Berrima Hotel

I object to the Adaptive Reuse of the former Berrima Gaol (Berrima Hotel) where it results in hotel rooms, suites or villas (Main Hotel Precinct) lining and or adjoining the Wingecarribee River riparian corridor. This section of the Wingecarribee River has a healthy, well studied platypus and rakali population beloved by community members. From my perspective the Berrima Gaol: Aquatic Ecology Assessment (The Assessment) is inadequate in its assessment of the direct, indirect, or cumulative adverse impacts the Main Hotel Precinct usage will have on platypus, rakali, and their prey. My reasoning is provided below.

INCREASE IN RECREATIONAL USE OF WINGECARRIBEE RIVER
The Assessment, from my perspective, has inadequately assessed the increased pedestrian traffic that potentially will be generated by the Main Hotel Precinct and the impact this will have on the platypus and rakali population.

Platypus and rakali are not just nocturnal as stated in The Assessment but they are also crepuscular, being active at dawn and dusk, and on overcast days. The Assessment’s severity section does not appear to have taken the crepuscular nature of platypus and rakali into consideration. I suggest the potential to sight platypus and rakali is likely to be promoted as a ‘highlight’ of staying at the hotel, thereby increasing visitation to the river at dawn and dusk when platypus and rakali are likely to be foraging. I also suggest that increased visitation by hotel guests to the river is likely to lead to an increase in visitation by the general public.

HOTEL SUITES LINING RIPARIAN CORRIDOR - LIGHT POLLUTION AT NIGHT
The Assessment acknowledges there will be an impact to aquatic fauna from light pollution at night. However, unacceptably The Assessment does not
• address the crucial dawn and dusk period or the impacts to platypus and rakali prey species;
• provide data on the expected levels of direct or indirect light pollution expected to be generated by the Main Hotel Precinct usage on the Wingecarribee River riparian corridor, what the mitigation actions would reduce those levels to, and if the reduction is sufficient to not cause direct, indirect or cumulative adverse impacts to the platypus and rakali.

From my perspective without this information, it is difficult to assess whether the mitigation measures are effective. From my perspective the mitigation measures as they current stand are simplistic, unenforceable, and tokenistic.

HOTEL SUITES LINING RIPARIAN CORRIDOR - NOISE POLLUTION
The Assessment acknowledges there will be an impact to aquatic fauna from noise pollution.
However, unacceptably the assessment does not
• address the crucial dawn and dusk period or the impacts to platypus and rakali prey species;
• provide data on the expected levels of direct or indirect noise pollution generated by the Main Hotel Precinct usage on the Wingecarribee River riparian corridor, what the mitigation actions would reduce those levels to, and if the reduction is sufficient to not cause direct, indirect or cumulative adverse impacts to the platypus and rakali populations. It is acknowledged that the Acoustic Assessment does provide information on noise levels generated by hotel room usage and makes assumptions about usage at 10 pm, it hasn’t assessed the noise in relation to its impact on platypus and rakali, or during the crucial dawn and dusk period.

From my perspective without this information, it is difficult to assess whether the mitigation measures are effective. From my perspective the mitigation measures as they current stand are simplistic, unenforceable, and tokenistic.

IN CONCLUSION
Similar to the former Berrima Gaol, platypus and rakali are a part of the fabric of Berrima and the Southern Highlands. The adaptive Reuse of the former Berrima Gaol (Berrima Hotel) must not adversely impact our platypus and rakali populations. In light of the inadequate assessment of the Main Hotel Precinct usage on the area’s platypus and rakali populations, and in line with the precautionary principle, hotel rooms, suites or villas must not line and or adjoin the Wingecarribee River riparian corridor.

I object to the Adaptive Reuse of the former Berrima Gaol (Berrima Hotel).

My objection as a very close resident to the Berrima Gaol and total objection to the redevelopment proposal of the site is because;
a) Hertage
Berrima village is the last intact Georgian village in Australia and this development is unsuitable for Berrima and will destroy the historic presence and character that it currently has. The development is too large and too commercial and the proposed townhouses at the western end of the site overlooking the river are not in keeping with the historic significance of the site and look like a housing development tacked on.
b) Environmental
The townhouse development is far too close to the Wingecarribee River. There is a lot of documented history along the such as the German Interns that were resident in the Gaol and the history of how they used the river, structures they put up and the Lamy’s Well which is very close to the site. The river is also home to many wildlife. During and after construction, this area will be suffer damage and this area along the River should be free of development and preserved in its natural habitat state.
c) Light & Noise Pollution
With the development boasting wedding facilities, restaurants, function centre etc it’s inevitable that the peacefulness of Berrima will be lost. With residential houses currently surrounding the site, light and noise will be a major issue. The residential houses are located too close to the site for this to be avoided and many residents will suffer as a consequence of this commercial operation.
d) Traffic
The developer has stated that Wilshire Street on the northern side of the Gaol wall will not be as an access road but what guarantees are in place?
The roads around the Gaol cannot handle traffic on a busy weekend let alone with this development taken into account. The roads simply are not suited to higher traffic flow.
e) Parking
The proposed parking facility on the Southern side of the site is also unsuited to two way traffic flows. The road is too narrow and passes very close by the Berrima Pub and will greatly affect residents in Jellore Street who back onto this access road and proposed parking facility. Light, noise will travel straight into these residents properties with people leaving at all hours of the night in an area where it is normally very quiet at night.
f) Commercial Impact
Had any study been undertaken to determine the affect the development would have on current businesses in the village? Berrima is a tourist village and a major draw card for people coming from mainly Sydney and Canberra but overall and they currently enjoy the variety of shops and eating establishments and this development may have negative consequences for these long standing small businesses.
Summary
Berrima is an award winning tourist destination (in fact had been awarded the best tourist destination in NSW) and we heavily rely on government departments and agencies to protect our heritage from over and unsuited developments particularly with sites such as this with such historic significance value. NSW should ensure this history is kept and maintained in its original form for generations enjoy and be proud of.
On every point this proposal is totally unsuitable for Berrima Goal. It would be developed into a multi use commercial venue with a pseudo housing development attached on a site with sensitive ecological features.
Please ensure the site is not developed into something that will ultimately be a loss to not only the local community but NSW and Australia. We have already lost so many sites and building of state significance, do not allow this to become another victim.

