Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Connection

I can’t see that there’s been any studies into what else we can do to improve movement to & from the city etc there must be a better way! 2- unfiltered stacks! there will be no filtration of the stacks for pollution which will effect the health of young & old -3 pollution of the harbour as a result of dredging releasing contaminants, we will no longer feel safe using beaches like Clontarf, plus 428 Litres of waste water pumped into Queenscliff each day may make this an unusable area! -4 destruction of habitat - they have detailed 23 species under threat in the EIS , but there will be more! Burnt bridge creek will probably dry up due to a potential 96% reduction in water flow! - 5 vibration & construction noise that residents will be subjected to over a 7 year period! Also the clogging up of local streets with cars parked by workers, and the traffic it will bring into local streets 6 taking away a beautiful golf course a lovely open space will be distroyed! - I have lived in this area all my life I don’t want it distroyed in a rush to do something that hasn’t been
looked into properly, since COVID many things have changed we do t need this!

I wish to lodge my objections to the beaches link tunnel based on the following points ; -
I am deeply concerned about the plans for the Beaches Link Tunnel and Gore Hill Freeway Connection Project and how they impact the Seaforth Public School community and surrounding areas.

• I object to the increased pollution that the exhaust stacks at Balgowlah and Seaforth will cause to our area.
Health experts from across the world agree that traffic exhaust pollution poses serious health risks and numerous independent studies have proven that inhalation of emissions can cause respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and cancer. There is no safe level of exposure to these types of cancer-causing emissions. At the very least we should be doing everything we can to eliminate these harmful emissions. The stacks should at the very least be filtered in-line with world best practice.

My children attend Seaforth Public School (~450metres from the proposed Balgowlah exhaust stack), we live on nearby to the school (~350metres from the proposed Balgowlah exhaust stack). I fear for the health of my children growing up in this area and for future generations, the noise and vibration impact alone will make it difficult for teachers and students to learn, let alone the pollution which has the potential to pose serious health risks.

In a 2008 speech to NSW parliament Gladys Berejiklian slammed the then Labor Government for proposing unfiltered exhaust stacks for the Lane Cove Tunnel. She said, "World's best practice is to filter tunnels”, “Why won't they allow people sleep at night, knowing their children aren't inhaling toxins that could jeopardise their health now or in the future?". What has changed since 2008? Why is it now acceptable to have unfiltered stacks?

We should not take risks when it comes to child health and safety. Earlier plans, noted in the Environment Impact Statement, make clear that alternative arrangements are possible. As a condition of approval the tunnel entrance should be positioned to ensure the Beaches Link Tunnel entrance and construction works are moved further from Seaforth Public School and other nearby schools, to help ensure child and community safety.

• I object to the 5+ years of construction and I object to the noise and dust pollution that residents will have to endure over this period which will have a detrimental effect on physical and mental health.
As a condition of approval, night work should not be at the discretion of the contractors, but the community should be informed of the full list of conditions that determine when night work can be conducted. As a condition of approval, restrictions must be placed on the volume, timings and direction of truck movements carrying spoil from the Balgowlah work site. As a condition of approval, no tunneling works should be conducted outside of the acoustic sheds and within the standard construction hours. As a condition of approval, TfNSW must inform the community now what the strategies to mitigate construction noise are. Rather than a sort it out later attitude. Independent assessments of noise and vibration impacts from construction on all properties with noise and vibration above management levels should be completed and provided to property owners before construction commences. Any exceedances found should then be mitigated prior to construction beginning. TfNSW, or an independent body, must also be responsible for monitoring contractor compliance on construction noise and breaches met with appropriate penalties.

• I object to the increased traffic congestion this project will cause to the local area during construction and after completion.
The resent bus changes in the North Balgowlah and Seaforth area have made the interchange at Seaforth roundabout busier, how will the interchange cope with one truck every 83 mins passing through? It doesn’t seem right that this project can cause such disruption to local traffic and the official response is that it is up to Northern Beaches Council to fix the problem. As a condition of approval, TfNSW must work with Northern Beaches Council to remedy all issues that the project causes to the local traffic network. During construction, our streets are likely to be impacted not just by increased traffic but also parking by contractors trying to access the work sites. As a condition of approval, contractors should not be permitted to park on local streets but should be encouraged to use public transport or shuttle buses to access the work site.

• I object to the destruction of the environment.
We live in a beautiful suburb which will be irrevocably destroyed by this project. Water flow in Burnt Bridge Creek will reduce by up to 96% after completion of the project. Many species will be negatively impacted. The potential contamination of water quality in Manly Dam and run off to Queenscliff beach are also of great concern. Not only to the destructive effect on the local flora and fauna but also to the many thousands of people who use the Dam socially and swim at Queenscliff.

• I object to the fact that the business case for this project has never been released to the public, and as a condition of approval, it should be.
The business case should show evidence of the travel time savings that are constantly quoted, the benefits to congestion and how the $14+ billion to be spent on this project will benefit our area. I would also suggest that the modelling previously conducted on traffic volumes is now completely out of date given the increase in people working from home. The adoption of this work methodology has been a necessity of COVID but it is here to stay as employees and employers see the benefits of a better work/life balance.

