Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Connection

I frequently use the Gore Hill Freeway cyclepath for commuting to the CBD and for recreation and excersise hile working from home.
removal of the cyleway will greatly impact the day to day life and saftey of Northshore commuters and cyclists.

Major accessibility, continuity and safety issues at the Artarmon site with the closure of the existing wide and quality pathway between Naremburn and Artarmon for at least four years of construction and no alternative provided except for an on-road route along busy, fast and heavy vehicle trafficked roads through Artarmon Industrial Area. This is the best section of the regional separated cycleway between Eastwood and Naremburn. A comparison of existing path and proposed diversion can be viewed at https://youtu.be/YHt94FnjNw0 . Despite the obvious huge impact on cycling the EIS describes this impact as ‘minor’ which is completely and dangerously misleading.
Safety issues for riders on existing Herbert St bike route at the bridge over the freeway.
Failure to consider an increase in the width of Herbert St bridge to enable continuity of Willoughby Council’s proposed separated cycleway
Moderate safety and continuity concerns for proposed detour path at Flat Rock site.
Failure to include any improvement to the existing unsafe gap from where the cycleway terminates in the middle of the motorway at Naremburn to West Street, Cammeray.
Failure to include Bike North as a stakeholder for this project in the EIS

Bike North requests that any approval of the proposed Beaches Link


Include Bike North as a stakeholder with full involvement through the life of the project

At all times and places ensure a safe environment for bike riders and pedestrians as a result of construction, including any truck access route

At all times and places ensure any diversion/detour or final bicycle routes are separate from vehicles, protected from heavy vehicles and to Austroads Standards and approved by TfNSW, Active Transport

With regard to the cycleway alongside the Gore Hill Freeway at Artarmon ensure that access along the path remains continuous, safe and easy to use. Any necessary detour should:
Be minimised to continue along the existing alignment wherever possible.
Provide separation from vehicles, protection from heavy vehicles, to Austroads standards and TfNSW Active Transport approvals.
Be included as part of the overall site design, rather than fitting around a pre-determined site design.
Be based on final designed path as much as practical.
At all times be developed in consultation with Bike North with timely notification of any adjustments.
Provide an underpass of the railway line preferably connecting to Punch Street, so as to avoid steep hills and merging with vehicles on and around railway overpass road
Preferably provide an underpass of Herbert Street
If detoured away from the existing cycleway alignment, connect directly back to the path from Waltham Street to avoid Reserve Road.
With regard to construction of the Herbert Street / Hampden Road bridge over the motorway
Ensure safe access for people riding along this on-road bicycle route
Provide a widening of the bridge to enable a fully separated cycleway across the bridge as part of the proposed Willoughby Council Chatswood to St Leonards separated cycleway

With regard to Flat Rock access site
Ensure safe access for people riding along the detour which is to full Austroad standard and TfNSW Active Transport approved.
Provide continuous access to both Small Street, Willoughby and Sailors Bay Road, Northbridge to the north AND to Market Street East to the south AND the underpass of Flat Rock Drive to the west.

With regard to provision of new cycling facilities as required for any transport project
Include an extension of the existing cycleway which terminates at Merremburn Avenue, Naremburn to West Street at equivalent standard including protection from the motorway and total separation from vehicles through an overpass bridge.

I object to the increased traffic issues and the toll avoidance that will occur during construction phase of this project, and when the WHT and BL is up and running. Toll avoidance will lead to gridlock in local Cammeray and Naremburn roads which I use regularly. Local intersections, such as the corner of Miller and Amherst St, which are already gridlocked at peak times, will get worse. And commuters will do rat runs in our local area, including on the road we live on, and along many of the roads that lead to our local schools, which are already clogged and sometimes dangerous for school kids to cross during peak times.

