Berrima Hotel

Dear sir – madam I would like to object to the redevelopment of Berrima jail in its present form. The grounds for the objection are multiple but I will not list them all as there are too many to fit in with the number of characters that I’m allowed.
1 there will be very significant problems building in a heritage listed area to a heritage building which already attracts vast numbers of tourist until recently when it was sold. People need to be able to look at the Prison system in Australia as it existed in the mid 1800s. I believe there are underground basement cells which have been covered up and should be opened for their historical significance.
2 The plans that have been submitted go well beyond the riparian zone which is allowed for every other resident and we live quite Near the jail overlooking The Southern wall where there is planning for an underground car park which will flood as within the last four years we had flooding and erosion of the Bank of the river and the parking area is underground and even though the developer says they have an evacuation plan there could be a disaster.
3 This development will definitely affect wildlife and especially endangered wildlife such as platypus as I frequently walk the river walk and very often see platypus which I suspect will either die or disappear
4 I have concerns that permission for this will depend entirely on the minister which could lead to problems
5 Blue Sox, The developer has no history with hotel development and have never been involved to my knowledge or anybody else else’s with heritage hotels and have little experience. Their main experience is developing in western Sydney with high-rise development and housing. I have great concerns that they have no experience in the redevelopment of such a significantly historical building such as a jail and what they plan to do with it. I have seen the plans and I believe it is overdevelopment in an area which values the town for its historical significance. To bring a badly designed hotel which many feel will not be financially viable and which on the plans at least has no heritage respect in its design currently. Many of us have no problem with redevelopment of the jail as long as it sticks to the same restrictions that everybody else has and that is their historical significance of the project and the architecture, etc.

6 on the plans there is only one opening in the back wall facing the river and that presents huge issues with access problems and that alone will make running of the proposed development and extraordinarily difficult problem. I suspect the developer will ask for variations because of this as access is a real issue.

7 The design of the hotel component is behind the current jail and impacts on one of the rules in the heritage area that no structure can be built within 100 m. I believe of the river on either side. These plans impact and build well within the exclusion zone and also will be subject to flooding with climate change as we have seen over the last few years. Since 2021 we have had over 600 inches of rain and many of the waterfront properties had very significant flooding and the river behind the hotel had serious erosion. Which I suspect will occur with future flooding events. There is also nothing heritage in the design of the proposed hotel. It is not in keeping with any heritage architecture that I’ve ever seen.


8 if this project is approved, I believe they plan to have a very large internal area in the jail for development for weddings and concerts and so on which will bring with it an enormous amount of noise which is one of the attractions of a heritage listed town. I can’t imagine that a wedding of 2 to 300 people could be accommodated anyway especially with respect to services such as sewage and water etc. Contamination of the river system will be almost guaranteed.

9. I suspect many other submissions will have outlined many other objections that I also have so I don’t wish to bore the minister making the decision but there are many people in the town who value the town as an historical town and with that becomes a responsibility to look after the historical aspects of the town. The jail is a very significant historical state development and it should be done with respect and not just as a non-moneymaking concern which will disrupt many people‘s lives in the community and I believe the communities feelings about this should be given very serious consideration.

Many in the community have no objection to some form of heritage development of the jail making it more accessible and adding such things as markets and possibly stalls with inside the jail wall and also Cafes, shops, galleries, and all sorts of small businesses which keep attracting our current visitors because every weekend it is always full of tourists and one of their main reasons is that it is an historical town And one of the main reasons that attracts people is that they can look at historical buildings like our old penal system and the courthouse and we should respect these Opinions.