We should be looking at ways of improving and increasing public transport to and from the city, the B Line bus service being an excellent example, not implementing a multibillion-dollar project that will only increase car usage and congestion whilst destroying the lives of those living within the local area and causing irreparable damage to our environment.

I object to the Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Connection Project.

As a resident of Grafton Ave which is only accessible from the peak of flat rock drive / brook street I am extremely concerned about the safety of my family getting in and out of our street during the 5 year construction period. This already dangerous intersection will only be less safe as a result of increased traffic and large trucks. Also the fact the $14bn expected cost is currently unfunded- a reckless approach by the government and given past infrastructure projects (eg Sydney trams) will no doubt not be the final cost. Finally I am deeply concerned about the environmental impacts including the destruction of bush land at flat rock gully and disturbance /dredging on middle harbour.

This is the first time I’ve written to object to any sort of development proposal. In general I am very supportive of progress and I do genuinely want to see Sydney be at the forefront internationally when it comes to things like quality of living, infrastructure and sustainability.

When I first heard about the Northern Beaches Tunnel proposal I instinctively thought “if it eliminates congestion on Military Road then it’s a probably a good thing.” But the more I read, the more information I gathered (or discovered certain information couldn’t be provided to me…), the more I spoke to NSW Government/Beaches Link representatives, the more it became clear. This proposal is reprehensible and I object to it completely.

I am a Northbridge resident. My family and I stand to receive no gain whatsoever from this project. We won’t be able to access the tunnel to travel to or from the Northern Beaches faster, instead we will have to put up with years of disruption and irreversible damage to our beautiful, quiet, leafy suburb. It will not in any way add to the value of my property like it will for some who have easy access to the tunnel. But to object to the proposal on those grounds only would be selfish. I object to this short-sighted project for the following reasons;

1. I object to the project due to the contamination risks it presents to the environment and to human health and the negative impact on our precious waterways and green spaces. My family and I are frequent users of Flat Rock Gully for walks and bike rides. We would be devastated to see this beautiful area destroyed, particularly after decades of rejuvenation by bushcare groups. Green spaces are essential to community health and we need to protect them at all costs.

2. I object to the project due to the scale and extent in sensitive residential areas and foreshore environments. Digging into and exposing contaminants in the former dump, which is the proposed dig site, will endanger the health of all locals. Dredging in the harbour that we swim and kayak in will expose us to harmful toxins and render us unable to enjoy recreational use of our beautiful waterways for years to come. To take away the opportunities for my children to enjoy these pastimes - one of the reasons we moved to this area - is particularly upsetting.

3. I object to the project due to the unreasonable adverse impacts on the quality of life of residents during the tunnel construction and operation. The number of trucks entering and exiting the dive site at Flat Rock Drive will add ridiculous delays to local travel and funnel traffic through Northbridge Junction, severely impeding Northbridge residents' ability to enter and exit the suburb. The toxic diesel fumes from trucks are also of great concern to me, as our health will be put at risk to be exposed in such close proximity for five years or more.

4. I object to the project due to the threat to our biodiversity and green spaces. It is essential that we preserve the trees that filter our air, reduce the incidence of global warming and provide shelter to our local fauna. Never have green spaces been more important than during the last year, in the midst of a pandemic, when people are seeking solace in open air spaces – especially so close to the city.

5. I object to the project as it is a tolled road and there is little evidence that it will alleviate current congestion. On the contrary, more roads equals more cars and less incentive for people to use public transport. Sydney absolutely needs improved public transport options, not more tolled roads that lead to resentment and fuel the greed of tunnel operators.

6. I object to the project as it has a poor climate profile at a time when we should be looking to projects which reduce our emissions and reduce reliance on cars. If you were serious about lessening congestion and helping move residents to and from the Northern Beaches why has a train line not been included in the proposal? You’ll find John Bradfield proposed a train line to the Northern Beaches (Northbridge to Seaforth) around the time of planning for the Harbour Bridge in the 1920s. The fact that nearly a century later governments still default to the easier options of just building roads is shameful.

7. I object to the project as there has been no publicly published business case and the costs demonstrated in the EIS far outweigh any potential benefits.

8. I object to the project as the smoke stacks set to be installed will expel putrid, toxic fumes into my neighbourhood. Locating these stacks near schools is simply unacceptable – especially in this day and age.

9. I object to the project because when I asked a NSW Government/Northern Beaches Link representative what benefits would there be for Northbridge residents the answer was very telling. After a moment they said “we’d hope that there would be a bit less traffic on Eastern Valley Way.” Not in the last 7+ years of living in the area and driving on Eastern Valley Way in either direction have I ever thought congestion was a problem. Even if it was, all of the above objections far outweigh that very loose unsubstantiated benefit.

