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

I object against against these markets as the traffic would b excess. Peel street has no kerb and gutter. Also the cars will park up on the lawn. Peel street is a dead end street so cars will b banked up trying to turn it will b a nightmare.

The application to subdivide 21 Stuarts Rd Katoomba has been applied for many times in the past. This time they are applying for a greater number of subdivisions. I would like to know how we can stop the constant applications, Katoomba is known for it's greenery and in this application there would need to be a massive amount of established bushland to be razed. Looking over bushland is beautiful and not something I wish to lose. There are many significant reasons that this land should not be disturbed. All the reasons have been addressed in previous objections. They also want the entire subdivision to use Stuarts Rd as the entry and exit. Stuarts Rd is struggling to cope with the traffic flow as it is presently. It is a very narrow and potholed road. I do not want to lose anymore established bushland, of such signifance, in Katoomba.

As I have previously stated, two story dwellings are not in keeping with the characteristics of Camp St in Katoomba. It will clash dramatically, and if we keep allowing two storey dwellings in the mountains, it will lose the unique village feel that makes the Blue Mountains special. I do not think this development should go ahead if it is going to be two storeys. Also, where is the environmental impact statement?

If this space is redeveloped, HOW will the access from the GWH to Katoomba township be improved and upgraded? 1 lane each way bridge access is the only main way into Katoomba, and is in need of a major improvement! Surely there's a better place for a medical centre - or, wait until after the township access is improved and built in the remaining land/under the new access bridge?

REGARDING D.A. X/528/2021 at 34 Queens Road, Leura.
As one of the owners of the immediately impacted next door property at 32 Queens Rd, Leura.
I am making my submission about the above DA.
• The existing fence is not suitable for conversion to the proposed usage in such a way which suits the internal and surrounding dwellings and their intended proper functionalities.
• The scale and intensity of the proposed structure fails to conform to the character amenity and environmental biodiversity of the natural surrounds.
• The scale and intensity of the proposed structure does not respond properly to the riparian, natural water course and storm water and will obstruct the water flow in high rainfall.
• The scale and of the proposed fence would represent an over development of the site.
• The scale and intensity of the proposed structure from external alterations of the property fails to respond to the visual amenity and will clash with neighbouring character.
• The scale and intensity of the proposed fence would represent an inappropriate and overbearing planning outcome.

It is submitted that the anticipated amenity character and environmental issues cannot be acceptable by imposition of conditions and the suitable outcome is a determination of REFUSAL.

REGARDING D.A. X/528/2021 at 34 Queens Road, Leura.
As one of the owners of the immediately impacted next door property at 32 Queens Rd, Leura.
I am making my submission about the above DA.
• The existing fence is not suitable for conversion to the proposed usage in such a way which suits the internal and surrounding dwellings and their intended proper functionalities.
• The scale and intensity of the proposed structure fails to conform to the character amenity and environmental biodiversity of the natural surrounds.
• The scale and intensity of the proposed structure does not respond properly to the riparian, natural water course and storm water and will obstruct the water flow in high rainfall.
• The scale and of the proposed fence would represent and over development of the site.
• The scale and intensity of the proposed structure from external alterations of the property fails to respond to the visual amenity and will clash with neighbouring character.
• The scale and intensity of the proposed fence would represent an inappropriate and overbearing planning outcome.

It is submitted that the anticipated amenity character and environmental issues cannot be acceptable by imposition of conditions and the suitable outcome is a determination of REFUSAL.

Kind Regards,
Milvia La Selva

Im really concerned that trees are going to be removed for a single residential dwelling. Cant the residential building go ahead without removing the trees? Im really worried that the Blue Mountains are just going to become like suburbs because theres so much tree removal going on and everybody loves the Blue Mountains because there are so many trees and lovely bushwalks to do. I feel worried all that makes up the Blue Mountains could be destroyed and that would really sadden me. Also I really dont want the wildlife park and huge resort to go ahead in Wentworth Falls either because that development will destroy many trees and impact the existing wildlife. And we really need trees as humans too as they provide us with oxygen to breathe

Insufficient information has been provided on vegetation types for landscaping and the maintenance of suitable native vegetation of local provenance.

I object strongly to the removal of any indigenous canopy trees and urge the responsible authority to demand the applicant modify building envelope and setbacks to facilitate the retention of existing mature indigenous canopy trees.

The proposal fails to respect the existing and preferred neighbourhood character of the area, and the location of the site does not offer appropriate access to necessary services and transport.

The proposal fails to respect the existing and preferred neighbourhood character of the area, fails to demonstrate integration with the surrounding urban environment, and fails to protect significant vegetation on the site.

The proposal fails to respond to and achieve local planning and environmental objectives as it does not seek to retain any existing canopy tree, and the building envelope location, scale and setbacks do not provide sufficient space in its surrounds to enable the planting of canopy trees, or provide adequate opportunities for meaningful landscaping or canopy tree planting between the front, side and rear of the building envelope and the boundaries.

Consent conditions if approved must be imposed regarding the installation of indigenous canopy trees in the local ecological vegetation class to a minimum potted size of 250mm and height when planted of 1.2m.

Inappropriate for this area. This is a beautiful part of Katoomba but a very narrow road. The emergency centre upnthe road and RFS nera the pool would be hindered by the traffic from this.

