Project Mars Data Centre

I am opposed to this project for the following reasons:
1. The location - in a low density residential area, where the nearby families and citizens will be affected by the loud constant noise pollution, extra emissions, increased temperatures.
2. I personally advocate to build this type of facility in an industrially focused area/suburb, that doesn't affect residential homes nearby.
3. This project will remove parts of local council land that is currently occupied by natural landscape, inhabited by local wildlife. I am opposed to this decision.

Thank you
Stefan Ciontu
Lane Cove resident

This project is:
- completely oversized for the location, neighbourhood & suburb
- located far too close to Lane Cove West Public School & neighbouring houses
- will generate too much noise, affecting residents 24/7
- will use huge amounts of water for cooling, a finite, precious resource in the Australian climate
- will mean removing pristine, irreplaceable bushland

It is oversized, noisy, poorly located, again uses obscene amounts of water, & will remove bushland. I strongly object to this project, & others like it.

I am writing as a deeply concerned resident of Lane Cove to formally protest the proposed development of a data centre adjacent to residential homes, schools, and environmentally sensitive bushland. I urge the Council to reject this application in the strongest possible terms.
This proposal, if approved, would have serious and lasting consequences for the health, amenity, and environmental wellbeing of our community. My objections are as follows.
1. Noise and Vibration
Data centres operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and generate continuous noise from cooling systems, HVAC units, and server infrastructure. This level of sustained industrial noise is entirely incompatible with a residential neighbourhood and a school environment. Children and families would be subjected to chronic noise exposure that is well-documented to cause sleep disruption, stress, and impaired concentration and learning outcomes in children. In addition, the structural vibration generated by heavy mechanical plant can affect nearby buildings and significantly diminish the quality of life for residents.
2. Diesel Generator Pollution
Data centres rely on large diesel generators as backup power systems, which are tested regularly — typically weekly or fortnightly. These generators emit significant quantities of nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and other harmful pollutants directly into the surrounding air. The proximity of this facility to homes, a school, and bushland makes this completely unacceptable. Children, in particular, are highly vulnerable to the health impacts of diesel exhaust, including respiratory illness and long-term lung damage. The cumulative air quality impact on the neighbourhood has not, to my knowledge, been adequately assessed.
3. Impact on Environmentally Sensitive Bushland and Native Wildlife
The land adjacent to the proposed site is home to significant native wildlife and forms part of a sensitive ecological corridor. Light pollution, noise, vibration, exhaust emissions, and increased human activity associated with a data centre will cause serious and potentially irreversible harm to local fauna, including threatened species. This is contrary to the objectives of environmental protection under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) and Lane Cove's own commitment to preserving its natural bushland character.
4. Incompatibility with the Character of Lane Cove
A large-scale industrial data centre is fundamentally incompatible with the residential and community character of Lane Cove. This is not an appropriate location for heavy infrastructure of this kind. Industrial facilities of this nature belong in designated employment and industrial zones, not beside schools, homes, and nature reserves.
My Requests
I respectfully call on Council to:
Refuse this development application outright;
If the application is not immediately refused, commission independent (non-applicant-funded) assessments of acoustic impact, air quality, and ecological impact before any determination is made;
Hold a public meeting to allow affected residents to voice their concerns directly; and
Give full weight to the wellbeing of residents, students, and the natural environment in any decision made.
The community of Lane Cove deserves better than to have an industrial facility of this scale imposed upon it without proper scrutiny. I trust that Council will act in the interests of those it represents.

As the Principal of Lane Cove West Public School, and speaking collectively on behalf of all staff, I wish to convey our absolute opposition to the proposal for a data centre construction at a site just 160 metres from our school. This objection is grounded in extensive concern for the welfare, safety, and educational experience of our students, and reflects deeply held apprehensions from our entire school community.

We strongly urge that this proposal be revisited, taking into account the following substantial and multi-layered impacts:

Noise Impact & Learning Environment
The anticipated operational noise levels from the data centre, classified as Zone 2 (just below aircraft noise) are simply incompatible with an educational setting. Several reputable studies highlight the detrimental effects of persistent noise on student concentration, cognitive development, and overall academic performance. At Lane Cove West Public School, we are recognised for our commitment to inclusive education, especially for students with additional needs such as those on the autism spectrum, with sensory processing disorders, and others requiring calm, predictable environments. Many of these students are highly sensitive to ambient disturbances; even moderate increases in noise can trigger anxiety, behavioural challenges, and reduced learning outcomes.

A school must remain a sanctuary for student growth and wellbeing. The sound profile generated not only threatens the tranquilly of classrooms but also impacts outdoor spaces, playgrounds, and special learning programs. For students already facing academic or emotional barriers, the added environmental stress would be a serious impediment to their success. Furthermore, teachers and other staff would be placed under undue pressure to adapt, ultimately diverting resources and attention from core instructional duties.

Child Welfare and Emergency Preparedness
Placing a high-capacity data centre with extensive diesel and lithium battery storage so close to a primary school fundamentally threatens child welfare. The risk of fire, chemical exposure, or other hazardous incidents must be critically assessed. Schools require clear, comprehensive evacuation procedures that can safely relocate hundreds of children and staff. Any incident at the data centre, such as fire, explosion, or pollutants released, would endanger our ability to execute emergency responses effectively, possibly overwhelming emergency services and creating panic. The young age of our students compounds the risks; many are unable to process complex emergencies or evacuate quickly without support.
Daily exposure to industrial risks is not what parents expect when sending their children to school in Lane Cove. The trust placed in both the school and local authorities to maintain a safe environment is paramount, and this proposal threatens to undermine that trust.

Traffic, Parking, and Community Disruption
The proposed parking spaces for 250 to 300 workers would radically alter traffic patterns during peak school hours. Lane Cove West Public School is already challenged by limited parking, tight drop-off zones, and peak congestion during morning arrivals and afternoon departures. The introduction of a large number of vehicles will heighten the risk of traffic accidents, create obstacles for buses and parents, and may result in workers parking in residential streets or school-designated areas, further straining local infrastructure.
This would impact not only student safety when crossing roads or entering/exiting vehicles but also the broader community, potentially leading to frustration and a decline in community cohesion. The increased traffic could interrupt student excursions, outdoor activities, and deter families from participating in school events due to fears regarding parking and safety.

Environmental Impacts
A data centre of this scale will have significant consequences for the local environment. Of particular concern is water consumption; data centres require extensive cooling systems, often relying on large volumes of water. This could reduce water availability for the school and surrounding community, especially during times of drought or restrictions. Furthermore, waste discharge, emissions, and potential contaminants from the facility may pose risks to air quality, local flora and fauna, and the enjoyment of recreational areas like Blackman Park.
Schools are charged with instiling environmental stewardship values in students. Locating resource-intensive industrial facilities in close proximity undermines our efforts to teach sustainability and care for the environment. The construction phase alone will create dust, noise, pollution, and disruption, further impacting the health and enjoyment of school and park users.

Security Concerns and Community Risk
It is widely acknowledged that large data centres represent critical infrastructure. Their operational importance makes them attractive as potential targets for criminal acts or breaches. Placing such a facility so near to school grounds inevitably increases risks associated with unwelcome attention or incidents. Should a security breach occur, the safety of our students and staff becomes collateral, and our school could face lockdowns, restricted movement, and heightened anxiety among families. Though we do not wish to alarm, our position is that risk mitigation for such events has not been adequately demonstrated or communicated.
Additionally, the presence of industrial workers, construction workers, and contractors unfamiliar with the school’s routines and requirements will further complicate supervision and access control. Strangers near school boundaries can elevate community concerns about child safeguarding.