As I said at the beginning, I am very much for progress of our great city and I’m generally in favour of legacy projects. But this short-sighted proposal is a missed opportunity to transform Sydney into a world class, healthy and sustainable city, with a strong public transport system. The EIS clearly demonstrates that this toll road will be extremely expensive to build, with excessive risks and very little long term benefit. If it managed to go ahead I feel it will be looked back on as a very poor decision by future generations.

I would ask that an alternative public transport feasibility study be published before any further planning occurs so that impacts and outcomes can be fairly compared.

I wish to see the EIS reissued for public consultation with a full Phase 2 Contamination Assessment completed; a comparative mass transit alternative assessment and a business case which justifies travel times claimed, reassesses surface traffic impact (more recently than 2016) and includes fully scoped costs.

Right now the proposed Northern Beaches Link is a half-baked idea that is far outweighed by negative outcomes. We all owe it to ourselves and future generations, to take the required time to ensure ‘progress’ is something we can genuinely be proud of. I believe that together we can and must do better.

I would only support the train or light rail to Northern Beaches. The new roads wind up reproducing the same stop-start pattern as before – only with more traffic
In the late 1990s a government report showed that new roads did not ease congestion; they encouraged more car use. Studies in the US have shown that doubling road capacity can double traffic.
By the way, what's happened to the underpath between Serpentine Cres at North Balgowlah to Dudley Street at Baglowalh.

Thanks.

Regards, Ken Kwong

Objecting on the grounds of pollution, disruption to the area, loss of common sporting grounds, and increased overload on local roads.

I consider the position of the smoke stacks which are unfiltered to be an unacceptable risk to human health. The matter is complex and has not been properly modelled or understood. The studies undertaken for air modelling have averaged out component particle measures over a twenty four hour period rather than taking into account peak traffic periods. All air stacks will increase air toxins in the area. The Balgowlah exhaust stack is significant as it is located at a low point in the valley, meaning that distribution of particles will occur over homes and schools.
The risk to students at Balgowlah Boys is not properly assessed, the students are not listed as a sensitive receptor site for no reason and they should be. We only have two public high schools in this area for local students and to ruin their amenity is significant and distressing. The school is 300m away from the project and across the road from the construction site. I am concerned about overall human health impacts which have not been properly assessed.
Dispersing fumes from cars and trucks into our area will reduce overall air quality.
I am also concerned about the removal of a significant amount of native vegetation and tree removal which will reduce overall environmental quality and residential surrounds in this area.
There will be 5-7 years of drilling and construction works next to Balgowlah Golf course which will produce noise, dust and traffic disruption.
There will be an increase in local traffic patterns causing heavier traffic flow in local areas.
I think the whole proposal should be put on hold until such time that the air from the stacks can be dealt with via a filtering mechanism and the impact to local high schools is properly assessed. If there is a significant impact of the project in terms of particles in air and destruction of the environment - the whole project should not proceed.

With Cammeray being inundated with young families I have grave concerns to the disruption and health risk that these works will create for our children’s future. The smoke stacks need to be filtered with consistency to health check the quality of air being submitted from these now and in future.

I object to the project. There is no reasonable benefit for this outdated concept. THe traffic reduction will be minimal.

The impact of dangerous unfiltered stack emissions on the local children, of which I have three, is terrifying and unjustified. Please consider filtering stacks. The environmental impact on the local flora and fauna is unacceptable. Manly dam is a wonderful local area of significant value.

The construction noise is not acceptable and unjustified.

The Project team has failed to constructively involved the local residents of Serpentine Cres to alivate concerns around noise and vibration. Virtual community forums were highlevel and answers failed to address specifics. Serpentine Cres less than 100m from construction site) on noise, the existing noise wall currently contains a 40m gap that the plan fails to address no assurances have been given to residents about quality of life living with 24/7 construction noise. Furthermore no decision has been made on traffic movement routes for the trucks and support vehicles. Will Serpentine Cres be off limits to employees working on the tunnel with respect to parking?

Tunnelling at 10-15m below ground results in vibration outside of acceptable levels for human comfort.

Air quality concerns from unfiltered stacks so close to 4 public schools and numerous child care centers.
EIS fails to acknowledge International studies about air quality.
Disappointing that the project plan sees the entrance moved closer to Seaforth School.
Double standard within political circles here also with the Premier and Other Ministers now (once in power) supportive of unfiltered stacks.

Concerns for the eco system and natural water table once the work hub site is established.

No real evaluation of additional public transport options considered.

