Residential flat buildings at 142-150 Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba

I am a resident of the Blue Mountains, living in Springwood for 18 years. I am concerned that the scale of the proposed development is too big for the sensitive ecological environment of the Blue Mountains and will significantly and negatively impact this World Heritage area. The proposal is putting multi-story buildings in an area that is zoned for low level building heights and is in contradiction to our Blue Mountains Local Environment Plan (LEP).

The site is adjacent to Blue Mountains Swamps, a Threatened Ecological Community. These swamps feed the Katoomba Falls catchment - one of a handful of areas supporting the Critically Endangered Dwarf Mountain Pine (Pherosphaera fitzgeraldii).
Increased hard surfaces would change water flow to the swamps, increase stormwater velocity and reduce groundwater infiltration, severely degrading these ecosystems. Polluted runoff and weed spread would impact the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area (BMWHA) and Sydney’s drinking water catchment.
I have lived through a number of major bushfires in the Blue Mountains. Putting a housing development in such a high-risk area is dangerous and negligent. Having one evacuation exit endangers the proposed residents and the existing residents. Only one main evacuation route leads to the Great Western Highway, and this is vulnerable during fires and other major weather events.
The Blue Mountains is one of the most bushfire prone areas in Australia - currently, 26% of homes in the area are exposed to high bushfire risk. This figure is expected to increase to 90% by 2090, due to climate change. Adding hundreds of new residents would increase risk to life and hamper emergency response. The Blue Mountains City Council has stated that housing more people in high bushfire-risk areas is reckless and dangerous.
The proposal suggests good access to public transport and optimum roads int the area. This is incorrect as public transport is limited in that area leading to car dependence. The development would add several hundred additional vehicles to the narrow local roads.
One of the attractions of the Blue Mountains to both residents and visitors is its unique bush environment, the escarpments and vistas and the unique character of the towns. The proposal threatens the distinctive character of Katoomba, and surrounding visitor destinations. High density, multi-story, urban-style development is incompatible with the Mountains' scale,
landscape and cultural identity. Tourism, liveability and community wellbeing would be adversely affected.
The Blue Mountains are not an outer suburb of Sydney. They provide a unique bushland environment for both humans and the diverse flora and fauna. Development needs to be sensitive, appropriate and at a low scale so as not to negatively impact this unique part of NSW. I urge the panel to reject this application.

We passionately object to the fact that this project proposes the building of 270 high rise apartments in a bushfire prone zone.

This development is going to impact the important surrounding ecosystems and would alter the whole look and feel of the upper mountains - where both locals and the conservation society have managed to prevent high density projects like this for so long.

Moreover, a development like this will set a precedent for more large and potential high rise developments to come, changing a large part of that makes our place feel so unique - like a village.

I write to formally object to the above development application. The proposal for nine buildings up to five storeys, comprising over 200 units and visitor accommodation, is fundamentally incompatible with the Katoomba community and its environment. I urge the decision-maker to refuse this application for the following reasons:

1. WORLD HERITAGE AND VISUAL IMPACT
The site sits adjacent to the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. The proposed scale of nine buildings up to five storeys would cause severe and irreversible visual harm to the escarpment landscape. UNESCO World Heritage listing carries an obligation to protect outstanding universal value, including the visual integrity of the surrounding landscape. This development fails that obligation.

2. SHORT-TERM ACCOMMODATION AND HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
Given the tourism-focused nature of the proposal (serviced apartments, visitor-related uses), there is a strong likelihood that a significant proportion of residential units will be used as short-term rental accommodation (e.g. Airbnb). This would do nothing to address the chronic housing affordability crisis affecting Blue Mountains residents. The community needs permanent, affordable housing. Not more tourist accommodation dressed as residential development.

3. TRAFFIC AND INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY
Katoomba's road network is already under significant strain, particularly in the town centre and on key tourist routes. The addition of over 200 dwellings and visitor facilities will exacerbate existing traffic congestion well beyond what local infrastructure can absorb. No evidence has been presented that the surrounding road network can accommodate this increase in vehicle movements.

4. BUSHFIRE RISK
The Blue Mountains is one of the highest bushfire risk areas in Australia. The proposed density of residential and visitor uses in this location raises serious concerns about evacuation capacity and the safety of future occupants. I am not satisfied that bushfire risk has been adequately assessed or that appropriate mitigation measures are achievable at this scale.

5. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT — KATOOMBA CREEK CATCHMENT
The scale of construction and increased impervious surfaces will significantly impact stormwater runoff into the Katoomba Creek catchment. Increased sediment loads, changed hydrology, and potential contamination from construction and ongoing occupation pose unacceptable risks to this sensitive catchment.

6. SCALE AND BUILT FORM
The proposed built form is grossly out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood and the Blue Mountains generally. The development does not reflect local planning controls and sets a dangerous precedent for overdevelopment in a sensitive heritage and environmental context.

7. INADEQUATE COMMUNITY CONSULTATION
I am concerned that community consultation before lodgement was insufficient.

For the reasons above, I strongly urge the decision-maker to refuse this application in its entirety. If the application is not refused, I request that significant conditions be imposed to reduce density, height, and the proportion of short-term accommodation uses, and to require comprehensive traffic, bushfire, and environmental impact assessments.
I lived on Cedar Street, and I do not want to see my neighbourhood ruined by a gigantic building.

As a resident of Katoomba, and conservationist, I'm writing to formally oppose the proposed high-density development on Narrow Neck Road on the grounds that it poses an unacceptable risk to irreplaceable ecological values of local, national and global significance. The site sits adjacent to Blue Mountains Swamps which is a Threatened Ecological Community that feeds a catchment supporting the Critically Endangered Dwarf Mountain Pine (Pherosphaera fitzgeraldii). The environmental consequences of this development are potentially irreversible. No planning approval can undo the extinction of a species or the permanent destruction of an ecosystem. While I hold serious concerns about bushfire risk, infrastructure capacity and the bypassing of local planning processes, my primary submission is that this development must be rejected on environmental grounds alone.

