Project Mars Data Centre

I object to the proposal and request that consent be refused. In the alternative, if the proposal is to be considered further, it should only proceed following substantial redesign and the imposition of strict conditions that demonstrably avoid adverse impacts on sensitive receivers. My concerns are detailed in the attached PDF submission document.

I strongly object to the proposed Project Mars Data Centre at 12 Mars Road.

I live nearby, and my child attends Lane Cove West Public School. This proposal is not abstract to me—it will directly affect my family, our health, and our daily life.

Too close to where people live, learn and play

This development is being proposed right on the edge of the industrial zone, directly next to homes, a community nursery, Blackman Park, and a primary school only around 160 metres away.

Homes are less than 50 metres from the site. This is not a suitable location for a large, 24/7 industrial facility. Unlike other data centres, there are no major roads or buffers separating this site from residential streets. This is a quiet, family-oriented area. People walk their kids to school, spend time outdoors, and use the Blackman park every day.

Placing a constant industrial operation here will fundamentally change the feel and livability of the area.

Fear of constant noise and disruption

I am deeply concerned about the ongoing noise this facility will create.
Data centres don’t switch off—they run day and night. From experience near similar facilities, the constant hum travels far. Here, it will be right next to homes.

I am worried about what that means for sleep, stress levels, and long-term health—for my family and for our neighbours.
We have already experienced long periods of construction in the area with the Interflow works. The noise, dust, heavy vehicles and general disruption have taken a real toll. The idea of more construction, followed by permanent, 24/7 operational noise, is overwhelming.

Concerns about air quality and my children’s health

As a parent, one of my biggest concerns is clean air.
This proposal includes backup diesel generators that release harmful pollutants. Even if used occasionally, they can create intense bursts of pollution.

One of my children attends LCWPS nearby. I am concerned about my children’s health if they ride their bikes or walk near the data centre because they’ll have no option to avoid it as we live so close. I don’t want them breathing toxic fumes from the data centre. There is also a childcare centre in the area. The thought of children being exposed to this—especially during testing or power outages—is deeply worrying.
I am concerned about the long-term health impacts on my family, especially respiratory and cardiovascular effects.

Impact on our lifestyle and community

We regularly spend time at Blackman Park—it’s one of the reasons we live here.
It’s a place for sport, nature, and community. It’s where kids play, families gather, and people enjoy the outdoors.
This development risks changing that experience—through noise, visual intrusion, and environmental impacts.
It’s not just about a building. It’s about how this will affect our ability to enjoy where we live.

Loss of trees and impact on wildlife
The proposal includes the removal of around 90 mature trees. These aren’t just numbers—they are part of the local environment that supports wildlife and helps make this area feel green and liveable.

These trees are habitat for native wildlife in the area, including from what I understand to be black cockatoos, tawny frogmouths, and even powerful owls, which are a protected species. Losing these trees means losing habitat that cannot simply be replaced.

Many of these trees will take decades to replace, if they can be replaced at all.
I am concerned about the loss of habitat for local wildlife, and the broader environmental impact this will have.

A growing problem with no clear plan

There are also reports of multiple data centres being planned in this area.
That raises serious concerns about the cumulative impact—more noise, more pollution, more infrastructure strain, and more risk.
It feels like these projects are being approved one by one, without properly considering what happens when they are all operating together.

Final thoughts

This proposal brings together too many risks in one place:
* It is far too close to homes and a school
* It threatens air quality and health
* It adds ongoing noise to a quiet residential area
* It removes important trees and impacts wildlife
* It will change how we experience our local park and community

I worry about my children growing up next to this. I worry about our health. I worry about what this will do to the character and livability of this area.

This is simply the wrong development in the wrong place.

For all of these reasons, the Project Mars Data Centre should not be approved

I write as a resident of Greenwich and an avid user of the Lane Cove River to formally object to the above application. I row on the river almost daily and walk its foreshore regularly. The Lane Cove River is not an abstraction to me - it is part of the fabric of my daily life, the backdrop to my mornings, and a waterway I share with remarkable birds, native fish, and a community of other rowers, paddlers, and walkers.
My objection focuses on a specific and serious gap in the application documents: the complete absence of any adequate sediment and erosion control plan, either for the construction phase or for ongoing operations. This is not a minor omission. In my experience living and exercising along this river and its tributaries, inadequate sediment control at construction sites is one of the most damaging and fastest-acting threats to waterway health in this catchment.

Sediment management does not end when construction finishes. The ongoing operation of a 90 MW data centre campus with extensive paved surfaces, cooling water discharge, and regular vehicle movements creates continuing stormwater management obligations. The application documents do not appear to address:
• How post-construction stormwater from the impervious rooftops and hardstand areas will be managed to prevent sediment, chemical residues, and hydrocarbon contamination from entering the drainage network during rainfall events.
• The maintenance schedule and inspection regime for any stormwater detention or treatment infrastructure on the site.
• The emergency response procedures if a storm event overwhelms the site's drainage systems, as happened at the River Road construction sites after heavy November rain.

These are not hypothetical concerns. They are the documented failure modes of large construction and industrial sites in this exact catchment. The application should not proceed without them being addressed.

I respectfully request that the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure:
• Require the proponent to submit a comprehensive, independently reviewed Erosion and Sediment Control Plan before any earthworks or vegetation clearing is approved, not as a post-consent condition, but as part of the assessment.
• Require that plan to be site-specific, accounting for the slope of the land toward Blackman Park and the river, the soil types exposed by excavation, and the rainfall intensity patterns in the Sydney Basin.
• Require real-time turbidity monitoring at the site's stormwater discharge points during construction, with automatic work-stop triggers if turbidity exceeds safe thresholds and public reporting of results.
• Require a long-term operational stormwater management plan for the life of the facility, not just the construction period.
• Require the proponent to establish a financial bond, sufficient to cover the cost of independent creek restoration, as a condition of consent so that if a sediment pollution event occurs, as it has at Berrys Creek, the remediation cost is not borne by the community.

Voices of Bennelong does not oppose the digital economy or the principle of data infrastructure investment. We do, however, strongly object to this particular proposal in its current form, at this location, without adequate assessment of its environmental and community impacts. Lane Cove is not simply an industrial suburb, it is a community that has invested decades in environmental stewardship, bushland conservation, and the protection of one of the closest national parks to any Australian CBD. That investment must be respected.
We formally request that the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure:
• Refuse consent to Project Mars in its current form, on the grounds of inadequate environmental assessment, insufficient community engagement, and unacceptable impact on residential amenity and the National Park.
• If the application is to be considered further, require the proponent to commission a fully independent ecological impact assessment, including nocturnal fauna survey, for the landscape buffer, Blackman Park, and the adjacent National Park.
• Require a full disclosure of every tree and vegetation community proposed for removal, with independent arborist and ecologist assessment of each.
• Deny any waiver of biodiversity development assessment report requirements for this application.
• Require a comprehensive, independent cumulative impact assessment encompassing all existing and proposed data centre facilities in the Lane Cove West precinct.
• Require independent acoustic modelling of 24-hour operational noise at all residential boundaries, with conditions ensuring noise levels comply with NSW EPA guidelines at the receptor.
• Require disclosure and independent assessment of the facility's projected water consumption and the source of supply augmentation.
• Require a comprehensive stormwater and contamination risk management plan addressing the site's drainage pathway towards Blackman Park and the Lane Cove River.
• Reinstate meaningful democratic oversight of data centre approvals near residential and environmentally sensitive areas by reviewing the continued classification of data centres as State Significant Developments.
The residents of Bennelong and the Lane Cove community deserve a planning system that takes their voices seriously. We urge the Department to place the protection of the Lane Cove National Park, the health of local residents, and the character of this community above the commercial interests of a corporate developer.