I strongly object to the following:
Unfiltered Stacks
7 storey high stack by Balgowlah Boys High School and Seaforth Primary School
The negative impact it will have on local water sources, flora, fauna and wildlife in Manly Dam, Burnt Bridge Creek and Garigal National Park
The destruction of so much parkland and so many trees
All this for a 10% decrease in traffic on Military Road that will cost $10B. This makes no sense as the benefit does not outway the financial, social and physical costs

I object to the Beaches Link project as it will not reach its claimed objectives based on induced demand theory and
-it is unacceptable to open up a motorway into a residential area at all (Balgowlah, Manly Vale and Wakehurst Parkway)
-let alone without including a realistic plan for how Northern Beaches Council will manage the increased local traffic flow and increased need for parking.
It is unacceptable to remove the mature green belt in Balgowlah for this motorway.
I object based on negative experiences of other, much smaller, Sydney infrastructure projects eg
-the EIS has inadequate detail on planning arrangements for worker parking during construction to avoid local streets being clogged with project worker vehicles,
-the EIS describes massive physical and mental health impact and burden of noise/air pollution/vibration/removal of green spaces etc to be carried by local residents on the Northern Beaches including children for no gain,
-the EIS at Balgowlah Construction Site and Access Road shows pre-determined concepts of positioning of sporting ovals which makes massive assumptions about how the recreation space could be used while saying on the other hand that the plans for recreation areas beyond construction will be a consultation process with the whole community.
-The position of new car parks, amenities blocks etc need to be away from and out of sight/sound of residents on the
Eastern side of the current Balgowlah golf course. These need to instead be closer to the exhaust stack if the project goes ahead.
-the EIS stating the removal of 3009 advanced trees and natural habitats for construction is an absurd plan.
In summary the EIS describes ruining the beautiful northern beaches at great expense.
Alternatives: why hasn’t the car park at Spit Junction opened all these years later like the northern beaches b line bus car parks? Why haven’t the east west b lines buses been established? Why aren’t ferries subsidised to reduce cars on roads? Why is spit bridge still being opened to slow down traffic? Why aren’t there more b line buses overall based on their success? Why aren’t local buses being run more effectively? Why aren’t behaviour changes being supported? We saw how northern beaches residents rallied to get tested during the Christmas 2020 COVID shutdown when they were given the explanations to be able to make informed decisions. The same is needed here to encourage staggered timing of car journeys or reduction of car journeys where feasible as part of an effective solution to transport issues.

I object to the Beaches Link EIS because:
1. The environmental impacts (including pollution, loss of wildlife corridor and hearing loss) during and after construction are very severe and underestimated in the proposal.
2. The social impacts (including increased road hazards, increased travelling distance and travelling time for residents along the proposed project during and after construction have been underestimated. And in some cases, the areas of impact have been politically excluded from consideration.
3. The economic benefits appear to be based on models using outdated data, including very outdated population projections, and new norm- work from home considerations and have been “guided by elimination of factors to consider”.

Hence these three components of any triple bottom line modelling have each been miscalculated- leading to the classic “UNWARRANTED ESCALATION OF COMMITMENT” .(do a google search on Unwarranted escalation of commitment and you will find many examples of how the proposed project mirrors previous failures).


As a resident of the impacted area, and as a (now retired) Professor of Business specialising in strategic management and quality assurance, I am quite familiar of how interest groups can tie the hands of professional staff by having politicians restrict the scope of what is to be included and what is to be excluded in modelling triple bottom line considerations of large projects. In this case, it appears that an underlying purpose of the planned highway project was justified on population growth estimates encouraging large scale commercial traffic and commuter traffic to serve Northern Beach development- Little consideration of changes possible through public transport networks-is given. Nor major shifts in working patterns, nor impact on wildlife. Rather- since other major tunnels/roads have been approved- this is the next “logical” extension”-EVEN though the extension cannot be justified as proposed against up- to -date modelling that considers changes in population, road use, and broader (and localised) social and environmental costs.
I would recommend that the project not go ahead without freeing the hands of the professional staff to use new data to re-evaluate the economic, social and environmental impact modelling against alternatives.

