Julius Avenue Data Centre

This project proposes removal of 509 trees and impact 1.2 hectares of Sydney Coastal Enriched Sandstone Forest—a critically endangered ecological community.
The site is also 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.
This bushland setting is not an appropriate location for a data centre as they are known to produce constant mechanical noise from cooling systems and backup generators. This could disrupt the tranquility of Lane Cove National Park, disturb native wildlife, and negatively affect bushwalkers and others who value the area’s peace and natural setting.
It’s also worth noting that the NSW Government rezoned the Macquarie Park and North Ryde area to improve housing and amenity. According to the Macquarie Park Design Guide the area affected by this proposal falls within a designated landscape setback—meant to retain and reinforce the green character with mature vegetation.
The current development proposal, which involves significant tree clearing in this setback, appears to directly contradict the NSW Government’s own planning and climate change policies. Planting new trees does not replace the value that mature trees provide, and that takes decades to recover.

Destroying established native bushland cannot be offset by planting 750 trees elsewhere it is an irreplaceable ecosystem, not just the number of trees . The project causes permanent biodiversity loss, worsens urban heat, and adds huge water and energy strain from the data centre itself. Allowing this sets a dangerous precedent that developers can bulldoze habitat and green space then fix it with small gestures.

As a frequent visitor to Lane Cove National Park, I strongly object to the proposed data centre at Julius Avenue, North Ryde.
Reasons for objection:
• Critically endangered ecosystem: The project would remove over 500 trees and impact 1.2 ha of Sydney Coastal Enriched Sandstone Forest. The proponent’s BDAR acknowledges the risk of serious and irreversible biodiversity impacts.
• Threatened species: The site is known habitat for three threatened animal species and four threatened plant species, which would be further jeopardised.
• Noise and amenity: Constant mechanical noise from cooling systems and generators would disturb wildlife, undermine the tranquility of the national park, and diminish the experience for bushwalkers and residents.
• Conflicts with planning policy: The site falls within a designated landscape setback under the Macquarie Park Design Guide—intended to retain mature vegetation and the green character. Large‑scale clearing directly contradicts the NSW Government’s rezoning objectives, environment, and climate policies.
Requested outcome:
• Refuse the proposal due to unacceptable and potentially irreversible environmental impacts and inconsistency with established planning controls. If not refused, require a full redesign that avoids clearing the critically endangered community, retains the entire landscape setback with no net canopy loss, enforces strict noise limits, and only considers offsets after genuine avoidance and minimisation.
Please prioritise conservation and community amenity over an inappropriate land use at this location.

Dear NSW Major Projects

I am totally AGAINST the needless destruction of so many trees and so much habitat -which is such a vital habitat corridor for Lane Cove National Park. The broader community also seems to have had more than enough of the desecration of natural heritage. Especially when we are in the middle of an "extinction crisis". This proposal appears to involve the clearing of 500 plus mature trees...many of which contain important nesting hollows. There does not seem to be any attempt by the developer to 'avoid' impacts to native vegetation and threatened species. Demonstration of avoidance is the fundamental first step under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016.(i.e. Before considering offsets, developers must demonstrate that they have taken all reasonable steps to avoid harm to biodiversity values). Biodiversity offsets are broadly recognised anyway as a rort and a scam to enable inappropriate development. Even so Section 6.4 of the BC Act sets out the purpose of the Biodiversity Offset Scheme… this clause establishes a requirement to identify appropriate biodiversity conservation measures to offset or compensate for impacts on biodiversity values, after steps are taken to AVOID or MINIMISE those impacts. A major concern Iwith this proposal is the loss of significant 'rocky outcrop' and cave habitat areas which are significant habitat to threatened microbats - Large Bent-wing Bat, Little Bent-winged Bat and Large-eared Pied Bat. Whilst the developer is required to pay species credits to offset impacts to these threatened species and their habitat ( a total scam as mentioned previously), caves and rocky outcrops are NOT habitat types that can be easily offset - certainly not by planting trees elsewhere. I note that the media is closely following this issue and the overwhelming feedback is that this poposal should be radically modified to avoid such wholesale and unacceptable destruction. Even the proponent's website mentions that they support "sustainabiiity" . Now let's see them prove it.

