I object to the sheer size and scale of the proposed development and the rezoning proposal. Cooks Hill is largely residential with numerous historic buildings. The size and scale of this proposed development will create shade, increase traffic and noise in a village style suburb. The current permitted height of buildings of 14m is in keeping with the Cooks Hill village aesthetic and allows for the protection from shadowing for both residents and historic buildings.
Cooks Hill is already experiencing increased road traffic and difficulty finding parks. This will exacerbate this.
Changing of the current LEP will have a devastating impact on Cooks Hill's residents and buildings. There would be an excess of high rises exacerbating issues previously mentioned.

I am a local businesswoman who works, lives, invests, and relies on the ongoing health of Newcastle’s city centre. I strongly object to the proposed State Significant Development at 47 Darby Street.

Newcastle needs additional housing and thoughtful density. However, this proposal represents poor planning in the wrong location, assessed under a process that removes local oversight and ignores the cumulative pressures already affecting Newcastle East and the city centre.

If approved, this development would set a damaging precedent that undermines planning certainty, weakens heritage protections, and actively discourages people from travelling into Newcastle’s cultural and commercial heart.

Excessive height and scale
The permitted height limit for this site is 14 metres. The proposal seeks approval for buildings up to 45 metres, more than three times the allowable height. This is an extreme and unjustified departure from established controls and amounts to a site-specific rezoning for private gain. Height limits exist to protect amenity, heritage, view corridors, and public spaces — ignoring them here places every surrounding precinct at risk.

Irreversible harm to the Civic and Cultural Precinct
The Civic and Cultural Precinct is not an ordinary development site. It contains Civic Park, heritage buildings, war memorials, places of worship, and public institutions that define Newcastle’s identity and attract visitors into the city centre. The proposed front tower would dominate Civic Park and surrounding landmarks, permanently altering the scale and character of this precinct to the detriment of both community and commerce.

Poor design and excessive bulk
Inadequate setbacks and excessive massing make the proposal appear bulky, overbearing, and inconsistent with its surroundings. This is particularly inappropriate given the site’s proximity to major public open space and heritage assets.

Conflict with strategic planning
Newcastle has long-established strategies that direct high-rise development to specific corridors and precincts where infrastructure and transport capacity can support it. This proposal directly conflicts with those strategies and represents a significant planning failure. Allowing high-rise development to spread into civic and heritage precincts erodes confidence in the planning system and creates uncertainty for residents and businesses alike.

Loss of important heritage
The proposal involves the demolition of the former 1930s Interwar electrical machine shop on Tyrrell Street, identified by the City of Newcastle as a Contributory 2 Historic Building, as well as the brutalist former Channel 10 (Markey) Building. The incremental loss of heritage buildings weakens Newcastle’s unique character — a key reason people choose to visit, work, and spend time in the city.

Transport disruption and cumulative infrastructure impacts
Newcastle East and the city centre are already experiencing significant disruption from multiple major infrastructure and development projects. Road closures, changed traffic conditions, construction impacts, and reduced accessibility are actively discouraging people from travelling into the city.

This proposal would further strain already pressured streets including Tyrrell, Laman, and Darby Streets, which must accommodate vehicle traffic, pedestrians, cyclists, school and pre-school movements, and public transport. The cumulative impact of ongoing works and additional large-scale development risks repelling visitors, customers, and workers from Newcastle’s centre at a time when local businesses are already under pressure.

Minimal public benefit
Despite its scale, the proposal delivers limited public benefit relative to its long-term impact on a regionally significant civic space. The provision of predominantly luxury apartments does not justify the permanent loss of public amenity, heritage, and planning integrity.

Mine subsidence constraints
This site is subject to heightened mine subsidence risk, including an additional undermined coal seam (the Yard Seam). These known constraints should not be used to justify larger and heavier buildings in such a sensitive location when less constrained sites exist elsewhere in the city.

Inadequate consultation and governance
The State Significant Development process limits meaningful community input to just 14 days and removes decision-making from local government. For a proposal of this scale, location, and consequence, this level of consultation is inadequate. The delayed release of acceptable design imagery further undermines genuine community engagement.

