Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
KATOOMBA
,
New South Wales
Message
I totally object to this proposal for the following reasons:
The site is near the edge of the escarpment and a World Heritage Area. The height of the proposed buildings will be highly visible from many of the Blue Mountains vantage points, causing harm to tourism which is the main economy for majority of the businesses and residents of the Blue Mountains. The buildings will overshadow nearby residents and completely change the small community feeling, the main reason we chose to live in this area.
The location is in a highly bushfire prone area, as well as on a road that has huge challenges if there was a bush fire and people had to evacuate. The Blue Mountains only has one main road in and out of the whole Blue Mountains. This would put all current residents in the area, in extreme danger as well as the proposed several hundred new residents and employees of the restaurant and art gallery, should this proposal go ahead.
The proposed site is located at the top of the Katoomba Creek Falls catchment, with the potential for significant environmental impacts of the creek and onto the downstream environment. When the townhouses were built in the nearby old Katoomba golf course, the brown runoff went directly into the creek throughout the entire building phase.
The proposal will be greater in height and scale than any other existing development in the Blue Mountains. It will be double the height and floor space controls allowed under the Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan 2015 for this site, which was created to protect this important and unique World Heritage Area.
The proposed site is outside of the Katoomba town centre, with very limited public transport options or access to other services. There are no shopping centres or other suitable place or entertainment for young people. Without these services there could possibly be an increase in crime in the area.
The Blue Mountains has very limited medical services. Most GP's have closed their books and are not taking on new patients. If you have a GP who will see you, the wait list is usually two to four weeks. The hospital is very small and can only treat certain issues. Most times Blue Mountains residents need to be treated in Nepean or Westmead hospitals, which are already operating under extreme crisis situations. This proposal would only burden our already failing medical system.
Understanding that there is a need for affordable housing in the Blue Mountains area, this proposal will not assist the current issues many face with only 15% affordable housing proposed.
The proposed area is also home to a lot of wildlife and removing a significant amount of trees will have a negative impact on the wildlife, especially the echidnas that live in this area. She see a few of them already walking on the roads.
There are no footpaths in this area and foot traffic is already an issue with tourists, dog walkers, school children. Pedestrians need to walk on the road in many areas and when it is foggy, which is a lot of the time, this is very dangerous for both drivers and pedestrians.
Cahill’s look out doesn’t have adequate parking as it is, with the amount of tourist buses, locals and others trying to take in the view, the parking areas are full and there are cars and buses parked on the road. This proposal will increase traffic to the area and cause traffic issues, as it is the closest main lookout in this area.
Prior to lodging the SSD application, the applicant was required to consult with the local community. The applicant has advised that they did this via a letterbox drop in late 2025 to residents 1-2km of the proposed site. This would include our residence and we did not receive and letter or information. I have spoken to many of my neighbours and they also did not receive any letter or information.
The site is near the edge of the escarpment and a World Heritage Area. The height of the proposed buildings will be highly visible from many of the Blue Mountains vantage points, causing harm to tourism which is the main economy for majority of the businesses and residents of the Blue Mountains. The buildings will overshadow nearby residents and completely change the small community feeling, the main reason we chose to live in this area.
The location is in a highly bushfire prone area, as well as on a road that has huge challenges if there was a bush fire and people had to evacuate. The Blue Mountains only has one main road in and out of the whole Blue Mountains. This would put all current residents in the area, in extreme danger as well as the proposed several hundred new residents and employees of the restaurant and art gallery, should this proposal go ahead.
The proposed site is located at the top of the Katoomba Creek Falls catchment, with the potential for significant environmental impacts of the creek and onto the downstream environment. When the townhouses were built in the nearby old Katoomba golf course, the brown runoff went directly into the creek throughout the entire building phase.
The proposal will be greater in height and scale than any other existing development in the Blue Mountains. It will be double the height and floor space controls allowed under the Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan 2015 for this site, which was created to protect this important and unique World Heritage Area.
The proposed site is outside of the Katoomba town centre, with very limited public transport options or access to other services. There are no shopping centres or other suitable place or entertainment for young people. Without these services there could possibly be an increase in crime in the area.
The Blue Mountains has very limited medical services. Most GP's have closed their books and are not taking on new patients. If you have a GP who will see you, the wait list is usually two to four weeks. The hospital is very small and can only treat certain issues. Most times Blue Mountains residents need to be treated in Nepean or Westmead hospitals, which are already operating under extreme crisis situations. This proposal would only burden our already failing medical system.
Understanding that there is a need for affordable housing in the Blue Mountains area, this proposal will not assist the current issues many face with only 15% affordable housing proposed.
The proposed area is also home to a lot of wildlife and removing a significant amount of trees will have a negative impact on the wildlife, especially the echidnas that live in this area. She see a few of them already walking on the roads.
There are no footpaths in this area and foot traffic is already an issue with tourists, dog walkers, school children. Pedestrians need to walk on the road in many areas and when it is foggy, which is a lot of the time, this is very dangerous for both drivers and pedestrians.
Cahill’s look out doesn’t have adequate parking as it is, with the amount of tourist buses, locals and others trying to take in the view, the parking areas are full and there are cars and buses parked on the road. This proposal will increase traffic to the area and cause traffic issues, as it is the closest main lookout in this area.