Objection: Beaches Link Tunnel
We are the residents of Westlake Place, Balgowlah. Our community is located in the area labelled LCA 50.1 and located on the Western side of Wanganella Street between Sydney Road and Brighton Street, right next to Balgowlah Golf Course (BGC). We are a close-knit little community that’s has been and is still being torn apart by this proposal. We have recently seen a number of the community who have lived here for many years move on partly as a result of this proposal. New families have moved in who are equally upset by the significant impact this project would have on their lives for years to come.
We write to express our strong objection to the Beaches Link Tunnel.
It is proven globally that the toll road construction projects like this increase air pollution, encourage more car use and soon fill the increased road capacity they create. These projects also severely impact the lives of people surrounding the construction zone for years and then also impact them once the tunnel is in operation.
This submission lists some of our objections
This Project:
• Fails to adequately address the real impacts to our cul de sac, especially noise, air quality and health impacts, we are particularly close to the construction sites and once in operation the unfiltered exhaust stack.
• Introduces risks to our properties as our homes are located in the area highlighted in the EIS as at risk of damage from vibrations, settlement and ground movement.
• Has impacted and will continue to impact the value of properties close to the construction sites. Property owners are disenfranchised in their financial life choices for the many years between this proposal being put on the table and its completion and potentially beyond;
• Does not mandate the filtration of exhaust stacks, at a risk to public health including children at local schools, day care centres, and local families. There are families with young children in Westlake Place situated within 500 metres of the suggested unfiltered exhaust stack location. In addition to those in Westlake Place there are many schools and families situated within 500 metres of the suggested unfiltered exhaust stack location. The exhaust fumes will affect the health of literally 10s of thousands of children. We are extremely concerned by the inconsistencies of the modelling in the EIS with regard to the RWR receptors in BGC, which I understand is the modelled exposure to serious pollutants on the local residents from the exhaust stack in BGC. This inconsistency adds the lack of confidence in the modelling numbers from the exhaust fumes withing the BGC valley.
- The exhaust stacks in BGC MUST be filtered, if it cannot be filtered the tunnel should not be built;
• Is not justified by any publicly released business case.
The Balgowlah Golf Course (BGC) site which will be used as a tunnel excavation site will place our small community under unacceptable pressure for 7 years or more due to:
• Excessive construction noise over at least 7 years. Excessive noise causes stress, impacts sleep and reduces quality of life. Ongoing noise can seriously impact people's mental health.
• Ineffective dust mitigation, a large amount of dust is expected to be generated by tunnelling, truck movements, earthworks concrete manufacturing and the very fact that some of the spoil is intended to be used to flatten the site for post build reconstruction. Our households are likely to not be able to open doors and windows or hang washing outside for much of the construction period (over 7 years).
• Increased truck movements. The Project will generate 495 heavy vehicle movements and 1195 light vehicle movements per day at the Balgowlah Golf Course site which is already subject to capacity traffic movements at both Sydney Road and Burnt Bridge Creek Deviation. - Increased traffic on local roads and truck stack parking decreases existing residential amenity and lessens land value. It also puts the safety of our local children at risk.
• Construction workers parking in our cul de sac and local streets and trucks parking in local streets waiting to pick up spoil will significantly affect the ability of local residents to find a place to park their vehicles - The contractor must be required to provide parking for 100% of workers on site to protect resident amenity. Local Government must Introduce local resident parking zones and monitor illegal parking.
• Both during construction and when in operation the increased traffic on Wanganella Street will result in us not being able to exit from Westlake Place into Wanganella Street in times before Covid 19 it was a problem but the traffic numbers then would have been much less than when Wanganella is being used as a rat run and also as a way of access the tunnel.
• Westlake Place is highlighted in EIS documents as being expected to suffer during the construction phase of 7 years from intolerable noise, vibration, dust and light impacts this will make our lives in some instances unbearable. Construction fatigue at varying levels would be expected to be experienced by our community. All of this will result for example in a lack of sleep and an inability to focus on work tasks; mental health etc.
• Westlake Place is highlighted in EIS documents as being expected to suffer when in operation from ambient light; noise from playing fields not currently experienced. There is an assumption made that the proposed new playing fields would be seen as preferrable to the exiting golf course. All of this will result for example in a lack of sleep and an inability to focus on work tasks. We do not agree with this assumption and questions its basis.
• Parking in our cul de sac by users of the proposed post construction sports facilities would significantly affect the ability of local residents to find a place to park their vehicles – The Northern Beaches Council must introduce local resident parking zones in the area and monitor illegal parking. The parking period should be 1 hour maximum as 2 hours would not prevent non locals filling the availabke street parking.
• Post completion the proposal is to reconfigure the current natural looking landscape full of trees and flora and fauna, used by many local residents including those in Westlake Place into a collection of car parks, playing fields and amenity buildings. Noise from shouting and whistles associated with many sports will negatively impact some residents. The proposed configuration will introduce ambient light and direct light at night to a number of residents who do not have any such affects currently. This will affect them significantly and options for adequate alternatives or compensation from the Northern Beaches council or NSW Government should be offered to affected residents.
• Stress as a result of the proposal and construction has and will continue to have an impact on the mental health of some in our community.
• The visual representations currently presented in the EIS do not correctly portray the visual impact of the motorway facilities building and exhaust stack in the Balgowlah Golf Course to the surrounding properties. A number of properties in Westlake Place will be able to see the exhaust Stack from their homes we do not accept the impact of this on their lives, health or property value.
• Potential impacts to our properties in terms of damage from vibration or changed water table. The EIS shows that some of our properties fall into the area of suffering potential cosmetic damage from vibrations. The NSW Government or the tunnel contractor MUST offer the services of an independent specialist to prepare a report of the pre-construction state of the resident properties prior to commencement of the project at no cost to the residents. We expect that the NSW Government or construction company will pay for repairing to a proper standard any damage to any property.

