The proposal is excessive and conflicts with Newcastles strategy to build high-rise in dedicated corridors. It dominates and impacts negatively on public spaces and provides minimal public benefit. The size and scale will add significant traffic pressure as well as pressure on schools and general infrastructure.
There has been poor community consultation, which is likely because the developer predicts the community will object to this type of project, which it has.
The project is not welcome and I encourage Newcastle council to object to it based on the above.

I write to formally object to the proposed high-rise mixed-use development at 47 Darby Street, Cooks Hill, currently under assessment as a State Significant Development. This proposal is fundamentally incompatible with the established heritage, civic, and neighbourhood character of Newcastle’s Civic Precinct and presents unacceptable impacts on the environmental, cultural, and social fabric of the area.
The development site sits within Newcastle’s Civic Precinct, near Civic Park and the newly redeveloped Newcastle Art Gallery, an area identified as one of the city's most sensitive civic and heritage contexts.
The existing streetscape is defined by human scale buildings and neighbourhood character. Inserting a 13 storey tower and associated bulk into this context would visually dominate the precinct, disrupt established scale relationships, and significantly erode the heritage values that contribute to the area's identity.
The proposed development threatens to:
• Diminish the heritage value of nearby contributory buildings, including those recognised under the Newcastle Development Control Plan
• Disrupt key visual corridors and vistas, including those connecting Civic Park, the Art Gallery, and Darby Street’s historic townscape.
• Undermine the long-standing heritage character and spatial continuity that define the Civic Precinct and contribute to its public value.
The proposal’s bulk and scale dramatically exceed local controls, diverging from the intended low-rise form that protects the area’s historic and civic significance.
The proposal contradicts long-established planning direction which has consistently directed high rise development toward designated corridors and western precincts of the city. High rise is not intended to disperse into sensitive civic or heritage areas such as Darby Street and the Civic Precinct.
Darby Street and surrounding civic streets in Cooks Hill and Newcastle East are characterised by fine grain, neighbourhood-scale development with strong emphasis on walkability and local identity. Recent city investment—including widened footpaths, and pedestrian priority improvements and placemaking initiatives —reinforces this established human scale character.
Introducing a high rise tower into this context is inconsistent with the area’s built form, social character, and public domain vision, and would significantly degrade the pedestrian experience that the community and Council have worked to enhance.
The reliance on state-led planning pathways, including the State Significant Development mechanism, has effectively overridden the role of Newcastle City Council and local community voices. This process is removing the ability of the local community to shape development outcomes that reflect the city’s cultural identity and strategic aspirations.
For the reasons outlined above, I strongly oppose the proposed high-rise development at 47 Darby Street. While the need for increased housing supply is acknowledged, this scale of development must be directed to the precincts and corridors specifically identified for higher density growth—not imposed within Newcastle’s vulnerable heritage settings or its Civic Precinct, one of the city’s most sensitive and culturally significant civic environments.
This proposal is ill considered, contextually inappropriate, and inconsistent with Newcastle’s long-term planning strategy. Its approval would cause significant and irreversible harm to the Civic Precinct, established neighbourhood character, and the community’s ability to safeguard the cultural identity of Newcastle’s civic core.
I respectfully request that the assessment authority reject the proposed development and uphold the planning principles, heritage protections, and community values that define this important precinct.

1. I am concerned that the development will lead to increased car traffic in the area, in the context of Darby St not being able to be widened in future, due to the current strip development along Darby St, and the development's close proximity to the new Art Gallery. Leading to transport delays and traffic jams.

2. Exceeding the current height restriction will open the door to other buildings being built at similar heights or higher in the streets nearby, leading to dark alleyways in King St and Darby St with overshadowing over Civic Park and surrounding streets. Thus affecting the quality of life for residents, workers and tourists in the area.

3. I am concerned that the construction period will lead to restrictions in current traffic flow which may deter customers from coming to Darby and King St with a consequent effect on the viability of businesses in the area, not dissimilar to the loss of businesses in Hunter St with the construction of the light rail in the past.

