Skip to main content

State Significant Infrastructure

Determination

NorthConnex

Hornsby Shire, Ku-ring-gai, The Hills Shire

Current Status: Determination

Interact with the stages for their names

  1. SEARs
  2. Prepare EIS
  3. Exhibition
  4. Collate Submissions
  5. Response to Submissions
  6. Assessment
  7. Recommendation
  8. Determination

0

Consolidated Approval

Consolidated Approval

Modifications

Determination

Archive

DGRs (3)

Amended Director General's Requirements 11 April 201...
Director-General's Requirements 29 October 2013 [Sup...
Amended Director General's Requirements 11 April 201...

EIS (114)

007_Chapter 5_ Project description_ Part 1.pdf
006_Chapter 4_ Project development and alternatives.pdf
020_Section 7.4_ Health.pdf
009_Chapter 5_ Project description_ Part 3.pdf
021_Section 7.5_ Urban design_ Part 1.pdf
5_EIS Volume 3.pdf
3_EIS Volume 1C.pdf
106_Appendix N_ Greenhouse gas methodology and calcu...
043_Appendix C_ Geological long section.pdf
040_References, list of tables and list of figures.pdf
035_Section 8.3_ Resources and waste.pdf
033_Section 8.1_ Land use and property_ Part 3.pdf
028_Section 7.9_ Surface water.pdf
023_Section 7.5_ Urban design_ Part 3.pdf
022_Section 7.5_ Urban design_ Part 2.pdf
015_Section 7.1_ Traffic_ Part 1.pdf
013_Chapter 5_ Project description_ Part 7.pdf
012_Chapter 5_ Project description_ Part 6.pdf
010_Chapter 5_ Project description_ Part 4.pdf
002_Executive summary.pdf
103_Appendix M_ TWP_ Aboriginal heritage_ Part 1.pdf
099_Appendix L_ TWP_ Non-Aboriginal heritage_ Part 1...
096_Appendix J_ TWP_ Biodiversity_ Part 2.pdf
095_Appendix J_ TWP_ Biodiversity_ Part 1.pdf
094_Appendix I_ TWP_ Urban design_ Part 2n.pdf
093_Appendix I_ TWP_ Urban design_ Part 2m.pdf
091_Appendix I_ TWP_ Urban design_ Part 2k.pdf
089_Appendix I_ TWP_ Urban design_ Part 2i.pdf
081_Appendix I_ TWP_ Urban design_ Part 2a.pdf
076_Appendix I_ TWP_ Urban design_ Part 1k.pdf
073_Appendix I_ TWP_ Urban design_ Part 1h.pdf
065_Appendix H_ TWP_ Human health risk assessment_ P...
063_Appendix G_ TWP_ Air quality_ Part 3.pdf
060_Appendix F_ TWP_ Noise and vibration_Part 12.pdf
058_Appendix F_ TWP_ Noise and vibration_Part 10.pdf
055_Appendix F_ TWP_ Noise and vibration_Part 7.pdf
053_Appendix F_ TWP_ Noise and vibration_Part 5.pdf
048_Appendix E_ TWP_ Traffic and transport_Part 4.pdf
042_Appendix B_ EPA Regulation 2000 Checklist.pdf
039_Chapter 11- Project justification and conclusion...
031_Section 8.1_ Land use and property_ Part 1.pdf
026_Section 7.7_ Social and economic.pdf
025_Section 7.6_ Biodiversity_ Part 2.pdf
024_Section 7.6_ Biodiversity_ Part 1.pdf
018_Section 7.3_ Air quality_ Part 1.pdf
011_Chapter 5_ Project description_ Part 5.pdf
8_EIS Volume 6.pdf
6_EIS Volume 4.pdf
4_EIS Volume 2.pdf
057_Appendix F_ TWP_ Noise and vibration_Part 9.pdf
105_Appendix M_ TWP_ Aboriginal heritage_ Part 3.pdf
100_Appendix L_ TWP_ Non-Aboriginal heritage_ Part 2...