I wish to formally object to the proposed development of the former Berrima Gaol.
While I support the idea of a thoughtful and respectful adaptive reuse of the Berrima Gaol, the current proposal goes beyond what could reasonably be considered suitable for a small rural village. Its scale and commercial intensity are inconsistent with Berrima’s heritage character and would have a lasting impact on the town’s setting and atmosphere.
The Berrima Gaol is a State-heritage-listed site, and its four sandstone walls – built in the 1830’s, are an integral part of both its history and the broader village landscape. While I understand that some access may need to be created through the walls to facilitate reuse, this could be more appropriately achieved from the rear to maintain the site’s visual and historical integrity. Altering the eastern wall by cutting a large opening and constructing a multi-storey hotel close to the western wall risks compromising the authenticity and visibility of these defining features. The walls should remain intact and clearly visible from all directions, including from the riverbank, as they form a vital component of Berrima’s heritage views. The Gaol also lies within the Berrima Conservation Area, which is protected under the Wingecarribee Local Environmental Plan. That protection extends to the surrounding land, and this proposal does not appear to conserve or respect that setting.
The development does not align with the NSW Government’s definition of adaptive reuse, which emphasises that any adaptation should conserve heritage values and be sympathetic to the existing building and its historic context. The inclusion of modern hotel structures, an underground car park, and large function spaces cannot reasonably be seen as sympathetic to the site. Instead, these elements risk overwhelming our historic town and diminishing the heritage values that the listing is intended to preserve.
It is particularly disappointing that the plans do not include any dedicated museum or interpretive space to tell the story of the Gaol and its 186-year history. A true adaptive reuse of this site would find ways to honour and share its past, not conceal it behind modern additions.
There are also serious environmental concerns. The area near Lambie’s Well is a known platypus habitat and local wildlife observers have expressed genuine worry about the impact of such an extensive construction period. Platypuses are extremely sensitive to noise and vibration, and prolonged excavation and heavy machinery near their habitat could jeopardise their survival in this stretch of the river.
Noise and disturbance are further concerns both during and after construction. Excavating two underground levels through sandstone and building 49 hotel rooms over several storeys will generate significant and sustained disruption for nearby residents. While I accept that some level of noise is inevitable with any redevelopment, the potential for ongoing and intrusive noise once the site is operational is a major concern. Late-night events for up to 300 guests, vehicle movements after midnight, and a 140-seat restaurant will introduce a continual level of activity that is incompatible with the quiet residential environment of Berrima.
The development is presented as a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week operation with a function space intended for weddings and large events. This raises serious concerns about the suitability of such intensive operations within a quiet residential village.
The Gaol is positioned in the very heart of Berrima’s residential zone, and noise from large functions at night will carry across the village, disrupting residents. Any such events should therefore conclude no later than 9:00 pm.
Increased traffic will compound these issues. With the potential for hundreds of visitors attending weddings, functions and restaurant events at any one time, the increase in traffic through the narrow streets of Berrima poses serious safety and congestion risks. These streets were never designed to accommodate so many vehicles and parking overflow will inevitably affect residents and day visitors alike. It also needs to take into account the increase in service vehicles – including delivery trucks, waste collection vehicles and buses, that would be required to support a development of this size.
Berrima’s appeal lies in its rich history and historic village landscapes. Introducing a luxury hotel and entertainment precinct would fundamentally change that character and alter the visitor demographic, replacing a relaxed heritage village with a high-end commercial resort.
For a development of this scale, the community should have the opportunity to review a Masterplan for the entire village to understand how it will integrate with Berrima’s character and infrastructure. I understand that such a plan has been requested by the local council but has not yet been completed.
I should also mentioned that the overall commercial viability for the development based on the money that is being proposed to be spent is highly dubious in my opinion.
In summary, this proposal is not an appropriate or sympathetic reuse of a State-heritage site. It is a large-scale commercial venture incompatible with the character, heritage values and environmental sensitivity of Berrima. The proposal for Berrima Gaol should be one that genuinely conserves the site, celebrates its history and respects the village and community that surround it.
I strongly oppose this development.
Warm regards,
Katja Maier
36 Oldbury Street
Berrima NSW 2577

I wish to make a submission about the project below. I am aware the period for submissions is over but respectfully say it was insufficient for a project of this magnitude. I am a senior citizen and am not always up to date with events that affect Narrabeen so it was onerous for me to make a submission in the time. I request my submission is taken into account now. Yours sincerely. Frances Miller.
Application Number: SSD-76220734
Project Name / Address: Proposed 5–6 Storey Residential Complex – 156 Ocean Street, Narrabeen NSW 2101
Applicant: Indigo by Moran
LGA: Northern Beaches Council

Edna Carmichael
PO Box 1178 Moss Vale

The Hon Paul Scully, MP
Minister for Planning and Public Spaces
GPO Box 5341
Sydney NSW 2001
11 th November 2025

Re; Berrima Gaol re-development: SSD-66876472

Dear Minister,
I was appalled when the goal was put up for sale. I was more shocked when the Berrima Community Expression of Interest Application to purchase was, in the first instance, not accepted. Much worse, though, was the fact that correct procedure was not followed: groups who expressed were not given the opportunity to advance to Tender. The whole process, therefore was illegal and smacks of corruption.
The absence of a public tender process, considering the gaol was a State asset was very suspicious! Also suspicious was the acceptance of an EOI at $7M when one applicant offered $20M.
Minister, your government is all about being inclusive, community focused and fully transparent according to your Premier.
Your government, like any government, has an obligation to maintain our History, Culture, Communities and Environment. It does not include allowing our history and culture to be sold off to developers who pretend to maintain authenticity in development but are ultimately only interested in dollar gains.
Considering Blue Sox’ design for the goal I fail to see how it will maintain the historical significance of this property for the local community, our state’s heritage or the nation’s significance as a penal settlement.
The atmospheric nature of a building/place, such as a gaol, prison camp, battle field is one of the most important ways for visitors to understand and be influenced by the story behind that site. The usual take away message from these experiences is “never again… how can humanity be so cruel.” It is not what a ‘lovely place’ or “I got my Louis Vuitton handbag from Berrima Goal.”
This thought alone should cast a shadow over the design proposed by Blue Sox. Does the world need another boutique bar or shopping centre built inside a place of historical significance?
Does an historical, well maintained, authentic village need to be destroyed in the name of one company’s development interests?
This design concept is wrong.
Apart from it being totally inappropriate it allows for future planning to completely alter the character of this historic village. This could easily happen again. Anyone could again submit, under the guise of a State Significant Development, and by-passing Council and community, a totally inappropriate proposal to destroy historical buildings.
Shame on you and shame on your government as you have had the opportunity to stop this and have chosen not to.

Edna Carmichael

I am a former owner of property in Berrima ands visit every week with my dog.Its Heritage,History and river walk allows me to meet tourists who regularly come to visit for the same reason we all enjoy this heritage village. That is to feel the Heritage and enjoy a colonial village and ,hopefully see a platypus.
This development is totally against the theme of the village, its heritage and history and it will have a detrimental effect the River Walk. The proposed hotel architecture pays no homage to the 17 convict built houses and churches and is completely unsuitable for this heritage village. The potential for a sympathetic design inside the Gaol walls would be far more acceptable.Not outside the back wall.

