Colin East
Object
Colin East
Object
Newcastle
,
New South Wales
Message
I wish to object to this development for the following reasons:
1. Overdevelopment in terms of height, scale and bulk.
The two towers Darby Street at 45m (13 storeys) and Tyrrell Street 27m (7storeys) are inappropriate in size for this site and in this location. The larger tower exceeds Newcastle Council planning controls of maximum 14m height by more than three times.
2. Incompatible and insensitive to Newcastle’s most culturally and historically significant precinct.
The open green space of Civic Park and Civic buildings such as the library and the art gallery are low rise of three storeys or less. They would be dominated and overwhelmed by this development.
3. EIS Visual Impact Assessment (report G6) is defective.
By omitting the art gallery as a Viewpoint for the visual assessment, this report lacks credibility. It deliberately downplays and avoids reporting a high visual impact.
The art gallery is situated on the opposite side of the street and if a viewpoint had been reported from there it would have been a high visual impact.
4. Also the EIS Visual Impact Assessment (Report G6) is misleading.
The concluding paragraph of this report (Section 4.3 page 57) states:
“From a visual perspective the development is sympathetic in character with… the immediate environment characterised by the cultural and legal precinct of Newcastle City historic centre.”
How this development would be sympathetic in character is a huge mystery. It is a total mismatch with reality.
5. An unacceptable precedent.
If a development of this height and scale and on the rim of Newcastle’s cultural precinct is approved then it would set an unacceptable precedent.
Other similar developments could follow and destroy Newcastle’s social and cultural fabric.
Conclusion:
In general I support new and appropriately sized new developments.
However, this development certainly does not meet these criteria and so I request that the State Government consent authority rejects this development.
1. Overdevelopment in terms of height, scale and bulk.
The two towers Darby Street at 45m (13 storeys) and Tyrrell Street 27m (7storeys) are inappropriate in size for this site and in this location. The larger tower exceeds Newcastle Council planning controls of maximum 14m height by more than three times.
2. Incompatible and insensitive to Newcastle’s most culturally and historically significant precinct.
The open green space of Civic Park and Civic buildings such as the library and the art gallery are low rise of three storeys or less. They would be dominated and overwhelmed by this development.
3. EIS Visual Impact Assessment (report G6) is defective.
By omitting the art gallery as a Viewpoint for the visual assessment, this report lacks credibility. It deliberately downplays and avoids reporting a high visual impact.
The art gallery is situated on the opposite side of the street and if a viewpoint had been reported from there it would have been a high visual impact.
4. Also the EIS Visual Impact Assessment (Report G6) is misleading.
The concluding paragraph of this report (Section 4.3 page 57) states:
“From a visual perspective the development is sympathetic in character with… the immediate environment characterised by the cultural and legal precinct of Newcastle City historic centre.”
How this development would be sympathetic in character is a huge mystery. It is a total mismatch with reality.
5. An unacceptable precedent.
If a development of this height and scale and on the rim of Newcastle’s cultural precinct is approved then it would set an unacceptable precedent.
Other similar developments could follow and destroy Newcastle’s social and cultural fabric.
Conclusion:
In general I support new and appropriately sized new developments.
However, this development certainly does not meet these criteria and so I request that the State Government consent authority rejects this development.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Cooks Hill
,
New South Wales
Message
Hi,
I would simply and respectfully ask that the rules and regulations that you have put in place are followed. I assume that planning rules are introduced after careful and considered reviews of the needs of residents and the environment, etc.
If I get into a car to drive, there are rules I have to follow.
If I lodge my tax return, there are rules I have to follow.
Why is it that developers can consistently ignore the planning rules and regulations?
The height restrictions in the surrounding area are well established, yet the developer wants to exceed those limits by a very considerable amount.
The need for additional affordable housing is not questioned; however, this project is not designed for affordable housing. In fact, the developer has confirmed that the Newcastle Council prefers a cash contribution of a mere $1.5m instead of providing affordable housing. This development not only ignores the need for affordable housing, but the planning rules you have put in place.
