NorthConnex

I am totally opposed to the proposed location of northern tunnel portals and pollution stack of the NorthConnex tunnel.

There are only 2 options for my supports to build the NorthConnex tunnel:
1. Relocating the northern tunnel exit (portal) and pollution stack to a location that minimises the health risks- both in the short and long term to all communities ... for example, to Ku-Ring-Gai Park near Asquith.
2. Don't build NorthConnex tunnel, until the budget is enough to relocating the northern tunnel exit (portal) and pollution stack.

It is nonsense to claim that there is not budget to relocate the northern tunnel exit (portal) and pollution stack. If no enough money, then don't build ... until you have enough money.

Why I have to sacrifice my rights, benefits, health, etc to save other people from avoiding inconvenient on travelling? No way.

Please consider my 2 options above ... I strongly recommended.

Thanks

I am totally opposed to the proposed location of northern tunnel portals and pollution stack of the NorthConnex tunnel.

There are only 2 options for my supports to build the NorthConnex tunnel:
1. Relocating the northern tunnel exit (portal) and pollution stack to a location that minimises the health risks- both in the short and long term to all communities ... for example, to Ku-Ring-Gai Park near Asquith.
2. Don't build NorthConnex tunnel, until the budget is enough to relocating the northern tunnel exit (portal) and pollution stack.

It is nonsense to claim that there is not budget to relocate the northern tunnel exit (portal) and pollution stack. If no enough money, then don't build ... until you have enough money.

Why I have to sacrifice my rights, benefits, health, etc to save other people from avoiding inconvenient on travelling? No way.

Please consider my 2 options above ... I strongly recommended.

Thanks

I am totally opposed to the proposed location of northern tunnel portals and pollution stack of the NorthConnex tunnel.

There are only 2 options for my supports to build the NorthConnex tunnel:
1. Relocating the northern tunnel exit (portal) and pollution stack to a location that minimises the health risks- both in the short and long term to all communities ... for example, to Ku-Ring-Gai Park near Asquith.
2. Don't build NorthConnex tunnel, until the budget is enough to relocating the northern tunnel exit (portal) and pollution stack.

It is nonsense to claim that there is not budget to relocate the northern tunnel exit (portal) and pollution stack. If no enough money, then don't build ... until you have enough money.

Why I have to sacrifice my rights, benefits, health, etc to save other people from avoiding inconvenient on travelling? No way.

Please consider my 2 options above ... I strongly recommended.

Thanks

I am totally opposed to the proposed location of northern tunnel portals and pollution stack of the NorthConnex tunnel.

There are only 2 options for my supports to build the NorthConnex tunnel:
1. Relocating the northern tunnel exit (portal) and pollution stack to a location that minimises the health risks- both in the short and long term to all communities ... for example, to Ku-Ring-Gai Park near Asquith.
2. Don't build NorthConnex tunnel, until the budget is enough to relocating the northern tunnel exit (portal) and pollution stack.

It is nonsense to claim that there is not budget to relocate the northern tunnel exit (portal) and pollution stack. If no enough money, then don't build ... until you have enough money.

Why I have to sacrifice my rights, benefits, health, etc to save other people from avoiding inconvenient on travelling? No way.

Please consider my 2 options above ... I strongly recommended.

Thanks

The Director General requires an assessment of the operational traffic impacts of the project. The Northconnex EIS demonstrates on pages 305, 306, 307 that the major AM/PM traffic peaks are unlikely to be resolved by the proposed tunnel, since considerable volumes enter Pennant Hills Road and leave it between Thornleigh and West Pennant Hills.

Page 307 shows the poor intersection performance, particularly at Copeland Road and Comenarra Parkway, contributing to congestion. Neither tunnel funds nor tunnel construction will fix this!

Further, page 306 shows that the M2 westbound is already at capacity in the PM peak, so will not traffic bank up in the tunnel? If so, increased pollution results as well as delays and frustration after paying a toll.

The Director General requires an assessment of the operational traffic impacts of the project. The NorthConnex EIS does not seem to quantify the proportions of traffic considered "dangerous vehicles" which would include fuel tanker B-doubles and would, of course, remain above ground on Pennant Hills Road.