Dangerous precedent
As one of the first developments assessed under the NSW Government’s Housing Delivery Authority framework, approval of this proposal would signal that local planning rules, heritage protections, and community interests can be overridden with ease. This threatens neighbourhoods across Newcastle and erodes trust in the planning system.

In conclusion, Newcastle needs growth, but it must be well-located, well-designed, and supported by infrastructure — not imposed at any cost. Developments that diminish the city centre’s accessibility, character, and appeal ultimately harm residents, businesses, and the broader economy.

For these reasons, I urge the NSW Planning Minister to refuse this proposal and ensure that development in Newcastle respects local planning controls, heritage, and the long-term vitality of the city centre.

The overall height of this project at 47 Darby Street Cooks Hill is not in line with the current building guidelines for this inner-city area.
The streets will not be able to accommodate the volume of traffic that is about emerge from the soon to be completed Mosbri Cresent development and the proposed 113-125 Darby Street projects.
Council has not indicated any ways to address the compounding congestion of this area with no way to alleviate the traffic and pedestrian issue already at play in this crowded area.
The Primary School (Newcastle East Public School) at the crest of Tyrell Street has young children and families already risking safety on their way to school each day via Darby, and Tyrell streets. So any further development in this area will intensify this situation further.
At present the Primary School (Newcastle East Public School) is at capacity so any families wish to live in this development will not be able to enroll children locally.
There are many better suburban options for this type of high density development that will better accommodate the volume of occupants of this proposed development.

This proposal is setting a precedent for "no-rules planning" and decision making outside Newcastle, in Sydney, and is of serious concern. For a proposal that will permanently reshape Newcastle's Civic Precinct, local voices must carry substantial weight.
The proposal seeks to increase the permitted height from 14 metres to approximately 45 metres through a spot rezone - more than tripling the existing control. Such an extreme departure from established planning standards undermines certainty, erodes public trust, and signals that development rules can be overridden in Sydney for oversized projects the state considers appropriate.
Newcastle has already accommodated high-rise towers within and beyond the town centre, particularly along the former heavy rail corridor, which was deliberately identified to support height and density after heavy rail was removed. Those areas were allocated for tall buildings. The Civic Precinct was not. Height should remain in the precincts already planned for it.
The proposed tower would dominate Civic Park, the art gallery, surrounding gardens, war memorials, historic buildings and places of worship. This is a regionally significant civic space. The excessive height, bulk and inadequate setbacks create an overbearing outcome that fails to demonstrate design excellence.
I support the need to increase housing supply in Newcastle, especially affordable housing. This proposal, however, will not deliver genuinely affordable housing. Apartments of this scale and location will be high-end and expensive, while permanently impacting a key civic and heritage precinct.
I am also very concerned about the additional traffic and parking pressures that will occur in the area. Tyrrell, Laman and Darby Streets experience congestion during school drop-off and pick-up times, peak commuter periods and when special events are being held. Major events at Civic Park, the art gallery and the Civic Theatre already create parking shortages and vehicle circulation. This development will add permanent residential traffic to existing event-based demand, worsening congestion and pedestrian safety risks.
The proposed allocation of parking spaces is substantially insufficient for the number of apartment units, which will exacerbate existing parking congestion, create safety hazards, and place additional strain on local infrastructure. This shortfall is likely to have significant negative impacts on local businesses, retailers, restaurants, visitors, shoppers, and residents, undermining both the accessibility and economic vitality of the area.
The community has been given only 14 days to respond, with key visual information released late. As stated previously, the decision-making for this State Significant Development is occurring outside Newcastle, in Sydney. This is unacceptable as local voices must carry substantial weight for a proposal that will permanently reshape Newcastle's Civic Precinct.
Approval would set a dangerous precedent and undermine confidence in Newcastle's planning framework.
This proposal should be refused.

