All recent comments on applications from Blue Mountains City Council, NSW

As a nearby resident, this development has my support: 3 well-designed, modern houses which are in keeping with the scale of the existing surrounding homes in this part of Leura/Katoomba. Additionally, by thoughtfully and selectively clearing and landscaping the current bushland lots, this will reduce the fire-load to all surrounding properties which is a good outcome for neighbouring properties.

I note that the plan for 18 George Street Springwood indicates construction of a retaining wall on the northern side shared boundary. Should the existing fence, gate and concrete driveway be affected by building the retaining wall all costs to restore the fence, gate attached to the fence and driveway should be borne by the owners of 18 George Street Springwood NSW 2777.

We believe that a dual residence complex will not only detract from the natural beauty of the street scape, but will increase the flow of traffic to the point of it becoming dangerous to pedestrians as there is no footpaths on either side of the street for safe movement of pedestrian traffic. This issue will be even more accentuate with multiple trades vehicles parked on the street during construction and thereafter by residence if this application is allowed to proceed. Residence walking dogs or just traversing the area will be at risk.
Your Sincerely
David Rosenquist.

Hello,
I am writing in the hopes that some changes can be incorporated into the proposed house next door to us. The main concern is around trying to maintain our privacy in our home.
There are three areas that I am hoping council will consider when reviewing this.
1. Window proposed on Dwg A3001 on the west side of the building (E-03) outlined in the bottom view. There is a long window proposed here, it is unclear at what height the window is but it faces directly into our daughter's bedroom. Furthermore, it would be possible to have direct views into our bathroom (specifically our shower access). We would like to propose that there is no window located in this area, as there are large windows in the front that will provide sunlight into the house. Another alternative is that the window be a glazed fixed window.
2. The upper level windows facing north to the street - these windows provide views looking down into our living room (the windows on our house are not all outlined on the drawings). It is not clear what the intention of the space is upstairs, but likely is a bedroom so would not be a high traffic area. However, there could be the potential for an occupant to have a desk in front of those windows, therefore we would like the council to consider requesting that a privacy screen be added to limit the views into our house.
3. Driveway - the plans show a driveway extending from the current pull out area and a Variation to Blue Mountains DCP F1.1.6 C13 is requested in the Statement of Environmental Effects. We would like to express our concerns with the driveway as it will be directly in front of our large living room window. It will visually impact our view looking into the bush setting and will also impact our privacy substantially as people parking in the driveway will be looking straight into our living and kitchen areas. There does seem to be the ability to have a driveway to meet the requirement of C13, as the driveway could be located on the other side and extend to the frontline of the house by reducing the patio area by a small amount. Another alternative is to have the driveway maintained to the existing pull out area which is shielded from our view by trees and would not have a significant impact on the occupant's access to the entry way.
We really hope that these items will be considered when approving this application
Kind regards,
Renee

I most strongly object to any changes proposed by the National Trust for Everglades Gardens in Leura.
This is a residential area that cannot cope with the increased traffic as proposed in the development application.
Many of the residents in Everglades Ave and other adjoining streets are elderly who have moved to the area for quiet enjoyment of the peaceful enviroment.
What the development application proposes would virtually negate such enjoyment from the time of approval.
As a local rate payer I wish to have input into council decisions which will affect me as well as my neighbours to a great extent.
There have already been occasions when large scale public activities were held at the Gardens which inconvenienced me and made it difficult to exit from my driveway.
I certainly do not wish for this to become the norm in the future.

I object to the proposed removal of a healthy, mature she-oak at the front boundary. The reasons listed in the application are that it creates a mess of "pine needles" (sic), damages the fence, footpath and potentially the foundations.
The fence in question is a dilapidated, poorly constructed lattice fence, there is no formed footpath whatsoever to damage and the statement 'potentially damages' the foundations is purely speculative. Amenity pruning could be carried out to remove overhanging branches to the roof to minimise leaf litter collecting on the cottage roof, while still saving the tree.
Casuarinas are an important food-source of the black cockatoos, the numbers of which are in decline across Australia, it is therefore irresponsible to remove a healthy, mature tree that provides an important food source for an iconic species simply because it creates leaf-litter.

