I oppose this development at 142-150 Narrow Neck Road in the strongest terms. We need housing but this form, in this place, is not appropriate. The height and bulk of these buildings will detract from the surrounding natural beauty. It is in an escarpment protection area because this a very scenic area near our World Heritage National Park, where visitors come to enjoy the views out over the valley and mountains. In such a protection area N0 development is allowed to be seen from anywhere in the National Park. I moved up from Sydney over eleven years ago to enjoy the mountain scenery and environment, and now it seems the NSW government is about to treat the area as any other parcel of uninteresting land . It would destroy the character of this beautiful area which people visit from all over the world.
Then there is the bushfire risk as the area is surrounded by bushfire prone land. It is only a few years ago that we had bushfires just near there. In an emergency there needs to be access for a hundred vehicles, and Narrow Neck Road is the only exit. I shudder to think of the gridlock as the residents of this suggested development all tried to leave to get away from a fire - evacuation would be impossible and the situation could rapidly become catastrophic.
Such a massive development would involve removing natural vegetation which at present filters the natural watercourses through natural swamps which filter out pollutants as the water feeds slowly to Katoomba Falls, the Kedumba River and eventually feeds into Sydney water. The swamps will degrade, there will be greater run-off . The damage will cause the water to flow faster and cause erosion.
The Blue Mountains should be excluded from HDA approval for this area of such great natural importance. The overriding of local planning laws really disturbs me. I was also upset that there has been very little community consultation, although I believe that there was supposed to have been some consultation last October, well, I don't know anyone who was consulted back then. I feel Blue Mountains City Council who has an intimate knowledge of this wonderful, precious area should be allowed to make the final decisions on development. It also fully understands the infrastructure needs of our world famous area.
I would urge the NSW bureaucrats in Sydney to come up to Katoomba and experience this area for themselves before making a decision which would irrevocably damage this area.

Short-term Corporate Profits vs. Long-term Community Liability

This proposal is a textbook case of privatising profits while socialising the long-term losses and liabilities onto the local population and the environment.

As currently structured, the proposal prioritises immediate developer yield over the long-term social and environmental health of Katoomba. It represents an extractive model of development where the primary objective is the maximisation of profit for corporate entities that possess no enduring stake in the Blue Mountains. Once construction is complete and the dwellings are sold, the development firm—headquartered in Alexandria, Sydney—will exit the project. Their financial interest is entirely disconnected from the day-to-day realities of life on the Narrow Neck peninsula. They will realise their profits and move on, while the residents of Katoomba are left to navigate the permanent consequences of this over-intensification.

We, the local community, who will manage the daily reality of:
- Increased traffic congestion on narrow, ridgeline roads.
- Strain on local infrastructure and environmental services.
- The irreparable loss of the neighbourhood's quiet, low-density character.

Furthermore, the environmental risks—specifically bushfire safety and the ecological integrity of the World Heritage fringe—are long-term liabilities that the developer will not share. By seeking to bypass established local planning controls (Blue Mountains LEP 2015) via the State Significant Development pathway, the proponent is effectively asking the State to favour short-term corporate gain over the sustainable, lived future of a unique regional community.

Specific Points of Objection Based on Project Documentation

1. Disproportionate Scale and Statutory Overreach
The Concurrent Rezoning Report confirms a request to nearly double the permissible building height from 8m to 15.6m and increase the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) from 0.6:1 to 1.17:1. This is not a minor variation; it is a wholesale abandonment of the community-agreed standards set out in the LEP 2015. Using a 15% affordable housing provision as a lever to trigger State Significant Development status is a cynical use of social policy to override height limits that protect the visual amenity of the World Heritage fringe. Most critically, this "benefit" is temporary (15 years), while the impact of the increased building bulk is permanent.

2. The "Community Plan" and Fragmented Urbanism
The Notice of Exhibition indicates the site will be subdivided under a "community plan" arrangement. This further emphasises the extractive nature of the project: it creates a "gated" style enclave that internalises its own amenities while externalising its impacts. The Traffic and Parking Impact Report acknowledges that hundreds of daily vehicle movements will be added to Narrow Neck Road, yet the "community" within the development remains physically and socially separated from the broader Katoomba population. This creates a social fracture, not "community integration."

