Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Connection

To whom it may concern,

For a 25 year old resident of the lower Northern beaches, and as someone who has been born in, and grown up in the local area I do believe that improvement of infrastructure is important and necessary to the changing requirements of the local economy and population. However, within the current predicted timeframe, extreme environmental implications, as well as financial, social and community effects will be incurred if the project goes ahead as planned and will severely impact many aspects of our day to day lives. For the five to seven years that the tunnel with be under construction, our homes, community activities, access to emergency services, and current accessibility to current employment for thousands of families who live in and love this area will be severely impacted.

Over the next five to seven years, I would love to raise my family here in Balgowlah, as well as continue working in my current job in Glebe and enjoy the various and large amount of community activities currently available in my local area. But with the prospect of tunnel construction, isolation due to road closures, rerouting of access points to different areas on and off the Norther Beaches as well as increased pollution and impact on local environment, my family’s future on the Northern Beaches does not look that same. Severely increased travel time to get onto the Spit Bridge in order to get to work will hugely impact the day to day life and wellbeing of myself, many of my relatives and friends, and countless other residents. In the other direction to travel north, I am extremely concerned that there will be delays on Wakehurst Parkway due new traffic control and trucks entering the roadway every minute, impacting thousands of people’s access to the only Northern Beaches hospital and essential lifesaving services.

As mentioned, adapting infrastructure is important to service the needs of the population. Therefore, I ask that you may consider also the clearer and thoughtful staging of the project to take into account the lives of the residents that you are trying the serve. We do like change to be fast and impactful, however if the repercussions for a whole generation of young families, the natural environment they would like to preserve for their children and the lives they have worked, and are working to uphold is not taken into consideration how best can be served while the project is ongoing?

Please consider the communities, parents, friends and children who will live within the day to day building, digging, trucking of waste, dust, deterioration of green spaces, increased traffic, night works, noise pollution, asset decline, and expense of wellbeing.

Kindest regards,

Chloe Collins
Balgowlah NSW 2093

I agree with the community in OBJECTING to this project and see no evidence of its benefit to all the families and young children living here, including my own. In retrospect, I anticipate massive pollutions; air, noise, sound, and negative livelihood here as a serene suburb. This will have detrimental effect to our holistic wellbeing and health; young and the elderly. Please view and take our concern as a community to the Cammeray suburb.

As a long term resident of Balgowlah I strongly object to the NB tunnel for the following reasons:
-This project will only encourage more cars onto the road increasing air pollution and contributing to global warming. The impact to our community as a result of unfiltered smoke stacks is unacceptable. Australia already has lower air quality standards than global standards set by the World Health Organisation. The WHO has advised there is no safe level of air pollution. How can building a smoke stack pumping out unfiltered fumes in an area filled with young families, schools, preschools and elderly people be acceptable for this government. Even Gladys Berejiklian herself said in 2008 "Members of Parliament should examine their conscience and consider how they would feel if their children or the children of loved ones were exposed to this level of fumes every day and they were part of a government that could have put in place measures to reduce the impact of the fumes." Well now the State government need to examine their conscience and step up and put filters in place to mitigate any health impacts to our children.
- The air quality modelling in the EIS are inconsistent and lack transparency. There needs to be clarity around the impact of the dispersion of fumes on the local community
- The impact on the local environment will be devastating. Burnt Bridge Creek reduced to a trickle.
- 3000 workers at Balgowlah construction site will result in local streets being put under significant stress with parking, in already congested streets.
- Noise and dust from construction will have a significant detrimental impact to the local community for many years. We need better measures in place to protect the health and wellbeing of the people in the area.
- This project as not been compared to viable public transport alternates. Increasing car usage is not forward thinking. We need to be find solutions that provide sustainable transport solutions and do not contribute further to climate change.

