I do not support the proposal in its current form, from a custodian standpoint.

At a time when Australia’s flora and fauna are facing unprecedented decline, and many species within the Cooks River catchment are threatened or critically endangered, developments of this scale must do more than minimise environmental impacts. They should actively regenerate Country and this means the river is part of the Deisgn solution, no just in front but up and down stream.

This proposal should be strengthened through genuine co-design with Dharug and (Dharawal) Custodians, local communities, and the many organisations already committed to restoring the Cooks River. The river is a living cultural landscape whose health is inseparable from the wellbeing of Country, biodiversity, community and future generations.

Engagement with Traditional Custodians must not be limited to consultation at the beginning or end of the project. It should be embedded throughout every stage of planning, design, delivery, management and long term stewardship. Custodians should be recognised as ongoing partners in decision making, ensuring Country guides the project from concept through to completion and beyond.

The development should demonstrate measurable improvements in water quality, habitat connectivity, biodiversity, climate resilience and cultural renewal. It should be designed to support the movement and flourishing of all life, plants, animals, waterways and people, rather than prioritising human needs alone. Regeneration, rather than mitigation, should become the benchmark for success.

As a company with a Reconciliation Action Plan, Stockland has publicly committed to working in partnership with First Nations peoples and embedding reconciliation into its business. This project provides an opportunity to honour that commitment by placing Country at the centre of planning and design, co-designing with Traditional Custodians from the earliest stages, and ensuring the redevelopment contributes to the long term health of the Cooks River Alliance and its surrounding ecosystems.

With a genuine Country approach, this project has the potential to become a national benchmark for regenerative industrial development. Until the proposal demonstrates a clear commitment to restoring ecological function, strengthening cultural relationships, embedding Custodian leadership throughout the life of the project, and improving outcomes for all life, not just human activity, I cannot support it in its current form.

I object to the use of the space for the purposes of a data centre

this was supposed to become an 'open space.' nearby residents will face increased daily supply charge based on the electricity usage of the proposed structure . the bulk and scale of the project is inappropriate for the area and dwarfs surrounding buildings . sydney waterfront is not the location for an eyesore of a data centre. its disrespectful to first nations heritage of the area, as it's in a historically significant area due to proximity to botany bay (location of first fleet arrival and first contact for first nations people). The assessment does not adequately demonstrate that Aboriginal cultural heritage has been comprehensively investigated or that Traditional Owners have been meaningfully consulted.

1. It’s in a flood zone - don’t waste money on something that is going to experience huge issues down the line.
2. Negative impact on wildlife (loss of habitat, light and noise pollution) noting a large colony of grey headed flying foxes who live in nearby Turrella.
3. Why not use the land for a nature reserve or park (something to bring value and community to the area)?
4. This is a residential area. Data centres are loud and industrial - this will change the whole feeling of the area.

As someone who lives in the direct vicinity of the project, I object to the erection of an AI data centre in our community. The noise pollution, a side effect of the massive cooling necessary to run these centres, will have a direct effect on myself and my neighbours. The huge amounts of water demanded by these centres draws on local water sources, sometimes decreasing water pressure in communities which would have a direct impact on our neighbourhood. Finally, the environmental impacts caused by the centre will be dramatic and irreversible. The Cooks River and Botany Bay house some of Sydney’s most diverse ecosystems and the heating and pollution caused will diminish populations of local flora and fauna. In summary, myself and my community will not stand for the development of an AI data centre in our neighbourhood.

I object to the proposed industrial precinct development over the existing golf course and to the associated Clause 4.6 request to vary the building height development standard.

The proposal does not appear to appropriately recognise the environmental, recreational and landscape values of the adjoining river corridor. The development should provide the 40 m riparian buffer from the top of bank required under the Water Management Act. This buffer should incorporate the removal of ageing sheet piling where feasible, replacement with naturalised riverbanks, and restoration of saltmarsh, mangroves and other important estuarine habitats.

The river should be treated as a key public asset rather than the rear boundary of an industrial estate. The development should include buildings and public spaces that address and celebrate the river, with meaningful opportunities for walking, cycling, paddling and passive recreation. Importantly, these public access improvements should be delivered during the early stages of the project rather than being deferred until the final stages of development.

I am also concerned that community consultation has been inadequate. Despite cycling past two sides of this site approximately six times each week, I was unaware of the proposal until recently. A development of this scale warrants broader and more effective engagement with the local community.

I strongly object to the proposed Clause 4.6 variation to the building height development standard. The applicant has not demonstrated that the variation is justified or that compliance with the existing height control is unreasonable or unnecessary. The proposed development envelope is excessive, particularly adjacent to a major waterway and at one of Sydney's principal gateways for international visitors. The proposed height, including buildings extending approximately 19 metres above the airport's Obstacle Limitation Surface, represents unnecessary visual bulk that is inconsistent with the character and prominence of the location.

Traffic impacts are another significant concern. The surrounding road network already experiences substantial congestion and delays during both morning and afternoon peak periods, and the proposal is likely to exacerbate these existing issues.

Finally, I have concerns regarding the biodiversity assessment. The Commonwealth Survey Guidelines for Australia's Threatened Frogs state that surveys for the Green and Golden Bell Frog should be undertaken within one week of heavy rainfall, defined as more than 50 mm over seven days. The Biodiversity Development Assessment Report indicates that only 32.2 mm of rainfall occurred in the seven days preceding the commencement of surveys. This raises concerns as to whether the surveys were undertaken in accordance with the Commonwealth guidelines and whether the conclusions regarding this threatened species are reliable.

For these reasons, I request that the proposal, including the Clause 4.6 variation request, be refused in its current form. At a minimum, the proposal should be substantially revised to better protect the river corridor, improve public access and environmental outcomes, reduce visual and traffic impacts, and ensure biodiversity assessments are undertaken in accordance with accepted survey standards before any approval is considered.

I object to turning one of the small remaining green spaces in this LGA into more commercial building with no environmental benefit. How does this removal of green space work in with the plan for making BAYSIDE LGA greener and cooler, along with this the area is along a vital waterway removing the potential for habitat restoration and community activates. This is now what Bayside needs or wants.

I absolutely oppose at attempts to build data centres within our community. It has time and time again proven to damage the environment, raise electricity and water bills and generally is a terrible use of prime real estate near Cooks River. We have a beautiful area that was badly used as a golf course and should be instead used for much needed housing or public spaces.

Data centres generate zero jobs and contributes to current issues while taxing the community. No data centre should be build this close to the city while we're in the midst of a housing crisis. Let them build this trash in the outback at their own expense, not facillitated by our tax dollars.

Submission attached