Oh dear, this application appears to be sloppy at best, or is the applicant testing Blue Mountans City Council on their attention to detail? Is the application for 26 Hazel Ave Leura (see statement of environmental effects), or 143 Burrawang Street Katoomba (see Bush Fire Assessment Report), or is it truly for 32 Hazel Ave Hazelbrook? One is left to wonder.

My understanding is this is already operating as a motel. The neighbouring residents object vehemently to any further expansion of this facility.

I am concerned that a senior living development would include 2 story dwellings. Surely a senior’s development should be level and accessible. It is also concerning that people living nearby will have their privacy, sunlight and peace impacted. It is unreasonable that this type of overdevelopment should be proposed in the Blue Mountains under the guise of being suitable for older citizens.

I am the neighbor they back onto and am concerned that the two level dwellings will be able to look into my backyard and into my house. I do not want that to happen. Please confirm that the new dwellings will not be able to see into my house or yard. Please also confirm that the properties are not built too close to the back fence

I am a local resident, of many decades, and live close to both this and the Edwin Lane proposals.
Pockets of North Katoomba are already industrial/light industrial/commercial - of which this block already is, and has been for decades. So no change.
I do not have a vested interest in either proposal - how ridiculous to infer such without evidence. And how rude of both of you to impugn my views, opinions, and intelligence - I didn't do that to either of you Mr Sim or Ms Green. I stated my views and opinions without reference to you both, and you slam me publicly and make accusations of my character. Shame on you. I thought we could have open and fair discourse in our society - clearly not.

Ridiculous proposal.

Land size is only 1215 sqm. 5 townhouses - so 243 sqm. each. Let that sink in.

This is an attempt at circumventing the standards of the LEP through the introduction of strata development. No matter that;

* Edwin lane is one car width at its widest; the propsal has "parking" for 5 vehicles. Edwin lane just wont cope with that.
* The character of the area is single dwellings on land sizes of 600sqm average; 5 townhouses squashed into 1215sqm is totally out of character.
* Existing infrastructure was never designed to cope with such density; impact to function and maintenance of Council assets really hasn't been considered.

...and....
* Proposal is inconsistent with the LGA DCP and LEP instruments.
* Proposal would result in fragmentation of existing subdivision plan.
* Proposal is inconsistent with character and residential amenity of the area.

It's over development, plain and simple.

I second Trish Green's comments - and oppose this proposal.

Why exactly should North Katoomba be developed into a semi-industrial area?
* Such development would just further erode the character of the Blue Mountains LGA and Katoomba in particular; people want to live here because of what this area *is* now, not because it could be made into a crowded concrete block.
* Local infrastructure of the LGA are already under stress without increasing the load on them; Council needs to improve maintenance on *existing* assests first.
* Workers are more likely to commute (drive) to work than reside nearby; increasing traffic, pollution, need for road maintenance, etc.

"Someone" is investing big money - you, James Robinson?
Your statements ("seriously under-developed") are those of someone who makes clear they have a vested interest in this proposal and development generally (see also 2 Edwin Lane, Katoobma proposed development)...
Hardly the case of a local resident making a balanced view input to this proposal, is it?

James Robinson you've made it clear you are pro development, which is your right, yet the impacts on the community still need to be thoroughly considered. Something of this scale, of this magnitude, should be at least demonstrating it's use of sustainable energy, solar power and some demonstration of cutting edge sustainability efforts, as North Katoomba is a community focussed on sustainability, family homes and community gardening. You mention "clearings" that "need developing". Many of these "clearings" are green belts that help wildlife move about our community. Yet let's stick to the development proposal at hand, not unrelated developments. As someone who has lived in the blue mountains for 58 years, I for one, do not want this to go ahead, and hope for far more consideration as to environmental impacts or at the very least, cutting edge sustainable design. Take care.

