Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
MARRICKVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
I object to the proposed Kogarah Golf Club Redevelopment and ask that it be refused.
This is a $2.9 billion Development for five development blocks up to 70 metres tall on a major Cooks River site. This should repair the Cooks River, not entrench past harm.
1. Scale and unresolved concept approval
Five blocks up to 70 metres is an extraordinary scale beside the Cooks River, homes and public open space. The proposal risks creating a wall of industrial buildings beside the river, not a public river precinct. The Department should not approve broad envelopes and early works while leaving key matters to future applications. There is no design excellence.
2. Flawed engagement undermines the Social Impact Assessment and EIS
The engagement failure undermines the evidence base for the Social Impact Assessment and therefore the EIS. The Department’s engagement guidelines require engagement to inform the proposal, improve planning outcomes and show how stakeholder views shaped the project. If obvious stakeholders were not identified, the social impacts have not been properly assessed.
The Cooks River is used by residents, paddlers, cyclists, walkers, runners, sporting clubs, environmental volunteers, schools and community groups. The River Canoe Club is based on the Cooks River and is directly affected by changes to river access, water quality, construction impacts, safety, amenity and foreshore design.
The current proposal appears to rely on two community drop-in sessions and a survey. If only 22 people participated, that is plainly inadequate for a $2.9 billion SSD with 47 EIS attachments, five blocks up to 70 metres, major flood and earthworks, active transport impacts, possible data centre uses and long-term impacts on the Cooks River.
A preliminary scan suggests 30 to 40 sporting, recreation, paddling, cycling, walking, environmental and community groups use the Cooks River corridor or adjoining open spaces. It is unacceptable if these groups were not identified.
The Department should find the engagement inadequate to support the SIA and EIS, require revised engagement before determination, and require a revised SIA. Engagement should include affected residents, Southbank apartments, river users, recreation and environmental groups, schools, Cooks River Alliance, Bayside Council, Traditional Custodian and Aboriginal organisations, and local community organisations.
The applicant should publish who was identified, who was invited, how many participated, what issues were raised, what changed and what remains unresolved. Any approval should require an ongoing Community and River Corridor Reference Group with an independent chair, published minutes, a live issues register and community representation.
3. Deferral of critical issues
Too many matters are deferred to later design, future applications, management plans or conditions: public domain, riparian design, flooding, stormwater, water quality, biodiversity, Green and Golden Bell Frog protection, active transport, freight, construction traffic, facade treatment, data centre impacts, future use mix, public benefit timing and maintenance.
Stage 1 works are not minor. Clearing, demolition, remediation, bulk earthworks, infrastructure, roadworks and seawall or riverbank works could pre-empt better outcomes. Unresolved matters should be fixed before approval.
4. Riparian corridor
DPI Fisheries identified a 100 metre guide for Class 1 waterways. Bayside Council sought a minimum 40 metre riparian zone. The planning proposal appears to accept 40 metres only for part of the southern foreshore, with reductions to about 27 metres in some locations.
The Department should require a 100 metre development-free riparian corridor from top of bank wherever practicable. If 100 metres is not required across the site, 40 metres should be the absolute minimum, with no reduction below 40 metres. The 27 metre pinch points should be rejected.
5. Public benefit and developer contribution
The local VPA material identifies about $43 million in community value, including about $13.35 million cash and $23.89 million works-in-kind. The State VPA identifies a further $8.7 million.
On a $2.9 billion project, $13.35 million cash is about 0.46%; $43 million local public benefit is about 1.48%; and $51.7 million including the State contribution is about 1.78%.
That is too low for a SSD on a sensitive river corridor. A more proportionate contribution would be 3 to 5% of project value: about $87 million to $145 million. The Department should require a dedicated Cooks River restoration and stewardship fund, water quality improvements, riparian restoration, habitat creation, stormwater treatment, active transport links, long-term monitoring, maintenance funding and public reporting.
6. Stormwater, canopy, flooding and biodiversity
Large industrial precincts create stormwater risks from roofs, roads, loading areas, hardstand, freight movements, pollutants and heat. Comparable stormwater charges can be hundreds of thousands to more than $1 million per hectare. For about 36 hectares, that suggests a waterway health contribution of about $30.6 million to $46.8 million. The applicant should fund a Cooks River Waterway Health Plan covering stormwater treatment, water quality monitoring, independent audit, maintenance and catchment-wide restoration.
The proposal should achieve a minimum 40% tree canopy target across the public domain, foreshore corridor, roads, open space and publicly accessible areas. A lower canopy outcome is unacceptable given roofs, hardstand, roads, loading areas, vehicle movements, industrial mass and urban heat. If 40% canopy cannot be achieved, the development intensity is excessive.
The site is low-lying and flood constrained. Earlier material refers to shelter in place for up to 6 hours in a 1:2000 AEP event and 8 to 12 hours in a PMF event, plus climate scenarios involving 0.8 metres sea level rise and 20% rainfall increase. The Department should require independent peer review of flood modelling, sea level rise, PMF behaviour, shelter-in-place assumptions, evacuation, emergency access, stormwater discharge and climate resilience.
Green and Golden Bell Frog habitat, wetlands, mangroves, saltmarsh and fish habitat should be protected. A binding Green and Golden Bell Frog Management Plan should be required before works commence, with hydrology protection, water quality triggers, lighting and noise controls, independent ecological oversight and at least 10 years of public monitoring.
7. Built form, public benefits, active transport and freight
Council has raised concerns about Block 3B acting as a barrier between Pemulwuy Park and the foreshore. The site should provide direct public connections between the park and river, view corridors, active edges, high-quality facades, no back-of-house treatment to the river, design excellence review and redesign of any envelope that creates unacceptable severance.
No major building should be occupied until relevant foreshore paths, riverbank works, open space, active transport links, lighting, seating, shade, landscaping, stormwater treatment, road upgrades and biodiversity protections are completed and publicly accessible.
Public access should include direct access to the river itself, not only paths beside it. Any approval should require a publicly accessible pontoon or low-impact kayak/canoe launch, designed with river users and delivered early. This would support safe paddling, recreation, environmental stewardship and community connection to the Cooks River
The Department should require safe, separated and continuous walking and cycling links, early delivery before occupation, connections to Kyeemagh and existing Cooks River routes, safe construction detours and no long-term network gaps.
The Department should require transparent modelling of heavy vehicles, staff trips, construction traffic, truck routes, queuing, local streets, freight staging, airport traffic, cumulative impacts, public transport, walking and cycling safety, with enforceable controls on truck routes, delivery hours, haulage, idling, noise, road safety and post-occupation monitoring.
8. Data centre, transparency and public interest
If data centre use remains possible, worst-case assessment is required before approval. A data centre is not interchangeable with a warehouse. It can involve electricity demand, backup generators, fuel storage, generator testing, cooling systems, water demand, heat rejection, emissions, noise, air quality impacts, fire and hazard risk, security and 24-hour operation.
The public record appears to contain different figures: about 36.2 hectares site area, 36.27 hectares project area, 21.78 hectares disturbance footprint, up to 343,250 sqm GFA, about 342,000 sqm in earlier Council material, and a Bayside LEP cap of 340,000 sqm GFA on Lot 100 DP 1231954. These figures must be reconciled in a public schedule before concept approval.
In summary, I ask the Department to refuse the proposal. If it is not refused, the Department should require substantial redesign and conditions that deliver a 100 metre riparian corridor wherever practicable; 40 metres as the absolute minimum; 40% tree canopy; public benefits of 3 to 5% of project value; a dedicated Cooks River restoration, stormwater and stewardship fund; early delivery of public access, foreshore, active transport, open space and riverbank works before occupation; independent peer review of flooding, climate resilience, stormwater, water quality and transport; a binding Green and Golden Bell Frog Management Plan with at least 10 years monitoring; worst-case assessment of data centre impacts; transparent transport modelling and enforceable freight controls; revised stakeholder engagement and a revised SIA; an ongoing Community and River Corridor Reference Group; and no early works that preclude better outcomes.
