Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Connection

I object to the beaches link project for a number of different reasons. Amongst other things -

1) I object to the negative impact that the construction traffic will have on access into North Balgowlah. The currently unrestricted hours of operation and the noise and pollution as a direct result of the construction and trucks required on North Balgowlah and other local suburbs.
2) I object to North Balgowlah being directly in the middle of the two ventilation stacks. I have COPD and the pollution will most likely shorten my life and negatively effect the health of my family and neighbours all for a minimal and unsustainable decrease in commute time for a vocal minority that no longer commute daily due to the societal changes brought on by Covid 19. No matter which way the wind blows we will be exposed to exhaust and extremely toxic particulates.
3) I object to the negative environmental impacts that this tunnel will have on Burnt Bridge Creek, Manly Dam, Garrigal National park and all its Flora and Fauna (including many rare, at risk and endangered species.)
4) I object to the digging up of toxic sludge in middle harbour putting harbour swimming (for example Clontarf Beach, a place of historical significance) at risk
5) I object to such a huge sum of tax payers money being spent on a project that we will then have to pay tolls to utilise bringing no financial benefit back to the community.
6) I object to the lack of research into public transport options and the lack of public transport being associated with the tunnel such as bus lanes in the tunnel or a possible light rail.
7) I object to the link project based on the lack of legitimate need for the beaches tunel in the context of the Northern Beaches plans: i.e. Traffic count numbers, as the beaches focuses on creating significantly more employment and industry hubs in Mona Vale and Brookvale, and reducing car numbrs by 30%. as stated in the NBC strategy 2038. As well as the change in transportation habits and patterns since Covid 19 in early 2020.
8) I object to the risk 11 sites of Aboriginal cultural heritage including rock art, engravings and rock shelters that are vulnerable to vibration impacts will be put under around the Wakehurst Parkway as well as the planned destruction of other sites of high cultural significance.
9) I object to the lack of an objective comittee, department or group with the power to assess and resolve community issues and complaints throughout the construction process.

Sincerely,
Kirsten Merchant

While I see the need for this tunnel, it will have major implications for NBSC Balgowlah Boys Campus during the construction phase.

The school will be impacted by noise, traffic, dust and the loss of access to open space - all vital for boys health and concentration! Yet this cohort of students have already been impacted by disruptions from Covid, before adding major building works on top.

Further, many of the boys at this school do not have options to change school. The peninsular location means there is no option to travel East, South or West to an alternate State school.

The existing school is rundown, overcrowded, has limited access to recreational space, and the buildings are reaching the end of their commercial life span .

Given this, I ask that a new school be built in an alternate location prior to tunnel works commencing.

There are excellent examples of new build schools such as South Melbourne Primary School with minimal footprints. Further, many new schools overseas are being built adjacent to public parkland to leverage under-utilised open space during weekday hours.

Such schools are not only better equipped to meet evolving educational needs of students for the 21st century; but have also created better facilities for the community as a whole . For example - public theatre space and community training centres for use outside school hours.

I have serious concerns about the welfare of students as a result of the tunnel construction.

I sincerely hope the works create an opportunity to build a strategic infrastructure plan for local students; to coincide with plans for increased housing and better transport in the area.

See attachments

Cammeray Public School P&C objects to the project due to the unreasonable impacts on it's school catchment and the lack of benefits demonstrated both to the local area and across the project as a whole. Our school's catchment sits between three of the major construction sites and will receive impacts from the Cammeray Golf Course (cumulative), Warringah Freeway Upgrade, the Flat Rock Gully Site and works on Middle Harbour as our catchment borders all of these locations. The poorly scoped yet evident risks in relation to contamination, noise, dust and construction traffic are of particular concern to the school community as are the documented increases in pollution around the school and it's sports fields once the tunnel is built. Our school catchment crosses into Naremburn and hundreds of children will need to travel to school across the major truck route at Brook St and again across Miller St which undoubtedly will receive a higher level of traffic to avoid the construction route. It is particularly concerning that benefits such as travel times are unable to be verified and quite obviously unachievable and the project results in the same level of traffic on Military Rd as at today's figures (with a claimed 10% improvement based on future growth projections that upper also to be impossible based on the ceiling capacity of the road). The school supports the communities call for the release of the business case that evidences benefits claimed, a phase 2 contamination study and a public transport alternatives study that demonstrates the merits of this project over a public transport solution. Given the level of under assessed risk presented in the EIS this information should be provided to the community in the form of a re-released EIS for public consultation. The school P&C has been granted an extension to provide more information by the 8th March 2021 as per email from Belinda Scott dated 1/5/2021