Visited the Gaol’s open day today with 4 Generations of my family & viewed the proposal. I am a long term resident of some 53 years & this was the first time we were able to attend & view the Gaol from the inside.
I thought the future plans worked in beautifully with the existing Gaol & surrounds & we were all incredibly impressed. I would love to see the “old girl”, bought back to life again. The Berrima Buisness Houses will fight you tooth & nail though. You have a battle & a half on your hands. Good luck!.

I am a Associate member of the RICS and have worked with heritage developments and organisations including the National Trust in the UK and the Australian Museum in Sydney. The proposed development pays scant regard to the heritage and history of the site and contains a number of needless decisions damaging the fabric of the Berrima Gaol for no commercial benefit. The proposal should be refused and a better proposal developed for the future use of the Gaol that takes account of its importance to the community and the history of the tow, region and Australia. It is shocking that such a badly considered proposal should have got this far.

The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site. Key concerns:
- construction of large apartments beyond the heritage walls and too close to the river. Bulk, scale and materials are inconsistent with the significant natural surrounds and river (delicate ecosystem)
- Bulk and scale of the car park is inconsistent with the character of the area. Also an overdevelopment for the surrounding context.
- Unacceptable impact on the heritage significance of the gaol and also the surrounding community.

To Whom it May Concern.
I wish to submit my negative view on the Blue Sox Proposal for the Berrima Gaol.
I give the following objections.
The Unique Georgian Town of Berrima has been protected in its Heritage by our Council and the Heritage Officers for nearly 200 years.
Berrima is one of the most early settled Penal towns in NSW. It is a tourist town and the jewel of the Southern Highland because of it. It is a place captured in time. Any development must proceed with that respect. This is not the village to just throw up a block of flats or a hotel because there is space and the developers somehow convinced the Minister to sell them the land. We have the rest of the State for that. Once the Village of Berrima is messed with in its Heritage it cannot be regained. The Gaol is not in a back block of the Village where it could even be got away with. It is in the centre of the village in plain view and is loved by all who visit and re visit the town. The nature of businesses as a tourist town rely on that amenity.

1/the strongest objection is to the very idea Blue Sox would entertain cutting into the precious walls of this historic edifice. It was in the Gaol EOI that the walls were sacrosanct and yet these plans include this grave error.
That Blue Fox was given the opportunity to purchase the Gaol at such rock bottom pricing compared to other bids, one would expect, at the very least, respect the EOI, they and all other bids were to conform to.
That Blue Sox have not, reflects in the rest of their proposal and plans.

2/In the last 100+ years any plans or proposal to increase the number of levels above 2 have been rejected as unsuitable with the precedents set of the heritage of the village. All that have gone before and after will be subject to the same strictures set by our local Council. How is it that Blue Sox seeks to be the exception given the differing planning decision maker. Surely all must be applying under the same Heritage and precedent playing field everyone else must be judged under.

3/The idea of putting a function centre in the middle of a resident village close settled of mainly retiree’s is completely incompatible as a land use. We have a pub in the centre of the village and they have learned to respect the villagers and only have music playing in the day time. for a “function center” to work and be profitable it will need to accommodate weddings and evening events these are incompatible with the area

All the public consultation actioned by Blue Sox recommended these salient points. Blue Sox has flagrantly ignored not just the Heritage of this unique village but also the needs and wishes of the Villagers who have made clear their need to retain the façade untouched and the Heritage precedence followed.

The Challenge of the site and the reason for the States EOI is to work within the strictures of heritage and still produce a profitable and tourist attracting venture. It was the States role to choose the best Applicant to work with those ideals. That the company chosen has not lived up to the basic requirements set in the EOI so now it must fall to the State to reject the current proposal and demand change that adhere to the original EOI, and that are compatible with the Village – residential and tourist land use. One that will enhance the site for first and best use. The plans and proposal have well missed the mark and endangers the livelihood of all village businesses who rely on the amenity of Heritage.

Kind Regards,
Brigid Kennedy

To Whom it May Concern.
I wish to submit my negative view on the Blue Sox Proposal for the Berrima Gaol.
I give the following objections.
The Unique Georgian Town of Berrima has been protected in its Heritage by our Council and the Heritage Officers for nearly 200 years.
Berrima is one of the most early settled Penal towns in NSW. It is a tourist town and the jewel of the Southern Highland because of it. It is a place captured in time. Any development must proceed with that respect. This is not the village to just throw up a block of flats or a hotel because there is space and the developers somehow convinced the Minister to sell them the land. We have the rest of the State for that. Once the Village of Berrima is messed with in its Heritage it cannot be regained. The Gaol is not in a back block of the Village where it could even be got away with. It is in the centre of the village in plain view and is loved by all who visit and re visit the town. The nature of businesses as a tourist town rely on that amenity.

1/the strongest objection is to the very idea Blue Sox would entertain cutting into the precious walls of this historic edifice. It was in the Gaol EOI that the walls were sacrosanct and yet these plans include this grave error.
That Blue Fox was given the opportunity to purchase the Gaol at such rock bottom pricing compared to other bids, one would expect, at the very least, respect the EOI, they and all other bids were to conform to.
That Blue Sox have not, reflects in the rest of their proposal and plans.