The ecological context of this site cannot be overstated. The proposed development is adjacent to Blue Mountains Swamps which are ancient, highly specialised ecosystems that have developed over thousands of years and cannot be reconstructed or relocated.
Critically, these swamps feed the Katoomba Falls catchment - one of only a handful of locations that support the Dwarf Mountain Pine (Pherosphaera fitzgeraldii), a species listed as Critically Endangered under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. A Critically Endangered listing represents the highest level of threat recognition available under Australian law. The catchment that sustains this species is not incidental to this development site. It is directly connected to it.
Any assessment of this proposal must begin from this fact: the site is ecologically exceptional, and the consequences of getting this wrong are permanent.

The introduction of a large high-density development with its hardscaped surfaces would fundamentally alter the hydrology of this catchment in ways that cannot be adequately mitigated by standard stormwater management conditions.

Specifically:
- Altered water flow and reduced groundwater infiltration. Blue Mountains Swamps depend on slow, diffuse water movement through the landscape. Increased hard surfaces would dramatically accelerate stormwater velocity and reduce the infiltration of rainfall into groundwater systems. The swamps, which have evolved in response to specific and stable hydrological conditions, would be deprived of the water regime they depend upon.

- Polluted runoff. Stormwater from a high-density residential development carries a predictable suite of pollutants — oils, heavy metals, detergents, fertilisers and other chemicals. These would enter the swamp system and the Katoomba Falls catchment, degrading water quality in ecosystems that are acutely sensitive to chemical change.

- Weed invasion. Increased human activity, disturbed soil and altered drainage all facilitate the spread of invasive plant species. Weed incursion into Blue Mountains Swamp communities is one of the most significant threats to their long-term integrity, and a large residential development on the boundary of this ecosystem would dramatically increase that risk.

- Cumulative impacts on the World Heritage Area and drinking water catchment. These harms would not be contained to the immediate site. Polluted runoff and ecological degradation would extend into the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area and into Sydney's drinking water catchment. The downstream consequences of approving this development extend far beyond the boundaries of the application site.

The Blue Mountains LEP zones this site R3 Medium Density with a maximum height of 8 metres for good reason. The LEP reflects years of expert planning and community consultation and includes strong environmental provisions specifically tailored to the Mountains' unique ecological context. It exists, in part, to prevent development from encroaching on sensitive ecological areas in exactly the way this proposal would.

The use of the HDA pathway to override this framework is deeply concerning. It removes the local planning controls that were deliberately designed to protect this landscape, and sidelines the Council and community voices that have the deepest understanding of its ecological values. Overriding the LEP in this case does not just affect a single site, it signals that the environmental protections embedded in years of careful local planning can be set aside whenever a developer finds them inconvenient. This is not an acceptable precedent.

While I acknowledge that there is a housing crisis, this is not the area for such a development to take place. And I urge the decision-maker to reject this application in full, on environmental grounds (acknowledging there are also a wealth of other reasons), and to uphold the planning framework that exists to protect this extraordinary landscape that has World Heritage status.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Fernandez of Katoomba

Ref: SSD- 86456706

Residential flat buildings at 142-150 Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba

To whom it may concern,

I wish to have my concerns about the above proposal in Katoomba considered.

Objection: I oppose the Blue Mountain’s inclusion in the NSW Government’s new Housing Delivery Authority (HDA) and as a consequence, am opposed to the above development as it does not meet our local planning regulations.


I have been a resident of the Blue Mountains since 2004. During this time I’ve built on and renovated properties in the LGA in accordance with local legislation. While complying with building regulations in the mountains has proved more restrictive, costly and time consuming than in other LGA’s, I am supportive of our councils ‘why’. I feel bypassing this legislation degrades the safety, character, value & amenity of this unique, much loved and fragile environment.

Globally there are very few cities located within UNESCO world heritage parkland, the Blue Mountains is one such place and living here is both a privilege and a responsibility. I strongly believe that the mountains deserves to be managed in a way that respects and protects this and as such, I oppose it’s inclusion in the NSW Government’s new Housing Delivery Authority (HDA).

In my own albeit limited experience even small developments such as a garage, granny flat or altered footprint require careful consideration of both on and offsite impacts due to the high erodibility of our sandy soil paired with steep terrain. The potential for wide-spread environmental damage caused by fine and coarse sediment run-off is front-of-mind for development in the mountains and is why we have some of the strictest sediment and erosion control in NSW with a trigger for Erosion and Sediment Control Plan set at only 50m2 rather than 100-250m2 as seen for other NSW councils.


Our community has helped shape these local guidelines in response to both our love of and respect for the environment in which we live. For example, building heights have been restricted not only to preserve our unique skyline and village feel but also for safety - while an individual site may not be classed as bushfire prone for insurance purposes, there’s no getting away from the fact the whole mountains is high risk and as such its imperative that local roads can be reasonably expected to allow for safe and swift exit of residents when (not if) required.

If the above proposal was put through the Blue Mountains current planning process and passed, I may still not like the idea but would have more respect for the decision and hope for the future. The Blue Mountains is an area of outstanding beauty - an asset appreciated by the whole of Sydney and even the world - tourist numbers just released attest to that.

Why risk ruining the look, feel and safety of the Blue Mountains over a few flats just because the developer says that some of them will be affordable housing - a claim I am also questioning the wisdom of given the sites location.

The NSW Government plan prioritising affordable housing to within the vicinity of a train station could be achieved in Katoomba but not at this site. This site is around 2km from Katoomba’s supermarkets and train station. Walking from this site is not the easiest given the steep streets on that side of town.

Katoomba does need more affordable and accessible housing but not on a sloping ridge 2km out of town, especially not when we’ve plenty of old sites ripe for development in Katoomba’s CBD.


Regards

Amanda Foxon-Hill

Dear Minister Scully,
Re: 142 – 150 Narrow Neck Road.

Wow, what is this developer trying to do to our beautiful World Heritage environment?

Thank you for the opportunity to express both my concerns and opposition to the Narrow Neck property development.

