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

Dear Assessment Officer,

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

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

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

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

Dear Assessment Officer,

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

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

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

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

Dear Assessment Officer,

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

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

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

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

Dear Assessment Officer,

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

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

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

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

Dear Assessment Officer,

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

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

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

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

Dear Assessment Officer,

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

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

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

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

Dear Assessment Officer,

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

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

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

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

Dear Assessment Officer,

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

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

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

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

Dear Assessment Officer,

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

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

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