While we all would acknowledge that more housing is required in NSW, to build something like this in a major fire zone is not responsible. The access would mean people are likely to be trapped in a fire event.
The building itself does not appear to be built to the relevant codes for a flame zone area either. Meaning the risk is even higher.
We would be better served with redeveloping existing buildings within Katoomba that are in a poor state of repair. Get them redeveloped to be efficient and able to accommodate more people would be of more benefit to the area.

I write as a resident of Katoomba to formally object to the proposed development at 142–150 Narrow Neck Road. The proposal is wholly incompatible with the character, landscape, and planning history of this area.

1. It conflicts with local planning controls and undermines community trust:
This development far exceeds what is permitted under the Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan. The NSW Government’s Housing Delivery Authority is being used to fast-track the proposal, bypassing local planning controls and assessment. Blue Mountains City Council has formally condemned the proposal and resolved to write to the Minister for Planning to object strongly to any further progression. The sidelining of local government in this process sets a dangerous precedent for communities across NSW.
2. The scale and density is grossly inappropriate:
A development of this scale will be visible from across the escarpment and from the World Heritage National Park, overshadowing surrounding residential areas and permanently altering the character of this part of Katoomba. Katoomba is a heritage town renowned for its low-scale built environment and its relationship to the surrounding landscape. Nine four-storey towers would constitute a permanent and irreversible intrusion on the streetscape and skyline.
3. It poses serious bushfire safety risks:
This proposal would place hundreds of people in a bushfire-prone area with limited evacuation routes. The Blue Mountains has experienced catastrophic fires, and this risk profile must be a paramount consideration, particularly given reports that the site’s bushfire-prone status was lifted the day after the assessment.
4. Community consultation has been inadequate:
Council has raised concerns about the adequacy of community consultation, noting that letters were reportedly distributed within only one to two kilometres of the site with little to no response. A project of this magnitude demands genuine and transparent community engagement, not a perfunctory letterbox drop.
I urge the Department to refuse this application. The Blue Mountains is a World Heritage landscape with long-standing planning protections that exist for good reason and should not be overridden to facilitate development that the local Mayor himself has described as “grossly inappropriate.”
Yours sincerely,
Katrina

To whom it may concern:

I am a neighbour of the proposed high-density housing on Narrow Neck Road. This highly questionable DA is clearly out of touch with the times and is not being handled appropriately. No letter box within a 1 km radius of the proposed development had occurred to inform us, we had the chance to have our say on this development. This fact alone should send the developer a fine and force them to start over with a new proposal entirely. How can anyone trust this company if this is the start of a lengthy process and they have shown blatant disregard for the planning process. They think they can get away with whatever they'd like when they're not being watched! This is unacceptable! But there are many more reasons this proposed development is incompatible with Katoomba.

First, the entire town heavily relies on tourism and the pristine beauty of the National Park. To have this massive, hideously outdated drab building visible from the 3 Sisters, Scenic World, Cahill's Lookout, Narrow Neck Plateau (and lookout), the old golf course, and every vantage point along Cliff Drive (which is being developed for more tourists), it will damage the appeal and economy of Katoomba. I understand Blue Mountains City Council is on target for our housing developments, and I also understand we need more affordable housing. I would be happy to offer 1-2 storey terraces as a compromise. However, the development off of Stuarts Road has laid utilities but the developer isn't selling land for building houses yet. Why doesn't this government force them to stop land-banking and begin developing homes there, a block away from the 142-150 Narrow Neck Road development if housing targets are a priority?

