This area of bush land must be protected. Flora and fauna in the area must be protected, use an existing site for the project instead of wiping out more native wildlife and habitats.

This project will have significant negative impact to the eco-system around lane cove national park.

I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Julius Avenue Data Centre (SSD-80018208).

While I understand the growing demand for data and digital infrastructure, particularly at this time, this particular project comes at the unacceptable cost of destroying priceless bushland. Sydney’s remaining natural areas are disappearing rapidly, and once lost they cannot be restored. The site forms part of an important local biodiversity corridor, providing habitat for native flora and fauna and contributing to the ecological health of the Lane Cove River catchment. The proposed offset plantings cannot replicate the ecological function of established bushland.

The proposed development has also raised a range of wider planning and infrastructure concerns. Data centres are extremely resource-intensive, particularly in terms of water and energy consumption, yet the proposal does not provide clear information about long-term sustainability. At a time when Macquarie Park is intended to evolve as an innovation and employment precinct, replacing bushland with a low-employment, high-impact use risks undermining broader strategic objectives for the area. Destroying invaluable bushland cannot be a better option than cleared greenfield or brownfield alternatives.

I object strongly to the proposal, and urge the NSW Government to refuse this and any future proposals at this location. Development of new data centres is important, but must take place appropriate industrial or brownfield sites where they do not result in permanent loss of biodiversity and strain on ecological resources.

The proposal means the removal of bushland in the area, and the hum from an existing data centre is noticeable and is already
undermining the serenity of the area - more data centres would mean less amenity. I often walk around the area, and having serene bushland is something I appreciate along with many others. Data centres require water for cooling, and there's the impact of either water removed from the river for evaporative cooling or waste heat being put into the river, though if we're talking water from the Sydney Water that is its own problem when water shortages show themselves in future. It's my suspicion that the data centres are intentionally located close to a water source, though obviously at some level also wherever land is available.

The natural beauty of this city is dwindling. National Parks and nature reserves are what make our home such a desirable and beautiful place to reside. The damage from this project is irreparable and we need to preserve what few urban nature reserves remain. Existing, developed land can be found for the data centre. Do not allow this crime against our natural land to be committed for the benefit of digitisation. Once gone, our National parks and land can never be replaced. A data centre can.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed construction of a data centre adjacent to the national park. This development raises serious environmental concerns that must be carefully considered before any approval is granted.

National parks exist to protect fragile ecosystems, wildlife habitats, and biodiversity that cannot easily be replaced once disturbed. Placing a large-scale industrial facility directly next to such a protected area risks significant ecological damage. The construction process alone—clearing land, heavy machinery, increased traffic, and noise—could disrupt wildlife and degrade nearby habitats. Many species rely on stable environments, and sudden industrial activity can cause displacement, reduced breeding success, and long-term ecological imbalance.

Beyond construction, the ongoing operation of a data centre presents additional risks. These facilities consume large amounts of electricity and water, often requiring extensive cooling systems that can strain local resources. Heat discharge, increased energy infrastructure, and potential chemical runoff from maintenance processes could further impact surrounding ecosystems. Light pollution and constant operational noise may also affect nocturnal species and disrupt natural behavioral patterns.

There are also broader cumulative impacts to consider. Allowing major infrastructure immediately beside a protected area undermines the very purpose of establishing national parks. Buffer zones typically exist to reduce edge effects, human disturbance, and habitat fragmentation. This proposal appears to ignore those principles and could set a concerning precedent for future developments near protected landscapes.

Economic development and digital infrastructure are important, but they should not come at the expense of irreplaceable natural environments. Data centres can and should be located in existing industrial zones or areas that have already been heavily modified by human activity. Choosing a location next to a national park is unnecessary and environmentally irresponsible when more suitable alternatives likely exist.

For these reasons, I strongly urge the relevant authorities to reject this proposal or, at minimum, require a far more comprehensive environmental impact assessment and the consideration of alternative sites that do not threaten protected ecosystems.

Protecting our national parks is a responsibility that extends beyond short-term economic interests. Once ecological damage occurs, it is often impossible to reverse. Decisions made now will affect the health of this environment for decades to come.

Thank you for considering this objection.

I am writing to provide a submission on SSD‑80018208. My concerns relate to the scale of vegetation removal, the ecological and visual impacts on the regional corridor, and the proposal’s inconsistency with the strategic planning and environmental objectives that apply to State Significant Development (SSD).

1. Scale of Vegetation Removal

The proposal involves the removal of 509 trees within an ecologically sensitive and strategically important corridor. This represents an extreme and irreversible loss of canopy, habitat, and landscape character. Under the SSD framework, impacts of this magnitude require heightened scrutiny, particularly in relation to biodiversity, cumulative canopy loss, and long‑term environmental resilience.

2. Ecological and Biodiversity Impacts

The affected corridor forms part of a broader habitat network that supports species movement, ecological connectivity, and climate adaptation. The removal of more than five hundred trees risks fragmenting habitat, reducing biodiversity, and undermining the ecological function of the precinct. These impacts cannot be meaningfully offset within any reasonable timeframe, and the documentation does not demonstrate that avoidance and minimisation measures have been adequately explored.