I have the following points to make which I request consideration in the submissions report:

- It is not apparent that operational ground borne noise has been considered in the assessment. To what extent will residents and other sensitive receivers hear the rumble of trucks, or their engine breaks, as they pass through the tunnel?

- With regards to construction ground-borne noise, I note Appendix F of the Noise and Vibration Assessment, which includes 'Tunnel Vibration Maps'. These figures do not seem to include the entire tunnel length, nor the impact on all sensitive receivers above the tunnel. For example the area between Boundary Road and Duffy Road is densely populated and there appears to be no map for this area.

- With a reduction in above ground traffic on Pennant Hills Road, to what extent will the tunnel improve noise amenity for receivers along its length?

- I highlight the Royal Institute for Deaf and Blind Children as a particularly sensitive location the noise amenity of which needs to be maintained, with the widening of the M2 motorway in this location.

- There are a number of schools in the area which do not appear to have been assessed in any details with regards to noise and other impacts. For example, West Pennant Hills Public, Mt St Benedict College, Pennant Hills Public.

I look forward to more detailed assessment on these matters.

Up to the present time, the Government has dealt with this project as an unsolicited proposal. Now that the proposal is known in detail through the EIS, its Benefit/cost ratio can be estimated.

This proposal must be compared competitively with alternative routes in the area, on the ranking of the Benefit/cost ratio. A contract award to a poor scorer would be unconscienable and invalid when the Government has failed to equally progress the alternative route to the EIS stage, and signs the contract in ignorance of the alternative project's Benefit/cost ratio.

THe alternative project in this case is the inward extension of the F3 Freeway alignment version B3, which was the RTA Preferred route presented in the North West Road Needs Study of 1988. The Pearlman Inquiry into alternative routes was forbidden in its terms of reference from considering that most preferred route. In 1988, its cost was estimated to be $117 million, with a Benefit/cost ratio of 4.1

Of course, the profit margin on the NorthConnex would be greater than the total cost of the F3/B3 extension. The construction industry is in the habit of low-bidding on tunnels to secure Government approval, then adding extra costs to double or quadruple the total cost. (Some tunnel builders have had enough profit to employ retired Premiers on board sinecures.) An independent assessment indicates tunnels cost about 2.5 times the cost of an equivalent surface route. The F3/B3 route would have a far greater advantage, because it is mostly reserved bushland, with only a few residences to be demolished (less than NorthConnex!).

For perhaps a quarter of the $800 million of Government money to be misappropriated to give to NorthConnex, The F3/B3 surface Freeway extension could be opened as a toll-free government owned highway. It would not be necessary to raise or extend the tolls on other motorways. The saved money could be used on other surface Freeways that have been deferred while the Governments have focussed on pouring roads funding into the financial "black holes" of tunnel projects.

If the Governments persist in the NorthConnex Folly, they can expect a referral to ICAC to explore corruption in the route selection process. (In the USA, corruption linked to freeway route selection was common, and many corruption investigations were carried out.) They would want to know how and why the F3/B3 alternative was excluded in Pearlman's Terms of Reference. They would want to know the history of the role of various politicians and their financial relationships with the construction companies.

They could question the proposal to make the tunnels fail international safety standards by converting the safety lane into a traffic lane. They could question the fire safety access.

The NorthConnex will generate large amounts of spoil. Removing this will disrupt many people in their daily life.

It makes sense that the minimum number of people will have their lives disrupted by this process.

It also makes sense that the smaller the distance the spoil has to be moved is desirable.

It also makes sense that the Hornsby quarry is the shortest distance of all the possible sites. However transporting the spoil to this site through the streets of Hornsby is also a significant problem.

A method to move this spoil would be simple to develop if a route up the Western side of the M1 to King Street, then up King Street and continuing up Bridge Street where it virtually ends in the quarry would most certainly disrupt many fewer lives than going through the centre of Hornsby. Part of this route is past industrial properties which further reduces the number of residential properties effected.

Hornsby Council would possibly be more amenable to accepting a larger quantity of spoil if this route were developed.

Spoil removed from the Thornleigh site would only have to be moved on Pennant Hills road as far as Pearce's Corner. The spoil excavated at Thornleigh plus that excavated from the Northern end of the project would probable be close to 50% of the total amount produced.

