The proposed development at Narrow Neck Rd., Katoomba offends the natural beauty of the Blue Mountains by both its scale and character. It will sit at the edge of the abandoned Katoomba Golf course which has evolved over time into an unfortunately rare commons for the people. The overwhelming scale of the proposed development will be destroy that. The term "Godzillas of the Suburbs" comes to mind here. The supporting road infrastructure for the proposed development is clearly inadequate for the traffic flow which the development will generate during its construction and occupancy. For public housing occupants bas services will be required to access Katoomba Station. An ugly and very inappropriate development.

I have lived in the Blue Mountains most of my life. I now live at Gates Avenue, Katoomba, within walking distance of what this development proposal calls 140-150 Narrow Neck Road. I have never seen a more inappropriate, application for a development.
This site is located at the top of the Katoomba Falls catchment area, any run off ends up in Warragamba Dam. The main water supply for Sydney, and most of its suburbs.
This application is totally out of all proportion for anywhere in the Blue Mountains.
This site is in a highly bushfire prone area, with one narrow road access, and limited water access for firefighting.
How can this even be considered?
Greed and stupidity.

As a bush regenerator, I know the damages that will come with the build of this big project to the bushland nearby. There will be leachate effecting the soil ph and water quality of the nearby escarpment possibly resulting in worse weed infestations and depletion of already sensitive sandstone in a world heritage area. A better solution to housing problems in the mountains is to change law around air bnbs in heritage areas. The expansion of tourism in the mountains will only open the door to more buildings of similar size that could damage a worldly unique place. It also is dangerous as there are fires in the area often and landslides.

Wow this is UGLY and poorly planned.
I do not object to the building of more housing, especially considering the need for affordable housing (actually in at 11%, not 15%), and I do think this is an ideal site for continued development. BUT I seriously question the need for a development of this scale in Katoomba. Council hates it, community hates it. Read the room.

This is a huge scale development that has not gone through proper community consultation and does not meet the local character of the area. If you just want to rubber stamp it and not require developers to actually do their job, that's your perogative, but do not insult us by writing 45 page reports that do not include any actual detail and say consultation and appropriate planning has been undertaken. It has not. Just come out and say the truth "We want to make loads of money and build a huge hotel, with some apartments that will be affordable for the minimum 10 years and then won't be. We haven't asked you, and we haven't asked the local indigenous community, as we don't care as the major projects team will rubber stamp it to meet housing targets".

Question Demand: Houses for sale are taking more than 6 months to clear in a soft sales market as there is not the demand for housing in a fringe area without adequate employment, or services such as health care and transport close by. Unless this is designed to be purchased by older retirees, the volume of residential apartments makes no sense.
People move to the mountains to have space and be close to nature and this high density apartment development makes no sense.
These are nasty little apartments that don't meet the light and ventilation measures of planning controls! It's so obviously developers milking as much as they possibly can from a site with no community consultation, I hope you require significant amendments to approve this overdevelopment.

Lack of transport infrastructure to support: Access is via a single lane road and public transport is a once hourly / 30 minute unreliable bus which then connects to the train. You are kidding yourself if you think every resident is not going to drive.

Lack of medical services to support increased residents: Every medical centre in Katoomba is NOT taking new clients due to staffing issues. Health stubbornly refuses to pay more for doctors and mark the area as regional (it's deemed a metro area) and we can't get doctors to come and work here. Services need to be able to support the volume of new residents BEFORE they are brought into the area.

Public consultation / Social impact statement: What a load of codswallop. (Section 5: Project Overview of the Social Impact Statement)
- "Harmonises with Katoomba's local character" = it does not.
- "consulted with the wider community" = it did not.
"through the delivery of a thoughtfully designed mixed-use precinct that harmonises with Katoomba’s distinctive character, natural setting, and cultural identity" = Um, No.

Consultation with local indigenous community (FAIL): Emails were sent and no response was received (SOEF - point 6.1). Are you serious? This is gross mismanagement. Actually pick up a phone and call people. Sending emails that are not responded to does not equate with adequate community consultation.

Consultation with Transport (FAIL) - (SOEF - point 6.1): You sent some emails, transport said it falls within Council jurisdiction. This does not equate with consultation, this is sending an email and not actioning the advice.