I would like to voice my objection to the proposed Beaches Link Tunnel. I have grave concerns about the viability and environmental impact of the project, both from an emissions point of view and implications for local nature and wildlife, increased traffic patterns on residential streets and consequences for residents during the long construction phase.
Exhaust emissions have been found to cause respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema and cancer. This has been repeatedly proven across numerous independent studies across the world. Children and the elderly are particularly at risk, and the fallout zones from unfiltered exhaust stacks will directly impact many residential streets including local schools, preschools and sporting facilities. Similar projects in Sydney such as NorthConnex have raised concerns regarding unacceptable levels of airborne toxins.
Environmental impacts which concern me include the removal of hundreds of established trees in our area, the disposal of hundreds of thousands of litres of waste water into Burnt Bridge Creek, then running into Queenscliff lagoon, putting at risk many plant and wildlife species which rely on these habitats. The creek will basically be desecrated by a potential 96% reduction in its flow which will be a devastating loss. The movement of contaminated sediment to Clontarf and Middle Harbour (The Spit)
potentially causing pollution of neighbouring beaches is unacceptable. I am extremely concerned about the effects on Manly Dam Reserve; one of the last remaining areas of Duffy's Forest, Manly Dam is an area of remarkable beauty which is enjoyed by thousands of residents and visitors every year for its walking tracks, rare wildflowers, mountain biking tracks, fishing and family leisure areas. One of NSW's only swimmable dams would no longer be safe for public use.
I am concerned about the general removal of green space throughout our community, for example Balgowlah Golf Course. As it is public land, the golf course is not just used by golfers; it has a popular shared walkway/cycleway alongside the course, and the course itself is used by many residents for exercising their dogs or walking on a daily basis. The EIS reveals that 1979 mature trees will be removed in Garigal National Park/Bantry Bay and Manly Dam Reserve with replacement planting for only 339(6), replacing mature trees with only young saplings.
Finally I am concerned about the longer term implications for increased local traffic on suburban roads not designed for heavy flow.
Changes to traffic patterns as a result of the tunnel are projected to significantly increase delays on local roads and intersections. These delays will encourage rat-runs on smaller local streets, increasing travel times and making local streets more dangerous. Many of these roads are approaches to local schools and preschools and the increased amount of vehicles, many of whom will be trying to find shortcuts along smaller streets away from the main drags, will create dangerous conditions for other drivers and pedestrians.
We are so incredibly lucky to live in an area of such natural beauty as the Northern Beaches. Of course we need to modernise and look to the future, but this should absolutely not be at the expense of our environment or our health. I urge you to take into account the concerns of all those who have submitted an objection.

I believe th we environmental impact and cost of the project is too big for this project to go ahead. I also feel that there needs to be more analysis carried in a post covid world to understand whether this project is still viable

1. Local roads - the EIS has not assessed the impact on local roads, instead leaving this to Council to address. Local roads will become rat runs and traffic will likely become intolerable for those living close to the proposed tunnel portals
2. Traffic generation - the tunnel will generate traffic and is unlikely to provide a long term solution
3. Public transport - in comparison, increased mass transit public transport would be a far better solution to traffic problems on the Northern Beaches. Solutions such as increased buses should be considered ahead of the tunnel as a means of improving traffic. An underground train line would also provide a better solution
4. Air quality - long term air quality impacts from unfiltered stacks leading to health problems in the local area, especially to those using the recreational area in the vicinity of the Balgowlah stack and local schools
5. Loss of vegetation - along Burnt Bridge Creek and large areas of vegetation along Wakehurst Parkway, and associated impacts on fauna
6. Waterways - severe potential impact on Burnt Bridge Creek with groundwater drawdown leading to the eventual loss of this ecosystem and impact on water quality in Manly Lagoon due to wastewater discharges
7. Construction noise - likely to be highly impactful during 7 years of construction. What respite measures are proposed?
8. Construction traffic - will make a traffic issues much worse during 7 years of construction

We live in Cammeray with our two daughters, one of whom attends Anzac Park Public School and the other attends a local small daycare in Crows Nest. We work in North Sydney and Sydney CBD respectively, but have spent the last year working out of our home in Cammeray.

