For anyone at the state level who is not aware, Cooks Hill is an iconic enclave on the periphery of the Newcastle CBD with its own cultural and historic significance. The suburb can best be described as a village, characterised by narrow streets, modest workers cottages built in the early 20th century and populated by a diverse community of young families and old. It is not a place for 12-story "luxury apartments" - there's plenty of space for that in the adjacent Honeysuckle or Newcastle CBD precincts where numerous high-rise apartments are already complete or are under construction.
Another high-rise apartment, situated in Cooks Hill, is not in keeping with the character of our village and is totally unnecessary. The development should not go ahead.

The addition of a residential building that exceeds the planning height limits would detract from the area and create inequity amongst the comparable building spaces around the area. The overlook and proximity to the Civic park precinct would also increase chances that residents complaining about events and activities that take place. This could lead to curtailing of events in the park space, increasing pressures and applying additional costs to event organisers to mitigate issues. I am against this project proceeding.

Increased residential density in Darby St supports the vitality of local businesses, encourages walkability, and makes efficient use of existing infrastructure. Locating new housing close to shops, cafes, health services, and public transport aligns with both local and State strategic planning objectives.

Concerns have been raised by some community members. Change is an inevitable and a necessary part of accommodating Newcastle’s growth. Well-designed higher density developments help ensure that growth occurs in a planned and considered way, rather than being displaced to less suitable areas

I believe the proposal will contribute positively to Newcastle’s housing supply and urban character over the long term. For these reasons, I support approval of the development.

I want to draw your attention to a significant bypass of due process that sets a dangerous precedent for that can be exploited for financial gain. I am objecting to the proposed development at 47 Darby Street and Tyrrell Street, in Cooks Hill, Newcastle, because it threatens the culture of the city and overrules established Council planning and zoning. Allowing such a development to proceed under exploitation of the State Significant Development process sets a dangerous precedent that threatens not only Newcastle’s culture but erodes the integrity of the SSD process for future developments throughout NSW.
Before I start detailing the specific reasons why I object to this development, I first want to tell you a little bit about my parents, so this letter isn’t just coming from ‘a member of the community’, but you can hear the stories of real people that are affected by this matter.
My mother, Annette, and my father, Donald, first moved to Newcastle around the time I was born, nearly three decades ago. My father was relocated here due to his position in the army reserves, but that is not the reason that they stayed here—they recognized that Newcastle is an incredible place to raise a family and to build a life. They are hardworking people, both first generation university goers that worked to establish a future for their children. They both pursued second degrees from Newcastle University. My brother also still resides in Newcastle and also graduated Newcastle University, and while I may not physically still reside there, I am a proud Novocastrian that knows they will return home someday.
My parents are volunteer surf-life savers. My dad’s desire to serve extended beyond his involvement in the military. When I call them on weekends, they can be found at Newcastle Beach SLSC, spending their time to protect the beachgoers in the community. All my life, my parents have worked hard, and last year, they finally bore the fruits of their 30-year tenure in Newcastle, purchasing a townhome in a community near Darby Street. They walk to Newcastle Beach from their new home. They walk down to Harris Farm Markets, they both walk to their workplaces in town, and they love walking the foreshore on weekends. They have worked hard their whole lives to live and stay in Newcastle, and they love being involved with and serving the community. They are the epitome of what it means to be a Novocastrian.
Myself? I, ironically, work in development. In my professional career, I understand that development due process involves engaging with the community to ensure that what they build benefits a long-term future and addresses community concerns. Developers that circumvent the approval to maximize density and height are predatory and exploit the very aims of the SSD rules in order to increase their profits, and the profits of their investors.
The 47 Darby Street proposed development is an example of a predatory development, and here is why.
Maximum height regulations in zoning protect communities by managing the physical, social, infrastructural, and cultural characteristics of a community. Strict management of maximum height isn’t just an arbitrary rule, it mitigates large structures from casting long shadows over public parks, neighboring homes, plazas, and impacting the heritage of a place. The current legal height at this location is 14 meters, but the developer’s exploitation of the SSD is proposing an increase to 45 meters through a ‘spot rezone’. The front tower will visually loom over Civic Park, the gardens, landmarks, historic and cultural buildings, war memorials, and places of worship.
Not only that but increasing density as proposed creates strain on already pressured Tyrrell, Laman, and Darby Streets. There is low public benefit due to its impact on a significant civic space for Newcastle, and while no one in the community objects to the provision of housing, there is a correct way to do this. Newcastle already has an established long-standing strategy to concentrate high-rise in dedicated corridors and precincts, that way infrastructure can be managed and planned for in a sustainable way. This is the exact reason why local council zoning and planning departments exist, and why it shouldn’t be overruled by the state in these cases.
There are further issues, including the loss of a ‘Contributory 2’ Historic Building to make way for the development. There’s an additional issues with mine subsidence on the site. Ultimately, it’s undesirable growth that has unacceptable impact on the surrounding community and is a key example of a developer maximizing density at the cost of the long-term future of Newcastle’s civic center.
Beyond the impacts that I just outlined, I want to bring my story back to Annette and Donald. Think about the shadow that is being cast—literally—on a life that they have worked hard to finally enjoy. Think about your local surf life savers that have spent 30 years providing economic and social benefit to this community, only to be driven out by an opportunistic developer.
Thank you for serving the greater interests of the community, and I trust this department will do the right thing.

