My objections to this proposed development are set on many levels. These I have set out in point form:
- unsuitable site due to lack of entry and exit points to the site. There is essentially only one connective road, suburban and one lane in each direction. A development of this scale would overwhelm tourist and local traffic by the sheer number of large trucks and specialised equipment such as cranes and earth moving units needed to build it. Then would add several hundred extra vehicles accessing the site daily when operational.
- it is unsuitable due this being a fairly isolated site, 2-3 kilometres from highway entry, railway stations and shopping.
- for the proposed 400 to 500 inhabitants for this site ( it is unclear as to what form the “ 52 supported accommodation beds “ will be in. Is it an hotel, nursing home or hostel? ) they will be reliant on their own transport given the lack of other options and current limited bus service. Again it is several kilometres from town centre and rail options. There are very limited vacancy in the job market in the local area and work from home options, while promising are still in minority use. Otherwise it is hours drive or train ride to the closest parts of greater Sydney and the possibility of work.
- the nature of this proposed development is completely out of alignment with the area. It is essentially an intense city or suburban development ideally situated next to a transport hub that will be out of place in this location. It will dominate the area surrounding and will be an eyesore situated and visible from both town and national park given its proximity to the escarpment ( less than 100 metres from its southern and western sides ).
- it will increase pressure on local services such as health, ( hospital and GP ) education, police and other emergency services. Indeed the building of it will from the very beginning inhibit the SES center that is situated on the corner of Bathurst Road and Valley Road.
- the plans proposed destruction of the majority of trees on this site is offensive given the unclear nature of their appraisal and value. The actual location of many of them appears to be on land adjacent to the building site and again is abhorrent when it is occurring next to a World Heritage National Park.
It is likely in contravention to other departments, state and commonwealth and against the laws that they are beholden to, eg The Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1990.
- the companies budget for this development would approximate currently to about $ 200,000 per bedroom as cost price. With current fuel inflation and the effects this will have on building and supply costs it is unlikely it will be delivered anywhere near this cost price and will be unaffordable and this will likely impact on the affordable housing provisions they say they will provide. With the isolated nature of its location added, this project really needs a completely new realistic evaluation, redesign or relocation to areas it is suitable for.
Thank you for your consideration of theses concerns.

Refer attached

I have lived in Katoomba an environs for over 25 years now.
I remember I would often walk upon the land identified in the building proposal
I remember how it was land, bequethed in perpetuity to the public. I have been of late confused wondering how it is even posible to build on this land.
Be that as it may, this proposal is opposed by me, the local community, and even the combined band of political elites.
At no point does this proposal match the character, image and markatable value of Katoomba as the rustic, picturesque and popular tourist destination.
This proposal would not be acceptable under local council planning laws.
This proposal would not be acceptable even to standard state codes of planning laws and long term development of the area.
Katoomba is a resource-stretched village in an internationally acclaimed national park.
This proposal is against the spirit of the national park and against the traditional codes and practices of builiding new housing in a precarious and precious national park.

For more than 30 years the local government, along with community consultation, has developed an appropriate Local Environment Plan (LEP) and Developmental Control Plan (DCP) to safeguard the environmentally sensitive ecosystems of the Blue Mountains Environment. This development proposal would in all likelihood harm the surrounding environment, threaten lives and create traffic, bushfire and evacuation risks.

I cannot believe this proposal would be endorsed with the traditional custodians of the area. Those elders I know are against this.
The proposed development is a ‘folly’ in character, impact and taste.
There is no building in the whole Blue Mountains catchment that is as ugly and out of the character of the place, more than this disturbing proposal
Should this proposal go ahead, it would be seen as a blot on the character of Australia’s premier tourist destination village.

I have been a resident of the Blue Mountains for 19 years, and wish to voice my opposition to the propsed development. This project is a complete insult to our local community, and I am deeply offended by the Minns government bypassing our local goverment's own planning authority by declaring this a "State Significant" project. Allowing developments of this scale through state-level override mechanisms very much undermines my confidence in the planning system - to me, it reeks of corruption and I will long remember this when I reflect on the values of the Labor Party and how they have eroded over recent years.

Whilst I acknowledge the need for affordable housing in NSW, the location of this proposed development is neither suitable nor safe. It goes completely against the local "village" character of the area and, if it were to proceed, I fear it would open the floodgates to other similar proposals, paving the way for further over-development which would ultimately undermine the "country getaway" and natural beauty aspects of Katoomba that are so attractive to tourists (which are the backbone of our local economy). It will be an eyesore that will be visible from many local vantage points, which I feel will seriously undermine our community's "world heritage area" selling point. And no amount of green plants slung from the balconies of the proposed structure will help to improve this!