James Robinson, writing you want it to go ahead "ASAP" makes it appear as though you have some particular vested interest in this venture. Anyone who says "we need more housing developments in the mountains" does not understand the beautiful ecosystems we have up here, and that over development is a serious problem in a world heritage area, therefore developments such as these must be considered carefully, and any impacts on the community discussed, because many of us do not want the mountains to become like Penrith.

This is great opportunity for Katoomba and is much needed for the area, as there is a serious lack of available accommodation in the area - and has been for decades. This development will also support the workers of the new light commercial development on Barton Street, as they will need local homes to live in rather than traveling up and down the Great Western Highway. It's better to work locally and walk to work, than travel on a dangerous highway in poor weather conditions and burning fossil fuels. We need more housing developments like this in the upper mountains. Therefore I fully support this development and want it to go-ahead ASAP.

This is a fantastic opportunity for the upper mountains community. Finally someone is investing big money in our community. The 34 commercial/light-industrial units will generate a lot of local employment through businesses moving into them - which has a benefit of local property prices in North Katoomba going up as people will want to live close to work - and these workers will spend money in Katoomba, which helps our other local businesses too. Plus the two Storage King facilities in the development are much needed too, as all the current self-storage facilities in the upper mountains are full - and have been for years. I'm hoping this development will have a flow-on affect with other land owners in North Katoomba as the area is seriously under-developed and has been for decades. So many empty cleared land parcels everywhere sitting vacant and unused. So a development like this is really needed as a first stepping stone. This development will push council to finally improve our area by fixing roads and services to the new development - which means we as local residents benefit from this too. Therefore I fully support this development and want it to go-ahead ASAP.

Far more elaboration is needed on this eleven million dollar project, there is not enough information provided here. I have serious concerns as to how this eleven million dollar project will impact our narrow roads, cause congestion on our very small streets and other impacts. I say no, or at the very least, far more elaboration is needed.

Disgraceful. So much for protecting the mountains from over development. Apparently this property owner thinks the mountains is Penrith. It is not. And if they knew the area, that many townhouses being added would create massive congestion. How they even got this far on such a SMALL block of land is beyond me. Come up with a far more realistic, modest proposal and stop this over development that will impact our very narrow (crumbling!) roads with congestion, something like this is just not feasible.

I think the traffic "study" figures are based on very dodgy pre COVID tourism traffic projections (numbers provided by the Council) going back for years and taking into account factors such as a new airport for tourism (that may end up primarily for freight, who knows) and dealing with an historically lower level of "residential" occupancy and use than is now the case. A proper traffic study based on actual current readings over an extended period needs to be done and funded by the state government if it is state government policy to continue to give priority land use to tourism. Is there not "black spot" funding allocated already ? I think all the developers need to account for the impact of all the vehicle movements, parking and other traffic issues on the real surrounding environment as is required by the Act and Regulations and criteria establishing the scope of the studies should be developed and determined by the Council (in consultation) and given to developers as an essential part of their applications; plus they pay an independent to do it. The state government landuse and development policies for the Blue Mountains need to be properly disclosed and prioritised. The local Council must be given power to deal with these and consult with residents and organised interest groups in the local government area so that there is the reintroduction of a mechanism for meaningful consultation at a minimum.

I am fed up with these independent traffic reports, they would be, I assume paid for by the developer and all state either there is spare capacity or local roads will not be affected. these developers should be contributing to road upgrades and taking into account the larger picture while using traffic counts by machine. the last count was taken in November 2018 and that stated after doing the maths, 4 million vehicles pass through Leura annually.

Removing the large old trees changes the historically leafy, dense street and yard canopied character of Leura.

Another example of over development in Leura. It should be rejected. The current Streetscape must be retained.

This plan looks like an overdevelopment of the site. Too many trees being removed. Too many dwellings being built and too many traffic movements in a highly congested traffic area.
When this area is highly congested and there are no parking spaces available, I have to travel further to Katoomba to shop

I agree the development is wrong on many levels. Trees removed? Traffic impact! Unreasonable use of the land !