I write to formally lodge a submission objecting to the proposed Mixed-Use Development at Darby Street, Cooks Hill (SSD-82276964) currently on public exhibition on the NSW Planning Portal. The proposal includes demolition of the existing building and construction of two residential buildings with ground floor retail, basement parking, landscaping and communal open space.
I am a local resident and have significant concerns regarding the impact this development will have on the heritage character, streetscape integrity, amenity and planning coherence of the Darby Street precinct within the Cooks Hill area.
1. Inconsistency with Heritage and Streetscape Character
Darby Street is part of the Cooks Hill Heritage Conservation Area, recognised for its distinctive low-scale, historic urban fabric. While the site may not be individually heritage-listed, the cumulative character of the area is defined by modest scale buildings, fine grain streetscape, and visual continuity that contributes to local identity.
The proposed development, by virtue of its height, bulk and massing, will be visually dominant and inconsistent with this established heritage context. It risks undermining the very character that defines the Cooks Hill precinct, diminishing the authenticity and human scale that contribute to Darby Street’s unique sense of place.
2. Adverse Impacts on Streetscape and Urban Form
The scale of the proposed built form appears to exceed the prevailing pattern of development along Darby Street, where smaller mixed-use buildings and heritage terraces predominate. The increased massing and higher building form will disrupt established sightlines and create a visual rupture in an otherwise coherent streetscape.
Such an outcome is not aligned with the objective of conserving local character within heritage conservation areas or the NSW planning principles that aim to balance housing delivery with contextual responsiveness.
3. Amenity and Micro-Environmental Concerns
The scale and intensity of the proposed development are likely to create negative amenity impacts, including:
Increased overshadowing of adjacent properties and public spaces
Loss of privacy for neighbouring residential dwellings
Reduced solar access affecting liveability and street activity
Pressure on local pedestrian circulation and amenity
These issues are not sufficiently addressed in the publicly exhibited documentation and must be given greater weight in any final assessment.
4. Consistency with Planning Controls and Local Objectives
While the site is zoned for mixed use, and State Significant Development status applies, planning decisions should still demonstrate meaningful consistency with the objectives of the Newcastle Local Environmental Plan (LEP), relevant development controls and the local planning framework.
This includes recognition of:
The importance of protecting streetscape values in heritage conservation areas
Respecting prevailing building scale and form in historic precincts
Ensuring new development integrates sensitively with existing urban fabric
There is insufficient justification in the Environmental Impact Statement for the extent of variation between the proposal and the established character of Darby Street.
5. Need for Design Revision or Refusal
Given the likely adverse impacts identified above, I respectfully request that the consent authority:
Refuse the application in its current form, or
Require substantial redesign that aligns the height, scale and form of the proposal with its context and the objectives of local heritage conservation policy.
Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission. I ask that my concerns be fully considered as part of the assessment process.

I am a long-term resident of Newcastle and strongly object to the proposed Mixed Use Development at 47 Darby Street, Cooks Hill (SSD-82276964).
This State Significant Development seeks to demolish the existing building and construct two residential buildings with approximately 114 units, ground-floor retail, basement parking, and heights up to around 45 metres (equivalent to 12 storeys on the Darby Street frontage and up to 7 storeys on Tyrrell Street). My objections are based on the following key planning and community impacts:

Excessive Height and Incompatibility with Local Character
The proposal significantly exceeds the local maximum building height controls under the Newcastle Local Environmental Plan (typically 14 metres in this inner-city residential/heritage-influenced area of Cooks Hill). A 45-metre structure would be out of scale with the surrounding low-to-medium rise streetscape, heritage values, and the established character of Darby Street and nearby areas opposite the Newcastle Art Gallery. This override of local planning rules undermines community trust in the planning system and sets a poor precedent for future developments.

