DigiCo SYD1 Data Centre Expansion

Expanding the data centre by the creation of two additional levels of data halls, increasing the building height and conversion of existing floor space for plant and electrical infrastructure with an increase in power consumption capacity is something residents, such as myself, do not want within such close proximity to where we live. This will entail construction activity and increase in building height as well.

I am a close neighbour of the proposal, and I object to the proposal for the following three reasons:

1. The Visual Impact Assessment significantly understates the visual impact for homes on Bulwara Road, Quarry Lane, and Ada Place, as they use a misleadingly distant angle - the changes will visually overpower the Ultimo Heritage Conservation Area and will be unsympathetic to the current urban character and scale.
2. The building is already a significant polluter, with regular complaints from neighbours relating to noise pollution, unpleasant odors, and air pollution from the site’s rooftop generators, and any expansion would presumably worsen these existing issues.
3. The Engagement Report refers to community consultation said to have taken place, such as letterbox drops and a community information session, however it is deeply concerning that I haven’t received any of this supposed information despite the fact I am a close neighbour likely to be significantly impacted by the proposal, which suggests this so-called consultation was perfunctory at best. Further meaningful consultation should be undertaken to properly assess the impacts on the community.

The existing building already casts shadows onto adjacent areas at various times of day and various times of the year. Traffic noise is reflected and amplified onto surrounding properties; especially when heavy trucks and noisy vehicles run along Harris Street.

Increasing the height of the building by another two floors will most certainly worsen the above mentioned issues. If the applicant needs more space, the question is why a purely commercial building with no public amenity should be permitted to enlarge increase its deleterious effects in a residential area?

Is this particular micro-residential area a suitable location for such a non-public use data centre? After all, there is no public amenity provided by this building, nor is its use consistent with the government claimed need for more residential housing close to the CBD.

Subject: Objection to Proposed Heavy Vehicle Movements on Pyrmont Street – DigiCo SYD1 Data Centre CTMP

I am opposed to the proposed introduction of up to 20 daily heavy vehicle movements (10 inbound, 10 outbound) along Pyrmont Street as detailed in the Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) for the DigiCo SYD1 Data Centre Expansion.

Pyrmont Street is already under considerable strain due to increasing urban density and other major works currently being undertaken in the area. These include the ongoing Sydney Metro West station works and redevelopment of the Harbourside precinct. It is not, and has never been, an appropriate thoroughfare for high-frequency heavy vehicle traffic. Indeed, Pyrmont Street is not approved for B-double access, a fact acknowledged in Section 2.2 of the CTMP. This alone should preclude its use as a haul route for 19m articulated vehicles, regardless of swept path analysis.

Key points of concern:

Cumulative construction impact:
Pyrmont Street is already experiencing heavy congestion and reduced safety due to other ongoing large construction projects. The addition of up to 20 heavy vehicle movements per day from this development adds an unreasonable and unsustainable burden to the road and its surrounding residential community.

Street classification and physical constraints:
Pyrmont Street is a narrow local one-way road.It was not designed to accommodate high volumes of large construction vehicles. Swept path analysis does not negate the practical and safety impacts of daily heavy vehicle operation.

Pedestrian and cyclist safety:
Pyrmont Street features high pedestrian and cyclist activity. This is particularly obvious with proximity to the Goldsbrough building at the Southern end of Pyrmont St, in which I work and live. Introducing frequent heavy vehicle movements on an already busy Pyrmont St will severely compromise pedestrian and cyclist safety.

Public amenity and livability:
Residents and businesses along Pyrmont Street are already enduring significant noise and traffic-associated inconvenience. The proposal compounds these impacts and risks creating a further sustained decline in livability for Pyrmont residents.

Inadequate justification and alternatives:
The CTMP does not provide sufficient justification for why alternate, approved heavy vehicle routes (e.g. Harris Street) cannot fully accommodate construction logistics. Relying on Pyrmont Street appears to be a matter of convenience rather than necessity.

Contradiction of planning principles:
The proposal undermines the intent of the NSW Freight and Ports Plan, which directs heavy vehicle traffic to designated freight routes. Pyrmont Street is clearly not a designated freight corridor.

