Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Connection

I object to the Beaches Link project as detailed in my attached submission. Thank you.

I object to this tunnel being built on for the following reasons:
1. Cost of project too high. Utter waste of money. Alternative options other than tolled tunnel would be more cost effective.
2. Cost of tolls. Sydney has toll mania. A major reason as to why NSW government wants to build this tunnel, is to charge northern beaches residents a toll indefinitely. Once tolled, it will be there forever.
3. Environmental issues, destruction of green space, loss of trees, flora, fauna, loss of water catchment, dredging of middle harbour, pollution of waterways due to tunneling.
4. Unfiltered stacks spewing carcinogenic fumes into atmosphere.
5. Destruction of entire suburbs including Balgowlah, Seaforth, Manly Vale, Balgowlah Heights, CLontarf.
6. I object to the tunnel being built as there have been no alternatives investigated. Examples of alternatives, rail from Chatswood to Dee Why. Raising the Spit Bridge. etc.
7. I object to the tunnel being built and owned by Transurban, then charging us tolls.
8. I object to the tunnel being built, why does the NSW government want to destroy the Northern Beaches? The northern beaches is the jewel of Sydney.
9. I object this tunnel is built so close to so many local schools, pre schools, day care facilities.
10. I object to this tunnel being built as it doesn't serve the NORTH part of the northern beaches from Manly Vale up to Palm Beach. Most of the traffic comes from the NORTH of Manly Vale.
11. I object to this tunnel being built. As soon as it opens (if built) it will become obsolete. Induced demand. It will become like every tolled road in Sydney GRIDLOCKED and only for the benefit of TOLL operators. It is not a solution for solving northern beaches traffic.

I really hope this tunnel NEVER gets built, but in the event it does:

1. If tunnel is built, prevention of Wanganella St, West St, Myrtle Street, Kitchener St, Rickard Street ,and all local streets near Sydney Road becoming RAT RUNS for the avoidance of the NBT and its Balgowlah construction site, For example: If cars are using local Streets including Wanganella St or West St or Rickard Street from Kitchener Streets to avoid Burnt Creek Deviation must be prohibited at all times, with Resident ONLY traffic exempted.
2. If tunnel is built Respite periods – especially during noisy works phases. These respite periods must be communicated in advance to the Residents to allow for planning of business calls / zoom meetings / child sleep periods etc.
3. If tunnel is built, All construction traffic must be fitted with noise and pollution control devices (including quackers to reduce the impact of tonal reversing alarms).
4. If tunnel is built No construction vehicles must be permitted to wait or idle on Rickard Street or any other local roads.
5. If tunnel is built, All staff, workers and contractors (“Employees”) must only park in designated parking hubs (away from residential areas) with a regular shuttle service to the Balgowlah construction envelope and not park in local streets.
6. If the tunnel is built, The vehicles of all Employees are to be badged for ease of identification.
7. If the tunnel is built, Employees must, as part of their engagement contract, be prohibited from parking outside of designated parking hubs and be required to comply with local road and traffic rules, with a suitably deterrent penalty system put in place for any breaches reported by members of the public.
8: If the tunnel is built, A site-specific construction 24/7 hotline and website (“Balgowlah NBT Website”) must be established for the receipt of complaints and breach reports from members of the public (“Complainant”). As part of this process there also needs to be a formal complaint handling mechanism in place requiring:
responses to be provided to Complainants within 5 business days of receipt of a complaint / breach report, detailing what investigative, remedial or penalty action has been taken, or is to be taken (and when); penalties to be applied if the response time limit in a) above is not met; and a designated department within TfNSW be given responsibility for the escalation of complaints or breach reports (where a similar transparent complaints handing mechanism must be implemented).
9. If tunnel is built, The emission stacks must be filtered. This is non-negotiable.

I, like many others, am STRONGLY OPPOSED to the Northern Beaches Tunnel/ Gore Hill Connection for a number of reasons:

1. The cost, CURRENTLY slated as $14bn, is truly excessive and could be better used for effective and green public transport options, such as, has the option of electric buses (as in Shanghai) been considered? What of other innovative transport ideas? Part of this $14bn could be used to address other important social issues, such as, homelessness, more funding for hospitals, schools, etc. If built, this will become yet another "carpark motorway" (2 lanes each way), like the other Sydney motorways/tunnels and will not markedly decrease the traffic over the Spit Bridge.
2. The business plan (costs equating to gains) has yet to be published. It seems, AT THIS STAGE, that the cost for using the tunnel ONE way will be $6-8 for a 6 MINUTE SAVING in driving time. This is not sensible nor cost effective and I, for one, will not be using the tunnel.
3. The impacts on the community are extreme and unnecessary:
- unfiltered stacks at both ends of the connection, alongside many schools, in residential areas, as well aseffecting local wildlife. Even if the stacks are filtered, the whole project is highly flawed.
- the removal of toxic waste from the harbour floor.
- the consequent health effects are being ignored.
- the impact of a 7 year + build on the involved suburbs and their surrounding areas - traffic implications, noise, etc.
- the impossible rat runs on local streets near the entries and exits of the tunnel.
- the loss of green space, e.g. Balgowlah Golf Course
- the impact on the environment and on local wildlife; and the ignoring of the Burnt Creek wildlife corridor, which was previously protected by an environmental order.
- the gradient into Seaforth from Northbridge will be greater than the gradient on Awaba Street in Mosman. Imagine the pollution from trucks chugging up that gradient?
4. There is no account made for the changing working conditions of residents post covid.

