Please find in the attachment my submission regarding the Narrow Neck Road development proposal.

I object both to the proposed development at 142-150 Narrow Neck Road Katoomba and to the decision of the NSW Government to deem this a State Significant Development using the fast-track, Housing Development Authority (HDA) expression of interest process. I also object to the decision by the NSW Government to provide residents and visitors to Katoomba and the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area 14 days within which to respond to the EIS given its size and complexity. This is not democracy in action, it is autocracy.

The reasons I oppose this project are:
1. It will undermine the integrity of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area (GBMWHA). Mitigating impacts of urban expansion on the World Heritage Area is a responsibility of the NSW Government and approval of this proposal can only be viewed as a dereliction of this duty putting commercial interests above the interests of the environment and placing the status of GBMWHA at risk.
2. Scale and Zoning - the development is substantially larger than anything currently permitted in the Blue Mountains LGA. The sites current zoning only permits developments with a maximum height of 8 metres or approximately two storeys. The developer is seeking rezoning to allow a four-storey, high density development.
3. Undermining local planning - the Blue Mountains Local Environment Plan reflects the Mountains' unique environmental context and includes strong environmental provisions to ensure that any new development is appropriately designed, scaled and sited.
4. Environmental impacts - the site is adjacent to the Blue Mountains Swamps, a Threatened Ecological Community. These swamps feed the Katoomba Falls catchment which is one of a small number of areas supporting the Critically Endangered Dwarf Pine. Increased hard surfaces resulting from the development will change the water flow to the swamps, increase stormwater velocity and reduce ground water infiltration, resulting in the severe degrading of these ecosystems. Polluted runoff and weed spread will impact GBMWHA and Sydney's drinking water catchment.
5. Bushfire risk - the site is located within bushfire prone land, with limited evacuation routes. Only one main evacuation route leads to the Great Western Highway and is vulnerable during fires. The Blue Mountains is one of the most bushfire prone areas in Australia with 26% of homes in the areas being exposed to high bushfire risk. This figure will rise to 90% by 2090 due to climate change. Adding hundreds of new residents would increase risk to life and hamper emergency response. The Blue Mountains LGA is one of a number in Australia that experts (former Fire Services Commissioners) now consider to be at future risk of fires of the intensity and destructiveness of those that have occurred in Los Angeles and Hawaii. This risk must underpin decisions about the appropriateness of expanding housing in the Blue Mountains not meeting the failures of governments to address Australia's housing needs.
6. Traffic and infrastructure - the development would add several hundred additional vehicles to the narrow local roads and put further pressure on the areas sewer, electricity and other infrastructure which is at near capacity.
7. Cultural, aesthetic and economic values - the proposal threatens the historic, distinctive character of Katoomba and surrounding visitor destinations. High density, must-storey, urban-style development is incompatible with the Mountains' scale landscape and cultural identity.

If this development proceeds it will become Australia's Iguazu Falls. The Argentinian Government allowed a multi-storey hotel to be built on the fringe of and immediately overlooking the falls. The hotel is of a modern design out of keeping with its environmental context. It has a detrimental impact on the experience of visitors who come expecting to see forceful falls nestled in pristine wilderness. Instead they are confronted by an unsightly multi-storey commercial development that detracts from the beauty of the Iguazu. When I visited the Falls for the first time in December 2025 I could only shake my head and question why any Government could have approved the development, destroying the magnificence of this World Heritage-listed site. I have attached a photo of the Gran Melia Hotel Iguazu to help those who read my submission gain an appreciation of the hotel's inappropriateness and impact on the World Heritage Area.

This submission is informed by the hard work of conservationists in the Blue Mountains who have dedicated countless volunteer hours toiling over the EIS and its many attachments to ensure the Blue Mountains community and visitors alike are aware of the impacts this development will have if it proceeds.

I call on the Government to put a stop to this proposal, now.

Yours faithfully

Alix Goodwin (Ms)

This project is unacceptable for this area.

For several reasons I believe the project should not proceed. (1) Despite not currently being zoned in a bushfire area I know from having lived in Katoomba for many years that when there is a bushfire in the Narrow Neck and Cahills lookout areas parts of Narrow Neck Rd (including142-150) is badly affected by smoke and embers and traffic in and out. (2) This project seeks to go against current restrictions such as height of buildings and floor space ratios. There are already many closely packed buildings in the nearby vicinity such as the Escarpments and the size of the current proposal would create over-use and too many people and vehicles in a small area. (3) The number of studios and 1 bedroom apartments would not assist a community feel but more of a ghetto. (4) Overall the project is too intense for the site and area. The reasons given in the EIS seem to be that there would not be enough profit if there were shorter and/or fewer buildings or apartments. Profiteering should not be at the expense of the community.

This proposal is entirely unsuitable for the proposed site. The height if the buildings at 5 stories is higher than any other buildings in the blue mountains. The developer is requesting rezoning to make this possible. This sets a dangerous precedent for the blue mountains. This proposal and the way it is being put through undermines the way local government has managed to maintain and value the blue mountains as a special part of NSW. The environmental environment impacts are high. The area has swamps that feed catchments and additional water run off from hard surfaces will negatively impact the surrounding areas. The area is bush fire prone which would endanger a lot of people and make it very difficult to evacuate in an emergency. The current road infrastructure will not support evacuating people from the 208 dwellings listed for the development. This development threatens the very nature of the blue mountains. I have lived in the blue mountains for 40 years and what makes it special is the lack of large development s that have a Los Vegas feel about them. I sincerely hope common sense will prevails and this development application will be refused in its current form.

