Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Connection

Dear Sir/Madam
I am keen to understand why alternate suggestions have not been considered that have been proposed by experts and community groups. This current proposal raises a lot of community concerns that have not been addressed and do not align to the previous community engagement through the school.

This directly impacts the viability of living in Hope street and to leave our children attending local public schools Seaforth and later Bally Boys with the increased pollution from 12 lanes almost adjacent to the school seems ill conceived. It also goes back on what Rob Stokes said he would allow when he was education minister where he would not allow this to be done near a school. Does that mean words are worthless. There needs to be a commitment to the future generation not just profits of the TOLL companies who will profit from this. It seems transport are already driving the local areas into cars with reduced and unimpressive bus services. True Community consultation needs to take place to come up with an agreeable solution. Politicians and Development office should learn from Manly oval car park and ensuring consultation is not superficial.

Areas of concern
1) Construction vibration noise and dust and pollution. Dust impact on asthma and child development and mental health from noise. Damage to houses from vibration. Already had two years of Bline (for no benefit )
2) Channelling of trucks with waste (Require commitment and confirmation not given this will be safely dealt with in sheds, hosed down and tarped. Trucks every 1-2 min in the vicinity of schools cannot happen through local roads. Traffic in the area is already congested.
3) The solution is not aligned to any public transport mapping - Seaforth already seen reduced services and do not benefit from bline. In fact making Seaforth has now been made a hub without relevant parking infrastructure has caused more issues to local streets. If feels like the investment in public infrastructure is lacking especially in Southern NB (It goes to Mid to North NB). Need to develop a feasible NB strategy.
4) Modelling does not take into account the reality of rat runs and learnings from other areas. Seaforth is already having issues, especially around Ethel street roundabout since hospital has been opened. During 7 years of construction this will only get worse.
5) Exit from Hope street right needs addressing. Very dangerous since additional lane put in for bline cannot see traffic and people race to get to the lights . Awaiting a serious accident - RMS been informed as has local MP but no action.
6) All projects to date have overrun - no proven build history.
7) Environmental impact to creek has not been considered. Many people purchase to have the bush walk/manly cycleway locality and changing the ecosystem will remove this local asset.
8) While this project may support the mid to upper NB. There is little local value. What about incentives like BLINE faciliaities, rebuilding Bally Boys Campus, Provide indoor leisure facilities as DeeWhy are the nearest. Time to add some benefits for the pain the area will be going through.

Please take into account feedback and run a transparent process where community feedback is taken on board and not paid lip service too and questions avoided as in the community engagement sessions. Move the tunnel entrance back so its not aligned to the schools and in less residential area as per previous and initial discussion . Ensure the trucks are dealt with appropriately. Listen to the community and alternatives that have been suggested with better balance. Think about the future of motoring and whether Toll Roads actually fit into this. When you go to electric vehicles and automated vehicles, we need future plans that will work with the new world and perhaps the strategy needs enlightened and new thinking as CBDs are redesigned into more local areas.

Project causes permanent environmental damage to Burnt Bridge Creek.
Balgowlah local street will experience traffic congestion as induced traffic from tunnel will increase traffic on local streets.
No consideration of public transport alternatives. High cost to NSW taxpayer for the benefit of relatively few citizens.
Increased likelihood of rezoning for medium density in Balgowlah justified by increased private transport connections.

