Too high for this location. Some shrubbery at ground level is just an attempt to create an aesthetic that doesn't exist. It dwarfs the sensitively expanded gallery across the road. It states ' luxury' so can assume it is priced for the wealthy when we need mixed housing, cheaper options for elderly and disadvantaged.

The proposal for a 12 story and seven story residential buildings in a non-residential area is extraordinary to me. The proposed site is at the bottom of my street and would not be keeping with anything in the vicinity. There is nothing residential on any side of Civic Park and it would be out of character for the area. It would also be much taller and more massive than any of the buildings surrounding the park. It would be much more suitable to use this area for something that has community or Civic usage. Civic Park is a central and important area for the city of Newcastle and identifies it self as for community and Civic use with its conservatory university buildings town hall Hotel educational premises Library and Art Gallery. It would be better to see the site used for example as an extension of the museum, a marine Museum which is sorely needed in Newcastle, especially with Newcastle history as a working Port. It is essential that the residence of Newcastle should be consulted and heard in the shaping of their city. Residence have increasingly been ignored in a most insulting way by both Newcastle Council and Planning. On a statewide level. One thing is for sure and that is that Newcastle residents especially those so very close to Civic Park have a much better idea of what would be suitable on that site.
Why stir up more hostility towards the planning procedures in New South Wales when good advice is readily at Hand from residents ?
Suddenly introducing a residential and massive building on this site is plainly not appropriate. It is not the place for residential building.

The project will ruin the character of the cooks hill area. Cooks Hill is a charming and historical suburb, with the beloved Darby street as its centre. To put a high rise building here would ruin this charm and it would look ugly and out of place. Keep the high rise buildings in the city centre and do not expand into our spaces.

This is another un-necessasy high rise in the already over-filled Newcastle CBD area.

The proposal of such a tall building, is significantly in conflict with the immediate context of 3-4 max storey buildings in Cooks Hill. The proposal is more suitable for King and Hunter streets, where the building height and density is typically higher. The impact upon us personally is that our last remaining view of the harbour (outlined in white dash on the attachment) will be completely taken by the proposal (approximated in red). This 100% removal of our high value view is not 'view sharing' in any sense, it's complete removal.

The project will have a negative effect on amenities for residents of area due to parking constraints. The changed nature of area with additional height will have a negative affect on residence enjoyment of their neighbourhood, creating a high rise environment where one did not exist. Building heights should not be changed in this area. Allowing this project to proceed is not acceptable, soon the whole precinct will be shaded by excessive height buildings.

Traffic Management issues - this development will create huge traffic issues especially to Darby Street given point of entry into the property. Traffic along this main route will crawl along at a snail's pace. Those entering or existing either Tyrell or Queen streets will back up and need to wait numerous sets of lights before entering onto Darby St.
In the precinct that this development is being built it's in conflict with the cultural and heritage landmarks.
Given the building height is three times the legal limit it will be an eyesore in area overshadowing everything and negating the recent refurbishment of our city's Art Gallery.
The current infrastructures in the area will struggle to support the excessive increase in population moving into the area.
Local planning controls that are in place for a reason, have been ignored.
Housing shortfall needs are indisputable however there are better areas to plan and build high rise developments than the proposed site, especially as it's affordability will be beyond reach of the average home buyer.

This development is at odds with Newcastle’s height restrictions and sets a dangerous precedent for building heights; particularly given its location is outside the CBD. The majority of novocastrians don’t want to live in a densely overcrowded city; we’d move to
Sydney if that was our aim

I formally object to the proposed development on the following grounds.

Loss of Visual Amenity
The proposed building will result in a substantial and unreasonable loss of visual amenity for our property. It will obstruct established city and harbour views, including views through the only remaining visual corridor to the harbour, and will also block views of the Civic Clock Tower, a recognised local landmark. These views form a significant part of the existing residential amenity and character of the area, and their loss represents an adverse and permanent impact.

Incompatibility with the Surrounding Built Form
The scale, height, and massing of the proposed development are inconsistent with the prevailing built form of the surrounding area. The proposal is visually dominant and incongruous with neighbouring buildings, and does not respect the established character or height controls of the precinct. The building height should not exceed that of the existing surrounding development in order to maintain streetscape cohesion and protect residential amenity.

Traffic and Access Impacts
The local street network is already operating at or near capacity during peak periods. The proposal fails to adequately address the additional traffic movements it will generate, which are likely to worsen congestion and negatively affect road safety, access, and the amenity of nearby residents.

Inadequate Public Consultation
I am also concerned that the public consultation process for this project has been inadequate. We became aware of the proposal only through private means rather than through a transparent and accessible public notification process. Given the scale of the development and its significant adverse impacts on neighbouring properties, meaningful community consultation should have occurred at an earlier stage.

For these reasons, the proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site and fails to appropriately balance development outcomes with the protection of existing residential amenity. I therefore request that the application be refused, or substantially amended to address the concerns outlined above.