Objection to excessive height & scale:
The application does not follow the Newcastle Local Environmental Plan 2012 intentions.
The scale exemptions requested by the applicant have social impacts far beyond what is reasonable and should be dismissed as out of balance and unacceptable when considering the holistic benefits of the development.
The proposed property development has two towers that massively exceed the maximum permitted height limit of 14m and the maximum floor space ratio of 2.5:1. The applicant’s goal is to achieve a project building height of 45m with a larger floor space ratio of 3.48:1.
The scale resulting from such large structures will have adverse impacts in terms of visual dominance over the Civic Precinct, and the low-rise neighbourhood context to the east, overshadowing the bordering Regency Park residential estate.
The City of Newcastle has made clear to the applicant that the large building dimensions they propose do not adhere to site zoning policy proper to the Civic Precinct and surrounds.
The proposed development scale is in the wrong location as it conflicts with Newcastle community’s well considered strategy to concentrate such high-rise elsewhere in dedicated corridors and precincts.
It overrides City of Newcastle development plan:
A developer’s business case is to maximise profit while the community’s priority is public benefit. In a well-established trend developer’s make ambit claims to bargain away restrictions to their financial advantage as is customary in Newcastle. Putting it bluntly, they defeat well-considered urban plans.
Public benefit should not be negotiated away in one-sided or short-term trade-offs.
This applicant is pleading a case that they cannot achieve their business goal at 47 Darby Street Cooks Hill with a scale compliant development that they say would accommodate forty-eight residences. Their oversize building would yield an extra sixty-five residences for a total of one hundred & thirteen.
The applicant maintains that: “These amendments are required to facilitate the viable delivery of the Project as declared by the NSW Government’s Housing Delivery Authority (HDA) pathway.” They see the prospect of bypassing the city’s authority via a present state government priority for quick delivery of numeric housing targets.
To this end the applicant has now approached the government’s volume aligned Housing Delivery Authority to enable amendments to the Newcastle Local Environmental Plan to fulfill the aims of both the applicant and the narrow-tasked government body.
Submission recommendation:
At the Darby Street site, the development should have to observe planning rules and scale back to the maximum building height to 14m and the floor space ratio to 2.5:1.

I have been a resident of Cooks Hill for the past 15 years and I find the height of the the plans for 47 Darby Street objectionable. The 12 storeys would completely overshadow the art gallery and impact the peaceful setting of Civic Park. It would loom over the space and change the beautiful, welcoming aspect of that area for anyone approaching on foot or vehicle and make the whole area feel crowded -in ; off- putting for locals and visitors alike.
In addition, as this proposal is the gateway to the lovely village-feel of Darby Street, I can only state that the impact on said street appeal would be devastating.
Changing the street-scape in this historic area of Newcastle with such an overwhelmingly huge building is both errant and egregious.
Please reject the submission for the benefit of all. Keep the building at its current height. I’m sure it can be converted for use
Without putting profit before sensitive planning.
Regards,
Linda Thomas

The Newcastle City Centre and Cultural Precinct is across the street from this proposal of a 12 storey and a 7 storey luxury apartment complex. The centre and cultural precinct contain mainly single and double storey buildings( art gallery- recently refurbished, the library, council chambers, Nesca House-all significant historical buildings,an historic church and the Conservatorium of Music).There is also Civic Park,a large green space with a beautiful fountain,flower beds ,Anzac Memorial,and significant trees.Darby Street contains many businesses and dwellings,mainly single and double storey, as are the dwellings in the surrounding residential zones.
The Local Environment Plan (LEP) restricts building heights to 14 metres in this area enabling this very important cultural and historic area to be aesthetically pleasing and inviting to locals and visitors. If this development went ahead this would change the character of this area as the buildings would dominate visually and overshadow the nearby significant buildings.
My understanding is that this proposal is being fast-tracked under the NSW Government's Housing Delivery Authority(HDA) ignoring the LEP that has been in place and developed over many years of planning and consultation about this culturally and historically significant area to maximise the benefit to Newcastle Council Area residents and visitors. While there has been high rise development in Newcastle West there was a commitment that no high-rise would occur east of Union Street. Darby Street is significantly east of Union Street.
It would seem that this is an opportunistic money -grab for developers to put as many luxury units inappropriately
on a sensitive site and not in the spirit or intention of the HDA.I believe the majority of residents in this area of Newcastle do not want two multi-storey buildings in our midst.
Newcastle City Council is the most appropriate,democratic and community-focussed body to decide whether or not a development is right for Newcastle and its' people.I am concerned that the Planning Minister and 3 senior bureaucrats get to make the final decision. It should not be an edict from Sydney benefitting a small number of wealthy individuals at the expense of many.
Yours faithfully, Nigel Bull