Please find objection letter attached.
Cr Zoe Baker, Cr MaryAnn Beregi and Cr Tony Carr - North Sydney Independents

Beaches Link Objection and Recommendations
Objection-
I am a member of the public in Sydney, NSW; one of the “many” who are the intended beneficiaries of the massive transport infrastructure projects Beaches Link. The government should be painfully aware following the WestConnex parliamentary inquiry, of the heartbreaking accounts from the “few” in Sydney whose lives have been turned inside out because the RMS decided to build its transport infrastructure near their homes. The health, property values, and rights of these people to pursue the quiet enjoyment of their lives has been under siege and the damage does not end when the project is complete after years and years of enduring the construction nightmare.
The Beaches Link EIS ignores the human community cost of the project.
Construction of such major transport infrastructure in the middle of the Balgowlah residential community is shameful. There is so much crown land available north and away from the residential area that should have been allocated for this project.
The WestConnex evidence of damage that has been done and is ongoing, to the people whose homes have been devalued and lives upended because of their proximity to projects like this warrants compassionate attention. Projects like these literally decimate communities. The devaluation of homes restricts the ability of residents to leave and reestablish homes elsewhere. Moreover, there is currently no “just terms” compensation available to the few, who must now bear the burden for the many.
The residents near these projects must endure-
• Exposure to continuing adverse impacts of construction and permanent major infrastructure, including dust, noise, fumes, vibration, dangerous emissions, and disruption of daily life due to increased traffic during and after construction is completed. This has a continuing and cumulative long-term impact on physical and mental health, and necessarily diminishes the quality of life.
• Continuing interference with property rights and devaluation of property because homes are near major high-volume traffic infrastructure
• Overwhelming emotional stress, effort, and time required to constantly engage with administrative bureaucracies, offering “mitigation controls” and “support services” for situations the residents should never have had to endure in the first place.
In any other scenario these residents would have rights to equitable relief and common law damages for this continuing nuisance and tortious conduct.
If they lived in the state of Victoria, New Zealand, Europe, Canada, the US, or any other part of the world that recognises the international human right to peaceful enjoyment of property, this interference with their vested property rights would not be permitted without reasonable compensation.
Damage and emotional distress are real and predictable. The residents need the option of compensation upfront, so they can take charge of their lives and have the option to avoid a living hell.
The residents whose homes are not required for the footprint of the project, are not offered compensation under the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW). Their only other hope of compensation is the RMS Exceptional Hardship Land Purchase Guideline. However, as explained below, RMS requirements for “Exceptional hardship” compensation ignore the reality that-
• acceptable levels of hardship are not achievable with projects this massive in such close proximity to residences, and
• there are no “mitigating measures” to prevent the interferences with these residents’ property rights; interferences that cause inevitable and irreparable damage.
Instead of just terms compensation, the RMS currently offers these residents –
• promises of “mitigation measures,” “support services,” and “project mitigation controls identified through the environmental assessment process;”
• undertakings to “minimise the impact;” and assurances that “In almost all cases, impacts on properties are temporary, or can be appropriately managed through mitigation measures in the design or as part of the conditions of approval of a project. These measures may include improvements such as noise insulation of homes (for example installing double glazing windows, or noise walls) and landscaping for visual screening.”
Evidence of the WestConnex experience demonstrates that all the promises, undertakings, and assurances are mere platitudes.
The lives and rights of these small groups of residents to enjoy their homes (like every other Australian homeowner can) are unavoidably and irreparably impacted. This unfair interference with property rights, without compensation, cannot, in all good conscience, be justified by the NSW government, or the public.
Compensation for the adverse impacts on these residents should be an inbuilt cost of the project(s); a cost the NSW Government and the public should be contributing to. If projects are not viable with this extra cost, then alternatives need to be considered; a human cost is not acceptable.
Recommendations-
• That the NSW government offer just terms compensation for the indirect expropriation of residential property that is within the vicinity of the Beaches Link but does not need to be acquired since it is not directly within the construction footprint.
This could be achieved by-
o amendments to Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW), or
o implementing new RMS compensation guidelines for residential property within the vicinity of major transport infrastructure projects.
• That the NSW government allocate compensation funds as part of the Beaches Link project budget, so the disproportionate burden of these few residents can be shared by the many that the project is intended to benefit.

Thank you for considering my submission and recommendations.
Your written response would be greatly appreciated.

