Johanna Trainor
Object
Johanna Trainor
Object
The Hill
,
New South Wales
Message
Submission Objecting to the Proposed Development at 47 Darby Street, Cooks Hill 2300
STATE SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT REFERENCE: SSD-82276964
47 Darby Street sits with the Civic and Cultural Precincts of Newcastle and is a site which is the symbolic of the social heart of Newcastle — home to the community’s landmarks, public buildings, parks, war memorials, places of worship, and valued open spaces. Any new development within this area must genuinely reflect community values, respect our shared heritage, and comply with established local planning rules.
The proposal currently under exhibition fails to do so on multiple counts. I strongly object to this development for the following reasons:
1. Excessive Height and Bulk
The current legal height limit for this site is 14 metres. The developer seeks to increase this limit to 45 metres through a one-off “spot rezone.”This exceeds what is permitted under the local planning framework and would set an undesirable precedent for future developments within this historically sensitive precinct. The proposed heights are incompatible with the existing built form and the precinct’s character.
2. Visual and Physical Impact on Public Spaces
The development, particularly the front tower, would visually dominate key civic assets — including the two-storey Art Gallery, Civic Park, surrounding gardens, war memorials, and places of worship.Such visual dominance would erode the open, welcoming character of the Civic Precinct and compromise the heritage and cultural significance of these spaces.
3. Poor Design and Inadequate Setbacks
The proposed buildings provide insufficient setbacks, resulting in a bulky and overbearing streetscape.This lack of sensitivity to surrounding heritage structures represents poor urban design and will diminish the aesthetic and spatial quality of the precinct.
4. Strategic Planning Conflict
The proposal directly contradicts Newcastle’s long-standing strategic approach to concentrate high-rise and higher-density development within designated corridors and precincts.This ad hoc approach undermines established planning policy and risks uncoordinated growth that could harm the integrity of Newcastle’s city centre structure.
5. Minimal Public Benefit
Despite its scale, the project offers limited public benefit. Any supposed advantage, such as housing provision, is outweighed by its detrimental impact on a regionally significant civic and cultural space.Public benefit must not be tokenistic — especially when the public domain bears such a significant cost.
6. Increased Traffic and Safety Concerns
The proposal will place additional strain on local streets, particularly Tyrrell, Laman, and Darby Streets. These areas already experience congestion and heavy pedestrian movement associated with nearby schools and child care centres.
This increased traffic poses safety risks and detracts from the precinct’s accessibility and amenity.
7. Inadequate Community Consultation
Community engagement has been poorly managed. The developer did not release an artist’s impression of the design until the start of the brief 14-day public exhibition period.Given the project’s significance and potential long-term impact on a major civic space, this level of consultation falls well below the standards expected of a State Significant Development.
8. Mine Subsidence Risk
The site lies above an undermined coal seam (the Yard Seam), compounding Newcastle’s well-known susceptibility to mine subsidence.The need for additional grouting or ground stabilisation should not be used as justification for larger buildings at this site. There are other less constrained and more appropriate sites for development elsewhere in the city.
9. Loss of Heritage Fabric
This proposal would result in the demolition of valued heritage buildings, including:
•The 1930s Interwar Period former electrical machine shop on Tyrrell Street, identified by the City of Newcastle as a Contributory 2 Historic Building.
•The Markey Building (former Channel 10 building), an example of Newcastle’s Brutalist architecture, recognised in the draft Newcastle City-wide Thematic History (2025).
The loss of these structures would erode an important part of Newcastle’s architectural and cultural history.
Conclusion
This development is inconsistent with established planning controls, community expectations, and the heritage character of the Civic and Cultural Precinct. It poses unacceptable visual, structural, and social impacts on this regionally significant area.
For these reasons, I urge you to reject the proposed development and instead pursue a design process that is genuinely consultative, respects Newcastle’s heritage, cultural identity, strategic planning vision and meets the community’s expectations.
Dr Johanna Trainor (PhD History)
21 Lemnos Parade, The Hill 2300
mb: 0408 283 680
18 February 2026
STATE SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT REFERENCE: SSD-82276964
47 Darby Street sits with the Civic and Cultural Precincts of Newcastle and is a site which is the symbolic of the social heart of Newcastle — home to the community’s landmarks, public buildings, parks, war memorials, places of worship, and valued open spaces. Any new development within this area must genuinely reflect community values, respect our shared heritage, and comply with established local planning rules.
The proposal currently under exhibition fails to do so on multiple counts. I strongly object to this development for the following reasons:
1. Excessive Height and Bulk
The current legal height limit for this site is 14 metres. The developer seeks to increase this limit to 45 metres through a one-off “spot rezone.”This exceeds what is permitted under the local planning framework and would set an undesirable precedent for future developments within this historically sensitive precinct. The proposed heights are incompatible with the existing built form and the precinct’s character.
2. Visual and Physical Impact on Public Spaces
The development, particularly the front tower, would visually dominate key civic assets — including the two-storey Art Gallery, Civic Park, surrounding gardens, war memorials, and places of worship.Such visual dominance would erode the open, welcoming character of the Civic Precinct and compromise the heritage and cultural significance of these spaces.
3. Poor Design and Inadequate Setbacks
The proposed buildings provide insufficient setbacks, resulting in a bulky and overbearing streetscape.This lack of sensitivity to surrounding heritage structures represents poor urban design and will diminish the aesthetic and spatial quality of the precinct.
4. Strategic Planning Conflict
The proposal directly contradicts Newcastle’s long-standing strategic approach to concentrate high-rise and higher-density development within designated corridors and precincts.This ad hoc approach undermines established planning policy and risks uncoordinated growth that could harm the integrity of Newcastle’s city centre structure.
5. Minimal Public Benefit
Despite its scale, the project offers limited public benefit. Any supposed advantage, such as housing provision, is outweighed by its detrimental impact on a regionally significant civic and cultural space.Public benefit must not be tokenistic — especially when the public domain bears such a significant cost.
6. Increased Traffic and Safety Concerns
The proposal will place additional strain on local streets, particularly Tyrrell, Laman, and Darby Streets. These areas already experience congestion and heavy pedestrian movement associated with nearby schools and child care centres.
This increased traffic poses safety risks and detracts from the precinct’s accessibility and amenity.
7. Inadequate Community Consultation
Community engagement has been poorly managed. The developer did not release an artist’s impression of the design until the start of the brief 14-day public exhibition period.Given the project’s significance and potential long-term impact on a major civic space, this level of consultation falls well below the standards expected of a State Significant Development.
8. Mine Subsidence Risk
The site lies above an undermined coal seam (the Yard Seam), compounding Newcastle’s well-known susceptibility to mine subsidence.The need for additional grouting or ground stabilisation should not be used as justification for larger buildings at this site. There are other less constrained and more appropriate sites for development elsewhere in the city.
9. Loss of Heritage Fabric
This proposal would result in the demolition of valued heritage buildings, including:
•The 1930s Interwar Period former electrical machine shop on Tyrrell Street, identified by the City of Newcastle as a Contributory 2 Historic Building.
