I am writing to object to this proposal in its current form and to ask the Department to carefully consider the impacts it will have on the residents of 26–32 Marsh Street, Wolli Creek, before making a decision.

I understand why this redevelopment is being proposed. Sydney needs employment, land, investment and infrastructure, and I recognise that the project has the potential to deliver broader economic benefits, jobs and new public open space.

I am not opposed to redevelopment in principle.

However, as someone who lives directly opposite the site, I do not believe the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) adequately reflects what this project will mean for the people who will live with its impacts every day.

While the redevelopment may deliver benefits across Sydney, a relatively small number of households—including ours—will bear a disproportionate share of the environmental and social impacts. I believe this imbalance should be more clearly recognised in both the assessment and the conditions of any approval.

1. Consultation with the most affected residents

The issue that concerns me most is the consultation process.

I acknowledge that the proponent undertook some consultation with the local community, including two letterbox drops in October and November 2025, a community information session, and project information made available online.

However, I do not believe this was adequate for a development of this scale or for the residents who will be most directly affected.

From what I have been able to determine, community engagement consisted largely of those two letterbox drops and a single information session in late 2025, followed by a lengthy period with no further direct engagement before the project was placed on public exhibition.

Unfortunately, our household missed those notifications and only became aware of the project and its scale once it was placed on public exhibition. By then, the concept design and supporting studies had already been prepared, and it felt as though many of the key decisions had already been made.

I appreciate that the proponent cannot guarantee every resident will see every notification. However, where a project of this magnitude will fundamentally change the environment immediately outside people's homes, I believe this level of engagement was inadequate.

As one of the residential buildings closest to the site, I would have expected ongoing engagement with the residents and Owners Corporation of 26–32 Marsh Street as the proposal evolved.

I respectfully ask the Department to require further consultation with the residents and Owners Corporation before determining this application.

2. Loss of outlook and residential amenity

Our apartment currently overlooks the Cooks River corridor and the landscaped golf course. Under this proposal, those views will largely be replaced by large logistics buildings, warehouses, a data centre, loading areas, service roads and buildings up to approximately 70 metres in height.

While I appreciate that landscaping has been incorporated into the proposal, it cannot compensate for the permanent loss of the outlook and amenity we currently enjoy.

I acknowledge that the Visual Impact Assessment includes viewpoints from 26–32 Marsh Street, recognising the building as an important residential receiver.

However, the assessment does not appear to provide a complete picture of the visual impacts. The viewpoints appear to have been taken from the uppermost level of the building and do not clearly show how the outlook from a broader range of apartments will change once the proposed buildings are constructed.

Given the scale of the development, I believe additional visual assessments from representative apartments on different levels should be provided so the Department and affected residents can properly understand the likely impacts.

3. Construction impacts

The proposal will be delivered over multiple stages extending across several years.

Our household is likely to experience prolonged demolition, excavation, piling, heavy vehicle movements, cranes, construction noise, vibration, dust and traffic disruption.

These impacts will not be experienced individually—they will occur simultaneously, alongside other major infrastructure works already affecting the area. I ask the Department to give greater consideration to these cumulative impacts.

4. Existing structural concerns

The apartment building at 26–32 Marsh Street has existing building defects that are the subject of an ongoing claim by the Owners Corporation against the original developer.

Given these existing concerns, the prospect of major demolition, excavation, piling and heavy vehicle activity immediately opposite the building is particularly worrying.

I ask that any approval require:

* an independent structural condition survey before works begin;
* comprehensive photographic and engineering records of the building's condition;
* continuous vibration and settlement monitoring throughout construction;
* regular independent structural inspections;
* public reporting of monitoring results; and
* a clear process for investigating and rectifying any damage attributable to construction activities.

5. The human impact

Perhaps the most difficult aspect of this proposal has been the feeling that our household has had very little opportunity to prepare for it.

We only became aware of the project and its scale once it was placed on public exhibition. By that stage, it felt as though many of the key decisions had already been made.

Had we known about the proposal earlier, we would at least have had the opportunity to consider our options before reaching this point.

Instead, we now feel that we have very few realistic choices.

