Julius Avenue Data Centre

This block provides nesting ground and habitat for the many bird and insect species that exist in Lane Cove national park, it is vital to the biodiversity of the area. Old growth trees cannot be replaced or offset. Planting trees elsewhere will not make up for the destruction of this habitat. Data centres create massive strain on the electrical grid and the generators needed to support it in the event of power outage will create massive amounts of air pollution.

We are scared. You are actively killing organisms and contributing to climate change. 500 trees may seem to small to powerful people like you but that's evil and inconsiderate it's a disgustingly high toll and will take integral oxygen from our atmosphere, increase global warming and contribute to the impending fatal consequences of climate change, the inevitable erosion and death of our world and all in it. You are stripping the lives and habitats of innocent animals support the balance of our precious ecosystem and will slowly die off and unable to sustain life at all and eventually it will harm us too. You are undoing all our communities efforts to try survive and using up energy and water that is sacred and our community truly needs and snatching it off those already suffering, and families can barely provide it for basic adequate standard of living for individuals under their care. Its horrifying you are even considering and planning to contribute to this, please stop, you have no idea the danger and harm you are doing to the earth and all life on it, every action makes a huge difference, and this could just be the undoing of all of it, please stop immediately, for the wellbeing, safety, and maintenance of life on earth that's already falling apart.
Kind Regards,

Madison Mulhearn (17 years old)

I object to this proposal because of the proposed loss of trees and habitat right on the edge of the Lane Cove National Park making it a major threat to the Park. It is also an area mapped as Threatened Ecological Community, coastal enriched sandstone moist forest which I believe should be sufficient to decline this massive development.

The Lane Cove National Park is an invaluable asset, heat sink and lung for Sydney and has been shown to be enormously important to huge numbers of people, especially during Covid. I also immensely value it. I volunteer my time to weed and help bush regeneration. My neighbours and friends also value this wonderful natural asset we have in Sydney. This park is under enormous pressure as it has such a high edge to area ratio and urban impacts around the edge are very significant. This is proposal impacts where the park is at it's narrowest and any connecting bush is vital to protect and hinder any further degradation of the Park.

The EIS says a total of 509 trees are proposed for removal but 200 trees are of low retention value, that means 309 trees are of retention value , a huge number, have walked into this site from Richardson place on the path and it is beautiful resilient native bush with mature trees and tree hollows with a diverse healthy native understorey. I note Ryde Council has also a minuted meeting where Councillors express their concerns over the amount of tree removal and the replacement ratio.

Other points - Is the EIS completed by someone independent of the development company? It is not obvious this is the case. There are also discrepancies in the report leading to questions of it's validity, eg regarding the size of the land, 29ha at the beginning, where other places refer to 2.6-2.9 ha. There does not appear to be any attempts by the developer to 'avoid' impacts to native vegetation and threatened species which must be done. The rocky outcrop found on the site is significant habitat to threatened microbats, large bent-winged, little bent-winged and large-eared pied bat. Caves and rocky outcrops cannot be offset.

Finally, I cannot understand why a huge $1.5 billion project cannot be located elsewhere on unused and vacant/unoccupied blocks in Macquarie Park where there is ample evidence of both. A Data centre can be located anywhere and does not need to use a very sensitive and ecologically important site for the build.

I am concerned that there will be significant noise from the proposed development impacting the natural bush land and Lane Cove River. I have frequently heard noise (continuous droning sound) from a data centre located in Lane Cove West (Apollo Place) when I walk on the Great North Walk on the other side of the Lane Cove River. I can only imagine how intrusive noise from the proposed data centre at Julius Avenue will be. The proposed data centre at Julius Avenue is approximately 500m from the existing Lane Cove West data centre. There must be a cumulative noise impact if there are two data centres located so close. I don't see that this impact has been adequately considered in the current development proposal. This will not only affect people using the national park for recreation but will likely affect the native fauna.

I strongly object to this project as the construction will result in the removal of 509 trees that are part of the important habitat corridor next to Lane Cove National Park and the Great North Walk. It will also result in increased urban heat island effects, loss of animal habitat, bushfire risk and noise pollution. Habitats for three threatened fauna species are at risk, namely: Large-eared Pied Bat Chalinolobus dwyeri, Little Bent-winged Bat Miniopterus australis and Large Bent-winged Bat Miniopterus orianae oceanensis, and four threatened plant species are at risk, being Darwinia biflora, Deyeuxia appressa, Hibbertia spanantha and Rhizanthella slateri.

