Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Connection

I would like to support the submission made by the Northbridge Progress Association.

I object to this proposal.
Sydney Paradox-This project suffers from the Sydney Paradox.
The Sydney Paradox is major project costs run into huge and unjustifiable amounts. $15 billion in this case. At the same time the project is done on the cheap through the abuse of public parkland and bushland.
I won't bother listing the many public sites under threat in North Sydney,
Cammeray,Northbridge, and Balgowlah which are under threat with no consideration given to the current amenity they provide.
All Costs Little Benefit-Currently 150,000 cars travel over the Roseville and Spit Bridges per day. Let us assume that 30% of these movements went via the new tunnel that is 45,000. The congestion cost per trip on these roads according to the latest audit of road infrastructure by Infrastructure Aust(2019) is $7.00 per trip.
So 45,000 trips x 360 days x $7.00=$ 113.4m benefit per year. Assuming zero cost of capital you should be in the money in a little over 100 years and congestion is completely eliminated.
You can't say I not generous.
With that level of annual benefit it would be difficult to justify a spend of $3-4 billion to solve the Northern Beaches "problem" let alone $15billion.
If you think my numbers are shaky you might want to have a look at your own. Your report states that the Link will shave 56 minutes when travelling from Dee Why to the airport. Yesterday that trip could be completed 33 minutes, this morning in 53 minutes.
Regards
Neil Fraser

See attachment

I write to express my objection to the Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Project. I have done my best to read the extensive EIS documents, but believe that the document contains such complex information and has been written in such a way that makes it difficult for those impacted by this project to really understand the true consequences should the project come to fruition. I am particularly concerned given that there is no published business case, the EIS demonstrates a significant risk to health and safety and the project and an alternative public transport option has not been fully scoped and compared. There will also be a significant adverse impact on the local environment, as well as major disruption during the construction phase and beyond to our local communities.

I object to the project for the following reasons:
1. I object to the project due to the threat to our biodiversity and green spaces, examples of which include:
a. The construction will involve diverting diverting a section of Burnt Bridge Creek, removing the lake, and removing surrounding vegetation and habitat that is a valuable green corridor for animals, birds and aquatic life.
b. The EIS states that Burnt Bridge Creek is “a vital ecological corridor of regenerated habitat that provides a range of important habitats for a diversity of local flora and fauna”. So, despite describing the creek as “vital”, the construction and tunnelling activities are projected to reduce the natural water flow of the creek by 79% which will have a devastating effect on the plants and animals that currently rely on the creek.
c. The site is also in close proximity to the threatened Grey-Headed Flying Fox colony in Balgowlah, and any disturbance by construction noise, destruction of significant numbers of trees they feed on, or polluted sediment in the creek system poses a severe risk to these threatened animals.
d. The EIS comments that, whilst only 120 metres from the construction footprint, the flying fox colony is within an urban environment so an “increase in noise and vibration is not expected to have a significant impact”. This is despite predicted noise levels exceeding 75dB(A) and the awakening reaction level for people at nearby residences, particularly during night roadworks.

2. I object to the project due to the unreasonable level of impact on the Quality of Life of residents during the tunnel construction and operation, including:
a. Noise, dust and traffic disruption from truck movements will have significant impacts on residential areas surrounding the sites. I am particularly concerned should contractors decide (which seems highly likely) to travel through Seaforth past Seaforth shops and along Frenchs Forest Road. These are small local roads with steep gradients and a sharp turn at the bottom of the hill by Seaforth Public School, which I believe poses a real danger to residents notwithstanding the traffic chaos, noise and pollution that will be caused by a large amount of heavy vehicles using the road through the day and night.
b. The impact on parking through hosting a large number of workers will also cause congestion and chaos in areas close to the construction sites.
c. The exposure to silica dust generated by construction creates a significant and real risk to the health of local residents.
d. The Wakehurst Parkway from Waringah Rd is planned to be widened to 4 lanes, with the tunnelling site near Kirkwood Street, Seaforth. This is an area with many highly endangered plant species, much of which will be destroyed. Rare species of fauna are also likely to be impacted, including the Eastern Pygmy-possum, Powerful Owl, Red-crowned toadlet and the Galaxias brevipinnis climbing fish amongst others.
e. The widening of Wakehurst Parkway will also likely impact some sites of ancient Aboriginal rock carvings.

