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

I see the proposal as a breach to the heritage culture of the Blue Mountains and Leura village. The proposed design is a stark contrast to the existing features of the property and Leura in general. There is a general lack of natural environment and garden space.

The resemblance to Schofields and Box Hill estates is evident and concerning

What has happened to the architecture industry and original concepts

I object to this proposal because of the following: I agree with the above comments. it involves demolishment of a 1930s part of the building and other substantial changes to the property and landscaping which will impact on the overall heritage value and be detrimental to the region. The proposed height, set back, colour, finishes and design are not suitable for the area. The new development is too large for the area and involves the usual generic modern Australian design, ie, square angular, flat roofed concrete boxes, jarring with the surrounding natural and built environment. Please do not approve this.

The proposed use is not consistent with the zoning of the land and surrounding homes.

The proposed use responds negatively to the surrounding context.

The proposed use fails to respond to best practice solutions for smoke alarms, fire alarms and suppression systems given the intensity of use proposed.

The proposed use fails to respond to the amenity of surrounding residents regarding proper off-street parking provision.

In terms of light, noise, odours, motor and pedestrian traffic the proposed use fails to respond positively to the amenity of neighbouring residents.

The proposed use represents an inappropriate planning outcome.

The proposed use reduces the supply of long-term housing for the community.

The scale of structures combined with nature and intensity of use proposed represents an inappropriate planning outcome.

The scale of structures combined with nature and intensity of use proposed fails to respond positively to the surrounding context.

It is sought by this objector that the outcome of determining this application be a determination of refusal.

The proposed height, setbacks, massing, building material choice, colour of finishes and design of the buildings combined together will dominate the surrounds and will not positively respond to the surrounding context.

The proposed setbacks design and massing of the buildings combined together 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 consistent with the areas character, it may include due to insufficient information provided non native vegetation that may become environmentally invasive and it fails to ensure ensure suitable maintenance of native vegetation including shrubs, small plants and trees indigenous to the area.

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 contemporary best practice environmentally sustainable outcomes in context of glazing, insulation, building and roofing materials, energy use, rainwater capture in context of local annual precipitation, preventing entry of litter to stormwater drains through suitable pollutant traps and screens, 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 provides for excessive energy use due to excessive thermal loads, building material choices, and the lack of specification of contemporary best practice sustainability including but not limited to solar hot water, on site solar power generation, very high efficiency air conditioning, the insulation R value being not of a suitably high rating in walls and ceilings, lack of ventilation of roof space via louvres in eaves and mechanical ventilation at ridgeline, use of tiles as opposed to steel roofing, excess use of brick for external walls that are oriented between 270 and 90 degrees magnetic azimuth.

Lavatories lack best practice sustainability and it's sought if the projects approved that a condition of consent is imposed to fit only 6 star lavatories from a recognised supplier, in conjunction with the Drainwave device or a suitable equivalent.

Proposed capacity for rainwater capture is considered too low based on annual precipitation data for the region, the number of bedrooms in each dwelling and it's not considered contemporary best practice unless pressurised and delivers rain water to laundry and garden supply and lavatories including a tap at the front area suitable for using the rainwater for motor vehicle washing by residents. I would contemplate as appropriate a minimum capacity of 3000 litres PER dwelling including the existing structure used as a dwelling.

Dark coloured tiled roofs and wall bricks indeed the use of extensive bricked areas on the western and northern aspects detract from the areas character, fail to positively respond to the surrounding context, contribute to domination of the surrounds and fail to ensure an outcome that pursues contemporary best practice sustainability in terms of thermal efficiency of the structures.

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 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 "waste management plan" 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 structures 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.

Development consent should be refused or in the alternative rigorous consent conditions imposed that contemplate the matters raised in my submissions.

Leura attracts residents and tourists alike on the basis of its quaint, village like feel with attractive heritage architecture and boutique shops. A development of this kind undermines the very essence of what makes Leura unique and attractive. The council has measures to protect the natural environment from development pressures, and so they should also take seriously impacts on the built environment and townscape. There is already a proposed boutique hotel to be developed at the site near the roundabout, just a few doors up from this site. Is this development really necessary? At what cost?