While I understand our increasing need for data centres, what I've read in the environmental report concerns me as someone who regularly walks and works in my local forests (I work full-time as a bush regenerator, for context).

As outlined on page 133 (p.146 in the pdf doc), 6.1.9, this project will have significant impact on biodiversity, including on endangered species. The regrowth at the site after the 2009 bedrock removal will be of local natives that will be difficult to replace (even if the same species are located, seed from other sites won't be as well suited and won't grow as well, the same biodiversity will not be achieved, and the unknown fungal communities that make our forests function will be greatly reduced or no longer present). Although the presence of woody weeds in the area is unfortunate, these can be removed with minimal work if council decides; but even if they weren't, lantana and privet are commonly used as habitat by tens of species of small birds and lizards, insects and all their predators.

I agree with the report that the endangered Darwinia biflora is almost certainly present on site (though I'm less familiar with the presence of bent-wing bat species, that doesn't mean they're not there). I've personally found it in many similar enriched sandstone forests, just like the hectares this project proposes to remove.

Moreover, the noise, air and water pollution, the rubbish, erosion and even things as small as food scraps discarded by workers, will all affect many more hectares of forest, not just the ones proposed to be removed. Weeds creep in from disturbance, meaning bush regenerators like me will need to be called in in the future, and more money will need to be spent on maintaining the forest around the proposed data centre. Local predators and pollinating birds will leave because of the noise, unbalancing ecosystems and letting local populations of plants die without their natural pollinators. Increased run-off will inevitably get into local creeks, further reducing water quality. A few years ago, I found a platypus in nearby St Ives - they live in far lower-quality waters than we used to think - and the creeks there and the ones in Ryde all feed into each other. That is to say, projects like this one have extraordinarily more far-reaching consequences than you may realise.

I imagine this project will go ahead regardless - I'm a bit cynical I'm afraid - but I'd like to thank you for reading and considering my voice. We have so little bushland left, and while I'd be happy for this project to go ahead on a lot that needed development, or somewhere else already cleared, I can't help but object to its location here. Thank you.

This plan going ahead will result in the removal of 509 trees (Page 9 of EIS - Julius Avenue Data Centre 240625) that are part of the important habitat corridor right next to the Park and the Great North Walk near Fairyland.

Heat island effects, loss of animal habitat, bushfire risk and noise are other issues.

There is loss of habitat for three threatened fauna species, namely: Large-eared Pied Bat Chalinolobus dwyeri, Little Bent-winged Bat Miniopterus australis and Large Bent-winged Bat Miniopterus orianae oceanensis, and four threatened plant species, being Darwinia biflora, Deyeuxia appressa, Hibbertia spanantha and Rhizanthella slateri.

I object to the loss of trees and therefore habitat that will be impacted by the project. These are important buffer zones next to Lane Cove National Park and Great North Walk that are inhabited by wildlife and fauna.