Consultation with Neighbours (FAIL - NO DETAILS INCLUDED AND SHOULD HAVE GONE FURTHER) - (SOEF - point 6.1): Letterbox drop and a static website calling for submission. No details of existing submissions are included - so what did neighbours have to say? I live 1.5kms away and received no advice at all, even though there will be significant impacts on my day to day life.

Consultation with Community (FAIL) - (SOEF - point 6.1): No advertising in Blue Mountains Gazette. Static facebook page with comments closed. No call for submission. It's just a facebook page. I could do this in 15 minutes.

Bushfire Risk (FAIL) - (SOEE - Table 12): How is this not zoned bushfire prone? My house 1.5kms away in a similar area is BAL40. How are 1,000 people going to evacuate down a single lane road in the event of a fire? This is grossly negligent.

Cars / Transport: 19 car spaces for the restaurant, and 76 car spaces for residents. Across 218 apartments. That's .35 of a car space per apartment. This is LUDICROUS! It is a minimum of 142 car spaces short. If you don't think every apartment will have a car you're absolutely kidding yourselves. Look at car ownership rates in the mountains. It's impossible to rely on hourly trains to get around and shop. It is not walking distance to ANYTHING (aside from the 'onsite amenities' which is likely an overpriced tourist restaurant). The result of this is planning for 142 cars to park on adjoining streets. Utterly bonkers.

I could write more, but I have 2 jobs and I can't devote much time to this. I would hope that the planning department and government teams employed to ensure development meets standards do their job and do not present for approval plans that so obviously do not meet minimum standards, or the needs of community.

Yes I'm happy to see more home built for people who need them. Yes I'm happy for investment in my community. But it must be fit for purpose and this development proposal is deeply flawed. Please ensure the developers go back to the drawing board and present something better.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development.

have been a resident of this area for over 15 years, and my concerns are based on both long-term observation and direct experience of the site conditions and surrounding environment.

My objections relate primarily to stormwater and flooding impacts, the suitability and scale of the proposed use, and the capacity of local infrastructure and environment to support a development of this magnitude.

1. Stormwater Runoff and Flooding Risk

The proposed development significantly increases site density, with over 200 dwellings and additional serviced apartments across multiple multi-storey buildings. This level of intensification will substantially increase hard surfaces and reduce natural ground permeability.

Based on my experience living in this area, stormwater management is already an ongoing concern. I have personally observed water runoff issues and the impacts of nearby developments contributing to increased surface water flow.

I am concerned that the development will:
- Increase stormwater runoff into surrounding properties
- Exacerbate existing drainage issues
- Heighten the risk of localised flooding during heavy rainfall events

The current documentation does not provide sufficient confidence that downstream impacts have been fully addressed or mitigated.

I request that council require a more detailed and independent assessment of stormwater management and cumulative flood impacts before considering approval.

2. Inappropriate Use and Overdevelopment of the Site

The proposed development represents a significant departure from the established character of the area.

Buildings of four to five storeys, combined with high-density residential and serviced apartments, are not consistent with the surrounding built form. The intensity of use—including 218 dwellings and 52 serviced apartments—constitutes overdevelopment of the site.

While the proposal refers to “housing diversity” and “considered design,” the scale and density are excessive and not appropriate for this location.

I am particularly concerned that:
- The height and bulk of the buildings are incompatible with the local character
- The inclusion of serviced apartments introduces a transient population that does not align with the existing residential environment
- The cumulative impact will negatively affect amenity, privacy, and the overall livability of the area

3. Infrastructure and Environmental Capacity

Having lived in this area for over 15 years, I do not believe the existing infrastructure and environment are capable of supporting a development of this scale.

Local roads, services, and facilities are already under strain and are not of a standard to accommodate a significant increase in population density.

In addition, I have personally witnessed:
- Bushfire events in this area, highlighting environmental risk factors
- Environmental degradation associated with ongoing developments
- Increased runoff and related impacts as surrounding land has been developed

These are not hypothetical concerns—they reflect real and ongoing issues that have not been adequately addressed.

Introducing a development of this magnitude will further exacerbate these problems and place additional pressure on an already constrained system.

4. Site Suitability

The proposal appears to prioritise density and yield over genuine site suitability.

A development of this scale would be more appropriate in an area specifically planned for high-density growth, with infrastructure and environmental resilience to support it.

This site does not demonstrate those characteristics.

Conclusion

Given the significant and unresolved concerns relating to stormwater and flooding, inappropriate scale and density, and the demonstrated limitations of local infrastructure and environmental capacity, I respectfully request that council refuse this application.