Increased Traffic and Parking Pressure
The addition of 114 residential units plus retail will generate substantial extra vehicle movements on already congested inner-city streets (Darby Street, Tyrrell Street, and surrounds). Cooks Hill has narrow roads, high pedestrian activity, and existing parking shortages. The basement parking provision is unlikely to fully mitigate on-street demand, exacerbating congestion, safety risks for pedestrians/cyclists, and amenity loss for residents.

Inadequate Public Consultation and Rushed Process
The exhibition period is only 14 days (5–18 February 2026), which is insufficient for meaningful community input on a major project of this scale. Bypassing full local council assessment via the SSD/HDA pathway limits transparency and local democratic oversight, with decisions resting with unelected bureaucrats rather than elected representatives who understand Newcastle's context.

Site-Specific Risks
The site is understood to overlie undermined coal seams (common in Newcastle's inner areas due to historical mining). This raises legitimate concerns about ground stability, subsidence risk, and long-term structural safety for such a tall, high-density building. These geotechnical issues warrant thorough independent assessment before approval.

Housing Type and Community Benefit
While the state seeks to boost housing supply, this development focuses on luxury/market-rate apartments rather than addressing genuine affordability or social housing needs in Newcastle. It appears profit-driven with limited broader community benefit, especially given the height and character overrides.

In summary, this proposal is inconsistent with local planning controls, would harm the amenity and liveability of Cooks Hill, and has been progressed in a way that sidelines meaningful local input. I urge the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (and the Minister) to reject the application in its current form, or require substantial amendments to comply with local height limits, better manage traffic/parking, and ensure full geotechnical risk assessment.

This is a complete erase of culture, heritage and history for this city.

To me personally, this seems like the worst thought out idea for a building position I have ever seen. These streets in and around Darby Street are so skinny. Traffic is gonna be absolutely ruined by this monolith. The height and density of this building is so concerning. I don't know personally how structure and integrity works, but if we think worst case scenario, an earthquake would be absolutely devastating.

I’m just a guy, but this cozy little city isn’t something I think people are clambering to visit, especially if they want ‘luxury’. You’re completely destroying what makes living here enjoyable.

Consider at least downsizing, or choose another city for your buildings.

i dont support the development planned for 47 Darby Street on these grounds...
1. The planned height for both buildings.
a ) the planned 7 story building significantly casts a shadow over the homes of the residents adjacent to the fence line.
b) The planned 12 story building proposes to have 3 floors of retail which will need additional parking.The parking at the location is already inadequate due to the demands of a newly opened and greatly expanded Art Gallery plus an existing Child Daycare across the road.
2. The project is out of keeping with the culturally and historically significant precinct of this area.

The proposed development is out of character with properties in the immediate precinct. Most of those properties are two or three stories in height maximum. The Sovereign Park development in nearby Mosbri Cresent is currently under construction and has been approved for three apartment buildings, the highest of which will be only seven stories, the other two are five and six stories. The Mosbri development nestles into the Hill behind it so it minimises potential overview of neighbouring residences.
Buildings of approximately 45 m have been constructed in the adjoining Civic commercial precinct. They include the cities former administration building and Newcastle universities New Space. More are under construction at Newcastle West. These location are better suited to high density as they don't encroach on the character of the area.
Apartment buildings up to 66 m are located in this precinct. The proposed building is more suited to this traditional high-rise area rather than the low rise precinct in which 47 Darby Street is located, more in kind with buildings nearby.

This proposed development is incompatible with the Cooks Hill area in terms of height and mass. It will overshadow, dominate and diminish significant cultural landmarks in Newcastle particularly the newly renovated Newcastle Art Gallery. There are already numerous luxury residential towers under construction in Newcastle - most in accordance with local planning rules designed to protect and preserve Newcastle's heritage areas and character. A focus on encouraging developments that address the housing affordability crisis should be a priority for the NSW government rather than increasing the supply of luxury housing. Finally, I urge the NSW government to defer to, respect and involve Newcastle City Council when assessing submissions of this kind.