097_Appendix J_ TWP_ Biodiversity_ Part 3.pdf
090_Appendix I_ TWP_ Urban design_ Part 2j.pdf
087_Appendix I_ TWP_ Urban design_ Part 2g.pdf
082_Appendix I_ TWP_ Urban design_ Part 2b.pdf
080_Appendix I_ TWP_ Urban design_ Part 1o.pdf
077_Appendix I_ TWP_ Urban design_ Part 1l.pdf
071_Appendix I_ TWP_ Urban design_ Part 1f.pdf
070_Appendix I_ TWP_ Urban design_ Part 1e.pdf
068_Appendix I_ TWP_ Urban design_ Part 1c.pdf
054_Appendix F_ TWP_ Noise and vibration_Part 6.pdf
052_Appendix F_ TWP_ Noise and vibration_Part 4.pdf
045_Appendix E_ TWP_ Traffic and transport_Part 1.pdf
050_Appendix F_ TWP_ Noise and vibration_Part 2.pdf
047_Appendix E_ TWP_ Traffic and transport_Part 3.pdf
046_Appendix E_ TWP_ Traffic and transport_Part 2.pdf
041_Appendix A_ Director-General's Requirements.pdf
036_Section 8.4_ Greenhouse gas and climate change.pdf
017_Section 7.2_ Noise and vibration.pdf
016_Section 7.1_ Traffic_ Part 2.pdf
014_Chapter 6_ Consultation.pdf
008_Chapter 5_ Project description_ Part 2.pdf
005_Chapter 3_ Strategic justification and project n...
004_Chapter 2_ Assessment process.pdf
003_Chapter 1_ Introduction.pdf
001_Table of contents and glossary of terms and abbr...
104_Appendix M_ TWP_ Aboriginal heritage_ Part 2.pdf
098_Appendix K_ TWP_ Business.pdf
092_Appendix I_ TWP_ Urban design_ Part 2l.pdf
088_Appendix I_ TWP_ Urban design_ Part 2h.pdf
086_Appendix I_ TWP_ Urban design_ Part 2f.pdf
084_Appendix I_ TWP_ Urban design_ Part 2d.pdf
079_Appendix I_ TWP_ Urban design_ Part 1n.pdf
078_Appendix I_ TWP_ Urban design_ Part 1m.pdf
075_Appendix I_ TWP_ Urban design_ Part 1j.pdf
067_Appendix I _ TWP_ Urban design_ Part 1b.pdf
061_Appendix G_ TWP_ Air quality_ Part 1.pdf
056_Appendix F_ TWP_ Noise and vibration_Part 8.pdf
051_Appendix F_ TWP_ Noise and vibration_Part 3.pdf
049_Appendix F_ TWP_ Noise and vibration_Part 1.pdf
038_Chapter 10_ Environmental risk analysis.pdf
037_Chapter 9_ Summary of environmental management m...
034_Section 8.2_ Hazards and risk.pdf
032_Section 8.1_ Land use and property_ Part 2.pdf
030_Section 7.11_ Aboriginal heritage.pdf
029_Section 7.10_ Non-Aboriginal heritage.pdf
027_Section 7.8_ Hydrogeology and soils.pdf
019_Section 7.3_ Air quality_ Part 2.pdf
7_EIS Volume 5.pdf
2_EIS Volume 1B.pdf
1_EIS Volume 1A.pdf
044_Appendix D_ Community communications framework.pdf
102_Appendix L_ TWP_ Non-Aboriginal heritage_ Part 4...
101_Appendix L_ TWP_ Non-Aboriginal heritage_ Part 3...
085_Appendix I_ TWP_ Urban design_ Part 2e.pdf
083_Appendix I_ TWP_ Urban design_ Part 2c.pdf
074_Appendix I_ TWP_ Urban design_ Part 1i.pdf
072_Appendix I_ TWP_ Urban design_ Part 1g.pdf
069_Appendix I_ TWP_ Urban design_ Part 1d.pdf
066_Appendix I _ TWP_ Urban design_ Part 1a.pdf
064_Appendix H_ TWP_ Human health risk assessment_ P...
062_Appendix G_ TWP_ Air quality_ Part 2.pdf
059_Appendix F_ TWP_ Noise and vibration_Part 11.pdf

Response to Submissions (22)