I strongly object to the removal of Balgowlah's green space for the construction site to be used for the project.
I strongly object to the installation of non-filtered stacks on this project.
I strongly object to our local roads being subjected to truck movements and dust pollution from the construction process.
I am concerned about health and safety of everyone in the proximity of this project.
I have grandchildren at High School, Primary School and Daycare within the local area - how can I be sure they will not have health problems later in life from the pollution created by this project?
I am concerned about safety during the construction phase and when completed. Many children cycle, scoot and walk to their education place.
The trucks (laden and empty} will be more concerned with how often they can fill, travel to dump, and return for next fill than they will be about looking out for children!
Manly Vale is already congested. During construction and when completed - what plans have been made for pedestrians/children crossing Condamine Street safely?
Have you considered abolishing the Balgowlah entrance? Keeping only the Seaforth entrance and widening the Wakehurst Parkway the whole length to improve traffic flow and accommodate access? Putting the extraction stack(s) on the Parkway? where at least the fumes have a better chance of dispersing than in the Balgowlah valley
where so many trees are to be demolished - thereby removing nature's pollution absorbers.
In conclusion, I look forward to your serious consideration to improving environmental outcomes for us all !!

New improved green space. (Balgowlah)
How many times does this appear in the EIS document!
Like a lot of statements in the document it more than stretches the truth.
It is certainly not new green space. There has been a golf course there since 1923 and the Balgowlah Golf Club founded in 1925. It is obvious it was green space even before that time.
To say it is improved green space is an outright insult to the members past and present who built the course and have maintained the course and clubhouse for what is going into 96 years at the clubs own cost.
The EIS also states that equivalent of 90% of the space taken to construct the project will be given back as green space. What it doesn’t state is that this includes the unused area of private properties acquired for the project. An entire Street – Dudley Street.
In early planning a Confidentiality Agreement was imposed by the RMS (at the time) to apply during discussions/negotiations between the RMS and Council staff on the preliminary design of the tunnel and on the decision by the RMS to take over the Balgowlah Golf Course site and use it as a construction site. At the time, the RMS had kept this decision secret because it had no intention of consulting with the golf club and local residents on its intention to take over the course as a construction site. Because the golf course land is Crown Land (ie owned by the State Government), the government can do with it whatever it wants – subject to a few regulations that it already controls. By declaring the Beaches Link Tunnel Project a State Significant Infrastructure Project, the government did not have to consult with the community, but it did have to inform the Council because the Council was the manager of the land and leased it to the golf course.
The sweetener to the Council was the proposal for the government to convert the construction site to sports and recreation fields – to be owned by the Council.

So at no time was the Balgowlah Golf Club consulted.

The reason given that the golf course would no longer be viable was the need for a link/access road to the tunnel from Sydney Road which would run through the middle of what is now the golf course.

Who will actually use this access road?

I have lived in this area all my life and if I was to access the latest point of entry of the tunnel, and there have been many, on the Burnt Bridge Bypass:

• From Manly you would travel up Sydney Road turn right down Condamine Street and left onto the Burnt Bridge Bypass.
• From Fairlight you would take Balgowlah Road turn right and onto the Burnt Bridge Bypass.
• From Queenscliff or Freshwater you would use Kenneth Road to reach the Burnt Bridge Bypass.
• From North Balgowlah you make your way to Kitchener Street into Balgowlah Road turn left into Condamine Street and onto the Burnt Bridge Bypass.
• From Seaforth you would simply turn right at the Sydney Road intersection with the Burnt Bridge Bypass and use the Spit Bridge.

These routes would eliminate multiple sets of lights including the new intersections and lights for the access road and especially the intersection of the access road and the Burnt Bridge Bypass.

The access road is not going to be used by traffic accessing the tunnel and will only cause delays on the Bypass entering the tunnel and exiting the tunnel.

So the only reason for the access road is to access the playing fields and satisfy an agreement with Council to turn the Golf Course into playing fields.

The agreement between Council and RMS would have been made while the Council was under administration so was made by an unelected official appointed by the Government.
What is the sense of building play fields at the southern extreme of the Council area where everybody needs to travel lengthy distances to use these fields whatever sport it maybe.