400 apartments with some of these are slated for short term accommodation, we don't need more we have an over supply of Airbnb's in a area. Assuming families of 4 occupy them, this would increase Katoomba's population by over 20% in a matter of months. Please consider don't even have kerb and guttering along Narrow Neck Rd or Cliff Drive! There's a delicate hanging swamp in the middle of Katoomba, and our water flows into Warragamba Dam to become Sydney's drinking water. There is no environmentally and bush-fire safe way to penetrate these ugly apartments into our sensitive ecological communities. My partner and I watched the Ruined Castle fire burn for over a month in December 2019 before that burn itself to became a backburn for the oncoming fire front from the south. Fire trucks lined Cliff Drive and water cannons were used 24 hours a day for over a week to keep the blaze from reaching us. We understand the danger of being in a Flame Zone area, and we cannot recommend 400 apartments be thrust onto the small road serving as the only evacuation route connecting us to the Great Western Highway. We know climate change will increase the frequency and severity of bush fires in the Blue Mountains. Katoomba is NOT the place for this high-density development in flame zone or BAL40 rated areas with only one escape route. Perhaps the developer could look at buying land in Penrith if this 1980's-Strathfield eyesore is so greatly needed.

The Katoomba Master Plan hopes to see a reduction in car use by tourists as Council increases bus and shuttle services. These services will be impacted by the thousands of residents packed into these inappropriate apartments who will not have services or shops in walking distance. 142-150 Narrow Neck Road is isolated even in Katoomba terms. No schools, shops, services, or facilities are in easy access from this address. Sure, the developer reckons they will just add shops to the development - adding even more congestion and evacuation woes. This site is not and can not be right for high-density housing because the number of people, number of cars, and number of tourists around are incompatible!

Now, I know whoever is tasked with reading these submissions is never going to really care about polluting our waterways and the downstream wilderness, but it must be said that apartment living adjacent to a world heritage listed national park is a huge risk for the very nature that draws people to visit and live in the Upper Blue Mountains. Apartments inherently lack a connection to nature and yet they disturb and pollute ecosystems and fauna surrounding them. Imagine the hundreds of cats that will be able to freely access the escarpments and arbitrarily kill the endemic birds and tiny mammals. Houses (or terraces) have gardens - apartments do not. The Upper Blue Mountains are too precious to allow hundreds of pets and people to treat the delicate ecosystems with impunity. This isn't even touching on the building contaminants such as nutrient build-up from turf and landscaping throughout the building process. As I said at the start of this submission, this developer has already proven to be unworthy by actively disregarding the terms of the development application. If you approve this development you do so knowing what they already have done and are willing to cut corners to get this proposal off the ground.

This proposal will be greater in height and scale than anything currently existing in the entirety of the Blue Mountains. And the developer wishes to put this monstrosity in the most fragile and most visited part of the entire LGA! I sincerely believe that if this were in Penrith it would not be an issue. But Katoomba is surrounded by the southern escarpments and Grose Valley to the north. We do not have the capability to evacuate 15,000 people on a moment's notice from town to head either west or east. This development is too big, too populous, and too poorly planned for the location of 142-150 Narrow Neck Road. I hope that the state government will understand that Katoomba can not and should not be required to take on this blight of a development.

If you deny the approval, you and your grandchildren will benefit by having Katoomba remain a conservation-focused ecotourism hub less than 2 hours from Sydney. If you allow this disaster to move forward, you too will lose out world-renowned views, unique flora and fauna, and witness the degradation and slow poisoning of one of the jewels of Australia due to short-sighted follies.

Finally, I do not agree with this development full stop and the Governments approach to plonking inappropriate mega structures in the name of solving the "housing shortfall". This proposal should be cast into the bin and never revisited.

The proposed high rise apartment development on Cliff Drive in Katoomba is completely out of character for the area. It will present an obvious eyesore from many vantage points. It will also cause a marked increase in vehicular traffic. It would be situated in a high risk bushfire area and evacuation would cause heavy traffic. The area is more suited to individual homes. High rise apartments would detract from the natural beauty of the area. The development application should be refused.

