Objection to Berrima Hotel State Significant Development (SSD-66876472)
I object to the proposed redevelopment of the former Berrima Gaol by Bluesox as presented in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on exhibition until 26 November 2025.
1. Lack of Justification for the Project
The EIS states the project “aims to celebrate and showcase the history of the site” (p.87), yet none of the listed components (p.16) meaningfully reflect Berrima’s 1830s colonial origins or the Gaol’s 186-year penal history. Assertions that the development will “strengthen connection with local culture” and “contribute to the vibrancy” of Berrima are contradicted by the highly exclusive, high-end nature of the proposal. A 316 m² wedding/function centre with liquor licence to midnight will significantly damage the quiet, heritage-based character of the village, creating noise, light and traffic impacts that undermine residential amenity and the historic atmosphere valued by visitors.
2. Proposal Objectives Not Met
The EIS objective to “achieve a high level of compatibility with the existing character of the locality” (p.17) is unsupported. Berrima’s significance derives from its intact colonial Georgian fabric. The Gaol and its curtilage dominate the Heritage Conservation Area. Bluesox’s plan to place a large, contemporary “massed bulk” accommodation block outside the western wall, and a 3-level (two underground) carpark south of the wall, destroys that curtilage and overwhelms the historic built form. The claim that the design is “harmonious” with local character (p.87) is not credible.
3. Strategic Context Misrepresented
The EIS argues (p.19) that the proposal aligns with the NSW Visitor Economy Strategy 2030 by drawing tourists to the Highlands. However, Bluesox intends to build a highly expensive boutique hotel (Bluesox representatives indicated prices up to $1,000 per night), with bar, restaurant, spa, and a wedding centre designed to retain guests onsite. Rather than adding to Berrima’s appeal, the modern, oversized structures erode the authenticity that attracts visitors. Research by Berrima Heritage Matters (1,400 face-to-face interviews, Feb–Nov 2025) confirms tourists come specifically to experience an intact Georgian village “frozen in time”. This proposal undermines that experience.
4. Inadequate and Misleading Community Engagement
The EIS claims community engagement followed the SEARs and State Significant Projects Engagement Guidelines, but this is incorrect.
a. No community engagement in preparing the CMP or HIS
The Conservation Management Plan (CMP), dated 15 May 2024, was produced in-house by URBIS with no community consultation—contrary to mandated guidelines. It was not released until February 2025, after completion. The Heritage Impact Statement (HIS) relies heavily on the CMP, so its deficiencies carry across. Both documents lack community-derived understanding of heritage values.
b. Engagement replaced by superficial “PR-style” consultation
Bluesox hired a PR firm that met with the Berrima Residents Association and selected individuals, but did not meet with Berrima Heritage Matters despite its daily public presence via the Berrima Heritage Centre. Consultations consisted of Bluesox presenting fixed plans—a “fait accompli”—and telling residents key elements were “not negotiable”. At one meeting a resident was told to “move away” if they disliked the plans. This cannot reasonably be called engagement.
c. Plans changed only in response to the State Design Review Panel, not the community
No adjustments were made as a result of community feedback; changes between the 2023 SEARS submission and the 2025 EIS were made only after SDRP commentary.
d. Claims of consultation with the National Trust and Council are exaggerated
Meetings with the National Trust were cursory. Wingecarribee Shire Council confirms Bluesox provided only “limited information” (email, Deputy GM, 1/10/25). The HIS lists consultation with the Vice-President of Friends of Wingecarribee (28 March 2024), yet the named individual has no recollection and has no record of any meeting.
5. Heritage Impacts Are Severe and Poorly Assessed
The HIS asserts compliance with Heritage NSW guidelines (p.66), but this is unsubstantiated. The assessment considers only the buildings within the Gaol lot and excludes:
• curtilage impacts
• the Gaol’s relationship to the village
• impacts on setting and views from the Wingecarribee River
This omits half the heritage issues raised by the proposal and results in an assessment that appears to justify the project rather than evaluate it.
The proposal contradicts the NSW Draft Heritage Strategy (2025), as it fails to interpret or integrate the Gaol’s 186-year history, its role in colonial expansion, or changing penal practices. It is inconsistent with WLEP 2021, the DCP, and Council’s Berrima Character Statement.
Significantly, Sutherland & Associates’ own SEARS submission (p.63) acknowledges the project is not permissible under current zoning and depends on the WLEP 2021 “incentives clause” (s.5.10(10)). The EIS avoids addressing this threshold issue. Case law suggests the clause cannot be used to permit such use, meaning the development may be fundamentally unlawful.
The western wall of the Gaol would be visually obliterated by the accommodation block (Appendix 23, 5B), destroying key views from the river and Lambie’s Well Walk. The proposed demolition of the Industries Building is unjustified given its importance to 20th-century inmate rehabilitation history; proper engagement would have revealed its significance.
6. Flood Risk Is Unacceptable
The Martens flood report (Appendix 25) finds the two basement carpark levels and lower-basement hotel suites may be inundated in a Probable Maximum Flood (PMF). NSW flood policy requires climate-change-adjusted risk assessment. The lowest carpark level is at 648 m AHD—approximately the 0.2% AEP peak flood level—and State guidelines require an additional 0.5 m freeboard. Under this scenario, 0.5 m of water would enter the carpark. The EIS acknowledges potential fatality risk. Claims of sufficient evacuation time are contradicted by local experience: the Wingecarribee River rises rapidly due to the upstream gorge. Insurability is doubtful.
7. Environmental and Biodiversity Impacts Inadequately Assessed
Biodiversity impacts are limited to the Gaol footprint, ignoring consequences for the adjoining Wingecarribee River corridor. This omission renders the assessment incomplete.
8. Amenity Impacts Understated
Noise impacts from the function centre are significantly understated. Appendix 12 excludes noise from the uncovered outdoor wedding area despite a proposed midnight liquor licence. The assessment models only quiet table conversation, leading to a misleading conclusion of no residential impact.
9. EIS Quality and REAP Declaration Concerns
The guidelines for SSD EIS preparation require a Registered Environmental Assessment Practitioner (REAP) to attest that the EIS is accurate, complete and not misleading. Given the omissions and errors outlined above, it is questionable whether a valid REAP declaration can be made.

