Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
EARLWOOD
,
New South Wales
Message
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.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
HUNTERS HILL
,
New South Wales
Message
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.
• 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.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
LANE COVE WEST
,
New South Wales
Message
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 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
Attachments
Paul Grimshaw
Object
Paul Grimshaw
Object
LANE COVE WEST
,
New South Wales
Message
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?
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?
Voices of Bennelong
Object
Voices of Bennelong
Object
GREENWICH
,
New South Wales
Message
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.
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.
Attachments
Sasha Titchkosky
Object
Sasha Titchkosky
Object
GREENWICH
,
New South Wales
Message
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.
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.
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
LANE COVE WEST
,
New South Wales
Message
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 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