this project is way to large for this small area of land. The local streets that give access to katoomba township are not able to cater for the influx of traffic that will travel down Peckmans road and up Neale st. the quickest way to Katoomba shops. Both roads are very narrow, have no verges or guttering and are quite steeply sloped. Traffic around Scenic world, the Caravan park and Furber steps is ridiculous now, let alone with this proposed influx of cars and people. There is little public transport availlabe to this area. As for the project having its own shopping infrastructure, these will probably become unsuccessful, given that Katoomba main street has had up to 30 shops available for lease for many years, and remain empty now.
The proposal is also against any existing height and floor space allowed by the local council, and given that the surrounding golf course is supposed to be designated as an environmental precinct, it would appear not much consultation has taken place.
The proposed buildings will be of a height that is visible all over Katoomba, and visible from areas of escarpment from Medlow Bath to Wentworth Falls. What attracts people here is the world heritage status , and the beauty of the bush. Many people love the feel of walking, being surrounded by the bush, and being able to see nothing but the bush.
Another objection is the fact that the last buildings built there totally affected the wildlife in the ponds of the golf course , which have still not recovered. Any extra runoff goes straight down the creek into the catchment area, affecting the environment downstream and also the drinking water in th ecatchment.

This development does not respect the character of the local area.
Katoomba is an visually interesting area with the natural environment and escarpment generally providing the dominant tone with only a handful of contrasting pockets of heritage significant buildings breaking the green and stone landscape setting. Other parts of the mountains do not hold this kind of contrast in the way that that the upper mountains do. These contrasting developments are indicative of the recreational and health tourism that was important to the upper mountains in the early 20th century.

These developments can be extensive buildings with a squarish bulk, in contrast to the lower lying residential development that blends in to the trees and garden surroundings. However these larger developments are almost exclusively heritage significant buildings, telling the story of the particular history of Katoomba and the upper mountains. Apart from this class of buildings Katoomba and the surrounding area displays a strong lower profile of development with a proliferation of cottage style (or larger buildings bearing stylistic resemblance to cottage style buildings) and manor type homes, the largest of which being predominantly vertically oriented, not holding a width, bulk or scale of any comparable size to the development proposed.

In my opinion the proposed development would break the current character by interposing large developments that are considerably larger than the residential building scape but not heritage buildings. It would diminish the existing contrast and importance of the larger heritage buildings and overshadow the existing residential landscape in the green environment. This proposed development does not reflect or improve the character of Katoomba and the surrounding area and interferes with the preservation of the relationship between built forms that contribute so strongly to the township and upper mountains.

Letter attached.
The proposed development is more likely to turn into tourist accommodation than housing (due to arguments detailed in submission) and should therefore not be considered to be supporting state objectives surrounding housing.

Comments attached

I am a Katoomba resident with a commitment to my local community and I object to the proposed development at 142-150 Narrow Neck Road Katoomba on the basis that it is far too large a development to be built at that site.
First, there is a bushfire threat, heightened by worsening climate change. There is fire-prone bushland in close proximity (some of it burnt with the loss of a house in 2014) and the road out winds away from the site towards the highway through bushland. The challenges of evacuating people from a multi-storey residential development in this location during a bushfire, when fire trucks and emergency vehicles will also be using the road and visibility will be low, cannot be overstated.
Second, the development will cause environmental damage beyond its (already large) footprint. There is the self-evident loss of bushland on the site. Then, the building of hard surfaces in the area, paving over the natural, water-absorbent soils, will cause stormwater runoff that will degrade the surrounding area, causing weed growth and disrupting the area's natural ecosystems.
Third, a large high-density multi-storey development of this type will utterly change the village-style character of Katoomba. If it is approved, it will pave the way for similar developments to be approved in the Blue Mountains, which will lose the charm that attracts tourists to the area. Tourism is a major source of local employment and the environmental and heritage values that underpin tourism need to be protected.

