Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Katoomba
,
New South Wales
Message
I object to the proposed development application of 142-150 Narrow Neck Rd for the following reasons:
Ecosystem and biodiversity – like many parts of the Blue Mountains, Narrow Neck Plateau has a sensitive ecosystem. Clearing land for building a 270-apartment block, utility connections and new roads into this proposed site destroys native bush vegetation and directly impacts the species that require large expansive areas such as gliders, owls and bats. The fragmentation of habitats harms far beyond the clearing footprint, which leads to a significant reduction of our biodiversity and ancient ecosystem. A single and colossal build will have cumulative ecological impact leading to the degradation to the land.
Undermining safety and statutory obligation – we have dense eucalypt forests and steep terrain with a history of bushfires in the Blue Mountains. The 270-apartment proposal is subject to higher risk of fires which poses a threat to the environment, extensive number of life and the development itself. With such an extensive development, likely housing a capacity more than triple that, evacuation processes will not provide adequate procedures, access, and defendable space to save lives in such a high-risk zone. The ‘fast-track’ proposal is non-compliant with bushfire prone safety requirements, and regardless of state-level capacity to override local restrictions, this undermines any justification based on concern for the people due to housing shortages and demand. When a fire occurs, this expansive build will also stretch our emergency response services and resources thereby putting more life at risk.
While housing demand is a legitimate policy goal, it does not override the statutory commitment to appropriately prioritise biodiversity, ecosystem function, and human safety. The proposal fails to demonstrate this fundamental planning consideration.
Unique village character of the Blue Mountains – One of the key reasons people increasingly tour, relocate and return to this UNESCO World Heritage listed area is the charming village character and its cultural landscape. The mammoth development not only detracts from the reasons why people continue to live in and visit the Blue Mountains, as nature-based tourism, where both locals and tourists visit lookouts to view a skyline of ancient mountains and trees; it would set a precedence and raise a threshold for future builds of the same kind, degrading its unique village characteristic that continues to make this place special and does so in a non-intrusive way that adheres to statutory priority in NSW planning.
I submit this objection for the proposal to be withdrawn since the justifications for this development to go ahead does not supersede the above concerns raised.
Thank you for your time and consideration to review the local voices of this wider community and to action the statutory obligation in NSW planning, that is, the safety first, of our heritage listed land, biodiversity, ecosystem as well as its people.
Ecosystem and biodiversity – like many parts of the Blue Mountains, Narrow Neck Plateau has a sensitive ecosystem. Clearing land for building a 270-apartment block, utility connections and new roads into this proposed site destroys native bush vegetation and directly impacts the species that require large expansive areas such as gliders, owls and bats. The fragmentation of habitats harms far beyond the clearing footprint, which leads to a significant reduction of our biodiversity and ancient ecosystem. A single and colossal build will have cumulative ecological impact leading to the degradation to the land.
Undermining safety and statutory obligation – we have dense eucalypt forests and steep terrain with a history of bushfires in the Blue Mountains. The 270-apartment proposal is subject to higher risk of fires which poses a threat to the environment, extensive number of life and the development itself. With such an extensive development, likely housing a capacity more than triple that, evacuation processes will not provide adequate procedures, access, and defendable space to save lives in such a high-risk zone. The ‘fast-track’ proposal is non-compliant with bushfire prone safety requirements, and regardless of state-level capacity to override local restrictions, this undermines any justification based on concern for the people due to housing shortages and demand. When a fire occurs, this expansive build will also stretch our emergency response services and resources thereby putting more life at risk.
While housing demand is a legitimate policy goal, it does not override the statutory commitment to appropriately prioritise biodiversity, ecosystem function, and human safety. The proposal fails to demonstrate this fundamental planning consideration.
Unique village character of the Blue Mountains – One of the key reasons people increasingly tour, relocate and return to this UNESCO World Heritage listed area is the charming village character and its cultural landscape. The mammoth development not only detracts from the reasons why people continue to live in and visit the Blue Mountains, as nature-based tourism, where both locals and tourists visit lookouts to view a skyline of ancient mountains and trees; it would set a precedence and raise a threshold for future builds of the same kind, degrading its unique village characteristic that continues to make this place special and does so in a non-intrusive way that adheres to statutory priority in NSW planning.
I submit this objection for the proposal to be withdrawn since the justifications for this development to go ahead does not supersede the above concerns raised.
Thank you for your time and consideration to review the local voices of this wider community and to action the statutory obligation in NSW planning, that is, the safety first, of our heritage listed land, biodiversity, ecosystem as well as its people.
Ian Hales
Object
Ian Hales
Object
KATOOMBA
,
New South Wales
Message
As a resident of Acacia Street Katoomba I was saddened to see the the proposed large unsympathetic housing development to be inflicted on our wonderful wilderness area and local community. The size and scope of which is unprecedented and goes against every current standard here in the Upper Blue Mountains, changing the landscape of this very place that people come to visit from all over world because of its unique Wilderness areas and the village charm of the towns that are dotted along the route of the Great Western Highway, the likes of which can only be found in one other location internationally. Banff Canada...so yes, we are special.
The choice to live here does come with many challenges including access to good health care from our small regional Hospital, the lack of regular transport facilities and the huge threat of bushfires each summer that we've experienced first hand. All are part of what it is to be here along with the delightfully small town feel that tourists come to enjoy, embrace and be in wonder of as they explore this vast rugged wilderness. We are not Parramatta or Chatswood where a proposal such as this would fit the model of a large Ina hub of other departments serving a genuine need for much needed medium and high density housing in an inner city environment. This is a 470 million year old world heritage listed Jewel of Australia not to be dismissed or tampered with for the benefit of relative shortly term goals by developers.
Some points of summary:
Evacuation of our street and surrounds on a bush fire fire emergency would be chaos at best, given the narrow residential streets around the proposed development and inadequate exit points to the Hume Highway from the town centre, which was actually closed at one point during the height of the 2019 fires bearing down on the township.
Ember attack can start fires well before a fire front arrives
The combined Gospers Creek and fires of 2019 came within 2 kilometres of our home in Acacia Street and for days we had all our personal possessions packed in the car ready to leave as we prepared for the worst. We were saved not by human intervention but by a wind change and rain. We are in an active fire prone area that is a disastrous combination with a high rise development.
Tourists come for the charm and vistas. This needs to be protected.
Finally,to amend the safeguard of local environment Plan 2015 to accommodate high density living sets a dangerous precedent.
The choice to live here does come with many challenges including access to good health care from our small regional Hospital, the lack of regular transport facilities and the huge threat of bushfires each summer that we've experienced first hand. All are part of what it is to be here along with the delightfully small town feel that tourists come to enjoy, embrace and be in wonder of as they explore this vast rugged wilderness. We are not Parramatta or Chatswood where a proposal such as this would fit the model of a large Ina hub of other departments serving a genuine need for much needed medium and high density housing in an inner city environment. This is a 470 million year old world heritage listed Jewel of Australia not to be dismissed or tampered with for the benefit of relative shortly term goals by developers.
Some points of summary:
Evacuation of our street and surrounds on a bush fire fire emergency would be chaos at best, given the narrow residential streets around the proposed development and inadequate exit points to the Hume Highway from the town centre, which was actually closed at one point during the height of the 2019 fires bearing down on the township.
Ember attack can start fires well before a fire front arrives
The combined Gospers Creek and fires of 2019 came within 2 kilometres of our home in Acacia Street and for days we had all our personal possessions packed in the car ready to leave as we prepared for the worst. We were saved not by human intervention but by a wind change and rain. We are in an active fire prone area that is a disastrous combination with a high rise development.
Tourists come for the charm and vistas. This needs to be protected.
Finally,to amend the safeguard of local environment Plan 2015 to accommodate high density living sets a dangerous precedent.
Richard Maude
Object
Richard Maude
Object
WENTWORTH FALLS
,
New South Wales
Message
I wish to lodge my strong objection to this development.
