I am writing to advise that after numerous attempts, I have been unable to make a submission through the public portal due to system issues. As part of this submission, I agree to my information being released. I have consulted many residents who also state they have not been able to make a submission via the portal. This raises concerns about the integrity of the process.

I would also like to highlight that, last year when there was a consultation process about this development, we recently learnt that a letterbox drop occurred so that residents could attend. I would like it noted that I did not receive any such notification neither did many other residents.

For the purpose of my submission, I would like to start by expressing my strong opposition to the proposed development t 142 – 150 Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba.

I live in Katoomba. This is my home. And I hold serious concerns about this proposal and the fact that it has even been allowed to progress this far.

The proposed development site is situated in a World Heritage area. That's not a sticker on a brochure. It means this place is internationally recognised for its natural value. And this proposed development ignores that completely. Nine four-storey buildings on Narrow Neck Road, is monstrous. This development will destroy iconic escarpment views, tear up sensitive bushland, and chase out native animals that live there. For what, a massive concrete block that belongs in Sydney, not here.

The proposed development site is also in the heart of Blue Mountains and presents significant fire safety and evacuation issues. Bushfires are not a possibility—they're a certainty. Narrow Neck Road has two lanes. And this proposal wants to add 266 apartments. That's hundreds more cars trying to evacuate on that same tiny road during an emergency. It's reckless and it's dangerous. Narrow Neck Road (2 lanes) accommodates locals, tourists, tradies, bus routes, school runs and the like. This development would add hundreds more cars. Our local roads cannot cope with this level of traffic, neither can evacuation routes.

Additionally, publicly available data shows Katoomba already has plenty of hotels, motels, and B&Bs which consistently have vacancies all year round. Katoomba does not need 52 serviced apartments This proposal is not solving a housing shortage; it is forcing unwanted commercial tourism into a residential area.

Furthermore, the proposal mentions fifteen percent will be set aside for affordable housing, however most people who need affordable housing work in Penrith, Parramatta, Blacktown, or Sydney’s surrounding areas. People do not want to live hours from their jobs with unreliable and long public transport commutes.

I would also like to note the way this development is being pushed through—bypassing our Council, using the state government's Housing Delivery Authority—it's a disgrace. The Blue Mountains is not Western Sydney. We have unique bushfire risks, fragile ecosystems, and a World Heritage listing. For all these reasons, I oppose this development, It is the wrong project, in the wrong place, at the wrong scale.

I write to formally object to the proposed State Significant Development (SSD) located on Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba. While I acknowledge the need for thoughtful development and housing supply within regional NSW, I strongly object to this proposal on the grounds of bushfire risk, environmental impact, inappropriate scale, and incompatibility with the established character and planning intent of the Blue Mountains region.

This proposal, comprising a multi-building high-rise complex of approximately nine buildings, each up to four storeys, with over 200 residential units, associated wellness facilities, restaurants, and supporting infrastructure, represents a fundamentally inappropriate form of development for this sensitive and unique location.

1. Inappropriate Scale and Bulk – Failure to Respect Local Context

The proposed development is significantly out of scale with the surrounding built environment. Katoomba and the broader Blue Mountains context is characterised by low-density residential dwellings, small-scale tourist accommodation, and a natural landscape dominated by escarpments, bushland, and World Heritage-listed values.

A development of this height, density, and built form will introduce an urbanised massing that is visually dominant and incongruent with the existing character of Narrow Neck Road and surrounding areas.

The cumulative bulk of nine buildings and associated infrastructure will result in:

* Overwhelming visual dominance when viewed from surrounding ridgelines and public lookouts
* Loss of scenic integrity within a nationally and internationally significant landscape
* A precedent for further high-rise intrusion into low-density bushland interface zones

This proposal does not reflect sensitive infill or context-aware design. Instead, it represents an urban-scale insertion into a landscape that is not designed to absorb such intensity of development.

2. Bushfire Risk and Emergency Access Concerns

The site is located within a known bushfire-prone region of the Blue Mountains. Given increasing fire severity due to climate change, any large-scale residential development in this location must demonstrate exceptional resilience, evacuation capacity, and defensible space design.