3. Mitigation vs. Lived Reality (Noise and Construction)
The Noise and Vibration Impact Report (Appendix AB) suggests that construction vibration can be "mitigated" through respite periods. For current residents, "mitigation" is not a solution to the permanent loss of the Katoomba "quietude" mentioned in the project's own Design Report. The respite periods offered are a temporary band-aid for a multi-year disruption that will permanently alter the acoustic character of this peaceful ridgeline.

4. Socialised Environmental and Bushfire Risk
The Bushfire Statement (Appendix R) cannot alter the physical reality that this site is located on a peninsula with a single, narrow exit path. The developer profits by cramming 270 units into this high-risk zone, but the liability of a failed evacuation falls entirely on the NSW Rural Fire Service and the local residents. This is the ultimate "socialised liability"—creating a density-driven safety risk in a bushfire-prone area while the proponent takes the profit and exits the region.

5. Failure to Provide Genuine Public Benefit
While the ESD Assessment (Appendix Y) touts a 40kW solar system, these features are negligible compared to the massive carbon footprint of an eight-building concrete development. A "7-star NatHERS" rating is a baseline legal requirement for modern builds, not a significant public benefit that justifies the permanent destruction of local character and the burdening of our infrastructure.

Conclusion
The Department must see this proposal for what it is: a Sydney-based firm seeking to maximise developer yield by exploiting a high-value location while leaving the long-term maintenance, traffic congestion, and environmental risks to the local community and the State. I urge the Department to uphold the integrity of the State to protect the interests of the community and the Blue Mountains LEP 2015 by rejecting this application.

Sincerely,
Katoomba Resident

I am a resident of Katoomba and I wish to formally object to the proposed development of nine four-storey residential buildings comprising 214 apartments, 52 serviced apartments, restaurants, an internet café, a wellness and arts hub, conference facilities, and extensive on-site parking.

As someone who lives and works in this community, this proposal feels significantly out of scale with our town and the broader Blue Mountains environment.

Inappropriate planning pathway
I am very concerned about the use of the Housing Delivery Authority (HDA) pathway for this development. This process appears to override the Local Environmental Plan controls that have been developed over many years to protect the Mountains’ environment and heritage. These safeguards reflect careful, long-term planning, and setting them aside for a development of this scale undermines both their purpose and community confidence in the planning system.

Housing need and suitability
Through my work in the housing and homelessness sector, I see firsthand the very real and growing need for more housing. I strongly support increasing supply where it is appropriate and where it genuinely helps address housing stress.

However, this proposal does not appear to deliver housing that would be accessible or beneficial to people experiencing disadvantage or at risk of homelessness. The inclusion of serviced apartments, visitor accommodation, and associated commercial uses suggests a focus that is unlikely to meet the needs of those most impacted by the housing crisis.

What is needed in our region is well-planned, appropriately scaled development that includes genuine affordable and social housing. Without this, proposals like this risk increasing density without meaningfully addressing the underlying issue.

Bushfire risk
Bushfire is an ongoing and serious risk in Katoomba. Increasing density with multi-storey buildings raises significant concerns about evacuation, emergency access, and overall safety. More residents, more vehicles, and more complex built form will make it more difficult to respond effectively in emergency situations.

Environmental impact
The Blue Mountains is an environmentally sensitive area, and developments of this scale inevitably reduce permeable land, increase stormwater runoff, and disrupt local ecosystems. These impacts directly undermine the ecological values that support the area’s World Heritage status and should not be taken lightly.

Loss of local character
Katoomba and the surrounding towns are defined by their leafy streets, smaller-scale buildings, and strong connection to the landscape. Introducing multiple four-storey buildings of this scale would permanently alter that character and set a concerning precedent for future development.

Economic concerns
Tourism is central to the local economy, and it depends on preserving the natural beauty and village character that draw people to the Blue Mountains. If these qualities are eroded, it risks undermining the long-term sustainability of the region.

