To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed redevelopment of Kogarah Golf Course.
The scale and intensity of the development would fundamentally alter this important riverfront site and place additional pressure on the already stressed Cooks River environment. While redevelopment is often promoted as an opportunity for economic growth, I do not believe the current proposal adequately protects the environmental, social and recreational values of the river and surrounding area.
The Cooks River has suffered decades of environmental degradation, habitat loss and declining water quality. Rather than contributing to its recovery, this proposal risks increasing urbanisation along one of Sydney's most important waterways without delivering the level of environmental restoration that a project of this scale should provide.
I have a number of serious concerns.
1. Insufficient Environmental Benefit
A development valued at approximately $2.9 billion should be delivering substantial and measurable environmental improvements for the Cooks River. The proposal currently fails to provide a clear commitment to restoring the river and its surrounding ecosystems to a standard that would justify the scale of the development.
If the project proceeds despite community concerns, there should be a significant and dedicated funding commitment towards long-term river restoration, habitat protection and water quality improvements.
2. Inadequate Riparian Protection
The river corridor is one of the site's most important environmental assets. A continuous minimum 40-metre riparian corridor should be required along the entire river frontage.
Anything less would represent a missed opportunity to protect biodiversity, improve water quality, increase climate resilience and create meaningful public open space along the river.
3. Failure to Prioritise River Restoration
The proposal appears to treat the river as a boundary rather than as the central environmental feature of the site.
Any redevelopment should include a comprehensive riverbank naturalisation program, replacing hard engineered edges with native vegetation and habitat wherever possible. The long-term health of the river must take precedence over development outcomes.
4. Loss of Open Space and Public Amenity
Large developments often promise future public benefits; however, these benefits are frequently delayed or reduced over time.
Any public infrastructure, including walking paths, cycleways, open space and river access, should be delivered before or alongside development, not as an afterthought once construction is largely complete.
5. Inadequate Community Consultation
I am concerned about the limited community engagement undertaken to date.
The Cooks River catchment serves a large and diverse population, including residents, recreational users, environmental groups and Traditional Owners. A project of this scale demands extensive consultation and genuine community participation throughout the planning process.
The level of engagement undertaken so far does not appear to reflect the significance of the proposal or the potential impacts on the wider community.
6. Overdevelopment of a Sensitive Riverfront Site
Most importantly, I believe the proposal represents overdevelopment of a sensitive waterfront location.
The Department should carefully consider whether the scale, density and intensity of the proposed development are appropriate given the environmental significance of the Cooks River and the increasing need to preserve open space, urban biodiversity and ecological corridors within Sydney.
Conclusion
I strongly oppose the redevelopment in its current form.
The proposal does not demonstrate that it will adequately protect or improve the health of the Cooks River, nor does it provide sufficient confidence that environmental and community interests have been prioritised over development outcomes.
The Department should either reject the proposal or require significant changes to reduce its scale and ensure the protection and restoration of the Cooks River environment before any approval is considered.
Thank you for considering my submission.
Yours sincerely,
Nick Atanasovski

To whom it may concern,
I am writing regarding the proposed redevelopment of Kogarah Golf Course.
As someone who values the Cooks River, I recognise this is a significant opportunity for Sydney. I am not opposed to redevelopment of the site. However, I believe a project of this scale should leave the Cooks River healthier than it found it.
This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to demonstrate that economic development and environmental restoration can go hand in hand.
I encourage the Department to strengthen the proposal by including the following:
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.
Conclusion
Major developments should leave the places they touch better than they found them.
This proposal has the potential to become a benchmark for river-sensitive urban development in Sydney. I encourage the Department to strengthen the proposal so that it delivers lasting environmental, recreational and community benefits alongside economic development.
Thank you for considering my submission.

To whom it may concern,

I am writing regarding the proposed redevelopment of Kogarah Golf Course.

As someone who values the Cooks River, I recognise this is a significant opportunity for Sydney. I am not opposed to redevelopment of the site. However, I believe a project of this scale should leave the Cooks River healthier than it found it.

This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to demonstrate that economic development and environmental restoration can go hand in hand.

