Malcolm Reynolds
Object
Malcolm Reynolds
Object
WINMALEE
,
New South Wales
Message
I refer to the project to build residential apartments at 142-150 Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba NSW
I have lived in the Blue Mountains for 0ver 60 years and I completely object to this proposal and the approval method instigated to bypass normal approval processes. Namely the HDA Housing Delivery Authority
I object on the following grounds
ENVIRONMENTAL - The Blue mountains is a unique and irreplaceable environment. The construction of such a large number and densely grouped set of buildings, carpeting the area with concrete and similar hard surfaces, will unduly impact the sensitive alpine heath covered plateau of the upper Blue Mountains. The resulting run off of stormwater into sensitive waterways will also impact the environment well into the environs of the national park. The Blue Mountains is under world heritage protection and this project seems at odds with the central values inherent in that protection.
Visual Impact - People visit the Blue Mountains for it's views, gently leafy environs and it's visual beauty. To build a 'suburban" style high density development within that context will damage the essential 'raison d'etre" of the Blue Mountains.
APPROVAL PROCESS - This project has been approved under the new HDA Housing Delivery Agency process. This has completely bypassed important and intrinsic local council approval regulations. Regulations, that should be noted have been developed over years of consultation and refinement. If the government can just override any regulations at any time, what restrictions will exist for the remainder of the blue Mountains or similar places. The inclusion of the Blue Mountains under this new authority should be immediately removed as this development sets a very real precedent for future inappropriate development across all villages in the Blue Mountains.
LOCATION - The report indicates this development is "well sited". This must be a new definition of the phrase I was not previously aware of. The location is at least 2 kilometres from the railway station, shopping centre and all other services. Location a couple of cafes and an art gallery within the precinct is surely not going to sustain the hundreds of residents proposed to live in this development. If we assume that the 214 apartments will house at least 450 people, that is potentially another 3 to 4 hundred residents requiring cars to navigate narrow local roads to go about their daily work and domestic lives. It seems odd that given the NSW government's propensity to build apartments right on top of railway stations, this one is placed so far away.
FIRE RISK - The Blue Mountains is one of the most fire prone regions in the entire world. I have lived in the Blue Mountains for over 60 years and have some experience of the bush fire risks in this area. In recent memory, a fire at Katoomba caused the whole of Cliff View Drive to be closed for months to repair the damage. So to place such a concentrated housing development in a fire prone area such as the Blue Mountains does not seem to make any sense and places people and fire services at undue risk.
VISUAL IMPACT - Tourists visit the Blue Mountains for it's visual beauty and scenic "splendour". I am unable to reconcile how this development can be reconciled into this ideal. The leafy environs and heritage landscapes cannot accommodate "jarring" modern concrete structures as the types and scale of the ones proposed. People do not visit the Blue Mountains to experience structures they can find in amply in the Western Suburbs and other parts of Sydney. I fear that if this type of development is the start of many more then tourism to the Blue Mountains will reduce at great economic cost to the area.
I noted that some of these proposed units are set aside for public housing. I do question what regulations are in place that determines who exactly will buy these apartments and for what purpose. Presumably they are for housing but I question whether people who wish to live in Katoomba, would want to live in this type of dwelling. It seems more likely that investors will purchase them and then turn them into short term rental accommodation which does nothing to further the "so called housing crisis" under which pretext they are being built.
I re-iterate my firm objection to this and any similar development in the Blue Mountains.
Thankyou
Malcolm Reynolds
Winmalee
I have lived in the Blue Mountains for 0ver 60 years and I completely object to this proposal and the approval method instigated to bypass normal approval processes. Namely the HDA Housing Delivery Authority
I object on the following grounds
ENVIRONMENTAL - The Blue mountains is a unique and irreplaceable environment. The construction of such a large number and densely grouped set of buildings, carpeting the area with concrete and similar hard surfaces, will unduly impact the sensitive alpine heath covered plateau of the upper Blue Mountains. The resulting run off of stormwater into sensitive waterways will also impact the environment well into the environs of the national park. The Blue Mountains is under world heritage protection and this project seems at odds with the central values inherent in that protection.