2/In the last 100+ years any plans or proposal to increase the number of levels above 2 have been rejected as unsuitable with the precedents set of the heritage of the village. All that have gone before and after will be subject to the same strictures set by our local Council. How is it that Blue Sox seeks to be the exception given the differing planning decision maker. Surely all must be applying under the same Heritage and precedent playing field everyone else must be judged under.

3/The idea of putting a function centre in the middle of a resident village close settled of mainly retiree’s is completely incompatible as a land use. We have a pub in the centre of the village and they have learned to respect the villagers and only have music playing in the day time. for a “function center” to work and be profitable it will need to accommodate weddings and evening events these are incompatible with the area

All the public consultation actioned by Blue Sox recommended these salient points. Blue Sox has flagrantly ignored not just the Heritage of this unique village but also the needs and wishes of the Villagers who have made clear their need to retain the façade untouched and the Heritage precedence followed.

The Challenge of the site and the reason for the States’s EOI is to work within the strictures of heritage and still produce a profitable and tourist attracting venture. It was the States role to choose the best Applicant to work with those ideals. That the company chosen has not lived up to the basic requirements set in the EOI so now it must fall to the State to reject the current proposal and demand change that adhere to the original EOI, and that are compatible with the Village – residential and tourist land use. One that will enhance the site for first and best use. The plans and proposal have well missed the mark and endangers the livelihood of all village businesses who rely on the amenity of Heritage.
Kind Regards,
Brigid Kennedy

I wish to lodge a formal objection to the proposed development by the Blue Sox Group involving the construction of approximately 50 hotel rooms attached to the external wall of the Berrima Gaol, including the proposal to cut an opening through the original stone perimeter wall.

1. Heritage Significance and Irreversible Impact
Berrima is one of the most historically intact Georgian villages in Australia, and the Berrima Gaol precinct is central to its cultural, architectural, and social heritage. The perimeter wall is an original, character-defining feature of the Gaol complex. Cutting into this wall, altering its form, or structurally attaching modern accommodation blocks to it would cause irreversible loss of heritage integrity.
Such interventions are contrary to the principles of the Burra Charter, which emphasises:
• minimal physical intervention,
• retaining significant fabric, and
• ensuring new works remain reversible and distinguishable without dominating the original structure

A 50-room hotel physically connected to the historic wall does not meet these principles.

2. Incompatible Bulk, Scale, and Visual Impact
The proposed hotel wings appear to introduce a large, modern built form that is inconsistent with the existing village scale, landscape setting, and historic urban pattern of Berrima. The Gaol sits within a sensitive heritage area, and any new development should remain subservient to the original form.
A contemporary multi-room hotel massing risks visually overwhelming the historic fabric, eroding the authentic character that Berrima is recognised for.

3. Tourism and Economic Value Depend on Heritage Authenticity
Berrima’s economic vitality relies heavily on its reputation as a preserved heritage village.
Developments that compromise authenticity ultimately undermine the very qualities that attract visitors and support local businesses. Adaptive reuse is welcome when it protects heritage significance — however, intrusive large-scale commercialisation risks long-term damage to Berrima’s identity and tourism appeal.

4. Precedent for Heritage Degradation
Approving structural breaches to one of NSW’s most intact and significant heritage assets sets a concerning precedent.
If developers can alter or physically attach new structures to the Gaol’s walls, this may weaken protections for other heritage-listed sites across the State.

5. Insufficient Demonstration of Necessity
There has been no compelling planning rationale demonstrating:
• why 49 rooms must be external to the heritage wall, or
• why new access requires piercing the original stone rather than utilising existing entry points.

Design alternatives could clearly achieve adaptive reuse outcomes without destroying original heritage fabric.

6. Community Concerns
The proposal appears to disregard long-standing community expectations that any redevelopment of the Gaol respect Berrima’s heritage status and village character. Local residents have a vested interest in ensuring that future uses enhance, rather than diminish, the historic environment.

For the reasons outlined above, I strongly oppose the proposed development in its current form.
I request that the application be refused or substantially redesigned to:
• protect the heritage integrity of the Gaol,
• avoid any physical cutting of the perimeter wall, and
• ensure all new construction remains visually and structurally separate from the original fabric.

Thank you for considering this submission.

Kind regards,
Brian Dodds
Resident, Berrima NSW

Re the old Berrima gaol which I thought was a National Trust Building, if not should be.
My objection would be ....
if the project is too big
If the exterior of the building is altered in any way.

I would also like to remind the planners that the village of Berrima is just that, a village. The atmosphere therefore is why the village Main Street and shoos are packed out on weekends.
Please don't allow an out of town developer to ruin, make their millions and run.

Keep Berrima small and desirable.
See the folly of Bowral, now filled with franchises and high rents which block the small businesses.

The proposed development will restrict the public's ability to visit and appreciate this historically significant building in its original context. This specifically breaches several guidelines in the Berrima Development plan. I draw your attention to section 2.2a preserving the character and scale of the village and section 2.2e in particular which requires that buildings of historical significance are preserved and conserved. It is beyond argument that the gaol is one of the most significant structures in the town. Moreover the proposed development will materially alter the structure and fall well short of preservation and conservation by any reasonable assessment.