Conclusion
For these reasons, I strongly object to this proposal. It does not reflect the scale, character, or environmental sensitivity of Katoomba and the wider Blue Mountains. I urge decision-makers to reject this development and instead prioritise planning approaches that genuinely respect and protect the community, environment, and long-term future of the area.

To Those Responsible:

I am a neighbour of the proposed high-density housing on Narrow Neck Road. This dodgy, zombie DA is clearly not being handled appropriately as NO LETTER DROPS HAD OCCURRED to inform us we had the chance to have our say on the development. This fact alone should send the developer a fine and force them to start over with a new proposal entirely. IF THIS IS A SIMPLE CORNER THEY CUT, WHY TRUST THEM TO DO ANYTHING BY THE BOOK? They think they can get away with whatever they'd like when they're not being watched! This is unacceptable! But there are many more reasons this proposed development is incompatible with Katoomba.

First, the entire town heavily relies on tourism and the pristine beauty of the National Park. To have this massive, hideously outdated drab building visible from the 3 Sisters, Scenic World, Cahill's Lookout, Narrow Neck Plateau (and lookout), the old golf course, and every vantage point along Cliff Drive (which is being developed for more tourists), it will damage the appeal and economy of Katoomba. I understand Blue Mountains City Council is on target for our housing developments, and I also understand we need more affordable housing. I would be happy to offer 1-2 storey terraces as a compromise. However, the development off of Stuarts Road has laid utilities but the developer isn't selling land for building houses yet. Why doesn't this government force them to stop land-banking and begin developing homes there, a block away from the 142-150 Narrow Neck Road development if housing targets are a priority?

400 apartments, assuming families of 4 occupy them, would increase Katoomba's population by over 20% in a matter of months. We don't even have kerb and guttering along Narrow Neck Rd or Cliff Drive! There's a delicate hanging swamp in the middle of Katoomba, and our water flows into Warragamba Dam to become Sydney's drinking water. There is no environmentally and bush-fire safe way to penetrate these ugly apartments into our sensitive ecological communities. My partner and I watched the Ruined Castle fire burn for over a month in December 2019 before that burn itself became a backburn for the oncoming fire front from the south. Fire trucks lined Cliff Drive and water cannons were used 24 hours a day for over a week to keep the blaze from reaching us. We understand the danger of being in a Flame Zone area, and we cannot recommend 400 apartments be thrust onto the small road serving as the only evacuation route connecting us to the Great Western Highway. We know climate change will increase the frequency and severity of bush fires in the Blue Mountains. Katoomba is NOT the place for this high-density development in flame zone or BAL40 rated areas with only one escape route. Perhaps the developer could look at buying land in Penrith if this 1980's-Strathfield eyesore is so greatly needed.

The Katoomba Master Plan hopes to see a reduction in car use by tourists as Council increases bus and shuttle services. These services will be impacted by the thousands of residents packed into these inappropriate apartments who will not have services or shops in walking distance. 142-150 Narrow Neck Road is isolated even in Katoomba terms. No schools, shops, services, or facilities are in easy access from this address. Sure, the developer reckons they will just add shops to the development - adding even more congestion and evacuation woes. This site is not and can not be right for high-density housing because the number of people, number of cars, and number of tourists around are incompatible!

Now, I know whoever is tasked with reading these submissions is never going to really care about polluting our waterways and the downstream wilderness, but it must be said that apartment living adjacent to a world heritage listed national park is a huge risk for the very nature that draws people to visit and live in the Upper Blue Mountains. Apartments inherently lack a connection to nature and yet they disturb and pollute ecosystems and fauna surrounding them. Imagine the hundreds of cats that will be able to freely access the escarpments and arbitrarily kill the endemic avians and tiny mammals. Dog scat left to be washed away will increase exponentially which means de-worming medicine will leech into dirt and streams and harm soil biota on our thin (often 10cm deep) sandstone soils. Houses (or terraces) have gardens - apartments do not. The Upper Blue Mountains are too precious to allow hundreds of pets and people to treat the delicate ecosystems with impunity. This isn't even touching on the building contaminants such as nutrient build-up from turf and landscaping throughout the building process. I work in bush regeneration around Western Sydney and I know first hand how construction workers disregard and disrespect their environmental impacts and conservation requirements. Developers would rather pay a fine and encroach on offsets than to do the right thing. As I said at the start of this submission, this developer has ALREADY CUT CORNERS. If you approve this development you do so knowing what they already have done and are willing to do.

