I believe the council should be planning to widen Jersey Ave between Craigend and Malvern where no. 27 is situated (and also having a footpath on at least one side of Jersey Avenue) due to the large number of tourists and residents that use this section constantly.
The proposed works and use do not respond positively to the neighbourhood character and surrounding context.
The intensity of uses upon the site proposed after works completion will not respond positively to the surrounding context.
The proposed use will increase neighbourhood congestion by reducing parking opportunities upon the site.
The proposed works and use fail to respond to the offsite amenity of the surrounds.
Insufficient information has been provided regarding environmental impacts and effects upon surrounding amenity.
Insufficient information has been provided regarding impacts of light, and reduction in solar access, upon surrounding amenity.
I submit that the application should be determined as refused.
A class action is indeed a possibility against the developer and maybe other agencies for loss of value to one’s property. More so the environmental damage from the clearing now even more serious as result of many days of torrential rain highlights the egregious process that has allowed this development to get to this point. This is a travesty.
Great to see the BMMF back after a two year hiatus. It brings so much benefit to the community and the economy of the Blue Mountains. The minor impact on local resident parking around the school for the weekend is a small price to pay for a wonderful event.
I totally agree with Michael MacLaurin. Last year myself and four other residents had a meeting with council staff re parking in Leura. I presented a colour coded plan of existing parking areas and the difficulties residents find to park in Leura often having to continue to Katoomba for shopping. In addition we proposed parking fees except for residents.
Council advised that a Leura Parking Plan was being prepared. That was it!
Nothing since.
No large developments within the shopping precinct of Leura should be considered until a viable solution for tourists and residents has been resolved.
I refer to the above planning application, I have no problem with tourism, however, my objection is traffic. Every application for the past 30 years always states either there is spare capacity or local roads will not be affected. In late 2018 traffic counts indicated that Leura received nearly 4 million vehicles annually and The Mall is now considered a black spot as it has received black spot funding. Railway Parade must also be included as a black spot. The latest traffic plan was withdrawn at the last minute and to date, nothing has been seen. Vehicles circle the Woolworths carpark like vultures hunting their prey and traffic in The Mall is frequently at a standstill. Railway Parade in late 2018 carried nearly 700 vehicles per day and I would consider that these figures stated above have increased considerably as Bunnings alone has been receiving 7,000 people per day. I can certainly take a traffic count at midnight and make the same claims. I like many others, no longer shop at Leura. Pedestrians are left to fend for themselves, playing Russian roulette with vehicles, Railway Parade does not have any footpaths, so it is necessary to walk along the roadway, which does not meet any Roads and Maritime or Austroads standards.
Whilst as I do support tourism, I cannot support this application until a traffic plan has been implemented and I believe that there should be a moratorium on all development applications until the issues of traffic have been resolved in Leura, possibly including Katoomba. The area has been overdeveloped and it is not acceptable to dump more developments in this area.
Michael MacLaurin
I have no objection to the proposal and believe that we should all get along with peace, love and harmony.
Do not let this development go ahead.
It sets the standard for the whole area to be overdeveloped.
Once/if this is approved, the rules change.
This is where the whole intrinsic nature of maintaining respect in a world heritage area is abused.
The proposed height, articulation, ground and upper level setbacks, massing and design of the buildings will dominate the surrounds and will not positively respond to the surrounding context.
The proposed setbacks design and massing of the building will unreasonably impact upon the character of the area.
The proposal fails to respond to off site amenity of surrounding properties, resulting in unreasonable visual bulk and overshadowing impacts.
The proposal would result in unacceptable internal amenity.
The use and buildings are of a scale and intensity which will result in unreasonable amenity impacts on the neighbouring properties.
The scale, lack of setbacks and lack of landscaping all contribute to an overdevelopment of the site.
The proposal fails to provide adequate landscaping opportunities and ensure suitable maintenance of native vegetation.
The proposed use and development, having regard to the site and surrounding area, would represent an inappropriate planning outcome.
The proposal has not dealt adequately with best practice environmentally sustainable outcomes in context of energy use, internal amenity, solar access, water use and runoff of precipitation from the site.
The proposal has not dealt adequately with proper parking provision for residents and visitors to avoid unacceptable amenity impacts to its occupants and surrounding area residents.
The proposal has not dealt adequately with contemporary best practice environmentally sustainable outcomes in context of energy use, rainwater capture in context of local annual precipitation, preventing entry of litter to stormwater drains through bio retention areas, suitable pollutant traps and screens, water sensitive urban design, internal amenity, light pollution and spill from the development and protecting residents from off site sources of light spill, solar access, water use and runoff of precipitation from the site.
