Cooks River AI data center removed from Sydney redevelopment plan
Developers dropped the Cooks River AI data center from their Sydney redevelopment plan on Nov. 7. Brisbane Times reported 593 objections among 665 submissions.
The Cooks River AI data center was planned as part of the Cooks Cove redevelopment of the former Kogarah Golf Club site at Arncliffe, Sydney. On Saturday, November 7, 2026, its developers, Stockland and John Boyd Properties, said the amended concept master plan no longer includes a data center. ABC News and the Brisbane Times reported the change the next day.
Key points
- A developer spokesperson said the amended concept master plan does not include a data center, and that planning continues for a logistics precinct.
- The NSW Planning Portal still lists application SSD-84467726 at “Response to Submissions” and does not record the withdrawal.
- A NSW parliamentary committee tabled its data-centres report on November 5, recommending cumulative impact assessment and hourly renewable power. The recommendations are not binding.
Background
The developer’s community page says the Kogarah Golf Club Redevelopment is now known as GXSydney. ABC News describes the rezoned site as 18.3 hectares beside the Cooks River. The concept plan was on public exhibition from June 10 to July 7, 2026, and the page says a response to submissions is being prepared.
The Leader reported on October 8 that the data center’s area was 25,400 square meters and that the whole redevelopment was worth A$2.8 billion. ABC News put the estimated logistics precinct at A$3.5 billion, so the two figures do not match. One portal submission also says the concept lists data centers as an “alternative use” across five development blocks, and that the proponents describe this as a minor flexibility provision. The material reviewed does not explain how that fits with the 25,400-square-meter data center.
The outlets also name the developers differently. ABC lists Stockland and John Boyd Properties; the Brisbane Times names only Stockland. No report names an owner, operator, investor or technology partner for the data center, and the portal does not list an applicant. What the reporting establishes is that a data center was removed from the plan, not that any AI company lost capacity it had committed to.
The facts
The key records for the Cooks River withdrawal are listed below.
| Item | What the record shows | Source and date |
|---|---|---|
| Withdrawal | Developers said on Saturday, Nov. 7, that the amended plan has no data center | Brisbane Times, Nov. 8, 2026 |
| Submissions | 665 received: 593 objected, 3 supported, the rest neutral | Brisbane Times, Nov. 8, 2026 |
| Portal | 655 submissions listed; status “Response to Submissions”; no withdrawal recorded | NSW Planning Portal, viewed Nov. 9, 2026 |
| Developer page | Exhibition dates listed; no mention of a data center or a withdrawal | Project community page, viewed Nov. 9, 2026 |
Three media outlets have reported the withdrawal. ABC News and the Brisbane Times reported it on November 8; on November 9, The Saturday Paper quoted a developer spokesperson confirming that the revised plan no longer includes a data center. The portal and the developer’s community page still do not record the change.
The two submission counts differ by ten, and the material reviewed does not explain why. The portal shows no tally of objections or support, so the 593 objections can be checked only against the Brisbane Times.
The NSW government released its Data Centre Policy Framework and Guidelines on August 17, 2026. The guidelines require proponents to fund additional water and energy supply. Developers seeking streamlined assessment must comply, and projects that meet the performance measures receive a commitment to assessment within 75 days. The public record does not say whether this project is being assessed under those rules.
What others say
Bayside Council asked the state to remove the data center from the Cooks River proposal. It objected to the project’s height and scale, to shadow on Pemulwuy Park, and raised doubts about protecting five nearby Moreton Bay fig trees (The Leader; Brisbane Times). A Bayside Greens councillor called the withdrawal heartening and said councils should have more veto power over data centers (ABC News).
The Stop the Cooks River AI Project (SCRAP) organizer called it a win for people power. The group will keep opposing the riverside logistics hub and wants a ban on all new AI data centers (ABC News; Brisbane Times). The developer called the change a business decision and said it will keep engaging stakeholders (Brisbane Times; ABC News). The Canterbury MP wants a revised master plan with a public foreshore link along the Cooks River, plus road upgrades and active transport links (ABC News; Brisbane Times).
The inquiry chair described the planned data center pipeline as a threat to very large energy and water use (Renew Economy). The inquiry also said the guidelines should have been in place before fast-track planning processes began (ABC News).
Opponents and the developer frame the same decision differently. The public record cannot settle which framing is closer to the facts.
Our take
The withdrawal changes the content of the Cooks River proposal, not the whole precinct. The developer calls it a business choice, and ABC News covered it against a backdrop of local backlash. Both can be true, but nothing public shows that opposition was the sole cause.
The developer’s statement covers the amended master plan. It does not rule out a later filing that includes a data center, so until a revised file is public, the defensible claim is narrower: the current amended plan does not include one.
For infrastructure planners, the case shows that approval risk is not only power and land. Local submissions, council objections and state assessment rules all shape whether a proposal reaches approval. Frontier Now has covered how data-center siting entered the US midterm debate and how coordinated protests spread across 15 European countries. The Cooks River case is earlier in the process: it shows acceptance can reshape a proposal, not that every contested project will be dropped.
What to watch
Four open questions will show how complete the withdrawal is.
- The government’s response to the inquiry is due by February 5, 2027.
- No date has been published for a revised concept master plan, and the portal page showed no revised file when checked on Nov. 9.
- The 665 and 655 submission counts remain unreconciled, and the A$3.5 billion and A$2.8 billion project values have not been checked against an official document.
- No public source gives the project’s total power demand, annual water use or cooling design, the figures needed to judge its environmental footprint.