Cooks hill is a very small suburb attached to central Newcastle. Narrow streets,very limited parking and very high density.our few historical buildings that have not been demolished are in this area. It is also the site if out civic precinct , then hall, park, churches and war memorials. The Whole of the city centre has been and is being rebuilt for housing etc. With the soon so be opened multimillion dollar art gallery adjoining the cultural centre I feel our city needs more breathing space and less high rise. Our west-end has become high rise city. Enough is enough.

The project is totally out of character with the surrounfing streetscape given its height and size. It contravenes Councils own guidelines regarding building sizes in the heritage listed streets. The proposal only onclydes a limited number of car spaces, way below number needed given the number of apartments, this will mean more cars to park on already over crowded local streets.

I live in Newcastle after moving here two years ago from regional NSW. My impression of the city and particularly high cost residential areas like Cooks Hill, is that retention of heritage and preservation of property values have limited, severely, the availability of diverse housing options particularly for young people. They are simply locked out of housing ownership under current conditions.
I have two children I would like to see own a home one day, and I believe that sensible densification, like that proposed for Cooks Hill, is a way to moderate runaway housing affordability challenges.
I suggest that more developments of this kind should be approved by the state government, regardless of objections from vested interests (existing property owners locally).

I'd also encourage state govt to change planning requirements so apartments are able to be built without including parking, as this will add to housing stock and moderate price growth.
We have a situation in Australia where 2/3 of the population own property and for this reason want to continue to see property price growth. I own property and want to see it moderated. Sensible densification is critical to seeing this happen.

I object to the 47 Darby Street, Cooks Hill NSW proposal. The bulky, overbearing high rise proposal is not aesthetic to the area. Cooks Hill is a heritage zone and this unattractive proposal does not fit in with the civic precinct. A high rise would dominate the iconic heritage area and create an already overburdened traffic and pedestrian issue. This project should be re-considered in another part of Newcastle where buildings with similar height exist, not in a green open civic space. I object!

I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed development at 47 Darby Street, Cooks Hill.

I live in Newcastle and I have a strong interest in the future of the city and its ability to remain affordable, vibrant, and accessible for a diverse range of people. As someone who wants Newcastle to continue to grow sustainably, I believe this proposal represents an important and positive step forward.

Newcastle is experiencing a well-documented housing shortage, particularly in well-located inner-city areas. This proposal will deliver much-needed new housing in a highly accessible location close to public transport, jobs, Civic Park, and established amenities. Providing additional housing in the Civic Precinct aligns with both state and local strategic planning objectives and contributes to meeting NSW and National Housing Accord targets. Without projects such as this, Newcastle will continue to fall short of the housing supply required to support current and future residents.

The proposal will also help rebalance the local demographic by providing housing options suitable for smaller households, key workers, downsizers, and younger people who are currently being priced out of inner-city suburbs like Cooks Hill.

The site is currently occupied by an underutilised office building and at-grade car parking, which does not reflect the significance of its central location next to the Newcastle Art Gallery, Civic Park, and Darby Street. Replacing this with a contemporary, architecturally designed mixed-use development will significantly improve the visual quality and pedestrian experience of the area.

The proposed height and density allow for better use of land while increasing opportunities for landscaping, tree planting, and active ground-floor uses. The inclusion of new retail will help complete the link between Darby Street and the Civic Precinct, strengthening the urban fabric and improving natural surveillance of Civic Park, particularly after dark.

Introducing new residents and retail at this location will increase foot traffic and provide much-needed support for local cafés, restaurants, and retailers along Darby Street. Local businesses have faced significant challenges in recent years, and having more people living nearby will help ensure the long-term vitality of the precinct. The proposed retail space also has the potential to become a valuable community meeting place.

Concentrating new housing in established inner-city locations like Cooks Hill is best-practice urban planning. It reduces urban sprawl, protects agricultural and environmental land on the city fringe, and makes better use of existing infrastructure. The proposal also improves environmental outcomes by replacing a fully concreted site with landscaping and tree planting, while providing basement parking and bicycle facilities to reduce visual clutter and encourage alternative transport modes.

I believe that this proposal represents high-quality urban renewal in an appropriate location and delivers clear benefits for housing supply, the local economy, and the public realm. I strongly support the approval of the development at 47 Darby Street and encourage Council and the consent authority to look favourably upon it.

I object to this proposal as if approved, would irreversibly change Newcastle’s most culturally and historically significant precinct and tower over the two-storey art gallery. I do not think it is reasonable that a 45m high development be considered when the current 14m is in place for good reason. I believe that a development of this scale will put unacceptable pressure on the roads and facilities in the area. I believe that developments should be contained to within the current limits.

