Kogarah Golf Club Redevelopment - Concept & Stage 1 Works

Objection to State Significant Development Application SSD-84467726
Kogarah Golf Club Redevelopment – Concept Proposal and Stage 1 Works
Submitted to: NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Submission by: A Resident of Wolli Creek

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am an owner-occupier residing in Wolli Creek, directly opposite the proposed redevelopment of the former Kogarah Golf Club site.

I object to the proposal in its current form.

My objection is not to the redevelopment of the site itself. I recognise that the site is strategically located adjacent to Sydney Airport, Port Botany and Sydney's motorway network and is well suited to employment-generating uses. I also acknowledge that redevelopment has the potential to deliver economic benefits, employment opportunities and improved public infrastructure.
However, I do not believe the current proposal represents the best planning outcome for this unique waterfront site or for the established residential community that already exists opposite the development.

This proposal represents one of the largest redevelopment opportunities remaining along the Cooks River and will permanently shape the character of the area. It should therefore achieve an appropriate balance between economic development, environmental outcomes, high-quality urban design and the amenity of the surrounding residential community.
Unfortunately, I do not believe the proposal, in its current form, achieves that balance.
________________________________________
1. Significant Evolution of the Proposal

Over many years, planning material and community engagement described the redevelopment as a mixed-use employment precinct incorporating commercial uses, offices, retail, visitor accommodation, public open space and improved public access to the Cooks River.

Like many nearby residents, my understanding from those earlier planning discussions was that the redevelopment would create a vibrant mixed-use precinct that complemented the surrounding residential neighbourhood while generating employment opportunities.

The current Scoping Report now repeatedly describes the proposal as a logistics-focused precinct, with large-scale logistics facilities and potential data centres becoming the dominant land uses.

While I acknowledge that logistics uses have formed part of the broader planning vision for some time, the emphasis of the proposal has clearly shifted.

I respectfully request that the Environmental Impact Statement clearly explain:
• how the proposal has evolved throughout the planning process;
• why logistics and data centres have become the predominant land uses;
• what alternative development scenarios were considered;
• how previous community consultation has influenced the current proposal.

Providing this explanation would improve transparency and enable residents to understand why the proposal now differs from earlier planning concepts.
________________________________________
2. An Inappropriate Interface with an Established Residential Community

Wolli Creek has become one of Sydney's fastest-growing residential communities.

The existing residential neighbourhood is not simply a transport corridor. It is home to established apartment buildings occupied by owner-occupiers, families, long-term residents and renters.

Unlike many industrial precincts, this proposal places a major logistics development directly opposite an existing residential community.

In my view, the proposal has not adequately demonstrated how these fundamentally different land uses will coexist over the coming decades.

The Environmental Impact Statement should therefore provide a much more detailed assessment of:
• operational noise;
• heavy vehicle movements;
• loading dock operations;
• night-time activities;
• lighting impacts;
• visual impacts;
• air quality;
• cumulative impacts from multiple logistics buildings and potential data centres.

Where practical, loading docks and service areas should face away from the adjoining residential neighbourhood, with generous setbacks, landscaping and architectural screening incorporated to soften the residential interface.
________________________________________
3. Traffic Impacts

For nearby residents, traffic is likely to become the most significant long-term impact of the development.

The Environmental Impact Statement should demonstrate that freight efficiency has not been prioritised at the expense of residential amenity.

Detailed assessment should include:
• projected truck movements;
• impacts on Marsh Street;
• impacts on surrounding intersections;
• cumulative impacts with Sydney Gateway, the M6 and other regional transport projects;
• pedestrian safety;
• cyclist safety;
• practical measures to reduce impacts on nearby residents.
________________________________________
4. Data Centres

The proposal also provides for future data centres.

Many residents have limited understanding of these facilities and the information currently available is insufficient to allow meaningful assessment of their impacts.

The Environmental Impact Statement should provide clear information regarding:
• cooling systems;
• operational noise;
• emergency generator testing;
• diesel fuel storage;
• battery storage systems;
• fire safety measures;
• environmental safeguards;
• visual impacts.

Residents should be provided with sufficient information to understand how these facilities will operate and how their impacts will be managed.
________________________________________
5. A Missed Opportunity

This site occupies one of the most significant waterfront redevelopment opportunities remaining in inner Sydney.

Rather than becoming predominantly a logistics precinct, I believe this site should demonstrate how economic development can successfully coexist with high-quality urban design, attractive public spaces, environmental restoration and integration with the surrounding community.

While employment generation is important, developments of this significance should aspire to deliver broader community outcomes rather than focusing primarily on industrial logistics.
________________________________________
6. Public Benefit

A redevelopment of this scale should deliver public benefits that are proportionate to its significance.

I encourage the Department to require stronger commitments towards:
• improved public access to the Cooks River;
• continuous walking and cycling links;
• generous landscaping and tree canopy;
• ecological restoration of the river corridor where feasible;
• high-quality public open space;
• attractive public domain that encourages community use.

Importantly, these benefits should be delivered early rather than being deferred until later stages of development.
________________________________________
7. Urban Design

The site occupies a prominent gateway location to Sydney and should demonstrate excellence in urban design.

Particular attention should be given to:
• reducing the visual dominance of large logistics buildings;
• high-quality architectural treatment of facades facing Marsh Street;
• increased landscape buffers;
• building articulation to reduce visual bulk;
• protection of important public views wherever possible.

The development should contribute positively to the character of the area rather than presenting a predominantly industrial frontage to an established residential neighbourhood.
________________________________________
8. Ongoing Community Consultation

Given the scale of this proposal and its long-term impacts on surrounding residents, meaningful community consultation should continue throughout the detailed design stages.

Residents should have opportunities to comment on:
• detailed building design;
• landscaping;
• traffic management;
• operational impacts;
• environmental mitigation measures;
• public domain works.

Community engagement should continue beyond concept approval to ensure the final development appropriately responds to local concerns.
________________________________________
Conclusion

I acknowledge the strategic importance of this site and support redevelopment in principle.

However, I object to this proposal in its current form because I do not believe it demonstrates an appropriate balance between strategic employment objectives and the long-term interests of the existing residential community.

The current proposal represents a significant shift towards large-scale logistics uses and potential data centres on one of Sydney's most important waterfront redevelopment sites. In my view, the Environmental Impact Statement has not yet demonstrated that the resulting impacts on nearby residents have been adequately addressed or that the proposal maximises the long-term potential of this unique location.

I respectfully request that the Department require substantial amendments to the proposal before any approval is granted. At a minimum, the Environmental Impact Statement should provide a far more comprehensive assessment of residential amenity, traffic, data centres, urban design, public benefits and the evolution of the proposal from earlier planning concepts.

If these matters cannot be satisfactorily addressed, the proposal should not be approved in its current form.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Yours faithfully,