Visual Impact - People visit the Blue Mountains for it's views, gently leafy environs and it's visual beauty. To build a 'suburban" style high density development within that context will damage the essential 'raison d'etre" of the Blue Mountains.
APPROVAL PROCESS - This project has been approved under the new HDA Housing Delivery Agency process. This has completely bypassed important and intrinsic local council approval regulations. Regulations, that should be noted have been developed over years of consultation and refinement. If the government can just override any regulations at any time, what restrictions will exist for the remainder of the blue Mountains or similar places. The inclusion of the Blue Mountains under this new authority should be immediately removed as this development sets a very real precedent for future inappropriate development across all villages in the Blue Mountains.
LOCATION - The report indicates this development is "well sited". This must be a new definition of the phrase I was not previously aware of. The location is at least 2 kilometres from the railway station, shopping centre and all other services. Location a couple of cafes and an art gallery within the precinct is surely not going to sustain the hundreds of residents proposed to live in this development. If we assume that the 214 apartments will house at least 450 people, that is potentially another 3 to 4 hundred residents requiring cars to navigate narrow local roads to go about their daily work and domestic lives. It seems odd that given the NSW government's propensity to build apartments right on top of railway stations, this one is placed so far away.
FIRE RISK - The Blue Mountains is one of the most fire prone regions in the entire world. I have lived in the Blue Mountains for over 60 years and have some experience of the bush fire risks in this area. In recent memory, a fire at Katoomba caused the whole of Cliff View Drive to be closed for months to repair the damage. So to place such a concentrated housing development in a fire prone area such as the Blue Mountains does not seem to make any sense and places people and fire services at undue risk.
VISUAL IMPACT - Tourists visit the Blue Mountains for it's visual beauty and scenic "splendour". I am unable to reconcile how this development can be reconciled into this ideal. The leafy environs and heritage landscapes cannot accommodate "jarring" modern concrete structures as the types and scale of the ones proposed. People do not visit the Blue Mountains to experience structures they can find in amply in the Western Suburbs and other parts of Sydney. I fear that if this type of development is the start of many more then tourism to the Blue Mountains will reduce at great economic cost to the area.
I noted that some of these proposed units are set aside for public housing. I do question what regulations are in place that determines who exactly will buy these apartments and for what purpose. Presumably they are for housing but I question whether people who wish to live in Katoomba, would want to live in this type of dwelling. It seems more likely that investors will purchase them and then turn them into short term rental accommodation which does nothing to further the "so called housing crisis" under which pretext they are being built.
I re-iterate my firm objection to this and any similar development in the Blue Mountains.
Thankyou
Malcolm Reynolds
Winmalee
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
KATOOMBA
,
New South Wales
Message
The proposal is not area appropriate. The road structure has poor heavy usage allowance with potential bottlenecks at Katoomba’s town centre access points.
I’m concerned about bush fire safety, poor evacuation ability and road accessibility. The roads are not made to cope with the added traffic the development will bring. There are environmental issues, increased pollution, waste disposal, and other community-based concerns in an area that is already taxed by heavy and increasing local and overseas tourism. I’m also concerned about the viability of businesses at the site which, in my opinion, have slim chance of long term success
I’m concerned about bush fire safety, poor evacuation ability and road accessibility. The roads are not made to cope with the added traffic the development will bring. There are environmental issues, increased pollution, waste disposal, and other community-based concerns in an area that is already taxed by heavy and increasing local and overseas tourism. I’m also concerned about the viability of businesses at the site which, in my opinion, have slim chance of long term success
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
WENTWORTH FALLS
,
New South Wales
Message
Attachment G
There is no evidence that local First Nations people were directly consulted about the significance of the site to local First Nations people. The Gully is a highly human modified site, is of local significance and is in close proximity to the proposal.