The 416 Group aims to represent residents of Killara and Lindfield who live west of Lady Game Drive. Its particular objectives are to work to ensure that current and future developments and activities do not degrade the natural assets of the area and that quality of life is maintained. More information about the group is here: https://www.416group.org.
The 416 Group area is poorly served by bus. The author of this submission lives 800 metres from the nearest bus stop and there are no footpaths. Residents in the area are dependent on their cars and use Lady Game Drive to travel north or south and have experienced steadily increasing congestion at the junction of Lady Game Drive and Delhi Rd at Fullers Bridge which is one lane each way. In the morning peak Lady Game Drive backs up more than 1km from the Delhi Rd junction. This congestion has grown as commercial and residential development has occurred on Delhi Rd, North Ryde. For this reason, we do not support any further development on Delhi Rd until infrastructure has been built to support it. Having said data centres with relatively few full-time staff are the least-worst kind of development and also are supported in principle as being consistent with Macquarie Park masterplan and being important to Australia's future prosperity.
The proposed development is too large and in particular through destruction of mature tress impacts on important natural bushland along the Lane Cove River corridor and the Great North Walking track which adjoins the site. The location of the access road and the Ausgrid STSS are problematic.
Why Mature Trees Matter
The mature trees along the river are vital. They provide shade, nesting hollows, help keep the area cool, and support a wide range of wildlife—including nesting birds, possums, insects, and even the ospreys that live just across the river. Their roots help reduce erosion. Young trees simply can’t do all this. It takes decades for them to grow and offer the same benefits. Removing the mature trees would leave a big gap in the ecosystem that can’t be quickly fixed.
A Home for Wildlife
The Lane Cove River is a rich and diverse habitat, home to many native and even threatened species, such as the powerful owl. The tall tree canopy helps animals move safely through the area and connects patches of bushland. If these trees are removed, it will break those connections and make it harder for wildlife to survive. It also increases risks from predators, noise, and light. The back up power generation located to "minimise impact on commercial and residential" maximises impact on the natural environment.
Problems with the Replacement Plan
Planting small native trees doesn’t make up for the loss of mature habitat. Young trees are fragile and need a lot of care to survive. The scale of this tree removal would change the landscape dramatically, and not just in how it looks—it would affect the whole ecosystem. We ask that this proposal and look for ways to protect the existing mature trees. They are not just part of the scenery—they are essential to the health of the river and the life it supports.
We propose a smaller development footprint which minimises the destruction of the forest. This may be achieved by reducing the floor area of the development, and/or placing more facilities underground and/or increasing the height. This would also increase the resilience of the project to bushfire. The 1994 Lane Cove Valley wildfire almost reached this site.

The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment and Mitigation Plan appears to show the project to have scope 1 and 2 emissions exceeding 100,000 t CO2-e per year in the first year, yet there is no independent review per the requirements in the NSW Guide for Large Emitters. There are many sections missing from the Plan which are required per the NSW Guide for Large Emitters, for example: "Describe, in tabulated form, scope 1 and 2 emissions for each financial year over the project life, based on maximum capacity and planned operational throughput for each stage of the project and each scenario".

I am writing to provide a submission on SSD‑80018208. My concerns relate to the scale of vegetation removal, the ecological and visual impacts on the regional corridor, and the proposal’s inconsistency with the strategic planning and environmental objectives that apply to State Significant Development (SSD).

1. Scale of Vegetation Removal

The proposal involves the removal of 509 trees within an ecologically sensitive and strategically important corridor. This represents an extreme and irreversible loss of canopy, habitat, and landscape character. Under the SSD framework, impacts of this magnitude require heightened scrutiny, particularly in relation to biodiversity, cumulative canopy loss, and long‑term environmental resilience.

2. Ecological and Biodiversity Impacts

The affected corridor forms part of a broader habitat network that supports species movement, ecological connectivity, and climate adaptation. The removal of more than five hundred trees risks fragmenting habitat, reducing biodiversity, and undermining the ecological function of the precinct. These impacts cannot be meaningfully offset within any reasonable timeframe, and the documentation does not demonstrate that avoidance and minimisation measures have been adequately explored.

3. Landscape and Visual Impacts

The existing canopy contributes significantly to the landscape character and visual amenity of the area. The proposed removal of 509 trees would result in a stark and permanent alteration to the visual environment. The visual impact assessment does not appear to adequately address the cumulative effect of such large‑scale canopy loss, nor does it demonstrate consistency with the landscape values identified in relevant strategic planning instruments.

4. Inconsistency with Strategic Planning and SSD Assessment Principles

SSD proposals must demonstrate alignment with State and local strategic planning frameworks, including objectives relating to:

• protection of biodiversity and ecological corridors
• enhancement of urban canopy and climate resilience
• preservation of landscape character
• minimisation of environmental impacts through avoidance and design alternatives
• the public interest test under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act


The scale of vegetation loss proposed under SSD‑80018208 is difficult to reconcile with these objectives. The documentation does not provide sufficient evidence that the proposal meets the public interest test or that environmental impacts have been minimised in accordance with SSD assessment principles.

5. Request for Further Assessment and Design Review

Given the scale and significance of the impacts, I respectfully request that the Department:

• require a more rigorous assessment of biodiversity impacts and cumulative canopy loss
• ensure that avoidance and minimisation measures are properly explored, not merely offset
• consider whether the proposal, in its current form, satisfies the public interest and strategic alignment requirements of an SSD
• require the proponent to investigate alternative design options that materially reduce vegetation removal

The removal of 509 trees within an ecologically sensitive corridor represents an environmentally disproportionate impact that is inconsistent with the principles governing State Significant Development. I urge the Department to carefully consider the long‑term ecological, visual, and strategic implications of approving a proposal that would permanently diminish the environmental integrity of the area.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this submission.