As a seperate but perhaps related issue, it is noted that many buses from the Balgowlah/Seaforth and Mosman/Neutral Bay areas have recently been cancelled. These include school children not being able to catch buses and therefore, the need for them to be driven to school. Is this to push more cars onto the roads to advance the case for motorways?

There has been no MEANINGFUL community consultation on this matter. It hays been treated as a fait d'accompli.

The project in its current form does not take proper account of environmental impacts and alternative options like busways, light and heavy rail. Please see attached submission document for details.

I would like to see the tunnel plan stopped entirely however, should that not be possible then I would I request that you:

Halt the process and amend the current plans and design to properly and address community concerns and minimise the negative impacts on the local community and environment, rather than rush the process in order to get everything through before the next election; and

Revisit the assumptions for tunnel justification based on living in a post COVID-19 world.

I object to the proposals for the Northern Beaches Link and its complementary Western Harbour Tunnel. A convincing business case would have included the examination of alternative transport modes.

It is deceptive to use 2016 as the baseline year used for traffic modelling despite changes to work practices predicted to follow Covid.

As a resident of Cammeray, my objections are focussed on this area.



• I object to the loss of open space at Cammeray Golf course. In combination with other open space impacted by the BL and WHT, 3 km2 of open space will be lost in North Sydney. With significant development and population growth occurring in the NSLGA, we need more open space not less. The State government should provide additional open space to offset this significant loss.
This proposal is inconsistent with the Draft Design and Place State Environmental Planning Study released 26/2/21 which recommends that planning must ensure that more people have access to open space.
• The EIS refers to flood impacts at Cammeray Golf Course and the potential impacts of construction activities on flood development associated with the Cammeray Golf Course construction support areas.

I am concerned at the potential for flooding in areas such as Fall St. I have seen the impact of flooding in the past when stormwater drains running through the golf course have not been able to cope with the volume of water generated during torrential rains.

I am also concerned at the potential for contaminated sediments to make their way into Willoughby Bay via Primrose Park. I am unable to find a solution in the EIS .



• Local traffic will increase for residents of Cammeray

The EIS for WHT acknowledged that intersections such as Ben Boyd and Military Road, Amherst and West St as well as a number of intersections on Miller St will become failed intersections.

Rat runs will become more frequent as motorists seek different routes to access the Bridge, Cahill Expressway Sydney Harbour Tunnel, Western Harbour Tunnel and Northern Beaches Link.

Streets such as Earle, Grafton Cammeray Rd and Amherst St will become worse rat runs for traffic north of Military Rd to access the Bridge, Cahill and Sydney Harbour Tunnel from Miller St.

Local residents will have to drive further to access routes to many destinations and will take longer to complete local trips.

• Air Quality will be compromised for local residents of Cammeray.
I am not reassured by statements that the additional particulate matter and other emissions from the unfiltered stacks will add a negligible quantity of pollutants to current levels in Cammeray.

Higher levels of pollution from rat runs, failed intersections and altered traffic patterns will be added to pollutants from the stacks.

What action would the EPA be authorised to take if levels of pollution are very high?


This project must not be approved until all objections have been addressed and it can be demonstrated that this is the best solution to improve transport in a post covid world.

My objection submission is too long for this section, I have attached it

The exhaust stack air is not filtered putting all residents, workers and school children in the area at increased health risk of developping respiratory diseases and cancer. If The air from the exhaust is insignificant why have the exhaust stack at all? These residents are already penalised by increase in local traffic congestion and noise. Not filtering the exhaust air is not inline with the world's best practise. In many develped countries overseas, similar tunnel exhaust are filtered as they are genuinely conscious of the health impact. We should not be putting money before health.
The drawing showing the the visual impact of the exhaust stack is downright dishonest. While it says the stack is 20m high the drawing reflects a stack far lower than half the estimated height.
Further the projected benefit of 10% to 14% reduction in traffic on main arterial roads like Military Road is not significant for the $10 billion outlay escpecially given the debt the government has to wear with the Covid 19. This traffic reduction is only a projection. The actuall benefit maybe and very likely to be less!