I have lived in the Blue Mountains on & off for a considerable portion of my life: as a boy completing primary schooling & entering high school (Warrimoo); as a young, community-engaged artist in my mid-twenties (Katoomba); now as an aging man in my early seventies, since January 2019 (Wentworth Falls). I have many old friends & family members living in the Upper Mountains & am very connected to this community & its string of villages & small towns.
Having a number friends that live within the two kilometre radius of the proposed development I know for a fact that none of them received the required “community consultation” notification from the developer. This, perhaps, suggest a particular disregard for the interests or well-being for our local community.
Further to that, the particular ‘architecture’ of the development exhibits a profound lack of understanding of the character & unique qualities of the Blue Mountains.
The buildings’ design - for want of a better word – has no architectural merit whatsoever & would be more suited to office blocks & a food hall within an industrial park.
This is not what “The City of the Arts”, located within a World Heritage-listed National Park needs or wants.
This development does nothing to alleviate the housing problems specific to the Blue Mountains.
As a crude vehicle for investment speculation it will further the divide between those in genuine need – for appropriate housing & other community & cultural facilities - & those that can already afford to gamble with the property market.
This high-density population influx cannot be supported by current infrastructure, & it could be argued that the unique values of the Blue Mountains City necessitates a cap on population growth within its narrow borders. The development proposal is so ‘out of place’ & disregarding of too numerous environmental impacts & governance factors that it should be rejected without further “what ifs” or modifications.
This absurd development would be so obviously detrimental to Katoomba, the upper mountains villages & the city council area generally, & in manifold ways, that it beggars belief it has seen the light of day with the Housing Delivery Authority.
I respectfully request that this development be rejected.
I have lived in the Blue Mountains on & off for a considerable portion of my life: as a boy completing primary schooling & entering high school (Warrimoo); as a young, community-engaged artist in my mid-twenties (Katoomba); now as an aging man in my early seventies, since January 2019 (Wentworth Falls). I have many old friends & family members living in the Upper Mountains & am very connected to this community & its string of villages & small towns.
Having a number friends that live within the two kilometre radius of the proposed development I know for a fact that none of them received the required “community consultation” notification from the developer. This, perhaps, suggest a particular disregard for the interests or well-being for our local community.
Further to that, the particular ‘architecture’ of the development exhibits a profound lack of understanding of the character & unique qualities of the Blue Mountains.
The buildings’ design - for want of a better word – has no architectural merit whatsoever & would be more suited to office blocks & a food hall within an industrial park.
This is not what “The City of the Arts”, located within a World Heritage-listed National Park needs or wants.
This development does nothing to alleviate the housing problems specific to the Blue Mountains.
As a crude vehicle for investment speculation it will further the divide between those in genuine need – for appropriate housing & other community & cultural facilities - & those that can already afford to gamble with the property market.
This high-density population influx cannot be supported by current infrastructure, & it could be argued that the unique values of the Blue Mountains City necessitates a cap on population growth within its narrow borders. The development proposal is so ‘out of place’ & disregarding of too numerous environmental impacts & governance factors that it should be rejected without further “what ifs” or modifications.
This absurd development would be so obviously detrimental to Katoomba, the upper mountains villages & the city council area generally, & in manifold ways, that it beggars belief it has seen the light of day with the Housing Delivery Authority.
I respectfully request that this development be rejected.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
KATOOMBA
,
New South Wales
Message
My objections to the proposed development are:
1. The density of housing is inappropriate for the local area. The density should reflect the Local Government's Planning Scheme.
2. The proposed multiple storey apartments are not consistent with the Local Government Planning Scheme, nor the character of the local area. The maximum building height should reflect the Local Government's Planning Scheme.
3. The proposed density would concentrate up to 10% of Katoomba's population in an area with limited public transport connection, thus contributing to an overly car-based area. This development is not consistent with the NSW Government Active Transport Strategy.
1. The density of housing is inappropriate for the local area. The density should reflect the Local Government's Planning Scheme.
2. The proposed multiple storey apartments are not consistent with the Local Government Planning Scheme, nor the character of the local area. The maximum building height should reflect the Local Government's Planning Scheme.
3. The proposed density would concentrate up to 10% of Katoomba's population in an area with limited public transport connection, thus contributing to an overly car-based area. This development is not consistent with the NSW Government Active Transport Strategy.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
KATOOMBA
,
New South Wales
Message
To Whom It May Concern,
Re: Submission Regarding Proposed Residential Development at 142-150 Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba
I have lived in Katoomba for over 10 years and, like many residents and visitors, I was drawn here by the unique charm, tranquility, and pristine natural environment that defines the Blue Mountains. Katoomba’s character - its leafy streets, the historic town and direct connection to nature - is the very reason people choose to live here and why so many others travel here each year. Therefore it is deeply concerning to see a development proposal put forward for Narrow Neck Road in Katoomba of this scale and character, in such a sensitive and significant location.
I am writing to object to the proposed development of eight residential buildings and one commercial use building on land at the edge of the Blue Mountains National Park; part of the UNESCO World Heritage listed Greater Blue Mountains Area. While I recognise the importance of providing more housing, including affordable housing, this proposal raises serious concerns due to its size, location, and the long-term impacts it would have on the environment and the character of Katoomba and the Blue Mountains generally. My specific concerns are outlined below.
1. Planning pathway and changes to established controls
A major concern is the use of the Housing Development Accelerator (HDA) pathway for a development of this scale and sensitivity. This process circumvents the Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan 2015 (LEP), which has been developed over multiple decades to reflect the environmental constraints and special character of the area.
The proposal relies on significant changes to those planning controls, including:
- Increasing the maximum building height from 8 metres to 15.6 metres
- Increasing the floor space ratio from 0.6:1 to 1.17:1
These constitute major variations - effectively proposing a doubling of both the allowable height and overall building bulk. This makes it crystal clear that the development does not fit within the existing planning framework, but instead seeks to reshape it to suit its own scale.
One might draw the conclusion that the development proposal is completely reliant on the HDA pathway. A development that requires this level of variation to fundamental standards is highly unlikely to gain approval from the Blue Mountains City Council because it does not satisfy the criteria of the LEP. It raises serious concerns about the appropriateness of both the proposal and the pathway being used to advance it. It gives the impression of a proposal motivated by maximising developer profits rather than one that responds appropriately to the constraints of the site and its surrounding environment. As such I think it sets a very dangerous precedent for future developments.
2. Character, precedent, and long-term change
The Blue Mountains is defined by its low-density, historic town character and its integration with the surrounding natural landscape. The proposed height and density, which is well beyond current controls, would introduce a built form that is entirely out of scale with its surroundings.
In fact, the form and intensity of this development is more typical of the inner-city and of inner-west suburbs such as Marrickville and Dulwich Hill, or newer high-density Western Sydney areas like Oran Park. Even in the inner-west and Oran Park, developments of this scale are not common. It is difficult to understand how a proposal of this size and density could be considered appropriate for a town situated alongside a globally recognised national park. If this scale of development is not typical in suburban Sydney, it has no place at the edge of a World Heritage-listed national park.
This is not just about one development. Approving a project of this size and intensity would set a precedent for similar proposals, gradually transforming the area into something very urbanised and at complete odds with its historic identity. Once that shift begins, it cannot be easily reversed.
3. Bushfire risk, evacuation constraints, and broader fire safety
Narrow Neck Road and the adjoining Cliff Drive in Katoomba are particularly high bushfire risk areas, and the roads are very constrained. There have been two major incidents in this area and one minor incident, since I started living here 11½ years ago. The area is consistently monitored by the NSW Rural Fire Service. Narrow Neck Road is a single access route, with one lane in each direction. Adding a significant, high-density population into this area would greatly increase the risk to human lives in case of an emergency evacuation. This not only applies for future residents of the development, but also for existing residents of Narrow Neck Road and Cliff Drive, who rely on the same limited road network. This risk does not appear to be adequately considered or addressed.