Housing is one of our biggest problems? Doesn't this help resolve that problem? I was born and bread in Cooks Hill, I lived there for 27 years, not much more than 1km from this proposed development, since then I have lived in Carrington for almost 30 years, only 4km away, I believe this to be of benefit to everyone as a matter of fact there should be more of this type of development happening. In short I am a big and enthusiastic supporter of this going ahead.

Submission on 47 Darby Street Proposal – Objection
I am writing to formally object to the proposed development at 47 Darby Street, Newcastle, under the new State Significant Development (SSD) framework. My objection is grounded in concerns regarding predatory state planning imperatives, traffic congestion, and the undermining of established local planning best practice.

1. Predatory State Planning and Precedent
This proposal represents the first test case under the NSW Government’s new Housing Delivery Authority and SSD framework. Approving such a development would effectively bypass long-standing local planning controls, setting a dangerous precedent. Allowing a 12- and 7-storey luxury apartment complex in a precinct historically limited to 14 metres in height demonstrates a predatory approach to urban planning that prioritises developer profit over community welfare and local character. Once this precedent is established, similar oversized developments will likely spread across Newcastle, eroding decades of considered planning and community consultation.

2. Traffic and Infrastructure Impacts
The proposed development’s scale and density are incompatible with existing traffic networks in this precinct. The influx of residents, delivery vehicles, and visitor traffic will exacerbate congestion on already constrained streets, creating safety risks for pedestrians and cyclists, and straining local infrastructure. The State Significant Development framework appears to overlook these cumulative impacts, undermining responsible traffic and transport planning best practice.

3. Undermining Local Planning Best Practice
Newcastle’s heritage and culturally significant areas, particularly around the art gallery precinct, have been protected by careful local planning guidelines. This proposal flagrantly disregards those protections. By permitting a structure over three times the legal height limit, the development erodes the integrity of local planning frameworks, weakens heritage conservation, and diminishes community amenity. Local councils, elected by residents and tasked with reflecting community interests, are effectively sidelined under this model—a shift that threatens participatory, accountable urban governance.

4. Community Consultation Deficit
The new SSD process provides only a 14-day window for public comment, severely limiting meaningful community engagement. This abbreviated consultation period is incompatible with transparent planning practice and does not allow adequate time for residents to assess the proposal’s impacts on heritage, urban form, traffic, and community character.

Conclusion
Approval of this proposal would not only devastate a historically and culturally important precinct but would also establish a dangerous precedent for predatory, top-down planning that disregards local context. Newcastle’s residents and character deserve protection from developments dictated solely by Sydney-based bureaucrats and developers’ interests. I urge the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure to reject this proposal and uphold the principles of considered, locally accountable urban planning.

• Mine subsidence concerns
I have serious concerns regarding the mine subsidence at the proposed site.
- They have only performed a desktop study. There are risks with only performing a desktop study as the costs could spiral without a proper study and without proper site specific information. They need to perform a proper site specific study;
- The plans for the grouting the Borehole seam show Boreholes on our property.
We object to this and do not give them permission to do this.
- There are large gaps in the proposed grouting plan under their proposed development. This may result in insufficient support for their structures.
- According to their geological profile, sand and sandy soil is down to an approximate depth of 4m before reaching sandstone. The Geotech report disagrees with this and states that bedrock could occur deeper across the site. The risk is that the sand at the top layer can collapse into the borehole resulting in subsidence and damage to our property. They need extend the casement depth beyond the 4m. Why am I reviewing their design?

• I object to the height of this structure and its impact on the culture and feel of the surrounding area. It is significantly out of scale of the surrounding streetscape. It does not fit into the character of the surrounding dwellings considering it is on the border of the heritage areas of Cooks Hill, The Hill and Newcastle.

The adjacent properties are 2-3 storey townhouses. The current zoning for this site is MU1 which is 14m mixed use. The proposed height will be 45m. This is over three times the current zoning height restriction! They have also added an extra level to the Tyrrell tower which is now eight levels instead of the previous seven they mentioned previously.

• I object that that this development will not fit in with the culture and vibrant restaurant strip along Darby Street. The development does not fit in with the current street-scape. There will be massive differences in height which won’t be sufficiently tiered and make the high building stick out.
The area surrounding Civic Park is a central cultural precinct of Newcastle. We have the Art Gallery, the Conservatorium of music, The Civic Theatre, Civic Park and the vibrant restaurant strip in Darby Street. The proposed development does not fit into the cultural vibe of the city of Newcastle. Shouldn’t the council and the people have more say in this?