Objection to Berrima Hotel State Significant Development (SSD-66876472)
I object to the proposed redevelopment of the former Berrima Gaol by Bluesox as presented in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on exhibition until 26 November 2025.
1. Lack of Justification for the Project
The EIS states the project “aims to celebrate and showcase the history of the site” (p.87), yet none of the listed components (p.16) meaningfully reflect Berrima’s 1830s colonial origins or the Gaol’s 186-year penal history. Assertions that the development will “strengthen connection with local culture” and “contribute to the vibrancy” of Berrima are contradicted by the highly exclusive, high-end nature of the proposal. A 316 m² wedding/function centre with liquor licence to midnight will significantly damage the quiet, heritage-based character of the village, creating noise, light and traffic impacts that undermine residential amenity and the historic atmosphere valued by visitors.
2. Proposal Objectives Not Met
The EIS objective to “achieve a high level of compatibility with the existing character of the locality” (p.17) is unsupported. Berrima’s significance derives from its intact colonial Georgian fabric. The Gaol and its curtilage dominate the Heritage Conservation Area. Bluesox’s plan to place a large, contemporary “massed bulk” accommodation block outside the western wall, and a 3-level (two underground) carpark south of the wall, destroys that curtilage and overwhelms the historic built form. The claim that the design is “harmonious” with local character (p.87) is not credible.
3. Strategic Context Misrepresented
The EIS argues (p.19) that the proposal aligns with the NSW Visitor Economy Strategy 2030 by drawing tourists to the Highlands. However, Bluesox intends to build a highly expensive boutique hotel (Bluesox representatives indicated prices up to $1,000 per night), with bar, restaurant, spa, and a wedding centre designed to retain guests onsite. Rather than adding to Berrima’s appeal, the modern, oversized structures erode the authenticity that attracts visitors. Research by Berrima Heritage Matters (1,400 face-to-face interviews, Feb–Nov 2025) confirms tourists come specifically to experience an intact Georgian village “frozen in time”. This proposal undermines that experience.
4. Inadequate and Misleading Community Engagement
The EIS claims community engagement followed the SEARs and State Significant Projects Engagement Guidelines, but this is incorrect.
a. No community engagement in preparing the CMP or HIS
The Conservation Management Plan (CMP), dated 15 May 2024, was produced in-house by URBIS with no community consultation—contrary to mandated guidelines. It was not released until February 2025, after completion. The Heritage Impact Statement (HIS) relies heavily on the CMP, so its deficiencies carry across. Both documents lack community-derived understanding of heritage values.
b. Engagement replaced by superficial “PR-style” consultation
Bluesox hired a PR firm that met with the Berrima Residents Association and selected individuals, but did not meet with Berrima Heritage Matters despite its daily public presence via the Berrima Heritage Centre. Consultations consisted of Bluesox presenting fixed plans—a “fait accompli”—and telling residents key elements were “not negotiable”. At one meeting a resident was told to “move away” if they disliked the plans. This cannot reasonably be called engagement.
c. Plans changed only in response to the State Design Review Panel, not the community
No adjustments were made as a result of community feedback; changes between the 2023 SEARS submission and the 2025 EIS were made only after SDRP commentary.
d. Claims of consultation with the National Trust and Council are exaggerated
Meetings with the National Trust were cursory. Wingecarribee Shire Council confirms Bluesox provided only “limited information” (email, Deputy GM, 1/10/25). The HIS lists consultation with the Vice-President of Friends of Wingecarribee (28 March 2024), yet the named individual has no recollection and has no record of any meeting.
5. Heritage Impacts Are Severe and Poorly Assessed
The HIS asserts compliance with Heritage NSW guidelines (p.66), but this is unsubstantiated. The assessment considers only the buildings within the Gaol lot and excludes:
• curtilage impacts
• the Gaol’s relationship to the village
• impacts on setting and views from the Wingecarribee River
This omits half the heritage issues raised by the proposal and results in an assessment that appears to justify the project rather than evaluate it.
The proposal contradicts the NSW Draft Heritage Strategy (2025), as it fails to interpret or integrate the Gaol’s 186-year history, its role in colonial expansion, or changing penal practices. It is inconsistent with WLEP 2021, the DCP, and Council’s Berrima Character Statement.
Significantly, Sutherland & Associates’ own SEARS submission (p.63) acknowledges the project is not permissible under current zoning and depends on the WLEP 2021 “incentives clause” (s.5.10(10)). The EIS avoids addressing this threshold issue. Case law suggests the clause cannot be used to permit such use, meaning the development may be fundamentally unlawful.
The western wall of the Gaol would be visually obliterated by the accommodation block (Appendix 23, 5B), destroying key views from the river and Lambie’s Well Walk. The proposed demolition of the Industries Building is unjustified given its importance to 20th-century inmate rehabilitation history; proper engagement would have revealed its significance.
6. Flood Risk Is Unacceptable
The Martens flood report (Appendix 25) finds the two basement carpark levels and lower-basement hotel suites may be inundated in a Probable Maximum Flood (PMF). NSW flood policy requires climate-change-adjusted risk assessment. The lowest carpark level is at 648 m AHD—approximately the 0.2% AEP peak flood level—and State guidelines require an additional 0.5 m freeboard. Under this scenario, 0.5 m of water would enter the carpark. The EIS acknowledges potential fatality risk. Claims of sufficient evacuation time are contradicted by local experience: the Wingecarribee River rises rapidly due to the upstream gorge. Insurability is doubtful.
7. Environmental and Biodiversity Impacts Inadequately Assessed
Biodiversity impacts are limited to the Gaol footprint, ignoring consequences for the adjoining Wingecarribee River corridor. This omission renders the assessment incomplete.
8. Amenity Impacts Understated
Noise impacts from the function centre are significantly understated. Appendix 12 excludes noise from the uncovered outdoor wedding area despite a proposed midnight liquor licence. The assessment models only quiet table conversation, leading to a misleading conclusion of no residential impact.
9. EIS Quality and REAP Declaration Concerns
The guidelines for SSD EIS preparation require a Registered Environmental Assessment Practitioner (REAP) to attest that the EIS is accurate, complete and not misleading. Given the omissions and errors outlined above, it is questionable whether a valid REAP declaration can be made.