Yes, the development is too high for the area, will increase traffic in already a heavy traffic area (to get worse once the old NBN site is completed), and the proposed cafe, retail space will simply take custom from already struggling stores in Darby, King and Hunter Streets.
I simply ask that you apply the rules that you have put in place, in particular, the height restrictions.
I would simply and respectfully ask that the rules and regulations that you have put in place are followed. I assume that planning rules are introduced after careful and considered reviews of the needs of residents and the environment, etc.
If I get into a car to drive, there are rules I have to follow.
If I lodge my tax return, there are rules I have to follow.
Why is it that developers can consistently ignore the planning rules and regulations?
The height restrictions in the surrounding area are well established, yet the developer wants to exceed those limits by a very considerable amount.
The need for additional affordable housing is not questioned; however, this project is not designed for affordable housing. In fact, the developer has confirmed that the Newcastle Council prefers a cash contribution of a mere $1.5m instead of providing affordable housing. This development not only ignores the need for affordable housing, but the planning rules you have put in place.
Yes, the development is too high for the area, will increase traffic in already a heavy traffic area (to get worse once the old NBN site is completed), and the proposed cafe, retail space will simply take custom from already struggling stores in Darby, King and Hunter Streets.
I simply ask that you apply the rules that you have put in place, in particular, the height restrictions.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
LAMBTON
,
New South Wales
Message
This is completely inappropriate for the area, will change the feel, isn't aimed at affordable housing and isn't how we want Cooks Hil to change.
Also your planning portal doesn't meet accessibility standards
Also your planning portal doesn't meet accessibility standards
HELEN VAN DER WERFF
Object
HELEN VAN DER WERFF
Object
NEWCASTLE
,
New South Wales
Message
There are numerous reasons why I believe this development is NOT appropriate for this location.
As a relatively recently arrived resident, living only ten minutes’ walk from the proposed development, I’m concerned about the visual impact on the fabulous precinct that sits across the road - the newly renovated Art Gallery, the Library, Civic Park, the small churches and Conservatorium are all low-line and sit together beautifully.
The idea of the proposed 45-metre tower(s) overshadowing all of these wonderful public spaces is very depressing.
Even more worrying is that the approval process runs outside Newcastle City Council’s controls. Why should a decision like this be made outside the control of the governing body for the area?
There are lots of spaces within Newcastle that have been identified as appropriate for high-rise buildings - this is not one of them!
Please DO NOT allow this development to go ahead. Please act in the best interests of the City and its residents.
As a relatively recently arrived resident, living only ten minutes’ walk from the proposed development, I’m concerned about the visual impact on the fabulous precinct that sits across the road - the newly renovated Art Gallery, the Library, Civic Park, the small churches and Conservatorium are all low-line and sit together beautifully.
The idea of the proposed 45-metre tower(s) overshadowing all of these wonderful public spaces is very depressing.
Even more worrying is that the approval process runs outside Newcastle City Council’s controls. Why should a decision like this be made outside the control of the governing body for the area?
There are lots of spaces within Newcastle that have been identified as appropriate for high-rise buildings - this is not one of them!
Please DO NOT allow this development to go ahead. Please act in the best interests of the City and its residents.
Cooks Hill Community Group Inc.
Object
Cooks Hill Community Group Inc.
Object
COOKS HILL
,
New South Wales
Message
SUBMISSION: Application Number: SSD-82276964 - 47 Darby St Cooks Hill
FROM: Cooks Hill Community Group Inc.
Cooks Hill Community Group Inc is a residents group whose objectives include preserving the heritage built form and amenity of residents of the suburb. The subject site sits within Cooks Hill.
Cooks Hill Community Group objects to the proposal for 47 Darby St Cooks Hill in regard to the following.
Concurrent Rezoning
The proponent’s Concurrent Rezoning Report fails to justify the planned increase in building height and Floor Space Ratio (FSR) for the site. The proponent’s argument that the increases are required to satisfy the NSW strategic planning framework and current government priority and not valid. These strategies would be satisfied with a development on the site that complied with the current Newcastle LEP (NLEP) development standards for height and density and an increase in the height and FSR on the site is not required in order to satisfy the any strategic planning frameworks and government priorities.