A Resident of Wolli Creek

SUBMISSION IN OPPOSITION
Kogarah Golf Club Redevelopment — Cooks Cove Concept & Stage 1 Works
State Significant Development Application SSD-84467726
Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Exhibition period: 10 June – 7 July 2026
Submitted by: Michael Gregg
Address: 344/266 Pitt St, Waterloo, 2017
Email: [email protected]
1. Introduction
I write to lodge a submission in strong opposition to the inclusion of data centre uses within the Concept Proposal for the redevelopment of the former Kogarah Golf Club site at 13–19A Marsh Street, Arncliffe (Cooks Cove), as currently on exhibition under SSD-84467726.
The Concept Proposal permits data centres as an 'alternative use' across the five development blocks. While the proponents have characterised this as a minor flexibility provision within a broader logistics and employment precinct, the scale, resource intensity, and environmental incompatibility of data centre operations with the Cooks River corridor make this an unacceptable land use at this location. This submission requests that data centre uses be expressly excluded from the approved land use mix.
I have a direct interest in the ecological health and public amenity of the Cooks River as [a resident of the area / a regular user of the Cooks River foreshore / a professional working in ecological restoration and sustainability — amend as appropriate].
2. Site Context and Ecological Significance
The former Kogarah Golf Club site occupies a pivotal position within the lower Cooks River catchment — one of the most ecologically complex and heavily restored urban waterways in NSW. The river and its immediate environs are not simply a backdrop to industrial development; they are an active, contested, and incrementally recovering ecosystem that has been subject to sustained community investment and council-led restoration for over two decades.
Several matters of ecological significance are directly relevant to this submission:
• The Arncliffe population of the Green and Golden Bell Frog (Litoria aurea) — listed as Endangered under NSW law and Vulnerable under the EPBC Act — is centred on the Kogarah Golf Course and adjacent lands. This is one of only a small number of known breeding populations in the Sydney Basin. The EPBC referral documents acknowledge compensatory breeding ponds established within the site, and the EIS identifies direct and indirect impact risks to the population from the proposed development. Data centre operations would compound these impacts substantially through noise, light, heat, groundwater draw and the operational footprint of cooling infrastructure.
• The lower Cooks River foreshore between Cahill Park and the Marsh Street precinct contains intertidal vegetation communities, including saltmarsh, that provide habitat connectivity in an otherwise highly urbanised matrix. The Eve Street and Landing Lights wetlands — which form part of what has been described as the only remaining migratory shorebird habitat on the western side of Botany Bay — are located in the immediate vicinity. These are Commonwealth-recognised important wetlands under the Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia.
• Post-2000 restoration efforts by the Cooks River Alliance — a partnership of Bayside, Canterbury-Bankstown, Inner West, Strathfield and other councils — have progressively improved water quality, ecological function, and public connection to the river. Community-led restoration activity in the catchment, including the Wurridjal Festival and Green and Golden Bell Frog sanctuary programs, reflects a sustained, locally embedded commitment to ecological recovery that industrial land uses of the intensity proposed must not be allowed to undermine.
The proposed 20-metre public foreshore corridor and Pemulwuy Park are welcome components of the concept plan. However, they do not offset or justify permitting data centre uses that would impose qualitatively different and far more severe environmental impacts on the river corridor than the logistics and warehousing uses that form the primary development envelope.
3. Water Consumption: An Unacceptable Burden on a Recovering Waterway
Data centres are among the most water-intensive land uses in the built environment. Large-scale facilities use evaporative cooling systems that can consume tens of millions of litres of potable water per year. As the NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into data centres and the recent Infrastructure NSW Consultation Paper (March 2026) both acknowledge, water consumption from the data centre sector represents one of the most contested and poorly quantified infrastructure demands currently facing Sydney.
In this context, permitting data centres at a site adjacent to the Cooks River — a waterway that has long suffered from industrial pollution and is only now experiencing measurable ecological recovery — is inconsistent with both precautionary principles and the trajectory of public investment in the river's restoration. Key concerns include:
• Sydney data centres currently draw from the public drinking water supply. Multiple submissions to the NSW Parliamentary Inquiry, including from local councils, have called for moratoriums on approvals until water impacts are fully assessed and utility servicing plans confirmed. No such assessment has been carried out for data centre uses at the Cooks Cove site.
• The proximity of the development to the Cooks River foreshore and the groundwater systems that support intertidal and riparian vegetation creates specific risks from large-scale water extraction and discharge that are not adequately addressed in the EIS as currently exhibited.
• The concept plan makes no commitment to non-potable water sources, water recycling, or closed-loop cooling systems for the data centre alternative uses. In the absence of such commitments, approval of data centre land uses at this location would be irresponsible.
I urge the Department to require, at minimum, that any approval expressly prohibit the use of potable water for cooling at any data centre that may eventually be constructed on the site, and to require demonstrated access to recycled or alternative water supply before any data centre use can be commenced.
4. Energy Demand, Diesel Generators and Emissions
Data centres typically require on-site diesel backup generation capacity proportional to their power load. Even a modest hyperscale data centre might require dozens of large diesel generators, each representing a source of localised air pollution, noise, and greenhouse gas emissions.
The EIS for SSD-84467726 does not assess air quality, noise, or emissions impacts from data centre backup generation, since the concept plan treats data centre uses as an alternative and their detailed specifications are left to future applications. This is an inadequate approach for the following reasons:
• The Arncliffe community, including residential zones within 300 to 500 metres of the site, would be exposed to diesel exhaust from generator testing and emergency operation. Air quality modelling for data centre backup generation should be required at the concept stage, not deferred.
• NSW has legislated emissions reduction targets. The NSW Parliamentary Inquiry and the Climate Council's submission to the Infrastructure NSW consultation both emphasise that new data centres must be required to procure additional renewable energy beyond what would otherwise have been built — not simply offset their demand against existing renewable capacity. No such requirement is attached to the data centre alternative use as proposed.
• The scale of power demand associated with even a single large data centre on this site could be inconsistent with the infrastructure capacity of the local electricity network, a matter that requires assessment at the concept stage rather than at the stage of individual development applications.
5. Incompatibility with Strategic Planning for the Cooks River Corridor
The Cooks Cove site sits within a strategic planning context that has evolved over many years and reflects considered trade-offs between employment, ecological protection, and public amenity. The planning proposal underpinning SSD-84467726 established a framework for logistics, commercial, and hotel uses — all of which are broadly compatible with the river corridor, can be designed to provide activation of the foreshore, and do not impose the extraordinary resource demands of data centres.
Data centres are, by nature, highly automated facilities with minimal employment density relative to their footprint and infrastructure burden. They provide few of the fine-grained employment and activation outcomes that the land use framework for Cooks Cove sought to deliver. At a site that was envisaged to generate approximately 3,300 jobs adjacent to residential communities, substituting data centre uses for logistics or commercial floor area represents a significant departure from the strategic intent of the planning framework — one that delivers far less community benefit while imposing far greater environmental cost.
The Bayside West Precincts Land Use and Infrastructure Strategy, the earlier Cooks Cove Planning Proposal (PP-2022-1748), and the long history of community and agency consultation over the future of this site all point toward an employment precinct that is legible, human-scaled, and ecologically responsible. Data centres are fundamentally at odds with this vision.
On the basis of the above, I request that the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure:
• Expressly exclude data centre uses from the approved land use mix for the Cooks Cove Concept Proposal (SSD-84467726), removing them from the list of alternative uses permitted within the five development blocks.
• Require the proponent to provide a supplementary ecological impact assessment specifically addressing the compounding effects of data centre uses.
Sincerely, Michael Gregg

To DPHI,
I am opposing this application on the fact that I am a long time resident and have experienced the issues in this area. I have read through some of the technical reports and am questioning some of these technical experts ability to create an unbiased conclusion.

The traffic report does not describe AM/PM/Saturday traffic levels, does not mention LoS, and from experience I know that a data centre does generate traffic. Currently, traffic on Airport Drive/Marsh Street is a forced level of traffic during peak hour, and if a logistics centre use were to be introduced it would generate more traffic. I have also heard that Stockland is bidding for contractors in the Airport to move their operations to this site. I know large carriers also generate large amounts of traffic.

The Social Impact Assessment is of poor quality, as a social planner myself. How can the impacts on the Cooks River be negligible if it is already one of the most pollued waterways in NSW, and data centres require 24/7 diesel generator backup? I live within the defined social locality, however did not receive this notification. It is clear from the language that Colliers cannot remove themselves from the developer. I have completed SIAs for RESIDENTIAL developments with higher detail than this.

As mentioned the ecological impacts from this would be horrendous. There is no strategic plan for this, why are other data centres located in Industrial zones while this one is not? Data centres are inherently not 'light industrial' as it has been classfied before, as the impacts are not light. I also know from experience that the intial MW a data centre begins at is not static. They expand, and as technology grows more efficient, MW takes up less space. It is sneaky and not transparent. To say that this data centre will service just the airport is not truthful. I also know that Bayside LGA limits number and heights of trees due to the proximity to the aiport. But this massive box is permissible?

I know how much money data centres make. I understand that Stockland is just a developer, and their motivations have shifted from seniors living villages to these massive polluters. I also understand the Colliers has changed and so has their quality of work. Both just wish to pay their bills and pocket the rest.

I am asking for a better assessment of impacts to this development, which is near houses, hotels, inaccessible from public transport and on an already impacted waterway.