For and on behalf of the owners and residents of:
1 Westlake Place, 1/2 Westlake Place, 2/2 Westlake Place, 1/3 Westlake Place, 2/3 Westlake Place, 1/4 Westlake Place, 2/4 Westlake Place, 5 Westlake Place

I am opposed to the general premise of the business case to the Beaches Link. There is no true benefit to the northern beaches nor Seaforth. Unfiltered stacks are completely unacceptable. I fully support the submission associated with my address and am identified as a sensitive receiver within it. .

I object to this project for a number of reasons:
• Business case
o Everyone should be worried when their government refuses to release the business case. Withholding information from the public who are the actual people paying for the proposed Beaches tunnel is highly suspicious. One has to ask the question ‘why isn’t the business case easily public accessible?
o Where are the forecasted figures for how many commuters would take the tunnel from Manly Vale? I can see that commuters living further up the peninsula such as Dee Why and further north could possibly choose to take the entrance to the tunnel on Wakehurst parkway but I question whether commuters further south would use the tunnel starting at Manly Vale. Is the tunnel from Manly Vale required, is there sufficient data supporting this?
• Health concerns
o Physical health: International studies have shown the dangers to health, particularly in children, of being near many open lanes of traffic. This includes increases in asthma and impacts on child brain development. The entrance on Burnt Bridge deviation would increase traffic lanes from 6 to 12 near a number of schools, including a traffic light, and add a nearby smoke stack. We should not take risks when it comes to childrens’ health and safety. This was the position expressed by Planning Minister Rob Stokes, when he was Education Minister, stating: “I won’t be party to putting stacks near kids … There is no way in hell that I’d support any development¬ that would put the lives of pupils, teachers and parents at risk”. In addition to this, the earlier plans for the tunnel, shared with Seaforth Public school community indicated that the tunnel entrance would be further from the school compared to the latest plans. Now the Environmental Impact Statement indicates that the tunnel entrance, including 12 lanes of traffic, smoke stack and related construction works, with impacts for air quality, noise and vibration, will be directly parallel with the school. While modeling indicates air quality may improve slightly for the school area, that is based on expected traffic patterns. Actual traffic patterns will depend on many factors, such as whether good public transport options are created through well-designed and well-used express bus services through the tunnel, which have yet to be determined. The planned privatisation of NSW bus services adds more uncertainty and cause for concern for that factor.
o Mental health – the path next to Burnt Bridge Creek provides residents with a safe and shady area to exercise and commute either by walking, cycling or exercising your dog. It increases our mental health being and has provided a vital function during the lockdown and also afterwards when more people are choosing to stay at home and work. Having 96% of the water disappearing once completed will reduce this area’s appeal and health benefits.
• Public transport – With the plans of increasing dwellings on the Northern beaches and particularly around the Northern Beaches Hospital, more people will need to commute. The future for commuting should be through improved environmental friendly public transport, not for people travelling in individual cars. Prior to committing to developing a $14 billion dollars tunnel, a more thorough review on alternative public transports needs to be completed and shared e.g. a train line from Chatswood to Dee Why following Warringah Road with a stop a the hospital might be a viable option. We should ensure public transport is working prior to committing to building the tunnel. The B-line seems to have improved the commute for certain commuters but for the community of North Balgowlah the opposite has in fact occurred. Changes to NSW buses in late 2020, without community consultation, has left commuters with unreliable buses (either late or don’t show up) and a trip to the city taking 10 to 15min longer (one way) and that excludes the time walking to the bus stop since the bus stops have also changed. Balgowlah is the one of the communities that will also be most affected by the actual building of the tunnel i.e. our roads will be used for trucks (even though exact roads have not yet been determined), how long will a trip to the city take during the many years of building the tunnel? We’re also the community that probably won’t’ save time on taking the tunnel but paying for it in all other aspects. What will be done to reduce travel time particularly during the many years it will take to build the tunnel?
• Environmental impact
o Burnt Bridge creek that runs through North Balgowlah is home to a range of animals and flora. It’s a vital ecological corridor of regenerated habitat. The construction and tunnelling activities are projected to reduce the natural water flow of the creek by 79%. This will have a devastating effect on the plants and animals that currently rely on the creek. As part of construction, approximately 400,000 litres of wastewater per day will be discharged into the creek from the site that will run into Queenscliff lagoon. The site is categorised as flood-prone, and it is unacceptable for any waste water, pollutants or contamination by construction soils to enter the creek system and impact all catchment areas downstream. The NSW government claims that 90% of the site will be returned after construction as public green space, however this is only achieved by the acquisition of 34 homes on Dudley St, and the community questions how usable this green space will be next to large roads and an unfiltered exhaust stack.
o Middle Harbour - Sediment samples revealed levels above safe guidelines of heavy metals, mercury, lead and pesticides. If released during dredging, these would have devastating impacts upon the seagrass, aquatic life including endangered marine species such as the White’s seahorse, and people enjoying swimming, boating and fishing in the surrounding areas of the Spit, Clontarf, Beauty Point and Sailors Bay.