It is clearly evident from nearby recently built, currently under construction and already approved development that City of Newcastle’s current LEP, DCP and other planning instruments already provide ample opportunity for appropriate development within inner Newcastle and the broader area that contributes to satisfying the NSW strategic planning framework and current government priorities in regard to housing whilst still preserving and respecting current urban streetscapes and neighbourhood amenity.
The applicant fails to provide any evidence of a public benefit for the proposed significant departure from the established height and density standards other than the provision of extra housing which can be, and is being, provided elsewhere in the Newcastle Inner City in line with the NLEP & DCP.
NLEP 4.6 Exceptions to development standards states “(3) Development consent must not be granted to development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority is satisfied the applicant has demonstrated that (a) compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances”. The applicant has provided no evidence to show that the NLEP height and FSR standards are “unreasonable or unnecessary” and simply argues that the contravening of the current development standard is to satisfy the “NSW strategic planning framework and current government priority”. As argued above, any “NSW strategic planning framework and current government priority” can be satisfied by developing the site in compliance with the current Newcastle LEP (NLEP) development standards for height and density.
The proposed amendments to the NLEP in the concurrent rezoning define 45 metres and an increase in FSR across the whole site, even though the proposed eastern tower is significantly lower. Accepting the rezoning as written would allow a much taller and even more inappropriate eastern tower to be built on the site.
Inappropriate height, bulk and scale
The proposed height, bulk and scale of the development is entirely inconsistent with the desired streetscape and built form of the area as defined in the NLEP, DCP, City of Newcastle’s (CN’s) Heritage Manual and other strategic documents. The site is a prominent gateway to the Darby Street precinct which is highly valued and recognised in CN Heritage Manual for its low rise heritage urban form - “Buildings in the commercial strip of Darby Street tend to be modestly scaled, predominantly one or two-storeys high with some multi-level buildings of more recent construction that have upper levels above two storeys set back from the street frontage so as not to be visually assertive”. The proposal is completely at odds with this desired character.
The proposal’s close proximity to the wide open space of Civic Park, and the relatively low rise Newcastle Regional Art Gallery and adjacent heritage buildings, makes the excessive height and built form totally inconsistent with intended character, streetscape and desired urban design of the Civic Precinct.
The height of the proposed eastern tower is totally inconsistent with, and provides no transition to, the areas to the east and southeast of site, including the adjoining low rise residential townhouse complex (Regency Park), which are zoned R3 Medium Density residential with 10 metre height limit and FSR of 0.9:1.
The applicant fails to provide any evidence that proposal’s urban design, massing, and transition to surrounding residential and heritage areas can deliver any “design excellence”.
Setbacks
The proposed setbacks are inadequate. Whilst providing compliant separation between the proposed two towers on their site, the applicant fails to provide an appropriate setback to the adjoining low-rise residential premises to the east whose amenity and outlook would be significantly impacted by the height of the eastern tower. The proposed upper setbacks above the street-fronts on both Darby St and Tyrell Street are inadequate and make the excessive height even more dominant over the streetscape.
Impacts on Heritage
The proposal sits within the Newcastle City Centre Heritage Conservation Area (NCCHCA), borders both The Hill HCA and Cooks Hill HCA, and is completely inconsistent with the surrounding built heritage.
Both the historic machine shop on the site and the current office building are classified “Contributory 2” in CN’s DCP Heritage Mapping. The proposed demolition of the machine shop is in breach of the DCP controls in regard to Contributory Buildings. The applicant provides no credible evidence of lost significance or structural instability in relation to the machine shop. The DCP states “Development retains and conserves contributory buildings in heritage conservation areas” and that contributory buildings “are contributory to the heritage conservation area character”. DCP section 11- Heritage conservation Areas Control C1 states “Development retains and conserves contributory buildings in heritage conservation areas”.
The opinions expressed in the applicant’s own Statement of Heritage Impact are not consistent with the assessments made by City of Newcastle’s heritage experts in relation to the heritage contribution of the Machine Shop and current office block.