•The Markey Building (former Channel 10 building), an example of Newcastle’s Brutalist architecture, recognised in the draft Newcastle City-wide Thematic History (2025).
The loss of these structures would erode an important part of Newcastle’s architectural and cultural history.
Conclusion
This development is inconsistent with established planning controls, community expectations, and the heritage character of the Civic and Cultural Precinct. It poses unacceptable visual, structural, and social impacts on this regionally significant area.
For these reasons, I urge you to reject the proposed development and instead pursue a design process that is genuinely consultative, respects Newcastle’s heritage, cultural identity, strategic planning vision and meets the community’s expectations.
Dr Johanna Trainor (PhD History)
21 Lemnos Parade, The Hill 2300
mb: 0408 283 680
18 February 2026
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
THE HILL
,
New South Wales
Message
Re: SSD 82276964: 47 Darby Street, Cooks Hill.
I strongly object to the project proposed for 47 Darby St, Cooks Hill for the following reasons:
1. Too high. The height is completely out of character for the heritage location, and will overshadow the civic centre. It will also destroy view corridors in surrounding suburbs, significantly devaluing the amenity of the local area.
2. Dangerous interference with pedestrian routes, especially regarding small children. The Tyrrell St vehicle entrance crosses footpaths used frequently by children who walk to nearby public and private schools. I have personally witnessed near-misses with cars coming out of existing driveways on Tyrrell St nearly colliding with children as young as 5 running down (or up) the hill. This will become a serious danger if the traffic frequency is increased manyfold.
3. Minimal benefit to the public. While extra housing is necessary, it is not the case that it is justified at any cost. Recent research by Christian Nygaard at the UNSW City Futures Research Centre shows that even a massive overprovision of extra homes in the next two decades will barely put a dent in housing affordability (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/feb/18/building-more-homes-australia-housing-affordability). The argument put forward by the developer that these extra luxury flats will be in the public interest are a lazy and shallow debasement of the housing crisis for personal gain.
4. Significant detriment to the public. This development will negatively affect locals' and visitors' ability to drive, park and walk around the area, both during construction and after it. It will overshadow key civic spaces such as the new Art Gallery and Civic Park, with its several associated war memorials, which should remain peaceful naturescapes able to be enjoyed by all.
Thank you for the chance to submit my views on this development.
Tania
I strongly object to the project proposed for 47 Darby St, Cooks Hill for the following reasons:
1. Too high. The height is completely out of character for the heritage location, and will overshadow the civic centre. It will also destroy view corridors in surrounding suburbs, significantly devaluing the amenity of the local area.
2. Dangerous interference with pedestrian routes, especially regarding small children. The Tyrrell St vehicle entrance crosses footpaths used frequently by children who walk to nearby public and private schools. I have personally witnessed near-misses with cars coming out of existing driveways on Tyrrell St nearly colliding with children as young as 5 running down (or up) the hill. This will become a serious danger if the traffic frequency is increased manyfold.
3. Minimal benefit to the public. While extra housing is necessary, it is not the case that it is justified at any cost. Recent research by Christian Nygaard at the UNSW City Futures Research Centre shows that even a massive overprovision of extra homes in the next two decades will barely put a dent in housing affordability (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/feb/18/building-more-homes-australia-housing-affordability). The argument put forward by the developer that these extra luxury flats will be in the public interest are a lazy and shallow debasement of the housing crisis for personal gain.
4. Significant detriment to the public. This development will negatively affect locals' and visitors' ability to drive, park and walk around the area, both during construction and after it. It will overshadow key civic spaces such as the new Art Gallery and Civic Park, with its several associated war memorials, which should remain peaceful naturescapes able to be enjoyed by all.
Thank you for the chance to submit my views on this development.
Tania
Jonathan Howe
Object
Jonathan Howe
Object
THE HILL
,
New South Wales
Message
I am writing to express strong opposition to the proposed 45-metre development on Darby Street, which seeks to override the existing 14-metre height limit through a spot rezone.
The proposal represents an extreme and unjustified departure from Newcastle’s established planning framework and would cause permanent harm to the Civic Precinct — a regionally significant cultural and heritage landscape.
Excessive Height and Bulk
The current legal height limit at this site is 14 metres. Increasing this to 45 metres — more than triple the permitted height — is an extraordinary escalation.
Such a dramatic uplift undermines the integrity of the Local Environmental Plan and erodes community confidence in planning controls. If this can occur in the Civic heart, height limits lose their meaning elsewhere.
Impact on the Civic Precinct
The proposed tower would visually dominate Newcastle Art Gallery, Civic Park, the Civic Theatre, war memorials and surrounding historic buildings.
This precinct is defined by its human scale, open space and civic dignity. A 45-metre building would overwhelm the existing two-storey gallery and permanently alter key sightlines and the spatial balance of one of Newcastle’s most important public domains.
The Civic Precinct is not a high-rise corridor; it is the symbolic and cultural heart of the city.
Poor Design and Setbacks
Inadequate setbacks and bulk create an overbearing built form that fails to respect adjacent public space. Civic settings require proportionality and sensitivity. This proposal does not demonstrate those principles.
Conflict with Strategic Planning
Newcastle’s long-standing strategy concentrates high-rise development in designated corridors and renewal precincts — not in the Civic centre.
Approving this proposal would contradict that strategy and invite further speculative spot rezonings in heritage and civic locations.
Traffic and Parking Pressures
The development would add strain to Tyrrell, Laman and Darby Streets, which already experience congestion and heavy pedestrian activity, including school and pre-school traffic.
Parking in the precinct is already limited for residents, visitors and cultural venue patrons. A development of this scale will intensify parking shortages and spillover into surrounding residential streets, worsening an existing problem.
Inadequate Consultation
An artist’s impression was not released until the 14-day public exhibition period. For a proposal of this magnitude in a regionally significant civic location, consultation has fallen short of what the community reasonably expects for a State Significant Development.
Mine Subsidence Risk
The site sits above an additional undermined coal seam (the Yard Seam), compounding Newcastle’s well-known subsidence risks.
This constraint was known at the time of purchase. The cost of additional stabilisation should not be used to justify greater height and bulk. Engineering challenges do not entitle a developer to planning concessions, particularly when less constrained sites exist elsewhere in the city.
Heritage and Equity
The Civic Precinct is a cohesive heritage environment defined by scale, setbacks and visual harmony.
Residents within conservation overlays comply with strict planning controls — often at significant personal expense — because they value preserving the area’s character. Height limits, materials and design standards are enforced rigorously.
Allowing a private developer to override those same controls for commercial gain demonstrates inequity. The developer will not live with the long-term consequences; the community will.
Planning rules must apply consistently. If residents are required to protect the heritage character of the precinct, large-scale developers must be held to the same standard.