Impact on Wellbeing and School Culture
Lane Cove West Public School is much more than a physical site - it is a thriving community, promoting wellbeing, creativity, and learning. The construction and ongoing operation of a large data centre will disrupt the daily rhythm of our school. There will be continuous noise, altered traffic patterns, environmental changes, and the ever-present risk of industrial accidents. Such disruptions are not temporary: the centre’s operations will persist for decades, affecting thousands of students over the years.

School culture relies on predictability and connection with nature, both of which are threatened by the proposal. Anxiety among staff, parents, and students is already mounting, as many feel their concerns are not being heard or considered.

Given the cumulative risks, we object in the strongest terms to the proposed location of this data centre. We request a full re-evaluation of the site selection process, thorough independent impact assessments, and transparent public engagement before any approvals proceed.

The future of our students, staff, and families must be preserved. We request that alternative, more suitable locations be explored, and that all planning authorities make student welfare, safety, and the health of the Lane Cove West community their paramount priorities.
Thank you for considering this objection.

A 3-year construction project typically causes moderate to high ecological impact during the active phase, with residual effects lasting years to decades.

There is a nature corridor that goes from the alley behind Avalon Ave through to Blackman Park via the community nursery and from Blackman Park to Lane Cove National Park.

There are many sites not near national park that are more suitable.

Do not be so cavalier with decimation of our natural environment please. Our children will suffer because of your focus on money over the natural world. They rely on you to make the most ethical decisions now.

Objection — Proposed Data Centre, 12 Mars Road, Lane Cove West (Project Mars, Goodman Group; SEARS application lodged 18 March 2025)

Dear General Manager,
I write as a resident of Lane Cove to object, in its entirety, to the proposed development of a 90MW data centre at 12 Mars Road, Lane Cove West by Goodman Group. This objection is not a request for modification or further conditions. The proposal is fundamentally incompatible with its surrounding residential, recreational and ecological setting, and should be refused.
My family and I live in Lane Cove. We use Blackman Park, the Lane Cove River foreshore tracks and the surrounding bushland regularly, and hope for our very soon to be born son to also be able to participate in the children’s sport, recreation and give him access to nature.
The cumulative impacts described below are matters Council is required to consider under section 4.15(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, in particular the likely environmental, social and economic impacts in the locality, the suitability of the site for the development, and the public interest.
The grounds of my objection are set out below.

1. Likely environmental impacts — water and energy resources (s.4.15(1)(b))
This proposal commits Lane Cove West to a long-term role as a major consumer of two of the most stressed public resources in NSW, with no commensurate local benefit. Sydney’s data centres already consume around 3.5 billion litres of potable drinking water each year. Sydney Water’s projections, provided to IPART in its September 2025 review, indicate data centre demand could reach 250 megalitres a day by 2035 — a volume comparable to the entire output of the Sydney Desalination Plant — equivalent to up to a quarter of Sydney’s drinking water supply.
On the energy side, NSW data centre electricity consumption is forecast to grow from around 2% of National Electricity Market load today to roughly 6% by 2030 (AEMO 2025 Inputs, Assumptions and Scenarios Report) and up to 11% by 2035 (CEFC/Baringa, Getting the balance right, December 2025). The same modelling indicates NSW wholesale electricity prices could rise by 26% by 2035 in the absence of matched renewable build-out. This $1.2 billion private development by Goodman, taken together with AirTrunk’s existing facility and its proposed 45MW expansion currently under assessment in the same business park, will concentrate a disproportionate share of that resource burden in a single Lane Cove suburb. The load is borne locally; the service is sold globally. This is not a public interest outcome.

2. Likely environmental impacts — Lane Cove River corridor and local ecology (s.4.15(1)(b))
The site sits directly above Blackman Park and the Lane Cove River foreshore, one of the few remaining ecological corridors on the Lower North Shore. The corridor includes mangrove communities, riparian bushland and resident and migratory bird populations documented in Council’s own bushland management plans. A 24/7 industrial facility introduces continuous low-frequency noise, light spill, heat island effects and the constant hum of mechanical cooling into a habitat that depends on relative quiet and stable microclimate. Bulk excavation, hard-surfacing of the site and on-site diesel storage create a direct stormwater contamination pathway into the river catchment. Submissions on the existing Lane Cove West Data Centre raised these exact concerns regarding hydrocarbon storage, runoff and intrusion below the sandstone cliff line. Ecological harm of this kind is not offsettable. Once the corridor is degraded, no condition of consent restores it. The precautionary principle applies, and weighs against approval.

3. Likely social and economic impacts — public infrastructure costs socialised onto residents (s.4.15(1)(b) and (e))
The grid and water network serving Lane Cove West were not built for hyperscale industrial loads. Lane Cove Council has already publicly reported, through evidence to the NSW parliamentary inquiry into data centres, brownouts and voltage fluctuations in Lane Cove West since AirTrunk’s expansion. Adding another major facility will require transmission, substation and water-network augmentation funded — directly or indirectly — through network charges levied on every NSW household and small business, and through Sydney Water capacity expansion that IPART has explicitly flagged as a significant additional cost to the public if data centre development accelerates. This is a private commercial facility owned and operated for the profit of its developer and its global tenants, yet the infrastructure scaling required to support it is being socialised onto residents. Every dollar of grid and water capacity consumed by this site is a dollar that cannot be used to support housing supply, schools, local businesses or community facilities in Lane Cove. That trade-off is contrary to the public interest, and Council should refuse to be a party to it.

4. Suitability of the site and public interest — negligible benefit to Lane Cove (s.4.15(1)(c) and (e))
The proposal delivers essentially nothing of value to the Lane Cove community in exchange for substantial impact. Data centres of this type typically employ only a few dozen ongoing operational staff, the majority of whom are not local residents. There is no retail spillover, no community use, no contribution to housing, sport or schools, and no rate-base uplift proportionate to the impact imposed. The site currently hosts four operational warehouses providing diverse industrial and logistics employment — exactly the “range of industrial, warehouse, logistics and related land uses” that the E4 General Industrial zoning under Lane Cove LEP 2008 was designed to protect. Replacing that with a single-tenant, largely automated, three-storey, windowless facility 15–25 metres high, sited immediately adjacent to a major public park (RE1 zoning) and low-density residential housing (R2 zoning) approximately 50 metres to the east, represents a net loss of local employment diversity, a net loss of amenity, and a net loss of public resources. The site is unsuitable for a development of this scale and use, and approval would not be in the public interest.

Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, I object to this development in its entirety. I ask Council to formally oppose its approval and to advocate to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure on that basis.
Lane Cove should not be the site where the costs of Australia’s data centre boom are absorbed while the benefits flow elsewhere.
Yours sincerely,
Jarred Bof

Sensitive Receptors - The proposed development poses a direct threat to the Lane Cove River ecosystem and the health of the local community. With residential receptors located just 50m from the site, the margin for error is non-existent. The current proposal fails to demonstrate how these sensitive areas will be protected from industrial emissions and noise.

