I am writing to lodge a formal objection to the proposed development at 47 Tyrell Street, Newcastle. While I understand the need for thoughtful growth and renewal within our city, this proposal represents an inappropriate and excessive form of development that threatens the character, heritage, and civic integrity of its setting.

1. Impact on Newcastle’s Major Civic Square
The site sits in close proximity to Newcastle’s principal civic square — the area formed around Civic Park and fronted by some of the city’s most important civic and cultural buildings: the Town Hall, the Round House, the Conservatorium of Music, the Library, and the newly extended Newcastle Art Gallery. Together, these create a cohesive civic and cultural precinct of exceptional significance. The Margel Hinder fountain, a recognised public artwork and landmark, contributes further to the cultural and aesthetic unity of this square. Any new development in its visual catchment must therefore be sympathetic in scale, form, and materiality. The proposed development fails to respect this context and would detract from the visual coherence and dignity of this important civic setting.

2. Impact on the Heritage Conservation Areas of Cooks Hill and The Hill
The site sits on the edge of, and within view of, two of Newcastle’s key heritage conservation areas — Cooks Hill and The Hill. These areas are valued for their historic streetscapes, human-scale development, and architectural cohesion. The proposed building, by virtue of its bulk, height, and modern form, would be visually intrusive and inconsistent with the established heritage character of these neighbourhoods. It risks undermining the heritage values that have long been protected and celebrated in this part of the city.

3. Availability of Suitable Areas for High-Rise Development
Newcastle has already identified and zoned appropriate precincts for high-rise and intensive urban development, notably in Newcastle West and parts of Honeysuckle. These areas have the infrastructure, planning controls, and urban form suited to such density. The proposed development at 47 Tyrell Street falls outside these designated zones and therefore represents an inappropriate location for high-rise construction.

4. Inappropriate and Overdevelopment of the Site
The proposal constitutes overdevelopment, both in terms of its scale and its disregard for the surrounding urban and heritage context. Its height, bulk, and massing are excessive relative to neighbouring properties and would create overshadowing, loss of visual amenity, and an imbalance in the established built form. The design fails to respond sensitively to the site’s constraints and the broader civic setting.

In conclusion, I urge the Government to refuse this application in its current form. The proposal is inconsistent with the character and planning intent of the area and would have lasting negative impacts on Newcastle’s most significant civic and heritage precincts.

Thank you for considering this submission. I would appreciate being kept informed of any future amendments or decisions regarding this proposal.

Hey mate, my wife and I live at 17 Bull St.
The development at 47 Darby street is insulting.

There’s all that land in the rail corridor along the train line being wasted. You have also just advertised that some ‘low income housing’ is being built near the lucky hotel and it’s only like half a dozen story’s if that.

I’d love to see more development around Darby street like a Melbourne style tram system running from civic out the the junction, so appartments are good….. but if I need to jump through hoops to paint the facade of my terrace to “maintain a heritage community” why on earth is a tower taller than the round house down the road.

That area DESPERATELY needs a low cost parking tower!! Every weekend the nesca park area is filled to the brim with people parking and walking to Darby street.
People from out of town are also begging to avoid Darby due to parking issues.

Public transport, then parking station THEN build the towers…….

I understand this is a state government thing but that planning website is awful and I couldn’t get access so this is my last effort.

Thankyou for your time

To: MP Tim Crakanthorp
Re: application number (SSD-82276964)
Submission in Opposition to Proposed Development at 47 Darby Street and Tyrell Street, Cooks Hill, Newcastle. 2300.

This proposal's oversized design will irreversibly damage the Civic precinct's heritage character. The scale, height, and style of this development fail to respect the surrounding dwellings, setting a precedent for high-rise buildings in areas not designated in the city of Newcastle's overall planning.

Our objection to this development is made on the following grounds:
• The scale of this high-rise development detracts from the precinct’s heritage and community amenity, given its location near significant public spaces such as Newcastle Art Gallery, Library and Civic Park and surrounding heritage buildings in a conservation area.
• The height of the 12-storey Darby Street building at 45m is well above the 14-metre height limit set by the Newcastle LEP. The height of the 7-storey apartment block at the Tyrrell Street Building, at 27.7m, is twice the 14m maximum current LEP height.
• By fast-tracking the approval process and by-passing zoning rules, the usual checks and balances will not be able to properly assess the full impact of this development.
• Council previously objected to the demolition of the existing warehouse, citing its contributory heritage value under the Newcastle DCP. Why is this no longer an issue?
• Not incorporating on-site affordable dwellings and instead offering a contribution to the Newcastle Affordable Housing Contribution Scheme is against the spirit and intent of the terms of this mandate.
• The urban design, massing, and transition to surrounding residential and heritage areas can deliver the “design excellence” claimed. Council’s earlier advice and the site’s position within a heritage conservation area mean that built form, overshadowing, and visual impact will be closely examined.
• Although we support the inclusion of affordable housing in new developments, this proposal does not provide that; it proposes a donation to affordable housing, which is not really in the spirit of this mandate.