This proposal:
* More than triples the permitted height
* Conflicts with strategic planning principles
* Dominates a regionally significant civic space
* Intensifies traffic and parking pressures
* Raises subsidence concerns
* Reflects inadequate consultation
* Undermines heritage character
* Applies planning controls inequitably
The scale and location of this development are inappropriate. The Civic Precinct should be protected from precedent-setting overdevelopment that prioritises private profit over long-term community interest.
The proposal represents an extreme and unjustified departure from Newcastle’s established planning framework and would cause permanent harm to the Civic Precinct — a regionally significant cultural and heritage landscape.
Excessive Height and Bulk
The current legal height limit at this site is 14 metres. Increasing this to 45 metres — more than triple the permitted height — is an extraordinary escalation.
Such a dramatic uplift undermines the integrity of the Local Environmental Plan and erodes community confidence in planning controls. If this can occur in the Civic heart, height limits lose their meaning elsewhere.
Impact on the Civic Precinct
The proposed tower would visually dominate Newcastle Art Gallery, Civic Park, the Civic Theatre, war memorials and surrounding historic buildings.
This precinct is defined by its human scale, open space and civic dignity. A 45-metre building would overwhelm the existing two-storey gallery and permanently alter key sightlines and the spatial balance of one of Newcastle’s most important public domains.
The Civic Precinct is not a high-rise corridor; it is the symbolic and cultural heart of the city.
Poor Design and Setbacks
Inadequate setbacks and bulk create an overbearing built form that fails to respect adjacent public space. Civic settings require proportionality and sensitivity. This proposal does not demonstrate those principles.
Conflict with Strategic Planning
Newcastle’s long-standing strategy concentrates high-rise development in designated corridors and renewal precincts — not in the Civic centre.
Approving this proposal would contradict that strategy and invite further speculative spot rezonings in heritage and civic locations.
Traffic and Parking Pressures
The development would add strain to Tyrrell, Laman and Darby Streets, which already experience congestion and heavy pedestrian activity, including school and pre-school traffic.
Parking in the precinct is already limited for residents, visitors and cultural venue patrons. A development of this scale will intensify parking shortages and spillover into surrounding residential streets, worsening an existing problem.
Inadequate Consultation
An artist’s impression was not released until the 14-day public exhibition period. For a proposal of this magnitude in a regionally significant civic location, consultation has fallen short of what the community reasonably expects for a State Significant Development.
Mine Subsidence Risk
The site sits above an additional undermined coal seam (the Yard Seam), compounding Newcastle’s well-known subsidence risks.
This constraint was known at the time of purchase. The cost of additional stabilisation should not be used to justify greater height and bulk. Engineering challenges do not entitle a developer to planning concessions, particularly when less constrained sites exist elsewhere in the city.
Heritage and Equity
The Civic Precinct is a cohesive heritage environment defined by scale, setbacks and visual harmony.
Residents within conservation overlays comply with strict planning controls — often at significant personal expense — because they value preserving the area’s character. Height limits, materials and design standards are enforced rigorously.
Allowing a private developer to override those same controls for commercial gain demonstrates inequity. The developer will not live with the long-term consequences; the community will.
Planning rules must apply consistently. If residents are required to protect the heritage character of the precinct, large-scale developers must be held to the same standard.
This proposal:
* More than triples the permitted height
* Conflicts with strategic planning principles
* Dominates a regionally significant civic space
* Intensifies traffic and parking pressures
* Raises subsidence concerns
* Reflects inadequate consultation
* Undermines heritage character
* Applies planning controls inequitably
The scale and location of this development are inappropriate. The Civic Precinct should be protected from precedent-setting overdevelopment that prioritises private profit over long-term community interest.
Charlotte Cowie
Object
Charlotte Cowie
Object
THE HILL
,
New South Wales
Message
I write to formally object to the proposed development on Darby Street seeking to increase the permissible height from 14 metres to 45 metres through a spot rezone.
This proposal represents a profound and unacceptable departure from Newcastle’s long-standing planning framework and poses irreversible harm to our Civic Precinct. The scale, process, and precedent it sets are deeply concerning.
Excessive Height and Bulk
The legal height limit for this site is 14 metres. A proposal to more than triple this limit to 45 metres is not a minor variation — it is an extraordinary escalation.
A spot rezone of this magnitude undermines the integrity of the Local Environmental Plan and erodes community trust in established planning controls. If height limits can be disregarded so dramatically in such a sensitive location, they cease to have meaning anywhere.
Impact on Public Spaces and Civic Identity
The proposed front tower would visually dominate and overshadow:
* Newcastle Art Gallery
* Civic Park and its gardens
* The Civic Theatre
* War memorials and places of worship
* Surrounding historic and cultural landmarks
This is a regionally significant civic space — not a high-rise corridor. The scale of the proposal would overwhelm the two-storey art gallery and fundamentally alter the character, dignity and visual coherence of the Civic Precinct.
Poor Design and Inadequate Setbacks
The proposal demonstrates inadequate setbacks on both buildings. This results in a bulky, overbearing built form that fails to respect adjacent public spaces.
Good civic design requires proportion, generosity and respect for context. This proposal instead imposes scale without sensitivity.
Strategic Planning Failure
Newcastle’s strategic planning framework has consistently concentrated high-rise development in designated corridors and renewal precincts — not in the Civic heart.
Approving this proposal would directly contradict this long-standing strategy and invite further speculative spot rezonings in heritage and civic locations.
Minimal Public Benefit
While housing supply is important, height alone does not equal public benefit — particularly when delivered at the expense of a regionally significant civic space.
The proposal provides limited demonstrable public benefit relative to its scale and impact. It does not justify compromising one of Newcastle’s most culturally significant and publicly valued precincts.
Traffic, Pedestrian and Parking Pressures
The development would add strain to:
- Tyrrell Street
- Laman Street
- Darby Street
These streets already experience high vehicle congestion and significant pedestrian movement, including school and pre-school traffic.
In addition, parking in this precinct is already extremely limited. Residents, gallery visitors, park users and theatre patrons regularly struggle to secure parking. Introducing a development of this scale will inevitably increase parking demand and spillover into surrounding residential streets, exacerbating an existing problem.
Additional density in this constrained civic setting will increase traffic congestion, reduce pedestrian safety, and intensify parking pressure in an area that is already operating at capacity.
Inadequate Community Consultation
The developer failed to publish an artist’s impression until the 14-day public exhibition period.
For a proposal of this magnitude - particularly one affecting the Civic Precinct - consultation has fallen well short of what is expected of a State Significant Development. Transparency should precede community exhibition, not be introduced at the last minute.
Inappropriate Leveraging of Impact of Mine Subsidence
Newcastle has long dealt with mine subsidence. However, this site is more constrained than most, sitting above an additional undermined coal seam (the Yard Seam).
This was a known risk when the land was purchased. The cost of additional grouting or ground stabilisation should not be used to justify dramatically increasing height and bulk. Engineering complexity should not be leveraged to extract planning concessions — especially when there are less constrained sites elsewhere in the city more suitable for high-rise development.
Loss of Heritage Context and Community Equity
The Civic Precinct is not simply a collection of individual buildings - it is a cohesive heritage landscape defined by scale, setbacks, sightlines and civic dignity.
