I think the proposed residential flat buildings at 142–150 Narrow Neck Road in Katoomba are problematic for a number of reasons. One of the main issues is that the scale of the development feels completely out of place for the area. Katoomba is known for its low-density, natural environment, and introducing multiple large apartment buildings with over 200 dwellings doesn’t really fit with that character.

Another major concern is the environmental impact. The site is located close to the Blue Mountains World Heritage area, so any large-scale development risks damaging local ecosystems through vegetation clearing and habitat loss. I think this is especially important given how significant the area is from both an ecological and tourism perspective.

The bushfire risk is also hard to ignore. The Blue Mountains is already a high-risk area, and increasing the number of people living there, particularly in a location with limited access roads, could create serious safety issues. In an emergency situation, evacuation could become congested and dangerous.

On top of that, the development is likely to put additional pressure on local infrastructure, especially roads. With more residents and visitors, traffic congestion could become a real problem, again raising concerns not just for convenience but also for emergency access.

While the proposal does include some affordable housing, it seems like only a small portion of the development is actually dedicated to that. A lot of it appears to be serviced apartments, which may not really address the long-term housing needs of the local community.

Finally, I think the fact that it’s being assessed as a State Significant Development is an issue in itself. It limits the ability of the local council and community to have real input into the decision, which doesn’t seem appropriate for a project that will have such a big impact on the area.

Overall, it just seems like the development prioritises density and profit over environmental protection, safety, and the existing character of Katoomba.

I strongly object to this proposed building development!
We live in The Blue Mountains and respect our World Heritage Environment. The impact of such a huge, concrete eyesore would be catastrophic on The Blue Mountains as we know it. Our flora and fauna, the delicate ecosystems that exist in undisturbed bushland would be dangerously impacted upon. Our listing as a World Heritage area would be in complete jeopardy !! We could lose it forever.
There would be huge risks in times of bushfires- the evacuation of such a large population on congested roads would worsen the already chaotic situation.
We chose to live in The Blue Mountains because of its pristine bushland, the unique wildlife and unpolluted air. We refuse to allow such a development and the precedent that it would set to destroy the environment in which we live and respect.
I object in the strongest manner to this building proposal!!!

It has come to our attention that the above that this State Significant Development has been all of a sudden been removed from a bushfire risk zone. Why? While you'll receive many similar objections from residents affected in the area, we are also concerned that this will set a precedent for other similar high-density developments across the Blue Mountains. We have a very narrow corridor from the lower mountains to the upper mountains and putting additional strain on our environment. We want to attach people for its beauty NOT a BLOCH on our landscape. Also, as uses of Katoomba for shopping what should be put on as a State Significant Development is Yeaman Bridge access into the township. This has been an absolute nightmare for years. This only further deter attracting people to our World Heritage Area.

I object to the proposal for 142-150 Narrowneck Rd. It is out of character for this area in height, density and aesthetic. It does not align with local planning rules and the Blue Mountains LEP which have been carefully developed over many years, to protect both the heritage character of our towns and the rich biodiversity and cultural significance of our World Heritage-listed National Parks, which attract great numbers of visitors each year. The Housing Development Authority planning pathway by which this proposal seeks approval is inappropriate for our unique area. It does not consider the special requirements of living in a fragile and bushfire-prone environment. This development should not be approved, and the Blue Mountains Local Government Area should be excluded from the HDA pathway.

Please see attachment.

I object to the proposed development as i believe it is fundamentally unsuited to the Blue Mountains. Our region is designated as a “Metropolitan Rural Area”, a planning category that recognises the unique environmental values of the Greater Blue Mountains, the high bushfire risk and importance of housing that is low-scale, appropriate to the area and consistent with heritage of the towns.
The HDA pathway, which prioritises rapid approval of high-density, multi-storey housing, runs directly counter to these planning requirements.
The proposed development at 142–150 Narrow Neck Road, where the developer is seeking to rezone land to allow nine four-storey apartment blocks and commercial outlets. This type of development would not be permitted under the Blue Mountains LEP.
I believe this development does not take into account any 'real' community consultation and take into consideration expert planning issues which out line high fire risk areas, environment and our safety. To have a development of several floors with high density goes against the beauty (ie environment) & ambience of the area. It also appears to be not connected or close to public transport. I request that this development be not approved in its present application form which would be more suited for an inner city development. regards Ruth Buttsworth

this project is way to large for this small area of land. The local streets that give access to katoomba township are not able to cater for the influx of traffic that will travel down Peckmans road and up Neale st. the quickest way to Katoomba shops. Both roads are very narrow, have no verges or guttering and are quite steeply sloped. Traffic around Scenic world, the Caravan park and Furber steps is ridiculous now, let alone with this proposed influx of cars and people. There is little public transport availlabe to this area. As for the project having its own shopping infrastructure, these will probably become unsuccessful, given that Katoomba main street has had up to 30 shops available for lease for many years, and remain empty now.
The proposal is also against any existing height and floor space allowed by the local council, and given that the surrounding golf course is supposed to be designated as an environmental precinct, it would appear not much consultation has taken place.
The proposed buildings will be of a height that is visible all over Katoomba, and visible from areas of escarpment from Medlow Bath to Wentworth Falls. What attracts people here is the world heritage status , and the beauty of the bush. Many people love the feel of walking, being surrounded by the bush, and being able to see nothing but the bush.
Another objection is the fact that the last buildings built there totally affected the wildlife in the ponds of the golf course , which have still not recovered. Any extra runoff goes straight down the creek into the catchment area, affecting the environment downstream and also the drinking water in th ecatchment.

This development does not respect the character of the local area.
Katoomba is an visually interesting area with the natural environment and escarpment generally providing the dominant tone with only a handful of contrasting pockets of heritage significant buildings breaking the green and stone landscape setting. Other parts of the mountains do not hold this kind of contrast in the way that that the upper mountains do. These contrasting developments are indicative of the recreational and health tourism that was important to the upper mountains in the early 20th century.

These developments can be extensive buildings with a squarish bulk, in contrast to the lower lying residential development that blends in to the trees and garden surroundings. However these larger developments are almost exclusively heritage significant buildings, telling the story of the particular history of Katoomba and the upper mountains. Apart from this class of buildings Katoomba and the surrounding area displays a strong lower profile of development with a proliferation of cottage style (or larger buildings bearing stylistic resemblance to cottage style buildings) and manor type homes, the largest of which being predominantly vertically oriented, not holding a width, bulk or scale of any comparable size to the development proposed.

In my opinion the proposed development would break the current character by interposing large developments that are considerably larger than the residential building scape but not heritage buildings. It would diminish the existing contrast and importance of the larger heritage buildings and overshadow the existing residential landscape in the green environment. This proposed development does not reflect or improve the character of Katoomba and the surrounding area and interferes with the preservation of the relationship between built forms that contribute so strongly to the township and upper mountains.

Letter attached.
The proposed development is more likely to turn into tourist accommodation than housing (due to arguments detailed in submission) and should therefore not be considered to be supporting state objectives surrounding housing.

Comments attached