App B Statutory Compliance Table
Clause 6.12 Protected Area – Escarpment
This proposal will result in significant habitat removal of around 70% of existing native vegetation and as such will exacerbate habitat fragmentation, and therefore loss of native fauna and flora. This is contradictory to the mitigation measures under table 10 of Att T which states 'Avoid and minimise clearing impacts to native vegetation where possible.'
EIS / BDAR
Loss of public amenity
Connecting with Country
There will be significant impact on the adjacent Planetary Health Precinct and what it seems to achieve. As a blue mountains local and weekly user of this space, the proposal will significantly impact the current use of the precinct and what it provides, which is a large, quiet, private and peaceful space enclosed by native vegetation which is being rehabilitated. There is only 1 other area available to locals that offers such amenity (Lawson). The size of the proposal, restaurant and number of dwellings will dramatically alter this amenity turning it into an eyesore which is exposed, noisy, and imposing. It will dramatically changed the surrounding low key low density residential space and environment.
What is also not clear is the impact on parking in the local area in response to the gallery and restaurant and how this will be managed in addition to those who use the precinct space.
I therefore don't agree with the ‘do nothing’ statement in that the site remains vacant and underutilised. This outcome is not
desirable given the site’s strategic and well-located nature. I also don't agree that the site is not identified as containing Aboriginal cultural heritage - this statement can't be made until local First Nations people have been contacted and engaged (noting attempts have been made).
The point of incorporating Aboriginal artwork and design elements in external landscaped areas of the site; and presentation of and information sessions for Aboriginal artwork in the art gallery - this is quite a tokenistic response. Will this include local Aboriginal artwork and information sessions by local First Nations people? How will this be enforced by whoever ends up with the contract to operate the gallery?
There is no evidence that local First Nations people were directly consulted about the significance of the site to local First Nations people. The Gully is a highly human modified site, is of local significance and is in close proximity to the proposal.
App B Statutory Compliance Table
Clause 6.12 Protected Area – Escarpment
This proposal will result in significant habitat removal of around 70% of existing native vegetation and as such will exacerbate habitat fragmentation, and therefore loss of native fauna and flora. This is contradictory to the mitigation measures under table 10 of Att T which states 'Avoid and minimise clearing impacts to native vegetation where possible.'
EIS / BDAR
Loss of public amenity
Connecting with Country
There will be significant impact on the adjacent Planetary Health Precinct and what it seems to achieve. As a blue mountains local and weekly user of this space, the proposal will significantly impact the current use of the precinct and what it provides, which is a large, quiet, private and peaceful space enclosed by native vegetation which is being rehabilitated. There is only 1 other area available to locals that offers such amenity (Lawson). The size of the proposal, restaurant and number of dwellings will dramatically alter this amenity turning it into an eyesore which is exposed, noisy, and imposing. It will dramatically changed the surrounding low key low density residential space and environment.
What is also not clear is the impact on parking in the local area in response to the gallery and restaurant and how this will be managed in addition to those who use the precinct space.
I therefore don't agree with the ‘do nothing’ statement in that the site remains vacant and underutilised. This outcome is not
desirable given the site’s strategic and well-located nature. I also don't agree that the site is not identified as containing Aboriginal cultural heritage - this statement can't be made until local First Nations people have been contacted and engaged (noting attempts have been made).
The point of incorporating Aboriginal artwork and design elements in external landscaped areas of the site; and presentation of and information sessions for Aboriginal artwork in the art gallery - this is quite a tokenistic response. Will this include local Aboriginal artwork and information sessions by local First Nations people? How will this be enforced by whoever ends up with the contract to operate the gallery?
