I don't like some aspects of the development proposed for 47 Darby Street
it dwarfs and minimise the new art gallery by a massive overview of some ten stories higher it will diminish the appearance and attraction of the gallery for visitors and residents,
the stated connection with this section of the proposal with civic park is misrepresented. There is no need to be concerned that the mass of happy picnickers in the park will feel neglected by lack of a restaurant diagonally up the street where there are beautiful restaurants directly across Darby street such as Meet, Lightyears and george darby hotel.
The proposal to have restaurants needed diagonally up the street is misleading .
Whilst the Tyrells section of the development appears to be worthwhile and only breaks the existing planning height restrictions by a huge amount . The main section at 47 ,on the corner of queen and darby is atrous ,going from a suburban environmental saving height of 14 metres to a completely unacceptable 45 metres.
it provides instead a horrible visual entry to the quiet darby street food residential lay out ,which needs to be preserved. It would have shocking visual impairment on the neighbourhood.
Five stories is all that should be endorsed rather than providing a development to complete with the city west newcastle massive towers . These are sufficient areas for high rise development for Newcastle housing in the city west.
There needs to be a distinction between this massive style development for housing . This will provide a distinction between high rise city mas accommodation to a quieter relaxed suburban decor. Injecting high rise concepts into residential id and established food hospitality areas is wrong . This is what planning departments should do, not just back quick profit returns for hungry developers .
It is not needed has a negative impact on the arts centre with a negative impact on car flow and standard of living for existing residents.
As a nearby resident in the quiet, well managed beautiful regency park,
i object to the sun interference and how the shadow impact is presented especially in the shadow pattern in the mid day 0900-1500 period . In summer daylight extends to beyond 2000 so the impact is felt much longer. For the residents the winter sun is important and there the stupid high rise tower has a massive impact as well.
Again as a resident,the lack of car space is atrocious and puts pressure on cars needing to park on cluttered roads to be considered as the volume of cars entering Darby street will impact traffic flow as will that down Queen st that down queen street from the massive nbn development now in progress`.
again as a resident I am concerned about the impact on proposed drains ability to cover flooding and ruun off aspects from storms.
It is a much too big project with too many negative aspects. While the height of the tyrell st section is reasonable the 47 darby street 12 story building is not. I will decrease my standard of living in a quiet newcastle suburb.

RE 47 DARBY STREET, COOKS HILL

Try as I might, I can't improve on the list of concerns, and the description of those concerns, that the Not47DarbyStreet group have assembled. But I would like to add some of my own thoughts and concerns about the Darby Street/Civic Park precinct.

As one who frequently and regularly walks the breakwater wall I am always astounded by the beauty of Newcastle's skyline. It closely resembles the skylines of several of the most beautiful towns that I have visited in France, and I am so delighted that Newcastle actually has the profile of a cathedral as its crown. I also note that the skyline is not as pleasing on the eastern side where two oversized apartment blocks are located, for they disrupt the skyline in both symmetry and beauty. My concern is that a 12 storey - or even a seven storey - building in the Civic precinct will abuse the district permanently. The four storey apartment block built in Dawson Street between Bull and Parry Streets has permanently spoiled that part of Cooks Hill. And there is another example - eight or so storeys this time - on the corner of Parry and Union Streets. There are high-rise precincts in the east and, now, in Newcastle West - the latter being vast - and formidable.

It is important to retain Newcastle's heritage, and its character. To build oversized structures in a heritage and cultural area that gives Newcastle its attraction to locals and visitors alike is a big mistake.

And it is here that I 'poach' the words and Ideas of the Not47DarbyStreet group:

Councils in the past have understood the consequences of their mistakes.

A high-rise development has been proposed for 47 Darby Street, Newcastle — and while the current height limit for the site is 14 metres, this proposal seeks to build to 45 metres.

𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭’𝐬 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭.

This luxury two-tower high-rise is not only vastly oversized, it also encroaches on Newcastle’s culturally and historically significant areas. This proposed development sits within the Newcastle City Centre Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) and is on the boundary of 2 other culturally significant HCA’s (Cooks Hill and The Hill).

It also directly faces one of Newcastle’s most important Civic precincts. A 45-metre building in this location would be completely overbearing and out of scale directly opposite the art gallery and Civic Park and the surrounding streetscape of Cooks Hill.

