Katrina LI
Object
Katrina LI
Object
Wolli Creek
,
New South Wales
Message
I am writing to formally object to the Kogarah Golf Club Redevelopment - Concept & Stage 1 Works. I request that the Department refuse consent to this application at this location and scale. This submission sets out:
1. Why it should be rejected
2. The conditions that must be imposed at a minimum if the Department decides to disregard this and the wider community's opposition
*Reasons this application should be refused*
1. Fundamentally wrong location for a 24/7 industrial-scale precinct
The application seeks consent for up to 340,000m² of GFA across buildings up to 70 metres tall for warehouse, distribution, trade-related and data centre uses operating 24/7 on a site directly across the Cooks River from established residential streets. This is not a peripheral industrial site, it sits immediately adjacent to an existing residential community.
That scale and around-the-clock intensity is incompatible with this setting. Residents are being asked to absorb continuous heavy vehicle movements, data centre humming, loading dock noise, industrial lighting and mechanical plant noise every night, indefinitely. Its impacts far exceed the benefit to the Applicant. Sydney has other low density land that can meet the same freight, trade and connectivity objectives without imposing this on residents. This is a matter of fundamental land use compatibility, not something conditions or mitigation can fix after the fact.
2.Irreversible green space and habitat loss
The Site is currently open, vegetated land with mature Moreton Bay Fig trees, mangrove and saltmarsh, and habitat for the vulnerable Green and Golden Bell Frog, protected under NSW and Commonwealth law. A referral has already been made under the EPBC Act, and the saltmarsh is a listed threatened ecological community.
This is one of the last substantial green riverfront sites left on the Cooks River. Building over it is permanent and irreversible. No offset payment or Biodiversity Development Assessment Report can restore it. This should be treated as one of the most critical reasons to refuse the application, not a technical matter to be resolved later.
3. The noise impact on residents is not something mitigation can genuinely fix
Levey Street and Gertrude Street already carry substantial background noise from the M5 Motorway, Marsh Street traffic and Sydney Airport flight paths. A 24/7 logistics precinct and a large AI data centre with continuous mechanical cooling and regularly tested backup generators won't just add to that noise, it introduces a new, permanent, round-the-clock source directly opposite a community every day and night indefinitely. No acoustic treatment or noise condition can genuinely fix that.
Chronic night-time noise exposure is well documented to disrupt sleep and contribute to stress, cardiovascular disease and mental health harm, particularly for children and older residents. It's a genuine public health impact, not merely an inconvenience. No condition of consent can change the fact that this land use, at this scale, is incompatible with the community across the river.
4. Genuine alternative locations do not appear to have been considered
The planning history for this Site from the original Scoping Report through to the current Concept Proposal has only ever compared 1) “do nothing,” 2) an alternative use on the same Site, 3) an alternative design on the same Site, and 4) the Proposal as submitted.
No one has tested whether the stated objectives (proximity to Sydney Airport, freight efficiency, economic contribution) actually require this specific riverfront site, facing an existing residential community, rather than one of the many industrial-zoned sites already being developed for the same purpose elsewhere. Without such analysis, there is no real basis to say this Site, at this scale, is the only or best way to meet those objectives.
5. This proposal breaches its own height limits
The NSW Planning Portal confirms the Concept Proposal now includes "5 blocks up to 70m tall", a marked increase on the RL55m envelopes in the Applicant's own May 2025 Scoping Report, which already exceeded the Bayside LEP 2021 maximum of RL 51m/RL 40m for this Site and was expected to require both a Clause 4.6 variation and Commonwealth referral under the Airports Act 1996 for penetrating the airport's Operations Surface Limit. The further increase only heightens that concern.
This is a substantially greater departure from planning controls than foreshadowed even a year ago. A proposal that keeps departing further upward from its own site's height controls should not be approved on the expectation a variation will be justified later, it's a clear sign the scale exceeds what this location can reasonably accommodate.
6. The construction period alone is years of disruption
Public reporting describes construction beginning in 2027 and spanning the better part of a decade — before the permanent 24/7 operational impacts even begin. Residents on Levey Street and Gertrude Street would face sustained demolition, bulk earthworks, piling, concrete pours and heavy construction traffic directly opposite their homes throughout.
This cumulative construction burden, layered on top of the permanent operational impacts that follow it, has not been adequately acknowledged in the Applicant's public materials to date and should weigh heavily against approval of this project.
7. Community engagement to date has not been adequate given the scale of impact
Publicly available project documentation indicates that consultation prior to this exhibition consisted of a small number of survey responses and two drop-in sessions attended by a total of around 22 people. For a development of this scale and with such direct, significant and detrimental impact on established residential communities, this is not acceptable and should not be treated as adequate engagement ahead of a decision on this application.
8. A missed opportunity for community infrastructure
Wolli Creek has grown substantially, yet has no social infrastructures such as schools, libraries, pools or post office. I recognise the Department cannot undo this Site's private sale and rezoning, but it still controls whether to grant consent, and that decision should weigh that this is one of the largest redevelopment opportunities Bayside will see for a generation.
The Applicant claims this priority is satisfied by "road improvements, new pedestrian/cycle and public recreation infrastructure" alone. That reduces the concept to a checkbox exercise, not a genuine commitment and it's not sufficient.
Green Square shows the alternative is achievable: development contributions there funded a library, an aquatic centre and public plaza space. This Proposal delivers open space but no equivalent social infrastructure, despite bringing workers, traffic and population pressure to an already under-served community. Approving it as-is squanders that opportunity.
*Conditions that must be imposed at a minimum*
To be clear: this application should be refused. I set out the below only so that, in the event the Department disregards this and the wider community's opposition and approves this application regardless, there is a clear record of the conditions a genuinely rigorous assessment would absolutely need to impose. Not because I consider approval on these terms acceptable.