My general opposition relates to the following:

1. Proposed site use. It appears, from the documentation available, that the construction of 218 mixed-use residential and serviced units with a restaurant and cafe will focus on tourist accommodation rather than supporting the need for permanent dwellings to help relieve the housing crisis. Is this the case?

2. Destruction of the natural environment and the domino effect this has on the look and feel of the mountains beauty which can never be restored. Is there a plan to ensure that in the years to come this does not set a precedent for other similar dwellings to be erected?

3. Loss of the quirky village character. Katoomba’s character is comes from its leafy streetscapes, 1920s architecture and large garden blocks. These do not complement this large-scale, high density, housing/ lifestyle development project. The project appears to be “squishing” as many people as possible into predominantly tiny spaces. Are these being used for permanent dwellings or for tourism? Sadly, the current housing in the same precinct does not add character or charm to the area and this project will continue the degeneration of the mountain’s character.

4. Lack of adequate infrastructure.
a. This housing development and its proposed convention/restaurant facilities do not have adequate ingress and egress to and from public roads. What is being done to ensure there are no traffic “bottlenecks” during conferences or general traffic movement to and from the site?
b. Current roadways are narrow and the existing residential road at The Escarpments is not wide enough for two cars to pass easily. How is this issue to be addressed when traffic in the area increases and buses and building trucks use the road?
c. There are limited bus facilities along Narrow Neck Road. Currently the 686G and 686 are available but those in the street and Google advise the Services are infrequent, often running limited hours … so the can’t be relied on to take residence to the railway or elsewhere if work, shopping and social hubs are not within driving or walking distance. Is the reliability of a frequent but service to be addressed?
d. Parking is limited at the railway station for current commuters. Therefore, additional parking may be required to accommodate the increased population. This then placing more stress on the area if the building of a parking station is required. How is the increased need for parking to be addressed practically?
e. Health and Medical support will struggle further. The number of general medical practitioners in Katoomba and the surrounding villages is currently limited for the present population. Therefore, bringing this additional population into the area will put a huge strain on existing medical and dental practices in the area. How will the proposed private wellness facility provide medical requirements for the proposed site?
f. Access to variety shopping is currently limited to Big W and K Hub. This then forces people to shop outside the area. How is the need for variety shopping being addressed?

5. Bushfire control.
a. While Bushfire Harzard Solutions Pty Ltd considers the site is not identified as being bushfire prone land on Council’s Bush Fire Prone Lands Map indicates that a ‘Shelter in Place’ strategy could also be appropriate. This needs to be considered in relation to those living and using roads both on the proposed site and in the area. Is this company prepared to ‘Shelter in Place’ to test the safety of this theory?
b. The blue mountains are susceptible to bush fires, and these fires generally have a mind of their own. With the increase in population and the proposed approach to roads and traffic control, is it possible to quickly evacuate those at risk from the Narrow Neck Road precinct to the Great Western Highway? How is the potential loss of lives being assessed during a fire emergency?
c. Bushfires require emergency services vehicles, fire engines, ambulance, SES and Police and all these services need access down Narrow Neck to reach bush fires burning in the national park. History has already shown that essential help can from emergency services can be hindered without adequate road access. Has the history of the area been considered?
d. Attempting to evacuate such a large, potentially panicking population in a short time may be impossible. At these times individuals can toss logic out the window allowing stupidity to prevail. Has this been considered? Safe evacuation is hazardous and needs greater thought in terms of evacuation points, road access for all vehicles, access to water and clearly outlined procedures. Are these details available or being prepared?

6. Environmental Damage.
a. This proposed development is to be built within a World Heritage listed area and it clearly does not follow the ecological values of World Heritage. Who is to address these controls in detail and have they been adequately considered?
b. While rainwater flow and permeable membrane roads have been considered there is only a proposal for future drainage and infrastructure as part of the masterplan. Why?
c. The existing landscape will change enormously as building commences, and this will impact the habitats of both native animals/creatures and vegetation. Once impacted the animals never return and the vegetation takes a long time to recover if at all. Who is to monitor this both during and after the build?
d. Naturally, there will be numerous trades coming to and going from the site. They all need somewhere to park their vehicles and building material and rubbish. How is this to be monitored? Dust, noise and rubbish are inevitable but unacceptable on such a large scale in this small residential location. What is the anticipated length of the build – worst case scenario?
e. Natural water run-off will be changed during and after building. The ‘flow-on’ effect will impact the existing ecosystem. Water finds its own course when disrupted and will flow elsewhere potentially causing other homes and land further down the escarpment to be impacted. What is being done to ensure this additional impact is averted?

7. Economic consequences. Tourism relies on the quirky character of the mountain villages set in their natural bush environment. The negative impact of this development (as noted above) on the environment may drive tourism away. Why hasn’t the character of this build been addressed so it conforms to the general 1920’s architecture of Katoomba? Additionally, if this proposal is to enable more homes for people then how will one on-site manager, staff for one restaurant and café help employment in the area?


My personal opposition relates to the following:

1. Theory and practice rarely align. Those creating this proposal have done the required due diligence and composed the best words and actions on paper. However, when the ‘rubber hits the road’ the enormity of this construction will destroy the look and feel of Katoomba. The 218 units will equate to 500 or more individuals on the site. This will cause additional motor vehicles on the current the roads. If the individuals have bought a unit there may be more individuals needing work, public transport, medical facilities, access to recreational facilities, grocery stores and more. I cannot see how the theory/concept of developing this beautiful site can possibly align to the practice of managing and living in this precinct safely as proposed?

2. The classic village feel - destroyed. I moved to the area at the end of 2024 to enjoy the beauty of the classic village feel and the wonders of nature provided in this mountain area. This development will, in a very short time, destroy the look of the area and change the classic character and natural environment significantly. For this, I am extremely disappointed.

3. Work availability. Work in the area is limited primarily to tourism, hospitality, local council, aged care and education. Therefore, those with the finances to purchase at Narrow Neck may find it hard to gain well paid local employment. The trip to the city, where work is more prolific is time consuming, tiring and costly. This makes the dream of work-life balance and home affordability impossible.