Belinda Gibbs
Object
Belinda Gibbs
Object
KATOOMBA
,
New South Wales
Message
It is not keeping with the area. Traffic is already terrible without this level of density especially during holiday seasons and weekends. There isn't parking and it already is impossible to get on the highway. Gridlock will be real. There is a bushfire risk and getting people out of the area is this happens is a risk. There are environment issues. We already can't access doctors, medical, just services in general. This will increase population with no thought on how people can live their lives out side of a house. The density doesn't fit with the existing infrastructure of everything else here
stuart schmidt
Object
stuart schmidt
Object
HAZELBROOK
,
New South Wales
Message
I write as an immediately adjoining landowner at 140 Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba to lodge a formal and emphatic objection to the proposed State Significant Development at 142–150 Narrow Neck Road.
This proposal represents an extreme and inappropriate intensification of use on a highly constrained and environmentally sensitive site. It raises serious and unresolved concerns across fundamental planning considerations including local character, visual impact, bushfire safety, traffic engineering, and environmental protection. In its current form, it is wholly inconsistent with the established planning framework and the expectations of the Blue Mountains community.
1. Fundamental Incompatibility with Local Planning Controls and Character.
It is my firm view that this development would have no reasonable prospect of approval if assessed through the local council planning framework. The scale, density, and built form are plainly inconsistent with the intent and objectives that govern development in the Blue Mountains, particularly in areas of high environmental and scenic value.
The proposal reflects an outcome driven by maximum yield rather than site suitability. It disregards the established low-density character of the locality and introduces a level of urbanization that is entirely at odds with the surrounding environment. The use of the State Significant Development pathway in this instance appears to be a mechanism to circumvent local planning controls that would otherwise prevent such an outcome.
This sets a deeply concerning precedent and undermines the integrity of the planning system.
2. Severe and Irreversible Visual Impact.
The Blue Mountains landscape is of exceptional significance, and development within this setting must remain subordinate to the natural environment. This proposal does the opposite.
From my property, the development will result in a direct, substantial, and permanent loss of visual amenity, replacing a currently open escarpment outlook with a large-scale, visually intrusive built form. The height, bulk, and massing of the proposed structures will dominate the landscape and erode the very qualities that define this area.
This is not a marginal impact — it is a fundamental transformation of the visual environment, and one that cannot be mitigated through landscaping or design treatments.
3. Bushfire Risk – Unacceptable Intensification in a Constrained Location.
The Narrow Neck precinct is widely recognized as a high bushfire risk area with limited evacuation capacity. Introducing a high-density residential and visitor population into this location represents a significant and unjustified increase in risk.
The proposal appears to rely on constrained access arrangements that are wholly inadequate to support safe and efficient evacuation during a bushfire event. The potential for congestion, delayed egress, and restricted emergency access raises serious life safety concerns.
In a region that has experienced the devastating impacts of bushfire, it is difficult to understand how such a proposal could be considered consistent with the precautionary principles that underpin bushfire planning in New South Wales.
4. Traffic Safety and Access – Critical and Unacceptable Impact on Existing Residents
I wish to place particular emphasis on what I consider to be a critical design failure in this proposal — the location of the primary entrance and exit.
It is understood that the development’s main access point is proposed to be directly opposite my residential driveway on Glenco Road. This is not a minor inconvenience; it is a serious and ongoing safety hazard.
The introduction of a high-volume access point in direct opposition to an existing residential driveway will:
* Create a constant traffic conflict point with opposing turning movements,
* Significantly reduce safety for vehicles entering and exiting my property,
* Increase the risk of collision, particularly given visiting drivers unfamiliar with the area,
* Result in regular congestion and disruption to local traffic flow,
* Introduce continuous headlight glare and disturbance, particularly during evening hours,
This arrangement will materially and permanently compromise my ability to safely access my own property.
From a traffic engineering perspective, this configuration is poorly conceived and difficult to justify. Standard road safety principles seek to minimise direct conflict points, not create them. The fact that such an arrangement is being proposed raises serious concerns about the adequacy of the design process.
I strongly submit that this access point must not proceed in its current location. At a minimum, it should be relocated or redesigned to eliminate direct opposition to existing residential driveways. Failure to do so will result in an unacceptable and avoidable safety outcome.