This is a $2.9 billion Development for five development blocks up to 70 metres tall on a major Cooks River site. This should repair the Cooks River, not entrench past harm.
1. Scale and unresolved concept approval
Five blocks up to 70 metres is an extraordinary scale beside the Cooks River, homes and public open space. The proposal risks creating a wall of industrial buildings beside the river, not a public river precinct. The Department should not approve broad envelopes and early works while leaving key matters to future applications. There is no design excellence.
2. Flawed engagement undermines the Social Impact Assessment and EIS
The engagement failure undermines the evidence base for the Social Impact Assessment and therefore the EIS. The Department’s engagement guidelines require engagement to inform the proposal, improve planning outcomes and show how stakeholder views shaped the project. If obvious stakeholders were not identified, the social impacts have not been properly assessed.
The Cooks River is used by residents, paddlers, cyclists, walkers, runners, sporting clubs, environmental volunteers, schools and community groups. The River Canoe Club is based on the Cooks River and is directly affected by changes to river access, water quality, construction impacts, safety, amenity and foreshore design.
The current proposal appears to rely on two community drop-in sessions and a survey. If only 22 people participated, that is plainly inadequate for a $2.9 billion SSD with 47 EIS attachments, five blocks up to 70 metres, major flood and earthworks, active transport impacts, possible data centre uses and long-term impacts on the Cooks River.
A preliminary scan suggests 30 to 40 sporting, recreation, paddling, cycling, walking, environmental and community groups use the Cooks River corridor or adjoining open spaces. It is unacceptable if these groups were not identified.
The Department should find the engagement inadequate to support the SIA and EIS, require revised engagement before determination, and require a revised SIA. Engagement should include affected residents, Southbank apartments, river users, recreation and environmental groups, schools, Cooks River Alliance, Bayside Council, Traditional Custodian and Aboriginal organisations, and local community organisations.
The applicant should publish who was identified, who was invited, how many participated, what issues were raised, what changed and what remains unresolved. Any approval should require an ongoing Community and River Corridor Reference Group with an independent chair, published minutes, a live issues register and community representation.
3. Deferral of critical issues
Too many matters are deferred to later design, future applications, management plans or conditions: public domain, riparian design, flooding, stormwater, water quality, biodiversity, Green and Golden Bell Frog protection, active transport, freight, construction traffic, facade treatment, data centre impacts, future use mix, public benefit timing and maintenance.
Stage 1 works are not minor. Clearing, demolition, remediation, bulk earthworks, infrastructure, roadworks and seawall or riverbank works could pre-empt better outcomes. Unresolved matters should be fixed before approval.
4. Riparian corridor
DPI Fisheries identified a 100 metre guide for Class 1 waterways. Bayside Council sought a minimum 40 metre riparian zone. The planning proposal appears to accept 40 metres only for part of the southern foreshore, with reductions to about 27 metres in some locations.
The Department should require a 100 metre development-free riparian corridor from top of bank wherever practicable. If 100 metres is not required across the site, 40 metres should be the absolute minimum, with no reduction below 40 metres. The 27 metre pinch points should be rejected.
5. Public benefit and developer contribution
The local VPA material identifies about $43 million in community value, including about $13.35 million cash and $23.89 million works-in-kind. The State VPA identifies a further $8.7 million.
On a $2.9 billion project, $13.35 million cash is about 0.46%; $43 million local public benefit is about 1.48%; and $51.7 million including the State contribution is about 1.78%.
That is too low for a SSD on a sensitive river corridor. A more proportionate contribution would be 3 to 5% of project value: about $87 million to $145 million. The Department should require a dedicated Cooks River restoration and stewardship fund, water quality improvements, riparian restoration, habitat creation, stormwater treatment, active transport links, long-term monitoring, maintenance funding and public reporting.
6. Stormwater, canopy, flooding and biodiversity
Large industrial precincts create stormwater risks from roofs, roads, loading areas, hardstand, freight movements, pollutants and heat. Comparable stormwater charges can be hundreds of thousands to more than $1 million per hectare. For about 36 hectares, that suggests a waterway health contribution of about $30.6 million to $46.8 million. The applicant should fund a Cooks River Waterway Health Plan covering stormwater treatment, water quality monitoring, independent audit, maintenance and catchment-wide restoration.
The proposal should achieve a minimum 40% tree canopy target across the public domain, foreshore corridor, roads, open space and publicly accessible areas. A lower canopy outcome is unacceptable given roofs, hardstand, roads, loading areas, vehicle movements, industrial mass and urban heat. If 40% canopy cannot be achieved, the development intensity is excessive.
The site is low-lying and flood constrained. Earlier material refers to shelter in place for up to 6 hours in a 1:2000 AEP event and 8 to 12 hours in a PMF event, plus climate scenarios involving 0.8 metres sea level rise and 20% rainfall increase. The Department should require independent peer review of flood modelling, sea level rise, PMF behaviour, shelter-in-place assumptions, evacuation, emergency access, stormwater discharge and climate resilience.
Green and Golden Bell Frog habitat, wetlands, mangroves, saltmarsh and fish habitat should be protected. A binding Green and Golden Bell Frog Management Plan should be required before works commence, with hydrology protection, water quality triggers, lighting and noise controls, independent ecological oversight and at least 10 years of public monitoring.
7. Built form, public benefits, active transport and freight
Council has raised concerns about Block 3B acting as a barrier between Pemulwuy Park and the foreshore. The site should provide direct public connections between the park and river, view corridors, active edges, high-quality facades, no back-of-house treatment to the river, design excellence review and redesign of any envelope that creates unacceptable severance.
No major building should be occupied until relevant foreshore paths, riverbank works, open space, active transport links, lighting, seating, shade, landscaping, stormwater treatment, road upgrades and biodiversity protections are completed and publicly accessible.
Public access should include direct access to the river itself, not only paths beside it. Any approval should require a publicly accessible pontoon or low-impact kayak/canoe launch, designed with river users and delivered early. This would support safe paddling, recreation, environmental stewardship and community connection to the Cooks River
The Department should require safe, separated and continuous walking and cycling links, early delivery before occupation, connections to Kyeemagh and existing Cooks River routes, safe construction detours and no long-term network gaps.
The Department should require transparent modelling of heavy vehicles, staff trips, construction traffic, truck routes, queuing, local streets, freight staging, airport traffic, cumulative impacts, public transport, walking and cycling safety, with enforceable controls on truck routes, delivery hours, haulage, idling, noise, road safety and post-occupation monitoring.
8. Data centre, transparency and public interest
If data centre use remains possible, worst-case assessment is required before approval. A data centre is not interchangeable with a warehouse. It can involve electricity demand, backup generators, fuel storage, generator testing, cooling systems, water demand, heat rejection, emissions, noise, air quality impacts, fire and hazard risk, security and 24-hour operation.
The public record appears to contain different figures: about 36.2 hectares site area, 36.27 hectares project area, 21.78 hectares disturbance footprint, up to 343,250 sqm GFA, about 342,000 sqm in earlier Council material, and a Bayside LEP cap of 340,000 sqm GFA on Lot 100 DP 1231954. These figures must be reconciled in a public schedule before concept approval.
In summary, I ask the Department to refuse the proposal. If it is not refused, the Department should require substantial redesign and conditions that deliver a 100 metre riparian corridor wherever practicable; 40 metres as the absolute minimum; 40% tree canopy; public benefits of 3 to 5% of project value; a dedicated Cooks River restoration, stormwater and stewardship fund; early delivery of public access, foreshore, active transport, open space and riverbank works before occupation; independent peer review of flooding, climate resilience, stormwater, water quality and transport; a binding Green and Golden Bell Frog Management Plan with at least 10 years monitoring; worst-case assessment of data centre impacts; transparent transport modelling and enforceable freight controls; revised stakeholder engagement and a revised SIA; an ongoing Community and River Corridor Reference Group; and no early works that preclude better outcomes.
