We already have one huge data centre we can see from our apartment - construction noise is loud, the lights are so bright at night - we don't need to see another one. This area is becoming a rapidly growing cluster for data centres and it is too close to residential areas.
We have concerns about noise (during and after constuction), air quality, envornmental impact and infrastructure inadequacy/pressure (water especially). We don't want to see another data centre here driving the price of property down. It is also very close to LCWP School.
I object to this proposal.

SSD‑82052708 — Project Mars Data Centre, 12 Mars Road, Lane Cove West

I am writing to formally object to the proposed Project Mars Data Centre at 12 Mars Road, Lane Cove West (SSD‑82052708). After reviewing the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and supporting technical documents, I hold serious concerns regarding the project’s environmental impacts, infrastructure feasibility, amenity impacts on nearby residential areas, and the overall lack of demonstrated community benefit. I wish to bring this to your attention to ensure these matters are addressed prior to proceeding further with this application or the application be rejected.

The proposal is incompatible with its immediate context and fails to adequately assess or mitigate several significant risks that are played down in the EIS. I have outlined my concerns below.

1. Proximity, Scale and Land Use Conflict
The EIS repeatedly frames the site as “set back from sensitive receivers,” yet the actual distances tell a different story. Table 5 of the EIS confirms that residential properties are only ~50m from the site, with setbacks to the boundary as little as 6.3m.

The proposal also seeks a 28.3m building height, exceeding the LEP’s 18m limit by 10.3m — a 57% variation. The EIS itself states:
“The maximum building height is 28.3m… comprising a 10.3m variation to the maximum height control.”
This scale is inappropriate immediately adjacent to low‑density homes, a school, and public recreation areas. The industrial zoning does not override the need to protect residential amenity where land uses directly interface.

2. Noise, Vibration and Amenity Impacts

Construction Noise
The EIS acknowledges that during construction:
“Exceedances of NMLs are expected at the nearest sensitive receivers.”
Residents will be “highly noise affected” for extended periods, including during demolition, excavation (67,410m³ of cut), and heavy vehicle movements.

I operate a small business from my home office (CI Sustain PTY LTD ABN: 22 624 023 427). During construction, because of the close proximity to the proposed building this will be expected to have a significant impact on my ability to run a small business over such a long duration).

Operational Noise
The operational noise assessment is based on draft mechanical designs, not final equipment. This means actual noise levels remain unknown.
The EIS concedes:
“Operational noise assessments have been undertaken based on a fully operational data centre… [but] final equipment selection may vary.”
Low‑frequency noise — a known issue for data centres — is not meaningfully assessed.

Generator Noise
The proposal includes 49 diesel generators, yet generator noise is largely excluded from the operational noise assessment because they are classified as “emergency standby plant.” This is misleading, given:
122.5 hours of testing per year (Table 11)
Potential for simultaneous operation during outages
Cumulative generator noise from multiple nearby data centres is not assessed
This represents a major gap in the EIS.

3. Air Quality and Diesel Generator Impacts
The EIS confirms:
“In final configuration… 49 low voltage diesel generators… supported by 8 in‑ground bulk fuel storage tanks.”
Testing alone accounts for 122.5 hours per year, and the EIS acknowledges that exceedances of NO₂ may occur during emergency operation.
Critically, the EIS states:
“Exceedances would only occur during an emergency scenario… [but] the likelihood… is considered highly unlikely.”
This is not a valid justification. Emergency scenarios — bushfires, grid failures, heatwaves — are precisely when air quality is already compromised.

Furthermore, cumulative impacts from multiple data centres in Lane Cove West are not assessed, despite the EIS listing several nearby facilities (Table 6).

This omission is unacceptable for a project of this scale.

4. Water Usage, Electrical Load and Infrastructure Capacity
The EIS reveals significant uncertainty regarding the project’s infrastructure feasibility:

• Sydney Water has not confirmed capacity

• Ausgrid has not confirmed final connection agreements

• The cooling system will consume ~510,000m³ of water annually

The EIS states:
“Goodman has ongoing fortnightly meetings with Sydney Water… A Section 73 application is to be submitted following lodgement.”
This means the proponent is seeking approval before confirming whether the site can be serviced.

Given Lane Cove’s recent water outages, sewer upgrades, and electrical constraints, this is a material risk to the community.

The existing Data Centres have caused a prolonged impact to our roads as well as several disruptions to water that the community has already endured.

5. Environmental Impacts and Biodiversity Loss
The proposal involves:
Removal of 90 trees
Only 104 replacement trees, many of which will take decades to mature
Loss of canopy that currently provides a natural buffer to homes
Increased heat, light spill, and noise affecting adjacent bushland

The EIS acknowledges:
“90 trees will be removed… 132 retained… 104 replacement trees proposed.”
This is a net loss of mature canopy and habitat.