12th November, 2025

Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure

Locked Bag 5022,
Parramatta NSW 2124

RE: Formal Objection to the Proposed Berrima Hotel Development by BlueSox

To Whom It May Concern,
I wish to formally object to the current proposal for the Berrima Hotel development by BlueSox on the site of the historic Berrima Gaol.
While I support considered development that respects Berrima’s heritage and enhances the community, this proposal is, in my view, inappropriate and inconsistent with the village’s unique character, scale, and environmental sensitivities.
My concerns include the following:
1. Inappropriate Architectural Response
The proposed design does not reflect or respect the architectural character of Berrima. Its modern, large-scale form and materials are inconsistent with the surrounding heritage buildings and streetscape.
2. Excessive Scale and Dominance
The development is too large and imposing for the site, overwhelming the heritage context of the village and detracting from the historic significance of the Berrima Gaol.
3. Out of Context with the Surrounding Village
The proposed structure and its urban character are out of place within the modest, low-scale fabric of Berrima. The visual and physical impact would significantly alter the village’s established charm and rural heritage identity.
4. Lack of Community Focus
The proposal appears commercially driven, with limited community or cultural benefit. Developments on such an important historic site should prioritise public engagement and education—such as the inclusion of a museum—to celebrate the site’s long and layered history rather than diminish it.
5. Overly Commercial Use
The emphasis on high-intensity commercial hospitality is at odds with the quiet, small-village atmosphere of Berrima. This level of activity would undermine the town’s character and appeal.
6. Traffic, Lighting and Noise Impacts
The development will inevitably lead to increased traffic, lighting, and noise, particularly during evening and late-night trading hours. These impacts will disturb residents and visitors alike, altering the tranquil and historic village environment that Berrima is known for.
7. Flood Risk – Subterranean Carpark
The proposed lower-level carpark is situated below recognised flood levels, creating a significant safety and environmental risk. Flooding could result in property damage, contamination, and runoff into the nearby Wingecarribee River.
8. Environmental Concerns – Proximity to Wingecarribee River
The proposed development sits too close to the Wingecarribee River, posing potential threats to the river’s health and biodiversity. The area supports an active platypus population, a species highly sensitive to pollution, disturbance, and changes in water quality. Any large-scale construction and subsequent operation of a hotel so near the riverbank could have lasting negative consequences on this fragile ecosystem.
In summary, the current proposal by BlueSox represents a poor fit for Berrima, both culturally and environmentally. I urge the proponent and Council to consider a revised concept that is smaller in scale, heritage-appropriate, environmentally responsible, and community-focused, ensuring the long-term protection and integrity of the Berrima Gaol site and the village as a whole.
Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission.
Yours sincerely,

Exeter Village Association is committed to the preservation of the heritage characteristics of Exeter village and is aligned to other organisations seeking to preserve the character of other Southern Highlands villages and towns.
Specifically, this proposed development is diametrically opposed to the preservation of Berrima’s unique colonial heritage and character. This is by reason of the large scale of the proposed development; the adverse impact on local traffic conditions; and the inevitable stress on local business and residents.

strongly support the proposed Berrima Hotel project. This development represents an important opportunity to revitalise a heritage landmark while contributing positively to the local economy and tourism sector.

The project will create valuable employment opportunities for local residents, attract visitors to the Southern Highlands, and provide ongoing support for local businesses and suppliers. I believe the proposed works will be undertaken with respect for the historic character of Berrima, maintaining its cultural significance while enhancing the facilities and visitor experience.

Overall, this project will help preserve Berrima’s charm while ensuring its long-term economic and social sustainability. I fully support its approval and development.

I strongly object to this project on the grounds that the accommodation is outside the grounds of the gaol and along the river corridor which will disrupt the wild and natural river bank and endanger the wildlife in particular the platypus and Rakali population whose habitat is already under pressure. It is ugly, avaricious and unnecessary to build a vast 3 storey structure along the river bank which is currently home to indigenous fauna and flora and the building is not in keeping with our unique Georgian Village and will be an eyesore from the west were we currently enjoy the fabulous original sandstone wall of the gaol. Please protect our river environment and our unique village and build your hotel accommodation somewhere more suitable.

I support the move to adaptive re-use of the former the Berrima Gaol but am totally opposed to present proposal of Blue Sox on the following grounds:
1. The overall proposal is ill-matched to the exiting Berrima residential and retail communities and to the numerous day-visitors who provide the village’s current vibrancy
2. The building of a 55-bed hotel alongside the rear wall of the gaol flouts heritage guidelines by ignoring the gaol’s curtilage
3. The use of the property for events beyond 10.30 pm is unacceptable given the proximity of residences
4. It is unacceptable that a prime and highly visible space at the centre of a heritage complex be given over to a 195-space car park
See Attached PDF Document

To Whom it May Concern,
I regard the Blue Sox proposed redevelopment of Berrima Gaol as a contentious, over scaled and totally inappropriate development for the site, situated in what has become a widely recognised unique historical village. This proposal will permanently damage and irrevocably alter Berrima’s historic Georgian character, while simultaneously threatening the local environment, especially the Wingecarribee River. It will serve to introduce large-scale, inappropriate infrastructure with the proposed multi-storey car park and a 55–60 room motel on the riverbank. These elements have already sparked widespread opposition from local residents, heritage groups, environmental advocates and multitudes of horrified visitors.
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. It is the centre piece of the village – the jewel in the crown.
• The proposal includes major structural changes to the iconic sandstone gaol walls and the construction of new buildings, on the outside perimeter of those walls, which will not only detract from key heritage views and rural vistas, but will be highly visible from all vantage points.
• The bulk and scale of the planned development, including multi-storey accommodation blocks and a multi-level car park, with timed parking, would completely overwhelm the character of the small village and spoil its quiet, historical atmosphere. In combination, both the maximised number of hotel rooms and the timed parking, would seem to be little more than a disguise for a purely commercial enterprise aimed at maximizing profits at the expense of an irreplaceable heritage icon.
Environmental Threats
• The project proposes up to 60 hotel units in two and three-storey blocks and a multi-level car park, both sited directly on the banks of the Wingecarribee River.
• Berrima's riverbank is habitat to rare platypus. Locals have warned 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 concerning 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 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 change the visual context of the village, which is central to its heritage significance.
• The size and scale of the development, is far greater than anything previously seen or proposed in Berrima, raising fears of further subdivision, increased tourism intensity, and permanent loss of the town’s unique atmosphere. Once lost, this can never be replaced or reversed.