The method of transport of the spoil by the route I am suggesting could be by truck and dog but a far simpler and considerably more environmentally acceptable method would be and endless belt system as used in many mines around Australia. It would be quiet, not produce diesel exhaust fumes and no truck return traffic. A water spray over the spoil where an endless belt started would eliminate most of the dust problem. An endless belt would possibly be a cheaper alternative.
.

The proposed building at Trelawney Avenue will be an eyesore both from Pennant Hills Road, but more particularly from the lower parts of Trelawney Avenue and most likely Loch Maree Avenue.

Why can't the whole building be put underground such that a park can be put on the roof level, or a little below, Pennant Hills Road. It will the not be the monstrosity that present artists impressions show it to be.

Access to the building would the be possible from both Trelawney and Loch Maree Avenues and thus not effecting traffic on Pennant Hills Road.

To have another park in Thornleigh would make the whole project a great deal more acceptable to residents.

This project is long overdue and I am thrilled to see action on it.

There is one MAJOR concern I have though. This is due to the very very obvious inherit limitations of the design. It is crystal clear that much profiteering is being incorporated into the design through planned obsolescence. Instead of building the project once and correctly, the design and company openly acknowledge that future works will be carried out - which will be much much more costly and cause much greater delay and inconvenience than getting it completed correctly from the start.

The design basically builds-in the need to do further works which will also mean further modification works to the M2 - which I note is also currently under restructure.

It is absolutely ludicrous that the build of this project will not include the most simplest of links eastbound onto the M2. It defies logic that anyone could come up with this design and not incorporate the 200m single lane unobstructed tunnel that would link the southbound traffic with eastbound traffic on the M2 to head to the city. Are you seriously insane? Having asked many ministers thus far and having NO explanation whatsoever as to why this link has been omitted, I can only come to the conclusion that there is clear favour to add to the future building works of North Connex and of course to the longer term profits. If they need to do the works later, the costs will be significantly more, there will be greater disruption and of course, these costs will need to be recouped. The lease term on the toll will clearly be extended. We have seen it with the M2, we will see it again with this road. It is pretty darn clear as crystal. I PLEAD with you to do what is right for the road, the community, the users and the tax payer, and just build it complete, from the start.

It is simple - build the connections between the M2 and this new road so that traffic does not have to exit the tunnel or M2, simply to go to two traffic lights (likely to back up into the tunnel/M2 during big peak periods - say a Friday afternoon, let alone on a long weekend) before being allowed to continue.

You want people to use this road. It is in YOUR interests for as much traffic to use it. I totally agree. So why not make that as easy and possible for as many motorists as possible? The current design, due to the lack of the most basic connection, means that a person needing to get to the airport, say from the Central Coast, will be required to exit your new road onto Pennant Hills Rd, stop at two sets of lights before rejoining the M2 to head through to the city/airport! WHY? Can anyone explain WHY?

It also means that thousands of people leaving the city/Easter Suburbs, and travelling North (let's say on a public holiday weekend) will have to exit the M2 (backing traffic up onto the M2) to stop at lights so they can turn North onto Pennant Hills Rd, before taking the new road tunnel at the next set of lights! WHY? Can anyone explain WHY? At this point, there will be many frustrated motorists who instead then decide to continue on the road that YOU have forced them to join, and who will continue onto Pennant Hills Rd rather than take your shiny new toll road. Umm, hello? Is that really a smart move from your point of view? You want people to take this new connection right? Why not build the entrances so that they are able to do so? Seriously, I really honestly want to hear the reason for this.

So PLEASE - just fess up, say what is going on and build it right, from the start. It is a minor modification that will be much much easier to do now. Thais fact is clear as day and obvious. It is precisely what you do not want for your pockets. So this argument will obviously fall on deaf ears. I can not offer you the millions more that you will generate from this foolish and inherently flawed design using the most obvious techniques of planned obsolescence. So no doubt, my pleas will be ignored and left unacknowledged.

I would like to have faith in this system to produce the best outcome for the citizens and tax payers and see the "end of the waste" - but with the struggle to get any questions above answered, I fear that nothing will change. Please prove me wrong.

Sincerely,
Alec Beckett

I record my objection to the proposed location of the Southern Vent Stack and the proposed route of spoil trucks in local roads versus using the M2.

Dear Sir

I wish to support the EQUILIBRA PROPOSAL which has been submitted to the department.