The EIS also confirms the presence of asbestos and contaminated fill, yet relies heavily on future management plans rather than demonstrating mitigation now.

6. Visual and Urban Design Impacts
The Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) relies on selective viewpoints and excludes meaningful assessment from the most affected residential properties.
The EIS states that visual impacts range from “nil to low,” yet:

The building exceeds height limits by 10.3m

The massing is concentrated toward the centre and west, but still visible from homes

The eastern façade faces directly toward residential areas and bushland

The VIA does not reflect the lived experience of residents whose homes back directly onto the site.

7. Social and Community Impacts
The EIS claims the project will deliver “positive social impacts,” yet:
Only 26 operational jobs will be created
The facility provides no community services, amenities, or public access
The development will increase noise, pollution, traffic, and visual bulk
Property values in the immediate area are likely to be negatively affected

The Social Impact Assessment does not meaningfully address these issues.

We have also not been informed how these data centres will be used. Recent media reports have stated that 70-80% of the revenue generated by these data centres will be leaving the NSW economy into other global players pockets.

8. Poor and misleading engagement with residents to this point and the increase threat of chronic illness and childhood leukemia.
Across the local community it has become apparent that some people have received more communication than others during the planning stages. No general notifications have been posted in the local streets or around the nearby Blackman Park facility.
Early briefing sessions were also misleading when I recall a question raised about the increase of EMF radiation in the local area it was simply met with “There will be no effect” this is very misleading and scientifically false, yet convenient to tell the local community at the time.

9. Potential health risk - increase threat of chronic illness and childhood leukemia
Science has posted many articles that discuss epidemiological studies reporting associations between chronic residential exposure and an increased risk of childhood leukemia with increased EMF levels.
Although Data Centre specific studies are limited the power usage is increasing and thus so will EMF radiation – this needs to be considered a very serious health risk that is not yet fully understood and not adequately covered in the EIS.


 
The Project Mars Data Centre presents unacceptable environmental, amenity, infrastructure, and social impacts that have not been adequately assessed or mitigated. The proposal is fundamentally incompatible with its proximity to low‑density residential areas, a primary school, community playing fields and sensitive bushland.

Given the significant unresolved risks, including water and power capacity, diesel generator emissions, noise impacts, and the excessive height variation, I respectfully request that the Department refuse the application.

Should the Department consider approval, it must require a complete reassessment of:

• Generator noise and cumulative air quality impacts
• Infrastructure feasibility (Sydney Water, Ausgrid)
• Low‑frequency noise modelling
• Residential visual impact
• Updated technology options for cooling and backup power
• Full cumulative impact assessment across Lane Cove West
• Continuous EMF and health studies done in the local area to ensure that in operation these levels remain safe to residents.
• A plan to enhance the value being delivered to the local community and especially the nearby residents. Acknowledging and being totally transparent with disruptions and providing plans to support them and the local businesses during this time.

As a state government elected to act in the best interests of your community, I trust that bringing this matter to your attention provides the visibility needed to review the specifics of this application. Until these issues are fully resolved, the project should not proceed.

Yours sincerely,
Christian Dalle Nogare
44 Wood Street
Lane Cove West NSW 2066

I am writing to formally object to the proposed Mars Data Centre development within the Lane Cove Local Government Area.
The scale, location and impacts of this proposal raise serious concerns for nearby residents, the local school, Blackman Park, and the broader community.

1. Three Years of Construction Adjacent to Sensitive Land Uses
The proposal includes approximately three years of construction, operating Monday to Saturday, immediately adjacent to residential areas, Lane Cove West Public School, and Blackman Park. This extended construction period is excessive for such a sensitive location and is expected to result in:

Ongoing construction noise impacting families, young children, elderly residents, and shift workers
Significant disruption to teaching and learning environments at Lane Cove West Public School
Dust, vibration, and reduced air quality affecting residents and park users over an extended period
A prolonged and unacceptable reduction in neighbourhood amenity

The cumulative impact of sustained construction activity over such a long timeframe has not been adequately justified or mitigated in the proposal and places a disproportionate burden on the local community.

2. Traffic, Parking and Safety Impacts
Parking and traffic impacts present a major concern. Lane Cove West already experiences significant congestion, particularly during school drop‑off and pick‑up times and periods of peak use at Blackman Park.
Construction activity is likely to increase:

Demand for worker parking in residential streets
Heavy‑vehicle movements on local roads
Congestion and safety risks during school hours
Competition for already limited residential street parking

The documentation does not provide sufficient detail on how these impacts will be managed or mitigated. Given existing pressures on the local road network, the proposal requires a far clearer and more robust assessment of cumulative traffic and parking impacts.