I have serious concerns regarding:

* Evacuation capacity for over 200 residential units in a single bushfire emergency event
* Reliance on Narrow Neck Road as a primary access/egress route, which is limited in capacity and already constrained in emergency scenarios
* The potential for catastrophic entrapment risk during fast-moving fire conditions
* Increased ignition risk due to higher population density and associated infrastructure loads

The scale of this development appears to significantly increase life safety risks rather than reduce them. In my view, it is not appropriate to concentrate such a high resident population in a high-risk bushfire interface zone.

3. Environmental Impact and Ecological Sensitivity

The Blue Mountains region is of exceptional environmental significance, with unique biodiversity and sensitive ecosystems. The proposed level of development raises concerns regarding:

* Vegetation clearing and habitat fragmentation
* Increased stormwater runoff impacting surrounding ecosystems
* Light pollution and noise intrusion affecting nocturnal wildlife
* Long-term pressure on surrounding bushland from increased human activity

Even with mitigation measures, the sheer scale of built form and population density will inevitably place sustained pressure on the surrounding natural environment.

The cumulative ecological impact is not consistent with the conservation values of the region.

4. Incompatibility with Planning Controls and Regional Character

While I understand that State Significant Development pathways can override local planning controls such as those administered by the Blue Mountains City Council, this does not remove the requirement to consider the intent of those controls.

Local planning frameworks exist to preserve:

* Low-density settlement patterns
* Scenic and landscape character
* Environmental protection of bushland interfaces
* The cultural and visual identity of the Blue Mountains

This proposal is inconsistent with these principles. It introduces a level of urban density more aligned with metropolitan centres rather than a World Heritage landscape and regional township setting.

By bypassing local council assessment, there is a risk that critical local knowledge and contextual planning intent is not adequately reflected in decision-making.

5. Visual Impact on a World Heritage Landscape

The Blue Mountains is recognised globally for its natural beauty, escarpments, and forested landscapes. Development of this scale will inevitably:

* Be visible from surrounding vantage points and ridgelines
* Alter the visual integrity of the landscape
* Create a permanent built intrusion within a predominantly natural horizon line

Once constructed, the visual impact will be irreversible. This raises serious concerns regarding intergenerational planning responsibility and stewardship of a globally significant landscape.

6. Infrastructure Strain and Cumulative Impact

A development of over 200 apartments, plus commercial hospitality and wellness facilities, will place significant pressure on existing infrastructure, including:

* Road networks and traffic capacity on Narrow Neck Road and surrounding access routes
* Water supply and sewerage systems
* Waste management services
* Emergency services response times and capacity

There is insufficient evidence that surrounding infrastructure is capable of supporting this level of intensified use without significant adverse impacts on existing residents and visitors.

7. Precedent Risk

Approval of this development would establish a concerning precedent for further high-density developments within sensitive bushland and scenic protection zones in the Blue Mountains.

This risks incremental erosion of planning protections that have historically preserved the unique character of the region.

Conclusion

While I support appropriate, sensitively designed development that aligns with local character and environmental constraints, I strongly object to this proposal in its current form.

The scale, intensity, and urban nature of this development is incompatible with:

* Bushfire safety requirements for the area
* Environmental protection obligations
* The scenic and cultural values of the Blue Mountains
* The established low-density character of Katoomba and its surrounds

I respectfully request that this State Significant Development application be refused, or at minimum subject to substantial redesign and scale reduction to ensure genuine alignment with environmental, safety, and planning principles.

I strongly object to the proposed development at 142–150 Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba.

This proposal is fundamentally inconsistent with the environmental, landscape, hazard and planning constraints of the site and fails to satisfy the principles of ecologically sustainable development required under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW).

The proposal represents an extreme overdevelopment of a highly sensitive escarpment location adjoining the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area and raises serious concerns regarding bushfire safety, biodiversity impacts, visual intrusion, infrastructure capacity, water catchment protection and inconsistency with local planning controls.

Excessive Scale and Non-Compliance with Planning Controls

The proposed height, bulk and floor space ratio substantially exceed the development standards established under the Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan 2015 (LEP 2015).

The proposal seeks approximately double the permissible density and significantly exceeds the applicable height controls. This scale is entirely incompatible with the established character of Katoomba and the low-scale built form envisaged by the LEP.

While variations to development standards may be considered in limited circumstances, the magnitude of the departures in this case cannot reasonably be characterised as minor or justified. The proposal appears inconsistent with the intended operation of the Housing Delivery Authority pathway and undermines the integrity of local strategic planning controls.