Firstly I am highly concerned that I live in close proximity to this development, and have received zero communication from the developer regarding the application. I believe this to be a legal requirement in State Significant Applications. It has come to my attention that none of my neighbours received any information either.
The scale of this development deeply concerns me, as the roads and infrastructure are highly inadequate in this area of Katoomba, to cope with such increases in traffic. There are no footpaths for pedestrians, or wide enough lanes for bike traffic, and limited public transport options.
In the fifteen years that I have lived in Katoomba, this area has been evacuated/directly effected by fires, many times. Again, the road ways are unsafe to be used in such times, by so many. The RFS rely heavily on the dam water in the adjacent Planetary Health Precinct.
As a daily user of the Planetary Health Precinct, I am already appalled at the destruction of habitat and vegetation by the developer, to keep this aged DA alive. Many trees were destroyed which were outside the protection zone - taping that only went up retrospectively.
I am a member of the local Bird Observers, who hold outings here. At the last meeting, we saw endangers species such as Gang Gang and Glossy cockatoos. It is an incredibly important area of habitat for many, many species. Following what I have already witnessed, I have very little confidence that this development will take any environmental concerns into consideration, particularly in regards to being at the top of the Katoomba Creek catchment.
From an aesthetic point of view, there is no compatibility or sympathy for the local built environment. It is of a height and scale unlike any other in the mountains, and is completely counter to the feel of the mountains villages.
I am dismayed by the complete arrogance shown by their lack of obligatory community consultation on this project. For this reason alone, followed by road infrastructure issues, this development must be denied.

I am writing to oppose the submission for development at 142-150 Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba, on the basis that construction at this scale poses a threat to the unique ecosystem of the area. I am a bush regenerator with a particular interest in eucalypts, and have spent significant time studying mallee ashes in the blue mountains. On narrow neck road I have observed a population of green leaved mallee ashes (eucalyptus series strictae), a eucalypt group of significance warranting further study as noted by eucalypt botanists Paul Gadsby and Dean Nicolle.
Katoomba’s mallee ash population is unique because this part of the blue mountains is one of very few areas in which their habitat is minimally disturbed by human impact. This gives them both a unique value for the ecosystem and also reflects an opportunity for academia. I believe this area would benefit from further study, and the potential for research would be lost if the area were developed on the proposed scale.

Remnant bushland is a finite resource. Once plants are cleared, the soil disturbed, or hydrology altered by increased urban runoff, this cannot be “undone”, even by future regeneration efforts. We lose what was there; both the knowledge and the landscape itself. The blue mountains are not pristine by accident; decades of deliberate choices have been made to conserve and protect this land. I urge you to make such choices again now.

Endangered species habitat we must preserve these sanctuaries for wildlife

The proposed development is a source of deep distress to the Blue Mountains community. The scale and height of the proposal impedes the natural view of the escarpment and obstructs the landscape outside of current planning regulations. Not only does the proposed development have poor access to the town centre and the train station (being outside of the 800m walking distance scope of an accessible area as stipulated in the Housing SEPP definition), but is a protected area. The state significant development is highly inappropriate in the cultural and visual wealth of the Blue Mountains context. The height and density of the building disrupts the established treeline and this urban development is starkly incongruous with the visual beauty and prominent view of Narrow Neck Road. Further, the development, while classified as residential, prima facie appears to be a resort style complex with restaurants, orientated towards tourism and failing to address the current housing crisis afflicting the community. The development epitomises short term strategic thinking and is a planning anomaly. The proposed area is also located on an area classified as highly bushfire prone with limited escape routes possible. Historically, this area suffered from the Ruined Castle and Cahill Lookout fires in which the surrounding areas were evacuated. Given the rising heat of Blue Mountains summers, it is highly likely that a bushfire could occur in this area in the next 10 years.

The state significant development is a harmful and inconsistent proposal which fails through numerous streams. Not only does it oppose notions of sustainability and liveability, it actively disturbs the defining values of the Blue Mountains community and is holistically inconsistent with the location and planning context. The development abandons pillars of sustainable urban development, community consultation and under current regulations, should not be permitted in the Blue Mountains. It fails to be an opportunity for growth for the Blue Mountains and instead, the multifaceted deficiencies present a risk for the community and the spatial and sustainable context of the location.

I have just recently moved into the Blue Mountains, and I live just streets away from 142-150 Narrow Neck Road. I oppose the proposed development at 142-150 Narrow Neck Road due to my concerns surrounding the impact on our local environment and the safety of the local community.

I work in bush regeneration and recognize that the scale of this high-density development plan housing hundreds of people will degrade and destroy the surrounding ecosystem including sensitive native bushland. Not only is this bushland valuable for protecting our local biodiversity and providing habitat for wildlife, but it is a major tourist draw with thousands travelling to the area each year to view and explore the gorgeous native bushland. This major development would create a massive influx of people permanently in the area, on top of an already high volume of visitors and tourists, leading to a significant increase in the disturbance and degradation of the surrounding native bushland and ecosystem.

I am also concerned about the scale of this development proposal in the context of our local infrastructure. The development proposal for 142-150 Narrow Neck Road includes 266 apartments, all of which are likely to have a number of people in each apartment which would be a massive increase in residents, cars and foot traffic in the area. There are no footpaths, there is very little public transport to the area and the roads in and out of the surrounding area are limited and narrow. This sudden increase in residents with the current infrastructure will pose a higher safety risk to the residents in the event of bushfires and evacuations. I would not want anyone in the community to be endangered in the event of an emergency because of overdevelopment and limited escape routes.

I am quite disappointed that the proposal has been put forward through the Housing Delivery Authority despite the Blue Mountains council's rejection of the plans. I oppose the use of the Housing Delivery Authority in this case, and I would like future development in the Blue Mountains to be planned collaboratively with the local council to ensure those who know the area best can ensure the safety of its residents and ecosystem.