To whom it may concern,
I am writing regarding the proposed redevelopment of Kogarah Golf Course.
As someone who values the Cooks River, I recognise this is a significant opportunity for Sydney. I am not opposed to redevelopment of the site. However, I believe a project of this scale should leave the Cooks River healthier than it found it.
This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to demonstrate that economic development and environmental restoration can go hand in hand.
I encourage the Department to strengthen the proposal by including the following:
1. A meaningful contribution towards restoring the Cooks River
At approximately $2.9 billion, this is one of the largest developments proposed on the Cooks River.
Many major developments contribute towards local community infrastructure. A development of this scale should include a dedicated contribution towards restoring and enhancing the health of the Cooks River.
I encourage the establishment of a Cooks River Legacy Fund, supported through a meaningful developer contribution, to invest in long-term improvements to the river.
Such a fund could support initiatives including:
● Establishing a Cooks River Keeper or similar stewardship organisation to coordinate restoration and long-term management.
● Regular intensive river clean-up and maintenance programs.
● Removing ageing sheet piling with naturalised riverbanks.
● Restoration of saltmarsh, mangroves and other important habitats.
● Water quality improvement projects and stormwater treatment.
● Improved walking, cycling and paddling access.
● Community education and environmental monitoring.
This development should leave a positive environmental legacy for future generations.
2. A minimum 40 metre riparian corridor
A continuous minimum 40 metre riparian corridor should be provided along the full river frontage.
This would improve biodiversity, strengthen climate resilience, provide greater flood protection, improve water quality and create a far more attractive public waterfront.
3. Proper naturalisation of the river edge
The river should not be treated as the back boundary of an industrial development.
The development should include a commitment to naturalise the riverbank, replacing hard engineered edges with vegetation and habitat wherever feasible, while improving public access and ecological health.
4. Deliver public benefits first
Cycleways, walking paths, open space and public access to the river should be delivered early in the project rather than being deferred until the final stages.
Communities should begin benefiting from the development from the outset.
5. Better community and stakeholder engagement
I was surprised to learn that only 22 people participated in the stakeholder engagement sessions for a project of this scale.
The Cooks River catchment is home to hundreds of thousands of people and is used every day by walkers, cyclists, paddlers, birdwatchers, anglers and local families.
The next stages of planning should include more meaningful and ongoing engagement with the community, Traditional Owners, environmental organisations, recreational user groups, councils and local residents. Good engagement should continue throughout the detailed design and delivery of the project, not finish once the concept is approved.
6. Design excellence
Finally, I encourage the Department to ensure the development reflects the importance of its riverfront location through:
● High-quality architecture and urban design.
● Increased tree canopy.
● Buildings that address and celebrate the river rather than turning their backs on it.
● Active public spaces along the waterfront.
● Safe and attractive walking and cycling connections.
● Opportunities for people to access and enjoy the river.
Conclusion
Major developments should leave the places they touch better than they found them.
This proposal has the potential to become a benchmark for river-sensitive urban development in Sydney. I encourage the Department to strengthen the proposal so that it delivers lasting environmental, recreational and community benefits alongside economic development.
Thank you for considering my submission.

To whom it may concern,
I am writing regarding the proposed redevelopment of Kogarah Golf Course.
As someone who values the Cooks River, I recognise this is a significant opportunity for Sydney. I am not opposed to redevelopment of the site. However, I believe a project of this scale should leave the Cooks River healthier than it found it.
This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to demonstrate that economic development and environmental restoration can go hand in hand.
I encourage the Department to strengthen the proposal by including the following:
1. A meaningful contribution towards restoring the Cooks River
At approximately $2.9 billion, this is one of the largest developments proposed on the Cooks River.
Many major developments contribute towards local community infrastructure. A development of this scale should include a dedicated contribution towards restoring and enhancing the health of the Cooks River.
I encourage the establishment of a Cooks River Legacy Fund, supported through a meaningful developer contribution, to invest in long-term improvements to the river.
Such a fund could support initiatives including:
● Establishing a Cooks River Keeper or similar stewardship organisation to coordinate restoration and long-term management.
● Regular intensive river clean-up and maintenance programs.
● Removing ageing sheet piling with naturalised riverbanks.
● Restoration of saltmarsh, mangroves and other important habitats.
● Water quality improvement projects and stormwater treatment.
● Improved walking, cycling and paddling access.
● Community education and environmental monitoring.
This development should leave a positive environmental legacy for future generations.
2. A minimum 40 metre riparian corridor
A continuous minimum 40 metre riparian corridor should be provided along the full river frontage.
This would improve biodiversity, strengthen climate resilience, provide greater flood protection, improve water quality and create a far more attractive public waterfront.
3. Proper naturalisation of the river edge
The river should not be treated as the back boundary of an industrial development.
The development should include a commitment to naturalise the riverbank, replacing hard engineered edges with vegetation and habitat wherever feasible, while improving public access and ecological health.
4. Deliver public benefits first
Cycleways, walking paths, open space and public access to the river should be delivered early in the project rather than being deferred until the final stages.
Communities should begin benefiting from the development from the outset.
5. Better community and stakeholder engagement
I was surprised to learn that only 22 people participated in the stakeholder engagement sessions for a project of this scale.
The Cooks River catchment is home to hundreds of thousands of people and is used every day by walkers, cyclists, paddlers, birdwatchers, anglers and local families.
The next stages of planning should include more meaningful and ongoing engagement with the community, Traditional Owners, environmental organisations, recreational user groups, councils and local residents. Good engagement should continue throughout the detailed design and delivery of the project, not finish once the concept is approved.
6. Design excellence
Finally, I encourage the Department to ensure the development reflects the importance of its riverfront location through:
● High-quality architecture and urban design.
● Increased tree canopy.
● Buildings that address and celebrate the river rather than turning their backs on it.
● Active public spaces along the waterfront.
● Safe and attractive walking and cycling connections.
● Opportunities for people to access and enjoy the river.
Conclusion Major developments should leave the places they touch better than they found them.
This proposal has the potential to become a benchmark for river-sensitive urban development in Sydney. I encourage the Department to strengthen the proposal so that it delivers lasting environmental, recreational and community benefits alongside economic development.
Thank you for considering my submission.

To whom it may concern,
I am writing regarding the proposed redevelopment of Kogarah Golf Course.
As someone who values the Cooks River, I recognise this is a significant opportunity for Sydney. I am not opposed to redevelopment of the site. However, I believe a project of this scale should leave the Cooks River healthier than it found it. I visits this space every week to kayak, cycle, walk and enjoy the green space that makes living in high-density areas of Marrickville worth it.
This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to demonstrate that economic development and environmental restoration can go hand in hand.
I encourage the Department to strengthen the proposal by including the following:
1. A meaningful contribution towards restoring the Cooks River
At approximately $2.9 billion, this is one of the largest developments proposed on the Cooks River.
Many major developments contribute towards local community infrastructure. A development of this scale should include a dedicated contribution towards restoring and enhancing the health of the Cooks River.
I encourage the establishment of a Cooks River Legacy Fund, supported through a meaningful developer contribution, to invest in long-term improvements to the river.
Such a fund could support initiatives including:
● Establishing a Cooks River Keeper or similar stewardship organisation to coordinate restoration and long-term management.
● Regular intensive river clean-up and maintenance programs.
● Removing ageing sheet piling with naturalised riverbanks.
● Restoration of saltmarsh, mangroves and other important habitats.
● Water quality improvement projects and stormwater treatment.
● Improved walking, cycling and paddling access.
● Community education and environmental monitoring.
This development should leave a positive environmental legacy for future generations.
2. A minimum 40 metre riparian corridor
A continuous minimum 40 metre riparian corridor should be provided along the full river frontage.
This would improve biodiversity, strengthen climate resilience, provide greater flood protection, improve water quality and create a far more attractive public waterfront.
3. Proper naturalisation of the river edge
The river should not be treated as the back boundary of an industrial development.
The development should include a commitment to naturalise the riverbank, replacing hard engineered edges with vegetation and habitat wherever feasible, while improving public access and ecological health.
4. Deliver public benefits first
Cycleways, walking paths, open space and public access to the river should be delivered early in the project rather than being deferred until the final stages.
Communities should begin benefiting from the development from the outset.
5. Better community and stakeholder engagement
I was surprised to learn that only 22 people participated in the stakeholder engagement sessions for a project of this scale.
The Cooks River catchment is home to hundreds of thousands of people and is used every day by walkers, cyclists, paddlers, birdwatchers, anglers and local families.
The next stages of planning should include more meaningful and ongoing engagement with the community, Traditional Owners, environmental organisations, recreational user groups, councils and local residents. Good engagement should continue throughout the detailed design and delivery of the project, not finish once the concept is approved.
6. Design excellence
Finally, I encourage the Department to ensure the development reflects the importance of its riverfront location through:
● High-quality architecture and urban design.
● Increased tree canopy.
● Buildings that address and celebrate the river rather than turning their backs on it.
● Active public spaces along the waterfront.
● Safe and attractive walking and cycling connections.
● Opportunities for people to access and enjoy the river.
Conclusion
Major developments should leave the places they touch better than they found them.
This proposal has the potential to become a benchmark for river-sensitive urban development in Sydney. I encourage the Department to strengthen the proposal so that it delivers lasting environmental, recreational and community benefits alongside economic development.
Thank you for considering my submission.

As a resident in the area, I strongly oppose this data centre, reasons below.