5. Environmental Degradation.
The site forms part of a broader environmental and visual corridor that contributes to the ecological integrity of the Blue Mountains. The scale of clearing, construction, and long-term occupation associated with this proposal will have lasting and detrimental impacts on local biodiversity, habitat continuity, and landscape character.
Once again, the intensity of development proposed is disproportionate to the environmental sensitivity of the site.
Conclusion.
This proposal is not simply a matter of refinement or minor adjustment. The issues identified are fundamental, systemic, and incapable of being adequately resolved without substantial redesign.
It is excessive in scale, incompatible with its setting, environmentally damaging, and introduces clear and unacceptable risks in relation to bushfire safety and traffic access — particularly in relation to the proposed entrance directly opposite my driveway.
I respectfully urge you to strongly oppose this development in its current form and advocate for its refusal, or at the very least, a significant reduction in scale and a complete reconsideration of the access arrangements.
Thank you for your time and for your continued representation of the Blue Mountains community on matters of such importance.
Yours sincerely,
Stuart Schmidt
0414366815
This proposal represents an extreme and inappropriate intensification of use on a highly constrained and environmentally sensitive site. It raises serious and unresolved concerns across fundamental planning considerations including local character, visual impact, bushfire safety, traffic engineering, and environmental protection. In its current form, it is wholly inconsistent with the established planning framework and the expectations of the Blue Mountains community.
1. Fundamental Incompatibility with Local Planning Controls and Character.
It is my firm view that this development would have no reasonable prospect of approval if assessed through the local council planning framework. The scale, density, and built form are plainly inconsistent with the intent and objectives that govern development in the Blue Mountains, particularly in areas of high environmental and scenic value.
The proposal reflects an outcome driven by maximum yield rather than site suitability. It disregards the established low-density character of the locality and introduces a level of urbanization that is entirely at odds with the surrounding environment. The use of the State Significant Development pathway in this instance appears to be a mechanism to circumvent local planning controls that would otherwise prevent such an outcome.
This sets a deeply concerning precedent and undermines the integrity of the planning system.
2. Severe and Irreversible Visual Impact.
The Blue Mountains landscape is of exceptional significance, and development within this setting must remain subordinate to the natural environment. This proposal does the opposite.
From my property, the development will result in a direct, substantial, and permanent loss of visual amenity, replacing a currently open escarpment outlook with a large-scale, visually intrusive built form. The height, bulk, and massing of the proposed structures will dominate the landscape and erode the very qualities that define this area.
This is not a marginal impact — it is a fundamental transformation of the visual environment, and one that cannot be mitigated through landscaping or design treatments.
3. Bushfire Risk – Unacceptable Intensification in a Constrained Location.
The Narrow Neck precinct is widely recognized as a high bushfire risk area with limited evacuation capacity. Introducing a high-density residential and visitor population into this location represents a significant and unjustified increase in risk.
The proposal appears to rely on constrained access arrangements that are wholly inadequate to support safe and efficient evacuation during a bushfire event. The potential for congestion, delayed egress, and restricted emergency access raises serious life safety concerns.
In a region that has experienced the devastating impacts of bushfire, it is difficult to understand how such a proposal could be considered consistent with the precautionary principles that underpin bushfire planning in New South Wales.
4. Traffic Safety and Access – Critical and Unacceptable Impact on Existing Residents
I wish to place particular emphasis on what I consider to be a critical design failure in this proposal — the location of the primary entrance and exit.
It is understood that the development’s main access point is proposed to be directly opposite my residential driveway on Glenco Road. This is not a minor inconvenience; it is a serious and ongoing safety hazard.
The introduction of a high-volume access point in direct opposition to an existing residential driveway will:
* Create a constant traffic conflict point with opposing turning movements,
* Significantly reduce safety for vehicles entering and exiting my property,
* Increase the risk of collision, particularly given visiting drivers unfamiliar with the area,
* Result in regular congestion and disruption to local traffic flow,
* Introduce continuous headlight glare and disturbance, particularly during evening hours,
This arrangement will materially and permanently compromise my ability to safely access my own property.