I am writing to formally lodge my strongest objection to the proposed State Significant Development on Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba. Declaring a nine-building, high-density complex as "State Significant" in a World Heritage-listed landscape is an egregious misuse of the planning system.
My objection is based on the following critical grounds:
• Incompatible Scale and Density: The proposal for nine buildings up to five storeys in height, containing over 200 residential units and 52 serviced apartments, is a "shocking over-development" that ignores the established character of Katoomba. This level of density is entirely inappropriate for a unique local environment that relies on its sense of place and natural beauty.
• Extreme Bushfire Risk: The Narrow Neck area is subject to significant bushfire risk. Introducing hundreds of new residents and visitors into an area with limited evacuation routes on the escarpment is a reckless disregard for human safety. The planning system should not facilitate high-density projects in high-risk zones.
• Irreparable Impact on World Heritage Landscape: The site sits adjacent to the Narrow Neck trail and the Blue Mountains World Heritage area. The massive scale, bulk, and height of these buildings will be a permanent eyesore, causing "severe to devastating" impact on the iconic escarpment and wilderness views.
• Environmental Degradation: The project ignores the natural topography and will inevitably lead to the loss of unique local flora and fauna. A stepped building form does not mitigate the fundamental destruction caused by dropped a high-density "mini-suburb" into a sensitive ecological zone.
• Undermining Local Governance: Blue Mountains City Council is already exceeding its housing targets. By declaring this project an SSD, the state government is silencing local experts and residents to benefit a developer's bottom line. This makes a mockery of local planning controls and the democratic right of a community to protect its heritage.
I urge the Department of Planning to refuse this application and respect the World Heritage status of the Blue Mountains.
Furthermore, I call for an immediate review of the SSD and TOD pathways that allow developers to bypass local protections. The current framework allows the "State Significant" label to be used as a loophole for luxury gain in areas where development should be strictly limited to protect life, property, and our global heritage. It’s disgusting way to be planning our future.

To Whom It May Concern,

I write to formally object to the proposed development at 142–150 Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba (SSD-86456706).

While I acknowledge the need for additional housing and the inclusion of affordable housing within the proposal, I have significant concerns regarding the scale, suitability, and impacts of this development within its current context.

1. Incompatibility with Local Character and Scale
The proposed development, comprising 218 dwellings, 52 serviced apartments, and nine separate buildings, represents a scale that is inconsistent with the established low-density, environmentally sensitive character of Katoomba. The Blue Mountains is recognised for its unique landscape, heritage, and village-scale development pattern. A project of this magnitude risks fundamentally altering that character and setting an undesirable precedent for future overdevelopment.

2. Visual Impact and Landscape Sensitivity
The site’s proximity to environmentally and visually significant areas raises serious concerns about bulk, height, and cumulative visual impact. The Blue Mountains is a World Heritage-listed landscape, and development should be subordinate to the natural environment. The extent of built form proposed is likely to be visually intrusive and diminish the scenic quality of the area.

3. Traffic, Access, and Infrastructure Constraints
Narrow Neck Road and surrounding local roads are not designed to accommodate the level of traffic likely to be generated by over 250 residential and visitor accommodation units, in addition to restaurant and gallery uses. Increased traffic will negatively impact safety, congestion, and amenity, particularly given the constrained road network and existing tourist traffic pressures.

4. Bushfire Risk and Emergency Access
This site is located in a bushfire-prone area with limited access routes. The scale of the development raises serious concerns about evacuation capacity and emergency response in the event of a bushfire. It is not clear that the proposal can adequately ensure the safety of residents and visitors under such conditions.

5. Environmental Impacts
The proposal is likely to involve substantial vegetation removal and site disturbance, which may impact biodiversity, habitat, and the ecological integrity of the area. These impacts appear inconsistent with the environmental protections expected in the Blue Mountains.

6. Overdevelopment and Cumulative Impact
The intensity of the proposal constitutes overdevelopment of the site. Even with multiple buildings, the overall density and mix of uses (including serviced apartments) will result in a level of activity and population that is excessive for this location.

7. Questionable Suitability of Serviced Apartments
The inclusion of 52 serviced apartments introduces a commercial tourism component that may further intensify traffic, noise, and short-term occupancy turnover, which is not consistent with the surrounding residential context.

Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I strongly object to the proposal in its current form. At a minimum, the development should be significantly reduced in scale and density to better align with the character, environmental constraints, and infrastructure capacity of Katoomba.