1. Noise and vibration generated 24 hours impacting residents
2. Grid strain and higher bills
3. Water scarcity and pollution
4. Diesel generator emmisions
5. Major fire risk explosion risk due to fuel kept in tanks under data centres, it poses a major safety threat to residents.
6. Light pollution
7. Not enough studies on electromagnetic fields and how they impact health

I am absolutely diagusted that this is being pushed. I dont want data centres here.

I say NO to data centres.

To whom it may concern,
I am writing regarding the proposed redevelopment of Kogarah Golf Course.
As someone who values the Cooks River, I recognise this is a significant opportunity for Sydney. I am not opposed to redevelopment of the site. However, I believe a project of this scale should leave the Cooks River healthier than it found it.
This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to demonstrate that economic development and environmental restoration can go hand in hand.
I encourage the Department to strengthen the proposal by including the following:
1. A meaningful contribution towards restoring the Cooks River
At approximately $2.9 billion, this is one of the largest developments proposed on the Cooks River.
Many major developments contribute towards local community infrastructure. A development of this scale should include a dedicated contribution towards restoring and enhancing the health of the Cooks River.
I encourage the establishment of a Cooks River Legacy Fund, supported through a meaningful developer contribution, to invest in long-term improvements to the river.
Such a fund could support initiatives including:
● Establishing a Cooks River Keeper or similar stewardship organisation to coordinate restoration and long-term management.
● Regular intensive river clean-up and maintenance programs.
● Removing ageing sheet piling with naturalised riverbanks.
● Restoration of saltmarsh, mangroves and other important habitats.
● Water quality improvement projects and stormwater treatment.
● Improved walking, cycling and paddling access.
● Community education and environmental monitoring.
This development should leave a positive environmental legacy for future generations.
2. A minimum 40 metre riparian corridor
A continuous minimum 40 metre riparian corridor should be provided along the full river frontage.
This would improve biodiversity, strengthen climate resilience, provide greater flood protection, improve water quality and create a far more attractive public waterfront.
3. Proper naturalisation of the river edge
The river should not be treated as the back boundary of an industrial development.
The development should include a commitment to naturalise the riverbank, replacing hard engineered edges with vegetation and habitat wherever feasible, while improving public access and ecological health.
4. Deliver public benefits first
Cycleways, walking paths, open space and public access to the river should be delivered early in the project rather than being deferred until the final stages.
Communities should begin benefiting from the development from the outset.
5. Better community and stakeholder engagement
I was surprised to learn that only 22 people participated in the stakeholder engagement sessions for a project of this scale.
The Cooks River catchment is home to hundreds of thousands of people and is used every day by walkers, cyclists, paddlers, birdwatchers, anglers and local families.
The next stages of planning should include more meaningful and ongoing engagement with the community, Traditional Owners, environmental organisations, recreational user groups, councils and local residents. Good engagement should continue throughout the detailed design and delivery of the project, not finish once the concept is approved.
6. Design excellence
Finally, I encourage the Department to ensure the development reflects the importance of its riverfront location through:
● High-quality architecture and urban design.
● Increased tree canopy.
● Buildings that address and celebrate the river rather than turning their backs on it.
● Active public spaces along the waterfront.
● Safe and attractive walking and cycling connections.
● Opportunities for people to access and enjoy the river.
Conclusion
Major developments should leave the places they touch better than they found them.
This proposal has the potential to become a benchmark for river-sensitive urban development in Sydney. I encourage the Department to strengthen the proposal so that it delivers lasting environmental, recreational and community benefits alongside economic development.
Thank you for considering my submission.

To whom it may concern,
I am writing regarding the proposed redevelopment of Kogarah Golf Course.
As someone who values the Cooks River, I recognise this is a significant opportunity for Sydney. I am not opposed to redevelopment of the site. However, I believe a project of this scale should leave the Cooks River healthier than it found it.
This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to demonstrate that economic development and environmental restoration can go hand in hand.
I encourage the Department to strengthen the proposal by including the following:
1. A meaningful contribution towards restoring the Cooks River
At approximately $2.9 billion, this is one of the largest developments proposed on the Cooks River.
Many major developments contribute towards local community infrastructure. A development of this scale should include a dedicated contribution towards restoring and enhancing the health of the Cooks River.
I encourage the establishment of a Cooks River Legacy Fund, supported through a meaningful developer contribution, to invest in long-term improvements to the river.
Such a fund could support initiatives including:
● Establishing a Cooks River Keeper or similar stewardship organisation to coordinate restoration and long-term management.
● Regular intensive river clean-up and maintenance programs.
● Removing ageing sheet piling with naturalised riverbanks.
● Restoration of saltmarsh, mangroves and other important habitats.
● Water quality improvement projects and stormwater treatment.
● Improved walking, cycling and paddling access.
● Community education and environmental monitoring.
This development should leave a positive environmental legacy for future generations.
2. A minimum 40 metre riparian corridor
A continuous minimum 40 metre riparian corridor should be provided along the full river frontage.
This would improve biodiversity, strengthen climate resilience, provide greater flood protection, improve water quality and create a far more attractive public waterfront.
3. Proper naturalisation of the river edge
The river should not be treated as the back boundary of an industrial development.
The development should include a commitment to naturalise the riverbank, replacing hard engineered edges with vegetation and habitat wherever feasible, while improving public access and ecological health.
4. Deliver public benefits first
Cycleways, walking paths, open space and public access to the river should be delivered early in the project rather than being deferred until the final stages.
Communities should begin benefiting from the development from the outset.
5. Better community and stakeholder engagement
I was surprised to learn that only 22 people participated in the stakeholder engagement sessions for a project of this scale.
The Cooks River catchment is home to hundreds of thousands of people and is used every day by walkers, cyclists, paddlers, birdwatchers, anglers and local families.
The next stages of planning should include more meaningful and ongoing engagement with the community, Traditional Owners, environmental organisations, recreational user groups, councils and local residents. Good engagement should continue throughout the detailed design and delivery of the project, not finish once the concept is approved.
6. Design excellence
Finally, I encourage the Department to ensure the development reflects the importance of its riverfront location through:
● High-quality architecture and urban design.
● Increased tree canopy.
● Buildings that address and celebrate the river rather than turning their backs on it.
● Active public spaces along the waterfront.
● Safe and attractive walking and cycling connections.
● Opportunities for people to access and enjoy the river.
Conclusion
Major developments should leave the places they touch better than they found them.
This proposal has the potential to become a benchmark for river-sensitive urban development in Sydney. I encourage the Department to strengthen the proposal so that it delivers lasting environmental, recreational and community benefits alongside economic development.
Thank you for considering my submission.

# Submission – Kogarah Golf Club Redevelopment (SSD-84467726)

To whom it may concern,

I am writing regarding the proposed redevelopment of the former Kogarah Golf Club.

As someone who deeply values the Cooks River, I recognize that this $2.9 billion State Significant Development represents a major transformation for the area. While I support the strategic redevelopment of this site, a project of this scale must leave the Cooks River healthier than it found it while creating lasting public, environmental, and economic value for future generations.

While I recognize that proximity to Sydney Airport and associated noise contours limits standard residential housing on this site, I encourage the Department to consider whether the current Concept Proposal strikes the right long-term balance. Rather than allowing the site to be dominated by low-density warehouses, distribution centers, and data centers, this unique riverfront location should be optimized for a high-value, human-centric precinct that blends advanced employment, public open space, and ecological restoration.

---

## 1. A meaningful contribution towards restoring the Cooks River

A development of this scale should include a dedicated contribution towards restoring and enhancing the health of the Cooks River. I encourage the establishment of a **Cooks River Legacy Fund**, supported through a meaningful developer contribution, to invest in long-term improvements to the river.

Such a fund could support initiatives including:

* Establishing a Cooks River Keeper or similar stewardship organization.
* Regular intensive river clean-up and maintenance programs.
* Removing aging sheet piling and replacing it with naturalized riverbanks.
* Restoration of saltmarsh, mangroves, and other critical habitats.
* Water quality improvement projects and stormwater treatment.
* Improved walking, cycling, and paddling access for the community.

## 2. A minimum 40-meter riparian corridor

A continuous minimum **40-meter riparian corridor** should be mandated along the full river frontage. This aligns with modern biodiversity and conservation objectives, strengthens climate resilience, provides robust flood protection, improves water quality, and creates a generous public waterfront that can be enjoyed by workers, visitors, and the broader community.

## 3. Proper naturalization of the river edge

The river should become the defining feature of the redevelopment, not simply the edge of a commercial development site. The proposal should include a strict commitment to naturalize the riverbank by replacing hard engineered edges with vegetation and habitat wherever feasible, seamlessly integrating public access with ecological health.