Dear Planning Panel,
I strongly object to the proposal as submitted, it is inappropriate for the site on multiple grounds.
Rezoning and Planning Controls:
The proposal fails to comply with the relevant LEP and DCP. A resubmitted proposal must comply with the applicable LEP and DCP provisions. Any redevelopment of the site should be assessed and determined in accordance with the existing statutory planning framework, including adherence to the current height controls.
Height and Bulk:
The both buildings should remain within the established 14-metre height limit. As proposed both buildings represent an excessive departure from the prevailing height and scale controls and would introduce unreasonable bulk to the site.
Overshadowing:
The proposal is likely to result in unacceptable overshadowing impacts on my property and surrounding dwellings. The shadow diagrams submitted are at best unclear and at worst deceptive, preventing a transparent or comprehensive assessment. In particular, they fail to clearly identify:
The precise extent and duration of overshadowing impacts throughout the day
The amount of direct sunlight to be received by the private open space of each dwelling;
The methodology used to define and calculate private open space areas; and
In the absence of this information, it is not possible to properly assess the development’s impacts on residential amenity.
Presents an DCP/LEP height compliant alternative shadow diagram but without any of the required setbacks to deceptively suggest limited impact.
Impacts to Regency Park Property:
The documentation provides insufficient detail regarding stormwater management, including potential overflow risks and any proposed relocation or modification of stormwater infrastructure within Regency Park property.
Further, there is a lack of clarity regarding any proposed access to, or leasing of, Regency Park land, potential permanent impacts on communal assets, proposed amendments to easements, and the scope and methodology of any grouting works. These matters require thorough investigation, clear documentation, and resolution prior to any determination of the application. No such access arrangements have been entered into, nor even negotiations with the community association.


The proponent claims the site when developed to the DCP/LEP compliant height would be uneconomical; it is not up to neighbouring properties to bear the burden of the proponent’s uneconomical investment. Whilst I provide in principle support for the redevelopment of the site, the proposal as submitted is grossly inappropriate and should be rejected.

Objection submission regarding proposed development at Darby Street, Cooks Hill

To whom it may concern,

I wish to formally register my strong objection to the proposed development at Darby Street, Cooks Hill, based on significant concerns relating to its scale, design, impact on heritage and public spaces, strategic inconsistency, traffic implications, consultation process and site-specific risks.

Firstly, the proposal’s plan to increase the building height from the current legal limit of 14 metres to 45 metres through a spot rezone is excessive for this location. Such a significant increase in height and bulk would markedly change the character of the area, which is primarily composed of low-rise heritage and civic buildings. The front tower, in particular, would be highly visible and would dominate nearby landmarks including the two-storey Newcastle Art Gallery, Civic Park, historic gardens, war memorials, and places of worship. These sites contribute strongly to the cultural and historical identity of the Civic Precinct. Additionally, the proposal includes the demolition of a 1930s Interwar Period former electrical machine shop, classified as a ‘Contributory 2’ Historic Building by the City of Newcastle. Removing this building would result in the loss of an important piece of Newcastle’s heritage.

The design of the buildings presents challenges as well. The setbacks are limited, resulting in buildings that appear somewhat bulky and imposing. This reduces the sense of space and openness around the structures and diminishes pedestrian amenity, detracting from the overall streetscape quality in this important community area.

From a strategic planning point of view, this development does not align with Newcastle’s established approach of concentrating taller buildings in designated precincts and corridors. Approving a spot rezone for this site would diverge from these guidelines and risks undermining the city’s broader planning framework.

While increasing housing supply is important, it is also crucial to understand that this proposal is not focused on delivering affordable or diverse housing options. Rather, it appears to be a luxury high-rise development, providing minimal public benefit relative to the scale of its impact on a regionally significant civic space. The development’s scale and nature do not reflect the broader community needs for accessible and affordable housing solutions.