Explanation- re Inadequacy of current RMS Exceptional Hardship Land Purchase Guideline-

The current RMS Exceptional Hardship Land Purchase Guideline is inadequate to address compensation for residents near major transport infrastructure projects
The multiple reasons why the current Guideline is inadequate include the following-
• The current frame of reference for determining the proportionality of hardship is the experience of “most other owners in the vicinity of the project.”
o Since all residents near projects as massive as this will suffer unavoidable and irreparable hardship, it is manifestly unfair to increase the hardship threshold even further.
• There should be a right to compensation, not a discretion, and compensation should not be dependent upon the existence of “appropriate funding;” the funding should be budgeted.
• The assumption that in “most cases” mitigation measures can provide a solution, has been proven to be false by the WestConnex experience for projects this large.
• “project mitigation controls identified through the environmental assessment process” have also been proved by the WestConnex experience to be insufficient to address impacts.
o Accordingly, perceptions or concerns about possible future impacts, are no longer hypothetical, they are real. The evidence demonstrates that perceptions and concerns about adverse future health and safety impacts are substantiated.
• Provisions allowing for rejection of premature applications and for waiting for environmental assessments and development of the project are unfair.
o Residents should not need to wait until damage is done. They should be afforded the opportunity to move on with their lives as quickly as possible.

As a resident of Sydney, and particularly as a homeowner living in Cammeray, I strongly object to many aspects of the proposed Beaches Link and Gore Hill Extension as outlined in the EIS.
The proposed desecration of Flat Rock Gully (FRG) is shocking. Not only does FRG provide a rare green lung and wonderful walking areas for people living in and around the area it is full of toxic waste which will contaminate the area if it is disturbed. The recognised health impacts of the whole project are extremely alarming and could possibly be described as criminal. We have seen what has happened to much of the inner west of Sydney as a result of this government's approach to infrastructure development. I believe class actions are already being organised by tax payers in that region. I will be sorry to join the one that will surely arise out of the approach to public wellbeing that is evident in the cavalier approach of this EIS.
To clear thousands of trees, cause contamination of the ground and the harbour, to put stacks so close to schools and to destroy such a cohesive and thriving community with thousands of trucks, high levels of noise and vibration is obviously the wrong answer to the transport needs of the northern beaches. Indeed it is an approach that does not suit the city of Sydney almost anywhere.
Part of me writes this without hope that any consideration will be given to the many voices raised against this project but maybe there is someone in the bureaucracy that has the courage and vision to look for another approach to this issue. Destroying what is good and working wonderfully may ease some problems but it will create many more. Initially these will be born by the residents but in the longer term this project will be judged as irresponsible and illogical.

I object to the increased noise pollution that the construction and operation of the Western Harbour Tunnel and Beaches Link projects will create. The EIS states that the area North of the golf course in Cammeray, which is where our home is located, will experience noise above acceptable noise limits across the duration of the project. Anzac Park School, Anzac Park, Cammeray Oval and KU Preschool (Green Park) will be noise affected above acceptable limits across various stages of the project. Noise from the Warringah Freeway works will impact 1917 receiver buildings between Cammeray and Naremburn during the project, which will include our home (which already suffers from a sometimes uncomfortable amount of freeway noise during a southerly) and many local recreation areas and green spaces that we utilise. I would ask that this project be scrapped, or at the very least, that conditions be placed on this project to erect temporary noise walls during the construction phase and permanent noise walls be erected at completion of the project, covering the entire freeway corridor, to protect us from greater than acceptable limits for these projects. I would also ask that trucks should be fitted with noise and pollution control devices given the highly residential nature of the route and the large proportion of children in the vicinity of the project.