At a minimum, the proposal should be subject to substantial revision and more rigorous independent assessment.

Sincerely,
Laura Lathbury
25 Kamillaroi Rd,
Katoomba, NSW 2780

I have lived in the Blue mountains my whole life and this project does not reflect the essence or design of the mountains. Once you place an apartment building of this height and with this design in the Blue Mountains (Which does not have the Blue Mountains aesthetic and character) there will be no reason other developers can't do the same thing.
Only 15% of the residential space is going to be considered for affordable housing which doesn't seem enough considering this is the main reason such a large building is being proposed.
Other items to note: the bushfire risk (the updated bush fire prone map doesn't add up) , impacts on the escarpment and World Heritage landscape

I object to the proposed development at 142-150 Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba (SSD-86456706). My objection is based on a detailed review of the Environmental Impact Statement and its supporting appendices, summarised below. A comprehensive submission is attached addressing each concern in full.

CONCURRENT REZONING BYPASSES STRATEGIC PLANNING (see attached, Section 2)

The site-specific, applicant-initiated rezoning seeks to increase building height from 8m to 15.6m and FSR from 0.6:1 to 1.17:1, approximately 95% above the existing LEP controls. This far exceeds the Housing Delivery Authority's own 20% variation guideline. The rezoning is not the product of any strategic planning process. Blue Mountains City Council has explicitly stated the site is not identified as a strategic growth area, and the State Government has confirmed the Blue Mountains is not a location identified for significant housing growth. Approving this rezoning would create a bespoke planning envelope for one site while every other R3 property in the locality remains subject to the controls established through proper strategic planning.

SCALE AND CHARACTER INCOMPATIBILITY (see attached, Section 3)

The proposal introduces nine buildings of up to four storeys (15.6m) with basement parking into a streetscape of one and two-storey detached dwellings to the north and west, and two to three-storey townhouses to the south. The R3 zone objective explicitly requires development with "a scale and character that is consistent with adjoining residential land uses." This proposal does not achieve that consistency. The Visual Impact Assessment (Appendix AL) rates impacts from several viewpoints as "moderate" to "severe," with a 39% visual impact from The Escarpments. Council has raised serious concerns about height, bulk, scale, and impacts on the protected escarpment area.

BUSHFIRE SAFETY AND INADEQUATE EVACUATION (see attached, Section 4)

The entire bushfire assessment is a six-page memo (Appendix R) for a development housing 500+ residents adjacent to extensive bushland. By comparison, the Arboricultural Report is 62 pages, the SIA is 112 pages, and the BDAR is 102 pages. The bushfire risk, a life-safety matter, has received the least rigorous treatment of any environmental factor. Council considers the assessment insufficient.

The site's two vehicle access points, Glencoe Road (one travel lane, 25m passing bay) and The Escarpments (a cul-de-sac), both funnel onto Narrow Neck Road, the sole route to the Great Western Highway. No evacuation modelling has been undertaken. The NSW RFS correspondence (Appendix BB) confirms its pre-DA advice is preliminary and not an approval. There is no assessment of Bushfire Attack Levels, ember protection, radiant heat, or shelter-in-place capacity.

DISPROPORTIONATE SCALE FOR THE HOST COMMUNITY (see attached, Section 5)

Katoomba's population was approximately 7,964 at the 2021 Census. This development would add an estimated 437-550 residents, a 5.5-6.9% increase from a single project. The Blue Mountains Local Housing Strategy identifies approximately 450 additional dwellings across the entire LGA over five years. This one project proposes 270 dwellings, roughly 60% of the LGA's five-year target on a single 1.684-hectare site.

The unit mix (80% studios and one-bedrooms) does not reflect the local demographic of ageing households with lower incomes (median weekly household income of $1,310 vs Greater Sydney's $2,077). Local health services, schools, emergency services, and public transport are not scaled for a sudden population increase of this magnitude.

TRANSPORT AND ACCESSIBILITY (see attached, Section 6)

The sole public transport is the 686G bus, a loop service with only 4 morning and 3 afternoon services. There are no footpaths on any surrounding street (Narrow Neck Road, Glencoe Road, or The Escarpments). The site is approximately 2 km walking distance from the town centre over steep terrain. Glencoe Road is a single-lane local road with a 25m passing bay. Council explicitly does not accept that the site is "well-located." The inclusion of on-site wellness, restaurant, and information facilities actually undercuts the applicant's own accessibility argument, as they are provided precisely because the site is not well-connected.

