Stop Data Centres Blue Mountains
The issue
STOP DATA CENTRES BLUE MOUNTAINS
PETITION: Stop data centres in the Blue Mountains – close the planning loophole now
TO: Blue Mountains Mayor Mark Greenhill and Councillors, asking them to refuse the Katoomba proposal and advocate for stronger local protections; Member for Blue Mountains Trish Doyle MP; and NSW Minister for Planning and Public Spaces Paul Scully MP.
The immediate threat
A Development Application has been lodged for a 1–2 megawatt industrial data centre at 41–45 Barton Street, Katoomba – next to Bureau Park, Yosemite Creek and residential homes, in one of the most environmentally sensitive local government areas in NSW.
We are asking Council to refuse this application, and asking the NSW Government to fix the statewide planning pathway that made it possible.
The longer term threat: Why this DA was possible: the planning loophole
Here's the problem. A blanket statewide planning rule – Clause 2.31 of the NSW State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 – allows data centres to be approved in industrial zones right across NSW. That rule doesn't care what the local area is actually like. It doesn't care that this particular industrial zone sits next to World Heritage bushland, riparian creeks and quiet residential streets.
Even the applicant admits the local rules don't allow a data centre here. Their own planning documents state:
“It is acknowledged that a data centre is not explicitly listed as a permitted land use within the E4 – General Industrial zone under the Blue Mountains LEP 2015.” [1]
So the local rules say no. But a state government rule overrides them – and no one in this community got a say in that. The community had no meaningful say in that statewide rule. It must now be fixed.
Artist images from DA. For a 1–2 MW data centre, you would normally expect visually significant mechanical infrastructure, such as: rooftop chillers, cooling towers or dry coolers, condenser units, ventilation louvres, exhaust stacks, generator exhausts and air intake and discharge infrastructure.
Problems with this specific application at 41–45 Barton Street, Katoomba
(View and download documents in DA X/419/2026)
HEIGHT – 37% taller than the rules allow
The Blue Mountains LEP 2015 sets a maximum building height of 12 metres. The proposed building’s roof structures reach 16.451 metres – a 37% exceedance requiring a Clause 4.6 variation.
The variation should be refused. The overshoot is not a minor architectural feature. The structures that exceed 12 metres include the goods lift overrun, emergency staircase, three rooftop chillers, cooling tower and mechanical ventilation – all of which are integral to the data centre's operation and directly responsible for the facility's noise, visual and amenity impacts. The Clause 4.6 report itself acknowledges that these are ancillary to the data centre use; they cannot be dismissed as incidental. [2]
NOISE – unresolved low-frequency intrusion
Katoomba at night is genuinely quiet. The night-time Rating Background Level is just 25 dBA – an extremely quiet acoustic environment. Their own noise report modelled three different equipment scenarios. In every single one, low-frequency noise was still significantly above that background level at night. Even the 'best case' scenario – the one they're calling compliant – still produces low-frequency noise that the report says 'is likely to be audible.' [3, 4]
The acoustic consultant recommends that a detailed mechanical noise assessment be completed before the Construction Certificate. That means noise compliance is still theoretical at DA stage and depends on future design, equipment selection and mitigation measures that have not yet been demonstrated. [5]
BUSHFIRE – BAL-FZ Flame Zone risk
Every square metre of the proposed building sits in a BAL-FZ Flame Zone – the highest bushfire attack level, associated with direct flame contact. [6]
The proposal includes large-scale electrical infrastructure, UPS battery banks and diesel generators. Whilst the bushfire report nominates non-combustible construction as a mitigation measure, it does not specifically address the risk profile of battery storage systems and diesel fuel in a BAL-FZ environment. This interaction has not been adequately demonstrated as acceptable at DA stage.
GEOTECHNICAL – soft fill and problematic foundations
Drill tests on the western part of the site found very weak ground – bearing capacity scores of just 4 to 7 (the test is called an SPT N-value; rock-solid ground scores well above 50). The boreholes in the western portion terminated at 2.45 metres without confirming bedrock; the geotechnical report recommends deep footings into inferred sandstone bedrock at or below 2.45 metres. [7]
Class P is a problematic foundation classification. The geotechnical evidence indicates that parts of the site require careful foundation design, while other documentation appears to suggest limited excavation. This inconsistency should be resolved before any approval is granted.
What we are asking for
We, the undersigned, call on Blue Mountains City Council and the NSW Minister for Planning to:
- Refuse DA X/419/2026 at 41–45 Barton Street, Katoomba, on the grounds of excessive building height, unresolved low-frequency noise impacts, inadequate certainty around operational plant noise, and unacceptable risk given the BAL-FZ rating in combination with battery storage and generator infrastructure.