This is a totally inappropriate development application. Too much of Leura's architectural heritage has been lost, or allowed to deteriorate. Also, the area near that section of The Mall is already a traffic bottleneck. Visitors come to see how beautiful Leura is, not to see Sydney style 'blocks' of concrete and glass. If more accommodation is deemed necessary in the Leura area, and that is doubtful, given the low occupancy of 'The Spires', restore The Ritz to its glory days as a hotel.
Please do not approve this application.

The proposed height, setbacks, massing, building material choice, colour of finishes and design of the buildings combined together will dominate the surrounds and will not positively respond to the surrounding context.

The proposed setbacks design and massing of the buildings combined together 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 consistent with the areas character, it may include due to insufficient information provided non native vegetation that may become environmentally invasive and it fails to ensure ensure suitable maintenance of native vegetation including shrubs, small plants and trees indigenous to the area.

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 contemporary best practice environmentally sustainable outcomes in context of glazing, insulation, building and roofing materials, energy use, rainwater capture in context of local annual precipitation, preventing entry of litter to stormwater drains through suitable pollutant traps and screens, 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 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 should be refused consent.

Cannot understand: the previous tenants Fleming restaurant and probably the current Bunker Café, could not do any renovation, painting and small cosmetic modifications due to heritage restrictions .
Now there is a plan to knock down and build an hotel.
Please explain.

This type of development is inappropriate for a town/village within the Blue Mountains World Heritage site. The Spires building opposite is a failure on many levels, architectural & low occupancy. Local businesses and residents would suffer from the destruction of historic gardens & access to already limited car parking spaces. The other buildings on this site provide visitors & locals with much needed amenities, a small shop and cafe/restaurant. The impact of any construction would also threaten the next door hotel, which provides hospitality, indoor & outdoor & a local market.
Do not approve this development.

This DA is not in keeping with the Leura community and area. The infrastructure in place already struggles to survive all the vehicles that come through on a daily basis, which worsens on weekends and holiday periods. This project goes against the historical, architectural, and logistical components that make Leura what it is famous for.
Do not approve this development.

Any work on this lot needs to consider the importance of the trail running through the lot to the National Park. This trail is well loved by locals as it provides access for walkers and cyclists to a wonderful part of the bush, losing access to the trail would be big loss for the local community

I agree wholeheartedly with Kat. The more we approve multi dwellings the more we lose the ambience of what makes this a world heritage area. Also, as tourism seems to now play such a large part in planning - having interviewed tourists visiting the mountains regarding proposed changes a few years ago to the local Environment Plan, the main reason people said they enjoyed coming up here was because of the natural environment and because we don't have high rise, housing congestion or traffic congestion. Well, things are changing and if we value heritage, it would be good to start saying NO to prposed developments like this.

Please...no more "multi dwelling townhouses" where people end up crammed into small spaces yet paying a fortune with little to no garden. This isn't Sydney. 9 tiny shoe box units were just approved across the road from me which I disapproved of because they're too small to be equitable and comfortable for elderly people. Now another five units that will no doubt be small, yet sell for a fortune. Please just stop. This isn't Sydney, and at least for a long while yet, it never should be. I fear the blue mountains will lose what makes it special, ecological & environmental in the first place if it continues to be filled with lots of crammed units. NSW conservative state government (who seem to be development obsessed!) please keep your paws off our Blue Mountains. Thank you so much.

Town Center Arcade $75,000 upgrade.
"Flowforms" (install this system to purify existing water storage facility)
Check out "Viktor Schauberger" & his discoveries on "Implosion technology" that the Laws of Nature adhere too.
I say this to point out an opportunity to exibit Nature's way of doing things & more importantly highlighting how Visually the "Rainbow Serpent" operates.

