I object to the proposal for a number of reasons. I live locally and often walk through the Lane Cove National Park (Fairylands) which is close to the proposed development. I see a lot of wildlife each time I walk through here – swamp wallabies, Eastern Osprey, echidnas, red-bellied black snakes, water dragons and many other birds, and at night I hear the powerful owls. This development would create a scar in the landscape that would be impossible to fix. Other impacts that this development would cause include the following:

Ecological impacts
The development requires the significant clearing and removal of 509 trees – this is excessive and includes many mature trees, and impacts a large area – 1.2ha – of bushland, in an endangered ecological community (Sydney Coastal enriched sandstone forest). This area is sensitive as it is directly adjacent to the Lane Cove National Park. Many of these trees would be over 100 years old and contain hollows which are critical for many native fauna including birds, bats, possums and gliders, and threatened species such as the Powerful Owl which frequent the area. Clearing this area will also affect ground-dwelling fauna such as reptiles, echidnas and mammals such as Long-nose bandicoots, which have largely disappeared from other parts of Sydney but are known to occur in Lane Cove National Park (see attachment). There are also a number of threatened plant species which could be put at risk as a result of clearing from the development.
It is impossible to replace hollows, which have naturally formed over many decades, with artificial nest boxes and revegetation/biobanking. Clearing 1.2ha of bushland for this development will result in serious impacts on the local biodiversity that cannot be reversed by simply “replanting”.
Trees are a Carbon Dioxide sink and one of the most effective ways of capturing and storing CO2. This level of clearing appears to be in direct contradiction to the NSW Government’s planning and climate change policies.

Water quality degradation
Other additional environmental impacts to note is that the EIS states that surface water runoff will be expected to enter the river, which will cause a degradation of water quality in the Lane Cover River. This will occur both during construction and after the development is constructed, as there will be a lot more hard surface and water runoff as a result. The plans indicate that the clearing will extend all the way to the tidal flat, increasing the risk of erosion and runoff. The site is on a slope which will further exacerbate runoff, especially during rain events.

Noise and lighting
Additionally fauna (and as well as bushwalkers who are trying to enjoy the tranquility of Lane Cove National Park) are likely to be disrupted by the constant mechanical noise from the internal workings of the data centre’s cooling systems and backup generators. Lighting from the perimeter of the centre will also affect the many species of bats that are present in and around the Lane Cove National Park.
The current development proposal, which involves significant tree clearing in this setback, also appears to directly contradict the NSW Government’s own planning and climate change policies.

Surely there is another site that can be used, which doesn’t involve the unnecessary destruction of mature vegetation and displacement of threatened and vulnerable fauna in a much-loved location. We should be protecting what few, mature trees we have, not chopping them down just for another data centre. Please reconsider this proposal.

Do not get rid of hundreds of trees and its habitat. Even if more trees would be planted it's not the same as an already established habitat. This is an important buffer zone between the other developments and lane cove river

Do not clear more of our bushland for a data centre, repurpose existing industrial land. The replacement trees are not enough.

I'm making a rare objection to this project. This location's proximity to a Metro station reasonably close to the city means it would be better suited for high density housing. There's no denying the necessity for data centres, but because they have so few employees, this would be much better suited for somewhere more rural.

This project has massive environmental impact it will strip away vital buffer zones for native Australian wildlife that need it to access the national park. Native land heritage cannot be replaced. Protect bushland and nature pathways and buffer zones they are vital to community mental health and the survival or engaged native Australian animals.

Submission for:

Julius Avenue Data Centre
SSD-80018208
6-8 Julius Avenue, North Ryde (lot 89 DP 1082131)

I write to object to the establishment of a data centre at Julius Avenue, North Ryde.

My objections are based on the size of scope of the work, the impact on the ecosystem, and the
location.

I feel the building footprint is excessive. It should be possible to re-design the building layout to avoid having to encroach on the remnant bushland at the south and south east of the site, and use the proposed road as part of the asset protection zone. The substation should be located away from the bushland side of the site.

It will take a long time to build as well, and during this time the builders will be allowed to work outside normal hours, increasing noise emissions from the site.

The proposed site has been vacant for approx. 20 years and now appears to have reverted to swamp land and marshes. I visited the site recently and could hear frogs and see many birds on the site.