I am writing to formally object to Development Application SSD-82052708 for the proposed data centre in Lane Cove West. I am a local resident and have significant concerns regarding the suitability of this development given its proximity to established residential areas and community infrastructure.

1. Misrepresentation of Landscape Setback
The EIS refers to a “significant landscape setback of approximately 50m” separating the site from low-density residential development. This appears to be incorrect. The actual distance between the site and the closest residential properties (e.g. Banksia Avenue) is materially less, with approximately 16m separation in places. A 16m buffer cannot reasonably be described as “significant” for a development of this scale and intensity. This mischaracterisation undermines the credibility of the visual, acoustic, and environmental impact assessments.

2. Building Height and Scale – Unjustified Increase
The EIS states building heights of approximately 15–25m, with justification for variation from the 18m limit due to sloping topography. Plans indicate structures reaching up to 28.3m, which significantly exceeds the stated range. It is unclear which buildings will reach this maximum height. This represents a substantial departure from planning controls and has not been adequately justified.
Questions
• At 28m, how does this compare to the tallest existing structures in the location?
• What will be the visual dominance and overshadowing impact on nearby residences and the community garden?

3. Operational Noise – Rooftop Plant
The proposal includes extensive rooftop plant (HVAC/cooling systems) operating 24/7. Critical concerns are:
No natural topographical or structural barriers exist to prevent noise propagation toward nearby residences.
Air-cooled systems are typically louder than water-cooled alternatives, raising further concern.
The EIS focuses primarily on decibel thresholds but fails to adequately assess low-frequency noise and tonal humming, which are widely reported in international data centre developments. For example, community complaints in countries such as the Netherlands and Ireland highlight persistent low-frequency hum as a major issue, even where decibel limits are technically met.
This represents a material gap in the noise assessment.
Questions
What acoustic testing has been performed around low frequency, constant humming noise levels

4. Generator Location – Inconsistencies in Documentation
The EIS states that diesel generators will be located along the western boundary, away from residential receivers. However, architectural plans indicate three generators, including one located on the eastern side, closer to residences. This directly contradicts statements made in the EIS. Additional concerns are:
Diesel generators introduce significant noise, vibration, and emissions
On-site fuel storage presents environmental and safety risks
Testing cycles (even outside emergencies) will generate recurring disturbance
Questions
• Is there a planned generator on the eastern side?
• What plans are in place to mitigate noise into nearby residences?

5. Questionable “Positive Social Impact” Claims
The EIS claims the project will deliver positive social impacts, including employment and data service benefits. These claims are not substantiated:
Operational employment is minimal (often ~20–30 staff or fewer)
There is no clear evidence of net local job creation
Construction jobs are temporary and not locally guaranteed
The claim that “data storage capacity close to demand” provides social benefit is vague and not locally relevant. This infrastructure primarily serves corporate and regional demand, not the immediate community. Accordingly, the project delivers no meaningful ongoing social benefit to residents of Lane Cove West.
Question
How many jobs are there currently in the location and is that lower than the 26 employees planned for operation?

6. Site Suitability – Failure to Address Sensitive Receivers
The EIS asserts the site is suitable but fails to adequately address:
Immediate proximity to residential dwellings
Proximity to Lane Cove West Public School
Impacts on community amenity and safety
The repeated reliance on a “landscape setback” does not compensate for the actual closeness of sensitive receivers.

7. Visual Impact and Signage
The proposal includes a 3m x 3m illuminated sign on the eastern façade.
Concerns:
This appears to face toward residential properties on Wood Street. If so LED illumination will create light spill and night-time visual intrusion. This is inconsistent with residential amenity expectations
Question
Is a sign planned which will be visible from the back of the properties on Wood Street?

8. Planning Framework Non-Compliance
Under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the consent authority must consider:
Suitability of the site
Environmental impacts
Social impacts
This proposal fails across all three criteria.
It is also inconsistent with the intent of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 and the State Environmental Planning Policy (Industry and Employment) 2021, which seek to ensure industrial developments are appropriately located and do not adversely impact residential areas.

9. Environmental Impact
The environmental implications of this development are significant and insufficiently justified:
• Water Usage: Data centres are known to consume large volumes of water for cooling systems. This raises concerns about sustainability, especially given increasing pressure on water resources.
• Urban Heat and Energy Consumption: Data centres generate substantial heat and require high energy input, contributing to urban heat island effects and increased carbon emissions.
• Impact on Nearby land: The proximity to local parkland risks degradation of green space, biodiversity, and community amenity.
A full and transparent environmental impact assessment is critical, and current documentation does not adequately address long-term consequences.

10. Impact on Property Values
The introduction of a large-scale industrial facility in close proximity to residential properties is likely to:
• Reduce property desirability
• Negatively impact property values
• Alter the character of the area.
Residents should not bear the financial consequences of inappropriate planning decisions.
Question
Has any study been performed to determine property valuation impact and any compensation to residents for the impact to their most valuable asset?

11. Inappropriate Location – Proximity to Residential Areas and School
The proposed site is in close proximity to residential homes and a primary school. A development of this scale and industrial nature is not appropriate for such a sensitive location.
Data centres operate continuously (24/7), and their presence introduces persistent noise, traffic, and visual impacts that are incompatible with a family-oriented suburban environment. The proximity to a school raises additional concerns regarding student wellbeing, safety, and the learning environment.

12. Construction Impacts
The construction phase will have a prolonged and disruptive effect on the local community:
• Significant noise over an extended period
• Heavy vehicle movements through residential streets
• Dust, vibration, and reduced air quality
• Traffic congestion and safety risks, particularly near the school
These impacts are unacceptable in a densely populated residential area. I personally work from home full time and have no office location to go to. Therefore, especially across years of construction this will have a detrimental effect on the ability to do my job
Question
What mitigations are planned to reduce construction noise into nearby properties?

