I strongly oppose the proposed high-density development at Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba, as it conflicts with the environmental, safety, and community values of the Blue Mountains. The plan for over 200 apartments in multiple four-storey buildings is not appropriate for a World Heritage-listed landscape known for its natural beauty and ecological sensitivity. Fast-tracking approval through the Housing Delivery Authority bypasses established local planning controls and undermines years of community-led environmental protection.

The site’s location in a bushfire-prone area, with only a single access road, raises significant concerns about evacuation and public safety during emergencies. The development also risks environmental degradation through increased stormwater runoff, habitat disturbance, and visual impacts on the escarpment. Additionally, it threatens the character and tourism value that support the local economy. Approving this proposal could set a precedent for further high-density development in unsuitable locations and should not proceed in its current form.

In my opinion the proposed development at Narrow Neck Road is completely unsuitable for Blue Mountains. I am a full time artist and I have lived in the Blue Mountains for over 30 years. My husband and I have raised our family here and my mother (who is now 88) has lived here, for over 30 years also (with my Dad until he died in 2022), in Medlow Bath, overlooking the beautiful Megalong Valley. We love this place, it is a privilege to be able to live here, surrounded by our rugged cliffs, beautiful valleys and the wonderful wildlife we share it with. The string of Blue Mountains villages that are linked by the Great Western Highway each have their own character, with beautiful heritage buildings and many homes backing to the national park. As we go about our daily lives we all look out over the national park every day. We go for walks, drive through it, we live it and breath it. This is a unique place, both physically and culturally. The Blue Mountains community truly value the natural environment we live in. We DO NOT consider ourselves an outer suburb of Sydney! We are a World Heritage National Park! The Blue Mountains Local Environment Plan (LEP) is there to protect this unique place, it should NOT be allowed to be bypassed, ever. EVERY development proposal in the Blue Mountains should have to go through the Blue Mountains Council and meet the rigorous requirements of our LEP. There should be no exceptions. In the same way as the Blue Mountains was exempted from the NSW Low and Mid-rise Housing Policy, we should be exempted from the Housing Delivery Authority State Significant Development pathway. I am not against appropriate housing being built on the site at Narrow Neck Road, but this development, and every development proposal that will follow it, should all have to meet the standards of our Local Environment Plan which has been designed to protect our unique World Heritage National Park, the character of our villages and the culture of this special place we call home.

Amending the application from a low story accommodation (hotel) to density housing to be developed in a known adjoined mapped bushfire prone area where existing public roads are not ideal for high traffic and in an emergency, such as bushfire, would cause dangerous traffic congestion with residents and visitors unable to leave. An additional (min) 270 residents along with a current unknown number of visiting tourists for restaurants, galleries, information centre and wellness centre would cause issue on the existing public roads, where residents already experience traffic issues due to poor roads with no pedestrian footpath access. Parking is likely to also be an issue in the surrounding area, as in other tourist locations in the Blue Mountains as not all residents and visitors will be able utilise the basement parking. The re-zoning proposal to amend the building height from 8m to 15.6m would not align with existing current building heights within the area, given the proposed location, this building would be visible from nearly all vantage points within the Katoomba area. This includes National Parks and World Heritage areas. This will not only be unsightly, but may impact tourism as the majority of visitors come to experience the town atmospheres, nature and escape built up areas. The proposed site is part of the Sydney drinking water catchment area. Concerns this area may be compromised if stormwater along with any run-off from surfaced areas is not managed within the property and changed to overflow to (former) Katoomba golf course. There is plenty of land available in the Blue Mountains for development, surely an alternative location which is more fit for this purpose can be located.

We write in opposition to this development for the following reasons:
*This development is in contravention of the Blue Mountains LEP where the developer is seeking to rezone land to allow nine four-storey apartment. Locks and commercial outlets, overriding decades of the process of community consultation and expert planning to safeguard both environment and our safety
*Our unique environmental values of the Greater Blue Mountains sitting in a World Heritage area requires careful consideration to the importance of low-scale housing, appropriate to the area and consistent with the heritage of our towns. Using the HAD pathway to fast-track large scale residential projects like this is contrary to the needs of the Blue Mountains, with no consideration for the bushfire risks a and the impact on the immediate sensitive National Parks surrounds.
*The location is poorly positioned, not ‘well positioned’ as described and raises concerns about accessibility and safe evacuation strategies to be carried out in the likely event of bushfires.
*There are serious concerns about the HAD process itself …..little transparency, minimal opportunities for public engagement and a ‘high density assessment’ framework that was never designed for environmentally sensitive areas
*Fast tracking projects of this scale with decision making powers in the hands of the Minister or their delegate, risks undermining the ecosystems that underpins the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage status, increasing stormwater runoff, and placing more people in harms way in one of the most bushfire prone regions of NSW.
*Elected Councillors are the most competent and experienced personnel to be evaluating and deciding on these projects, because they live in the communities and best represent the interests of their constituents
Gay deBurgh Thew
Kerry William Goodman

The project is inappropriate for the area. It is too large, the design is not sympathetic to the Blue Mountains. The design is obtrusive, not compatible. The facilities suggested would increase traffic to a beautiful part of Katoomba. The density of the proposed project is out of context with Blue Mountains residents and residential area.