[SUBMIT YOUR OBJECTION TO COUNCIL BY JULY 8 - SEE BELOW] - Blue Mountains City Council to formally declare that industrial-scale data centres are not suitable for the Blue Mountains, because they conflict with the area’s environment, heritage, residential communities, biodiversity and serious bushfire risk.
- Blue Mountains City Council and the NSW Minister for Planning to close the planning loophole that allows data centres in Blue Mountains industrial zones, including by exempting the Blue Mountains from the relevant statewide planning rules and strengthening the Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan 2015 to better control data centres and similar 24/7 industrial digital infrastructure. [8]
The Blue Mountains is not an industrial corridor.
The E4 General Industrial zone in the Blue Mountains must be interpreted in its local context: a World Heritage-adjacent city, with sensitive bushland, riparian corridors, quiet residential areas and serious bushfire risk.
It was not designed for energy-hungry digital infrastructure drawing 1–2 megawatts, generating constant mechanical noise from chillers, cooling towers and ventilation systems, and placing battery banks and diesel generators on Flame Zone land — infrastructure that runs continuously regardless of stated business hours.
Sign this petition to tell Council and the NSW Government: Tell Council and the NSW Government: not here, not like this.
#StopDataCentresBlueMountains
Campaign by Stop Data Centres Blue Mountains (email us)
(In alliance with No Data Centre in Katoomba NDCIK (join Facebook group)
SUBMIT YOUR OBJECTION TO COUNCIL FOR KATOOMBA PROPOSAL
You must lodge your objection by 8 July 2026 using the following details:
Email: Send your letter to council@bmcc.nsw.gov.au.
Subject Line: Use subject line: "FORMAL OBJECTION - Development Application X/419/2026".
Content:
In your objection, clearly state your name and address. State that you object to the application and request its refusal. Include your reasons, such as height exceedance (including rooftop plant: chillers, cooling tower, lift overrun), unresolved low-frequency noise, bushfire risk, battery and generator infrastructure, impacts on residential amenity, and the site's sensitive environmental context.
=======
Footnotes
[1] SoEE, p.7: “It is acknowledged that a data centre is not explicitly listed as a permitted land use within the E4 – General Industrial zone under the Blue Mountains LEP 2015.”
[2] Clause 4.6 Variation Request, Council Approval Group, 10 March 2026, p.13: proposed height '16.451m (goods lift)' against 12m LEP standard; 'Approximately 37% variation above the development standard.' Additional elements above 12m: emergency staircase, chillers ×3 (2.5m high each), cooling tower, mechanical ventilation.
[3] Noise Impact Assessment (NIA), Soundscape Consulting, 17 February 2026, Table 3.1, p.7: Night-time Rating Background Level (RBL) = 25 dBA, measured over seven days from 5 February 2026.
[4] NIA, p.10: Scenario 1 (no attenuation) — “low frequency noise is significantly higher than background noise levels during the evening and night period.” NIA, p.10–11: Scenario 2 (acoustic louvres) — “low frequency noise is still significantly higher than background and is likely to be audible, though not tonal.” The same finding is noted for Scenario 3 (solid wall + low-noise equipment) at NIA, p.11.
[5] NIA, p.12 (Discussion and Recommendations): “due to the low background noise levels during the night period there is a high risk of low frequency noise intrusion… a detailed mechanical noise assessment which considers low frequency noise shall be conducted prior to the issuing of the construction certificate.”
[6] Bushfire Assessment Report, Statewide Bushfire Consulting, 2 February 2026, p.12: “The building footprint of the development is determined to be located within BAL-FZ.”
[7] Geotechnical Investigation, Benchmark Geotechnical, 13 February 2026, Table 2: SPT N-values of 4–7 in boreholes BH5, BH6 and BH7 (western portion). Boreholes terminated at 2.45m depth; bedrock not confirmed in western locations. Report recommends deep footings into inferred sandstone bedrock at ≥2.45m. Class P classification triggered by Clause 2.5.3 of AS 2870-2011 (controlled fill >400mm). Report notes possible reclassification as Class A for slab construction — an inconsistency that should be resolved before approval.
[8] EP&A Act 1979, s.3.33 [to be verified against current Act numbering]: a council or other relevant planning authority may prepare a planning proposal to seek amendment of an environmental planning instrument, including to prohibit specified development in specified zones.
