I write to formally object to the proposed development at 10 Dangar Street, Wickham.
My objection is not to development, urban renewal, or appropriate residential growth within Wickham. Growth is an important part of Newcastle's future, and well-designed development can contribute positively to the community. However, this particular proposal represents an extreme level of density and intensity that is disproportionate to the site, surrounding area, and existing community infrastructure.
The application repeatedly refers to community benefits and positive urban outcomes. However, upon review, the overwhelming beneficiary of this proposal appears to be the developer rather than the existing or future community. The scale of the project suggests a focus on maximising residential yield and financial return rather than creating a balanced, sustainable and liveable environment.
The density proposed for this site is excessive. Regardless of broader planning objectives, there must be a point at which density becomes unreasonable and begins to undermine the very outcomes that development is intended to achieve. This proposal crosses that threshold.
A development of this scale will introduce an extraordinary concentration of residents into a relatively small footprint. The result will be increased pressure on local streets, public spaces, transport networks, parking availability and community facilities. While the application presents density as a positive planning outcome, it fails to adequately acknowledge the cumulative impacts of concentrating such a large number of people within a confined area.
The proposal also appears inconsistent with the concept of creating a healthy and connected community. Healthy communities are not simply measured by the number of dwellings delivered. They are created through thoughtful design, appropriate population levels, access to infrastructure, adequate open space, manageable traffic volumes, and environments where residents can enjoy a reasonable quality of life.
This proposal instead risks creating an environment characterised by overcrowding, congestion and declining amenity.
Of particular concern is the impact on local streets and public spaces. Wickham is already experiencing significant pressure from population growth and increased residential activity. The introduction of such a large number of additional residents in a single development will inevitably intensify existing issues relating to traffic, parking demand, noise and overcrowding.
Parking availability throughout the area is already limited. Residents frequently compete for available spaces and surrounding streets are often congested. The addition of a development of this magnitude is likely to further increase parking pressures, regardless of whether minimum planning requirements are technically satisfied. The lived reality for residents often differs significantly from modelling assumptions presented in development applications.
The proposal also raises concerns regarding noise and community amenity. The sheer number of residents proposed within one structure will inevitably increase activity levels, vehicle movements, deliveries, visitors and general impacts on surrounding properties. These impacts should not be dismissed simply because they are difficult to quantify.
Importantly, the development's scale appears fundamentally disconnected from the character and capacity of the surrounding area. It is not the existence of a residential building that is problematic; it is the extraordinary intensity with which this site is being developed. The proposal seeks to accommodate an exceptionally large population within a single structure, creating a built form that feels driven by maximising development potential rather than integrating appropriately into the existing community.
The application promotes concepts such as community, connectivity and activation. However, there is little evidence that the development will genuinely strengthen the Wickham community. Community is not created through density alone. Community is created through balanced growth, quality public spaces, manageable population levels, social cohesion and a built environment that supports resident wellbeing.
This proposal risks achieving the opposite outcome. Rather than enhancing community, it may contribute to increased congestion, competition for limited resources, reduced amenity and a diminished sense of place.
The development also sets a concerning precedent for future proposals. If a development of this scale and density is considered acceptable on this site, it sends a message that there are effectively no meaningful limits on the intensity of development that can be pursued within Wickham. Planning controls exist to ensure growth occurs in a way that balances economic outcomes with community interests. In this case, that balance appears to have been lost.
Ultimately, this proposal asks the community to absorb the impacts of an extraordinarily dense development while offering limited tangible benefits in return. The primary outcome appears to be the creation of a highly profitable development rather than a project that meaningfully improves the lives of existing residents or contributes positively to the long-term future of Wickham.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that Council refuse the application. The scale, density and intensity of the proposed development are excessive, inconsistent with the creation of a healthy and sustainable community, and place private development interests ahead of broader community outcomes.
Yours faithfully
Monique Davison

I'm concerned this application hasn't adequately demonstrated that a building of this scale can be built without causing serious problems for the area, the Newcastle Interchange precinct, and Newcastle West more broadly.

My main concern centres on wind impacts. The wind tunnel testing has flagged significant safety issues on the upper-level balconies, and the mitigation strategy still needs verification. I don't think it's reasonable to ask the community to accept this kind of impact without much stronger evidence that it can actually be managed.