This proposal will be greater in height and scale than anything currently existing in the entirety of the Blue Mountains. And the developer wishes to put this monstrosity in the most fragile and most visited part of the entire LGA! I sincerely believe that if this were in Penrith it would not be an issue. But Katoomba is surrounded by the southern escarpments and Grose Valley to the north. We do not have the capability to evacuate 15,000 people on a moment's notice from town to head either west or east. This development is too big, too populous, and too poorly planned for the location of 142-150 Narrow Neck Road. I hope that the state government will understand that Katoomba can not and should not be required to take on this blight of a development.

If you deny the approval, you and your grandchildren will benefit by having Katoomba remain a conservation-focused ecotourism hub less than 2 hours from Sydney. If you allow this disaster to move forward, you too will lose out world-renowned views, unique flora and fauna, and witness the degradation and slow poisoning of one of the jewels of Australia due to short-sighted follies.

I am very concerned that this proposal is inappropriate for Narrow Neck Road Katoomba. It is completely out of character with the rest of the development in that area. It concentrates too many dwellings in an environmentally sensitive bushfire prone area with no public transport. It is very dangerous to overload the Blue Mountains with crappy multi-storey apartments when we have ONE road out in the event of an emergency - the Great Western Hwy and now we can only escape one way on that road (who knows how long it'll be before that opens again. Narrow Neck Road is not suitable for high density living.

To whom it may concern

Hello, my name is Lyndee Collis. I am a resident of the Blue Mountains and am writing to you regarding the development proposal for 142-150 Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba.

I have concerns for this development in that it is wholly inappropriate for the village of Katoomba.

The development proposal is for eight, four story buildings on the escarpment at the end of Narrow Neck Road. Four story buildings at this location will degrade the world heritage Blue Mountains area and greatly diminish the character of Katoomba.

I have grave concerns for the environmental impacts this will have to the Blue Mountains swamp area near the development site and water flows for the marsh land area that houses endangered species, including the following endangered fauna, Petalura gigantea (Giant Dragonfly), Pseudophryne australis (Red-crowned Toadlet), Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis (Eastern Bent Wing Bat), Lathamus discolour (Swift Parrot), Daysurus maculatus (Tiger or Spotted Quoll) and the Eulamprus leuraensis (Blue Mountains Water Skink). This is a threatened ecological area and houses endangered flora such as the Pherosphaera fitzgeraldii (Blue Mountains Dwarf Mountain Pine) and Acacia bynoeana (Bynoes Wattle)

The development suggests 214 residential flats and 52 serviced apartments. This would result in an increase of more than 500 additional vehicles on Narrow Neck Road. Narrow Neck Road is a single carriage way and can only remain so. The entry and exit to Katoomba is also via single a carriage way. The traffic congestion is already at maximum with current load. This increase would significantly impede evacuation routes when bushfires occur, let alone the difficulty this would create for fire brigades to access and attend to these fires, creating additional risk to life, property and emergency services personnel.

I understand this development was allowed to get to this stage as it has been placed under the Housing Delivery Authority (HDA). This authority should respect the current exclusions for this type of development in the region and should not be allowed to override the Blue Mountains City Council (BMCC) and their well informed planning, which would never allow this type of development in the Blue Mountains.

I also understand the current issue for housing in Sydney, however Katoomba is not a suburb of Sydney, Katoomba is a village of the Blue Mountains.

Any development within the upper Blue Mountains area should only be allowed to progress with the advice and agreement of the BMCC and planning and development proposals, which keep buildings at two stories only and strictly only on appropriate land sites. The escarpment at the end of Narrow Neck Road is wholly inappropriate for such a development.