## 4. Deliver public benefits first (Stage 1)

Cycleways, walking paths, riparian setbacks, and public access to the river should be delivered early in the project—specifically as part of Stage 1 infrastructure works—rather than being deferred until the final phases. Communities and visitors should begin benefiting from the environmental and recreational enhancements from the outset.

## 5. Better community and stakeholder engagement

With only 22 people recorded as participating in the initial stakeholder engagement sessions, the consultation for a project of this magnitude has been severely lacking. The Cooks River catchment is home to hundreds of thousands of people. The next stages of planning must include more meaningful and ongoing engagement with the community, Traditional Owners, environmental organizations, councils, and recreational user groups.

## 6. Reconsider the long-term vision: Transition to an Innovation & Wellness District

Given the site's unique riverfront location, proximity to public transport, and strategic importance, the Department should push for a high-value, knowledge-based enterprise precinct rather than a logistics hub. If housing is restricted, the site's footprint should be optimized for an **Innovation and Wellness Enterprise District** by prioritizing:

* **High-Tech Research & R&D:** Leveraging the location near Sydney Airport to attract aviation tech, green-energy labs, or STEM-focused industries, shifting the employment mix from low-skilled warehouse labor to high-value jobs.
* **Education and Specialized Training Hubs:** Utilizing the site for a satellite university campus, research facilities, or specialized technical training institutes.
* **Public Services & Health Infrastructure:** Allocating space for essential community infrastructure, such as specialized health facilities, childcare hubs, or emergency services serving the growing Bayside population.
* **A Vibrant Corporate & Lifestyle Precinct:** Prioritizing campus-style office spaces integrated with hotel/serviced apartment accommodation, gyms, and active water-facing hospitality that creates a destination throughout the day and evening.

## 7. Design excellence and river integration

Finally, I encourage the Department to ensure the development reflects its premium riverfront location by enforcing strict design excellence, including:

* High-quality architecture and generous native landscaping to increase the tree canopy.
* Buildings designed to address and celebrate the river rather than turning their backs to it.
* Active ground-floor uses including cafés, restaurants, and neighborhood shops facing the water.
* Protection and enhancement of native vegetation and wildlife corridors.

---

## Conclusion

Major developments should leave the places they touch better than they found them. This proposal has the potential to become a benchmark for sustainable urban renewal in Sydney. Rather than creating an isolated employment precinct dominated by data centers and warehouses, it should become a vibrant riverfront enterprise neighborhood that delivers high-value jobs, thriving public spaces, and meaningful restoration of the Cooks River.

Thank you for considering my submission.

To whom it may concern,
I am writing regarding the proposed redevelopment of Kogarah Golf Course.
As someone who values the Cooks River, I recognise this is a significant opportunity for Sydney. I am not opposed to redevelopment of the site. However, I believe a project of this scale should leave the Cooks River healthier than it found it.
This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to demonstrate that economic development and environmental restoration can go hand in hand.
I encourage the Department to strengthen the proposal by including the following:
1. A meaningful contribution towards restoring the Cooks River
At approximately $2.9 billion, this is one of the largest developments proposed on the Cooks River.
Many major developments contribute towards local community infrastructure. A development of this scale should include a dedicated contribution towards restoring and enhancing the health of the Cooks River.
I encourage the establishment of a Cooks River Legacy Fund, supported through a meaningful developer contribution, to invest in long-term improvements to the river.
Such a fund could support initiatives including:
● Establishing a Cooks River Keeper or similar stewardship organisation to coordinate restoration and long-term management.
● Regular intensive river clean-up and maintenance programs.
● Removing ageing sheet piling with naturalised riverbanks.
● Restoration of saltmarsh, mangroves and other important habitats.
● Water quality improvement projects and stormwater treatment.
● Improved walking, cycling and paddling access.
● Community education and environmental monitoring.
This development should leave a positive environmental legacy for future generations.
2. A minimum 40 metre riparian/wildlife corridor
A continuous minimum 40 metre riparian corridor should be provided along the full river frontage.
This would improve biodiversity, strengthen climate resilience, provide greater flood protection, improve water quality and create a far more attractive public waterfront.
3. Proper naturalisation of the river edge
The river should not be treated as the back boundary of an industrial development.
The development should include a commitment to naturalise the riverbank, replacing hard engineered edges with vegetation and habitat wherever feasible, while improving public access and ecological health.
4. Deliver public benefits first
Cycleways, walking paths, open space and public access to the river should be delivered early in the project rather than being deferred until the final stages.
Communities should begin benefiting from the development from the outset.
5. Better community and stakeholder engagement
I was surprised to learn that only 22 people participated in the stakeholder engagement sessions for a project of this scale.
The Cooks River catchment is home to hundreds of thousands of people and is used every day by walkers, cyclists, paddlers, birdwatchers, anglers and local families.
The next stages of planning should include more meaningful and ongoing engagement with the community, Traditional Owners, environmental organisations, recreational user groups, councils and local residents. Good engagement should continue throughout the detailed design and delivery of the project, not finish once the concept is approved.
6. Design excellence
Finally, I encourage the Department to ensure the development reflects the importance of its riverfront location through:
● High-quality architecture and urban design.
● Increased tree canopy.
● Buildings that address and celebrate the river rather than turning their backs on it.
● Active public spaces along the waterfront.
● Safe and attractive walking and cycling connections.
● Opportunities for people to access and enjoy the river.
Conclusion
Major developments should leave the places they touch better than they found them.
This proposal has the potential to become a benchmark for river-sensitive urban development in Sydney. I encourage the Department to strengthen the proposal so that it delivers lasting environmental, recreational and community benefits alongside economic development.
Thank you for considering my submission.

I am writing to oppose the proposed redevelopment of Kogarah Golf Course.
As a registered urban designer with over 25 years’ experience in large, complex infrastructure projects across Sydney and NSW, I am appalled at the overbearing scale and negative impact on community amenity, as well as the potential impacts on a sensitive and much-valued riparian environment. This site is highly visible not just at close range but is overlooked by thousands of residents. While a private landholding, the Kogarah Golf Course has nevertheless been an important part of the open space network, especially connected with the surrounding parklands and the Cooks River. The proposed development not just compromises, but in my view permanently damages the green and blue networks that the Department in other policy documents emphasises as critical to the health and well being of our city as well as our citizens.
I am not opposed to appropriate redevelopment of the site. This is not that development.
I encourage the Department to strongly reject the proposal in its current form. Simply put, it’s too big, too blank, too selfish in its use of precious resources – and gives nothing back to mitigate or offset the damage it will do. A development of this scale should include:
1. A meaningful contribution towards restoring and enhancing the health of the Cooks River.
2. A minimum 40 metre riparian corridor to improve biodiversity, strengthen climate resilience, provide greater flood protection, improve water quality and create a far more attractive public waterfront.
3. Proper naturalisation of the river edge: the river should not be treated as the back boundary of an industrial development. The development should include a commitment to naturalise the riverbank, replacing hard engineered edges with vegetation and habitat wherever feasible, while improving public access and ecological health.
4. Genuine connectivity with existing and proposed open space. A linked and accessible network of ycleways, walking paths, open space and public access to the river should be guaranteed, and delivered early in the project rather than being deferred until the final stages.
5. Proper community and stakeholder engagement – particularly with First Nations people as per Designing with Country, the NSW Government’s own policy framework. Consideration of Country has been notably absent, and in stark contrast (for example) with engagement of local Knowledge Holders and Traditional Custodians on adjacent Transport projects (especially Sydney airport). Moreover, the Cooks River catchment is home to hundreds of thousands of people and is used every day by walkers, cyclists, paddlers, birdwatchers, anglers and local families.
The next stages of planning should include more meaningful and ongoing engagement with the community, Traditional Owners, environmental organisations, recreational user groups, councils and local residents, to continue through to completion.
6. Design excellence
Let’s have some, shall we? The concept as shown – and I appreciate that we are more at the stage of envelope than detail, but the envelopes are pretty scary – lacks, more than anything, any sense of or response to place. It lacks variation in scale and form; it makes no attempt to moderate the presentation on the river’s edge; it fails to break down the actual and apparent size to anything approaching human scale. There are many things one could reasonably expect from a development in this location, in an area of increasing residential density where passive recreational opportunities are more crucial than ever. They include:
• High-quality architecture and urban design.
• Increased tree canopy.
• Active public spaces along the waterfront.
• Safe and attractive walking and cycling connections.
• Opportunities for people to access and enjoy the river.
I suspect however, that at the heart of this proposal is a land use that is simply inimical to all the positive outcomes we would expect. It requires huge box-like structures that are internalised, land hungry, energy sucking, and water draining – and it does not need (or want) to engage with the people who live, work and play around it. So while I’ve offered suggestions to lessen its potential negative impacts, my position is necessarily one of objecting to the proposal in full. This is not the place for a data centre – with all the disbenefits that brings – let alone a data centre on steroids.