Statements in the EIS about the decline of golf in the area come from a report commissioned by the then Council administrator in 2017. The report is so out of date and does not represent the current trend where Club memberships on the Northern Beaches have increased to the point where many have closed off their memberships. Total rounds played have increased to levels that would not be imagined in the 2017 report. Last year Balgowlah Golf Club over a period months was averaging 3600 rounds per month. The EIS states in one sentence about Balgowlah that the players could go and play at Warringah, Wakehurst or Manly Golf Clubs they are within 1.5 kilometres. Not well researched. Manly Golf Club is a private club with an annual fee of somewhere around $6000 dollars and joining fee of around $20000. Warringah and Wakehurst have almost full membership to the point where members can not get on the timesheet for Saturday golf. So golf in the local area is almost oversubscribed.

The greenspace has been a Golf Course for over 95 years and even after construction with planning could and should remain a Golf Course and Balgowlah Golf Club.

I am writing to support the submission from the Northbridge Progress Association on this project.

It was another day in the beautiful, secluded area of Flat Rock Gully. Dragonflies hummed and bees buzzed from flower to flower. A wallaby hopped across the neatly swept path and a Kookaburra laughed up in a century-year-old gum tree. Beautiful leaves uncoiled and provided shade for all the animals. Suddenly, a deafening BANG! shook the stunning bush. A eucalyptus tree had fallen and it was not the last one. Animals ran for shelter before it was too late. Day after day Flat Rock Gully became a stinking pit of smoke and poisonous gases and not a tree in sight. No dragonflies humming or bees buzzing from flower to flower. No wallabies hopping across a neatly swept path, no Kookaburras laughing and no more beautiful leaves. We can still stop this from happening. Please, save the bushland.

I object to the Northern Beaches Link tunnel because of these reasons:

1. I object because there is so much beautiful flora and fauna that belong to Flat Rock Gully that are very unique and exclusive to the Northbridge area, which is where I live. All the animals and vegetation will have nowhere to go and this could lead to endangerment for some nature. This is not OK.

2. I object because the air will be full of poisonous gases and smoke, during construction and after, with the huge smoke stacks, all throughout the North Shore. This is unacceptable as it is bad for everyone; pets, adults, children, animals and yourselves. This is not fair. It is my future and I object to this.

3. I object because Flat Rock Gully is such a special area and I love going for walks and bike rides around the area. It is intolerable to rip up for the fact that it holds so much history, including the fact that the Cammeraygal people once lived there. So much bush regeneration has also been done in the area over the past few years and now all their hard work is going to be pointless.

4. I object because in this crazy pandemic, we definitely need more fresh air and open spaces. The Northern Beaches construction will decrease the amount of green spaces and furthermore, even spread COVID-19. Surely all these reasons are enough already.

5. I object because with Sydney’s current traffic congestion state, another car road will increase the amount of cars on the road and only create more congestion. Not only when it is finished, but the congestion effects of all the trucks coming and going to the area will be monstrous.

6. I object because building this tunnel for cars and cars only, only encourages more vehicles and eventually the Northern Beaches Link tunnel will also become clogged. You will make another tunnel and eventually we will lose all of NSW and even Australia to banked- up tunnels.

Having all that said, I can only say how devastated I am to hear what you are doing to our beautiful bushland. It is greedy and inhumane. These animals and flora were here long before us and we are taking away what is rightfully theirs. Imagine how you would feel if someone just came and ripped up your home without any permission? Please stop your cruelness and stop the Northern Beaches Link tunnel. Please.

April Rose,
Aged 10 years

I wish to lodge my objection to the Beaches link tunnel based on the points below:

1. The EIS was written in 2016 and is no longer current. COVID has created a massive shift and we have moved to home based working, people have proved that they can work from home and many companies will work on a hybrid model for the foreseeable future, therefore people will only be travelling into the city 2 or 3 times per week. With less dependency on peak hour travel, the tunnel as a solution is a bit of overkill. It currently takes me about 20-30 mins from Manly Vale to travel to the city on the bus in the bus lane - which brings me to my next point...