Air Quality Modelling - The Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA) is fundamentally flawed. Specifically, Table 12 lists NOX concentrations reaching 5,267 mg/m³, which is more than ten times the Group 6 limit of 450 mg/m³. Using an "emergency standby" exemption to bypass Clean Air Regulations is a gross misapplication of the law when the discharge points are in such close proximity to family homes. The assessment prioritizes regulatory technicalities over the actual safety of the local air shed.

Fuel Quality and Operational Reliability - The Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA) relies on an idealized scenario regarding fuel integrity that does not reflect real-world industrial risks:
1. Fuel Stagnation and Degradation: Diesel is an organic fluid that begins to degrade within 6 to 12 months. Given the proposed testing regime of only 3.2 hours per year, the fuel turnover rate is statistically negligible.

2. Emissions Impact: If fuel is allowed to sit for multiple years without a dedicated Fuel Polishing System or a rigorous Fuel Sampling Program, the "fresh fuel" data used in the AQIA becomes invalid. Stale fuel leads to poor atomization and incomplete combustion, significantly increasing the output of particulate matter and unburnt hydrocarbons beyond the levels modelled in the application.

Cumulative Impacts: The "Airshed" Reality - The assessment fails to consider the broader industrial context of the Ryde/Lane Cove area:
1. Simultaneous Testing Risks: With the proliferation of data centers in this precinct, there is a high probability of simultaneous engine testing. The model must account for the cumulative impact of multiple facilities—including the proposed site at Julius Avenue—operating backup generators concurrently.

2. Air Shed Saturation: The community deserves a model that reflects the "worst-case" cumulative load on the local air shed, rather than treating this facility as an isolated emitter.

Noise Impact: Indicative Data vs. Real-World Privacy - The Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (NVIA) offers a high degree of mathematical precision based on entirely speculative data:
1. Indicative Equipment Bias: Section 5.3.1 (Page 47) admits that the units, sound power levels, and equipment locations are merely "indicative." This renders the subsequent 40+ pages of detailed analysis effectively moot. A project of this scale, situated 50m from residents, should require specific acoustic data from the actual plant intended for installation.

2. Baseline Inflation: Night-time background noise levels appear to be skewed by transient environmental sources (bats, aircraft, and insects). By using these "noisy" baselines, the applicant has artificially inflated the Project Noise Trigger Levels (PNTLs), making the facility appear quieter relative to the background than it truly is.

3. Cumulative Noise: Just as with air quality, the acoustic model must factor in the existing and proposed industrial noise floor from neighboring data centers to prevent "noise creep" in a quiet residential interface.

Fundamental Inaccuracies in Emission Modelling Inputs - The Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA) relies on generic, mismatched, and idealized data rather than project-specific evidence. Given the 50m proximity to residential receptors, the following discrepancies are unacceptable:
1. Use of Surrogate Engine Data (SO2)
The assessment admits to using data from a different manufacturer to estimate sulfur dioxide emissions. Page 37 states: “In the absence of SO2 emission rates provided in the generator datasheets (Appendix D), emission rates are adopted from the specification sheet for a Cummins QSK95-G4... The Cummins QSK95-G4 SO2 emission factor of 0.004 grams per break horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr) is equal to 0.0054 grams per kilowatt-hour (g/kW-hr).”
Objection: Real-world test results from the actual engine make and model proposed for this site must be used. Adopting emission factors from a completely different manufacturer (Cummins) is scientifically unsound for a project in such close proximity to homes.

2. Reliance on Generic US EPA Emission Factors (Benzene & PAHs) - Rather than site-specific testing, the applicant uses 20-year-old generic averages. Page 37 and 38 state: “Emission rates of benzene were estimated from emission factors adopted from USEPA ‘AP-42... Section 3.4 Large Stationary Diesel and All Stationary Dual-fuel Engines’ (US EPA 2025)... Table 3.4-2 provides emission factors for benzene.”
“Emission rates of PAH's were also estimated from emission factors adopted from USEPA ‘AP-42... (USEPA 2006 and Updates)... Table 3.4-4 ‘PAH Emission Factors... provides emission factors for 16 PAHs.”
Objection: The US EPA AP-42 factors are broad industry averages and do not account for the specific tuning or configuration of the proposed units. The health risks associated with Benzene and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) require the highest level of accuracy; therefore, real-world manufacturer test data is the only appropriate metric.

3. Failure to Address Cumulative VOC Impacts - The AQIA uses a single "marker" to dismiss a wide range of toxins. Page 38 states: “As such benzene was used as the marker for VOCs/air toxics... If no exceedances of the benzene criteria are predicted, it is considered appropriate to assume that other VOC emissions... would also result in no exceedances.”

Objection: This methodology fails to consider the cumulative impacts of the various Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) present in diesel exhaust. These pollutants should be assessed as a total chemical load to accurately reflect the health impact on nearby residents.

4. Mathematical Discrepancies in Oxygen (O2) - There is a inconsistency between the summary tables and the technical data in Appendix D. Table 12 provides NOX, CO, and PM concentrations normalized to 7% O2. Appendix D contains data based on 5% O2.

Objection: A lower O2 level in the exhaust emission will yield lower NOX concentrations in the stack. This discrepancy suggests that the modelling may be under-reporting the true pollutant concentration.

5. Underestimation of Fuel Sulfur Content - Table 12 assumes the use of diesel fuel with a sulfur content of 7 ppm.

Objection: This is significantly lower than the Australian regulated limit of 10 ppm. Since higher sulfur content leads directly to higher SOX emissions, the modelling should be re-run using the 10 ppm worst-case legal limit to ensure public safety is not compromised.

6. "Full Load" Bias and Thermal Efficiency - The provided assessments utilize emission rates derived from "Full Load" manufacturer specifications. At 100% load, engines operate at their peak thermal efficiency—the "sweet spot" where the combustion chamber reaches maximum stable temperature, ensuring fuel is atomized and burned as completely as possible.

Objection: This creates a significant modelling bias. It assumes "hot start" conditions and steady-state operation. It fails to account for the significantly higher emissions produced during cold starts, ramping up, or part-load operation, which are more representative of emergency testing cycles.

Proximity to Homes, School, and Park
• The proposed facility is less than 50 metres from residential homes and only 160 metres from a public school. Such close proximity of a major industrial operation to sensitive community spaces is highly inappropriate and unprecedented in our area.
• Blackman Park, a vital green space for recreation and wellbeing, will be directly affected by the development.

2. Scale and Industrial Nature
• The centre is not a minor addition; it is a 22,000 m² industrial building, reaching up to 28.3 metres in height—a significant exceedance of existing height limits.
• The facility will operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, introducing constant industrial activity into a residential and recreational zone.

3. Environmental and Health Risks
• Air Pollution: The site will house 49 diesel generators and store over 1 million litres of diesel and 194,000 kg of lithium batteries. This presents a serious risk of air pollution and hazardous emissions, especially during generator operation.
• Noise Pollution: Continuous operation will generate constant background noise, disrupting the peace of nearby homes, the local school, and park users.
• Tree and Habitat Loss: The removal of 90 trees and associated green space will destroy local wildlife habitats, reduce biodiversity, and diminish the natural beauty of Blackman Park.
• Water Usage: The centre’s huge daily water consumption will require further infrastructure upgrades, potentially straining local resources.