Alternatives Proposed
Many locals and historians have strongly advocated for a museum and community space mode. This would preserve the site’s historical integrity without introducing the detrimental commercial scale of overdevelopment as presented in the Blue Sox proposal which will dominate rather than blend with the landscape and character of the village.
There are countless well-preserved historical sites and structures throughout our country, where over development and irrevocable damage through alterations to the very fabric of these places, has been successfully prevented. Without such preservation, our Australian history would completely disappear.
I site the following examples of preserved convict and colonial sites, devoid of inappropriate developmental over-reach:

• The small historical Georgian village of Richmond in Tasmania is an excellent example of how a character heritage village can be carefully preserved in its entirety, for generations to come. It is completely devoid of the type and scale of modern development currently being proposed for Berrima, under the guise of readaptive use. Of note are the countless photographs and videos frequently featured in magazines, on television and in social media, showcasing Australia’s oldest bridge, the oldest intact convict gaol and St. John’s the Evangelist church, Australia’s oldest Catholic church. This provides the most direct comparison with Berrima Gaol and an excellent argument for its preservation without the impact of inappropriate development.
• Old Dubbo Gaol, is another well preserved example of a heritage site thoughtfully adapted and successfully maintained to showcase Australia’s early history. It caters for school excursions, promotes a sensory hour, conducts tours and performances with actors in character costumes and regularly holds events in the former exercise yard. By presenting a totally immersive experience, it allows visitors to gain a valuable insight into our early history, in much the same way as the interactive experience of the Berrima Courthouse.
• Hyde Park Barracks – a UNESCO World Heritage listed site, and the first Government built convict barracks in Australia, is an extraordinary record of the living legacy of colonial Australia. Its immersive museum invites visitors to learn the stories of thousands of men, women and children housed there. Although originally built to house convicts, it also served as a women’s immigration depot and asylum and later became law courts and Government offices.
• Old Government House, the oldest surviving public building in Australia. It provides a tangible link to the foundation of modern Australia as a convict colony built on convict labour and documents early interactions between European settlers and the indigenous Darug people.
• Cadman’s Cottage and the Rocks precinct provides profound insights into the evolution of the birthplace of modern Sydney, offering irreplaceable physical links to Australia’s early colonial and Indigenous past.
Closing Argument
The proposed Blue Sox Berrima Hotel threatens to overwhelm Berrima’s national significance by thrusting an over scaled, insensitive commercial development into the heart of the only intact Georgian village within mainland Australia. This unprecedented intervention—comprising multi-storey hotel blocks along the riverbank, a large carpark, and inappropriate physical alterations to the iconic sandstone gaol walls—fails the fundamental test of respect for context and heritage that such a treasured asset deserves.

The essence of Berrima is its authenticity: a rare landmark of colonial history where the relationship between its monumental gaol, historic streetscape of sandstone buildings, the Wingecarribee River, and its open country vistas, is intrinsic to its value. Nowhere else does one find such an undisturbed, harmonious ensemble of buildings and landscape, recognized in every authoritative heritage study as the “jewel in the crown” for regional and national history. Yet, the Blue Sox proposal disregards these values for commercial expedience—encroaching outside the gaol walls, introducing out-of-scale structures, and sacrificing the riverbank’s visual amenity and convict links, all to serve private hospitality objectives.

Despite claims of adaptive reuse and community benefit, the actual outcome would be irreparable loss: iconic sightlines blocked, the integrity of the gaol fabric compromised, and the unique sense of place that defines Berrima, permanently devalued. The plans reveal scant understanding of, or regard for, the layered stories and emotional resonance embedded in this historic precinct.
No amount of creative branding or economic justification can compensate for the permanent sacrifice of character and heritage that this proposal entails. The only appropriate course is to reject a project so plainly at odds with the responsibilities of stewardship owed to future generations and all Australians.
Berrima deserves visionary custodianship, not overdevelopment. This proposal fails that standard and, if approved, would set a dangerous precedent for every cherished heritage site in the nation.

I respectfully request that these issues form part of your consideration, before our history vanishes before our eyes.

