Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
LANE COVE WEST
,
New South Wales
Message
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
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
Monika Kowzan
Object
Monika Kowzan
Object
LANE COVE WEST
,
New South Wales
Message
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.
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.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
LANE COVE WEST
,
New South Wales
Message
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.
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.
Fiona Matthews
Object
Fiona Matthews
Object
LANE COVE WEST
,
New South Wales
Message
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.
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.
Andrew Lovell-Simons
Object
Andrew Lovell-Simons
Object
LANE COVE NORTH
,
New South Wales
Message
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.
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.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
LANE COVE WEST
,
New South Wales
Message
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.
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.
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
LANE COVE WEST
,
New South Wales
Message
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 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.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
LANE COVE WEST
,
New South Wales
Message
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