4. Lack of motor vehicle service stations. Currently there are two services stations that service Katoomba. Both are on the Great Western Highway. As the population will increase significantly from this development, the need for more accessible vehicular service stations is required regardless of vehicle type - petrol or electric vehicles.

5. Planning Regulations. The property I bought in the mountains needed renovation. I was required to comply with a plethora of local government planning rules for living within a World Heritage environment and Blue Mountains County Council regulations. The property had to comply with the period housing requirements of the area. It appears that this development does not need to follow the same stringent requirements. Unfortunately, this development looks dreadful. It will be out of place as it resembles an overcrowded piece of suburban Sydney. Potentially it will look very sad in a short period of time. This is wrong.

For these reasons, I oppose the Narrow Neck property development.
Would you please advise what is being done to address the concerns I have raised.

Regards,
Lois Ruth

The Blue Mountains is a special part of the world.

The Greater Blue Mountains was listed as a World Heritage Area in 2000. It has cultural connections to Indigenous peoples, a wide biodiversity of flora and fauna, stunning natural landscapes and immense scenic beauty.

Blue Mountains National Park has the highest visitor numbers of any national park in New South Wales.

World heritage and national park status provide high levels of protection. But the urban areas of the Blue Mountains also need protection.

I have lived in the Blue Mountains for 27 years. People who live in this community recognise its special location surrounded by natural wonders.

But we don’t take it for granted, and are always aware of the risks posed by bushfires, landslips, environmental degradation and overdevelopment. We support each other as a community in dealing with these risks, and work together to maintain our environment.

I strongly oppose the proposed development at 142–150 Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba.

The Environmental Impact Statement outlines that the proposal will include nine buildings that are predominately four storeys above existing ground level, will include 218 dwellings and 52 serviced apartments, as well as excavations for parking and subdivision and landscaping works.

This is a massive overdevelopment that is entirely out of character with the Blue Mountains in general and Narrow Neck Road in particular. A visit to the area would indicate how out of place this proposed development is.

Residents of the Blue Mountains are aware that the area is surrounded by natural bushland and that bushfire is an ever-present danger. We know that fire can move extremely fast and we are prepared to evacuate quickly. This issue will become more severe with climate change. Part of living with the bushfire risk is ensuring that development is kept to a small scale, particularly in areas closes to the bush and steep terrain.

The proposed development would present a significant danger to not only its inhabitants, but also other local residents, in the event of a bushfire. There is a high risk that many people would be trapped in buildings or traffic congestion in the event of a fast-moving fire.

Environmental issues are important to the people of the Blue Mountains. The proposed development would place stress on the local environment around Narrow Neck Road, and have detrimental impacts on local ecosystems, including nearby endangered swamps. Local biodiversity would be damaged because of changes to the landscape, higher residential population, increased visitor numbers, higher traffic flows, greater noise levels and disruption to the natural environmental.

The area near Narrow Neck Road has experienced landslips in recent years and the proposed development near the escarpment would be at heightened risk of calamity in the case of a landslip. This issue has not been considered in the Environmental Impact Statement.

Blue Mountains City Council has indicated that it strongly opposes the proposed development. Council has long been a strong voice for protecting the character of the Blue Mountains, supporting the local environment and caring for the needs of its residents. The development proposal ignores local planning issues. It should not be approved in the face of such strong local opposition.

The proposed development would override the Blue Mountains Local Environment Plan. It ignores local knowledge and local frameworks that have been developed over many years of community consultation and work by experts in various fields. The categorisation of the proposal as a State Significant Development is inappropriate for the Blue Mountains.

The Blue Mountains, its environment, its natural landscapes, its magnificent scenery, its particular urban environment, and its people are all important to me. I live here because I love it.

The Environmental Impact Statement has not captured the special nature of the area. It does not appreciate the risks that the proposed development poses.

I strongly oppose the proposed development at 142–150 Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba.

I strongly oppose the State Significant Development pathway for developments in the Blue Mountains.

Decision makers regarding the proposed development must come to see it for themselves. Not just to visit the site, but to spend time in the local area. Appreciating its character. Enjoying the beauty. Absorbing what it is about. Feeling its wonder. And to ensure that it is protected.

I write as a long-term resident of the Blue Mountains having resided in Blackheath, Katoomba and Leura , concerned with this inappropriate development application for Narrow Neck road . I have resided in the Blue Mountains for 30 years and have raised 4 children here. I have previously worked in the Blue Mountains area across legal and women’s services . My husband works in the Blue Mountains as a landscape gardener .
We know the area well ,we know the climate, the services and the people. I have also been privileged to live and work on the land of the Darug and Gundungurra people and honor their care of these lands .
Over my years of living in the local area I have experienced bushfires ( and been evacuated many times) flood, droughts , COVID-19, and many issues utilising public transport ( trains) and horrible commutes up and down the highway , as I now have to travel to work in Sydney.
I have reviewed the documentation for this development and I am appalled this would be considered . In addition to the lack of consultation with the local lands council , the development is not appropriate in any way to the site.
I also note the Community has recorded strong opposition from local residents who replied to a letterboxed survey but also note many local residents were not advised or aware of this project until community posts were made on social media. I am aware that the Blue Mountains Conservation Society has also expressed its concerns with this project. I also understand there has not been any serious community consultation about this proposal with larger community who with also be impacted by such a large development.
The proposal shows a large number of buildings too high for the area wedged into a site in a quiet residential area. These buildings do not blend with the buildings in Katoomba, in anyway and are much taller than any others, and of a scale and size that is not in keeping with the area.
The development is not positive for the area and we must consider access for people who reside in such a large development . It is a full 3 kilometres or 50-minute walk from Katoomba Station,and would require a car for most people to get to and from . It is not accessible to regular public transport as the public bus is only run between certain hours .It is not easily accessible to schools, shops or medical services.residents will be entirely car-dependent.
When you consider that Narrow Neck Road is narrow and winding, unsafe for high numbers of cars .
My biggest concern is the unsafe situation this would cause in evacuating residents during a bushfire and the resultant impact on the surrounding areas should evacuation be required.
Fires along Narrow Neck Road are a regular occurrence,mist recently the 2019 fires impacted properties and access along Narrow Neck Road and Cliff Drive.the added pressure this big development would put on fire services is enough to consider this development inappropriate.
Yes we need housing in the Blue Mountains but we need housing that is appropriate and respectful to the environment and affordable to our residents . This development is neither of these and should be rejected completely .

