BERRIMA GAOL
I am very concerned about a number of factors about the Heritage and environment matters that will be negatively affected by this quite radical proposal. In no particular order I am very concerned about the ongoing access to and care and water quality of LAMBIE’S WELL:
Recently a grant of $2730 was given to Berrima Residents’ Association by the
Wingecarribee Shire Council. Restoring Berrima’s Walking Trails
This project "targets the most degraded sections of the Lambie’s Well path and
Installing a way finding sign. The grant will be used by volunteers to clear undergrowth, repair stone steps and mitigate risks to walkers from broken ground." This shows that this access path, which is immediately behind the gaol walls and where the proposed hotel units are planned for, is known by local people and in use, and will definitely be affected by any construction outside the great Western walls of the gaol. Thhe walk to Lambie's Well is also a pretty, easy and interesting thing for tourists and day trippers to do while in Berrima
The water in Lambie's Well, which was once an important and accessible collection point used by the earlier residents of the building, trickles down from beneath the sandstone under the gaol buildings, and I am concerned that it will be polluted and also that the hydrology will be affected by construction and this heritage water source will dry up.
I am concerned about anything that affects the structural integrity of the stone wall that surround the gaol, dating from 1839 for walls the sides and back, while the main front wall and gatehouse date from 1866. These sandstone walls are an essential part of the historic architecture. No aspect of these walls should be changed, and particularly, the view of the massive back walls from the wingecarribee River must not change. Therefore the proposal to build any structure outside the western wall, let alone unsympathetically designed hotel units, must be refused.
The proposal to alter the 1866 front wall to provide an alternative entrance is strongly opposed. As well as failing to preserve the heritage value and appearance of the front of the building, this will also damage the rose garden in that area, an historic garden which also has unique heritage value.

Key facts: Original 1839 wall and entry gate built 1839, have State Heritage significance. The main front wall and the gatehouse were
built in 1866. The walls are constructed from sandstone blocks.
Furthermore, I am concerned that work to change the walls will not be possible to rehabilitate to original condition in future should this business fails or be felt to be inappropriate development in such a well-preserved heritage village

Attention: Fadi Shakir
RE: State Significant Development - Berrima Hotel Reference: Applicant Number SSD 66876472.
From Bob Dwyer
12 Jellore Street.
Berrima NSW 2577.
7th November 2025.

I object to the development of the Berrima Hotel being built outside the walls of Berrima Gaol as this is an inappropriate large -scale development in a small, historically significant Georgian village. I also object to the noise from the extended construction process of a large development in a confined residential area.

Yours sincerely

Robert (Bob) Dwyer, AM.

Attention; Fadi Shakir
state significant development- Berrima Hotel
applicant number SSD-66876472
from Ruth Maddigan
12 Jellore Street Berrima NSW 2577
7th November 2025
I object to the Berrima Hotel development due to the increase in traffic from greater numbers of patrons and workers cars in an already very busy tourist village
i also object to the inapproriate scale of the development outside the gaol walls with no regards to the history of one the few remaining heritage protected Georgian villages in Australia

Yours Sincerely
Ruth Maddigan

I object to the proposed development in its current form.
I believe the developer just needs to work harder to create better and more respectful architecture.
I object to the piercings in the eastern wall and the hotel built in front of the western wall.
I would say to the developer that both are a mistake for the developer. A glazed west facing box on a hill will not be an energy efficient or comfortable hotel – it will be a horrible place to stay. Piercing the eastern wall will take away exactly the heritage qualities entering through the existing main gate offers, diluting the embodied heritage experience and reducing the hotel to just another venue. But my objection is not based on the mistakes the developer is making for himself.

My objection is based on the impact on this premier heritage item and the future of Berrima as a whole.

The primary heritage feature of the gaol is the view of the walls from outside the gaol. The walls were built to be seen – the walls were the message: do the wrong thing and you will be detained behind these walls. The courthouse has the elegance of justice and the walls the brooding power of punishment.
A development which allows the public inside the walls will be welcome.
But to not protect and retain the visibility of the walls from the outside in all their awesome bulk is to fail to understand the heritage value of the site.