Without doubt the architect of this proposal shows extraordinary vision and comprehension of the development.

Poor design in the NorthConnex submission has been removed and replaced with a vastly more efficient and superior one.

All the aspects of this huge undertaking such as community intergration, stack polution, construction costs, construction design, maximizing use of existing infrastructure and many others have all been address in such a comprehensive way that it is hard to find fault.

This proposal has thought outside the box on so many levels to make a truely amazing piece of infastructure.

Yours faithfully

Christine Gabb

I'm against this project, as it will negatively impact the environment, as well as create an unsafe for the many kids that attend school near Wahroonga. I do not believe that this tunnel is necessary at the expense of this suburb.

25 August 2014

Director - Infrastructure Projects
Department of Planning and Environment
Number: SSI 13_6136
Major Projects Assessment
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY NSW 2001


NorthConnex Application Number: SSI 13_6136

Please find below my/our submission in response to the exhibition of the EIS for NorthConnex.

Firstly I/we would like to state we object to the project as described in the EIS.

I/We have a high level of concern regarding the following issues and request that these be considered by NorthConnex and the Department of Planning. In regards to the NorthConnex tunnel, I am concerned about:

1. Placement of the northern ventilation stack in the centre of a densely populated residential area in Wahroonga, where 9,300 school children will be exposed, as well as multiple aged care facilities, hospitals, businesses and homes.

2. The placement of the northern ventilation stack in a valley in Wahroonga where there are often low wind speeds, which will result in poor dispersion and exposure to community to high levels of tunnel emission.

3. I am highly concerned about the multiple large scale research studies that suggest the impacts of air pollutants on health are serious. These include increased death from heart disease, increased risks of lung cancer, stroke, poor lung growth in children, increased asthma, and recent research suggesting low birth weight for pregnant women, increased autism, and congenital heart defects. These studies confirm air pollutants have prothrombotic and inflammatory effects on humans which cause the above health problems.

4. I am concerned about the project including future provisions for portal emissions in densely populated areas, which will result in emissions remaining at ground level, and hence exposing the local population to pollutants. I am also concerned that NorthConnex's claim that there will no portal emissions from current proposal cannot be verified.

5. I am concerned about the large amount of diesel emissions which will be emitted from the NorthConnex tunnel, as it is being designed for heavy freight to bypass Pennant Hills Rd. Diesel emissions have been classified as carcinogenic by the World Health Organisation, and also contain a larger number of fine particles which penetrate deep into lung tissue and remain there causing inflammation.

6. I am concerned about the air quality within the tunnel which is shown in the EIS to have exceedences above standards for pollutants such as NO2, and haze from particulate matter at the ends of the tunnel.

7. I am concerned about the multiple flaws in the air quality modelling of the northern stack in the EIS. These include:
a) extrapolation of meteorological data from other weather stations which do not reflect the local meteorology, local topography, and the valley location.
b) The use of a coarse topographical model
c) The failure to consider polluted intake air from the Pennant Hills/M2 interchange as part of the project contribution to air quality at Wahroonga
d) the background air quality being based on air quality at Lindfield and Prospect and the lack of any actual data on PM2.5

8. I/we am concerned that a full and transparent options assessment process was not undertaken to assess alternative designs for the project. Unlike other tunnel projects in Sydney there are alternatives for locating the stack and portals in non-residential areas.

9. I am concerned that the justification for not providing filtration for the stacks is cursory and unconvincing.

To address my/our concerns I request that the following actions are undertaken:

1. The air quality and human health impact assessment need to be revised to address the issues raised above.
2. An independent options assessment process should be undertaken to assess alternative locations for the ventilation stack and portals.
3. To undertake a Life Cycle Analysis and assessment for the provision of filtration
4. A long term health study on children and residents in areas impacted by stack discharges be included as part of the conditions of approval.
5. A comprehensive air quality monitoring program is developed and implemented.
6. An independent review of the ventilation system is undertaken to ensure that NorthConnex's claim of no portal emissions is justified.
7. Portal emissions from NorthConnex in the future are banned.
8. The Submissions Report/Preferred Project be exhibited to allow the community to respond to the revised information contained in the report.
9. The Department does not approve the project in its current form as it clearly does not meet the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development as required by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

Petr Anisimov
10/12-18 orara street, waitara

25 August 2014

Director - Infrastructure Projects
Department of Planning and Environment
Number: SSI 13_6136
Major Projects Assessment
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY NSW 2001

Via online form: http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=6136

NorthConnex Application Number: SSI 13_6136

Please find below my/our submission in response to the exhibition of the EIS for NorthConnex.