The proposed development for 47 Darby Street contravenes the Newcastle Planning Guidelines. The response from the City of Newcastle to the pre-development application was quite clear in this regard. In particular the proposed height limit of 45m is well in excess of the permitted limits. Other issues of concern included drainage, flooding, traffic, parking, coal mine subsidence and more.
My main concerns and objections are:
1) The height limit is excessive and out of character with the neighbourhood and if approved will most likely lead to a knock-on effect along Darby Street and surrounds. The adjacent block (59 Darby Street) currently has approval for a building of 20m in height which is much more realistic and the same limit should apply to 47 Darby Street. The proposed building for 47 Darby Street is an abomination which will, if approved, ruin the ambience and character of the local area.
2) I am concerned with the increased risk of mine-subsidence. The site is over an undermined coal seam (the Yard Seam), and the seam will probably require extra grouting. Our residence is quite close to the development and I would require expert assurances that the proposed building would not increase the risk of subsidence in our estate leading to damage to our residences, or possible sinkholes.
3) I believe this development will have a significant negative impact on the market values of residential properties in the near vicinity. It is basically unfair to financially disadvantage existing property owners for the benefit of the developer and the owner of 47 Darby Street.
4) The parking in Cooks Hill is currently very tight. It will turn into a nightmare if you have an extra 19 levels of people all hunting for a spot for their second car. This will be in addition to the pressure that will be created by the Sovereign Park development which is currently underway. The traffic will no doubt become horrendous.
My broader concern is the ever-increasing concentration of power and decision making into the hands of unaccountable people. Under the new Authority, it seems that major residential projects can be fast-tracked by the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, with final decisions made by the Planning Minister and an unelected panel of three senior bureaucrats. The push for this sort control would appear the be the federal government’s promise to build a lot of new housing. So, in essence, it is a political push that will undermine the rights of decision making at a local level. In the case of Darby Street, it is likely significant financial benefits would flow to the owner and the developer with not much increase in housing, and what additional housing is created will be essentially for the upper end of the market. So, unfortunately, my sense is that the decision will be dictated by high level politics and local voices will be over-ridden. My hope though, is that the height will be capped to a level more appropriate to the area and in compliance with council guidelines.

Newcastle’s most culturally and historically significant precinct is at risk of being permanently altered by this proposal.

A development that exceeds legal height limits by three times, ignores local planning controls, and shows little regard for heritage sets a dangerous precedent. These rules exist to protect our city’s character and ensure thoughtful, community-led growth.

This project prioritises developer profit over culture, history, and the people who live here. Newcastle needs housing, but not at the cost of its identity. Once this precinct is changed, it cannot be undone.

I strongly oppose this development.

wish to raise my concerns regarding the proposed development at 47 Darby Street. While I am not opposed to redevelopment of this site in principle, any new proposal should respond far more sensitively to its context than the current scheme. The design appears to prioritise maximising yield over honestly addressing the impacts it will impose on the surrounding neighbourhood.
This location is particularly sensitive, sitting at the junction of three culturally significant Heritage Conservation Areas: the City Centre HCA, The Hill HCA, and Cooks Hill HCA. Despite this, the Heritage Impact Statement gives minimal consideration to the impacts on The Hill or Cooks Hill HCAs, focusing almost exclusively on the City Centre HCA, which naturally contains taller buildings. This limited approach does not reflect the full heritage significance of the adjoining areas.
The proposal also requires a more rigorous analysis of how it will affect important public views, especially for residents on The Hill. Key vistas towards places such as Civic Park, the broader city skyline, and the spire of St Andrew’s Church may be diminished or lost entirely, yet this does not appear to have been adequately addressed.
It is unclear whether full shadow studies have been provided, and these are essential in a development of this scale.
High‑intensity development should be concentrated in the designated growth corridors identified by Council. Introducing buildings of 8–12 storeys into Darby Street—an area predominantly characterised by two‑storey buildings—risks eroding the established character that residents and visitors value.
There is also very little discussion of how the proposal will affect the Newcastle Art Gallery, a significant cultural institution in close proximity.
While car parking may fall outside the strict heritage scope, it is important to acknowledge that the increased parking demand generated by this proposal will inevitably spread into nearby streets, placing additional pressure on the surrounding Heritage Conservation Areas.
Allowing a development of this scale at the entrance to Darby Street sets a concerning precedent. It invites similar proposals along the street, undermining the heritage character that defines the adjoining HCAs.
Important existing elements—including the Hunter Water Board building, the historic kerbs, and the brick wall along the Tyrrell Street frontage at the machine shop entry—should be retained and meaningfully incorporated into any future redevelopment.
Council’s DCP for the City Centre HCA highlights the importance of “preserving the human scale of development.” This proposal does not reflect that principle in any meaningful way.
Finally, the justification for demolishing the Markey Brutalist building is unconvincing. The claim that it is “out of character” or “unremarkable” ignores the rarity of Brutalist commercial architecture in Newcastle. Only a small number of Brutalist buildings survive city‑wide, most belonging to government agencies. This building represents one of the few commercial examples left and forms an important layer in Newcastle’s architectural history. Its value should not be dismissed simply because it differs from the predominant style of the area.

