Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Connection

I believe the project will be a positive construction within the North Sydney community. Although, as a Junior member of Northbridge Sailing Club, it saddens me to hear of the restrictions that will be applied within the Middle Harbour waters. It will significantly impact our ability to sail and make the club less desirable to potential members. Our club runs through the work of volenteering and has a great community ethos. Without new members and potential loss of current members the club would struggle to maintain itself due to limited funding and failure to find enough instructors and other volenteers to carry out weekly club duties. Sailing is a great way to be active, social and apart of a community. I believe that within the current climate, sailing should be encouraged due to its outdoor active nature. The club provides myself and many of my fellow club members with a great way to stay both physically and mentally healthy. Therefore, the impact this project will have on our club needs to be better discussed with Club leaders. NSC would like the managers of the project to reach out to NSC to discuss away to lessen the negative impacts the project will have on the club during the duration of construction.

As a Seaforth resident of Hope street there are several aspects of this project that are concerning. It would good to see evidence of the collaboration from the government departments with experts who are offering alternatives that do not seem to be considered.

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. We would like to see Mr Stokes Commitments as education minister adhered too that he would not let that happen to the next generation. The recent bus changes and Transport pushing people into Cars by reduced bus services, queues in Seaforth and impacting parking conditions with the changes to buses demonstrates a disconnect with the local community that needs addressing.

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 ) Housing value and ability to buy else where already removed with the tunnel announcements.
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 strategy - 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 for the whole community as this uncertainty adds to the inability to support such a project. Environment impact of not having a shared transport strategy needs assessing. Impact to city if people are forced into cars should also be considered. Already bad in peak times.
4) Modelling does not take into account the reality of rat runs and learnings from other areas. Will people actually afford or be willing to use Tolls. We will not as a family as principally we pay for the roads in taxes. Many feel the same as evidenced by other projects.
5) Exit from Hope street right needs addressing. RMS been informed as has local MP but no action. This is a serious accident waiting to happen that could be easily solved for with effective Town planning.
6) Environmental impact to creek has not been considered. Many people purchase to have the bush walk/manly cycleway locality and changing the ecosystem could change the diversity and what the area look and feel is like.
7) 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.

In summary, move the tunnel entrance back so its not aligned to the schools and in less residential area as per previous and initial discussion - meet commitments to protect our kids . Ensure the trucks are dealt with appropriately to reduce the increase in childhood diseases pertaining to high traffic, polluted and toxic waste. Listen to the community and alternatives that have been suggested with better balance and ensure the project has a win for all (whilst mitigating the risks to protect our future generations )by shifting the entrance North if the project has to go ahead.
Regards

The noise pollution, the air pollution, the loss of wildlife habitat, the stirring up of toxic sludge in middle harbour-and that’s all just during the building of the tunnel. Once operational the air quality will not be acceptable due to the lack of sufficient filtering of exhaust fumes. It is not a beaches tunnel-it doesn’t solve the problem of getting from the northern beaches across Sydney. It has been badly thought out and no indication of how it is to be financed. To lose so much (natural beauty and quality of life I this area) - I would expect there to be some upside. There seems to be no meaningful
positives to what this project would bring to our area. Once Manly Dam is ruined we will never get it back.
With the events of 2020 do we still believe we need the tunnel? People are not commuting the way they used to and our ideas about cities need to change.

Please see detailed letter of objection attached.

I support the submission made by the Northbridge Progress Association.

The utility for this project (using only the vaguest of price indications of 14b?) is laughable. Whilst the 'interconnectivitiy of all these tunnels seems like a good reason to build yet more tunnels, surely there is some social infrastructure that can be put inplace? Train? Tram?

Also for the residents in Grafton avenue we would like some additional safety measures, perminant traffic lights at the top of our street (it is already too dangerous turning out of our street) lowering the speed to 50kphs during construction and a bus lane and bus stop on grafton avenue afterwards (this should be seen as a win / win for the tunnel and put more movements through the tunnel.