As to the impact on Berrima, the developer in the EIS, on page 34, suggests, that there are no other projects of such significance existing or proposed and it is unlike there will be given the desire to conserve the town and local Council planning. I laughed out loud.
If this project is got wrong, it will still be the best of the large-scale development gold rush it triggers. If bad adaptation and reuse is allowed, worse will follow. Among the sites the developer can’t imagine with heritage items on them are 1. the Anglican church, Holy Trinity; 2. the Rectory at the end of Wingecarribee Street, 3. the White Horse Inn (which previously has had a proposal for townhouses behind it); 4. the Surveyor General hotel (beside the gaol), 5. Eschalot restaurant, Breens Inn (in front of the gaol); and 6. even eventually Berrima Public School. All of these historic sites have empty space for adaptive exploitation. Among the sites which have no heritage items on them but determine the rural settling of the town are all the properties on the southern moving around to western bank of the river.
Most of these sites can sustain a development scale and value to lift them out of local government constraints.

I say to the developer: just do better; get a better design from your architect or a better architect, understand heritage values more fully, care about the impact on the town after you have made your money and gone.

I object to the proposed construction of hotel rooms outside the walls of Berrima Goal in the village of Berrima.
Berrima is one of the few remaining examples of a Georgian village in NSW.
The proposal to build outside the walls of the goal by the developers will severely detract from the goals historic visual appeal in the streetscape and the river frontage of the village. The outer perimeter walls and front gatehouse are from the original 1830’s construction built by convicts using locally quarried sandstone blocks.
I agree that the goal would be a benefit to this historic village if the interior was sympathetically used for tourism or accommodation. The current plans to build outside the walls show no respect to the heritage or environment of this significant building in a significant village. I conclude the current proposal would detract from the great heritage value of Berrima.

Yours sincerely

Joanne Edgar

Summary of Objection
I wish to formally object to the proposed hotel development adjacent to Berrima Gaol on the grounds of environmental risk, public safety, and insufficient assessment under NSW planning guidelines. Independent expert reviews commissioned by the Berrima Residents’ Association have revealed multiple deficiencies in the project’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and serious threats to the Wingecarribee River environment.

1. Absence of a Biodiversity Report
The Department of Planning and Environment inexplicably granted the developer (Blue Sox) a waiver from preparing a Biodiversity Report (Appendix 21). This omission means the EIS fails to adequately assess the ecological consequences of the proposed works on the river corridor, riparian vegetation, and adjacent habitats. Such an exemption undermines the transparency and integrity of the assessment process for a State Significant Development.

2. Flooding, Water Runoff and Public Safety Risks
The project’s Flood Impact and Risk Assessment (Martens & Associates, Sept 2025) acknowledges that, during “extreme flood events,” the basement car park entrance would be cut off by hazardous floodwaters. Under Australian and Council flood standards, 0.5 metres of water could enter the carpark, posing direct safety risks to occupants and emergency personnel. Given increasing rainfall intensity under climate change, this design represents an unacceptable risk of both human harm and flood-related pollution entering the Wingecarribee River.

3. Inadequate Consideration of Wildlife and Habitat Impacts
* Microbats: Expert ecologist Dr Stephen Douglas (Jan 2025) found that the sandstone escarpment below the site “may still support one or more threatened microbat species”, yet no targeted survey was conducted to confirm their presence. With 19 NSW microbat species listed as Endangered or Vulnerable, this omission breaches best-practice environmental assessment principles.
* Platypus Habitat: The Wingecarribee River at Berrima is recognised through community monitoring and university research as a platypus hotspot. Disturbance, sedimentation and pollution from the proposed development threaten this important habitat.
* Rakali (Native Water Rat): The same river reach supports Rakali populations, which are highly sensitive to hydrological and habitat changes (McKenna & Lovett, 2025).

4. Degradation of Riparian and Aquatic Ecology
The Aquatic Ecology Assessment (EcoLogical, 2025) identifies several construction activities with potential for “moderate to high impact” on aquatic systems, yet offers limited evidence that mitigation measures are practical or enforceable. Independent expert Professor Ian Wright (Western Sydney University) confirmed in 2025 that the Wingecarribee River is already “very sick”, with excessive turbidity and unsafe nutrient concentrations. Any further disturbance will worsen existing degradation, threatening local wildlife and water quality.

5. Conclusion
This development presents clear ecological, hydrological, and public safety risks and does not meet NSW environmental protection standards for State Significant Developments. For these reasons, I strongly oppose the proposed Berrima Hotel development.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8 November, 2025

Dear Mr Shakir,

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Outer Wall of Berrima Correctional Centre is historically significant at a state level as it is an integral extant element of the original Berrima Gaol, dating from the 1830s. It is one of the few surviving examples of a gaol compound dating from pre 1840 and was constructed using convict work gangs. This element has been continually in use since it was constructed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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