I am lodging an objection to the State Significant Development proposed for 10 Dangar Street, Wickham.
The bulk and scale of the current proposal is excessive and does not fit into Newcastle. It is inconstant with adopted planning controls and will create significant adverse impacts on the surrounding community and for the people who will live in this huge tower.
1. The proposed height of the development is 152 metres which is more than double the existing generous height limit of 60m in the Newcastle Council’s Wickham Master Plan.
This amount of increased elevation is unjustified and undermines the Council’s strategic planning framework for the Newcastle interchange precinct. Overriding the local planning controls will result in excessive bulk, overbearing mass, overshadowing, and wind impacts.
2. Earthquake risks. The word earthquake is hardly mentioned in their proposal. Do people have short memories? The Newcastle Earthquake was in 1989. Ask the developers if they would like to be on the top floor during an earthquake. They have not adequately addressed this issue.
3. This will result in poor urban design and impact on public domains. The overbearing mass will overshadow nearby streets, open spaces and the interchange area. The EIS does not demonstrate that the wind impacts, pedestrian comfort and overshadowing can be mitigated to acceptable levels.
4. Traffic issues. The amount of traffic that this will project will generate, during and after construction will be excessive. This area is already a congested chokepoint in the city. Although it is close to the interchange, it is an idealistic view that people can always catch public transport. Many people especially elderly do not feel safe on public transport. People will still need vehicles. What about people who work in the mining sector and people with young families. They can't rely on public transport. There is insufficient parking at present. This will make the problem excessively worse.
5. Strain on public infrastructure. The proposal does not demonstrate that the local infrastructure can support the increased population, hotel guests and commercial businesses. This overcrowded development will impact on schools, hospitals, sporting facilities et cetera. We do not want third world type overcrowding of urban areas. The local infrastructure will struggle to keep pace with the excessive garbage and pollution into the environment.
6. Dangerous precedent for uncontrolled excessive high rise escalation. Approving this tower through the SSD pathway which is bypassing the Council’s carefully developed Wickham Master Plan will result in an escalation of speculative proposals for massive uplifts ruining any community confidence in the planning system and weakens the role of local strategic planning.
7. There is insufficient justification for State Significant Status, even though the development incorporates affordable housing, it does not justify the bulk, uplift and the planning concessions sought. The SSD pathway should not be used to bypass local council controls without clear demonstrated public benefit.
8. I do support redevelopment of this site; however, this proposal is excessively overbearing, inconsistent with the plans for Wickham and poorly integrated. This is poor planning and will result in an overcrowded city, choking access into the city and with overburdened strain on public infrastructure.

Submission regarding proposed State Significant Development at 10 Dangar Street, Wickham

Property affected: 14 Beresford Lane, Newcastle West

I am writing to raise concerns about the proposed State Significant Development at 10 Dangar Street, Wickham, particularly the potential overshadowing impact on my property at 14 Beresford Lane, Newcastle West.

My property contains a first-floor north-facing living room and adjoining courtyard area facing Beresford Lane. This is the primary living space of the dwelling. The lounge room includes north-facing glazing, and the adjoining courtyard is the main private open space connected to that living area.

The submitted winter solstice shadow diagrams appear to show the proposed development casting shadow toward my property, particularly around 11am, 12pm and 1pm on 21 June. The 12pm diagram is of particular concern, as the shadow appears to extend toward the northern side of my property, where the living room and courtyard are located.

The Newcastle Development Control Plan 2023 requires existing adjacent dwellings to maintain appropriate solar access to north-facing living area windows between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. The DCP also requires solar access to be considered for the principal area of private open space of adjoining properties.

Based on the submitted material, it is not clear that the proposed development satisfies these requirements in relation to my property.

The current shadow diagrams appear to be too broad to allow this issue to be properly assessed. They do not clearly identify:

* my property at 14 Beresford Lane, Newcastle West
* the north-facing living area windows of my dwelling
* the principal private open space connected to my living area
* the existing shadow condition
* the proposed shadow condition
* the number of hours of direct sunlight currently received by my living room and courtyard
* the number of hours of direct sunlight that would be retained after the development
* the extent or percentage of any loss of solar access caused by the proposed development

Without this information, it is difficult to see how the Department or consent authority can be satisfied that the proposal complies with the relevant solar access requirements as they apply to my residential property.

Before the application is determined, the applicant should be required to clearly demonstrate that my property at 14 Beresford Lane will retain appropriate solar access under the relevant planning controls.

This should include clear and legible plans, supported by computer-generated 3D shadow modelling, showing the impact of the proposed development on my north-facing living room windows and principal private open space. The modelling should show the existing and proposed shadow conditions between 9am and 3pm on 21 June, and should quantify:

* the hours of direct sunlight currently received
* the hours of direct sunlight that would be retained
* the extent and percentage of any loss of solar access caused by the proposed development

A broad shadow diagram is not enough in this case, as it does not show the actual impact on the relevant living room windows or the private courtyard space.