I OBJECT to the Project Mars Data Centre, Lane Cove West (SSD-82052708)
I have lived in this house for over 50 years. I have been part of this community for over 50 years. This community that you think will only be minimally affected has nurtured my life for over 50 years. My son went to the local school, my life was enriched by our beautiful recreational space, my native garden is home to our Australian wildlife and fauna. When my husband was ill, it was the community who supported me, both the residents and my friends in the business park. This is a community that has lived harmoniously with our businesses in the local industrial estate. Why have we lived so harmoniously. It is because of a mutual respect and the knowledge that while life goes on, it also falls silent. It falls silent at night. It falls silent on Sundays. It even falls silent on Saturdays.
I cannot comprehend why you think that building a very large data centre will have minimal impact on this community. Of course it will. Not only will it have a huge impact during the long time frame to build it (I believe it is almost three years). It will also take away our quiet times in perpetuity. There will be no silence at night, no silence in the morning when all I hear is the morning chorus of birds. This chorus will be used to validate your noise. You will say that this morning chorus is sound that shows we don’t live in silence. There is a difference between sounds that nourish us and sounds that destroy our mental health. This data centre, I have absolutely no doubt will destroy it.
I am a psychoanalytic therapist and through my work am all too familiar with those small things in life that have an untold and unmeasurable impact on our lives. You will assess this data centre in terms of acoustic guidelines and whether they are at “acceptable levels” but I can guarantee that not one person who is assessing this proposal will need to live with a huge data centre so close to their front door. Your family, your children, won’t be affected. You will gratefully pass this social cost onto others whose life will not touch yours. I am expendable in this equation and so are the rest of my beloved community. There are properties under 100 metres away. No amont of mitigation and planting of trees will stop this noise for them. Nor those who live along the ridge of the park. I also will be forced to move for one reason only. The profit of one company. Will the Goodman Group be more important than countless numbers of local residents? Goodman have other properties. No doubt this one provides an opportunity to build in a convenient location, where the true costs will be socialised. They say it is because there is existing infrastructure. We all know the actual reason is that they will save. They want to save money by accessing our infrastructure and saving millions for they will not need to build their own. It is cheaper to choose Lane Cove West and merely inconvenience residents who will have no power to stop anything after Goodman have their approval.
I understand that I live near an industrial and business park. It has however been zoned with particular regard to the proximity to parks, recreational land and residential housing. Height has been limited to 18 meters. This proposal far exceeds this height as you well know. Height limitations are given for a reason. The justification for a change in height is not logical. Goodman says that extra height is needed to limit the footprint and make it economically viable. A more logical analysis would be that if it needs that height and the requisite setbacks for viability, this location is simply not suitable.
To say that the current buildings are in a poor state is also misleading. Goodman are the owners and it is their responsibility as landlord to keep the buildings in a fit state, which they are, I might add. The commercial argument does not hold considering the tenants cannot be part of the EIS and are in fact powerless. I know there are tenants who not only want to stay, but in fact had presumed that extending their tenancy was guaranteed before investing in plant and equipment. This was of course before The Goodman Group decided to turn their hand to data centres as their new cash cow. Moving out of the local area is not possible for many of these businesses. They have nowhere to go. I am devastated that SME viability is now trumped by big corporate profitability.
A further thing that astounds me is that a data centre would be considered so close to a primary school. How anyone could possibly think this is a suitable location. Construction of 34 months, large amounts of demolition and excavation, subsequent works and then a business that will never sleep 24/7. That anyone could think that this is OK at any level, acoustically or environmentally on a school environment beggars belief. Simply shutting windows to classrooms is not a mitigation strategy. I have worked extensively with children who are extremely sensitive to changes in their environment, both physically and mentally, so how there can be any justification to building only 150 meters from a school is mystifying. I believe there will be single generator testing every day but no details as to what noise and pollution this will add. Why would NSW Planning ever even consider a block of land situated so close to a school as suitable. Further to this, some of these children will go home and still be exposed to this level of sound interference.
Finally, the EIS is, of course, an extensive document with appendices that run into many more pages than can possibly be digested. This would be most advantageous to the developer as no one in the short time frame can possibly evaluate this proposal properly. I will note several things that concern me generally.
- It runs counter to any council strategic plan for diversification of and employment in the business park.

- There is no significant economic contribution that I can find. In fact, it says that the impact locally is negative in the relevant appendix. This, of itself, is not a strong argument I agree, as sometimes there is an argument of “for the greater good” however this is unclear also. This is not a one off project. The “greater good’ of data centres is being more than fulfilled by this particular industrial area, with the two current ones, and the possibility of more. There is no greater good to anyone except The Goodman Group, for situating a data centre beside parks, residents, schools and childcare. There are much better locations than this one.


- The detail of the mitigation measures is negligible and non binding which, considering the size of the project, must surely run counter to any planning regulation. Non binding mitigation measures are not good enough to sweep away all the risks, especially those borne by the community. The nearest housing block is adjacent to the site and there are many houses within a 50-100 metre distance. The geotechnical report says the nearest house is 200 meters away which is incorrect. There are many houses WITHIN this distance. To the north, my whole street and a primary school are WITHIN the 250 meters the geotechnical report claims is the nearest possible residential area. How can such an important report be so wrong. This is the type of incorrect information in this report. We rely on you assessing CORRECT INFORMATION. This report further specifies the type of equipment that will be necessary including hydraulic impact breakers, rock saws and rock grinders however there are no impact studies on this large equipment. How much noise, how much vibration and for how long will they be used each day? Will my house be structurally impacted.

- Goodman are required to include worse case modelling of all plant and equipment. After construction, once operational, how noisy will the coolers be during heat waves and times of increased power. How noisy will the generators be when all are needed. This is worse case scenario, which is necessary for a compliant SEARS. When will you force big powerful companies to follow guidelines. NSW Planning has failed to regulate the current data centre built in this industrial area, AirTrunk, so how can we have any faith it will be done for this one.

- I will hear EVERYTHING from my house and so will my clients. It will be impossible for me to work in these circumstances.

- I note also the lovely presentation of the facility from Mars Rd but none from the park and none that actually show the scale and size of the project in comparison to what is there now. Clearly this could easily be done using the plans and would inform the community and other stakeholders of the whole development. Why has this not been done? Can I assume it is because it is best not shown. I hope when assessing this project this will be asked for, as without it, visual impact is just words with little meaning.


- I am curious as to why there is no independent assessment in this EIS by stakeholders who do not hold a financial interest in the development or are not contracted by Goodman Group. If the impacts are so minimal, why don’t Goodman fund an independent assessment of visual and acoustic impacts by a company nominated by the community.

Please consider this submission and I trust that you will give careful thought to the imbalance of power between one large company that I know heavily invests for this government and the thousands of residents who will only be impacted negatively by this huge development. The Goodman Group will have many other projects and alternative ways to make money that do not have such far reaching and permanent impact on communities. This location is totally wrong and this proposal should go no further.