Contaminants such as heavy metals and PFAS have been detected in Middle Harbour
– these contaminants are dangerous to human health - and many of them have been
found above ‘safe levels’(Table 1, Annexure C, Appendix F). Very limited sampling
was conducted and further testing was not continued when levels of contaminants
were found that are harmful to human health. Contaminants have been found in groundwater and surface water around the tip site
in Flat Rock Gully and there is a risk identified that these may move down the gully
as work proceeds.Lost opportunity in not filtering/ treating stack pollution – although the EIS suggests
PM2.5 levels will not be significantly changed with the construction and operation of
unfiltered stacks, we are already living in an environment where levels of PM2.5 and
PM10 is above the level of what is considered safe and the EIS demonstrates that
this will continue well past the tunnel opening. Would filtering stacks reduce PM 2.5
levels to acceptable levels? Or could a public transport alternative address our
growing PM levels. The government has a duty of care to do what it can to reduce
these levels now that it has monitored and confirmed the issue.
The Chief Health Officer is only required to comment on the contribution of the
stacks and not the contribution of the project overall to our air quality. Transport for
NSW’s conclusion that the air quality across the area on average will not be
substantially worse is predicated on the assertion that surface level traffic will
reduce. This assertion is contradicted many times in the EIS however via data which
demonstrates increased intersection delays, the potential of additional toll
avoidance, slower bus times, intersection failures, the admission that rat running will
be required to access changed access arrangements to the freeway, an increased
proportion of trucks through the area and several other factors. Both Willoughby
Council and North Sydney Council have modelled poorer local traffic conditions
resulting from the project and the operational model used did not include many key
local corridors in order to verify findings ie Eastern Valley Way and Military Rd.
More work needs to be done to accurately model surface level changes as part of
the project and an assessment of the project 39s contribution to air quality overall
should be made on this basis. If in fact local traffic is made worse by the project this
will have the net effect of far poorer air quality, with the additional pollution load
delivered to our most vulnerable receivers at schools, parks, homes and hospitals in
the area via dispersion from stacks.
Modelling has been done for buildings at height 300 mtrs from the stack. This is
initial modelling only but unacceptable levels have been detected for buildings at height and the EIS flags that further modelling is required and notes that restrictions
to development may be needed. In the case of Northconnex a report was issued to
council on completion outlining restrictions on buildings at certain heights more
than 2km away from the stack. This has major implications for development across
an area which is currently planning to densify. Full modelling should be completed of
each pollutant and various heights at a distance from the stacks and a cost/ benefit
analysis completed. This should not be limited to a 300mtr circumference given that
the Chief Scientists states that ground level pollution can be at it’s highest 1km+
from from stacks.
Air quality monitoring around St Peter’s following the Westconnex opening are
showing regular exceedances of air quality standards and there has been very
limited epidemiologic research across the full burden of disease to substantiate
placing more motorways - stacks or no stacks in and around children. In fact the air
quality body of research worldwide points toward the need to reduce vehicle
pollution around children and vulnerable adults. It is clear that this project will grow
vehicle reliance and traffic volumes overall in already congested and polluted areas.
No assessment of health impacts of climate change that will be accelerated by
continuing to rely on a road network/cars rather than public transport
Urban bushland is fast disappearing under Sydney’s bulldozers. For the future of the urban
environment, we can no longer afford to put construction sites, with all their impacts, in
biodiversity rich areas.
The proposed project counteracts the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development in
the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991 (NSW) which declares that the
conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be of fundamental
consideration (PEAA Act Part 3(2)(c)).
Bushland set aside for environmental protection should not be destroyed or disturbed. Flat
Rock Reserve is a declared Wildlife Protection Area as it provides significant habitats that
support a wide range of small birds, mammals, reptiles and frogs that are disappearing from
our urban areas.
Flat Rock Gully is a key part of the network of wildlife corridors across Sydney required to
maintain biodiversity.

Submission with respect to proposed construction of the Beaches Link Tunnel (response to EIS)
I object to the current plans for construction of the Beaches Link Tunnel on the following grounds:
1. in the belief that the case in favor of construction of the tunnel fails to take into account the impact of COVID on the working lives of Northern Beaches residents. I believe that the current practice of many to work from home in response to COVID will trend towards a more standardized work practice. This is borne out by the experience of several people I know whose organizations are looking to terminate office leases as fewer staff members commute into CBD offices. TNSW must revisit the base case analysis of the need for the tunnel before proceeding with such a massively expensive infrastructure project.

2. In the event that updated analysis does reveal that it is likely that numbers of people travelling from the Beaches to the CDB for work purposes will increase, I support better use of public transport models that can be scaled up to meet these needs which will be a more sustainable model than continuing to encourage people to use their cars to commute.

3. The proposed construction site is too close to Balgowlah Boys and St Cecilia’s Catholic Schools. The ability of both schools to safely and enjoyably use Balgowlah Oval during the construction period will be entirely compromised. Further, noise from the site and the likelihood of accidental interruption to gas / electricity supplies (which I know to have been an issue for local residents during construction of the Northern Beaches Hospital on multiple occasions) will negatively impact the education of hundreds of students over a prolonged period.
If the tunnel does proceed, then I expect to see the following measures implemented during construction:
1. No heavy vehicles carrying construction materials or removing spoil should travel on local roads. An access road should be built from back of the Balgowlah construction compound to allow heavy vehicles to enter/exit the compound directly onto Burnt Bridge Creek Deviation.