The proposed development will restrict the public's ability to visit and appreciate this historically significant building in its original context. This specifically breaches several guidelines in the Berrima Development plan. I draw your attention to section 2.2a preserving the character and scale of the village and section 2.2e in particular which requires that buildings of historical significance are preserved and conserved. It is beyond argument that the gaol is one of the most significant structures in the town. Moreover the proposed development will materially alter the structure and fall well short of preservation and conservation by any reasonable assessment.

Re the old Berrima gaol which I thought was a National Trust Building, if not should be.
My objection would be ....
if the project is too big
If the exterior of the building is altered in any way.

I would also like to remind the planners that the village of Berrima is just that, a village. The atmosphere therefore is why the village Main Street and shoos are packed out on weekends.
Please don't allow an out of town developer to ruin, make their millions and run.

Keep Berrima small and desirable.
See the folly of Bowral, now filled with franchises and high rents which block the small businesses.

I wish to lodge a formal objection to the proposed development by the Blue Sox Group involving the construction of approximately 50 hotel rooms attached to the external wall of the Berrima Gaol, including the proposal to cut an opening through the original stone perimeter wall.

1. Heritage Significance and Irreversible Impact
Berrima is one of the most historically intact Georgian villages in Australia, and the Berrima Gaol precinct is central to its cultural, architectural, and social heritage. The perimeter wall is an original, character-defining feature of the Gaol complex. Cutting into this wall, altering its form, or structurally attaching modern accommodation blocks to it would cause irreversible loss of heritage integrity.
Such interventions are contrary to the principles of the Burra Charter, which emphasises:
• minimal physical intervention,
• retaining significant fabric, and
• ensuring new works remain reversible and distinguishable without dominating the original structure

A 50-room hotel physically connected to the historic wall does not meet these principles.

2. Incompatible Bulk, Scale, and Visual Impact
The proposed hotel wings appear to introduce a large, modern built form that is inconsistent with the existing village scale, landscape setting, and historic urban pattern of Berrima. The Gaol sits within a sensitive heritage area, and any new development should remain subservient to the original form.
A contemporary multi-room hotel massing risks visually overwhelming the historic fabric, eroding the authentic character that Berrima is recognised for.

3. Tourism and Economic Value Depend on Heritage Authenticity
Berrima’s economic vitality relies heavily on its reputation as a preserved heritage village.
Developments that compromise authenticity ultimately undermine the very qualities that attract visitors and support local businesses. Adaptive reuse is welcome when it protects heritage significance — however, intrusive large-scale commercialisation risks long-term damage to Berrima’s identity and tourism appeal.

4. Precedent for Heritage Degradation
Approving structural breaches to one of NSW’s most intact and significant heritage assets sets a concerning precedent.
If developers can alter or physically attach new structures to the Gaol’s walls, this may weaken protections for other heritage-listed sites across the State.

5. Insufficient Demonstration of Necessity
There has been no compelling planning rationale demonstrating:
• why 49 rooms must be external to the heritage wall, or
• why new access requires piercing the original stone rather than utilising existing entry points.

Design alternatives could clearly achieve adaptive reuse outcomes without destroying original heritage fabric.

6. Community Concerns
The proposal appears to disregard long-standing community expectations that any redevelopment of the Gaol respect Berrima’s heritage status and village character. Local residents have a vested interest in ensuring that future uses enhance, rather than diminish, the historic environment.