Yours sincerely,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed construction of a data centre adjacent to the national park. This development raises serious environmental concerns that must be carefully considered before any approval is granted.

National parks exist to protect fragile ecosystems, wildlife habitats, and biodiversity that cannot easily be replaced once disturbed. Placing a large-scale industrial facility directly next to such a protected area risks significant ecological damage. The construction process alone—clearing land, heavy machinery, increased traffic, and noise—could disrupt wildlife and degrade nearby habitats. Many species rely on stable environments, and sudden industrial activity can cause displacement, reduced breeding success, and long-term ecological imbalance.

Beyond construction, the ongoing operation of a data centre presents additional risks. These facilities consume large amounts of electricity and water, often requiring extensive cooling systems that can strain local resources. Heat discharge, increased energy infrastructure, and potential chemical runoff from maintenance processes could further impact surrounding ecosystems. Light pollution and constant operational noise may also affect nocturnal species and disrupt natural behavioral patterns.

There are also broader cumulative impacts to consider. Allowing major infrastructure immediately beside a protected area undermines the very purpose of establishing national parks. Buffer zones typically exist to reduce edge effects, human disturbance, and habitat fragmentation. This proposal appears to ignore those principles and could set a concerning precedent for future developments near protected landscapes.

Economic development and digital infrastructure are important, but they should not come at the expense of irreplaceable natural environments. Data centres can and should be located in existing industrial zones or areas that have already been heavily modified by human activity. Choosing a location next to a national park is unnecessary and environmentally irresponsible when more suitable alternatives likely exist.

For these reasons, I strongly urge the relevant authorities to reject this proposal or, at minimum, require a far more comprehensive environmental impact assessment and the consideration of alternative sites that do not threaten protected ecosystems.

Protecting our national parks is a responsibility that extends beyond short-term economic interests. Once ecological damage occurs, it is often impossible to reverse. Decisions made now will affect the health of this environment for decades to come.

Thank you for considering this objection.

The natural beauty of this city is dwindling. National Parks and nature reserves are what make our home such a desirable and beautiful place to reside. The damage from this project is irreparable and we need to preserve what few urban nature reserves remain. Existing, developed land can be found for the data centre. Do not allow this crime against our natural land to be committed for the benefit of digitisation. Once gone, our National parks and land can never be replaced. A data centre can.

The proposal means the removal of bushland in the area, and the hum from an existing data centre is noticeable and is already
undermining the serenity of the area - more data centres would mean less amenity. I often walk around the area, and having serene bushland is something I appreciate along with many others. Data centres require water for cooling, and there's the impact of either water removed from the river for evaporative cooling or waste heat being put into the river, though if we're talking water from the Sydney Water that is its own problem when water shortages show themselves in future. It's my suspicion that the data centres are intentionally located close to a water source, though obviously at some level also wherever land is available.

I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Julius Avenue Data Centre (SSD-80018208).

While I understand the growing demand for data and digital infrastructure, particularly at this time, this particular project comes at the unacceptable cost of destroying priceless bushland. Sydney’s remaining natural areas are disappearing rapidly, and once lost they cannot be restored. The site forms part of an important local biodiversity corridor, providing habitat for native flora and fauna and contributing to the ecological health of the Lane Cove River catchment. The proposed offset plantings cannot replicate the ecological function of established bushland.

The proposed development has also raised a range of wider planning and infrastructure concerns. Data centres are extremely resource-intensive, particularly in terms of water and energy consumption, yet the proposal does not provide clear information about long-term sustainability. At a time when Macquarie Park is intended to evolve as an innovation and employment precinct, replacing bushland with a low-employment, high-impact use risks undermining broader strategic objectives for the area. Destroying invaluable bushland cannot be a better option than cleared greenfield or brownfield alternatives.

I object strongly to the proposal, and urge the NSW Government to refuse this and any future proposals at this location. Development of new data centres is important, but must take place appropriate industrial or brownfield sites where they do not result in permanent loss of biodiversity and strain on ecological resources.