The NSW Land and Environment Court has recognised that solar access impacts need to be assessed in context. In The Benevolent Society v Waverley Council [2010] NSWLEC 1082, the Court set out a planning principle for access to sunlight, including consideration of existing sunlight, the degree of impact, the density of the area and the reasonableness of the proposed development.

The Court has also recognised in Meriton v Sydney City Council [2004] NSWLEC 313 that impacts arising from poor design may be unacceptable, even where the impact is relatively small. This is relevant here because the applicant should be required to show that the building envelope and design have been properly tested and optimised to reduce unnecessary overshadowing of my residential living space.

I also understand that in Construction Development Management Services Pty Ltd v City of Sydney [2023] NSWLEC 1620, the Court recognised that solar access controls may need to be considered in context in dense urban environments. However, this does not remove the need for the applicant to properly demonstrate and quantify the actual solar access impact on an existing neighbouring residence.

At this stage, the submitted shadow diagrams appear to indicate a potentially significant solar access impact on my north-facing living room and courtyard. However, the material does not provide enough detail to allow this impact to be properly assessed.

I ask that the application not be determined until the applicant has properly demonstrated the solar access impact on my property and compliance with the relevant planning controls.

If the assessment confirms that the proposed development would reduce solar access to my north-facing living area windows or principal private open space below the required standard, or would result in an unreasonable loss of existing solar access, I request that the proposal be amended to reduce the overshadowing impact on my property.

Regards,

Dr Ramsey Awad
14 Beresford Lane
Newcastle West

Further consultation is required with Newcastle council and local residents, please.

Low income/ assisted housing needs infrastructure and special supports. Look at the disaster in South Hamilton and Beaumont Street! Do we want to bring those problems to our beautiful foreshore?
This is building is too high- about 20 stories too high. We don’t want that type of high rise.
Has thought been given to future earth quakes?

There is nil requirement for a 43 storey development in this area. There is currently multiple apartment buildings in development with many not fully sold, highlight the lack of need. If this development is going to take a social housing angle there is not enough ‘affordable’ housing being offered. Currently this area has a parking issue and too much traffic for what is already developed adding a hotel is not something these streets can maintain as well.
This area is known for hight winds and a massive wind tunnel as it stands adding in another building of this size will only make it worse and more unsafe for those who currently live in the area

I own 17/10 Grey St Wickham, with a view to living there. I support the development in Dangar St. I consider that it is in keeping with the amenity of the Honeysuckle precinct, whilst not impinging on the miners' cottages in Grey St/Bishopgate, which add a unique charm to this suburb. Whilst it is taller than surrounding buildings, it will add value to neighbouring properties with a modern upmarket hotel and retail premises. Speciality and boutique shops are lacking nearby, and this will fill that need.

This is such a significant overreach of planning rules in place. As a purchaser in The Store at 854 Hunter Street, my marquee views will be significantly obstructed. I made decisions on the basis of the planning rules which meant the highest a building could be on 10 Dangar would be 60M. Approving this project means there are essentially no planning rules that buyers and investors can rely on when making lifetime or business decisions in Newcastle city.

Subject: Feedback on Proposed 39-Storey Mixed-Use Tower – 10 Dangar Street, Wickham [HDA Pathway]

To: Housing Delivery Authority / NSW Government

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed 39-storey mixed-use tower at 10 Dangar Street, adjacent to the Interchange.

I am writing to raise concerns about the scale, housing model, and long-term implications of this proposal for Wickham and Newcastle. My comments are offered in the spirit of constructive feedback to support good planning outcomes for the city.

Lessons from Australian high-density public housing:
The Victorian Government has announced the demolition of 44 public housing towers by 2051, citing poor liveability, design limitations, and entrenched disadvantage.
Independent researchers argue that retrofitting these towers is often more cost-effective and socially responsible than demolition.
Where demolitions have occurred, nearly 1 in 5 households have been displaced into the private rental market, raising affordability and stability concerns.

International evidence on concentrated high-rise housing:
The demolition of Cabrini-Green in Chicago and Pruitt-Igoe in St. Louis shows how large-scale, concentrated high-rise developments can concentrate disadvantage and become unviable over time.
The UK’s Grenfell Tower Inquiry identified systemic regulatory failures in high-rise safety and management, with catastrophic consequences. These findings underscore the risks of prioritising height and density over long-term safety and management.

Risks of co-living and high transience:
Co-living models with small private rooms and shared facilities tend to produce high resident turnover. This undermines neighbourhood cohesion and reduces engagement with local services and community networks.
Sustained co-living relies on continuous, well-resourced management. History shows this is rarely guaranteed over a building’s lifecycle.