To Whom It MAy Concern,
I wish to lodge my objections to the beaches link tunnel based on the following points ; -
1. the EIS is not current and much of it was written before covid. therefore the facts and data it contains are irrelevant to current situation eg with respect to travel time data, post covid - there is much less dependency on peak hour travel. many more people are working from home and will continue to do so as workplaces have become more flexible. thus a new, up to date post-covid EIS needs to be written and re submitted for community consultation.
2. the 'beaches tunnel' has been declared "worlds best practice', however, this is untrue, as 'world's best practice' would include filtration of the tunnel ventilation/emission stacks. as plainly stated in the eis, these will NOT be filtered, therefore this plan for beaches tunnel is NOT worlds best practice, therefore, until it can be deemed, "worlds best practice', it should NOT go ahead.
3. the name 'beaches link' is a misnomer as the tunnel goes to Balgowlah. not to the beach. thus, this is false marketing and false representation of a state significant project and as such should be addressed with a name more representative of what it actually is.
4. the original document signed by Mike Baird when he was premier clearly stated that in finding a solution to traffic congestion along military rd and this corridor that public transport options NOT be considered. This is a blatant abuse of the investigative process and thus excluded from the start, any real objective research into the best solution for the traffic congestion problems identified. thus, the basis of the project is biased and non-scientific and illogical from the start. therefore, the project needs to stop until a full investigation into public transport options, especially rail from dee why-chatswood can be evaluated and compared to the proposed $15,000,000,000 stretch of road /tunnel that is the .beaches link. also, there has been some mention that Mike Baird was prompted to exclude public transport option from this project plan because large transport companies like Transurban were major political party donors and also may have struck a deal to provide mike board with a post political job within the transport industry, therefore, the project begun with a false and seemingly biased , even corrupt selection process that excluded any consideration of public transport - especially trains in its analysis of best solution to traffic congestion.
5. at $15,000,000,000 this project is unjustifiably expensive for the 16 km stretch of road/ tunnel that is outlines and thus must be analysed further wrt to cost-benefit. however, since the travel data contained within the EIS is out of date by up to 5 years, this is not possible, and thus such expenditure can not be justified.
6. this project is unethical as it uses public money to make a private Toll road and as such is not for the benefit of the wider community. The tolls will be too expensive for most and this will encourage rat-racing and more traffic on local roads. thus the road/tunnel will never achieve its aim of reducing traffic.
7. due to the phenomenon of 'traffic demand' , whereby in the absence of viable public transport options, such a project will only increase car travel and thus any short term reduction in traffic congestion along military rd and similarly congested roads will soon be reversed. thus, this project is ill conceived, short sighted, un ethical and nonsensical.
8. this project actually encourages car travel and further tolling in sydney. major cities around the world have all shown the negative effects of car congestion in their cbds yet this project aims to increase car travel into sydney's cbd. this is irresponsible planning and not in sydney's long term interests.
9. the non-filtered emission stacks will spew forth the products from the 15 km tunnel over the suburbs of cammeray and nearly north sydney where there is a high concentration of preschool, primary and secondary schools. this is unacceptable since the increased car and diesel truck exhaust fumes contain several extremely toxic substances including tiny particles that are hazardous for human respiratory and circulatory health. this effect is heightened in the bodies of young children, thus it is unacceptable that the tunnel emission stacks be not-filtered and located in such close proximity to schools.
10. the primary dig site at flat rock gully is unsuitable as it will entail digging through layers of decades old dump site contaminated substances. the land will contain asbestos, toxic gases and other unknown items that were legally allowed to be dumped there last century. digging at this site will also release noxious fumes and contribute to unacceptable levels of air, noise and traffic pollution. the numbers of truck movement along flat rock drive is dangerous for other drivers on the road. flat rock gully is home to several protected and endangered species including small bird populations, rock wallaby, powerful owl, lizards and many more creature catalogued by willoughby wildlife group WEPA.