Thank you for your attention.
Lyndee Collis (Resident of the Blue Mountains)

Although I acknowledge the need for increased housing across the Blue Mountains LGA, and am generally supportive of medium-density housing (townhouses, villas, small apartment blocks, etc) I object to the proposed development as being completely out of keeping with the character of the Blue Mountains, and in particular this area of high tourism. The Blue Mountains, and especially Katoomba, is one of the most-visited tourist sites in NSW. The attraction of the area is its unique wilderness and the fact that it is a World Heritage site. Such over-development as is proposed here would be detrimental to tourism and thus to the economy of the Blue Mountains - once one such development is approved, it sets a precedent for further such development, which would be of great disadvantage to our community and environment . It would possibly threaten the hard-earned World Heritage rating currently held.
As guardians of such a unique area and its diverse ecosystem, it behoves us to ensure the areas we live in reflect the care needed to protect the environment of this special location. Such over-development would be highly damaging to waterways, as well as plant and animal life in the surrounding areas. There is no way such population-dense development can occur without severe impacts on our world-famous and -valued landscape and environment. To threaten the fragile structure of the Blue Mountains National Park in such a wanton way is reckless and destructive.
Furthermore, such development is unsafe. The proposed development intends hundreds, if not over a thousand, people to live over 5 lots in a region of extremely high bushfire danger. The infrastructure there is not supportive of mass evacuation in the case of an emergency - the roads are too narrow, and there is little to no room to widen them to make them safe for high traffic should such an event occur. There are already bottlenecks from traffic coming into and out of Katoomba from the Highway - this development would greatly increase that traffic congestion, endangering lives in the case of an emergency. This development is frankly irresponsible - not only would the building of so many units endanger new residents who would be living right on top of a fire zone, but it would be literally endangering the lives of nearby residents who already live in the area.
Following the 2013 firestorms which destroyed large numbers of houses and a large part of the Community in Winmalee and Yellow Rock, the local Council looked to strengthen its regulations around building in areas of high fire danger. It is my understanding that this kind of proactive risk mitigation has been happening around the country with the increase in the number of extreme weather events and disasters over the last ten years. So why on earth would such a development as this even be considered in an area of such high risk? I find this absolutely baffling.
I have been (unofficially) informed (by a resident) that the area for this development might have been changed from being an area of high risk to being one of no or limited fire danger. I sincerely hope that the information I have been given is incorrect, because that would be absolutely absurd. You need only to drive along Narrowneck Road to see that the whole area is perched on the precipice of thousands of acres of undeveloped wilderness. How the area could be designated anything but an area of high risk of bushfire is unthinkable.
It could be argued that with the shortage of housing across the state and the country, such developments are essential. But this begs the questions: if this housing development were to proceed, how many units would be earmarked as affordable housing to actually benefit those most in need? Are there any restrictions being placed on investment so that the units would be sold as owner/occupier rather than just as investment properties, to ensure they address the current housing ownership issues? If not, would there be restrictions placed on investment so that the units would be permanent residences and not just used as more holiday rentals, staying vacant for large periods of time and not contributing to actually housing Blue Mountains residents? These are existing issues with housing in the Blue Mountains. Unless the proposed development is going to somehow redress these issues, it is not going to benefit the Blue Mountains Community in any way. I understand that not every development can or has to positively impact the community, but with so many negative impacts clearly probable, its lack of capacity for community advantage is just a further reason to halt this development.
In the last round of Community Consultation undertaken by Blue Mountains City Council, which informs its Community Strategy and which can be found on their website, one of the insights was the support of residents for keeping the townships of the Blue Mountains as "Villages" and retaining the "village" feel of the City as a whole. The participating residents also overwhelmingly cited the environment and the protection of our World Heritage area as one of their main concerns. I obviously cannot speak for every resident of the City, but the results of the Community Engagement show very clearly that the majority of Blue Mountains residents live in the area because of nature, the environment, and the lifestyle opportunities those things provide. Permitting developments such as the one proposed here opens the floodgates for future development which threatens all that the residents value about their community.
I strenuously object to this development. I can see no advantage to Blue Mountains residents, or the Blue Mountains Community as a whole, in building such a large-scale eye-sore in one of the most unique, beautiful and environmentally-recognised locations in the world. It would be detrimental to the environment of this World-heritage listed area (which is already under threat because of the Western Sydney Airport); it would cause possible endangerment to the lives of the residents of the development itself and of the surrounding area in the case of a catastrophic bushfire, due to overpopulation with lack of suitable and efficient exit and egress; it would be a blight on the pristine vistas and environment the area is famous for, affecting tourism and the economy of the City; and without suitable protections, it would become predominantly self-service accommodation without addressing the real crisis of housing, nor substantially adding to employment. And, just as importantly, it goes against everything the residents of the City hold dear and value. There are multiple reasons to reject this application, and absolutely no reason at all to accept it as suitable for the Blue Mountains.