Local residents and property owners within conservation overlays have consistently complied with strict planning controls - often at significant personal expense. They do so willingly because they have chosen to live in a heritage area and understand the value of preserving its character. Extensions are moderated, materials are scrutinised, heights are limited, and design must respond sensitively to context.
It is deeply disrespectful to the community that a developer - who does not live here and bears none of the long-term consequences - seeks to override those same controls for commercial gain.
Residents accept constraints in order to protect the collective heritage value of the precinct. Why should a developer be permitted to disregard those constraints, exploit the location for profit, and leave the community with a permanent and irreversible impact?
Planning rules must apply equitably. If conservation controls are binding on residents, they must also bind large-scale developers — particularly in the very heart of our Civic and cultural district.
In conclusion, this proposal:
- Disregards established height controls
- Undermines strategic planning
- Fails to provide proportionate public benefit
- Intensifies traffic and parking pressures
- Raises subsidence risk concerns
- Demonstrates inadequate consultation
- Erodes heritage context
- Applies planning rules inequitably
The community supports renewal in appropriate locations and with appropriate design. However, this proposal represents opportunistic overreach in one of Newcastle’s most significant civic settings.
I object strongly against this development and oppose any spot rezone that would permit a 45-metre tower in this location.
Newcastle’s Civic Precinct deserves protection — not precedent-setting overdevelopment.
This proposal represents a profound and unacceptable departure from Newcastle’s long-standing planning framework and poses irreversible harm to our Civic Precinct. The scale, process, and precedent it sets are deeply concerning.
Excessive Height and Bulk
The legal height limit for this site is 14 metres. A proposal to more than triple this limit to 45 metres is not a minor variation — it is an extraordinary escalation.
A spot rezone of this magnitude undermines the integrity of the Local Environmental Plan and erodes community trust in established planning controls. If height limits can be disregarded so dramatically in such a sensitive location, they cease to have meaning anywhere.
Impact on Public Spaces and Civic Identity
The proposed front tower would visually dominate and overshadow:
* Newcastle Art Gallery
* Civic Park and its gardens
* The Civic Theatre
* War memorials and places of worship
* Surrounding historic and cultural landmarks
This is a regionally significant civic space — not a high-rise corridor. The scale of the proposal would overwhelm the two-storey art gallery and fundamentally alter the character, dignity and visual coherence of the Civic Precinct.
Poor Design and Inadequate Setbacks
The proposal demonstrates inadequate setbacks on both buildings. This results in a bulky, overbearing built form that fails to respect adjacent public spaces.
Good civic design requires proportion, generosity and respect for context. This proposal instead imposes scale without sensitivity.
Strategic Planning Failure
Newcastle’s strategic planning framework has consistently concentrated high-rise development in designated corridors and renewal precincts — not in the Civic heart.
Approving this proposal would directly contradict this long-standing strategy and invite further speculative spot rezonings in heritage and civic locations.
Minimal Public Benefit
While housing supply is important, height alone does not equal public benefit — particularly when delivered at the expense of a regionally significant civic space.
The proposal provides limited demonstrable public benefit relative to its scale and impact. It does not justify compromising one of Newcastle’s most culturally significant and publicly valued precincts.
Traffic, Pedestrian and Parking Pressures
The development would add strain to:
- Tyrrell Street
- Laman Street
- Darby Street
These streets already experience high vehicle congestion and significant pedestrian movement, including school and pre-school traffic.
In addition, parking in this precinct is already extremely limited. Residents, gallery visitors, park users and theatre patrons regularly struggle to secure parking. Introducing a development of this scale will inevitably increase parking demand and spillover into surrounding residential streets, exacerbating an existing problem.
Additional density in this constrained civic setting will increase traffic congestion, reduce pedestrian safety, and intensify parking pressure in an area that is already operating at capacity.
Inadequate Community Consultation
The developer failed to publish an artist’s impression until the 14-day public exhibition period.
For a proposal of this magnitude - particularly one affecting the Civic Precinct - consultation has fallen well short of what is expected of a State Significant Development. Transparency should precede community exhibition, not be introduced at the last minute.
Inappropriate Leveraging of Impact of Mine Subsidence
Newcastle has long dealt with mine subsidence. However, this site is more constrained than most, sitting above an additional undermined coal seam (the Yard Seam).
This was a known risk when the land was purchased. The cost of additional grouting or ground stabilisation should not be used to justify dramatically increasing height and bulk. Engineering complexity should not be leveraged to extract planning concessions — especially when there are less constrained sites elsewhere in the city more suitable for high-rise development.
Loss of Heritage Context and Community Equity
The Civic Precinct is not simply a collection of individual buildings - it is a cohesive heritage landscape defined by scale, setbacks, sightlines and civic dignity.
Local residents and property owners within conservation overlays have consistently complied with strict planning controls - often at significant personal expense. They do so willingly because they have chosen to live in a heritage area and understand the value of preserving its character. Extensions are moderated, materials are scrutinised, heights are limited, and design must respond sensitively to context.
It is deeply disrespectful to the community that a developer - who does not live here and bears none of the long-term consequences - seeks to override those same controls for commercial gain.
Residents accept constraints in order to protect the collective heritage value of the precinct. Why should a developer be permitted to disregard those constraints, exploit the location for profit, and leave the community with a permanent and irreversible impact?
Planning rules must apply equitably. If conservation controls are binding on residents, they must also bind large-scale developers — particularly in the very heart of our Civic and cultural district.
In conclusion, this proposal:
- Disregards established height controls
- Undermines strategic planning
- Fails to provide proportionate public benefit
- Intensifies traffic and parking pressures
- Raises subsidence risk concerns
- Demonstrates inadequate consultation
- Erodes heritage context
- Applies planning rules inequitably
The community supports renewal in appropriate locations and with appropriate design. However, this proposal represents opportunistic overreach in one of Newcastle’s most significant civic settings.
I object strongly against this development and oppose any spot rezone that would permit a 45-metre tower in this location.
Newcastle’s Civic Precinct deserves protection — not precedent-setting overdevelopment.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
COOKS HILL
,
New South Wales
Message
I am writing to oppose the proposed development at 47 Darby Street Cooks Hill for a number of reasons, namely:
1. The proposed development is on the site of two Contributory 2 heritage buildings (with a Contributory 1 building adjacent) located in the City Centre Heritage Conservation Area and bordering on other HCAs including Cooks Hill. The HCAs were developed by the City of Newcastle as “Heritage is an important feature of Newcastle’s built and natural environment. The heritage significance of a place is what makes it special. It can include buildings and places with special historical, cultural, social, architectural, archaeological, natural or aesthetic value.” The existing building fronting Darby Street is a typical example of brutalist architecture which is becoming more and more recognised as having great heritage significance. The second building on Tyrell Street is a heritage machine shed.