The position of the site will disrupt the Great North Walk track visually and audibly. Many old and valuable trees will be removed, this is not suitable for a national park so close to the city, which is a valuable habitat and refuge for many native species which would otherwise slowly disappear from Sydney.

Submission for:

Julius Avenue Data Centre
SSD-80018208
6-8 Julius Avenue, North Ryde (lot 89 DP 1082131)

I write to object to the establishment of a data centre at Julius Avenue, North Ryde.

My objections are based on the size of scope of the work, the impact on the ecosystem, and the
location.

I feel the building footprint is excessive. It should be possible to re-design the building layout to avoid having to encroach on the remnant bushland at the south and south east of the site, and use the proposed road as part of the asset protection zone. The substation should be located away from the bushland side of the site.

It will take a long time to build as well, and during this time the builders will be allowed to work outside normal hours, increasing noise emissions from the site.

The proposed site has been vacant for approx. 20 years and now appears to have reverted to swamp land and marshes. I visited the site recently and could hear frogs and see many birds on the site.

The site is located adjacent to bushland on the shore of the Lane Cove River, and the site has a high bushfire risk, which requires an Asset Protection Zone (APZ) between the bushland and the proposed site buildings. The proposed APZ will require extensive land clearing including the removal of a high number of trees and the building of a road through the site.

According to the RFS (https://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/4412/Guideline-for-Councils-to-Bushfire-Prone-Area-Land-Mapping.pdf):

“Vegetation Category 1 Vegetation Category 1 is considered to be the highest risk for bush fire. It is represented as red on the bush fire prone land map and will be given a 100m buffer. This vegetation category has the highest combustibility and likelihood of forming fully developed fires including heavy ember production. Vegetation Category 1 consists of: › Areas of forest, woodlands, heaths (tall and short), forested wetlands and timber plantations.  
from RFS.”

My main concern is the number of mature trees that will need to be felled, and the clearance of forested land required to maintain an adequate APZ.

Thanks and regards
William Currie

This project has massive environmental impact it will strip away vital buffer zones for native Australian wildlife that need it to access the national park. Native land heritage cannot be replaced. Protect bushland and nature pathways and buffer zones they are vital to community mental health and the survival or engaged native Australian animals.

I'm making a rare objection to this project. This location's proximity to a Metro station reasonably close to the city means it would be better suited for high density housing. There's no denying the necessity for data centres, but because they have so few employees, this would be much better suited for somewhere more rural.

Do not clear more of our bushland for a data centre, repurpose existing industrial land. The replacement trees are not enough.

Do not get rid of hundreds of trees and its habitat. Even if more trees would be planted it's not the same as an already established habitat. This is an important buffer zone between the other developments and lane cove river

I object to the proposal for a number of reasons. I live locally and often walk through the Lane Cove National Park (Fairylands) which is close to the proposed development. I see a lot of wildlife each time I walk through here – swamp wallabies, Eastern Osprey, echidnas, red-bellied black snakes, water dragons and many other birds, and at night I hear the powerful owls. This development would create a scar in the landscape that would be impossible to fix. Other impacts that this development would cause include the following:

Ecological impacts
The development requires the significant clearing and removal of 509 trees – this is excessive and includes many mature trees, and impacts a large area – 1.2ha – of bushland, in an endangered ecological community (Sydney Coastal enriched sandstone forest). This area is sensitive as it is directly adjacent to the Lane Cove National Park. Many of these trees would be over 100 years old and contain hollows which are critical for many native fauna including birds, bats, possums and gliders, and threatened species such as the Powerful Owl which frequent the area. Clearing this area will also affect ground-dwelling fauna such as reptiles, echidnas and mammals such as Long-nose bandicoots, which have largely disappeared from other parts of Sydney but are known to occur in Lane Cove National Park (see attachment). There are also a number of threatened plant species which could be put at risk as a result of clearing from the development.
It is impossible to replace hollows, which have naturally formed over many decades, with artificial nest boxes and revegetation/biobanking. Clearing 1.2ha of bushland for this development will result in serious impacts on the local biodiversity that cannot be reversed by simply “replanting”.
Trees are a Carbon Dioxide sink and one of the most effective ways of capturing and storing CO2. This level of clearing appears to be in direct contradiction to the NSW Government’s planning and climate change policies.