To whom it may concern,
I am writing regarding the proposed redevelopment of Kogarah Golf Course.
As someone who values the Cooks River, I recognise this is a significant opportunity for Sydney, and especially the Wolli Creek community I have lived in for over 20 years now. I am not opposed to redevelopment of the site however, I believe a project of this scale should leave the Cooks River healthier than it found it, and I don't believe a data centre will do that.
This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to demonstrate that economic development and environmental restoration can go hand in hand.
I encourage the Department to strengthen the proposal by including the following:
1. A meaningful contribution towards restoring the Cooks River
At approximately $2.9 billion, this is one of the largest developments proposed on the Cooks River.
Many major developments contribute towards local community infrastructure. A development of this scale should include a dedicated contribution towards restoring and enhancing the health of the Cooks River.
I encourage the establishment of a Cooks River Legacy Fund, supported through a meaningful developer contribution, to invest in long-term improvements to the river.
Such a fund could support initiatives including:
● Establishing a Cooks River Keeper or similar stewardship organisation to coordinate restoration and long-term management.
● Regular intensive river clean-up and maintenance programs.
● Removing ageing sheet piling with naturalised riverbanks.
● Restoration of saltmarsh, mangroves and other important habitats.
● Water quality improvement projects and stormwater treatment.
● Improved walking, cycling and paddling access.
● Community education and environmental monitoring.
This development should leave a positive environmental legacy for future generations.
2. A minimum 40 metre riparian corridor
A continuous minimum 40 metre riparian corridor should be provided along the full river frontage.
This would improve biodiversity, strengthen climate resilience, provide greater flood protection, improve water quality and create a far more attractive public waterfront.
3. Proper naturalisation of the river edge
The river should not be treated as the back boundary of an industrial development.
The development should include a commitment to naturalise the riverbank, replacing hard engineered edges with vegetation and habitat wherever feasible, while improving public access and ecological health.
4. Deliver public benefits first
Cycleways, walking paths, open space and public access to the river should be delivered early in the project rather than being deferred until the final stages.
Communities should begin benefiting from the development from the outset.
5. Better community and stakeholder engagement
Along with the original author of this submission (which I have tweaked only slightly and fully support) I was surprised to learn that only 22 people participated in the stakeholder engagement sessions for a project of this scale.
The Cooks River catchment is home to hundreds of thousands of people and is used every day by walkers, cyclists, paddlers, birdwatchers, anglers and local families.
The next stages of planning should include more meaningful and ongoing engagement with the community, Traditional Owners, environmental organisations, recreational user groups, councils and local residents. Good engagement should continue throughout the detailed design and delivery of the project, not finish once the concept is approved.
6. Design excellence
Finally, I encourage the Department to ensure the development reflects the importance of its riverfront location through:
● High-quality architecture and urban design.
● Increased tree canopy.
● Buildings that address and celebrate the river rather than turning their backs on it.
● Active public spaces along the waterfront.
● Safe and attractive walking and cycling connections.
● Opportunities for people to access and enjoy the river.
Conclusion
Major developments should leave the places they touch better than they found them.
This proposal has the potential to become a benchmark for river-sensitive urban development in Sydney. I encourage the Department to strengthen the proposal so that it delivers lasting environmental, recreational and community benefits alongside economic development.
Thank you for considering my submission.

Submission Objecting to the Kogarah Golf Club Redevelopment – Concept & Early Works SSDA
Dear Sir/Madam,
I wish to object to this proposal in its current form.
I make this submission not as someone opposed to redevelopment, but as someone who has spent more than twenty years using and observing the Cooks River. I regularly kayak from my home in Marrickville to Brighton-Le-Sands and run and cycle along the river corridor throughout the year. Over time I have witnessed a slow but remarkable transformation in the health of the river. Water quality has improved, habitat has slowly returned, public access has expanded, and the many agencies responsible for the river have increasingly recognised its environmental, recreational and cultural value.
I am also a member of the Cooks River Valley Association and have recently become involved in a volunteer water quality monitoring program undertaken in partnership with government agencies, monitoring freshwater inflows to the Cooks River. This experience has reinforced my appreciation of the river as a living ecological system that is steadily recovering after generations of degradation.
Professionally, I am an architect. I understand the need to balance employment lands, economic development and environmental protection. My objection is not to redevelopment itself, but to a masterplan that appears driven primarily by maximising floor space rather than by creating an enduring piece of city-making.
The proposal represents an extraordinary concentration of logistics, warehousing and data centre development on one of the Cooks River's most significant remaining redevelopment sites. While I acknowledge the importance of employment lands within metropolitan Sydney, this site is simply the wrong place for such an overwhelming concentration of logistics uses. There are extensive industrial precincts, including the Port Botany employment lands, that are inherently better suited to accommodating logistics at this scale. This site, by contrast, occupies one of the most significant riverfront locations remaining on the Cooks River and should be planned accordingly.
My strongest concern is that this masterplan has failed the public interest test. This is a once-in-a-generation redevelopment of more than 30 hectares on Sydney's second-largest urban rivers. The question is not whether employment uses can be accommodated on the site, but whether this masterplan delivers the best possible outcome for future generations. In my opinion, it clearly does not.
Unfortunately, the proposal reflects an outdated attitude towards the Cooks River, treating it largely as the edge of a development parcel rather than the organising landscape that should shape the entire precinct. The river should not be regarded as infrastructure to be engineered around; it should be recognised as a natural system capable of ongoing restoration, ecological regeneration and significantly enhanced public use.
The redevelopment may well be appropriate in principle; however, the masterplan presented is fundamentally the wrong response for this site.
The proposed buildings are grossly oversized for their location and are positioned unnecessarily close to the river. Rather than allowing the landscape to define the development, the proposal allows the development to dominate the landscape.
This land represents perhaps the single greatest opportunity remaining along the Cooks River to significantly widen the riparian corridor, restore native ecology, improve flood resilience and create an exceptional public waterfront. Instead, the proposal appears to maximise building footprint while minimising the river's opportunity to recover.
The proposal also fails to recognise the type of urban environment that should exist beside a major metropolitan waterway. Logistics facilities and data centres typically employ relatively small workforces relative to their scale, generate little public activity and provide almost no meaningful relationship with surrounding public space. If these uses dominate the site, the river will become bordered by inactive building edges rather than places that contribute to civic life.
A site of this significance should instead accommodate a carefully considered mix of employment, commercial, recreation and community uses that create active frontages, passive surveillance, cafés, public destinations and opportunities for people to engage directly with the river.
Importantly, Attachment 2 – Agency Advice from Bayside Council reinforces many of these concerns. Bayside Council identifies the need for an adequate 20–40 metre riparian setback, a continuous foreshore corridor, improved building interfaces with the river, increased tree canopy, passive surveillance and a far more rigorous design excellence process to explore alternative masterplan options. These are not minor technical matters but fundamental questions about the quality of the overall planning outcome.
Rather than asking how the maximum amount of development can be fitted onto the site, the fundamental question should instead be:
What development pattern best restores and celebrates the Cooks River while still accommodating appropriate employment uses?
This site is unquestionably large enough to answer that question positively.
The development footprint should be substantially reconsidered and moved further from the river, allowing a significantly wider riparian corridor capable of delivering genuine ecological restoration, flood resilience, habitat creation and an exceptional public landscape befitting this important waterway.
As someone who has experienced the river over many years, I can say with confidence that every improvement made to the Cooks River has increased its environmental health, recreational value and community appreciation. This proposal moves in the opposite direction. It represents a missed opportunity to build upon decades of investment and collaborative work by government agencies, councils, community organisations and volunteers.
The Cooks River deserves better than becoming the service corridor for one of Australia's largest logistics precincts.
It should instead become the organising landscape around which development is carefully arranged.
Future generations will judge this project not by how many square metres of warehouse floor space were achieved, but by whether we had the vision to restore one of Sydney's great urban rivers while we still had the opportunity.
The true measure of this project will not be the efficiency of its warehouses or the quantum of its floor space. It will be whether, when presented with one of the last great opportunities to repair the Cooks River, we had the foresight to place the river—not the buildings—at the heart of the masterplan.
For these reasons, I urge the Department to refuse the proposal in its current form and require a fundamental redesign of the masterplan before any approval is considered.
Yours faithfully,




Neil Mackenzie

June 30, 2026

To whom it may concern
I am writing to strongly object to the inclusion of a data centre or intensive industrial warehouse precinct as part of the Kogarah Golf Club Redevelopment (Cooks Cove) concept plan.