2. The site has two coal seams underneath it which will require significant grouting to stablise the site. It is understood that the developer said that the reason that they are going so high is to make the site viable due to grouting costs. This site and many other sites in Newcastle are undermined and the developer would have purchased the site (cheaply) knowing this. In addition, it is noted that the mine subsidence report seems to contain errors and should be reviewed by the Planning Department.
3. The City of Newcastle has carefully considered and planned development throughout the LGA. This site is located in a transition zone between high density and mostly two storey residential development. The spot rezoning of this site by tripling the height limit proposing an increase from 14m to 45m, using the SSD planning process to achieve this, flies in the face of careful planning by the City of Newcastle. The DCP also requires setbacks to reduce the bulk of high-rise. If this development were to proceed, more setbacks are required for this development, especially on Tyrell Street. The floor space ratio has also been raised above the current limits which will impact the amenity of residents within the new structures.
4. Being fully aware of the State Government's wish to increase housing availability, the City of Newcastle has established high density corridors in areas such as Brunker Road, Hunter Street, Newcastle West and parts of Newcastle East. This, together with other State Government initiatives such as low to mid-rise housing around town centres and transport hubs, concentrates development in those areas. In addition to this there are also the numerous high density residential buildings at Honeysuckle and the 3,200 homes proposed by the State Govt for the Broadmeadow Precinct. Ad hoc high-density development such as the nature of this development, dismantles the careful planning of the City of Newcastle.
5. It should also be noted that this development will not have any affordable housing as part of its residential mix. They are being marketed as luxury apartments – yet more luxury apartments in Newcastle. One has to question how many apartments have been purchased in other developments and also how many are actually occupied. How many are foreign owned? How many remain unoccupied not helping the housing situation at all?
6. I live in Cooks Hill and, while the development is not in my backyard, not only do I greatly value the heritage value of my suburb but also Civic Park adjacent to Cooks Hill and the buildings bordering Civic Park that make it so special. The old Nesca House is now part of the University of Newcastle and the old Council offices have been repurposed by a major hotel chain into a fabulous facility. Not forgetting the Newcastle Art Gallery, Baptist Tapernacle, Cultural Centre and St Andrew’s Presbyterian church. These wonderful buildings all represent different stages and types of Newcastle’s heritage. The proposed development would dominate the Civic precinct and it’s crude architecture would diminish the value of this precinct.
7. The 12-storey development site is directly across the road from the newly expanded two-storey Newcastle Art Gallery and the Anzac memorial opposite it on the corner of Laman and Darby Street. Both landmarks would be shaded and significantly dominated by the proposed development a mere approx. 20 metres (could be less) from them.
8. There are homes adjacent to and near the development site and the amenity of the residents in those homes would be significantly impacted by this development. The main impacts would be overlooking, overshadowing, possible damage during the construction phase and loss of City and Harbour for homes on the Hill. I am also concerned about the demolition of the existing buildings and any harm from dangerous materials such as silicon and/or asbestos that may impact the neighbourhood and visitors to Civic Park, Darby Street, etc.
9. In looking at the documentation supporting the application, one has to question the veracity of many of them. I am aware that the shadow diagrams are incomplete and confusing, plans for changes to the storm water management and flooding impacts are unclear, the environmental testing report has data mixed up with a site in Sydney and the mining report is a desktop report with no borehole testing having been done.
10. An extension to the exhibition period was requested but was denied. How a simple person like me has the time to go through all the documents provided in such a short timeframe is beyond me and is unfair. The developer has had ample time to put together this material but anyone who has an opportunity to consider the proposal is only given 14 days, the same time that is provided for a simple home extension DA. 14 days is not enough time for anybody to give this submission a thorough review of all the documentation.
11. This proposal is not “State Significant” and has been lodged through the HDA process so that it can get around Newcastle’s current carefully considered planning requirements. Other developers have abided by these requirements with the result that the City of Newcastle has approved a large number of high density developments over the last decade creating substantial housing and meeting its housing delivery targets. Increased density in appropriate locations already designated by the City of Newcastle is good planning. Ad hoc developments like the one being proposed is not good planning.
12. The approval of this development would create a precedent for excessive high rise development in areas where it should never be located.
13. What is this development providing to the community that development in areas already designated for high rise development cannot? The developer has bought a block of land, knowing the complexities of the site, and through the HDA process has found a way around the City of Newcastle's planning requirements to make the most bang for their buck.
In summary, this development falls short in all aspects. The bulk and height significantly exceed local planning laws requiring spot zoning tripling the height limit, heritage is not valued at all with the demolition of two contributory buildings in a Heritage Conservation Area, the Civic Precinct would be diminished by the construction of this development, luxury apartments are not going to help with housing affordability, traffic issues have not been adequately addressed, the documentation provided by the applicant is flawed (inaccurate/confusing/incomplete).
I do hope that my submission and those of many other residents in Newcastle are considered carefully, with sense prevailing and the proposed development being refused by the Planning Department.
Thank you for taking the time to read my submission.
1. The proposed development is on the site of two Contributory 2 heritage buildings (with a Contributory 1 building adjacent) located in the City Centre Heritage Conservation Area and bordering on other HCAs including Cooks Hill. The HCAs were developed by the City of Newcastle as “Heritage is an important feature of Newcastle’s built and natural environment. The heritage significance of a place is what makes it special. It can include buildings and places with special historical, cultural, social, architectural, archaeological, natural or aesthetic value.” The existing building fronting Darby Street is a typical example of brutalist architecture which is becoming more and more recognised as having great heritage significance. The second building on Tyrell Street is a heritage machine shed.
2. The site has two coal seams underneath it which will require significant grouting to stablise the site. It is understood that the developer said that the reason that they are going so high is to make the site viable due to grouting costs. This site and many other sites in Newcastle are undermined and the developer would have purchased the site (cheaply) knowing this. In addition, it is noted that the mine subsidence report seems to contain errors and should be reviewed by the Planning Department.
3. The City of Newcastle has carefully considered and planned development throughout the LGA. This site is located in a transition zone between high density and mostly two storey residential development. The spot rezoning of this site by tripling the height limit proposing an increase from 14m to 45m, using the SSD planning process to achieve this, flies in the face of careful planning by the City of Newcastle. The DCP also requires setbacks to reduce the bulk of high-rise. If this development were to proceed, more setbacks are required for this development, especially on Tyrell Street. The floor space ratio has also been raised above the current limits which will impact the amenity of residents within the new structures.
4. Being fully aware of the State Government's wish to increase housing availability, the City of Newcastle has established high density corridors in areas such as Brunker Road, Hunter Street, Newcastle West and parts of Newcastle East. This, together with other State Government initiatives such as low to mid-rise housing around town centres and transport hubs, concentrates development in those areas. In addition to this there are also the numerous high density residential buildings at Honeysuckle and the 3,200 homes proposed by the State Govt for the Broadmeadow Precinct. Ad hoc high-density development such as the nature of this development, dismantles the careful planning of the City of Newcastle.
5. It should also be noted that this development will not have any affordable housing as part of its residential mix. They are being marketed as luxury apartments – yet more luxury apartments in Newcastle. One has to question how many apartments have been purchased in other developments and also how many are actually occupied. How many are foreign owned? How many remain unoccupied not helping the housing situation at all?