ECOLOGICAL HARM (see attached, Section 7)

134 of 206 trees will be removed, including 14 of high significance and 75 of medium significance. The BDAR (Appendix T) confirms 0.6 hectares of native vegetation within the NSW Biodiversity Values Map will be cleared, triggering the Biodiversity Offset Scheme. The vulnerable Large-eared Pied Bat has been identified in the vicinity.

Stormwater will be discharged to two basins on Council's adjacent Planetary Health Precinct land, a site designated for ecological restoration. Council objects that stormwater should be managed wholly on-site. The site lies within the Sydney Drinking Water Catchment. Permanent edge effects (artificial light, noise from a restaurant operating until midnight, domestic animal predation, weed invasion) on adjacent bushland habitat have not been adequately assessed.

INFRASTRUCTURE NOT IN PLACE (see attached, Section 8)

The Services and Infrastructure Report (Appendix X) identifies the need for sewer pump stations (with associated failure and overflow risks), water pressure boosting, four external electrical substations (3,600 kVA total demand), and a conditional gas network extension by Jemena. None of these have been confirmed as feasible by the relevant service providers at the time of lodgement. The sewer connection point has not been finalised with the water servicing coordinator.

RISK OF NON-COMPLETION AND IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE (see attached, Section 9)

The EIS states the project "will not be staged" (Section 4.6). The entire $92 million development is a single build over 36 months at 1,000m elevation in the Blue Mountains. The EDC report's 36-month program excludes provisions for inclement weather, natural disasters, and trade coordination delays. The 5% contingency is unrealistic for this location.

The site is 85 km from Sydney. There is no local labour pool for 108 construction jobs. Failure mid-construction would leave 9-metre excavations into Banks Wall Sandstone across five basement footprints, soldier pile walls embedded in bedrock, 134 trees removed, and 0.6 hectares of native vegetation cleared, none of which can be restored. The EIS contains no evidence of the developer's financial capacity, no remediation bond, no decommissioning plan, and no site restoration plan.

INADEQUATE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT (see attached, Section 10)

Council describes pre-lodgement engagement as not "genuine or meaningful." No design plans or concept sketches were shared with the community; residents were asked to comment on a proposal they could not see. Council was not consulted as adjoining landowner despite owning the Planetary Health Precinct land. The Deerubbin Local Aboriginal Land Council did not respond to multiple contact attempts, yet the proposal claims Connecting with Country outcomes. The exhibition period is only 14 days for a 56-document, $92 million SSD application.

SOLAR ACCESS NON-COMPLIANCE (see attached, Section 11)

Only 62.84% of apartments achieve the ADG's 70% minimum for 3 hours of winter solstice sunlight, a 7.16% shortfall. Seven apartments receive zero hours of direct sunlight. On a vacant greenfield site with no surrounding built-form constraints, this is inexcusable and demonstrates the site is being over-developed beyond what can deliver acceptable residential amenity.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING SHORTFALL (see attached, Section 12)

Council calculates the affordable housing at 11% of total residential GFA, not the claimed 15%. The affordable component is heavily skewed toward studios and one-bedrooms, limiting its utility for families most in need.

The consent authority is urged to refuse the application. Full analysis with appendix references is provided in the attached submission.