The proposed towers are sited directly opposite the Newcastle Synagogue building in Tyrell Street which is a listed item in the DCP and would have its heritage values significantly impacted by the proposal.
The proposed towers would surround and overwhelm the neighbouring Water Board Pumphouse building in Tyrell Street which is a listed as Contributory 1 Heritage in the DCP and would have its heritage values significantly impacted by the proposal.
Parking & Traffic
The onsite parking provision is inadequate for the proposed 113 apartments (221 bedrooms) on the site and the resultant parking overflow will impact nearby on street parking which is already in extremely high demand in the surrounding area.
The applicant’s Transport Impact Assessment estimate that there would be “a net increase of around 40 vehicle trips in the AM peak hour and 17 vehicle trips in the PM peak hour” looks to be flawed and a gross underestimate of the traffic that would be generated by a site with 113 apartments containing 221 bedrooms.
Mine subsidence
The applicant’s Mine Subsidence Assessment shows a solution with boreholes planned within adjoining properties which has not been authorised by neighbours. The applicant’s Mine Subsidence Assessment shows grouting beneath neighbouring properties. Grouting under neighbouring properties has been assessed to be a risk for subsidence in the instance of an earthquake due to shear planes established on the boundary between grouted and ungrouted areas.
Overshadowing & Overlooking
The proposed towers would have significant overshadowing and overlooking impacts on numerous neighbouring residences and the adjoining public areas including Civic Park.
The proposal is not in the best interest of the community and should be refused.
FROM: Cooks Hill Community Group Inc.
Cooks Hill Community Group Inc is a residents group whose objectives include preserving the heritage built form and amenity of residents of the suburb. The subject site sits within Cooks Hill.
Cooks Hill Community Group objects to the proposal for 47 Darby St Cooks Hill in regard to the following.
Concurrent Rezoning
The proponent’s Concurrent Rezoning Report fails to justify the planned increase in building height and Floor Space Ratio (FSR) for the site. The proponent’s argument that the increases are required to satisfy the NSW strategic planning framework and current government priority and not valid. These strategies would be satisfied with a development on the site that complied with the current Newcastle LEP (NLEP) development standards for height and density and an increase in the height and FSR on the site is not required in order to satisfy the any strategic planning frameworks and government priorities.
It is clearly evident from nearby recently built, currently under construction and already approved development that City of Newcastle’s current LEP, DCP and other planning instruments already provide ample opportunity for appropriate development within inner Newcastle and the broader area that contributes to satisfying the NSW strategic planning framework and current government priorities in regard to housing whilst still preserving and respecting current urban streetscapes and neighbourhood amenity.
The applicant fails to provide any evidence of a public benefit for the proposed significant departure from the established height and density standards other than the provision of extra housing which can be, and is being, provided elsewhere in the Newcastle Inner City in line with the NLEP & DCP.
NLEP 4.6 Exceptions to development standards states “(3) Development consent must not be granted to development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority is satisfied the applicant has demonstrated that (a) compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances”. The applicant has provided no evidence to show that the NLEP height and FSR standards are “unreasonable or unnecessary” and simply argues that the contravening of the current development standard is to satisfy the “NSW strategic planning framework and current government priority”. As argued above, any “NSW strategic planning framework and current government priority” can be satisfied by developing the site in compliance with the current Newcastle LEP (NLEP) development standards for height and density.
The proposed amendments to the NLEP in the concurrent rezoning define 45 metres and an increase in FSR across the whole site, even though the proposed eastern tower is significantly lower. Accepting the rezoning as written would allow a much taller and even more inappropriate eastern tower to be built on the site.
Inappropriate height, bulk and scale
The proposed height, bulk and scale of the development is entirely inconsistent with the desired streetscape and built form of the area as defined in the NLEP, DCP, City of Newcastle’s (CN’s) Heritage Manual and other strategic documents. The site is a prominent gateway to the Darby Street precinct which is highly valued and recognised in CN Heritage Manual for its low rise heritage urban form - “Buildings in the commercial strip of Darby Street tend to be modestly scaled, predominantly one or two-storeys high with some multi-level buildings of more recent construction that have upper levels above two storeys set back from the street frontage so as not to be visually assertive”. The proposal is completely at odds with this desired character.