Newcastle's harbour edge is almost fully built, and the few sites still to be decided will shape the city's waterfront for generations. The land at 10 Dangar Street is one of them, and a proposal for a site of that consequence deserves to be held to a high standard. This one does not meet it. I write as a resident who would welcome more housing in Newcastle, including on this site. My objection is not to development, but to a building that asks for a significant exception to the rules every other project on this waterfront must observe, and justifies that exception with reasons that do not bear weight.

A decision the city will live with for a long time

Whatever is approved here will stand for the rest of our lifetimes and well beyond, and it will set the reference point for every application that follows on the surrounding land. A building permitted to exceed the agreed height on this block becomes the argument the next developer uses to exceed it on theirs. Decisions of this kind are where a city either keeps faith with the plan it has set for itself or surrenders it in increments. That is why the scale of this proposal matters well beyond the boundaries of the site.

A height the controls do not permit

The planning controls for this part of Wickham set a clear ceiling on building height, and the proposal stands well above it at roughly 38 to 40 storeys. The site was previously approved at a far lower scale. A departure of this magnitude is not a minor variation to be waved through on the strength of housing numbers. It is a wholesale change to what the area was planned to accommodate, and the onus rests on the applicant to show it is warranted. That case has not been made in its EIS statements - and the case for substantially higher density is weakened heavily by the new honeysuckle HQ .


The benchmark across the road

The State Government has just announced Newcastle Quay, the redevelopment of the Honeysuckle HQ land immediately to the north. It is a masterplanned precinct expected to deliver around 1000 homes, a hotel and substantial public space, and it achieves this while keeping its buildings within the waterfront's height limits, lowering them towards the water and holding open deliberate view corridors through the site. The Government's own flagship project therefore demonstrates that this waterfront can absorb very large quantities of housing without exceeding the agreed scale. If 1000 homes can be delivered next door within the rules, the argument that this single tower must break them to make its far smaller contribution does not survive. The additional height is not the price of delivering housing but additional saleable floor area, and the public is being asked to absorb the cost of it in overshadowing, in lost outlook, and in the precedent it leaves behind.

Sunlight taken from homes that already exist

The applicant's own environmental impact statement makes the most immediate harm plain. The shadow study prepared for the application shows the tower casting shadow across a number of residential buildings immediately to its south, through the morning hours. In examining the EIS the study is modelled on the spring equinox, the midpoint of the solar year. The impact will be worse through winter, when the sun sits lowest and direct light is most valued,

A form that gives little back to the street

The design compounds these problems rather than easing them. The proposal is a single very large cylindrical tower that makes little concession to the lower scale and heritage character of Wickham, or to the buildings already established around it. Set against the Newcastle Quay approach, which breaks its bulk into separate buildings and steps them down at the sensitive edges, the contrast is not a flattering one. Newcastle is assembling a new skyline in real time, and the buildings that compose it should be judged on what they contribute to the city, not on the floor area they extract from a site.

Affordable housing, and what it is being used to justify

I recognise that affordable housing forms part of the case for the additional height, and more affordable housing in Newcastle is something I strongly support. The difficulty is one of proportion. The affordable component is modest measured against the size of the building, yet it is being used as the lever to unlock a height the controls would otherwise refuse. If the genuine objective is more affordable housing on the harbour, this is an inefficient way to secure a small amount of it

Conclusion

I am asking for a building that observes the same controls as every other project on this waterfront, designed with proper regard for sunlight, outlook and the character of the area. A building of that kind would still bring new homes to Wickham. It would do so without taking light from the homes beside it, and without establishing that the height limits on Newcastle's harbour are available to any developer willing to ask for more. I ask that the application be refused in its current form, or amended substantially so that it sits within the controls that govern the rest of this waterfront.

My concerns re SSD - 89869959
1. Administrative Errors & Careless Work
The developer's documentation contains clear errors that indicate generic copy-pasting from old templates without proper local context:
Appendix D (Mitigation Measures): Lists Sydney Water as the responsible authority for wastewater instead of Hunter Water (10 Dangar ... p. 2).
Appendix EE (NABERS Form): Lists Sydney as the town/city instead of Newcastle (10 Dangar ... p. 3).
Appendix H (Engagement Report): Claims the engagement ran from September 2026 – February 2026, which is an impossible, backwards timeline (10 Dangar ... p. 4).

2. Lack of Detail on NDIS Accommodation
The Issue: Appendix MM (Social Impact Assessment) notes that 15 two-bedroom units will be for NDIS accommodation, alongside 1 one-bedroom unit for overnight assistance (10 Dangar ... p. 5).
The Critique: Despite these figures, there is no clear design integration or structural details showing how these units satisfy physical accessibility. Appendix WW (Accessibility Compliance Report) reads more like a "list of things to do" rather than a binding, detailed promise or strategy (10 Dangar ... p. 9).