In addition to bushfire risk, the proximity of the development to bushland raises other fire safety concerns. A house-fire in one apartment building has the potential to send sparks flying to nearby bushland and start a bushfire within the national park. This could create an out-of-control fire situation that potentially threatens other nearby homes. Such a layered fire risk warrants much more careful consideration.
4. Environmental impacts
The proposed scale of the development would result in substantial environmental impacts, including tree removal, loss of permeable ground, and increased hard surfaces. This is likely to increase storm-water runoff, erosion, and disruption to local ecosystems and wildlife habitats.
This is not a theoretical concern. Katoomba has experienced significant landslips in recent years during periods of higher-than-average rainfall, in some cases leading to road closures lasting more than two years. These events highlight the fragility of the local landscape and its sensitivity to changes in water flow and ground stability. Increasing storm-water runoff through large-scale development in this context presents a genuine and foreseeable risk that should not be dismissed.
Given the immediate proximity to a World Heritage-listed landscape, these impacts are especially concerning. The ecological integrity of this area is fundamental to its global significance and should not be compromised.
5. Housing need and suitability of response
Housing supply is currently an important issue in NSW and there are ways of dealing with this issue. This proposal does not represent a well-targeted or appropriate solution. The Blue Mountains already contains a significant number of holiday homes and short-term rentals that are often vacant for long periods. Addressing housing availability through better utilisation of existing housing stock would be one appropriate response. Introducing higher density developments that fit within or approximate the LEP guidelines is another really effective and appropriate solution. Allowing large-scale, high-density over-developments such as this one, in an environmentally sensitive area, would constitute an inappropriate quick-fix and short-sighted response.
A multi-storey development of this kind does not reflect the established character of the area and risks undermining the very qualities that make it desirable to both residents and visitors.
6. Economic and cumulative impacts
National and international tourism is central to the Blue Mountains economy. Its tourism success is directly tied to the natural beauty and sense of escape offered by the national park and its surrounds. People also visit Katoomba and Leura in droves for their historic village atmosphere and charm. Incremental changes, such as increased aircraft noise and now proposals for high-density development, risk eroding these qualities in a short space of time. There is a broader concern that cumulative decisions are gradually diminishing what makes the area special and a desirable tourist destination. This proposal represents a significant step in that direction.
7. Incorrect submission deadline provided on the NSW Planning Portal's webpage
Visiting the NSW Planning Portal webpage for this development proposal on 29th April, I've noticed that an incorrect submission deadline is provided. According to the webpage, submissions are said to be closing in 8 days rather than in one day, on 30th April 2026. This needs to be taken into consideration, because it may significantly impact the number of submissions provided by the community as a consequence. Due to this mistake, the number of submissions for this development proposal cannot provide a full and accurate reflection of the amount of community opposition to the development.
Conclusion
The Blue Mountains, with its UNESCO World Heritage listing, is a place of recognised national and global significance. Historic towns such as Katoomba play an integral role in making this a desirable tourist destination. Developments in Katoomba and other Blue Mountains towns must be carefully considered in accordance with the historic character of the town, appropriately scaled, and consistent with long-standing planning protections. The development proposal for Narrow Neck Road represents an over-development that is greatly at odds with the surrounding residential area and its location bordering on the national park.
I strongly urge the State Government to reject this development, or at the very least to require that it be significantly amended to fit with existing local planning controls without substantial variations, and subject to rigorous environmental and safety considerations.
Decisions made now will shape the future of Katoomba and the Blue Mountains for generations. When it comes to the impression provided to tourists by the region, they will have a national and international impact. It is critical that the decisions made now serve to protect, rather than erode, the qualities that make the Blue Mountains unique.
Yours sincerely,
K
Re: Submission Regarding Proposed Residential Development at 142-150 Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba
I have lived in Katoomba for over 10 years and, like many residents and visitors, I was drawn here by the unique charm, tranquility, and pristine natural environment that defines the Blue Mountains. Katoomba’s character - its leafy streets, the historic town and direct connection to nature - is the very reason people choose to live here and why so many others travel here each year. Therefore it is deeply concerning to see a development proposal put forward for Narrow Neck Road in Katoomba of this scale and character, in such a sensitive and significant location.
I am writing to object to the proposed development of eight residential buildings and one commercial use building on land at the edge of the Blue Mountains National Park; part of the UNESCO World Heritage listed Greater Blue Mountains Area. While I recognise the importance of providing more housing, including affordable housing, this proposal raises serious concerns due to its size, location, and the long-term impacts it would have on the environment and the character of Katoomba and the Blue Mountains generally. My specific concerns are outlined below.
1. Planning pathway and changes to established controls
A major concern is the use of the Housing Development Accelerator (HDA) pathway for a development of this scale and sensitivity. This process circumvents the Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan 2015 (LEP), which has been developed over multiple decades to reflect the environmental constraints and special character of the area.
The proposal relies on significant changes to those planning controls, including:
- Increasing the maximum building height from 8 metres to 15.6 metres
- Increasing the floor space ratio from 0.6:1 to 1.17:1
These constitute major variations - effectively proposing a doubling of both the allowable height and overall building bulk. This makes it crystal clear that the development does not fit within the existing planning framework, but instead seeks to reshape it to suit its own scale.
One might draw the conclusion that the development proposal is completely reliant on the HDA pathway. A development that requires this level of variation to fundamental standards is highly unlikely to gain approval from the Blue Mountains City Council because it does not satisfy the criteria of the LEP. It raises serious concerns about the appropriateness of both the proposal and the pathway being used to advance it. It gives the impression of a proposal motivated by maximising developer profits rather than one that responds appropriately to the constraints of the site and its surrounding environment. As such I think it sets a very dangerous precedent for future developments.
2. Character, precedent, and long-term change
The Blue Mountains is defined by its low-density, historic town character and its integration with the surrounding natural landscape. The proposed height and density, which is well beyond current controls, would introduce a built form that is entirely out of scale with its surroundings.
In fact, the form and intensity of this development is more typical of the inner-city and of inner-west suburbs such as Marrickville and Dulwich Hill, or newer high-density Western Sydney areas like Oran Park. Even in the inner-west and Oran Park, developments of this scale are not common. It is difficult to understand how a proposal of this size and density could be considered appropriate for a town situated alongside a globally recognised national park. If this scale of development is not typical in suburban Sydney, it has no place at the edge of a World Heritage-listed national park.
This is not just about one development. Approving a project of this size and intensity would set a precedent for similar proposals, gradually transforming the area into something very urbanised and at complete odds with its historic identity. Once that shift begins, it cannot be easily reversed.
3. Bushfire risk, evacuation constraints, and broader fire safety
Narrow Neck Road and the adjoining Cliff Drive in Katoomba are particularly high bushfire risk areas, and the roads are very constrained. There have been two major incidents in this area and one minor incident, since I started living here 11½ years ago. The area is consistently monitored by the NSW Rural Fire Service. Narrow Neck Road is a single access route, with one lane in each direction. Adding a significant, high-density population into this area would greatly increase the risk to human lives in case of an emergency evacuation. This not only applies for future residents of the development, but also for existing residents of Narrow Neck Road and Cliff Drive, who rely on the same limited road network. This risk does not appear to be adequately considered or addressed.
In addition to bushfire risk, the proximity of the development to bushland raises other fire safety concerns. A house-fire in one apartment building has the potential to send sparks flying to nearby bushland and start a bushfire within the national park. This could create an out-of-control fire situation that potentially threatens other nearby homes. Such a layered fire risk warrants much more careful consideration.
4. Environmental impacts
The proposed scale of the development would result in substantial environmental impacts, including tree removal, loss of permeable ground, and increased hard surfaces. This is likely to increase storm-water runoff, erosion, and disruption to local ecosystems and wildlife habitats.
This is not a theoretical concern. Katoomba has experienced significant landslips in recent years during periods of higher-than-average rainfall, in some cases leading to road closures lasting more than two years. These events highlight the fragility of the local landscape and its sensitivity to changes in water flow and ground stability. Increasing storm-water runoff through large-scale development in this context presents a genuine and foreseeable risk that should not be dismissed.