2. Residents-only parking permits to be a requirement during the construction period to allow local rate-payers access to parking in their own streets, rather than allowing street parking to be consumed by construction workers.

3. Subsidised sound proofing (installation of double-glazed windows) for local residents who would otherwise be affected by construction noise.

4. Benchmarks for construction noise and dust output to be set in line with Australian best practice standards with compliance to be automatically monitored on a 24/7 basis at locations at and around the construction compounds, with substantial penalties to be imposed in the event of breaches.

5. Notwithstanding findings that pollution will not be worse for residents and students near the tunnel stacks, for best practice purposes I support stack filtration measures being implemented as part of construction planning,

and following completion of construction:
6. Traffic flow measures to be implemented following completion of construction (ie prohibiting turns into certain streets) to prevent local streets becoming rat runs. This would apply particularly to streets in the immediate vicinity of the Maretimo Street traffic lights (Audrey St, Violet St, Wanganella St, Upper Beach St, Seaview St).

7. Northern Beaches Council to give assurances that parking permits which allow residents’ access to free parking at popular beaches and parks will be continued, to ensure that residents can continue to affordably access local amenities notwithstanding the likelihood of high numbers of non-local users flooding these sites.

Kate Patterson
27 Violet St, Balgowlah

This submission is to express my objection to the Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Project. I have read the EIS documents and I have significant concerns about the justification for this project particularly given that there is no published business case, it is not high on Infrastructure Australia’s priority list, the EIS demonstrates a significant risk to health and safety, and and an alternative public transport option has not been fully scoped and compared.

I object to the project for the following reasons:

1. The timing of release of this project at the end of what has been a very challenging year. This project impacts a large number of schools and passes through highly residential areas. Families, community groups and schools have been under a huge amount of strain throughout the exhibition stage. School P&C’s did not have the opportunity to review the documents and parents were caring for children on school holidays. The 12,000+ paged documents are very difficult to read on screen and the Library was not allowing borrowing. The project should be re-exhibited well after the COVID-19 crisis has passed and when normal life returns ad when we understand the permanent changes that it has made.

2. I object to the project due to the contamination risks it presents to the environment and to human health and the negative impact on our precious waterways and green spaces. For example, I regularly do exercise in the Flat Rock Gully reserve and I'm concerned about toxic fumes and air contamination when I do my exercise there.

3. I object to the project due to the scale, extent and risk of groundworks in sensitive residential areas and foreshore environments.

4. I object to the project due to the unreasonable level of impact on the Quality of Life of residents during the tunnel construction. This is a very long construction period and the traffic around Northbridge is already very bad during peak hours and it will become a lot worse once construction activities start. As a Northbridge resident, I'm getting no benefit from this infrastructure project (I will not use the tunnel and access is very hard from Northbridge anyway) and I'm getting all the inconvenience and health hazards, this is not fair on the Northbridge community.

5. I object to the project due to the threat to our biodiversity and green spaces. It is clear that the State Government has chosen a "low cost" option and consequently cut corners to minimise the capital cost at the expense of the environment and residents. This not acceptable. The project should be done properly or not done at all.

6. I object to the project as it is a tolled road and there is little evidence that it will alleviate current congestion.

7. I object to the project as it has a poor climate profile at a time when we should be looking to projects which reduce our emissions. There has been a structural shift to "working from home" and spreading commuting time over a longer time (people starting and finishing work at different times of the day). This tunnel is no longer needed following this structural shift.

8. I object to the project as there has been no publicly published business case and the costs demonstrated in the EIS seem to far outweigh the benefits. The EIS also fails to fully scope many aspects such as utilities and contamination which poses a risk to the project. The business case should be re-assessed once COVID has ceased and structural shifts in working and commuting to work are better understood.

9. I object to the project because the B-Line buses have been successful in reducing congestion and no public transport alternative study has been done with which to compare this project.

This project is a missed opportunity to transform Sydney into a world class, healthy and sustainable city with a strong public transport system. The EIS demonstrates that this toll road will be extremely expensive to build and high risk with little benefit. I would ask that an alternative public transport feasibility study be published before any further planning occurs so that impacts and outcomes can be fairly compared.

I object to this project and particularly to the unfiltered stacks.

I object to this tunnel being built on for the following reasons:

1. Cost of project too high. Utter waste of money. Alternative options other than tolled ROAD tunnel would be more cost effective and better alternatives for the environment.

2. Cost of tolls. Sydney has toll mania. A major reason as to why NSW government wants to build this tunnel, is to charge northern beaches residents a toll indefinitely. Once tolled, it will be there forever.

3. Environmental issues, destruction of green space, loss of trees, flora, fauna, loss of water catchment, dredging of middle harbour, pollution of waterways due to tunneling.
Pollution to swimming beaches including Manly Dam, Clontarf, Queenscliff, North Steyne. Pollution to middle harbour.

4. Unfiltered stacks spewing carcinogenic fumes into atmosphere. We do not put raw sewage into our oceans, why would you put raw fumes into the atmosphere ?

