I am writing to object to the Julius Avenue Data Centre project, listed as a State Significant Development proposed for the old CSIRO area of North Ryde and abutting Lane Cove National Park. Should this project be approved as presented in the plans, it would remove 509 trees which are an essential component of the wildlife habitat corridor adjacent to the LC National Park and the Great North Walk near Fairyland.
This would involve loss of habitat for three threatened fauna species, namely the Large-eared Pied Bat Chalinolobus dwyeri, the Little Bent-winged Bat Miniopterus australis and the Large Bent-winged Bat Miniopterus orienae oceanensis, as well as four threatened plant species - Darwinia biflora, Deyeuxia appressa, Hibbertia spanatha and Rhizanthella slateri.
In addition there will be disruption to and loss of native fauna habitat, impacts on the local climate through heat island effect, considerable noise from the process, the extent of water to be used and the level of bushfire risk to a highly valued ecosystem and the animals it supports such as the local population of swamp wallabies.
Constructing such a large data centre in close proximity to precious natural bushland would drastically alter important local environment through loss of the existing tree canopy and its understorey.
The project as planned would also affect the amenity and enjoyment of the many local users of the area.

Destruction of more bush land to accommodate another structure in or on the boundary of a National Park is pure negligence. Along with the bush goes habitat and precious wildlife as well. I’m totally against this project. Find an alternative place in an industrial area, please. How many more times is this going to happen, please let our grandchildren know your answer.

I am a local ecologist and have reviewed the attached Biodiversity Development Assessment Report (BDAR) and do not believe that it adequately assessed impacts to threatened species or appropriately demonstrated the avoid and minimise principle. Multiple species of microbat, some of which are at risk of a Series and Irreversible Impact (SAII) were 'assumed present' in the BDAR, and no targeted surveys were conducted. Considering the presence of suitable breeding habitat for some of the listed candidate microbat species (rocky overhangs, caves etc.), targeted surveys should have been conducted to understand if these species are present in the locality, and if this suitable habitat could potentially be utilised in the future. It is documented in the BDAR that the habitat was inspected for microbats, and no presence of the species was documented. However, without the confirmation of species absence through targeted surveys, how can it be determined that this habitat could not be used by this species in the future, and therefore (if the habitat is removed) could constitute an SAII impact on potential breeding habitat for these species. Targeted surveys should be conducted in the RtS phase of the approval process to appropriately determine if the microbat species that rely on caves as potential breeding habitat are not present in the areas, and therefore a SAII impact would not occur.

Additionally, the avoid and minimise section of the report documents that the project '... has been designed to maximise use of already disturbed land. The vegetation and habitats within the subject land are degraded'. However, by comparing Figure 6 and Figure 8, you can see that majority of the 'direct impact area' is located in the vegetation zone 'VZ2 3592_ModGood'. This is the best quality vegetation in the subject land, based on the Vegetation Integrity (VI) scores, and yet this is where the majority of the impact will occur. The Department should consider this highly, and question why the development is being located in the 'moderate-good', remnant native vegetation and not the lower quality regrowth/disturbed vegetation. Additionally, no VI scores have been provided for the '3967_regrowth' vegetation zone however these areas have been categorized as 'degraded'. A better explanation, backed up with data, should be amended during the RtS phase to appropriately explain how the vegetation in this area is degraded (especially considering some candidate flora species presence has been ruled out based on 'degraded habitat').
Figure 3 lists PCT 4006, which isn't discussed anywhere else.

The proposed Data Centre is unacceptable.

The development would destroy 500 trees, including 300 mature and hollow-bearing specimens, many of which provide essential habitat for native wildlife. This large-scale clearing intrudes directly into a known green buffer zone adjacent to Lane Cove National Park, an area that plays a vital role in maintaining biodiversity, reducing urban heat, and acting as a natural carbon sink.

The planned offset of planting saplings elsewhere is wholly inadequate. This approach fails to replicate the lost ecological functions of mature trees, particularly those that support threatened or habitat-dependent species. Tree hollow formation can take over a century, and this time lag is ecologically significant.

This proposal also raises serious bushfire concerns. The removal of vegetation buffers may increase fire vulnerability—this is especially critical in a warming climate and for a facility of this scale that is proposing to store diesel fuel on-site. The project’s enormous energy demands—up to 170 MW—will also significantly increase emissions and strain local infrastructure.

This development represents an unsustainable and high-impact use of land and sets an extremely dangerous and damaging precedent for developers.

Data centres consume energy and are not feasible to protect natural vegetation. Building this centre will disrupt the local bush that is vital for the environment. Loss of bushland will increase built up area and lead to irreversible damage to the fragile ecosystem currently in that area. Data centre can always be built in other areas that is not a fragile bush area.

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.