I fully support the project.

As a resident of Newcastle I believe we need more medium and high density housing in the inner city. There is a shortage of housing in this city and more and more people continue to move here as they discover what this city has to offer. Without building more housing, the shortage will only get worse.

The alternative is urban sprawl, which is an inefficient use of land and resources and forces councils to put up rates to cover the greater cost of infrastructure.

As Australia's 7th largest city, Newcastle should be developing as a modern, geographically compact city. Higher densities of residents will help bring business to the city and make more services viable.

Being in the city will also make residents less car dependent, which will have positive impacts on traffic flow, parking availability, and the general health and wellbeing of the residents of walkable neighbourhoods.

The location of the development, at the bottom of Darby Street will not be out of place, especially considering the new building at the corner of Darby and Hunter Streets.

I believe an analysis of opposition to this development would show that most people against it live very close to the proposed development and are more concerned about their own property prices, rather than the future of the city.

See Attachment

The proposed 45-metre mixed-use development represents a profound and unjustifiable departure from the established planning framework governing Darby Street, Tyrrell Street, and the wider Cooks Hill precinct, where prevailing height controls are approximately 14 metres. This proposal is fundamentally incompatible with its surroundings and constitutes a serious erosion of strategic planning integrity.

While high-density residential development is an important component of Newcastle’s long-term growth, it must be delivered in locations that are specifically identified and planned for such intensity. Darby Street is a low- to mid-rise heritage-oriented precinct, valued for its fine-grain character, human-scale streetscape, and relationship to cultural and civic assets. A 45-metre tower in this location is not “strategic intensification”; it is reckless overdevelopment.

Approval of this proposal would establish an extremely dangerous precedent. If a building more than three times the intended height limit can be justified here, then the entire Darby Street and Cooks Hill planning framework becomes meaningless. Height controls cease to function as controls at all and instead become optional suggestions, undermining public confidence in Council's/NSW Government's planning system.

The project justification within the Environmental Impact Statement is wholly inadequate. It fails to demonstrate any genuine public benefit that would warrant such an extreme variation from existing controls. Claims that a smaller or compliant development would be economically unviable are unsupported by transparent, independent feasibility evidence. Numerous nearby developments demonstrate that well-scaled apartment buildings are both viable and successful, including Eclipse Apartments (121–123 Union Street), 185 Darby Street, and 97 Darby Street. These projects respect existing height envelopes and reinforce the established urban character rather than obliterate it.

The Visual Impact Assessment is deeply flawed and materially misleading. Darby Street is one of Newcastle’s most active and pedestrian-oriented streets. A tower of this scale would dominate the streetscape, overwhelm adjoining buildings, and permanently degrade the visual coherence of the precinct. Views from Civic Park and Newcastle Art Gallery would be significantly compromised, resulting in unacceptable visual intrusion into some of the city’s most important public and cultural spaces. The visual impact is not “moderate” or “low”; it is HIGH and severe.

This proposal also demonstrates a broader pattern of misplaced intensification. Newcastle already contains appropriate high-density zones such as Honeysuckle, Newcastle West, and Newcastle East, where tall buildings can be accommodated without destroying fine-grain heritage precincts. Darby Street is not such a location.

This development is not driven by sound planning principles or community need. It appears to be driven by maximising private yield at the expense of neighbourhood character, planning consistency, and long-term urban quality.

I formally and unequivocally object to this application. The NSW Government should refuse this proposal in its current form. Anything less would represent a failure of responsible planning and a betrayal of the community’s trust.

See Attachment