4. Construction Impacts
• Extended Disruption: Construction is expected to last around three years, from Monday to Saturday, causing ongoing noise, dust, and traffic congestion.
• Hazardous Materials: The removal of asbestos and underground tanks poses significant health risks to residents, schoolchildren, and workers.
• Wildlife Disturbance: Extensive demolition and excavation will lead to the loss of wildlife due to vibration and habitat destruction.

5. Community Wellbeing and Precedent
• The project threatens the enjoyment and safety of Blackman Park and the surrounding neighbourhood, impacting both physical and mental health.
• Approving this data centre may set a dangerous precedent for further industrial developments near homes, schools, and parks.

In summary, the proposed mega data centre is wholly unsuitable for this location. The risks to health, environment, and community wellbeing far outweigh any potential benefits. I strongly urge decision-makers to reject this proposal and prioritise the safety, health, and quality of life for Lane Cove residents and future generations.

Richard Kelsey
11 Gardenia Avenue
Lane Cove West
NSW 2066
[email protected]

28 April 2026

Re: Objection to Development Application SSD-82052708 (Project Mars) — Proposed Data Centre, Lane Cove West Business Park

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing as a resident of Lane Cove West to formally object to the proposed data centre development at the Lane Cove West Business Park (Project Mars, SSD-82052708).

My objection is grounded in the scale and inappropriateness of this development for a suburban residential area, not opposition to data infrastructure in principle.

The proposal is a 22,000m2 industrial building, 28.3 metres high, located less than 50 metres from homes and 160 metres from a public school and childcare facilities. That is not a commercial building in an industrial precinct. That is heavy industry placed at the boundary of where families live and children learn. The 57% height exceedance alone signals that this proposal does not fit this location.

The operational impacts compound this concern significantly. 49 diesel generators running 24 hours a day, seven days a week, adjacent to a residential area and school is not a planning question about noise attenuation. It is a question about whether this site is appropriate at all. Over 1 million litres of diesel fuel and 194,000 kg of lithium batteries stored on site presents a material safety risk that has not been adequately addressed in the proposal.

The construction phase stretches to three years of activity Monday through Saturday, with removal of 90 trees, asbestos demolition, and continuous noise and dust generation. Residents in this area will bear that cost in full, with no compensating benefit to the local community.

Beyond the individual project, I am also concerned about cumulative impact. Lane Cove West is now proposed as a cluster site for data centre development. The Member for Lane Cove, Anthony Roberts MP, has noted that 10 to 12 approved or proposed facilities in this area would draw water at the same order of magnitude as 9.6 to 11.5 gigalitres per year and already represent around 90 megawatts of electricity demand concentrated within a suburban corridor. That concentration is not something the existing infrastructure, including water mains with a documented failure history in this area, is equipped to support.

Data centres are necessary infrastructure. The question is where to put them. A site less than 50 metres from homes, adjacent to a park used daily by families and children, and 160 metres from a school, is the wrong answer to that question.

I urge the Department to refuse this application.

Yours sincerely,
Richard Kelsey

I object to the Mars Project proposal.
This proposal will greatly affect the livelihood of my whole family. I am surprised that there has been no independent evaluation of the data given in the EIS, particularly relating to the impacts of businesses, residents and the parkland. The EIS downplays and minimises many concerns and has not actively and properly engaged in community concerns.
My house is only 100 metres away. I have lived here many years in harmony with the business park. The general industrial zoning has not concerned me because I have known that businesses do not operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and whatever the noise, it is transitional in nature and falls silent on the weekend.
My greatest concern is that the acoustic studies are not fully independent and they are methodologically unsound. The timescale and resources for it were dictated by Goodman Group as indicated in the report and thus the contracted company admit they have been limited by this. The full report is lacking in crucial data, uses unrepresentative baseline data, downplays both construction and operational noise and makes no realistic assessment of the low-frequency sound and its cumulative impacts with other data centres here. Further to this, the mitigation for any of the noise is non-binding and once approval of this development goes through, there is no formal way to stop the developer doing as they like, in their normal course of business.
Secondly, the acoustic studies done for baseline testing do not adequately incorporate the 18 months of constant construction that has been going on in our streets (due to another approved data centre). We have not had a single stretch of time long enough to make an accurate study due to ongoing water and data cable works. One of the most sensitive receivers, in Banksia Close suffered construction noise on both sides of the cul-de-sac, however there is little reference to this. Further, background traffic noise is used to inflate background noise, when in fact this cannot be heard for much of the time and depends on weather conditions. Often there is no background noise bar the birds. Without any of this data centre construction, none of the above noise would be happening
Compounding the acoustic problems of both the studies and the proposal is the fact that a height variation has been requested that is 57% higher than currently allowed. It assumes this will have little further impact which is not correct. Much of the mechanical equipment including diesel generators and cooling towers will be on the rooftops of buildings that sit alongside residential areas and parkland. It will now be amplified from the high rooftop. The community nursery, which is classified recreational land (it is not) sits only about 15 meters away… I note also that diesel generation testing will need to be conducted every day as each needs to be tested quarterly but this has been deemed not significant to be part of an acoustic report.
Thirdly, the sensitive receivers omit many areas outside the immediate border that will be sensitive to the noise, both construction and operational. The Lane Cove valley serves to amplify sound. Many of the houses particularly along this valley ridgeline are not even considered in this data. Considering the investment we have in our properties, to be generalised, without due consideration of the impact of this proposal on all houses is not professional and does not follow SEARS guidelines.
My second concern is the lack of community consultation. I am fully aware of the consultation that occurred in the form of leaflet drops, drop-in sessions and at the library. The scale and impact of the development was not made clear however and there was a reliance on less participation rather than more. Bushcare dog walkers, park users, families and those of non-English were not actively engaged. Active door knocking affected areas with the EIS plans, before exhibition should have been a minimum requirement. There was limited information available and real engagement was never encouraged. Further to this, the social and economic benefits are likely to be negative. The jobs lost in the industrial estate would amount to hundreds and it will be difficult for SME’s to find city space. The ongoing operations of this data centre will employ only 26 people.
As for the residents. Our house value will be reduced and our standard of living impacted. Living near a data centre that emits noise 24/7, not to mention the 3 years of construction will affect personal wellbeing and cause local residents to leave. The huge personal and economic impacts of this proposal should be enough to stop such a development going ahead in such an unsuitable location. There are other areas that are not close to houses, that are bordered by industrial, not park and residential land. These are the areas that are appropriate for development.
In conclusion, I understand that data centres are a necessary part of our future but once built, they are a permanent fixture in the lives of those who surround them and there is no mitigation of visual, acoustic or air quality. This is why sustainable development is important and why this date centre is the wrong location. Compounding the obvious problems is the sourcing of power and electricity which has not been addressed in this proposal (in contravention to SEARS I believe), beyond existing infrastructure which is already proving inadequate for the needs of a current data centre in the immediate vicinity.
For all the reasons above this is the wrong site for this proposal.

Objection to Project Mars Data Centre (SSD-82052708)
12 Mars Road, Lane Cove West

I formally object to the proposed Project Mars Data Centre at 12 Mars Road, Lane Cove West.

I am a resident of Hallam Avenue and will be directly impacted by this development. I strongly oppose the proposal due to its significant and unacceptable impacts on amenity, public health, infrastructure and the broader planning integrity of the area.

