Pagoda Resort plans are on exhibition – please make formal objections before 5:00 PM, Thursday 26 February, 2026
Key Point - dangerous national park precedent
We need to stop these glamping proposals in sites of international heritage significance, in this state conservation area—in this national park in waiting—or it’ll soon be “open season” for park developers. Approval of three resorts sets a gold-plated precedent for future damaging private developments located in visually prominent, high-value heritage sites in our national parks. Previously, when these sorts of proposals haven’t been rejected outright (almost always), they were tucked away discretely in forest. But not these in-your-face proposals.
It’s up to you to stop this abuse, by getting on the tools our democracy gives us, as the fate of national parks is up to you. The NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service is marking their own homework, acting as both the proponent and the approval authority for these resort proposals. Perplexed? Confused? Check out this graphical slideshow on these resort proposals that reveals what's at stake.
MAKING YOUR HARD WORK EFFECTIVE
Step 1/- The usual; write a submission that explains:
- What’s wrong with these specific NPWS proposals – see below;
- Be specific and refer the documentation (the draft REF);
- Explain your thinking behind the objections raised.
[Can't cope with this! - no problem, go to the webform]
These NPWS resort proposals are outlined in the draft Review of Environmental Factors (draft REF) (look at the pictures of the resorts in pagoda landscapes - pages 62 and 63, also page 29 of the REF).
Draft your submission off-line (see submission guide), then upload your objection to these resorts on the NPWS webpage.
Step 2/- Deliver your concerns to those who make a difference – and spread the word
Write to Mr Brett Mitchell, Managing Director, Intrepid Travel asking him to reconsider whether Intrepid wants their brand linked to the blighting of significant and rare near-pristine pagoda landscapes in a conservation reserve that should be protected. Write to Mr Mitchell using this email brett.mitchell@intrepidtravel.com (please write your letter off-line first, to avoid silly mistakes. You’ve done the hard work. Focus on the key point - the resorts blight the internationally significant pagoda landscapes and open the door to future development of national parks.)
Let Environment Minister Penny Sharpe know she needs to decide if her legacy will be the protection of our national parks, not the damaging privatisation of them (link above goes to the Minister's webpage, so again write your letter off-line first). Then copy this letter (as is) to any potentially sympathetic Labor State MP and sympathetic Labor members with a short cover note asking them to make representations to Premier Chris Minns and Minister Sharpe to stop these resort proposals.
Then send copies of all your work to friends that might also like defend national parks from commercial resort developments in rare heritage sites.
What’s proposed?
If approved, three resorts sites – each is set in a pagoda landscape – includes:
- Six two-person glamping cabins each with a deck
- A communal area the size of a small house with a kitchen
- Amenities building with 2 showers and 2 toilets, with toilet waste flown out by helicopter
- Three water tanks totalling 30,000 litres
- A solar array for power to run the resort and a utility services hut
- Boardwalks to connect the cabins, common area and amenities block
- A 60m2 grey water system with septic tank and a large artificial soil mound sown with exotic grass, regularly mown and the grass carried off site (the big heap of dirt is needed because the sites are on rock!).
Clearing for the resorts totals 1,935m2 - equivalent to about 10 average sized houses.
Wrong and misleading assessments
The images in the draft REF reports demonstrate the resort sites and surrounding landscapes are virtually undisturbed bushland. The three sites were chosen by NPWS and Wild Bush Luxury because they are largely unmodified by logging, coal mining and off-road vehicle use. The draft REF reports twist this truth inside out.
The NPWS claims that the proposed glamping resorts are not on the pagoda formations, but they are beside them in the largely unmodified pagoda landscapes in the environs of Carne Creek. When assessing the integrity of the general landscape, the NPWS considered the more distant and irrelevant logging, coal mining and off-road vehicle disturbance of Newnes Plateau, not the near-pristine Carne Creek environs (i.e. above the gorge and its side gullies) where proposed sites are located.