Prior to lodging the SSD application, the applicant was required to consult with the local community. The applicant has advised that they did this via a letterbox drop in late 2025 to residents 1-2km of the proposed site. This would include our residence and we did not receive and letter or information. I have spoken to many of my neighbours and they also did not receive any letter or information.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
KATOOMBA
,
New South Wales
Message
Karen Beckley 29 April 2026
7 Rodova Street
Katoomba NSW 2780
SUBMISSION FOR 142-150 NARROW NECK RD, KATOOMBA, NSW, 2780
SSD-86456706 EIS 20260304235429
I oppose the development proposed for 142-150 Narrow Neck Road.
I also oppose the use of the Housing Delivery Authority to circumvent Blue Mountain Local Environment Protections (LEP) which have been developed through experience over many years.
I humbly request that the Blue Mountains Local Government Area be exempt from the HAD pathway.
This development is grossly too big for the local area and the Blue Mountains. The vicinity of this development abuts the World Heritage Blue Mountains National Park and will be a visual eyesore able to be seen for kilometres in every direction & ruin the natural landscape of this area which the Blue Mountains is renowned for.
The other points of objection are as follows:
- Pollution: Water: The development site itself & the immediate surrounds are an evironmentally sensitive area and bypasses and contravenes the Blue Mountains Local Environment Protections (LEP). It is at the source (beginning) of a hanging swamp which supports a whole raft of endangered flora and fauna as well as the common ones. This hanging swamp also is part of the system that feeds into Syndey’s water supply. The potential for water pollution will be an ongoing threat. General and noise pollution will also be an ongoing threat at all times.
- Erosion & Silt build up: All the hard surfaces of the nine residential blocks would be a threat for erosion to occur at the perimeters of the hanging swamp and surrounding areas. Silting-up of these areas is also a threat as the climate continues to change. We have had rain events with 200 – 300mm over the past 5 years which were designated as natural disasters.
- Jobs The area of the Blue Mountains does not provide many jobs & most people have to commute thereby creating more traffic in our area.
- Infrastructure: The Blue Mountains infrastructure – roads, hospital & doctors are limited in this area. The amount of people that this development will house will create an overload in this area. Katoomba already experiences traffic jams nearly every weekend because there are only three roads out onto the highway. The hospital is small, out-dated and some services are only available at Nepean Hospital which creates more traffic. Doctors are also in short supply.
- High Fire Risk: The Blue Mountains is high fire risk area, as you might realise from the 2019-20 fire. To build and bring many more people into this area with limited evacuation points is a continual danger and threat.
I understand that there are more homes needed. I think this development is too big and inappropriate for the area and cannot stress enough that the Blue Mountains is within a World Heritage National Park and we should be doing everything we can to preserve and protect this environment for the future for humans as well as the for the plants and animals. We should be be protecting this area by building smaller ,environmentally sound housing which suits the ambience of this area.
I have lived in Katoomba most of my life and enjoy the village atmosphere, low visual impact and leafy urbanity of the area. I love being able to fully access the natural wilderness at my doorstep as well as the natural scenery of the mountains surrounding the town. While Sydney is becoming a multitude of high rise buildings blotting the landscape more people will enjoy the visual differences our area provides.
KAREN BECKLEY
7 Rodova Street
Katoomba NSW 2780
SUBMISSION FOR 142-150 NARROW NECK RD, KATOOMBA, NSW, 2780
SSD-86456706 EIS 20260304235429
I oppose the development proposed for 142-150 Narrow Neck Road.
I also oppose the use of the Housing Delivery Authority to circumvent Blue Mountain Local Environment Protections (LEP) which have been developed through experience over many years.
I humbly request that the Blue Mountains Local Government Area be exempt from the HAD pathway.
This development is grossly too big for the local area and the Blue Mountains. The vicinity of this development abuts the World Heritage Blue Mountains National Park and will be a visual eyesore able to be seen for kilometres in every direction & ruin the natural landscape of this area which the Blue Mountains is renowned for.
The other points of objection are as follows:
- Pollution: Water: The development site itself & the immediate surrounds are an evironmentally sensitive area and bypasses and contravenes the Blue Mountains Local Environment Protections (LEP). It is at the source (beginning) of a hanging swamp which supports a whole raft of endangered flora and fauna as well as the common ones. This hanging swamp also is part of the system that feeds into Syndey’s water supply. The potential for water pollution will be an ongoing threat. General and noise pollution will also be an ongoing threat at all times.
- Erosion & Silt build up: All the hard surfaces of the nine residential blocks would be a threat for erosion to occur at the perimeters of the hanging swamp and surrounding areas. Silting-up of these areas is also a threat as the climate continues to change. We have had rain events with 200 – 300mm over the past 5 years which were designated as natural disasters.
- Jobs The area of the Blue Mountains does not provide many jobs & most people have to commute thereby creating more traffic in our area.