Norma Tracey AM,
North Sydney Council Community Award
Cath Leary Mater Mercy Foundation Award for Justice and Integrity in the Community
Member of the Australian Association of Social Workers

I have been a resident of Lane Cove for over 30 years and now, even though I live in Hunters Hill, still use the Blackman Park regularly with my grandchildren. I oppose this development for many reasons.
• Firstly, the EIS is incomplete. The Department emphasises a “comprehensive open and transparent community consultation process must be undertaken during the preparation of the EIS”. This has not been done. Why was there no community consultation in the lead up to this submission and with such a short exhibition time, no chance to engage. Further to this, why was the exhibition time chosen over school holidays when families are most likely to be away. This is a proposal with hug ramifications on families and school children who use the park. I can only assume it is a cynical attempt to minimise engagement and an easy approval process.
• Why are there no proper impact studies, particularly from those areas most affected, for example Wood St and other areas in the industrial area. The visual impact studies are particularly ridiculous. Only one clear image from Mars Road. The photo montages are deliberately difficult and I am sure include trees that will be cut down.
• Why is topography of the area only acknowledged when it lessens impact however is not referenced when it increases impact.
• Why were many neighbouring and affected streets not included in the public notification mailout.
• Why is past history used as justification to substantiate emergency modelling for the next 30 plus years when we live in a very different world of ever expanding needs for our power and water and a changing climate. This proposal does not look at the total effects of using the diesel generators in an emergency scenario believing it unlikely they will be needed based on the historical data of one other centre. This omission shows the incompleteness of the EIS. An emergency, by its very nature, is unpredictable and so cannot be conservatively estimated.
• Why is there no reference or acknowledgement of the role of data centres as the country’s strategic national utility and the security risk for residential housing and city centres. There is minimal security and it could be subject to any kind of attack
• There are over one million litres of diesel on this site alone. The cumulative amounts, in all the sites, in this fire prone area, is not discussed – another omission. Emergency procedures for residents and industrial area users should be clear.
• Why is there no reference to the loss of business space for every day businesses who need space near the city centre at a time when land is at a premium. There is no impact study on the businesses and employment currently in the area that will be lost. It will not create employment for the area. It will destroy it. I have a friend who will lose his business in the area if this proposal goes ahead. Are current businesses not important in the face of one powerful multinational?
• Why are there no plans in place for the public to see how water will be accessed. These plans must be in place BEFORE approval, for transparency. Sydney Water has not submitted any plan outlying how they will support this proposal and what costs and infrastructure works are necessary. THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL PART OF THE PROJECT AND CANNOT BE MISSING. I have found it difficult getting around Lane Cove West with all the current road works and torn up nature strip. I believe this is not you, however, no doubt such construction will be necessary for you too. This is a major problem for locals and there are lots of tripping hazards currently.

• Further to this, there are no impact studies done if water is scarce. WHAT HAPPENS IF WATER IS STOPPED FROM GETTING TO THE SITE. Does the site overheat? Water is only as good as the pipes that bring it. There is a contingency plan for electricity but no detail for if there is water stoppage.

• How will NSW supply such an enormous amount of water and electricity without prices going up. When a resource is scarce, the price goes up.

• What happens if there is a long term problem with the supply of electricity. These will have to get priority over residential areas and if there is none, diesel generators will be used 24/7 because when these data centres are built THEY CANNOT FAIL. They will be kept going at ALL cost.

• Why has a proposal been submitted that is at odds with the building restrictions of the business park. These rules have been made with the consideration that residential housing is close by and generally the two have lived harmoniously, these restrictions protecting the interests of both groups. Heights increasing by anywhere from 57-83% and noise being emitted 24 hours a day, seven days a week with no break is not part of these restrictions and should play no part in the one large industrial block of the area that is situated the closest to the residential area. There are other blocks in this industrial area that have also been earmarked for data centres that are much more appropriate locations (not withstanding the other cumulative issues).

• Why is there no independent body who can monitor construction and penalise if construction is conducted outside the parameters of this proposal. Where is the avenue for local residents to object if regulations are flaunted, noise variations exceed specified levels, work is done outside stated hours. The currently operating data centre is not monitored and has no penalties for any pollution or noise that breaches guidelines. This is an unacceptable risk.


• Why is there no parking strategy beyond “encouraging car pooling and public transport”. That is of course, simply ridiculous. Construction will go on for almost three years. It is close to residential streets. They will bear the burden, not only of noise, pollution, vibration, ongoing road works but also parking for 200 construction workers or more. They will have tools. They won’t all come by bus!

This site is most unsuitable and the EIS, from what I have read only confirms the unsuitability of the site. The Goodman Group must clearly know this themselves however must be hoping that they can get this one past the keeper without too much fuss. I hope the Department of Planning can do their job properly and protect such precious areas of Sydney from such ill conceived, inappropriate and locally damaging developments such as this.

This proposal should be put on hold pending the findings of the NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into data centre planning. The findings of this inquiry will have significant implications for the assessment of this proposal and a decision regarding community and other impacts of the application cannot be made absent this context. Further, the assessment should take into account cumulative impacts of data centre development in Northern Sydney, including on water security, environmental impact and general amenity.

I am writing to provide feedback on the proposed data centre development at Mars Road, Lane Cove West.

Support for Digital Transformation – In Principle
I am broadly supportive of digital infrastructure investment and recognise the important role that data centres play in enabling Australia’s digital economy, cloud services, and emerging technologies. Well‑designed digital infrastructure can deliver long‑term economic and productivity benefits and is an essential part of modern society.
However, support for digital transformation must be balanced with very high standards of local infrastructure, environmental protection, and residential amenity, particularly when developments of this scale are proposed in close proximity to established residential neighbourhoods.

Electricity Infrastructure and Energy Impacts
Data centres are uniquely intensive users of electricity. While the proponent may meet technical requirements on paper, the practical impacts on surrounding communities must be fully addressed and transparently mitigated.
Specifically, I ask to ensure that:
Electricity supply upgrades required for the facility do not compromise reliability, capacity, or quality of supply for local residents
Any required new substations, backup generators, or high‑voltage infrastructure are appropriately located, screened, and buffered
The development demonstrates genuine best‑practice energy efficiency and demand management, rather than simply relying on scale
Cumulative impacts are considered, not just this application in isolation (there are multiple applications in the area at present!)
Local residents should not bear indirect costs or risks arising from the electricity demands of a large commercial facility.

Water Use and Resilience
Similarly, data centres can place significant demand on water infrastructure, including for cooling systems.
It is critical that:
Water usage is minimised through best‑practice design and technology
There is no material impact on local water pressure, availability, or drought resilience
Any water infrastructure upgrades required are fully funded by the developer and designed to avoid downstream impacts on residents - we have already had 1yr of disruptions in our neighborhood streets. The streets have also been left at a lower quality than they were before works were conducted on water infrastructure.
Given increasing concerns about water security, particularly during heatwaves and drought periods, this issue warrants close scrutiny.

Noise Impacts (Including 24/7 Operations)
Noise is a major concern for nearby residents, particularly given the 24/7 operational nature of data centres.
The submission should ensure that:
Noise assessments realistically account for night‑time operations, backup generator testing, cooling systems, and mechanical plant
Noise limits are conservative and enforced, not merely modelled averages
Strong conditions are imposed around commissioning, testing, and emergency operations
Ongoing compliance monitoring is mandatory, with clear enforcement mechanisms
Once operational, noise impacts are extremely difficult to reverse, so standards must be set high from the outset.

Tree Removal, Environmental Equity, and Consistency of Standards
A key concern is equity and consistency in environmental controls.
Local residents are often subject to very strict restrictions on tree removal, even where trees materially limit reasonable residential development, safety, or amenity. In contrast, large developments are frequently permitted to remove substantial numbers of mature trees.
If residents are required to preserve trees at significant personal and financial cost, it is only reasonable that:
Commercial developments are held to equal or higher standards, not lower
Mature tree removal is genuinely minimised, not treated as an acceptable trade‑off
Replacement planting is meaningful, enforceable, and long‑term
The loss of tree canopy and heat mitigation is fully offset
The perception that large developers are afforded greater flexibility than residents undermines confidence in the planning system.