Ashlee Savins
Object
Ashlee Savins
Object
ARNCLIFFE
,
New South Wales
Message
To whom it may concern,
I am writing regarding the proposed redevelopment of Kogarah Golf Course.
I have lived in the area for several years now and am very passionate about both the current state and future of the Cooks River. I am very invested in the redevelopment of the Kograh Golf Course Site will be used. There is a real possibility here for this to be used to help benefit the environment and the community. I believe the current plan is to the detriment of both of those things.
There is an incredible opportunity to create a development that allows for both economic growth in the area, whilst also helping with he restoration of our river.
Wolli Creek is a very unique area, wherein there is beautiful natural reserve right in our very urban area. Top bring in a monolithic data centre of that size will come at a significant risk to to our local wildlife. Our bat colonies and birds will be significantly affected, as already seen by the smaller data centres around the Mascot and Alexandria area, where WIRES are being completely inundated with calls for disoriented birds and bats.
I echo the sentiments of another local resident who has come up with the below proposal for the area, which I think has significant benefits to the site:
1. A meaningful contribution towards restoring the Cooks River
At approximately $2.9 billion, this is one of the largest developments proposed on the Cooks River.
Many major developments contribute towards local community infrastructure. A development of this scale should include a dedicated contribution towards restoring and enhancing the health of the Cooks River.
I encourage the establishment of a Cooks River Legacy Fund, supported through a meaningful developer contribution, to invest in long-term improvements to the river.
Such a fund could support initiatives including:
● Establishing a Cooks River Keeper or similar stewardship organisation to coordinate restoration and long-term management.
● Regular intensive river clean-up and maintenance programs.
● Removing ageing sheet piling with naturalised riverbanks.
● Restoration of saltmarsh, mangroves and other important habitats.
● Water quality improvement projects and stormwater treatment.
● Improved walking, cycling and paddling access.
● Community education and environmental monitoring.
This development should leave a positive environmental legacy for future generations.
2. A minimum 40 metre riparian corridor
A continuous minimum 40 metre riparian corridor should be provided along the full river frontage.
This would improve biodiversity, strengthen climate resilience, provide greater flood protection, improve water quality and create a far more attractive public waterfront.
3. Proper naturalisation of the river edge
The river should not be treated as the back boundary of an industrial development.
The development should include a commitment to naturalise the riverbank, replacing hard engineered edges with vegetation and habitat wherever feasible, while improving public access and ecological health.
4. Deliver public benefits first:
Cycleways, walking paths, open space and public access to the river should be delivered early in the project rather than being deferred until the final stages.
Communities should begin benefiting from the development from the outset.
5. Better community and stakeholder engagement
I was surprised to learn that only 22 people participated in the stakeholder engagement sessions for a project of this scale.
The Cooks River catchment is home to hundreds of thousands of people and is used every day by walkers, cyclists, paddlers, birdwatchers, anglers and local families.
The next stages of planning should include more meaningful and ongoing engagement with the community, Traditional Owners, environmental organisations, recreational user groups, councils and local residents. Good engagement should continue throughout the detailed design and delivery of the project, not finish once the concept is approved.
6. Design excellence
Finally, I encourage the Department to ensure the development reflects the importance of its riverfront location through:
● High-quality architecture and urban design.
● Increased tree canopy.
● Buildings that address and celebrate the river rather than turning their backs on it.
● Active public spaces along the waterfront.
● Safe and attractive walking and cycling connections.
● Opportunities for people to access and enjoy the river.
Wolli Creek already takes on significance burden of infaststructure with the high density housing that is in that area. We need to be mindful of how we further develop this area to ensure that local residents and wildlife are benefitted rather than hindered.
I strongly oppose the current plan, and implore The department to look further into how this site can be used for a far more positive use.
Thank you
Ashlee Savins
I am writing regarding the proposed redevelopment of Kogarah Golf Course.
I have lived in the area for several years now and am very passionate about both the current state and future of the Cooks River. I am very invested in the redevelopment of the Kograh Golf Course Site will be used. There is a real possibility here for this to be used to help benefit the environment and the community. I believe the current plan is to the detriment of both of those things.
There is an incredible opportunity to create a development that allows for both economic growth in the area, whilst also helping with he restoration of our river.
Wolli Creek is a very unique area, wherein there is beautiful natural reserve right in our very urban area. Top bring in a monolithic data centre of that size will come at a significant risk to to our local wildlife. Our bat colonies and birds will be significantly affected, as already seen by the smaller data centres around the Mascot and Alexandria area, where WIRES are being completely inundated with calls for disoriented birds and bats.
I echo the sentiments of another local resident who has come up with the below proposal for the area, which I think has significant benefits to the site:
1. A meaningful contribution towards restoring the Cooks River
At approximately $2.9 billion, this is one of the largest developments proposed on the Cooks River.
Many major developments contribute towards local community infrastructure. A development of this scale should include a dedicated contribution towards restoring and enhancing the health of the Cooks River.
I encourage the establishment of a Cooks River Legacy Fund, supported through a meaningful developer contribution, to invest in long-term improvements to the river.
Such a fund could support initiatives including:
● Establishing a Cooks River Keeper or similar stewardship organisation to coordinate restoration and long-term management.
● Regular intensive river clean-up and maintenance programs.
● Removing ageing sheet piling with naturalised riverbanks.
● Restoration of saltmarsh, mangroves and other important habitats.
● Water quality improvement projects and stormwater treatment.
● Improved walking, cycling and paddling access.
● Community education and environmental monitoring.
This development should leave a positive environmental legacy for future generations.
2. A minimum 40 metre riparian corridor
A continuous minimum 40 metre riparian corridor should be provided along the full river frontage.
This would improve biodiversity, strengthen climate resilience, provide greater flood protection, improve water quality and create a far more attractive public waterfront.
3. Proper naturalisation of the river edge
The river should not be treated as the back boundary of an industrial development.
The development should include a commitment to naturalise the riverbank, replacing hard engineered edges with vegetation and habitat wherever feasible, while improving public access and ecological health.
4. Deliver public benefits first:
Cycleways, walking paths, open space and public access to the river should be delivered early in the project rather than being deferred until the final stages.
Communities should begin benefiting from the development from the outset.
5. Better community and stakeholder engagement
I was surprised to learn that only 22 people participated in the stakeholder engagement sessions for a project of this scale.
The Cooks River catchment is home to hundreds of thousands of people and is used every day by walkers, cyclists, paddlers, birdwatchers, anglers and local families.
The next stages of planning should include more meaningful and ongoing engagement with the community, Traditional Owners, environmental organisations, recreational user groups, councils and local residents. Good engagement should continue throughout the detailed design and delivery of the project, not finish once the concept is approved.
6. Design excellence
Finally, I encourage the Department to ensure the development reflects the importance of its riverfront location through:
● High-quality architecture and urban design.
● Increased tree canopy.
● Buildings that address and celebrate the river rather than turning their backs on it.
● Active public spaces along the waterfront.
● Safe and attractive walking and cycling connections.
● Opportunities for people to access and enjoy the river.
Wolli Creek already takes on significance burden of infaststructure with the high density housing that is in that area. We need to be mindful of how we further develop this area to ensure that local residents and wildlife are benefitted rather than hindered.
I strongly oppose the current plan, and implore The department to look further into how this site can be used for a far more positive use.