This isn’t about opposing development. Newcastle needs thoughtful growth.
But development must respect the scale, character, and heritage significance of the area.

A building of this height will:
• Overwhelm the established streetscape and heritage conservation areas
• Impact the character of the Civic cultural precinct including the Art Gallery.
• Set a precedent for excessive height.

We are calling for a development to better consider its context than what is currently proposed.

Submission: Opposition to Proposed Development under HDA Reforms
To: The NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Re: Objection to 47 Darby Street Cooks Hill SSD-82276964
I am writing to formally lodge my strong opposition to the proposed residential development at [Insert Address]. While the need for increased housing density in Newcastle is acknowledged, this specific proposal represents an opportunistic overreach facilitated by the Housing Delivery Authority (HDA) reforms, which prioritize speed over the long-term liveability and character of our city.
1. Erosion of Local Planning Autonomy
This proposal bypasses the Newcastle Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and Development Control Plans (DCP)—frameworks that were created in consultation with the people who actually live here. By stripping Council of its decision-making power, this process ignores:
• Infrastructure Capacity: Local knowledge regarding traffic congestion, drainage, and public amenities is being sidelined.
• Contextual Fit: High-rise towers are being proposed in areas like the Newcastle Suburbs where the scale is entirely inconsistent with the existing streetscape.
2. Threat to Heritage and Character
Newcastle’s history is etched into its architecture. The HDA reforms substantially weaken heritage protections, treating our historic suburbs as blank canvases for high-density yields. This development threatens to permanently degrade the aesthetic and cultural value of our heritage conservation areas.
3. Lack of Meaningful Community Consultation
A 14-day window for public comment on a project of this magnitude is insufficient. It is a "tick-box" exercise that prevents residents from:
• Conducting independent technical reviews.
• Organizing community-wide feedback.
• Engaging in a transparent democratic process.
4. Undemocratic Decision-Making
The final decision-making power resting with an unelected panel of bureaucrats in Sydney is a rejection of local democracy. Newcastle’s urban future should not be dictated by a centralized authority that is not accountable to the residents who will live with the consequences of these "fast-tracked" decisions.
Conclusion
Housing density should be a collaborative effort, not a mandate imposed from the top down. I urge the Planning Minister and the HDA to reject this oversized proposal and return the planning process to a framework that respects local rules, preserves our heritage, and values the input of the Newcastle community.

I am writing to lodge an objection to the proposed development at 47 Darby Street, Cooks Hill. While I support the renewal of our city and appreciate the intention to replace ageing buildings with new housing, I am deeply concerned that the current design does not reflect the best interests of the surrounding neighbourhood, its residents, or visitors to Darby Street.

I am a resident of Regency Park, which directly neighbours the proposed development. Regency Park is not simply a collection of residences; it is a close-knit community. Our shared tennis court, adjoining cabana with a 12-seater entertainment area, and outdoor pool are vital communal spaces where residents gather to rest, socialise, exercise, and host local and family events. These spaces are especially important during winter, when many homes are cold and dark — the open areas provide sunlight, warmth and a sense of wellbeing.

According to the overshadowing diagrams in the Concurrent Rezoning Report https://majorprojects.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/prweb/PRRestService/mp/01/getContent?AttachRef=SSD-82276964%2120260115T222510.917%20GMT (page 56), these shared spaces will be fully overshadowed from 10:00 am until 3:00 pm. There are no diagrams beyond this time, but it is reasonable to assume the impact will extend for several more hours. After 2:00 pm, the shadow will also cover the outdoor pool — a space central to our community life. An overshadowed, cold pool is not usable, and this effectively removes a key communal asset for all Regency Park residents. The scale and height of the proposed 12-storey building will not only affect immediate neighbours but the entire Regency Park community.

The height is also inconsistent with the surrounding built form. Darby Street is known as a human-scale neighbourhood where people gather to enjoy coffee, food and conversation in the sunshine. Introducing a building of this height risks creating a darker, wind-affected environment that undermines the very character that makes the area vibrant and welcoming.

I am also concerned that the proposed design does not respect the heritage and architectural identity of the area. Newcastle has many excellent examples of contemporary development that honours its past — particularly in the East End — where new buildings respond thoughtfully to heritage context. In contrast, the concrete balconies and overall form of the proposed building feel dated and visually harsh, reminiscent of 1980s design rather than a modern, considered contribution to the city. It is difficult to see how this improves on the existing Markey building in terms of beauty or civic pride.