Given the immediate proximity to a World Heritage-listed landscape, these impacts are especially concerning. The ecological integrity of this area is fundamental to its global significance and should not be compromised.
5. Housing need and suitability of response
Housing supply is currently an important issue in NSW and there are ways of dealing with this issue. This proposal does not represent a well-targeted or appropriate solution. The Blue Mountains already contains a significant number of holiday homes and short-term rentals that are often vacant for long periods. Addressing housing availability through better utilisation of existing housing stock would be one appropriate response. Introducing higher density developments that fit within or approximate the LEP guidelines is another really effective and appropriate solution. Allowing large-scale, high-density over-developments such as this one, in an environmentally sensitive area, would constitute an inappropriate quick-fix and short-sighted response.
A multi-storey development of this kind does not reflect the established character of the area and risks undermining the very qualities that make it desirable to both residents and visitors.
6. Economic and cumulative impacts
National and international tourism is central to the Blue Mountains economy. Its tourism success is directly tied to the natural beauty and sense of escape offered by the national park and its surrounds. People also visit Katoomba and Leura in droves for their historic village atmosphere and charm. Incremental changes, such as increased aircraft noise and now proposals for high-density development, risk eroding these qualities in a short space of time. There is a broader concern that cumulative decisions are gradually diminishing what makes the area special and a desirable tourist destination. This proposal represents a significant step in that direction.
7. Incorrect submission deadline provided on the NSW Planning Portal's webpage
Visiting the NSW Planning Portal webpage for this development proposal on 29th April, I've noticed that an incorrect submission deadline is provided. According to the webpage, submissions are said to be closing in 8 days rather than in one day, on 30th April 2026. This needs to be taken into consideration, because it may significantly impact the number of submissions provided by the community as a consequence. Due to this mistake, the number of submissions for this development proposal cannot provide a full and accurate reflection of the amount of community opposition to the development.
Conclusion
The Blue Mountains, with its UNESCO World Heritage listing, is a place of recognised national and global significance. Historic towns such as Katoomba play an integral role in making this a desirable tourist destination. Developments in Katoomba and other Blue Mountains towns must be carefully considered in accordance with the historic character of the town, appropriately scaled, and consistent with long-standing planning protections. The development proposal for Narrow Neck Road represents an over-development that is greatly at odds with the surrounding residential area and its location bordering on the national park.
I strongly urge the State Government to reject this development, or at the very least to require that it be significantly amended to fit with existing local planning controls without substantial variations, and subject to rigorous environmental and safety considerations.
Decisions made now will shape the future of Katoomba and the Blue Mountains for generations. When it comes to the impression provided to tourists by the region, they will have a national and international impact. It is critical that the decisions made now serve to protect, rather than erode, the qualities that make the Blue Mountains unique.
Yours sincerely,
K
Derek Fagan
Object
Derek Fagan
Object
KATOOMBA
,
New South Wales
Message
To Whom it Concerns,
To say I disagree with this proposal would be an understatement. I cannot find any positives about this whole idea since I first learned of what was being put forward. As a Katoomba resident of only 6 years it feels a blatant disregard for the people of this township who have lived here much longer or indeed even to those who would one day love to live in this beautiful part of Australia.
The main reasons I am so opposed to this development going ahead are as follows:
1- Overriding local planning control of the Blue Mountains City Council. This is a fundamental stepping stone being cast aside for how people of a democratic society should be concerned. Federal projects and large infrastructure I can definitely understand, but for some inappropriate high-rise buildings in a National Park is ludicrous and not how governments, whether local, state or federal should behave. It only helps to grow distrust and distain when a government body does not seem to be acting in the interests of those it is suppose to be supporting. There has been minimum, or indeed no, community consultation because it is obvious the feedback would strongly point to an objection.
2- Bushfire prone. This seems crazy to me. As a carpenter working here I know full well that no project this size in an area like this would be able to get a green light and for good reason. First, even if the plot of land is not flame zone it sure is surrounded by flame zone and so it is going to put people at risk before anything else is even considered. On top of that there cannot be a realistic fire evacuation plan as Narrow Neck Road would not be fit for the that amount of extra road use (the clue is in the name of the road!!!). Even just knowing how emergency vehicles struggle enough as is trying to access places during emergencies makes the project just laughable.
3- Traffic and Transport. This is closely linked with the above point as even when there isn't an emergency the roads and infrastructure still needs to try cope with a massive influx of vehicles. Are all the roads going to be magically resurfaced? Widened? Repaired? Will local transport be adding lots of buses to actually transport all these people or will they have to drive all their cars into the "short" distance into town? It truly feels like no one even visited the site before drawing up plans.
4- Environmental damage and visually objectionable. The Blue Mountains is a heritage listed site. To be able to live here is an absolute privilege. People come visit here, as my partner and I did for many years before we finally moved here, for the breathtaking beauty and absolute freedom that is just not available to everyone. To be so close to Sydney is a brilliant bonus but it is just that. A bonus. People do not want to leave the city and come here to start seeing high rises in a place that is suppose to encapsulate nature and beauty. If this passes it will only fuel more greed to stick more concrete boxes on this unique land all in the name of forcible progress? I wonder how many people who really are in need of housing here will be the first contacted to buy or indeed how many people end up owning an apartment but don't even live here?
These are the main reasons I completely object to the project going ahead. I feel it shouldn't have even gotten this far if proper protocols were in place and not just some exercise in looking busy building homes which does not fit for purpose.
There is a lot of anger here in the area which I hope gets translated to the right people so that this charade of a project does not get of the ground. Yes! We do need housing here. Yes! we do need to help the people who are doing it rough and get them into homes! Yes! We do need young people and families to have affordable options to home ownership. Yes! We do need funding for infrastructure (not even mentioning Convicts Bridge). Yes! We do need to build things so our community thrives. BUT THIS IS NOT THAT! This is how to alienate and piss off the people you are supposable trying to help! Surely there is a better option than this. Surely we can do better!
To say I disagree with this proposal would be an understatement. I cannot find any positives about this whole idea since I first learned of what was being put forward. As a Katoomba resident of only 6 years it feels a blatant disregard for the people of this township who have lived here much longer or indeed even to those who would one day love to live in this beautiful part of Australia.
The main reasons I am so opposed to this development going ahead are as follows:
1- Overriding local planning control of the Blue Mountains City Council. This is a fundamental stepping stone being cast aside for how people of a democratic society should be concerned. Federal projects and large infrastructure I can definitely understand, but for some inappropriate high-rise buildings in a National Park is ludicrous and not how governments, whether local, state or federal should behave. It only helps to grow distrust and distain when a government body does not seem to be acting in the interests of those it is suppose to be supporting. There has been minimum, or indeed no, community consultation because it is obvious the feedback would strongly point to an objection.
2- Bushfire prone. This seems crazy to me. As a carpenter working here I know full well that no project this size in an area like this would be able to get a green light and for good reason. First, even if the plot of land is not flame zone it sure is surrounded by flame zone and so it is going to put people at risk before anything else is even considered. On top of that there cannot be a realistic fire evacuation plan as Narrow Neck Road would not be fit for the that amount of extra road use (the clue is in the name of the road!!!). Even just knowing how emergency vehicles struggle enough as is trying to access places during emergencies makes the project just laughable.
3- Traffic and Transport. This is closely linked with the above point as even when there isn't an emergency the roads and infrastructure still needs to try cope with a massive influx of vehicles. Are all the roads going to be magically resurfaced? Widened? Repaired? Will local transport be adding lots of buses to actually transport all these people or will they have to drive all their cars into the "short" distance into town? It truly feels like no one even visited the site before drawing up plans.