Sincerely,

Tom Threlfall

To whom it may concern,

Please note that I object to the Northern Beaches Tunnel project for the following reasons:
1. Negative environmental impact through massive construction process (air and water pollution), affecting the beautiful local areas that attracted me to live here (e.g. Manly Dam, Middle Harbour) and massively increasing carbon emissions (when NSW should be decarbonising and working towards Net Zero by 2050)
2. Increased noise and dust pollution for locals including local schools (during construction and during the tunnel's operation, especially considering unfiltered smoke stacks), which will affect the health of residents
3. Traffic impact (increased travel times for residents during the 5-7 year construction period and after as it will encourage even more people to drive and more cars), it will therefore not fix our congestion issues
4. Reduction in green areas (Balgowlah golf course will be eradicated and so will other natural habitats and the nearby waterways)
5. Financial and economic advantages are missing (for the same amount of money you can establish a world class public transport system that will reduce traffic and congestion)
6. It does not currently include a rapid public transport option so it misses the opportunity to massively reduce car traffic
7. It does not contribute towards the vision of Sydney to be a sustainable and liveable city but rather will cause a less sustainable Sydney and less liveable local area

Thank you,
Manfred Fussi

Objection: Beaches Link Tunnel
I write to express my strong objection to the Beaches Link Tunnel
I sit here admiring the sounds of a local Kookaburra family who have made a a large Casuarina tree their home, along with they're morning feasting on local worms and occasional piece of raw meat set neatly on my balcony railing I see & then hear a group of Magpies only metres away jostling for their share of natures tucker..
Not far from up the golf course I hear the hilarious chatter of the Lorikeets amusing themselves as they feed on a magnificent Callistemon or better known as a bottlebrush..I can almost set my watch to they're gossiping each day.
Throughout most mornings I am blessed and feel privileged to witness the many bird varieties along with regular sightings of echidna’s, water dragons as well as many more animal life on Balgowlah Golf course which I call Balgowlah Park..
To think the future of this natural habitat can be decided by a nod of a politicians head or a click of a mouse it absolutely boggles me! Why would anyone want this destroyed!
I strongly object to the destruction of the proposed 3,000 trees identified to be directly or potentially impactedI request that a large portion of trees numbered 720, 721, 758-771 and 20331 - 20360 be maintained & retained as they would qualify as being of high retention value. They are healthy, mature & established and will provide natural screening from noise, dust, to properties on the Eastern side of the Golf course.
I object to the light impacts during and construction & post construction. Appendix V, page 160 mentions this as having high night time visual impacts. On this basis retaining these trees (mentioned above) would significant minimise the visual impacts to these properties.
I object to the level of noise when during construction and when operational. The modelling levels seem to be not representative of the truth. As a condition of approval of the project, an independent assessment of noise and vibration from construction on all surrounding homes with noise and vibration above management levels must be done and provided-to the property owner before construction commences. Where exceedance are found appropriate mitigation strategies such as double-glazing or noise barriers be established and implemented prior to construction.
I object that my family will have to endure the work on site truck movements of 495 heavy truck movements and 1195 light truck movements daily. This will create chaos on our local streets, create rat runs, deem our local streets unsafe for our children to play & ride bikes. I would expect as a minimum the Contractor would provide staff parking at an alternative location and i object to staff using local street parking at any time.
The proposal to construct Amenity block East within metres of back fences of residents whom currently enjoy looking directly into green space and paid a premium for their properties for this privilege. I strongly suggest this Amenity block be moved further into the construction site.
I strongly OBJECT to the Exhaust Stack being unfiltered!
Property values of homes located on or very close to the Golf Course Beaches Tunnel construction site have been significantly effected and several home owners have tried to sell only to be offered a significant below & low market $ offer or no offers at all.
Stress of the proposal has already had an impact on the mental health of a significant number of local residents this will be even more compounded if construction commences. Some have already had to seek the assistance of councillors and psychologists.

This pic in the attachment is representing trees identified for direct, potential impact or retained.
I have mentioned in my submission a number of these trees marked in this pic for high retention value.

I object to this project as I am very concerned about the negative impacts on the environment and health of the community I believe it will have, and I cannot see enough benefit. I believe such a massive investment as is proposed should be made in sustainable public transport instead, for more effective long term congestion relief and climate change mitigation.