To Whom it May Concern,
I wish to lodge an objection in the strongest possible terms, to the proposed Blue Sox redevelopment of Berrima Gaol which is widely regarded as contentious. Community concerns and objections are due to:
• damaging Berrima’s historic Georgian village character
• threatening the local environment—especially the Wingecarribee River
• introducing large-scale, inappropriate infrastructure such as a multi-storey car park and a 55–60 room motel on the riverbank. These elements have sparked considerable opposition from local residents, heritage groups, environmental advocates and the many visitors who come to experience the unique character of the Berrima village.
Heritage and Village Character
• Berrima is a rare, intact example of a Georgian village and the gaol itself is a state-listed heritage site with significant historical value dating back to 1839.
• The proposal includes major structural changes to the iconic sandstone gaol walls and the construction of new buildings outside those walls, which by their bulk and scale will detract from key heritage views and rural vistas, as they will be clearly visible and modern in character.
• The planned development’s scale—including multi-storey accommodation blocks and a large car park—would overwhelm the character of this small village and spoil its quiet, historical atmosphere.
Environmental Threats
• The project proposes up to 60 hotel units in two and three-storey blocks with an additional multi-level car park, both sited directly on the banks of the Wingecarribee River.
• Berrima's riverbank is habitat for rare platypus; locals warn that construction and increased human activity would pose a significant risk to these protected species and the fragile river ecosystem.
• Despite a developer-funded environmental study, there is widespread scepticism among community members regarding the adequacy of protections, particularly given the intensity of planned land use and traffic increases near the riverfront and heritage precinct.
Scale and Impact
• The car park for up to 160 vehicles (for timed parking) and major entertainment venues will impose substantial traffic and noise on a village historically valued for its tranquility.
• Large external buildings would obscure the views of the historic gaol and irrevocably alter the visual context of the village, which is central to its heritage significance.
• The size of the development is far greater than anything seen previously in Berrima, raising fears of further subdivision, increased tourism intensity, and permanent loss of the town’s unique atmosphere.
Alternatives Proposed
Many locals and historians have advocated instead, for a museum and community space model, which would preserve the site’s historical integrity without introducing the detrimental commercial scale and oversized development presented in the Blue Sox proposal. The unacceptable impact on the heritage fabric, setting and context which are central to the character of Berrima village, cannot be underestimated. These are key essential elements which must be retained with the Berrima Gaol continuing to take pride of place as the widely acknowledged ‘jewel in the crown.’ It is with the aforementioned issues in mind, that I cannot support the development currently being proposed and wish to have my objection considered in the assessment process.
Thank you.

Dear Decision Makers

I make this submission in order to object to the project proposed by the Blue Sox Group (surely a close cousin of the White Shoe Brigade) in relation to the redevelopment of Berrima Gaol.

I am a resident of the Southern Highlands and a retired teacher of Australian history. I have always valued and appreciated the unique heritage character of Berrima and the role Berrima has played in preserving a slice of NSW's colonial as well as its more modern history.

As a teacher, on many occasions, it was my distinct pleasure to supervise school groups visiting the Southern Highlands, and Berrima in particular, to learn about colonial NSW, especially the penal and criminal 'justice' system of the 1800s. Berrima Gaol was always a "must see and explore" element of these excursions with students gleaning an insight into NSW colonial history far more profound and impactful than that delivered by solely school-based learning.

The unique character of Berrima is its "off the beaten track" quality. While bypassed by the railway in the 1860s and by the freeway in contemporary times, it has remained a constant slice of Australian history, largely untrammelled and undisturbed by voracious developers seeking to impose inappropriate redevelopment of sites precious to the local community and to those conservators who, since the 1960s, have been working quietly and diligently to protect and preserve Berrima's unique history and cultural heritage.

The impacts of the Blue Sox Group proposal would unequivocally threaten and destroy the special man-made and natural environment of Berrima. Its atmosphere would forever be changed and not for the better. Not only would the proposed 60-roomed hotel with its three-storey carpark destroy a building of unique historical and cultural heritage, but it would also mean:
- more traffic and ensuing pollution
- more roadkill deaths of native animals and birds, as uprooted native species, displaced by the concomitant destruction of the surrounding natural environment, would lose the protection of their natural homes and subsequently become more exposed to detrimental interactions with people as a result of the development.
(I refer you to Wingecarribee Council's excellent draft submission which outlined the serious concerns, problems, and shortcomings with Blue Sox’s Environmental Impact Statement.)

Contrary to the specious claims that the project would create employment and service the economic growth of the local community, the likelihood, proven time and time again when investigating other similar projects, is that the developers would out-source their construction needs and import labour and management staff to undertake the work involved. The retail outlets, restaurant and bar and wellness centre and function centre envisioned as part of the development would compete with established local businesses and threaten rather than enhance income and economic growth.

The project would inevitably cater more to non-residents and to those with no interest in seeing the local history and cultural heritage of Berrima protected. The atmosphere and character of Berrima would be profoundly altered and its
quality as a destination of peace, tranquillity and gentle adventure would be obliterated.

Berrima was established in 1831 and not long after, in 1839, Berrima Gaol was established. It is a much loved, heritage-listed building and from its establishment until 2020 when it was finally closed, it was used for many prison and internment purposes. When it was finally closed in 2020 it was the oldest Australian correctional facility still in operation.

Throughout its long history, from its beginnings as a colonial prison housing individuals such as the Irish-Australian serial killer John Lynch, bushranger Patrick ‘Paddy’ Curran, and the only woman ever hanged at Berrima, Lucretia Dunkley, who was sentenced to death for mariticide, Berrima Gaol has gone through many incarnations and was used for a multiplicity of purposes including being used as an internment camp for captured German civilian merchant mariners and German naval personnel captured during WWI. The historic and cultural significance of Berrima Gaol is indisputable.