4- Environmental damage and visually objectionable. The Blue Mountains is a heritage listed site. To be able to live here is an absolute privilege. People come visit here, as my partner and I did for many years before we finally moved here, for the breathtaking beauty and absolute freedom that is just not available to everyone. To be so close to Sydney is a brilliant bonus but it is just that. A bonus. People do not want to leave the city and come here to start seeing high rises in a place that is suppose to encapsulate nature and beauty. If this passes it will only fuel more greed to stick more concrete boxes on this unique land all in the name of forcible progress? I wonder how many people who really are in need of housing here will be the first contacted to buy or indeed how many people end up owning an apartment but don't even live here?
These are the main reasons I completely object to the project going ahead. I feel it shouldn't have even gotten this far if proper protocols were in place and not just some exercise in looking busy building homes which does not fit for purpose.
There is a lot of anger here in the area which I hope gets translated to the right people so that this charade of a project does not get of the ground. Yes! We do need housing here. Yes! we do need to help the people who are doing it rough and get them into homes! Yes! We do need young people and families to have affordable options to home ownership. Yes! We do need funding for infrastructure (not even mentioning Convicts Bridge). Yes! We do need to build things so our community thrives. BUT THIS IS NOT THAT! This is how to alienate and piss off the people you are supposable trying to help! Surely there is a better option than this. Surely we can do better!
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
WARRIMOO
,
New South Wales
Message
I am a resident of the Blue Mountains, and have lived here continuously for 55 years.
I note with utter dismay the proposal to build nine, four storey residential buildings, including 266 apartments, cafe, restaurants, art gallery, wellness centre and conference facilities including considerable parking on hard surfaces at 142 - 150 Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba, and write this submission to strongly oppose it. I do not believe this development is for alleviating the housing shortage we are experiencing.
I believe that this building could function as a hotel, like the ones I have seen in other popular tourist areas overseas. In Whistler, Canada, are large multi-storey hotels, that feature a cafe, restaurants, art gallery and conference rooms, and small, shops catering to the tourists. Tourists stay in the apartments within the hotel, all of which are individually owned. Everything operates as a single entity and is staffed as a hotel. In this Narrow Neck Proposal, there are 52 serviced apartments. That is quite a large number, certainly the size of a medium hotel. There will surely be staff needed on site to run this facility, as well as the attendant facilities. This looks like it could be a luxury commercial facility. Staff will need to be accommodated somewhere. One whole building will be devoted to these commercial activities. Ordinarily, just to change the use of a shop in Katoomba, one needs a Development Application to Council.
I know this area on Narrow Neck Road well, as I visit each week for rest and respite, to enjoy the peaceful surrounds and valley views. This area has a very high tourist value and already attracts crowds of people to take in the views and sunsets from this ridge line looking over the Blue Mountains. Nearby is Cahill’s Lookout, attracting international, interstate and intrastate visitors and locals alike. Peckman’s Plateau, opposite the site, also has lovely lookouts, picnic areas and walks along the escarpment to give views across the valley and to the cliff edges adjacent. Radiata Plateau across the valley was recently saved from development for the very reasons that this development should be refused. The Blue Mountains National Park and Blue Mountains World Heritage Area boundaries are a few hundred metres to the west of this site.
This development will at destroy the aesthetic values of the escarpments for which the Blue Mountains is famous. This four storey development, huge in its breadth of nine buildings will create an eyesore from which ever way it is viewed, be it from the street, the distance, the valley, the adjacent ridge tops, and Katoomba itself. This building is greater than any development in the Katoomba area, and is, in fact, double the building height and density that Blue Mountains City Council allows in any of its planning controls. The zoning here is for medium density housing, which is generally town house like structures, with a maximum of two stories high, not a extra large development of nine buildings each four stories high.
Katoomba is a unique place, attracting tourists from around the world, to its beauty as a town that grew back in the days when people came from Sydney and around Australia to holiday here. The nature of its housing and architecture goes well back, reflecting a simpler era of single dwellings characteristic of the late 1800’s, early 1900’s and twentieth century architecture, mostly set within gardens and suburban blocks that give character and colour to our town. It has an old world appeal, a character and community that is difficult to find elsewhere in Australia.
Katoomba is not a place of steel and cement modernity. It is a place where residents live within a natural environment amongst trees and mountains that are precious to the the Australian psyche. We, in the Blue Mountains, are a City within a National Park. There are only two such places in the world. Banff is the other one, in the Rocky Mountains in Canada. This development will destroy this image and is so totally out of character with the style of architecture within the area.
These apartments, including 52 serviced apartments, are obviously not designed to alleviate the housing shortage for the people who really need it. There are many people in the Blue Mountains who are in need of housing, and many who resort to living in their cars or in the bush. These people will not be able to afford the apartments. Indeed, the people trying to buy houses in Sydney will not be able to afford them, nor want to live here. They will need a car to get to the station, the shops, and there are very little job opportunities in the Upper Mountains, other than in the lower paid tourist service sector. Public transport in the area is very limited. Only the wealthy buyers will probably use it as a holiday place or live overseas, and rent them out at high rates to tourists.
Narrow Neck Road is so close to the vastness of the National Park and the constant threat of bushfires from the west. The area is mapped as Bush Fire Prone land. Not too many years ago, a severe fire hit this area, and a house was lost adjacent to Cahill’s Lookout. There is only one access road out in case of a fire, and we have all experienced the delays, long queues of traffic on the Great Western Highway recently with the closure of Victoria Pass or any accident on the highway that can cause hold-ups for hours. This is not an ideal place to build a huge complex such as this, and sell apartments to unsuspecting “residents” who do not understand the risk of bushfire in this area and how fast a fire can travel. For this reason alone, the very real risk of bushfire, this development should be refused. Multi-storey, high density residential development is not suitable in the Blue Mountains with its high bushfire risk, and should be discouraged at all costs. Increasing temperatures in the future with climate change will make the risk of fire even higher in the near future.
By-passing the Blue Mountains City Council for this development, and any others in the future, by arguing this is a development of state significance is an exercise in fast tracking approval, bypassing local planning requirements and zoning, and local planning objectives. The Blue Mountains LEP is a well thought through and thorough response to the unique and detailed environmental niches of the Blue Mountains. Any ordinary person must abide by the LEP.
The Blue Mountains will also suffer the economic consequences if this development goes ahead. It could open the way for more over-scaled developments, de-valuing the nature of the Blue Mountains, the heritage nature of its domestic, low-key architecture, the scenic values of its escarpments. This development will increase traffic and congestion in this part of Katoomba, which is already busy with tourist buses, and will make our beloved Narrow Neck area an unattractive a place to visit.
This land is partly subjected to a Protected Area Slope Constraint. The drawings of the buildings show that considerable excavation will be needed to accomodate these buildings. Along with this construction comes clearing and removal of vegetation, thus increasing the run-off and turbidity, and siltation of waterways. This land is in a high, sensitive location, above the Kedumba Creek catchment, such that any run-off, and storm water will directly flow into the catchment area. All creeks in this area flow into the Sydney Drinking Water Catchment Area for Warragamba Dam. Under Blue Mountains City Council’s LEP, large volumes of stormwater must not leave the site, as it can cause harm to the environments downstream. How will the stormwater be contained on site from such a large structure.
These environments are very sensitive to the flows of water, Much of this site will be covered with buildings, or hard-surface driveways or parking areas such that there will be increased run-off from an area that was once pervious to water, where the soil and rock strata acted as a filter to ground water continuing downstream into creeks and swamps and catchment areas.
The scale of this development for the Blue Mountains is grossly out of character. For such a large, and ambiguously managed future around this proposal, it seems the residents of the Blue Mountains have been given little time to consider the proposal. A fourteen day exhibition period for the EIS was very short which gives little time for people to properly consider the impacts of this proposal.
The Blue Mountains community do not wish to be faced with more proposals in this vein. If this over-scaled development on Narrow Neck Road is given approval, it will set a strong precedence. I request that the Blue Mountains Local Government Area be excluded now and in the future from the Housing Delivery Authority Pathway.
