I work in flood risk assessment, and I'm concerned that the proposal hasn't demonstrated this scale of development can be built here without creating serious problems for Wickham, Newcastle West and the Newcastle Interchange precinct.
There's also the flood risk angle. This location is already under considerable stress with the amount of traffic, public transport, foot traffic, cycling, and other development happening. Adding a 43-storey building without addressing flood impacts properly doesn't seem acceptable to me.

Overall, excited to see this happen. As a family with young children on Grey St, we hope this will positively impact the crime rate in the area. However, I am concerned about the infrastructure impacts: need for more local parks/green spaces, recreational facilities, bike paths, better footpaths throughout the suburb, upgrades to roads, etc.. which will be required to cater for the increase in population in the suburb. The local council must receive adequate contribution to upgrade these facilities and infrastructure to handle population growth.

This is an objection, on behalf of the owners committee at Stella Apartments, to the of the development due to the scale, density, traffic and social impact on the amenity of the local community. The development proposed is in conflict with the existing and approved developments in the area and the proposed urban Honeysuckle HQ plan. The attached objection submission outlines these key objection points and we request the development be reviewed and reduced in scale, to align with community outcomes and expectations.

Dear Assessment Team,Objection to State Significant Development Application: SSD-89869959
I am writing to formally lodge my strong objection to the proposed mixed-use development at 10 Dangar Street, Wickham.
While I acknowledge the need for strategic growth near key transit nodes, the scale, density, and execution of this specific proposal represent a severe overdevelopment of the site that will negatively impact the future of the Wickham precinct.My objections are based on the following critical planning and environmental grounds
1. Substandard Architectural Quality and Urban Design.
The architectural design appears to be of poor and dated design with a high potential to create a future slum. Rather than delivering an iconic, forward-thinking gateway building for Newcastle, the current design relies on a repetitive, high-density layout that risks rapid aesthetic and functional degradation.
A 43-storey tower requires world-class, enduring architecture; instead, this proposal threatens to become a visual blight that diminishes the long-term liveability and value of the surrounding neighbourhood.
2. Absence of Adequate Public Benefit and AmenityThe current layout fails to provide the civic infrastructure necessary to support its massive projected population of residents, hotel guests, and co-living tenants.
The proposal does not include appropriate public space and facilities for such a high profile space.
By failing to integrate meaningful green space, plazas, or community infrastructure, the development privatises a prominent transit-adjacent location without offering any counterbalancing public utility to the existing Wickham community.
3. Excessive Scale, Height, and Precinct Incompatibility.
The proposed 43-storey height vastly exceeds the established local planning controls and height limits set for the Wickham precinct.
Introducing a tower of this unprecedented massing will permanently disrupt the local streetscape, create severe overshadowing on neighbouring properties, and set an undesirable precedent that undermines the integrity of local strategic planning frameworks.
4. Traffic, Transport, and Infrastructure StrainPositioning a high-density development of this magnitude immediately adjacent to the Newcastle Interchange will severely exacerbate traffic congestion on local arterial roads like Hannell Street. Furthermore, the surrounding stormwater, sewage, and utility networks lack the demonstrated capacity to absorb a high-density influx of this scale without impacting current service levels for existing residents.
ConclusionFor the reasons outlined above, the development in its current form represents a significant overdevelopment that prioritises yield over quality urban outcomes. I urge the Department to refuse the application or require a comprehensive redesign that drastically reduces scale, elevates architectural merit, and integrates genuine public space.

Excessive Building Height

This site falls within the Wickham Masterplan, a carefully considered planning instrument developed over several years through extensive consultation with the community, elected Councillors, and Council staff. The Masterplan establishes a base height limit of 45 metres, with a conditional maximum of 60 metres available only where a developer delivers demonstrated public benefits to the area.

The current proposal by Urban Property Group flagrantly disregards these controls. While the application nominates a height rezoning of 117 metres, the submitted designs depict a 43-storey building with a reduced level (RL) of approximately 152 — representing an actual built height of between 145 and 150 metres.
To state this plainly:

The proposed height is more than 250% of the Masterplan's base limit of 45 metres. It exceeds the Masterplan's maximum conditional height of 60 metres by approximately 150%.

The discrepancy between the nominated rezoning height (117 m) and the height shown in the design drawings (145–150 m) means the proposal lacks basic transparency and precision.

This is an extreme proposal that bears no reasonable relationship to Newcastle's established planning controls and should be refused on height grounds alone.

Affordable Housing Must Be Permanent, Not Temporary

Under the Housing Delivery Authority (HDA) pathway, a developer who provides 15% affordable housing for a period of 15 years may access a 30% height uplift — bringing the permissible height to approximately 78 metres. Even this concession is vastly exceeded by the current proposal.

More fundamentally, I object to the temporary nature of any affordable housing offered under the HDA pathway. A 15-year tenure does not constitute genuine affordable housing provision. Affordable housing secured through planning concessions must be maintained in perpetuity to deliver lasting community benefit. Temporary arrangements simply defer the loss of affordability and allow developers to ultimately extract full market value from dwellings built on the back of public planning entitlements.

The proposal also appears to make no reference to Newcastle City Council's Affordable Housing Contribution levy, which requires developers to provide 1% affordable housing in perpetuity. The application should be required to demonstrate full compliance with this existing obligation before any further consideration is given.

Conclusion

I urge the consent authority to refuse this application. The proposed height is excessive by any measure and incompatible with the Wickham Masterplan. Any affordable housing component must be secured permanently, not for a fixed term, and the applicant must demonstrate compliance with Council's existing affordable housing levy.

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.