I object the proposal of the inclusion of a Ai Data Centre to be built at the heart of the Kogarah Golf Club. As someone regularly take my dogs to walk and enjoy the Cooks River track, I have been patiently waiting and looking forward for the river to be clean and regenerated for the public and future generations to enjoy so I'm absolutely disgusted by the proposal to put an Ai Data Centre there. Putting a Ai Data Centre on a already struggling and polluted river system will deeply undermine it's ability to be regenerated. It's an environmental disaster with many negative effects on the people living within the communities nearby as well. America can attest to all the horrendous environmental, energy, water, health and psychological impacts on all those who live nearby.
Ai Centres Consumes vast amounts of water and electricity, is an absolute drain on the environment and uses up precious space that could be be transformed for the benefit of the general public and wilderness. Our collective green spaces are declining every day, why would we build this monstrosity to churn out Ai Slop and run surveillance on Australians?

I am writing to object to the proposed redevelopment of the Kogarah Golf Course site.

I understand that Sydney needs more housing, but I don't think this proposal gets the balance right. This is a unique site next to the Cooks River, and once it's developed there is no going back. I don't believe the current proposal does enough to protect the river, address future climate risks or deliver lasting benefits for the wider community.

One of my biggest concerns is that there is very little in the proposal that will genuinely improve the health of the Cooks River. A development of this size should be required to make a meaningful contribution towards rehabilitating and restoring the river. At a minimum, there should be a 4% developer contribution dedicated to the rehabilitation, restoration and long-term management of the Cooks River.

I also think the plans leave too little space for the river itself. There should be a minimum 40-metre riparian corridor from the high water mark along the entire river frontage. This corridor should include climate resilience measures and be designed with future tidal inundation in mind, in line with recommendations for fourth-order tidal streams. It feels like the proposal is trying to fit as much development onto the site as possible instead of allowing enough room for the river to function naturally.

The riverbank should also be fully naturalised wherever possible. A more natural river edge would improve habitat, water quality and biodiversity, while also helping the area cope better with rising sea levels and changing tidal conditions. It seems like a missed opportunity not to make this a key part of the project.

I also don't think the proposed Pemulwuy Park makes the most of its location. It should be reoriented towards the river so it connects properly with the wider riparian corridor and gives people a much stronger connection to the Cooks River.

Another issue is the timing of public benefits. The proposal appears to delay public access and open space until the later stages of the development. I don't think that's fair. If the community is expected to accept a project of this scale, public access to the river and new open space should be delivered much earlier, not treated as something to be provided at the very end.

I'm also concerned about the way climate resilience has been dealt with. From what I've read, the Environmental Impact Statement doesn't properly address tidal inundation risks in the lower Cooks River catchment, even though there is already a lot of information available through the Cooks River Coastal Management Program. With sea levels rising and flooding becoming more frequent, this should be a major part of the planning process rather than something that seems to have been given only limited attention.

Overall, I don't think this proposal has shown that it will leave the Cooks River in a better condition than it is today. Instead, it seems to prioritise maximising development over protecting an already stressed river system. Developments on riverfront land should set a high standard for environmental restoration and climate resilience, and I don't think this proposal meets that standard.

For these reasons, I object to the redevelopment in its current form. Unless there are significant changes to better protect the Cooks River, restore the riverbank, improve climate resilience and deliver meaningful public benefits from the beginning, I don't believe it should be approved.

Thank you for considering my submission.

