I am deeply concerned about the Narrow Neck Road project due to the inappropriate scale of the project, in which more than 200 apartments and a large number of serviced apartments, along with relevant facilities, have been planned for an area that is notable for being particularly bush-fire prone in Katoomba due to its position and exposure to the dry westerly winds. This is an area where there is already an insufficient provision of road access to the highway for the safe evacuation of the number and density of dwellings / inhabitants in such a location -- and so where this inappropriately scaled addition would pose a further risk, not only for the new inhabitants themselves, but also for everyone in that part of south Katoomba who, in an emergency, may find it even more difficult to escape to safety or to facilitate the arrival and flow of necessary emergency personnel. It would also have a significant environmental impact on the surrounding bushland, along with its animals and birds, and be an eyesore, due to its considerable height and density, which features would be highly visible from the areas of the national park and surrounding areas. We do need more housing in Katoomba, and especially more medium density of housing. However, should this project be allowed to go ahead in its present form, it would set a worrying if not dangerous precedent for other similar developments, in addition to presenting -- from the development itself -- all the many harms and risks to the environment and community that I outline above.

I strongly oppose the proposed development at 142–150 Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba. This project is unsuitable for the Blue Mountains due to its scale, environmental impact, and incompatibility with the character of the area.
The reasons I object are as follows
• Environmental impact – The site is adjacent to sensitive bushland and World Heritage areas. Large-scale construction risks habitat destruction, erosion, and increased bushfire vulnerability.
• Infrastructure strain – Local roads, water, and emergency services are not designed to support a high-density development of this size.
• Character and heritage – The proposal is inconsistent with the low-density, village character of Katoomba and the Blue Mountains’ heritage values.
• Bushfire safety – Narrow Neck Road is a single access route, creating serious evacuation risks in a bushfire emergency.
• Planning process concerns – Using the Housing Delivery Authority pathway bypasses proper local planning controls and community consultation.
I request that the Blue Mountains Local Government Area be exempted from the Housing Delivery Authority pathway and that this proposal be rejected in its current form.
Thank you for considering my submission. I urge decision-makers to protect the unique environmental, cultural, and community values of the Blue Mountains.
Sincerely
Sally Binet

BUILDING DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL at 142-150 Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba

I oppose this development proposal for the following reasons:

1. A development of this size and nature will have a negative impact on the environment and is out of character with the Blue Mountains I love.
2. Environmental damage will result from building on and paving a natural green area. The development will also increase stormwater run-off and generally disrupt the eco system.
3. It also poses a threat in a bushfire-prone area in terms of the size of the development and the number of people who would need to be evacuated in an emergency.
4. It will mean a loss of character in this beautiful, green, heritage-protected part of the world.
5. The upper Blue Mountains will become less attractive to tourists and visitors who come
here to enjoy the natural environment and village character of the place.

In summary, I think the proposal - if allowed to proceed - sets a dangerous precedent for our community in future years.

Jenny Day
7 Clarence Street Leura

I run a local business and work across the Upper Blue Mountains, regularly visiting residential properties and seeing firsthand how people live, access their homes, and rely on the surrounding environment. The appeal of this area is its low-density, village character and its close connection to the natural landscape — both of which would be significantly undermined by this proposal.

1. Bushfire Risk Is Being Ignored
This site is in a known bushfire-prone area. Increasing density in such a location puts future residents, emergency services, and surrounding properties at unacceptable risk. Evacuation routes in the Upper Mountains are already limited. This proposal adds pressure to a system that is not designed for it.

2. Environmental Impact on a Sensitive Area
The Upper Blue Mountains sits within a highly sensitive ecological zone, closely connected to the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. Large-scale development risks habitat loss, fragmentation, and long-term environmental degradation. Once disturbed, these ecosystems do not recover easily.

3. Out of Character With Local Village Scale
Katoomba and the Upper Mountains are defined by low-density, village-style development. A project of this scale is completely out of step with the established character of the area. It introduces an urban intensity that undermines what makes the region unique and liveable.

4. Dangerous Precedent for Future Development
Approving this proposal will set a precedent for further high-density projects in the Upper Mountains. Over time, this risks transforming the area into an extension of metropolitan Sydney, eroding its distinct identity and long-protected planning principles.

5. Infrastructure and Access Constraints
Local infrastructure, including roads, services, and emergency response capacity, is not equipped to handle this level of density. Increased traffic and demand will place strain on already limited systems.

Conclusion
This proposal is inappropriate for its location. It prioritises short-term development gains over long-term environmental protection, community safety, and the preservation of the Upper Mountains’ character.