The site is situatied nowhere near local shops (apparently a 40 minute walk away) or public transport amenities, with public transport in the area already being stretched to capacity, especially on busy weekends when there's an influx of tourists. I am quite concerned that the bulk of these new units in this developement may ultimately end up being used as a more lucrative "Air BNB" style accomodatation rather than addressing the need for more genuine housing for locals.

The site is dangerously close to a bushfire prone area, with limited evacuation routes available in the case of an emergency. The Narrow Neck plateau is regularly affected by bushfires (including as recently as the 2019-20 bushfire season), with the likelihood that climate change will make the risks greater in the future.

For the reasons I have outlined above, I strongly object to the proposed development at 142–150 Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba, and I respectfully request that the application be refused.

Regards,

David Tobin
Blackheath NSW.

I would like to register my objection to the development proposed at 142 – 150 Narrowneck Rd Katoomba as described in the current development application. The development as described is too large and will create unsustainable pressure on the local environment and infrastructure. In particular it will create a significant increase in vehicle traffic in the area resulting in congestion and problems with traffic flow on a daily basis and more importantly creating a dangerous situation for both residents of the development as well as residents of the surrounding areas in the event of a bushfire or other natural disaster.

Rezoning

The rationale of the development seems to be to cram as many people as possible into a limited space. In order to do so they are seeking to raise the height of the development to nearly double what is currently acceptable in that zone and increase the floor space ratio to nearly three times what is currently acceptable. To do so the developers have lodged a rezoning application in parallel with their development application but the rezoning application provides no coherent argument for rezoning beyond trying to squeeze more people into the site. The application makes claims about liveability, productivity, sustainability and integration with surrounding community but all these could be achieved, more easily, with a smaller development within existing zoning standards and fewer residents, negating the need for the uplift in height and floorspace.

The rezoning documents make some claims linking the increased size of the development to a minimum 15% affordable housing on site but this represents only a small increase on the existing SEPP requirements and expires in 15 years anyway.

Bushfire

The development application acknowledges that while the development is on land not listed as fire prone it is adjacent to fire prone land and this would make the development vulnerable to bushfire. In the event of a fire over 500 people (depending on the occupancy of the serviced apartments, restaurant and gallery) would need to be evacuated through narrow local streets which would already be being used to evacuate hundreds of existing residents. This would have an inevitable impact on traffic flow causing congestion and delays in moving people to safety as well as hindering the efforts of emergency services.

General Traffic

Assurances regarding the traffic flow in the area that suggest traffic flow is currently light enough to accommodate an additional 500 people are based on measurements taken on a Thursday but Katoomba as a tourist destination actually has peak traffic flows on Saturday and Sunday.

The 686 bus is mentioned repeatedly throughout the application as a public transport alternative which would reduce the use of cars in the area but as the traffic report itself mentions there are only 3 buses during the two hour peak period in the morning and 4 during afternoon two hour peak and these buses are already very busy with the existing residential population and could not handle a significant increase in passenger numbers.

Community Consultation

The community consultation process which is required by the State Significant Development process has been inadequate. The efforts at community engagement seem to have been primarily reactive rather than proactive. The Engagement Report refers to an online survey and website that were made available for public comment but given the broader community was never informed of or alerted to the existence of these websites or surveys it is hardly surprising they got a very limited response. Effective community consultation would require not just putting up a website or a survey and hoping people stumble across them but publicising and promoting them widely and repeatedly through various local channels and this does not seem to have happened.

Overall

R3 zone requires a developer

To ensure that residential development contributes to the streetscape and has a scale and character that is consistent with adjoining residential land uses and minimises any adverse impact on the amenity of residents.

This development is of a scale and character that is markedly at odds with the streetscape and adjoining land use and by significantly increasing the number of people and cars in the area would have a notable adverse impact on the amenity of residents and the would make it extremely difficult to ensure everybody's safety in the event of a bushfire or other natural disaster.

I am a resident of Katoomba who frequently rides my bike along Narrow Neck Road, and I don't believe this development is suitably located.

It would take the residents and visitors of this development around half an hour to walk to town and much of this is along narrow neck road which if often quite busy with cars which travel along the road quickly and there are no footpaths. Because of these conditions, I think many residents will choose to drive, compounding the conditions of narrow neck road described.

I also think that such a large development is going to impact the character of the area. Part of the reason I cycle around there is because of the natural environment and abundance of trees. This development would remove most of these trees from the block they are developing, and if this model of development is replicated completely change the nature of the area from an area that combines residences and nature to a urban area without much leftover from the bushland it once would have been.