Thank you
Ashlee Savins
Millicent Aaron
Object
Millicent Aaron
Object
Wolli Creek
,
New South Wales
Message
When I attended the first public discussion for this project held at The Rowers Club last year, they were promising a wonderful addition to our area. Lots of public areas, minimal obstruction of views, cycle paths, playgrounds, a place for people to walk and enjoy the river and region. This has turned into the exact opposite of that.
We were told that no housing would be there and that building would be no larger than the buildings on the opposite side of Marsh St where I live. I am disappointed to say the least. I am opposed to what is being proposed for many reasons.
1) SIZE. The magnitude of size of buildings is actually unbelievable when you look at the scale in comparison to the existing residential units and homes. Even in comparison to the M6 building already within the space. These buildings are ridiculously out of proportion for the setting along the river foreshore. They will block any and all views to the river from any properties in the area. This will affect air flow and sun light which would adversely impact the entire community on the west side of Marsh St.
2) Strain on the grid. The power that will be required to run the Data Centre and the other logistics facilities would put a significant drain on the grid. Anything built should utilise its own power source via solar or other natural sources as a priority to be sustainable and purpose built for the future.
3) Road Infrastructure. The roads in our area are already overloaded. Gertrude St at peak hours backs up to Levey St and adding the new load from Marsh St and Gertrude East will make it impossible for access out of our area in any timely manner ever. Weekends are overloaded from sport on the oval. The light interval at Gertrude and Princes Hwy is too long to flush out the queues in a reasonable timeframe at present.
4) Noise. The new development will amplify all traffic noise as it will create a choke and sounds will bounce off the hard surfaces amplifying the already loud traffic sounds from Marsh St into the residential area of Wolli Creek. This increase in traffic to our area will further destroy any amenity we have. Our area barely has any peace and quiet as it is. Adding the additional traffic and noise from evening shift workers to the new area will further reduce our ability to sleep and find peace in our dwellings.
5) Safety. The proposed extension to Gertrude St was meant to have a traffic light where Gertrude crosses Levey St. This was changed to retain the existing road about. This will make it a safety hazard for those living on the South side of Levey St to safely access the park and the route to Wolli Creek Train station and shops.
6) Pollution. There will be additional air quality issues due to the traffic flow through Gertrude st. More idling cars and more people sitting in cars with radios or phones on. We will be assaulted with poor air and again, noise.
7) Radiation. The Data Centre is massive. The other Logistics centres will also have potential for radiation that will cause issues for both wildlife and human life in the region. The scale of these proposed buildings is huge as compared to the dwellings they will loom over. We demand to be protected from the long term effects of these proposed buildings.
8) SCALE. Buildings to this size should not be built in areas neighbouring water ways, green spaces and people’s homes. They should be built in areas where those items do not exist. In areas where they are not compromising amenity. If they are to be built in our area, they need to be radically downsized to fit in visually on a scale not dissimilar to what exists already. Bayside Council should be taken to task for the approval of the monstrous buildings approved on the Princes Hwy and Forest Rd in Arncliffe. They are completely out of scale and balance to the community. They also will put a strain on the local area and challenge the roads infrastructure. It is enough!! Arncliffe and Wolli Creek should not become a dumping zone for massive out of proportion buildings. Bayside needs to reassess what it approves before it overloads all infrastructure. Power, roads, trains, water, etc.
9) Accountability. Developers need to be accountable and financially contribute to protect the waterway and green belt. There is nothing in this proposal to contribute to the local waterways long term. This developments will certainly have long term maintenance requirements for the river area that NSW Govt and Bayside cannot afford to maintain. They need to be contribute annually to that maintenance.
10) Property Values. The proposed development will diminish the value of our properties for the reasons outlined above. It will not be a draw card for people to move here, it will a negative as people will want to move next to the Data Centre and Logistics buildings. We bought our units desiring the air and river. This development will box us in and make the area claustrophobic. The heavy handed development will be an eye sore that will deter buyers.
10) During Development. The impact and strain on our community while this development is being created will be enormous. The comments above regarding noise, pollution, traffic problems will be going on for years. It will make significantly diminish our quality of life.
As a resident of Bayside and a tax payer, I don't want to see this development move forward if its footprint cannot be significantly reduced, assurances that emissions via pollution and radiation as truly safe and not just safe on paper. We are real people that will be harmed by this development as its planned now. DO NOT LET GREED HARM US. PLEASE PROTECT US.
We were told that no housing would be there and that building would be no larger than the buildings on the opposite side of Marsh St where I live. I am disappointed to say the least. I am opposed to what is being proposed for many reasons.
1) SIZE. The magnitude of size of buildings is actually unbelievable when you look at the scale in comparison to the existing residential units and homes. Even in comparison to the M6 building already within the space. These buildings are ridiculously out of proportion for the setting along the river foreshore. They will block any and all views to the river from any properties in the area. This will affect air flow and sun light which would adversely impact the entire community on the west side of Marsh St.
2) Strain on the grid. The power that will be required to run the Data Centre and the other logistics facilities would put a significant drain on the grid. Anything built should utilise its own power source via solar or other natural sources as a priority to be sustainable and purpose built for the future.
3) Road Infrastructure. The roads in our area are already overloaded. Gertrude St at peak hours backs up to Levey St and adding the new load from Marsh St and Gertrude East will make it impossible for access out of our area in any timely manner ever. Weekends are overloaded from sport on the oval. The light interval at Gertrude and Princes Hwy is too long to flush out the queues in a reasonable timeframe at present.
4) Noise. The new development will amplify all traffic noise as it will create a choke and sounds will bounce off the hard surfaces amplifying the already loud traffic sounds from Marsh St into the residential area of Wolli Creek. This increase in traffic to our area will further destroy any amenity we have. Our area barely has any peace and quiet as it is. Adding the additional traffic and noise from evening shift workers to the new area will further reduce our ability to sleep and find peace in our dwellings.
5) Safety. The proposed extension to Gertrude St was meant to have a traffic light where Gertrude crosses Levey St. This was changed to retain the existing road about. This will make it a safety hazard for those living on the South side of Levey St to safely access the park and the route to Wolli Creek Train station and shops.
6) Pollution. There will be additional air quality issues due to the traffic flow through Gertrude st. More idling cars and more people sitting in cars with radios or phones on. We will be assaulted with poor air and again, noise.
7) Radiation. The Data Centre is massive. The other Logistics centres will also have potential for radiation that will cause issues for both wildlife and human life in the region. The scale of these proposed buildings is huge as compared to the dwellings they will loom over. We demand to be protected from the long term effects of these proposed buildings.
8) SCALE. Buildings to this size should not be built in areas neighbouring water ways, green spaces and people’s homes. They should be built in areas where those items do not exist. In areas where they are not compromising amenity. If they are to be built in our area, they need to be radically downsized to fit in visually on a scale not dissimilar to what exists already. Bayside Council should be taken to task for the approval of the monstrous buildings approved on the Princes Hwy and Forest Rd in Arncliffe. They are completely out of scale and balance to the community. They also will put a strain on the local area and challenge the roads infrastructure. It is enough!! Arncliffe and Wolli Creek should not become a dumping zone for massive out of proportion buildings. Bayside needs to reassess what it approves before it overloads all infrastructure. Power, roads, trains, water, etc.
9) Accountability. Developers need to be accountable and financially contribute to protect the waterway and green belt. There is nothing in this proposal to contribute to the local waterways long term. This developments will certainly have long term maintenance requirements for the river area that NSW Govt and Bayside cannot afford to maintain. They need to be contribute annually to that maintenance.
10) Property Values. The proposed development will diminish the value of our properties for the reasons outlined above. It will not be a draw card for people to move here, it will a negative as people will want to move next to the Data Centre and Logistics buildings. We bought our units desiring the air and river. This development will box us in and make the area claustrophobic. The heavy handed development will be an eye sore that will deter buyers.