I am writing as a resident of Katoomba, a former architect, a member of the South Katoomba Rural Bushfire Brigade and a Blue Mountains bushwalker. I am alarmed that a project is able to claim a near doubling of permitted height (from 8.0 m to 15.6m) and of site intensity (from 0.6:1 to 1.17:1) on the basis that 15% of the dwellings Gross Floor Area will be "affordable" (however defined, and for whatever period). In other words, a promised 18% (15/85) increase in total residential dwelling area by virtue of claimed "affordability" yields an actual 100% increase in height and site intensity. Hardly a win for the public.
The height and bulk of the 8 buildings are completely inappropriate to Katoomba. The Statement of Environmental Effects claims that "the bulk and scale as a result of the height and FSR increase are comparable to neighbouring dual occupancies and townhouses, some of which present up to a four storey appearance when viewed from the former Katoomba Golf Course" (p26/41). In fact, most of the existing structures present a three storey appearance over a compact footprint while the proposed development would present up to seven storey appearance over a much wider visual field, as evidenced by the architectural elevations (p28/30) - an incomparably greater visual intrusiveness.
The bushland views towards Katoomba from neighbouring ridges, including the Ngula Bulgarabang Regional Park (formerly the Radiata Platea) would be transformed by the appearance, for the first time, of a solid block of building looming over the treeline. It is possible that the buildings would also be visible from walking trails in the valleys, so compromising the character of the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.
Finally, there are the risks and difficulties of mass evacuation in the event of a catastrophic bushfire threatening Katoomba (a risk that will continue to increase with climate change). The major risk to Blue Mountains townships from bushfire are not from direct flame attack (although that is a factor on the urban/bushland boundary) but fires started through airborne ember attack, which are a risk anywhere and everywhere. In (or preferably before) a catastrophic bushfire emergency many residents would want to evacuate by road, along the Great Western Highway (GWH). Whatever the capacity of Narrow Neck Road, evacuees from the proposed development would feed into three choke points from South Katoomba to the GWH: the Bathurst Road overpass, the notorious Parke Street bridge and via Leura (which may be choked with Leura evacuees as well).
The population of Katoomba at the 2021 census was 8,268. About 75% (say 6,200) would live south of the GWH. The proposed development would add 280 dwelling units. At 2.0 persons/dwelling (about the current Katoomba average) this one development would increase the population of South Katoomba and the load on the evacuation routes by 560 persons or 9%.
Therefore I strongly oppose the development on the grounds of excessive bulk and density, visual intrusion in the landscape and significantly increased loads on evacuation routes during bushfire (and other) emergencies. Any development on that site should be subject to current restrictions on height (8m) and site density (0.6:1).

I am writing to formally lodge my strongest opposition to the proposed residential development at 142-150 Narrow Neck. While I recognize the ongoing need for diverse housing, this specific proposal represents a significant "over-development" that is fundamentally incompatible with the ecological, historical, and infrastructural constraints of Katoomba. The scale of this project ignores the unique character of the Blue Mountains—a region recognized by UNESCO for its world heritage value—and poses a direct threat to the safety and amenity of current residents and native flora and fauna.

The primary concern regarding this proposal is the existing deficit in road infrastructure. Katoomba’s road network is characterized by historical, narrow corridors that were never designed to support high-density residential clusters. Currently, the town experiences significant traffic saturation during weekend periods and peak tourist seasons; adding a massive residential population will result in permanent gridlock.

A development of this magnitude requires a comprehensive Traffic Impact Assessment that accounts for "peak-on-peak" scenarios—where resident departures coincide with tourist arrivals. Failure to address this will not only degrade the quality of life for locals but will also impede the movement of emergency vehicles. In a ridge-top town, road capacity is not merely a matter of convenience; it is a vital component of public safety.

Katoomba is situated within a high-risk bushfire landscape, surrounded by dense, fire-prone bushland. The proposed site sits within the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI), where the risk to life and property is most acute. Increasing the population density in such a vulnerable area is, in my view, a failure of responsible planning.

During a catastrophic fire event, the evacuation of Katoomba relies on a limited number of egress points toward the Great Western Highway. Adding hundreds of additional vehicles to this evacuation route creates a dangerous bottleneck. The 2019/20 Black Summer bushfires demonstrated the speed with which fire can threaten our town; approving a development that increases the "evacuation load" without expanding the highway’s capacity is an unacceptable risk to human life.

The Blue Mountains attract residents and visitors precisely because of the seamless integration between the built environment and nature. This proposal, by virtue of its massive visual bulk and height, threatens to overshadow the surrounding streetscape and strip neighboring homes of their residential amenity. The height and scale are entirely inconsistent with the "Village Character" protected under the Blue Mountains LEP.

Furthermore, the environmental cost of such a build is significant. The clearing of native vegetation to accommodate this structure will lead to the loss of local biodiversity and the creation of an "Urban Heat Island" effect. In a region dedicated to environmental conservation, replacing permeable green space with vast expanses of concrete and dark roofing is a regressive step that contradicts the Council’s commitment to climate resilience and sustainability.

In summary, the proposed development is too large, too dense, and too dangerous for this specific location. It fails to respect the topography of Katoomba and places an undue burden on our already strained infrastructure. I urge the Council to reject this application in its current form and to prioritize the safety, heritage, and environmental integrity of our community over high-density commercial gain.