The height and bulk of the building will be overbearing and will dominate the Art Gallery. This will distract and take away the focus of the Art Gallery for the people of Newcastle. To enable a better focus of this, consider the construction of a 45metre tower opposite the NSW Art gallery in the Domain.

• I object to the shadows that these buildings will cast over our property and adjacent properties. Their shadow diagrams are very small and hard to read. The large buildings will overshadow our solar panels and creating a gloomy aspect.
• I object that they have not sufficiently addressed the stormwater and flooding issues in their plan. They have not done a detailed overland flow.
During recent rain, sewer manhole covers were dangerously lifting and becoming a traffic hazard on Darby St along where the proposed development is going with the volume of water overflow into the sewer.

• I object that they are seeking to redirect a storm water pipe that is currently running through properties in Queen St and also through the Developer’s site.
This will severely impact access to residences in Regency Park – Queen Street and further delay their project.

• Why did the Developer during the community consultation meeting, start recording our conversations without our permission? This is illegal and is in Breach of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007. This is a serious breach of trust.
The CEO of Vivacity stated during a radio interview that the Tyrrell St tower will be a seven storey building. Their plans show it is an eight storey building. How can they be trusted?

• I object that they have not clearly indicated what access they require from our property during construction nor have they sufficiently outlined the impacts.

• Heritage aspects. The heritage report has failed to investigate the heritage significance of the Machine Shop. This building was built during the interwar period circa 1938. by NESCA. It was used as a machine shop until Shortland Electricity moved their depot to Wallsend. While Nesca house was the administrative building, this building was built to support the electricity supply network. Many a young apprentice started their trade here.

• A section of the Machine Shop was used to maintain distribution transformers which contain insulating oil. Insulating oil during this era would likely have contained polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). PCBs are toxic and carcinogenic. They remain in the environment for long periods. There was also a power station in this area and there may be other contaminants such as lead, oils, pesticides, heavy metals et cetera. Dumping of waste and contaminants was common during the working life of these properties.

Page 61 of the submitted “G16 Detailed Site Investigation and Remediation Action Plan” shows data for a different Sydney site. The footers on pages 42 and 44 refer to a site investigation at Pleasure Point. They may have mixed up the samples for the data and the reporting. This report is invalid. The Developers have not checked this report.

• I object to the Developer’s noise and vibration impact assessment since it has failed to implement sufficient monitoring. Monitoring only occurs after receiving a complaint. How can an event be captured after it has happened? The Developer needs to have continual monitoring of noise and vibration during construction.
With the amount of grouting required as well as the size of this development. It will take years to construct. It will be noisy and any piling and vibration could damage adjacent properties.
We require double-glazed windows to reduce the impact of the noise. We require dilapidation reports before construction begins.

• I object that they have not detailed how they are going to manage dust during demolition and construction. I could not find any monitoring of dust and air quality during demolition and construction in their documentation.

• I fail to see how this development is directly addressing the housing crisis. These are more high end luxury apartments with no affordable housing at this site. This will have a negative impact by pushing up the price of housing and making housing more unaffordable for those that need it.

• I object to how they have used the State Significant Development process. They have by-passed the council zoning regulations. These regulations and zoning have been developed over years in consultation with business and the community and they have simply been overturned. In addition, the fast tracked approach does not allow sufficient community consultation. How can a reasonable person read all the documentation with all the different disciplines and technicalities and make a rational decision within the 14 day timeframe.
Identified locations were not meant to be subject to Mine Subsidence. As costs can spiral and large delays due to grouting and unidentified problems. Why have the rules been broken? The stormwater redirection will significantly delay this project. It will mean that they cannot deliver these dwellings in a timely fashion.

In addition, on the 16/02/2026, I went to the website for this submission. On my computer it said in bold “Submissions closing in 13 days” which contradicts the exhibition Start-End Date 05/02/2026-18/02/2026. While my phone said “Submissions closing in 6 days”. People can be easily misled into thinking that they have more time to make a submission.

Newcastle has plenty of development and is meeting its targets for the housing crisis. There are so many other areas around Newcastle such as the west end, Broadmeadow and Honeysuckle where the city is developing.

• I have serious security concerns since the proposed tower in Tyrrell St directly overlooks the Synagogue. This may present an opportunity for terrorist groups to use this building for surveillance or other sinister purposes.