plus the risk of contaminating nearby and downstream flat rock gully native wildlife corridor is unacceptable, plus further downstream contamination risk of Tunks park waters is unacceptable.
11. the proposed coffer dam to go in water off northbridge is unacceptable, as is the dredging in that area to make way for the semi-submerged tunnel. the dredging will alter silt tidal patterns and damage the seagrasses and delicate marine ecosystems located in these waters. the waters have only recently returned to a high state of cleanliness as evidenced by recent sightings of seals and even a whale a few years back. dredging these water will disturb decades old layers of harbour sludge containing toxic sediments. the toxic fallout from digging in these waterways will result in closing down valuable public amenities such as northbridge baths, and northbridge sailing club. any risk of contamination to these waterways is unacceptable and thus the tunnel must not proceed through this route.
12. the government has recently declared am 'open space' initiative/policy in which it seeks to protect precious open green spaces. this project is not in alignment with this policy as this project will result in bulldozing at flat rock gully to make way for dig site and truck turning circle, plus destruction of various golf courses eg cammeray and balgowlah.
13. the advertising material and marketing brochures for this tunnel clearly depict a bus travelling through it. however, i was told by an engineer at a northbridge information session at our local golf club that the tunnel would be too steep to allow buses to travel in it. therefore, the promotional material for the tunnel has been misleading and as such, has not been providing accurate information for community consultation. this is highly inappropriate for a state significant project, its false and misleading information and as such, the project should be halted until such time that the EIS traffic data is current, covid-relevant and accurate with respect to whether or not buses will be able to travel in it.
14. the plans for the tunnel are less than 50 % complete at this time, therefore the EIS can not provide a comprehensive impact study, therefore the EIS must be re-done and submitted for further consultation.
15. the prime objective of population growth via immigration must now be re-assessed , given that we are now living with the ongoing threat of covid. therefore, the projected need for the tunnel is lessened and thus the business case weakened in current covid - times. the EIS makes no mention of current work travel time changes due to covid and is thus out-of-date and irrelevant on many counts.
in conclusion i object to this 'beaches Tunnel' project going ahead on several counts. namely the EIS is out of date, the business case doesn't hold up, the primary objective for the tunnel is biased away from public transport options and the project is too expensive and environmentally damaging fro sydney's precious natural habitat and waterways.
i recommend a complete review of the original process in which ALL options are considered and compared to find the best way to approach perceived traffic congestion. i suggest that train options be reviewed and considered as a priority. i recommend an investigation into the original conception of the idea from Mike baird's time as premier and any undue bias towards road/tunnel projects over more viable public transport options, particularly rail. i strongly oppose Flat rock gully as main dig site as it has undergone amazing regeneration the past few decades to the extent that is now a native wildlife corridor of major significance and as such should be protected.
i strongly oppose the high cost of this project , especially when the net outcome of relatively small reductions in travel times data is evident. i recommend that similar traffic travel data outcomes could be achieved by improving current roads and public transport scheduling eg buses and trains, at a fraction of the $15 billion cost. also, if the prime objective is to on sell this road/tunnel to a large transport toll company like transurban - then the basis for this project is unjust as transurban holds a monopoly over tolled roads in sydney and thus there is no assurance of best value spending of public money - this is negligent and irresponsible. this project does not have the best interests of the general public in mind. this project os narrow minded and its focus too short term to have any lasting positive impact.