I request that the consent authority carefully consider these issues and either refuse the application or require substantial redesign.

I have lived in the area since 2014 and am strongly opposed to this development.
Every household in this area is a 2 car household as it is impossible to rely on public transport alone. Adding 260 odd apartments will add possibly another 500 vehicles onto this road and surrounds. This is not in keeping with the area, and whoever thought this was a good idea has obviously never tried getting through the Parke St roundabout. Adding hundreds more vehicles to this already congested bottleneck is plainly ridiculous. Let alone mentioning the queues on the highway and along the CBD areas during any holiday period or long weekend.

There is no mention of increased public transport offerings, and the nearest bus stop is 1.7kms away along areas where we have no footpaths at all. Hence, you are putting more people in harm's way as there is enough near misses on a regular basis, as people walk along the roads and you can't see them due to blind corners. It's a miracle someone hasn't been killed already.

It was noticed that the map for being a bushfire prone area was changed just before this proposal, i would like to know the reasoning behind this move? The area is surrounded on 3 sides by bushland, and the intensity of the fires we've had lately should surely mean an increased danger for the residents. Let alone trying to get people evacuated from there in an emergency. I was here during the fire at Cahills lookout - there was no time - the fire was on us before you even realised. I had to evacuate my disabled neighbour (cerebral palsy) in my own vehicle as he was waiting on the street for someone - anyone - to take him and his partner to safety. I had planned to stay and defend - but seeing them standing out on the road with flames at the end of the street - i helped them evacuate - then couldn't return to my own property until the all clear was given.

Why is the development being built so far from the town centre? Katoomba CBD needs the residents - not a gully way over near the escarpment. I fail to understand why we're putting 260 residences worth of people in an area that will only increase the town's traffic woes and not somewhere centrally located with easy access to public transport.

There are basically no 3+ bedroom apartments being built in the complexes and the 3 or so i saw in the plans are all the penthouses. Where are the provisions for families? From what i see it'll be 260 Airbnb's. We already have way too many of those. I am surrounded by houses that are empty the majority of the time. My 3 kids have no friends to play with in the street. There is no community feel in this area - just way too many tourists who blow in and out again.

What are the plans for an increase in GP coverage for the area? Adding this many people to our doctors waiting lists is ridiculous. I have to take my family to Blackheath to see a doctor and if they're full i drive to Lithgow to the only walk-in practice nearby.

What are the plans to widen Glencoe Rd? It has 2 of the access for this development. It is only 1 lane and has a blind corner. adding in hundreds of cars to a 1 lane narrow street with a blind corner on it is a recipe for disaster.

It's going to be a brave person to take on the restaurant in the development - surely planned by someone who hasn't worked in the industry. Our area is a ghost town once the sun goes down - there is no foot traffic for a restaurant's customers. Especially during winter when its 0 degrees outside once the sun goes down. The restaurants in the main street struggle enough, anything away from the CBD has very restricted opening hours as its just not profitable enough at other times. The changeover in cafes here is constant - hence the number of empty shops - and that's in the main drag where all the tourists congregate.

The town needs extra residents - the main street is full of empty shops - but surely it makes more sense to add residents into the centre of town - close to amenities and public transport - rather than dump them into a gully away from everything, where there is no infrastructure to support them. Wouldn't it be wiser to allow developments near the train station and highway to go to 5 storeys? and not build more car dependency?

I have 3 kids in school and daycare in the area, and if this development goes ahead in its current form, i will be strongly thinking about relocating our family. Which would be heartbreaking for all of us.