Implications for Wickham:
A 39-storey tower with 100 co-living units and 200 apartments risks repeating design and management failures documented elsewhere.
The proposed scale appears inconsistent with Wickham’s existing urban fabric and the Wickham Master Plan, and would place additional pressure on local services and infrastructure.
I note that a social impact assessment is underway. I urge that its findings directly inform the design and scale of the project.

Request:
In light of the above, I respectfully request that the Housing Delivery Authority:
Reconsider the proposal in favour of smaller, up to mid-rise, mixed-tenure developments that integrate better with the existing community.
Prioritise long-term liveability, safety, and affordability over short-term density targets.
Apply lessons from Melbourne, international housing failures, and the Grenfell Tower Inquiry to avoid repeating known risks in high-rise residential design and management.

This building will be a significant addition to Newcastle’s skyline and urban fabric. The community is seeking planning that learns from past mistakes and delivers housing that is safe, liveable, and well-integrated for the long term.

Thank you for considering this feedback. I am available for further discussion at [email protected]

Yours sincerely,
Wes Phillips

The height of this is completely out of sync with the rest of Wickham. The road will not sustain that many cars, it will make it extremely dangerous as the roads are too narrow. I got a letter from the council after the last builder failed on that site as it filled up with water twice saying that these are ex coal mine sites. I feel that this development is putting existing buildings in danger not to mention blocking out the sun for existing units. 43 levels in irresponsible, this cannot be allowed.

This project is too high. What is the point of codes and when developers want to go way beyond what was originally planned for the site. I have an investment property in the Westend apartment, which is situated behind the current proposal. The view will be of a wall created by this oversized apartment block will de-value my property, not to mention increased traffic and lack of parking. When we purchased the property, nobody said there would be a 40+ high-rise apartment in front of us. We purchased this on good faith that developers stick to local council guidelines. Please cancel this project or reduce the height.

Our objection to this development is not that we think it overly ugly, but that it has a number of disadvantages to the local community and other properties around it, and that in essence it is unduly excessive in size creating negative consequences. Our specific concerns are these:

TOWN UTILITIES
We are concerned the areas utilities (water, electricity, sanitation, and telecommunications) were developed in a far earlier time when the primary development was low and low rise population, therefor are very concerned that there enough capacity of these services and utilities to cater for this building and indeed the number of other developments currently being built and planned.
It would seem to us that Wickham and Newcastle may well be already oversupplied with high rise developments and with the others will certainly stress or overload the original infrastructure.

SIZE and IMPACT
This development is overkill and the size is inordinate at 43 (38?) stories given that 17 stories were originally planned for this site.
At a height of 117 meters there will be considerable sunlight shadowing of surrounding properties particularly early morning and afternoon, is this fair given that many property owners in Charles and Bishopgate, Union, Railway or Throsby Streets all of which are narrow and none of which were originally designed to carry this amount of traffic, worst of all of this extra traffic will need to enter Hannell Street to able to move away the development.

TRAFIC AND PARKING
Residents and businesses surrounding who have invested in the area long before this development was ever mooted will be subjected to excessive and negative effects.
For example, it should be noted that the development indicates capacity for 240 car parks, however the maintenance and service requirements of the building would indicate a lot more traffic coming and going, which will also stress the limited parking in the streets nearby.
Also having hotel guests (how many rooms?) shops and residents coming and going will involve very significant increase in traffic around the development.

Traffic in this area can be extremely heavy as Hannell Street it is a major route to and from areas surrounding Newcastle, fortunately and unfortunately this development’s entry and exits Dangar Street (an extremely narrow street) this means that traffic to and from it will need to go via Charles, Station, Bishopgate, Grey, Dickson, Railway and or Throsby Streets all of which are streets that were developed in the 1920s and are narrow streets indeed.

ARCHITECTURE AND AESTHETICS
This development is clearly out of character with other buildings in the area i.e. it is significantly higher, above its plinth than adjacent buildings, this development has a rounded shape totally different to the Stella building, the nearby Knight Frank building or the Newcastle Interchange, and certainly doesn’t complement the nearby two heritage school buildings.

POTENTIAL WATER INGRESS ISSUES
As far as we know the previous owner of the Bowline land went into liquidation at least partly because water ingress into the foundations and had spent an enormous amount of money to solve the problem.

THE NEWCASTLE EARTHQUAKE
It is not beyond the realms of possibility that Newcastle will once again experience an earthquake as in the not-so-distant past, one would assume that engineering would reflect a great deal of caution.

POSSIBLE SOLUTION A PAUSE
At this juncture it seems Newcastle well be over supplied with apartment development, given the extraordinary amount of nearby building development that is planned (another 1400 apartments at Marketown) and a considerable amount already underway, we would ask if is appropriate that should there be a pause until water, electricity, sanitation, telecommunication, roads and parking facilities catch up with the demand that will occur with this development?

As a bye-the-bye we think that the allowance for affordable housing at is 15 years duration too short to attract essential workers able to commit long term to the city, we should be encouraging much longer term residency.