The water storage faci

Scale increases intensity of development beyond the areas character.
Conditions of consent should be imposed as such:
No washing of vehicles on whole site unless a bunded areas created to collect & discharge wash water to sewer.
Each lot of have 3000 litres of rainwater storage plumbed to lavatories and laundry.
Each lot to have minimum of one reserved parking bay within site.
Minimum of 1 visitor parking bay to be maintained on site.
Exterior lighting to avoid spill of light into the sky or neighbouring premises.
Clothes hoists for each lot to have northern solar access.
Rainwater detention to be built for all paved areas of site.
No native tree to be removed and only native vegetation of local provenance used for landscaping.

This application simply cannot go ahead as planned. The space is FAR too small for 9 dwellings. The residents, who will be elderly and disabled, will be living in small, cramped conditions, without enough parking spaces for residents or guests. There's enough space for possibly 3 or 4 small dwellings, but NOT 9. Not to mention the wildlife that we get in this area, and the proposal having no plans for trees or gardens to accommodate wildlife. It is unacceptable. Thank you.

Firstly, I would like to congratulate the applicant on choosing a green roof design for their proposed dwelling. It can only be hoped that other dwellings in the area follow their lead.

Unfortunately, there are a few problems with the application as it currently stands that need further consideration.

The area where they propose to build on is an area of hanging swamp dominated by Gleichenia dicarpa. While the tops of the ferns died back during the 2019 drought, they have begun re-sprouting from their rhizomes over the last six months. The presence of this swamp community is important for two reasons, firstly, a proper environmental assessment of the site is likely required. Secondly, the permanently saturated soil of the site may require additional engineering assessment to ensure the foundations are secure.

The plants suggested for the site are not necessarily the most appropriate. The surrounding bush is dominated by Eucalyptus oreades, and this is probably a more sympathetic choice than the Eucalyptus saligna that the applicants are suggesting. Similarly, while Grevillea robusta are unquestionably magnificent trees, they are vulnerable to frost damage when young and so are rarely planted in the upper Mountains. Given that this part of Neale Street is one of the coldest parts of Katoomba due to the tunnel of cold air that flows down MacRae's Paddock, endemic shrubs are probably more appropriate. A combination of Hakeas, Banksias and Leptospermums adapted to Upper Mountains swamps would likely be the most appropriate. The species that are already naturally growing around the edge of this patch of swamp would be the most logical choice. Alternatively, the friendly volunteers at Katoomba Wild Plant Rescue Nursery would be able to suggest other appropriate species.

Finally, while I understand it is only mandatory to inform the owners of adjacent properties of a DA rather than their occupants, I believe that it is nevertheless a sign of good faith to inform impacted occupants, as it is they, rather than the owners, who will be directly impacted by the building. I believe that council should strongly encourage all applicants to reach out to all impacted residents, not just owners.

This appears to be larger than ususal Development for the Area and in particular this side of Blackheath.
As mentioned by the previous Comment, Access to the side is difficult as it is and would be even more difficult at the little Railway Bridge at Station St and at the Intersection with Wombat Street.
The visual Impact from the HIghway cannot be ascertained by Drawings of little cute Houses and remains questionable.
But most importantly, does this mean that the Station St Bypass Option for Blackheath is off the Table?? Are Residents of Blackheath finding out by Stealth what is happening with the 4 Options given to us? As I remember the Station St / Centennial Glen Bypass would join the excisting Highway along near Radiance St and the Meditation Centre.

This high density housing structure is out of character for blackheath. Already traffic at the 2 junctions between the highway and station st are dangerously busy, and increasing traffic to this area will not help. Developments that are built should be in keeping with the character of the area. This isn’t Sydney, thankfully!

In the previous DA by this applicant (X/212/2020), it was stated that surrounding properties were notified of the DA. As the occupant of 38 Neale Street at the time, I can state that no contact was made. I can only hope that surrounding properties are actually notified this time around.