Firstly I/we would like to state we object to the project as described in the EIS.

I/We have a high level of concern regarding the following issues and request that these be considered by NorthConnex and the Department of Planning. In regards to the NorthConnex tunnel, I am concerned about:

1. Placement of the northern ventilation stack in the centre of a densely populated residential area in Wahroonga, where 9,300 school children will be exposed, as well as multiple aged care facilities, hospitals, businesses and homes.

2. The placement of the northern ventilation stack in a valley in Wahroonga where there are often low wind speeds, which will result in poor dispersion and exposure to community to high levels of tunnel emission.

3. I am highly concerned about the multiple large scale research studies that suggest the impacts of air pollutants on health are serious. These include increased death from heart disease, increased risks of lung cancer, stroke, poor lung growth in children, increased asthma, and recent research suggesting low birth weight for pregnant women, increased autism, and congenital heart defects. These studies confirm air pollutants have prothrombotic and inflammatory effects on humans which cause the above health problems.

4. I am concerned about the project including future provisions for portal emissions in densely populated areas, which will result in emissions remaining at ground level, and hence exposing the local population to pollutants. I am also concerned that NorthConnex's claim that there will no portal emissions from current proposal cannot be verified.

5. I am concerned about the large amount of diesel emissions which will be emitted from the NorthConnex tunnel, as it is being designed for heavy freight to bypass Pennant Hills Rd. Diesel emissions have been classified as carcinogenic by the World Health Organisation, and also contain a larger number of fine particles which penetrate deep into lung tissue and remain there causing inflammation.

6. I am concerned about the air quality within the tunnel which is shown in the EIS to have exceedences above standards for pollutants such as NO2, and haze from particulate matter at the ends of the tunnel.

7. I am concerned about the multiple flaws in the air quality modelling of the northern stack in the EIS. These include:
a) extrapolation of meteorological data from other weather stations which do not reflect the local meteorology, local topography, and the valley location.
b) The use of a coarse topographical model
c) The failure to consider polluted intake air from the Pennant Hills/M2 interchange as part of the project contribution to air quality at Wahroonga
d) the background air quality being based on air quality at Lindfield and Prospect and the lack of any actual data on PM2.5

8. I/we am concerned that a full and transparent options assessment process was not undertaken to assess alternative designs for the project. Unlike other tunnel projects in Sydney there are alternatives for locating the stack and portals in non-residential areas.

9. I am concerned that the justification for not providing filtration for the stacks is cursory and unconvincing.

To address my/our concerns I request that the following actions are undertaken:

1. The air quality and human health impact assessment need to be revised to address the issues raised above.
2. An independent options assessment process should be undertaken to assess alternative locations for the ventilation stack and portals.
3. To undertake a Life Cycle Analysis and assessment for the provision of filtration
4. A long term health study on children and residents in areas impacted by stack discharges be included as part of the conditions of approval.
5. A comprehensive air quality monitoring program is developed and implemented.
6. An independent review of the ventilation system is undertaken to ensure that NorthConnex's claim of no portal emissions is justified.
7. Portal emissions from NorthConnex in the future are banned.
8. The Submissions Report/Preferred Project be exhibited to allow the community to respond to the revised information contained in the report.
9. The Department does not approve the project in its current form as it clearly does not meet the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development as required by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

Olga Kuznetsova
10/12-18 orara street, waitara

Director - Infrastructure Projects

Department of Planning and Environment

Number: SSI 13_6136

Major Projects Assessment

GPO Box 39

SYDNEY NSW 2001

NorthConnex Application Number: SSI 13_6136

Please find below my submission in response to the exhibition of the EIS for NorthConnex.

Firstly I would like to state we object to the project as described in the EIS.

I/We have a high level of concern regarding the following issues and request that these be considered by

NorthConnex and the Department of Planning. In regards to the NorthConnex tunnel, I am concerned about:

1. Placement of the northern ventilation stack in the centre of a densely populated residential area in Wahroonga, where 9,300 school children will be exposed, as well as multiple aged care facilities, hospitals, businesses and homes.