Submission Opposing Development at 142–150 Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba
State Significant Development – Housing Delivery Authority pathway
I am writing as a resident of Katoomba, living with my husband at 183 Cliff Drive, within the Blue Mountains City Council local government area. We wish to formally object to the proposed development at 142–150 Narrow Neck Road currently on public exhibition.

Support for Appropriate Housing—Not This Location
We acknowledge and share the widely recognised concern that the Blue Mountains is experiencing a housing crisis, and we support the delivery of well‑located, well‑designed additional housing. However, this support must be balanced with safety, environmental protection, infrastructure capacity, heritage values and long‑term community wellbeing.
The proposed high‑density development at Narrow Neck Road fails that balance.

Inappropriate Location and Lack of Access

Narrow Neck Road is not an appropriate location for a development of this scale:
It is far from Katoomba train station, bus routes and local shops, requiring near‑total car dependence.
The road lacks continuous footpaths, adequate lighting and safe pedestrian infrastructure, despite already experiencing high levels of walking and cycling traffic. Increasing population density in a location without basic active‑transport infrastructure, including footpaths and additional footpath lighting, presents clear safety risks for residents and visitors alike.

Large housing developments in the Blue Mountains should be prioritised near existing transport corridors, particularly the rail line, to reduce emissions, improve accessibility and minimise traffic impacts, consistent with sustainable planning principles. Any additional development along Narrow Neck road, noting it's narrow and winding path, represents a safety issue to all on the road, including pedestrians, tour buses, local traffic, and cyclists.

Bushfire Risk and Emergency Evacuation

This site lies within a high bushfire‑prone area. The proposal would introduce over 250 new residential and serviced apartments onto a narrow ridge‑top road that provides one of the only evacuation routes from this part of Katoomba.

As recognised by the Blue Mountains Conservation Society, high‑density, multi‑storey development in a bushfire‑prone area greatly increases evacuation complexity and risk to life, particularly during peak visitor periods or extreme fire weather events. [bluemountains.org.au]
The cumulative risk to:
- existing residents,
- future occupants,
- emergency responders, and
- visitors
is unacceptable and inconsistent with responsible disaster‑resilient planning.

Traffic, Infrastructure and Public Cost
Narrow Neck Road is already constrained in width and capacity. The proposed scale of development would:
- significantly increase vehicle movements, including service, delivery, construction and visitor traffic;
- worsen congestion on a road that serves as a critical access and emergency route; and
- necessitate future infrastructure upgrades that would likely be borne by Council and local ratepayers, not solely by the developer.

This raises serious equity and affordability concerns for existing residents.

Environmental and Heritage Impacts
The Blue Mountains is a World Heritage‑listed landscape of international significance, hosting millions of visitors annually and contributing substantially to the NSW economy through tourism. While it is important for visitors to have places to stay, it is unclear whether this new development would offer housing relief to local residents or whether the majority of the dwellings will be sold to investors and used as short-term accommodations. To use as short-term accommodation would significantly impact the local community and our capacity to have housing security in our area.

As outlined by the Blue Mountains Conservation Society, which we wholeheartedly support and echo, the proposal:

- relies on a fast‑track Housing Delivery Authority process that bypasses long‑standing local planning protections;
- exceeds the intended density limits of the Blue Mountains LEP and DCP; and
- threatens the character, environmental integrity and visual landscape that define Katoomba and underpin the local visitor economy. [bluemountains.org.au]

Allowing this development would set a precedent that risks transforming the Blue Mountains into “another suburb of Sydney”, undermining decades of carefully considered place‑based planning and failing to acknowledge and protect this heritage listed area. We insist that any new development first seek to add to our heritage listed area by incorporating into existing town centres and, wherever possible, take advantage of existing available real estate to better embed new structures into our local area. This isn't' about 'NIMBY'; this is about our global heritage listing and ensuring this is protected for generations to come.
Poor Fit with Local Character

Dense, multi‑storey residential blocks on this site would be visually and architecturally inconsistent with the surrounding landscape and village character. New housing in the Blue Mountains must:

- complement rather than dominate the landscape;
- respond to steep topography, bushland setting and heritage streetscapes; and
- respect the established scale and form of local development.

This proposal does not meet those expectations.

We also note that we did not receive the notification or ask to be consulted by the developer and given our proximity to the site, this is an obvious failure in this process and represents an administrative errors that the state planning authorities must attend to. We should have received a letter box drop from the developer and have not had any such letter dropped into our mailbox - this is a failure of the developer to meet the requirements of the planning process. The NSW Planning must address this failure through this process.

Conclusion and Request

For these reasons, we respectfully request that:
- the proposed development at 142–150 Narrow Neck Road not be approved, and
the Blue Mountains Local Government Area be excluded from the Housing Delivery Authority fast‑track pathway.

We strongly support appropriate, well‑located housing, including affordable housing, growth in the Blue Mountains—but this proposal is unsafe, poorly sited, environmentally high‑risk, and economically short‑sighted as well as the developer having failed on many fronts of this expedited process. To approve such a development would be an abject failure on the part of NSW Planning and erode voter trust, including ours, in the processes administered by our NSW government.

Thank you for considering our submission.
Yours sincerely,
Erin Semon and Dave Cabral

As a Blue Mountains resident, I oppose this development as I believe it will set a precedent for similar projects to arise across the region.

I oppose this development as I believe it's scale will unavoidably lead to significant environmental damage. Other developments of its kind will result in the same.

This is not a region for such developments. High-density apartments will undermine the community-focused culture that has been established over decades. The. Blue Mountains region is a special place because of it's community and a project of this kind will lead to the culture's deterioration.