Furthermore, the increased density is likely to add pressure to surrounding roads, including Tyrrell, Laman, and Darby Streets, which already experience substantial pedestrian and vehicle traffic associated with adjacent schools and preschools. This raises concerns about safety and congestion.

The consultation process for this project has also been insufficient. The developer provided artist impressions of the design only at the start of the 14-day public exhibition period. Given the scale and significance of this development, more timely and comprehensive engagement with the community would have been appropriate to allow proper consideration and feedback.

Finally, there are specific site risks related to mine subsidence, as the location sits above an undermined coal seam known as the Yard Seam. While additional ground stabilisation measures would be required, these technical challenges should not be used as a reason to increase the building height or scale in this sensitive civic precinct. Alternative sites with fewer constraints could better accommodate larger developments without these risks.

For these reasons, I strongly urge the relevant authorities to reject this proposal. Development within Newcastle’s Civic Precinct should respect its scale, heritage value, and strategic planning principles. Protecting our community assets and ensuring sensitive, well-planned growth must remain key priorities.

I believe that the scale of the proposed development is out of step with the cultural and heritage significance of the area. The building would dominate and overwhelm an area that currently has a successful mixed use in which each of the elements compliment each other. With this proposal residential, (both historic and modern developments), cultural arts facilities, hospitality venues, small business, education and training sites, and Local Government assets such as Town Hall and Civic Park would all be negatively impacted by the imposition of this oversized development. Newcastle West is where developments of this type should be, allowing for the historic cultural hub of Newcastle to breathe.

I’m all for more housing but not a 45m tall luxury apartment block in the centre of the cultural and civic centre of Newcastle.

Let’s keep the right building height in the right place.
Increase the density where it makes better sense. This proposal can be done better than this. We cannot afford to set a precedent with State Governments deciding what’s best for Newcastle city.

This proposal is about a luxury high rise not affordable housing. It is seeking to increase the permitted height from 14 metres to 45 metres. This ad hoc, out of sight out of mind, decision by those who have no connection or understanding of the local community, heritage and local planning is not how approvals should be made.

I oppose this project.

The proposed structures and land use are inconsistent with existing planned uses and local statute, and the approval process is being deliberately expedited to obviate thoughtful feedback.

Surely local council and citizenry object, and in any case deserve to be heard. The developers have asked for a significant variance against existing height limitations, which alone should be denied full stop.

There is no critical exigent housing shortage at hand which might provide a sufficiently motivated argument for granting the height variance. Yes, Newcastle needs more housing, but not at the expense of local values. The only motivation at hand is greed, pure and simple.

I object to the proposed development at 47 Darby Street.
The development also proposes a Floor Space Ratio of 3.48:1 which is well beyond the 2.5:1 permitted.
The proposal contains no affordable housing component within the design.
The proposal seeks buildings of 7 and 12 storeys (approximately 45 metres high),
This design is in exceedance of the TOD which stipulates
Low and Mid-Rise Housing inner areas (0–400 m from a nominated station/centre)
Floor space ratio: max 2.2:1
Height of building: max 24 m
Storeys: max 6
This property is measured at426m walking distance from Civic light rail. Walking distance requires a route, not as the crow flies.

I object to the proposed development at 47 Darby St Cooks Hill for the following reasons:
. The proposed height significantly exceeds the current height limit in this area. The result will be a building that is out of scale with the surrounding area
. The proposed building does not fit the surrounding heritage streetscape
. The proposed floor space ratio is outside the current permitted floor space ratio
. Surrounding public buildings and public spaces such as the art gallery, the library and Civic Park including the memorial garden will be overshadowed
. Local residential amenity will be adversely affected
. This will create a precedent that will lead to Darby St becoming a wind tunnel. Darby St will no longer be a destination for outdoor social activities
. Local heritage will damaged
. Cooks Hill village atmosphere will be negatively impacted