6. I live in Cooks Hill and, while the development is not in my backyard, not only do I greatly value the heritage value of my suburb but also Civic Park adjacent to Cooks Hill and the buildings bordering Civic Park that make it so special. The old Nesca House is now part of the University of Newcastle and the old Council offices have been repurposed by a major hotel chain into a fabulous facility. Not forgetting the Newcastle Art Gallery, Baptist Tapernacle, Cultural Centre and St Andrew’s Presbyterian church. These wonderful buildings all represent different stages and types of Newcastle’s heritage. The proposed development would dominate the Civic precinct and it’s crude architecture would diminish the value of this precinct.
7. The 12-storey development site is directly across the road from the newly expanded two-storey Newcastle Art Gallery and the Anzac memorial opposite it on the corner of Laman and Darby Street. Both landmarks would be shaded and significantly dominated by the proposed development a mere approx. 20 metres (could be less) from them.
8. There are homes adjacent to and near the development site and the amenity of the residents in those homes would be significantly impacted by this development. The main impacts would be overlooking, overshadowing, possible damage during the construction phase and loss of City and Harbour for homes on the Hill. I am also concerned about the demolition of the existing buildings and any harm from dangerous materials such as silicon and/or asbestos that may impact the neighbourhood and visitors to Civic Park, Darby Street, etc.
9. In looking at the documentation supporting the application, one has to question the veracity of many of them. I am aware that the shadow diagrams are incomplete and confusing, plans for changes to the storm water management and flooding impacts are unclear, the environmental testing report has data mixed up with a site in Sydney and the mining report is a desktop report with no borehole testing having been done.
10. An extension to the exhibition period was requested but was denied. How a simple person like me has the time to go through all the documents provided in such a short timeframe is beyond me and is unfair. The developer has had ample time to put together this material but anyone who has an opportunity to consider the proposal is only given 14 days, the same time that is provided for a simple home extension DA. 14 days is not enough time for anybody to give this submission a thorough review of all the documentation.
11. This proposal is not “State Significant” and has been lodged through the HDA process so that it can get around Newcastle’s current carefully considered planning requirements. Other developers have abided by these requirements with the result that the City of Newcastle has approved a large number of high density developments over the last decade creating substantial housing and meeting its housing delivery targets. Increased density in appropriate locations already designated by the City of Newcastle is good planning. Ad hoc developments like the one being proposed is not good planning.
12. The approval of this development would create a precedent for excessive high rise development in areas where it should never be located.
13. What is this development providing to the community that development in areas already designated for high rise development cannot? The developer has bought a block of land, knowing the complexities of the site, and through the HDA process has found a way around the City of Newcastle's planning requirements to make the most bang for their buck.
In summary, this development falls short in all aspects. The bulk and height significantly exceed local planning laws requiring spot zoning tripling the height limit, heritage is not valued at all with the demolition of two contributory buildings in a Heritage Conservation Area, the Civic Precinct would be diminished by the construction of this development, luxury apartments are not going to help with housing affordability, traffic issues have not been adequately addressed, the documentation provided by the applicant is flawed (inaccurate/confusing/incomplete).
I do hope that my submission and those of many other residents in Newcastle are considered carefully, with sense prevailing and the proposed development being refused by the Planning Department.
Thank you for taking the time to read my submission.
Louise Walmsley
Object
Louise Walmsley
Object
COOKS HILL
,
New South Wales
Message
The proposed property development at 47 Darby Street providing housing for 15 x 1 bedroom units, 62 x 2 bedroom units, 37 x 3 bedroom units and 2 x 4 bedroom units is located 300 metres from the street in which I live. The required parking is provided for each unit but only 2 retail and 4 visitor parking spaces allocated.
Matthew Dunstan
Object
Matthew Dunstan
Object
ISLINGTON
,
New South Wales
Message
To Whom it may concern,
I strongly oppose the proposed development at 47 Darby St for the following reasons:
1. Height. The proposal allows for the construction of 2 separate buildings, 7 and 12 storeys respectively. The taller tower would reach 45 metres, a significant increase over the current allowed height of 14 metres in the location due to current zoning. Nearby residential buildings are limited to 10 metres. This huge height increase compared to the surroundings would create an unacceptable clash and significantly degrade the aesthetic and heritage quality of the area.
2. Lack of affordable housing. This proposal is utilising the HDA pathway, a pathway which has one of the its core aims to deliver an increased supply of affordable housing (something which is desperately needed in Newcastle). However, this development as it currently stands has no provision for affordable units to be included; on the contrary it will solely comprise high-end apartments that would be unaffordable to those in Newcastle who sorely need housing. This proposal makes a mockery of the intention of the HDA pathway, and should not be included within it.
3. Restriction of community consultation. Limiting community consultation to only 14 days for such a significant development, and one which goes far beyond any current planning standards for the area, is unacceptable. Again this use of the HDA pathway is going against its intended use, and in this case is meant to stifle proper community feedback and steamroll through development that many residents would likely object to.
4. Heritage. Darby St, and the surrounding Arts Precinct (including the newly refurbished Newcastle Art Gallery) is of significant cultural heritage to Newcastle, being within the Newcastle Heritage Conservation area (and adjacent to the Cooks Hill Conservation area). The proposed development would irreparably damage the heritage character of the area for little benefit, and furthermore would require the demolition of a former electrical machine shop which is listed as a Contributory 2 building under Newcastle Council's Heritage Technical manual. I do not suppor this demolition, as this would also contribute to an irreversible loss to an important heritage building.
5. Context to other Newcastle development. Already large parts of downtown Newcastle, especially in Newcastle West, have been earmarked for the kind of high density development that is replicated in this proposal. I question the need to destroy a heritage area with no high rise buildings when there are already a surplus of high density developments in the surrounding suburbs, many already built and many soon to be completed. Furthermore, there is already a distinct lack of supporting structural development in terms of transport infrastructure, cultural, commercial and recreational spaces connected to these new developments, and I strongly support addressing these before going ahead with yet even more high rise residential development that will only worsen access to these other essential aspects.
Thank you for your consideration,
Matthew
I strongly oppose the proposed development at 47 Darby St for the following reasons:
1. Height. The proposal allows for the construction of 2 separate buildings, 7 and 12 storeys respectively. The taller tower would reach 45 metres, a significant increase over the current allowed height of 14 metres in the location due to current zoning. Nearby residential buildings are limited to 10 metres. This huge height increase compared to the surroundings would create an unacceptable clash and significantly degrade the aesthetic and heritage quality of the area.
2. Lack of affordable housing. This proposal is utilising the HDA pathway, a pathway which has one of the its core aims to deliver an increased supply of affordable housing (something which is desperately needed in Newcastle). However, this development as it currently stands has no provision for affordable units to be included; on the contrary it will solely comprise high-end apartments that would be unaffordable to those in Newcastle who sorely need housing. This proposal makes a mockery of the intention of the HDA pathway, and should not be included within it.