10) During Development. The impact and strain on our community while this development is being created will be enormous. The comments above regarding noise, pollution, traffic problems will be going on for years. It will make significantly diminish our quality of life.
As a resident of Bayside and a tax payer, I don't want to see this development move forward if its footprint cannot be significantly reduced, assurances that emissions via pollution and radiation as truly safe and not just safe on paper. We are real people that will be harmed by this development as its planned now. DO NOT LET GREED HARM US. PLEASE PROTECT US.
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Wolli Creek
,
New South Wales
Message
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to formally object to the proposed Development Application for the construction of a data centre opposite our residential community.
I respectfully request that Council refuse this application for the following reasons.
1. Significant Impact on Residential Amenity
A data centre is an industrial-style facility that operates continuously, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. It relies on extensive cooling systems, mechanical plant, ventilation equipment and emergency backup generators, all of which have the potential to generate ongoing noise and heat.
Residents living nearby should not be expected to endure continuous mechanical noise and heat emissions from a facility that provides little direct benefit to the surrounding community. The proposal would materially reduce the quality of life for local residents who chose to live in a residential neighbourhood.
2. Limited Community Benefit
Unlike developments such as retail centres, recreational facilities, community spaces or hospitality venues, a data centre provides very limited day-to-day benefit to local residents.
Once constructed, the facility generates relatively few local jobs and offers little interaction with the community. In return, nearby residents bear the visual impact, noise, heat and increased infrastructure demand without receiving meaningful community benefits.
3. Increased Demand on Local Infrastructure
Data centres are among the most electricity-intensive building types and can also require substantial water resources for cooling, depending on the design.
As Sydney continues to experience increasing pressure on electricity and water infrastructure, it is difficult to justify locating such a high-demand facility immediately adjacent to a densely populated residential area. Priority should be given to developments that provide greater community value relative to the infrastructure they consume.
4. Loss of Views, Sunlight and Residential Amenity
The proposed development would introduce a large industrial-scale building that would significantly alter the character of the area.
Many residents currently enjoy views towards Sydney Airport and the Cooks River, together with access to natural daylight. A bulky data centre would obstruct these views, reduce visual amenity and diminish the overall attractiveness and liveability of the neighbourhood.
These impacts would also likely have adverse effects on surrounding property values.
5. Increased Traffic and Construction Impacts
The surrounding road network already experiences significant congestion, particularly during peak commuting periods.
Construction of a large-scale data centre would introduce substantial heavy vehicle movements over an extended period, placing additional pressure on local roads and disrupting residents. Ongoing maintenance and servicing traffic would also contribute to congestion.
Council should carefully consider whether the local transport network is capable of accommodating these additional impacts.
6. Inappropriate Use of Valuable Land
The proposed site occupies valuable land within close proximity to Sydney International Airport and Wolli Creek, one of Sydney’s fastest-growing and most densely populated residential precincts.
Land in such a strategic location should be reserved for developments that provide meaningful economic, social and recreational benefits to both residents and visitors.
Examples include:
* Retail and shopping facilities
* Restaurants and dining precincts
* Entertainment and recreational facilities
* Public open space
* Tourism-related developments
* Mixed-use commercial developments that activate the streetscape
A data centre is effectively a closed industrial building that contributes little to street activity or the local economy while occupying land with significant strategic potential.
7. More Appropriate Alternative Locations Exist
Data centres are essential pieces of digital infrastructure; however, that does not mean they should be located adjacent to high-density residential communities.
There are many more suitable industrial locations across Sydney where the impacts on residents would be substantially lower. Areas with established industrial and logistics uses, such as Botany or other industrial precincts associated with port and freight activities, would be more appropriate locations for this type of development.
Locating the facility within an industrial precinct would minimise conflicts with residential communities while still providing the infrastructure required for Sydney’s digital economy.
Conclusion
While I recognise the importance of digital infrastructure, the proposed location is fundamentally inappropriate.
The development would impose ongoing impacts on nearby residents through noise, heat, visual intrusion, increased infrastructure demand, traffic impacts and loss of residential amenity, while providing very limited direct benefit to the local community.
Council has a responsibility to ensure that development contributes positively to the long-term liveability of our neighbourhoods. In this case, the adverse impacts clearly outweigh any local benefit.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that Council refuse the Development Application.
Thank you for considering my submission.
I am writing to formally object to the proposed Development Application for the construction of a data centre opposite our residential community.
I respectfully request that Council refuse this application for the following reasons.
1. Significant Impact on Residential Amenity
A data centre is an industrial-style facility that operates continuously, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. It relies on extensive cooling systems, mechanical plant, ventilation equipment and emergency backup generators, all of which have the potential to generate ongoing noise and heat.
Residents living nearby should not be expected to endure continuous mechanical noise and heat emissions from a facility that provides little direct benefit to the surrounding community. The proposal would materially reduce the quality of life for local residents who chose to live in a residential neighbourhood.
2. Limited Community Benefit
Unlike developments such as retail centres, recreational facilities, community spaces or hospitality venues, a data centre provides very limited day-to-day benefit to local residents.
Once constructed, the facility generates relatively few local jobs and offers little interaction with the community. In return, nearby residents bear the visual impact, noise, heat and increased infrastructure demand without receiving meaningful community benefits.
3. Increased Demand on Local Infrastructure
Data centres are among the most electricity-intensive building types and can also require substantial water resources for cooling, depending on the design.
As Sydney continues to experience increasing pressure on electricity and water infrastructure, it is difficult to justify locating such a high-demand facility immediately adjacent to a densely populated residential area. Priority should be given to developments that provide greater community value relative to the infrastructure they consume.
4. Loss of Views, Sunlight and Residential Amenity
The proposed development would introduce a large industrial-scale building that would significantly alter the character of the area.
Many residents currently enjoy views towards Sydney Airport and the Cooks River, together with access to natural daylight. A bulky data centre would obstruct these views, reduce visual amenity and diminish the overall attractiveness and liveability of the neighbourhood.
These impacts would also likely have adverse effects on surrounding property values.
5. Increased Traffic and Construction Impacts
The surrounding road network already experiences significant congestion, particularly during peak commuting periods.
Construction of a large-scale data centre would introduce substantial heavy vehicle movements over an extended period, placing additional pressure on local roads and disrupting residents. Ongoing maintenance and servicing traffic would also contribute to congestion.
Council should carefully consider whether the local transport network is capable of accommodating these additional impacts.
6. Inappropriate Use of Valuable Land
The proposed site occupies valuable land within close proximity to Sydney International Airport and Wolli Creek, one of Sydney’s fastest-growing and most densely populated residential precincts.
Land in such a strategic location should be reserved for developments that provide meaningful economic, social and recreational benefits to both residents and visitors.
Examples include:
* Retail and shopping facilities
* Restaurants and dining precincts
* Entertainment and recreational facilities
* Public open space
* Tourism-related developments
* Mixed-use commercial developments that activate the streetscape
A data centre is effectively a closed industrial building that contributes little to street activity or the local economy while occupying land with significant strategic potential.
7. More Appropriate Alternative Locations Exist
Data centres are essential pieces of digital infrastructure; however, that does not mean they should be located adjacent to high-density residential communities.
There are many more suitable industrial locations across Sydney where the impacts on residents would be substantially lower. Areas with established industrial and logistics uses, such as Botany or other industrial precincts associated with port and freight activities, would be more appropriate locations for this type of development.
Locating the facility within an industrial precinct would minimise conflicts with residential communities while still providing the infrastructure required for Sydney’s digital economy.
Conclusion
While I recognise the importance of digital infrastructure, the proposed location is fundamentally inappropriate.
The development would impose ongoing impacts on nearby residents through noise, heat, visual intrusion, increased infrastructure demand, traffic impacts and loss of residential amenity, while providing very limited direct benefit to the local community.