As someone that commutes to the CBD via the B-Line, this project obviously has major impact to me on the Northern Beaches. However, I have some major concerns to the project in its current state.
1. Impact on our health and environment if not done correctly. What is the current situation of the unfiltered stacks and the impact this will have?
2. Manly Dam mountain bike track for our family and others. This is a major form of outdoor activity our family does and as one of the main trails in Australia I am VERY concerned as there does not seem to be ANY plan to keep this in tack or a good solution to its impact. There are also other surrounding trails that will be impacted that form part of my weekly routine.
Please ensure this is done right and consider alternatives such as improved public transport.

Further to this i note that it has been commented that there should be provision for new cycling facilities with any transport project, and would like to point out horrible connection of the existing shared user cycleway from Merremburn Ave Naremburn to West St Cammeray and feel that provision should be made in the project to safely connect the locations.
The existing path between the locations requires cyclists to cross an extremely busy free way on ramp. Further this the path along the freeway could be improved as it is quite narrow (with what appears to be room to widen it), not particularly flat considering the nature of the vehicular traffic travelling alongside it and has light poles in the middle of it at a couple of locations.

Loss of trees: The tunnel development is deliberately vague on the loss of trees especially along Wakehurst Parkway. There is an image showing this road in a southerly direction as it is currently. Can this be shown with the superimposed new road? The environmental vandalism will then be shown. Locating the tunnel entry further north will save trees and reduce the noise from traffic around Kirkwood Street. Part of the beauty of the northern beaches is its abundance of natural vegetation. Tree removal from the national park or manly dam to the extent planned is totally unacceptable.

Ventilation stacks: what is the cost of installing the best filtered stack system as a % of the overall project cost? Cars and trucks are still only regulated to Euro5 and there is no indication that this will be upgraded to Euro 6 before the link is proposed to be completed. Euro 6 is considerably more stringent.The average age of cars in Australia is 10 years. Therefore cars and light trucks will be running through the tunnel for potentially 10 years with the older standard emissions. The tunnel will also encourage more car and truck use. Those both lead to toxic nox and particulates being pushed into the air when they can easily be filtered. Why won’t the Government come clean and in plain English explain why they are refusing to filter the stacks. If it is cost, say so. And what is their position if monitoring of the stacks outputs shows elevated levels of emissions? What is the retrospective cost of filtering the stacks if the modelling is wrong?

I am writing to object to the Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway project. This is a project that is expected to cost NSW $14bn and likely a lot more and I find it very difficult to understand its benefits given the potential harm it will cause. Here are my main points for objecting to the project:

1) I don't see that there has been enough consideration given to alternatives to the proposed tunnel link eg public transportation. Climate change is upon us and we need to action this now. Please reference Sir David Attenborough who most recently said it's too late to avoid climate change but there is still time to achieve a balance. We should not be contributing to climate change by building more tunnels for cars and trucks. We should be thinking big, longer term and being brave by putting infrastructure that encourages mass and convenient public transportation around Sydney. This will keep cars off the road, encourage use of public transport, cut emissions, increase public health. We need to show the world that this is a city that has sustainabiltiy, innovation and environmental design at its core. Covid 19 has caused a hiccup to the way we live and travel. It should not be seen as a case for building a tunnel. There are likely to be less people needing to use a tunnel and the cost is likely to be prohibitive causing people to avoid using it.
We need to encourage usage of public transportation. A business case using current and projected data must be done to prove that a tunnel is justifiable.

2) I object to the detrimental impact that the building of the tunnel will have on the environment from a land and water perspective. In particular, I live in Northbridge close to Flat Rock Gully and it is very distressing to me that such a beautiful and precious piece of land will be disrupted and destroyed with no real guarantee of restoration. The dive site is expected to be where a toxic waste site sits. It has taken 25 years for this site to be restored by Willoughby Council and the hard work of volunteers to restore a wildlife corridor which residents from near and far have enjoyed and taken comfort from especially during covid. It is unbelievable that the NSW government would even consider a dive site in a location that will disrupt the biodiversity in the area given its history.
The potential contamination of Middle Harbour from the construction of the tunnel beneath is also of major concern as this is an area used by many residents - for swimming, fishing, boating. There are many species of invaluable marine life that will also be impacted from the disturbance of decades and decades of toxic heavy metals.

3) I have serious concerns about my home which is in close proximity to Flat Rock Gully and the tunnel. I am very worried about the potential for structural damage from the nearby tunneling works.