I am strongly opposed to the proposal in its current form as the environmental, public health, societal and economic costs of the project are unacceptably high and the benefits questionable. In particular, there is significant impacts on biodiversity and water quality, at, adjacent and downstream of all the proposed sites. The significance of these impacts, at both the construction and operational phase of the proposal, have been clearly identified and quantified in the EIS.
The EIS makes numerous subjective claims regarding the severity of biodiversity and water quality impacts. Impacts on terrestrial biodiversity are highlighted by the quantum of ecosystem and species credits required for offsetting. The impacts are ‘direct’, meaning complete destruction and removal of bushland, habitat and fauna residing in the construction footprints and ‘indirect’, meaning the detrimental flow on effects from construction activities and the operation of the road. Avoidance and mitigation should always take preference over offsetting. And if offsetting has to be used it should benefit the sites or areas which are being so dramatically impacted (destroyed) by the construction activities and road operation.

Due to the sensitive nature of many of waterways downstream of the sites, TfNSW should be looking to achieve neutral or beneficial impact on water quality, at both the construction and operational phases. At present the modelling in the EIS indicate this is not the case and this is unacceptable.

Furthermore, the EIS fails to make the case for the Beaches Link as a transport solution for the Northern Beaches; ignores support for public transport solutions; ignores recent shifts in working patterns; reveals serious risks to the health, safety and amenity of local residents during both construction and operation and fails to provide accurate air quality data

We write to express our strong objection to the Beaches Link Tunnel and the repurposing of what is now the Balgowlah Golf Course for the following reasons;

At the outset of the project there was never any intention to interfere with the Balgowlah Golf Course and adjacent oval. It was only when one group of residents complained loudly (and successfully) to have the project moved from their backyard that it turned up in our backyard!

We purchased our property in good faith with its views over the golf course. There were never any plans to change the golf course. The current proposal removes a significant number of trees from the golf course, in particular a massive and majestic gum tree that provides shelter to our home from the hot western sun. This tree along with many others is home to significant bird life. A previous proposal showed open grassland as our new outlook. The current proposal shows a utilities building and car park. We object strongly.

We understand that the project will take at least 5 years to complete. During that time we will be impacted by the continual noise associated with the construction, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. We work from home on a regular basis. The continual construction noise will make that extremely difficult. Our streets will be clogged with additional traffic - trucks, worker vehicles and the like. Residents will be severely impacted with lack of parking for their own vehicles.

We own an east/west house with sliding doors at each end. It is designed to allow the flow of the northeaster through the house during Summer. During construction we will be forced to keep our windows and doors closed to keep out the dust and try and reduce the noise level.

The decision to purchase our home was greatly influenced by the outlook. That outlook over the 8th green of Balgowlah Golf Course materially influenced the price that we paid. Your plans to completely destroy the current outlook have had a material impact on the value of our property. See attached photo. We object first and foremost to the proposed decimation of the Balgowlah Golf Course and everything contained therein. We object to the significant pain, discomfort and stress that you are imposing on our family for the 5 - 7 years of construction. And we object to you significantly affecting the value of our primary asset - our home!

We are highly sceptical of the claimed benefits of the tunnel to the broader Northern Beaches community. For those that can afford the toll it may make it easier to move around Sydney, however many people will find the toll too expensive and continue to use existing routes. The Northern Beaches is not equipped to deal with a significant influx of vehicle traffic.

What would really benefit the Northern Beaches community would be light rail, similar to what has been introduced to other parts of Sydney.

We ask that you please consider the significant impact your plans for the Northern Beaches Tunnel and specifically Balgowlah Golf Course are having on our family, our lifestyle and our finances.
Thank you

I am opposed to the general premise of the business case to the Beaches Link. There is no true benefit to the northern beaches nor Seaforth. I am very concerned about breathing in NO2 and fine particulate matter. I thought this was a lovely place with fresh air. It wont be any longer. I am 93 years old. Unfiltered stacks are completely unacceptable. I fully support the submission associated with my address and am identified as a sensitive receiver within it. .