Conclusion
In summary, while I support digital infrastructure development in principle, this proposal should only proceed if:
Infrastructure standards are demonstrably best‑in‑class
Local electricity and water networks are protected from adverse impacts
Noise impacts are conservatively assessed and strictly controlled
Tree removal and environmental impacts are addressed with genuine equity and discipline

Digital progress should not come at the expense of local amenity, environmental integrity, or fairness to the surrounding community.
Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission.

I object to the proposed data centre at 12 Mars Road. While I believe we need to develop our digital infrastructure it needs to be done as part of a planned and coordinated strategy.
The number of data centres being built or proposed in the Lane Cove West industrial area is concerning. There have been no clear studies of the long term effect of these centres on the surrounding area and certainly not a cluster of these centres.
My main concerns are noise, pollution, power and water usage and long term effects on the surrounding area.
International planning practice commonly recommends buffer zones of 300 to 500 metres between large scale data centres and vulnerable land uses such as homes, schools, parks and recreational areas. Modeled on the cumulative effect of on-going noise at low-frequency 24/7.
12 Mars Road is within 160 metres of a school, that includes before and after school care, within 50 metres of homes and is directly adjacent to the national park and Blackman recreational area.
Low frequency noise caused by the cooling systems, including cooling towers, high capacity fans and chillers penetrates buildings and travels further than high frequencies. Noise can contribute to reduced cognitive performance (not what you want from a school), disturbed sleep and increased stress.
In addition, the running of 49 diesel engines will add to the noise and also effect the air quality. I acknowledge they are not running 24/7 but they are run regularly for testing and when power is out – and in Lane Cove West area this has been a regular occurrence and will likely increase given the demand of the multiple data centres in the area.
What is Goodman going to do to ensure that the World Health Organisation recommendations for bedroom noise stays below 30dBA and classroom under 35dBA is upheld if the data centre goes live at 12 Mars Road?
There is also a safety concern with storage of diesel and lithium batteries within a fire zoned area. There are children playing and living within this area.
The building does not allow for the greenspace that is required and will remove a large number of trees in the areas. This area is known for its wildlife, including a rich abundance of Australian birdlife. Also in the area are Tawny Frogmouths and Powerful Owls.
12 Mars Road is so close to Blackman Park that it will act like an amphitheatre and intensify the noise in the area. Removal of the trees will increase this and also the building size, well over the height restrictions for the area will ensure that the detrimental effects of the data centre are felt far and wide.
The building of a data centre on this site is an inappropriate use of the land and should definitely not move ahead based on the current plans.

I live with my husband and 2 young children just 50 metres from the proposed site. This could pose risk to the health and wellbeing of my children. The site could also cause a constant hum affecting their health and ability to play outside and sleep on the night. This will also drastically affect the property price of our Home and hence affect us significantly financially. Please reconsider the position of this site and move it further into the industrial where it will not affect our neighbourhood

I object to the proposed data centre at 12 Mars Road. These developments must occur within a properly planned and coordinated framework.
There is no framework or plan in place to manage the volume of data centres already built or proposed in the Lane Cove West industrial area. There has been no clear assessment of the long‑term impacts these facilities, especially multiple facilities will have on the surrounding community.
My primary concerns relate to noise, power and water consumption, and the broader long‑term consequences for the area. International planning practice typically recommends buffer zones of 300–500 metres between large‑scale data centres and sensitive land uses such as homes, schools, parks and recreational spaces. These guidelines are based on the cumulative impact of continuous low‑frequency noise.
Why Goodman are you ignoring these recommendations and building within as little as 50 metres of houses and 160 metres of a school?
The effect on the local flora and fauna is also unknown, this building is directly beside the national park and Blackman recreational area.
Low‑frequency noise from cooling systems, including cooling towers, high‑capacity fans and chillers - travels further than high‑frequency noise and penetrates buildings. Such noise can reduce cognitive performance, disrupt sleep and increase stress levels.
Operating 49 diesel engines is not only very noisy but will degrade air quality. Although these engines are not intended to run continuously, they will operate regularly for testing and during power outages. In Lane Cove West, outages have been frequent, and demand from multiple data centres will likely increase this risk.
Goodman how are you going to address the health issues and possible hospitalisation of Asthmatic children from the local school when these engines are running?
The proposed building does not provide the required greenspace and would result in the removal of a significant number of trees. This area supports abundant wildlife, including Tawny Frogmouths and Powerful Owls.
Given its proximity to Blackman Park would act as an amphitheatre, amplifying the noise of the data centre across the area. The removal of trees and the excessive building height — well above local restrictions — would further intensify these impacts.
A data centre at this location is an inappropriate use of the land, and the project should not proceed in its current form.

There is a NSW enquiry into data centres underway. This proposal should be deferred until that enquiry completes, so any new recommendations or requirement as a result of that enquiry can be included in the proposal.

Overall the proposed development doesn’t support many of the Objectives of the E4 zone, in particular, "To encourage employment opportunities” and "To recognise the close proximity of this zone to adjoining residential areas and to mitigate potential conflict between industrial and residential uses." The development doesn’t show evidence in support of the Federal Governments Data Centre Expectation of Supporting Australia’s energy transition and Sustainable and efficient water usage.

More specific objections / concerns listed below relate to my property which is 50 metres from the eastern side of the proposed development where there will be a structure taller than the existing with many cooling chillers and diesel generators in the open air on the roof. I have attached photos to show how close I am to the existing buildings and where the new proposed taller building is expected to be located.

1. The 24/7 operating noise in particular at night time that would interrupt sleep at my premises. It is a quiet area at night. Currently the night time RBL measurement in the provided EIS is 30dBA for NCA03. The operational projection is 36dBA is this is outside EPA guidelines of no more than 5dBA above RBL. I have been through night time machine noise experience with the existing printing company, IMMIJ. The initial solution at the time of DA time was insufficient. I worked with local council 9 years ago for many months to force IMMIJ to retrofit acoustic treatment to the windows, vents and walls. Even then the low frequency thump of the large printer was still audible. I do not want a repeat of this experience.
2. Concern of the additional noise and emissions when diesel generators are operating.
3. There is no assessment of noise impact and emissions if all or multiple diesel generators are running simultaneously due to a major power interruption.
4. The height of new building is expected to be 28 metres. This is 10 metres above the 18 metre maximum for this industrial zone. The building is on my west side and will block light, sun and amenity at my property especially in the winter months. I expect to have to turn on lights early in the house to accommodate the darkness and consume more electricity.
5. Trees are to be removed between my property on the west and the new development. Trees provide a visual buffer and partial acoustic barrier. They are a fundamental part of the area and provide a habit for the vibrant bird life.
6. Additional risk of catastrophic fire with the large numbers of lithium batteries and fuel storage for the 49 diesel generators on the premises. Fire on the premises could spread to adjacent premises including mine. This could affect my home insurance conditions and premium.