4) I also have major concerns about the noise, pollution and traffic impacts that the tunnel works will impose on our dense residential area which has a high number of elderly and also school age children. Increased traffic around the major Northbridge streets - Flat Rock Drive, Alpha Road, Sailors Bay Road, Strathallen Avenue - will pose increased stress to an already busy area, especially during peak hours. Whilst trucks may only enter and exit around the Southern side of Flat Rock Drive, the spill effect onto the other streets is inevitable. Safety to residents, particularly to the high number of school children in the area, is a major concern as is noise and dust pollution.

5) The issue of unfiltered stacks around an area that has the highest number of school children in Australia is of major concern. The health impacts into the future will be enormous and this will have wider socio-economic consequences into the future.

6) There has not been enough wider community information and consultation on this project. A 12,000 page EIS is too much for any person to digest and understand in a short space of time. We Northbridge residents have to bear the brunt of a project which has minimal benefit for us but extensive detrimental impact. We need to be properly educated on the project, its impact and provided detail on design and construction. I understand that to date, it is only 25% design completed. This makes me very concerned for the 75% which could have a potentially huge detrimental impact on us. We need commitment to monitoring of noise, pollution, and traffic impacts. We need points of contacts for raising concerns and issues. We need a guarantee that Flat Rock Gully will be remediated and restored post completion to its current state, with trees re-planted and for the public and wildlife to inhabit.

There is a huge opportunity for NSW to transform itself into a sustainable, forward-thinking and highly liveable city and this project does not contribute to it. It is doing more of the same in encouraging cars on the road which contributes to pollution and emissions. Tolled roads are not what Sydneysiders want. Sydney has the highest tolled roads and it has been proven that people will avoid tolled roads if there is another option. This means surrounding residential streets are suffering due to the resulting congestion. I object to the project as it stands and we need to see a business case showing alternatives before this project proceeds any further.

Yours sincerely

Zoran Grskovic

As a resident of North Balgowlah who has been on high alert and distress from the day TFNSW knocked on my front door just before school
Pick up to let me know that my house was “in the path “ of the tunnel, I am disgusted and disappointed at the government and its numerous representatives lack of community awareness, sensibility, ethics, and morality. There are an overwhelming number of concerns I would like to raise, many of which have been raised at community meetings and public forums and continue to need to be addressed.
• Concerns regarding air quality and particulates released into the environment both during construction and after completion - the studies are incomplete and outdated
• Impacts that construction and new roads will have on the local environment including the Burnt Bridge Creek and Manly Dam ecosystems - again the research is incomplete
• Impact of construction on local residents including increased noise, traffic and vibrations, with particular note to the proximity of local schools to planned temporary construction support sites - this perhaps the worker of all with complete lack of understanding of the ramifications to families and communities.
• Impact of construction on local amenity and public green space
• Increased traffic to residential roads following completion of the project -lack of forward planning , what’s happens once the tunnel is built the increased traffic will remain

Many families have no choice but to stay and live with this terrible decision, many families have been forced to leave their homes. This is not right. Shame on you.

Please see objection letter attached

1) The dive site at Flatrocks Gully should be moved from this residential area to the industrial park at Artarmon.
2) Hundreds of school children travel on foot, bikes, scooters from Naremburn to Cammeray and back each week day. The number of trucks travelling on Brook Street will increase substantially. The tragic death of the school child hit by a truck during the NorthConnext construction should be a warning to remove these trucks from residential areas.