2. My understanding is that the tunnel will not have a bus lane and buses will not be able to access the tunnel. How is this a solution to shortening our travel times? If people are forced to pay a toll they won't use it, especially if they are only going to cut 6 or 7 mins off their journey - which means everyone will still be driving on the same road - with the buses? The only people to benefit will be the few that pay that toll and use the tunnel. The tunnel is set to cost $15 billion dollars and I cannot see how this is money well spent. This money should be invested into improving public transport options or investigating an alternative to the Spit Bridge. Something simpler, cheaper, less damaging to the environment and quicker to implement. I'm sure an option to incorporate tolls into the mix could be created, if that is what is driving the decision to build the tunnel?

3. Lack of filtration in the ventilation/emission stacks - I have seen the maps of where the deadly pollution from the emissions stacks will spread and this is going to affect the health of the people living in the neighbouring areas for years to come - why are these not being filtered? I'm guessing it will cost more money to make it safer?

4. My understanding is that if the tunnel were to go ahead, the plan is to increase housing and population numbers on the beaches - more people, more cars - therefore more people using the roads/tunnel and in no time we are back to where we started with too much congestion and will need a new plan. Instead of encouraging more cars onto the roads, why hasn't a solution been thought of to increase public transport options and reduce people's reliance on their cars? I lived in London for five years and did not need a car. I made use of London's excellent public transport system. This project actively encourages people to use their cars! Other international cities are introducing congestion charges in their cities, and we are building more infrastructure to enable people to use their cars more often? Why do we have this backwards?

5. Dredging - this will damage the sea grass, the marine ecosystem and uncover years of undisturbed toxic sediment, ultimately polluting the water - I regularly swim at Clontarf, the water is crystal clear my understanding is that this sediment will pollute the water and we will no longer be able to swim there or close by, I also read that Queenscliff beach will regularly have polluted water pumped into it from Manly Lagoon, from the creeks flowing into it.

6. Environmental impact - 2,500 trees removed, threatened species such as the Eastern Pygmy-possums and grey-headed flying foxes will have their natural environment destroyed. The widening of the Wakehurst Parkway will require clearing significant areas of Manly Dam - I don't understand why this road needs to be widened? There is never any congestion along this spot. If it is required - why not extend the tunnel underneath the Wakehurst Parkway and save Manly Dam?

I grew up on the Northern Beaches and have lived in Balgowlah, Seaforth, Manly Vale and Fairlight - all the areas set to be greatly affected by this tunnel. When I was younger I traveled over the Spit Bridge every day to go to primary school and high school, and still travel across it now by bus to go to the city for work. I am supposed to be one of the people to benefit greatly from this tunnel and I assume TFNSW believes I should be grateful and happy? I am so angry, disappointed and really just so sad over the destruction that is about to occur in my home. Please consider other options to improve public transport which will have less environmental impact on the beautiful area we live in and call home. We cannot recreate what we have, we can only work to protect it and preserve it.

- lack of business case
- pollution of harbor as a result of dredging releasing contaminants, no longer saftly use beaches such as Contarf, plus 428 litres of wast water pumped into Queenscliff each day may make this an unusable area also!
- destruction of habitat - they have detailed 23 species under threat in the EIS but there will be many more, Burnt Bridge Creek will probably dry up due to a potential 96% reduction in water flow!
- vibration & construction noise that residents will be subject to over a 7 year period (maybe more as these projects always go overtime)
- clogging up of residential streets with workers parking during the 7 year period, and the extra amount of traffic from them will make it a nightmare to travel in these area's according to the amount of extra vehicles advised in the EIS statement!
- unfiltered stacks! Glady's herself objected to the use of these for the Lane Cove Tunnel, calling for the filtration of stacks, ethically right in the interest of health! Apparently she's changed her tune and they're fine to us on the northern beaches!
- minimal difference in traffic using Military Road!

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. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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!

4. 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 racecourse most of the year. One of the repercussions 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.

5. 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.

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.

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.
My house is so close to the dog site the toxins in the air will impact my health and the health of my kids and husband
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.