I strongly object to the proposed data centre at 12 Mars Road, Lane Cove West on the following grounds:

Height and bulk
The proposed development significantly exceeds the permissible height limits under Lane Cove planning controls. The tallest elements are positioned closest to residential streets and sensitive bushland interfaces, resulting in an unacceptable visual and environmental impact. The scale of the proposal is inconsistent with the surrounding built form and local character.

Noise impacts
The facility is proposed to operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week in close proximity to residential properties. The noise assessment is not based on confirmed equipment specifications, but rather on assumptions regarding machinery that may be installed. This introduces unacceptable uncertainty and raises serious concerns that actual operational noise may exceed acceptable limits, adversely affecting nearby residents.

Bushland and riparian environment
The site directly adjoins environmentally sensitive bushland and the Lane Cove River corridor. The proposal includes excavation of up to 8 metres, which presents a significant risk of destabilising soils, altering groundwater flows, and causing irreversible ecological damage.

There is also documented precedent in the local area where inadequate sediment and erosion controls during construction of a nearby data centre resulted in substantial harm to an endangered saltmarsh community. This history heightens concern about the adequacy of proposed mitigation measures.

Impact on the Community Nursery
The Lane Cove Community Nursery is located immediately adjacent to the proposed development. The Nursery plays a critical role in propagating native species used for bush regeneration across the entire Local Government Area. It is highly sensitive to dust, heat, vibration, and changes in microclimate. The construction and operation of a major industrial facility in such close proximity poses a direct threat to its viability and function.

Cumulative infrastructure impact
There has been no adequate assessment of the cumulative impact of four data centres operating within the local area. In particular, the combined demand on water supply, electricity infrastructure, and road networks has not been properly analysed or disclosed. Without a comprehensive cumulative impact study, it is not possible to understand the true burden this development will place on local infrastructure systems.

This proposal, as currently presented, is inconsistent with responsible planning principles and fails to adequately protect environmental assets, community infrastructure, and residential amenity.

Project Mars Submission

I object to this application.

I’ve lived in Henley Street for nearly 20 years. I’m now nearly 80 and love this neighbourhood. I’ve enjoyed watching my daughter and now adult grandchildren grow up here, attending the local school and thriving in this beautiful area and all it has to offer its residents. I have welcomed the changing face of Lane Cove during this time and have seen only improvements. This is the first time I’ve felt the need to make an objection to a planning proposal and am only doing now so due to my serious safety concerns.

I fully support the recent submission by Lane Cove Council which outlines in detail a number of serious issues about this large Data Centre project, but rather than repeat what has already been stated by Council and no doubt others submitting individual objections, I will just focus on two main issues for me.

1. The lack of independent oversight of the inevitably biased evidence presented by the Goodman Group in support of this project due to its status as a State Significant Development. I believe it essential now to have that level of official scrutiny, which a review by an independent panel will provide.

2. The total unsuitability and associated risks of its location.

Situated at the very end of Mars Road, right up against the boundary demarcating the end of the light industrial area it is just meters away from residential housing and Lane Cove West School.

The topography of the location, with this large building sitting atop steeply sloping bushland, which forms two of its boundaries, is a further reason why it should not be located here.

The risks of a fire breaking out and spreading rapidly are all too obvious. I understand that the NSW Fire Service is still awaiting the necessary documentation from the developers to explain how the proposal plans to mitigate these risks not only to property and wildlife but most importantly, to the humans who live, work and play nearby.
in one part of the system which goes on to rapidly to affect other parts, before it can be controlled, leading multiple systems failing at the same time.
I find the lack of serious attention in the proposal to the possible cumulative impacts of an unexpected event deeply concerning. Such incidents, though rare, are certainly possible whether due to a natural cause such as severe storm, human error or worse, to malign activity such as a cybercrime attack or physical sabotage by a hostile actor. Even a relatively small incident in a complex system can all too rapidly lead to escalating system failures possibly with catastrophic outcomes.

Submission: Objection to Proposed Mars Road Data Centre (SSD-82052708)
Location: 12 Mars Road, Lane Cove West

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

As a nearby resident, I am concerned about the significant and long-term impacts this development is likely to have on local amenity, environmental quality, and community wellbeing. My objection is based on deficiencies within the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and supporting documentation, as outlined below.

1. Inadequate Consideration of Cumulative Impacts

The EIS fails to adequately assess the cumulative impacts of multiple data centres within the Lane Cove West industrial precinct.

Existing and proposed developments in the immediate area include:

The operational Apollo Place Data Centre (AirTrunk) at 1 Sirius Road and 1 Apollo Place;
The proposed expansion of the precinct (Mars Road Data Centre);
The Lane Cove Data Centre Alliance development at 16–20 Mars Road.

The increasing concentration of data centres in this locality raises significant concerns regarding:

Combined energy demand and strain on electricity infrastructure;
Water consumption requirements;
Noise and vibration impacts;
Air quality and emissions;
Traffic generation and associated impacts.

The absence of a comprehensive cumulative impact assessment results in an incomplete and potentially misleading evaluation of the proposal’s true environmental and community effects.

2. Deficiencies in Noise Impact Assessment

The noise modelling presented in the EIS does not adequately reflect the site’s topographical conditions.

The subject site is located on an elevated ridge above Blackman Park, which forms a natural basin. This landform is likely to amplify and project noise into surrounding areas, including nearby residential zones.

Key concerns include:

The potential for an “amphitheatre effect,” whereby sound is reflected and concentrated within the basin;
Direct line-of-sight transmission of noise from rooftop mechanical equipment into the park and adjacent residential areas;
Underestimation of low-frequency noise impacts, particularly from continuously operating cooling systems;
Insufficient modelling of night-time conditions and atmospheric variations.

Given the 24-hour operation of the facility, these impacts are likely to be ongoing and intrusive, with potential implications for community health and amenity.

3. Inadequate Air Quality Assessment

The air quality assessment does not appear to reflect the scale and operational requirements of the proposed development.

Specifically:

The modelling appears to be based on assumptions more applicable to smaller facilities;
There is insufficient analysis of emissions associated with diesel generator testing and emergency operation;
The proximity to sensitive receptors, including Blackman Park, Lane Cove West Public School, and nearby residences, has not been adequately considered.

Of particular concern is the lack of assessment of cumulative emissions during potential grid outages, when multiple facilities may operate backup generators simultaneously.

4. Inconsistencies in Submitted Data

There are inconsistencies in key data points across the submission, including:

Reported total power consumption of both 81 MW and 90 MW;
Conflicting figures for annual generator testing hours (122.5 hours in the EIS versus 155.2 hours in the Air Quality Impact Assessment).

These discrepancies raise concerns regarding the accuracy and reliability of the information provided and warrant clarification prior to any determination.