3. Restriction of community consultation. Limiting community consultation to only 14 days for such a significant development, and one which goes far beyond any current planning standards for the area, is unacceptable. Again this use of the HDA pathway is going against its intended use, and in this case is meant to stifle proper community feedback and steamroll through development that many residents would likely object to.
4. Heritage. Darby St, and the surrounding Arts Precinct (including the newly refurbished Newcastle Art Gallery) is of significant cultural heritage to Newcastle, being within the Newcastle Heritage Conservation area (and adjacent to the Cooks Hill Conservation area). The proposed development would irreparably damage the heritage character of the area for little benefit, and furthermore would require the demolition of a former electrical machine shop which is listed as a Contributory 2 building under Newcastle Council's Heritage Technical manual. I do not suppor this demolition, as this would also contribute to an irreversible loss to an important heritage building.
5. Context to other Newcastle development. Already large parts of downtown Newcastle, especially in Newcastle West, have been earmarked for the kind of high density development that is replicated in this proposal. I question the need to destroy a heritage area with no high rise buildings when there are already a surplus of high density developments in the surrounding suburbs, many already built and many soon to be completed. Furthermore, there is already a distinct lack of supporting structural development in terms of transport infrastructure, cultural, commercial and recreational spaces connected to these new developments, and I strongly support addressing these before going ahead with yet even more high rise residential development that will only worsen access to these other essential aspects.
Thank you for your consideration,
Matthew
Charlotte McCabe
Object
Charlotte McCabe
Object
TIGHES HILL
,
New South Wales
Message
To whom it may concern,
I am the Deputy Lord Mayor of Newcastle City Council and I’m writing this submission because I feel strongly about good urban planning, accountable planning processes and respecting Local government planning controls.
I am writing to object to the proposal SSD-82276964 at 47 Darby Street, Cooks Hill in Newcastle, on the following grounds;
Height
The proposal seeks approval for two podiums of 7 and 12 storeys, with the taller tower reaching 45 meters. This is an exceedance of the Newcastle LEP 2012 of 221.4% and has generated justifiable community concern. The zoning in the Newcastle LEP 2012 for this site is Mixed Use MU1, allowing a 14 metre height limit.
Nearby R3 residential areas are zoned for a 10 metre height limit and a 0.9:1 FSR. This proposal would result in an unacceptable conflict of urban character.
The planning proposal that is concurrently being put forward for the proponent seeking to dramatically exceed the agreed planning controls seeks to allow a 42 metre height limit across the whole site which raises concerns about possible future modifications or proposals for the Tyrell Street 7 storey tower.
The overshadowing impacts of both of these towers will be significant and must be given careful scrutiny. The proponent must be required to provide detailed shadowing impact diagrams.
The adjacent approved but as yet unbuild DA is for 6 stories. This should be taken into consideration along with recognition of the controls in the NLEP 2012.
Floor Space Ratio
The NLEP 2012 Floor Space Ratio control for this site is 2.5:1 whereas this application proposes 3.48:1 which constitutes a concerning exceedance of 39.2%
Newcastle councillors regularly review and often approve height or FSR exceedance over 10% if it is proven to be in the public interest. Unfortunately this proposal shows a disregard for carefully considered urban planning and does not make an adequate case for a public benefit.
The setbacks for the Tyrrell street tower and the Darby street frontage are not adequate and need to be increased in order to mitigate residential and public space shadowing impacts and Darby Street public space amenity.
Housing affordability
There is no affordable housing component to this development. The HDA pathway is purportedly to deliver increased housing supply to address the housing crisis, but these apartments will only benefit the few who can afford to purchase or rent a high-end apartment.
Community consultation and planning oversight under the Housing Delivery Authority HDA process
The Housing Development Authority pathway significantly restricts local government and community oversight during the planning assessment process.
14 days for submissions is half of the time that’s usually afforded by Newcastle Council. This brief timeframe for community consultation is limiting the opportunity for public comment.
The HDA consent authority does not provide for reasonable expert and democratic oversight and accountability. Delegating the decision to a panel of three senior state government staff and/or the Planning Minister is not a planning process I support. This removes any local representation with place based knowledge about the site and any unforeseen consequences for significant changes to planning controls.
The threshold for a HDA planning pathway of $30 million dollars, or 40 homes, meant for regional areas, is clearly too low for Newcastle as the second largest city in NSW. Councillors have condemned the HDA planning pathway but while we must endure it, we have called for a reclassification of Newcastle to the metropolitan threshold of $60 million dollars or 100 homes.
Heritage
The site is located within the Newcastle Heritage Conservation Area and adjacent to the Cooks Hill Conservation Area. It is also directly across the road from the Newcastle Synagogue which is a local heritage item. The former electrical machine shop is listed as a Contributory 2 building under Newcastle Council’s Heritage Technical Manual and the site surrounds a contributory 1 heritage item.
I do not support the proposal to demolish the former electrical machine shop and disagree with the heritage assessment that this building doesn’t need to be protected. This site is currently being used as a car park but has strong potential for repurposing which would celebrate and protect the heritage of the site while allowing for greater activation and public benefit.
The brutalist style Marky building is also identified in the draft Newcastle City-wide Thematic History (2025). Additional heritage assessment should be undertaken to assess the importance of this building.
Flooding
The proposed site location is subject to flooding and includes plans to divert stormwater which raises concerns as to the possible flooding and stormwater impacts on the surrounding area.
This proposal is clearly out of step with the surrounding residential and civic precinct and would constitute an unnecessary overdevelopment of the site with very little public benefit, particularly in relation to easing the pressures of housing affordability.
Thank you for your consideration,
Sincerely,
Charlotte McCabe
I am the Deputy Lord Mayor of Newcastle City Council and I’m writing this submission because I feel strongly about good urban planning, accountable planning processes and respecting Local government planning controls.
I am writing to object to the proposal SSD-82276964 at 47 Darby Street, Cooks Hill in Newcastle, on the following grounds;
Height
The proposal seeks approval for two podiums of 7 and 12 storeys, with the taller tower reaching 45 meters. This is an exceedance of the Newcastle LEP 2012 of 221.4% and has generated justifiable community concern. The zoning in the Newcastle LEP 2012 for this site is Mixed Use MU1, allowing a 14 metre height limit.
Nearby R3 residential areas are zoned for a 10 metre height limit and a 0.9:1 FSR. This proposal would result in an unacceptable conflict of urban character.
The planning proposal that is concurrently being put forward for the proponent seeking to dramatically exceed the agreed planning controls seeks to allow a 42 metre height limit across the whole site which raises concerns about possible future modifications or proposals for the Tyrell Street 7 storey tower.
The overshadowing impacts of both of these towers will be significant and must be given careful scrutiny. The proponent must be required to provide detailed shadowing impact diagrams.
The adjacent approved but as yet unbuild DA is for 6 stories. This should be taken into consideration along with recognition of the controls in the NLEP 2012.