3. Inadequate Construction Complaint Mechanisms
The Issue: While Appendix U (PCTMP) promises that nearby residents will get regular updates and a phone number for the site manager, it provides no clear framework for accountability (10 Dangar ... p. 8).
The Critique: There are no formal, transparent protocols or escalation pathways detailed for when the developer breaches their strict consent conditions, such as blocking external street access, storing items off-site, or ignoring delivery time limits (10 Dangar ... p. 8).

4. Specific Critiques of the Requested Appendices
Appendix AA (Landscape Design Report): Implies a bike thoroughfare through public ground levels, but lacks detail on how high density and pedestrian safety will interact (10 Dangar ... p. 2).
Appendix D (Ongoing Mitigation Measures): Demonstrates careless work by naming the wrong water utility provider (Sydney Water) (10 Dangar ... p. 2).
Appendix E (DCP Assessment Table): Highlights massive density over-saturation with 245 apartments, 99 co-living units, and 177 hotel rooms crammed onto the site (10 Dangar ... p. 3).
Appendix EE (NABERS Embodied Emissions): Erroneously identifies the city location as Sydney (10 Dangar ... p. 3).
Appendix G (Community Housing Provider Letter): Relies on MyLife Community Housing. While registered, CHPs can lose registration for insolvency or mismanagement, risking affordable housing operations (10 Dangar ... p. 3).
Appendix I (Pre-DA Meeting Advice): City of Newcastle officers explicitly stated the building is not supported due to extensive, fundamental, and structural issues with height and safety (10 Dangar ... p. 4).
Appendix K1 (SDRP Advice Meeting 1): The State Design Review Panel made numerous critical suggestions on the developer's earlier structural layout (10 Dangar ... p. 4).
Appendix K2 (SDRP Advice Meeting 2): The panel noted that the ground plane, colonnade, and landscape must be further developed to handle the proposed density safely (10 Dangar ... p. 5).
Appendix KK (CDWMP): Shows the developer is only committing to the 15% affordable housing layout for a minimum of 15 years, rather than a permanent community benefit (10 Dangar ... p. 5).
Appendix MM (Social Impact Assessment): Reveals highly elevated population statistics and fails to fully resolve community concerns raised during early feedback rounds (10 Dangar ... p. 5).
Appendix N (Connecting with Country Report): Admits that Awabakal Traditional Custodian engagement is still "currently being developed," showing minimal initial input (10 Dangar ... p. 5).
Appendix OO (CPTED Report): Concludes with three full pages of security recommendations, proving the current design inherently invites high crime risks (10 Dangar ... p. 6).
Appendix S (Transport Impact Assessment): Outlines a massive traffic generation of 213.2 vehicles per hour in AM peaks. Notes that a high water table prevents building extra basement parking (10 Dangar ... p. 7).
Appendix U (PCTMP): Admits the building is built-to-boundary, meaning trucks cannot load inside the site and must block parts of the Charles Street frontage compound (10 Dangar ... p. 8).
Appendix WW (Accessibility Compliance Report): Fails to provide concrete, binding spatial layouts for disabled access, functioning purely as a generic checklist (10 Dangar ... p. 9).

I work in flood risk assessment, and I'm concerned that the proposal hasn't demonstrated this scale of development can be built here without creating serious problems for Wickham, Newcastle West and the Newcastle Interchange precinct.
There's also the flood risk angle. This location is already under considerable stress with the amount of traffic, public transport, foot traffic, cycling, and other development happening. Adding a 43-storey building without addressing flood impacts properly doesn't seem acceptable to me.

Overall, excited to see this happen. As a family with young children on Grey St, we hope this will positively impact the crime rate in the area. However, I am concerned about the infrastructure impacts: need for more local parks/green spaces, recreational facilities, bike paths, better footpaths throughout the suburb, upgrades to roads, etc.. which will be required to cater for the increase in population in the suburb. The local council must receive adequate contribution to upgrade these facilities and infrastructure to handle population growth.

This is an objection, on behalf of the owners committee at Stella Apartments, to the of the development due to the scale, density, traffic and social impact on the amenity of the local community. The development proposed is in conflict with the existing and approved developments in the area and the proposed urban Honeysuckle HQ plan. The attached objection submission outlines these key objection points and we request the development be reviewed and reduced in scale, to align with community outcomes and expectations.

