I am writing to object to the development proposal at 10 Dangar Street Wickham.

I support a well considered development at that location as it is next to the interchange and could provide a mix of residences including affordable housing and co-living. I support a development that fits within the Newcastle LEP and Wickham Master Plan.

I DO NOT SUPPORT the proposed development.

I object to it on the following bases:
The extreme departure from the current planning controls.
The proposed height is excessive at over twice the height of even the provisional height allowance of 70 metres in the Newcastle LEP.
The scale of the building is NOT in line with the Wickham Master Plan 2021 and not in character with the surrounding built environment.
The proposed floor ratio is more than twice the existing ratio allowed under existing controls.
The proposed development is not in keeping with the holistic planning for the area of the Newcastle Council LEP and Wickham Master Plan.
The shadows from the proposed tower would be far reaching to the public spaces near the harbour and to surrounding residences and affect the amenity of the area as well as limiting the ability to harvest solar power from the roofs of surrounding residences.
The proposed large area of uninterrupted wall in Charles street is not in keeping with the fine grain nature of the area.
The inadequate parking for residents, hotel staff, retail staff and visitors to the hotel. The surrounding streets of Wickham are already choked with parking and the overflow parking needed from this proposed development has the potential to make life unbearable for many Wickham residents.
If approved, the proposal would set a precedent for extreme departure from the Wickham Master Plan, the Newcastle Council LEP and planning controls.
The proposal relies on a ‘future context’ of high buildings to mitigate its impact (Visual EIS and Wind Study) - ie, it will be a massive impact unless other huge buildings are also built around it so setting up catch22.
The Pedestrian Wind Study states that “most (NOT ALL) terraces and balconies meet targeted comfort criteria.” It also states that wind in some communal areas as well as the topmost apartments will reach uncomfortable levels. This is definitely not conducive to amenable living and I wonder why such a proposal would be allowed ignoring the well known link between living environments and health. Surely we can do better than allowing this.

Please do not approve this proposal in its current format.

Disclaimer: I own a unit in the north tower of 10 Bishopsgate St. Wickham, adjacent to the proposed development which lies south but will not be able to see it .
(1) This development will dwarf the HQ development being completed to the east. It is the culmination of the planned development along the Hunter waterfront from the harbour entrance, carefully planned over many years to enhance the community engagement of this and surrounding areas.It has ensured that no structure is dominant .This long term planning has been the result of extensive community consultation and feedback , in a city where the riverfront has been the lifeblood of first nation and subsequent white activity.The height of the proposal will adversely alter this connection.
(2) The inadequate parking spaces provided will cause major traffic problems ,particularly when the present car parking area to the east on the riverfront will be replaced by the HQ development over the next few years.In house parking is costly but ignoring the need will cause insoluble future problems.
(3) With climate change and rising water levels , there is a strong case to have State Significant Developments in areas clear of waterways and possible flood risk areas.
Submitted for your consideration

I object to the size of this building. Situated north of the rail line buildings in this location should not exceed 12 stories. I have traveled to many cities in the world the ones that are unlivable are all due to high rise housing. Please do not do this to Newcastle.

The developer is using the term "Social Housing" as a tool to double the height of the building. There are no instruments to monitor the actual provision of affordable housing once the project is approved. The project is exploiting the current housing crises. It is pure greed.

Protesting violation of approved height limits in addition to questioning viability of another mixed use development in this area. Need focus on supporting infrastructure and green spaces before creating more density living.

Not adhering to the height restrictions for the area - currently 12 floors. This building will be not be complimentary to the the local history and culture of the area. Lack of parking for this size building, therefore on-street parking will be affected for the community.

I work as a health worker in the area, and flood risk is a significant concern for me. I've seen firsthand how health emergencies unfold when infrastructure isn't resilient, and I'm not convinced the applicant has done enough to demonstrate this development won't increase flood vulnerability for Wickham and the surrounding precincts.

A building of this scale will set a precedent for what gets built here next. The planning framework exists for reasons, and moving away from it this dramatically needs to be backed by solid evidence and real commitments, not just assurances.

Beyond the flood risk, I'm also concerned about the traffic and road safety implications. Neither of these issues appears to have been resolved adequately. The applicant needs to provide clearer evidence and binding commitments that actually protect the community before we agree to something this big.

I am concerned about the increase in traffic and lack of parking in the narrow, one way streets of Wickham. I live in a 1880 cottage where our front doors lead directly to the footpath. I have a toddler and a dog and leaving my front door is difficult with the speed at which people travel down our street. I am concerned with the increased traffic along with increased demand for parking required to support such a big development. Generally these developments allow for 1 parking space per apartment. There is little chance that each apartment will only have 1 car. This would mean those additional cars will need to park on the street. Currently timed parking is from 9 - 5pm Monday to Friday and 9 - 12pm Saturdays. There is no time limit on Sundays. I have noticed that most cars parked on our street do not have a parking permit but rarely get fines for overstaying the 2 hour limit. It makes me think, why do I pay for a parking permit when I could literally just park for free like the rest? People continue to push the boundaries of timed parking without consideration for the residents in the area. I've had people park up in a timed two hour zone, pull their suitcase our of their car and head to the interchange for a week long holiday without receiving a ticket.

Another consideration with the parking issues is that there are many mechanical businesses in the area which also increases the number of cars parked in the area. They other utilise the untimed parking areas which are located closer to those industrial areas. Recently I needed to take my car to the mechanic. I drove from my house, 200 metres down the road to the mechanics and was unable to find a parking spot closer than out front of my house. I had to leave my car the evening before out front of the mechanic to ensure I was close enough for them to do the service.

I am objecting to the proposed development at 10 Dangar St Wickham NSW 2293.
The proposal is grossly excessive. Its height and size are completely out of kilter with the immediate and wider surroundings. It dwarfs the residential towers in Wickham, Newcastle West, Hunter St and Honey Suckle. It will literally cast a dark shadow over the area. Its height of 43 storeys exceeds any measure of suitabilty based on the surrounding built environment. Therefore it is not an unfair summation to label this proposal as a monstrosity.
The proposal's effects on traffic - cars, bicycles pedestrians etc - will also have adverse effects locally. Bishopsgate, Dangar, Charles, Wickham and Union streets are small and narrow. This development will generate excessive traffic from residents alone but even more from taxis, motor bikes, delivery trucks and vans, visitors and workers. The proposal with its excessive size will turn the narrow surrounding area into a hazard.
I say, please go back to the drawing board and create a tower that enhances the area rather than spoils it.

I’m not in favour of such a large development without supporting infrastructure be included