I object to the increased health risks that the WHT and Norther Beaches Link pose to all residents, especially so many local children. With 3 smoke stacks to be located near our home and our child’s school, and particulate matter already higher than what is recommended or considered “safe”, I am very concerned about the impact to our family’s health posed by the EIS predicted PM2.5 increases right near schools. I understand that some key corridors receive less pollution (ie.Military Rd) but other sensitive receivers such as schools and sports fields in my local area of Cammeray/Naremburn and Willoughby, receive more. Children are
particularly susceptible to the health impacts of pollution and so this redistribution is unacceptable. The Western Harbour and Beaches Link program of works cuts
through the largest school corridor in Sydney with 500-1000 pupils at approximately 26 schools, and the increased pollution predicted near many of these schools is unacceptable. The precautionary principle must be applied to ensure the health of children across the project footprint.
I would ask that this project be scrapped due to the significant pollution and contamination risks presented in the EIS. I would also like to see the business case for viable public transport alternatives to the Beaches Link project, which would not have such significant environmental and health risks associated with it. Or at the very least, I request conditions be placed on the project to provide filtered smoke stacks, or at least modelling of levels of particulate matter/other air pollutants in the environment if
the stacks were filtered. I also request real time air quality monitoring near schools, pre-schools, playgrounds and sportsgrounds, including an alert-style monitor that sporting groups and parents can subscribe to determine if playing sport is a safe option given the potential for contaminated dust and heavy vehicle emissions. I would also ask that trucks should be fitted with noise and pollution control devices given the highly residential nature of the route and the large proportion of children in the vicinity of the project. Landfill gas investigations should be carried out within and close to construction areas to assess the potential presence or absence of gas which could potentially impact upon construction and/or operation of the project if not managed appropriately. For tunneling works proposed at Flat Rock Reserve, there is a risk of encountering odorous waste material and landfill gases from historical landfill in the locality. Detailed investigations should be carried out to confirm the presence and extent of potentially odorous materials and landfill gases within and around this site.

Please see attached letter regarding comments.

Please find attached our submission objecting to the proposed tunnel.

I object to the EIS and the tunnel proposal
Balgowlah Golf Cub has held a lease for 95 years at Balgowlah Park. It has been part of the community and provided golf services to the Public for all of that time.
The Club has a membership of 599 of which 525 are playing members. We have members ranging in age from 8 to 80.
In 2020, 46,000 rounds of golf were played. As a Public course we meet the needs of its members at a reasonable cost. This provides equity for people to access the sport who may not be able to afford the cost structures of private clubs. The club also meets the need of the public golfer who does not belong to a club -20,000 rounds. Often these players do hold an Australian Golf handicap which is a change in the sport since about the early 2000’s. This is an effort by the sport to include more people
There has been no discussion with the Club about a future use of the land if the “Tunnel goes ahead “.
The logic seems to be based on a Northern Beaches Council Document called a Sporting Field Strategy. This document was produced under an administrator that showed bias in the terms of reference-.
“conduct a golf market assessment in order to assist Council in reviewing the equitable use of its public golf course land.”
The Sporting Field Strategy has proven to be ill founded. The Councils own paid analysis (Optimum Planning Group ) stated in 2017.
“ we estimate current market membership capacity within the private club market to be 90% to 95%.”
“current average market membership capacity within the public club market to be 60% to 70%. We note that some facilities are required to offer public tee times, this requirement restricting the number of members they could otherwise accommodate”
“Given these existing peaks (weekends, Saturdays, mornings) and the consistency with which they exist across facilities, should public facility supply be reduced in any way, it is unlikely that all displaced existing public rounds played could be reasonably accommodated elsewhere.”
The Council does not have a current “Sporting Strategy” for the Council area, so how do you have a sporting field strategy If you do not have a picture of the future needs for different sports.
Now 3 years later in 2020 all golf clubs are at capacity. Members cannot get games on weekends and Public golfers are battling to get a game. Yes, this is an effect of Covid, but it shows how finely the demand and supply is balanced. Hence if you are projecting forward for sport, Golf needs more facilities not less. If you take away a course now you will never get it back for the future. Golf in effect has the largest number of players of any sport. It should be noted that Golf is the only sport that is required to pay for itself in terms of creation and maintenance of playing area etc. All other sports are greatly subsidised at rate payers expense.
The EIS states that Balgowlah members can go and join Wakehurst (entry fee), Warringah or Manly(a private club – entry fee of $10,000 or more). This shows the author knows nothing about the current situation of Golf locally or the cost structure of membership. These three Clubs have closed their books to new members for playing golf on the weekend .The removal of Golf from Balgowlah Park means you will deny 426 members the ability to play regular golf and have also taken away 20,000 rounds for the public golfer.
This will end the sporting opportunities to over 100 senior members of the community who will be forced to just give up Golf as their active sport.
The thing, that no one has considered in the latest proposal is that, the northern part of the land which is returned to the community first, contains 6 current greens. These could be used as a golf course during construction. This is what is happening with Cammeray Golf Club because of support from their local member and Council.
As 90% of the land is returned for use , the Balgowlah Golf Club could continue as a nine hole course. There is no need to change the status quo.
Hence: acquisition of Crown land at Balgowlah Golf Course should not result in closure of the golf course.
This should only be a temporary closure
Traffic volumes
The premise for the tunnel and use of Balgowlah Golf club is based on the Volume of car and bus passengers that are exaggerated that has 66% of the popluation leaving the peninsular daily.
The EIS states
Roseville daily volume Bus 9500, Cars 79000 Total per day 88500
Spit Bridge daily volume Bus 34000 Cars 69500 Total 103500
Existing (pre COVId ) week day travel demand Total is 192000 people
But The 2016 Census data shows
That is 56,208 people leave the Beaches for work
Of these 24,154, work in Sydney city and 6681, work in north Sydney. ie 31000 – the majority of which would use public transport for those two locations
This leaves approximately 26,000 people who may need a car etc to travel to work