Again, in closing, I wish to state that the Blue Mountains does need more housing, but on a smaller individual scale, that can be available and within reach of people who are really in need of housing; young people, elderly women, and men, who are homeless in our community. This development will do nothing to help them. They would probably not even be considered for employment at this establishment. There are many old buildings in the mountains that could be re-vamped and turned into housing that could be made really functional and pleasing for all concerned. Please refuse this application, and exclude the Blue Mountains City Council Area from the Housing Delivery Authority Pathway.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal.
I note with utter dismay the proposal to build nine, four storey residential buildings, including 266 apartments, cafe, restaurants, art gallery, wellness centre and conference facilities including considerable parking on hard surfaces at 142 - 150 Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba, and write this submission to strongly oppose it. I do not believe this development is for alleviating the housing shortage we are experiencing.
I believe that this building could function as a hotel, like the ones I have seen in other popular tourist areas overseas. In Whistler, Canada, are large multi-storey hotels, that feature a cafe, restaurants, art gallery and conference rooms, and small, shops catering to the tourists. Tourists stay in the apartments within the hotel, all of which are individually owned. Everything operates as a single entity and is staffed as a hotel. In this Narrow Neck Proposal, there are 52 serviced apartments. That is quite a large number, certainly the size of a medium hotel. There will surely be staff needed on site to run this facility, as well as the attendant facilities. This looks like it could be a luxury commercial facility. Staff will need to be accommodated somewhere. One whole building will be devoted to these commercial activities. Ordinarily, just to change the use of a shop in Katoomba, one needs a Development Application to Council.
I know this area on Narrow Neck Road well, as I visit each week for rest and respite, to enjoy the peaceful surrounds and valley views. This area has a very high tourist value and already attracts crowds of people to take in the views and sunsets from this ridge line looking over the Blue Mountains. Nearby is Cahill’s Lookout, attracting international, interstate and intrastate visitors and locals alike. Peckman’s Plateau, opposite the site, also has lovely lookouts, picnic areas and walks along the escarpment to give views across the valley and to the cliff edges adjacent. Radiata Plateau across the valley was recently saved from development for the very reasons that this development should be refused. The Blue Mountains National Park and Blue Mountains World Heritage Area boundaries are a few hundred metres to the west of this site.
This development will at destroy the aesthetic values of the escarpments for which the Blue Mountains is famous. This four storey development, huge in its breadth of nine buildings will create an eyesore from which ever way it is viewed, be it from the street, the distance, the valley, the adjacent ridge tops, and Katoomba itself. This building is greater than any development in the Katoomba area, and is, in fact, double the building height and density that Blue Mountains City Council allows in any of its planning controls. The zoning here is for medium density housing, which is generally town house like structures, with a maximum of two stories high, not a extra large development of nine buildings each four stories high.
Katoomba is a unique place, attracting tourists from around the world, to its beauty as a town that grew back in the days when people came from Sydney and around Australia to holiday here. The nature of its housing and architecture goes well back, reflecting a simpler era of single dwellings characteristic of the late 1800’s, early 1900’s and twentieth century architecture, mostly set within gardens and suburban blocks that give character and colour to our town. It has an old world appeal, a character and community that is difficult to find elsewhere in Australia.
Katoomba is not a place of steel and cement modernity. It is a place where residents live within a natural environment amongst trees and mountains that are precious to the the Australian psyche. We, in the Blue Mountains, are a City within a National Park. There are only two such places in the world. Banff is the other one, in the Rocky Mountains in Canada. This development will destroy this image and is so totally out of character with the style of architecture within the area.
These apartments, including 52 serviced apartments, are obviously not designed to alleviate the housing shortage for the people who really need it. There are many people in the Blue Mountains who are in need of housing, and many who resort to living in their cars or in the bush. These people will not be able to afford the apartments. Indeed, the people trying to buy houses in Sydney will not be able to afford them, nor want to live here. They will need a car to get to the station, the shops, and there are very little job opportunities in the Upper Mountains, other than in the lower paid tourist service sector. Public transport in the area is very limited. Only the wealthy buyers will probably use it as a holiday place or live overseas, and rent them out at high rates to tourists.
Narrow Neck Road is so close to the vastness of the National Park and the constant threat of bushfires from the west. The area is mapped as Bush Fire Prone land. Not too many years ago, a severe fire hit this area, and a house was lost adjacent to Cahill’s Lookout. There is only one access road out in case of a fire, and we have all experienced the delays, long queues of traffic on the Great Western Highway recently with the closure of Victoria Pass or any accident on the highway that can cause hold-ups for hours. This is not an ideal place to build a huge complex such as this, and sell apartments to unsuspecting “residents” who do not understand the risk of bushfire in this area and how fast a fire can travel. For this reason alone, the very real risk of bushfire, this development should be refused. Multi-storey, high density residential development is not suitable in the Blue Mountains with its high bushfire risk, and should be discouraged at all costs. Increasing temperatures in the future with climate change will make the risk of fire even higher in the near future.
By-passing the Blue Mountains City Council for this development, and any others in the future, by arguing this is a development of state significance is an exercise in fast tracking approval, bypassing local planning requirements and zoning, and local planning objectives. The Blue Mountains LEP is a well thought through and thorough response to the unique and detailed environmental niches of the Blue Mountains. Any ordinary person must abide by the LEP.
The Blue Mountains will also suffer the economic consequences if this development goes ahead. It could open the way for more over-scaled developments, de-valuing the nature of the Blue Mountains, the heritage nature of its domestic, low-key architecture, the scenic values of its escarpments. This development will increase traffic and congestion in this part of Katoomba, which is already busy with tourist buses, and will make our beloved Narrow Neck area an unattractive a place to visit.
This land is partly subjected to a Protected Area Slope Constraint. The drawings of the buildings show that considerable excavation will be needed to accomodate these buildings. Along with this construction comes clearing and removal of vegetation, thus increasing the run-off and turbidity, and siltation of waterways. This land is in a high, sensitive location, above the Kedumba Creek catchment, such that any run-off, and storm water will directly flow into the catchment area. All creeks in this area flow into the Sydney Drinking Water Catchment Area for Warragamba Dam. Under Blue Mountains City Council’s LEP, large volumes of stormwater must not leave the site, as it can cause harm to the environments downstream. How will the stormwater be contained on site from such a large structure.
These environments are very sensitive to the flows of water, Much of this site will be covered with buildings, or hard-surface driveways or parking areas such that there will be increased run-off from an area that was once pervious to water, where the soil and rock strata acted as a filter to ground water continuing downstream into creeks and swamps and catchment areas.
The scale of this development for the Blue Mountains is grossly out of character. For such a large, and ambiguously managed future around this proposal, it seems the residents of the Blue Mountains have been given little time to consider the proposal. A fourteen day exhibition period for the EIS was very short which gives little time for people to properly consider the impacts of this proposal.
The Blue Mountains community do not wish to be faced with more proposals in this vein. If this over-scaled development on Narrow Neck Road is given approval, it will set a strong precedence. I request that the Blue Mountains Local Government Area be excluded now and in the future from the Housing Delivery Authority Pathway.
Again, in closing, I wish to state that the Blue Mountains does need more housing, but on a smaller individual scale, that can be available and within reach of people who are really in need of housing; young people, elderly women, and men, who are homeless in our community. This development will do nothing to help them. They would probably not even be considered for employment at this establishment. There are many old buildings in the mountains that could be re-vamped and turned into housing that could be made really functional and pleasing for all concerned. Please refuse this application, and exclude the Blue Mountains City Council Area from the Housing Delivery Authority Pathway.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
KATOOMBA
,
New South Wales
Message
We write in opposition to the planned development at 142-150 Narrow Neck Road Katoomba. Application SSD-86456706
Our family has lived around the Katoomba Golf Course for over 50 years. We built and lived in a couple of the houses on Narrow Neck Road directly opposite the proposed development site for 20 of those years.
When we first heard of the proposed development from the Blue Mountains City Council it was with immense sadness. We grew up on the Katoomba Golf Course and residents chose to live in this area to be away from developments like what is being proposed by the applicant. Residents make sacrifices living away from public transport, health services and places of employment to live in a natural low density setting like Katoomba. The proposed development is completely at odds with what residents want or need and will have a severe detrimental impact to our lives.