The proposal has not dealt adequately with the management of vehicle and bin washing upon the site and the impacts of the discharge of associated waste into the stormwater network.
The proposal has not adequately dealt with the separation of pedestrian entry from motor vehicle entry routes.
Insufficient information has been provided to enable a comprehensive assessment of the proposals impact on internal amenity and neighbouring dwelling amenity through the creation of light, noise, odour, access of non-resident a, birds and vermin to waste stored in site areas and litter as well as contamination risks and impacts on existing and neighbouring vegetation.
Insufficient information has been provided on vegetation types for landscaping and the maintenance of suitable native vegetation of local provenance.
The proposal does not adequately contemplate sufficient waste disposal and it's submitted that as a minimum there be provided in a lot unless it's occupied by its owner, a 120 litre weekly general or 240 litre fortnightly general refuse service, together with standard recycling and green/food waste to be provided to each lot as condition of consent.
The proposal had not adequately contemplated suitable external lighting to avoid spill of light affecting other occupants within the site and lots neighbouring the site.
The proposal does not adequately detail plans for the legal and responsible management and disposal of spoil resulting from excavation of the site including identifying the destination of the spoil, an investigation of the site and existing dwellings to identify asbestos and other hazardous materials as well as engaging a suitably qualified contractor to undertake spoil management, collection and removal.
The proposal does not adequately deal with contemporary best practices in water sensitive urban design to eliminate runoff from the site into local stormwater networks especially with regard to gradients of paved surfaces, creating bunded areas in the paved sections to redirect precipitation flow and the concept of directing excess precipitation into a suitable permeable and landscaped area with pollutant screens so that litter of leaves and other litter does not enter the stormwater network and the landscaped area referred herein and not provided should be able to filter site pollutants such as leaked motor vehicle fluids and waste water generated from bin and motor vehicle washing.
The proposal does not adequately contemplate water sensitive urban urban design so as to avoid inundation of neighbouring properties due to rain and the development diverting any overland water flows.
The proposal does not provide any paved areas upon whole of the verge for the thoroughfare of pedestrians.
The proposal fails to respond to the needs of local biodiversity impacts that would follow.
The proposal fails to properly contemplate bushfire risk and the danger of setting a precedent for medium density development in the bushfire danger zone.
Development consent should be refused or in the alternative rigorous consent conditions imposed that contemplate the matters raised in my submissions.
As residents of Stuarts Road Katoomba, we were given no physical mail correspondence in regards to this re application of Stuarts Road which is quite frankly unbelievable considering a previous extensive development application reference number S/39/2019 was rejected by Councils local planning meeting on 24/2/2020 as indicated on the letter we received via Australia post dated 4/3/2020. The previously rejected development application was requesting approval for 23 separate dwelling divisions, this latest re application is requesting up to 46 divisions! How on earth can this be approved considering the thorough consultation in regards to the physical threat posed to the environmental aspects of water and land through constant physical degradation caused by proposed extra household and road usage as was considered seriously previously? Once again we would have raised our legitimate concerns had we been physically made aware of this development application earlier just as we had been in 2019. I await Councils response in regards to my inquiries.
There are Hooded Plovers currently nesting on this site around the opening near Glencoe Rd, i believe these are on the NSW endangered list. Also have seen Lyre birds ou there. Please stop this over development Blue Mountains Council.
Protect our wild life.
I have had correspondence with Councillor Don McGregor who informed me it's too late to stop the development. Nothing, except fencing, has begun so I don't know why this is the case.
He is hoping to have a meeting with residents and councillors to address saviour of some bush and some infrastructure from developer. This is just a way of trying to show some bandaid interest.
My next step is to get a home valuation before and after forest removal, subdivision and home establishment. I will then be suing the developer for loss of value to my property. This would probably work better as a class action.
Now that such huge subdivisions can be passed privately and not need go through council I want to know who passed this and why.
A great deal of investigation is needed and a lot of thought and disclosure is needed before next election. The current council is not making decisions for the good of their constituents.
Neale street traffic already out of control. One lane street carrying local traffic, scenic world, convention centre, sports oval and caravan park.
Will this be taken into consideration?
Neale street needs to be made one way at the very least.
I live across the creek in Peckmans Rd and also lived in Stuart’s Rd. The road infrastructure can not tolerate this development. The impact on the hanging swamp requires careful consideration. Also the Aboriginal Cultural significance of this area requires further work. I understand some of the old McCraes paddock was a women’s area.
The fire threat under severe westerly conditions would put so many more people at risk with congested narrow exits.