1.Night-time-specific noise limits (10pm–7am) at Levey Street/Gertrude Street receivers, based on real measured background noise at those properties, including low-frequency noise from refrigeration, cooling and generator plant, plus a matching truck curfew, or at minimum a quieter-vehicle/quieter-hours condition, for heavy vehicle movements to and from Marsh Street/Gertrude Street during the same 10pm–7am period
2.A standalone, independently reviewed acoustic assessment of the data centre's cooling infrastructure and back-up generators, including worst-case and cumulative scenarios with adjacent warehouse operations, with binding noise limits at the nearest residential receivers. Not a generic warehouse condition. Plus disclosure of the data centre's water use and discharge for cooling given the Site's flood-prone river frontage, and details of emergency generator testing frequency and duration
3. A cumulative Transport Impact Assessment covering other large-scale Mascot logistics developments, not this Site alone, including heavy vehicle movements at the Marsh Street/Gertrude Street and Marsh Street/Flora Street intersections, with heavy vehicle numbers reported by time of day to show actual night-time truck frequency, not just peak-hour performance
4. A reduction in the approved building height toward the Bayside LEP 2021 limits (RL 51m/RL 40m) and rethink where the buildings sit on the Site so they are positioned as far as possible from the Levey/Gertrude Street frontage, using the park as a buffer rather than facing warehouses directly at these homes
5. A quantitative Air Quality Impact Assessment for residential receptors, not qualitative alone, including cumulative modelling with the nearby Mascot developments and the adjacent M6/M8 motorway operations facility.
6. Avoid rather than offset impacts on Green and Golden Bell Frog habitat and saltmarsh with independent verification before any works proceed
7. A binding Construction Management Plan limiting construction hours, truck routes and noise for the full multi-year period, with independent and publicly reported monitoring, including baseline noise and air quality data at Levey/Gertrude Street properties collected before construction begins.
8. Genuine in-person consultation with Levey Street, Gertrude Street, Wolli Creek and Arncliffe residents. Not just a flyer and a 1800 call line as a passive, low effort form of consultation, before further stages are approved.
Please refuse this application. This community and this river deserve better than this!
1. Why it should be rejected
2. The conditions that must be imposed at a minimum if the Department decides to disregard this and the wider community's opposition
*Reasons this application should be refused*
1. Fundamentally wrong location for a 24/7 industrial-scale precinct
The application seeks consent for up to 340,000m² of GFA across buildings up to 70 metres tall for warehouse, distribution, trade-related and data centre uses operating 24/7 on a site directly across the Cooks River from established residential streets. This is not a peripheral industrial site, it sits immediately adjacent to an existing residential community.
That scale and around-the-clock intensity is incompatible with this setting. Residents are being asked to absorb continuous heavy vehicle movements, data centre humming, loading dock noise, industrial lighting and mechanical plant noise every night, indefinitely. Its impacts far exceed the benefit to the Applicant. Sydney has other low density land that can meet the same freight, trade and connectivity objectives without imposing this on residents. This is a matter of fundamental land use compatibility, not something conditions or mitigation can fix after the fact.
2.Irreversible green space and habitat loss
The Site is currently open, vegetated land with mature Moreton Bay Fig trees, mangrove and saltmarsh, and habitat for the vulnerable Green and Golden Bell Frog, protected under NSW and Commonwealth law. A referral has already been made under the EPBC Act, and the saltmarsh is a listed threatened ecological community.
This is one of the last substantial green riverfront sites left on the Cooks River. Building over it is permanent and irreversible. No offset payment or Biodiversity Development Assessment Report can restore it. This should be treated as one of the most critical reasons to refuse the application, not a technical matter to be resolved later.
3. The noise impact on residents is not something mitigation can genuinely fix
Levey Street and Gertrude Street already carry substantial background noise from the M5 Motorway, Marsh Street traffic and Sydney Airport flight paths. A 24/7 logistics precinct and a large AI data centre with continuous mechanical cooling and regularly tested backup generators won't just add to that noise, it introduces a new, permanent, round-the-clock source directly opposite a community every day and night indefinitely. No acoustic treatment or noise condition can genuinely fix that.
Chronic night-time noise exposure is well documented to disrupt sleep and contribute to stress, cardiovascular disease and mental health harm, particularly for children and older residents. It's a genuine public health impact, not merely an inconvenience. No condition of consent can change the fact that this land use, at this scale, is incompatible with the community across the river.
4. Genuine alternative locations do not appear to have been considered
The planning history for this Site from the original Scoping Report through to the current Concept Proposal has only ever compared 1) “do nothing,” 2) an alternative use on the same Site, 3) an alternative design on the same Site, and 4) the Proposal as submitted.
No one has tested whether the stated objectives (proximity to Sydney Airport, freight efficiency, economic contribution) actually require this specific riverfront site, facing an existing residential community, rather than one of the many industrial-zoned sites already being developed for the same purpose elsewhere. Without such analysis, there is no real basis to say this Site, at this scale, is the only or best way to meet those objectives.
5. This proposal breaches its own height limits
The NSW Planning Portal confirms the Concept Proposal now includes "5 blocks up to 70m tall", a marked increase on the RL55m envelopes in the Applicant's own May 2025 Scoping Report, which already exceeded the Bayside LEP 2021 maximum of RL 51m/RL 40m for this Site and was expected to require both a Clause 4.6 variation and Commonwealth referral under the Airports Act 1996 for penetrating the airport's Operations Surface Limit. The further increase only heightens that concern.
This is a substantially greater departure from planning controls than foreshadowed even a year ago. A proposal that keeps departing further upward from its own site's height controls should not be approved on the expectation a variation will be justified later, it's a clear sign the scale exceeds what this location can reasonably accommodate.
6. The construction period alone is years of disruption
Public reporting describes construction beginning in 2027 and spanning the better part of a decade — before the permanent 24/7 operational impacts even begin. Residents on Levey Street and Gertrude Street would face sustained demolition, bulk earthworks, piling, concrete pours and heavy construction traffic directly opposite their homes throughout.