The site is located adjacent to bushland on the shore of the Lane Cove River, and the site has a high bushfire risk, which requires an Asset Protection Zone (APZ) between the bushland and the proposed site buildings. The proposed APZ will require extensive land clearing including the removal of a high number of trees and the building of a road through the site.

According to the RFS (https://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/4412/Guideline-for-Councils-to-Bushfire-Prone-Area-Land-Mapping.pdf):

“Vegetation Category 1 Vegetation Category 1 is considered to be the highest risk for bush fire. It is represented as red on the bush fire prone land map and will be given a 100m buffer. This vegetation category has the highest combustibility and likelihood of forming fully developed fires including heavy ember production. Vegetation Category 1 consists of: › Areas of forest, woodlands, heaths (tall and short), forested wetlands and timber plantations.  
from RFS.”

My main concern is the number of mature trees that will need to be felled, and the clearance of forested land required to maintain an adequate APZ.

Thanks and regards
William Currie

The position of the site will disrupt the Great North Walk track visually and audibly. Many old and valuable trees will be removed, this is not suitable for a national park so close to the city, which is a valuable habitat and refuge for many native species which would otherwise slowly disappear from Sydney.

Dear NSW Major Projects

I am totally AGAINST the needless destruction of so many trees and so much habitat -which is such a vital habitat corridor for Lane Cove National Park. The broader community also seems to have had more than enough of the desecration of natural heritage. Especially when we are in the middle of an "extinction crisis". This proposal appears to involve the clearing of 500 plus mature trees...many of which contain important nesting hollows. There does not seem to be any attempt by the developer to 'avoid' impacts to native vegetation and threatened species. Demonstration of avoidance is the fundamental first step under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016.(i.e. Before considering offsets, developers must demonstrate that they have taken all reasonable steps to avoid harm to biodiversity values). Biodiversity offsets are broadly recognised anyway as a rort and a scam to enable inappropriate development. Even so Section 6.4 of the BC Act sets out the purpose of the Biodiversity Offset Scheme… this clause establishes a requirement to identify appropriate biodiversity conservation measures to offset or compensate for impacts on biodiversity values, after steps are taken to AVOID or MINIMISE those impacts. A major concern Iwith this proposal is the loss of significant 'rocky outcrop' and cave habitat areas which are significant habitat to threatened microbats - Large Bent-wing Bat, Little Bent-winged Bat and Large-eared Pied Bat. Whilst the developer is required to pay species credits to offset impacts to these threatened species and their habitat ( a total scam as mentioned previously), caves and rocky outcrops are NOT habitat types that can be easily offset - certainly not by planting trees elsewhere. I note that the media is closely following this issue and the overwhelming feedback is that this poposal should be radically modified to avoid such wholesale and unacceptable destruction. Even the proponent's website mentions that they support "sustainabiiity" . Now let's see them prove it.

As a frequent visitor to Lane Cove National Park, I strongly object to the proposed data centre at Julius Avenue, North Ryde.
Reasons for objection:
• Critically endangered ecosystem: The project would remove over 500 trees and impact 1.2 ha of Sydney Coastal Enriched Sandstone Forest. The proponent’s BDAR acknowledges the risk of serious and irreversible biodiversity impacts.
• Threatened species: The site is known habitat for three threatened animal species and four threatened plant species, which would be further jeopardised.
• Noise and amenity: Constant mechanical noise from cooling systems and generators would disturb wildlife, undermine the tranquility of the national park, and diminish the experience for bushwalkers and residents.
• Conflicts with planning policy: The site falls within a designated landscape setback under the Macquarie Park Design Guide—intended to retain mature vegetation and the green character. Large‑scale clearing directly contradicts the NSW Government’s rezoning objectives, environment, and climate policies.
Requested outcome:
• Refuse the proposal due to unacceptable and potentially irreversible environmental impacts and inconsistency with established planning controls. If not refused, require a full redesign that avoids clearing the critically endangered community, retains the entire landscape setback with no net canopy loss, enforces strict noise limits, and only considers offsets after genuine avoidance and minimisation.
Please prioritise conservation and community amenity over an inappropriate land use at this location.