Wingecarribee Council’s own Berrima Development Control Plan states on page 14:
“A2.2 Objectives of this Plan

This section lists those objectives which guide the Plan as a whole. They should be read in conjunction with the specific objectives which apply to individual types of development and precincts. The general objectives of the plan are as follows:

a) Preserve the character of Berrima Village as being a largely intact nineteenth century village, predominantly Georgian in character, with modest scaled buildings set in a mature landscape setting.

b) To provide specific controls for all forms of development on both public and private land within the Berrima Village.

c) Maintain and enhance the existing visual, built and landscape character of Berrima Village.

d) Ensure that new or infill development is sympathetic to the existing built forms and landscape.

e) Protect and conserve buildings, structures or places of environmental heritage and/ or visual importance.

f) Provide Council’s requirements in the form of performance criteria in order to achieve the above objectives.”

Clearly the Blue Sox Group's proposed project stands in clear opposition to Wingecarribee Council's Berrima Development Control Plan, in particular to objectives (a), (c) and (e).

Must we continue to see our history destroyed and our heritage disrespected? Too many incidents of cultural and environmental vandalism consistently continue to occur throughout Australia, at an alarming rate, including the destruction of millennia-old First Nations Peoples' sacred sites and rock art by mining corporations and the destruction of supposedly protected heritage listed buildings under the guise of "adaptive reuse". It is a cynical tactic surely when the notion of adaptive reuse is employed to disguise what is clearly a profit motivated commercial undertaking which on the surface seeks to preserve a building's heritage credentials but, in reality, which alters for all time the characteristics and qualities which determined that building's heritage value in the first place.

Berrima has many historic buildings and the village as a whole is listed on the Register of the National Estate. Berrima Gaol is a heritage-listed site. These facts alone should ensure that the proposal by the Blue Sox Group is rejected. The proposed project will negatively impact the local community and all who value Berrima as it currently is. It seeks to destroy a building of historical and cultural heritage under the guise of adaptive reuse and will simultaneously negatively impact the surrounding natural environment.

Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission. I can only hope that it has the impact I am hoping for on your ultimate decision making. In short, to reject the Berrima Hotel development proposal.

Yours sincerely,
Helen Huszar-Welton
37 Kamilaroi Crescent
Braemar NSW 2575

Please accept this as my submission in opposition to the redevelopment of Berrima Gaol. I have not been able to read all the thousands of pages of the proposal however I have done extensive research and read what I can manage.

The Southern Highlands is currently undergoing huge changes as more and more developments are approved and old buildings that give character to our towns and villages are demolished. These buildings are in large replaced by modern boxlike structures which do not complement the surrounding architecture or environment. I am concerned that the redevelopment of Berrima Gaol into a 5-star exclusive entertainment precinct comprising a boutique hotel facility with approximately 60 rooms, a signature restaurant and bar, a" wellness" centre, spa and gym facilities, function space and meeting rooms, boutique retail outlets etc will change the atmosphere of Berrima.

Berrima is of great historical importance and is really a living museum, it is the last remaining intact and complete Georgian Village on the Australian mainland it comprises the gaol, courthouse, and 16 buildings on the Register of the National Estate. The heritage buildings date back to the 1800s and are still in use today, as private homes and others trading as an arts school, pubs and restaurants. Berrima won the 2021 gold medal for Australia's top small tourist town and building on that with a re-invigorated gaol precinct which would have broader appeal would boost visitor numbers and most importantly, maintain the village's historic ambience and character. I do not believe the Southern Highlands needs more exclusive accommodation, especially seeing an exclusive restaurant/accomodation complex recently failed in Bowral and has now been developed into an exclusive “Senior’s” complex in the current brick and black-box fashion. Hilariously the area is already littered with unsold, expensive, fashionable so called “Senior’s” developments that remain unoccupied after erasing many historical houses/properties and their established gardens that make up the character of Bowral and the other historical towns in the Southern Highlands.

Berrima needs to remain a financially viable cultural tourism destination. Currently there is a museum, various cafes and restaurants and a historic pub and this could be included with the revamp of the Berrima Gaol with educational facilities, possible cell-block accommodation, community and cultural facilities, and retail opportunities.  If the proposed re-development of the gaol into a 5-star exclusive entertainment precinct is approved, the gaol and the village will be hugely diminished. The reason people still visit Berrima, for the history, heritage and the vibe of the village will be lost, just so the cargo cult mentality of attracting rich tax avoiders continues to be worshipped.

The outer wall of Berrima Correctional Centre is historically significant at a state level as it is an integral existing element of the original Berrima Gaol, dating from the 1830s. It is one of the few surviving examples of a gaol compound dating from pre 1840 and was constructed using convict work gangs. This element has been continually in use since it was constructed. It is aesthetically significant for its form and character, as an integral and existing element of the original Berrima Gaol. The outer wall is also a distinctive landmark. There seems to be some confusion as I read that a new entry would be put in the wall for the proposed development but also claimed that the wall was to stay intact. The current doorway looks very suitable and I wonder why it is necessary to add a separate entrance? From the plans it seems that the outer wall will be obscured by the new hotel suites this will block the view of the gaol wall and change the look of the site very significantly. How does another giant modern construction that obscures the very thing that it’s claimed to “save” or “enhance” work?

This is a direct quote from Heritage NSW:
“The Outer Wall of Berrima Correctional Centre is aesthetically significant for its form and character, as an integral and extant element of the original Berrima Gaol, dating from the 1830s. The Outer Wall is also important as a distinctive landmark. At a local level, the Outer Wall of Berrima Correctional Centre is socially significant as part of the Correctional Centre, noted for its role in law and order in the local area, as well as being an important local employer since the early 19th century.

The Outer Wall of Berrima Correctional Centre has technical/research significance as it is an important and extant element of the original Berrima Gaol, dating from the 1830s. It is rare as a convict-built structure. The original configuration of the Gaol was distinctive, employing a partial panopticon layout, and records and fabric relating to this earlier configuration are rare. 

The Outer Wall of Berrima Correctional Centre is representative of a gaol compound wall, generally high masonry walls with limited openings, typically used in prison development to restrict access into and out of the complex.”

