See attached submission.

I oppose this proposed project for a number of reasons:
- It is environmentally irresponsible to consider placing a large high density residential project in this location, so near to bush-fire prone land and in such a biodiversely sensitive area. It is right on the edge of the escarpment.
- The location is poorly accessible. It is too remote from Katoomba township, and not walkable for most people. There is one bus-stop to service the needs of up to 500 residents, most of whom would therefore need cars. The roads are far too narrow, steep and twisty for this volume of additional traffic to be safe; most road junctions have limited visibility because they only cater to minimal local traffic.
- The scale of the project is completely at odds with the location, being far too remote from Katoomba town centre.
- The provision of a small amount of "social housing" is risible. It is NOT public housing and would still be totally out of the financial reach of those who need it. The Blue Mountains does need public housing but this is not appropriate.

I am a Wentworth Falls resident of 29 years. I believe the environment of the Blue Mountains Local Government area (LGA)
and UNESCO recognised world heritage national park that surrounds our towns; to be unique and irreplaceable.
I feel we are collectively responsibility to protect it.

I oppose the development application for 142-150 narrow Neck Road Katoomba.

The proposal poses a risk to the natural filtration of water through protected eco systems and swamps that feed the Katoomba catchment area .

This development also poses risk geographically due to the narrow cliff roads already at full capacity with traffic .

Aesthetically the proposal is not in keeping with the character of the town. The application seeks Re zoning for the construction to be double the height of any building that would normally be assessed by our Local Environment plan (LEP). This development has sought a pathway through the housing development Authority (HDA) for outcomes not acceptable under our LEP.

Our LEP is a culmination of community consultation, knowledge and decision making over many years through intimate understanding and considerations regarding the effect of build environment on our fragile world heritage national park, and how we exist within it.
I suggest for these reasons the Blue mountains LGA be excluded from the HDA pathway for future development approval and the LEP not be overridden for the proposed application for development at 142-150 Narrow Neck road.
Thank you for considering this submission
yours sincerely
Lesley Tarlinton

Please refer to the attached document for my comments.

I am totally opposed to this proposal. I have been a resident of the Blue Mountains for over 50 years, for the past 28 of those years living in Katoomba. As a long term resident I find the proposal totally out of keeping with the character of Katoomba —- a character that has appealed to, and brought joy to, many generations of residents and visitors to the town. More specifically I object for the following reasons:
1. The development will result in a permanent and ugly scar on the view to the west from the main town precinct.
2. The high density of this development poses an ongoing and highly dangerous risk from bushfires.
3. The development will greatly detract from the tourist appeal of the drive along Narrowneck Road and Cliff Drive - an appeal based on the beauty of the view into the valley and the sense of already being secluded in the peace of the bush.

Finally, this proposal is another example of the madness of over-development that puts developers profit ahead of community amenity. I note that the Sydney Morning Herald has recently been running a series of articles on the consequences of this approach to development in western Sydney. Anyone with any concern for the future could have predicted these consequences in those areas 15-20 years ago. Please do not let that happen here. Please disallow this proposal. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

I object to the proposal as it would not have a neutral or beneficial effect on water quality.