We object to the proposal for the reasons in our attached submission

I strongly object to this project, I have provided full supporting details for my reasons in the attached pdf document. Thank-you.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.

To Whom it May Concern,
This Tunnel Project and any benefits it offered, have, in my opinion, very much become redundant since our world has changed with Covid. Your constituents have woken up to a number of things, least of all, one can usually commute less than we originally thought, we appreciate more than ever our green natural spaces, the few ecosystems that remain, and mostly, after the upheaval that was caused by the hospital project, changes like this are feared; they cause massive fluctuations in our biggest assets, our properties, at a time when one just cannot afford to lose further net worth in the short to medium term.
Our particular suburb has been hammered recently by the destruction of suburban streets with major bus routes, removal of key public transport options, with less favourable changes in school zoning, proposed mass council housing development, and with the tunnel project and all the destruction and chaos it will bring. This for little or no benefit, not to mentioned too many key areas that have been overlooked in the planning, like burnt bridge creek ecosystem destruction, unlikely access for buses to the tunnel, rat runs that will affect schools and quiet suburban roads more extensively than the research even shows due to the dramatic changes since Covid.

I am appalled that such a massive development be considered to go ahead after such a significant world event. Don’t put your name on this future white elephant and leave a trail of destruction in your wake. Please!

Yours sincerely,
Concerned member of the North Balgowlah Community

I am object to the construction of the northern beaches link tunnel for the following reasons:
- The EIS and need for the project is based on out-dated inputs. The "current" traffic data is not accurate as it does not include adjustments to traffic flow since the B-Line was introduced, since major adjustments to both travel to work hours and work from home flexibility with COvid (some of which will remain going forward), and traffic flow pattern changes with the opening of the Northern Beaches hospital/Warringah Rd recently completed roadworks. These changes will also affect future traffic requirements.
- The saving of "one hour of travel time" between Dee Why and the airport is over stated. I have lived in Dee Why for significant periods of time and most of the time you can travel the entire journey in under one hour. Encouraging more cars on the road with the tunnel is only going to create more significant backlogs at other intersections along Manly Vale, Brookvale and Dee Why for example.
- We should be investing further in public transport options and park and ride hubs as we have with the BLine.
- The capacity of the existing road through Mosman/Cremorne is significantly affected by on street parking and being allowed to turn right when south bound at a number of intersections south of the Spit Bridge out of peak hour. Invest the money into small offstreet parking hubs that replace the onstreet parking. The parking and the right turn lanes often reduce this three lane road to an effectively one lane road.
- THE STACKS SHOULD BE FILTERED. No amount of additional air pollution should be allowed. The EIS ignores two vulnerable sites in Seaforth Public School (within approx 300m) and Balgowlah Boys School (within approx 400-500m) and the aged care at the Old Tafe Site. How can these not be considered significant sites for air quality with so many pupils. The topography of the surrounding land is more hilly than recent stacks at Haberfield etc. It cannot be argued that the polluted air is being placed high enough to not impact the higher surrounding areas of Seaforth, Balgowlah and North Balgowlah with the stack located in a low area. I also opposed the proposed ridiculous height of the stack itself - far higher at 6-7 stories than anything in the local areas.
- There are inconsistencies in the air quality diagrams provided in the EIS. The "top ten receptor sites" for the Balgowlah stack include sites that are well outside the contour diagram of air quality. How were these top ten receptor sites developed? They do not correlate with the other air data. Why are the schools not considered as a receptor site? Also what about dust during construction and the nearby school sites and residential dwellings?
- The flow of Burnt Bridge Creek is significant and my understanding is that it is to be permanently drained and diverted to stormwater instead of flowing to the lagoon.
- There is a significant fruit bat colony in Balgowlah that rely on the watersource of the creek and the mature trees in this area. This needs a detailed assessment and the trees and water course need to be retained - including during the construction period. IT IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE TO LOSE THE CREEK AND ITS WATER FLOW.
- The cycle / shared path way along Burnt Bridge Creek deviation is a beautiful resource with its shade, trees and glimpses of the creek. This would be a significant loss of green space if the trees are cut down and the creek dried up. The cycle way needs to be kept viable in a safe manner for children to use for the entire construction period.
- The EIS only says that the heavy vehicle movements in and out of the Balgowlah Golf Course site will travel via "Burnt Bridge Creek Deviation and Sydney Rd". There is no details for where exactly they will move through Sydney Rd? This is not enough information for a likely B-double truck route and more information needs to be provided. Will the trucks go through Seaforth shops towards Wakehurst Parkway? There are a number of vulnerable pedestrian crossings, limited access around Seaforth roundabout for turning and already significantly congested roundabout during peak times. Whilst truck movements out of the North Balgowlah access are said to only be allowed to go North on Wakehurst Parkway, there is a lack of information for the very significant number of movements from Balgowlah golf course. It is quite likely that they will be part of the slow and impacted east-west movements on Sydney Rd.
- How are the heavy vehicles from Balgowlah Golf Course accessing Burnt Bridge Creek deviation? It shows they can turn right through to Manly Vale - Will lights be installed early on? This will cause significant changes to the peak travel speed of 80km/hr on the deviation and change the peak flow capacity on that road.
- Once the tunnel is finished how do vehicles coming out of the tunnel turn right up through Balgowlah golf course? On the picture this all looks to be the same level - which means that the southbound traffic on the deviation will have to stop to allow the traffic through which will create additional traffic blockage to southbound cars.
- The EIS mentions workers being encouraged to use public transport including the B Line - but there is no Bline stop anywhere near the balgowlah golf course site. With the recent cut back in local bus services this means many workers will try and drive and clog up the local streets despite what it says in the EIS. Once you add on the likelihood of "rat running" to avoid traffic the local secondary streets such as Ellery Parade and Peacock St to name just a couple will be clogged.
- Further investigation of the contamination release potential of the coffer dams and dredging at Middle Harbour is required.
- There is significant removal of trees along the entire length of Wakehurst Parkway, especially considering the sensitive Manly Dam bushland and water runoff. There should be additional requirements for sediment and dust control for this area to what would be considered "usual".