Water quality degradation
Other additional environmental impacts to note is that the EIS states that surface water runoff will be expected to enter the river, which will cause a degradation of water quality in the Lane Cover River. This will occur both during construction and after the development is constructed, as there will be a lot more hard surface and water runoff as a result. The plans indicate that the clearing will extend all the way to the tidal flat, increasing the risk of erosion and runoff. The site is on a slope which will further exacerbate runoff, especially during rain events.

Noise and lighting
Additionally fauna (and as well as bushwalkers who are trying to enjoy the tranquility of Lane Cove National Park) are likely to be disrupted by the constant mechanical noise from the internal workings of the data centre’s cooling systems and backup generators. Lighting from the perimeter of the centre will also affect the many species of bats that are present in and around the Lane Cove National Park.
The current development proposal, which involves significant tree clearing in this setback, also appears to directly contradict the NSW Government’s own planning and climate change policies.

Surely there is another site that can be used, which doesn’t involve the unnecessary destruction of mature vegetation and displacement of threatened and vulnerable fauna in a much-loved location. We should be protecting what few, mature trees we have, not chopping them down just for another data centre. Please reconsider this proposal.

Data centres consume energy and are not feasible to protect natural vegetation. Building this centre will disrupt the local bush that is vital for the environment. Loss of bushland will increase built up area and lead to irreversible damage to the fragile ecosystem currently in that area. Data centre can always be built in other areas that is not a fragile bush area.

The proposed Data Centre is unacceptable.

The development would destroy 500 trees, including 300 mature and hollow-bearing specimens, many of which provide essential habitat for native wildlife. This large-scale clearing intrudes directly into a known green buffer zone adjacent to Lane Cove National Park, an area that plays a vital role in maintaining biodiversity, reducing urban heat, and acting as a natural carbon sink.

The planned offset of planting saplings elsewhere is wholly inadequate. This approach fails to replicate the lost ecological functions of mature trees, particularly those that support threatened or habitat-dependent species. Tree hollow formation can take over a century, and this time lag is ecologically significant.

This proposal also raises serious bushfire concerns. The removal of vegetation buffers may increase fire vulnerability—this is especially critical in a warming climate and for a facility of this scale that is proposing to store diesel fuel on-site. The project’s enormous energy demands—up to 170 MW—will also significantly increase emissions and strain local infrastructure.

This development represents an unsustainable and high-impact use of land and sets an extremely dangerous and damaging precedent for developers.

I am a local ecologist and have reviewed the attached Biodiversity Development Assessment Report (BDAR) and do not believe that it adequately assessed impacts to threatened species or appropriately demonstrated the avoid and minimise principle. Multiple species of microbat, some of which are at risk of a Series and Irreversible Impact (SAII) were 'assumed present' in the BDAR, and no targeted surveys were conducted. Considering the presence of suitable breeding habitat for some of the listed candidate microbat species (rocky overhangs, caves etc.), targeted surveys should have been conducted to understand if these species are present in the locality, and if this suitable habitat could potentially be utilised in the future. It is documented in the BDAR that the habitat was inspected for microbats, and no presence of the species was documented. However, without the confirmation of species absence through targeted surveys, how can it be determined that this habitat could not be used by this species in the future, and therefore (if the habitat is removed) could constitute an SAII impact on potential breeding habitat for these species. Targeted surveys should be conducted in the RtS phase of the approval process to appropriately determine if the microbat species that rely on caves as potential breeding habitat are not present in the areas, and therefore a SAII impact would not occur.