In looking at the link road thru Balgowlah Golf Club and car usage . there are no figures supplied. This supposedly is for people living in North Balgowlah, Seaforth Balgowlah etc
The total population for Seaforth to Manly and the Manly Vale is etc (post codes 2092, 2093 2094 and 2095) is 42,000 Based on the percentage for the whole of the Council area you would be lucky to have 2,000 as possible tunnel users. A very low number and they have access roads via Condamine street and Balgowalh road for the majority of these vehicles.
In fact the Council submission on the EIS argues that traffic lights will be needed at Balgowlah road / Roseberry street and Kenneth road / Roseberry street as the volumes of traffic will demand it ie that’s what the people will use to as access and exit points.
The Link road is not needed.
The link Road A public road, has a set of traffic lights 100 metres from the tunnel entry creates a bottleneck for vehicle exiting the tunnel in a northerly direction .
This link road cannot be considered a local road but it is via the EIS. If it were its two lanes would become one as it would be parked out unless No Parking signs are erected for its 300 metre length.. The plan for open space there is also another set crossing in the middle. Three sets of lights in 300metres. Then there is another set of traffic lights 300 metres from the first at Sydney Road .How can you consider that reasonable?

The description of “delivering new and improved open space and recreation facilities (subject to further community consultation)” Is a marketing false hood. A Golf course has existed for 95 years serving the community. There has been no discussion or consultation with the club on repurposing the area

The Link road is what creates the rat runs that the locals are concerned about . Take away the access road and you take away the problem.

Exhaust stack
The land covered by the Thirty four residential properties on Dudley Street at Balgowlah should be used to hold the tunnel facilities and ventilation shafts.
The area over the tunnel exit should also be incorporated into this function

The position of the tunnel traffic facility and the exhaust stack should be repositioned over the tunnel exit and/or the Dudley street road reserve and the area where the houses are being acquired . Access can be via Dudley Street. This type of configuration is similar to what is proposed for Wakehurst Parkway. The orientation has to be North south not East west
A Link road would not be needed. This then save the Golf course

Environmental considerations
There is no mention of the impact (destruction of their habitat) on the Eastern Water Dragon colony, nor the Kookaburras and other Bird life.
The Wollimbi pine on the course has not been identified How acuate is the EIS documentation

The diversion of Burnt creek takes it from being a creek to being a drain .
The creek from the Golf club side (eastern side) has not been disturbed for at least 50 years.
• Localised adjustment of a small section of Burnt Bridge Creek for road widening and extension of the existing culvert and provision of scour protection This is not a localised adjustment but a destruction of the existing creek and creation of a storm water Canal.
You will destroy the habitate of the eastern watern lizards that live in the bank and and the destruction of the habitate of many different types of bird life
The destruction of the ground water by 96% is a catastrophe for the creek, The wild life and the bio diversity of plants that are supported by it . This can not be permitted.