While I recognise the need for urban renewal, I am 100% against using this iconic foreshore and waterfront space for heavy industrial infrastructure. This area is not an industrial precinct; it is a vibrant community home to thousands of residents and used daily by many more. Major developments should leave the places they touch better than they found them, and this site presents an incredible opportunity to do exactly that.

I object to the data centre and industrial uses on the following grounds:
• Excessive Energy and Water Consumption: Data centres are massive energy and water sinks. Building such resource-heavy infrastructure on this unique site directly contradicts state and local environmental sustainability targets.
• Destruction of Green Space and Amenity: This area is one of Sydney’s last major underdeveloped waterfront green spaces. A data centre will dwarf the surrounding landscape, creating an industrial eyesore and destroying the potential for a peaceful, community-focused foreshore.
• Incompatible Neighbouring Use: The site is directly adjacent to Wolli Creek residential areas and the Cooks River. Introducing an industrial data centre will ruin visual amenity, increase ambient noise, and negatively impact the health and well-being of the local community.
• Inadequate Public Benefit: The community deserves genuine public open space, parklands, and environmental rehabilitation. Heavy industrial and data centre developments prioritise corporate interests over a lasting community legacy, effectively treating the river as the back boundary of a commercial yard.

I urge the Department to reject the data centre and intensive industrial uses. Instead, I request that the Department prioritise the low-impact hospitality, commercial, and community options already proposed in the project's broader vision:
1. Hotel, Commercial, and Retail Precincts: The proposed hotel, commercial offices, and retail/food premises are far more suitable for this location. They will create a vibrant, accessible hub that leverages proximity to Sydney Airport without the visual blight of massive warehouses.
2. Maximum Public Parkland and Cultural Space: The Department must ensure that the promised hectares of public green space, the Cooks River Foreshore Walk, and heritage conservation works are fully delivered. I support calls to transform this zone into a high-quality cultural, environmental, and recreational district for all of Sydney.

This development must leave a positive environmental and social legacy for future generations. Thank you for considering my submission.

To whom it may concern, I am writing regarding the proposed redevelopment of Kogarah Golf Course. As someone who values the Cooks River, lives in the local area and enjoys the beauty that the area brings I strongly oppose this redevelopment. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to restore the golf course to its original form and return the land to the people of bayside to enjoy.

While I recognise the importance of digital infrastructure to support economic growth and technological development, I do not believe this proposal represents an appropriate use of this particular site. I respectfully ask that you carefully consider the long-term environmental, social, and planning impacts before approving.

My main concerns include the following: Loss of Green Space and Biodiversity
The former golf course represents one of the larger open green spaces in the local area. Although it has previously been developed as a golf course, it continues to provide important habitat for wildlife, contributes to local biodiversity, and offers valuable tree canopy and vegetation. Replacing much of this land with industrial-scale buildings, roads, and associated infrastructure would significantly reduce these environmental benefits. We should rewild the course with natives plants, shrubs, trees and safe space for animals to shelter and have a safe space in the area

Urban Heat and Climate Impacts
Data Centers require extensive buildings, concrete and mechanical cooling equipment. This has the potential to increase the urban heat island effect and reduce natural cooling provided by vegetation. Given increasing temperatures associated with climate change, preserving and enhancing green space should be a planning priority.

Energy and Water Consumption
Data centres are currently the most energy-intensive forms of development. They also require significant water resources. The bayside community deserves clear information regarding the proposal's projected electricity demand, water usage, greenhouse gas emissions

Noise and Residential Impacts
The continuous operation of cooling equipment, backup generators, transformers and associated mechanics has the potential to create ongoing noise impacts, particularly during evenings and overnight. There are known reports across the world of the huge impacts this noise and disruption has on local communities and animals. Increased vehicle movements during construction and operation will also affect nearby residents through traffic, noise and reduced amenity.

Conclusion
I strongly oppose this development in its current form and want more effort put into a development that will benefit the community rather than line the pockets of developers

Thank you for considering my submission.

To whom it may concern,
This submission regards the proposed redevelopment of Kogarah Golf Club. It is a remarkably large parcel of land in a highly developed area of Sydney, and quoted at $2.6 billion to $3.5 billion in value, must be scrutinised by the Department until it is of a very high quality and delivers major benefits for the area. The proposal has several major shortfalls which must be rectified.

1. Waterway Improvements
The proposal does not address the generational opportunity to restore the Cooks River, and leave the waterway and local wildlife in a better position for the community and all who appreciate it. The proponent should provide significant long term funding for projects on a stewardship model to improve water quality and ecosystem outcomes in the entire catchment, thereby improving the quality of the Cooks Cove area.

Importantly, the riparian zone in the redevelopment should be 40 metres plus along the whole riverfront, and treated as an essential feature of the precinct to be enjoyed by all.

2. Pedestrian and Cycling Links
Public access to the river and the delivery of a more direct off road route between Wolli Creek and Kyeemagh (replacing and improving on the current poor quality Marsh St link) should be seen as cornerstones of the development, providing public benefits and economic opportunities in the form of retail space foot traffic. They should be prioritised and delivered early in the project, providing public licence for the developments.

3. Inundation Risks
The proposal does not address the risks to the foreshore plan posed by inundation risk caused by sea level rise, and the dangers flooding may pose to pedestrians and cyclists.

4. Data Centre
The potential for a data centre, raised by the proposal, is concerning. It is bad use of land and resources, and has the potential to worsen outcomes for birds and other wildlife (without which the park would be of poor quality) as well as people using the public space due to the noise impacts. It should be ruled out from the outset.

Conclusion
The proposal should be judged by the Department on its fulfilment of the enormous environmental and public access opportunities available (and the economic and recreation benefits they will unlock) in addition to the building developments. It should celebrate the river and the open space, and feature attractive urban design and public areas throughout the redevelopment, not just in the waterfront and park. To deliver this will require major revision of the proposal. This should be a project of very high quality, but it is currently lacking.

The design of the concept plan is severely lacking in terms of minimising impacts on local residents/businesses and providing public benefit for locals. It is clear from the design of the building envelopes that the only consideration has been how to maximise commercial profit. The building envelopes are bulky and take over almost the full extent of the land, with token bits of landscaping dressed up as "plazas" that will provide benefit to locals.

Of most concern is the lack of connection between the proposed Pemulwuy Park and the Cooks River foreshore. There is a tiny little gap between Block 3B and Block 3C which is further hindered by the mixed used building near the foreshore. It's important to maintain a clear and visible connection with the foreshore rather than the park being surrounded by hulking structures and minimal connection to the proposed foreshore walkway. The Block 3B ramp that juts out should be moved to help maintain this connection. Furthermore, all the building envelopes need to be reduced to minimise the outsized scale of this development and better balance public spaces with private development. The proposed further increases in height is also unjustifiable other than on profit-motivated grounds and should not be approved.

Additionally, it is disappointing to see that the Fig Tree Plaza North is merely an "option" in this plan. In the original concept plan, this plaza on the corner of Marsh Street was a prominent part of the plan and the benefits to the community represented in that plan. Now it has been totally removed from the main "logistics scheme", creating a dominating and hulking presence on the Marsh Street corner facing the existing Wolli Creek community. It is imperative that this Fig Tree Plaza is restored in the plan, regardless of whether the Logistics or Alternative Uses plan eventuates. The Fig Tree Plaza here provides an important buffer between the mostly residential Wolli Creek community and this overbearing industrial complex. Furthermore, it would be much preferable for the plan to mandate commercial and/or hotel uses for Block 2, rather than leaving the optionality up to the developer who will no doubt pursue the path of most profit, rather than community benefit. Having commercial, retail and hotel uses for Block 2 would at least provide amenity benefits for locals and tourists and would provide a much better transition from the residential/mixed uses currently to the west of the development site. It would also help break up the undulating industrial complex created by the huge Block 2 and Block 3B complexes in the Industrial plan.

It would be even better if the architects could go back to the drawing board and reconsider how this development could truly become a destination in its own right. This is prime land right near the airport and could become a tourist destination for locals and visitors alike. The Cooks River walkway should be complemented by retail and food and beverage lining the whole walkway, rather than just the small F&B tenancies that are an afterthought as part of the industrial buildings. This would create a much more pleasant atmosphere along the Cooks River, helping to better integrate the development with the community and foreshore uses. It would help really activate the whole precinct day and night, rather than being mainly just an industrial development with the main visitors being workers.