This project will have significant negative impact to the eco-system around lane cove national park.

This area of bush land must be protected. Flora and fauna in the area must be protected, use an existing site for the project instead of wiping out more native wildlife and habitats.

Please refer to attachment.

I have reviewed the plans publicly available to build the Julius Avenue Data Centre on a site above the Lane Cove River which currently is a critical wildlife corridor and habitat.

I appreciate the opportunity to make comment on this plan. I strongly oppose the development as it would involve extensive clearing of native bushland habitat above the Lane Cove River.

The plans state that 509 mature trees (Page 9 of EIS - Julius Avenue Data Centre 240625) will be removed from 1.2 hectares of land. This bushland at this site is Sydney Coastal Enriched Sandstone Forest—a critically endangered ecological community. The site is known habitat for three threatened animal species and four threatened plant species, all of which could be put at further risk. Even the development’s own Biodiversity Development Assessment Report (BDAR) acknowledges the potential for serious and irreversible impacts on local biodiversity.

In clearing this site of mature trees, native shrubs such as grass trees (which are at least 100 years old), boronias and countless smaller plants will also be destroyed. The mature trees are a critical habitat for native wildlife in the Lane Cove Valley, providing nesting sites in tree hollows for birds and marsupials. The tree hollows take many decades to form in mature trees. The flowers and seeds of the plants in the parcel of land to be cleared of mature trees and other vegetation are also a critical food source for the wildlife in the Lane Cove River Valley.

The current strip of vegetation adjoining bushland next to the river provides a critically important corridor for animals to travel along the Lane Cove River. I am a member of the bush regeneration team working along the Lane Cove River at Sugarloaf Point in Lane Cove National Park, downstream from the Epping Road Bridge. While working on the site we are often joined by wallabies and other marsupials. We have therefore seen firsthand how native fauna such as wallabies are moving along the Lane Cove River via the corridor of bush which is still present. This will be severely impacted if the removal of existing mature native bushland proposed by the Julius Avenue Data Centre development occurs. The destruction of native bushland would halve the width of the wildlife corridor at this site.

The precious bushland at this specific location cannot be offset by planting native species at any other location. With hollows in native trees taking many decades to develop, planting seedlings now in a remote location cannot replace the existing native bush on this site above the Lane Cove River. This habitat and food source will be lost for the native animals living in the adjacent National Park.

Increased sedimentation of the Lane Cove River following tree removal in the valley has been an important problem in the past. If this clearing of native vegetation occurs above bushland adjoining the Lane Cove River, how will the developers ensure there is no runoff of soil into the adjacent bush and the Lane Cove River?

How will this development be monitored to ensure all the environmental assurances in the DA are actually kept? What penalties would apply if they were not complied with?

I understand that the area affected by this proposal falls within a designated landscape setback for the recent rezoning of the Macquarie Park and North Ryde area. Allowing this site to be cleared contradicts the aim of such a landscape setback, which should retain and reinforce the green character of an area with mature vegetation.

I am therefore writing to request that this development not be approved at this site. It will destroy irreplaceable native bushland in the Lane Cove River valley. I understand that data centres are needed into the future, but they can be built on existing cleared land e.g. old factory sites across Sydney (of which there are many). A fragile native environment should not be destroyed for this purpose.

It is proposed to remove 509 trees that are part of a habitat corridor adjacent to Lane Cove National Park. My concern is that the proposal to offset this by planting 750 trees elsewhere does NOT address the problem created IN THAT AREA by the destruction of approx. 300 mature trees that were there prior to a 2009 site development, some (most) of which take many, many years (100-plus) to grow to the maturity required in order for them to become habitat trees (e.g., the development of hollows, as well as supporting the growth of branches, leaves and blossom/ fruit). I object to the proposal in its current format - not necessarily the development of a data centre in that area, but certainly the proposal to remove so many trees.
As well as significant impacts to the habitat for plants and animals, as well as the visual impact, removal of so many trees will add to the urban heat island effect, remove the capacity of trees to absorb carbon dioxide as well as rainwater (which allows water to be retained in the soil longer, reducing erosion issues) and contribute to a general loss of amenity, increase of noise and possibly increase of the risk of bushfire.
There are several threatened species of both animals and birds which will be greatly impacted by the loss of habitat from this proposed project.