5. Destruction of entire suburbs including Balgowlah, Seaforth, Manly Vale, Balgowlah Heights, CLontarf.

6. I object to the tunnel being built as there have been no alternatives investigated. Examples of alternatives, rail from Chatswood to Dee Why. Raising the Spit Bridge. NEw ferry services from Balmoral to City, Ferry from Clontarf to City, Buses direct to Universities such as Macquarie, Sydney, etc.

7. I object to the tunnel being built and owned by Transurban, then charging us tolls.

8. I object to the tunnel being built, why does the NSW government want to destroy the Northern Beaches? The northern beaches is the jewel of Sydney.

9. I object this tunnel is built so close to so many local schools, pre schools, day care facilities, homes.

10. I object to this tunnel being built as it doesn't serve the NORTH part of the northern beaches from Manly Vale up to Palm Beach. Most of the traffic comes from the NORTH of Manly Vale.

11. I object to this tunnel being built. As soon as it opens (if built) it will become obsolete. Induced demand. It will become like every tolled road in Sydney GRIDLOCKED and only for the benefit of TOLL operators. It is not a solution for solving northern beaches traffic.

12. I object that the NSW government is ignoring climate change an building ROAD tunnels. This is not an environmental mode of transport. More buses, ferries, and possible trains are the best options for the sake of the environment. I object to NSW government building antiquated ROAD tunnels.

27/02/2021

Objection: Beaches Link Tunnel

I advise of my strong objection to the Beaches Link Project. I do not understand any possible justification for the project given that the basic premise is confused and without substance. I have read many examples of submissions to the project and I note the importance of protecting wildlife and managing air quality as well as the impact of the tunnel development on schools, native flora and fauna and the destruction of the existing golf course and then the final provision of sporting fields in an area already suitably supplied with these facilities is critical but the question also has to be asked of what happens to increased number of vehicles at either end once the tunnel is in place. Although under the pretence of simply shortening travel times, the project is trying to solve for enabling more vehicles to move in the direction of the CBD or the Northern Beaches than can currently do so and if are going to move more vehicles, we must understand what we are going to do with them once we have achieved this faster flow. The Beaches Link Project does not address or answer this question at any stage and because it does not, I strongly object to the project.

I object to the project for the following reasons:

1. The aim of the project is to provide faster and more efficient transport for motor vehicles across the CBD and western areas into the Northern Beaches and from the Northern Beaches into the CBD. The significant issues as mentioned in my opening statement are extremely important and will be the ultimate areas of determination in this debate however, it seems to be equally as critical that there are not sufficient capabilities for either of the destinations to manage the increase at termination of traffic flow that a tunnel will bring. The commuter flow from the Northern Beaches to the CBD will provide an increase in the number of cars located within the confines of the CBD and correspondingly increase the amount of emissions of harmful exhaust gasses as these cars queue and circulate as they seek access to the already restricted parking locations within the CBD. The changes to the CBD, such as the advent of the light rail and closure of roads for the purpose of making the area more pedestrian focused will be severely undermined by the influx of increased volumes of vehicles. Increasing traffic flow to reduce commuter travel times is a good thing but, in this case, the bottleneck effect of the increased traffic flow provided by the Beaches Link to CBD commute will negate the proposed reduced travel time and simply spread the existing traffic flow problems across the whole journey and for a larger number of commuters.

2. The implementation of this Beaches Link project will have the effect of making the Northern Beaches more accessible to a larger volume of visitation from other areas of Sydney and we can all understand why this would be a great thing for those visitors as the area offers some of the best beaches, parks, restaurants and all manner of pleasurable pursuits, however the geography of the area is that of a peninsula and as such, space is limited. The infrastructure required to manage the increased number of cars that will bring our visitors to the area is not +in place and the ability to provide it is limited by the current zoning, the existing facilities and the existing development plans for the area. Across all the beach suburbs, which are the main attractions for the proposed visitors, there is already insufficient parking and no ability to provide more, so the question is where do these welcome visitors park to make use of the bounty the area can offer them? It would seem illogical that the surrounding suburban streets are to become weekend parking lots and yet, even if this were to be so, where is the planning for the public transport to move the visitors to the attractions once they have found parking far from what they came to see? If such planning exists, how does it deal with the inconsistency of the demand for this public transport in the area during tourist periods and then the standing down of the equipment and personnel during the non-tourist periods? Surely the opportunity costs of such an inefficient service delivery would outweigh the benefits of the extra vehicle movement through the tunnel solution?


3. I object to the prioritisation of single user motor vehicle transport over the development of more and better forms of public transport. The need for cleaner and more technological solutions to improvement of public transport could provide a large part of the solution for commuters from and to the Northern Beaches and the CBD. The claims that the uptake of electric vehicles over the next 5-10 years will solve the pollution issue generated by the tunnel project is a nonsense when the average age of the Australian vehicle fleet is over 10 years. This is a product of economics and not consumer preference as I am sure every drive would prefer to have a nice new vehicle, but this is simply not possible for many people. It is also worth understanding that even if the impossible were to be possible and every NSW vehicle was to be electrified by the opening date of the tunnel project, the locations at either end of the journey, the Northern Beaches and the CBD would still need to have a plan to deal with the increased number of vehicles, albeit that they would be quiet and less polluting, and this infrastructure is not in place nor being planned for.