Amenity, noise and health impacts
The proposal introduces a 24/7 industrial facility immediately adjacent to established residential areas. This creates a high likelihood of ongoing and intrusive impacts on local amenity.

Continuous mechanical plant, cooling systems and associated infrastructure will generate persistent background noise, particularly during night-time periods when ambient noise levels are low. Even relatively modest increases in noise can have a significant effect on sleep, wellbeing and quality of life in a quiet suburban environment. The reliance on indicative plant and equipment, with final design details to be resolved later, creates unacceptable uncertainty around actual operational noise outcomes.

The inclusion of extensive backup diesel generation also raises serious concerns regarding air quality and public health. These generators produce particulate matter and nitrogen oxides, which are known to have adverse health impacts. The proximity of these emissions to homes, schools and childcare facilities is inappropriate and exposes residents, particularly young children, to avoidable risk.

Cumulative impacts
This proposal cannot be considered in isolation. There are multiple data centre developments either approved or proposed within the same precinct.

The cumulative effect of this clustering will result in:
• Significant and ongoing pressure on electricity and water infrastructure
• Compounding and overlapping noise impacts across the area
• Increased air quality risks, particularly during concurrent generator operation or outage events
• A broader and unplanned transformation of the precinct into a high-intensity industrial zone

There is no clear or coordinated strategic framework guiding the concentration of this type of infrastructure in such close proximity to established residential communities. This represents a failure of proper planning and places an unreasonable burden on existing residents.

Inappropriate proximity to residential and community uses
The proposed facility is located extremely close to sensitive receivers, with residential properties within approximately 50 metres. It is also in close proximity to:
• Lane Cove West Public School
• Childcare and early learning facilities
• Lane Cove Community Nursery
• Blackman Park and surrounding public open space

This level of proximity is wholly inappropriate for a large-scale, continuously operating industrial facility.

While the site is zoned E4 General Industrial, the objectives of that zoning require that industrial uses minimise adverse impacts on surrounding land uses and respond appropriately to the close interface with residential areas. This proposal fails to achieve those objectives.

The placement of a hyperscale data centre directly on the boundary of residential zoning, without any meaningful buffer, is a fundamental planning failure. Residents should not be expected to absorb the impacts of continuous industrial activity, including noise, emissions and visual bulk, at such close range.

Departure from intended planning outcomes
The Lane Cove West Business Park was not designed or intended to accommodate infrastructure of this scale and intensity.

There is a clear and important distinction between traditional business park uses such as warehousing and light industrial activities, and hyperscale data centres. This proposal introduces:

• Continuous 24/7 operations
• Large-scale mechanical plant and cooling systems
• Significant energy and water consumption
• Backup diesel generation and associated emissions
• Substantial built form and industrial character

This represents a material escalation in land use intensity that is inconsistent with the established and intended function of the precinct.

Approving this proposal would effectively redefine the area as a data centre cluster without any strategic planning process, without appropriate infrastructure planning, and without meaningful community consideration. This is not what would have been contemplated when the precinct and surrounding residential areas were planned and developed.

Conclusion
The Project Mars Data Centre is fundamentally incompatible with its location. It places intensive industrial infrastructure directly alongside homes, schools and community facilities and represents a clear and unjustified departure from the intended planning outcomes for the precinct. The resulting impacts on amenity, health and long-term planning integrity are unacceptable. The proposal should not be approved and must be refused.

Submission objecting to Project Mars Data Centre — SSD-82052708

12 Mars Road, Lane Cove West

I object to the proposed Project Mars Data Centre.

This proposal represents a significant intensification of industrial use in a location immediately adjacent to residential areas, Blackman Park, and a local school. It should not be assessed as a standalone development. It forms part of a rapidly emerging cluster of hyperscale data centres in Lane Cove West, which raises serious and unresolved cumulative impacts.

⸻

1. Failure to assess cumulative impact (critical issue)

There is already an operational hyperscale data centre at 1 Sirius Road (AirTrunk SYD2) within the same precinct. In addition:

* At least one further data centre has been approved but not yet built
* Multiple additional facilities are proposed within the same Mars Road / Apollo Place corridor

This proposal must therefore be assessed as part of a data centre cluster, not as an isolated project.

There is no adequate cumulative assessment of:

* Total energy demand and grid impact
* Combined noise levels from multiple 24/7 facilities
* Water consumption and infrastructure capacity
* Traffic and servicing movements
* Air quality impacts from diesel generators
* Urban heat and microclimate effects

This is a fundamental planning gap. Approving this project without a whole-of-precinct cumulative impact assessment is not consistent with orderly and strategic land use planning.

⸻

2. Inappropriate location for hyperscale industrial infrastructure

The proposed facility is:

* Less than ~50m from residential homes
* Approximately 160m from a public school
* Directly adjacent to Blackman Park, a key recreational and community asset

This is not a typical industrial interface. It is a sensitive urban interface involving:

* families
* children
* recreational users
* environmentally sensitive land

A 24/7, high-intensity industrial data centre is not an appropriate land use in such proximity.

⸻

3. Permanent noise and amenity impacts

The facility will operate continuously (24/7), generating:

* constant background mechanical noise (cooling systems, plant)
* intermittent higher noise events (testing, maintenance, generators)

Even if compliant on paper, continuous low-frequency industrial noise materially degrades residential amenity over time.

This risk is amplified by:

* proximity to homes and parkland
* the likelihood of multiple nearby data centres operating simultaneously

Without a cumulative acoustic model, impacts are understated.

⸻

4. Air quality and diesel generator risk

The proposal includes:

* 49 diesel generators
* Over 1 million litres of diesel storage

Even if primarily for backup, generators require:

* regular testing
* operation during outages or peak demand events

Diesel emissions include:

* PM2.5 and PM10 particulates
* nitrogen oxides
* carbon monoxide

These pollutants are linked to respiratory and cardiovascular impacts — particularly concerning given the proximity to:

* a school
* residential dwellings
* active recreational space (Blackman Park)

This risk becomes materially worse under a multi–data centre cluster scenario.

⸻

5. Lithium battery storage and fire risk

The proposal includes approximately:

* 194,000 kg of lithium battery storage

This introduces:

* fire and thermal runaway risk
* toxic smoke exposure risk
* emergency response complexity

The suitability of locating this scale of battery infrastructure near homes, a school, and public open space is highly questionable.

There is insufficient publicly demonstrated:

* emergency response capability
* evacuation planning
* cumulative risk assessment (across multiple facilities)

⸻

6. Environmental degradation and tree loss

The proposal includes:

* removal of approximately 90 trees
* excavation and major site transformation

Impacts include:

* loss of habitat and biodiversity
* reduced canopy and increased urban heat
* degradation of the setting of Blackman Park and nearby bushland

This is inconsistent with protecting the environmental and recreational value of the area.

⸻

7. Construction impacts over extended period

The development involves approximately:

* 3 years of construction (Monday–Saturday)
* demolition, excavation, and heavy vehicle movements

Impacts include:

* traffic congestion and parking pressure
* dust and noise
* vibration impacts
* risks associated with asbestos and underground tank removal

These impacts will affect:

* local residents
* school communities
* park users

⸻

8. Existing infrastructure is already constrained

Local infrastructure in Lane Cove is already under pressure, including:

* road capacity
* public transport
* schools at or near capacity
* limited ability to expand local infrastructure due to spatial constraints

A development of this scale — particularly when considered cumulatively — will:

* exacerbate congestion
* increase demand on utilities
* strain emergency services

There is limited to no capacity for meaningful infrastructure expansion in this locality.