Berrima has been described in tourist brochures as the best preserved Georgian village in New South Wales. I believe that this proposed development is completely out of character with the preservation of this priceless heritage.
Many towns in NSW have buildings that can be traced back to their colonial past, but in Berrima we have a whole village. Berrima was established at a time when convicts were still arriving by ship from England. Convicts built the Great South Road through Berrima towards Goulburn. They also quarried the stone that was used to build the gaol and its adjacent courthouse. Some of them were tried and subsequently incarcerated here.
Berrima was intended to be a major centre along the road as the settlement moved south from Sydney. It is obvious that the courthouse and gaol were deliberately placed on an elevated site in the village so that there was a solid reminder for everyone to see that British justice was moving south with the development. These were not casual reminders- the courthouse and the gaol gates are beautifully constructed and architect designed, without a doubt the grandest buildings in Berrima. Although the court building is not part of this proposed development, I believe that the two buildings are inseparable in the preservation of the heritage of Berrima. We are fortunate that Berrima escaped the development that took place in other nearby towns in the region and we can enjoy a village that attracts visitors purely because of this quiet reminder of our country's beginnings.
The proposed development makes no attempt to recognise the former uses of the gaol. They excuse this because the gaol is no longer in use and claim that people are not interested in visiting old gaols. One only has to look at the popularity of Old Melbourne Gaol and Fremantle Gaol as tourist destinations to see that this is not the case. Berrima courthouse conducts regular tours for visitors so we know that people are interested in this aspect of Berrima's past. As well as this the court building is administered locally and is self-supporting financially .
There is much to be told about some of the interesting former inmates of the gaol . There were also changes in its internal layout over the years as a result of new government policies in prison management. IThe gaol also saw the interment of German prisoners of war during WWI . All of this history will be lost under the current proposed development.
The development proposes to destroy part of the wall of the gaol to provide access. This should not be allowed. The early part of the gaol wall is convict built - it is not just a pile of stones! As Australia develops its place in the world any physical reminder of our convict beginnings should be rigorously preserved.
The developers have consciously or otherwise misjudged the character of Berrima. It is a quiet village by choice of the residents. You cannot attach a development like this to the village without completely destroying its now unique place in Australian history. The proposal for a restaurant and reception centre in the old gaol will no doubt provide a noisy nightlife scene that is completely alien to the village. In addition to this we have the proposal to build hotel rooms outside the gaol walls with exclusive occupancy ($1,000 per night has been mentioned) , thereby turning this historic site into some kind of a resort. How many of the people who would use these facilities would be attracted by the heritage of the village? Compare this to the many visitors who currently come now, not only at weekends, just to enjoy the unique nature of this piece of our history. The two uses are incompatible.
We have never been given the opportunity to realise the potential that this gaol site affords us to tell the story of this unique place to people. The site was sold to a developer without any apparent investigation of possible levels of interest locally for establishing an alternative use of the gaol , perhaps as a museum and interpretation centre, for example, that could be used by tourists and school groups . The chances of such an alternative will be lost with the current development proposal. There are plenty of resort-style venues around the country . Surely we do not need to destroy the charm and character of "The Best Preserved Georgian Village in NSW" to allow another one that will only serve to financially profit a private company.
As Australia's population grows I believe that we must not lose opportunities to tell the story of our beginnings. We won't get any more places like the village of Berrima.

I strongly object to the plans that are being planned for Berrima. I often visit Berrima with my family and I also take my parents often to. We love visiting Berrima for it peaceful village type atmosphere. This hotel does not add to that atmosphere at all. Berrima is full of history and sadly that history is going to be lost if this building goes through. This hotel is only catering to wealthy and not your everyday people. Berrima is a charming place and this building will take away from that charm. Please reconsider. Thank you.

I object to development outside the walls of the Gaol, particularly along the river. The river bank is part of the riparian zone and is a major habitat corridor. The undeveloped nature of the riparian zone is part of the Gaol precinct's heritage significance. The proposed blocks of multi-storey hotel suites along the river in front of the Gaol wall will obscure the view of the Gaol wall from the river. The heavy presence of humans resulting from the hotel units and the accompanying activity will disturb the native wildlife. The proposed large gaps in the wall of the Gaol facing the Old Hume Highway will destroy the historic facade of the Gaol.

This is a rare heritage structure. It is redolent of history, development of the Southern Highlands infrastructure and cherished associations in the minds of generations of visitors.
I totally object to the manner the Gaols fabric is altered to suit the developers plans.
Moreover, this development necessitates exclusion of access to popular walk along the nearby river.
More meaningfully, this development will alter the historical landscape of a site which is popular with many ordinary visitors.

I believe that Berrima’s value as a place of heritage interest will be significantly reduced with development outside the gaol wall. The walls are state heritage listed and as such should be protected and visible. The developer has advised that the walls are in good condition and will last at least another 100 years. Cutting a 5-metre opening in the walls will significantly diminish the integrity of the walls, as will building 45 units which will obscure any view of the back wall of the goal. There are few examples of Georgian, sandstone, convict-built buildings in rural NSW . The Berrima Gaol and the Berrima Court House are some of the finest examples of our early Colonial history. The Berrima Gaol should be developed in a manner which protects their integrity and acknowledges their state heritage listing.

The gaol lies within the Berrima Conservation Area (protected by the Wingecarribee Shire Council) and as such the land around the gaol should be protected

I understand that some development needs to take place. Adaptive reuse of the goal should address the issues that I have mentioned above. I believe that a boutique hotel could be developed within the gaol walls. I believe that: building a 45 unit wing that will, obscure the gaol wall and contrast markedly with the heritage of the wall ,and having a 5 metre opening in the front of the wall, do not meet the definition of “adaptive reuse” as advised by NSW Government guidelines (www.environment.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/new-uses-for-heritage-places-guidelines-for-historic-buildings-sites-adaptation.pdf).

I am a resident of Berrima. over the last five years I have completed some renovations on my home. I have adhered to the local DCP guidelines which are aimed at preserving the heritage value of the village. These guidelines can be restrictive, but they will ensure that the village will remain a place where people can continue to enjoy a window of the past. I understand that the proposed development is a State Significant Development and therefore does not need to comply with the Berrima DCP. I do believe that some consideration should be given to the DCP and its goals. The proposed modern units outside the gaol wall in no way are sympathetic to the DCP. It is unfair that all other developments must comply. The units will be the ugly duckling in the village and lead to its demise as a village of heritage interest.