Council has a responsibility to ensure that development contributes positively to the long-term liveability of our neighbourhoods. In this case, the adverse impacts clearly outweigh any local benefit.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that Council refuse the Development Application.
Thank you for considering my submission.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
WOLLI CREEK
,
New South Wales
Message
I am writing to object to SSD-94467726 for the Kogarah Golf Club Redevelopment Concept & Stage 1 Works
Noise
- There will be unacceptable noise transmission from the multilevel logistics uses to nearby multi-level 15-storey residential receivers
- Proposed measures including noise walls for mitigation against noise transmission appear to be designed to mitigate noise impacts on a flat plane and will be inadequate to effectively mitigate noise impacts in three dimensions
- The concept plan indicates that the buildings nearest to Marsh Street would have steep access ramps facing Marsh St, which will exacerbate heavy vehicle noise from acceleration and braking received at nearby residences
Air Quality
- The large increase in trucks accessing the site from the public road network combined with the movement and idling of trucks within the site is likely to cause significant elevation in fine particulate emissions on the Marsh St corridor and will negatively impact nearby residential receivers and cumulatively cause negative impacts to my health
Traffic and Transport
- I am concerned about traffic safety and pedestrian and cycling amenity impacts from the very substantial increase in vehicle traffic on Marsh St, comprising mostly heavy vehicles
- I am also concerned about impacts on the existing active transport route from Bunker Reserve, Wolli Creek to Marsh Street Reserve, Arncliffe which requires the crossing of several blind crossovers and two sets of traffic lights at Innesdale Road and Flora St which are poorly configured for cyclists. Additional traffic from the Cooks Cove development and a potential future Gertrude Street extension will only worsen the amenity of this corridor
- The developer must consider how it would deliver elements of the Bayside Council Bike Plan 2024 which sees the site comprise part of the Ramsgate to Cooks River route on the Bayside Priority Cycleway Network
- All parties must ensure the delivery of public open space and active transport connectivity as part of this development as envisioned in the rezoning (PP-2022-1748)
- Proposed off-street car parking provision between 1,200 and 1,800 across the development is excessive for a site straddling the boundary of SA2s designated Category 1 and Sub-Category 1A per the Car Parking Categorisation in the Transport for NSW Guide to Transport Impact Assessment (GTIA). It is noted that the parking reference rates in the GTIA and adopted in the Transport Impact Assessment do not distinguish between parking rates for the proposed development typologies at an outer suburban greenfield development with no bus service, or a well-serviced inner-middle ring urban location such as this. Adopted parking rates should be lower in a location with excellent public transport in order to minimise induced demand for car travel, noting that 24-hour frequent public transport is available in Wolli Creek, a 15 minute walk from the site via the T4 and T8 rail lines and via N10, N11 and N20 Nightride service, or a 10 minute walk to the International Airport station and T8 rail line
Infrastructure
- I am concerned about the data centre option as existing electricity infrastructure at this location is inadequate to service a contemporary data centre as a major electricity consumer and would therefore require extensive ancillary works or large-scale permanent on-site power generation. These projects alone would be major developments, and must be given consideration if there is potential for the concept approval to permit a data centre option.
Noise
- There will be unacceptable noise transmission from the multilevel logistics uses to nearby multi-level 15-storey residential receivers
- Proposed measures including noise walls for mitigation against noise transmission appear to be designed to mitigate noise impacts on a flat plane and will be inadequate to effectively mitigate noise impacts in three dimensions
- The concept plan indicates that the buildings nearest to Marsh Street would have steep access ramps facing Marsh St, which will exacerbate heavy vehicle noise from acceleration and braking received at nearby residences
Air Quality
- The large increase in trucks accessing the site from the public road network combined with the movement and idling of trucks within the site is likely to cause significant elevation in fine particulate emissions on the Marsh St corridor and will negatively impact nearby residential receivers and cumulatively cause negative impacts to my health
Traffic and Transport
- I am concerned about traffic safety and pedestrian and cycling amenity impacts from the very substantial increase in vehicle traffic on Marsh St, comprising mostly heavy vehicles
- I am also concerned about impacts on the existing active transport route from Bunker Reserve, Wolli Creek to Marsh Street Reserve, Arncliffe which requires the crossing of several blind crossovers and two sets of traffic lights at Innesdale Road and Flora St which are poorly configured for cyclists. Additional traffic from the Cooks Cove development and a potential future Gertrude Street extension will only worsen the amenity of this corridor
- The developer must consider how it would deliver elements of the Bayside Council Bike Plan 2024 which sees the site comprise part of the Ramsgate to Cooks River route on the Bayside Priority Cycleway Network
- All parties must ensure the delivery of public open space and active transport connectivity as part of this development as envisioned in the rezoning (PP-2022-1748)
- Proposed off-street car parking provision between 1,200 and 1,800 across the development is excessive for a site straddling the boundary of SA2s designated Category 1 and Sub-Category 1A per the Car Parking Categorisation in the Transport for NSW Guide to Transport Impact Assessment (GTIA). It is noted that the parking reference rates in the GTIA and adopted in the Transport Impact Assessment do not distinguish between parking rates for the proposed development typologies at an outer suburban greenfield development with no bus service, or a well-serviced inner-middle ring urban location such as this. Adopted parking rates should be lower in a location with excellent public transport in order to minimise induced demand for car travel, noting that 24-hour frequent public transport is available in Wolli Creek, a 15 minute walk from the site via the T4 and T8 rail lines and via N10, N11 and N20 Nightride service, or a 10 minute walk to the International Airport station and T8 rail line
Infrastructure
- I am concerned about the data centre option as existing electricity infrastructure at this location is inadequate to service a contemporary data centre as a major electricity consumer and would therefore require extensive ancillary works or large-scale permanent on-site power generation. These projects alone would be major developments, and must be given consideration if there is potential for the concept approval to permit a data centre option.
Robert Erskine
Object
Robert Erskine
Object
Tempe
,
New South Wales
Message
Submission Opposing the Kogarah Golf Club Redevelopment Proposal (SSD-84467726)
To the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,
I write to formally object to the proposed redevelopment of the former Kogarah Golf Club site.
My objection is not based on opposition to industrial development generally. Sydney requires employment lands and supporting infrastructure. However, this proposal seeks to permanently dedicate one of the city’s last remaining waterfront redevelopment opportunities to a use that delivers very little public benefit while foreclosing countless opportunities for future generations.
As someone who regularly uses the Cooks River foreshore with my young family, this proposal is deeply disappointing.
We walk, cycle and spend time along this waterway because we believe in its future. Like many local residents, I continue to advocate for greater investment from all levels of government to restore the health of the Cooks River, improve public access, enhance biodiversity and create a river that future generations may one day be able to safely swim in.
That vision is entirely incompatible with transforming a key waterfront site into a large industrial estate capable of accommodating warehouses and data centres.
A once-in-a-generation planning decision
Planning decisions of this scale should ask a simple question:
What is the highest and best long-term use of this land?
Not simply what use is commercially attractive today, but what outcome will Sydney value in fifty or one hundred years.
The former Kogarah Golf Club site occupies an exceptional position on the Cooks River.
Once developed as an industrial logistics precinct, that opportunity is gone forever.
Industrial buildings can be constructed elsewhere.
Unique waterfront land cannot be recreated.
The scarcity of waterfront land alone demands a far higher planning standard than has been demonstrated in this proposal.
Waterfront land should serve the public
Around the world, cities are investing billions of dollars to reclaim industrial waterfronts and return them to public use.
Sydney should not be moving in the opposite direction.
The Cooks River is slowly being transformed through environmental restoration, improved walking and cycling connections, habitat rehabilitation and increased community access.
This proposal undermines that long-term vision.
Instead of strengthening the relationship between the community and the river, it would establish a wall of industrial development along the waterfront.