⸻

9. Precedent and strategic planning concern

Approving this proposal would:

* establish a precedent for clustering hyperscale industrial facilities near residential and recreational land
* effectively rezone the area by outcome, without proper strategic planning

This undermines:

* community expectations
* orderly land use planning
* protection of public open space

⸻

In summary I strongly object to this proposal and this proposal should be refused.

At a minimum, the Department should require:

* a comprehensive cumulative impact assessment across all existing, approved, and proposed data centres in Lane Cove West
* verified and final noise modelling based on actual plant specifications
* detailed diesel emissions and air quality modelling
* independent lithium battery fire risk and emergency response assessment
* clear demonstration that local infrastructure has capacity to support the development
* stronger protection of trees, bushland and Blackman Park amenity

Without this, the project represents an unacceptable risk to community health, amenity, and environmental outcomes.

I am writing to express my support for the proposed data centre development within the existing light industrial zone.

This site is already zoned for industrial use and has been for many years, well before many current residents moved into the surrounding area. Development within this zone should be assessed in that context. A data centre is a relatively low-impact industrial use compared to many alternatives that would also be permissible under the same zoning, such as concrete batching plants, warehousing with heavy vehicle movements, or manufacturing facilities.

Lower Environmental and Operational Impact
Compared to other industrial uses, a data centre has several advantages:
* Very low day-to-day traffic generation, typically only a small number of staff on site.
* Minimal ongoing noise and emissions during normal operation.
* Backup generators are only used intermittently (e.g. testing or emergencies), meaning their environmental impact is limited compared to constant heavy vehicle activity in other industries.
* Battery systems, while sometimes raised as a concern, are standard infrastructure and widely accepted as part of modern energy systems.

Additionally, the removal of any existing asbestos on the site should be viewed as a positive outcome, improving environmental safety.

Comparison with Other Developments
Much of the concern raised appears to overlook that developments such as large residential complexes or other industrial facilities can involve:
* Significant excavation and construction impacts
* Long-term increases in traffic
* Greater strain on local infrastructure

In contrast, a data centre typically results in lower ongoing disruption once construction is complete.

Infrastructure Benefits
Data centres often require upgrades to local infrastructure, including:
* Electricity supply
* Telecommunications networks
* Water systems

These upgrades can benefit the broader community by improving reliability and capacity of essential services.
Traffic Considerations
Concerns about traffic during construction are valid and should be managed appropriately. However, it is important to distinguish between short-term construction impacts and long-term operational impacts. Once operational, a data centre generates significantly less traffic than most other industrial uses permitted in the area.

Context of Existing Industrial Area
Residents living near established industrial zones should reasonably expect ongoing development consistent with that zoning. This proposal does not represent a rezoning or a shift in land use, but rather a continuation of the area’s intended purpose.

Conclusion
Overall, the proposed data centre represents a relatively low-impact, modern industrial use that aligns with the zoning of the site. When compared to other permissible developments, it is likely to result in fewer long-term impacts on traffic, noise, and emissions, while potentially delivering infrastructure improvements to the area.

For these reasons, I support the approval of this development, subject to appropriate management of construction impacts.

I object based on the following points:

Noise - equipment operating 24/7 - was the noise assessment done representative of what will actually be happening? What are future scalability scenarios and impacts?


the Noise Assessment admits that the mechanical plant details are only "indicative," meaning the community is being asked to trust a model built on speculative equipment rather than confirmed hardware.


Air Trunk SYD2 data centre in LCW - noise findings - way above what was predicted. **see ITC article for more details. https://inthecove.com.au/2026/04/28/lane-cove-data-centre-compliance/


Residents at 150 Epping Road are complaining


Air pollution and emissions from diesel generators - The proponent’s Air Quality Impact Assessment acknowledges that NOX emissions will exceed the Clean Air Regulation 2022 (Group 6) limits—reaching levels 5 to 10 times the standard. The application relies on a "200-hour emergency exemption" to justify these concentrations, a strategy that fails to account for the health of residents living in such immediate proximity to the exhaust


lack of a cumulative impact study. The models treat this facility in isolation, ignoring the combined air and noise pollution that would occur if multiple data centers in the precinct (including the proposed Julius Avenue site) were to test engines simultaneously.


Loss of 90 trees, green space and wildlife- in particular the endangered Powerful owl and the large pied eared bat


Water and electrical infrastructure not confirmed . Water currently taken from Sydney’s drinkable water supply.


risk of pollution to Lane Cove river


proximity to homes - 50m to nearest house. 160m to Lane Cove West school.


Height of buildings - up to 33m height - far exceeds local restrictions **can someone confirm if this is still correct? **


Fire and Rescue NSW (FRNSW) concerns about data centres and the lack of emergency response plans . See ITC article for details - https://inthecove.com.au/2026/04/28/lane-cove-data-centre-compliance/


no agency checking on reports at current Airtrunk facility - See ITC article for details - https://inthecove.com.au/2026/04/28/lane-cove-data-centre-compliance


lack of community consultation - many houses in local area didn’t receive correspondence about the data centre community meetings and submissions

I would like to formally object to this project as a resident of LC West. Main concerns are that modelling and assessments performed and confirmed by EIS shows that these are very inadequately tested for material impact and realistic conditions. Key points include the below.

Proximity to housing.
- Facility proximity is extremely close to resident housing and public school. Proposed hight is 28.3m which exceeds the 18m limits. Achitectual plans seem to indicate setback is based on distance to actual house not property boundaries of the resident properties.

Noise
- Generator noise of the 49 diesel generators has not been realistically assessed under operating scenarios. Noise modelling relies on selective locations not performed close to resident homes or during appropriate times like night time. I don't see low frequency noise impact assessments. Not even sure if this is properly addressed and therefore this is compliant?

Air Quality
- EIS confirms under emergency operations (which we don't know the frequency or executable conditions are) have No2 1-hour criteria that exceeds multiuple receptors based on modelling results. There seems to be no modelling of air quality impacts when ALL data centers are in use during emergency operations which would be a real condition as these data centers are clustered.

Infrastructure Capacity
- No confirmed capacity from Ausgrid or Sydney Water. Critical infrastructure feasibility is not resolved so there is contradictions between use of existing infrastructure and need of new ones.

Enviornmental impacts
- Cumulative environmental impacts not assessed. Asbestos contamination has been iodentified with reliance on remediation plans. Suitability of the site itself relies on future conditions not current conditions.

Social impacts
- Proximity, height, noise, environment, infrastructure, energy/water supply etc all have direct or indirect impact to social life and it seems these have not really been appropriately addressed for resident impacts. Only 49 people consulted and 79% identified no social benefit but EIS confirmed positive outcome. Exhibition was also done during holiday period so seems targetted to not get involvement by parents which would be main cohort?

In essence, the propsal and the assessments for this propsal in my opinion has not been done adequately for negative scenarios or cumulative scenarios or even in resident impactful situations. It relies too heavily on unresolved infrastrcuture and future fix scenarios and shows there are real environmental and community impacts.

