Comments made here were sent to Blue Mountains City Council. Add your own comment.
Unless there is parking on the premises I object to this. There are too many cars parked on Eastview Ave from this premises as it is. Eastview Ave is narrow with several sharp doglegs and no kerbs. Up to 13 more cars would be cause complete congestion, accidents and take parking away from residents. This establishment must provide adequate parking on site.
This resort ,was a drug and alcohol treatment centre previously , this is a residential area. People need to be able to drive past and park near their homes . We don’t need more “ eco accommodation” the centre already has some accommodation available . This site and the area around won’t support another 13 cabins with more cars and more people . Enough !!! We don’t have enough housing and infrastructure to support our residents let alone building more tourist accommodation . This is insanity .
A number of us have made numerous objections to the property owner and the council about parking over the past year. The claim is that a carpark is being constructed. There have been no signs of a carpark being constructed. This application is why we objected to the original DA, allowing an unspecified "hotel and motel", which was approved, despite many objections. They have not lived up to their promise to build a carpark. They do not insist that cars park in the many vacant spaces they have available onsite. There is already something badly delayed in the current approvals for the carpark. Could this DA be the reason for the delays in the carpark? A matter of considerable concern. And, the road gets worse, having almost disappeared at the corner next to number 6.
With the current Leura traffic Plan yet to be fully implemented to satisfy current problems for tourists and LOCALS I emphatically object to this development in our Leura precinct. It will just add more chaos to our current problems not yet formalised by Council.
This is in a totally unsuitable area for tourist accomodation. Parking is already very difficult for residents and visitors.
Since the aquisition of #6 Eastview Ave by Brightlands, the road is dangerously over crowded with cars parked OUTSIDE the property. There are two blind bends on either side of the property resulting in cars approaching each other directly and unable to move to either side as the cars parked on both sides box approaching traffic in. It is dangerous for residents, traffic and pedestrians. There is NO footpath after #6 & walkers, pedestrians and the like have to cross the road just after a blind corner - then face oncoming traffic. The road in that section of the street is disintegrating rapidly. There is space on the property to park vehicles however no signage or "carparking" has been delineated. A carpark is needed urgently to prevent a tragedy - and a full length footpath would not go unused either!
I find it ironic that an eco-type tourist facility encourages the use of motor vehicles at all.
The construction of 13 new cabins cannot be supported safely without, at the very least, the addition of an on-site carpark.
There are no footpaths, no kerbs and 2 blind corners at this juncture, already jeopardising the safety of pedestrians, residents (including many families with small children) and drivers alike. Risk will only be amplified unless concrete action (pun intended) is taken to implement preventative measures.
I have inspected the site plans and I strongly object to this development. By their own admission the car parking provided for on site is manifestly inadequate for the staff and guests. Car parking in Eastview Avenue has already become problematic since this establishment opened despite previously voiced concerns. Notwithstanding parking, traffic will increase dramatically in this very quiet street with an increased number of guests and associated staff to cater for them. Realistically people will still want to park nearby and won't use a shuttlebus. The development provides for roof decks on these so-called pods which will overlook neighbouring properties. I am also concerned about the increased lighting that will be generated. There has already been a significant increased use of powerful outdoor lighting in use 24/7 which detracts from the tranquility of the area. I also note a number of large established trees will be removed, which currently act as windbreaks. There is absolutely nothing eco about these pods which more resemble crashed UFOs.
What is the point of Leura being described as a charming mountains village if unsightly and inappropriate development is allowed to take place anywhere anyone with a view to making money is allowed to take place? Modern tourist 'pods' would look totally out of place on East View Road which is a narrow road with bends and sharp corners. If it's 'eco' why the need for so much parking? We don't need any more traffic coming into Leura especially on the quiet narrow lanes of North Leura. Will the next need be to widen the Mall on the North side to allow for all the extra traffic? What about exterior lighting, we have so much already to spoil the night sky. The building is an attractive one as it it, why not become an hotel if it has to be changed, with as little intrusion into the neighbourhood as possible.
We are particularly alarmed to see in the Traffic & Parking Assessment Report under point 5.4 Proposed Car Parking Provisions, the 6th dot pint - the “general availability of on-street parking along the Eastview Avenue site frontage”. As has been previously pointed out in responses to this DA proposal, this is one of the major issues of concern for residents. As residents of Eastview Avenue, we have experienced first hand the impact of increased parking outside of Brightlands. Recently we turned off the highway into Eastview Avenue, cars were parked at the front of Brightlands on either side of the driveway and a car came out of the driveway and the driver either did not look or could not see our car approaching and came very close to hitting us. Despite the good intentions of Brightlands to discourage their customers from driving to the site, it is highly unlikely many customers staying in the proposed pods will catch the train and agree to be picked up. It can also be concluded that most customers will be driving from the east (from the city and surrounds) and so will be approaching Brightlands down Den Hogan Drive and through Mount Street and East Parade both very narrow streets, both streets are already dangerous to drive on and so an increase in traffic (particularly drivers unused to the area) will result in accidents. We note the DA includes a carpark for a total of 24 spaces however, it is unlikely this will prevent cars parking on the street unless the staff of Brightlands are vigilant in making sure customers park in the carpark. The street front in Brightlands could be made a no parking/standing zone however, our concern there would be the Brightland’s customers would park on the other side of the street or further down Eastview Avenue further obstructing traffic. We look forward to a review from Council regarding the DA and particularly to see residents’ concerns and objections taken into account
Light pollution and parking/street traffic chaos are the usual problems with these places. Another major concern is noise and racket from the inevitable weekend and holiday party groups, which will destroy the harmony of the otherwise peaceful neighbourhood.
Also, it seems somewhat a paradox to cut down large numbers of trees to construct an “eco lodge”!
As a heritage property, I find this proposal unsympathetic to the conservation of the property bust also the street. The increased traffic will be difficult for this particular area as a blind and narrow avenue, and I question the status of an “eco friendly” guest house that encourages the use of cars to begin with. Further, this was my family’s guest house in the early eighties, named the “Little Company Guest House” and because of this I know the history and difficulties of the property, none of which are regarded in this proposal.
Even if on site parking is mandated for this tourist accomodation development as it should be (like any other development) there is no pedestrian access to either Leura or Katoomba and no way of preventing tourists taking their vehicles along quiet residential streets to access Leura village, then on to south Katoomba escarpment attractions and elsewhere in the upper mountains. Why would they and where is the incentive for them to just catch a shuttle bus to Leura Mall? Is the developer proposing to only accept tourists who arrive by public transport ? If the current Leura tourist bus traffic management proposal ( to replace all car vehicle parking, including residents, tourists and service vehicles for the disability group and the childcare centre plus staff parking for numerous medical, accounting and other small businesses, in Grose Street with tourist bus parking only and to channel tourist buses coming west to east along the highway past the current entrance at Leura Mall to enter and exit via residential Scott Ave and Railway Pde and channel tourist bus traffic from the new toilet facilities and lake recreation at Wentworth Falls, in addition to buses on route direct on the highway east to west, to and from Leura along residential Scott Ave and Railway Pde and even further movement from Leura to south Katoomba sites before return to the highway through residential Katoomba and Leura ) the development will cause more tourist vehicle traffic congestion in Leura Mall and surrounding residential streets where they will have to compete for less car parks with Grose Street removed and with any tourist buses who cannot fit or do not want to park in Grose Street and according to the Council cannot be told where they must or must not park. Traffic management ?