Dear Assessment Team,Objection to State Significant Development Application: SSD-89869959
I am writing to formally lodge my strong objection to the proposed mixed-use development at 10 Dangar Street, Wickham.
While I acknowledge the need for strategic growth near key transit nodes, the scale, density, and execution of this specific proposal represent a severe overdevelopment of the site that will negatively impact the future of the Wickham precinct.My objections are based on the following critical planning and environmental grounds
1. Substandard Architectural Quality and Urban Design.
The architectural design appears to be of poor and dated design with a high potential to create a future slum. Rather than delivering an iconic, forward-thinking gateway building for Newcastle, the current design relies on a repetitive, high-density layout that risks rapid aesthetic and functional degradation.
A 43-storey tower requires world-class, enduring architecture; instead, this proposal threatens to become a visual blight that diminishes the long-term liveability and value of the surrounding neighbourhood.
2. Absence of Adequate Public Benefit and AmenityThe current layout fails to provide the civic infrastructure necessary to support its massive projected population of residents, hotel guests, and co-living tenants.
The proposal does not include appropriate public space and facilities for such a high profile space.
By failing to integrate meaningful green space, plazas, or community infrastructure, the development privatises a prominent transit-adjacent location without offering any counterbalancing public utility to the existing Wickham community.
3. Excessive Scale, Height, and Precinct Incompatibility.
The proposed 43-storey height vastly exceeds the established local planning controls and height limits set for the Wickham precinct.
Introducing a tower of this unprecedented massing will permanently disrupt the local streetscape, create severe overshadowing on neighbouring properties, and set an undesirable precedent that undermines the integrity of local strategic planning frameworks.
4. Traffic, Transport, and Infrastructure StrainPositioning a high-density development of this magnitude immediately adjacent to the Newcastle Interchange will severely exacerbate traffic congestion on local arterial roads like Hannell Street. Furthermore, the surrounding stormwater, sewage, and utility networks lack the demonstrated capacity to absorb a high-density influx of this scale without impacting current service levels for existing residents.
ConclusionFor the reasons outlined above, the development in its current form represents a significant overdevelopment that prioritises yield over quality urban outcomes. I urge the Department to refuse the application or require a comprehensive redesign that drastically reduces scale, elevates architectural merit, and integrates genuine public space.

Excessive Building Height

This site falls within the Wickham Masterplan, a carefully considered planning instrument developed over several years through extensive consultation with the community, elected Councillors, and Council staff. The Masterplan establishes a base height limit of 45 metres, with a conditional maximum of 60 metres available only where a developer delivers demonstrated public benefits to the area.

The current proposal by Urban Property Group flagrantly disregards these controls. While the application nominates a height rezoning of 117 metres, the submitted designs depict a 43-storey building with a reduced level (RL) of approximately 152 — representing an actual built height of between 145 and 150 metres.
To state this plainly:

The proposed height is more than 250% of the Masterplan's base limit of 45 metres. It exceeds the Masterplan's maximum conditional height of 60 metres by approximately 150%.

The discrepancy between the nominated rezoning height (117 m) and the height shown in the design drawings (145–150 m) means the proposal lacks basic transparency and precision.

This is an extreme proposal that bears no reasonable relationship to Newcastle's established planning controls and should be refused on height grounds alone.

Affordable Housing Must Be Permanent, Not Temporary

Under the Housing Delivery Authority (HDA) pathway, a developer who provides 15% affordable housing for a period of 15 years may access a 30% height uplift — bringing the permissible height to approximately 78 metres. Even this concession is vastly exceeded by the current proposal.

More fundamentally, I object to the temporary nature of any affordable housing offered under the HDA pathway. A 15-year tenure does not constitute genuine affordable housing provision. Affordable housing secured through planning concessions must be maintained in perpetuity to deliver lasting community benefit. Temporary arrangements simply defer the loss of affordability and allow developers to ultimately extract full market value from dwellings built on the back of public planning entitlements.

The proposal also appears to make no reference to Newcastle City Council's Affordable Housing Contribution levy, which requires developers to provide 1% affordable housing in perpetuity. The application should be required to demonstrate full compliance with this existing obligation before any further consideration is given.

Conclusion

I urge the consent authority to refuse this application. The proposed height is excessive by any measure and incompatible with the Wickham Masterplan. Any affordable housing component must be secured permanently, not for a fixed term, and the applicant must demonstrate compliance with Council's existing affordable housing levy.