I have a number of other concerns which have encouraged me to make an objection to the present plans for the gaol redevelopment:
- Presently street lighting in Berrima at night is reduced to enable better night sky views. The proposal to have a 24hr hotel with entertainment available until midnight every night will have a significant, detrimental effect on this.
- Noise will be a concern for residents. Entertainment possibly to midnight on any night of the week is not in keeping in a village with a population around 400 people. Cars exiting after a meal, wedding or other entertainment, from a carpark of up to 195 cars will have a significant impact on the village.
- I walk along the river frequently and fortunately get to see platypus on a regular basis. I have major concerns with the effect that the noise and disturbance during the construction will have on the platypus population, particularly in the Lambie’s well area which is a hotspot for local platypus.

Thanks for considering these concerns.
I do believe that we should be protecting our recent colonial past so that future generations can see what was built by the early settlers in the 1830s. Retaining the integrity and the views of the walls of Berrima Gaol is one of the few opportunities that remain. Adaptive reuse should not be a catch phrase that is bandied around. It should demand appropriate preservation as it’s foundation and this should be starting point for any development.

I’m definitely in favour of a project which ensures sustainability in the form of adaptive re-use of the currently vacant Berrima Gaol site. The submission I’ve viewed indicates plans for a commercially viable project that also will be a boost to tourism , will add much needed additional off street parking and with the proposed landscaping , will beautify a very neglected area outside the Southern & Western walls of the gaol. We need a project which ensures the cost of maintaining the Historic Berrima Gaol is achievable.

Mr Fadi Shakir
Planner
NSW Department of Planning & Environment
4 Parramatta Square
12 Darcy Street
Parramatta NSW 2150

8 November, 2025

Dear Mr Shakir,

Re State Significant Development – Berrima Hotel (SSD-66876472 Exhibition Notice)

I wish to make a submission concerning the adaptive re-use of the Berrima Gaol. It is encouraging to hear that the Berrima Gaol is to be adapted for use as a tourist facility comprising:

• 55 hotel rooms
• Restaurant, bar and lounge area
• Meeting rooms and a function space
• Hotel administration, commercial and retail spaces
• Guest services including spa, wellness centre and gym
• Landscape areas and gardens
• 195 space carpark for guests and staff to the south of the goal walls.

The Berrima Gaol is not only listed as a State Heritage item, but also by the Local Environmental Plan for Wingecarribee, 1989 and is registered by the Australian Heritage Commission. Importantly it is within the locally listed Berrima Conservation Area.

The hotel rooms are to be separate and build outside of the Gaol walls to the north near Wiltshire Street, thus ensuring that the heritage significance of the place will be maintained and will not have a major impact on the Conservation Area.

A major concern is the new eastern openings in the outer wall of the Goal, not far from the 1866 Gatehouse designed by James Barnet, one of the first of several neo-classical prison gatehouses he designed. These openings will seriously detract from the historical significance of the Gaol and will have an impact on the Berrima Conservation Area, as it is a distinctive landmark. The original nature and intent of the building should never be changed from that of a Correctional Centre, even though it is seen to be an evolving structure into the proposed Berrima Hotel. The Outer Wall and the Gatehouse are aesthetically significant for their form and character. They also have technical and research significance and at a local level the Gatehouse is socially significant. The Burra Charter says that new facilities are allowed to be incorporated in old buildings provided they do not damage the cultural significance of the buildings, which would happen in this case.
In the Heritage Impact Statement, Renee Riley, URBIS makes the statement taken from the State Heritage Inventory for the Berrima Correctional Centre – Outer Wall:

The Outer Wall of Berrima Correctional Centre is historically significant at a state level as it is an integral extant 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.

To create openings in this significant wall would be to destroy its integrity, especially at the front of the Gaol where it will have most impact visually on the building and that of the Conservation Area. Berrima is unique within Australia, in that it has remained virtually unchanged for 100 years, preserving the town as a practically intact colonial village.

An outdoor dining area near the eastern openings has been designed where the now removed memorial rose garden was created to commemorate Albert Hedges, who died while on duty at the Berrima Gaol. This garden should be re-instated, as it is part of the intangible heritage associated with one of the employees of the Gaol and is part of its social significance. The dining area will also have an undesirable impact on the distinctive front of the Gaol.

In the Environmental Impact Statement prepared by Aaron Sutherland it is stated, “The development will retain and adapt the heritage listed buildings on the site to allow for the historical significance of the building to be both protected and appreciated.” This will not be the case if any openings in the Outer Wall take place and an outdoor dining area is provided.

Another area of concern is the construction of a 49-room hotel accommodation building along the Wingecarribee River adjoining the site’s west boundary, which can flood and sometimes flood significantly, although these floods are supposed to be infrequent. Unfortunately, the report by Martens - Flood Impact and Risk Assessment who provided an estimate of risk of flood has stated that the risk is small. However, they make this statement in their report:

"The site is affected by long duration, large scale flooding from the Wingecarribee River. Whilst the proposed development is materially unaffected by flooding in rare events (1% annual exceedance probability (AEP)up to and including the 0.2% AEP event, in the Peak Maximal Flood (PMF) event the two basement levels, lower basement and the upper basement level hotel suites would potentially become inundated by flood waters. However, the rest of the proposed development, including the gaol ground level and the remainder of the suites (from the lower ground / upper escarpment level and above), are well above the adjacent peak PMF levels and are therefore not affected".