Remaining in our home may mean living opposite a major construction site for several years, something we do not feel we could comfortably do.

At the same time, leaving is not straightforward. Selling our apartment after a proposal of this scale has entered the public domain may not be financially viable in the current market, and we are also concerned that years of major construction could affect our ability to lease the apartment if that became our preferred option.

The result is that we feel trapped between options that are all difficult. The uncertainty, loss of control and psychological strain associated with this proposal are already affecting our wellbeing before construction has even commenced.

6. If the proposal proceeds

If this redevelopment is approved, I respectfully ask the Department to require stronger protections for the residents of 26–32 Marsh Street, including:

* direct consultation with our Owners Corporation and residents;
* additional visual assessment from representative apartments, if this has not already been undertaken;
* independent structural monitoring and public reporting throughout construction;
* clearly defined vibration trigger levels requiring work to stop if there is a risk of damage;
* appointment of a dedicated community liaison officer; and
* preparation of a Neighbourhood Impact Management Plan for the apartment buildings immediately opposite the site.

Given that our building will bear a disproportionate share of the impacts while the benefits are realised across the wider community, I also ask the Department to consider practical mitigation measures for the most affected residents where feasible. These could include enhanced acoustic treatments, additional landscaping and visual screening, enhanced dust suppression and air quality monitoring, traffic management measures, and ongoing consultation so mitigation measures can be adapted as construction progresses.

7. Conclusion

I understand that projects like this can deliver important benefits for Sydney.

My request is simply that the impacts on the residents of 26–32 Marsh Street receive the same careful consideration.

This submission is about more than traffic, noise or visual impacts. It is about the experience of living immediately opposite a development of this scale and the consequences of only learning about the project once it had reached public exhibition and many of the key decisions had already been been made.

Had our household been given earlier notice and a genuine opportunity to participate in the planning process, we would at least have been able to make informed decisions about our future before our options became so limited.

I respectfully ask the Department to take these human impacts into account, to require further consultation with the residents of our building, additional assessment of the impacts on our community, and stronger conditions to protect those of us who will be living beside this development for many years to come.

I believe greater consideration should be made to the environmental impacts a data centre could have on the surrounding area, including the Cooks River. They can also have enormous negative impacts on the health of people who live in the area surrounding the data centre, including increase or flare ups of conditions like asthma. Data centres can also create heat islands and increase local temperatures by up to 9 degrees celcius. The noise pollution will also be disruptive to residents. Greater care and consideration should be given to the environmental and community impact of a data centre on the Cooks River.

To whom it may concern,
I am writing as a local resident to object to the proposed data centre development on the former Kogarah Golf Course site.
I appreciate that we have an increasingly digital economy and that data centre developments are inevitable. My concern is not with data centres themselves (provided they are sustainably powered), but whether this is an appropriate location for one.
The former golf course represents one of the largest remaining redevelopment opportunities on the Cooks River. Once this riverfront is developed, the opportunity to restore natural riverbanks, expand public open space and improve ecological connectivity will largely be lost for future generations. Unlike industrial land, riverfront land is finite. Decisions made here will shape this part of Sydney for decades.
I am struck by the disconnect between the proposed development and the NSW Government’s frameworks and plans across multiple portfolios. For example, the Adapt NSW resources highlight the importance of green cover and open spaces for health, wellbeing, and ecological benefits, as well as combatting the effects of climate change and reducing urban heat. Similarly, the Department of Planning’s Cooler Places resources discuss the importance of green spaces and canopy cover. These resources are aligned with scientific research that shows the multifaceted health and social benefits of urban green and blue space. By contrast, a data centre emits substantial amounts of heat, and its proposed location costs a valuable opportunity to safeguard green cover and blue space for future generations. The NSW Movement and Place Framework, albeit focussed on transport projects, highlights 36 Built Environment Indicators that should be considered for all projects. Most of these indicators (such as ‘tree canopy,’ ‘biodiversity,’ ‘waterways,’ ‘urban heat’ and ‘impervious surfaces’) would be detrimentally impacted by a proposal such as this. Finally, the Environmental Impact Statement makes no reference to a cost benefit analysis within the NSW Government’s Framework for Valuing Green Infrastructure and Public Spaces. To my read, this would be a crucial project for which to conduct such a cost benefit analysis.
I respectfully ask the Department to reconsider this proposal. With the pace of technological change, a data centre may be obsolete in a decade. I hope the NSW Government will instead choose to invest in future generations through safeguarding this critical green-blue infrastructure.