This cumulative construction burden, layered on top of the permanent operational impacts that follow it, has not been adequately acknowledged in the Applicant's public materials to date and should weigh heavily against approval of this project.
7. Community engagement to date has not been adequate given the scale of impact
Publicly available project documentation indicates that consultation prior to this exhibition consisted of a small number of survey responses and two drop-in sessions attended by a total of around 22 people. For a development of this scale and with such direct, significant and detrimental impact on established residential communities, this is not acceptable and should not be treated as adequate engagement ahead of a decision on this application.
8. A missed opportunity for community infrastructure
Wolli Creek has grown substantially, yet has no social infrastructures such as schools, libraries, pools or post office. I recognise the Department cannot undo this Site's private sale and rezoning, but it still controls whether to grant consent, and that decision should weigh that this is one of the largest redevelopment opportunities Bayside will see for a generation.
The Applicant claims this priority is satisfied by "road improvements, new pedestrian/cycle and public recreation infrastructure" alone. That reduces the concept to a checkbox exercise, not a genuine commitment and it's not sufficient.
Green Square shows the alternative is achievable: development contributions there funded a library, an aquatic centre and public plaza space. This Proposal delivers open space but no equivalent social infrastructure, despite bringing workers, traffic and population pressure to an already under-served community. Approving it as-is squanders that opportunity.
*Conditions that must be imposed at a minimum*
To be clear: this application should be refused. I set out the below only so that, in the event the Department disregards this and the wider community's opposition and approves this application regardless, there is a clear record of the conditions a genuinely rigorous assessment would absolutely need to impose. Not because I consider approval on these terms acceptable.
1.Night-time-specific noise limits (10pm–7am) at Levey Street/Gertrude Street receivers, based on real measured background noise at those properties, including low-frequency noise from refrigeration, cooling and generator plant, plus a matching truck curfew, or at minimum a quieter-vehicle/quieter-hours condition, for heavy vehicle movements to and from Marsh Street/Gertrude Street during the same 10pm–7am period
2.A standalone, independently reviewed acoustic assessment of the data centre's cooling infrastructure and back-up generators, including worst-case and cumulative scenarios with adjacent warehouse operations, with binding noise limits at the nearest residential receivers. Not a generic warehouse condition. Plus disclosure of the data centre's water use and discharge for cooling given the Site's flood-prone river frontage, and details of emergency generator testing frequency and duration
3. A cumulative Transport Impact Assessment covering other large-scale Mascot logistics developments, not this Site alone, including heavy vehicle movements at the Marsh Street/Gertrude Street and Marsh Street/Flora Street intersections, with heavy vehicle numbers reported by time of day to show actual night-time truck frequency, not just peak-hour performance
4. A reduction in the approved building height toward the Bayside LEP 2021 limits (RL 51m/RL 40m) and rethink where the buildings sit on the Site so they are positioned as far as possible from the Levey/Gertrude Street frontage, using the park as a buffer rather than facing warehouses directly at these homes
5. A quantitative Air Quality Impact Assessment for residential receptors, not qualitative alone, including cumulative modelling with the nearby Mascot developments and the adjacent M6/M8 motorway operations facility.
6. Avoid rather than offset impacts on Green and Golden Bell Frog habitat and saltmarsh with independent verification before any works proceed
7. A binding Construction Management Plan limiting construction hours, truck routes and noise for the full multi-year period, with independent and publicly reported monitoring, including baseline noise and air quality data at Levey/Gertrude Street properties collected before construction begins.
8. Genuine in-person consultation with Levey Street, Gertrude Street, Wolli Creek and Arncliffe residents. Not just a flyer and a 1800 call line as a passive, low effort form of consultation, before further stages are approved.
Please refuse this application. This community and this river deserve better than this!
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Marrickville
,
New South Wales
Message
I object to this proposal because not only would such a construction site cause immense damage, pollution, and destruction to the already under threat Cooks River and it's wildlife, but the creation of any warehouse or distribution centres, and especially DATA CENTRES in such a residential area would be chaos. The inclusion of such things especially will destroy a residential area, place further stressors on the environment, and create a truly unpleasant and disruptive space that no amount of 'community space' integrated into the design can fix. This proposal would throw the community into turmoil and deeply impact the quality of life for locals, wildlife, and the community at large. Especially in the case of Data Centres. Data Centres run 24/7; use huge masses of water and electricity which would leave residents in the area at a loss as it takes so much more than a simple apartment building would use; they create light, noise, and regular pollution which will affect locals and wildlife together and well as the Cooks River itself; it will be a strain on community resources without providing anything back to the community itself besides being a power and water sucking box; it would become a heat sink for the area adding to already rising and ongoing temperatures during summer; if additional generators are brought in (which they quite often are) these would create additional pollution of all kinds; and it would be a hideous missuse of already sorely needed open space in the Inner West. I am strongly opposed to and object to this project. No warehouses, and especially no Data Centres, should be built in this area, and our precious environment and Cooks River should not be placed at risk like this.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
TEMPE
,
New South Wales
Message
I'm writing to oppose this proposed development on the Cooks River waterfront.
Describing this site as "low importance" is wrong. It's one of the last publicly accessible blue-green spaces in southern Sydney, with real potential for ecological restoration. It also undermines the work already being done by the Cooks River Alliance, local councils and Sydney Water to rehabilitate the river. As a local resident, this connection to the land for our children and fellow residents is important to me.
Being NSW's most polluted river is a reason for protection. It still provides habitat, walking and cycling links, recreation and open space for communities from southern Sydney through the Inner West. Sitting next to the airport as a gateway to Sydney, this land could become an attractive, accessible riverfront for a modern city. Instead, the proposal adds another logistics facility and data centre, with low visual appeal, reduced public access, and no room left for future parkland.