The proposal’s close proximity to the wide open space of Civic Park, and the relatively low rise Newcastle Regional Art Gallery and adjacent heritage buildings, makes the excessive height and built form totally inconsistent with intended character, streetscape and desired urban design of the Civic Precinct.
The height of the proposed eastern tower is totally inconsistent with, and provides no transition to, the areas to the east and southeast of site, including the adjoining low rise residential townhouse complex (Regency Park), which are zoned R3 Medium Density residential with 10 metre height limit and FSR of 0.9:1.
The applicant fails to provide any evidence that proposal’s urban design, massing, and transition to surrounding residential and heritage areas can deliver any “design excellence”.
Setbacks
The proposed setbacks are inadequate. Whilst providing compliant separation between the proposed two towers on their site, the applicant fails to provide an appropriate setback to the adjoining low-rise residential premises to the east whose amenity and outlook would be significantly impacted by the height of the eastern tower. The proposed upper setbacks above the street-fronts on both Darby St and Tyrell Street are inadequate and make the excessive height even more dominant over the streetscape.
Impacts on Heritage
The proposal sits within the Newcastle City Centre Heritage Conservation Area (NCCHCA), borders both The Hill HCA and Cooks Hill HCA, and is completely inconsistent with the surrounding built heritage.
Both the historic machine shop on the site and the current office building are classified “Contributory 2” in CN’s DCP Heritage Mapping. The proposed demolition of the machine shop is in breach of the DCP controls in regard to Contributory Buildings. The applicant provides no credible evidence of lost significance or structural instability in relation to the machine shop. The DCP states “Development retains and conserves contributory buildings in heritage conservation areas” and that contributory buildings “are contributory to the heritage conservation area character”. DCP section 11- Heritage conservation Areas Control C1 states “Development retains and conserves contributory buildings in heritage conservation areas”.
The opinions expressed in the applicant’s own Statement of Heritage Impact are not consistent with the assessments made by City of Newcastle’s heritage experts in relation to the heritage contribution of the Machine Shop and current office block.
The proposed towers are sited directly opposite the Newcastle Synagogue building in Tyrell Street which is a listed item in the DCP and would have its heritage values significantly impacted by the proposal.
The proposed towers would surround and overwhelm the neighbouring Water Board Pumphouse building in Tyrell Street which is a listed as Contributory 1 Heritage in the DCP and would have its heritage values significantly impacted by the proposal.
Parking & Traffic
The onsite parking provision is inadequate for the proposed 113 apartments (221 bedrooms) on the site and the resultant parking overflow will impact nearby on street parking which is already in extremely high demand in the surrounding area.
The applicant’s Transport Impact Assessment estimate that there would be “a net increase of around 40 vehicle trips in the AM peak hour and 17 vehicle trips in the PM peak hour” looks to be flawed and a gross underestimate of the traffic that would be generated by a site with 113 apartments containing 221 bedrooms.
Mine subsidence
The applicant’s Mine Subsidence Assessment shows a solution with boreholes planned within adjoining properties which has not been authorised by neighbours. The applicant’s Mine Subsidence Assessment shows grouting beneath neighbouring properties. Grouting under neighbouring properties has been assessed to be a risk for subsidence in the instance of an earthquake due to shear planes established on the boundary between grouted and ungrouted areas.
Overshadowing & Overlooking
The proposed towers would have significant overshadowing and overlooking impacts on numerous neighbouring residences and the adjoining public areas including Civic Park.
The proposal is not in the best interest of the community and should be refused.
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Cooks Hill
,
New South Wales
Message
I object to this development in its current form. It is far too tall for this location - it will tower over the 2-story art gallery and is much higher than any existing structure in the Cooks Hill heritage area. The development needs to be reduced down to the current legal limit.