I object to the development that is proposed on the following basis:
1) It is unacceptable that the development is in a Bush Fire danger zone that has recently changed to accommodate the development, however, it excludes the surrounding areas which still present a Bush Fire Danger. With first hand experience in having a DA approved, the BAL rating of this development, would preclude a similar development, which will only endanger LIVES of the occupants at some time in the future and who will take RESPONSIBILITY for that?

2) The development is not in keeping with the character of the area, there are NO other 5 storey developments in the residential areas in the upper Blue Mountains, so why would this development be considered with it bulk and scale that is totally out of character with the Local Area?

3) The road infrastructure surrounding the proposed development is totally inadequate for the the scale of the development and who will take responsibility for the traffic chaos that will ensue in normal activities let alone if there was an emergency situation related to a bush fire when gridlock will result in an unacceptable risk to life ?

4) The development is NOT in keeping with UNESCO World Heritage Listed Area for Greater Blue Mountains Area GBMA and the principles of UNESCO would not support the scale of the development. The GBMA is protected and managed under legislation of both the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of New South Wales. All World Heritage properties in Australia are ‘matters of national environmental significance’ protected and managed under national legislation, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. This Act is the statutory instrument for implementing Australia’s obligations under a number of multilateral environmental agreements including the World Heritage Convention. By law, any action that has, will have or is likely to have a significant impact on the World Heritage values of a World Heritage property must be referred to the responsible Minister for consideration, so can ANYONE explain HOW this development is in keeping with these requirements.

5) State significant developments should NOT mean it comes at the detriment of the existing local environment and infrastructure, what sort of a Government or Department could possibly think that Developer Dollars for a development can possibly OVERRIDE what is reasonable and what is acceptable to a local area.

6) Responsibility for allowing this development should NOT rest with a beauracy but with a community

I completely object to every aspect of this development proposal.
This development goes against everything the Blue Mountains stands for and represents.

It is a disgusting money grab by developers.

The bushfire risk and potential damage to a world heritage area is unacceptable.
If anyone is to believe that it will create affordable housing they are kidding themselves.
The BMCC is one of the few councils which is already making good progress with housing goals (one of the few LGAs that is).

This will change the face of Katoomba and decimate the area along Narrowneck.
Katoomba is not in need of restaurants elsewhere which will drag people from the main business district and how much of a demand is there for internet cafews these days? An absurd addition!

Allowing this will open the gates for many such developments. First multi story housing, second a crocodile park at Boddington Hill, third a cableway from Govetts leap.

I implore the Planning Commission to show some sense and listen to the community.
Completely reject this proposal.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Cameron Brown

As a resident of the Blue Mountains and Katoomba since 2008 I object to the proposed development for 142-150 Narrow Neck Rd, Katoomba on the following grounds:
The Blue Mountains is a place of natural environmental beauty and a World Heritage Site. The community who live here do so because of its beauty and the unique environment. We are not just an urban suburb, far from it.
The application seeks to rezone an area, currently R3 Medium Density allowing a maximum height of 8 metres, to allow for a high density development with heights of 4 storeys.
I object to this as it will be an anathema to the current housing style in the area. The building will be visible from various vantage points spoiling the amenity of the mountains
The area is bush fire prone and such a large development will cause problems in the case of a bush fire and necessary evacuation. In excess of 300 extra cars could potentially be attempting to leave in the often small window available in the time of these emergencies.
The use of such a large area of hard surfaces will cause problems with water run off and potentially adversely affect one of the crucial Blue Mountains Swamps that are adjacent to the site. This has ramifications for local sites and will degrade the local ecosystems and potentially adversely impact the drinking water catchment.
The proposed plan and pathway via the HDA overrides the Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan, which was developed with years of input from the local Council and the Community working together to ensure the continuation of the area in its unique environmental and community context.
The area is a popular tourist destination for people from all over the world. Accessible for the people of Sydney to have an experience of wilderness and beauty almost in their backyard but currently with a different character to Sydney. We do not need large city like developments of this sort. Adds nothing to the character of this beautiful place and in fact will detract greatly.