I respectfully request that this development be refused.

I object strongly to the proposed development at 142-150 Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba on several grounds.
1. I believe it is totally out of character with the architectural and environmental history of Katoomba and the Upper Blue Mountains generally. In short, it is ugly. The proposed development will detract from the natural beauty of the area.
2. It is too large for the location. It is an area with narrow roads that are subject to heavy fog which increases the risk of accidents with increaced traffic.
3. There is little or no public transport servicing the area.
4. The area is prone to bushfires, particularly where it is located at the top of the escarpment. The top of the escarpment also receives strong, destructive wind in winter and spring.
This development threatens to undermine the natural values of our area when housing with stronger environmental values built in are healthier for everyone in the long term. It also fails to provide the type of housing that is needed for people on lower incomes.
The only benefit I can see for this type of development is that it looks over a beautiful view. However, views are available easily by simply walking to them.

This project will result in a huge increase in the number of people using the local facilities, which is unsustainable. The Blue Mountains are a high bushfire risk, and this drastically increases the number of people trying to evacuate in the event of a bush fire, using single lane roads. The development is not close to public transport and is not in keeping with the scale of other development in the area.

This is a dangerous, and unsettling development proposal. It's over development and it's impacts on the land around and on the site as well as traffic will undoubtedly prohibit free passage of animals and impact our indigenous heritage, and create a fire-evacuation chokehold, which cannot be mitigated. There's no capacity for firefighters to get in, or residents to get out, in an extreme fire event, which needs consideration, as climate change is real and adverse events, like intense and frequent fires, floods, storms and subsidence is the new reality.
The serious hyper development means loss of amenity for visitors to the world heritage Blue Mountains site, as a visual eyesore in an otherwise protected environment. Infrastructure would tear-up trees, with clearing, and damage an already frail ecology, especially with water run-off. This is wholly a bad idea, and should be dismissed as a dangerous, and too destructive over-development.

I do not consent to any building of medium density housing and of any public shops, Art gallery etc that are also part of this proposal.
I do not consent the smart cities initiatives, of which this proposal falls under, nor any facial recognition and bio metrics technology via Agenda 2030.
There is already major traffic issues into and out of Katoomba. Where adding 215 or so units plus all the public accessible facilities that will be there ( namley because it is a smart cities initiative via World economic forum et al.
After reading the majority of the plans on this website, I also see some untruths in regards to bus and public transport concerns. One, the bus company that services katoomba and upper mountains area is now reducing their runs for locals living on the upper mountains.. they have reduced the last two serivces from katoomba to Springwood, but have many more running purely for the tourists, only to ans from Katoomba street to echo point and scenic railway etc.
Mostly, I see that there is ( as the project applications require) only 15 percent affordable housing, which given that the blue mountains has the highest ( mainly older women) homeless bracket ( nationally) this is an utter joke.
There is NO concern about those who reside there at all. It is clear from my observations, that this is an agenda 2030 project.
So I do NOT consent in any way!

To Whom it May Concern,
I would like to STRENUOUSLY object to the proposed building application on Narrowneck Road, Katoomba.
I am a longtime resident of the Blue Mountains, having lived here for over 34 years. I love living here for many reasons. The way communities nestle within the National Park, the clear air, the natural beauty, the glorious views, the particular old world feeling especially seen in the upper Mountains and the way people come together in times of celebration and tragedy.

One gets little of this in Sydney. We are NOT another suburb of Sydney. To be developed at the will of profitmakers.

The building of such a development in the Narrowneck location would be a blight. It would look like a wart on the ridgeline.
It would be seen from many points within that area of the Park. So far, development in the Mountains has been one of discreet, sympathetic design. The aesthetic does NOT suit the Mountains.

Secondly, in these times of housing shortages, it's hard to see how this proposal would relieve some of this shortage. It would only be available to those of a higher income, who could afford to rent or buy a flat that would have such commanding views. The location would also encourage short-term rentals, like Air bnb. Too much of this style of renting does not help a community be a community.

Thirdly and most seriously, changing the bushfire zoning, so this style of building can be built, does not change the bushfire risk. The risk is real. We in the Mountains know too well what can happen and how easily a bushfire can spread.
We respect the risk.
We respect bushfires.
It is irresponsible and dangerous to potentially put the lives of hundreds of people in jeopardy. This is compounded with the narrow access of the road. It is already crowded on weekends with bushwalkers and sightseers. During a bushfire crisis, trying to evacuate hundreds of people, it has the makings of a disaster.

I strongly urge for this proposal to be rejected! It does NOT belong in the Mountains.

submission attached