From a traffic engineering perspective, this configuration is poorly conceived and difficult to justify. Standard road safety principles seek to minimise direct conflict points, not create them. The fact that such an arrangement is being proposed raises serious concerns about the adequacy of the design process.
I strongly submit that this access point must not proceed in its current location. At a minimum, it should be relocated or redesigned to eliminate direct opposition to existing residential driveways. Failure to do so will result in an unacceptable and avoidable safety outcome.
5. Environmental Degradation.
The site forms part of a broader environmental and visual corridor that contributes to the ecological integrity of the Blue Mountains. The scale of clearing, construction, and long-term occupation associated with this proposal will have lasting and detrimental impacts on local biodiversity, habitat continuity, and landscape character.
Once again, the intensity of development proposed is disproportionate to the environmental sensitivity of the site.
Conclusion.
This proposal is not simply a matter of refinement or minor adjustment. The issues identified are fundamental, systemic, and incapable of being adequately resolved without substantial redesign.
It is excessive in scale, incompatible with its setting, environmentally damaging, and introduces clear and unacceptable risks in relation to bushfire safety and traffic access — particularly in relation to the proposed entrance directly opposite my driveway.
I respectfully urge you to strongly oppose this development in its current form and advocate for its refusal, or at the very least, a significant reduction in scale and a complete reconsideration of the access arrangements.
Thank you for your time and for your continued representation of the Blue Mountains community on matters of such importance.
Yours sincerely,
Stuart Schmidt
0414366815
Skye Freshwater
Object
Skye Freshwater
Object
MOUNT VICTORIA
,
New South Wales
Message
I am writing to formally object to the proposed development at Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba.
This location is part of the unique and highly sensitive landscape within the Blue Mountains, an area recognised for its environmental significance, scenic value, and cultural importance. The proposed development raises several serious concerns:
1. Environmental Impact
The Narrow Neck plateau sits within or adjacent to a fragile ecosystem that supports native flora and fauna, including threatened species. Development in this area risks:
Habitat destruction and fragmentation
Increased human disturbance to wildlife
Introduction of invasive species
Long-term ecological degradation
This area forms part of a broader landscape connected to the Greater Blue Mountains Area, and any development should be assessed with extreme caution given its global environmental significance.
2. Bushfire Risk
Narrow Neck Road is located in a high bushfire-prone area with limited access and evacuation routes. Additional development would:
Increase risk to human life
Place additional pressure on emergency services
Exacerbate evacuation challenges due to the narrow access corridor
Given the increasing frequency and intensity of bushfires in NSW, approving development in such a constrained and exposed location is irresponsible.
3. Traffic, Access, and Infrastructure Constraints
Narrow Neck Road is not designed to support increased traffic volumes or heavy use. The proposal is likely to result in:
Increased congestion along a narrow and unsealed road
Safety risks for pedestrians, cyclists, and visitors
Degradation of road conditions and surrounding bushland
There is limited infrastructure to support further development without significant environmental cost.
4. Impact on Scenic and Recreational Value
Narrow Neck is a well-known destination for locals and visitors seeking nature-based experiences, including walking, cycling, and sightseeing. The area’s value lies in its:
Natural beauty and uninterrupted landscapes
Sense of remoteness and tranquillity
Accessibility for low-impact recreation
Development would undermine these qualities and detract from the experience of the broader Katoomba region.
5. Precedent for Future Development
Approving this proposal may set a dangerous precedent for further development in environmentally sensitive areas across the Blue Mountains. This could lead to cumulative impacts that are inconsistent with long-term conservation objectives.
Conclusion
Given the significant environmental risks, bushfire dangers, infrastructure limitations, and impacts on the character of the area, I strongly oppose the proposed development at Narrow Neck Road.