- Infrastructure: The Blue Mountains infrastructure – roads, hospital & doctors are limited in this area. The amount of people that this development will house will create an overload in this area. Katoomba already experiences traffic jams nearly every weekend because there are only three roads out onto the highway. The hospital is small, out-dated and some services are only available at Nepean Hospital which creates more traffic. Doctors are also in short supply.
- High Fire Risk: The Blue Mountains is high fire risk area, as you might realise from the 2019-20 fire. To build and bring many more people into this area with limited evacuation points is a continual danger and threat.
I understand that there are more homes needed. I think this development is too big and inappropriate for the area and cannot stress enough that the Blue Mountains is within a World Heritage National Park and we should be doing everything we can to preserve and protect this environment for the future for humans as well as the for the plants and animals. We should be be protecting this area by building smaller ,environmentally sound housing which suits the ambience of this area.
I have lived in Katoomba most of my life and enjoy the village atmosphere, low visual impact and leafy urbanity of the area. I love being able to fully access the natural wilderness at my doorstep as well as the natural scenery of the mountains surrounding the town. While Sydney is becoming a multitude of high rise buildings blotting the landscape more people will enjoy the visual differences our area provides.
KAREN BECKLEY
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Katoomba
,
New South Wales
Message
I object to this unusual proposal for the following reasons:
1. The site is near the edge of the escarpment and a World Heritage Area. The height of the proposed buildings will be highly visible from many of the Blue Mountains vantage points, causing harm to tourism which is the main economy for majority of the businesses and residents of the Blue Mountains. The buildings will overshadow nearby residents and completely change the small community feeling, the main reason we chose to live in this area.
2. The location is in a highly bushfire prone area, as well as on a road that has huge challenges if there was a bush fire and people had to evacuate. The Blue Mountains has egress issues if a bushfire was to occur, with only one main road in and out of the whole Blue Mountains. This would put all current residents in the area, including my family, in extreme danger as well as the proposed several thousand new residents and employees of the restaurant and art gallery, should this proposal go ahead.
3. The proposed site is located at the top of the Katoomba Creek Falls catchment, with the potential for significant environmental impacts of the creek and onto the downstream environment. When the townhouses were built in the nearby old Katoomba golf course, the brown runoff went directly into the creek.
4. The proposal will be greater in height and scale than any existing development in the Blue Mountains. It will be double the height and floor space controls allowed under the Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan 2015 for this site, which was created to protect this important and unique World Heritage Area.
5. The proposed site is outside of the Katoomba town centre, with very limited public transport options or access to other services.
6. The Blue Mountains is a large area, however we have very limited medical services. Most GP's have closed their books and are not taking on new patients. If you are lucky to have a GP who will see you, the wait list is usually two to four weeks. The hospital is very small and can only treat certain issues. Most times Blue Mountains residents need to be treated in Nepean or Westmead hospitals, which are already operating under extreme crisis situations. This proposal would just add a burden to our already failing medical system.
7. Prior to lodging the SSD application, the applicant was required to consult with the local community. The applicant has advised that they did this via a letterbox drop in late 2025 to residents 1-2km of the proposed site. This would include our residence and we did not receive and letter or information. I have spoken to many of my neighbours and they also did not receive any letter or information.
8. Understanding the need for affordable housingin the Blue Mountains area, this proposal will not assist the current issues many face with only 15% affordable housing proposed.
9. There are no footpaths in this area and foot traffic is already an issue with tourists, dog walkers, school children. Pedestrians need to walk on the road in many areas and when it is foggy, which is a lot of the time, this is very dangerous for both drivers and pedestrians.
10. The proposed area is also home to a lot of wildlife and removing a significant amount of trees will have a negative impact on the wildlife, especially the echidnas that live in this area. She see a few of them already walking on the roads.
11. Cahill’s look out doesn’t have adequate parking as it is, with the amount of tourist buses, locals and others trying to take in the view, the parking areas are full and there are cars and buses parked on the road. This proposal will increase traffic to the area and cause traffic issues, as it is the closest main lookout in this area.
1. The site is near the edge of the escarpment and a World Heritage Area. The height of the proposed buildings will be highly visible from many of the Blue Mountains vantage points, causing harm to tourism which is the main economy for majority of the businesses and residents of the Blue Mountains. The buildings will overshadow nearby residents and completely change the small community feeling, the main reason we chose to live in this area.
2. The location is in a highly bushfire prone area, as well as on a road that has huge challenges if there was a bush fire and people had to evacuate. The Blue Mountains has egress issues if a bushfire was to occur, with only one main road in and out of the whole Blue Mountains. This would put all current residents in the area, including my family, in extreme danger as well as the proposed several thousand new residents and employees of the restaurant and art gallery, should this proposal go ahead.
3. The proposed site is located at the top of the Katoomba Creek Falls catchment, with the potential for significant environmental impacts of the creek and onto the downstream environment. When the townhouses were built in the nearby old Katoomba golf course, the brown runoff went directly into the creek.
4. The proposal will be greater in height and scale than any existing development in the Blue Mountains. It will be double the height and floor space controls allowed under the Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan 2015 for this site, which was created to protect this important and unique World Heritage Area.
5. The proposed site is outside of the Katoomba town centre, with very limited public transport options or access to other services.