The development would set a dangerous precedent for inappropriate high-density development within environmentally constrained areas of the Blue Mountains.

Incompatibility with the Blue Mountains World Heritage Landscape

The site forms part of the visually sensitive escarpment landscape adjoining the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.

The proposed five-storey building forms would introduce substantial visual bulk and urban intensity into a landscape specifically protected for its scenic, ecological and cultural significance.

The Blue Mountains is internationally recognised for its natural landscape values. The visual impacts of this proposal on the escarpment, ridgelines and surrounding national park vistas have not been adequately addressed.

The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of escarpment protection provisions and fails to demonstrate that the development will preserve the visual and environmental qualities of the locality.

Unacceptable Bushfire Risk

The proposal raises severe concerns regarding bushfire evacuation and occupant safety.

The site is bushfire-prone land surrounded by heavily vegetated areas and relies on evacuation routes that themselves traverse bushfire-prone corridors. The concentration of hundreds of additional residents and visitors on this site creates an unacceptable life safety risk during bushfire events.

The application does not appear to include an adequate strategic bushfire assessment addressing large-scale evacuation, cumulative risk, or emergency access capacity during concurrent hazard scenarios.

Given the increasing frequency and severity of bushfire events in the Blue Mountains, the precautionary principle should apply. Approval of a development of this scale in such a constrained location would be irresponsible and contrary to the objectives of community safety and hazard resilience under NSW planning policy.

Environmental and Biodiversity Impacts

The proposal would result in substantial clearing of native vegetation and fragmentation of environmentally sensitive habitat within the Katoomba Creek catchment.

The site and surrounding area contain important ecological values associated with the Blue Mountains ecosystem, including threatened species habitat. The application fails to demonstrate that impacts on biodiversity can be adequately avoided, minimised or offset.

Concerns include:

clearing of native bushland,
impacts on threatened flora and fauna,
edge effects and habitat fragmentation,
increased stormwater runoff and pollution,
long-term impacts on adjacent protected lands.

The absence of a comprehensive Biodiversity Development Assessment Report raises serious concerns regarding the adequacy of environmental assessment undertaken to date.

Impacts on Water Catchment and Hydrology

The development is located within the Sydney drinking water catchment and upstream of sensitive swamp and creek systems connected to the broader catchment network.

The proposal introduces extensive hard surfaces, excavation and urban runoff risks on steep terrain without demonstrating adequate long-term stormwater management outcomes.

There is insufficient evidence that the proposal can achieve neutral or beneficial effect outcomes for water quality or protect downstream waterways from sedimentation, contamination and hydrological change.

The cumulative impacts on the Katoomba Creek catchment and connected ecosystems have not been adequately assessed.

Poor Urban Design and Failure to Respond to Site Constraints

The proposal demonstrates a generic high-density urban design response that is inappropriate for the topography, climate and environmental conditions of the Blue Mountains.

The development appears inconsistent with key principles of the Apartment Design Guide, including:

solar access,
natural ventilation,
landscape integration,
deep soil provision,
response to steep terrain,
minimisation of visual bulk.

The scale and configuration of the buildings prioritise yield over environmental responsiveness and local character.

The proposal fails to exhibit the design excellence expected for a prominent gateway escarpment site adjoining a World Heritage landscape.

Inconsistency with Strategic Planning for the Blue Mountains

The Blue Mountains has historically been excluded from broad high-density housing reforms due to well-recognised environmental and hazard constraints, including bushfire risk, topography, biodiversity sensitivity and infrastructure limitations.

Concentrating a substantial proportion of the region’s housing target onto a single constrained escarpment site is strategically unsound and inconsistent with orderly and sustainable planning principles.

Housing supply objectives must not override fundamental environmental protections, hazard considerations and place-based planning outcomes.

Inadequate Community Consultation

The community consultation undertaken prior to lodgement appears inadequate for a proposal of this scale and significance.

Many nearby residents report receiving no notification despite being directly affected by the development. Concerns have also been raised regarding the limited scope and effectiveness of engagement undertaken with the local community.

Given the scale of the proposal and its potential regional impacts, a far more comprehensive and transparent consultation process should have occurred prior to lodgement.

Failure to Properly Address Existing Legal and Site Constraints

The application appears to insufficiently address existing development consent conditions, easements, title restrictions and historical planning constraints affecting the site.