I urge the relevant authority to reject this proposal in order to protect the ecological integrity, safety, and natural beauty of this landscape for current and future generations
This location is part of the unique and highly sensitive landscape within the Blue Mountains, an area recognised for its environmental significance, scenic value, and cultural importance. The proposed development raises several serious concerns:
1. Environmental Impact
The Narrow Neck plateau sits within or adjacent to a fragile ecosystem that supports native flora and fauna, including threatened species. Development in this area risks:
Habitat destruction and fragmentation
Increased human disturbance to wildlife
Introduction of invasive species
Long-term ecological degradation
This area forms part of a broader landscape connected to the Greater Blue Mountains Area, and any development should be assessed with extreme caution given its global environmental significance.
2. Bushfire Risk
Narrow Neck Road is located in a high bushfire-prone area with limited access and evacuation routes. Additional development would:
Increase risk to human life
Place additional pressure on emergency services
Exacerbate evacuation challenges due to the narrow access corridor
Given the increasing frequency and intensity of bushfires in NSW, approving development in such a constrained and exposed location is irresponsible.
3. Traffic, Access, and Infrastructure Constraints
Narrow Neck Road is not designed to support increased traffic volumes or heavy use. The proposal is likely to result in:
Increased congestion along a narrow and unsealed road
Safety risks for pedestrians, cyclists, and visitors
Degradation of road conditions and surrounding bushland
There is limited infrastructure to support further development without significant environmental cost.
4. Impact on Scenic and Recreational Value
Narrow Neck is a well-known destination for locals and visitors seeking nature-based experiences, including walking, cycling, and sightseeing. The area’s value lies in its:
Natural beauty and uninterrupted landscapes
Sense of remoteness and tranquillity
Accessibility for low-impact recreation
Development would undermine these qualities and detract from the experience of the broader Katoomba region.
5. Precedent for Future Development
Approving this proposal may set a dangerous precedent for further development in environmentally sensitive areas across the Blue Mountains. This could lead to cumulative impacts that are inconsistent with long-term conservation objectives.
Conclusion
Given the significant environmental risks, bushfire dangers, infrastructure limitations, and impacts on the character of the area, I strongly oppose the proposed development at Narrow Neck Road.
I urge the relevant authority to reject this proposal in order to protect the ecological integrity, safety, and natural beauty of this landscape for current and future generations
Nastia Gladushchenko
Object
Nastia Gladushchenko
Object
KATOOMBA
,
New South Wales
Message
Submission: Strong Objection to State Significant Development Application
142–150 Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba (SSD-86456706)
To whom it may concern,
I strongly object to the proposed development at 142–150 Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba.
Importantly, our household did not receive any notification from the applicant during the required community consultation period in 2025. This represents a serious failure of the consultation process expected prior to lodgement of a State Significant Development application and prevented meaningful early community participation.
As a mother living and working in the Blue Mountains and raising a young child here, I am deeply concerned and genuinely shocked by the scale and nature of this proposal. Families choose to live in this area because of its landscape setting, safety, environmental significance, and village-scale character. I never expected the Blue Mountains to become a location for development of this intensity and urban scale, particularly in such a constrained and environmentally sensitive setting.
We built our home only four years ago and were required to comply with strict Local Environmental Plan (LEP) controls relating to building height, siting, colour palette, and bushfire construction standards due to the sensitivity of this environmental living area. These constraints significantly shaped what we were permitted to build. It is therefore deeply concerning and fundamentally unfair to see a proposal of this scale and intensity now being considered for approval in the same landscape setting, apparently inconsistent with the intent and protections of the LEP.
The scale of the development, over 200 units across nine buildings up to five storeys high, is excessive for this site and inconsistent with the established planning framework, landscape character, and infrastructure capacity of the area. It represents a clear overdevelopment of a sensitive escarpment-edge location.
The site is located in a high bushfire-risk area with limited evacuation capacity via Narrow Neck Road. Increasing residential density at this location creates unacceptable life-safety risk for both existing and future residents during emergency events. Approval of intensified development in a known evacuation-constrained corridor is not appropriate.