Philippa Clayton
Object
Philippa Clayton
Object
The Hill
,
New South Wales
Message
18 February 2026
NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Via submission portal
Objection – Proposed Rezoning and State Significant Development – 47 Darby Street, Cooks Hill
As residents of 82 Church Street, The Hill, we object to the proposed rezoning and concurrent State Significant
Development. We object to the proposal which has no respect to the heritage value of the area and seeks to increase permitted height from 14m to 45m.
Objection #1: Developers disregarding and disrespecting local zoning laws
The proposal is a significant overdevelopment in the context of surrounding area – importantly the
impact of the Civic Park/ Art Gallery and surroundings – a heritage area and area of cultural
significance.
The proposal does not align with existing zoning rules. If the development is approved in this area it will degrade the civic and heritage heart of Newcastle. Any future developments of this nature, tower above its neighbouring buildings, a reminder of
the detrimental impact of ill-conceived planning on local neighbourhoods and precincts. It will completely change the feel of the area.
We strongly object to such an ad hoc approach to planning and construction zone management.
Objective #2: An inappropriate location and design to address housing shortages
The proposal seeks to build very expensive apartments. Luxury accommodation does not contribute to the State Significant
Development objectives of providing low cost, affordable housing.
There is significant quantity of similar high end apartment buildings recently completed and currently being built nearby –
including the former NBN site and the East End precinct. There is risk of an oversupply of this higher
priced apartments in the immediate area.
Affordable accommodation developments should be encouraged in areas already zoned for this higher
density (for example the Broadmeadow Place Strategy) or even in Newcastle West.
Affordable accommodation should be located close to areas of employment or easy access to public
transport. This site has neither attribute.
We strongly object to well-meaning State initiatives to increase housing supply being taken
advantage of and used for inappropriate high end developments that will degrade local heritage
precincts.
Objective #3: Poor design
The proposal has no architectural merit. The proposed building is ridiculously high box, at 3 times the current height limit. This precinct is distinct because of the architectural merit of its buildings. New buildings such as the Art Gallery, positioned directly across the road from the proposed development and the University have added to the area’s architectural significance. The proposal makes a mockery of its architectural surroundings and would be an eyesore.
The proposal should seek to improve the built environment and align with the natural
environment and feel of the area. New buildings should be sympathetic to the existing buildings and their surrounds. It does neither.
South views from Civic Park would be negatively impacted as the proposed construction would create
an overbearing impact on the parklands. The city of Newcastle has managed to preserve this area until
now and local and state governments have a moral responsibility to protect these rare areas for future
generations. Once a construction like this is built, this beautiful and unique area is lost forever.
The proposed building would have a detrimental affect on neighbouring residential area, in particular overshadowing of the gated community it backs onto in Tyrrell and Queen sts.
We strongly object to lazy cheap unsympathetic and disrespectful design that will degrade this beautiful precinct.
We urge you to refuse the proposed rezoning and State Significant Development of 47 Darby Street.
Graeme W and Philippa M Clayton
Unit 1 82 Church St
The Hill NSW 2300
Ph 0408 272944
[email protected]
NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Via submission portal
Objection – Proposed Rezoning and State Significant Development – 47 Darby Street, Cooks Hill
As residents of 82 Church Street, The Hill, we object to the proposed rezoning and concurrent State Significant
Development. We object to the proposal which has no respect to the heritage value of the area and seeks to increase permitted height from 14m to 45m.
Objection #1: Developers disregarding and disrespecting local zoning laws
The proposal is a significant overdevelopment in the context of surrounding area – importantly the
impact of the Civic Park/ Art Gallery and surroundings – a heritage area and area of cultural
significance.
The proposal does not align with existing zoning rules. If the development is approved in this area it will degrade the civic and heritage heart of Newcastle. Any future developments of this nature, tower above its neighbouring buildings, a reminder of
the detrimental impact of ill-conceived planning on local neighbourhoods and precincts. It will completely change the feel of the area.
We strongly object to such an ad hoc approach to planning and construction zone management.
Objective #2: An inappropriate location and design to address housing shortages
The proposal seeks to build very expensive apartments. Luxury accommodation does not contribute to the State Significant
Development objectives of providing low cost, affordable housing.