I object to the proposed mixed-use development at 47 Darby Street, Cooks Hill, as currently designed.

1. Site identity and assessment framework

The proposal relies on a reinterpretation of the site’s identity from a Darby Street commercial strip location to a Civic Precinct edge in order to justify its height and scale. While the site is adjacent to Civic Park, it fronts Darby Street and forms part of the established Darby Street commercial and dining strip, which is characterised by fine-grain, low- to mid-rise development.

This reframing is not clearly supported by the adopted DCP precinct controls for Darby Street and risks assessing the proposal against an inappropriate benchmark.

2. Civic Park interface and built form scale

While the Visual Impact Assessment repeatedly references the site’s civic context and proximity to Civic Park, it does not demonstrate why this context supports a 12–13 storey built form, particularly when existing civic buildings addressing Civic Park are deliberately low-rise and designed to preserve openness and human scale.

Civic Park has historically been framed by low-rise civic and cultural buildings that define the park edge without dominating it. In this context, proximity to Civic Park should act as a constraint on height and bulk rather than a justification for significant vertical escalation.

3. Heritage context and conservation considerations

Advice I have received from a planning professional indicates that land in and around Darby Street and the Civic Park interface may be affected by heritage controls, including heritage conservation area considerations under the Newcastle LEP.

If the site is located within, or adjacent to, a Heritage Conservation Area, the assessment of this proposal must consider not only individual heritage items but also the broader heritage setting, streetscape character and scale relationships. A 12–13 storey built form raises serious questions about visual dominance, impacts on heritage character and the conservation of the established low-rise civic and commercial context.

The documentation does not clearly identify how heritage overlay considerations have been applied, nor does it demonstrate that the proposed scale conserves the heritage significance or setting of the surrounding area. This warrants closer scrutiny as part of the assessment process.

4. Excessive height and precedent risk

At 13 storeys, the proposal represents a substantial escalation in height and bulk relative to the established and intended scale of Darby Street. Approval of a development of this scale would establish an undesirable precedent for further vertical expansion along the Darby Street commercial strip, risking incremental erosion of its fine-grain character.

5. Housing Delivery Acceleration (HDA) pathway

The proposal is identified as “HDA housing” under the Housing Delivery Acceleration framework. While increased housing supply is an important strategic objective, the application of an HDA pathway does not in itself justify departures from established height, scale and character expectations for Darby Street.

The documentation does not demonstrate that the proposal delivers specific social or affordable housing outcomes that would warrant such a fundamental shift in built form. Strategic support for housing delivery must still be balanced against local context, streetscape character and amenity, particularly in sensitive locations such as Darby Street and the Civic Park interface.

6. Conclusion

For these reasons, the proposal as currently presented is not an appropriate response to the established character and planning intent of Darby Street or the Civic Park edge. A substantial reduction in height and a redesign that clearly responds to the fine-grain commercial context of Darby Street — rather than reclassifying the site as a civic landmark — is required.

I request that the consent authority give careful consideration to these issues in its assessment of the proposal