We write in opposition to this development for the following reasons:
*This development is in contravention of the Blue Mountains LEP where the developer is seeking to rezone land to allow nine four-storey apartment. Locks and commercial outlets, overriding decades of the process of community consultation and expert planning to safeguard both environment and our safety
*Our unique environmental values of the Greater Blue Mountains sitting in a World Heritage area requires careful consideration to the importance of low-scale housing, appropriate to the area and consistent with the heritage of our towns. Using the HAD pathway to fast-track large scale residential projects like this is contrary to the needs of the Blue Mountains, with no consideration for the bushfire risks a and the impact on the immediate sensitive National Parks surrounds.
*The location is poorly positioned, not ‘well positioned’ as described and raises concerns about accessibility and safe evacuation strategies to be carried out in the likely event of bushfires.
*There are serious concerns about the HAD process itself …..little transparency, minimal opportunities for public engagement and a ‘high density assessment’ framework that was never designed for environmentally sensitive areas
*Fast tracking projects of this scale with decision making powers in the hands of the Minister or their delegate, risks undermining the ecosystems that underpins the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage status, increasing stormwater runoff, and placing more people in harms way in one of the most bushfire prone regions of NSW.
*Elected Councillors are the most competent and experienced personnel to be evaluating and deciding on these projects, because they live in the communities and best represent the interests of their constituents
Gay deBurgh Thew
Kerry William Goodman

The project is inappropriate for the area. It is too large, the design is not sympathetic to the Blue Mountains. The design is obtrusive, not compatible. The facilities suggested would increase traffic to a beautiful part of Katoomba. The density of the proposed project is out of context with Blue Mountains residents and residential area.

I am writing to express my objections to the proposed development.
There is little information about the development available to the community, but zoning adjustments are being sought to allow it to go ahead.
It is far too large a development for the site and will bring excessive traffic to a local road. It will put excessive pressure on the septic systems available. It appears to be contrary to the Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan, a tool developed and in use for many years to protect our fragile enviroment.
If this development is to be considered under the Housing Delivery Authority, it must bring local benefit, particularly in affordability, and this project will not do that. While the plan is for 15% affordable housing, that only menans a percentage of cost price and the cost of these houses will be above the market. The housing will not be affordible, the major need in Katoomba.
It will not bring value to our local community.

This proposed development is concerning for many reasons, I will list a few:
- There are no footpaths from the local train station or the town centre to this proposed development location. Foot traffic to and from this proposed development will be on the road. The roads are not a suitable or safe option for foot traffic.
- Distance from train station is approximately 3km. This makes accessing trains challenging for residents of this proposed development and therefore will likely result in increased number of cars in this vicinity. Road traffic along the access routes to this proposed development is already significant. The roads are not curbed and guttered and are already in a state of disrepair and degradation, with several noticeable "sink hole" sites along the access route on Narrow Neck Road.
- The existing roadways are not adequately lighted to allow for safe use with the expected increased traffic during the construction phase or on completion with the residents moving into the proposed development.
- Car parking spaces to accommodate the needs of the proposed over 200 units, serviced apartments, restaurants and other visitor attractions is phenomenal. This area is already struggling to accommodate the current regular visitor parking load. Parking along Cliff Drive/Narrow Neck Road on weekends and on public holidays is extensive and already causes concerns and safety risks for locals. I fail to see how the parking requirements of this proposed development are going to be accommodated without causing further chaos for existing local residents along these roads. In addition I would like to highlight that the safety of pedestrians along Cliff Drive and Narrow Neck Road needs to be not only considered but be of paramount importance when considering this proposed development. There are no footpaths and pedestrians, particularly during times of heavy visitor parking to this area, have to navigate parked cars, cars parked on the verges which causes them to have to walk on the roads, uneven dirt/rock/grass to walk on along side the roads which are mostly uncurbed, and poor lighting at night. Pedestrian safety needs to be taken into consideration.
I object to this proposal.
- Bushfire zone; consideration needs to be given to the exit plan from this site during a bushfire emergency.

Objection attached as PDF.

I request that the consent authority refuse the proposed State Significant Development and refuse the associated LEP rezoning.
- I object to the proposed development and the associated LEP rezoning for 142–150 Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba.
- The proposal is inconsistent with the existing LEP zoning and the established low-density residential character of the locality, and would create an adverse precedent for similar site-specific upzonings in the Blue Mountains.
- The built form (including the proposed height and bulk) is not compatible with surrounding development and would unreasonably impact local amenity and visual character; comparisons to town-centre heritage buildings are not relevant to this residential setting.
- The site is not suitably located for a development of this intensity: it is not practically walkable to the town centre for most residents/visitors, and the proposal is therefore likely to generate high levels of private vehicle use, with resultant traffic, driveway safety, and parking overspill impacts on Narrow Neck Road.
- The bushfire risk context and evacuation/egress constraints are not adequately addressed in the EIS, noting reliance on Narrow Neck Road and the potential for congestion, reduced visibility, road blockage, or incident-related closure during an emergency.
- The extent of vegetation removal (including the loss of established native trees along Narrow Neck Road) would result in avoidable impacts to biodiversity values, habitat connectivity, and the existing landscape buffer for adjoining residences.
- The construction phase impacts (duration, noise, heavy vehicles, and on-street parking by workers) are likely to be significant and have not been adequately mitigated given the residential context.
- I submit that this development should not be advanced through an HDA/Housing SEPP pathway, which is being used to facilitate an outcome that functions primarily as short-stay tourist accommodation in a residential area.
- Any future higher-density or affordable housing outcomes for Katoomba should be directed to appropriately zoned sites within the existing town-centre footprint, close to transport and services.