• Parking issues. Considering the number of dwellings and the parking ratios, this will mean more parking on the street. If there are families with teenage children, they may need parking for more vehicles.
• The planned development will increase the amount of traffic. Large parts of Darby Street are 30km/hr. This increased traffic will create further congestion in the area.
With the number of dwellings there will be increased traffic movements across the driveway creating hazards for pedestrians.

• Parking and access during construction. This will impact on the traffic in Darby St, Queen St, Tyrrell St and surrounds. I could not find any detail.
• With the increase in sales of electric vehicles, are they installing EV chargers?

• I object that they have not performed a sufficient wind study and the contractor has had insufficient time to verify data and report. The report is only a desktop study and the contractor has provided the following disclaimer:
“This report has been prepared by SLR Consulting Australia (SLR) with all reasonable skill, care and diligence, and taking account of the timescale and resources allocated to it by agreement with Vivacity Property Pty Ltd (the Client). Information reported herein is based on the interpretation of data collected, which has been accepted in good faith as being accurate and valid”.
The proposed dual tower arrangement could possibly create a wind tunnel making our area a dark, gloomy and windy place. This may also damage the building and surrounds.

• In 1989 an earthquake measuring 5.6 on the Richter scale hit Newcastle. What provisions are they undertaking to mitigate the earthquake risk in combination with mine subsidence.

I wish to lodge a formal objection to the proposed State Significant Development at 47 Darby Street and Tyrrell Street, Cooks Hill.

**Bypassing Local Planning Controls**
The proposal circumvents Newcastle City Council’s MU1 zoning, which limits height to 14 m. The development seeks approval for a 12‑storey tower (~45 m) and a 7‑storey tower which is more than triple the permitted height. These controls were developed through extensive community consultation and should not be overridden without proper local input. The fast‑tracked SSD pathway restricts meaningful community engagement.

**Heritage Impacts**
The site sits between The Hill and Cooks Hill Heritage Conservation Areas. A development of this scale is incompatible with the character and significance of these precincts and will visually dominate and diminish their heritage value.

**Streetscape & Urban Form**
The proposed towers will adjoin and overshadow neighbouring properties, creating a dramatic and inappropriate height step. The bulk, scale, and lack of appropriate tiering are inconsistent with the established streetscape.

**Shadowing**
The height and massing will cast significant shadows over the Newcastle Art Gallery and surrounding buildings, particularly in winter. This will reduce amenity, impact solar generation on adjoining properties, and undermine sustainability outcomes. Detailed overshadowing drawings are required.

**Cultural Precinct Impacts**
The site is within Newcastle’s key cultural precinct: Civic Park, the Art Gallery, Conservatorium, Civic Theatre, and Darby Street. The proposal does not respect or complement the cultural character or community value of this area.

**Failure to Address Housing Need**
The development does not provide housing that responds to the affordability crisis. High‑end apartments of this type do not assist low‑income renters or first‑home buyers and may contribute to further price escalation.

**Mine Subsidence Risks**
The site is underlain by the Dudley and Borehole coal seams. Extensive grouting will be required, posing risks of noise, vibration, ground movement, and potential damage to nearby properties, including heritage buildings. Clear and robust subsidence mitigation plans are essential.

**Earthquake Considerations**
Given Newcastle’s seismic history, the proposal must demonstrate compliance with AS 1170.4 and address the combined risks of mine subsidence and seismic activity. The height disparity with neighbouring buildings raises concerns about structural stability and potential collapse impacts.

**Wind Tunnel Effects**
Twin towers of this scale may create hazardous wind conditions at street level. Detailed wind modelling and mitigation measures are required.

**Hazardous Materials**
The site’s history as the Shortland Electricity Depot suggests potential contamination, including PCBs, petroleum products, pesticides, and heavy metals. Demolition and excavation risk disturbing hazardous materials. Comprehensive contamination assessment and safe‑handling plans are essential.

**Traffic & Parking**
The development will significantly increase traffic in an already congested area. Access points on Darby and Tyrrell Streets will worsen turning movements and pedestrian safety, particularly near the 30 km/h Darby Street dining precinct. Parking ratios indicate likely overflow into surrounding streets. Independent, realistic traffic studies are required.

**Construction Noise, Vibration & Dewatering**
Years of construction, mine‑grouting, piling, and dewatering will create prolonged noise and vibration, with potential damage to adjacent properties. Continuous pumping below the water table is unacceptable without strict controls and mitigation plans.

**Conclusion**
For the reasons outlined above, I strongly object to the proposed development. The scale, impacts, and risks are incompatible with the local character, heritage significance, community needs, and environmental constraints of the site.