Cities worldwide are turning former industrial waterfronts into public assets, recognising healthy rivers as essential infrastructure for wellbeing, biodiversity and climate resilience. Sydney should be part of that shift rather than repeating decisions others are now reversing.
The Cooks River should be protected as a public asset, and this is one of the last chances to restore this stretch for community and environmental benefit. I urge the Government to reconsider this proposal.
Describing this site as "low importance" is wrong. It's one of the last publicly accessible blue-green spaces in southern Sydney, with real potential for ecological restoration. It also undermines the work already being done by the Cooks River Alliance, local councils and Sydney Water to rehabilitate the river. As a local resident, this connection to the land for our children and fellow residents is important to me.
Being NSW's most polluted river is a reason for protection. It still provides habitat, walking and cycling links, recreation and open space for communities from southern Sydney through the Inner West. Sitting next to the airport as a gateway to Sydney, this land could become an attractive, accessible riverfront for a modern city. Instead, the proposal adds another logistics facility and data centre, with low visual appeal, reduced public access, and no room left for future parkland.
Cities worldwide are turning former industrial waterfronts into public assets, recognising healthy rivers as essential infrastructure for wellbeing, biodiversity and climate resilience. Sydney should be part of that shift rather than repeating decisions others are now reversing.
The Cooks River should be protected as a public asset, and this is one of the last chances to restore this stretch for community and environmental benefit. I urge the Government to reconsider this proposal.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Ashfield
,
New South Wales
Message
The proposed development will represent a negative change to the character of the area. This data centre will compromise the health, wellbeing and infrastructure of the area. The electricity and water required, the demonstrated negative impacts of the constant additional noise pollution that emanates from data centres, as well as the opportunity cost of using this land this way (rather than for a project that will directly improve the quality of life of local residents - children especially), should be seriously taken into account. This project is of minimal benefit to the residents of the local area, and should be stopped. The government has an opportunity to protect the quality of life in Kogarah for generations to come.
Justine Lawson
Object
Justine Lawson
Object
Wolli Creek
,
New South Wales
Message
Please find attached a letter outlining three main grounds for objecting to the project. The critical issue pertains to the premature consideration of use of buildings as data centres, accompanied by need for community green space and urgent ecological repair and restoration of the Cooks River foreshore.
Attachments
Mitchell Flynn
Object
Mitchell Flynn
Object
Marrickville
,
New South Wales
Message
Not enough community consultation. Inappropriate use of land in an area that does not have enough open space and is ideal for park land (being on a waterway).
Rachael Brookes
Object
Rachael Brookes
Object
Arncliffe
,
New South Wales
Message
I strongly object to the proposed Kogarah Golf Club Redevelopment Concept and Stage 1 Works and respectfully request that the application be refused or substantially redesigned. While I acknowledge the need for development to the lot in its current state, this proposal does not appropriately consider or mitigate the potential traffic congestion, environmental/ecological impacts to the Cooks river & most seriously, it does not address in detail the extensive negative impact that the development of the data centre will have on all the aforementioned issues.
Firstly, the proposal represents a significant intensification of industrial development immediately adjacent to established residential communities and the Cooks River foreshore. The concept seeks approval for development that could ultimately accommodate warehouses, logistics facilities and data centres operating 24 hours a day. These land uses are fundamentally different from surrounding developments & housing and will create permanent impacts on local amenities.
A major concern is the proposed building envelopes. The EIS acknowledges that several proposed buildings exceed protected airspace limits and require further assessment. In particular, the proposed envelopes for Blocks 2, 3A and 3B do not align with the Height of Buildings development standard under Section 4.3 of the Bayside Local Environmental Plan. Given the site’s proximity to Sydney Airport, building heights should not be treated as a minor planning issue. These matters should be fully resolved before any concept approval is granted.
I am also concerned by the proposed layout of the development. The tallest buildings are positioned along the Cooks River waterfront, maximising visual impact on surrounding residential areas and significantly altering the character of the river corridor. The EIS does not adequately justify why these large industrial buildings are located adjacent to the waterfront rather than closer to Marsh Street and the existing highway corridor, where visual and environmental impacts would likely be reduced.
Traffic is another significant issue. Marsh Street, the Princes Highway and surrounding roads already experience heavy congestion associated with commuter traffic, freight movements and Sydney Airport. Warehouses, logistics facilities and data centres generate additional employee, servicing and heavy vehicle traffic throughout the day and night. This proposal is likely to increase congestion, reduce road safety, increase noise and air pollution, and place further pressure on an already constrained transport network and busy road network in the area. I do not believe the cumulative impacts on surrounding communities have been adequately assessed.
The proposal also results in the permanent loss of one of the largest remaining green sites in the area. Although privately owned, the former golf course provides mature vegetation, open space, wildlife habitat and an important visual break within an increasingly urbanised landscape. Replacing this with extensive industrial buildings, hardstand areas and infrastructure will reduce biodiversity, increase the urban heat island effect and remove opportunities for future community-focused open space.
The environmental impacts are equally concerning. The EIS confirms that stormwater will ultimately discharge into the Cooks River during development. Bayside Council has invested significant effort in restoring the health of the Cooks River catchment through its Water Management Strategy and broader environmental planning framework. The proposal appears inconsistent with several Council planning priorities, including Planning Priority B19, which seeks to protect and improve the health of Bayside’s waterways and biodiversity, and Planning Priority B23, which aims to reduce carbon emissions through improved management of energy, water and waste.
The Bayside 2030 Vision recognises that the municipality faces complex water management challenges, including increased flooding, high groundwater levels, coastal erosion and climate change impacts. Replacing permeable green space with extensive buildings and hard surfaces has the potential to increase stormwater runoff and reduce natural infiltration during increasingly frequent extreme rainfall events. I am not satisfied that the EIS has adequately considered how warehouses and potential data centres would perform under future climate scenarios, particularly given the site’s proximity to the Cooks River and its exposure to flooding and sea level rise.