I encourage the Department to strengthen the proposal by including the following:

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.
Conclusion
Major developments should leave the places they touch better than they found them.
This proposal has the potential to become a benchmark for river-sensitive urban development in Sydney. I encourage the Department to strengthen the proposal so that it delivers lasting environmental, recreational and community benefits alongside economic development.
Thank you for considering my submission.

I oppose the project for a few reasons, firstly, the data centres and secondly the logistics coordination.
The proposed buildings being 70m high will completely block the view of the beautiful Cooks River, the Goolay'yari in Dharug language. This River is cared for by Wangal and Dharug people and country. Have indigenous stakeholders and groups consulted on this project and how it will impact country and waterways?
The data centres will have a huge impact on air pollution due to the huge amounts of fossil fuels that will be burnt to keep them running due to the huge amount of energy they require. Using that much energy (the equivalent of 25,000 homes and up to 100,000) will cause blackouts and increased cost of energy for residents. In a cost of living crisis. If blackouts were to occur, diesel generators would be used for the data centres - causing further noise and air pollution. If all proposed projects in Australia were to go ahead, their total maximum demand would be more than 21 GW – or more than seven times the capacity of Eraring, Australia’s biggest coal-fired power station. If data centre energy growth is matched with more gas, rather than renewables and storage, wholesale power prices will rise across Australia as high as 26% in NSW and 23% in Victoria by 2035.

The water consumption required to keep data centres cool is disgraceful given that Australia is in drought and in a water crisis already. We do not need data centres using up our water. This water demand will strain waterways and Sydney water systems. We are in a CLIMATE CRISIS. Our disaster costs associated with bushfires, floods and other natural disasters have increased 1000% since the bushfires in 2020.

Data centres also contribute to noise pollution, in Wolli Creek we live near the airport as well as ongoing Motorway developments, the noise pollution created by data centres will add to this 10 fold. The levels produced by a data centre can contribute to making it hard for residents to sleep and quietly enjoy their residence. Additionally, this noise pollution will impact the usage of the 14 hectares of green space.

Further, due to the pollution from the data centre, the usage of the green space will be limited and fraught - as accessing that space will mean exposing residents to noise, air and water pollution. Not the mention the sight of the 70m building blocking access to seeing the Goolay'yari (Cooks River).

Secondly, the logistics centre will put pressure on already congested roads in Wolli Creek due to increased truck traffic, further adding to pollution (noise, air and water) in the area. I strongly oppose all logistics coordination and data centres being built in Wolli Creek when there is a desperate need for: social and community housing, social and community infrastructure, green spaces, habitat for native species (animals and plants) and alternate and green energy sources (solar).

From Climate Council:
Given what’s at stake, governments must move beyond voluntary signals to enforceable, nationally uniform requirements for data centres and their customers that:
Support additional renewable energy and firming capacity, and restrict use of offsets;
Maximise energy and water efficiency and avoid drawing on drinking water supplies;
Use flexible demand, backed by renewable solutions, to keep our energy system reliable and secure;
Pay for the energy and water infrastructure they need; and
Make current and future water consumption, and energy use and climate pollution transparent.

Citations:

https://www.wri.org/insights/us-data-center-growth-impacts
https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/land-lines-magazine/articles/land-water-impacts-data-centers/
https://theconversation.com/5-ways-data-centers-endanger-their-local-communities-and-the-country-as-a-whole-282348
https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/clouded-future-managing-the-risks-of-the-data-centre/

The height of the building is a major concern. The space is in a beautiful area by the water but also beside residential area. A building that tall doesn't fit the environment. There needs to be a better balance to allow a shared space.
More space along the bank of the river for walking and biking and picnics/leisure area.
Ensure the natural environment is protected.
Concerns over hear and energy if a data centre is installed.
There needs to be a traffic plan in place as this is a busy area for people travelling to the airport particularly because it is in a residential area.

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to lodge my strong objection to the proposed $2.9 billion redevelopment of the Kogarah Golf Course in its current form. While the revitalization of this site represents a critical opportunity for Sydney, the current proposal is an unacceptable failure of environmental planning and public accountability. A multi-billion-dollar project of this magnitude must not be allowed to exploit a sensitive riverfront location for private commercial profit while leaving the community to bear the ecological costs. The Department must reject the current inadequate framework and enforce strict, non-negotiable conditions that compel the developer to focus entirely on delivering a healthy, accessible public waterfront, ensuring they leave the Cooks River in a significantly better state than they found it.