I oppose this development at 142-150 Narrow Neck Road in the strongest terms. We need housing but this form, in this place, is not appropriate. The height and bulk of these buildings will detract from the surrounding natural beauty. It is in an escarpment protection area because this a very scenic area near our World Heritage National Park, where visitors come to enjoy the views out over the valley and mountains. In such a protection area N0 development is allowed to be seen from anywhere in the National Park. I moved up from Sydney over eleven years ago to enjoy the mountain scenery and environment, and now it seems the NSW government is about to treat the area as any other parcel of uninteresting land . It would destroy the character of this beautiful area which people visit from all over the world.
Then there is the bushfire risk as the area is surrounded by bushfire prone land. It is only a few years ago that we had bushfires just near there. In an emergency there needs to be access for a hundred vehicles, and Narrow Neck Road is the only exit. I shudder to think of the gridlock as the residents of this suggested development all tried to leave to get away from a fire - evacuation would be impossible and the situation could rapidly become catastrophic.
Such a massive development would involve removing natural vegetation which at present filters the natural watercourses through natural swamps which filter out pollutants as the water feeds slowly to Katoomba Falls, the Kedumba River and eventually feeds into Sydney water. The swamps will degrade, there will be greater run-off . The damage will cause the water to flow faster and cause erosion.
The Blue Mountains should be excluded from HDA approval for this area of such great natural importance. The overriding of local planning laws really disturbs me. I was also upset that there has been very little community consultation, although I believe that there was supposed to have been some consultation last October, well, I don't know anyone who was consulted back then. I feel Blue Mountains City Council who has an intimate knowledge of this wonderful, precious area should be allowed to make the final decisions on development. It also fully understands the infrastructure needs of our world famous area.
I would urge the NSW bureaucrats in Sydney to come up to Katoomba and experience this area for themselves before making a decision which would irrevocably damage this area.

Short-term Corporate Profits vs. Long-term Community Liability

This proposal is a textbook case of privatising profits while socialising the long-term losses and liabilities onto the local population and the environment.

As currently structured, the proposal prioritises immediate developer yield over the long-term social and environmental health of Katoomba. It represents an extractive model of development where the primary objective is the maximisation of profit for corporate entities that possess no enduring stake in the Blue Mountains. Once construction is complete and the dwellings are sold, the development firm—headquartered in Alexandria, Sydney—will exit the project. Their financial interest is entirely disconnected from the day-to-day realities of life on the Narrow Neck peninsula. They will realise their profits and move on, while the residents of Katoomba are left to navigate the permanent consequences of this over-intensification.

We, the local community, who will manage the daily reality of:
- Increased traffic congestion on narrow, ridgeline roads.
- Strain on local infrastructure and environmental services.
- The irreparable loss of the neighbourhood's quiet, low-density character.

Furthermore, the environmental risks—specifically bushfire safety and the ecological integrity of the World Heritage fringe—are long-term liabilities that the developer will not share. By seeking to bypass established local planning controls (Blue Mountains LEP 2015) via the State Significant Development pathway, the proponent is effectively asking the State to favour short-term corporate gain over the sustainable, lived future of a unique regional community.

Specific Points of Objection Based on Project Documentation

1. Disproportionate Scale and Statutory Overreach
The Concurrent Rezoning Report confirms a request to nearly double the permissible building height from 8m to 15.6m and increase the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) from 0.6:1 to 1.17:1. This is not a minor variation; it is a wholesale abandonment of the community-agreed standards set out in the LEP 2015. Using a 15% affordable housing provision as a lever to trigger State Significant Development status is a cynical use of social policy to override height limits that protect the visual amenity of the World Heritage fringe. Most critically, this "benefit" is temporary (15 years), while the impact of the increased building bulk is permanent.

2. The "Community Plan" and Fragmented Urbanism
The Notice of Exhibition indicates the site will be subdivided under a "community plan" arrangement. This further emphasises the extractive nature of the project: it creates a "gated" style enclave that internalises its own amenities while externalising its impacts. The Traffic and Parking Impact Report acknowledges that hundreds of daily vehicle movements will be added to Narrow Neck Road, yet the "community" within the development remains physically and socially separated from the broader Katoomba population. This creates a social fracture, not "community integration."