We must also remember the unique environment around the gaol and Berrima. Platypus are remarkably still regularly observed in the Wingecarribee River. This is the best place to see a platypus as I have been fortunate to see them multiple times and this will most likely be lost with the extensive, disruptive and noisy redevelopment of the gaol. We cannot risk this harm for the proprietors of this boutique hotel to supposedly make money, this situation is where a business may be making money while destroying the amenity of the local community and the visitors they hope to encourage to come to their previously unique and quaint historic town within easy reach of a major capitol city.

When I have visited Beechworth with my family, we have visited the Old Beechworth Gaol. This is an amazing experience, to listen to the history and the stories told by the guides and to wander around a significant feature in the town. It has not been modernised and is open to all visitors, not just the elite tourists with big budgets for accommodation and remains the main reason and differentiation that prompts us to return. This museum is important for so many reasons and a place that has extraordinary cultural and historical importance. The Old Beechworth Gaol has been added to the National Heritage List as part of the Beechworth Historic Precinct. This is the what we should aim for with the Berrima Gaol, a place that is an unmissable destination for history lovers and curious travellers alike. This type of rejuvenation brings prosperity to the local area as tourists will visit other areas in the highlands, most likely taking advantage of the multiple accomodation choices that already exist in the area and visiting local businesses with long term benefits the whole community, not just a rich, connected developer.

Another gaol redevelopment that I would like to reference is the facadification of Pentridge Gaol in Melbourne. This has very mixed reviews. Pentridge was a different type of prison and much larger that the Berrima Gaol, however it would be a travesty for Berrima Gaol to be redeveloped along the lines of Pentridge when the model of Old Beechworth Gaol is such a positive one for the entire community.

Thank you for the opportunity to voice my concerns. Apologies for the/any typos as my eyes aren’t as good as they once were…

For all of the reasons in the attachment, WinZero objects to the “Berrima Hotel” State Significant
Development in its current form, particularly the hotel suites and associated structures proposed
within the riparian zone of the Wingecarribee River.
We urge decision-makers to:
• refuse approval for development within the riparian zone,
• require robust biodiversity and hydrological assessment where development is
contemplated,
• protect the ecological, cultural and heritage values of the river corridor, and
• safeguard the integrity of the Berrima Gaol precinct for future generations

Draft Submission Letter – Berrima Gaol Redevelopment (SSD-66876472)

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to provide comments on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed redevelopment of the State-Heritage-listed Berrima Gaol (SSD-66876472). I care deeply about Berrima’s unique historic character and landscape. The gaol — its imposing stone walls, rural river setting, austere internal layout, and layered penal history — is one of the most intact and evocative heritage places in the region. I am concerned that the proposal, as currently presented, will diminish the heritage values that make this place so significant and so cherished by the community.

My comments address three key areas:

1. Public access and use of a State heritage site


2. Impacts on significant heritage fabric and non-compliance with the Conservation Management Plan (CMP)


3. Impacts on the Wingecarribee River corridor, landscape setting, flora and fauna




---

1. Public Use of the Heritage Site – Lack of Genuine Public Access

The Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs) require the EIS to demonstrate how the development will:

• “maximise the amount, access to and quality of public spaces (including open space, public facilities and streets/plazas within and surrounding the site)”
• ensure public spaces are welcoming, attractive and accessible for all, not only paying customers.

Despite this, the EIS provides no clear plan for ongoing, everyday public access to the gaol grounds or interior. Public space is discussed almost solely through the lens of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) and “flexible event spaces”, not as free public domain.

Key concerns include:
• No commitment to free daily public access to the interior of the gaol, its courtyards or heritage spaces
• No defined public interpretation, museum spaces, or heritage trails
• “Public” areas such as the front lawn, perforated entrance and car-park “event space” appear to be curated, controlled or occasional, not genuine public domain
• The EIS does not demonstrate that the proposal increases public access or public benefit compared to the site’s current or future cultural potential
• No proper Public Space Plan is presented, despite this being a SEARs requirement

Berrima Gaol is a rare State-significant complex with high social value. A development of this nature must expand public access and interpretation — not restrict it to hotel guests, events or paid experiences.

The treatment of public access in the EIS is inadequate and inconsistent with the SEARs.


---

2. Changes to Significant Heritage Fabric – Inconsistent With the Conservation Management Plan (CMP)

The CMP recognises the gaol as an exceptionally intact 19th-century penal complex, with highly significant items including:
• the sandstone perimeter wall
• the original gatehouse and entry sequence
• the internal cellblocks and administrative buildings
• the austere courtyards, parade ground and circulation patterns
• archaeological resources, especially along the riverside

The proposal involves structural changes that represent a major adverse impact on this significance, including:

a) Cutting a new opening through the original perimeter wall
This is one of the most striking and character-defining elements of the gaol. Creating a large “perforation” for a new publicly visible entry would permanently alter the defensive form and meaning of the wall. This does not align with CMP guidance to retain the intact external enclosure and avoid unnecessary removal of original sandstone fabric.

b) Reconfiguration of internal cellblocks
Proposed adaptations for hospitality and events involve:
• removal of walls
• insertion of new openings
• major services installation
• modern fit-outs incompatible with the penal character

c) New built form within the historic curtilage
The new hotel structures proposed outside the wall but deep within the heritage curtilage compromise:
• views to the gaol
• the rural riverside setting
• the isolation of the complex
• the ability to understand the gaol within its landscape context

d) Removal or alteration of historic courtyards
Turning historic yards into commercial dining/event spaces involves canopy structures, paving, service infrastructure and activation that conflicts with the CMP’s emphasis on retaining their austere, open character.

e) Archaeological risk
The riverside of the gaol has documented archaeological sensitivity (footings, early structures, possible burials). The EIS does not adequately address risks from new pathways, services, landscaping or excavation.