I object to the Beaches Link tunnel for the following reasons below:
1. Economic impact: For a project that will cost over $12 billion is not justifiable for a 10% improvement in traffic condition along Military Road. The cost to benefit ratio is extremely low and does not justify the cost. Further to that the rapid adoption of technology has enabled many to work from home and even in a more stable covid environment with traffic condition returning to some normality, it is evident in the decrease in use of public transport that work from home is here to stay. In conclusion, the cost of the project does not justify the benefit with the need for a tunnel questionable and not needed.
2. Environment impact: What makes the northern beaches a beautiful place to live in is the preservation of the bushland. With this tunnel construction over 12 ha of natural bushland will be destroyed and the loss of several critical endangered animals living in these bushlands, plus the natural waterflow into Burnt Bridge creek will be reduced to a storm water drain. Further to that with construction effecting middle harbour, will cause a disturbance in the sludge, with no guarantees that the so-called curtain will prevent the polluted sludge from reaching beaches and pools like Clontarf, or control safe levels of contamination. Further water contamination to manly dam with construction water flowing into manly dam, and polluting the dam water, will cause the loss of fish life with no safe water activities, is catastrophic and unacceptable. Before we even start with a project like this, the control measures must be defined, combined with the systems to regularly measure pollution levels to ensure any pollution is managed or within safe levels per the predefined control measures. This will ensure we preserve fish life and water activities with guarantees that the water will not get polluted.
3. Air quality impact: We cannot sacrifice air quality and the health of the community that lives around the vents, with some of these outlets close to schools and homes. If Covid has taught us anything, the health of our community must come first and the investment in filtration is a must to keep all safe and healthy and must be a key condition for the approval of the tunnel project.
4. Community voice in Consultation: Detailed and wide community consultation is needs to ensure the people of the Northern beaches are bought into the idea of the tunnel. In the latest virtual consultation, the questions weren't addressed appropriately and only 43% of questions were answered adequately. Detailed consultation is required to ensure buy in from the community.
5. Traffic Conditions: Little thoughts or planning has been given to manage the traffic conditions during construction and by just leaving this to the local council is not an adequate response. This must be given some detailed thought with solutions before the project is started. Neighbourhood congestion has increased with change in bus routes and already building construction taking place. Adding further tunnel construction without a thoughtful plan will be catastrophic. A traffic plan for the construction period must be a condition for the approval of the project and put in place to show how traffic will be managed and mitigated during the period of construction, before it starts.

Please see attachment.

I support the submission made by Northbridge Progress Association. I do not agree with this link. It will directly impact my property which the tunnel will go right under.

Director, Transport Assessments Planning & Assessment
Department of Planning Industry and Environment
Locked Bag 5022
Parramatta NSW 2124


Dear Director,

Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Connection - SSI_8862

I write in relation to the above planned infrastructure project and wish to submit an objection to the project for the following reasons:

1. I run a Family Day Care on Hope Street, where every day I have four children aged between 1 and 5 in my care. During construction, the above project will significantly impact my ability to run my business in a safe and secure environment. Dust and noise will permeate my home and the children will not be able to play and learn freely. I fear parents will remove their children from my care which will be detrimental to my business. How does the government propose to compensate me for loss of income during construction? Furthermore, the health and wellbeing of my own family is at risk with the pollutants and dust particles.

2. Our home is within a 1.2km radius of the unfiltered smoke stack proposed close to Balgowlah Boys School. This means that the children within my care and my own children, along with thousands of others, will live their lives breathing in exhaust fumes and other pollutants which may lead to increased risks of cancer and other major respiratory illnesses. According to health experts, there is no safe level of exposure to unfiltered exhaust fumes, “small particulate pollution has health impacts even at very low concentrations – indeed no threshold has been identified below which no damage to health is observed”. Any stack must be filtered.

3. There has been an unrealistic time frame for the community to read and digest a 12,000 page document. The EIS was released during the Christmas and New Year period with an expectation that the community would have the time during the busiest time of the year to understand all the implications. Being a small business owner, a mother and caring for an ill relative has meant that I have had to rely on the community for information. There should have been more time for community consultation and submissions.

4. With 3,000 workers located at the Balgowlah Golf Course work site, this will put pressure on street parking. Hope Street is already congested as a result of commuters parking, we cannot sustain that level of workers in the area. Furthermore, suggestions that workers will park elsewhere and be bussed to the site are unrealistic – how will this be monitored?

5. The environmental damage caused by this project is unacceptable. Turning a creek into a stormwater drain (Burnt Bridge Creek) will have devastating impact on the flora and fauna in the area. We live in a world where Climate Change is real, the Government should be looking for ways to protect eco systems rather than destroy them.