We wish to lodge our objections to the Beaches Link tunnel because the tunnel ventilation/emission stacks will NOT be filtered. This tunnel is not world’s best practice as declared, and should not go ahead. The non-filtered emission stacks will spew out the products from the 15 km tunnel over the suburbs of Cammeray and 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. It is unacceptable that the tunnel emission stacks are not filtered and are located in such close proximity to schools and daycares.

If this project does proceed, the tunnel stacks must be filtered to world’s best practice.

We live in Cammeray with our two daughters, one of whom attends Anzac Park Public School and the other attends a local small daycare in Crows Nest. We work in North Sydney and Sydney CBD respectively, but have spent the last year working out of our home in Cammeray.

We wish to lodge our objections to the Beaches Link tunnel because all options to find the best way to approach to traffic congestion have not been properly considered.

Traffic demand is a phenomenon in the absence of viable public transport options. This 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 diluted over time.

This project 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 and are working to reduce the need to use personal vehicles. But this project aims to increase car travel into sydney's CBD. This is irresponsible planning and not in Sydney's long term interests.

We suggest that train options such as a rail line between Dee Why and Chatswood is considered as a priority against this proposed project to build a $15b stretch of road.

If this project does proceed, there must be a substantial public transport program that is developed to support movements of people on this road to encourage reduced usage of personal vehicles.

I have huge reservations for the Beaches Link & Gore Hill Freeway Connection project because it affects me directly. My unit is one of many in the project's footprint, on the corner of Hampden and Parkes roads, overlooking Gore Hill Fwy, where the entry and exit points of the tunnel is planned. In addition, Hampden Rd, which my bedroom is facing will be undergoing redevelopment and on the other side of Gore Hill Fwy, support buildings are being constructed. There will be road-hammering and blasting and 30 heavy vehicle movements an hour on to Gore Hill Fwy in front of me. If Transport for NSW is genuinely concerned for Artarmon residents in the project footprint, they should make a commitment to them now to install at-property noise treatment of double glazing and airconditioned ventilation as a priority (and a goodwill) rather than wait for :"further design development and construction planning". The EIS states no new sound wall will be constructed in front of our building, so I and other residents in this and other buildings will be exposed to increased traffic noise which is already excessive at 65 A-weighted decibels DB[A]) 7am-10pm and 69dB)A) 10pm-7pm. That is 9dB(A) above the limit requiring at-property noise treatment under RMS's Noise Abatement Program. But that has been denied us because of this project ,which hasn't been approved yet! The EIS promises the Western Harbour Tunnel & Beaches Link will "relieve traffic pressure on the North Shore" and "improve streetscapes, sustainability and liveability across ... the North Districts by reducing congestion and through traffic in local centres". That will not be the case for my unit and others in the project's Artarmon fooprint. This is all a repeat of the Lane Cove Tunnel in 2005, when we were not told the road would be expanded from four lanes to eight lanes before the project was approved, exposing us to a huge increase in traffic noise. Yet, predicted traffic noise measures were below levels requiring double glazing and now the noise is double that which was forecast.

Please see the attached to explain my strong opposition to the project.

We live in Cammeray with our two daughters, one of whom attends Anzac Park Public School and the other attends a local small daycare in Crows Nest. We work in North Sydney and Sydney CBD respectively, but have spent the last year working out of our home in Cammeray.

We wish to lodge our objections to the Beaches Link tunnel because of the outrageous cost of this project with a net outcome of relatively small reductions in predicted travel times. At $15 billion dollars, this project to build a 16km stretch of road (and tunnel) is unjustifiably expensive.

It seems that similar traffic travel data outcomes could be achieved by improving current roads and public transport scheduling for buses and trains at a fraction of this $15 billion cost.

If this project does proceed, there must be a significant review of the costs and benefits to ensure the right outcome for the people of Sydney.