3. Proximity, Scale and Compatibility
The scale of the proposed development raises serious planning concerns. The proposed building height exceeds existing planning controls, and setbacks to residential boundaries are limited.
Given the proximity to homes, a public school, and a heavily used park, the bulk and massing of the facility raises significant questions about its compatibility with surrounding land uses. The proposed scale risks overwhelming the existing neighbourhood character and undermining established planning controls intended to protect residential amenity.

4. Noise Impacts and Uncertainty
Construction noise is expected to be substantial over the three‑year build period. In addition, operational noise impacts remain uncertain due to:

Noise modelling being based on draft mechanical designs rather than finalised plans
The presence of backup diesel generators, which may operate during outages or testing
Potential low‑frequency noise, which can be particularly intrusive for nearby residents

Given these uncertainties, it is not appropriate to assume acceptable long‑term noise impacts without further detailed and finalised assessment.

5. Air Quality and Diesel Emissions
The proposal includes diesel generator testing and potential operation during power outages. However, the cumulative air‑quality impacts of this facility, particularly when considered alongside multiple nearby data centres, have not been adequately explored.
Local residents, school children, and park users may be exposed to increased emissions, and further assessment is required to understand the long‑term health and environmental implications.

6. Infrastructure Capacity and Servicing
Key service authorities, including Sydney Water and Ausgrid, have not yet confirmed that sufficient infrastructure capacity exists to support the proposed development.
The absence of confirmed servicing arrangements raises concerns about:

The feasibility of the proposal as currently exhibited
Potential future infrastructure upgrades impacting the local area
The appropriateness of approving a development of this scale without confirmed essential services

These matters should be resolved prior to any approval.

7. Environmental Impacts
The proposal involves the removal of approximately 90 trees, significantly reducing established natural buffers between the development and surrounding areas. This loss will:

Diminish local biodiversity
Reduce visual and acoustic screening
Negatively affect the ecological value of the area

In addition, continuous lighting, heat output, and around‑the‑clock activity associated with a data centre may have ongoing impacts on local wildlife that have not been adequately addressed.

8. Visual and Amenity Impacts
The visual assessment relies on selected viewpoints that may not accurately reflect the experience of nearby residents. The scale and massing of the building have the potential to:

Significantly alter local character
Increase visual dominance in the streetscape
Reduce residential amenity for adjoining properties

A more comprehensive and representative visual assessment is required.

9. Social and Economic Impacts
While the Environmental Impact Statement concludes there will be no significant adverse social or economic impacts, this conclusion lacks sufficient supporting evidence. Further clarity is required regarding:

Long‑term impacts on residential amenity
Potential effects on property values
Broader consequences for community wellbeing

These issues are particularly important given the proximity to homes and a public school.

10. Consultation and Exhibition Concerns
Community consultation to date appears limited, with only a small number of residents engaged. In addition, the exhibition period overlapped with Easter and school holidays, which significantly restricts the ability of families, school communities, and other stakeholders to participate meaningfully in the process.
This timing undermines confidence that genuine community input has been sought or considered.
11. Strategic Planning and Cumulative Impacts
The proposal is being assessed largely in isolation, despite the presence of multiple data centres in the surrounding area. Furthermore, there is an active NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into data centre planning, the findings of which may be directly relevant to this proposal.
Proceeding prior to the outcome of that inquiry risks pre‑empting broader strategic decisions about the appropriate location and regulation of such facilities.

12. Reliance on Future Information
Several key aspects of the proposal rely on future studies, finalised designs, or post‑approval commitments. A development of this size and impact should be assessed based on complete, verified, and final information, not deferred details.

Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, the proposed Mars Data Centre raises serious planning, environmental, and community concerns. The scale, location, duration of construction, and unresolved impacts make it inappropriate for approval in its current form.
I respectfully request that the consent authority refuse the application, or at a minimum require substantial further assessment, revised design outcomes, and meaningful community engagement before any determination is made.

I am a resident of Lane Cove West and write to formally object to the State Significant Development application for the Project Mars Data Centre campus at 12 Mars Road, Lane Cove West (Goodman Group, 90MW).

1. Cumulative Impact on a Residential Fringe Suburb
Lane Cove West Business Park now has five data centre proposals: two built, one approved, and two more (Project Mars and the DC Alliance proposal) currently in planning. The cumulative impact of this concentration on the amenity, infrastructure, and character of the surrounding residential area is not being adequately assessed. Each project is assessed in isolation, masking the true burden on Lane Cove West residents. A cumulative impact assessment across all approved, under-construction, and proposed data centres in this precinct must be conducted before any further approvals are granted.

2. Noise and Air Quality — Diesel Backup Generators
The proposed facility includes approximately 120 diesel backup generators. Diesel generators produce significant quantities of nitrogen dioxide (NO₂), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and other combustion pollutants during testing and emergency operations. Lane Cove West Public School is located in close proximity to this precinct. The impact of regular generator testing (typically monthly, each test lasting 30–60 minutes) on the health of children attending this school has not been adequately addressed. I request a strict noise and air quality management plan with independent monitoring, generator testing restricted to school holiday periods, and enforceable limits on cumulative generator operation hours per year.