Due to global warming and increased risk of flooding in all areas in NSW this risk could become even greater and should be addressed before the development proceeds.

I am not a member of a political party and I have not made any political donations over the last few years.

Yours faithfully,
Janet Fingleton
Retired NSW Heritage Adviser
Member of Australia ICOMOS
Member of National Trust (Illawarra and Shoalhaven Branch)
Member of Australian Garden History

I live on the western side of Wingecarribee River and can see the western wall of Berrima Gaol from my house.
I am submitting an objection to the project based on two concerns:
1. Adaptive re-use: I don’t believe it meets the NSW Government’s adaptive re-use definition.
2. Acoustics: from functions, restaurant, cars, hotel guests, construction, operations
Adaptive re-use
I don’t believe it meets the adaptive re-use assertions in its own project Conservation Management Plan (CMP)
1. Some excerpts from the CMP available on the NSW Planning Portal project page for Berrima Hotel:

1.1 “it [CMP] seeks to guide the future development or adaptive reuse of the place, to ensure its significance is maintained and enhanced.” P214
1.1 “There is an opportunity to recognise and celebrate the identified significance of the subject site through a holistic heritage interpretation program as part of any future use proposal.” P217
1.2 “Any future heritage interpretation should be guided by the relevant Heritage NSW Guidelines and the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter.” P217

2 Excerpt from 2008 publication New Uses for Heritage Places: Guidelines for the adaption of historic buildings and sites
www.environment.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/new-uses-for-heritage-places-guidelines-for-historic-buildings-sites-adaptation.pdf
“Adaptation or adaptive reuse
“The modification of a heritage place to a new use that conserves its heritage values. Adaptation may involve the introduction of new services, or a new use, or changes to safeguard a heritage item.
“A good adaptation is one that is sympathetic to the existing building and its historic context, and inserts new work, or makes changes that enhance and complement the heritage values of the heritage item.”

3 Excerpt from ICOMOS Burra Charter p3
“Article 3. Cautious approach
3.1 “Conservation is based on a respect for the existing fabric, use, associations and meanings. It requires a cautious approach of changing as much as necessary but as little as possible.
3.2 “Changes to a place should not distort the physical or other evidence it provides, nor be based on conjecture.”
I believe the block of 49 hotel units outside the western wall of the gaol (photo 2) does not “respect the existing fabric” is not a “cautious approach” and hugely breaches the idea of “changing as much as necessary but as little as possible”.
Acoustics
I have lived in my house for 44 years. When the gaol was operating I could very clearly hear loudspeaker announcements from the gaol both day and night. (Photo 1 shows there is no buffer between my house and the western wall of the gaol, with the river between us.)
Based on the EIS Appendix 22 Acoustics Report plus other appendices, sources of noise during the operations of the entertainment precinct (7am-midnight) could include:
• 300 guests at function centre (music, celebrating, dancing, drinking)
• 140 guests at restaurant
• Guests at 49 hotel rooms (facing the river and my property) sitting on their balconies
• Car movements (from 195-space car park)
Noise from other building operations:
• 6 air conditioning condensers
• Carpark exhaust fan discharge
There is also the noise from the construction period which could include
• Excavation of 2 levels of underground carpark including through sandstone
• Excavation of foundations for 49 hotel rooms and service facilities outside western wall
• Truck movements, other construction machinery and activities
The village of Berrima is quiet at night-time. By 8-9pm, people have left the Surveyor-General Inn and various restaurants. There is the background hum of noise from the motorway.
I value the quietness of my property just across the river from the gaol. The prospect of noise from a re-developed gaol to the extent outlined above is very distressing to me.
See page 3 for photos.

 
Photos
The attached photos show the western wall now and what would happen to the western side of the gaol if this project is approved.
Photo 1 is taken from the western side of Wingecarribee River with a view of the western wall of Berrima Gaol. This photo is taken from my property where I have lived for 44 years

Photo 2 is from the project’s public exhibition EIS Appendix 5 Architectural DESIGNS (Pt.2), page 9

I am writing my comments after reviewing the application documents of the proposed Berrima Goal development. I write these as a property owner directly affected by the development both positively and negatively. Our property is on Wilshire street and is one of the original Gaol warder cottages in use during the Goal operations. We recently purchased this property with the intention of doing a sensitive and suitable renovation to preserve and maintain the original structure and style of the cottage. We are also local residents of the Southern Highlands being based in Burradoo and are committed to the enhancement and economic viability of the Region.

There are a number of elements associated with the application that are commendable and many aspects have been considered and revised by the developers. I am in agreement that the Highlands and smaller towns in the region need an injection of finances, economic activity and experiences that attract visitors, provide employment and opportunities for locals. Commensurate with this activity local communities should benefit with improvements in infrastructure, facilities, contribution to rates and taxes, opportunities and the focus on community up lift that does not see profits and commercial returns moving out of the area to corporate centres and non geographically related elements. The development appears to have considered a number of areas and should in time provide jobs and employment for the specialists and trades needed to construct the development, but also the halo effect of increased tourism, allied businesses, and opportunities for locals to participate and contribute.

The following comments relate to both general and specific concerns I have about the development that I hope are considered as part of this consultation process.