Wolli creek is a heavy populated area and doesn’t need a data centre and logistic centre, this will only put more strain on our infrastructure, roads, water, electricity etc. The area is already a huge bottleneck for residents, community and tourists arriving at Sydney international.

The area needs more walk ways and green space and to restore the environment and ecosystem not put more pressure on it.

I strongly object to this proposal, specifically the potential use of this space as a data center.

With reference to Appendix K, a data center would contradict every cultural theme identified and provides little opportunities to the items outlined on page 21.
On cultural themes, if it requires water to cool, then it would disrupt tidal movements and the salinity of surrounding waterways.
It provides no life nor teaching as it has no reciprocity to Country, therefore it has no Dreaming and contributes nothing to 'Living Cultural Presence and Community Legacy'. Data centers provide no ongoing employment, thus no skills and as noted earlier, is incapable of caring for Country. It provides no direct benefit to community, instead a direct detriment with environmental pollution such as heat and noise.

With reference to Appendix BB, the sustainability requirements listed in 2.1 are not possible with the requirements of data centers. If a data center is proposed, then it's design and proposal should be outlined and how it is able to meet these sustainability requirements.

With reference to Appendix CC, negative impacts starting page 33 in 7.4.1 already outlines "...operation due to increase[s in] noise..." with high social significance and a moderate magnitude. With the area so close to residential buildings, sound barriers are not sufficient.
In 7.4.6 RE: landscape and ecology once that gross oversight in identifying how the constant droning of data centers would affect wildlife, let alone humans.

I object to this project on a number of grounds. Most significantly the negative environmental impacts through noise and heat generated, the drain on energy resources required to operate the project, and the loss of public parkland to this project.

I support the project

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to provide formal comment on the major logistics and mixed-use proposal for the former Kogarah Golf Club site. The primary purpose of my submission is to formally second and support the key public-interest requests put forward by the Cooks River Alliance.

While this $2.6 billion development holds clear economic value due to its proximity to Sydney Airport, a transformation of this scale must not come at the expense of one of southern Sydney’s most vital urban waterways. I urge the Department to integrate the Alliance’s recommendations as binding conditions of any consent, with particular focus on the following priorities:

1. Mandating a minimum 40-Metre riparian corridor
I strongly back the call for a minimum 40-metre riparian corridor from the high-water mark along the full length of the river frontage. Establishing a robust, fully naturalized buffer zone is essential for protecting the river’s ecosystem, building climate resilience against tidal inundation risks, and providing an unbroken path for the community. The riverfront must not be compromised by the footprints of the proposed 70-metre tall structures.

2. Reorienting public space to the waterfront
The current design places the primary public green space ('Pemulwuy Park') on the western side of the site, largely obscured behind the industrial and commercial blocks. This layout isolates the community from the water. I second the Alliance's request to reorient this public space to the riverfront, seamlessly connecting it to the existing waterfront public access network. Integrating green space directly with the blue corridor is standard best practice for urban river rejuvenation and must be enforced here.

3. Early delivery of crucial green infrastructure
Public open space and environmental safeguards must be viewed as core infrastructure, not afterthought luxuries. I strongly object to any plans that defer green space delivery to the final phases of construction. High-quality public amenity and environmental rehabilitation must be delivered in the early stages of the project alongside the initial structural works.

Conclusion
Decisions made on this site will shape the lower Cooks River catchment for generations. This development can only be considered a success if it actively enhances the public and ecological value of the river. I urge the Department to safeguard our community's future by enforcing the Cooks River Alliance’s conditions before granting any structural approvals.

Thank you for considering this feedback.

I oppose this development on the account of the devastating ecological impact data centres have been proven to cause.
For the wellbeing of humans and animals alike, this area should be protected.