I have grown up in Berrima and currently living in the home I grew up in we have a clear view of the riverside of the Gaol where the proposed accommodations are to be built. From the plans that have been submitted it is really quite obvious that the proposed redevelopment is not the right use of this historic site and it will really impact the village as a whole. Berrima is a popular tourist attraction that draws people for the historical experience if a redevelopment for accomodation purposes the owners would be better off containing the accommodation within original walls give guest the experience of staying in a cell. By cutting a huge hole is the wall and adding on modern buildings that are multi story that is destroying the very thing that people are drawn to the village for our history. There are other factors that also need to be considered any building on the river bank will change the river potentially leading to flooding of existing housing along the river. We also have a diverse range of wildlife that reside along the river that they call home any buildings that go there will affect them. Berrima also does not have the infrastructure that will cope with the proposed plans.
Consideration should also go to the residents that will have an altered view or will loose their sense of privacy and peace. I do understand that there is a vision that the developers have but it really comes across that they do not know or appreciate the area, the appeal of the village and why for current residents and visitors. My objections are not only my own but others share my concern for this project as is it is not what it should be and should it go ahead as proposed Berrima will loose it's identity and there will be nothing here left for the guests to visit. The developers can rethink their plans and listen to the community before it's too late

I completely object to this proposed development. I am originally from England, where there is much history which is respected, preserved and cherished. Australia has but a fraction of such heritage and the Berrima Gaol is part of this. If the Gaol is redeveloped and altered in the ways suggested by this proposal the nature of the village of Berrima will be lost. Once it has gone, it cannot be replaced. It is ludicrous to imagine how one short-sighted company has the potential to destroy a unique and cherished icon of Australian colonial heritage which has stood proud and strong for more than 150 years. How can such a thing even be considered?
In England, in Europe and other parts of the world, beautiful historic treasures are kept intact to be admired and learnt about by future generations. Our children nave a right to experience such treasures. For knowledge, understanding and sensitivity towards the past, for the rest of us who share interest and intellect and sense please don't allow for this to happen. The southern highlands, NSW, Australia already has enough hotels and developments. Please don't allow a charming heritage village to be destroyed by this development.

I feel this is a wonderful opportunity For the Berrima Community. It will help local businesses with the tourists that will visit. It will also help provide the necessary funds for the upkeep of a wonderful heritage building that we are lucky enough to have Berrima. I applaud this development and wholeheartedly hope for its every success.

1. Adaptive reuse ensures the Gaol remains a positive ground for the Community, increases villages tourism and economic life and transforms the gaol into an inclusive hub.
2. Opposition to Hotel suites inside Gaol would restrict public access to the gaol. The design proposal indicates that 2885m2 of development is proposed inside the Gaol walls while 2537m2 is proposed externally. If the external area is brought inside the walls there would be no room for F&B, Function Space or Wellness.
3. Opposition to the new opening in the Front Wall has been addressed in a number of selected concepts which indicate minimal disturbance and ability to “Close the Door.
4. The subterranean carpark will address the shortage of carparking on busy weekends, and the landscaped top will enhance the Villages accessible open spaces.
5.The Raising of the floors will minimise the potential to unearth human remains, reduce damage to heritage and provide better accessibility.
6. The Northern zone of the Hotel suites has sympathetically been reduced in height while the brutalist Southern end has been increased and indicates a 12m high 15m wide wall of building very close to Wingecarribee Street. To put this into context the lower parts of the Gaol wall is 7-8m high along Argyle Street and 11m high at its highest point. A new gaol wall will not be a benefit to the village and a stepped approach with a maximum one storey above the tiered carpark should be encouraged.
7. The bulk of the Hotel facing West is seen as a better view than looking at the blank gaol wall from the other side of the river.
8. There are many opportunities for Art and storytelling in the concept.
9. The Stated design review panel have considered the concepts and have led and endorsed them.
10. The Concepts align with the Berrima Village DCP Objectives

This will be fantastic for Berrima and surrounds, breathing life into the area. Investment into Berrima is needed to keep moving forward and this proposal strikes the right balance to make good use of this iconic property. We should celebrate our heritage and this project does that. I am a local resident.