Floor Space Ratio
The NLEP 2012 Floor Space Ratio control for this site is 2.5:1 whereas this application proposes 3.48:1 which constitutes a concerning exceedance of 39.2%
Newcastle councillors regularly review and often approve height or FSR exceedance over 10% if it is proven to be in the public interest. Unfortunately this proposal shows a disregard for carefully considered urban planning and does not make an adequate case for a public benefit.
The setbacks for the Tyrrell street tower and the Darby street frontage are not adequate and need to be increased in order to mitigate residential and public space shadowing impacts and Darby Street public space amenity.
Housing affordability
There is no affordable housing component to this development. The HDA pathway is purportedly to deliver increased housing supply to address the housing crisis, but these apartments will only benefit the few who can afford to purchase or rent a high-end apartment.
Community consultation and planning oversight under the Housing Delivery Authority HDA process
The Housing Development Authority pathway significantly restricts local government and community oversight during the planning assessment process.
14 days for submissions is half of the time that’s usually afforded by Newcastle Council. This brief timeframe for community consultation is limiting the opportunity for public comment.
The HDA consent authority does not provide for reasonable expert and democratic oversight and accountability. Delegating the decision to a panel of three senior state government staff and/or the Planning Minister is not a planning process I support. This removes any local representation with place based knowledge about the site and any unforeseen consequences for significant changes to planning controls.
The threshold for a HDA planning pathway of $30 million dollars, or 40 homes, meant for regional areas, is clearly too low for Newcastle as the second largest city in NSW. Councillors have condemned the HDA planning pathway but while we must endure it, we have called for a reclassification of Newcastle to the metropolitan threshold of $60 million dollars or 100 homes.
Heritage
The site is located within the Newcastle Heritage Conservation Area and adjacent to the Cooks Hill Conservation Area. It is also directly across the road from the Newcastle Synagogue which is a local heritage item. The former electrical machine shop is listed as a Contributory 2 building under Newcastle Council’s Heritage Technical Manual and the site surrounds a contributory 1 heritage item.
I do not support the proposal to demolish the former electrical machine shop and disagree with the heritage assessment that this building doesn’t need to be protected. This site is currently being used as a car park but has strong potential for repurposing which would celebrate and protect the heritage of the site while allowing for greater activation and public benefit.
The brutalist style Marky building is also identified in the draft Newcastle City-wide Thematic History (2025). Additional heritage assessment should be undertaken to assess the importance of this building.
Flooding
The proposed site location is subject to flooding and includes plans to divert stormwater which raises concerns as to the possible flooding and stormwater impacts on the surrounding area.
This proposal is clearly out of step with the surrounding residential and civic precinct and would constitute an unnecessary overdevelopment of the site with very little public benefit, particularly in relation to easing the pressures of housing affordability.
Thank you for your consideration,
Sincerely,
Charlotte McCabe
Claire Williams
Object
Claire Williams
Object
Newcastle
,
New South Wales
Message
This is a monstrous proposal which runs counter to good planning, in particular in regard to the character and needs of the locale. It shows contempt for the current planning controls (Newcastle Local Environmental Plan 2012) which limit development in this sensitive location to a maximum height of 14 metres. This arrogant proposal seeks to exceed that height by more than double. In so doing, it makes a mockery of the very notion of planning. Developers should not be allowed to ride roughshod over established controls which reflect community needs. Decision-makers in Macquarie St who know nothing of our city may be unconcerned by this; we locals are not. I have lived in this city for 40 years, 8 of those in the heritage area of Cooks Hill not 200 metres from the site in question so I know the area well.
The proposal represents a massive over-development of the site. It is significantly out of scale in Cooks Hill, where neighbouring residential zones allow a maximum height of 10 metres. It is opposite our cultural zone in Laman St which features a beautiful new two-storey art gallery, three-storey library and one-storey church. It is opposite Civic Park, and alongside one- and two-story boutique shops, cafes and businesses in Darby St. It is around the corner from King St which features a line of one-and two-storey buildings housing characterful cafes, restaurants and shops.
Despite using the Housing Delivery Authority pathway, the development appears to provide high-end apartments only and will not address housing affordability in Newcastle.
High rise, high-density developments are welcome in our city. We need them to address the housing shortage. The West End of Newcastle has been designated by Macquarie St for decades as the location for such development, and building work of this type is proceeding apace. For those who may not know our city, the West End is not remote from the CBD, indeed it is less than 2ks away from the site in question, and is indeed becoming the new centre of town. It is where, for example, the transport interchange is located. In other words, development in the inner city is well-accommodated by the West End. It does not have to be - nor should it be - located in a charming, unique, low-rise, heritage area. Right development, wrong place.
A further concern is that the HDA process is counter to inclusive, community-based planning protocols. As such, it looks like an abuse of power. Allowing only 14 days for submissions seems to be designed to limit opposing voices. Most egregious is the disrespect shown to local planning frameworks and local input in the assessment process. This over-riding of community interests is especially of concern in the regions because the decision-makers are located in Sydney and are likely to have little knowledge of our community and its character and needs.
Overall, the proposal represents an overdevelopment of a sensitive heritage precinct, is inconsistent with established planning controls, and provides insufficient community benefit.
I therefore respectfully request that SSD-82276964 be refused or substantially redesigned to comply with the Newcastle Local Environmental Plan 2012.
The proposal represents a massive over-development of the site. It is significantly out of scale in Cooks Hill, where neighbouring residential zones allow a maximum height of 10 metres. It is opposite our cultural zone in Laman St which features a beautiful new two-storey art gallery, three-storey library and one-storey church. It is opposite Civic Park, and alongside one- and two-story boutique shops, cafes and businesses in Darby St. It is around the corner from King St which features a line of one-and two-storey buildings housing characterful cafes, restaurants and shops.
Despite using the Housing Delivery Authority pathway, the development appears to provide high-end apartments only and will not address housing affordability in Newcastle.
High rise, high-density developments are welcome in our city. We need them to address the housing shortage. The West End of Newcastle has been designated by Macquarie St for decades as the location for such development, and building work of this type is proceeding apace. For those who may not know our city, the West End is not remote from the CBD, indeed it is less than 2ks away from the site in question, and is indeed becoming the new centre of town. It is where, for example, the transport interchange is located. In other words, development in the inner city is well-accommodated by the West End. It does not have to be - nor should it be - located in a charming, unique, low-rise, heritage area. Right development, wrong place.
A further concern is that the HDA process is counter to inclusive, community-based planning protocols. As such, it looks like an abuse of power. Allowing only 14 days for submissions seems to be designed to limit opposing voices. Most egregious is the disrespect shown to local planning frameworks and local input in the assessment process. This over-riding of community interests is especially of concern in the regions because the decision-makers are located in Sydney and are likely to have little knowledge of our community and its character and needs.
Overall, the proposal represents an overdevelopment of a sensitive heritage precinct, is inconsistent with established planning controls, and provides insufficient community benefit.
I therefore respectfully request that SSD-82276964 be refused or substantially redesigned to comply with the Newcastle Local Environmental Plan 2012.