We are local residents living in Leura and consider the proposed development in this location to be extremely inappropriate for the following reasons:
• Totally out of context with the character of the area
• An unacceptable loss of amenity for the surrounding residential area
• The gross visual impact on both Katoomba and the nearby World Heritage Area
• The physical impact it would have on the local environment
• The lack of appropriate public transport for a development of this density, being 3km from Katoomba railway station.

In regard to the NSW Planning website, we noticed that when logging on, on 28 April 2026 and viewing this development, it stated that there were 8 days remaining for comment and further, when visiting the “view project on map” option, that the application tracker indicated that the project had been “withdrawn”. We found both these issues to be quite misleading and on enquiry to NSW Planning by phone, to be incorrect. We request that NSW Planning check that it has appropriately and correctly met its obligations.

Warwick and Noël Donnelly

I totally oppose the proposed development at 142 - 150 Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba. I also object to the use of the Housing Delivery Authority (HDA) pathway in the Blue Mountains. More details in the attachment.

I had lived on Narrow Neck Road for 20years. It's sad to have lost the golf course as a public facility. It should be low population density in such national park area filled with bushland. Residential plan like this should be close to town centre if necessary. This development will destroy the nature of the area and increase risk of bush fire management.

Submission — Objection to SSD-86456706
142–150 Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba

I object to this proposal on the following grounds:

1. Excessive scale and non-compliance
The development significantly exceeds the intended height and floor space controls for this site. At up to 5 storeys and over 200 units, it is out of character with Katoomba and would set an inappropriate precedent for overdevelopment.

2. Inappropriate location
The site sits outside the Katoomba town centre with limited access to public transport, services, and infrastructure. This undermines the stated planning logic of density near services and will increase car dependency.

3. Bushfire risk and evacuation constraints
The location is within a bushfire-prone area with known evacuation challenges. Intensifying population at this site raises serious safety concerns for residents and surrounding communities.

4. Visual and heritage impact
The development would be highly visible across the escarpment and surrounding areas, adversely affecting the character of Katoomba and the visual integrity of the adjoining World Heritage landscape.

5. Environmental impact (Katoomba Falls catchment)
The site lies at the headwaters of the Katoomba Creek Falls system. The scale of development introduces unacceptable risk to downstream environmental values, including water quality and ecological integrity.

6. Process concerns
Community consultation appears inadequate. Many residents report limited or no meaningful engagement prior to lodgement. Given the scale and sensitivity of the site, this is insufficient.

Conclusion
This proposal is fundamentally incompatible with the site. Its scale, location, environmental risk, and safety implications outweigh any claimed benefits. The application should be refused.

---

SUBMISSION AGAINST
SSD-86456706 Residential flat buildings at 142-150 Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba

Introduction
In my opinion the proposal represents an irresponsible gross overdevelopment of land in close proximity to the ecologically sensitive World Heritage listed Blue Mountains National Park, would have major negative impacts on the wellbeing of the existing residents of south-west Katoomba and yet does not appear to have been devised to aid in lessening the current housing crisis in NSW by being essentially not fit for purpose within the state significant housing development guidelines.

It is impossible in the short amount of time available for submissions (14 days) for members of the public to adequately consider the entirety of the proposal due to the overwhelming volume of the documents submitted as part of the EIS (over 2000 pages), however I will cover some of my main concerns stated above with a series of brief dot points (part A), followed by a slightly more detailed analysis of just one particular aspect of the EIS (The Arboricultural Impact Assessment, Appendix K) (Part B).

**PLEASE SEE MY FULL SUBMISSION ATTACHED AS A PDF, AS ASSOCIATED DIAGRAM AND PHOTOS CANNOT BE INCLUDED HERE**

The proposed development is ridiculously innappropriate for the Blue Mountains region, in particular the sensitive location on the edge of the National Park.
The height and scale of the development is intrusive and entirely out of character with the area.
The proposed apartments do not offer any real affordable housing options for the area. Realistically, the housing development will only benefit the developers and a handful of wealthy investors who will let out the apartments for short term rentals at inflated prices.
The Blue Mountains already has too high a proportion of Air B n B style accomodation and this development promises to further add to that problem.
Planning Override: The development is a dangerous precedent as it bypasses the Local Environmental Plan (LEP) to allow high-density building, nearly doubling the allowed height and density. .
Environment & Heritage: The proposal involves clearing over 11 hectares of vegetation, impacting a threatened population of Angus Onion orchids and microbat habitats.
Bushfire Risk: Concerns exist regarding high-density, multi-storey housing in a high-risk bushfire zone, particularly around evacuation.
Visual Impact: The scale threatens the scenic, World Heritage-listed landscape, according to Blue Mountains City Council.

This scale is far beyond current planning rules and threatens the unique character of Katoomba.

Please see document attached