3. I object to the project due to the impact on local roads during construction and the and the negligible benefits, if any, following completion:
a. Construction impact on traffic patterns are projected to significantly increase delays on local roads and intersections including Condamine St at Manly Vale / Balgowlah, Sydney Road and Warringah Road / Wakehurst Parkway. These delays will encourage motorists to use smaller local streets, increasing travel times and making these local streets more dangerous.
b. The EIS claim of an expected 38 minutes travel time saving from Balgowlah to the CBD seems fanciful, and is based upon the construction of other tollways not yet built, and the very worst scenario of peak conditions in 2037.

4. 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.
a. Independent transport expert Dr Michelle Zeibots reports traffic problems in the area will be back to the same as exist now within 2 years of the tunnel opening. Even short term gains in travel times by the tunnel will be eaten up by extra delays and congestion on arterial roads leading to the tunnel – such as Condamine St, Pittwater Rd, Wakehurst Parkway and Warringah Rd.
b. Dr Zeibots also states the most critical infrastructure for the Northern Beaches is mass public transport on the East-West link between Dee Why, Mona Vale and Chatswood via Northern Beaches Hospital. Significant public transport improvements in this corridor has been supported by Northern Beaches Council, but not by the current NSW Government.
c. Public transport options have not been explored as an alternative, which seems totally at odds with the move to reduce our impact on the climate.

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 want to voice some of my concerns about the Beaches Link Tunnel and this what I think about it:
- The tunnel will not ease the traffic or create higher capacity road for long. More and more people will use the tunnel, with higher level of crowds and congesrion at the beaches. It's already mahem in peak sesson! The connecting benefits will be gone in a few years. We'll have to pay exorbitant tolls fees.
- Why is the government not willing to include air filtering on the exhaust stacks? I am really concerned about our health with the emission of unfiltered pollutants as I reside on the main road near Burnt Bridge.
- I am really concerned about the impact on wildlife. With the construction, much of our wildlife will not survive the loss of waterflow in the Burn Bridge Creek.
- I am concerned that our streets will become congested locally and the Northern Beaches will loose more of the bush and green areas due to developers getting approvals to build more and more multiple storey buildings.
In all, I think the tunnel will only improve the traffic flow only for a short while until the inevitable higher level of crowding and conjrection ten fold!

-

To Whom it May Concern,

I am a local resident and am concerned about the impact of the Beaches link tunnel on our health and our local environment. As a local family, we walk along the Burnt Bridge track daily and after reading the reports regarding the tunnel project, I am concerned about the reduction in water, the potential flow of waste water and sediment, and the impact on our local flora and fauna.

My children also attend a local public school which will be within the radius of air filter pollution from the proposed air stacks. Our home will also be affected by this. I am aware of a study on the Lane Cove Tunnel project which found that people who lived near roads feeding into the tunnel reported more upper respiratory symptoms. Whilst those living within a radius of 650 metres of the tunnel ventilation stack also reported more upper and lower respiratory symptoms and had lower spirometric volumes (reflecting poorer lung health) after the tunnel opened. Whilst it has been argued that the proposed changes to air quality are likely to be minor, with 6 or more schools and many homes around the proposed corridor and stacks, the long term risk to our children and communities seems too great, particularly when the evidence on the long-term impacts is unclear.

As such, at this time I submit my objection to the proposed tunnel project.

Thank you for your consideration.