This property was developed in the Middle of 19th century and is one of the original homes along the Great Western Road. From the top floor you could see the sailing ships in the Sydney Harbour. As it was built by a Sea Captain. The House is a unique part of the Blue Mountain's Heritage and should be preserved as such. There are examples of Water Tanks of that period. Some of the trees are from that same era especialy the European Oak Quercus roburand the Illawara Flame tree Brachychiton acerifolius

As a resident of Olympian Parade and a member of our Community Fire Unit I am opposed to this residential building being used for short term stays. The building is on the bushland interface at the top of a steep slope in an area mapped as prone to bush fires. The house itself is not built to current bushfire standards. Apart from the increased danger of wildfire to unprepared visitors in an underprepared dwelling the use of this building for short term stays has a negative effect on the amenity of other residents in the street.
Regards,
Carol Isaacs

Good afternoon. I mentioned in pre application my disabled son with multiple problems, one of them being very sensitive to loud noises. He is looked after by my mother in law in Nth Katoomba when I'm at work. I know noise can't be helped, I am writing this as I hope they are not extended over too many months or years as there is nowhere else I can leave him with at the moment. Thank you for your consideration

I am commenting on the environmental survey and stormwater modelling used for this site.

The biodiversity survey mentions that gang-gang cockatoos were not observed during the survey but are likely to occur within the site. I would like to state that I have observed gang-gangs in the site. The survey makes no mention of tawny frogmouths (Podargus strigoides), however I have observed these frequently near to the site.

The stormwater report did not include the actual modelling conducted (eg. Music msf files), so it is difficult to make an assessment of the modelling. Further, many of the reported results of the modelling did not even include units (eg. tables 6.4, 6.5). Let us hope that more attention to detail was put into the modelling than was put into the writing of the report.

All the planning and analysis of the site appears to rely on the official BMCC mapping of the watercourses of the site. However, immediately downstream of the site the stream no longer follows the mapped route but has moved a substantial distance to the West. In its current location the stream is deeply incised, with an unstable gully several metres deep undermining the end of Carlton St. This gully is continuing to progress up gradient by some combination of knickpoint retreat and pipe erosion collapse. I am not sure if the gully head has yet reached the site, however if it has not it will only be a few years before it does.

This raises two important issues. Firstly, the planned Eastern detention basin as well as the 0.2EY overflow line may both enhance the rate at which this gully head expands into the site. Over the medium term, the gully may well undermine the detention basin. Secondly, the environmental buffer zones based on the location of watercourses may not be correctly located if they are based on old council mapping rather than the current location of the channel.

In terms of the biodiversity offsets required for this development, restoration works on Kedumba Creek would appear to be more useful and appropriate than buying offsets in some far off place. As I suggested in a report prepared for council on the geomophology of the section of Kedumba Creek adjacent to this DA site, a series of leaky weirs will likely address the root cause of the gully erosion that is threatening to extend into the site. Specifically, a significant weir directly upstream of the culvert underneath Neale Street as well as several smaller weirs upstream will reduce the hydraulic gradient and promote sedimentation and aggradation. Additional water diversion measures will likely also be required upstream of the gully head.

Finally, I would like to make a general comment. A whole series of reports were prepared for this application. Several of them used abbreviations without defining the meanings of these abbreviations. While the meaning of these abbreviations may be obvious to practitioners within the field, the reports are not merely technical documents, but part of an important democratic process. Not defining terms makes these reports less accessible to the public who will ultimately be the ones effected by the development. I believe that council, on behalf of its citizenry, should make it clear to developers, and the contractors they engage, that this sort of anti-democratic behaviour will not be tolerated.

I'm a long time attendee of the Festival and support it in it's current site. Not everyone in the neighbourhood surrounding the Festival however wants to or can afford to attend. These people (the majority or residents) are treated poorly by the Festival. Without even notification of the event, 4 days of blocked driveways and very high noise levels. The Festival once primarily featured acoustic and traditional music and now runs heavily amplified and bass heavy acts from sometimes five PA systems simultaneously on the small site in a medium density residential area. I'd ask that the Council in weighing up this application to consider the impact on local residents and ensure the Festival cease the practice of riding roughshod over local concerns, peace and amenity.