403
The issue
STOP DATA CENTRES BLUE MOUNTAINS
PETITION: Stop data centres in the Blue Mountains – close the planning loophole now
TO: Blue Mountains Mayor Mark Greenhill and Councillors, asking them to refuse the Katoomba proposal and advocate for stronger local protections; Member for Blue Mountains Trish Doyle MP; and NSW Minister for Planning and Public Spaces Paul Scully MP.
The immediate threat
A Development Application has been lodged for a 1–2 megawatt industrial data centre at 41–45 Barton Street, Katoomba – next to Bureau Park, Yosemite Creek and residential homes, in one of the most environmentally sensitive local government areas in NSW.
We are asking Council to refuse this application, and asking the NSW Government to fix the statewide planning pathway that made it possible.
The longer term threat: Why this DA was possible: the planning loophole
Here's the problem. A blanket statewide planning rule – Clause 2.31 of the NSW State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 – allows data centres to be approved in industrial zones right across NSW. That rule doesn't care what the local area is actually like. It doesn't care that this particular industrial zone sits next to World Heritage bushland, riparian creeks and quiet residential streets.
Even the applicant admits the local rules don't allow a data centre here. Their own planning documents state:
“It is acknowledged that a data centre is not explicitly listed as a permitted land use within the E4 – General Industrial zone under the Blue Mountains LEP 2015.” [1]
So the local rules say no. But a state government rule overrides them – and no one in this community got a say in that. The community had no meaningful say in that statewide rule. It must now be fixed.
Artist images from DA. For a 1–2 MW data centre, you would normally expect visually significant mechanical infrastructure, such as: rooftop chillers, cooling towers or dry coolers, condenser units, ventilation louvres, exhaust stacks, generator exhausts and air intake and discharge infrastructure.
Problems with this specific application at 41–45 Barton Street, Katoomba
(View and download documents in DA X/419/2026)
HEIGHT – 37% taller than the rules allow
The Blue Mountains LEP 2015 sets a maximum building height of 12 metres. The proposed building’s roof structures reach 16.451 metres – a 37% exceedance requiring a Clause 4.6 variation.
The variation should be refused. The overshoot is not a minor architectural feature. The structures that exceed 12 metres include the goods lift overrun, emergency staircase, three rooftop chillers, cooling tower and mechanical ventilation – all of which are integral to the data centre's operation and directly responsible for the facility's noise, visual and amenity impacts. The Clause 4.6 report itself acknowledges that these are ancillary to the data centre use; they cannot be dismissed as incidental. [2]
NOISE – unresolved low-frequency intrusion
Katoomba at night is genuinely quiet. The night-time Rating Background Level is just 25 dBA – an extremely quiet acoustic environment. Their own noise report modelled three different equipment scenarios. In every single one, low-frequency noise was still significantly above that background level at night. Even the 'best case' scenario – the one they're calling compliant – still produces low-frequency noise that the report says 'is likely to be audible.' [3, 4]
The acoustic consultant recommends that a detailed mechanical noise assessment be completed before the Construction Certificate. That means noise compliance is still theoretical at DA stage and depends on future design, equipment selection and mitigation measures that have not yet been demonstrated. [5]
BUSHFIRE – BAL-FZ Flame Zone risk
Every square metre of the proposed building sits in a BAL-FZ Flame Zone – the highest bushfire attack level, associated with direct flame contact. [6]
The proposal includes large-scale electrical infrastructure, UPS battery banks and diesel generators. Whilst the bushfire report nominates non-combustible construction as a mitigation measure, it does not specifically address the risk profile of battery storage systems and diesel fuel in a BAL-FZ environment. This interaction has not been adequately demonstrated as acceptable at DA stage.
GEOTECHNICAL – soft fill and problematic foundations
Drill tests on the western part of the site found very weak ground – bearing capacity scores of just 4 to 7 (the test is called an SPT N-value; rock-solid ground scores well above 50). The boreholes in the western portion terminated at 2.45 metres without confirming bedrock; the geotechnical report recommends deep footings into inferred sandstone bedrock at or below 2.45 metres. [7]
Class P is a problematic foundation classification. The geotechnical evidence indicates that parts of the site require careful foundation design, while other documentation appears to suggest limited excavation. This inconsistency should be resolved before any approval is granted.
What we are asking for
We, the undersigned, call on Blue Mountains City Council and the NSW Minister for Planning to:
- Refuse DA X/419/2026 at 41–45 Barton Street, Katoomba, on the grounds of excessive building height, unresolved low-frequency noise impacts, inadequate certainty around operational plant noise, and unacceptable risk given the BAL-FZ rating in combination with battery storage and generator infrastructure.