My overriding comments are that this project is very welcome. I am grateful that it is being pursued at all. Despite being overdue for decades as a completion of the original Warringah Freeway project to finally reach Warringah, the delay gives rise to notable benefits that the original surface-level project did not have. The major connection to the M2 corridor and the innovative underground interchange in Cammeray are both significant increases in amenity of any possible motorway to the Northern Beaches. The ease with which Beaches Link will connect with the Western Harbour Tunnel, the Cahill Expressway and Bradfield Highway is commendable and will be particularly calmer for the driving experience to the airport, as well as the south, west and southwest. These roads will be far less stressful than the existing motorways and tunnels.

If it is outside the scope of the submissions, I still wish to express hope that the B1 B-Line service will be re-routed through the tunnel to reach Wynyard. It will be a massive disappointment if the route still takes up and drops off passengers along the Neutral Bay corridor; this was never the primary goal of the B-Line project.

One area of concern is the free flow of traffic southbound along the A8 corridor from Brookvale and Condamine Street into the Burns Bay Creek Deviation (BBCD). I have been assured by the Virtual Information Session team that the BBCD will have the southbound traffic signals set up to be in phase, such that the traffic southbound traffic from Condamine Street intending to enter Beaches Link will not encounter a red signal at the newly signalised "access road" intersection on the BBCD, on as many occasions as possible. While this seems to be an obvious objective for any traffic signal phasing, it has not always happened in the past: For instance, in the first 10 years of the Homebush Bay Drive, southbound traffic from Ryde Bridge encountered red signals when entering Homebush Bay Drive: This is a topologically analogous example to BBCD. The priority had previously been set to favour Concord Road towards Concord; when the project was completed and Homebush Bay Drive was opened, the priority was not changed and the new traffic signals did not favour the traffic travelling towards the new road.

One final area of concern is Figure 4-33 in Chapter 4 of the EIS, and the earlier tables that provided data for the coloured circles. I need to put on the record that the circle "assessments" appear arbitrary and not objective, and this occurred in certain critical parts of the table that swayed alternatives away from surpassing the selected design. Here are some examples:

1. Table 4-16 for Alternative 7 Community: Orange. This should have been light green or better, because the benefits to the community are under-weighted in the final analysis -- but the style of the document does not actually "analyse" at all. Is it really asserted that Alternative 7 has lower total 'Community' benefits when compared to the final proposal 4c? One of the bullet points mentions "Reduced permanent impacts" but understates it completely: The entire green space to the east of BBCD (currently Balgowlah Golf Club) is not bisected by a new road, and is does not have an entire car park paved over it. That is surely a persuasive community benefit. Being able to connect green space with fields or simply walk through them unimpeded by surface traffic is a massive advantage, and that advantage was not given discussion in Table 4-16 or the EIS chapter. A table such as Table 4-16 must weigh these benefits as a major distinguishing characteristic, or else it is not a useful contribution to Figure 4-33.

2. Table 4-16 for Alternative 7 Environment and Heritage: Similarly to the previous point, the golf course's trees and fields and possibly its existing buildings could have their heritage retained in this alternative to the final proposal 4c. Additionally, the value of a continuous piece of green space is underrated in this section of the table. The case for Alternative 7 being "Mostly aligns" with environment and heritage of the project development considerations is, I worry, stronger than this table has given. The final tally of orange circles in Figure 4-33 came as a shock to me, as I was expecting this to be judged as the premium option with highest dollar-cost and maximum green space benefit: Environment, Heritage and Community.

3. Table 4-10 for Alternative 3 Community: similar points to the above point 1.

4. Table 4-10 for Alternative 3 Environment and Heritage: similar points to the above point 2.

5. Table 4-10 for Alternative 3 Traffic and Transport: Surely this should have been Orange, or "Partially Aligns". The points again do not add up to a net positive, and the analysis is again called into question. One bullet point about "Traffic signals no longer required" is presented as a positive when it is not: The lower two bullet points counteract it, but the net total is not heavily impacted into an Orange rating. The weighting and scoring of these bullet points simply do not reflect in the final tally, and land the entire Figure 4-33 into question.