12_Response to Submissions_PIR Volume 2 Part 2.pdf
18_Response to Submissions_PIR Volume 4 Part 5.pdf
15_Response to Submissions_PIR Volume 4 Part 2.pdf
14_Response to Submissions_PIR Volume 4 Part 1.pdf
13_Response to Submissions_PIR Volume 3.pdf
11_Response to Submissions_PIR Volume 2 Part 1.pdf
06_Response to Submissions_PIR Volume 1 Part 6.pdf
17_Response to Submissions_PIR Volume 4 Part 4.pdf
16_Response to Submissions_PIR Volume 4 Part 3.pdf
09_Response to Submissions_PIR Volume 1 Part 9.pdf
07_Response to Submissions_PIR Volume 1 Part 7.pdf
04_Response to Submissions_PIR Volume 1 Part 4.pdf
02_Response to Submissions_PIR Volume 1 Part 2.pdf
2_Response to Submissions_PIR Volume 2.pdf
10_Response to Submissions_PIR Volume 1 Part 10.pdf
08_Response to Submissions_PIR Volume 1 Part 8.pdf
05_Response to Submissions_PIR Volume 1 Part 5.pdf
03_Response to Submissions_PIR Volume 1 Part 3.pdf
01_Response to Submissions_PIR Volume 1 Part 1.pdf
4_Response to Submissions_PIR Volume 4.pdf
3_Response to Submissions_PIR Volume 3.pdf
1_Response to Submissions_PIR Volume 1.pdf

Assessment (4)

Advisory Committee on Tunnel Air Quality_ Initial Re...
Advisory Committee on Tunnel Air Quality_ Final Repo...
Advisory Committee on Tunnel Air Quality_ Initial Re...
Advisory Committee on Tunnel Air Quality_ Final Repo...

Determination (6)

Instrument of Approval Attachment A.pdf
Appendix D.pdf
Instrument of Approval Attachment B.pdf
Secretary's Environmental Assessment Report.pdf
Appendix E.pdf
Instrument of Approval.pdf

Approved Documents

Community Consultative Committees and Panels (1)

B8b. AQCCC Independent Chair Approval - DPE Approval 11 May 2022

Independent Reviews and Audits (1)

Independent Audit Team Approval

Other Documents (1)

Extension Requests_20052022_015346

Note: Only documents approved by the Department after November 2019 will be published above. Any documents approved before this time can be viewed on the Applicant's website.

Complaints

Want to lodge a compliance complaint about this project?

Make a Complaint

Enforcements

There are no enforcements for this project.

Inspections

There are no inspections for this project.

Note: Only enforcements and inspections undertaken by the Department from March 2020 will be shown above.

Submissions

Filters
Showing 1 - 20 of 1371 submissions
Name Withheld
Comment
Turramurra , New South Wales
Message
Control of the smoke emission will need to include control of odour emission as well as control of the particulate emission to not exceed PM2.5.
The existing Cumberland Highway (Pennant Hills Road) needs to be retained for use by local traffic.
The management arrangements for the traffic at the entrances to the tunnels needs to be documented
Alec Beckett
Comment
, New South Wales
Message
Dear Planning NSW,

Thank you for taking the time to look at my concern in relation to the plans for Sydney's North Connex (M1 to M2 tunnel link) Project.

As you are no doubt familiar with this major piece of road infrastructure, I am sure you have seen the road and lane proposals. It seems glaringly obvious that the proposal falls agonisingly and fractionally short of its aims. With such a major and expensive piece of transport, can we please not play games and simply do it correctly from the start. Clearly, the builders want to recreate the situation as with the M2, where a few years down the track, with ownership close to being lost, that further works are carried out to make the road more viable and therefore extending the time in private control. Please please, let us not have a substandard road for this reason.

If you look at the plans for the road, you will easily see that there is NO DIRECT LINK for travellers to go from the new road heading South, to the city! (the needed tunnel would be one lane of about 200 metres only!) Likewise, travellers from the city are NOT ABLE to join the new road! Let me repeat the issue: there is NO direct link from the M2 East of the connection with this new tunnelled road.

All traffic from the city, using the M2, will need to exit the M2, wait at traffic lights (likely to back up into the M2) turn right at Pennant Hills Rd, then wait at the next set of lights to join the new tunnel northbound. Likewise, travellers heading South on the tunnel will need to exit onto Pennant Hills Rd, backing up traffic in the tunnel, to go to the next set of lights to then turn left onto the M2 - this connection could be made possible by the most simplest of joining tunnels. It is so obvious - glaringly obvious. This omission can not be a simple oversight.

Additionally, travellers on the Pacific Highway at Wahroonga are not able to join the new tunnel and would have to join at Pennant Hills Rd. The room is already available for an entrance onto the new tunnel southbound at the Pacific Highway/M1 junction.