The use proposed does not respond properly to the amenity of the surrounds.

The intensity of the use proposed fails to respond to the character, amenity and environmental biodiversity of the surrounds.

The scale and intensity of the proposed use would represent an overdevelopment of the site.

The scale and intensity of the purposed use would represent an inappropriate planning outcome.

The existing structures are not suitable for conversion to the proposed use in a way that responds suitably to internal and surrounding amenity.

Insufficient information is provided regarding:

Statements of environmental effects;
Rooms overlooking surrounding dwellings rooms;
Parking and traffic management plan;
Internal alterations,;
Visual impact to heritage and neighbouring amenity and character from external alterations upon the property;
Water sensitive urban design of vehicle parking areas;
Impacts of lighting, noise, odour, traffic upon amenity of neighbouring properties;
Potential for expansion or extension of the existing structures in the future;
Protection of vegetation and indigenous canopy trees of the local ecological vegetation class;
Site emergency management plan.

It is submitted that the anticipated amenity, character and environmental issues cannot be acceptably managed by imposition of conditions and that the only suitable outcome is a determination of Refusal.

Adequate parking must be provided within the property boundary. There is limited street parking, plus the street is narrow, and with no kerbs or gutters, excessive vehicle movement can damage the grass growing on the nature strips.

I suppose this is a sensible interim application. However, I trust that noise management will be carried out by the new owners.

Too close to the national Park on a narrow road. Would probably be visible from the national Park. Not a suitable location for this type of development.

In inappropriate development for this site. Multi occupation density on the edge of the National Park is not to be recommended. Services and space are not available for the increase in resident numbers.

I don’t think apartment buildings are fitting with the blue mountains environment. We don’t want to create high density housing in a national park that detracts from the environment. Narrow neck road is also an inappropriate location as this in the boundary of the national park and tourist locations.

I approve; we need more like this. Let's get Katoomba out of the dark ages

I Approve, I don't think the people who have posted objections have used their brain, LED Pylon Signs are not that bright and this is going to be in a very well lit area being the main CBD, I think it is great, they had one before why not have one now, they are informative and great to know when everything is open and stuff like that. As an example every single school in the area has a LED Pylon Sign and as do every club in Australia so why not have on ourselves.
People need to grow up and start progressing because if not when the young people have to take over we won't have anything at all.

I approve, always great to have new developments.

This is an unacceptable proposal in an area of Katoomba with a distinct well documented and protected heritage area. The RSL as a venue and as a commercial entity has a history in it's development applications of attempting to ride roughshod over heritage values and local concerns in terms of noise, traffic and environmental impact.

The LCD signage proposed would overwhelm the streetscape with garish light pollution affecting not only local residents but also the streetscape and natural fauna in the area, the site being very close to the National Park.
The proposal should be rejected as it in contravention not only to the current draft LEP of the BMCC but also the past two LEP documents.

I object to this development. Lighted LED signs such as these are unnecessary and not in keeping with the area's character.

When operated at night, excessive local lighting has environmental impacts upon animals and insects that rely on light or dark for orientation and navigation, such as invertebrates, insects, birds, possums, gliders.

Approving this proposal would set an unacceptable precedent for the towns character, heritage values and effects on the local And surrounding natural environment.

It's my submission to council that the only appropriate determination of this application is one of refusal.

This development represents a threat to local biodiversity through continuing vegetation loss.

Please add these consent conditions, renumber in sequence in the event other consent conditions are imposed at the same time:

1 Within 3 months of the granting of the construction certificate, that the applicants plant no less than two indigenous canopy trees, with one in the property's front yard, that are eucalyptus species, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

2 The trees must be indigenous to the local ecological vegetation class, and installed at a minimum pot size of 250mm and at height of 1.0 metres when planted.

3 The landscaping referred to above in Condition 1, must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced as soon as possible.

4 that equivalent off-street parking capacity be maintained upon the property to avoid unreasonable amenity impacts to surrounding residents.

This development represents a threat to local biodiversity through continuing vegetation loss.

Please add these consent conditions, renumber in sequence in the event other consent conditions are imposed at the same time:

1 Within 3 months of the granting of the construction certificate, that the applicants plant no less than two indigenous canopy trees, with one in the property's front yard, that are eucalyptus species, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

2 The trees must be indigenous to the local ecological vegetation class, and installed at a minimum pot size of 250mm and at height of 1.0 metres when planted.

3 The landscaping referred to above in Condition 1, must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced as soon as possible.

This development represents a threat to local biodiversity through continuing vegetation loss.

Please add these consent conditions, renumber in sequence in the event other consent conditions are imposed at the same time:

1 Within 3 months of the granting of the construction certificate, that the applicants plant no less than two indigenous canopy trees, with one in the property's front yard, that are eucalyptus species, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

2 The trees must be indigenous to the local ecological vegetation class, and installed at a minimum pot size of 250mm and at height of 1.0 metres when planted.

3 The landscaping referred to above in Condition 1, must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced as soon as possible.

This will look terrible, don't mind the idea of building this but keep with the old heritage. what has happened at the other approach of the mall looks disgusting. Build it to fit in with the mall, sandstone features etc.