General:
The Southern Highlighlands is on the receiving end of a number of material and impactful developments and it does not appear that a cohesive view of what the State would like to achieve and enable in this area is being effectively considered. For example we have the imminent and very material decision on PlasRefine/RePoly after the owner contesting the ruling. The objectives of the State and Wingecarribee plans seem to be in direct conflict with the placement of the largest plastic recycling plant a short distance away from the Berrima Gaol precinct. It would be hard to deliver on the promise of heritage , tourism and country side attractiveness when at the same time we face the very real possibility of microplastics in the Wingecarribee river, pollution, unsightliness, fire, and heavy duty traffic risk on the limited roads and infrastructure in the area. It seems that the ability of NSW to manage both of these projects and the implications on the locals and community are in direct conflict and I would posit that should rePoly go ahead the business case and attractiveness of the Berrima Gaol would be significantly affected. Secondly we have the planned Bowral South Development upstream from Berrima. This represents another example of State government driving ~2800 house development in a wholly inappropriate site known for significant flooding. After the previous council administrator disbanded the flood committees and a travesty of process that in many instances smacks of developer greed and backdoor decision making at the expense of future homeowners and the community - Berrima faces the real possibility that the upstream development, the changing topography proposed by the developers, the Peat impacted Wingecarribee dam, the changing flood and weather patterns bring a higher likelihood that the identified flood impacted areas of the Berrima Gaol do not accurately reflect the risk and impact should we have severe weather events and upstream flooding and dam breaches. This not only would impact the development and infrastructure but also poses a safely and personal risk to the guests in the hotel rooms and people public space areas that are planned for development should a situation occur. Thirdly, along with the above two concurrent proposals in the area the Southern Highlands is faced with increasing population, demands on infrastructure and facilities and greater demand on amenities in already strained villages and towns. Little information has been provided on where the trades and people needed to build a development of this scale will come from. Would they overload local housing demand, increase rents due to demand, increase house prices as a result of demand only for houses to be placed back on the market all at the same time, place demands on schools, hospitals? Berrima has roughly 150 households and a small primary school. Where will all the people engaged on this project park their cars everyday, how will they be fed etc? How do we prevent the inhabitants not being able to park in their streets or in the main town or given that construction will, be allowed on Friday's and Saturday's when many out of town visitors come to the Berrima for the experience how does the impact of this contraction on local businesses get measured, especially those in hospitality? The high degree of noise and construction activity is likely to deter many people to this area for quite some time. I don't believe much of this has been considered on how best to manage the impacts of the roughly 4 years it will take for this project to be finished. Lastly, the long term plan for the development speaks about the increase in visitors and tourism to drive development. However, I do not see anything in the submission on how the Developers or the State Government plan to invest and develop the transport infrastructure and capability needed to make this sustainable. There is a highly inefficient train line that services the Southern Highlands, this train takes roughly 2.5 hours from Wynyard Station to Bowral when it is running. There are frequent breakdowns and interruptions due to track works. There is no effective and easy way to get from any of the stations along to the SHL line to Berrima - no developed bus schedules or public transport that make this an attractive means of transport from Canberra or Sydney. We have limited taxis and Ubers and so guests and function attendees are likely to have driven to their events. The incidences of drunk and dangerous driving after a function is likely to increase placing the community at risk as well as increasing the need for policing. Alternatively, people may arrive in large tour buses. I did not see anything associated with the plan that accommodates tour bus parking. I also did not see how the developer plans to ensure that the roads into and out of Berrima that will be used for contraction and earth moving vehicles will be repaired or improved during and after this development. We already have a significant issue with the backlog of potholes and poor country roads in this area that Wingecarribee Council cannot service and support. I believe the latest number provided by the mayor was $17m short to effect the necessary repairs and I would assume this does not anticipate the affects on the road the Berrima Gaol development (not RePoly or Bowral South for that matter) and the legacy this leaves for the community and the need for increased rates for residents to try and accommodate the repairs and restitution after everyone has left.

Specific:
As an owner of a property directly adjacent to the wall of the Gaol on Wilshire street I have some concerns as to the impact this development will have in addition to this that I have already highlighted under General. Firstly, NOISE. Having read the acoustic and noise report I am not convinced that the levels of construction and operational noise have been adequately addressed. The hours of construction and the hours of operation present a very real possibility that our properties and community will be overrun with noise and significantly alter the attractiveness of the village for visitors and for residents. This would not be in line with the approvals that would be required to allow this development to take place with the current zoning as noise pollution and impact is a key factor. I cannot see anything that address the affect of wind carrying the noise over the walls into the surrounding areas, or the amplification affect the walls and structures will have in channelling the noise into the surrounds especially as the noise hits hard structures and bounces around. The expected hours of operation of the facility to midnight does not reduce the noise from happy revellers spilling out into the suburbs after everything has closed possibly well into the early hours. The old cottages are not structurally sound in some places or are likely to be far more susceptible to vibrations than the report anticipates. Old construction methods in areas needing repair are likely to be significantly more affected and I cannot see how as local owners we would have any claim or compensation against the Developers for any damage experienced as a result of this. Local short term accommodation businesses are likely to experience a reduction in bookings, guest complaints about noise, lower nightly rates especially during the construction phase and then a continuation into the operational phase. The quiet street of Wilshire is likely to see an increase in both foot and vehicle traffic affecting amenity and liveability with parking on the street by increasing numbers of visitors especially if the parking garage will require people to pay. People not wish to pay will simply spill over into surrounding areas and streets to park close by. I also notice that no allowance has been made for any tree, greening or landscaping along the Wilshire street boundary. Higher, dense evergreen trees would do little to affect any sunlight given the house's orientation but could act as a sound barrier as well as an attractive visual extension of greenery and softness above the Gaol wall for guests.