These matters require detailed clarification prior to any determination and raise questions regarding the suitability of the site for the intensity of development proposed.

Conclusion

This proposal is inappropriate for its location and represents an unacceptable overdevelopment of an environmentally constrained and internationally significant landscape.

The development fails to appropriately address:

bushfire safety,
environmental protection,
biodiversity impacts,
visual impacts,
infrastructure constraints,
water catchment protection,
local character,
strategic planning consistency.

The Department should refuse the application in its current form.

At minimum, the proposal requires substantial redesign, significantly reduced scale and density, comprehensive independent environmental assessment and a more rigorous community consultation process before any further consideration.

I request that this submission be formally considered in the assessment of the application.

Yours faithfully,
CG
Leura

The recent move by the NSW state government to address the lack of housing is admirable. I imagine that planners want to build in areas of safety and where the local community wants and needs increased development.
Mindful of this then, it seems tome that the new Housing Development Authority, in choosing 142-150 Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba in the Upper Blue Mountains as it's first project has chosen the worst possible project to develop.
Katoomba is a TOWN. It is not a suburb of Sydney,it's not a suburb of anywhere.It's a premier tourist town, one of the most visited in New South Wales by people from all over the world for it's natural beauty, it's unique flora and fauna, relatively unpolluted fresh air at 1,000m altitude. It's wondrous native flora and rugged contours provide inspiration and health for humans and native fauna alike - essentials for life. The Upper Blue Mountains is a special and precious place - a site of the critically endangered dward mountain pine is found just a short distance from this proposed development.
Before becoming a resident/ratepayer in an Upper Mountains town as a baby I was taken by my parents many years ago to camp on some land they had bought there. We walked into the beautiful bush, sometimes it snowed gently and the serenity of the bushland seeped into my soul and dwells there still. These days, the quiet, sometimes broken by the plaintiff calls of the yellow-tailed cockatoos, the aromas, flora and tiny ground-dwelling fauna of the bush as one walks through it, bring peace.
The encroachment of even a modest development in this area would be threatening but to have 9 x 4 storey buildings is absolutely a mega over-development, a monstrosity in so many ways - surely you can't be serious!.
This quiet area is prone to bushfire, has quality environmental amenity which would be seriously impacted by massively increased traffic, tar and cement, and pollution of air and water and must be excluded from such an onslaught.
The proposed development is just plain wrong; it's the wrong idea, the wrong buildings in the wrong place.
I object to it in the strongest terms.
Not only would it ruin the local area but also would set a most dangerous precedent.
Surely we must all protect natural values, retain the character of our towns and surrounds which are World Heritage listed, not over-rule our elected councils and strive to rise to the real threat of climate change and housing crises by appropriate measures without ruining our country.
I strongly urge you to reject this development proposal at 142-150 Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba.

I am a permanent resident of the Blue Mountains and believe that our world heritage status is of major importance to this area. The approval of this project may well put this mentioned status in jeopardy. The survival of businesses in Katoomba is contingent on the visitors and tourists who come to this area as it has world heritage status and I believe that they would be significantly impacted by approval of this project. I also have concerns that the infrastructure at the proposed site would not cope with the increased population that will ensue.

1. This proposal has a building height and density that will override Council’s local
planning controls and become a precedent for further developments at the detrimental risk to overall existing concept of our low density city in the centre of a World Heritage Declared Area.

2. The impact on traffic will adversely affect both the existing residents as well as those who are the intended occupants. The existing road infrastructure was not designed for such increases of traffic, both during the construction and in the long term.

3. The cost of maintaining the roads will be another impost on scarce councils resources, ie the ratepayers.

4. The local hospital will not be able to cope with additional people as it cannot service the region now. No operations are undertaken at Katoomba, nor Lithgow hospitals, with patients being transferred by ambulance to Penrith Hospital, which is suffering from overload with a shortage of surgeons. Extensive delays occur at Katoomba while waiting to get an allocation of a surgeon at Penrith.

5. The site was mapped as bush fire prone land and the bush fire risk is too high with evacuation routes from the site being over bush fire prone land. Fires can come up the escarpment from Megalong Valley at a rate that will exceed capabilities of fire crews.

6. There will be significant adverse impacts of the site during the building phase on the quiet amenities of the existing residents.