Additionally, the avoid and minimise section of the report documents that the project '... has been designed to maximise use of already disturbed land. The vegetation and habitats within the subject land are degraded'. However, by comparing Figure 6 and Figure 8, you can see that majority of the 'direct impact area' is located in the vegetation zone 'VZ2 3592_ModGood'. This is the best quality vegetation in the subject land, based on the Vegetation Integrity (VI) scores, and yet this is where the majority of the impact will occur. The Department should consider this highly, and question why the development is being located in the 'moderate-good', remnant native vegetation and not the lower quality regrowth/disturbed vegetation. Additionally, no VI scores have been provided for the '3967_regrowth' vegetation zone however these areas have been categorized as 'degraded'. A better explanation, backed up with data, should be amended during the RtS phase to appropriately explain how the vegetation in this area is degraded (especially considering some candidate flora species presence has been ruled out based on 'degraded habitat').
Figure 3 lists PCT 4006, which isn't discussed anywhere else.

Destruction of more bush land to accommodate another structure in or on the boundary of a National Park is pure negligence. Along with the bush goes habitat and precious wildlife as well. I’m totally against this project. Find an alternative place in an industrial area, please. How many more times is this going to happen, please let our grandchildren know your answer.

I am writing to object to the Julius Avenue Data Centre project, listed as a State Significant Development proposed for the old CSIRO area of North Ryde and abutting Lane Cove National Park. Should this project be approved as presented in the plans, it would remove 509 trees which are an essential component of the wildlife habitat corridor adjacent to the LC National Park and the Great North Walk near Fairyland.
This would involve loss of habitat for three threatened fauna species, namely the Large-eared Pied Bat Chalinolobus dwyeri, the Little Bent-winged Bat Miniopterus australis and the Large Bent-winged Bat Miniopterus orienae oceanensis, as well as four threatened plant species - Darwinia biflora, Deyeuxia appressa, Hibbertia spanatha and Rhizanthella slateri.
In addition there will be disruption to and loss of native fauna habitat, impacts on the local climate through heat island effect, considerable noise from the process, the extent of water to be used and the level of bushfire risk to a highly valued ecosystem and the animals it supports such as the local population of swamp wallabies.
Constructing such a large data centre in close proximity to precious natural bushland would drastically alter important local environment through loss of the existing tree canopy and its understorey.
The project as planned would also affect the amenity and enjoyment of the many local users of the area.

I am opposed to the project largely on environmental grounds - the proposal involves the loss of over 500 mature trees on the site which form the habitat of several endangered species. Proper replacement for all these trees has not been included in the EIS.
Long term, the location bordering Lane Cove National Park will continually produce light, noise and water pollution well above the existing and acceptable levels and greatly disturb the local wildlife.
Also, the data centre will do all this damage to the environment for the sake of using generally stolen data to support expensive and power hungry AI and should be opposed on that basis alone.

Destroying habits, safe spaces and environments that have been here far longer that us.
All for a centre that could be placed in one of the very many abandoned buildings that Sydney has

To whom this may concern,
It seems like the new data centre will be bordering on Lane Cove national park, given the national parks NSW map online. Although I strongly support a push for data infrastructure in NSW, it needs to be carefully considered given the value of the national park region. I understand this may already have been examined, and in fact that the site currently sits excavated. But the key difference with a data centre (vs a conventional office building), is the additional emissions + noise/heat pollution arising from this energy intensive industrial development. The high energy usage, generators on site, 24/7 operation, intensive cooling systems etc. mean disturbance of natural ecology at the south border of the data centre (the south border is that which borders the national park) is a much much higher risk, and is something that needs to be carefully considered.
Simply building any office building there would be making use of a plot adjoining an already industrial area, while keeping the national park untouched. However both conventional gaseous pollution from the generator in addition to noise, thermal, light pollution unique to data centres means unconventionally thorough consideration of impacts is critical here, to balance the importance of data infrastructure while managing negative externalities (which will otherwise come back to hurt the centre in the long run).
Again I do support a data centre built, and I know one other large centre is in operation, with another one planned in an industrial zone, which is great news. But this centre is in a precarious location, and proper risk mitigation here is paramount, to ensure the bordering national park region is not significantly degraded through the introduction of new pollution sources.
Kind Regards.

Attached is an addition to the submission previously submitted in the name of Friends of Lane Cove National Park with some additional points.