6. The Blue Mountains is a large area, however we have very limited medical services. Most GP's have closed their books and are not taking on new patients. If you are lucky to have a GP who will see you, the wait list is usually two to four weeks. The hospital is very small and can only treat certain issues. Most times Blue Mountains residents need to be treated in Nepean or Westmead hospitals, which are already operating under extreme crisis situations. This proposal would just add a burden to our already failing medical system.
7. Prior to lodging the SSD application, the applicant was required to consult with the local community. The applicant has advised that they did this via a letterbox drop in late 2025 to residents 1-2km of the proposed site. This would include our residence and we did not receive and letter or information. I have spoken to many of my neighbours and they also did not receive any letter or information.
8. Understanding the need for affordable housingin the Blue Mountains area, this proposal will not assist the current issues many face with only 15% affordable housing proposed.
9. There are no footpaths in this area and foot traffic is already an issue with tourists, dog walkers, school children. Pedestrians need to walk on the road in many areas and when it is foggy, which is a lot of the time, this is very dangerous for both drivers and pedestrians.
10. The proposed area is also home to a lot of wildlife and removing a significant amount of trees will have a negative impact on the wildlife, especially the echidnas that live in this area. She see a few of them already walking on the roads.
11. Cahill’s look out doesn’t have adequate parking as it is, with the amount of tourist buses, locals and others trying to take in the view, the parking areas are full and there are cars and buses parked on the road. This proposal will increase traffic to the area and cause traffic issues, as it is the closest main lookout in this area.
Daniel Tynan
Object
Daniel Tynan
Object
KATOOMBA
,
New South Wales
Message
I write to formally object to the proposed mixed-use development at 142–150 Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba, comprising nine (9) buildings, 218 dwellings (including 15% affordable housing), 52 serviced apartments, and associated commercial uses including a restaurant and art gallery.
My objection is based on the following key planning concerns:
1. Inadequate Road Capacity and Construction Traffic Impacts
Narrow Neck Road is a constrained, predominantly single-lane access route that is not designed to accommodate high volumes of traffic or heavy vehicles. The construction of a development of this scale would require sustained use of large trucks, machinery, and contractor vehicles. The road’s limited width and geometry create significant risks of congestion, conflict between vehicles, and safety hazards for residents and visitors. It is not suitable for the level of construction traffic that would be required.
2. Ongoing Traffic Generation and Residential Impact
Once operational, the development would generate substantial additional traffic from over 200 dwellings, serviced apartments, and commercial uses. This would place a permanent strain on the surrounding residential area, congesting the road network that lacks the capacity to absorb such increases. The existing neighborhood cannot safely or efficiently accommodate this level of activity.
3. Bushfire Risk and Emergency Access
The site is located within a fire-prone area. In such environments, safe and reliable access and egress are critical. The limitations of Narrow Neck Road raise serious concerns regarding evacuation capacity and emergency service access during a bushfire event. Increased population density in this location exacerbates risk to life and property and is inconsistent with prudent planning in bushfire-prone areas.
4. Lack of Public Transport Accessibility
The site is not well-served by public transport. As a result, future residents, visitors, and patrons of the commercial components would be heavily reliant on private vehicles or bus transport. This would further increase traffic volumes on Narrow Neck Road, which is already unsuitable for such demand.
5. Excessive Building Height and Scale
The proposed development represents a scale and height that is inconsistent with the established built form of Katoomba. Buildings exceeding the height and bulk of surrounding development would have a detrimental impact on the visual character of the area and are not in keeping with the low-rise nature of the locality.
6. Incompatibility with Local Architectural Character
The proposed architectural style does not align with the established character of the Katoomba area. Development in this location should respond sensitively to the existing streetscape and environmental context. The proposal appears out of place and risks undermining the unique aesthetic and cultural identity of the area.
In summary, the proposal represents an overdevelopment of a constrained site. The combination of inadequate road infrastructure, bushfire risk, excessive scale, and incompatibility with the local character makes this development unsuitable for approval.
I respectfully request that the consent authority give full consideration to these concerns and refuse the application.
Regards
Daniel Tynan SC
My objection is based on the following key planning concerns:
1. Inadequate Road Capacity and Construction Traffic Impacts
Narrow Neck Road is a constrained, predominantly single-lane access route that is not designed to accommodate high volumes of traffic or heavy vehicles. The construction of a development of this scale would require sustained use of large trucks, machinery, and contractor vehicles. The road’s limited width and geometry create significant risks of congestion, conflict between vehicles, and safety hazards for residents and visitors. It is not suitable for the level of construction traffic that would be required.
2. Ongoing Traffic Generation and Residential Impact
Once operational, the development would generate substantial additional traffic from over 200 dwellings, serviced apartments, and commercial uses. This would place a permanent strain on the surrounding residential area, congesting the road network that lacks the capacity to absorb such increases. The existing neighborhood cannot safely or efficiently accommodate this level of activity.
3. Bushfire Risk and Emergency Access
The site is located within a fire-prone area. In such environments, safe and reliable access and egress are critical. The limitations of Narrow Neck Road raise serious concerns regarding evacuation capacity and emergency service access during a bushfire event. Increased population density in this location exacerbates risk to life and property and is inconsistent with prudent planning in bushfire-prone areas.