---

3. Impacts on the Wingecarribee River, Landscape Setting, Flora and Fauna

The gaol’s position above the Wingecarribee River is one of its most significant landscape attributes. The proposal introduces major changes that are insufficiently assessed.

Key concerns include:

a) Built form encroaching on the river corridor
New accommodation wings positioned close to the river fundamentally reshape the previously open, unbuilt landscape that frames the gaol. This undermines the historic isolation of the prison and alters views from the Berrima River Walk.

b) Loss of landscape character and open space
The open river-facing setting will become a private hotel precinct, with landscaping, lighting, paths, noise and activity extending toward the water’s edge.

c) Impacts on riparian flora and fauna
Event lighting, outdoor dining, music, pedestrian activity and increased night use will impact:
• nocturnal wildlife
• riparian vegetation
• river ecology
• dark-sky amenity

d) Public access to Berrima River Walk not guaranteed
The SEPP requires consideration of public recreation and foreshore access. The EIS does not demonstrate how access to the river walk will be protected or enhanced.

e) Stormwater and runoff risks
The EIS emphasises engineering controls but does not fully assess:
• overland flow
• potential pollution from hotel operations
• excavation impacts on the riverbank’s heritage and ecological values


---

Conclusion

Berrima Gaol is a place of exceptional heritage value — architecturally, historically, socially, and as part of the landscape character of the Wingecarribee River. While adaptive reuse is welcome in principle, the current proposal does not demonstrate:

• adequate protection of State-significant heritage fabric
• true public benefit or public access
• consistency with the Conservation Management Plan (CMP)
• appropriate treatment of the river corridor
• compliance with SEARs regarding public space, heritage and environmental amenity

I respectfully request significant revision of the proposal to ensure that any redevelopment:

1. Conserves the heritage values identified in the CMP


2. Ensures genuine, free and ongoing public access to key heritage areas


3. Protects the river corridor, riparian ecology and landscape setting


4. Avoids irreversible changes to the gaol’s most significant fabric


5. Provides full transparency around impacts and alternatives


6. Aligns fully with the SEARs and community expectations for a site of this importance



Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Yours sincerely,
Suzie Lamb

It is unfortunate that this project has arisen in a time when our our environmental laws are under review , due to their failure to protect the natural environment.
The independent review of the EPBC Act conducted by Professor Samuel in 2020 (the Samuel Review) found that the EPBC Act has failed to achieve its objectives, that “Australia’s natural environment and iconic places are in an overall state of decline and are under increasing threat” and that “the environment has suffered from two decades of failing to continuously improve the law and its implementation”.

However , sadly we are still in an era of projects with environmental impacts being approved subject to extensive conditions with weak penalties for breaches , if policed at all.

There is a risk with this project to the health of the Wingecarribee River and its inhabitants. The project is located in an environmentally sensitive area adjoining platypus habitat. The risk from this project results from the construction phase and also long term legacy impact.
The proposed continuous line of multi storey are within or directly adjacent to the Wingecarribee River riparian zone. The Wingecarribee LEP states the riparian zone as 50 metres from the top of the riverbank . This is assessed differently to the proponents project plans. Consequently the risk of impact as stated in the EIS may be underestimated .
As stated in the Aquatic Ecology report there are risks of destablising sediment, disturbing / removing habitat and long term impact from lights and noise . Mitigation measures are noted, however the bulk and scale of this project and its proximity to the sensitive river environment will inevitably result in negative environmental impacts.

This is an opportunity to set a precedent and prioritise the health and wellbeing of the Wingecarribee river ecology.
The Wingecarribee River is already struggling from a range of impacts including agriculture, urban development, arguably inadequate water treatment standards. Community groups - Landcare and community platypus surveys have been working over decades to preserve and restore habitat along the river corridor . This is the very time to reduce the negative load on this fragile enviroment. This proposal in its current form does the opposite. The idea that lights and noise will be controlled over the life of this commercial interest is naive, cannot be reliably ' conditioned' and fails to value and recogise the eological value of this important river system. Additionally the platypus exists only in Eastern Australia - nowhere else in the world! Concerningly its habitat coincides with where most of the human population also live. This places the future of the platypus in a very precarious positon and at the mercy of human impact. I urge the consent authority to really value the health of the Wingecarribee river system and direct changes to this proposal to reduce the impacts and risks to the range of species relying on this critical ecological system.

I object to the project based on the following material deficiencies as detailed in more depth in the attachment:
1. Absence of Any Heritage Experience and Education
2. Unacceptable Heritage and Development Risk Arising from Inappropriately Optimistic Quantity Surveyors Estimated Development Cost
3. Deficient Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) That Cannot Be Relied Upon
4. Inappropriate Scale of Accommodation Outside Western Wall

I believe that the development will be beneficial to the township and community in that it will generate greater tourism, business and jobs. For the town to flourish we require economical stability long term. If businesses in Berrima are unable to sustain themselves due to insufficient tourism, then they will close and the buildings, including the jail will deteriorate and the town will cease to exist. The jail has heritage value and if developed in the manner proposed by Blue Sox, this heritage will not only be preserved but enhanced by ensuring the longevity of the buildings and to a larger extent the whole town.

I William Koshakji, am the owner of; lot 117 Old Hume Berrima, I am a landowner in the business center of Berrima Village. I highly and formally support this project, The Berrima Hotel and any further plans forwarded by the applicant for the Berrima Goal or In Berrima as a whole. I support this application as it will generate more interest into the Berrima Village tourist precinct and show get the attention Berima deserves a world class tourist heritage village.
I will defiantly do all i can to support this application and raise interest to support this application as it is important to business owners to allow Berrima to grow as a unique tourist Village.
I have no problem council or the applicant to reach out to me for extra support to this application