Construction also presents substantial environmental risks. Poorly managed earthworks have the potential to generate sediment runoff into the Cooks River and Botany Bay, impacting waterways that form part of Greater Sydney’s Blue Grid and support important biodiversity corridors. While mitigation measures are proposed, I do not believe the EIS provides sufficient confidence that these sensitive environmental assets can be protected throughout the lengthy construction period.
Perhaps the most significant concern is the proposal’s inclusion of data centres as a permissible future land use. While data centres are often described as clean industries, they are among the most resource-intensive forms of development. According to the EIS, the proposed data centre could require approximately 80 megawatts of electricity which is equivalent to the power consumption of more than 80,000 homes. Such an extraordinary demand raises legitimate questions regarding electricity network capacity, the cost of required infrastructure upgrades and whether surrounding communities may ultimately bear indirect costs associated with these upgrades.
The EIS also provides insufficient detail regarding telecommunications infrastructure. Data centres require extremely high capacity communications networks, yet little information is provided regarding the scale of infrastructure upgrades required or any potential impacts on surrounding telecommunications services.
Water consumption is another significant concern. Data centres require substantial volumes of water for cooling, yet the proposal provides limited information regarding long-term water demand and supply. International experience has demonstrated that large data centres can place considerable pressure on local water resources, particularly during periods of drought. Given the existing challenges facing the Sydney water system and Bayside’s own water management objectives, these issues require far greater scrutiny before approval is considered.
Noise and heat impacts have also not been satisfactorily addressed. Overseas experience has shown that large data centres can generate continuous low-frequency noise from cooling equipment and backup infrastructure operating around the clock. In addition, waste heat released from these facilities can contribute to localised increases in surrounding temperatures. While the EIS proposes mitigation measures, I am not convinced these have been demonstrated to be effective over the long term, particularly given the proximity of residential areas.
The proposal also raises questions regarding backup power arrangements. Although electricity is proposed as the primary energy source, the EIS provides limited information regarding emergency power systems. If diesel generators are proposed, further assessment is required regarding potential impacts on noise, air quality and community amenity during testing and emergency operation.
Further, communities across Australia are increasingly questioning the rapid expansion of large data centres. A proposed AI data centre at North Katoomba was withdrawn following significant community opposition centred on concerns about 24-hour noise, environmental impacts and proximity to homes and schools. Similar concerns have been raised in Tasmania, where communities have called for a pause on further data centre development until their cumulative impacts are better understood.
The Australian Government has recognised these challenges through the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee Inquiry into artificial intelligence and data centres. The Inquiry is examining whether Australia’s existing regulatory framework is sufficient to manage the rapid expansion of data centres and their impacts on communities, electricity demand, water resources and the environment. The Climate Council has likewise raised concerns that accelerating demand for AI-driven data centres may place additional pressure on Australia’s renewable energy transition, climate goals and water security.
Given that this proposal specifically identifies data centres as a future land use, it is premature to approve a concept plan before the outcomes of this national inquiry are known. Proceeding now risks approving development under a planning framework that may soon require significant reform. Sound planning decisions should be informed by the best available evidence, particularly where developments have long-term consequences for communities and essential infrastructure.
Ultimately, this proposal would permanently transform a large riverside site into an intensive industrial precinct with significant implications for traffic, visual amenity, environmental health, infrastructure demand and community wellbeing. The cumulative impacts are far greater than the EIS suggests and are inconsistent with the strategic planning objectives established by Bayside Council to improve waterways, biodiversity, climate resilience and liveability.
Therefore, I respectfully request that the application be refused or substantially redesigned. Any future redevelopment of this site should deliver outcomes that better protect the Cooks River, align with local strategic planning priorities, preserve environmental values and provide genuine long-term benefits for the surrounding community rather than imposing disproportionate environmental and infrastructure burdens on local residents.
Firstly, the proposal represents a significant intensification of industrial development immediately adjacent to established residential communities and the Cooks River foreshore. The concept seeks approval for development that could ultimately accommodate warehouses, logistics facilities and data centres operating 24 hours a day. These land uses are fundamentally different from surrounding developments & housing and will create permanent impacts on local amenities.
A major concern is the proposed building envelopes. The EIS acknowledges that several proposed buildings exceed protected airspace limits and require further assessment. In particular, the proposed envelopes for Blocks 2, 3A and 3B do not align with the Height of Buildings development standard under Section 4.3 of the Bayside Local Environmental Plan. Given the site’s proximity to Sydney Airport, building heights should not be treated as a minor planning issue. These matters should be fully resolved before any concept approval is granted.
I am also concerned by the proposed layout of the development. The tallest buildings are positioned along the Cooks River waterfront, maximising visual impact on surrounding residential areas and significantly altering the character of the river corridor. The EIS does not adequately justify why these large industrial buildings are located adjacent to the waterfront rather than closer to Marsh Street and the existing highway corridor, where visual and environmental impacts would likely be reduced.
Traffic is another significant issue. Marsh Street, the Princes Highway and surrounding roads already experience heavy congestion associated with commuter traffic, freight movements and Sydney Airport. Warehouses, logistics facilities and data centres generate additional employee, servicing and heavy vehicle traffic throughout the day and night. This proposal is likely to increase congestion, reduce road safety, increase noise and air pollution, and place further pressure on an already constrained transport network and busy road network in the area. I do not believe the cumulative impacts on surrounding communities have been adequately assessed.
The proposal also results in the permanent loss of one of the largest remaining green sites in the area. Although privately owned, the former golf course provides mature vegetation, open space, wildlife habitat and an important visual break within an increasingly urbanised landscape. Replacing this with extensive industrial buildings, hardstand areas and infrastructure will reduce biodiversity, increase the urban heat island effect and remove opportunities for future community-focused open space.