i object to the project given the climate, traffic and health implications around the area especially around the schools.

The construction of the Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway connection is a poorly thought out and poorly executed ‘improvement’ to transport in Greater Sydney and the Northern Beaches.
The project will have large negative impacts for the generation currently living in and around the construction area. As a resident who relies on leaving the Northern Beaches to earn my income and cannot work from home – this project will be extremely disruptive to tradespeople who must travel. The roads around the construction site will only become more congested before the project is finished as trucks and project workers flood the area and road access is limited as the roads are upgraded/changed. Access for this current generation will also be limited to the only major hospital in the area as Wakehurst parkway is commandeered for tunnel construction. The amenity of the area (in the Balgowlah, Seaforth) will be greatly decreased during and after construction as large vents will billow out car exhaust into the surround suburbs which includes many schools and outdoor recreation areas.
There are also major environmental concerns during construction and post construction. The clearing of excess bushland to widen Wakehurst Parkway will remove precious bushland from an already fragile ecosystem and will expose areas lower down in the catchments of Manly Dam and Garigal National Park to waste run off (during) and more polluted runoff (post). Not to mention the clearing of bush in Manly Warringah War Memorial State Park is the removal/destruction of one of the only living memorials to those who have fought and died for Australia. There is also potential for damage to Aboriginal sites along the parkway.
The project will also provide minimal benefit in its completed form. The travel time from the Northern Beaches will be reduced minimally and for a likely exorbitant toll cost. This will force those unable or unwilling to pay back on to the very roads the tunnel was built to replace. The tunnel will be wider than the Sydney Harbour Tunnel which services a exponentially larger pool of people – making the scale of the Beaches Link seem highly unnecessary. It will also bypass a host of local businesses in Mosman, Neutral Bay and Cremorne that rely on the traffic flow to continue their businesses.
Beaches link does not seem to be future minded. As the world shifts to better public transport, bikes and working from home it seems as though the billions could be better spent elsewhere putting more busses on the road rather than cutting services. Building bike lanes to make it a safer and faster experience for all road users. Pushing localised hubs of business to facilitate working in your local area rather than travelling to one location like the CBD.