Your sincerely,
(Name withheld)
507/67 Watt Street,
Newcastle East. 2300.

I'm all for development if it's done well to suit the site and surrounding area but this is not the case here. The height is way too big! It will look like a ridiculous behemoth in such a lovely part of town.

This is an excellent, high quality project that will enhance the vibrance of the area, and is very well located, with good transport, parks and beaches nearby.
The mix of apartments is excellent for increasing the liveability of the inner city of Newcastle. This area is an excellent location for further densification, and will further support the liveability of the Newcastle area. The site is well-suited for apartment buildings, and if anything, could be taller than proposed without any ill effects.
While not currently a resident of the area, I have spent a lot of my life in and around Darby St. I also have many friends and family in the area, and the cost of housing is a significant source of stress and anxiety for them. It is essential that more housing is built. NSW is in the midst of an intense shortage of housing, and it is essential that more housing be delivered. Projects such as these improve housing affordability across the Newcastle-Sydney region, as more housing enables more choice for both owners and renters.
There is extensive research showing that "moving chains" of people across the region means that even lower income residents benefit from the creation of higher value (often pejoritavely termed "luxury") apartments. By reducing competition for excessively limited housing, people on lower incomes are not forced to compete against those with greater spending power.
In short, there is no serious reason to oppose this development.

I recently returned to Newcastle to live because I remembered it as a charming, livable city with a relatively low skyline and many heritage neighborhoods in the center. Newcastle council has quite rightly chosen to largely limit high density developments to the Honeysuckle precinct, in order to preserve the city's unique heritage.
The proposal to build a high-rise luxury apartment complex at 47 Darby Street, in the middle of the cultural precinct, does not align with the council's vision for the city and is frankly, offensive to residents of the area. While there is a need for more social housing in the city, this expensive, resource-intensive ' luxury' project offers nothing of real value to the local community and will detract from the character of the area.
Furthermore, the complex will exceed the legal building height limit of 14 meters and dominate public institutions, such as the art gallery, on and around Darby Street and Laman Street. This project makes no planning sense at all and I am firmly opposed to it.

I object to the proposal due to the following concerns:

Rezoning and Planning Controls:
The proposal does not appropriately comply with LEP and DCP controls. I request that any development adhere to existing height controls.

Height and Bulk:
The Tyrrell Building should remain within the 14-metre height limit. The proposed eight-storey building is excessive in height and bulk, and the setbacks are inadequate, particularly as the building rises.

Overshadowing:
The proposal would cause unacceptable overshadowing of my dwelling and surrounding properties. The shadow diagrams provided are unclear and difficult to interpret. In particular, they do not clearly show:
• How much direct sunlight private open space for each dwelling will receive
• How private open space has been defined and measured for each dwelling
• The actual extent and duration of overshadowing impacts throughout the day.

Impacts to Regency Park Property:
There is insufficient information regarding stormwater management and potential overflow impacts, including any realignment of stormwater infrastructure on Regency Park property.
There is also no clear information regarding possible access to, or leasing of, Regency Park property, potential permanent impacts to communal assets, changes to easements, or details of proposed grouting works.
These matters should be fully detailed and investigated during assessment and prior to any determination.

Consultation:
Consultation with residents has been inappropriate. Despite repeated requests, the developer refused to provide copies of plans, drawings, or presentation materials shared during meetings. Much of the information was provided verbally only or via PowerPoint, forcing residents to photograph presentation slides to inform other lot owners.
At one meeting, the developer’s engagement representative attempted to record residents without consent for the developer’s own use.
Residents were also previously advised that access to Regency Park property would not be required during construction, which now appears to be inaccurate.
I request further meaningful consultation with the developer, particularly to discuss overshadowing and direct impacts to my dwelling.

HDA process:
This proposal should never have been declared State Significant given the scale of uplift sought in such a sensitive location. Doing so created false hope for the developer that the Department would seriously consider an extreme concurrent rezoning in this area.
Had the EOI submitted to the HDA been subject to more rigorous scrutiny at the outset, the developer, community, planning and agency staff, councillors, MPs, the Minister, and many other stakeholders would not have had to waste so much time on this ridiculous proposal, and could instead have focused on projects that would genuinely and meaningfully contribute to housing supply. For this reason, I ask the developer to withdraw their application before assessment progresses further.

I am writing as a local resident in support of the 47 Darby Street proposal. This is the kind of spot where a bit of height actually makes sense, it is close to the city centre, the places people work, study, eat, and spend time. If we cannot add homes here, near the action, then where exactly are we meant to put them, somewhere that forces everyone into longer drives and fewer options?

I understand the instinct to say “it’s not the character of the area”, but “character” is not a museum label. Cities grow, and good streets stay good by having people in them. More residents nearby means more customers for local businesses, more activity at different times of day, and more life at this end of Darby Street.

In short, this looks like sensible infill in a sensible location. Please do not let not-in-my-backyard arguments carry more weight than the broader public interest.