I am writing to strongly object to the inclusion of a large-scale data centre as part of the Kogarah Golf Club Redevelopment Concept and Stage 1 Works.
My primary concern is the environmental impact of constructing and operating a data centre on this site. At a time when governments and communities are working towards reducing emissions, increasing urban tree canopy and protecting green spaces, approving a highly energy-intensive facility is inconsistent with these goals.
Data centres consume copious amounts of electricity to power servers and the cooling systems required to prevent overheating. They are among the most energy-intensive types of developments. Unless powered entirely by renewable energy, they contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions.
The site should instead be used to expand green space, increase biodiversity and improve the environmental health of the area. Large parks, extensive tree planting, landscaped gardens and open recreational areas would help reduce urban heat, improve air quality, provide habitat for wildlife, absorb stormwater and create a healthier environment for current and future residents.
This proposal also represents a missed opportunity. Large redevelopment sites within established suburbs are becoming increasingly rare. Once this land is occupied by a data centre, the opportunity to create meaningful public open space and community facilities will be lost for generations.
The proposed development would also have a significant visual impact. A large industrial-style building would obstruct views and fundamentally change the character of the area. Rather than creating an attractive destination for the community, it would introduce a bulky structure with little public interaction or visual appeal.
Traffic congestion is another major concern. Roads throughout Kogarah and surrounding suburbs are already heavily congested during peak periods. Construction traffic, maintenance vehicles and supporting infrastructure would place further pressure on an already overburdened transport network. Residents should not have to experience worsening congestion for a development that offers very limited community benefit.
Sydney continues to experience rapid population growth and increasing urban density. Our communities are becoming more crowded, making it more important than ever to preserve opportunities for open space and balanced development. If residential development is included on the site, it should consist of well-designed, low-rise apartments integrated with generous green space rather than high-density development that further contributes to overcrowding. And while this will further traffic congestion, it would be worth it compared to a data center.
A data centre provides little direct value to local residents. Unlike parks, sporting facilities, cafés, restaurants or community spaces, it is not somewhere people can gather, exercise, socialise or spend time. It creates relatively few ongoing jobs compared with other commercial developments and does little to support the local economy or improve everyday life for surrounding communities.
Instead, this site should become a vibrant mixed-use precinct that benefits both people and the environment. It should include:
Large public parks and landscaped green space.
Native tree planting and habitat restoration.
Children's playgrounds.
Dog parks and walking trails.
Sporting fields and recreational facilities.
Small businesses, cafés and restaurants.
Commercial office space supporting local employment.
Community facilities and event spaces.
Carefully planned low-rise residential development surrounded by open space.
This type of development would create lasting environmental, social and economic benefits. It would improve community wellbeing, support local businesses, increase biodiversity, reduce the urban heat island effect and provide facilities that residents would use every day.
We cannot continue to replace valuable urban land with developments that consume enormous amounts of energy while providing limited benefit to the community. Sydney's remaining large redevelopment sites should be used to create greener, healthier and more liveable neighbourhoods for future generations.
I respectfully urge the decision-makers to reject the proposed data centre and instead pursue a redevelopment that prioritises environmental sustainability, open green space, recreation, local businesses and community-focused development. This is an opportunity to create something that will genuinely improve the quality of life for residents while protecting the environment, rather than contributing further to overdevelopment and environmental degradation.

My submission is in support of Bicycle NSW submission for this project and requests the same modifications be considered:

It is essential that the development:
1. Prioritises the delivery of the foreshore active transport link and public open space. This must be included in the first phase of the development.
2. Increases the width of the foreshore public open space with a minimum 40m setback.
3. Provides separate paths for walking and cycling, in line with TfNSW guidelines, to ensure there is capacity for significant future growth in use.
4. Ensures that the foreshore paths connect directly - and safely - with the Alexandra Canal Cycleway and the International Terminal. This is a longstanding NSW Government commitment that has been waiting for the redevelopment of Cooks Cove. The strategic need and context is detailed in the 2023 submission. A new walking and cycling bridge adjacent or attached to the Giovanni Brunetti Bridge must be delivered as part of the project.
5. Requires futureproofed end-of-trip facilities for workers and visitors, secure bike parking and e-bike charging points. The Bayside Council Development Control Plan 2021 (DCP 2021) must be amended as needed.
6. Invests in the naturalisation of the banks of Cooks River, flood proofing and water quality. A substantial developer contribution must be levied specifically for river rehabilitation.

I have attached their submission for review. I agree and support all of the points raised in that submission.

Thanks,

Nick.

While I object to the project - if approved, please apply conditions of consent aligned to the submissions made by Bicycle NSW and the Cooks River Alliance.
The river, its health, public access to it, and enjoyable walking and cycling along the river are all far more important contributions to the area than the development itself is.