2. I am highly concerned about the multiple large scale research studies that suggest the impacts of air pollutants on health are serious. These include increased death from heart disease, increased risks of lung cancer, stroke, poor lung growth in children, increased asthma, and recent research suggesting low birth weight for pregnant women, increased autism, and congenital heart defects. These studies confirm air pollutants have prothrombotic and inflammatory effects on humans which cause the above health problems.

To address my concerns I request that the following actions are undertaken:

1. Due to the significant health concerns of the current project design, I request the department of planning does not approve the project in it's current form.

2. I also request that alternative transport options to ease congestion on Pennant Hills Rd be considered such as an orbital surface route

Yours sincerely,
Petra Hooyenga
Turramurra NSW 2074

26 August 2014

Via online form: http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=6136

NorthConnex Application Number: SSI 13_6136

Please find below our submission in response to the exhibition of the EIS for NorthConnex.

Firstly I would like to state I object to the project as described in the EIS.

I have a high level of concern regarding the following issues and request that these be considered by NorthConnex and the Department of Planning. In regards to the NorthConnex tunnel, I am concerned about:

1. Placement of the northern ventilation stack in the centre of a densely populated residential area in Wahroonga, where 9,300 school children will be exposed, as well as multiple aged care facilities, hospitals, businesses and homes.

2. The placement of the northern ventilation stack in a valley in Wahroonga where there are often low wind speeds, which will result in poor dispersion and exposure to community to high levels of tunnel emission.

3. I am highly concerned about the multiple large scale research studies that suggest the impacts of air pollutants on health are serious. These include increased death from heart disease, increased risks of lung cancer, stroke, poor lung growth in children, increased asthma, and recent research suggesting low birth weight for pregnant women, increased autism, and congenital heart defects. These studies confirm air pollutants have prothrombotic and inflammatory effects on humans which cause the above health problems.

4. I am concerned about the project including future provisions for portal emissions in densely populated areas, which will result in emissions remaining at ground level, and hence exposing the local population to pollutants. I am also concerned that NorthConnex's claim that there will no portal emissions from current proposal cannot be verified.

5. I am concerned about the large amount of diesel emissions which will be emitted from the NorthConnex tunnel, as it is being designed for heavy freight to bypass Pennant Hills Rd. Diesel emissions have been classified as carcinogenic by the World Health Organisation, and also contain a larger number of fine particles which penetrate deep into lung tissue and remain there causing inflammation.

6. I am concerned about the air quality within the tunnel which is shown in the EIS to have exceedences above standards for pollutants such as NO2, and haze from particulate matter at the ends of the tunnel.

7. I am concerned about the multiple flaws in the air quality modelling of the northern stack in the EIS. These include:
a) extrapolation of meteorological data from other weather stations which do not reflect the local meteorology, local topography, and the valley location.
b) The use of a coarse topographical model
c) The failure to consider polluted intake air from the Pennant Hills/M2 interchange as part of the project contribution to air quality at Wahroonga
d) the background air quality being based on air quality at Lindfield and Prospect and the lack of any actual data on PM2.5

8. I am concerned that a full and transparent options assessment process was not undertaken to assess alternative designs for the project. Unlike other tunnel projects in Sydney there are alternatives for locating the stack and portals in non-residential areas.

9. I am concerned that the justification for not providing filtration for the stacks is cursory and unconvincing.

To address my/our concerns I request that the following actions are undertaken:

1. The air quality and human health impact assessment need to be revised to address the issues raised above.
2. An independent options assessment process should be undertaken to assess alternative locations for the ventilation stack and portals.
3. To undertake a Life Cycle Analysis and assessment for the provision of filtration
4. A long term health study on children and residents in areas impacted by stack discharges be included as part of the conditions of approval.
5. A comprehensive air quality monitoring program is developed and implemented.
6. An independent review of the ventilation system is undertaken to ensure that NorthConnex's claim of no portal emissions is justified.
7. Portal emissions from NorthConnex in the future are banned.
8. The Submissions Report/Preferred Project be exhibited to allow the community to respond to the revised information contained in the report.
9. The Department does not approve the project in its current form as it clearly does not meet the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development as required by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