The current proposal means that for example, travellers from the Central Coast can not go to the city or the airport directly. It means a nightmare situation for holiday makers on a Friday afternoon from the city to head North. It is ridiculously short sighted. Imagine the ease and the popularity of the road if a traffic light free run was available? I ask you, why? Why are these obvious connections not included - and if there is no suitable reason, will you ensure that these connections are included into the plan?

Thank you greatly for your time and I look forward to hearing your thoughts of the consideration.

Kind regards,
Alec Beckett
Steve Noon
Support
Wahroonga , New South Wales
Message
SOUTHERN INTERCHANGE

The project should provide for a totally underground interchange between the M1 and M2 motorways at West Pennant Hills for all west, east, south and northbound traffic (it is assumed that the tunnel link will be named the M1)..

EIS Figure 5.1 indicates westbound traffic on the M2 joining the M1 northbound will have to exit the M2 at West Pennant Hills, turn right at traffic lights into Pennant Hills Rd, then travel only 500m north before joining the M1 northbound tunnel. A similar situation exists for southbound traffic on the M1 joining the M2 eastbound.

I consider this design to be unsatisfactory - the interchange with two major motorways, for safety and efficiency, should not be signalled nor require the use of arterial roads to effect the interchange. I am unaware of any other interchanges where such a method would be necessary (eg: M4/M7, M5/M7, etc). In addition, the signalling at this intesection will be the only set pf lights on the M1/M2 between the Sydney CBD and Hexham.

The RMS traffic modelling predicts that there will only be a small amount of traffic turning north from the east and vice versa However, I believe that the affected traffic will increase over time, particularly as people become aware just how quicker it will be to get to Wahroonga from Macquarie Centre/University or from the city or Artarmon.

It would seem to be relatively straightforward to construct the interchange connections as two short tunnels, being cost effective and prudent to carry out the necessary tunnelling works whilst the boring machines are on site for the initial tunnel construction. (See Attachment 1 "Northconnex Southern Interchange Map"

Alternatively, provision should be made in the existing design for the tunnels to be easily provided at a later time.
Daniel Mendes
Comment
Wahroonga , New South Wales
Message
The smokestacks need to be relocated from Wahroonga to an area where residents will not be at risk of developing serious diseases and cancer
Name Withheld
Object
Hornsby , New South Wales
Message
This is really not good for all children,aged,patients in the area. Our two kids are all allergy to dust and it would caused serious Asthma !! Please give children a clean and healthy environment.
Allan Churchill
Support
Beecroft , New South Wales
Message
Submission by Allan Churchill on Northconnex 21-7-2014

SUBMISSION 1
That the entrance and exit to the tunnel have sun filtering construction to ensure drivers entering or exiting (particularly exiting) are not blinded by the sun at ANY time of day throughout the year.

SUBMISSION 2
Wherever noise walls are likely to be constructed, the initial design of other infrastructure works doesn't result in excessive extra costs or excludes provision of EIS proposals due to uneconomical costs caused by the original design.

SUBMISSION 3
Alliance profit sharing resulting from designs that hinder or impede any part of EIS submissions be included in any EIS report, review, update etc.

SUBMISSION 4
When the Northern F3 (M1) is blocked as has happened regularly or during high peak periods.
How will the excessive pollution created by the reduction in speed or stopped traffic be dealt with?
I am concerned that the traffic speed during afternoon peak or holiday peak on the F3 within 5km of the exit area of the tunnel onto the F3 within 5 years of opening will dramatically increase pollution from the unfiltered stacks.

Allan Churchill
Graham Broome
Comment
, New South Wales
Message
I would like confirmation that all aspects of the accoustic measures have been addressed as noted on the attached "marked up" drawings and artist's impression.
Name Withheld
Object
Thornleigh , New South Wales
Message
I object to this project on the following grounds:

1) Endless exponential economic and population growth, which are both driving these types of projects, are plainly not possible in the long term. You need to think more about the big picture and what we as a species are doing to this planet.

2) it has been proven time and time again that these projects are NOT financially viable. Why do you persist in making the same mistakes over and over?

3) Once again you relegate small communities with large numbers of schools and children to breath concentrated air pollution. You propose to concentrate the pollution spread over 9 kilometres into just two small points. Really quite breathtakingly stupid. On top of this insult, you STILL do not attempt to filter this pollution out, claiming its "too expensive". Once again, you put money ahead of people's lives.

4) will you reduce the number of lanes on top of the tunnel once again, in an attempt to force people to use the toll way as you did at the Lane Cove tunnel? If so, this is again a travesty of justice against the sovereign people of Australia.