4. I object to the project because I feel that the assumption that Work from Home is temporary phenomenon, as stated by TfNSW in their planning for this project. Some of the world’s largest businesses have promoted the fact that the choice for employees to work from home is now part of their DNA and these would include Microsoft, Atlassian, Google, Telstra, Australia Post, and many others. Traffic density will promote the uptake of work from home across our densely populated cities in higher numbers and this will place less importance on the building of commuter roads.

5. I object to the project because of the precedent it will set for the Government to develop more inappropriate projects that will impact residents, flora, fauna, green spaces, important cultural country, pollution levels, etc, all in the name of transport improvements.

6. I object to the project because I am a regular user of the inner harbour, Clontarf, Spit and associated waterways and beaches and the potential for irreversible damage and pollution to these jewels of Sydney is immense and not underwritten by any perceived value the project may provide.

7. I object to the project because the scale, extent and risk of groundworks in sensitive residential areas and foreshore environments for example, is currently dealt with by the EIS claiming: “The disturbance of sludge on the bottom of Middle Harbour (in fact at one of the deepest parts of Sydney Harbour) presents a major problem for communities that spend time in Middle Harbour, Spit Marina, Sandy Bay and Clontarf Beach and Children’s Ocean Pool. The tide will carry the sludge towards Spit Bridge and beyond – with potentially high levels of very nasty toxins in the waters of Sandy Bay and in the Clontarf Ocean Pool. The control of sediment, silt and sludge by means of floating curtains around the construction site in Middle Harbour is a serious challenge – and the contractor will not be able to provide a guarantee that the levels of toxins in the waters of Sandy Bay and Clontarf Beach will be within safe levels.”
8. I object to the project because as a resident living near to the proposed entry to the tunnel, our surrounding streets will be come “rat-runs” for commuters trying to shortcut their entry to the tunnel. We currently have a small shortcut to the entrance onto The Spit Bridge which is already full of commuters seeking to shortcut their journey in peak times and the suggestion that this will magically stop is fanciful and without reasoning.

9. I object to the project because a by-product of this development will be that TfNSW will be imposing a potential reduction in value or limit to the potential value of my home because of it’s proximity to the polluting exhaust tower in Seaforth. I currently live in an area defined by it’s lack of traffic and the fact that the area is not close to any major polluting industries or producers and yet we now find that the immediate location will be completely defined by the proximity to the exhaust stack.

10. I object to the project due to the threat to our biodiversity and green spaces. For example, I am a regular user of the Manly Dam mountain bike track which follows and crosses the Wakehurst Parkway for much of it’s length. The track is widely identified as the most utilised MTB track in Sydney and is commonly used by expert, amateur and family users through-out the week. The track is maintained by community groups and Council and is home to a huge diversity of Australian fauna and flora. The track also traces areas that form part of the Gulgadya Muru Aboriginal walk. Indeed, the Engraving Track, located on the western side of the Wakehurst Parkway and just meters from the road, has an enormous engraving site that was first seen by Europeans in 1788 (Surgeon John White). This location is very close to the proposed tunnel entrance. The proposed planning for the construction phase of the tunnel will remove public access to large parts of the bike track and does not suggest protective measures for the Engraving Track if the project were to go ahead.

11. I object to the project as it is a tolled road and there is little evidence that it will alleviate current congestion.

12. I object to the project as there has been no publicly published business case and the costs demonstrated in the EIS seem to far outweigh the benefits. The EIS also fails to fully scope many aspects such as utilities and contamination which pos

27/02/2021

1. Objection: Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Upgrade – SSI_8862

I strongly object to the Beaches Link Project.
The premise of building an enormous tunnel and road network to accommodate vehicular traffic is out of date and short-term thinking. As we move towards reducing emissions in an effort to slow climate change and ensure a healthy environment for future generations, the consideration of this project is completely unjustified.
The benefits of such a project are questionable and are far outweighed by the detrimental and permanent impacts to the community and environment of the Northern Beaches.
The timing of the release of the EIS documents associated with the project has not allowed adequate time for public consultation and presentation of responses.

I object to the project for the following reasons:

The contamination risks it presents to the environment and to human health and the negative impact on our precious waterways and green spaces.
The proposed inclusion of unfiltered ventilation stacks releasing exhaust in Balgowlah, Seaforth, Cammeray and Artarmon so close to Balgowlah Boys, St Cecilias and Seaforth Public Schools in Balgowlah, and Anzac Park Primary School in Cammeray amongst others is particularly alarming. The levels of particulate matter emitted from these stacks will add to existing unsafe levels and is a threat to the health of thousands of residents and school children. The government has a duty of care to ensure levels of particulate matter are reduced, not increased.
Moreover, playing fields are proposed to surround the unfiltered stack in Balgowlah. It’s questionable that further playing fields are even necessary in this location and presents an obviously unacceptable and unnecessary threat to the health of children as they take part in sporting activities.