5. Outstanding Questions Requiring Clarification

The following matters should be addressed prior to any approval:

a. Topographic Acoustic Impacts
How has the noise modelling accounted for the amplification effects associated with the ridge and basin landform between Mars Road and Blackman Park?

b. Operational Noise Compliance
Given that modelling is based on indicative equipment, will enforceable conditions be imposed to ensure that operational noise does not exceed predicted levels?

c. Cumulative Air Quality Impacts
Why does the EIS not assess the combined impact of multiple data centres operating backup generators simultaneously during a power outage?

d. Heat and Microclimate Effects
Has any assessment been undertaken regarding the cumulative heat output of nearby data centres and its impact on the local microclimate, surrounding bushland, and residential areas?

Conclusion

In its current form, the proposal does not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the environmental and community impacts have been fully understood or appropriately mitigated.

Accordingly, I request that the application be refused, or at a minimum, that further comprehensive and transparent assessment be undertaken to address the issues outlined above.

Key Objections – Mars Road Data Centre
Too close, too big: Industrial-scale building (up to 33m) just ~50m from homes, exceeding height limits by up to 83% → dominates a residential area.
Noise not resolved: Residents flagged as “highly affected”; modelling is incomplete, based on unconfirmed equipment, and underestimates generator and low-frequency noise.
Air quality risks: 49 diesel generators; confirmed NO₂ exceedances in emergency scenarios; no proper worst-case or cumulative modelling.
Flawed modelling: Inconsistent receptor distances; closest homes and school not clearly assessed; no ongoing monitoring required.
Infrastructure uncertain: No confirmed capacity from power or water providers; key services deferred until after approval.
Environmental harm: ~90 trees removed, 0.8ha vegetation lost; indirect impacts (noise, light, dust) acknowledged but not fully assessed.
Visual impact understated: Selective viewpoints fail to reflect real impact on nearby residents.
Minimal benefits: Few long-term jobs vs significant amenity and potential property value impacts.
Poor consultation: Limited engagement; majority saw no benefit; timing reduced participation.
Planning gaps: No proper cumulative impact assessment despite data centre clustering.
Unreliable EIS: Inconsistencies, reliance on draft designs, and unresolved risks.
Traffic impacts ignored: 300+ workers, no clear parking plan → congestion and safety issues.
Bottom Line

Oversized, under-assessed, and unresolved.
The proposal relies on future fixes while already showing unacceptable impacts.
👉 The EIS fails to prove this development is acceptable.

I am a local resident living approximately 200 metres from the proposed “Project Mars” data centre site. I have two young children, aged 5 and 6, who attend Lane Cove West Public School, located in close proximity to the proposed development.

I strongly object to this proposal on the basis that the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) does not adequately demonstrate that the impacts of this development are acceptable—particularly given its scale, proximity to sensitive land uses, and the cumulative nature of impacts in the area.

⸻

1. Incompatible Scale, Proximity and Land Use Conflict

The proposed development represents an industrial-scale facility that is fundamentally incompatible with its immediate surroundings.
• The EIS indicates setbacks as little as 6.3–10 metres from the eastern boundary, with approximately 50 metres to residential dwellings.
• This proximity fails to appropriately buffer nearby homes, a primary school, and Blackman Park.
• The proposed building height of 28.3 metres significantly exceeds the 18-metre limit (by ~57%), with references elsewhere suggesting heights up to 33 metres (~83% exceedance).

This results in a visually dominant and imposing structure in what is effectively a residential interface. The reliance on industrial zoning does not adequately address the real-world context of adjacent sensitive receivers.

⸻

2. Noise Impacts – Uncertain and Potentially Severe

The EIS acknowledges that residents will be “highly noise affected” during construction, which is concerning in itself.

More critically:
• Operational noise modelling is based on indicative—not final—plant and equipment.
• The proposal includes 49 diesel generators, yet realistic operating scenarios (including simultaneous or emergency use) are not robustly assessed.
• Low-frequency noise impacts, which are known to travel further and disrupt sleep, are not adequately addressed.
• Claims of “no sleep disturbance” are not supported by finalised design data.

As a parent of young children, the prospect of uncertain operational noise is deeply concerning. The EIS does not conclusively demonstrate that noise impacts will be acceptable.

⸻

3. Air Quality Risks – Confirmed Exceedances

The proposal includes 49 diesel generators, with:
• Approximately 155 hours/year of testing, plus
• Unrestricted emergency operation

The EIS confirms that under emergency scenarios:
• 1-hour NO₂ criteria are exceeded at multiple receptors

Despite this:
• Worst-case cumulative scenarios (e.g. multiple nearby data centres operating simultaneously) are not properly assessed
• Only selected “most impacted” receptors are reported, with inconsistencies in receptor distances (e.g. ~50m vs 200m in modelling tables)

This is particularly alarming given the proximity to a primary school. The lack of robust modelling for realistic scenarios undermines confidence in the conclusion that air quality impacts are acceptable.

⸻

4. Infrastructure Constraints Not Resolved

The EIS confirms that key servicing arrangements remain unresolved:
• No confirmed capacity from Ausgrid (electricity)
• No confirmed servicing from Sydney Water

Instead, the proposal relies on post-approval resolution of critical infrastructure.

This represents a fundamental planning failure. Approval should not be granted where essential services are uncertain and may require substantial upgrades.

⸻

5. Environmental Impacts and Biodiversity Loss

The proposal involves:
• Removal of approximately 90 trees
• Impact to ~0.8 hectares of native vegetation

The Biodiversity Development Assessment Report acknowledges indirect impacts from:
• Noise
• Light spill
• Dust

These are established pathways for ecological harm, yet cumulative environmental impacts are not assessed.

Additionally, the presence of asbestos contamination and reliance on future remediation further highlights that site suitability is not fully established at this stage.

⸻

6. Visual and Amenity Impacts Understated

The visual impact assessment relies on limited and selective viewpoints, which do not adequately represent:
• Views from adjacent homes
• The true scale and bulk of the structure at close range

This underrepresents the lived experience of nearby residents, who will be directly impacted by the building’s scale and proximity.

⸻

7. Social and Economic Impacts Overstated

The EIS concludes there are no adverse social impacts, which is inconsistent with the evidence presented.
• Community consultation involved only 49 individuals, with 79% identifying no social benefit
• Despite this, the EIS concludes positive outcomes

The economic benefits are limited:
• 320–350 temporary construction jobs
• 26–45 ongoing roles

These modest benefits do not justify the permanent impacts on local amenity, environment, and community wellbeing.

⸻

8. Traffic, Parking and Construction Impacts

With 300+ construction workers, the absence of a clear parking and traffic management strategy is a significant concern.

Given existing congestion around Blackman Park:
• Overflow parking into residential streets is likely
• Traffic congestion and safety risks will increase

This is particularly concerning for families and school children in the area.

⸻

9. Strategic and Cumulative Impact Failures

The proposal has been assessed in isolation, despite:
• The known clustering of data centres in the region
• Acknowledged potential cumulative impacts (particularly air quality)

Key issues—noise, air quality, infrastructure—are deferred to future stages rather than resolved upfront.

This approach effectively seeks approval without demonstrating that impacts are acceptable, contrary to the intent of the planning framework.