Request for Action:
Given these concerns, I urge the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure to:

- Reject the use of Pyrmont Street as a primary haul route for heavy construction vehicles

- Mandate that all heavy vehicle access be redirected via Harris Street or other approved corridors

- Require DigiCo and associated contractors to submit a revised CTMP that eliminates reliance on Pyrmont Street, in line with safety, amenity, and planning best practices

The safety and well-being of Pyrmont residents should not be sacrificed for construction expediency.

When this site was modified some years ago to establish the data centre it went over the height restrictions that were in place. The plant on top of the structure breached the height that was set by the existing wool stores and the old Government Printers building. Now the proposal is to go the equivalent of 3 extra stories . This will tower over Harris St and the buildings there, blocking out even more sun . The residents of the area have copped a lot of over the years on so called progress and this is another example of it. I think its a terrible proposal and will only embolden others to plan other similar projects to make our little suburb unlivable.
Thank You
James Webb

The extra building height will significantly affect the amount of natural sunlight we receive. This will significantly affect the health and standard of living of my family, particularly my daughter who has a severe dustmite allergy and relies on sunlight to manage her health condition. We request that the additional height be significantly reduced.

I write as a resident of a property on Ada Place, Ultimo, to formally object to State Significant Development application SSD-69637456 (DigiCo SYDI Data Centre Expansion at 390-422 Harris Street and 273 Pyrmont Street, Ultimo). The proposed addition of two data‐hall levels-resulting in a 12 m increase in building height and a 47.5 MW rise in power consumption-would have unacceptable impacts on my property and the surrounding neighbourhood. My objection is based on loss of natural light and view, increased noise and traffic, non-compliance with local planning controls, environmental concerns, and negative effects on amenity.

My Residence and Proximity
I live on Ada Place, which directly adjoins the eastern boundary of the proposed expansion site. My primary living spaces and windows face west toward Harris Street, making my home especially vulnerable to the development’s bulk, overshadowing, and noise.

Grounds for Objection
1. Overshadowing and Loss of Natural Light
- The 12 m height increase will cast significant shadow over 45 Ada Place, particularly during winter afternoons, reducing daylight to habitable rooms and private open spaces.
- This extent of overshadowing conflicts with the daylight access objectives in the City of Sydney Development Control Plan (DCP) and NSW Apartment Design Guide.

2. Loss of View and Visual Amenity
- The additional storeys will obliterate existing views of the city skyline from my rear windows, diminishing the visual amenity that underpins local residential character.
- Bulk and scale of the expanded building exceed the prevailing street-wall height of surrounding development, undermining the neighbourhood’s human-scale character.

3. Construction and Operational Noise
- Construction works for two new levels will generate prolonged high-level noise, dust and vibration, disrupting residential amenity and contravening the NSW EPA Noise Policy for Industry (which limits operational noise to within 5 dBA of background levels).
- Ongoing plant operation for 47.5 MW data-centre equipment will produce continuous mechanical noise, with no demonstrated mitigation measures to meet the NPfI criteria.

4. Traffic, Parking and Safety Impacts
- An expanded data centre will require frequent heavy-vehicle movements for plant maintenance and fuel deliveries, exacerbating traffic congestion on already busy Harris Street and Ada Place.
- On-street parking is already at capacity; additional service vehicles will displace resident parking and increase pedestrian safety risks.

5. Non-Compliance with Height and Setback Controls
- The proposal significantly exceeds the maximum building height specified in the Sydney Local Environmental Plan for this zone.
- No variations or justification have been provided to demonstrate consistency with relevant State Environmental Planning Policies.

6. Environmental and Sustainability Concerns
- A 47.5 MW increase in power consumption will substantially raise greenhouse gas emissions unless fully offset by renewable generation-no such offset strategy is included.
- The development fails to demonstrate water efficiency, energy-efficient design or meaningful ecological enhancement, contrary to the environmental performance requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

7. Adverse Cumulative Impacts
- Combined with other approved expansions in Pyrmont‐Ultimo, this project contributes to over-intensification, straining local infrastructure, open space, and community facilities.
- Lack of community benefit or public realm improvements fails to balance the substantial private gains of the proponent.

Conclusion and Requested Outcome
For the above reasons, I object to SSD-69637456 in its current form. I request that the consent authority:
- Refuse the application, or
- Require a redesign that reduces height, bulk and scale to comply with zoning controls, ensures no net loss of daylight or view, implements robust noise mitigation to meet NPfI requirements, and incorporates renewable energy offsets to neutralise increased power demand.

Regards,