I object to the project due to the scale, extent and risk of groundworks in sensitive residential areas and foreshore environments.
Groundwater flows into the Burnt Bridge Creek will be reduced by around 80% while the tunnels are being built and up to 96% after completion of the project. This fall in the water table will have a devastating impact on the vegetation along the creek including the Baringa Bush Reserve and the habitat of the grey-headed flying fox colony. The quality of water that flows into Manly Lagoon and the ocean at Queenscliff Beach will be compromised – and during times of reduced rainfall, (of which there are increasingly more), the water will be polluted. We must ensure the quality of our water remains at the optimum levels we can achieve or we will lose valuable habitat and the use of our precious beach. Must we destroy the very environment that entices tourists and residents alike? It would seem pointless to create a transport corridor only to have the desirable destination polluted. This impact along with so many environmental impacts will be permanent.
The destruction of more than 12 ha of high value bushland with the widening of the Wakehurst Parkway from North Seaforth to the intersection of the Parkway with Warringah Road will have significant impact on native threatened species and add further to air pollution.

The impacts of dredging during the construction phase on marine life and the integrity of the water quality of Middle Harbour, Spit Marina, Sandy Bay and Clontarf Beach and Children’s Ocean Pool is of particular concern as it risks releasing high levels of dangerous toxins which is completely unacceptable. For this reason alone I believe the project should be abandoned. The water quality in Manly Dam will also be compromised due to run off from the Seaforth construction site and destruction of bushland along the Wakehurst parkway resulting in the flow of polluted water. In the EIS, the TfNSW admits that it cannot control this happening when it rains heavily. For example, in 2020 this would have happened every month.

I object to the project due to the unreasonable level of impact on the quality of life of residents during the tunnel construction because of the expected 50 truck movements an hour in both northerly and southerly directions and the 6 day per week and possible night work bringing noise and vibration with potential to damage homes.
The resulting rat runs in surrounding residential streets will bring extra noise, pollution as well as congestion. To suggest that the tunnel will ease traffic congestion is nonsensical as the extra numbers of vehicles emerging from the tunnel onto roads unfit to accommodate the increase will in inevitably just move the problem further along the route. This logic would also apply in the other direction as the City of Sydney encourages less vehicular traffic and more public transport options. The result of less parking facilities, the light rail and more pedestrian traffic areas in the CBD means that the cars emerging from the tunnel will find movement restricted.

The B-Line buses have been embraced and shown to be successful in reducing congestion and no public transport alternative study has been done with which to compare this project.
There has been published discussion about transport alternatives such as light rail, heavy rail, electric buses and these alternatives deserve equal weighting in the Beaches Link debate.

I object to the project as there has been no publicly published business case and the costs demonstrated in the EIS seem to far outweigh the benefits. The EIS also fails to fully scope many aspects such as utilities and contamination which poses a risk to the project.

I am deeply, deeply concerned at the prospect of this project going ahead for all the environmental and health risks it poses now and in the future.
This project is a missed opportunity to transform Sydney into a world class, healthy and sustainable city with a strong public transport system. Now is the moment to be visionary and to bring our city into line with current global trends. The EIS demonstrates that this toll road will be extremely expensive to build and high risk with little benefit. I would ask that an alternative public transport feasibility study be published before any further planning occurs so that impacts and outcomes can be fairly compared.

The environmental impact of this project is substantial and will not be able to be reversed.

The purpose of the project is not compelling enough. Recent events (COVID-19) have shown that transport access to major hubs is being challenged as people and organisations find new ways of working.

There are no improved public transport routes planned and no public transport lanes dedicated in the tunnel. To reduce our impact on the planet (to achieve what must be our aim of less than 2 degrees of global warming) we should be encouraging increased usage of public transport. This project does nothing to support this.

There is no evidence that the impact to young people (who ultimately will pay for this) has not been adequately considered.

My firm belief is that this is an unnecessary project. Where is the benefit that justifies this financial expenditure? We should not be building more roads for private motor vehicles at this time, we should be investing in more
public transport. I would like to see a real business case for this project, if there is one. The proposed expenditure is huge, and that money could be put to much better use where there are real and urgent needs.
However, it appears that the Government is determined to proceed, so we should be trying to minimise the potential problems.
The Northbridge/Naremburn area will be heavily impacted during the 6 to 8 years of construction for little or no eventual benefit to the residents. Following are some of the measures we would like to see implemented to reduce the impact.
1. Limit truck movements to and from the construction site at Flat Rock drive to weekday working hours (7am-6pm) to reduce the impact on residential areas from noise and pollution.
2. Implement a 50km/h speed limit on Flat Rock Drive before work commences, and maintain it permanently.
3. With the huge number of planned truck movements on Flat Rock Drive, where is the regular traffic going to go? Strathallan Avenue in Northbridge and the “Suspension” Bridge cannot cope with any increased traffic.
4. Install traffic lights at Grafton Avenue / Slade Street in Brook Street Naremburn, to enable safe access with all the heavy trucks using Flat Rock Drive / Brook Street, and ensure lights are synchronised.
5. Ensure that work on the Middle Harbour crossing does not negatively impact the water quality such that the iconic Northbridge Baths becomes unusable.