6. Table 4-9 for Alternative 2 Community: In this table, a lot of benefits are heavily considered and given detailed examination. This is exactly what I was expecting in point 1 with regards to Alternative 7. The kinds of details being examined about "increased residual land" and "temporary impact to the majority of Balgowlah Golf Course" are correctly summarised with a Light Green circle "Mostly aligns"; whereas the same section for Alternative 7 does not treat it as fairly. This is despite the very large increases in "increased residual land" in Alternative 7, even compared to Alternative 2 (let alone 4c, as is proposed to go ahead). Again, the value of this is surprisingly minimised. Why is "increased residual land" not even mentioned in Table 4-14?

The weighting and scoring of these bullet points simply do not reflect in the final tally, and land the entire Figure 4-33 into question.

Whilst I understand that a solution needs to be found to the congestion issues in the Northern Beaches suburbs and North Shore area of Sydney, I am not at all convinced that this multi lane highway is the best solution. In this modern world, where we are all supposed to be doing our best to lower emissions, why are we not focussing more on an environmental solution, which takes MORE cars OFF the road, rather than encouraging more people to use their cars in bigger tunnels - it is sheer madness, and foolhardy!! We are treading a very delicate path if we want to secure the future of our children and our planet.
From what I have heard during various discussions, it seems the cost of using this new tunnel will be so prohibitively expensive, that few people will end up utilising it. A big white elephant is not what we need!
As a parent of school age children, I am extremely concerned also at the impact of the emissions coming out of the various unfiltered stacks that will be needed for this tunnel. In particular, there is one earmarked for a location less than 500m from Balgowlah Boys school, where it is likely that my current 9 year old will attend. I have many friends who live in the areas close by to the proposed development, around Seaforth and Balgowlah, and they are horrified at the prospect of the noise and congestion that will eventuate from this during the coming years.
Last, but not least, I am very very concerned that beautiful and important wildlife areas, such as Manly Dam, and others, will suffer irremediable damage due to the proposed works.
I therefore urge you to strongly take further action to deliberate the necessity of this project, and come back with something better for us all!
Yours sincerely
Meg Cherry

I object most strongly to the project.
1. The contamination that has now been confirmed, along with the risk to marine and land eco-systems mean that the proposed methodology is flawed. The Sydney Metro - Chatswood to Sydenham EIS states that an immersed tube design was assessed and not selected due to the high contamination risks to Sydney Harbour. Another crossing option MUST be investigated - Middle Harbour, the beaches at Balmoral, Chinamans etc that the contaminated waste will be removed via, are too precious to risk, not to mention the waste that is proposed to be discharged to local creeks.
2. The biodiversity impacts are unacceptable. The Beaches Link will negatively impact significant wildlife corridors, including Flat Rock Drive and Manly Dam bushland, and marine ecosystems at Middle Harbour and the Spit. 23 threatened species will be negatively impacted. Hundreds of other species will also lose their habitat, be cut off from bushland, or be driven away - birds, frogs, reptiles, mammals and aquatic animals. The mitigation measures are inadequate - most animals cannot be moved, and biodiversity offsetting will not stop local wildlife extinctions. We all know that biodiversity offsets are not worth a jot - often they are never actually purchased and can NEVER make up for what is lost. Nature has taken such a hit from last year's bushfires and continues to battle with climate change and overdevelopment. Does it really have to suffer this as well?
3. Why do we continue to build roads for more and more cars instead of improving public transport? The project contradicts government climate change goals: the councils along the route have all declared a Climate Emergency and the State government has committed to the goal of achieving net zero emissions by 2050 - how will you do this when you are going to increase vehicle emissions by building this? We want public transport infrastructure NOT private vehicle infrastructure.
4. what is the business case for doing this? Where is the cost/benefit analysis? What alternatives have you considered?

To whom this may concern,
As a local resident of the relatively pristine suburb of North Balgowlah, I approve of the project going ahead, however please accept my objection to the "unfiltered" ventilation stacks being proposed for personal health and safety concerns - I'll admit my young son and I are both asthmatic - and the extent of the likely impacts to Burnt Bridge Creek which I believe should be an "environmentally protected" area given its importance as a local feature, habitat and water resource for native flora and fauna alike.
I thank you for your acknowledgement of my concerns and hope that you will consider these to help shape the final outcome of the tunnel.
Yours faithfully,
Annabel Semedo and family.

