We don't need another huge apartment tower in Newcastle that will affect the already dismal parking and logistics of the city. We need more affordable housing but not in the heart of the city. It can't handle it.

I think the building that currently exists there is an eyesore and a new building IS appropriate, however i am concerned about the height of the proposal....keeping it in line with the surrounds is appropriate, not to swamp the art gallery, Civic Park and other important buildings. It should not set a president in our beautiful city.

This building height is not sensitive to the street scape.
It is 3 x the legal limit.
Neighbouring a cultural precinct and a heritage conservation area.
Overshadowing, over dominating.
Ignoring local sentiment and local planning controls.

This proposal places profit over people. The development is not suitable for our city whose historical ambience will be destroyed by such a development. The beautiful historic building and nearby parklands will be compromised.
I understand that some of the adjacent area is culturally significant to my Awabakal peoples.

I strongly oppose the proposed development due to concerns about its impact on the community and surrounding environment.
This development raises significant concerns regarding traffic, infrastructure strain, and neighborhood character.

I’m writing to comment on the proposed development at 47 Darby Street.

I support new housing and sensible growth in Newcastle. But I don’t support the scale of what’s being proposed. A 12-storey building in this location is too tall and out of step with the area. A more reasonable height would be around five storeys.

The current height limit for the site is much lower than what’s being sought. Allowing a building three times taller than the existing controls would undermine the planning rules that are meant to guide development across the city. It would also set a precedent for similar proposals in places that were never intended for high-rise buildings.

This part of Newcastle is defined by Civic Park, heritage buildings and cultural institutions. A tower of this height would dominate the precinct and change its character in a way that can’t be undone. Mid-rise buildings would allow growth without overwhelming the area.

There are also concerns about bulk, overshadowing and the impact on public spaces. A lower-rise design would sit more comfortably within the streetscape and better protect the amenity of the precinct.

Newcastle does need more housing, but height and density should be directed to the right places. A five-storey limit at this site would strike a fair balance between growth and protecting what makes this part of the city special.

For these reasons, I urge the decision-makers to reject the 12-storey proposal and require a significantly lower height.

Thank you for considering my submission.

The building height- far too high for a heritage and culturally significant area. It was agreed that multi storied developments should be in Newcastle West precinct. This building will dominate our beautiful new art gallery, affect the patronage of our library and city town hall and theatre through parking problems. The building design does not consider the heritage buildings close by and does not add any charm or architectural merit to our city. It appears to be an overdevelopment of a space that will be an eyesore.
Parking- already a major issue in Cooks Hill and this development will add significantly to this problem.
State disregard for our local area- we recognise and understand the state government is trying to address a housing issue and this has become a very political issue, but the people who are making decisions have no vested interest in maintaining what is good about our city. The residents of Newcastle should have a say in the future of our city as it will impact directly on the next generation.

This project, and other like it, is exactly what the city of Newcastle needs.

I object to this ugly eyesore being built in close proximity to my home which will cause traffic congestion in an already crowded area.

It will also block out a great view and more importantly, sunshine.

1. Unacceptable bulk and scale of project impacts and undermines the ambiance of the local environment.
2. Inconsistent with planning objectives , contextually inappropriate with existing neighbourhood character.
3. Adverse amenity impact . The proposed excessive height and resulting bulk would cause loss of solar access and overshadowing to neighbours , surrounding residential properties would significant overshadowing daily. This is inconsistent with design standards that require adequate solar access for neighbouring properties.

4. Overbearing and out of character built form , the development height and bulk would be visually intrusive and out of scale and character with th established neighbourhood environment. The design fails to appropriately transition between low density and high density areas.

5. Privacy and visual impact . Upper level, mid level balconies and windows overlook adjoining residential properties, resulting in privacy impacts not mitigated by adequate design measures. These amenity impacts are recognised material considerations under the environmental and planning assessment act and the relevant LEP and control plan DCP provisions.

6. Insufficient streetscape response and urban design. The proposal does not adequately respond to the street scape character objectives of the DCP. A development that materially exceeds the permitted height should demonstrate a high quality response that enhances the public domain and better integrates with existing built form , which this application does not !

7. Lack of appropriate environmental and social impact address. Environmental impacts , shading and microclimate need to be fully considered. Social impacts , on community facilities eg civic park , library, Darby st , Town Hall , Art Gallery. Traffic needs to be appropriately mitigated.
Traffic and parking , access to parking , significant parking impacts with respect to clause 4.6. Significant parking deficiency and cumulative impacts on residents and surrounds. The proposed development fails to remotely address existing and foreseeable parking pressures within the town centre, particularly in proximity to the civic theatre, town hall, civic park , library, hotels , bars and restaurants.
Existing high demand environment , the subject sight is located within and established activity precinct that already experiences, peak parking demand during theatre performance and town hall events. Weekend congestion associated with restaurants, cinemas, hotels and city lifestyle. Competing demands between residents, event patrons and visitors. limited availability of on street parking and overflow parking.

8. Residential parking is at a premium as there are not enough parks now for the residents. This is further exacerbated by performances, events and general city lifestyle. Introductions of additional dwellings will further exacerbate these existing constraints.

9.Inadequate insight parking provision, the proposed parking rate that doesn’t realistically reflect , actual car ownership, evening and weekend peak demand patterns, visitor parking requirements and the cumulative impact when considered alongside nearby entertainment uses.

10. Where a development seeks a variation to parking standards or relies on reduced rates under strategic housing policy, it must demonstrate that demand will not shift unreasonably into the public domain. In this case evidence suggests that all shortfall parking displaces residents parking and any increase in vehicles will only further add to this existing pressure.

11. Cumulative impact on Community Infrastructure. Under section 4.15/of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 the consent authority must consider the likely impacts of the development, the suitability of the site and the public interest. The cumulative impact of this proposal, combined with peak town hall , civic park , Darby street and town hall usage will likely result in reduced parking, increased congestion, reduced accessibility for elderly and conflict between residents and event attendees.