In summary, we need to be a smarter country, and lead the way in renewable fuels and ways of allowing people to live in good health and safety. This project does none of these things and instead continues to promote and support the oil-based economic status quo - one that will be disastrous for this planet and all of it's species.

I recommend this project does not go ahead.
Charles Cho
Comment
Wahroonga , New South Wales
Message
Hello,

My name is Charles Cho and I am the owner of 9 Lucinda Ave, Wahroonga.

I refer to page 58 of Appendix F - Technical Working Paper - Noise and vibration_Part12.Pdf

It is apparent from the picture and diagram on that page that there is a significant noise barrier that is missing from the overall noise mitigation strategy near properties 1626, 1617, 1648, 1656 and 1661. There are noise barriers on both sides of the M1 until it meets Pennant Hills Road except behind those properties. Please refer to the attached extract from page 58 with indications where the noise barrier is missing.

I would like to submit that as part of the design and environmental noise mitigation due consideration be given to erecting noise barriers next to the M1 behind the above properties as indicated in the attached picture.

Regards
Charles Cho
9 Lucinda Ave, Wahroonga
Klaus Zimmer
Comment
, New South Wales
Message
This is just a belated catch up project. Why not built for the future and make it 2 lanes in both directions.
Name Withheld
Object
Normanhurst , New South Wales
Message
The potential for negative impact on property prices directly above the route of the tunnel is NOT covered in the EIS.
During the community consultation sessions, questions were raised regarding the negative impact on the price of properties directly above the route of the tunnel. The project team had no clear answers and advised that we need to wait for the EIS to address this issue.
It is surely not the opinion of the project team that a house such as mine, directly above the route of the tunnel and about 400 meters away from a support facility will not be negatively impacted?!?! We have already seen properties above the route of the tunnel going up for sale and not selling as quickly or for a comparable price to other properties. Perception is reality, buyers will chose another property or ask for a discount if they perceive living above a tunnel as a negative, and most probably would not see it as a positive feature.
I and many others have waited months for the EIS to come out to address our concerns about this issue, but it seems that the project team is not at all interested in investigating this. Just to clarify, a one liner saying "no negative impact to property prices is expected" is not an acceptable response. Please provide solid evidence and studies not anecdotal evidence and marketing mumbo-jumbo.
Jeff Dickson
Comment
Beecroft , New South Wales
Message
Director Infrastructure Projects
Department of Planning and Environment
Application number - SSI 13_6136
Major Projects Assessment

Dear Director,

I have viewed the plan of the NorthConnex project at the Community Information Centre. There is a serious deficiency with the plan for the southern end of the project. The predominant factor impeding traffic flow in cities is the presence of intersections, so the most important role of urban motorways is to bypass intersections. However, the current proposal only partly bypasses the major intersection which is at the junction of the M2 and Pennant Hills Road.

The NorthConnex project could be greatly enhanced, as follows- 1. Provision of a direct link for traffic westbound on the M2 to join the M1-M2 northbound tunnel without having to traverse the M2-Pennant Hills Road intersection.
2. Provision of a direct link for traffic southbound in the M1-M2 tunnel to join the eastbound M2 without having to traverse the M2-Pennant Hills Road intersection.

The NorthConnex project and the M2 are components of the main route between the city and the Central Coast and beyond. Without the above links, all traffic using this route will be needlessly delayed by a major intersection interrupting an otherwise freeway route. This impediment to traffic flow will discourage drivers from using the NorthConnex project and will divert traffic onto urban roads, including Pennant Hills Road and the Pacific Highway.

Adoption of proposals 1. and 2. above would enable the NorthConnex project to be further enhanced, as follows-

3. Relocation of the entrance of the tunnel linking Pennant Hills Road to the M1-M2 northbound tunnel, from north of the M2 to south of the M2. This would provide a direct link for traffic northbound on Pennant Hills Road to join the M1-M2 northbound tunnel without having to traverse the M2-Pennant Hills Road intersection.
4. Relocation of the exit of the tunnel linking the M1-M2 southbound tunnel to Pennant Hills Road, from north of the M2 to south of the M2. This would provide a direct link for traffic southbound on the M1-M2 to join Pennant Hills Road without having to traverse the M2-Pennant Hills Road intersection.

Without the above four proposals, the current plan for the NorthConnex project entails a major lost opportunity to optimise traffic flow at the southern end of the project.