Objections related to the proposed Flat Rock Gully tunnelling site, Tunks Park and Middle Harbour environment (off Northbridge):
• Objection: dust and pollution from the tunnelling dive site operating 24/7 at Flat Rock Gully. The dive site is an historical tip and there is contaminated soil and sandstone including dust taken out by over 500 trucks each day that could become airborne. We want to make sure that children are not breathing these particles. This site will be operating for 5 years. Mitigation: real time/alert style air quality monitors be installed at Willoughby Leisure Centre where many children play sport.
• Objection: dredging at Middle Harbour off Clive Point. There are high level contamination of lead and zinc just under the sea bed, these will be exposed during the dredging for the immersed twin tunnels and the construction of the coffer dams. Mitigation: silt curtains to go all the way to the sea bed, rather than just part way and continuous water quality testing for contaminants around Northbridge Baths and the Northbridge Sailing Club.
• Objection/mitigation: more testing to be undertaken to determine the extent of contamination at the tip site and take appropriate action depending on the contaminants.
• Objection/mitigation: contaminated soil from the tunnelling site not be stored or retained onsite at Flat Rock Gully (which we believe is the plan at this time). If it is contaminated it needs to be removed from the site so that it doesn’t become airborne or leach into the soil and into Flat Rock Creek.
• Objection/mitigation: bushland will be removed for the construction of the acoustic sheds in Flat Rock Gully. However there is no guarantee this will be returned to bushland. Given the EIS states that temporary rather than permanent loss of bushland is required during the tunnel’s construction phase, then permanent loss of bushland should not be considered as part of the EIS - i.e. that option should be removed from the EIS. Authority to determine whether a portion of bushland reserve is permanently lost should not be delegated to local Council, as that decision impacts the broader community and future generations, not just Willoughby Council’s current constituents. Given permanent loss of bushland is of state rather than local significance, it should be considered on its merits alone and not form part of an infrastructure project that does not require permanent loss of bushland.
• Objection: heavy trucks carrying spoil entering and exiting Flat Rock Drive from 7am to 7pm causing disruption to traffic flow and increased traffic on Sailors Bay Road as a result.
• Objection: other areas of concern are excessive construction noise and vibration to local residents.

Biodiversity Concerns and Objections:
• The Beaches Link will negatively impact significant wildlife corridors, including Flat Rock Drive and Manly Dam bushland, and marine ecosystems at Middle Harbour and the Spit.
• The proposed project counteracts the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development in the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991 (NSW) which declares that the conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be of fundamental consideration (PEAA Act Part 3(2)(c)).
• Bushland set aside for environmental protection should not be destroyed or disturbed. Flat Rock Reserve is a declared Wildlife Protection Area as it provides significant habitats that supports a wide range of small birds, mammals, reptiles and frogs that are disappearing from our urban areas.
• Flat Rock Gully is a key part of the network of wildlife corridors across Sydney required to maintain biodiversity - around 6.77 hectares (over 16 acres) of bushland will be flattened for the construction footprint (EIS Chapt. 19, p.19.9) at Flat Rock Gully.
• Over 390 trees are targeted for potential destruction at Flat Rock Gully – only two-thirds will be replaced. Willoughby City Council (WCC) tree policy requires that 3 trees be replaced for each removal (WCC, Vegetation Management Strategy 2020). Local tree policies are required by the NSW Government to reflect the needs of different areas for tree canopy and wildlife habitat. These should not be then overridden by the NSW State Government
• The bushland at Flat Rock Gully has been targeted for destruction on the basis that it is ‘only’ regenerated bush. This regeneration is the result of 25 years of work by WCC and bush care volunteers. The plantings were all propagated from local indigenous plants. Wildlife doesn’t discriminate between regenerated and remnant indigenous trees and bushland
• Biodiversity is poorly scoped in the EIS. The bulk of the biodiversity assessment concentrates and comments on 23 threatened species only. It side-steps the many hundreds of species which will lose their habitat, be driven away or bulldozed under including a wide range of bird species, frogs, reptiles, mammals and aquatic animals.
• A full study of wildlife has not been carried out in Flat Rock Gully, Middle Harbour and nearby bushland. Desktop assessments and a few walk-throughs are inadequate to reveal its full biodiversity
• The use of the controversial biodiversity offsetting policy to allow for the destruction of biodiverse bushland in urban communities. This policy, which allows for destruction of biodiversity in one area as long as it is protected somewhere else in NSW, is a recipe for local extinction.
• The EIS acknowledges that animals and birds on the construction footprint and nearby bush reserves will be driven away, in some cases permanently, by loss of habitat, food and breeding sites and by the noise, lights, vibration and traffic yet there are few well-developed mitigation plans for the variety of species which will be impacted. (EIS p.19-64).
• The proposed mitigation measures to protect wildlife during construction are weak. Checking that no animals are in the way 24 hours before construction or having people ‘spot’ them from barges and remove them during construction seems doomed to failure as it will not be the main focus or within the expertise of most constructors
• The health of local creeks, waterways and the marine environments are at risk from scouring, elevated salinity, siltation, contamination by disturbed toxic materials from the tip site and accidental fuel or chemical spills. Groundwater drawdown may contribute to trees becoming stressed or dying in other parts of Flat Rock Gully away from the construction footprint.
• The EIS is inconclusive on the future of the destroyed site which is 10% of the Flat Rock Reserve. Decision-making about its future should not be left to the end of the construction process. The EIS should confirm its rehabilitation and return to bushland.