Name: Kristina Clifton

Firstly I would like to state I object to the project as described in the EIS.
I have a high level of concern regarding the following heritage issues and request that these be considered by NorthConnex and the Department of Planning.
I understand that sometimes properties, including heritage-listed properties, must give way to infrastructures such as highways and tunnels etc. However, a stack is different from roads and tunnels. Stacks can be located anywhere along the tunnel. In this particular case, I cannot see any acceptable reason in the EIS which allows the ventilation stack to be built in the middle of a heritage conservation area.
If the destruction of this precious heritage conservation area were unavoidable, its loss would be seen as great, unfortunate, but understandable. However, when there are clearly alternative options available which are in favour of its preservation and maintenance, the NorthConnex's actions can only be seen as unnecessary and criminally undeserving of the cultural history this area symbolises.
In regards to the NorthConnex tunnel, I am concerned about:
The northern ventilation stack is proposed to locate inside the heritage conservation area of Wahroonga where it will destroy the heritage values and styles in the north Wahroonga heritage conservation area. The plan shows us that the location, style, height and size of the stack do not have any consistency with the adjacent heritage conservation area.
1) Location. The proposed stack is within the heritage conservation area and also very close to the heritage-listed properties in the area. The closest heritage-listed property, "Neringla" built in 1895, is only 6-8 metres away. Less than 30 metres away is another heritage-listed property "Cherrygarth" built in 1897 on Woonona Ave, and in 100-200 metres are other heritage-listed properties in Bundarra Ave and Ingalara Ave. A few 300-400 metres away is "Highlands House" built 1892 which is a state-significant heritage property. The heritage impact is significant.
2) Style. Wahroonga is one of the most historically and visually distinctive areas. Its fine quality homes, streetscapes, and famous big gardens form the unique style of Wahroonga. An ugly, featureless, industrial style stack will certainly not fit in this area. It is not consistent with the adjacent heritage conservation area at all.
3) Height. All the properties in the area are less than 6 metres in height. A 15-30 metre tall stack is not consistent with the adjacent heritage conservation area. The design of the stack is unsympathetic to the adjacent heritage conservation area.
4) The heritage value. The heritage value in Wahroonga is integral. The integrity and quality of development pattern, the built, and the landscapes exhibit a rich combination of heritage value. Acquired properties in the heritage conservation area will destroy the heritage conservation area. The impact to the heritage conservation area is huge.
5) Size. The size of this bulky stack will interrupt the heritage conservation area and hence the impact to the heritage conservation area is significant.
Therefore, I strongly object the location of the stack and the portal exit in Wahroonga north heritage conservation area. Please move the north ventilation stack out of the heritage conservation area.

I would like to register my support for the proposal - a connection from the M1 to the M2 is long overdue.

I would like to see the project team provide more detail on air quality including a more in-depth investigation into the benefits of filtering. From reading the EIS it appears the central argument is that the increase in emissions is insignificant. I am prepared to believe this, but do not believe the project has yet demonstrated it sufficiently, particularly with respect to:
a) The quality of the intake air in an already polluted environment
b) The benefits (or otherwise) of filtering. Cost should not be the primary deciding factor here
c) As accurate as possible modelling of the plumes in the actual proposed locations
d) Particular attention given to particulates

In addition, I would like the project proposals to give more consideration to the future of Pennant Hills Road. I do NOT support the push from many local groups to leave it as is. Presumably this is driven by a desire not to be encouraged to pay tolls. My primary interest is in creating a much better environment along Pennant Hills Road and I don't believe this can be done unless it is altered from the current eyesore.

Finally, I would like to say that there are many local residents who do not support the vociferous objectors and resent them choosing to speak for us. Because of them and their intimidatory tactics, I feel I have to keep my identity secret. In particular I object to their disingenuous suggestion that by relocating a ventilation stack to the north it would be in an "industrial area" and would not affect residents. This is simply untrue, there are many surrounding residents to that site in North Wahroonga, East Hornsby and Asquith. Their aim to have the stack moved northwards is NIMBYism of the worst kind. Either the stack is safe, or it is not; if it is safe, it should be built where proposed. If not, it should be made safe, or if it cannot, then the project should be rejected. Moving an unsafe stack simply to make it someone else's problem is not a solution.

Thanks