This project is far too close to residential houses. There are 2 houses and a council nursery between the boundary of this development and my boundary. There are many residential homes surrounding this impending building as well as a primary school, a huge all-purpose park and playing fields.
As I understand the Data Centre operates 24/7 and emits a noise constantly. Because of its close proximity to residential homes, it will be a health hazard to those trying to sleep at night and detrimental to the mental health of all who hear the constant noise.
At present, no other industries in this area are active 24/7. The nights and weekends are quiet, and to be truthful the Industrial area is peaceful most days except for car and truck movements in business hours.
The number of trees that will be cut down to accommodate this building is quite staggering. The industrial park sits in an area surrounded by parkland, the Lane cove river, marsh areas and an abundance of wildlife.
We have had constant noise and disruption of our movement in and out of our home with the laying of new water pipes for one of the Data Centres at the end of Mars Road (Apollo Place). Will these water pipes cover any future planned new Data Centres such as the one near us at 12 Mars Road. The amount of water used by the proposed Data Centre is enormous, and it is not recycled. With the constant obvious changes in our climate, it seems obscene to allow one Centre access to some much of our precious water.
The aging sewerage system may not cope with the amount of water flowing through the pipes.
The time frame for this build is estimated to be near 3 years. This will cause enormous disruption to the local streets, as tradies will want to park close to the build, with a quick exit at the end of their shift.
There is a lot of movement around drop off and pick up of school children with cars parking and then moving on. Blackman Park also creates lots of traffic movement, with many sporting activities during the week and especially on Saturdays.
Will our electricity grid cope with the enormous amount of energy used by this Data Centre? Back up for this build includes the storage of diesel and lithium batteries, all which could pose a fire hazard.
There seem to be no positive outcomes for the local community of Lane Cove West. This building at 12 Mars Road is causing great distress to many resident s of the local area, and also to the people who will lose their jobs when the factories close on the site.
I object most strongly to this construction of a Data Centre at 12 Mars Road, and I hope government considers the many objections that it receives.

This proposal is very bad on so many levels. Noise. Health. One friend is impacted by works happening for the water pipe “upgrade” and that’s pretty badly handled. I know this proposal is making him consider selling his house and it is quite distressing to him and his wife. There is really no good reason to locate a data centre so close to residential areas. The current industrial area is already enough with current usage. Diesel generators running, trucks coming and going.
It’s a disgraceful example of corporate greed running over the residents and leaving distressed and impacted ordinary people suffering in its wake. This

I would like to OBJECT to the Mars Project.
It is difficult to read everything so I will limit my objections to personal concerns
1. To quote from the Community Engagement Strategy
“This engagement approach has been determined based on the anticipated level of impact of the project on the surrounding community and stakeholders. As the level of impact is likely to be low to moderate, the objective of the engagement is to inform and consult the community.
The engagement report repeatedly claims low to moderate impact and then uses this to justify the engagement strategy of minimal engagement. In essence, their engagement strategy ensures the outcomes they are seeking. This is fundamentally flawed and not in keeping with the basic requirements of an EIS.
As a result, all information was generic and Urbis responses were not detailed enough to provide adequate engagement. How much excavation will take place, how many and which trees will be destroyed, how many generators are planned, how much diesel will be stored, how long will construction take etc. This exhibition is the first of any such details and the time is insufficient to fully examine the impact for both me, my family and my surrounding neighbourhood. To conclude before consultation has begun that the project’s impact is “low to moderate”
a. is a huge overreach.
b. not in keeping with the EIS claims to be “accurate, balanced and representative. It is none of those things
c. contrary to some of the actual findings published in the appendices
This is a breach of the Undertaking Engagement Guidelines, which require engagement level to match the scale and impact of the project. This project is of great scale and huge impact to Lane Cove West
Some more specific concerns are as follows:
- noise concerns. The SIA states the project has medium negative construction noise impacts. The SIA contradicts this by identifying medium negative impacts however the NVIA shows significant exceedances during construction, including near our local primary school. I believe it underestimates the noise and vibration impact at Blackman Park, where the amenity of this recreational area will be disturbed for a long time from construction and then permanently both visually and acoustically from the noise of the data centre close by.
- The business park as a community is not addressed. It is assumed they are unconcerned leaseholders of the named Lot. This is untrue. They merely do not have a say as their fates are being determined by someone who controls livelihoods. For those businesses left, their amenity will be destroyed for three years and the community spirit of the business park will be slowly destroyed. This business park exists so small and medium sized businesses may also have a foothold into the action of central Sydney. It is meant to provide diversity of business and employment opportunities. It will be replaced with one datacentre and few full-time jobs. This is compounded by the cluster of data centres planned and approved for this area, over and above this inappropriate proposal.
- More particularly, Blackman Park is only 25 metres away and directly exposed to both construction and operational noise and is one of the most affected receivers. There appears to be no acoustic modelling. This is surprising considering it’s a highly used recreational area, with children present daily. It will affect sports coaching, communication, concentration and general well being. The park will be hugely impacted by construction noise over a very long period also. Further to this, operational noise (cooling towers, chillers, generators) is rooftop directed toward the park and are along the south/southwestern border to the park. I have spent many years enjoying this space. It is unbelievable that such an unusual and rare place, so near to the city should be endangered.

Why is Blackman Park considered of such little importance for impact studies when this is one of the most impactful parts of this proposal? An image of the proposal from the park should also be part of this proposal so everyone can see what the final construction looks like. This imaging should be done from all angles, not just a favourable Mars Rd one, where nobody will drive past anyway.

This omission contradicts the SEARs requirement to assess “potentially most affected receivers (i.e. not necessarily the nearest residential receptor”.

I would also like to remind you about the community concern of lack of local benefits. There clearly will be an overall very negative impact on local employment as many hundreds of jobs, not just from this data centre, but others proposed or approved, will be lost as SME’s are forced to find new homes. They have not been part of any engagement process. There is no proof that all these businesses wish to not renew leases. I am sure they do not even know that they are about to lose their leases. I know that this data centre is part of a cluster in the area that the business community know nothing about. This is a great loss to the Business Park which has always been an employment hub and represents a diversity of businesses for both the Lane Cove area and Sydney. This will be irretrievably lost.

The SIA clearly inflates the benefits to the community which in reality are zero. In fact, the impact is most definitely negative and not clearly stated.

If there is such confidence in the lack of any material impact I would like to see independent reports done for this project by people who are fully independent. A proposal of this size deserves such consideration, with the full engagement of the community who are fully informed about the construction and operation and have time to fully understand the implications. Council representatives have further told me that The Goodman Group refused a request to engage with us since the time they had important details that could have been shared. This is NOT community consultation.

Finally, I would like to comment about the accommodations being made for the 200-350 construction workers (depending on where you read). Clearly there is little to no parking being made available and hoping for car share and public transport is clearly wishful thinking. What about tools? What about people who are not near the one bus that comes to the area. Due to the location of this proposal it is clear that parking on the suburban streets in Lane Cove West will be the only other option. As construction work will begin at 7am and continue on Saturday, I am wondering how anyone else will park, including all the people who use the park, especially on Saturdays for Saturday sport. The construction workers start at 7am so they will all be taken.

Once again, this is a substantial impact that has not been given appropriate attention and a serious flaw in the EIS.