I am writing to express my objections to the proposed development.
There is little information about the development available to the community, but zoning adjustments are being sought to allow it to go ahead.
It is far too large a development for the site and will bring excessive traffic to a local road. It will put excessive pressure on the septic systems available. It appears to be contrary to the Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan, a tool developed and in use for many years to protect our fragile enviroment.
If this development is to be considered under the Housing Delivery Authority, it must bring local benefit, particularly in affordability, and this project will not do that. While the plan is for 15% affordable housing, that only menans a percentage of cost price and the cost of these houses will be above the market. The housing will not be affordible, the major need in Katoomba.
It will not bring value to our local community.

This proposed development is concerning for many reasons, I will list a few:
- There are no footpaths from the local train station or the town centre to this proposed development location. Foot traffic to and from this proposed development will be on the road. The roads are not a suitable or safe option for foot traffic.
- Distance from train station is approximately 3km. This makes accessing trains challenging for residents of this proposed development and therefore will likely result in increased number of cars in this vicinity. Road traffic along the access routes to this proposed development is already significant. The roads are not curbed and guttered and are already in a state of disrepair and degradation, with several noticeable "sink hole" sites along the access route on Narrow Neck Road.
- The existing roadways are not adequately lighted to allow for safe use with the expected increased traffic during the construction phase or on completion with the residents moving into the proposed development.
- Car parking spaces to accommodate the needs of the proposed over 200 units, serviced apartments, restaurants and other visitor attractions is phenomenal. This area is already struggling to accommodate the current regular visitor parking load. Parking along Cliff Drive/Narrow Neck Road on weekends and on public holidays is extensive and already causes concerns and safety risks for locals. I fail to see how the parking requirements of this proposed development are going to be accommodated without causing further chaos for existing local residents along these roads. In addition I would like to highlight that the safety of pedestrians along Cliff Drive and Narrow Neck Road needs to be not only considered but be of paramount importance when considering this proposed development. There are no footpaths and pedestrians, particularly during times of heavy visitor parking to this area, have to navigate parked cars, cars parked on the verges which causes them to have to walk on the roads, uneven dirt/rock/grass to walk on along side the roads which are mostly uncurbed, and poor lighting at night. Pedestrian safety needs to be taken into consideration.
I object to this proposal.
- Bushfire zone; consideration needs to be given to the exit plan from this site during a bushfire emergency.

Objection attached as PDF.

I request that the consent authority refuse the proposed State Significant Development and refuse the associated LEP rezoning.
- I object to the proposed development and the associated LEP rezoning for 142–150 Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba.
- The proposal is inconsistent with the existing LEP zoning and the established low-density residential character of the locality, and would create an adverse precedent for similar site-specific upzonings in the Blue Mountains.
- The built form (including the proposed height and bulk) is not compatible with surrounding development and would unreasonably impact local amenity and visual character; comparisons to town-centre heritage buildings are not relevant to this residential setting.
- The site is not suitably located for a development of this intensity: it is not practically walkable to the town centre for most residents/visitors, and the proposal is therefore likely to generate high levels of private vehicle use, with resultant traffic, driveway safety, and parking overspill impacts on Narrow Neck Road.
- The bushfire risk context and evacuation/egress constraints are not adequately addressed in the EIS, noting reliance on Narrow Neck Road and the potential for congestion, reduced visibility, road blockage, or incident-related closure during an emergency.
- The extent of vegetation removal (including the loss of established native trees along Narrow Neck Road) would result in avoidable impacts to biodiversity values, habitat connectivity, and the existing landscape buffer for adjoining residences.
- The construction phase impacts (duration, noise, heavy vehicles, and on-street parking by workers) are likely to be significant and have not been adequately mitigated given the residential context.
- I submit that this development should not be advanced through an HDA/Housing SEPP pathway, which is being used to facilitate an outcome that functions primarily as short-stay tourist accommodation in a residential area.
- Any future higher-density or affordable housing outcomes for Katoomba should be directed to appropriately zoned sites within the existing town-centre footprint, close to transport and services.