Yours sincerely,

Jeff Dickson
Andrew Pritchard-Davies
Comment
Wahroonga , New South Wales
Message
I support the NorthConnex project- however I very strongly object to the Pollution Stacks.
I have not made any political donations.

I very strongly object to the unfiltered pollution stack at the Northern exit at Bareena St Wahroonga.It is totally unreasonable to have this stack in the midst of a busy suburb near schools,nursing homes,hospital.This is a very long tunnel planning to carry thousands of trucks and your plan is to spew unfiltered toxins into a high density area.
Ideally this pollution should be filtered and released each several kilometres along the route of the tunnel,or alternately carried several further kilometres down the M1and released into Ku-Ring-Gai National Park.
The reason this has not been proposed is because it costs more- they do not care about the health hazards this will create.Have we not learnt anything about previous tunnel pollution problems ie.M5 Dr Andrew Pritchard-Davies
John Winslow
Support
Normanhurst , New South Wales
Message
NORTHCONNEX SUBMISSION

LANE WIDTHS

The current plans indicate that the tunnel will initially be lane marked for two lanes but wide enough for three lanes which will undoubtedly be required before long. It is the width of the future three lanes which gives me cause for concern. It is essential that the total width of the tunnel must make adequate provision for the lane widths which are safe which, on the Pennant Hills road they are not.

The map of the planned routing of the tunnel shows that at the northern and southern interchanges (connection with the M1 and M2 respectively) there are some curves in the planned tunnel, more so at the southern interchange. Measurement and observation on the Pennant Hills road which the B doubles and larger commercial vehicles currently have to use indicate that the lane widths on the Pennant Hills road is 3.35 metres (it may vary in different sections of the road). The width of larger vehicles (wheel to wheel) is around 2.5 metres plus some overhang of the of the structure of the vehicle in most cases. Skip trucks are often wider than this whilst not qualifying for a `Wide Load" notice. This means that there is currently approximately 40 centimetres clearance or less between vehicles travelling side by side at 70kph in the middle of their lane. On bends this figure is dangerously reduced and one assumes that the speed limit in the planned tunnel may be higher than this.

On the Pennant Hills road when large vehicles are negotiating even the most gentle of bends their rear wheels, of necessity, move to the line marking on the inside of the bend and, on the more significant bends, actually cross into the adjoining lane. Thus vehicles alongside a large vehicle have a dangerously reduced clearance especially when the second vehicle is in the kerbside lane. As a motorist with a small car, I have frequently been forced to brake and back off to avoid being forced into the kerb whilst negotiating a bend and, generally, for self-preservation, keep well away from large commercial vehicles round a bend.

The simple fact is that, geometrically, large vehicles cannot avoid their rear wheels moving to the inside of a bend in the road, the longer the vehicle the worse the incursion even with the driver using all his skills to remain totally in the lane.

It is therefore essential, in the interests of safety, that the tunnel be built wide enough to provide for lane widths of at least 4.5 metres when the three lanes are brought into use, at least in any area of significant bends in the tunnel road.

I would be interested to know what the planned lane widths are for the three lane configuration and your comments on this submission.
Anesh Bhagat
Comment
, New South Wales
Message
Please see attachment
Name Withheld
Object
Red hill , Australian Capital Territory
Message
You cannot possibly permit such an untreated exhaust funnel to be built! I especially object to having it built in the suggested areas since they are still populated by people! You are better off either filtering the tunnel so that the health of everybody is protected or by cancelling the project completely!
Name Withheld
Comment
Wahroonga , New South Wales
Message
See attached
Name Withheld
Comment
Baulkham Hills , New South Wales
Message
See Attached
Name Withheld
Object
west pennant hills , New South Wales
Message
Submission objecting to proposed construction traffic managment / lack thereof. Please refer to attached submission.
John Jin
Object
Baulkham hills , New South Wales
Message
Since the government has found M5 tunnel air pollution caused health problem, why the government is planning to do even worse instead of getting better? I can't understand. Angry of this ventilation stack.

Pagination

Project Details

Application Number
SSI-6136
Assessment Type
State Significant Infrastructure
Development Type
Road transport facilities
Local Government Areas
Hornsby Shire, Ku-ring-gai, The Hills Shire
Decision
Approved
Determination Date
Decider
Minister
Last Modified By
SSI-6136-Mod-3
Last Modified On
18/12/2019

Contact Planner

Name
Dominic Crinnion