PUBLIC submissions to the City of Newcastle (CN) concerning the development application (DA) on exhibition for stages three and four of the East End Newcastle project close on Tuesday, July 18.
The Iris Capital DA seeks significant height increases to the 2017 approved concept plan for the buildings in these stages.
For example, one of the proposed new East End buildings adds another 15 metres to the 30-metre height limit set out in the concept approval and another building is five metres higher.
Opposite the Newcastle Club, on the corner of Newcomen and King streets, three additional floors proposed to the Kingston building will tower seven metres above planning rules that allow for a building height of 42 metres on the sloping site (plus an additional 10 per cent beyond the height limit set out in the Local Environment Plan (LEP) because the developer conducted an architectural design competition).
In all, the DA includes five buildings that exceed the maximum building height limits in the LEP, which were carefully prescribed by planning experts to ensure long-term preservation of the sensitive form and character of the city's heritage CBD, including unique public vistas to the city and The Hill.
It is unlikely the increased heights requested in the DA are ambit claims so commonplace in the NSW planning system. The developer asks for significantly more than they expect to be approved, and then subsequently dials it down a notch after receiving feedback from the planning authority.
They will then submit a revised DA and claim the changes are a result of having "listened to the community". They still end up with more than the LEP allowed.
Concept plans setting out heights in NSW are as binding as a player's contract with an NRL club.
Given that some of the yet-to-be-approved apartments in the DA are already on offer from the sales office in Hunter Street for more than $20 million a penthouse, it would appear the applicant is extremely confident that the DA will be approved by the Hunter and Central Coast Joint Regional Planning Panel following its support from the City of Newcastle.
As part of the DA, the applicant submitted a consultant's view impact assessment that said the Newcastle Club, Herald Apartments and Segenhoe building were "likely to be affected to some extent by potential view loss", but the overall outcome was "reasonable and supportable".
Some might argue that such a position from an applicant's consultant is entirely predictable.
The marketing schtick for the sales masterplan claims on the website advertising the project's penthouses that the development is "reimagining the Newcastle skyline".
Given that the DA is seeking such greedy additions to building heights, exceeding what was approved in 2017, what is described as "reimagining" in marketing schtick is a "forever nightmare" for many Newcastle citizens and visitors.
That regrettable and totally unnecessary "forever nightmare" will be the loss of the wonderful and unique (or "world-class" in marketing schtick) public views in Australia's second oldest mainland city. They include views to-and-from Cathedral Park and King Street to Stockton, to Stockton Bight and Nobbys headland, and also major views to Christ Church Cathedral and The Hill as seen from the harbour foreshore, Stockton, Fort Scratchley and Nobbys.
The views currently enjoyed by all will be lost and blocked forever. The predictable approval of this DA by consent authorities will effectively privatise public views and vistas so important to the character and appreciation of Newcastle's heritage areas.
Newcastle is not immune from the national housing crisis. But by simply repeating what has been done in NSW for the past two decades - rolling out the red carpet and facilitating developers who privatise what should remain public - apartments in the sky with views and vistas will continue to be flogged to the highest investor bidder.
This is not going to help solve the housing catastrophe plaguing aspirant first homeowners.
Only by rejecting the applicant's DA for additional heights beyond those already approved in the concept plan - excepting for the additional 10 per cent permitted for conducting an architectural design competition - can consent authorities guarantee that residents, visitors and future generations will continue to enjoy these superb views and vistas, rather than "reimagining the Newcastle skyline" by consigning public views and vistas to the exclusive ownership of those with the financial wherewithal to gobble them up.