The environmental impacts are equally concerning. The EIS confirms that stormwater will ultimately discharge into the Cooks River during development. Bayside Council has invested significant effort in restoring the health of the Cooks River catchment through its Water Management Strategy and broader environmental planning framework. The proposal appears inconsistent with several Council planning priorities, including Planning Priority B19, which seeks to protect and improve the health of Bayside’s waterways and biodiversity, and Planning Priority B23, which aims to reduce carbon emissions through improved management of energy, water and waste.
The Bayside 2030 Vision recognises that the municipality faces complex water management challenges, including increased flooding, high groundwater levels, coastal erosion and climate change impacts. Replacing permeable green space with extensive buildings and hard surfaces has the potential to increase stormwater runoff and reduce natural infiltration during increasingly frequent extreme rainfall events. I am not satisfied that the EIS has adequately considered how warehouses and potential data centres would perform under future climate scenarios, particularly given the site’s proximity to the Cooks River and its exposure to flooding and sea level rise.
Construction also presents substantial environmental risks. Poorly managed earthworks have the potential to generate sediment runoff into the Cooks River and Botany Bay, impacting waterways that form part of Greater Sydney’s Blue Grid and support important biodiversity corridors. While mitigation measures are proposed, I do not believe the EIS provides sufficient confidence that these sensitive environmental assets can be protected throughout the lengthy construction period.
Perhaps the most significant concern is the proposal’s inclusion of data centres as a permissible future land use. While data centres are often described as clean industries, they are among the most resource-intensive forms of development. According to the EIS, the proposed data centre could require approximately 80 megawatts of electricity which is equivalent to the power consumption of more than 80,000 homes. Such an extraordinary demand raises legitimate questions regarding electricity network capacity, the cost of required infrastructure upgrades and whether surrounding communities may ultimately bear indirect costs associated with these upgrades.
The EIS also provides insufficient detail regarding telecommunications infrastructure. Data centres require extremely high capacity communications networks, yet little information is provided regarding the scale of infrastructure upgrades required or any potential impacts on surrounding telecommunications services.
Water consumption is another significant concern. Data centres require substantial volumes of water for cooling, yet the proposal provides limited information regarding long-term water demand and supply. International experience has demonstrated that large data centres can place considerable pressure on local water resources, particularly during periods of drought. Given the existing challenges facing the Sydney water system and Bayside’s own water management objectives, these issues require far greater scrutiny before approval is considered.
Noise and heat impacts have also not been satisfactorily addressed. Overseas experience has shown that large data centres can generate continuous low-frequency noise from cooling equipment and backup infrastructure operating around the clock. In addition, waste heat released from these facilities can contribute to localised increases in surrounding temperatures. While the EIS proposes mitigation measures, I am not convinced these have been demonstrated to be effective over the long term, particularly given the proximity of residential areas.
The proposal also raises questions regarding backup power arrangements. Although electricity is proposed as the primary energy source, the EIS provides limited information regarding emergency power systems. If diesel generators are proposed, further assessment is required regarding potential impacts on noise, air quality and community amenity during testing and emergency operation.
Further, communities across Australia are increasingly questioning the rapid expansion of large data centres. A proposed AI data centre at North Katoomba was withdrawn following significant community opposition centred on concerns about 24-hour noise, environmental impacts and proximity to homes and schools. Similar concerns have been raised in Tasmania, where communities have called for a pause on further data centre development until their cumulative impacts are better understood.
The Australian Government has recognised these challenges through the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee Inquiry into artificial intelligence and data centres. The Inquiry is examining whether Australia’s existing regulatory framework is sufficient to manage the rapid expansion of data centres and their impacts on communities, electricity demand, water resources and the environment. The Climate Council has likewise raised concerns that accelerating demand for AI-driven data centres may place additional pressure on Australia’s renewable energy transition, climate goals and water security.
Given that this proposal specifically identifies data centres as a future land use, it is premature to approve a concept plan before the outcomes of this national inquiry are known. Proceeding now risks approving development under a planning framework that may soon require significant reform. Sound planning decisions should be informed by the best available evidence, particularly where developments have long-term consequences for communities and essential infrastructure.
Ultimately, this proposal would permanently transform a large riverside site into an intensive industrial precinct with significant implications for traffic, visual amenity, environmental health, infrastructure demand and community wellbeing. The cumulative impacts are far greater than the EIS suggests and are inconsistent with the strategic planning objectives established by Bayside Council to improve waterways, biodiversity, climate resilience and liveability.
Therefore, I respectfully request that the application be refused or substantially redesigned. Any future redevelopment of this site should deliver outcomes that better protect the Cooks River, align with local strategic planning priorities, preserve environmental values and provide genuine long-term benefits for the surrounding community rather than imposing disproportionate environmental and infrastructure burdens on local residents.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
WOLLI CREEK
,
New South Wales
Message
To whom it may concern,
I am writing to strongly object to the proposed development.
As a local resident living directly opposite the proposed development, I am extremely concerned about the scale, location and impacts of this proposal. A development of this size and nature is completely inappropriate for a site that borders a river, sits beside parklands and is surrounded by residential apartments and local communities.
This land should be used in a way that improves the quality of life for residents, enhances the riverfront and provides genuine community benefit. Instead, this proposal risks imposing a massive industrial-style building on the local area, with very limited benefit to the people who actually live here.
My objections are outlined below.
1. Visual impact and loss of amenity
A large data centre would be a visually dominant and unattractive structure in this location. It would overwhelm the surrounding area and significantly change the character of the neighbourhood.
Residents currently enjoy views of the river, open space and surrounding parklands. This proposal would block or severely diminish those views and replace them with a large, bulky building that offers little visual interest or connection to the local environment.
This is not an appropriate outcome for a riverfront site. The development should enhance the area, not degrade it.
2. Noise impacts and 24/7 humming
My greatest concern is the potential for constant noise from the operation of the data centre, including mechanical plant, cooling systems, generators and other equipment.
A continuous humming or buzzing sound, operating 24 hours a day, would be completely unacceptable in a residential area. This would have a serious impact on the wellbeing, sleep, comfort and mental health of nearby residents.