There is significant quantity of similar high end apartment buildings recently completed and currently being built nearby –
including the former NBN site and the East End precinct. There is risk of an oversupply of this higher
priced apartments in the immediate area.
Affordable accommodation developments should be encouraged in areas already zoned for this higher
density (for example the Broadmeadow Place Strategy) or even in Newcastle West.
Affordable accommodation should be located close to areas of employment or easy access to public
transport. This site has neither attribute.
We strongly object to well-meaning State initiatives to increase housing supply being taken
advantage of and used for inappropriate high end developments that will degrade local heritage
precincts.
Objective #3: Poor design
The proposal has no architectural merit. The proposed building is ridiculously high box, at 3 times the current height limit. This precinct is distinct because of the architectural merit of its buildings. New buildings such as the Art Gallery, positioned directly across the road from the proposed development and the University have added to the area’s architectural significance. The proposal makes a mockery of its architectural surroundings and would be an eyesore.
The proposal should seek to improve the built environment and align with the natural
environment and feel of the area. New buildings should be sympathetic to the existing buildings and their surrounds. It does neither.
South views from Civic Park would be negatively impacted as the proposed construction would create
an overbearing impact on the parklands. The city of Newcastle has managed to preserve this area until
now and local and state governments have a moral responsibility to protect these rare areas for future
generations. Once a construction like this is built, this beautiful and unique area is lost forever.
The proposed building would have a detrimental affect on neighbouring residential area, in particular overshadowing of the gated community it backs onto in Tyrrell and Queen sts.
We strongly object to lazy cheap unsympathetic and disrespectful design that will degrade this beautiful precinct.
We urge you to refuse the proposed rezoning and State Significant Development of 47 Darby Street.
Graeme W and Philippa M Clayton
Unit 1 82 Church St
The Hill NSW 2300
Ph 0408 272944
[email protected]
Ben Ewald
Object
Ben Ewald
Object
THE HILL
,
New South Wales
Message
While state significant projects are supposed to contribute to the economy of NSW, this proposal is just another tacky residential tower. It may be large enough to cross some cost threshold, but that does not change its nature. Newcastle is awash with new apartment blocks that are universally bland and mostly empty. Calling this project a SSD is an abuse of process.
The proposed height of 45m vastly exceeds what is allowed under the local environmental development plan, that I took the time and effort to contribute to when it was developed. Overturning the existing development plan makes a mockery of public consultation processes.
What is a spot rezone? Can I have a spot rezone of speed limits when Im driving my car? It seems like an excuse for the generally accepted rules to not apply to certain individuals.
NSW needs high density residential development close to high volume and fast public transport, but 47 Darby St does not meet these criteria. There are a few buses, and there is a toy tram nearby. The light rail is regarded by Newcastle locals as a joke. It travels on a track just 2.4 Km long, and does not reliably connect to the trains so should not be regarded as high volume or fast public transport. There is plenty of space for tall residential towers in West Newcastle close to the transport interchange which does have proper public transport.
The proposal should be rejected. It is not of state significance. It would tower over and degrade Civic park which is the symbolic center of Newcastle.
The proposed height of 45m vastly exceeds what is allowed under the local environmental development plan, that I took the time and effort to contribute to when it was developed. Overturning the existing development plan makes a mockery of public consultation processes.
What is a spot rezone? Can I have a spot rezone of speed limits when Im driving my car? It seems like an excuse for the generally accepted rules to not apply to certain individuals.
NSW needs high density residential development close to high volume and fast public transport, but 47 Darby St does not meet these criteria. There are a few buses, and there is a toy tram nearby. The light rail is regarded by Newcastle locals as a joke. It travels on a track just 2.4 Km long, and does not reliably connect to the trains so should not be regarded as high volume or fast public transport. There is plenty of space for tall residential towers in West Newcastle close to the transport interchange which does have proper public transport.
The proposal should be rejected. It is not of state significance. It would tower over and degrade Civic park which is the symbolic center of Newcastle.
The National Trust of Australia (NSW)
Object
The National Trust of Australia (NSW)
Object
Millers Point
,
New South Wales
Message
Please find attached a submission from the National Trust of Australia (NSW).