I am very worried about the impact of air pollution, construction noise, congestion during construction phase, loss of green spaces and creation of toll-avoidance rat-runs on my family and community, to name a few, if it goes ahead. Further, the Health risk assessment acknowledges construction fatigue, increased traffic and uncertainty as significant stress factors for the population. The travel time savings do not make sense either.

My son will most likely attend Balgowlah Boys High School from years 2024 - 2029 and this project frightens me, for his sake - I do not want his entire high school experience to be marred by construction noise and stress associated with his school being so close to this project. Further, I cannot believe unfiltered pollution stacks are being proposed, with regards to his health and that of all the other people in the community.

In addition, this project simply does not help us meet our climate goals - more toll roads will force people into cars. Local councils such as Northern Beaches have set strong targets around reducing car use in line with this policy. The EIS demonstrates that the reverse will be achieved and this project increases car dependence and trips.

The proposed route of the tunnel will cut through sensitive habitats, areas of variable foreshore geology and major Middle Harbour and Manly Dam catchments. Many endangered species are put at risk - and the EIS confirms that green spaces such as Cammeray Oval and Bicentennial Reserve will be more polluted as a result of the project. Where are the benefits to outweigh all this negative impact? I can't see it. A robust climate and sustainability assessment with external benchmarking and strong mitigations is essential.

The EIS should be re-issued with more information. And the business case should be transparent and should be able to stand up to public scrutiny. This not the case currently.

This submission is to object strongly to aspects of the Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Connection and request some major improvements.

The EIS for the Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Connection is unsatisfactory in many respects and inadequate, and I request the project plans and EIS be revised to properly address the major issues of public health, environmental damage and the need for public transport rather than more roads.

My specific objections are as follows:

1. The location of the dive site in Flat Rock Gully is appalling and if proceeded with would destroy hundreds of trees, a vast area of beautiful bushland, recreational open space, and habitat for numerous species.
Flat Rock Gully is designated by the local Council as a Wildlife Protection Area. It is thus very important that the dive site should instead be located in the baseball field that can be easily rehabilitated.

2. The unfiltered pollution stacks, some of which are very close to schools, would be very damaging to health.
They should all have filters. To not have filters on these pollution stacks would be very detrimental to the health of our children and our community.

3. The planned tunnels for cars are far too environmentally damaging and would encourage even more private vehicle usage.
The tunnels should instead be for public transport / Metro which would require smaller tunnels, reduce private vehicle usage which would reduce traffic congestion in the long term, create far less pollution, be sustainable, and help meet responsible climate goals.

Conclusion: due to the environmental degradation and detrimental health effects that the Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Connection as currently proposed would cause, I object strongly to it in its current form. I request that it be for public transport / Metro instead, that all pollution stacks have filters, and that the dive site at Flat Rock Gully be moved to the baseball field that can be easily rehabilitated.

Yours sincerely
Adrienne Kabos

Dear Sir / Madam

We wish to raise our objections to the proposal for the Beaches Link Tunnel. While we have not yet scrutinised the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in detail, due to the tight time frame and the overwhelming depth of the document, there are a number of issues that are or significant concern.

Having lived through the recent developments of the Northern Beaches Hospital and associated roadwork, our initial concern is of the projected time and cost for the project. A seven year timeframe for construction will impose unwarranted hardship on local residents, for little or no long term benefits.

Even when completed there are no guarantees that the tunnel will deliver the time and costs savings suggested in the proposal. This is not to suggest that we are against improvements in transportation for the northern beaches, however it is lacking in strategic vision to not consider further improvements to public transport before pushing ahead with a tunnel.

Based on the figures we have seen, while the tunnel is likely to deliver small improvements in travel time to the city, these minimal savings will come at the expense of local residents who are likely to face delays on local roads and intersections. The estimate of a 10% reduction in traffic on Military Rd in long-term projections in 2037 is simply not good enough to warrant the outlay of $12 billion.

Within the EIS there are also a large number of environmental concerns that require further detailed examination. Increased exhaust pollution, the desecration of green space, increased heavy truck movements over the construction period and the threat to endangered plant and animal species all require further consideration as they come at a long-term cost to the environment and to the local community.

The northern beaches community deserve improved transportation infrastructure, however this should not come at the expense of the very community that this tunnel purportedly serves to benefit.