For the reasons outlined above, I strongly oppose the proposed development in its current form.
I request that the application be refused or substantially redesigned to:
• protect the heritage integrity of the Gaol,
• avoid any physical cutting of the perimeter wall, and
• ensure all new construction remains visually and structurally separate from the original fabric.

Thank you for considering this submission.

Kind regards,
Brian Dodds
Resident, Berrima NSW

To Whom it May Concern.
I wish to submit my negative view on the Blue Sox Proposal for the Berrima Gaol.
I give the following objections.
The Unique Georgian Town of Berrima has been protected in its Heritage by our Council and the Heritage Officers for nearly 200 years.
Berrima is one of the most early settled Penal towns in NSW. It is a tourist town and the jewel of the Southern Highland because of it. It is a place captured in time. Any development must proceed with that respect. This is not the village to just throw up a block of flats or a hotel because there is space and the developers somehow convinced the Minister to sell them the land. We have the rest of the State for that. Once the Village of Berrima is messed with in its Heritage it cannot be regained. The Gaol is not in a back block of the Village where it could even be got away with. It is in the centre of the village in plain view and is loved by all who visit and re visit the town. The nature of businesses as a tourist town rely on that amenity.

1/the strongest objection is to the very idea Blue Sox would entertain cutting into the precious walls of this historic edifice. It was in the Gaol EOI that the walls were sacrosanct and yet these plans include this grave error.
That Blue Fox was given the opportunity to purchase the Gaol at such rock bottom pricing compared to other bids, one would expect, at the very least, respect the EOI, they and all other bids were to conform to.
That Blue Sox have not, reflects in the rest of their proposal and plans.

2/In the last 100+ years any plans or proposal to increase the number of levels above 2 have been rejected as unsuitable with the precedents set of the heritage of the village. All that have gone before and after will be subject to the same strictures set by our local Council. How is it that Blue Sox seeks to be the exception given the differing planning decision maker. Surely all must be applying under the same Heritage and precedent playing field everyone else must be judged under.

3/The idea of putting a function centre in the middle of a resident village close settled of mainly retiree’s is completely incompatible as a land use. We have a pub in the centre of the village and they have learned to respect the villagers and only have music playing in the day time. for a “function center” to work and be profitable it will need to accommodate weddings and evening events these are incompatible with the area

All the public consultation actioned by Blue Sox recommended these salient points. Blue Sox has flagrantly ignored not just the Heritage of this unique village but also the needs and wishes of the Villagers who have made clear their need to retain the façade untouched and the Heritage precedence followed.

The Challenge of the site and the reason for the States’s EOI is to work within the strictures of heritage and still produce a profitable and tourist attracting venture. It was the States role to choose the best Applicant to work with those ideals. That the company chosen has not lived up to the basic requirements set in the EOI so now it must fall to the State to reject the current proposal and demand change that adhere to the original EOI, and that are compatible with the Village – residential and tourist land use. One that will enhance the site for first and best use. The plans and proposal have well missed the mark and endangers the livelihood of all village businesses who rely on the amenity of Heritage.
Kind Regards,
Brigid Kennedy

To Whom it May Concern.
I wish to submit my negative view on the Blue Sox Proposal for the Berrima Gaol.
I give the following objections.
The Unique Georgian Town of Berrima has been protected in its Heritage by our Council and the Heritage Officers for nearly 200 years.
Berrima is one of the most early settled Penal towns in NSW. It is a tourist town and the jewel of the Southern Highland because of it. It is a place captured in time. Any development must proceed with that respect. This is not the village to just throw up a block of flats or a hotel because there is space and the developers somehow convinced the Minister to sell them the land. We have the rest of the State for that. Once the Village of Berrima is messed with in its Heritage it cannot be regained. The Gaol is not in a back block of the Village where it could even be got away with. It is in the centre of the village in plain view and is loved by all who visit and re visit the town. The nature of businesses as a tourist town rely on that amenity.

1/the strongest objection is to the very idea Blue Sox would entertain cutting into the precious walls of this historic edifice. It was in the Gaol EOI that the walls were sacrosanct and yet these plans include this grave error.
That Blue Fox was given the opportunity to purchase the Gaol at such rock bottom pricing compared to other bids, one would expect, at the very least, respect the EOI, they and all other bids were to conform to.
That Blue Sox have not, reflects in the rest of their proposal and plans.

2/In the last 100+ years any plans or proposal to increase the number of levels above 2 have been rejected as unsuitable with the precedents set of the heritage of the village. All that have gone before and after will be subject to the same strictures set by our local Council. How is it that Blue Sox seeks to be the exception given the differing planning decision maker. Surely all must be applying under the same Heritage and precedent playing field everyone else must be judged under.