The roads around the Northern Beaches are already congested, especially on the weekends; the idea of adding thousands more cars to these busy roads is ridiculous.
Also, huge amounts of unfiltered fumes spewing out in to the air, near to several local schools can not be a good idea!

What is the purpose of the tunnel?

It has been purported as what the community wants because they want to get to the city faster. But the current residents don’t want it. So is this being built so more affordable housing can be built in manly vale and those proposals won’t be objected to as the additional residents and commuters will be mitigated by a tunnel? If the government wants to build more affordable housing in the area, then go ahead and do so. But a tunnel is still not needed. Public transport improvements will be able to handle the increase in resident numbers. There have been arguments Against the a train as the terrain is said to not be able to handle it. But technology and infrastructure has made significant advancements since these options were explored. Technology is improving at alarming rates. This should be investigated further.

I hope that this tunnel is not being pushed through to get other agendas past the public. Please be clear and straight with us. We do not want a tunnel. There are no comments in the EIS about about the need for a tunnel to support the building of additional housing on the area. So if this proves to be the case then the whole process will have been in vein and the government will loose face in the eyes of the voters.

We have a right to have pride in our area and want to keep it special. We welcome foreigners and others to come visit and live here. We are not isolationist. So please stop treating us like we are against this tunnel because we want to keep people out. We don’t. We just want to be respected. The EIS in its length and form do not show this respect. Everything included only proves the point that the impact to nature, people’s physical and mental health, and quality of life are serious. So serious and significant in magnitude that the project should be scraped. Where is the duty of care to citizens and the community who call Thai area home?

People from Cammeray, Frenchs Forest,
and from Manly to Mona Vale do not want this tunnel. But you have not engaged with them in a meaning full and consultative way. Our opinions have been dismissed and belittled by our local member. We cannot gather to protest as COVID-19 limits this. In the final week of the process Facebook removes news from its platform making it next to impasible for the community to mobilise against the proposal and get the word out. And in the final days, the platform itself is shutdown for regular maintenance. Not since I worked in Africa with corrupt governments, have seen such barriers to consultation dismissed as nothing and insignificant towards influencing a result. Ask yourself this, under what conditions would the government scrap the project? If you can’t answer this then this isn’t a Democrat transparent consultation. A true research and consultation process would advise the opppsition of under what conditions a change in mindset would be made. Then it is up to the opposition to try to make those arguments. Not being given this opportunity is disappointing.

Please hear me and others when we say this tunnel reject is negatively impacting the community not just in the future but in the present moment. I strongly object to the tunnel project being progressed. It should be put on hold until other transport options are explored and to see if there is a problem in light of the new environment we live in.

(ALSO ATTACHED:)
Anthony & Sadie Melov
19 Hunter Street
North Balgowlah NSW 2093

1 March 2021

Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE)
Submitted via https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/major-projects/project/10456

EIS Submission – Beaches Link & Gore Hill Freeway Connection (Application No SSI-8862)

Dear DPIE,

We refer to the EIS on exhibition for the Beaches Link & Gore Hill Freeway Connection (the Project).

We are generally supportive of the Project need and related strategic context, but have concerns that arise for two main reasons:
• We reside in North Balgowlah between the two Beaches Link tunnel accesses and associated temporary construction support sites, in Noise Catchment Area 51.1; and
• Our children are, and will be, students at the Balgowlah Boys Campus of the Northern Beach Secondary College (Bally Boys) during the entirety of the 2023 – 2027 construction schedule as currently programmed.