Local residents do not want transport at any cost. We do not want to sacrifice green space. We do not want to reduce air quality. We do not want to battle increased traffic on our side streets and suburban roads.

We understand that many other residents have put forward detailed concerns and we wish to add our voices and ask that careful and detailed consideration is given to the raft of identified issues.

As long-time local residents of the northern beaches we would firstly ask that more time is given to gather a more complete understanding of the project and its impacts.

An extended period of consultation would allow all residents the opportunity to more carefully consider the issues and allow government to re-examine if all elements of the currently proposal are both economically and environmentally responsible.

Yours sincerely

Unacceptable existing contaminated landfill
The quality of air and water adversely affected

To whom it may concern,
I am writing as concerned Nth Balgowlah resident about the current plans for the Beaches Link Tunnel and how they impact the local community. Specifically, and most importantly, while modeling indicates air quality may improve slightly for the Nth Balgowlah area, that is based on expected traffic patterns. Actual traffic patterns will depend on many factors, such as whether good public transport options are created through well-designed and well-used express bus services through the tunnel, which have yet to be determined. The planned privatisation of NSW bus services adds more uncertainty for this factor.
International studies have shown the dangers to health, particularly in children, of being near many open lanes of traffic. This includes increases in asthma and impacts on child brain development. This project would increase traffic lanes from 6 to 12 near Seaforth school, including a traffic light, and add a nearby smoke stack.
We should not take risks when it comes to child health and safety. This was the position expressed by Planning Minister Rob Stokes, when he was Education Minister, stating: “I won’t be party to putting stacks near kids … There is no way in hell that I’d support any development¬ that would put the lives of pupils, teachers and parents at risk”. We ask Minister Stokes and the NSW Government to live up to that commitment and if at a very minimum, put world class air filters on them.
Further, the creek that runs down under Burnt Bridge Deviation will be severely impacted by cutting the water flow off under the new plans which will have significant impact on the local flora, fauna and the water flows to Manly lagoon. We ask that this very important ecological stream not be impacted by the construction in any way.
Lastly, the current noise reduction erected walls do not cover all of the open road that backs onto the Western side of the creek that borders Burnt Bridge Deviation where the newly proposed tunnel is planned. We ask that new walls are put in place to shield residence of Serpentine Cres, from construction and traffic noise.

Thanks for your consideration.

Dylan Ryan

The Beaches Link

I object to the Beaches Link being built

Firstly the Northern Beaches Hospital precinct is the only new suburb to be developed without a rail link.
Given that climate change is the most pressing problem facing humanity, surely it would make more sense to build a public transport system that conveys people from the Northern Beaches to the city rather than a roadway that encourages people to drive.
There should be a definite plan for zero emissions in this Beaches Link by 2030. However, this project will continue to emit greenhouse gases beyond 2030 as it is unlikely that most cars will be electric vehicles by 2030. This is unacceptable.

There are some good aspects of this project in that the plan includes dedicated underpasses for wildlife and rope bridges for possums to allow connectivity between the Manly Dam catchment and Garigal National Park. The addition of exclusion fencing to prevent native roadkill is good. However, the project really needs a dedicated wildlife overpass to provide connectivity between the Manly Dam catchment and Garigal National Park.
This overpass is essential for Micro bats and birds species
Micro bats
A study of vegetated fauna overpass by McGregor Matthews and Jones show, ’Overpasses are being frequented by a diverse range of micro bat species which facilitate activity and provide road permeability for micro bats. It is, therefore, significant in demonstrating the potentially important role of fauna passages in facilitating the long–term persistence of micro bat communities in urban landscapes. ‘
Vegetated Fauna Overpass Disguises Road Presence and Facilitates Permeability for Forest Micro bats in Brisbane, Australia
McGregor, Matthews and Jones