First, the Department must mandate a legally binding, significant financial developer contribution to fund the long-term restoration of the waterway. For a project of this immense scale, the absence of a dedicated environmental fund is a glaring omission. The approval must be conditional upon the creation of an independent Cooks River Legacy Fund. This fund must be used to establish a permanent Cooks River Keeper stewardship organization, finance intensive and continuous garbage clean-up programs, replace failing sheet piling with bio-engineered banks, restore degraded saltmarsh and mangrove habitats, construct advanced stormwater treatment systems, and build high-quality public walking, cycling, and paddling infrastructure.

Second, the proposal’s environmental protections are completely compromised and must be aggressively strengthened. The Department must enforce an uncompromising, continuous, minimum 40-metre riparian corridor along the entire river frontage, rejecting any attempts by the developer to encroach on this buffer to increase building density. Furthermore, the developer must be forced to completely naturalize the river edge. The current design treats the river like an industrial back boundary; this must be replaced with a mandatory commitment to remove hard engineered concrete and steel walls, replacing them with native vegetation and habitat zones that restore ecological health and facilitate genuine public access to the water.

Third, the delivery of public benefits must be strictly front-loaded to prevent the community from being left with empty promises. All too often, developers delay public amenities until the final, most profitable stages of a project, or abandon them altogether. The Department must legally require that all cycleways, walking paths, open green spaces, and river access points are fully constructed and operational during the initial phases of development. The surrounding community, which will endure years of construction disruption, must not have to wait until the completion of the project to see tangible, positive infrastructure.

Fourth, the community consultation process for this project has been an absolute farce and a cynical, box-ticking exercise. It is deeply alarming and unacceptable that a massive redevelopment impacting a catchment home to hundreds of thousands of residents only involved 22 people in its stakeholder engagement sessions. The Department must condemn this superficial process and mandate an exhaustive, transparent engagement strategy. Traditional Owners, environmental organizations, local councils, and recreational user groups must be given a genuine, ongoing role in shaping the detailed design and delivery of the project, rather than being shut out once the concept receives a rubber stamp.

Finally, the Department must enforce stringent design excellence to prevent the site from becoming a wall of uninspired, sterile buildings that degrade the waterfront. The final master plan must demand world-class architecture where buildings actively address, face, and celebrate the river rather than turning their backs to it. This must include aggressive, legally binding tree canopy targets to mitigate the urban heat island effect, vibrant and active public waterfront spaces, and safe, seamless pedestrian and cycling connections. If approved without these rigid conditions, this development will stand as a monument to short-sighted planning and environmental neglect. The Department has an obligation to reject this flawed proposal and demand a project that sets a true benchmark for river-sensitive urban development.

Thank you for considering this submission.

To Whom It May Concern,

I wish to formally object to State Significant Development Application SSD-84467726 for the proposed Kogarah Golf Club Redevelopment at 13-19A Marsh Street, Arncliffe. The proposal includes the potential development of a 30MW+ data centre, large-scale logistics and warehouse facilities operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, across a site adjacent to the Cooks River, Sydney Airport and established residential communities including Wolli Creek, Arncliffe and Banksia.

While I acknowledge the economic benefits claimed by the applicant, I believe the proposal presents significant environmental, infrastructure, transport, public safety and community risks that have not yet been adequately addressed.

My objections are outlined below.

1. Traffic Congestion and Road Network Impacts
The proposal is intended to accommodate up to 343,250m² of logistics, warehousing and data centre facilities, operating continuously and generating substantial heavy vehicle movements.