I object to this project. As a starting point, there is no available business case for this major project.
There is no disclosured examination of alternative more sustainable public transport options.
I live less than a kilometre from the proposed site of the clearing of a significant habitat section of Flat Rock Gully. This site is for the building to process the contaminated tunnel spoil before trucking it off site. Tunneling will go through old landfill with know and as yet unknown toxins. Flat Rock Gully has over 100 fauna species listed by Willoughby City Council.
Truck movements of approximately 600 per work day will ravage already heavy traffic access to the Warringah Expressway and many suburban streets. There are Cammeray streets that only exit to Flat Rock Drive and they will have virtually no hope of gaining access with hundreds of truck movements a day.
There are so many aspects of this project that fail a logic test on sustainability, health for residents , habitat destruction, traffic issues for a project that is supposed to relieve traffic congestion and a premise that car usage and toll roads are preferable to modern public transport.
The planned air stacks are located near schools and parkland but are unfiltered. The EIS does not address the health implications of this. Even for tunnel users, they are likely to be advised to keep vehicle windows closed and switch their air to recycling, an indication that it is unhealthy.
The coffer dam construction on Middle Harbour will adversely impact Northbridge Sailing Club, Sea Scouts, Northbridge baths and general boating . Dredging contaminated silt is an additional health and ecosystem risk. Damage to sea grasses and the habitat for rare sea horses and sea dragons is inevitable. Much of the contamination has leached from the landfill covered by Bicentennial Park to the east of Flat Rock Gully and under the regeneratied part of Flat Rock Gully dating back some 40 years.
In an era where climate change is a more immediate threat, the projected removal of 3000 large trees is unacceptable. Offers to revegetate other areas is not proper replacement for habitat damage nor is it timely. Previous agreements to dedicate alternative land for revegetation after other projects, have not been fulfilled despite waiting 10 years.
Damaging the areas along Wakehurst Parkway and streams feeding Manly Dam is also unacceptable.
Why there has not been a significant effort to provide speedy public transport alternatives for the northern beaches is bewildering. With the new Metro train system coming through Chatswood that would be an obvious connection for a rail link to the Northern Beaches. You could do an above Roseville Bridge link that would avoid the very expensive option of tunneling Middle Harbour.

The EIS is some 1200 pages but does not address issues like the unfiltered air stacks. Willoughby City Council has advised the EPA that further test of the Flat Rock Gully site are required to identify toxins and contaminants from the old landfill.
At the very least there needs to be a delay in any approvals to better address community concerns.

1. Balgowlah Interchange - There was no consultation with the residents of Hope St Seaforth on the relocation of the portal on Burnt Bridge Creek Deviation - a proper consultation is required
2. Balgowlah Interchange - I am extremely concerned about the impact of the project on Burnt Bridge Creek - the impact and degradation is unacceptable
3. Balgowlah Interchange - It is completely unacceptable in this day and age to have unfiltered air outlet stacks
4. Project - The project does not present a viable or environmental travel solution - the project should include light rail
5. Balgowlah Interchange - there are serious flaws in the design of the Balgowlah Interchange / Burnt Bridge Creek Deviation portal - for cars exiting the tunnel heading North, access to Balgowlah Boys via the proposed set of traffic lights is crazy . This will also impact south bound traffic; the volume of cars coming out of the tunnel heading north will create congestion at all intersections at Manly Vale
6. DETAILED NOISE MODELLING - APPENDIX G: The noise assessments during the project are a joke. For residents such as myself whose property backs on to Burnt Bridge Creek Deviation how can it be possible that appendix G lists same level of project noise for the houses on east side of Hope St Seaforth (eg receiver ID 00790, 00739, 00598), the West side of Hope St (eg receiver ID - 00619), Kempbridge Avenue (eg receiver ID - 00706) and Frenchs Forest Rd (eg receiver ID - 00606), as all having the same noise levels at 60 day / 55 night. The proximity of the East Side of Hope St will have higher levels of project and construction noise and I have no confidence in modelling. I object to the assessments conducted for the properties of the East of Hope St Seaforth and request recognition of the impact and that all residents on the eastern side of Hope St are compensated for the project impacts during construction with - alternative accommodation, double glazing and or other equivalent financial compensation

I object to this project on several grounds. The project seems to be being pushed through with insufficient time for proper consideration by the people most affected. There appear to be big risks to the environment, there will be major increases in traffic congestion in Manly Vale and Balgowlah, there will be a flood of traffic in summer at the weekends that will swamp the parking facilities at the beaches and the promise that Balgowlah Oval would be protected from the construction activity so as to be available for Bally Boys continuing safe use is no longer guaranteed.
It is also inconceivable to me that all this disruption to people's lives and the associated expense of the project will only produce a 15% reduction in traffic through Mosman etc . I for one would like to see the project scrapped.