18th April 2026
Re: Proposed residential development at 142-150 Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba.
Dear Madam/Sir,
In the absence of adequate means of evacuation, this high-density urban development plan is a recipe for disaster in the event of a bushfire.
As a resident on Narrow Neck Road who has experienced the threat of nearby bushfires on Narrow Neck Plateau, not only does closure of Narrow Neck Road become an impediment to evacuation by car or other forms of transport but also exposure to glowing embers driven by high winds adds the risk of buildings catching alight.
Residents who currently occupy the long row of units at the recently developed Yarrabee site that faces Narrow Neck Road have yet to experience the potential impact of a nearby bushfire.
Importantly, the only immediate access to the proposed development is via Glencoe Road, which feeds into Narrow Neck Road at one end and Stuarts Road at the other end.
Notably, Glencoe Road can only accommodate one lane of traffic whether it be cars, buses, firetrucks or ambulances.
In addition, the only means of escape for occupants of 21 duplex units that are nearing completion on Narrow Neck Road at Gracehill Lodge will be via Stuarts Road.
Now imagine the challenge of evacuating a further 600 residents, not to mention tourists and service personnel associated with a development comprising 266 apartments (214 residential and 52 serviced), multiple eating facilities, a conference centre and an art gallery.
On other hand, the inclusion of a “wellness centre” amongst the nine densely packed, four-storey buildings is to be commended. If evacuation is not feasible in the event of a nearby bushfire, at least there is a refuge for people feeling unwell before they expire from smoke inhalation and heat exhaustion.
In summary, I oppose the proposed development at 142-150 Narrow Neck Road on SAFETY GROUNDS.
I also oppose the use of the Housing Delivery Authority (HDA) pathway in the Blue Mountains and suggest that the Blue Mountains Local Government Area be exempt from the HDA pathway.
Given the ever-increasing risk of bushfires in this area linked to climate change, I strongly recommend that the Consenting Authority not only visit the development site but also consult with the Ministry of Transport to seek an Evacuation Risk Assessment before Narrow Neck Road gets renamed Bottle Neck Road.
Yours sincerely,
Michael Agrez

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development of 218 residential flats within an environmentally sensitive area of the Blue Mountains.
The Blue Mountains is a region of exceptional environmental significance, recognised for its unique biodiversity, native vegetation, and scenic landscape. Developments within this area should be carefully designed to protect and enhance these values. This proposal, however, raises serious concerns in several key areas.
1. Environmental Impact
The scale and density of the proposed development are inconsistent with the ecological sensitivity of the site. Construction of multi-storey apartment buildings will likely require extensive land clearing, habitat disruption, and increased pressure on local ecosystems. This poses a risk to native flora and fauna and may contribute to long-term environmental degradation.
Additionally, increased population density in this location will place strain on local resources, including water, waste management systems, and bushfire resilience—an especially critical consideration in the Blue Mountains region.
2. Incompatibility with Local Character
The Blue Mountains is renowned for its low-density housing, natural bushland setting, and village-style communities. The introduction of large-scale, multi-storey apartment blocks is fundamentally at odds with the established character of the area.
Such a development would significantly alter the visual landscape, diminishing the natural beauty and sense of place that defines the region. This change is not in keeping with community expectations or the planning principles that have historically guided development in the Blue Mountains.
3. Visual and Landscape Impact
Multi-storey buildings in a predominantly natural and low-rise environment will create substantial visual intrusion. The scale of the proposed structures risks dominating the landscape, undermining scenic vistas and the aesthetic values that are central to the region’s identity and tourism appeal.
4. Precedent for Future Development
Approval of a development of this scale in an environmentally sensitive area may set a concerning precedent for future proposals. It risks opening the door to further high-density developments that could cumulatively erode the environmental and cultural integrity of the Blue Mountains.
5. Need for Sustainable and Context-Sensitive Planning
Any development in this region should prioritise sustainability, minimal environmental impact, and alignment with the existing character of the area. Smaller-scale, low-impact housing solutions would be more appropriate and consistent with these principles.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I strongly oppose the proposed 218-unit development. I urge the relevant authorities to reject this proposal or require significant revisions that reduce its scale, protect the environment, and respect the unique character of the Blue Mountains.
The long-term preservation of this environment and cultural values must take precedence over short-term development gains.