7. The provision component of “Affordable Housing” can be ameliorated by the developer as the concept of this proposal appears to be an attempt to gain extra density and height bonuses in exchange for providing a small percentage of units as affordable for a limited time, rather than in perpetuity.

8. Affordable housing agreements only require the units to remain affordable for a limited period, often 15 years. After this period, the units convert to market rate, which will allow the developers to reap long-term profits while providing only temporary, short-term relief in the local area.

9. There is a potential that instead of building affordable units the developer will pay a "contribution in lieu” or may negotiate to provide the required units at a different location.
10.The definition of "affordable" is not pertinent to this development as it is based on a percentage of the median household income of the large area like Sydney, instead of the local, low-income community of the Blue Mountains. This can allow these expensive units to be classified as "affordable," and it is doubtful that they are will not be affordable to the local people in our area.

Re: Residential flat buildings at 142-150 Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba, this proposed development at Narrow Neck is unsuitable because:

1) The Blue Mountains is a World Heritage National Park, not a blank canvas for developers to be given free rein to destroy and redesign as they choose.

2) To insert such a concentrated amount of residential development into such a high bushfire prone area, will only pose a major increase in the risk to firefighters as well as to the residents who live there.

3) The network of roads in this area is not suitable to cope with the additional traffic payload that would be introduced as a result of this proposal. The Blue Mountains national park already has significant traffic chaos due to the sheer number of tourists and visitors, as it is one of THE most visited national parks in NSW.

4) The construction of a project of this size would have a huge impact on the natural environment immediately adjacent to it, due to the run off and pollution, both during the construction phase and afterwards.

5) Every council in Sydney is responsible for their local area from the planning, development and approval stages to ensure that what is done is appropriate and in keeping with their particular area. This proposal has been taken out of the hands of our local council, who would follow the appropriate investigation. It has totally bypassed the Blue Mountains City Council with a complete disregard for the many issues involved.

6) The Blue Mountains City Council follows the principle of responsible development which is controlled by the LEP, the Local Environment Plan. The LEP allows the Blue Mountains City Council to approve balanced responsible developments to take place, which is not what this proposal has done.

7) The proposal suggests there could be some 218 new residences. Given the lack of any regulation or meaningful control on the number of Airbnb properties in the Blue Mountains, then how many of these residences may also ONLY be used for Airbnb and not for the purpose of meaningfully helping to solve the local housing problem for residents in the Blue Mountains.

8) There was a time when it was acknowledged by the NSW government that the Blue Mountains is a special environment that needs to be protected and exempted from many of the policy decisions that affect the Sydney basin, such as the NSW Low and Mid-rise Housing Policy. We now have the Housing Delivery Authority with the right to dictate what happens in this area of national significance, with absolute impunity.

9) As another example of the speed that this proposal is being pushed through with, is the total disregard for the normal democratic processes. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was on exhibition for a short 14 day period, which does not give much time for people who would reasonably object to it to make their submission. I do wish however to thank Major Projects for extending the time allowed to make a submission, by an extra week.

In conclusion, this State Significant Development is a complete over reaching of power by the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure. The only justification for this proposal to be granted an elevated status is purely a reflection of how much money is involved, which is not what I would have expected from a responsible Labor Government but from the Liberal Party working in tandem with developers.

I sincerely hope that the decision on this proposal will not be made by people who live “out of the area” in which the decision will impact, such as has already happened with the Sydney Western City Planning Panel to approve a Springwood Woolworths project despite the number of objections received against it.

I grew up in the Blue Mountains and recently moved back with my young family. I chose this area because it offers a relaxed lifestyle surrounded by nature. Living here again has made me acutely aware of how precious our environment, safety and community character are, particularly after experiencing constant and poorly planned development during my years in Sydney.

Why I oppose the proposal

1. Overriding local council
The Blue Mountains City Council has spent years consulting residents, experts and stakeholders to protect our unique landscape. The Housing Delivery Authority (HDA) bypasses that process, bringing outsiders who prioritise developer interests over local communities. This undermines the credibility of decisions that affect our lives.

2. Bushfire risk
The site is in a bushfire‑prone area with very limited evacuation routes. The proposal adds hundreds of residents to an already narrow road network, creating a dangerous bottleneck during emergencies. There is only one major evacuation route to the Great Western Highway, which may become impassable during emergencies. This density will put lives at serious risk.