I am a resident of a nearby suburb to this development. I am someone with a lot of passion and knowledge about local ecology, and my home sits between two major waterways in the Cook's River catchment, along which I contribute to multiple landcare projects.

My objections include - but are not limited to the following:

- The complete removal of 791 out of 899 trees - none of which were recommended for removal in the arborist's report of the site if not for this development, and majority of which are "predominantly composed of tree species indigenous to the local landscape and Australian natives" - in an area along a significant waterway (the Cooks River) that has already seen a lot of degradation from surrounding industrial operations, in a time where more should be being done to conserve the waterway and the species that rely on it, is unconscionable.

- Grey-headed Flying Foxes have been seen to use the trees on this site during the day. This is recorded and considered a research-grade sighting on the citizen science website iNaturalist. They have a nearby camp in the Wolli Creek Valley and this site is one of many they are also suspected to frequent at night for feeding. This species is considered threatened and I don't believe enough is being done to ensure minimal impact on them. The Biodiversity report lists them as present, acknowledges their food trees are present, but dismisses the impact on them as minimal due to the already-degraded local PCT. It doesn't take into account the overall drastically reduced foraging options for the species in the local area. The Grey-Headed Flying-Fox's Threatened Species profile on the NSW Government Office of Environment & Heritage website lists nectar and pollen from Melaleuca, Eucalyptus and Banksia trees as their preferred food. All of these are present on site as mature trees in good condition, and are marked for removal.

- Much of the "mitigation" section of the Biodiversity Report relies on Transport for NSW to offset the removal of mature locally native trees and other vegetation used by threatened species by planting new vegetation. I don't believe the loss of a large number of mature trees (which already flower and provide fruit and are starting to develop hollows as per the Biodiversity Report) can be mitigated by planting young species which may require many years to reach maturity. The developer is replacing native fauna's habitat and food that currently exists with a future promise that someone else will make sure that one day those might develop again. The report also should not discredit hollows for currently being small - small hollows turn into big hollows much faster and more readily than juvenile plants do. Think to the future, not just what is immediately in front of you.

- The area zoned for development is way too close to the water's edge - ecologically there needs to be a much more significant habitat zone along the waterfront if large development is to happen onsite. This is partly for the ability for animals to appropriately use the green space, and partly to reduce the "edge effect" - where invasive plants are more likely to invade entire areas where the edges (in this case the development and the creek) are closer together. As well, the trees right up to the water's edge (every single tree within the foreshore landscape) are marked for removal in the arborist's report. I do not consider this acceptable.

- Pre-clearance, most of this area's Plant Community Type was Grey Mangrove-River Mangrove Forest (ID 4091). Mangroves are crucial for the health and biodiversity of an estuarine ecosystem like the cook's river, and with the closure of the golf course we have the opportunity to work with the community and relevant organisations to restore some of this lost habitat. In the biodiversity report, mangrove ecosystems are noted to have started recolonising parts of the area since clearance, and I'd like to push the project to support this recolonisation of the native PCT. The river banks in the projections for the development are shown to have a small smattering of trees and a hard seawall, which is antithetical to the need to restore this PCT.

- Related to the need for regeneration of mangrove ecosystems along waterways is this NSW Government report on River Flow Objectives for the Cooks River: https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/ieo/CooksRiver/maptext-04.htm In this report, I note the importance placed on the need to "Maintain or restore the natural inundation patterns and distribution of floodwaters supporting natural wetland and floodplain ecosystems". The reasons this is important are outlined as follows: "Floodplain and wetland ecosystems develop in response to flow patterns and the nature of the landscape between the river and the wetlands or floodplains. Floodplain works can change the flooding patterns, which will then lead to changes in habitat and vegetation. These changes can be expected to reduce or change the diversity and abundance (or both) of species in the ecosystem. In particular, they can lead to reduced numbers of native fish and to water quality problems." Importantly, one of the measures suggested to achieve the objective are to "maintain, restore or mimic natural inundation and drying patterns in natural and semi-natural wetlands and remaining native floodplain ecosystems". I don't believe raising the ground level and adding more hard edges to the Cooks River meets this objective, regardless of it meeting specific other parameters in the report that looks at flood risks.