I object to the proposed Beaches link tunnel,
I object based on:
It is not the best solution to the Northern Beaches/Lower North shore traffic congestion/hotspots
The high cost of the project to benefit the few who can afford to regularly use a toll road
the irrevocable environmental damage to Flat Rock, Burnt Bridge and Wakehust Parkway
The 4 unfiltered eyesore exhaust stacks
I would like to see the public monies better spent onlong term, environmentally friendly public transport solutions and low cost above ground options such as 27/7 clearway on Spit and Military Roads with a new 6 lane spit bridge

We live in Cammeray with our two daughters, one of whom attends Anzac Park Public School and the other attends a local small daycare in Crows Nest. We work in North Sydney and Sydney CBD respectively, but have spent the last year working out of our home in Cammeray.

We wish to lodge our objections to the Beaches Link tunnel because this project not in alignment with recently declared 'open spaces initiative’ in which the NSW government seeks to protect precious open green spaces.

This project will result in bulldozing at Flat Rock Gully to make way for a major dig site, as well as dredging up toxic materials from Middle Harbour and destroying the Cammeray and Balgowlah golf courses.

Flat Rock Gully has undergone amazing regeneration during the past few decades to the extent that is now a native wildlife corridor of major significance and as such should be protected. Flat Rock Gully is home to several protected and endangered species including small bird populations, rock wallaby, powerful owl, lizards and many more creatures catalogued by Willoughby wildlife group WEPA.

The primary dig site at Flat Rock Gully is also 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 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. The further downstream contamination risk of Tunks Park waters is also unacceptable.

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.

If this project does proceed, there must be a significant program developed to restore these native wildlife corridors and precious waters to their former health.

I write to express my strong opposition to Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Upgrade.
Fundamentally my objection is for a number of reasons - I do not believe the tunnel will be beneficial holistically in the long run (from a traffic and environmental perspective, it should all be about improving public transport) .
Most importantly, I can not understand how a decision was made to make Flat Rock Gully a site option for works. My family and I live in Naremburn because of its close proximity to the City (via bus) and due to the community feel and bushland. Walking through the bike track you see information plaques from the Council which talk of a lovely local waterfall, which was destroyed, I believe due to road works. How can this keep happening?
I object to the project due to the contamination risks it presents to the environment and to human health and the negative impact on our precious waterways and green spaces.
I object to the project due to the threat to our biodiversity and green spaces.
Please reconsider and follow the below request:
● Consider ecologically sustainable alternatives to the car tunnel. Fully scope alternative public transport options.
● Carry out full assessment of biodiversity in and around area to be destroyed in Flat Rock Gully. Check trees for hollows across the gully area. Carry out fish and macroinvertebrate sampling in creeks and waterways.
● In consultation with wildlife experts, develop a full suite of mitigation measures to protect the wildlife in local bushland from noise, light and traffic in Flat Rock Gully.
● Undertake full bush regeneration and provide three for one tree plantings as required by the local vegetation strategy.
Biodiversity credits are likely to be applied to areas too far from the construction footprint. We need additional work done before construction to provide nest boxes and rock habitats for displaced wildlife. Biodiversity credits should also be applied long term to weeding and bush regeneration in Flat Rock Gully Reserve.
● Ensure all landfill exposed by tunnelling is capped at the end of tunnelling and reinstate crushed sandstone as a contoured base for re-establishment of locally indigenous vegetation and habitat. Remove all temporary structures (including noise mitigation sheds).
● Engage consultants (independent of contractors) to measure water quality in the creek before, during and after construction to check for scouring, contamination from the site and elevated salinity and sediment levels. Make this information publicly available.
● Include clear strategies in the EIS to counteract the release of contaminants into Middle Harbour following storms or due to silt curtain damage during construction.
● If the proposal is approved, it is vital that, at the end of the project, the construction site in Flat Rock Gully is restored to bushland consistent with the Environmental Conservation zoning of the site and in accordance with the local Urban Bushland Plan of Management and the Flat Rock Gully Reserve Action Plan.

We object to the project on the following grounds