That outcome is inconsistent with decades of work aimed at improving the environmental and recreational value of the Cooks River corridor.
Data centres are an especially inappropriate use
The proposal specifically identifies data centres as a permissible future use.
This is perhaps the most concerning aspect of the proposal.
Data centres provide an important function within modern infrastructure.
However, they are fundamentally inward-looking developments.
They generally provide:
* very limited employment relative to their enormous footprint;
* little or no public activation;
* inactive street frontages;
* extensive security fencing;
* significant energy consumption;
* mechanical cooling infrastructure;
* emergency diesel generation; and
* no meaningful relationship with surrounding public spaces.
There is no planning rationale that justifies locating this type of development on premium waterfront land.
Data centres require reliable electricity, fibre connectivity and industrial zoning.
They do not require river frontage.
There are countless industrial locations throughout metropolitan Sydney capable of accommodating this form of development without sacrificing one of the region’s most valuable waterfront sites.
Approving such a land use here would represent a profound failure of strategic land-use planning.
Poor value for the community
Public planning should maximise long-term public value.
This proposal instead delivers a largely private outcome on a site with extraordinary public potential.
This waterfront could instead support:
* extensive public open space;
* ecological restoration;
* recreation;
* cultural facilities;
* cafés and restaurants;
* active transport links;
* educational and environmental facilities;
* low-scale mixed-use development integrated with the river; and
* destinations that encourage people to engage with the water rather than turn away from it.
These are investments that create economic activity while simultaneously improving community wellbeing.
Warehouses and data centres do not.
The environmental contradiction
Governments continue to invest millions of dollars in improving the health of the Cooks River.
Community groups volunteer countless hours removing rubbish, restoring habitat and advocating for cleaner water.
Local councils promote the river as an environmental and recreational asset worthy of protection.
Against that backdrop, approving one of the river’s most significant remaining redevelopment sites for industrial uses sends an entirely contradictory message.
It suggests that despite years of investment and public advocacy, the river remains suitable only as the backdrop to industrial development.
That is not the future many in this community have been working towards.
Think beyond today’s market
Planning authorities have a responsibility to think beyond immediate commercial returns.
The true value of this site will not be measured by warehouse floor space or industrial rents.
It will be measured by what future generations inherit.
Will they inherit another industrial precinct?
Or will they inherit a restored waterfront that connects people with nature, strengthens biodiversity, improves public health and reflects the ambitions of a global city?
That choice is being made now.
Conclusion
I respectfully urge the Department to reject this proposal in its current form.
This site deserves a vision equal to its significance.
The Cooks River has been treated as Sydney’s forgotten waterway for far too long. We should be investing in its restoration, celebrating its natural character and creating places where families can gather, children can learn about the environment and, one day, future generations may safely swim in clean water.
Approving warehouses and potential data centres on this site would be a permanent missed opportunity.
We owe future generations better planning than this.
Thank you for considering my submission.
To the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,
I write to formally object to the proposed redevelopment of the former Kogarah Golf Club site.
My objection is not based on opposition to industrial development generally. Sydney requires employment lands and supporting infrastructure. However, this proposal seeks to permanently dedicate one of the city’s last remaining waterfront redevelopment opportunities to a use that delivers very little public benefit while foreclosing countless opportunities for future generations.
As someone who regularly uses the Cooks River foreshore with my young family, this proposal is deeply disappointing.
We walk, cycle and spend time along this waterway because we believe in its future. Like many local residents, I continue to advocate for greater investment from all levels of government to restore the health of the Cooks River, improve public access, enhance biodiversity and create a river that future generations may one day be able to safely swim in.
That vision is entirely incompatible with transforming a key waterfront site into a large industrial estate capable of accommodating warehouses and data centres.
A once-in-a-generation planning decision
Planning decisions of this scale should ask a simple question:
What is the highest and best long-term use of this land?
Not simply what use is commercially attractive today, but what outcome will Sydney value in fifty or one hundred years.
The former Kogarah Golf Club site occupies an exceptional position on the Cooks River.
Once developed as an industrial logistics precinct, that opportunity is gone forever.
Industrial buildings can be constructed elsewhere.
Unique waterfront land cannot be recreated.
The scarcity of waterfront land alone demands a far higher planning standard than has been demonstrated in this proposal.
Waterfront land should serve the public
Around the world, cities are investing billions of dollars to reclaim industrial waterfronts and return them to public use.
Sydney should not be moving in the opposite direction.
The Cooks River is slowly being transformed through environmental restoration, improved walking and cycling connections, habitat rehabilitation and increased community access.
This proposal undermines that long-term vision.
Instead of strengthening the relationship between the community and the river, it would establish a wall of industrial development along the waterfront.
That outcome is inconsistent with decades of work aimed at improving the environmental and recreational value of the Cooks River corridor.
Data centres are an especially inappropriate use
The proposal specifically identifies data centres as a permissible future use.
This is perhaps the most concerning aspect of the proposal.
Data centres provide an important function within modern infrastructure.
However, they are fundamentally inward-looking developments.
They generally provide:
* very limited employment relative to their enormous footprint;
* little or no public activation;
* inactive street frontages;
* extensive security fencing;
* significant energy consumption;
* mechanical cooling infrastructure;
* emergency diesel generation; and
* no meaningful relationship with surrounding public spaces.
There is no planning rationale that justifies locating this type of development on premium waterfront land.
Data centres require reliable electricity, fibre connectivity and industrial zoning.
They do not require river frontage.
There are countless industrial locations throughout metropolitan Sydney capable of accommodating this form of development without sacrificing one of the region’s most valuable waterfront sites.
Approving such a land use here would represent a profound failure of strategic land-use planning.
Poor value for the community
Public planning should maximise long-term public value.
This proposal instead delivers a largely private outcome on a site with extraordinary public potential.
This waterfront could instead support:
* extensive public open space;
* ecological restoration;
* recreation;
* cultural facilities;
* cafés and restaurants;
* active transport links;
* educational and environmental facilities;
* low-scale mixed-use development integrated with the river; and
* destinations that encourage people to engage with the water rather than turn away from it.
These are investments that create economic activity while simultaneously improving community wellbeing.
Warehouses and data centres do not.
The environmental contradiction
Governments continue to invest millions of dollars in improving the health of the Cooks River.
Community groups volunteer countless hours removing rubbish, restoring habitat and advocating for cleaner water.
Local councils promote the river as an environmental and recreational asset worthy of protection.
Against that backdrop, approving one of the river’s most significant remaining redevelopment sites for industrial uses sends an entirely contradictory message.
It suggests that despite years of investment and public advocacy, the river remains suitable only as the backdrop to industrial development.
That is not the future many in this community have been working towards.
Think beyond today’s market
Planning authorities have a responsibility to think beyond immediate commercial returns.
The true value of this site will not be measured by warehouse floor space or industrial rents.
It will be measured by what future generations inherit.
Will they inherit another industrial precinct?
Or will they inherit a restored waterfront that connects people with nature, strengthens biodiversity, improves public health and reflects the ambitions of a global city?
That choice is being made now.
Conclusion
I respectfully urge the Department to reject this proposal in its current form.
This site deserves a vision equal to its significance.
The Cooks River has been treated as Sydney’s forgotten waterway for far too long. We should be investing in its restoration, celebrating its natural character and creating places where families can gather, children can learn about the environment and, one day, future generations may safely swim in clean water.
Approving warehouses and potential data centres on this site would be a permanent missed opportunity.
We owe future generations better planning than this.
Thank you for considering my submission.
Daniel McNamara
Object
Daniel McNamara
Object
WOLLI CREEK
,
New South Wales
Message
I am a resident of Wolli Creek and wish to object to the current Concept Proposal and Stage 1 Works for the Kogarah Golf Club Redevelopment.