I am the downstream neighbour to this development. I bought property on 2 July 2021. My due diligence showed consent for a more modest 26 lot development refused by Planning Panel. Now it reverts to a 48 lot consent now proceeding that I was unaware of.
Issue: the banks of the creek are already collapsing due to hydrological changes. The creek passes through my property. There is a probably my garden and vegetable beds will be washed away.
There must be adequate parking provided within the boundary of the property. No guest cars should be parking on the street. Parking on Eastview avenue is problematic due no guttering and cars churning up grass verges, as the street is narrow. Increased parking on the street will also detract from the streetscape and resident's driveways will be blocked, and residents not being able to park in front of their own houses.
Hello, I have just received a letter in the mail to say construction will begin on this area. I constantly see yellow tailed black cocokatoos in this area of land in the trees. Surely this should be considered before the trees are all pulled down?
The height, scale, massing, intensity of use and lack of setbacks will dominate the surrounds and not respond positively to the surrounding context.
The built form, design, materials and colours will dominate the surrounds, intrude upon the neighbourhood character, and respond negatively to the surrounding context.
The overall development will obstruct, divert, and increase the volume and velocity of overland water flows.
The height, scale, massing, intensity of use, and lack of setbacks will adversely impact upon the amenity of neighbouring properties.
The proposal does not contemplate meaningful landscaping that would integrate the built form with the surrounding context especially with the retention of canopy trees and the plantings of indigenous canopy trees, shrubs and other plants all of the local ecological vegetation class.
Insufficient information has been provided regarding the contemplation of water sensitive urban design.
Insufficient information has been provided regarding the contemplation of impacts upon the direction, volume and velocity of overland water flows.
Insufficient information has been provided regarding lighting types in order to protect biodiversity and local amenity from excessive light spill from the premises.
Insufficient information has been provided regarding investigations of the site, existing structures and soils to identify any hazardous materials.
Insufficient information has been provided regarding contemplation of reuse, either within or elsewhere, of building materials within.
Insufficient information has been provided regarding management of waste from the site including contemplation of reuse, recycling or responsible disposal including a statement about plans for its management, transport and final destination and maintaining traceability to ensure lawful disposal.
Insufficient information has been provided regarding works to excavate and level the site and management and disposal of any spoil.
Insufficient information has been provided regarding seasonal overshadowing of neighbouring land including reports on solar access impacts and the publication of shadow diagrams.
The height, scale, massing and lack of setbacks will create unacceptable overshadowing impacts.
On balance, the proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site and an inappropriate planning outcome.
I submit that the concerns I address above are sufficiently significant that they cannot be mitigated by suitable conditions and that in my view, the only appropriate outcome from the Responsible Authority is a determination of REFUSAL.
Definitely nice to have something on that block that is always overgrown but seriously cheap build costs for 3 dwellings, obvious lack of windows - thinking it will look exactly like the horrid build on the corner of Emily St, Katoomba that should’ve never been approved. Crappy cheap cladding that make them look like temporary housing or cabins at a van park.. should be dropped to two dwellings with the same build costs.
It will be better than the vacant land that is there now. Katoomba needs more house
I am writing to lodge a complaint regarding development application (No.X/1046/2021).
This development in a suburban street is unnecessarily intrusive and potentially harmful given the possible exposure to EMEs.
Coupled with this is the forthcoming development of the proposed Fire Station in Cascade St which will no doubt also have one or more satellite dishes installed.
Both these proposals are being undertaken under the guise of being untouchable under existing legislation.
While there are no doubt arguments for the installation of a large satellite dish, this proposed development along with the potential health risks regarding this application to citizens within this suburban setting should be a cause for concern and ACTION by Council.
The scale and intensity of the development will respond negatively to the surrounding context
The nature, scale and intensity of the development will adversely impact local riparian, steam and wetland water quality.
The nature, scale and intensity of the development will increase the velocity of overland water flows.
The nature, scale and intensity of the development will not respond positively to local planning objectives of protecting significant vegetation and biodiversity.
The nature, scale and intensity of the development exposed future residents to unacceptable fire danger risks and unacceptable delays in emergency egress and also any urgent access by multiple emergency vehicles.
I believe the risks to the environment and community are far too significant that they cannot be mitigated by suitable conditions and that the only appropriate outcome is a determination by the Responsible Authority of Refusal.
Something is on the nose here; the most recent DA was knocked back and now they revert through a private rectifier successful application dated 2003.
great news, Glenbook shopping centre is far too busy and crowded for the markets these days.
I just made a comment but I also just found out that the planning alert is wrong it’s not 70 mtrs from my place it’s 700 mtrs. Also your red arrow is in the wrong place.