Birds

In the article by Pell and Jones,
Are wildlife overpasses of conservation value for birds? A study in Australian sub-tropical forest, with wider implications :Biological Conservation 184 (2015) 300–309 , they state
‘It seems inevitable that negative effects of major roads and road networks on avian fauna will become increasingly widespread throughout many countries. Because conditions and avian species assemblages and their evolutionary backgrounds, will differ considerably across these areas, it is important to assess local forest-dwelling species in terms of the characteristics which identify those species likely to benefit from use of wildlife overpasses. The species of particular conservation interest will be predominantly forest-dwelling species. They will include: sedentary, territorial species, often insectivores of smaller bodyweight; terrestrial species of all bodyweights; and forest species and guilds with a high level of habitat specificity, including edge-averse and forest understory species. They will often have flight characteristics not well-suited to sustained direct flight, perhaps linked to their evolutionary history. The species will not be exclusively of smaller bodyweight. For example, certain ecological specialists occupying forest understory habitats (e.g. the whipbirds (Psophodes spp.), may be of larger bodyweight. ‘

As stated above, building a dedicated overpass for native fauna is essential to provide connectivity for all fauna between the Manly Dam catchment and Garigal National Park.

Fencing
It is good that the project includes wildlife exclusion fencing. However, this must be built to the RMS standard for wildlife exclusion fencing. This standard includes the fence being dug into the ground and composed of chain-linked fencing at least 1.8 m tall. Special provisions will need to be considered for the exclusion of herpetological species. It is imperative that the fences are built so that no wildlife gets into the road passageway.

Studies by Bond et al of Compton Road bypass in Wildlife Research, 2008, 35, 103–112 Temporal trends in use of fauna-friendly underpasses and overpasses found that it is imperative that continuous monitoring of fauna exclusion fences occurs (in perpetuity)
They found in their study that the ’only wallaby fatalities were associated directly with human-induced breaches in the fence. Clearly, continuous monitoring of the fence is crucial for a fence to function as an effective barrier; the exploitation of breaches in the fence occurred soon after they appeared (both wallabies were killed within 12 h of the breaches being noticed).’
They concluded that’ easily accessed safe passages under and over the road, fences are an essential component of the obvious success of the Compton Road structures.’

In the contract for the construction of the road, there must be an essential condition that the exclusion fences are put in place before the road construction starts. This was not done on the Mona Vale Road East upgrade. There was a heavy death toll on the native wildlife

Bushfire
It would appear from the notes provided in the EIS that the New South Wales State Government is going to impose asset protection zones in the bushland adjoining the Wakehurst Parkway. These zones would be in Garigal National Park and the Manly Dam catchment. Both these areas of bushland are intrinsically valuable and should not be subject to ongoing asset protection zone treatment.
Gates must be installed in the fencing to provided to allow animals passage across the road carriage in the event of a bushfire. There should not be a concrete median barrier to impede the path of animals escaping from bushfire.

Water quality
This road will impact many catchments, riparian zones and even marine zones. There should be water treatment plants put in place to ensure that any run-off that carries any chemicals from roadways is effectively treated. The water from this area should not contain excess nitrogen, phosphates and other organo carbons. The water should be of the highest purity and free of contaminants.

It is unacceptable that the project is predicted to release chemicals from the toxic mud under the tunnel. This toxic mud will adversely impact Sydney Harbour and ultimately affect us all as it permeates through the environment.

Offsets.

It is imperative that high-quality local bushland is purchased and maintained under the bio banking system in perpetuity. There should be a much greater ratio of 1 to 1.

There is one map attached. It outlines Aboriginal Land Council land around the Wakehurst Parkway and Oxford Falls area. This could be bought from the Aboriginal Land Council to provide an offset for this project as most of this bushland is of very high quality both from aboriginal heritage and from an environment point of view.
There are also three privately owned blocks of land in the Redhill area of Cromer that the Northern Beaches Council has applied to the State government to help them purchase, as they would also be suitable offsets. However, both should be included as offsets.
Thank you for allowing public comments.

I object to this project, particularly due to the proposed positioning of the dive site in Flat Rock Gully, the 5-6 years of pain (& no gain) from traffic and noise to our community, the lack of business case and lack of consideration for alternatives, and the lack of transparency and remediation previously demonstrated on other tunnel projects. For all these reasons I also support the submission made by Northbridge Progress Association.

I OBJECT to this ill-conceived project which has no published business case, is not high on Infrastructure Australia’s priority list, and which poses a significant risk to health and safety (as demonstrated by the EIS itself).

I am a parent living in Cammeray with young children who suffer asthma and allergies, and our family fall within the category of “sensitive receptors”, and I therefore hold grave concerns about the consequences for us and our community should the project proceed.