4. Lack of Public Transport Accessibility
The site is not well-served by public transport. As a result, future residents, visitors, and patrons of the commercial components would be heavily reliant on private vehicles or bus transport. This would further increase traffic volumes on Narrow Neck Road, which is already unsuitable for such demand.
5. Excessive Building Height and Scale
The proposed development represents a scale and height that is inconsistent with the established built form of Katoomba. Buildings exceeding the height and bulk of surrounding development would have a detrimental impact on the visual character of the area and are not in keeping with the low-rise nature of the locality.
6. Incompatibility with Local Architectural Character
The proposed architectural style does not align with the established character of the Katoomba area. Development in this location should respond sensitively to the existing streetscape and environmental context. The proposal appears out of place and risks undermining the unique aesthetic and cultural identity of the area.
In summary, the proposal represents an overdevelopment of a constrained site. The combination of inadequate road infrastructure, bushfire risk, excessive scale, and incompatibility with the local character makes this development unsuitable for approval.
I respectfully request that the consent authority give full consideration to these concerns and refuse the application.
Regards
Daniel Tynan SC
Christine Carmichael
Object
Christine Carmichael
Object
LAWSON
,
New South Wales
Message
To whom it may concern,
While I acknowledge the need for more housing, I object to the proposal for a State Significant Development that has been proposed at 142-150 Narrow Neck Road Katoomba, which has been declared as State Significant by the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces.
I have lived in the Blue Mountains for 45 years and moved here for the amazing attributes the area holds. It is in the centre of a World Heritage Listed National Park with many unique and endangered species of wildlife. It is a peaceful and beautiful bushland environment which has been well cared for by our local council and many residents who engage in bushcare, such as I have done for 30 years. It is also a major attraction for tourists which aids the survival of local businesses.
The LGA also consists of a string of townships which proudly display heritage of the early settlers who moved here after the Aboriginal led first crossing of the mountains. I live in Lawson which still has many heritage buildings to demonstrate the history of the town. This is not uncommon in many of the townships from Lapstone to Hartley and beyond. The train journey is a tourist attraction in itself for both the heritage and environmental features.
The environmental issues that will result from the proposed project, which is totally out of character for the area, include stormwater quality and quantity, due to the size of the development and consequent hard surfaces. The large building which aims to accommodate 214 + residents plus more transient accommodation will also increase these two water problems which will then impact the environment below. The affected area is the Planetary Health Precinct and Parkland which will have to absorb stormwater discharging from the proposal site. This site is in a sensitive location, above the Kedumba Creek catchment which must avoid environmental impacts.
The obvious lack of heritage value and the fact that this huge, tall building would be seen from the National Park below the escarpment, on which it will dominate, will be a negative for the tourist trade and of course for the local people. This site is not suitable for the creation of so much more housing, out of character and is potentially a huge money-making effort by the proponent. A proposal of eight residential buildings and a ninth building for restaurants and other facilities is not in keeping with the surrounding area nor in keeping with the well-developed Council planning controls. For example, at the 31.03.26 meeting of BMCC it was stated that this proposal, with its building height and density, would be double Council’s local planning controls, and be greater than any development in the Katoomba town centre.
Finally, there is a serious safety issue. The area is bushfire prone atop the southern escarpment of the National Park. Furthermore, the Blue Mountains in general has suffered one of the most serious bushfires in 2019/20. To place so many people in a perilous situation is unconscionable and Narrow Neck Rd is narrow. Rescuing those who cannot drive away quickly enough, and enabling fire trucks to get to the site, would be a nightmare.
Please reconsider the proposal in a realistic light and advise the proponent to reduce the size and position of a structure so that it provides decent housing and the benefit of safety, the environment, local people and tourism.
Yours sincerely,
Christine Carmichael
Lawson.
While I acknowledge the need for more housing, I object to the proposal for a State Significant Development that has been proposed at 142-150 Narrow Neck Road Katoomba, which has been declared as State Significant by the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces.
I have lived in the Blue Mountains for 45 years and moved here for the amazing attributes the area holds. It is in the centre of a World Heritage Listed National Park with many unique and endangered species of wildlife. It is a peaceful and beautiful bushland environment which has been well cared for by our local council and many residents who engage in bushcare, such as I have done for 30 years. It is also a major attraction for tourists which aids the survival of local businesses.
The LGA also consists of a string of townships which proudly display heritage of the early settlers who moved here after the Aboriginal led first crossing of the mountains. I live in Lawson which still has many heritage buildings to demonstrate the history of the town. This is not uncommon in many of the townships from Lapstone to Hartley and beyond. The train journey is a tourist attraction in itself for both the heritage and environmental features.
The environmental issues that will result from the proposed project, which is totally out of character for the area, include stormwater quality and quantity, due to the size of the development and consequent hard surfaces. The large building which aims to accommodate 214 + residents plus more transient accommodation will also increase these two water problems which will then impact the environment below. The affected area is the Planetary Health Precinct and Parkland which will have to absorb stormwater discharging from the proposal site. This site is in a sensitive location, above the Kedumba Creek catchment which must avoid environmental impacts.