I wish to express a number of concerns regarding this development. I am a resident of twenty years in Narrow Neck Road not far from the proposed development site and am identified as an owner of a property neighbouring the development. I am not against construction of new residences in the area but the scale, nature and location of this proposal is of concern.
Real Estate data (Domain) suggests there are currently less than 120 homes in Narrow Neck Rd and this proposal is for an additional 270 dwellings including serviced apartments.
My concerns are:
1. Effect on local roads
The proposal is far from major transport facilities and the railway station which will necessarily result in a large increase in cars on local roads. Narrow Neck Rd is a narrow single lane road with bends and crests which is already carrying the burden of tourist coach and car traffic. It is used by a large number of cyclists and walkers. In many areas walkers are forced onto the road. Any increase in traffic can only be a safety hazard for locals and visitors.
2. Bush fire concerns
I have experienced 2 bush fire evacuations while living here. The events were very traumatic and stressful. More than doubling the number of dwellings to be evacuated is a serious safety concern and will add greatly to the challenges of managing evacuations and ensuring the safety of residents. High density housing is not appropriate for bush fire prone areas.
3. Effect on the character of the area
The height of proposed buildings far exceeds the current max 2 storeys and is completely incompatible with the traditional and heritage character of the area, a character which has contributed to the area’s appeal. High density housing is not appropriate for a World Heritage listed area.
4. Equitable concerns
The Local Environmental Plans currently in place which govern what sort of development is appropriate for the area are the result of many years of study and input by people with local expertise from different fields. This development will have a negative impact on a large number of local residents and it is alarming that LEP’s can be simply overturned by rezoning land usage to the huge benefit of one developer. The rights of one developer shouldn’t outweigh the rights of even one resident.
5. Environmental concerns
The proposed development site is adjacent to sensitive swamp areas in an area that has only recently been returned to the local community as an open area. The scale of this development will severely impact and degrade the ecosystem of the hanging swamp nearby.

I totally oppose this project for reasons I discuss in the attached document

I stand against this development for the following reasons. Firstly - the Blue Mountains is a UNESCO World Heritage site that is already at risk of impact from existing urban areas inside it. What makes it special and brings visitors to this area is the distinct lack of development and the preservation of the wilderness surrounding it. Hopefully council and residents can make these areas more sustainable going forward; an easier task at our current scale. A dense development like this will undoubtedly put further strain on the natural environment in this area, while also becoming a blemish on the skyline that currently provides residents and visitors with a beautiful view into the Jameson and Megalong Valleys. I fear this building would also set a precedent for future development that would facilitate overtourism, congestion of resident access and unsustainable amounts of waste from developments such as this. Council already struggles to maintain roads and other aspects of our urban environment in Katoomba and surrounding villages.

Further, the fact this area and development has been deemed safe from bushfires is pure fallacy and emblematic of our arrogance surrounding the control of the inherently chaotic nature of the elements. The entire Blue Mountains National Park is at risk of bushfire, especially locations such as these which are very close to the valley. Residents of such a development would be at risk of the ongoing unpredictable conditions of our climate here in what is essentially the deep wilderness of the National Park..

In a rapidly urbanised world, the Blue Mountains National Park is a unique sanctuary that can be enjoyed by many people from around the world. But there are limitations to this that must be responsibly managed to ensure this will be a reality in the future. We must move towards making what we already have here more harmonious with the environment, not creating larger, more denser urban projects.

Dear NSW Planning,

I am deeply opposed to this development because:

a) it features double the housing density and double the height of other development in the area, and overrides the highly appropriate limits for these attributes set in the local Council's Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and Development Control Plan (DCP).
b) development like this is dangerous given the site is surround by bushfire prone land
c) community consultation has been flawed and totally inadequate
d) affordable housing provisions are temporary and therefore tokenistic
e) the building heights will make the buildings visible in the distance and corrupt visible amenity that is a distinct part of the World Heritage values of the area.

I agree with the objections raised by the Blue Mountains City Council and the Blue Mountains Conversation Society. I am horrified that State Government instruments - State Significant Development and Housing Delivery Authority - are being used to fast track an appalling and community-abusive development.

Yours sincerely,