3. Zoning
The land is zoned R3 Medium Density, with a maximum height of 8 metres under the Blue Mountains LEP. The developer’s request to build nine four‑storey buildings far exceeds what the zoning allows and would set an unwanted precedent for future high‑density projects in the Blue Mountains. Moreover, this development lies within a World Heritage Area; placing such dense construction there is wholly inappropriate and contrary to the principles that protect these globally significant landscapes - Particularly developments that are visible on the escarpment and impact local watercourses.

4. Infrastructure overload
The existing road, sewer, electricity and transport systems are already near capacity. Adding several hundred new vehicles and residents would overwhelm them and degrade the quality of life for all residents.

Specific requests
- I request that the Department refuse approval for the proposed nine four‑storey buildings as they stand.
- I ask that the Blue Mountains Local Government Area be exempted from the HDA/SSD pathways so that decisions remain in local hands. Particularly as it is an environmentally sensitive world heritage area with significant bushfire considerations.
- I recommend a site visit by the Consent Authority, including an assessment of surrounding visitor destinations and environmentally sensitive areas.

The Blue Mountains are a fragile ecosystem that must be protected for future generations. Approving this proposal would set a dangerous precedent, compromise the environment, safety and character of the mountains, and place unnecessary risk on new and existing residents in an emergency. I urge you to consider these points carefully and reject the development as it is currently proposed.

To Whom It May Concern,

I wish to formally object to the proposed Residential Flat Buildings development at 142–150 Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba (SSD-86456706).

While I acknowledge the need for additional housing supply in regional NSW and support well-considered development that responds appropriately to local context, this proposal represents a profound overdevelopment of one of the most environmentally and visually sensitive areas in the Blue Mountains.

The scale, density, and urban form proposed are fundamentally incompatible with the existing character, infrastructure limitations, ecological sensitivity, and tourism identity of Katoomba and the Narrow Neck precinct.

At its core, this proposal appears to import a metropolitan density model into a landscape that is internationally recognised precisely because it is not metropolitan.

Katoomba is not lacking identity awaiting intensification to become economically viable. Its identity, ecological significance, tourism economy, and liveability already derive from the balance between built environment and surrounding landscape. Developments of this scale risk eroding the very qualities that make the area desirable in the first place.

The proposal includes:

* 218 dwellings
* 52 serviced apartments
* nine separate buildings
* associated hospitality and commercial uses

This is an extraordinarily large development footprint for a highly constrained mountain environment already experiencing infrastructure pressure, road congestion during peak tourism periods, and increasing strain on local services.

Of particular concern are the following issues:

1. Incompatibility with Local Character

The proposed bulk, density, and built form are inconsistent with the established low-rise, dispersed character of Katoomba and the broader Blue Mountains region.

While change and growth are inevitable, planning policy should still exercise proportionality and contextual judgment. There is a substantial difference between incremental densification and effectively inserting a quasi-urban apartment complex into an environmentally constrained mountain township.

The cumulative visual impact of nine buildings in this location risks permanently altering the landscape character of the Narrow Neck corridor and setting a precedent for further inappropriate intensification.

2. Environmental and Ecological Concerns

The Blue Mountains is not an ordinary development corridor. It is part of a globally recognised World Heritage landscape with highly sensitive ecosystems, biodiversity corridors, and bushfire exposure.

Even where mitigation measures are proposed on paper, there are legitimate concerns regarding:

* habitat fragmentation
* stormwater runoff and downstream impacts
* vegetation loss
* increased human pressure on surrounding bushland
* long-term ecological degradation through cumulative development pressure

Planning systems should not operate solely on the assumption that every impact can be “managed” through technical conditions. Some locations are simply less appropriate for developments of this intensity.

3. Bushfire and Emergency Access Risks

The Narrow Neck area is already known for bushfire exposure and evacuation complexity.

Increasing permanent and transient population density in this location through both residential dwellings and serviced apartments raises serious questions regarding:

* evacuation capacity
* emergency vehicle access
* road network resilience
* visitor management during high-risk periods

Given recent fire history in the Blue Mountains, it is difficult to understand the strategic rationale for concentrating such a large population footprint in this location.

4. Traffic and Infrastructure Pressure

Katoomba already experiences substantial congestion during weekends, holiday periods, and tourism peaks.

