This area has already got heavy density apartment buildings. The proposed application of 43 storeys is above the recommended height for this area. The proposal front busy Hannell Street with no access via this main road to the proposed site. Dangar Street is a short dead end street, Charles Street is a one way street where the proposal is situated. I am worried about water pressure, current sewerage being sufficient . It is just too much infrastructure for the area which is already high density living.

In theory I support the project. People need to have somewhere to live and this is a good location for this type of dwelling.
However, I feel a 40 plus story building is much too tall and not in keeping with the existing and approved buildings in the locality. Perhaps around 30 stories would be more appropriate. Also the streets in the vicinity are mostly narrow and I have concerns re lack of parking; appropriate footpaths for the proposed residents and others; and free flow of traffic.

I strongly object to the proposed development on the following grounds:

- Excessive departure from established planning controls:
The proposal seeks a substantial increase beyond the current Newcastle LEP controls for the site, including an extreme increase in both prescribed building height and floor space ratio. It is also not in keeping with the strategic intent for the area as defined by the Wickham Master Plan. It is frankly preposterous that the proposed development intends to exceed the current LEP prescribed building height by more than double the allowable limit. With such an enormous departure from the LEP (which has been carefully developed through comprehensive local community engagement/feedback) and no relevant strategic planning or urban design analysis informing this, were the development to be approved it would risk seriously undermining the integrity of the existing planning framework structures that are in place for not only Wickham but the Newcastle region as a whole. The blatant disregard of such planning instruments which reflect local community values and preferences, would establish an irreversibly damaging precedent for privatised development in the area, under the false pretence of any REAL community benefit.

- Inadequate public benefit relative to private gain:
The proposed development advertises the false public benefit of limited temporary affordable housing outcomes that are restricted to only a 15 year period. This fails to provide any enduring public benefit which is proportionate to the scale of the planning concessions sought and is inconsistent with the strategic intent of the Housing SEPP and broader public interest principles underpinning NSW planning policy.

- Adverse impact on local character and urban environment:
The scale of the proposed development is fundamentally incompatible with the intended scale character and built form transition objectives for Wickham. The disproportionate height and bulk would create a visually dominant structure that permanently distorts the skyline character, existing urban environment and the regional character of Newcastle. The proposed building's aesthetic is also highly unsightly and unbelonging of a modern 21st century building. It is more reminiscent and befitting of a 20th century Gold Coast high rise and would become a permanent eye sore. For such a critical transport gateway into the city, this is not the future vision the local community desires for Newcastle.

- Insufficient planning assessment:
The exhibited planning documents lack comprehensive overshadowing analysis, detailed wind impact assessment and adequate cumulative infrastructure assessment. The proposal suggests that these will be considered in the EIS which has not been completed for this submission. This prevents the community from properly evaluating the true environmental and public domain impacts of the proposal and represents an incomplete planning assessment process.
The submission claims that "the development will have limited overshadowing impacts to existing residential developments" as "the site is bordered to the south by a rail line and a series of roads". This highlights the lack of depth and detail which has been considered within the exhibited planning assessment documents, as the idea that a 150m tall building will have limited overshadowing impacts to adjacent residential developments is farcical. Such unsubstantiated claims as this call into question the legitimacy of any of the planning assessments completed for the development to date.

- Environmental Amenity
For a development of such scale, the submission fails to properly assess the amenity impacts on the surrounding locality in any reasonably sufficient level of detail. This includes assessments of solar access, visual privacy, view loss, infrastructure demand, as well as wind, lightening and reflectivity impacts.

I support proceeding with the existing development consent under DA2018/01197 (as amended by DA2022/00448), permitting the construction of a 17-storey mixed-use development based on the existing planning controls. This approved DA is more befitting of the local community's vision for the site, as defined by the existing planning framework for Wickham and Newcastle.
Ultimately the proposal is founded upon false claims of public benefits, as well as being a necessity to meet NSW new housing targets. However, it fails to provide any meaningful or enduring public benefit, proportional to the scale of the planning concessions sought. It is simply another project targeted to fill the pockets of private developers. In regard to new housing targets, the recently announced Honeysuckle HQ development will provide ample new residencies within a suitable area, that has for the long-term been earmarked by local planning instruments and the community for this scale of development and which will adhere to appropriate LEP controls.

