City of Newcastle has voted to approve a controversial development application slated for a narrow stretch of land on Hunter and King streets which had been previously rejected largely because of its design non-compliance and impact on neighbours.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Plans for two towers at 495-501 Hunter Street and 364 King Street were first lodged in 2017 and were changed more than once after two earlier showings at council's Development Application Committee, leading most recently to a threat that if the application was to be rejected or even be deferred again, the developer would have "little choice" but to pursue the case through the courts.
During the plans' fifth appearance before council at its Development Application Committee meeting Tuesday evening, Councillor Kath Elliott delivered a rebuke of the developer and the application, describing the process as a "death by 1000 cuts".
"Rather than a rethinking, a big picture reframing, and a more holistic approach to developing good design, [it is] shaving off bits here and there until we can fit the square peg in a round hole," she said in a lengthy statement during the debate, at one point describing the development as "not improving the lives of Novocastrians".
Deputy Lord Mayor Declan Clausen, who chaired the debate and vote after Lord Mayor Nuatali Nelmes and Councillor Andrea Rufo removed themselves from the chamber declaring non-pecuniary significant interests in the application, defended the proposal as "the best possible use" of land that is left in that part of Hunter Street.
"I thought that there was a better outcome that might have been achievable across this site," Councillor Clausen said, referencing comments he had made previously about the application, "but it did require earlier lot consolidation as part of the broader development that has happened in this part of Hunter Street.
"Unfortunately we have the application before us this evening which I believe is the best possible use of the land that has been left as a result of that urban lot consolidation.
"Based on the evidence before us, the information from our expert planning staff, and now the numerous iterations of design and the feedback that has been taken into consideration from the Urban Design Consultative Group, we should be supporting the proposal that is before us."
Councillor Clausen also declared a non-pecuniary interest in the issue, but said it was less than significant.
The application passed by eight votes to three, with Councillor Elliott and councillors John Church and Brad Luke voting against the proposal and abstentions from councillors Nelmes and Rufo.
Councillor Church, who has opposed the application since it first appeared before council, reiterated concerns he had raised in earlier debate and concluded that the buildings were "simply too close to each other".
"We know that the design guidelines recommend in a perfect world that apartment buildings should be at least 12 metres apart. Now, while that's not possible on this site, we have been advised by council staff that the closest point on the western boundary, this proposed new development would be about four metres from its neighbour."
The proximity, Councillor Church said, would result in a significant loss of sunlight access for residents of both buildings; delivering as little as an hour of light each day for as many as 17 units.
"It seems strange to me that we would be approving one development on this site that almost deems the neighbour to be non-complying by our own rules."
Councillor Elliot expressed concern for the impact the development would have on residents in the neighbouring buildings on Hunter Street, in particular with regard to the restricted hours of sunlight.
The Hunter Street tower would be 14 storeys and the one facing King Street 10 storeys, both with roof gardens.The project proposed 83 apartments (down from 87 and originally 92), as well as car parking and three retail/commercial tenancies.
The Urban Design Consultative Group, which advises the council on "design quality and amenity", was concerned the project did not "exhibit design excellence and remain(ed) problematic in a number of significant respects", but had advised that the amendments made to the plans by the time the applications appeared before council on Tuesday were acceptable.
Ian Kirkwood
Reporting journalist at the Newcastle Herald since 1987. Editorial writer, general reporter, industrial relations, industry and coal.
Reporting journalist at the Newcastle Herald since 1987. Editorial writer, general reporter, industrial relations, industry and coal.
Simon McCarthy
Simon McCarthy is a journalist working at the Newcastle Herald in NSW. He writes news and features, and produces video and multimedia, for the Herald and Herald Weekender magazine. He contributes regularly to the Newcastle Herald’s daily Topics column, and is the co-creator and producer of the Toohey’s News podcast. McCarthy has worked as a journalist in regional NSW since 2013. He joined the newsroom of the Newcastle Herald in 2017 from the Northern Daily Leader in Tamworth where he worked from 2015 to 2016.
Simon McCarthy is a journalist working at the Newcastle Herald in NSW. He writes news and features, and produces video and multimedia, for the Herald and Herald Weekender magazine. He contributes regularly to the Newcastle Herald’s daily Topics column, and is the co-creator and producer of the Toohey’s News podcast. McCarthy has worked as a journalist in regional NSW since 2013. He joined the newsroom of the Newcastle Herald in 2017 from the Northern Daily Leader in Tamworth where he worked from 2015 to 2016.