In particular, I OBJECT for the following reasons:

- the project presents contamination risks to human health;
- the project presents contamination risks to the environment, with negative impact on our precious waterways and green spaces;
- the scale, extent and risk of groundworks will be detrimental in sensitive residential areas and foreshore environments;
- it is a tolled road and there is little evidence that it will alleviate current congestion;
- it has a poor climate profile at a time when we should be looking to projects which reduce our emissions;
- there has been no publicly published business case and the costs demonstrated in the EIS seem to far outweigh the benefits. The EIS also fails to fully scope many aspects such as utilities and contamination which poses a risk to the project;
- the B-Line buses have been successful in reducing congestion and no public transport alternative study has been done with which to compare this project.

High levels of noise, dust, heavy vehicle pollution, traffic and increased stress risks the health of my family and my community during a 5 year construction. Overlapping construction with other major projects exacerbates this.

Longer term, building more toll roads will force our growing population into cars. Combine that with unfiltered pollution stacks and increased local traffic and our pollution problems will continue to grow. These projects cut through Sydney's largest schools and sport zone. This is TERRIBLE for children and in particular "sensitive receptors".

High level contaminants have been found in Flat Rock and Middle Harbour, and the risk assessment has not been completed before going to public consultation.
Contamination can put communities, environments and workers at risk and cause major cost blow outs and delays in the project.

​Cammeray Golf Course, Flat Rock Gully, Spit Reserve, Middle Harbour and Wakehurst Parkway all have confirmed contamination. Flat Rock Gully is a legacy Landfill site. Contractors cannot be trusted to adequately address these risks in practice and our community will suffer the consequences of that!

This is an abominable project that should have be REJECTED at the conception phase.

I also request that the EIS be reissued for public consultation with:
1) A full Phase 2 Contamination Assessment completed; and
2) A comparative mass transit alternative assessment; and
3) Travel times, surface traffic changes and costs fully scoped ie a business case.

​

Re: Western Harbour Tunnel and Warringah Freeway Upgrade.

Have you not heard community objections to the WHT and WF? .
I object and suggest that before going ahead with further approvals of the project, that the concerns of the communities anxious about the impacts on them, their present and future environments, the health and well-being of their families, their lives and the uncertain urban life into the future, be listened to, and addressed now.
I wish to point out that it is human activities in the name of ‘progress’ and ‘commerce’ that have been responsible for the degradation, and destruction of the very ‘most important to our existence’, our ecosystems and our bio-diversity. All of which was due to the unwise Industrial, Economic and Urban Development decisions of the past. Decisions about plans just like the WHT and WFU. Indeed it is proven that humans have contributed to 60% of the disappearance of the world species since 1970.
The proposed project counteracts the principals of Ecological Sustainable Development in the protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991 (NSW) which declares that the conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be of fundamental consideration (P EAA Act Part 3(2)(c). Bushland such as that in Flat Rock Gully, has been set aside for environmental protection. It should not be destroyed or disturbed. The Flat Rock Gully reserve is a declared Wildlife Protection Area supporting small birds, mammals, reptiles and frogs which are fast disappearing from our urban areas. This bushland is a key part of a network of wildlife corridors across our city and essential for maintaining bio-diversity. Urban residents and communities treasure their bushland environment and the Flat Rock Gully Bushland was a life saver for local residents, during Covid, - it must be protected from unwise decisions that will lead to permanent desecration of that which is a major contributor to the health of humans, plants, animals and our bio-diversity.
I question how the destruction of 390 trees can only have a ‘minimum’ impact as stated in the EIS.? And it is said that the plan is to replace them with only two-thirds. Willoughby City Council (tree policy requires that 3 trees be replaced for every tree that is removed. (WCC Vegetation Management Strategy 2020). NSW State Government should not be overriding Local tree policies . The inconclusiveness of the EIS as to the destroyed site of the Flat Rock Gully, should not be left to the construction process. The rehabilitation and return of the bushland should be confirmed in the EIS.
The EIS has also acknowledged that animals and birds on the construction footprint and nearby bush reserves will be driven away, in some cases permanently. (EIS p19-64) In our lovingly restored rare urban bushland at Flat Rock Gully in form destruction and Naremburn, and area of 6.77 hectares will become a dive site for tunnel spoil from 2023 to 2027, a this would be catastrophic. The destruction of the said bushland at Flat Rock Gully, Naremburn, to be flattened for the construction footprint (EIS chapter 19, p19.9) must be considered further. If the proposal is approved, it is vital that, at the end of the project, the said construction site is restored to bushland consistent with the Environmental Conservation Zoning of the site and also in accordance with the local Urban Bushland Plan of Management and the Flat Rock Gully Reserve Action Plan.
I am an elderly resident in Naremburn. I feel very strongly that this project should not go ahead and I strongly object to it proceeding based on the importance of protecting precious natural bushland. I have read the EIS . You are taking the ‘easy shortcut way’! You must be fair and respectful to the community(s) by giving them a comprehensive alternative plan and a conversation addressing ‘Beaches to City Public Transport’, and not cars, and a plan that does not impact on our ecosystems and bio-diversity.