Newcastle deserves development that enhances its character — buildings that people want to photograph, share, and talk about with pride. Beautiful, well-considered architecture encourages visitors to stay longer, return often, and invest emotionally in our city.

I respectfully ask the City and decision-makers to reconsider the direction of this proposal, particularly its height, massing and design response. Any redevelopment of this site should carefully consider the cumulative impact on Regency Park residents, many of whom stand to lose essential communal spaces that support social connection, health and wellbeing.

Thoughtful growth is possible — growth that respects community life, neighbourhood scale and Newcastle’s unique heritage. I urge that this proposal be revised with these principles at the centre.

Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission and for considering the lived experience of local residents.

I wish to voice my strong opposition to this “development.”
This proposal is to build a huge development 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 current 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 limit - a limit which was established for many, many valid reasons; within the Newcastle City Centre Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) and it would also sit on the boundary of 2 other culturally significant HCA’s (The Hill and Cooks Hill). The impact on the surrounding area would be overwhelming and overbearing, towering over our new Art Gallery, Civic Park and surrounding heritage suburbs.
If the State Government ignores the wishes of inner Newcastle residents by rubber stamping this white elephant, it would open Pandora’s Box for more ill-conceived and completely inappropriate developments to be proposed in areas never before even considered for high rise.
The long term vision for Newcastle is for high-rise in the West End and maintaining one of Australia’s oldest city’s character further East and along the peninsula by remaining relatively low-rise. Sticking to this plan may displease some greedy developers but will ensure that our once beautiful city returns to form – with her soul mostly intact.
Whilst I strongly agree that higher density housing is needed; Newcastle is more than pulling her weight on this with the Newcastle West filling up with apartment towers and Newcastle East has expanded into Hunter Street with hundreds of additional residences (whilst maintaining the character of the area.) The plans for Broadmeadow will also create 3000+ more homes. Accordingly, I feel that proposing that this monolith get a rubber stamp as a State Significant Development is more than pushing its luck and should be declined.
Four or five (maximum) stories would be more reasonable (if they lack the imagination to do something lower but profitable); if the developers build excellent quality and more boutique style residences I’m sure that would attract buyers willing to spend top dollar; they could still make a financial killing without trashing the heritage area.
And, let's be honest here.
They are in it for the money - not to be virtuous and create homes for the underprivileged.

I strongly object to the development at 47 Darby Street.
Subject: Objection to Proposed Development at 47 Darby Street, Newcastle

Dear Sir or Madam,

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 youl 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.

Yours faithfully,
Margaret Ostinga

We are writing to lodge a formal objection to the SSD application 82276964 for the proposed mixed-use development at 47 Darby Street, including the concurrent rezoning proposal.
We are local residents and parents of young children and are seriously concerned about the significant and adverse impacts this proposal is likely to have on the character, safety and liveability of Cooks Hill for families and the broader community.

The proposal seeks to increase the max permitted height from 14m to 45m, which represents a substantial and unjustified departure from the existing planning controls. The height is grossly inconsistent with the established low-to-mid-rise-built form of Cooks Hill and would result in a dominant and visually intrusive development that overwhelms the surrounding streetscape.

The proposed increase in floor space ratio from 2.5:1 to 3.48:1; combined with the construction of 113 residential units, represents an overdevelopment of the site. This level of density is not in keeping with the capacity of the area and risks setting an undesirable precedent for further intensification that is inconsistent with community expectation and existing controls.
The proposed height, bulk and proximity of the buildings will result in unacceptable impacts on neighbouring properties - privacy, increased overshadowing, wind and noise impacts.

The concurrent rezoning proposal appears to be driven by the development planning rather than strategic planning. Amending the Newcastle Environment Plan 2021 to accommodate the proposal undermines the integrity of the planning framework and raises concerns about ad-hoc, site specific changes that benefit a private development at the expense of the broader community.
Cooks Hill is valued for its human-scale development, heritage character and walkable urban form. A development of this magnitude and scale is incompatible with the established and desired character of the area. It risks eroding the unique qualities that make the area attractive and liveable.
As residents with young children, we are particularly concerned about the increased traffic, congestion and activity generated by this development in an area that is already extremely busy and heavily used by pedestrians, including families and children.
Darby St and surrounding local streets already experience significant traffic congestion and issues with parking. The addition of 113 residents units and ground floor retail will only exacerbate these issues, even with basement parking. Vehicle movement will increase which will reduce on street parking availability and create safety concerns in an already busy precinct.