The obvious lack of heritage value and the fact that this huge, tall building would be seen from the National Park below the escarpment, on which it will dominate, will be a negative for the tourist trade and of course for the local people. This site is not suitable for the creation of so much more housing, out of character and is potentially a huge money-making effort by the proponent. A proposal of eight residential buildings and a ninth building for restaurants and other facilities is not in keeping with the surrounding area nor in keeping with the well-developed Council planning controls. For example, at the 31.03.26 meeting of BMCC it was stated that this proposal, with its building height and density, would be double Council’s local planning controls, and be greater than any development in the Katoomba town centre.
Finally, there is a serious safety issue. The area is bushfire prone atop the southern escarpment of the National Park. Furthermore, the Blue Mountains in general has suffered one of the most serious bushfires in 2019/20. To place so many people in a perilous situation is unconscionable and Narrow Neck Rd is narrow. Rescuing those who cannot drive away quickly enough, and enabling fire trucks to get to the site, would be a nightmare.
Please reconsider the proposal in a realistic light and advise the proponent to reduce the size and position of a structure so that it provides decent housing and the benefit of safety, the environment, local people and tourism.
Yours sincerely,
Christine Carmichael
Lawson.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
KATOOMBA
,
New South Wales
Message
Submission: Opposition to Development Application, 142–150 Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba
I am a resident of Katoomba, in the Blue Mountains, and I write to formally and strongly oppose the proposed development at 142–150 Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba.
I live and work here. I know this town, its roads, its infrastructure, its character, and its very real physical constraints. This proposal is not just ill-considered – it is reckless.
Scale and Zoning
Nine four-storey buildings comprising 266 apartments on a 1.6-hectare site is not medium-density development. It is urban high-density development transplanted into a town that is neither designed nor capable of absorbing it.
The site is zoned R3 Medium Density under the Blue Mountains LEP, with a maximum permitted building height of 8 metres, roughly two storeys. The developer is seeking to more than double that. This is not a minor variation; it is a wholesale rejection of the existing planning framework.
Nothing of this scale is currently permitted anywhere in the Blue Mountains LGA, and for good reason.
Blue Mountains City Council Mayor Mark Greenhill has already described this proposal as "the worst development proposal we have seen in the Blue Mountains" and "grossly inappropriate for our World Heritage region." I share that assessment without qualification.
Traffic and Infrastructure — A Crisis Already in Motion
Anyone who has driven through Katoomba on a recent weekend does not need a traffic study to understand the problem. The roads are already gridlocked. Parking is nonexistent. Tourists and locals alike sit in queues that stretch well beyond the town centre. This is the current baseline... before a single additional resident from this development arrives.
Adding several hundred new dwellings, and the vehicles that come with them, to narrow local roads that were never designed for this volume is not a planning risk. It is a planning certainty.
Public transport connections are limited. Car dependence in this area is not a lifestyle choice; it is a structural reality. These residents will drive.
Bushfire Risk
The Blue Mountains is one of the most bushfire-prone regions in Australia. Currently 26% of local homes face high bushfire risk. Climate modelling projects that figure rising to 90% by 2090.
The site has limited evacuation routes. There is effectively one main exit to the Great Western Highway, and it is vulnerable during fire events, which are precisely when it would be most needed.
Blue Mountains City Council has itself stated that concentrating more people in high-risk bushfire areas is reckless and dangerous. Council specifically noted that the proposed site is surrounded by bushfire-prone land at the top of the escarpment, close to where homes were destroyed by fire in 2014.
Placing hundreds of additional residents into this environment, with constrained egress, is not an acceptable planning outcome under any reasonable interpretation of public safety obligations.
Environmental Impacts
The site adjoins Blue Mountains Swamps, a Threatened Ecological Community, which feeds the Katoomba Falls catchment. This catchment supports the Critically Endangered Dwarf Mountain Pine, one of the rarest plant species in Australia.
Increased impermeable surfaces will alter water flow, accelerate stormwater runoff, reduce groundwater infiltration, and introduce polluted runoff and weeds, directly threatening the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area and Sydney's drinking water catchment.
These are not abstract environmental concerns. They are documented, measurable, and irreversible if this development proceeds.
The HDA Pathway and the 'State Significant Development' Classification: Questions That Demand Answers
I oppose the use of the Housing Delivery Authority (HDA) pathway in the Blue Mountains, and I request that the Blue Mountains LGA be explicitly exempted from both the HDA and State Significant Development pathways.
Under NSW planning law, State Significant Development status is reserved for projects of GENUINE state-level importance, typically critical infrastructure, projects serving demonstrable regional or statewide need, or developments of a scale and complexity requiring specialist state-level assessment.
The criteria exist precisely to distinguish projects that transcend local planning from those that simply seek to avoid it. A private residential and commercial development on a 1.6-hectare suburban site in a regional mountain town does not, on any reasonable reading, meet that threshold.
I question directly what legitimate basis exists for classifying this proposal as a State Significant Development. The classification appears to function here not as a planning instrument, but as a mechanism to circumvent the Blue Mountains LEP, a document developed over years of expert planning and genuine community consultation, specifically tailored to this region's unique environmental, safety, and cultural context.