Our specific comments are as follows:
• Construction – Noise & Vibration – Bally Boys
o Bally Boys is located in NCA48.1 and across the road from the proposed Balgowlah Golf Course construction support site (BL10);
o The Noise & Vibration study is > 4000 pages in length but it is fairly clear that noise and vibration will be at least moderately intrusive at Bally Boys, stemming from BL10 and surface works during numerous construction phases (for example, see Table 5-146, Appendix G);
o Proposed surface construction and spoil haulage hours are highly coincident with Bally Boys operating and student commute times;
o In the absence of substantial mitigation, there is high potential for the well-being of Bally Boys students to be materially affected by such noise and vibration for a number of years.

• Construction – Traffic & Transport – Bally Boys
o Peak daily traffic projections of 1,195 light and 495 heavy movements (Table 5-3, Appendix F) are expected at BL10 and the surrounding area;
o The area around Sydney Road and Maretimo Street is already congested;
o In the absence of substantial mitigation, there is a high safety risk for students travelling to and from Bally Boys and the potential for associated noise, vibration and dust to affect students during school time.

• Construction – Reduced Facilities & Amenity – Bally Boys
o Bally Boys has grown substantially to > 1,000 students in recent years and the loss of Balgowlah Oval, even if temporary, will materially impact sporting and physical education activities;
o Vegetation removal near the school will impact student amenity and further exacerbate noise and vibration impacts.

• Construction – Traffic & Transport – North Balgowlah
o As residents of North Balgowlah, we use Judith/Kirkwood Streets (west), Woodbine/Kitchener Streets (east) and Frenchs Forest Road/Sydney Road/Ethel St (south) to enter and leave our neighbourhood;
o All three of these ingress/egress points will be affected by construction works (BL12/13, BL11 and BL10, respectively) and we are concerned that the cumulative impact on traffic movements will be material;
o For example, Kitchener Street is already a relatively busy and narrow residential street so the addition of nearly 30 vehicles during each peak hour time slot (Table 6-39, Chapter 6) will be impactful;
o Furthermore, it seems highly likely that North Balgowlah will become a (even more) substantial “rat run”, creating a safety risk, in particular for Balgowlah North Primary School students on Manning Street and Bardoo Avenue;
o Once we leave North Balgowlah there is additional, cumulative impact likely due to construction activities on the Wakehurst Parkway (BL14) and at the Spit Bridge (BL9).

• Construction – Local Amenity, Biodiversity & Groundwater – North Balgowlah
o We are active users of local natural areas including Manly Dam, Burnt Bridge Creek and National Park area near the Wakehurst Parkway and so are concerned about impacts on both our amenity and these areas’ biodiversity, including aquatic and groundwater-related risks;
o For example, there is a medium risk that, even once mitigated, construction will result in material baseflow level reductions at Burnt Bridge Creek (Page 34, Appendix C);
o There is also a risk that, even once mitigated, construction will result in impact on wildlife in the area around the Wakehurst Parkway where native vegetation will be removed (> 15 hectares);
o We note that Manly Creek is important to the climbing galaxias and other aquatic species which are sensitive to water pollution and sediments.

• Operations – Transport & Air Quality – General
o We are hopeful that identified air quality mitigation measures are sufficient and assume that the risk may further reduce due to a long-term increase in electric vehicle usage;
o We are hopeful that the Project effectively utilises public transport strategies in a manner which reduces the chances of traffic congestion simply re-emerging in the near future.

We recognise that the Project EIS is one step on the path toward receiving a final Determination and that contractor selection and detailed design have not been completed. To that end, we are hopeful that additional consultation will identify more detail around mitigation of our concerns outlined above. We are particularly supportive of the establishment of a Working Group that involves Bally Boys representatives.

We appreciate the opportunity to make a Project submission and look forward to reviewing the Response to Submissions.

Yours sincerely,
Anthony & Sadie Melov