3. Power Reliability and Grid Capacity
Residents in Lane Cove West already experience power reliability issues. A 90MW facility will place extraordinary additional demand on the local distribution network. The application must demonstrate that Ausgrid's local infrastructure can accommodate this load without degrading supply reliability for existing residents and businesses, and that any required network upgrades are fully funded by the developer, not ratepayers.

4. Construction Disruption
Existing data centre construction in the precinct has already required cables to be trenched through residential verges and a year-long Sydney Water pipe upgrade. The construction management plan for Project Mars must commit to: no residential verge access without prior resident notification and consent; construction hours strictly enforced; and a dedicated community liaison contact with genuine responsiveness obligations.

5. Visual and Character Impact
The scale of this development — two two-storey facilities totalling 18,830 sqm, plus substantial rooftop plant — is inconsistent with the character of the surrounding area. The height, bulk, and visual presence of data centre infrastructure (cooling towers, generators, switchgear) significantly degrades the amenity of nearby residential streets.

Conclusion
I do not object to data centre development in principle, but this specific application — in the context of the already heavy concentration of facilities in this precinct — imposes unacceptable cumulative risks on Lane Cove West residents, particularly with regard to air quality near the local school, power reliability, and noise. I request that the Independent Planning Commission or delegate undertake a cumulative impact assessment before determining this application, and that enforceable conditions address the noise, air quality, and construction concerns raised above.

Colin Chauvet
25 Cullen Street, Lane Cove West NSW 2066
[email protected]
+61 459 481 437

The proposed “Project Mars” data centre development in Lane Cove West demands serious scrutiny before any approval is considered. The site currently houses an operational commercial warehouse serving Sightline, a Sydney-based audio-visual company that supports live events and corporate productions across the city. Displacing a functional, people-centred business to make way for automated infrastructure raises immediate questions about what genuine relocation support has been offered, and whether the economic trade-off has been honestly assessed. The livelihoods of real workers are at stake, and no planning process should treat that as an acceptable casualty without thorough justification.
What makes Project Mars particularly alarming is its sheer scale. An 81-megawatt facility operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week is not a modest commercial development — it is heavy industrial infrastructure, and it has no business being positioned within metres of a residential neighbourhood. The power draw alone is equivalent to tens of thousands of homes, placing enormous and sustained strain on the local electricity grid. More staggering still is the projected water consumption: half a billion litres per year. That figure is not a rounding error — it represents an extraordinary claim on a shared public resource, in a city and a country that has lived through devastating droughts and faces an increasingly volatile climate future. Approving this level of water usage for a single private facility, in a suburban setting, would be an act of institutional recklessness.
The human cost to the immediate community is just as concerning. Within 200 metres of the proposed site sit two tennis courts, sports ovals, a skate park, a local school, and the homes of Lane Cove West residents. These are not peripheral details — they represent the daily lives of children, families, and community members who have every right to expect that the land next door will not be converted into a continuously operating industrial facility. Data centres of this scale generate significant heat exhaust, require large external cooling systems that produce constant mechanical noise, and draw heavy vehicle traffic for maintenance and infrastructure servicing. For children walking to school, families using the sports facilities, and residents trying to sleep, this is not a background inconvenience — it is a permanent and unavoidable degradation of their environment.
On a personal level, Lane Cove West is a place I move through regularly — playing tennis at the local courts and cycling through the area. Both of those activities depend on an environment that is safe, accessible, and liveable. Beyond that, the business I work for, Sightline, is directly based on this site and would be forcibly uprooted by this development — displacing a team of people who have built their working lives around this location. And Sightline is unlikely to be alone; the surrounding area supports a number of local businesses that contribute meaningfully to the character and economy of Lane Cove West. These are enterprises run by real people, employing local workers and serving the community — not abstractions on a planning document. Replacing that web of commercial activity with a single sealed, automated facility that generates no community interaction and offers negligible local employment is not progress. The construction phase would also bring months of heavy vehicle movements through local streets, creating genuine hazards for cyclists and disrupting the community spaces that residents rely on. Once built, the facility would fundamentally alter the character of the area — a vast, fenced-off, windowless structure generating industrial noise and heat around the clock, situated alongside a school and recreational spaces that were never designed to coexist with infrastructure of this kind.
Project Mars may suit a remote industrial corridor or a purpose-built technology precinct. It does not suit Lane Cove West. The community here — its residents, its school, its sporting facilities, and its existing businesses — deserves land use that contributes to local life rather than consuming it. This proposal should not proceed in its current form.

Key Objections to the Proposed Mars Road Data Centre

Cross references below are to the EIS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.