3. Mitigation vs. Lived Reality (Noise and Construction)
The Noise and Vibration Impact Report (Appendix AB) suggests that construction vibration can be "mitigated" through respite periods. For current residents, "mitigation" is not a solution to the permanent loss of the Katoomba "quietude" mentioned in the project's own Design Report. The respite periods offered are a temporary band-aid for a multi-year disruption that will permanently alter the acoustic character of this peaceful ridgeline.

4. Socialised Environmental and Bushfire Risk
The Bushfire Statement (Appendix R) cannot alter the physical reality that this site is located on a peninsula with a single, narrow exit path. The developer profits by cramming 270 units into this high-risk zone, but the liability of a failed evacuation falls entirely on the NSW Rural Fire Service and the local residents. This is the ultimate "socialised liability"—creating a density-driven safety risk in a bushfire-prone area while the proponent takes the profit and exits the region.

5. Failure to Provide Genuine Public Benefit
While the ESD Assessment (Appendix Y) touts a 40kW solar system, these features are negligible compared to the massive carbon footprint of an eight-building concrete development. A "7-star NatHERS" rating is a baseline legal requirement for modern builds, not a significant public benefit that justifies the permanent destruction of local character and the burdening of our infrastructure.

Conclusion
The Department must see this proposal for what it is: a Sydney-based firm seeking to maximise developer yield by exploiting a high-value location while leaving the long-term maintenance, traffic congestion, and environmental risks to the local community and the State. I urge the Department to uphold the integrity of the State to protect the interests of the community and the Blue Mountains LEP 2015 by rejecting this application.

Sincerely,
Katoomba Resident

I am a resident of Katoomba and I wish to formally object to the proposed development of nine four-storey residential buildings comprising 214 apartments, 52 serviced apartments, restaurants, an internet café, a wellness and arts hub, conference facilities, and extensive on-site parking.

As someone who lives and works in this community, this proposal feels significantly out of scale with our town and the broader Blue Mountains environment.

Inappropriate planning pathway
I am very concerned about the use of the Housing Delivery Authority (HDA) pathway for this development. This process appears to override the Local Environmental Plan controls that have been developed over many years to protect the Mountains’ environment and heritage. These safeguards reflect careful, long-term planning, and setting them aside for a development of this scale undermines both their purpose and community confidence in the planning system.

Housing need and suitability
Through my work in the housing and homelessness sector, I see firsthand the very real and growing need for more housing. I strongly support increasing supply where it is appropriate and where it genuinely helps address housing stress.

However, this proposal does not appear to deliver housing that would be accessible or beneficial to people experiencing disadvantage or at risk of homelessness. The inclusion of serviced apartments, visitor accommodation, and associated commercial uses suggests a focus that is unlikely to meet the needs of those most impacted by the housing crisis.

What is needed in our region is well-planned, appropriately scaled development that includes genuine affordable and social housing. Without this, proposals like this risk increasing density without meaningfully addressing the underlying issue.

Bushfire risk
Bushfire is an ongoing and serious risk in Katoomba. Increasing density with multi-storey buildings raises significant concerns about evacuation, emergency access, and overall safety. More residents, more vehicles, and more complex built form will make it more difficult to respond effectively in emergency situations.

Environmental impact
The Blue Mountains is an environmentally sensitive area, and developments of this scale inevitably reduce permeable land, increase stormwater runoff, and disrupt local ecosystems. These impacts directly undermine the ecological values that support the area’s World Heritage status and should not be taken lightly.

Loss of local character
Katoomba and the surrounding towns are defined by their leafy streets, smaller-scale buildings, and strong connection to the landscape. Introducing multiple four-storey buildings of this scale would permanently alter that character and set a concerning precedent for future development.

Economic concerns
Tourism is central to the local economy, and it depends on preserving the natural beauty and village character that draw people to the Blue Mountains. If these qualities are eroded, it risks undermining the long-term sustainability of the region.

Conclusion
For these reasons, I strongly object to this proposal. It does not reflect the scale, character, or environmental sensitivity of Katoomba and the wider Blue Mountains. I urge decision-makers to reject this development and instead prioritise planning approaches that genuinely respect and protect the community, environment, and long-term future of the area.