A development of this scale will place additional pressure on:

* local roads
* parking availability
* water and sewer infrastructure
* waste systems
* emergency and health services

The inclusion of serviced apartments further intensifies this issue by introducing a semi-tourism accommodation layer on top of permanent residential demand.

There is also concern that infrastructure modelling often reflects ideal operational assumptions rather than lived reality in regional tourist towns with fluctuating peak demand.

5. Housing Outcomes and Community Benefit

While the inclusion of 15% affordable housing is noted, it is difficult to ignore that the majority of this proposal appears oriented toward higher-density investment and tourism outcomes rather than genuinely addressing the structural housing needs of the local community.

There is growing frustration across regional NSW at developments that invoke the language of “housing supply” while functionally operating as tourism-adjacent or investor-oriented urban expansion.

The Blue Mountains absolutely needs thoughtful housing solutions. However, scale and appropriateness still matter.

Poorly contextualised development is not automatically justified simply because it contains housing.

6. Strategic Planning Concerns

Approving a project of this magnitude risks establishing a precedent that significantly shifts the planning expectations for Katoomba and similar Blue Mountains townships.

Residents are entitled to ask whether this reflects a genuine long-term strategic vision for the region, or whether planning controls are increasingly being stretched through State Significant Development pathways that override local character considerations.

There is a growing perception that “state significance” can sometimes function less as a marker of public benefit and more as a mechanism to bypass the normal scale expectations communities reasonably rely upon.

In closing, I strongly urge the Department to reject this proposal in its current form.

This is not an objection to all development, nor to all increased housing density. It is an objection to a development whose scale, intensity, and urban character appear fundamentally mismatched to its setting.

Good planning is not merely about maximising yield on paper. It is about exercising judgment, restraint, and long-term stewardship over places that cannot easily recover once overdeveloped.

The Blue Mountains is one of the most environmentally and culturally distinctive regions in New South Wales. Developments within it should reflect that reality with humility and proportionality.

Yours sincerely,
Samuel Herczeg

To whom it may concern
I wish to express my opposition to the proposed development at 142-150 Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba and also the use of the Housing Delivery Authority (HAD) pathway in the Blue Mountains.
I moved to the Blue Mountains 13 years ago to enjoy a quiet retirement. I live opposite the creek which runs from the Gully to Katoomba Falls and look across the creek to the escarpment at Narrow Neck Road. This view is dominated by trees and is very restful.
I am opposing this proposal for the following reasons.
1. The escarpment at Narrow Neck Road will be spoilt by the erection of high rise buildings which are not in keeping with the vista expected in the Blue Mountains. The view from Echo Point to the west will be dominated by the proposed development.

2. The proposed development appears to be partially a tourist facility with serviced apartments and a Wellness Centre and restaurant. I do not understand how this facility can be regarded as a housing development under the Housing Delivery Authority pathway.

3. The development site is currently zoned R3 Medium Density. The proposed rezoning of the site and the size of the proposed development are in opposition to the Blue Mountains Local Environment Plan (LEP). The LEP represents years of expert planning and community consultation and is tailored to the Blue Mountains unique environmental context.

4. The site is adjacent to the Blue Mountains Swamps. These swamps feed the Katoomba Falls catchment. The increased surfaces would change water flow to the swamps, increase stormwater velocity and damage the swamp ecology.

5. The site is surrounded by bushfire prone land with limited evacuation routes. Adding hundreds of new residents would increase risk to life and hamper emergency response.

6. There is limited public transport to this area therefore the development would add several hundred vehicles to narrow local roads. The proposed development is two kilometres from local shops and rail transport in Katoomba.

7. There are limited health facilities in Katoomba. There are no specialists and all residents must travel to Penrith for specialist care. Increasing the population by several hundred residents will put a huge strain on the existing medical facilities and also increase traffic on the Highway with more people travelling to Penrith for care.

8. The proposed development threatens the unique character of Katoomba and surrounding visitor destinations.
Due to the unique site of Katoomba in a National Park the proposed development would adversely affect the areas character.
Katoomba is not suburb of Sydney and as such I believe should be exempt from the HDA pathway.
I understand the local member has previously written to the minister requesting this exemption and opposition to the proposed development. I trust you will consider this letter in opposition to the proposed development.