This proposal is beside Lane cove national park. This isa precious natural area in a built up city.
The developer states:
“The Proposal will involve the clearing of native vegetation to allow the construction of a new data centre on the Site.”
⁠⁠"The Proposal’s development footprint proposes to remove 1.33 hectares of native vegetation on the Site” [and removal of 509 trees]
”The Proposal requires species credits to offset the loss of habitat for three threatened (candidate) fauna species, namely: Large-eared Pied Bat Chalinolobus dwyeri, Little Bent-winged Bat Miniopterus australis and Large Bent-winged Bat Miniopterus orianae oceanensis, and four threatened plant species, being Darwinia biflora, Deyeuxia appressa, Hibbertia spanantha and Rhizanthella slateri, in which presence has been assumed in the vegetation zone 3952_ModGood due to suitable habitat within the Subject Land and restriction of survey period.”

There is suggestion they will offset by planting trees elsewhere - this does not help the threatened (candidate) fauna - they are living in the area and need to be accommodated where they currently reside.

This development needs to consider their neighbours (LCNP) and current inhabitants in place (native fauna). Planting trees elsewhere does not preserve the value of Lane Cove National Park.
In reviewing, assessing, and providing caveats on this proposal ensure the animal corridors and natural integrity of LCNP is at least maintained by development neighbouring it (if not improved).

Lane Cove and Ryde are becoming saturated with data centres.
This one has particular environmental consequences with 500 trees being cut down to make way for the data centre.
We need to think of the bigger picture instead of throwing up data centres wherever there is land.
Can the saturation of data centres be spread throughout Sydney or use land outside of highly populated and environmentally sensitive areas?

I strongly oppose the planned destruction of native vegetation associated with this development. this is an important wildlife habitat and corridor and they should not be removed.

The Chatswood West Ward Progress Association is very concerned about this DA and request it be rejected in its current form for all the reasons outlined in the attached submission.

I write as a result of the excessive number of trees that will be removed to construct this project
There are numerous environmental concerns with this proposal but the removal of 509 trees in this location is not appropriate and another site which has already been cleared would be more acceptable to me
Thankyou for your consideration

This plan destroys too many trees, especially mature trees next to a National Park. These are necessary for native wildlife as a corridor in case of fire or other needs like food and nesting hollows which take a long time to become suitable. They are needed for air quality and coolness in summer , the roots bind the soil to prevent landslips. A better plan that protects most of the trees is needed.

Julius Avenue Data Centre
Submission SUB-92104207

I am wholly opposed to the clearing of bushland to make way for a data centre. This particular site is an important buffer between urban development and Lane Cove National Park. Furthermore, clearing over 500 trees and replacing them with new plantings elsewhere does nothing to maintain the local biodiversity that currently lives on this piece of land.

I object to this proposal for the Julius Avenue Data Centre

In its present form, this plan will result in the removal of 509 trees (Page 9 of the EIS - Julius Avenue Data Centre 240625). These trees are an incredibly important part of the habitat corridor right adjacent to Lane Cove National Park and the Great North Walk near Fairyland. Following the bushfires in the Lane Cover River Valley in January 1994 a population of swamp wallabies survived by following this corridor and now populate bushland areas along the Lane Cove River as far as the Field of Mars Reserve. The retention of these trees is vital for the provision of understory and animal habitat.
This cooling tower would create a localized heat island, and a data center adjacent to natural bushland would change the local natural environment, involving loss of habitat for threatened species.
The documents prepared for the development state that the loss of these will be subject to the biodiversity offsets scheme. the proposed development is yet another example of incremental deterioration of biodiversity which has been criticized by the Samuels report on the review of the Environmental Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Act and biodiversity offsets have not worked in maintaining biodiversity.

For all these reasons I strongly object to this proposal and request a more environmentally sensitive reconsideration.

thank you

Margaret Hughes

0419 991 273
The documents supporting the development proposal do not explain in detail how these impacts will be mitigated and provide only general statements to the effect that efforts will be made about the environmental impacts.

I object to this proposal on the basis of excessive loss of native bushland and excessive fire risk both of which should be able to be mitigated by redesign
While the majority of the Data Centre proper is on the disturbed part of the site, the STSS in particular is located in the relatively undisturbed bushland to the south of the site, land which forms a valuable buffer to the LCNP in terms of preventing weed migration and biodiversity maintenance. The overall need to clear over 500 trees appears unjustified, given that ~one half of these trees are in the undisturbed area.
What is also very concerning is that the location of the STSS and the Data Centres’ 24 hr emergency generation are proposed be located close to bushland and thus at highest risk from bushfires. The fact that there may be a suitable (proposed) water main between the two does not necessarily mean that this will be useful in the event of a major bushfire, of which there have been two in last 25 years. Viz firefighters may be prioritised elsewhere to protect life over property. Given the essential power needs of the Centre this seems a major oversight. Similarly the location of the diesel generators on the bush side of the facility seem illogical in terms of the highest fire risk.
The pollution risk from diesel spill during fuel delivery and or massive failure does not appear to have been addressed.
The HV supply to the SSTA does not appear to be shown; whether there will be additional loss of bushland and clearing associated with new HV power lines should be addressed and assessed.
For a major facility future resilience and future proofing should also be considered..for example we know that the frequency and intensity of extreme events such as bushfires will occur. Thus current codes are unlikely to be suitable in the futre. It is very possible that the 20m fire buffer to create a defendable site may be increased in the future so if this occurs even more bushland clearing may be required, resulting in even more tree loss. And as noted above the location of essential STSS and diesel back up in the location of highest risk is illogical.
In summary:
Proposal should be reviewed and redesigned if possible
-to retain as much of undisturbed bushland as possible to reduce loss of native trees and fauna that forma critical buffe to LCNP
-reduce fire risk to essential facility power (STSS and emergency generation/ diesel storage)
-reduce need for future bushland clearing to increase fire defensive barrier
More information provided related to
-risk/management of diesel fuel spill during delivery and in storage
-STSS HV supply line impacts