To Whom it May Concern,
I wish to strenuously object to the Blue Sox adaptive reuse of the Berrima Gaol precinct for its commercial purposes as presented.
• The Blue Sox Hotel proposal represents an overscaled and inappropriate development in a delicate heritage context, conflicting with the size, scale, and character of Berrima village, which was established in 1831 and is a rare example of a well-preserved Australian Georgian colonial village.
• Berrima is acknowledged as the only largely intact Georgian village on the Australian mainland, featuring significant colonial sandstone civic buildings, including the Berrima Gaol and the Courthouse, alongside historic churches, inns, and Georgian cottages.
• The scale of the proposal, with multi-storey hotel blocks and large-scale car parking, visually overwhelms and intrudes upon the historically significant sandstone walls of the gaol and the surrounding village landscape, which has remained largely “frozen in time” since the nineteenth century. This is often stated as the sole reason for a large contingent of frequent visiting tourists, with the village benefitting greatly from their patronage.
• Constructing new buildings that rise above the perimeter walls contradicts heritage conservation principles, leading to a substantial loss of important sightlines and vistas that define Berrima’s unique rural and historical character, especially along the riverbank where views have high social value.
• The alteration of the original sandstone walls by cutting new access points significantly damages the fabric and integrity of the heritage-listed gaol, undermining its historical authenticity and diminishing its interpretive value. The front wall of the gaol already has a significant entrance gateway, which should negate the necessity for any additional entrance and exit point along the frontage.
• Berrima’s heritage significance goes beyond individual buildings, encompassing the original village planning, architectural coherence, and relationship between built form and landscape, all of which the hotel proposal fails to respect.
• The site includes important convict-era structures and archaeological features, potentially including wells or other subsurface heritage assets, which face risk of damage during large-scale construction activities along the river.
• Local heritage advocates and the wider community emphasize the need for adaptive reuse projects to prioritize conservation, low-intensity tourism, and cultural engagement, rather than intrusive commercial developments that unbalance the historic fabric.
• Berrima's character as a tranquil heritage village, attracting interest for its authenticity and heritage tourism potential, will be severely compromised by a development whose bulk, scale, and use, diverge from these values.
• Approving this proposal would set a dangerous precedent for inappropriate development in heritage conservation areas, jeopardizing Australia’s broader goals of preserving colonial landscapes and towns with exceptional historic significance, which is unmistakably clearly evident in Berrima village.
• In place of this proposal, a sensitive and contextually appropriate vision should be pursued, one that respects the rich history, architectural heritage, and natural setting of Berrima, fostering community pride and sustainable cultural tourism.

Legal precedents and citations supporting my objection to this heritage-impacting development include several relevant cases and regulatory frameworks:
• Bowen v Woollahra Council NSWLEC 1320: Addressed a development application involving potential demolition of a locally heritage-listed item, establishing principles to protect heritage significance in planning decisions.
• Bourke v North Sydney Council NSWLEC 1035: Considered the impact of demolition on a heritage conservation area and emphasized that new development must complement and harmonize with existing heritage character and scale, directly relevant to concerns over the hotel’s bulk and visual impact at Berrima.
• Emag Apartments Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Sydney NSWLEC 1082: Focused on height, bulk, scale, and their impacts on heritage significance, reinforcing the need to maintain heritage values through sensitive design and scale control.
• Carlino v Leichhardt Municipal Council NSWLEC 198 highlighted sentencing for demolition contrary to heritage protection, underscoring legal risks in damaging heritage fabric without consent.
• The Wingecarribee Local Environmental Plan 2010 (WLEP 2010) and the Berrima Village Development Control Plan (DCP) require heritage assessments for developments affecting heritage-listed items or conservation areas, demanding rigorous evaluation of heritage impact and prioritizing protection. Despite being astonishingly recommended for approval by Council, this development does not comply with their own DCP.
• The Heritage Act 1977 (NSW) stipulates that damaging, demolishing, or altering heritage places without appropriate consent is unlawful, providing statutory protection to sites like Berrima Gaol.
• The NSW Land and Environment Court regularly adjudicates heritage matters, weighing whether developments diminish historical, aesthetic, or social significance, with decisions often favouring preservation when substantial impacts are identified.
These legal precedents and statutory requirements collectively support our community objections to the Blue Sox development proposal that threatens the integrity, scale, and heritage significance of Berrima Gaol and its surrounding Georgian village environment.
It is for these reasons that I am hopeful, this proposal once carefully considered, will be rejected outright.

I think the project is a great repurposing to generate a destination that will attract more tourists to the area. Having visited the Southern Highlands several times, this type of development would be something I'd personally be interested in. This along with the added benefits of construction, operational jobs, and preservation of a historical building are all reasons why this should be allowed to proceed.

The proposal will provide additional amenity to the town in terms of tourism and creating a community resource.

Hello, whilst I am in favour of the redevelopment of the Berrima gaol by Blue Sox, I object to the current proposal for the following three reasons:
1. I do not support cutting into the convict built wall at the front of the gaol to create a doorway to facilitate waiter service to an outdoor cafe. These walls are heritage listed and should remain intact as they form a unique structure that is an important asset of our colonial history.
2. I believe the bulk and scale of the accomodation/rooms at the back of the gaol, outside the walls and facing onto the river is too great. I would like to see this harmed and moved back closer to the western wall.
I also believe that three stories is outside the Berrima DCP and would like to see these buildings reduced in height to a maximum of two stories in order to meet the requirements that every other built form has adhered to in this historic village.
3. With the above mentioned bulk and scale of the accommodation I am concerned about the noise from functions as well as the traffic in Wiltshire Street, which is a quiet dead end residential street. The traffic controls must be considered otherwise we will have a problem in regards to emergency vehicle access as well as parking (It is very narrow and cars will not be able to get down there ) along with turning issues. Plus noise from the facility - Are there restrictions on amplified sound for weekdays and weekends?
I would like to Understand how this is being controlled to minimise the impact of entertainment/functions on the local neighbourhood which is currently a peaceful residential area.