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.

Objection – 10 Dangar Street, Wickham (SSD‑89869959)
To the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure

I wish to lodge an objection to the State Significant Development proposed for 10 Dangar Street, Wickham. While the site is appropriate for redevelopment, the scale and form of the current proposal are excessive, inconsistent with adopted planning controls, and likely to create significant adverse impacts on the surrounding community.

1. Extreme height and density departure
The proposal seeks a height of 152 metres, more than double the already generous 60 m height limit in the Wickham Masterplan. This level of uplift is unjustified and sets a precedent that undermines the strategic planning framework for the entire Newcastle Interchange precinct.

The proposed FSR of 14.4:1 is also far beyond what the local planning controls contemplate and would result in unacceptable bulk, overshadowing, and wind impacts.

2. Poor urban design and public domain impacts
The tower’s scale will dominate the public realm, overshadowing nearby streets, open spaces, and the Interchange precinct. The EIS does not adequately demonstrate that wind impacts, pedestrian comfort, or overshadowing can be mitigated to acceptable levels.

3. Traffic and infrastructure strain
Despite its size, the development still generates significant traffic and service demand. The surrounding road network—particularly Hannell Street, Stewart Avenue, and the Interchange access points—is already congested. The proposal does not demonstrate that local infrastructure can support the increased population, hotel guests, and commercial activity.

4. Precedent risk for uncontrolled high‑rise escalation
Approving a tower of this magnitude through the SSD pathway risks bypassing the carefully developed Wickham Masterplan and encourages speculative proposals seeking similar uplifts. This undermines community confidence in the planning system and weakens the role of local strategic planning.

5. Insufficient justification for State Significant status
While the inclusion of affordable housing is welcome, it does not justify the scale of planning concessions sought. The SSD pathway should not be used to override local controls for private development of this magnitude without clear, demonstrated public benefit.

Conclusion
I support redevelopment of this long‑vacant site, but the current proposal is far too large, poorly integrated, and inconsistent with the strategic vision for Wickham. I request that the Department refuse the application in its current form or require a substantially reduced scheme that aligns with the established planning framework.

Yours sincerely,

To the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,
I wish to formally object to the proposed increase in height and scale of the mixed-use development at 10 Dangar Street, Wickham (SSD-89869959).
My family purchased an apartment in the surrounding area on the understanding that the approved or anticipated development for this site was to be approximately 12 storeys in height. This understanding formed an important part of our decision to purchase property and invest financially in the area.
In addition, we have also purchased another apartment directly behind this proposed development, which is due for handover in January 2027. At no stage during this purchase process where we advised of the proposed increase in height and scale of the development at 10 Dangar Street. Had this information been disclosed or known, it may have significantly impacted our purchasing decision. However putting our own financial concerns aside the area cannot handle anymore traffic, crime or parking woes until the current mess is sorted.

The proposed increase in height and density beyond what residents and purchasers were originally led to expect will significantly and negatively impact surrounding owners and residents in several ways, including:

• Increased traffic congestion in an area that is already heavily impacted by vehicle movement and limited infrastructure capacity.
* Crime in the area is already unmanageable. Our current apartment Stella has break in’s weekly as do the other apartments in the area
• Existing severe parking shortages, which are already causing ongoing issues for residents, workers who commute into Newcastle and visitors. Additional density will only worsen these conditions.
• Growing concerns regarding crime and safety within the area, including break-ins and security issues occurring within apartment car parks and residential complexes, which residents already feel are not being adequately addressed.
• Concerns regarding overdevelopment and the precedent this proposal sets for future developments that exceed originally communicated planning expectations.
• Loss of amenity through increased overshadowing, reduced natural light, wind impacts, and decreased privacy.
• Reduction in property values caused by obstructed views, increased building bulk, and overdevelopment.
• Loss of views and outlook currently enjoyed by neighbouring properties.
Many owners have invested substantial amounts of money into their homes and units based on the reasonable expectation that surrounding developments would remain broadly consistent with the originally indicated height limits. Changing these expectations after residents have committed financially is unfair and undermines confidence in the planning process, transparency of development information, and future urban planning decisions.
Wickham is already experiencing significant pressure on parking, traffic flow, public infrastructure, and community amenity. Approving a development of substantially greater height and density than originally anticipated will place further strain on an area already struggling with congestion and residential impacts.
I respectfully request that the Department carefully consider the cumulative impacts on existing residents and reject any proposal that substantially exceeds the originally anticipated height and scale for this development.
Thank you for considering this submission.
Yours sincerely,
Bec Phillips

Dear Assessment Officer,
I am a primary school teacher who lives in Mayfield and regularly uses the
Newcastle Interchange as a commuter. I am writing to object to SSD-89869959
because I am concerned about the impacts of the proposed development on the
Interchange environment, public safety, and the community values of the Wickham
area.
Public Transport Infrastructure Is Already Under Pressure
The Newcastle Interchange is one of the busiest transport hubs in the Hunter.
Hundreds of bus services and thousands of daily commuters use the Interchange,
including the school community I serve. Adding 245 apartments, 99 co-living rooms
and 171 hotel rooms immediately adjacent to the Interchange—with acknowledged
parking shortfalls—means that the increased demand on footpaths, bus stops, drop-
off zones and station concourses will be significant. I ask the Department to require
Transport for NSW to provide independent advice on the pedestrian capacity,
interchange capacity, and public transport loading impacts of the proposed
development before any determination.
Community Benefit Must Be Real and Enforceable
As a teacher, I understand the difference between a promise and a guarantee. The
proposed public benefits in this application—42 affordable dwellings for 15 years and
public domain works—are not guaranteed in perpetuity and are not proportionate to
the permanent planning concession being sought. The community deserves
enforceable commitments that are legally secured, independently valued, and
proportionate to the extraordinary scale of uplift being requested. I ask the
Department to require a registered planning agreement before any consent is
granted.
Adequate Information for Community to Assess Impacts
I have tried to read the publicly available planning documents for this application and
found the EIS and appendices complex and difficult to navigate. I am not convinced
that the information has been presented in a way that allows the broader community
to understand the true scale of the impacts. I ask the Department to consider
whether a public hearing or community information session would be appropriate
before determining an application of this significance, given the scale of the planning
uplift being sought.
Conclusion and Request

I urge the Department to refuse this application or defer determination until all
outstanding transport, public benefit and community impact matters are resolved
through independent review and community engagement.