Considering the actual proposed sites, the NPWS confuse areas of natural sandstone rock as being large (non-existent) areas of clearing, and that wildfire degraded the rockplate heaths and pagoda scrublands. These plant communities regenerate from seed after fire, and the 2019 fire didn’t cause crown scorch in the few trees present on these sites, so the fire damage claim is also wrong. The NPWS wrongly claim a “paper road” actually exists on site 2 and that two campfires beside the 4WD access roads leading to sites 1 and 3 degrade these sites (one campfire on site 1 is off-site anyway). Only 15 metres of an access road is within one site, site 3, and some minor off-track vehicle damage has occurred to a small area of site 1. On balance, these sites are essentially pristine bushland in an essentially pristine pagoda landscape context (which is why Wild Bush Lux wanted them).
Resort development lobbyists believe conservationists are too precious about the pagodas and these environmental concerns are quibbles. The truth is the opposite. The NPWS has recommended development of internationally significant and rare heritage in a conservation area by twisting its assessments to the wishes of Minister Penny Sharpe. These are not quibbles, they are a perversion of process seeking to set to a precedent for development of important heritage sites in national parks. This proposal is a "punch in the face" to national park ideals.
Submission Guide: Objections to Proposed Glamping Resorts Gardens of Stone State Conservation Area (SCA)
Key tip -
Personalize the first sentence: Mention if you are a local, a frequent bushwalker, or someone who values Australian geo-heritage and pagoda landforms. Unique introductions help prevent submissions from being filtered as " form letters."
To email: gardensofstonesca@environment.nsw.gov.au
Subject line: Formal Objection – Glamping Resort Proposals (Draft REF)
Gardens of Stone SCA Project Team
PO Box 552
Katoomba NSW 2780
Summary
I wish to express my strongest possible objection to the proposed glamping resorts (bush camps) as described in the draft Review of Environmental Factors (REF). These proposed developments are inappropriately located in rare pagoda landscapes of the Gardens of Stone.
Reasons
1. Resorts will degrade on Rare Scenic Landscapes
- Irreplaceable Heritage: The resorts will permanently scar views of the internationally significant "platy pagoda" landscapes. These pagoda landscapes are the primary reason the SCA was created; allowing commercial development here makes the reservation status meaningless.
- A Dangerous Precedent: Approving these resorts sets a national precedent for allowing private commercial interests to degrade important scenic natural heritage within a "national park in waiting."
- Visual Blight: The "pristine" nature of these sites was precisely why they were chosen by developers, yet the development itself will destroy the "undisturbed" quality that makes them valuable.
2. Flawed Assessment and Misrepresentation
- False Claims of Degradation: The draft REF claims these sites are currently "degraded" to justify development. This is demonstrably untrue; these sites are largely undisturbed. Using non-existent degradation as a pretext for construction is dishonest.
- Manipulated Definitions: By redefining "pagoda landscapes" to exclude the sandstone rockplate buffers, the NPWS has ignored the landscape reality of the pagoda shrublands so as to claim the development it is not in the pagoda landscape.
- Technical Incompatibility: The requirement to build 60m² foreign soil mounds for greywater disposal on top of sandstone rockplates proves these sites are physically and ecologically unsuitable for this type of infrastructure.
3. Procedural Failures and Conflicts of Interest
- Dual Roles: The NPWS is acting as both the proponent and the decision-maker. This dual role, acting for the development, has compromised the agency’s conservation mandate and created a significant conflict of interest.
- Lack of Transparency: The leasing process has allowed public land to be "traded" between tourism corporations like speculative real estate, with zero public scrutiny regarding the developer’s credentials and future intentions regarding these proposed resorts.
4. Equity and Public Access
- The "Wealth Barrier": The proposal replaces a fake claim of "fitness barrier" (the ability to walk) with a higher "wealth barrier" (the ability to pay for luxury accommodation). The public’s pagoda landscapes should remain accessible to all, not cordoned off for private profit.
- Unnecessary Development: There is no need for these resorts to enjoy the Gardens of Stone Walk. The area can already be accessed via two medium day-walks with vehicle access at Birds Rock, and so there is no "fitness barrier" to enjoying these rare, internationally significant pagoda landscapes.
- Loss of Public Equity: The real "equity" issue is the degradation of rare pagoda heritage that belongs to the public, which is being sacrificed for private gain.
Conclusion
The NPWS must reject these three glamping resort proposals to protect the rare and internationally significant platy pagoda landscapes in the State Conservation Area. I urge the NPWS to acknowledge the errors in the draft REF and refocus on protecting this world-class landscape rather than commercialising it.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Address/Email]