I am a resident of Stuarts Road, directly bordering the golf course, and I strongly oppose the proposed development at Narrow Neck Road.
I want to be clear from the outset: I am not a NIMBY. Land in my literal backyard was recently cleared and subdivided for housing. I approve of this, I support it. I am also not ideologically against apartments—quite the opposite. I’ve happily lived in apartments my whole life, including near suburbs like Zetland, which this development is being unfavourably - and unfairly to Zetland - compared to. There’s nothing wrong with Zetland and nothing wrong with apartments. I also have nothing against apartments being built on the proposed site. I’d personally love to have a restaurant or two in walking distance in South Katoomba. But take this from a YIMBY apartment-lover: this development makes absolutely no sense.
The scale alone is completely out of step with Katoomba. Apartments are one thing, but nine four-storey buildings comprising over 200 apartments is a level of density that far exceeds local planning controls and risks permanently altering the character of the area for the worse. This is not gentle infill—it is overdevelopment in a sensitive, World Heritage-adjacent landscape.
More fundamentally, the location is deeply inappropriate. This is not transit-oriented development. There is not even a footpath along Narrow Neck Road, and the site is nowhere near reasonable walking distance to the train station, shops, or services. Even if basic pedestrian infrastructure existed, the isolation of the site makes it car-dependent by design. That is the opposite of good planning.
Access and safety are also serious concerns. The development is effectively serviced by a single two-lane road, raising obvious evacuation risks in a bushfire-prone area. Placing hundreds of residents in this location without robust evacuation options is irresponsible.
There are also broader environmental impacts: increased runoff from hard surfaces, disruption to local ecosystems, and visual intrusion into a landscape that underpins both community identity and the local tourism economy.
Finally, the use of a fast-track planning pathway to override long-standing local controls is deeply concerning. These controls exist for a reason—to protect the unique environmental and cultural character of the Blue Mountains.
Housing is needed. Density has a role to play. But this proposal is the wrong development in the wrong place, delivered in the wrong way. And it’s clear that it’s being pushed through cynically taking for granted that the average voter - who has never been to the area - just sees “200 apartments” and will support it on that basis alone.
I urge that it be rejected.

I object to this development as it is not suitable for a World Heritage area. It is situated at the top of a ridge four stories about street level completely out of character with the surrounding private housing. This group of high-rise buildings if approved will create traffic problems for the narrow streets in case of an emergency evacuation situation putting lives at risk. The storm water runoff will also create environmental issues to this fragile area.

I feel although housing availability is difficult at the moment, this proposal sets a dangerous precedent for Katoomba. The suburb is known for its beauty, but also the character and heritage of its houses. The town has resisted fast food outlets and even dictates the colour people paint their houses. My neighbour was not allowed to change his 60s fibro house to weatherboard, and yet a modern multi story building is being considered! Like the historical hordern building in Sydney’s cbd that was replaced by the World Square building, approving a development like the one at Narrow Neck is a step that can’t be undone. I strongly disapprove. All the best, Alex Salter resident of Katoomba since 2005.

Submission: Strong Objection to State Significant Development Application
142–150 Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba (SSD-86456706)

To whom it may concern,

I strongly object to the proposed development at 142–150 Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba.

Importantly, our household did not receive any notification from the applicant during the required community consultation period in 2025. This represents a serious failure of the consultation process expected prior to lodgement of a State Significant Development application and prevented meaningful early community participation.

As a mother living and working in the Blue Mountains and raising a young child here, I am deeply concerned and genuinely shocked by the scale and nature of this proposal. Families choose to live in this area because of its landscape setting, safety, environmental significance, and village-scale character. I never expected the Blue Mountains to become a location for development of this intensity and urban scale, particularly in such a constrained and environmentally sensitive setting.

We built our home only four years ago and were required to comply with strict Local Environmental Plan (LEP) controls relating to building height, siting, colour palette, and bushfire construction standards due to the sensitivity of this environmental living area. These constraints significantly shaped what we were permitted to build. It is therefore deeply concerning and fundamentally unfair to see a proposal of this scale and intensity now being considered for approval in the same landscape setting, apparently inconsistent with the intent and protections of the LEP.

The scale of the development, over 200 units across nine buildings up to five storeys high, is excessive for this site and inconsistent with the established planning framework, landscape character, and infrastructure capacity of the area. It represents a clear overdevelopment of a sensitive escarpment-edge location.

The site is located in a high bushfire-risk area with limited evacuation capacity via Narrow Neck Road. Increasing residential density at this location creates unacceptable life-safety risk for both existing and future residents during emergency events. Approval of intensified development in a known evacuation-constrained corridor is not appropriate.

The proposal will also place additional pressure on already limited local road infrastructure, services, and public transport in an area outside the town centre.

Further, the site’s proximity to the escarpment edge and its location within the setting of a World Heritage landscape raises serious concerns regarding visual impact, environmental sensitivity, and downstream impacts on the Katoomba Creek Falls catchment. Development of this scale is incompatible with the significance of this location.

Given the scale exceedance, bushfire evacuation risks, infrastructure constraints, environmental sensitivity, inconsistency with the intent of the LEP controls applied to surrounding residents, and the failure of proper community notification, this proposal is unsuitable for approval.

I respectfully request that this application be refused.

