emerging character of the surrounding area, where the majority of nearby residential buildings are approximately four storeys. A development of this scale would introduce an overbearing built form that is inconsistent with the local context and streetscape.

Of particular concern are the amenity impacts on neighbouring properties. A building of this height is likely to result in substantial overshadowing, reducing access to natural sunlight for existing dwellings and outdoor areas. This has direct implications for residents’ quality of life, including reduced natural light, increased reliance on artificial lighting, and diminished enjoyment of private open space.

In addition, the proposed building height may adversely affect natural ventilation and airflow patterns within the immediate area. Reduced air movement can impact thermal comfort and overall liveability for neighbouring residents.

The cumulative effect of excessive height, bulk, and scale creates an outcome that is not sympathetic to the existing built environment and places an unreasonable burden on surrounding properties.

While increased housing supply is understood and supported (and I am happy to support a reduced maximum height of 4 storeys), it should not come at the expense of established amenity or through development that significantly exceeds the prevailing character of the area.

I respectfully request that the proposed building height be reduced to better align with the surrounding built form and to minimise adverse impacts on neighbouring residents.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this submission, and I am happy to discuss this further as appropriate.

Sincerely,

Kyle Maher

Overall i strongly support this application, i have reviewed all plans and the design is appropriate, of a high quality and visual amenity.

I strongly feel it should be a requirement that the developer contribute to the delivery of the proposed intersection with Windsor Road in the 'Appendix 18 - Road and Drainage Design' document either prior to construction or prior to the completion of the development.

This area is extremely congested at present, so providing a road and pedestrian connection from the development to Windsor Rd is critical as the existing Demeter St and Rouse Rd connections are not sufficient. This is especially true for walkability - the area is extremely unfriendly to pedestrians, especially considering its proximity to frequent bus and metro services - this development should be conditional on these road/pedestrian connections being delivered alongside or ahead of the development. I have lived in this area for almost all of my life and have found it has truly received the short end of the stick regarding developments being delivered and approved, but then road, transit and pedestrian connections lagging 5-10 years behind. If these timelines were more aligned, public sentiment towards densification and development would significantly improve, as this is arguably the key source of the local residents' negative attitude to development and 'NIMBY' attitudes, which is understandable considering just how poorly infrastructure has been delivered in the surrounding areas. There is a strong opposition to development in this region, but this is almost entirely attributed to the infrastructure lag that comes with it, without this lag, i feel sentiment would greatly shift.