This pattern of using the SSD classification to override local planning controls is not new to the Blue Mountains, and it has been resisted before.
A $110 million wildlife park and hotel development proposed for Bodington Hill, Wentworth Falls, also designated as State Significant Development, was opposed by Council on identical grounds: breach of the LEP, clearing of protected bushland, encroachment into an Environmental Protection zone, and incompatibility with the character and scenic values of the Mountains.
The NSW Department of Planning and Environment ultimately rejected a staged amendment to that proposal.
The lesson is clear... the SSD pathway, applied to the Blue Mountains, is a blunt instrument that consistently produces inappropriate outcomes.
Furthermore, it is worth noting that the State Government itself has previously recognised that the Blue Mountains warrants special treatment in planning matters. When the NSW Government introduced its Low Rise Housing Code reforms, allowing medium-density development up to six storeys near train stations, the Blue Mountains was explicitly exempted, on the grounds of bushfire risk, World Heritage Area status, and the inadequacy of a one-size-fits-all approach to this unique region.
If the State has already acknowledged that broad housing reform mechanisms are unsuitable for the Blue Mountains, on what basis is an even more aggressive mechanism now being applied here? The contradiction is difficult to reconcile.
Precedent
If approved, this development will serve as a precedent, effectively signalling that high-density urban-style development can be imposed anywhere in the Blue Mountains LGA regardless of zoning, environmental sensitivity, bushfire risk, or community character. Once that precedent is established, it will be extraordinarily difficult to reverse.
The Blue Mountains community has successfully resisted inappropriate state-driven planning overreach before. Council unanimously rejected the Minns Government's proposal to allow multi-storey residential flat buildings around railway stations across the LGA, with the Mayor rightly noting that placing more people in bushfire-prone areas is "simply insane." The same logic applies here, with even greater force.
Conclusion
I formally request that the Consent Authority visit the development site and the surrounding area, including key visitor destinations and environmentally sensitive zones, before any decision is made. A site visit is not optional due diligence here; it is essential.
I oppose this development in the strongest possible terms.
John Kwiecinski
Katoomba, NSW
I am a resident of Katoomba, in the Blue Mountains, and I write to formally and strongly oppose the proposed development at 142–150 Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba.
I live and work here. I know this town, its roads, its infrastructure, its character, and its very real physical constraints. This proposal is not just ill-considered – it is reckless.
Scale and Zoning
Nine four-storey buildings comprising 266 apartments on a 1.6-hectare site is not medium-density development. It is urban high-density development transplanted into a town that is neither designed nor capable of absorbing it.
The site is zoned R3 Medium Density under the Blue Mountains LEP, with a maximum permitted building height of 8 metres, roughly two storeys. The developer is seeking to more than double that. This is not a minor variation; it is a wholesale rejection of the existing planning framework.
Nothing of this scale is currently permitted anywhere in the Blue Mountains LGA, and for good reason.
Blue Mountains City Council Mayor Mark Greenhill has already described this proposal as "the worst development proposal we have seen in the Blue Mountains" and "grossly inappropriate for our World Heritage region." I share that assessment without qualification.
Traffic and Infrastructure — A Crisis Already in Motion
Anyone who has driven through Katoomba on a recent weekend does not need a traffic study to understand the problem. The roads are already gridlocked. Parking is nonexistent. Tourists and locals alike sit in queues that stretch well beyond the town centre. This is the current baseline... before a single additional resident from this development arrives.
Adding several hundred new dwellings, and the vehicles that come with them, to narrow local roads that were never designed for this volume is not a planning risk. It is a planning certainty.
Public transport connections are limited. Car dependence in this area is not a lifestyle choice; it is a structural reality. These residents will drive.
Bushfire Risk
The Blue Mountains is one of the most bushfire-prone regions in Australia. Currently 26% of local homes face high bushfire risk. Climate modelling projects that figure rising to 90% by 2090.
The site has limited evacuation routes. There is effectively one main exit to the Great Western Highway, and it is vulnerable during fire events, which are precisely when it would be most needed.
Blue Mountains City Council has itself stated that concentrating more people in high-risk bushfire areas is reckless and dangerous. Council specifically noted that the proposed site is surrounded by bushfire-prone land at the top of the escarpment, close to where homes were destroyed by fire in 2014.
Placing hundreds of additional residents into this environment, with constrained egress, is not an acceptable planning outcome under any reasonable interpretation of public safety obligations.
Environmental Impacts
The site adjoins Blue Mountains Swamps, a Threatened Ecological Community, which feeds the Katoomba Falls catchment. This catchment supports the Critically Endangered Dwarf Mountain Pine, one of the rarest plant species in Australia.
Increased impermeable surfaces will alter water flow, accelerate stormwater runoff, reduce groundwater infiltration, and introduce polluted runoff and weeds, directly threatening the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area and Sydney's drinking water catchment.
These are not abstract environmental concerns. They are documented, measurable, and irreversible if this development proceeds.
The HDA Pathway and the 'State Significant Development' Classification: Questions That Demand Answers
I oppose the use of the Housing Delivery Authority (HDA) pathway in the Blue Mountains, and I request that the Blue Mountains LGA be explicitly exempted from both the HDA and State Significant Development pathways.