Sincerely,
Nastia Gladushchenko

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development at Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba.
This location is part of the unique and highly sensitive landscape within the Blue Mountains, an area recognised for its environmental significance, scenic value, and cultural importance. The proposed development raises several serious concerns:
1. Environmental Impact
The Narrow Neck plateau sits within or adjacent to a fragile ecosystem that supports native flora and fauna, including threatened species. Development in this area risks:
Habitat destruction and fragmentation
Increased human disturbance to wildlife
Introduction of invasive species
Long-term ecological degradation
This area forms part of a broader landscape connected to the Greater Blue Mountains Area, and any development should be assessed with extreme caution given its global environmental significance.
2. Bushfire Risk
Narrow Neck Road is located in a high bushfire-prone area with limited access and evacuation routes. Additional development would:
Increase risk to human life
Place additional pressure on emergency services
Exacerbate evacuation challenges due to the narrow access corridor
Given the increasing frequency and intensity of bushfires in NSW, approving development in such a constrained and exposed location is irresponsible.
3. Traffic, Access, and Infrastructure Constraints
Narrow Neck Road is not designed to support increased traffic volumes or heavy use. The proposal is likely to result in:
Increased congestion along a narrow and unsealed road
Safety risks for pedestrians, cyclists, and visitors
Degradation of road conditions and surrounding bushland
There is limited infrastructure to support further development without significant environmental cost.
4. Impact on Scenic and Recreational Value
Narrow Neck is a well-known destination for locals and visitors seeking nature-based experiences, including walking, cycling, and sightseeing. The area’s value lies in its:
Natural beauty and uninterrupted landscapes
Sense of remoteness and tranquillity
Accessibility for low-impact recreation
Development would undermine these qualities and detract from the experience of the broader Katoomba region.
5. Precedent for Future Development
Approving this proposal may set a dangerous precedent for further development in environmentally sensitive areas across the Blue Mountains. This could lead to cumulative impacts that are inconsistent with long-term conservation objectives.
Conclusion
Given the significant environmental risks, bushfire dangers, infrastructure limitations, and impacts on the character of the area, I strongly oppose the proposed development at Narrow Neck Road.
I urge the relevant authority to reject this proposal in order to protect the ecological integrity, safety, and natural beauty of this landscape for current and future generations

I write as an immediately adjoining landowner at 140 Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba to lodge a formal and emphatic objection to the proposed State Significant Development at 142–150 Narrow Neck Road.

This proposal represents an extreme and inappropriate intensification of use on a highly constrained and environmentally sensitive site. It raises serious and unresolved concerns across fundamental planning considerations including local character, visual impact, bushfire safety, traffic engineering, and environmental protection. In its current form, it is wholly inconsistent with the established planning framework and the expectations of the Blue Mountains community.

1. Fundamental Incompatibility with Local Planning Controls and Character.

It is my firm view that this development would have no reasonable prospect of approval if assessed through the local council planning framework. The scale, density, and built form are plainly inconsistent with the intent and objectives that govern development in the Blue Mountains, particularly in areas of high environmental and scenic value.

The proposal reflects an outcome driven by maximum yield rather than site suitability. It disregards the established low-density character of the locality and introduces a level of urbanization that is entirely at odds with the surrounding environment. The use of the State Significant Development pathway in this instance appears to be a mechanism to circumvent local planning controls that would otherwise prevent such an outcome.

This sets a deeply concerning precedent and undermines the integrity of the planning system.

2. Severe and Irreversible Visual Impact.

The Blue Mountains landscape is of exceptional significance, and development within this setting must remain subordinate to the natural environment. This proposal does the opposite.

From my property, the development will result in a direct, substantial, and permanent loss of visual amenity, replacing a currently open escarpment outlook with a large-scale, visually intrusive built form. The height, bulk, and massing of the proposed structures will dominate the landscape and erode the very qualities that define this area.

This is not a marginal impact — it is a fundamental transformation of the visual environment, and one that cannot be mitigated through landscaping or design treatments.

3. Bushfire Risk – Unacceptable Intensification in a Constrained Location.

The Narrow Neck precinct is widely recognized as a high bushfire risk area with limited evacuation capacity. Introducing a high-density residential and visitor population into this location represents a significant and unjustified increase in risk.

The proposal appears to rely on constrained access arrangements that are wholly inadequate to support safe and efficient evacuation during a bushfire event. The potential for congestion, delayed egress, and restricted emergency access raises serious life safety concerns.

In a region that has experienced the devastating impacts of bushfire, it is difficult to understand how such a proposal could be considered consistent with the precautionary principles that underpin bushfire planning in New South Wales.

4. Traffic Safety and Access – Critical and Unacceptable Impact on Existing Residents

I wish to place particular emphasis on what I consider to be a critical design failure in this proposal — the location of the primary entrance and exit.

It is understood that the development’s main access point is proposed to be directly opposite my residential driveway on Glenco Road. This is not a minor inconvenience; it is a serious and ongoing safety hazard.

The introduction of a high-volume access point in direct opposition to an existing residential driveway will:

* Create a constant traffic conflict point with opposing turning movements,
* Significantly reduce safety for vehicles entering and exiting my property,
* Increase the risk of collision, particularly given visiting drivers unfamiliar with the area,
* Result in regular congestion and disruption to local traffic flow,
* Introduce continuous headlight glare and disturbance, particularly during evening hours,

This arrangement will materially and permanently compromise my ability to safely access my own property.

From a traffic engineering perspective, this configuration is poorly conceived and difficult to justify. Standard road safety principles seek to minimise direct conflict points, not create them. The fact that such an arrangement is being proposed raises serious concerns about the adequacy of the design process.

I strongly submit that this access point must not proceed in its current location. At a minimum, it should be relocated or redesigned to eliminate direct opposition to existing residential driveways. Failure to do so will result in an unacceptable and avoidable safety outcome.

5. Environmental Degradation.

The site forms part of a broader environmental and visual corridor that contributes to the ecological integrity of the Blue Mountains. The scale of clearing, construction, and long-term occupation associated with this proposal will have lasting and detrimental impacts on local biodiversity, habitat continuity, and landscape character.

Once again, the intensity of development proposed is disproportionate to the environmental sensitivity of the site.

Conclusion.

This proposal is not simply a matter of refinement or minor adjustment. The issues identified are fundamental, systemic, and incapable of being adequately resolved without substantial redesign.

It is excessive in scale, incompatible with its setting, environmentally damaging, and introduces clear and unacceptable risks in relation to bushfire safety and traffic access — particularly in relation to the proposed entrance directly opposite my driveway.

I respectfully urge you to strongly oppose this development in its current form and advocate for its refusal, or at the very least, a significant reduction in scale and a complete reconsideration of the access arrangements.

Thank you for your time and for your continued representation of the Blue Mountains community on matters of such importance.