While I acknowledge the importance of creating employment opportunities and supporting Sydney’s freight and logistics network, I do not believe the proposal, in its current form, strikes an appropriate balance between economic development and the amenity of surrounding communities.
My concerns include:
1. Scale and visual impact
The proposal allows for buildings up to approximately 70 metres (around 23 storeys). This is an extraordinary scale for an industrial precinct and appears inconsistent with the surrounding character. Such buildings will have significant visual impacts for residents across Wolli Creek, Arncliffe, Rockdale and surrounding suburbs.
2. Data centre and industrial uses
The concept proposal permits data centre uses alongside logistics facilities. Data centres typically involve substantial energy demand, large backup generators, mechanical cooling equipment operating continuously and limited ongoing employment relative to the land they occupy. Before these uses are approved, there should be much greater scrutiny of their cumulative impacts, including noise, emissions, electricity demand and sustainability outcomes.
3. Traffic impacts
The precinct will generate substantial heavy vehicle traffic in an area that already experiences significant congestion around Marsh Street, the M5, Airport precinct and local road network. I am concerned that the transport assessment underestimates the cumulative impacts of existing and future development in the area.
4. Loss of open space and community benefit
The former golf course represents one of the largest remaining green spaces in the area. While I understand portions are proposed to become public open space, a significant proportion of the site will become intensive industrial development. The community deserves a development that delivers stronger environmental and recreational outcomes.
5. Environmental impacts
The site sits adjacent to the Cooks River corridor. The Department should carefully assess impacts relating to urban heat, biodiversity, stormwater quality, flooding, noise and air quality, particularly given the proposed intensity of development.
6. Need for stronger conditions
If the proposal is ultimately approved, I request that the Department impose strict conditions regarding:
* building heights and bulk;
* noise limits (including mechanical plant and backup generators);
* traffic management and truck movements;
* renewable energy and sustainability requirements;
* landscaping and tree canopy;
* protection of public open space; and
* ongoing community consultation.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Department refuse the proposal in its current form or require significant amendments before any approval is granted.
While I acknowledge the importance of creating employment opportunities and supporting Sydney’s freight and logistics network, I do not believe the proposal, in its current form, strikes an appropriate balance between economic development and the amenity of surrounding communities.
My concerns include:
1. Scale and visual impact
The proposal allows for buildings up to approximately 70 metres (around 23 storeys). This is an extraordinary scale for an industrial precinct and appears inconsistent with the surrounding character. Such buildings will have significant visual impacts for residents across Wolli Creek, Arncliffe, Rockdale and surrounding suburbs.
2. Data centre and industrial uses
The concept proposal permits data centre uses alongside logistics facilities. Data centres typically involve substantial energy demand, large backup generators, mechanical cooling equipment operating continuously and limited ongoing employment relative to the land they occupy. Before these uses are approved, there should be much greater scrutiny of their cumulative impacts, including noise, emissions, electricity demand and sustainability outcomes.
3. Traffic impacts
The precinct will generate substantial heavy vehicle traffic in an area that already experiences significant congestion around Marsh Street, the M5, Airport precinct and local road network. I am concerned that the transport assessment underestimates the cumulative impacts of existing and future development in the area.
4. Loss of open space and community benefit
The former golf course represents one of the largest remaining green spaces in the area. While I understand portions are proposed to become public open space, a significant proportion of the site will become intensive industrial development. The community deserves a development that delivers stronger environmental and recreational outcomes.
5. Environmental impacts
The site sits adjacent to the Cooks River corridor. The Department should carefully assess impacts relating to urban heat, biodiversity, stormwater quality, flooding, noise and air quality, particularly given the proposed intensity of development.
6. Need for stronger conditions
If the proposal is ultimately approved, I request that the Department impose strict conditions regarding:
* building heights and bulk;
* noise limits (including mechanical plant and backup generators);
* traffic management and truck movements;
* renewable energy and sustainability requirements;
* landscaping and tree canopy;
* protection of public open space; and
* ongoing community consultation.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Department refuse the proposal in its current form or require significant amendments before any approval is granted.
Grant Gamble
Object
Grant Gamble
Object
WOLLI CREEK
,
New South Wales
Message
There are two aspects of this proposed redevelopment of the Kogarah Golf Course that I find particularly objectionable.
Firstly, the height and spread of the warehouses along 80% of the river bank, blocking views of and access to the Cooks River, is very short sighted. Much work has gone into rejuvenating the river over the last few decades. Public walk / bike tracks, parklands, river mangroves, sports grounds, public amenities have made the Cooks River a stand out green space for everyone to enjoy. It is a great loss not to complete this link from Cahill Park through to Muddy Creek and onwards to Botany Bay. The planned footpath is far to narrow, and the height of the warehouse facades loom 6 stories, directly over this path. There should be greater setback from the river to hide the warehouses. More of the residual parkland needs to come right down to the rivers edge, as they do now.
Secondly, I strongly object to the creation of a data centre on this site. Data centres provide very few ongoing jobs. Quite the opposite has been proven: in fact they markedly reduce employment - particularly within middle class jobs. I see nowhere in the EIS how much power will be needed 356 days a year for this data centre, or what kind of strain this will put on the electricity grid and power supplies. Will residents be at risk of future brownouts and load shedding?? Further, is the proposed data centre going to be water cooled? Again, how much demand will be placed on Sydney's already stretched water resources? We have yet to experience another drought like we had in the early 2000s, which resulted in the large desalination unit at Kurnell. Are we going to add to the demand on this power hungry desalination unit with another yet another Sydney data centre? There is no information about how the significant demand for these resources will be managed and provided for, or its impact on Sydney's utilities.
Sincerely, Grant Gamble
Firstly, the height and spread of the warehouses along 80% of the river bank, blocking views of and access to the Cooks River, is very short sighted. Much work has gone into rejuvenating the river over the last few decades. Public walk / bike tracks, parklands, river mangroves, sports grounds, public amenities have made the Cooks River a stand out green space for everyone to enjoy. It is a great loss not to complete this link from Cahill Park through to Muddy Creek and onwards to Botany Bay. The planned footpath is far to narrow, and the height of the warehouse facades loom 6 stories, directly over this path. There should be greater setback from the river to hide the warehouses. More of the residual parkland needs to come right down to the rivers edge, as they do now.
Secondly, I strongly object to the creation of a data centre on this site. Data centres provide very few ongoing jobs. Quite the opposite has been proven: in fact they markedly reduce employment - particularly within middle class jobs. I see nowhere in the EIS how much power will be needed 356 days a year for this data centre, or what kind of strain this will put on the electricity grid and power supplies. Will residents be at risk of future brownouts and load shedding?? Further, is the proposed data centre going to be water cooled? Again, how much demand will be placed on Sydney's already stretched water resources? We have yet to experience another drought like we had in the early 2000s, which resulted in the large desalination unit at Kurnell. Are we going to add to the demand on this power hungry desalination unit with another yet another Sydney data centre? There is no information about how the significant demand for these resources will be managed and provided for, or its impact on Sydney's utilities.
Sincerely, Grant Gamble
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
MARRICKVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
I am concerned about the siting of a possible data centre on the cooks river surrounds. This continues on from seriously outdated attitudes about ‘wasteland’ and rivers as ‘drains.’
I have long volunteered in bush regeneration groups around the cooks river (currently mudcrabs)
and hugely discouraged to see this enormous backward step for the health of the river and communities both human and wildlife.
It is the job of government to protect the health and well-being of communities, rather than facilitating private wealth at their expense.
I have long volunteered in bush regeneration groups around the cooks river (currently mudcrabs)
and hugely discouraged to see this enormous backward step for the health of the river and communities both human and wildlife.
It is the job of government to protect the health and well-being of communities, rather than facilitating private wealth at their expense.