[SUBMIT YOUR OBJECTION TO COUNCIL BY JULY 8 - SEE BELOW] - Blue Mountains City Council to formally declare that industrial-scale data centres are not suitable for the Blue Mountains, because they conflict with the area’s environment, heritage, residential communities, biodiversity and serious bushfire risk.
- Blue Mountains City Council and the NSW Minister for Planning to close the planning loophole that allows data centres in Blue Mountains industrial zones, including by exempting the Blue Mountains from the relevant statewide planning rules and strengthening the Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan 2015 to better control data centres and similar 24/7 industrial digital infrastructure. [8]
The Blue Mountains is not an industrial corridor.
The E4 General Industrial zone in the Blue Mountains must be interpreted in its local context: a World Heritage-adjacent city, with sensitive bushland, riparian corridors, quiet residential areas and serious bushfire risk.
It was not designed for energy-hungry digital infrastructure drawing 1–2 megawatts, generating constant mechanical noise from chillers, cooling towers and ventilation systems, and placing battery banks and diesel generators on Flame Zone land — infrastructure that runs continuously regardless of stated business hours.
Sign this petition to tell Council and the NSW Government: Tell Council and the NSW Government: not here, not like this.
#StopDataCentresBlueMountains
Campaign by Stop Data Centres Blue Mountains (email us)
(In alliance with No Data Centre in Katoomba NDCIK (join Facebook group)
SUBMIT YOUR OBJECTION TO COUNCIL FOR KATOOMBA PROPOSAL
You must lodge your objection by 8 July 2026 using the following details:
Email: Send your letter to council@bmcc.nsw.gov.au.
Subject Line: Use subject line: "FORMAL OBJECTION - Development Application X/419/2026".
Content:
In your objection, clearly state your name and address. State that you object to the application and request its refusal. Include your reasons, such as height exceedance (including rooftop plant: chillers, cooling tower, lift overrun), unresolved low-frequency noise, bushfire risk, battery and generator infrastructure, impacts on residential amenity, and the site's sensitive environmental context.
=======
Footnotes
[1] SoEE, p.7: “It is acknowledged that a data centre is not explicitly listed as a permitted land use within the E4 – General Industrial zone under the Blue Mountains LEP 2015.”
[2] Clause 4.6 Variation Request, Council Approval Group, 10 March 2026, p.13: proposed height '16.451m (goods lift)' against 12m LEP standard; 'Approximately 37% variation above the development standard.' Additional elements above 12m: emergency staircase, chillers ×3 (2.5m high each), cooling tower, mechanical ventilation.
[3] Noise Impact Assessment (NIA), Soundscape Consulting, 17 February 2026, Table 3.1, p.7: Night-time Rating Background Level (RBL) = 25 dBA, measured over seven days from 5 February 2026.
[4] NIA, p.10: Scenario 1 (no attenuation) — “low frequency noise is significantly higher than background noise levels during the evening and night period.” NIA, p.10–11: Scenario 2 (acoustic louvres) — “low frequency noise is still significantly higher than background and is likely to be audible, though not tonal.” The same finding is noted for Scenario 3 (solid wall + low-noise equipment) at NIA, p.11.
[5] NIA, p.12 (Discussion and Recommendations): “due to the low background noise levels during the night period there is a high risk of low frequency noise intrusion… a detailed mechanical noise assessment which considers low frequency noise shall be conducted prior to the issuing of the construction certificate.”
[6] Bushfire Assessment Report, Statewide Bushfire Consulting, 2 February 2026, p.12: “The building footprint of the development is determined to be located within BAL-FZ.”
[7] Geotechnical Investigation, Benchmark Geotechnical, 13 February 2026, Table 2: SPT N-values of 4–7 in boreholes BH5, BH6 and BH7 (western portion). Boreholes terminated at 2.45m depth; bedrock not confirmed in western locations. Report recommends deep footings into inferred sandstone bedrock at ≥2.45m. Class P classification triggered by Clause 2.5.3 of AS 2870-2011 (controlled fill >400mm). Report notes possible reclassification as Class A for slab construction — an inconsistency that should be resolved before approval.
[8] EP&A Act 1979, s.3.33 [to be verified against current Act numbering]: a council or other relevant planning authority may prepare a planning proposal to seek amendment of an environmental planning instrument, including to prohibit specified development in specified zones.
Supporter voices
Petition Updates
Share this petition
Petition created on 21 June 2026