3/The idea of putting a function centre in the middle of a resident village close settled of mainly retiree’s is completely incompatible as a land use. We have a pub in the centre of the village and they have learned to respect the villagers and only have music playing in the day time. for a “function center” to work and be profitable it will need to accommodate weddings and evening events these are incompatible with the area

All the public consultation actioned by Blue Sox recommended these salient points. Blue Sox has flagrantly ignored not just the Heritage of this unique village but also the needs and wishes of the Villagers who have made clear their need to retain the façade untouched and the Heritage precedence followed.

The Challenge of the site and the reason for the States EOI is to work within the strictures of heritage and still produce a profitable and tourist attracting venture. It was the States role to choose the best Applicant to work with those ideals. That the company chosen has not lived up to the basic requirements set in the EOI so now it must fall to the State to reject the current proposal and demand change that adhere to the original EOI, and that are compatible with the Village – residential and tourist land use. One that will enhance the site for first and best use. The plans and proposal have well missed the mark and endangers the livelihood of all village businesses who rely on the amenity of Heritage.

Kind Regards,
Brigid Kennedy

The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site. Key concerns:
- construction of large apartments beyond the heritage walls and too close to the river. Bulk, scale and materials are inconsistent with the significant natural surrounds and river (delicate ecosystem)
- Bulk and scale of the car park is inconsistent with the character of the area. Also an overdevelopment for the surrounding context.
- Unacceptable impact on the heritage significance of the gaol and also the surrounding community.

I am a Associate member of the RICS and have worked with heritage developments and organisations including the National Trust in the UK and the Australian Museum in Sydney. The proposed development pays scant regard to the heritage and history of the site and contains a number of needless decisions damaging the fabric of the Berrima Gaol for no commercial benefit. The proposal should be refused and a better proposal developed for the future use of the Gaol that takes account of its importance to the community and the history of the tow, region and Australia. It is shocking that such a badly considered proposal should have got this far.

Visited the Gaol’s open day today with 4 Generations of my family & viewed the proposal. I am a long term resident of some 53 years & this was the first time we were able to attend & view the Gaol from the inside.
I thought the future plans worked in beautifully with the existing Gaol & surrounds & we were all incredibly impressed. I would love to see the “old girl”, bought back to life again. The Berrima Buisness Houses will fight you tooth & nail though. You have a battle & a half on your hands. Good luck!.

My objection as a very close resident to the Berrima Gaol and total objection to the redevelopment proposal of the site is because;
a) Hertage
Berrima village is the last intact Georgian village in Australia and this development is unsuitable for Berrima and will destroy the historic presence and character that it currently has. The development is too large and too commercial and the proposed townhouses at the western end of the site overlooking the river are not in keeping with the historic significance of the site and look like a housing development tacked on.
b) Environmental
The townhouse development is far too close to the Wingecarribee River. There is a lot of documented history along the such as the German Interns that were resident in the Gaol and the history of how they used the river, structures they put up and the Lamy’s Well which is very close to the site. The river is also home to many wildlife. During and after construction, this area will be suffer damage and this area along the River should be free of development and preserved in its natural habitat state.
c) Light & Noise Pollution
With the development boasting wedding facilities, restaurants, function centre etc it’s inevitable that the peacefulness of Berrima will be lost. With residential houses currently surrounding the site, light and noise will be a major issue. The residential houses are located too close to the site for this to be avoided and many residents will suffer as a consequence of this commercial operation.
d) Traffic
The developer has stated that Wilshire Street on the northern side of the Gaol wall will not be as an access road but what guarantees are in place?
The roads around the Gaol cannot handle traffic on a busy weekend let alone with this development taken into account. The roads simply are not suited to higher traffic flow.
e) Parking
The proposed parking facility on the Southern side of the site is also unsuited to two way traffic flows. The road is too narrow and passes very close by the Berrima Pub and will greatly affect residents in Jellore Street who back onto this access road and proposed parking facility. Light, noise will travel straight into these residents properties with people leaving at all hours of the night in an area where it is normally very quiet at night.
f) Commercial Impact
Had any study been undertaken to determine the affect the development would have on current businesses in the village? Berrima is a tourist village and a major draw card for people coming from mainly Sydney and Canberra but overall and they currently enjoy the variety of shops and eating establishments and this development may have negative consequences for these long standing small businesses.
Summary
Berrima is an award winning tourist destination (in fact had been awarded the best tourist destination in NSW) and we heavily rely on government departments and agencies to protect our heritage from over and unsuited developments particularly with sites such as this with such historic significance value. NSW should ensure this history is kept and maintained in its original form for generations enjoy and be proud of.
On every point this proposal is totally unsuitable for Berrima Goal. It would be developed into a multi use commercial venue with a pseudo housing development attached on a site with sensitive ecological features.
Please ensure the site is not developed into something that will ultimately be a loss to not only the local community but NSW and Australia. We have already lost so many sites and building of state significance, do not allow this to become another victim.