⸻

Personal Impact

As a resident living 200 metres from the site, and as a parent of two young children attending a nearby primary school, I am deeply concerned about:
• Air quality impacts from diesel generator operation
• Prolonged construction noise
• uncertain operational noise
• Increased traffic and reduced safety in the area
• The loss of green space and environmental quality

This proposal will materially change the character and liveability of the area, with long-term consequences for families like mine.

⸻

Conclusion

In its current form, this proposal:
• Is too large and too close to residential and sensitive uses
• Has confirmed air quality exceedances and unresolved noise impacts
• Fails to assess realistic worst-case and cumulative scenarios
• Relies on unresolved infrastructure and future mitigation measures
• Does not adequately protect environmental or community interests

The EIS does not demonstrate that the impacts of this development are acceptable.

I respectfully request that this application be refused, or at a minimum, significantly revised to address the substantial deficiencies identified above

To the Assessment Officer,
Objection to State Significant Development Application SSD-82052708 — Project Mars Data Centre, Lane Cove.

I write as a local resident of Lane Cove to formally object to the above application. While I acknowledge the broader economic case for data centre infrastructure in NSW, I submit that this specific site is fundamentally unsuitable for a development of this scale and nature. My objections are set out below.

1. VISUAL AMENITY AND VIEW IMPACTS
Lane Cove is a low-rise, residential suburb with established streetscape character and significant natural amenity along the Lane Cove River corridor. A data centre of the scale proposed — requiring substantial building mass, rooftop mechanical plant, cooling towers, and associated infrastructure — would be visually incompatible with the surrounding built environment. The EIS should demonstrate, with rigorous shadow and view impact analysis from affected residential properties, that the development does not materially degrade the visual amenity that residents reasonably expect and upon which property values in this area depend. I am not satisfied that the publicly exhibited materials adequately address this concern.
2. POWER AND GRID INFRASTRUCTURE STRAIN
The proposed facility would draw approximately 90 megawatts of power on a continuous, 24-hour basis. This is an extraordinary load for a suburban distribution network that was not designed to support industrial-scale energy consumers. I am concerned that the EIS does not sufficiently address: the augmentation works required to the local Ausgrid network; the cost allocation of those works and whether they will be borne by the proponent or socialised across the broader customer base; and the risk of supply reliability degradation for existing residential and commercial customers in the Lane Cove area. These are material infrastructure questions that require transparent, independent assessment before any determination is made.
3. INCOMPATIBLE LAND USE
Data centres are industrial land uses by any reasonable characterisation — they involve heavy plant and machinery, 24-hour operations, significant noise-generating cooling infrastructure, large volumes of service vehicle movements, and substantial utility easements. Locating such a facility within or immediately adjacent to a low-density residential suburb conflicts with the orderly and consistent application of land use planning principles. The Lane Cove LGA is not zoned or planned for this category of development, and approval here would set a concerning precedent for similarly inappropriate proposals in established suburban areas across Greater Sydney.

I respectfully request that the Department give full weight to these concerns in its assessment and, if the application is not refused outright, that any conditions of consent impose binding obligations on the proponent with respect to visual screening, independent network impact assessment, and operational noise management.

Key Objections to the Proposed Mars Road Data Centre

Cross references below are to the EIS.

1. Proximity, Scale and Land Use Conflict
• The facility is extremely close to residential properties – only 50m to dwellings (Architectural Plans – Appendix B), and set back in the Eastern boundary of only 6.3m to 10m” (EIS main body, page 27)
• Distance assessments should be to property boundaries, not just houses.
• Proposed height is 28.3m vs 18m limit (~57% exceedance) (Clause 4.6 Variation – Appendix OO) (Although Appendix H page 6 states, “maximum height of 33 metres” which would result in an 83% exceedance)
This results in a dominant industrial-scale building in a sensitive residential setting, near a school and a park that is much used by the community and hosts wildlife.

2. Noise and Amenity Impacts
• The EIS confirms residents will be “highly noise affected” during construction (Appendix U – Noise Impact Assessment, construction section). The construction is expected to last 34 months, and noise is known to cause a multitude of health conditions: https://www.epa.vic.gov.au/noise-and-your-health
• Operational noise modelling is based on indicative (not final) plant and equipment. The final specifications to be confirmed at detailed design stage (Appendix U)
• Proposal includes 49 diesel generators, but generator noise is not fully assessed under realistic operating scenarios (Appendix U)
• Low-frequency noise impacts are not robustly addressed
• Claims of “no sleep disturbance” are not supported by final plant data
• Noise modelling relies on selective receiver locations, not the closest homes
Noise impacts are not fully assessed, and there appears to be potential to cause adverse health effect on residents.

3. Air Quality and Generator Impacts
• Proposal includes 49 diesel generators (Appendix T – Air Quality)
• Testing regime of approx. 155 hours/year, plus unrestricted emergency operation (Appendix T)
• The EIS confirms that under emergency operation, NO₂ 1-hour criteria are exceeded at multiple receptors (Appendix T, modelling results)
• The EIS also acknowledges potential cumulative impact with other data centres in the area (Appendix T)
• Modelling includes 57 receptors, but only selected “most impacted” receptors are reported (Appendix T)

• There are inconsistencies between mapped receptor locations of 50m away (Figure 5 – Appendix T) and distances used in modelling Table A1 (0.2 km). It is not clearly demonstrated that the closest homes and school were assessed as worst-case receptors.

• Combined worst-case scenarios are not fully assessed. With the increase in the number of data centres, there will be an increase in strain on electricity supply, and therefore greater likelihood of supply failure resulting in multiple generators operating for extended periods of time. This scenario has not been properly modelled.
There is a lack of control over the emission exceeding air quality limits (with the EIS acknowledging this to take place at least 155 hours a year), and no control or assessment over its potential impact on residents. The statement in summary of Appendix T, that “air quality impacts of the proposed development are acceptable”, is misleading

4. Infrastructure Capacity and Servicing Uncertainty
• There is no confirmed capacity from Ausgrid (power supply) (Appendix KK – Infrastructure Report) or Sydney Water (water servicing) (Appendix X / EIS servicing sections). EIS states utilities will be finalised post-approval.
• Critical infrastructure feasibility is not resolved at approval stage. There are contradictions between reliance on existing infrastructure and acknowledgement of required upgrades, and therefore uncertainty over the impact the proposed data centre’s demands on electricity and water will affect the neighbourhood.

5. Environmental Impact
90 trees to be removed (Appendix MM – Arborist Report), including 7 category A and 32 category B trees. The EIS acknowledges impact from noise and light spill on native wildlife, and the possibility of injury and death on wildlife.

6. Visual and Urban Design Impacts
• Visual assessment relies on limited and selective viewpoints (Appendix N – Visual Impact Assessment). It does not adequately represent views from adjacent residential properties and Blackman Park.
• The EIS understates the real impact of the scale and height to existing residences, park and school nearby.

Bottom Line – this proposal:
• is too large and too close to homes
• has confirmed air quality exceedances and unresolved noise impacts
• does not assess worst-case or cumulative scenarios properly
• relies on unresolved infrastructure and future fixes
• results in real environmental and community impact
The EIS does not demonstrate that impacts are acceptable.