3. Landscape and Visual Impacts

The existing canopy contributes significantly to the landscape character and visual amenity of the area. The proposed removal of 509 trees would result in a stark and permanent alteration to the visual environment. The visual impact assessment does not appear to adequately address the cumulative effect of such large‑scale canopy loss, nor does it demonstrate consistency with the landscape values identified in relevant strategic planning instruments.

4. Inconsistency with Strategic Planning and SSD Assessment Principles

SSD proposals must demonstrate alignment with State and local strategic planning frameworks, including objectives relating to:

• protection of biodiversity and ecological corridors
• enhancement of urban canopy and climate resilience
• preservation of landscape character
• minimisation of environmental impacts through avoidance and design alternatives
• the public interest test under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act


The scale of vegetation loss proposed under SSD‑80018208 is difficult to reconcile with these objectives. The documentation does not provide sufficient evidence that the proposal meets the public interest test or that environmental impacts have been minimised in accordance with SSD assessment principles.

5. Request for Further Assessment and Design Review

Given the scale and significance of the impacts, I respectfully request that the Department:

• require a more rigorous assessment of biodiversity impacts and cumulative canopy loss
• ensure that avoidance and minimisation measures are properly explored, not merely offset
• consider whether the proposal, in its current form, satisfies the public interest and strategic alignment requirements of an SSD
• require the proponent to investigate alternative design options that materially reduce vegetation removal

The removal of 509 trees within an ecologically sensitive corridor represents an environmentally disproportionate impact that is inconsistent with the principles governing State Significant Development. I urge the Department to carefully consider the long‑term ecological, visual, and strategic implications of approving a proposal that would permanently diminish the environmental integrity of the area.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this submission.

Yours sincerely,

The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment and Mitigation Plan appears to show the project to have scope 1 and 2 emissions exceeding 100,000 t CO2-e per year in the first year, yet there is no independent review per the requirements in the NSW Guide for Large Emitters. There are many sections missing from the Plan which are required per the NSW Guide for Large Emitters, for example: "Describe, in tabulated form, scope 1 and 2 emissions for each financial year over the project life, based on maximum capacity and planned operational throughput for each stage of the project and each scenario".

The 416 Group aims to represent residents of Killara and Lindfield who live west of Lady Game Drive. Its particular objectives are to work to ensure that current and future developments and activities do not degrade the natural assets of the area and that quality of life is maintained. More information about the group is here: https://www.416group.org.
The 416 Group area is poorly served by bus. The author of this submission lives 800 metres from the nearest bus stop and there are no footpaths. Residents in the area are dependent on their cars and use Lady Game Drive to travel north or south and have experienced steadily increasing congestion at the junction of Lady Game Drive and Delhi Rd at Fullers Bridge which is one lane each way. In the morning peak Lady Game Drive backs up more than 1km from the Delhi Rd junction. This congestion has grown as commercial and residential development has occurred on Delhi Rd, North Ryde. For this reason, we do not support any further development on Delhi Rd until infrastructure has been built to support it. Having said data centres with relatively few full-time staff are the least-worst kind of development and also are supported in principle as being consistent with Macquarie Park masterplan and being important to Australia's future prosperity.
The proposed development is too large and in particular through destruction of mature tress impacts on important natural bushland along the Lane Cove River corridor and the Great North Walking track which adjoins the site. The location of the access road and the Ausgrid STSS are problematic.
Why Mature Trees Matter
The mature trees along the river are vital. They provide shade, nesting hollows, help keep the area cool, and support a wide range of wildlife—including nesting birds, possums, insects, and even the ospreys that live just across the river. Their roots help reduce erosion. Young trees simply can’t do all this. It takes decades for them to grow and offer the same benefits. Removing the mature trees would leave a big gap in the ecosystem that can’t be quickly fixed.
A Home for Wildlife
The Lane Cove River is a rich and diverse habitat, home to many native and even threatened species, such as the powerful owl. The tall tree canopy helps animals move safely through the area and connects patches of bushland. If these trees are removed, it will break those connections and make it harder for wildlife to survive. It also increases risks from predators, noise, and light. The back up power generation located to "minimise impact on commercial and residential" maximises impact on the natural environment.
Problems with the Replacement Plan
Planting small native trees doesn’t make up for the loss of mature habitat. Young trees are fragile and need a lot of care to survive. The scale of this tree removal would change the landscape dramatically, and not just in how it looks—it would affect the whole ecosystem. We ask that this proposal and look for ways to protect the existing mature trees. They are not just part of the scenery—they are essential to the health of the river and the life it supports.
We propose a smaller development footprint which minimises the destruction of the forest. This may be achieved by reducing the floor area of the development, and/or placing more facilities underground and/or increasing the height. This would also increase the resilience of the project to bushfire. The 1994 Lane Cove Valley wildfire almost reached this site.