6. Why have there been no alternative public transport options been considered? If the aim of the tunnel is to mitigate traffic congestion, building a tunnel for vehicles is not going to achieve this. In fact, it will likely have the opposite effect.

In conclusion, we have a responsibility to our children and our children’s children to protect their home. I urge the State Government to invest in looking at alternative solutions.

I strongly object to the proposed Beaches Link tunnel in its current form due to the following:
- Burnt Bridge Creek Burnt Bridge Creek Bushland reserve is “significant in terms of both ecological and community values. Ecologically the riparian corridor provides a habitat link between the coast and natural areas further inland. The protection and enhancement of the native riparian vegetation in the reserve is crucial for the movement of wildlife.” (Northern Beaches Council website)
If the current proposal goes ahead, Burnt Bridge creek will be reduced to a series of puddles (due to 96% water flow loss), greatly impacting local wildlife and communities between Seaforth and Queenscliff lagoon.
This situation is unacceptable and I support any submission by Northern Beaches Council to retain Burnt Bridge Creek in its natural and current state.
- Significant changes to design subject to community consultation
There have been a number of changes to the original plans which are unpalatable and will significantly affect the community bordering Burnt Bridge creek deviation. Last year, my family built a brand new house in Hope st, on the assurance that the design that went through community consultation from 2017 to 2019 would remain largely unchanged. The current tunnel proposal could not be further from the truth. It is on all accounts objectionable, unfavourable and unacceptable, due to the significant impact on residents of Hope st and the surrounding area, as well as local wildlife and nature reserves.
a) Changes to placement of traffic lights - Traffic lights proposed for Burnt Bridge creek opposite Maretimo St will increase traffic noise and local congestion.
It makes no sense whatsoever to have these traffic lights in such close proximity to the traffic lights at the Sydney road intersection.
b) Location of tunnel entry – The entry to the tunnel was originally located near Kitchener St, which is to the North of our property, and has now been moved to the South of our property. This means that while the Final Reference design had the rear of our property backing onto a three lane local traffic road, the proposed design has replaced this with a twelve lane main road with a set of traffic lights.
c) Number of lanes on Burnt Bridge creek deviation – Twelve lanes is excessive and is only necessary due to the lack of creativity by the design team to remove the traffic lights at the link road.
d) Smoke stack – The ventilation outlet has been moved significantly closer to schools and our property. Although the scientific advice states that health effects are minimal, I am not prepared to be exposed to minimal risk and it is inhuman to average this collateral damage.
- Manly Dam
Manly dam and surrounding bushland cannot be cleared threatening local populations of endangered or near endangered species. The runoff from the Wakehurst Parkway site cannot be allowed to drain into manly Dam.
- Residents living near construction sites during construction
Heavy vehicle movements must be limited to normal working hours. As I live in close proximity to where significant surface works will take place, any dust must be cleaned from our house and property.
Conditions that must be added in order to consider this project for approval:
a. Burnt Bridge Creek must be preserved at current base water levels.
b. The design of the tunnel portal and link road must be either reverted to the design that was subject to community consultation or a new period of consultation must be undertaken before the submission of the EIS.
c. The traffic lights at Sydney Rd and the link road must be removed.
d. The traffic lights on Burnt Bridge Creek Deviation must be removed.
e. Manly Dam must be protected from construction and operational runoff.
f. Areas in Manly Dam endangered or near endangered species inhabit are not to be cleared.
g. Damage, including mess from construction dust and other airborne matter, must be cleaned from local properties as required.
I request that you consider these objections and ask for further community consultation regarding the impact of the Beaches Link tunnel on our local area.