Requested changes:
• Carry out full assessment of biodiversity in and around the area to be destroyed in Flat Rock Gully. Check trees for hollows across the gully area. Carry out fish and macroinvertebrate sampling in creeks and waterways.
• In consultation with wildlife experts, develop a full suite of mitigation measures to protect the wildlife in local bushland from noise, light and traffic in Flat Rock Gully.
• Undertake full bush regeneration. Undertake three for one tree planting as required by the local vegetation strategy.
• Ensure all landfill exposed by tunnelling capped at end of tunnelling and reinstate crush sandstone as contoured base for re-establishment of locally indigenous vegetation and habitat. Remove all temporary structures (including noise mitigation sheds).
• Engage consultant (independent of contractors) to measure water quality in the creek before, during and after construction to check for scouring, contamination from the site and elevated salinity and sediment levels. Make this information publicly available.
• Include clear strategies in the EIS to counteract the release of contaminants into Middle Harbour following storms or due to silt curtain damage.
• If the proposal is approved it is vital that, at the end of the project, the construction site in Flat Rock Gully is restored to bushland consistent with the Environmental Conservation zoning of the site and in accordance with the local Urban Bushland Plan of Management and the Flat Rock Gully Reserve Action Plan.

First of I am neither particularly for or against the project. Obviously there are clear benefits to the community but if anything i am against the project as i feel tollways are generally a waste of resources due to the significant cost of the tolls, and would rather see lower tolls with increased patronage.
Personally i usually try to avoid the tollways as much as possible.

From a cycling perspective, i am particularly aggrieved at the disruption (to cyclists and pedestrian) which is planned for the shared user path running along freeway at Artarmon.
From what i understand the potential diversion routes are extremely steep and particularly busy in places. It is completely inappropriate for the type of cyclist which currently uses the shared user path. More confident, lycra clad road cyclists are possibly travelling on the road along the Pacific Highway anyway. I also feel that the hills are steep enough to force commuter/social cyclists into making rash decisions and lose concentration on the traffic around them as they struggle up the hills.
Although granted there are not a lot of options based on the point where it has been decided to create the work zone.
BikeNorth has apparently suggested some kind of bridge/tunnel through some areas (like across Herbert St) which i would like to think is not particularly unreasonable considering the long projected length of the disruption.

I believe Willoughby city council has previously looked at the notion of running one side of the pacific highway as shared use footpath from Lane Cove down to the hospital. And while far from ideal backing this notion could potentially assist commuter cyclists in bypassing the area.

It is also unfortunate that planning team does not appear have consulted with BikeNorth to try and determine a better solution.

I think its unconscionable that planners would have such disdain for the lives of commuter and social cyclists that currently use the path. If this had been a safety issue on the construction site the building manager would be making safety a priority for their own workers.

I would also like to voice my concerns to the damage which is going to be caused to the flat rock gully reserve area, and urge planners to minimise the damage and rectify work areas as best is possible.

I strongly object to the proposed project.

The main beneficiaries will be property investors and many communities will suffer irreversible and material loss of amenity. IF resources of the proposed scale are available they should be invested in regional areas that can more easily support population growth.

Specific objections include:

1. Permanent loss of green space in Cammeray
Recent studies by North Sydney Council have highlighted a significant shortage of green space in the LGA. The proposed project will consume scarce green space and will thus exacerbate this problem. If the NSW government wants the North Sydney LGA to increase in population then more green space needs to be made available, not less.

2. Damage to Flat Rock Creek Gully
The proposal would see hundreds of trees destroyed and contaminated waste to be stored in the valley. Not only will this reduce residents' amenity but it will negatively impact flora and fauna. Residents would be prosecuted for a tiny fraction of damage of this nature! It is absurd that local and state governments can propose damage on this scale.

3. Recreational impacts
If the project were to proceed multiple community clubs and associations will be severely impacted. Northbridge Sailing Club will not be able to properly operate its racing and training program due to the proposed exclusion zone which cuts right through the only waterway that can provide a race course most of the year. The consequence is that the club may cease to function for the duration of the project and would then, most likely, be unable to reform due to loss of momentum. The loss of this community club would be devastating as it has produced many elite sailors that have represented Australia at all levels.

4. Pollution
The operation, and construction, of the proposed project will result in significant ongoing pollution in dense urban areas adjacent to schools. At a minimum, if the project were to proceed, the emissions must be filtered properly

5. Traffic
The proposed tunnel will create gridlock and bottlenecks in urban streets that are unable to handle the volume of traffic entering or leaving the tunnels. It is not practical to connect a fire hose to a straw!

In short, property interests are driving a disastrous proposal at the expense of common sense and local communities. The money should be invested in rural and regional areas that are struggling for infrastructure.

I am opposed to the general premise of the business case to the Beaches Link. There is no true benefit to the northern beaches nor Seaforth. Unfiltered stacks are completely unacceptable. I fully support the submission associated with my address and am identified as a sensitive receiver within it. .