As a resident of Blue Mountains, I wish to formally object to the proposed development at 142–150 Narrow Neck Road. While the need for alternative and affordable housing is acknowledged, this proposal is excessive in scale for its location and fails to adequately address the cumulative impacts it would impose on the local community, infrastructure, environment and character of Katoomba.

Katoomba and the wider Blue Mountains already experience significant pressure on roads, parking, health services and public transport. Existing traffic congestion through the town centre, particularly along Parke Street, Bathurst Rd and Katoomba Street and connections to the Great Western Highway, is already severe at peak times and during tourist periods. The Parke St Bridge is regularly at a standstill during peak times and this is the main entry point into and out of Katoomba. The addition of an estimated 200–300 extra vehicles associated with this proposal would further burden an already constrained road network. Parking within the town centre is similarly under pressure, and increased demand would worsen existing access issues for residents, workers and visitors.

Furthermore, Katoomba functions as a key service centre for communities across the Blue Mountains and beyond, extending to Hartley. Pressure on local infrastructure therefore affects a much broader regional population. Any assessment of this proposal should consider not only the immediate site impacts, but the cumulative burden on the wider district.

There is also substantial pressure on essential services. Many local GP clinics have closed their books to new patients, access to allied health services can be limited, and demand on Katoomba Hospital remains significant. Public transport services are already crowded at times, particularly rail services to and from Sydney. A development that increases population without corresponding infrastructure upgrades risks further reducing quality of life for existing residents.

The proposed scale of development is also inconsistent with the established character of Katoomba and the Blue Mountains villages more broadly. Residents and visitors value this region for its low-rise built form, natural landscape setting and village atmosphere. Large, dense developments of a metropolitan scale risk eroding the unique identity that makes Katoomba such a valued and distinctive place to live and visit. Once this character is lost, it cannot easily be restored.

Environmental impacts must also be carefully considered. The Blue Mountains is an ecologically sensitive area adjacent to nationally significant bushland and scenic landscapes. Large-scale development can result in vegetation loss, increased stormwater runoff, habitat disturbance, urban heat impacts and cumulative degradation of the surrounding environment. The proposed removal of 175 trees, even if individually described as not significant, represents a substantial cumulative loss of canopy, habitat and landscape character that should not be minimised or dismissed. In a region whose economy and identity are closely tied to its natural beauty, these impacts should not be underestimated.

Bushfire risk is another critical concern. The Blue Mountains is a known bushfire-prone area, and any proposal that substantially increases residential density must demonstrate robust evacuation capacity, safe access and emergency response arrangements. Additional residents and vehicles on constrained local roads may create unacceptable risks during emergency events.

While I support well-designed, appropriately scaled housing that genuinely improves affordability and meets local needs, this proposal appears to prioritise development yield over community wellbeing and environmental suitability. There has been insufficient demonstration that it will deliver meaningful affordable housing outcomes or that the local infrastructure can sustain growth of this magnitude.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the proposal be refused, or at minimum substantially reduced in scale and redesigned to align with the capacity, character and environmental sensitivity of Katoomba and the wider Blue Mountains community.