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 ridiculous amounts of vegetation destroyed and contaminated waste to be stored in the valley. Not only will this reduce residents' amenity but it will negatively impact wildlife and plants. 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 associations and clubs will be severely impacted. Northbridge Sailing Club will not be able to properly run its training and racing program due to the proposed exclusion zone which cuts through Middle Harbour. This is bad because it is 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 contamination in suburban areas with nearby schools. At a minimum, if the project were to proceed, the emissions from the tunnel will be filtered and treated as to not cause further damage. Ideally however, there would be no tunnel to create emissions.

5. Traffic
The suggested tunnel will create gridlock bottlenecks and gridlock in suburban streets that are unable to handle the volume of traffic entering or exiting the tunnel. 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.

The proposed beaches link project will have unacceptable environmental impacts. This is confirmed in the EIS which has been presented for the project. My primary concern is about impacts on bushland and native wildlife, particularly in relation to the bushland surrounding Manly Dam.

- Sydney bushland is precious - the clearing of native vegetation required for the project is far too high - this must be reduced. Damage to Flat Rock Gully is particularly concerning. Habitat destruction and noise and light pollution caused by the projects threatens local wildlife. These risks are not adequately assessed or mitigated.
- Water quality in Manly Dam must be protected. Manly Dam is treasured by all who know it. Maintaining the water quality of Manly Dam, both for people and aquatic biodiversity, is paramount. Current risks to water quality are unacceptable and inconsistent with the precautionary principle.
- More traffic and development in the northern beaches area will lead to further environmental impacts.

The project should not proceed and if it does there must be more mitigation, protection and rehabilitation measure in place to minimise all impacts on local ecology and water quality. Thank you.

To whom it may concern,

Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Connection - SSI_8862

I write in relation to the Beaches Link and Gore Hills Freeway Connection (SSI_8862) infrastructure project and wish to submit an objection to the project, based on the points below:

• Unrealistic time frame for the community to read and digest a 12,000 page document. The EIS was released during the Christmas and New Year period with an expectation that the community would have the time during the busiest time of the year to understand all the implications. Furthermore, the Northern Beaches went into lock down creating added stress for the community. It is unacceptable that the State Government has not given the community the time to fully understand the scope of this project.
• The data contained in the EIS is extremely out of date and does not take into consideration the impact of COVID on transport to/from the Beaches. There is much less dependency on peak hour travel - many more people are working from home and will continue to do so as workplaces have become more flexible.
• The project has not been compared to alternative public transport measures. Sydney has a vision to be “recognised as a leader with outstanding environmental performance” and “carbon emission will be reduced and a network of green infrastructure will cut down energy, water and waste water demands”. Building a tunnel that encourages people to travel by car is not going to help Sydney be recognised as a leader with outstanding environmental performance. In fact, it will do the opposite.

This project does not have the best interests of the general public in mind. I urge the Government to consult further with the community and come up with a plan that really solves the traffic congestion issues on the Beaches without the lasting negative impacts of this project.

I have read the EIS and object to the Northern Beaches Tunnel for the following reasons :

I object to the destruction of Burnt Bridge Creek by reducing the water by up to 96 %. The impact this will have on the flora and fauna of this will be fatal and irreversable. This creek has been called the life blood of Manly and the destruction of this green corridor and water source will have long reaching effects on the local environment as far as Queenscliff.

I object to the planned dredging of middle harbour which will bring toxic silt to the surface and impact the ability to swim at harbour beaches for years.

I object to the placement of the unfiltered stacks so close to homes, schools and child care facilities (according to the EIS homes will be 100 m away and schools as close as 300m).

I object to the increase of local traffic and trucks during construction , the lack of set reasonable hours of construction operation and the lack of an objective body to supervise and investigate complaints.

I object to the lack of investigation onto better public transport and alternate transportation options such as light rail.

I object to the potential destruction to Manly Dam and its places of indigenous significance. I object to the extreme cost for such little gain on travel over both the long and medium term.

This is a major project for NSW and I feel it is being rushed for political gain. The current sacrifices are not worth the small and transient benefit to the community. It requires more thought and better plans that cause far less environmental destruction and such poor public health outcomes.

Sincerely

Justin Davies