Overall, the permanent negative impacts of this proposal cannot be adequately mitigated through conditions of consent or minor design amendments. At its core the development is an inappropriate planning outcome for the site and should be rejected in its current form.

Here is a list of my concerns for the proposed 45-storey Mixed-Use development at 10 Dangar Street, Wickham:

• The intended mixed-use of the development:
o This affordable living building is totally out of context in this family recreation and business area. Would it be considered somewhere like Barangaroo or Circular Quay? I think not.
o When you catch a train from Newcastle Exchange to Sydney, you can see ample space and semi-rural areas just minutes away, and these areas are closer to where most Newcastle residents work. Also, the cost of living in these outer areas is less. Bars, restaurants and grocery stores in the city do cost more.
This contradicts the affordability concept.
o There are numerous houses converted to co-living in Shortland, a less central suburb, and more share homes continue to be developed there.

• The height of the construction:
o Surrounding owners, including investors in The Store and the Dairy Farmers building, paid for views and the expectation of Bowline apartments staying within the current set height limits. This unexpected height change could devalue surrounding properties by $150,000 to $450,000. This could devastate the lives of 100s, if not 1000s, of nearby owners - robbing many people of their planned standard of retirement, while diminishing family plans for the younger home owners just from devaluing their homes.
o A single building jutting out like that represents more of an ego statement than a benefit to communities. Why be so vertical when there is a lot of vertical space above the squarer bottom floors?

• The social aspects:
o The area is highly regarded as, a place for family outings and business activities. It has been carefully planned out for low-rise buildings and facilities for aesthetic, recreational and cultural purposes.
o The high standard of community and quality of life around here will diminish due to congestion and increases in crime – no denying, that’s what crammed in, cheap accommodation brings with it. I lived in Sydney for 20 years in various parts, and crime was higher in such areas - locals knew it and the police knew it.

• Wickham train station is different:
o Wickham station is used by passengers coming into Newcastle to work or to enjoy the Harbour. Day to day, most people who live here stay here, or drive/bus elsewhere - as it is far more convenient in this spread out town to use other forms of transport as the train line is limited. There is no reason to build here to commute to outer stations which are in less congested areas anyway. Why not build affordable living where it’s more convenient and more affordable to live?

• Congestion:
o Trucks for removalists and shop supplies already struggle to find access and often block the roads.
o The number of residents on such a small footprint is way beyond the usual limits. It will be way too congested.

Thank you for taking the time to read my response. I hope my points are taken into consideration.

The information provided doesn't clearly explain how the parking shortfall will actually be managed day to day. There are broad statements about managing it, but no concrete details, drawings, or operational plans that show how it'll actually work.

I'm not against new housing — the area needs it. But that can't mean ignoring real problems like flood risk, traffic flow, wind effects, design quality, public spaces and infrastructure strain. These need proper answers before approval, not vague promises to sort it out later.

The size of such a development in Wickham’s village atmosphere is simply too large and inappropriate. The community has been working hard to ensure the values, family orientation, open to all residents, are not devalued. I do not object to developments of all kinds in the community but the size, style, value to both the economic and visual integrity must not downgraded. The scale is simply out of proportion for this small community and we do not want to be the Gold Coast, Sydney levels of high density. The history and story of a community should be enriched its developments not financial eyesore structures

I am supportive of providing additional housing supply, however this projects height submission of 145m is significantly higher than the Wickham masterpla height of 60m. This tower is going to look out of place in the Newcastle skyline and will discourage future development further back from the area. The extensive master planning previously undertaken provided a planned approach to height restrictions to allow future developmemt to have views. This appears to be a knee jerk reaction to supply issues as a short term fix at the ignorance of supporting a sustainable development pipeline over the medium to long term for this area.

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?