The proposal will also place additional pressure on already limited local road infrastructure, services, and public transport in an area outside the town centre.
Further, the site’s proximity to the escarpment edge and its location within the setting of a World Heritage landscape raises serious concerns regarding visual impact, environmental sensitivity, and downstream impacts on the Katoomba Creek Falls catchment. Development of this scale is incompatible with the significance of this location.
Given the scale exceedance, bushfire evacuation risks, infrastructure constraints, environmental sensitivity, inconsistency with the intent of the LEP controls applied to surrounding residents, and the failure of proper community notification, this proposal is unsuitable for approval.
I respectfully request that this application be refused.
Sincerely,
Nastia Gladushchenko
142–150 Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba (SSD-86456706)
To whom it may concern,
I strongly object to the proposed development at 142–150 Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba.
Importantly, our household did not receive any notification from the applicant during the required community consultation period in 2025. This represents a serious failure of the consultation process expected prior to lodgement of a State Significant Development application and prevented meaningful early community participation.
As a mother living and working in the Blue Mountains and raising a young child here, I am deeply concerned and genuinely shocked by the scale and nature of this proposal. Families choose to live in this area because of its landscape setting, safety, environmental significance, and village-scale character. I never expected the Blue Mountains to become a location for development of this intensity and urban scale, particularly in such a constrained and environmentally sensitive setting.
We built our home only four years ago and were required to comply with strict Local Environmental Plan (LEP) controls relating to building height, siting, colour palette, and bushfire construction standards due to the sensitivity of this environmental living area. These constraints significantly shaped what we were permitted to build. It is therefore deeply concerning and fundamentally unfair to see a proposal of this scale and intensity now being considered for approval in the same landscape setting, apparently inconsistent with the intent and protections of the LEP.
The scale of the development, over 200 units across nine buildings up to five storeys high, is excessive for this site and inconsistent with the established planning framework, landscape character, and infrastructure capacity of the area. It represents a clear overdevelopment of a sensitive escarpment-edge location.
The site is located in a high bushfire-risk area with limited evacuation capacity via Narrow Neck Road. Increasing residential density at this location creates unacceptable life-safety risk for both existing and future residents during emergency events. Approval of intensified development in a known evacuation-constrained corridor is not appropriate.
The proposal will also place additional pressure on already limited local road infrastructure, services, and public transport in an area outside the town centre.
Further, the site’s proximity to the escarpment edge and its location within the setting of a World Heritage landscape raises serious concerns regarding visual impact, environmental sensitivity, and downstream impacts on the Katoomba Creek Falls catchment. Development of this scale is incompatible with the significance of this location.
Given the scale exceedance, bushfire evacuation risks, infrastructure constraints, environmental sensitivity, inconsistency with the intent of the LEP controls applied to surrounding residents, and the failure of proper community notification, this proposal is unsuitable for approval.
I respectfully request that this application be refused.
Sincerely,
Nastia Gladushchenko
Alex Salter
Object
Alex Salter
Object
KATOOMBA
,
New South Wales
Message
I feel although housing availability is difficult at the moment, this proposal sets a dangerous precedent for Katoomba. The suburb is known for its beauty, but also the character and heritage of its houses. The town has resisted fast food outlets and even dictates the colour people paint their houses. My neighbour was not allowed to change his 60s fibro house to weatherboard, and yet a modern multi story building is being considered! Like the historical hordern building in Sydney’s cbd that was replaced by the World Square building, approving a development like the one at Narrow Neck is a step that can’t be undone. I strongly disapprove. All the best, Alex Salter resident of Katoomba since 2005.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Wentworth Falls
,
New South Wales
Message
I object to this development as it is not suitable for a World Heritage area. It is situated at the top of a ridge four stories about street level completely out of character with the surrounding private housing. This group of high-rise buildings if approved will create traffic problems for the narrow streets in case of an emergency evacuation situation putting lives at risk. The storm water runoff will also create environmental issues to this fragile area.