Key concerns include:
Marsh Street, Levey Street, Princes Highway and surrounding local roads already experience significant peak-hour congestion.
The proposal will introduce a large number of trucks, semi-trailers, delivery vehicles and construction vehicles.
Heavy vehicle traffic will negatively impact nearby residential streets in Arncliffe, Wolli Creek and Banksia through noise, safety risks and road wear.
The applicant itself acknowledges that major road upgrades are required to accommodate future traffic generated by the development.
The project is located directly adjacent to the ongoing M6 Motorway Stage 1 construction works, expected to continue until approximately 2028.
Simultaneous construction of the redevelopment and the M6 could create cumulative congestion, construction conflicts, project delays and risks to critical state infrastructure.
The proposal's own documents identify cumulative impacts from major nearby warehouse developments in Mascot and the M6 project.
Given the scale of the logistics operation and 24/7 operation proposed, the development will impose unreasonable pressure on already constrained transport infrastructure.

2. Electricity Demand and Energy Security Risks
The proposal specifically contemplates development of a data centre with power consumption exceeding 30MW, double the NSW SSD threshold.

Serious concerns include:
Existing electricity infrastructure serving Wolli Creek, Arncliffe, Rockdale and Sydney Airport is already under pressure from substantial residential and commercial growth.
Data centres are among the most energy-intensive forms of development.
The applicant has not demonstrated that the electricity grid can support the proposed demand without affecting reliability for residents and businesses.
During power outages or maintenance events, data centres typically rely on large diesel backup generators.
Generator operation could cause significant noise pollution affecting nearby residential communities.
Diesel exhaust emissions would further deteriorate local air quality.
The area is already impacted by air emissions from major transport corridors including the M5, M8 and future M6 motorway ventilation systems and associated infrastructure.
The cumulative impact of motorway emissions and data centre backup power systems has not been adequately assessed.
Until there is clear evidence that grid capacity exists and backup generation impacts can be mitigated, approval should not be granted.

3. Environmental Impact on Cooks River Ecosystem
The site borders approximately 950 metres of the Cooks River foreshore and contains environmentally sensitive habitat areas.

Concerns include:
Loss of vegetation and habitat through site clearing.
Disturbance of riverbank ecosystems during bulk earthworks and seawall construction.
Increased stormwater runoff carrying pollutants into the Cooks River.
Potential impacts on mangroves, saltmarsh communities and aquatic habitats.
Risk of contamination entering waterways during demolition, excavation and remediation works.
Increased industrial activity adjacent to an already environmentally stressed waterway.
The proposal acknowledges the presence of the Green and Golden Bell Frog habitat and notes the possibility of impacts requiring EPBC Act referral.
Existing RTA Frog Ponds were specifically established as compensatory habitat for the Green and Golden Bell Frog.
The proposal includes decommissioning of existing ponds and extensive site modification works.
Approval should not be granted unless independent experts demonstrate no significant impact on biodiversity and the river ecosystem.

4. Fire and Emergency Risk
The inclusion of a large-scale data centre introduces significant fire risk considerations.

Concerns include:
Data centre fires can be difficult to extinguish, particularly where battery energy storage systems are involved.
Toxic smoke generated by electrical and battery fires could affect nearby residents.
The site is directly opposite Sydney Airport's runways and flight paths.
A major fire may create smoke plumes that interfere with airport visibility and operations.
Emergency incidents could impact aviation safety.
Flight delays, diversions or cancellations may occur if smoke affects airspace.
Significant emergency resources would be required to manage any major event.
The proposal sits adjacent to major motorway infrastructure, increasing the potential consequences of any large-scale emergency.
A comprehensive aviation safety and emergency management assessment should be mandatory before consideration of approval.

5. Flooding and Climate Risk
The proposal acknowledges the site is flood prone and affected during major flood events.

Additional concerns include:
Increased hard surfaces and building footprints may worsen downstream flooding impacts.
Climate change is expected to increase extreme rainfall events.
Data centres and critical infrastructure should not be concentrated within flood-affected land.
Flood mitigation measures may simply transfer impacts to neighbouring areas.
6. Visual Impact and Loss of Open Space
The proposal allows buildings up to approximately 55 metres in height and seeks flexibility to exceed existing planning controls.