It is disappointing to see how this development has turned out with little consideration for residents' concerns about the bulky nature of this development and the lack of concern from residents' amenity. I hope that the developer can reconsider the concept plan and ensure it aligns with community expectations and best achieves an outcome that balances commercial objectives with community needs.

Dear Planning Assessment Team,

I strongly object to the proposed redevelopment of the Kogarah golf course (SSD-8446772)

I own an apartment at in the Southbank Buildings at 24 Levey Street, Wolli Creek, directly within the visual and amenity catchment of the former Kogarah Golf Club site. My apartment currently enjoys an open outlook across the former golf course toward Botany Bay and the ocean. Under the proposal, that outlook would be replaced by the side elevation of a large multi-level logistics building. This would be a substantial and unreasonable change to residential amenity.

I request that the application be refused in its current form. If the Department will not refuse the application outright, the proposal should be deferred and required to be substantially amended, with reduced height and scale, be set much further back from Marsh St, and have independently verified view-loss analysis of affected residential properties conducted, and enforceable operational controls.

1. Unreasonable visual impact and view loss
The concept approval seeks building envelopes up to approximately 70 metres for major logistics buildings. That scale is fundamentally different from the former golf course landscape and would create a hard industrial edge facing existing residential apartments at Wolli Creek, including the Southbank Buildings.

The proposal should not be treated as a minor or acceptable change simply because the site has been rezoned or because the buildings are on the opposite side of Marsh Street and/or the Cooks River. The impact on affected apartments is real: open green, sky and water views would be replaced by a large industrial facade. The loss is not merely aesthetic; it affects outlook, daylight perception, sense of openness, residential amenity and property enjoyment.

The Department should require a proper view-sharing assessment applying the NSW Land and Environment Court’s established approach in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council, including:
- identification of the affected views, including water and district views
- identification of where those views are obtained from within affected apartments
- assessment of the extent of the impact
- assessment of whether the impact is reasonable given the scale and design of the proposal

No consent should be granted unless the proponent provides accurate, independently reviewable photomontages and view-loss modelling from representative apartments in the Southbank complex and other nearby Wolli Creek residential buildings.

2. Excessive bulk, height and industrial scale near residential homes
The proposal is not a modest employment use. It is a major multi-level logistics precinct with very large warehouse floor space, truck access ramps, circulation areas, servicing areas and potentially long operating hours. The scale may be commercially attractive due to proximity to Sydney Airport and Port Botany, but that does not make it an acceptable neighbour to established residential apartments.

The proposed envelopes should be reduced and redistributed so that the tallest and bulkiest elements are moved away from the Wolli Creek residential interface. Not only should the buildings be moved to the eastern side of the location, away from the residential housing (instead of the current plan to place them against Marsh St on the western edge of the site), but any building face visible from the Southbank Buildings should be broken down, articulated, landscaped and treated as a sensitive residential-facing elevation, not as the rear or side wall of an industrial shed.

3. Inadequate assessment of residential amenity impacts
The application appears to emphasise strategic logistics benefits and public open space outcomes, but the affected residential community must not be treated as collateral damage. The Department’s assessment should give weight to actual lived impacts, including:
- loss of open outlook and water/district views;
- visual dominance of large industrial buildings;
- night-time lighting and glare;
- truck noise, reversing alarms, loading dock noise and rooftop plant noise;
- increased traffic and congestion around Marsh Street, Levey Street and nearby intersections;
- air quality impacts from heavy vehicles and idling;
- construction noise, dust and vibration over a multi-year period;
- cumulative impacts with M6, airport and surrounding road infrastructure.

The social and residential amenity impacts should be assessed from the perspective of existing residents, not only future workers, visitors or users of the proposed open space.

4. Traffic, truck movements and road safety
A logistics precinct of this size will necessarily generate substantial heavy vehicle movements. The local road network is already constrained by airport traffic, Marsh Street congestion, M5/M8/M6 interfaces, Wolli Creek density and pedestrian/cyclist activity.

I object to any approval that permits truck access arrangements or operating patterns that worsen safety, congestion, noise or air quality for residents. The Department should require:
- full disclosure of predicted truck numbers by hour, including night-time and early morning movements;
- assessment of cumulative impacts with airport, motorway and construction traffic;
- prohibition on truck queuing or staging on local roads;
- enforceable truck routes avoiding residential streets;
- independent road safety audits for pedestrians and cyclists;
- operational limits if traffic impacts exceed predictions.

5. Noise, lighting and 24-hour operational impacts
A multi-level logistcs precinct is likely to involve extended or potentially 24-hour operations. Even if individual future tenancies are subject to later approvals, the concept approval would establish the built form and land use framework that makes those impacts possible.

The Department should not approve a concept that defers key amenity impacts to later stages. The concept approval must include binding limits now, including:
- no intrusive night-time loading dock operations near residential receptors;
- strict limits on reversing alarms, mechanical plant and truck idling;
- acoustic design based on worst-case logistics operations, not optimistic assumptions;
- no upward or outward light spill toward Wolli Creek apartments;
- façade and rooftop plant controls;
- ongoing compliance monitoring at residential receivers.

6. Construction impacts over an extended period
The project material indicates an extended staged development, with early works including demolition, clearing, earthworks, ground improvement, servicing and roadworks. For nearby residents, this means years of construction disturbance, not a short-term inconvenience.

Any approval must include enforceable conditions for:
- restricted construction hours;
- dust suppression and real-time air monitoring;
- vibration monitoring;
- clear complaint handling and response timeframes;
- limits on high-noise works;
- prohibition on construction vehicle queuing near residences;
- independent compliance auditing.

7. Ecological and floodplain concerns should not be minimised

The project area includes the Cooks River edge, mangrove/saltmarsh habitat, waterbodies and habitat associated with the Green and Golden Bell Frog. The EPBC referral acknowledges ecological values, including fish habitat, mangroves, saltmarsh and Green and Golden Bell Frog habitat. These values warrant a cautious approach, particularly given the scale of disturbance proposed.

Public foreshore improvements and landscaping are welcome in principle, but they do not justify overdevelopment of the balance of the site. Environmental offsets, future management plans and design refinements should not be used as substitutes for avoiding unnecessary impacts at the concept stage.

8. Public benefits do not outweigh the unresolved impacts
The proponent points to jobs, open space, foreshore access and logistics capacity. Those benefits are relevant, but they do not answer the central planning issue: whether this particular bulk, height, massing and operating model is acceptable in this location, beside existing residential communities and sensitive waterways.

A better outcome is possible. The site could deliver employment and open space with lower, better-articulated buildings, larger setbacks, stronger landscape buffers, meaningful view sharing, reduced night-time impacts and more rigorous traffic controls.

Requested outcome: I request that the department refuse SSD-84467726.

At bare minimum, the department must require the proponent to submit a substantially amended concept with reduced height and bulk and amended location. They must also require independent view-loss photomontages and modelling from affected residences, require the tallest warehouse elements to be relocated or reduced so they do not present as a dominant industrial wall to Wolli Creek residents, impose binding controls on logistics operating hours, truck movements, noise, lighting and air quality,
require additional residential amenity assessment before any concept approval is granted, require further public exhibition of any amended scheme, and ensure affected residents are consulted before final determination.

The proposal in its current form imposes an unreasonable private and community burden on existing residents for the benefit of a very large logistics development. I ask the Department to give proper weight to the amenity, outlook and liveability impacts on Wolli Creek residents, including owners and occupiers at 24 Levey Street.

This is a submission for the prioritised development of the Kogarah golf course for housing development with the request for submissions which closes on the 7th July 2026.
No one is opposing housing development but not at the expense of the existing community and the neglected biodiversity corridor of the Cooks River.
Not only as a local resident who participates in community events to enhance the river’s environment but as a graduate trained biochemist that has worked on controlled environment crop research in the UK bringing food to everyone’s table - I have concerns about this project.
Doing things better would mean having a levy for developers to provide funding for a riparian corridor, the naturalisation of the riverbank, housing modification & giving access to foreshore for the community.
Australia used to be a place renown for clean land, water and food but regulations and research banning / reducing impact of pollutants that are dangerous to life are seriously lacking now. We already have dangerous everlasting chemicals in the Alexandra Canal due to commercial interest where water quality goes against modern environmental standards. Polluted water with tidal influence washes further up the river – traces of dangerous chemicals are also drawn in from the sea at the purification unit at Kurnell. In addition, climate change is affected by buildings structures radically affecting the microclimate which will become a serious risk for the Inner West. There are techniques, like walled vertical gardens and water holding / purification strategies, that need to be invested for large housing structures for our future generations.