Local residents already live with significant aircraft noise due to proximity to an international airport. Adding another constant source of industrial noise would make daily life even more difficult and, for some residents, potentially unbearable.
I do not believe enough consideration has been given to the lived experience of residents who would have to face this development every day and hear it every night.
3. Heat, energy and water impacts
Data centres are resource-intensive developments. I am concerned that this proposal would place additional pressure on local energy and water infrastructure, while also contributing to increased heat in the surrounding area.
At a time when communities are being encouraged to become more sustainable and climate-resilient, it is difficult to understand why such a large, energy-hungry development is being proposed in a sensitive riverfront and residential location.
The site should be used to cool and green the local area, not intensify heat and resource demand.
4. Limited economic or community benefit
This proposal does not appear to provide meaningful economic development for the local area. Data centres typically do not create large numbers of ongoing local jobs once construction is complete.
For a development of this size and impact, the public benefit appears very limited. Local residents would be left with the visual bulk, noise, blocked views, environmental impacts and pressure on infrastructure, while receiving little in return.
This is not a fair or balanced outcome.
5. Poor use of a valuable riverfront site
This former golf course site is a rare and valuable opportunity to create something that genuinely benefits the local community.
Rather than a massive data centre, this land should be used to enrich the standard of living for local residents. It could provide improved walking and cycling paths, public green space, riverfront access, recreation areas, restaurants, cafes and community-focused facilities.
A site of this importance should connect people to the river and parklands. It should not be dominated by a large industrial-style facility that turns its back on the community.
6. Impact on resident wellbeing
The proposal raises serious questions about whether the wellbeing of local residents has been properly considered.
Residents are not simply looking at lines on a planning map. We live here. We would have to see this building every day, lose our outlook, experience additional heat, and potentially live with constant mechanical noise around the clock.
This development would have a direct and significant impact on quality of life for nearby residents, and that should be given far greater weight in the assessment process.
In Conclusion:
I strongly object to the proposed development.
The development is excessive in scale, visually inappropriate, likely to reduce residential amenity, and poorly suited to a riverfront site surrounded by homes, parklands and community spaces.
This site should be used for a development that improves the area, supports public access, protects the riverfront and enhances the wellbeing of local residents. The current proposal does the opposite.
I urge the relevant authority to reject this proposal.
I am writing to strongly object to the proposed development.
As a local resident living directly opposite the proposed development, I am extremely concerned about the scale, location and impacts of this proposal. A development of this size and nature is completely inappropriate for a site that borders a river, sits beside parklands and is surrounded by residential apartments and local communities.
This land should be used in a way that improves the quality of life for residents, enhances the riverfront and provides genuine community benefit. Instead, this proposal risks imposing a massive industrial-style building on the local area, with very limited benefit to the people who actually live here.
My objections are outlined below.
1. Visual impact and loss of amenity
A large data centre would be a visually dominant and unattractive structure in this location. It would overwhelm the surrounding area and significantly change the character of the neighbourhood.
Residents currently enjoy views of the river, open space and surrounding parklands. This proposal would block or severely diminish those views and replace them with a large, bulky building that offers little visual interest or connection to the local environment.
This is not an appropriate outcome for a riverfront site. The development should enhance the area, not degrade it.
2. Noise impacts and 24/7 humming
My greatest concern is the potential for constant noise from the operation of the data centre, including mechanical plant, cooling systems, generators and other equipment.
A continuous humming or buzzing sound, operating 24 hours a day, would be completely unacceptable in a residential area. This would have a serious impact on the wellbeing, sleep, comfort and mental health of nearby residents.
Local residents already live with significant aircraft noise due to proximity to an international airport. Adding another constant source of industrial noise would make daily life even more difficult and, for some residents, potentially unbearable.
I do not believe enough consideration has been given to the lived experience of residents who would have to face this development every day and hear it every night.
3. Heat, energy and water impacts
Data centres are resource-intensive developments. I am concerned that this proposal would place additional pressure on local energy and water infrastructure, while also contributing to increased heat in the surrounding area.
At a time when communities are being encouraged to become more sustainable and climate-resilient, it is difficult to understand why such a large, energy-hungry development is being proposed in a sensitive riverfront and residential location.
The site should be used to cool and green the local area, not intensify heat and resource demand.
4. Limited economic or community benefit
This proposal does not appear to provide meaningful economic development for the local area. Data centres typically do not create large numbers of ongoing local jobs once construction is complete.
For a development of this size and impact, the public benefit appears very limited. Local residents would be left with the visual bulk, noise, blocked views, environmental impacts and pressure on infrastructure, while receiving little in return.
This is not a fair or balanced outcome.
5. Poor use of a valuable riverfront site
This former golf course site is a rare and valuable opportunity to create something that genuinely benefits the local community.
Rather than a massive data centre, this land should be used to enrich the standard of living for local residents. It could provide improved walking and cycling paths, public green space, riverfront access, recreation areas, restaurants, cafes and community-focused facilities.
A site of this importance should connect people to the river and parklands. It should not be dominated by a large industrial-style facility that turns its back on the community.
6. Impact on resident wellbeing
The proposal raises serious questions about whether the wellbeing of local residents has been properly considered.
Residents are not simply looking at lines on a planning map. We live here. We would have to see this building every day, lose our outlook, experience additional heat, and potentially live with constant mechanical noise around the clock.
This development would have a direct and significant impact on quality of life for nearby residents, and that should be given far greater weight in the assessment process.
In Conclusion:
I strongly object to the proposed development.
The development is excessive in scale, visually inappropriate, likely to reduce residential amenity, and poorly suited to a riverfront site surrounded by homes, parklands and community spaces.
This site should be used for a development that improves the area, supports public access, protects the riverfront and enhances the wellbeing of local residents. The current proposal does the opposite.