Yours sincerely,
Stuart Schmidt
0414366815

It is not keeping with the area. Traffic is already terrible without this level of density especially during holiday seasons and weekends. There isn't parking and it already is impossible to get on the highway. Gridlock will be real. There is a bushfire risk and getting people out of the area is this happens is a risk. There are environment issues. We already can't access doctors, medical, just services in general. This will increase population with no thought on how people can live their lives out side of a house. The density doesn't fit with the existing infrastructure of everything else here

Attachment G
There is no evidence that local First Nations people were directly consulted about the significance of the site to local First Nations people. The Gully is a highly human modified site, is of local significance and is in close proximity to the proposal.

App B Statutory Compliance Table
Clause 6.12 Protected Area – Escarpment
This proposal will result in significant habitat removal of around 70% of existing native vegetation and as such will exacerbate habitat fragmentation, and therefore loss of native fauna and flora. This is contradictory to the mitigation measures under table 10 of Att T which states 'Avoid and minimise clearing impacts to native vegetation where possible.'

EIS / BDAR
Loss of public amenity
Connecting with Country
There will be significant impact on the adjacent Planetary Health Precinct and what it seems to achieve. As a blue mountains local and weekly user of this space, the proposal will significantly impact the current use of the precinct and what it provides, which is a large, quiet, private and peaceful space enclosed by native vegetation which is being rehabilitated. There is only 1 other area available to locals that offers such amenity (Lawson). The size of the proposal, restaurant and number of dwellings will dramatically alter this amenity turning it into an eyesore which is exposed, noisy, and imposing. It will dramatically changed the surrounding low key low density residential space and environment.
What is also not clear is the impact on parking in the local area in response to the gallery and restaurant and how this will be managed in addition to those who use the precinct space.

I therefore don't agree with the ‘do nothing’ statement in that the site remains vacant and underutilised. This outcome is not
desirable given the site’s strategic and well-located nature. I also don't agree that the site is not identified as containing Aboriginal cultural heritage - this statement can't be made until local First Nations people have been contacted and engaged (noting attempts have been made).
The point of incorporating Aboriginal artwork and design elements in external landscaped areas of the site; and presentation of and information sessions for Aboriginal artwork in the art gallery - this is quite a tokenistic response. Will this include local Aboriginal artwork and information sessions by local First Nations people? How will this be enforced by whoever ends up with the contract to operate the gallery?

The proposal is not area appropriate. The road structure has poor heavy usage allowance with potential bottlenecks at Katoomba’s town centre access points.
I’m concerned about bush fire safety, poor evacuation ability and road accessibility. The roads are not made to cope with the added traffic the development will bring. There are environmental issues, increased pollution, waste disposal, and other community-based concerns in an area that is already taxed by heavy and increasing local and overseas tourism. I’m also concerned about the viability of businesses at the site which, in my opinion, have slim chance of long term success

I refer to the project to build residential apartments at 142-150 Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba NSW
I have lived in the Blue Mountains for 0ver 60 years and I completely object to this proposal and the approval method instigated to bypass normal approval processes. Namely the HDA Housing Delivery Authority
I object on the following grounds

ENVIRONMENTAL - The Blue mountains is a unique and irreplaceable environment. The construction of such a large number and densely grouped set of buildings, carpeting the area with concrete and similar hard surfaces, will unduly impact the sensitive alpine heath covered plateau of the upper Blue Mountains. The resulting run off of stormwater into sensitive waterways will also impact the environment well into the environs of the national park. The Blue Mountains is under world heritage protection and this project seems at odds with the central values inherent in that protection.
Visual Impact - People visit the Blue Mountains for it's views, gently leafy environs and it's visual beauty. To build a 'suburban" style high density development within that context will damage the essential 'raison d'etre" of the Blue Mountains.

APPROVAL PROCESS - This project has been approved under the new HDA Housing Delivery Agency process. This has completely bypassed important and intrinsic local council approval regulations. Regulations, that should be noted have been developed over years of consultation and refinement. If the government can just override any regulations at any time, what restrictions will exist for the remainder of the blue Mountains or similar places. The inclusion of the Blue Mountains under this new authority should be immediately removed as this development sets a very real precedent for future inappropriate development across all villages in the Blue Mountains.

LOCATION - The report indicates this development is "well sited". This must be a new definition of the phrase I was not previously aware of. The location is at least 2 kilometres from the railway station, shopping centre and all other services. Location a couple of cafes and an art gallery within the precinct is surely not going to sustain the hundreds of residents proposed to live in this development. If we assume that the 214 apartments will house at least 450 people, that is potentially another 3 to 4 hundred residents requiring cars to navigate narrow local roads to go about their daily work and domestic lives. It seems odd that given the NSW government's propensity to build apartments right on top of railway stations, this one is placed so far away.

FIRE RISK - The Blue Mountains is one of the most fire prone regions in the entire world. I have lived in the Blue Mountains for over 60 years and have some experience of the bush fire risks in this area. In recent memory, a fire at Katoomba caused the whole of Cliff View Drive to be closed for months to repair the damage. So to place such a concentrated housing development in a fire prone area such as the Blue Mountains does not seem to make any sense and places people and fire services at undue risk.

VISUAL IMPACT - Tourists visit the Blue Mountains for it's visual beauty and scenic "splendour". I am unable to reconcile how this development can be reconciled into this ideal. The leafy environs and heritage landscapes cannot accommodate "jarring" modern concrete structures as the types and scale of the ones proposed. People do not visit the Blue Mountains to experience structures they can find in amply in the Western Suburbs and other parts of Sydney. I fear that if this type of development is the start of many more then tourism to the Blue Mountains will reduce at great economic cost to the area.

I noted that some of these proposed units are set aside for public housing. I do question what regulations are in place that determines who exactly will buy these apartments and for what purpose. Presumably they are for housing but I question whether people who wish to live in Katoomba, would want to live in this type of dwelling. It seems more likely that investors will purchase them and then turn them into short term rental accommodation which does nothing to further the "so called housing crisis" under which pretext they are being built.
I re-iterate my firm objection to this and any similar development in the Blue Mountains.

Thankyou
Malcolm Reynolds
Winmalee