- The Cooks River also has problems with high flow rates and unnaturally high water levels due to the ways urbanisation and alteration of flows through drainage canals has reduced the amount of water that seeps into the ground as it flows towards the ocean. The catchment's water is concentrated in the river and pushed downstream at much faster rates than it naturally should. Building another section of hard sea wall along the banks, instead of vegetation that naturally breaks up the flow and is designed to absorb the impacts of flooding, will worsen this issue. We need to be working towards a river that can naturally handle the water we throw at it, not building up further the infrastructure that causes the issue in the first place.

- The developer should be made to contribute financially in an ongoing way to the health of the waterway, as outlined by the Cooks River Alliance.

- I strongly object to specifically a data centre in the local area for many reasons including noise pollution, water use and that ethically I don't think it's worth knocking down 791 predominately native trees for. I'd obviously strongly prefer this to be converted to a conservation area, but if anything must be built here, I'd like consideration to be made towards public housing that maximises green space.

Overall, I do not think this project will provide significant ecological benefits to the land it proposes to develop, and I cannot in good conscience support it going ahead.

To whom ever it may concern,

I write regarding the proposed data centre at the Cooks River waterfront. It concerns me greatly that a data centre is being considered for this sensitive location- a river infamous as the most polluted in NSW. A data centre would very likely increase light, sound, & air pollution, undermining efforts by local councils in the Cooks River catchment areas to rehabilitate the waterway and surrounding green spaces into a healthier wetland habitat.

The site is also in a locale of rapidly increasing urban density. As more towering unit blocks are built, fewer members of the community will have access to a backyard. The importance of publicly accessible green & “blue” spaces cannot be understated. Many rely on these areas for recreation, exercise, transport via the cycleway, & a way to connect to nature in a centrally located urban environment. With the added pressure of the cost of living crisis something that provides this for the community that can be accessed by them for free should be considered valuable enough to protect.

Stop ruining our suburbs for money. This will be a disaster and generations of people from the area will vote you out and never vote you or people affiliated with you. Ever again.

As a recreational user of the Cooks River and local resident I object to the project on the following grounds:
1. Potential impacts on water quality - the proposal states that stormwater on the site during construction will drain to the Cooks River.
2. Loss of tree canopies & green space - the proposal states more than 700 trees & shrubs will be removed. Only several mature Moreton Bay Figs will be maintained but are intended to be moved to the proposed parkland south of their current location. This represents a very significant loss of greenspace on the river. It is not clear what impact this would have on canopy cover targets. Also the loss of potential habitat for endemic fauna species is significant & not adequately addressed in the EIS.
3. Aesthetic impact - as a regular recreational user of the river I find the proposal offers an unacceptable incursion on the visual amenity of the river.
4. Impact on local biodiversity - the accompanying report is incomplete lacking bird species that are commonly seen on the site and within the riparian zone such as Sacred Kingfishers. Also on 3 occasions in the last month alone I have observed White-bellied Sea Eagles over and within the canopy of the golf course. The fact that Bayside Council's existing Biodiversity Strategy is dated 2014 is indicative that the biodiversity impacts of the proposal are unlikely to have been properly assessed. The impact on migratory birds using the Eve Street wetlands is not assessed.
5. Inadequate community consultation - for a State significant development worth over $2 billion I am gobsmacked at the paltry effort the proponent made to consult the local community on the proposal. A cynical person might say that this was a deliberate attempt at putting through an inappropriate development without sufficient community scrutiny.
6. Inadequate setbacks from river and timeframe for river access - the proposed walking & cycling path along the river is a welcome addition however it is not clear how sea-level rise, bigger & more frequent storm events with the potential for flooding & erosion will effect the pathway. The general aesthetic experience of the pathway so close to 70 metre high structures is not ideal and the timing at post development completion in the early 2030s is totally unacceptable.
6. Impact of data centre on energy and water resources - the potential inclusion of a high energy & water intensive data centre in this location is entirely inappropriate & likely is inconsistent with both State & Local Government environmental targets.
7. The overall lack of consideration of impacts of the proposal on the Cooks River is glaring & indicates a considerable lack of concern & respect for the local environment and the local community that live, work and play on the river and it's surrounds.