I object to he Beaches Link Tunnel due to the impact of the construction phase over six year and the disastrous impact for the schools during this period and after once the tunnel is constructed for Bally Boys that is directly across from the site or St Cecilia's which is 380 meters, the lifestyle of my family as residents and and cause long term irreparable damage it will have on the environment and precious natural eco system of area and green spaces. It is also dubious if the tunnel needs to go ahead since COVID19 and the workforce WFH. Would it not be better for the state government to spend this money on public transport. I object also for the following reasons:

- Polluted Water in Manly Dam
- Construction Pollution to waterways due to the construction of the immersed tubes in middle harbour which will have a disastrous effect to Middle Harbour, Spit Marina, Sandy Bay and Clontarf Beach and Children’s Ocean Pool with the disturbance of sludge from the bottom of the harbour.
- The Traffic Congestion and then many workers landing in Balgowlah and taking up parking on side streets and with my family to be subject to excess noise and vibration from the construction of the project, including potential damage to homes. The EIS did not provide any details on the mitigation measures that will be put in place to prevent this. I am a resident directly effected by this tunnel and should be untitled to know as a condition of approving the project.
- Why does the government refuse to consider having filtration in the ventilation stack that is so close to Bally Boys, St Cecilia's and Seaforth Public Schools in Balgowlah. In the EIS, there are thousands of pages of very technical information that is supposed to justify their decision not to install filtration, that does not make sense and put our children's health at risk.
- The additional rat runs that will occur on Wanganella street that will mean more traffic and excessive speeding on this street which could mean potential danger for the students of St Cecilia's. There is already enough drivers who speed through the back streets to miss traffic.
- The hours of the construction and the delays this will already bring to the traffic coming in and out of manly will be significant with.
- The fragile fauna of the area including the bats and other animals that reside in Balgowlah, Seaforth and Manly will have major impact on their environment and will likely mean that these beautiful creatures will no longer have an environment to live in.

Please see attached letter from Advisory Council Chair and myself as Prinicipal.

Please see attached

I object because of:
1. Confirmed contamination risks to health, environment and waterways
2. Noise levels above acceptable limits impacting homes in our area particularly Calbina Pyalla and Nulgarra Streets
3. Loss of 390 trees, green space and wildlife in our so treasured area
4. Geological uncertainty, with fears of property damage
5. 900 construction vehicle movements per day on Flat Rock Drive
6, Alternatives to this project have not been considered

I would like further assessment of project including impact of noise/excavation/traffic. in particular i believe our family home is located directly below (or close to below) to proposed road, i would like a personalized assessment of the impact to be provided. How is a normal person meant to scroll through and understand the 1000s of pages that have been created...in my opinion done on purpose to confusion and mis-guide residents of the true impact.
please also outline what alternative options were considered?
The proposal needs to be re-issued with clearer subjects heading and further community consultation events need to occur so public has the chance to fully understand and appreciate the impact.

While I believe this is a very worthwhile project I would like to request that measures are put in place to minimise impact on Northbridge Sailing Club. This club has been an integral part of the Northbridge and wider community for many years and has provided our children with an opportunity to learn a life skill, build confidence, have fun - and enjoy a healthy activity away from drugs and trouble that many teenagers get involved with. If a reasonable measure is not put in place to enable the club to continue offering sailing activities then it is at risk of closing for good. Once people move on to other sailing clubs and activities it is difficult to build a small club again. This would be a huge loss to the area and to our children. We ask that try and find a solution to enable the club to continue while this important work is being done.

Whilst it is understood that Sydney is an ever increasing urban city, with a growing population, I do not believe the expansion construction of this tunnel is the answer. The environmental impacts of this construction will be immense. Already Australia has the highest rates of mammalian extinction in the world and is the only first world country listed as a global land clearing hotspot. The statistics are outrageous, and the construction of this freeway will only increase our unique flora and fauna’s vulnerability! Over 2500 trees are estimated to be removed which is home to already threatened species and ecological communities. This is not pro-active enough, nor does it follow the state EP&A act which highlights our inter generational responsibility, and need to conserve wildlife and biodiversity for long term social, economic and environmental survival! A further 400,000 litres of waste water per day to be disposed of in the creek which flows into Queenscliff lagoon is a disgrace! It proves major oversights as to the pollution and damage it will inevitably cause to the aquatic ecosystem and surrounding biota, but also to that of local of the local community and residents, and ignores the negligence to be caused to a historically Indigenous area!

Yes there is a need to expand and deal with the increasing pressures of urban sprawl and development. However there are too many environmental and social issues which have not been adequately, or proactively, mitigated and managed!