We currently live on Cliff Drive, approximately 1.2km from the proposed development. Despite what the applicant has claimed, we did not get notified of the proposed development by the applicant. We first heard about the proposal from the Blue Mountains City Council for which we are extremely grateful. Any consultation completed by the applicant cannot be relied upon and must be disregarded.
When this section of the Golf Course was rezoned it was for responsible and appropriate development. The Blue Mountains City Council is the appropriate party to be assessing any development applications for land within its LGA against its LEP. High density developments should be proposed in other parts of New South Wales where the surrounding infrastructure can support it and there is demand for it.
Please listen to us when we say, the road and surrounding area cannot support the volume of people or traffic that comes with a development of this size. It will create an unnecessary risk to residents and visitors. Most families have two vehicles yet the proposal will only provide one parking bay per apartment. These extra vehicles will have to park on the street beyond the proposed site, destroying the amenity of the area.
There is one bus stop several hundred meters from the proposed development and the location is not within regular walking distance to the train station. Commuters need access to the train station, not the bus stop. There is no retail nearby, no footpaths, no parking, very little street lighting, none of the things you would expect to exist surrounding high density developments. The applicant and its third-party consultants have disregarded the lack of surrounding services and infrastructure with this proposal.
We can’t comprehend how nine buildings would be constructed on such a small piece of land or how the State Government would put the lives of its occupants at risk when the next bushfire inevitably occurs.
We are not opposed to the site being developed, but allowing the applicant to almost double the height limit and density cannot be allowed. The applicant is using the SSD pathway Council because it knows the development is grossly inappropriate.
Please listen to the residents and the Blue Mountains City Council when assessing this application. The applicant or the third-party consultants it has engaged do not know the area. This is our home and is for us collectively to decide its future. A development like this will change the Blue Mountains forever.
We kindly ask that the State, the Blue Mountains City Council and the applicant meet to agree on a more responsible and appropriate proposal for the site.
We do not provide consent for our personal details or address being made public and have not made any political donations.
Our family has lived around the Katoomba Golf Course for over 50 years. We built and lived in a couple of the houses on Narrow Neck Road directly opposite the proposed development site for 20 of those years.
When we first heard of the proposed development from the Blue Mountains City Council it was with immense sadness. We grew up on the Katoomba Golf Course and residents chose to live in this area to be away from developments like what is being proposed by the applicant. Residents make sacrifices living away from public transport, health services and places of employment to live in a natural low density setting like Katoomba. The proposed development is completely at odds with what residents want or need and will have a severe detrimental impact to our lives.
We currently live on Cliff Drive, approximately 1.2km from the proposed development. Despite what the applicant has claimed, we did not get notified of the proposed development by the applicant. We first heard about the proposal from the Blue Mountains City Council for which we are extremely grateful. Any consultation completed by the applicant cannot be relied upon and must be disregarded.
When this section of the Golf Course was rezoned it was for responsible and appropriate development. The Blue Mountains City Council is the appropriate party to be assessing any development applications for land within its LGA against its LEP. High density developments should be proposed in other parts of New South Wales where the surrounding infrastructure can support it and there is demand for it.
Please listen to us when we say, the road and surrounding area cannot support the volume of people or traffic that comes with a development of this size. It will create an unnecessary risk to residents and visitors. Most families have two vehicles yet the proposal will only provide one parking bay per apartment. These extra vehicles will have to park on the street beyond the proposed site, destroying the amenity of the area.
There is one bus stop several hundred meters from the proposed development and the location is not within regular walking distance to the train station. Commuters need access to the train station, not the bus stop. There is no retail nearby, no footpaths, no parking, very little street lighting, none of the things you would expect to exist surrounding high density developments. The applicant and its third-party consultants have disregarded the lack of surrounding services and infrastructure with this proposal.
We can’t comprehend how nine buildings would be constructed on such a small piece of land or how the State Government would put the lives of its occupants at risk when the next bushfire inevitably occurs.
We are not opposed to the site being developed, but allowing the applicant to almost double the height limit and density cannot be allowed. The applicant is using the SSD pathway Council because it knows the development is grossly inappropriate.
Please listen to the residents and the Blue Mountains City Council when assessing this application. The applicant or the third-party consultants it has engaged do not know the area. This is our home and is for us collectively to decide its future. A development like this will change the Blue Mountains forever.
We kindly ask that the State, the Blue Mountains City Council and the applicant meet to agree on a more responsible and appropriate proposal for the site.
We do not provide consent for our personal details or address being made public and have not made any political donations.
Susan Ambler
Object
Susan Ambler
Object
KATOOMBA
,
New South Wales
Message
I wish to oppose the proposed development at 142-150 Narrowneck Road, Katoomba. I also oppose the use of the Housing Delivery Authority (HDA) pathway in the Blue Mountains. I have not previously been informed of this proposal by the applicant despite residing very nearby. We have lived in Katoomba in the Blue Mountains for almost 27 years, and live near this proposed development. This proposal is not at all in keeping with the mountains environment and will create a dangerous precedent.
I am strongly against this proposal going ahead in any form for a number of reasons;
1. This development is extremely large, and is taller than any other development in the mountains. It is proposed in an environmentally sensitive area and will create run-off, erosion and damage to the immediate areas of bushland and to the Blue Mountains National Park nearby which is a World Heritage listed National Park.
2. The numbers of flats, apartments and commercial premises in this location will create traffic congestion, major stress on local infrastructure and facilities, and will also increase the danger to residents in the neighbourhood, and residents of the development itself, in a period of bushfire or other disaster.
3. There does not appear to be any, or very little, provision of low cost housing, which is surely the point of housing delivery.
4. Over many years residents and council in the mountains have worked together to create a local planning instrument that will further development and economic growth in the LGA without damaging or risking our World Heritage listed environment. Our environment and character in the mountains are vital to our tourism industry and to the economy of our area. This development proposal flies in the face of all the care and constructive work of many residents and workers over many years and will degrade the environment and character of the Blue Mountains.
5. The bushland surrounding and near the proposed development is made up of Blue Mountains swamps which are a Threatened Ecological Community. The great increase in hard surfaces will change the flow of water to these swamps, degrade and damage them, and reduce the capacity of groundwater infiltration. Damage to these swamps will also endanger the Dwarf Mountain Pine (Pherosphaera fitzgeraldii) which is Critically Endangered.
6. I have lived and worked in the Blue Mountains for 26 1/2 years and have spent much of my time enjoying the unique environments in the mountains, and working voluntarily as a Bush Regenerator to preserve and enhance the value and resilience of this beautiful area. I am very lucky to live here, and am not opposed to all developments that might provide housing for those who need it, but this development is ugly, extremely damaging, way too big, in the wrong place, and won't provide low cost housing.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide my objections to this project,
Susan Ambler, Katoomba.
I am strongly against this proposal going ahead in any form for a number of reasons;
1. This development is extremely large, and is taller than any other development in the mountains. It is proposed in an environmentally sensitive area and will create run-off, erosion and damage to the immediate areas of bushland and to the Blue Mountains National Park nearby which is a World Heritage listed National Park.
2. The numbers of flats, apartments and commercial premises in this location will create traffic congestion, major stress on local infrastructure and facilities, and will also increase the danger to residents in the neighbourhood, and residents of the development itself, in a period of bushfire or other disaster.
3. There does not appear to be any, or very little, provision of low cost housing, which is surely the point of housing delivery.
4. Over many years residents and council in the mountains have worked together to create a local planning instrument that will further development and economic growth in the LGA without damaging or risking our World Heritage listed environment. Our environment and character in the mountains are vital to our tourism industry and to the economy of our area. This development proposal flies in the face of all the care and constructive work of many residents and workers over many years and will degrade the environment and character of the Blue Mountains.