Under NSW planning law, State Significant Development status is reserved for projects of GENUINE state-level importance, typically critical infrastructure, projects serving demonstrable regional or statewide need, or developments of a scale and complexity requiring specialist state-level assessment.
The criteria exist precisely to distinguish projects that transcend local planning from those that simply seek to avoid it. A private residential and commercial development on a 1.6-hectare suburban site in a regional mountain town does not, on any reasonable reading, meet that threshold.
I question directly what legitimate basis exists for classifying this proposal as a State Significant Development. The classification appears to function here not as a planning instrument, but as a mechanism to circumvent the Blue Mountains LEP, a document developed over years of expert planning and genuine community consultation, specifically tailored to this region's unique environmental, safety, and cultural context.
This pattern of using the SSD classification to override local planning controls is not new to the Blue Mountains, and it has been resisted before.
A $110 million wildlife park and hotel development proposed for Bodington Hill, Wentworth Falls, also designated as State Significant Development, was opposed by Council on identical grounds: breach of the LEP, clearing of protected bushland, encroachment into an Environmental Protection zone, and incompatibility with the character and scenic values of the Mountains.
The NSW Department of Planning and Environment ultimately rejected a staged amendment to that proposal.
The lesson is clear... the SSD pathway, applied to the Blue Mountains, is a blunt instrument that consistently produces inappropriate outcomes.
Furthermore, it is worth noting that the State Government itself has previously recognised that the Blue Mountains warrants special treatment in planning matters. When the NSW Government introduced its Low Rise Housing Code reforms, allowing medium-density development up to six storeys near train stations, the Blue Mountains was explicitly exempted, on the grounds of bushfire risk, World Heritage Area status, and the inadequacy of a one-size-fits-all approach to this unique region.
If the State has already acknowledged that broad housing reform mechanisms are unsuitable for the Blue Mountains, on what basis is an even more aggressive mechanism now being applied here? The contradiction is difficult to reconcile.
Precedent
If approved, this development will serve as a precedent, effectively signalling that high-density urban-style development can be imposed anywhere in the Blue Mountains LGA regardless of zoning, environmental sensitivity, bushfire risk, or community character. Once that precedent is established, it will be extraordinarily difficult to reverse.
The Blue Mountains community has successfully resisted inappropriate state-driven planning overreach before. Council unanimously rejected the Minns Government's proposal to allow multi-storey residential flat buildings around railway stations across the LGA, with the Mayor rightly noting that placing more people in bushfire-prone areas is "simply insane." The same logic applies here, with even greater force.
Conclusion
I formally request that the Consent Authority visit the development site and the surrounding area, including key visitor destinations and environmentally sensitive zones, before any decision is made. A site visit is not optional due diligence here; it is essential.
I oppose this development in the strongest possible terms.
John Kwiecinski
Katoomba, NSW
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Katoomba
,
New South Wales
Message
I don't believe adding a development like this to the area is helpful at all. Reading the number of trees to be cut down is disgusting considering how many endangered and threatened natives species of flora and fauna occupy the Katoomba area. Choosing to prioritise this type of development over the preservation of our natural spaces is frankly disappointing.
There is not the infrastructure to support a housing estate like this and the shops introduced will likely be large corporation chains that change the area, rather than local stores.
There is not the infrastructure to support a housing estate like this and the shops introduced will likely be large corporation chains that change the area, rather than local stores.
Inkeri D'Arcy-Clarke
Object
Inkeri D'Arcy-Clarke
Object
SPRINGWOOD
,
New South Wales
Message
I oppose the development on Narrow Neck for the following reasons:
- A large apartment complex is not visually consistent with the mix of bush and low density housing in the surrounding area and will affect natural beauty
- The development is on an escarpment and is thus at high risk of bushfire despite current classification; it is not suitable for high density residential living
- The site sits closely above the Blue Mountains National Park; waste run off is likely to negatively affect the ecologically sensitive area
- A large apartment complex is not visually consistent with the mix of bush and low density housing in the surrounding area and will affect natural beauty
- The development is on an escarpment and is thus at high risk of bushfire despite current classification; it is not suitable for high density residential living
- The site sits closely above the Blue Mountains National Park; waste run off is likely to negatively affect the ecologically sensitive area
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Springwood
,
New South Wales
Message
I am completely opposed to the development primarily on the grounds that it is completely out of character with the surrounding 'mountains suburban character' and the Blue Mountains in general. The proponents claims that the development "has been carefully designed to ensure a built form that is not dominant within the streetscape or landscape setting of the locality" and "the buildings are well articulated and consistent with the established and desired future character of the area". Published illustrations of the proposal show these claims to be untrue. How can a 4 or 5 storey bulky building of the form illustrated not be dominant in a street of one to two storey detached dwellings and completely inconsistent with the established character.
This development is of a scale and character that belongs in a city and is completely out of character with the "established and desired future character of the area and Blue Mountains.
This development is of a scale and character that belongs in a city and is completely out of character with the "established and desired future character of the area and Blue Mountains.