Concerns include:
Loss of one of the area's few significant open green spaces.
Industrialisation of a prominent riverfront location.
Visual impacts on residents, park users and river users.
Potential overshadowing impacts.
Incompatibility with surrounding residential neighbourhoods.
7. Noise Impacts
Noise sources include:

24-hour warehouse operations.
Trucks and loading docks.
Refrigeration systems.
Data centre cooling equipment.
Emergency generator testing.
Construction works extending over several years.
The cumulative noise burden on nearby residents would be substantial.

8. Public Health and Air Quality
Residents are already located near:

Sydney Airport.
M5 Motorway.
M8 Motorway.
Future M6 Motorway.
Adding a major logistics precinct and data centre may further increase:

Diesel particulate emissions.
Nitrogen oxides.
Construction dust.
Generator emissions.
Industrial noise exposure.
The cumulative public health impacts should be independently assessed.

Conclusion
The proposed development represents an overdevelopment of a highly sensitive site located adjacent to residential communities, the Cooks River, critical motorway infrastructure and Sydney Airport.

I respectfully request that the Department reject SSD-84467726 unless the proponent can conclusively demonstrate that:

Traffic and heavy vehicle impacts can be avoided.
Electricity supply infrastructure is adequate.
Biodiversity and Cooks River ecosystems will not be adversely affected.
Fire and aviation safety risks are negligible.
Flood risks can be managed without transferring impacts elsewhere.
Noise, air quality and health impacts will not adversely affect nearby residents.
Given the significant uncertainty surrounding these issues, approval would be premature and not in the public interest.

Yours faithfully

I strongly object to the proposed Kogarah Golf Club redevelopment in its current form.

When many residents first heard about the Cooks Cove redevelopment, it was presented as an opportunity to significantly improve public amenity and create a vibrant, attractive extension to the Wolli Creek precinct. Instead, the proposal has evolved into what appears to be an enormous industrial-scale data centre, with the potential for large logistics warehouses as part of the broader redevelopment. These uses are fundamentally inconsistent with the surrounding residential community and the aspirations many residents had for this important site.

The sheer scale and bulk of the proposed development is excessive. Rather than enhancing the area, it would dominate the landscape, overshadow surrounding neighbourhoods, and fundamentally change the character of Wolli Creek and nearby suburbs. This is not the type of development that residents were led to expect for such a prominent gateway site.

I am also concerned that land previously considered unsuitable for residential development because of flood constraints is now proposed to accommodate large industrial uses. Whether those uses are a massive data centre or large-scale logistics warehouses, they offer little in the way of community benefit while introducing significant visual impacts and industrial activity immediately adjacent to established residential areas.
In particular, I believe that large logistics warehouses are an inappropriate land use for this location.

Warehouses are typically associated with increased heavy vehicle movements, 24-hour operations, loading docks, servicing activity, noise and lighting, all of which are incompatible with a densely populated residential precinct. A development of this nature would diminish the amenity of surrounding neighbourhoods and undermine the quality of life of existing and future residents.

This proposal appears to prioritise private commercial interests over the long-term liveability of the community. Once industrial development of this scale is approved, its impacts on the visual environment, local character and future planning outcomes will be permanent and extremely difficult to reverse.

I respectfully ask the Department to carefully consider the cumulative impacts of this proposal, including its visual dominance, incompatibility with the surrounding residential neighbourhood, the industrialisation of a key gateway site, the loss of the opportunity to deliver meaningful public open space and community-focused development, and the precedent it sets for future development in the area.

I urge the Department to reject the proposal in its current form and require a redevelopment that genuinely delivers on the original vision of improving public amenity while respecting the character and quality of life of the surrounding community.

To whom it may concern,
I am writing regarding the proposed redevelopment of Kogarah Golf Course.
As someone who values the Cooks River, I recognise this is a significant opportunity for Sydney. I am not opposed to redevelopment of the site. However, I believe a project of this scale should leave the Cooks River healthier than it found it.
This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to demonstrate that economic development and environmental restoration can go hand in hand.
I encourage the Department to strengthen the proposal by including the following:
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.
Conclusion
Major developments should leave the places they touch better than they found them.
This proposal has the potential to become a benchmark for river-sensitive urban development in Sydney. I encourage the Department to strengthen the proposal so that it delivers lasting environmental, recreational and community benefits alongside economic development.
Thank you for considering my submission.