Subject: Objection to Proposed 43-Storey Development – Excessive Height
To whom it may concern,
I object to the proposed 43-storey development at 10 Dangar Street.
The proposed height is excessive relative to the surrounding Wickham precinct and significantly exceeds nearby developments currently under construction at 20 and 25 storeys.
The application does not sufficiently demonstrate why a 43 storey outcome is necessary to achieve housing objectives when lower-scale alternatives could still provide substantial housing supply.
I am concerned that approval of this proposal may establish an inappropriate precedent for future overdevelopment within Wickham.
A development in the range of 20 - 25 storeys would better align with the surrounding urban character while still contributing significant housing.
Kind regards,
Peter Beach

My first objection is based on the height of the building. The height will cast shadows on surrounding buildings. As the building is 2-3x larger than existing buildings in the area it will create a shadow much larger than all other buildings in the area. People have bought into the area based on expected shadows cast by towers that were allowed under the planning rules. This tower exceeds all previous approved limits and as a result will reduce the ability for people living in the city to get adequate natural light within their apartments.

My second point relates to parking. The drawings show that there is not enough parking provided for each apartment and co-living room to allocate one spot per apartment. As there is already a lack of street parking this will result in over parking in narrow streets blocking the road or causing people to walk long distances from their car to the apartment along unsafe and dark footpaths.

My third issue relates fire safety. In the event of a fire in a building of 43 floors, anyone requiring assistance to get down the fire stairs will be trapped for a long period of time. The fire report makes indication they may not give a 180min exit time instead giving 120min. The demographic of this area includes large number of elderly, less mobile, or vulnerable peoples. If this building matches the local demographic distribution this will result in a large number of people requiring assistance in escaping a fire putting strain on the fire fighters.

My forth point is related to the planning precedent. The people of Wickham bought in under a well negotiated set of planning rules. This building overriding all existing planning, sets a precedent for the future. Investors and home owners need certainty when investing in an area and this overriding of established planning rules reduces confidence in those choices.

I wish to object to the proposal on the following grounds.
1) Because the site is one surrounded by small narrow roads there will be considerable congestion during construction and upon completion. There is insufficient parking to accommodate the proposed number of beds. Newcastle public transport is inadequate to handle the number of people who would be accommodated on this one site. Traffic chaos.
2) The proposed height of 43 stories is not in keeping with the local area, will create excess shadowing and will be far in excess of the existing Newcastle skyscape, it will stick out like a sore thumb.
3) Newcastle does not have the fire fighting equipment to fight a fire of the height, it will be a death trap for people on the highest stories.
4) The documents provided for the application contain many errors. Newcastle is not a suburb of Sydney. Newcastle water and management is not provided by Sydney Water. This proposal is one writen for Sydney not Newcastle.

This area cannot support a development of this size! To suggest something even half this size is laughable and it will absolutely destroy the area. The current roads cannot sustain the existing traffic. Newcastle has worked hard to restore community to the CBD and this project will be a disaster.

I live two streets from the proposed development .
I consider it to be far too much development on the site .
Anti social behaviour around the area often stemming from the train station has become a huge problem for those living here.
The lack of car parking in the area for residents and visitors is a huge problem.
This development would bring an unacceptable number of residents to the immediate area - which is already being overcrowded with developments that are underway currently.
Overshadowing would be extremely prevalent.
This building is way too big for the site.
I’m aware of the problems encountered by the previous developers - I don’t feel the current developer should be able to add so much height to the project to cover their costs.
Please consider my submission.

I am the owner of an apartment in a neighbouring property at 1/12 Bishopsgate St, Wickham. I was also born and bred in Newcastle and have a passion for the city. Whilst progress is understandably inevitable in any city, I think it is our duty to keep the fundamental character of the place and to develop sympathetically to maintain important characteristics including heritage, lifestyle and aesthetics. Unfortunately I do not feel the current development application for 10 Dangar St, Wickham achieves any of these.
Newcastle has a strong and important history with it's harbour at the hub. The LEP 2012, shows an intended 'tier' structure to the planning around the site in question. The buildings closer to Hannell Street and the harbour intentionally have lower building heights (up to 49m) to keep the aesthetic appeal of the waterfront area as well as the general landscape of the city. The proposed site of 10 Dangar Street in fact fronts Hannell Street and therefore falls within this lower height restricted area.
According to the 2012 LEP, maximum (affordable housing bonus) heights for future towers immediately west of the site is set at 78-117m - still short of the proposed, excessive 133m for 10 Dangar St.
Another concern, of course, is that should this development be given approval, it will set an unwanted precedent in Newcastle where height restrictions are already being stretched allowing developments to completely change the face of Newcastle - and not for the better.
NSW Government should be mindful of the way this heritage, waterfront city can permanently lose it's appeal and soul with the rush to allow towers to be approved simply because developers' promise to include 'some affordable housing'.
I urge the government to look into the future and not allow excessive building heights which increase developer profits today at the expense of the city tomorrow.

As both a resident and an employee within the local area, I wish to formally raise the following concerns regarding the proposed development:
Insufficient parking provision: There appears to be inadequate parking to accommodate the number of residents, with no viable on-street or alternative parking options available in the surrounding area.
Limited community integration: The separation of affordable and social housing into a single, distinct area of the building, rather than being integrated throughout, may hinder inclusivity and social cohesion.
Lack of green space: The development does not appear to provide adequate outdoor areas or green spaces for the use of children and families.
Design of laneways: The inclusion of narrow, concealed laneways intended primarily for utilities, rather than community access, may inadvertently create environments conducive to anti-social behaviour.
In light of the above concerns, I respectfully request that the proposed development be reconsidered and revised to better meet community needs.

Living and residing in Wickham for over 16 years I have seen it change and progress over this time. I am not opposed to see it continue to develop and grow, but I feel 43 storeys in height, does not reflect the landscape of Wickham. 43 storeys will bring significant amounts of extra traffic around the narrow streets Wickham. Where are all the residents of this building to park. On street parking is already a premium even with paid permits. Bishopsgate street and Grey street are both one way streets. Bishopsgate street a very narrow main thoroughfare to the busy Interchange.

How does this building submission reflect the overall ideal of the Wickham master plan? I feel a building that height does not. Taking a look at the photomontage images provided, it is clear this building does not reflect the style and scale of high rises in the is area.

Despite having significant concerns about the proposed building, I think that it should go ahead as it is in a good location close to the interchange and will provide much needed housing for the community.