As a parent and local resident, I object to the Northern Beaches Link and freeway upgrades due to the massive negative impacts these will have on traffic in our local area. Nth Sydney LGA will be clogged both at tunnels exits and due to toll avoidance and local rat runs. Plus, the EIS estimates up to 900 trucks are expected DAILY through Naremburn (Flat Rock Dr) and 560 trucks DAILY to Cammeray tunnelling sites, often carrying contaminated soil and dangerous particulate patter. Key major intersections (including Miller and Amherst) will fail the EIS says; cross Nth Sydney LGA & Willoughby journeys will take much longer. All this, and the billions of dollars to be spent, in order to only achieve an estimated 10% reduction in traffic on Military Road, seems like the project is not viable. I demand that:
1) the business case for these projects is released for public consideration. The business case should evidence the travel time savings quoted, the congestion benefits quoted, should include a revised and fully scoped assessment of impacts to local roads (ie Willoughby, Eastern Valley Way, Military Rd), model various tolling implications and surface road impacts, should include all under-scoped risks (ie contamination, utilities etc), include the costs to mitigate and remediate multiple contaminated sites and in so doing accurately cost the project.
2) that the need for the project, and its superiority over public transport alternatives is demonstrated by way of a transparent process involving informed public engagement and consultation, noting that the EIS process has to date has not evaluated the relative merits of public transport alternatives.

> the tunnel project supports unsustainable, inefficient, private vehicle use
This significant investment in public funds should be spent to shape future behaviour, not simply support what has evolved. The sustainable, resource-efficient solution is a rail link to the CBD.

> the tunnel project may be ignoring a significant long-term shift in the volume of commuter journeys to Sydney CBD
The COVID pandemic has resulted in substantial numbers of people working from home. The huge scale of expenditure and environmental impact demand the project be delayed to investigate the long term impact of this change in behaviour.

> there is no space in Sydney CBD for the volume of traffic projected in the EIS
The forecast increase in traffic volumes are significant. From the EIS it seems that this increase is due to commuter traffic to the CBD. The space to accommodate all these extra vehicles in the CBD during the working day does not exist. The project is spending a vast amount of money to increase vehicle congestion in the CBD.

> the project contributes to climate change
Encouraging the use of private vehicles directly contradicts federal, state and local government commitments to reducing climate change. There will also be a significant amount of greenhouse emissions associated with the construction itself.

> short-term environmental impact during construction
It is inevitable that the projected increase in local traffic due to the construction will result in pedestrian injury.

> on-going environmental impact
The tunnel's exhaust stacks will concentrate pollution and deliver the toxic materials into the community. The air quality of the community--including many schools in the area--will suffer as a result. Poor air quality adversely affects public health, as recognised by the World Health Organization, resulting in increased health costs and reduced life expectancy.

The community representatives of Willoughby Council's Bicentennial and Flat Rock Gully Advisory Committee together with President of Bay Precinct of North Sydney object to the project as per the attached submission. These groups represent the resident, sport and bush care groups based around and within the Long Bay Catchment Area and have a formal role in advising council with regard to the use, care and development of the area. The views stated here are the views of the community representatives of the committee only. The information has been provided to council representatives to consider as part of a seperate submission.