I urge the relevant authority to reject this proposal.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
TURRELLA
,
New South Wales
Message
I object to the proposed redevelopment of the former Kogarah Golf Club into a logistics, warehouse and data centre precinct.
While I recognise the need for employment-generating development, this proposal is inconsistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development and does not strike an appropriate balance between economic development, environmental protection and community benefit as required under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW).
My objections are as follows:
1. Overdevelopment of the Cooks River Foreshore
The proposal comprises up to five building blocks reaching approximately 70 metres in height and around 340,000 m² of gross floor area immediately adjacent to the Cooks River. This scale of development is excessive for such a sensitive riverside location and will dominate the landscape, overshadow the river corridor and diminish the public's enjoyment of one of Sydney's most important urban waterways.
2. Loss of Biodiversity and Habitat
The Cooks River corridor provides an important ecological link within metropolitan Sydney and supports native wildlife, including the threatened Grey-headed Flying Fox. I am concerned that the biodiversity assessment understates the ecological value of the site, particularly given the limited duration and predominantly daytime survey effort.
The proposal conflicts with the objectives of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (NSW), which seeks to conserve biodiversity and maintain ecological integrity. Once mature vegetation and habitat are removed, these values cannot simply be recreated.
3. Loss of Valuable Public Green Space
The redevelopment permanently reduces the opportunity to create a significant riverside park for a rapidly growing population. In an already highly urbanised part of Sydney, public green space is increasingly valuable for recreation, biodiversity, flood resilience and urban cooling.
This proposal is also inconsistent with Premier Chris Minns' commitment that:
"We have to build world class beautiful parks, and that means preserving every bit of green space that we can possibly get our hands on."
The former golf course presents a rare opportunity to deliver exactly that.
4. Inadequate Consideration of Cumulative Impacts
The Environmental Impact Statement does not adequately address the cumulative impacts of continued industrialisation of the lower Cooks River catchment. This area has already experienced substantial habitat loss, increasing urban heat, declining biodiversity and limited public open space. Planning decisions should consider the long-term cumulative effects on the river system rather than assessing this proposal in isolation.
5. Environmental Concerns Regarding the Data Centre
The proposed inclusion of a data centre raises additional concerns due to its significant electricity demand, potential water consumption for cooling and associated greenhouse gas emissions. Given Australia's climate commitments and increasing pressure on energy and water resources, developments of this nature require particularly rigorous environmental assessment.
6. Community Consultation
I am concerned that community consultation has been inadequate. Many local residents only became aware of the proposal shortly before the exhibition period, despite the scale and significance of the development. Meaningful consultation is fundamental to good planning and public confidence in the assessment process.
The Cooks River is one of Sydney's most valuable environmental and community assets. Once this land is developed as a logistics precinct, the opportunity to restore habitat, expand public open space and create a world-class riverside park will be lost permanently.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure refuse the proposal in its current form or require substantial redesign that prioritises biodiversity conservation, meaningful public open space, climate resilience and genuine community benefit over industrial development.
Protecting the Cooks River today will provide lasting environmental, social and economic benefits for future generations.
While I recognise the need for employment-generating development, this proposal is inconsistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development and does not strike an appropriate balance between economic development, environmental protection and community benefit as required under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW).
My objections are as follows:
1. Overdevelopment of the Cooks River Foreshore
The proposal comprises up to five building blocks reaching approximately 70 metres in height and around 340,000 m² of gross floor area immediately adjacent to the Cooks River. This scale of development is excessive for such a sensitive riverside location and will dominate the landscape, overshadow the river corridor and diminish the public's enjoyment of one of Sydney's most important urban waterways.
2. Loss of Biodiversity and Habitat
The Cooks River corridor provides an important ecological link within metropolitan Sydney and supports native wildlife, including the threatened Grey-headed Flying Fox. I am concerned that the biodiversity assessment understates the ecological value of the site, particularly given the limited duration and predominantly daytime survey effort.
The proposal conflicts with the objectives of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (NSW), which seeks to conserve biodiversity and maintain ecological integrity. Once mature vegetation and habitat are removed, these values cannot simply be recreated.
3. Loss of Valuable Public Green Space
The redevelopment permanently reduces the opportunity to create a significant riverside park for a rapidly growing population. In an already highly urbanised part of Sydney, public green space is increasingly valuable for recreation, biodiversity, flood resilience and urban cooling.
This proposal is also inconsistent with Premier Chris Minns' commitment that:
"We have to build world class beautiful parks, and that means preserving every bit of green space that we can possibly get our hands on."
The former golf course presents a rare opportunity to deliver exactly that.
4. Inadequate Consideration of Cumulative Impacts
The Environmental Impact Statement does not adequately address the cumulative impacts of continued industrialisation of the lower Cooks River catchment. This area has already experienced substantial habitat loss, increasing urban heat, declining biodiversity and limited public open space. Planning decisions should consider the long-term cumulative effects on the river system rather than assessing this proposal in isolation.
5. Environmental Concerns Regarding the Data Centre
The proposed inclusion of a data centre raises additional concerns due to its significant electricity demand, potential water consumption for cooling and associated greenhouse gas emissions. Given Australia's climate commitments and increasing pressure on energy and water resources, developments of this nature require particularly rigorous environmental assessment.
6. Community Consultation
I am concerned that community consultation has been inadequate. Many local residents only became aware of the proposal shortly before the exhibition period, despite the scale and significance of the development. Meaningful consultation is fundamental to good planning and public confidence in the assessment process.
The Cooks River is one of Sydney's most valuable environmental and community assets. Once this land is developed as a logistics precinct, the opportunity to restore habitat, expand public open space and create a world-class riverside park will be lost permanently.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure refuse the proposal in its current form or require substantial redesign that prioritises biodiversity conservation, meaningful public open space, climate resilience and genuine community benefit over industrial development.
Protecting the Cooks River today will provide lasting environmental, social and economic benefits for future generations.