We respectfully request that this proposed development and associated rezoning is refused for the reasons outlined above.

Yours sincerely,
Elliot and Elisabeth McLeod
Railway Street, Cooks Hill

I am writing to formally object to the above development application for a proposed high-density residential building located near my property.

My objection is based on the following planning, amenity, heritage, and community impact concerns:

1. Overdevelopment and Excessive Density

The proposed scale and height of a 45-storey building represents significant overdevelopment for this area. The intensity of this development is inconsistent with the established built form and will place excessive pressure on local infrastructure, public spaces, and services that are already under strain.

2. Inappropriate Change to Height Restrictions

I object to this development on the basis that it relies on recent changes to height restrictions approved by Council, which enable a scale of development that is out of character with the surrounding area.

The increase in allowable height does not adequately consider the cumulative impacts on existing residents, streetscapes, infrastructure capacity, or neighbourhood amenity. Allowing a 45-storey building in this location sets a concerning precedent for further excessive high-rise development, fundamentally altering the scale and character of the locality.

3. Loss of Historical Character and Streetscape

The proposed development will significantly undermine the historical and established character of the street and surrounding area. The existing streetscape is defined by lower-scale buildings that contribute to the heritage, identity, and human-scale feel of the neighbourhood.

A development of this height and bulk is incompatible with the historical character of the area and will result in a permanent and irreversible change to the visual landscape, diminishing the cultural and historical significance of the street.

4. Traffic Congestion and Parking Impacts

The surrounding road network already experiences congestion, particularly during peak hours and evenings. This development will substantially increase vehicle movements, worsening congestion and increasing safety risks.

On-street parking is already limited. The influx of residents, visitors, and service vehicles will inevitably lead to parking overflow into surrounding residential streets, directly impacting existing residents.

5. Overshadowing and Loss of Residential Amenity

A building of this height will result in significant overshadowing of neighbouring properties and public spaces, reducing access to natural sunlight. This loss of solar access will negatively affect liveability and may contribute to dampness and mould issues in surrounding dwellings.

6. Noise, Antisocial Behaviour, and Safety Concerns

Given the proximity to pubs, clubs, and late-night venues along Derby Street, there are serious concerns regarding increased noise, antisocial behaviour, and safety issues. Higher residential density in close proximity to nightlife precincts is likely to exacerbate late-night disturbances and public disorder.


7. Increased Pet Population and Environmental Health Concerns

A development of this scale will significantly increase the number of pets in the area. There is insufficient open space and infrastructure to support this increase.

Of particular concern is the increased likelihood of animal waste being left in public spaces and residential areas, creating public health, hygiene, and environmental issues, particularly where enforcement is limited.


8. Cumulative Impact on the Community

When considered cumulatively, the impacts of excessive height, altered planning controls, loss of historical character, traffic congestion, parking pressure, overshadowing, noise, and environmental health concerns will result in a substantial decline in residential amenity and quality of life for existing residents.

Conclusion

For the reasons outlined above, I strongly object to this development application and request that Newcastle City Council refuse the application or require a substantial redesign that reduces height, density, and overall impacts to ensure consistency with the character, amenity, and historical significance of the area.

The 75 metre height limit is the maximum height that should be permissable in this location. Nothing more. If this is approved should we have up to 50 storeys the closer we get to the station? Loftus Crescent is a narrow road with a narrow footpath. Totally inappropriate for a 35 storey building. There's only one footpath as the other side of the road is the railway. The amount of cars these proposed apartments will bring onto the roads will be such that there will be chaos every morning and afternoon. The roundabout on the corner of Loftus Crescent and Subway Lane will not be able to cope with the number of cars that will be passing through there everyday.
This area has a lack of amenities and this proposal does nothing to help with that. The mention of express trains passing through Homebush is deceptive as they don't stop at Homebush.
Once again, 35 storeys is far too much for this location. The infrastructure here just can't support two buildings of heights up to 119m. Parramatta Rd, the main road that passes through here at this location isn't coping with the traffic volume as it is now.