5. The bushland surrounding and near the proposed development is made up of Blue Mountains swamps which are a Threatened Ecological Community. The great increase in hard surfaces will change the flow of water to these swamps, degrade and damage them, and reduce the capacity of groundwater infiltration. Damage to these swamps will also endanger the Dwarf Mountain Pine (Pherosphaera fitzgeraldii) which is Critically Endangered.
6. I have lived and worked in the Blue Mountains for 26 1/2 years and have spent much of my time enjoying the unique environments in the mountains, and working voluntarily as a Bush Regenerator to preserve and enhance the value and resilience of this beautiful area. I am very lucky to live here, and am not opposed to all developments that might provide housing for those who need it, but this development is ugly, extremely damaging, way too big, in the wrong place, and won't provide low cost housing.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide my objections to this project,
Susan Ambler, Katoomba.
Felicity Grover
Object
Felicity Grover
Object
LAWSON
,
New South Wales
Message
INTRODUCTION
I have lived in the Blue Mountains since 1996. I came here from the city for the peace, quiet and the joy of nature. I love bushwalking and landscape painting. It is a beautiful and unique area appreciated by residents and visitors, so it only fitting that there are careful controls on built structures, so the environment thrives by being properly cared for. Out of place structures would negatively affect my and others’ appreciation of this landscape.
The Greater Blue Mountains Area is a UNESCO World Heritage-listed National Park that is outstanding, with dramatic landscapes, huge biodiversity and unique flora and fauna. It is not a suburb of Sydney. The community and local council here respect the values of the area, and they expect the same respect from the State Government. The Blue Mountains should be exempt from the HDA. The Minister previously allowed an exemption regarding low-mid-rise housing reform. The same should apply here. The thing that would be “significant” about this ludicrous proposal is that it would be ugly and out of place, diminishing the unique character of the area. The local council has put a lot of time and effort into an LEP that is considerate to the area’s values, and this LEP should not be carelessly tossed aside just because the government wishes to build houses in a hurry. Whilst housing generally is important it should not be done in a reckless manner. This proposal is way too large and problematic, and is therefore very reckless.
OBJECTIONS
I oppose the proposed development at 142-150 Narrow Neck Rd, Katoomba. I also oppose the use of the Housing Delivery Authority pathway in the Blue Mountains.
I object to the proposal because:
• The proposal should address the LEP. It does not do so. It should for example be subject to the Escarpment Protection Area of the LEP 2015. The proposed development has a building height and density that would be twice as much as the LEP currently allows. The site is zoned R3 Medium Density in the LEP for good reason, with a maximum height of 8 metres (2 storeys). It would be ridiculous and unethical to allow a developer a complex rezoning of an area or site just to allow a development that does not fit, with buildings that could catch alight in a bushfire just like any other building anywhere in the Blue Mountains could. The carefully constructed LEP should not be over-ridden.
• The development would be an eyesore. Houses on the ridge line are not meant to be seen; buildings must not protrude above other buildings or tree canopy; these buildings will be seen from Katoomba. Therefore it goes against preserving views, character and scenic values.
• There was no community engagement by the proponents.
• It would be in a bushfire prone zone where residents have difficulty evacuating. It will be past BAL29 due to the site characteristics, so public safety will be at risk.
• There will be a large increase in buses and other vehicles, causing traffic congestion on the area’s narrow roads, which would be serious in a bushfire emergency.
• It will degrade the surrounding environment due to vegetation removal and stormwater runoff into Kedumba Creek Valley, a sensitive location with important swamps. These swamps feed the Katoomba Falls catchment, an area which supports the critically endangered Dwarf Mountain Pine. There has already been too much damage in the area.
• There are too many hard non-porous surfaces, in fact most of the site, affecting stormwater quality.
• The site is located within the Sydney Drinking Water Catchment. The appropriate management of stormwater runoff is not evident in the proposal. Pollution and weed spread in the bush is highly likely.
• There are many echidnas in the area – they may be affected.
• The site is also partly subject to the Protected Area Slope Constraint, which should affect site layout. In this case, to achieve the density envisaged under the state significant proposal, it cannot. Buildings will be placed over the slope constrained parts of the site, and significant excavation would occur in these areas. So the proposal plan is not responding to the physical constraints of the site.
• Sewer, electricity and other infrastructure is already at near capacity here. It would not support a large population increase.
CONCLUSION
High density, multi-storey developments like this are totally incompatible with the character, landscape and cultural identity of the Blue Mountains. Tourism, liveability and community wellbeing would be negatively affected by this careless proposal. Please reject it.
I have lived in the Blue Mountains since 1996. I came here from the city for the peace, quiet and the joy of nature. I love bushwalking and landscape painting. It is a beautiful and unique area appreciated by residents and visitors, so it only fitting that there are careful controls on built structures, so the environment thrives by being properly cared for. Out of place structures would negatively affect my and others’ appreciation of this landscape.
The Greater Blue Mountains Area is a UNESCO World Heritage-listed National Park that is outstanding, with dramatic landscapes, huge biodiversity and unique flora and fauna. It is not a suburb of Sydney. The community and local council here respect the values of the area, and they expect the same respect from the State Government. The Blue Mountains should be exempt from the HDA. The Minister previously allowed an exemption regarding low-mid-rise housing reform. The same should apply here. The thing that would be “significant” about this ludicrous proposal is that it would be ugly and out of place, diminishing the unique character of the area. The local council has put a lot of time and effort into an LEP that is considerate to the area’s values, and this LEP should not be carelessly tossed aside just because the government wishes to build houses in a hurry. Whilst housing generally is important it should not be done in a reckless manner. This proposal is way too large and problematic, and is therefore very reckless.
OBJECTIONS
I oppose the proposed development at 142-150 Narrow Neck Rd, Katoomba. I also oppose the use of the Housing Delivery Authority pathway in the Blue Mountains.
I object to the proposal because:
• The proposal should address the LEP. It does not do so. It should for example be subject to the Escarpment Protection Area of the LEP 2015. The proposed development has a building height and density that would be twice as much as the LEP currently allows. The site is zoned R3 Medium Density in the LEP for good reason, with a maximum height of 8 metres (2 storeys). It would be ridiculous and unethical to allow a developer a complex rezoning of an area or site just to allow a development that does not fit, with buildings that could catch alight in a bushfire just like any other building anywhere in the Blue Mountains could. The carefully constructed LEP should not be over-ridden.
• The development would be an eyesore. Houses on the ridge line are not meant to be seen; buildings must not protrude above other buildings or tree canopy; these buildings will be seen from Katoomba. Therefore it goes against preserving views, character and scenic values.
• There was no community engagement by the proponents.
• It would be in a bushfire prone zone where residents have difficulty evacuating. It will be past BAL29 due to the site characteristics, so public safety will be at risk.
• There will be a large increase in buses and other vehicles, causing traffic congestion on the area’s narrow roads, which would be serious in a bushfire emergency.
• It will degrade the surrounding environment due to vegetation removal and stormwater runoff into Kedumba Creek Valley, a sensitive location with important swamps. These swamps feed the Katoomba Falls catchment, an area which supports the critically endangered Dwarf Mountain Pine. There has already been too much damage in the area.
• There are too many hard non-porous surfaces, in fact most of the site, affecting stormwater quality.
• The site is located within the Sydney Drinking Water Catchment. The appropriate management of stormwater runoff is not evident in the proposal. Pollution and weed spread in the bush is highly likely.
• There are many echidnas in the area – they may be affected.
• The site is also partly subject to the Protected Area Slope Constraint, which should affect site layout. In this case, to achieve the density envisaged under the state significant proposal, it cannot. Buildings will be placed over the slope constrained parts of the site, and significant excavation would occur in these areas. So the proposal plan is not responding to the physical constraints of the site.
• Sewer, electricity and other infrastructure is already at near capacity here. It would not support a large population increase.
CONCLUSION
High density, multi-storey developments like this are totally incompatible with the character, landscape and cultural identity of the Blue Mountains. Tourism, liveability and community wellbeing would be negatively affected by this careless proposal. Please reject it.