This location is totally wrong for such a development and needs to be rejected. A data centre is not a benign data storage facility. If it was, the impact would not be so far reaching. It is an active operation where processing is active, energy consuming, water thirsty and heat producing. It is a deceiving description and totally inappropriate for a small suburban business park, needed by so many SME’s and so near to parkland and housing.

I object to the proposed Mars Road Data Centre for reasons set out below.

The proposed Project Mars data centre is a very large facility that is extremely close to homes, LCWPS and Blackman Park. This is not a suitable location for a facility of this nature due to the noise, heat and pollution it emits. The use of diesel generators is acknowledged to produce nitrous oxide at levels above current limits, and this is known to affect the respiratory system and create acid rain https://www.epa.gov/no2-pollution/basic-information-about-no2, and even short term exposure increases mortality: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8578359/.

The data centre is also expected to consume considerable amount of electricity and water, and there has not yet been any assessment of whether its water consumption is supported by the current infrastructure. The EIS is based on many assumptions, including on noise emmiting machinery. If Goodman chooses to go ahead with other equipment, such as poorer quality ones, there could be noise levels that far exceed all environmental standards, and it will only be the residents who suffer. The existing Airtrunk data centre has caused 18 months of Interflow works and ongoing noise that’s above acceptable levels, yet the NSW government, whicu approved its application, has not held it to account. The consequences of all failures and breaches have only fallen onto the residents and local wildlife.

The building proposed significantly exceeds the height limit of 18m – there are conflicting figures within the report of 28.3m and 33m. Looking at the volume of material expected to be excavated and built, the proposed building is about six times that of existing structures. It is extremely visible from Blackman Park, certain houses along Wood Street, and at other angles not depicted in the EIS. There is no mentioned of how the sediments from the deep excavation will be managed. There is a good likelihood that there will be runoffs as has happened in the Goodman construction, and in this case that could be extremely detrimental to the conservation zone around its Eastern and Southern borders.

The expected construction period of 34 months will have significant adverse impact on the neighbourhood. The scale can be expected to be larger and noisier than the road works that have been conducted for over a year by Interflow for the current Airtrunk data centre. The constant noise both during construction and operation will affect the health of current residents: https://www.epa.vic.gov.au/noise-and-your-health. The dust that is generated will also be adverse to health, particularly respiratory problems. There is also no current study on the impact construction vibrations will have on nearby houses.
The removal of 90 trees, including 7 category A and 32 category B trees, will be detrimental to wildlife in the area. It will also reduce the vegetation buffer zone between the industrial area and residential area to an inadequate buffer level. There are currently owls in the area that are a joy to residents, and they will certainly be adversely affected by the removal of trees, constant noise and increase in light levels.

As a resident who lives very close to the proposed site, I am very concerned over the health impact it will have on my family. Our child attends LCWPS, and my whole family frequently visits Blackman Park to exercise and to enjoy nature. The proposed construction and ongoing operation of the data centre will create never ending noise and air pollution for us from which there is no escape. We will be subject to noise at home, at school, and everywhere in our neighbourhood. Our child cannot even choose to escape from the noise and pollution during the day because the school is right next to the site too. This is not a reasonable burden on any human being.

Any development of data centres should be done on a state wide or nation wide scale, identifying sites that are away from residential areas and with a reliable and well planned electricity and water supply. It is not enough to claim that it can be build in an area just because it is zoned as industrial – consideration must be taken to the land use in the area affected by the data centre (and the more noise, heat and pollution it emits the bigger such area), and the character of the neighbourhood. The current proposed site is not suitable for a building of this scale and operations.

Objection to the Mars Road Data Centre
To the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,
I object to the proposal
1. Blackman Park is our space — and this project threatens it
Blackman Park isn’t just a “recreation area” on a map. It’s a part of this community where we
exercise, walk our dogs, play sport and spend free time.
The EIS says the visual and noise impacts on the park are negligible, but this is not for the people
who actually use it. A 28metretall industrial building with diesel generators on the roof will change
the whole atmosphere of the park. It will feel more industrial, less natural, and less like a place
where people can relax.
2. The Community Nursery matters
The Lane Cove Community Nursery is literally 15 metres from the site. It’s a quiet, peaceful place,
not a recreational one for the benefit of a higher acceptable ambient noise classification.
Putting diesel generators and cooling towers right next to it shows that the project team didn’t think
about what this space means to the community.
3. Noise impacts on young people are being ignored
The Noise Impact Assessment says noise impacts are negligible, but it didn’t even measure noise
inside Blackman Park or at the Nursery. It also didn’t consider:
1. how noise affects kids playing sport
2. how it affects concentration at school
3. how lowfrequency noise affects young people are more sensitive to noise than adults,
especially at night. None of this is acknowledged. To say that the noise impacts are negligible
is simply not credible. Further to this there is no information on noise levels of cooling
equipment during different seasons which would dramatically affect load on equipment.
What is the load and subsequent noise and pollution impacts during hot summers and heat
waves and in power outages? All of these scenarios need to be addressed.
4. Underestimates the noise load when people sleep.
4. Height Variation is Unreasonable
The height variation should not be approved. If such a significant height variation is necessary, this is
further confirmation of the inappropriateness of the location. Current regulation stipulates 18
metres, but the developer wants 28.3 metres — a 57% increase. That’s not a small change. It will
make the building loom over the park and the bushland. It will be higher than the trees and there is
no imaging showing what the finished buildings would look like from the park. The photo montages
give no accurate assessment of the scale of the build. The only accurate picture is a stylised one from
Mars Road. There is no reason for only having such imagery from only one vantage point.
The Clause 4.6 report claims the exceedance is “limited to a small portion,” but the diagrams show
the tallest massing is in the most visible part of the site, facing Blackman Park and the bushland.

If a variation of this scale is approved here, it will be impossible to argue against similar or larger
variations in the future. It undermines the integrity of the LEP and the community’s trust in the
planning system.
4. The Social Impact Assessment downplays real impacts
The SIA rates almost every impact as “negligible” or “low,” including:
 visual impact
 noise
 environmental values
 Blackman Park amenity
This is totally implausible given the scale of the development.
5. The Noise Impact Assessment is flawed and underestimates impacts
The NVIA did not measure noise inside Blackman Park or at the Community Nursery, despite both
being extremely close to the site.
It also:
 inflated background noise levels by measuring in locations dominated by distant traffic
 failed to assess lowfrequency noise from generators and cooling towers
 assumed benign operating conditions
 provided generic, unenforceable mitigation measures
As someone who studies in quiet environments and uses the park to decompress, I know firsthand
how disruptive constant mechanical noise can be. The NVIA does not reflect realworld conditions.
Protect our Future
This project doesn’t reflect the future we want. As a young person I care about, climate change,
green spaces, clean air and mental health. The amenity of our local area will be forever changed.
Blackman Park is a critical community asset, not an industrial buffer zone. A massive industrial
building with diesel generators, tree removal, and increased heat doesn’t match the future we’re
trying to build. We’re constantly told to think about sustainability, yet this project removes trees,
increases energy use, and adds more concrete and machinery to an area that should be green.
My friends and I might not be the ones writing planning reports, but we’re the ones who will live
with the consequences of this decision the longest. This project, particularly as it is currently
designed will significantly and unnecessarily damage the social, environmental, and recreational
fabric of the area.
The engagement process was designed to inform, not involve — and that’s not acceptable for a
State Significant Development.