Please find attached my submission to the BLT project. C Powell

Dear Proponent
The Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Connection Project breaches sections 3(a) and 3(b) of the Infrastructure NSW Act 2011 in that the Project is not for the social well being of the community and does not have the backing of proper expert professional analysis and advice.
The number of objections filed clearly proves the first breach and the flawed reports (as set out in the objection of the Anzac Park P & C Association) relied on by the proponent prove the second breach.
With the greatest respect this Project cannot progress until these breaches have been addressed.
regards
Rhys Williams

I object to this project on the grounds that over 15 Hectares of bush are to be destroyed to expand Wakehurst Parkway, 1.5 Hectares of this bush is Duffy's forest Endangered Ecological Community - some of the rarest vegetation on the planet.
This type of vegetation was cleared on a large scale when a large development went ahead on the N) W corner of Manly Dam and this expansion will destroy more of this important forest.
As with the drainage issues that occurred when the Manly Vale P/S and Northern Beaches Hospital road widening developments happens, we witnessed large volumes of sediment wash into the Manly Dam catchment area, with the elevated position of Wakehurst Parkway thus road widening will have huge impacts on all headwaters of the Manly Dam and Garigal National Park.
Currently Wakehurst Parkway is unlit, any lighting installed along this roadway will have a huge impact on,
1- nocturna and Diurnal animals
2-Manly dam is one of the Last sizable refugees for nocturnal wildlife away from noise, light and other disturbances,
Question- How will you protect this area from these disturbances ?.
3-Visually it will be seen for Kilometers East and Westward,
Question - How will you overcome this visual pollution ?.
During the construction period, my question is,
1 -How will you control sediment, weeds and pollution from running of into these water courses ?.
2- Proposed fauna fencing along this roadway during the 5 year construction period , can you explain to me where is the fauna to migrate across ?.
3- Are wildlife corridors planned for the finished project ?.
If so , how many are planned ?.
Question,
1- what will there location be.
2- Will it cater for all fauna that inhabit both Garigal N/P and Manly Dam and for wildlife from outlying areas that link to Garigal N)P.
With Northern Beaches council it is currently nominating Manly Dam for National Heritage listing, with the Dam being gazzeted as a State park on the 7 th April 2017 to provide it with a higher level of protection, this road widening will impact on the visual and environmental status of the national Park and Heritage quality of Many Dam.
With the estimated loss of over 2000 trees along this stretch of road including many rare and ancient species that are listed as rare, threatened or vulnerable, my question is,
1- How are you proposing to protect these flora and fauna?.
With the DWE site being proposed for Wakehurst Parkway BL-13 ( Sydney Water Land),
Sydney Water commissioned a biodiversity Assessment of the 1.65 hectares and found it was a habitat for a wide range of species, including five (5) threatened species, a total of twenty nine (28) native fauna species were detected and potentially detected during the current survey.
Of the five (5) threatened fauna that were detected in this survey, the Eastern Bent winged bat listed in the survey was not even identified in the Beaches tunnel EIS which casts doubt on it's reporting standards.
Some of the local fauna identified include the Grey Headed flying fox,Rosenbergs Goanna,the Powerful Owl,Large Bent Winged bat, the Little Bent Winged Bat, the Large eared Pied Bat and six(6) other threatened species are deemed highly likely to occur in the construction footprint , two of which are the Eastern Pygmy Possum and the Red Crowned Toadlet and a threatened flora species , Magenta Lilli Pilli ( Syzigium Panticulata).
My question is,
1-What are your intentions on protecting these threatened and vulrunable flora and fauna during the construction period, by law you have a duty to protect and preserve.
2- with the massive increase in hardstand and bitumen surfaces creating millions of litres of runoff that would normally soak into the ground at a slow rate, my question is
1- What are your intentions on mitigating the hundreds of thousands of litres of runoff which will occur obviously depending on the precipitation if the day ?
Your sincerely Stephen.

I strongly object to this project because it will have a negative environmental impact on Manly Dam. I live on the Northern Beaches and don’t believe this project will alleviate traffic problems in a meaningful way.
I also think it will negatively impact business trade in Cremorne and Neutral Bay.

The submission of the Committee for North Sydney is attached.
In brief, the Committee for North Sydney strongly objects to a specific aspect of the transport planning for the Beaches Link and related segments of the regional road network: the failure to accommodate all access to the Western Harbour Tunnel from the regional transport node at Cammeray.
In its submission the Committee for North Sydney shows that the deletion of the Berry Street on-ramp to the Western Harbour Tunnel may require a reconsideration of the design of the interchanges with the Western Harbour Tunnel, the Beaches Link and the other elements of the regional transport node – a redesign which should begin now during the assessment of the Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Connection project.

Flat Rock Gully is a significant wildlife corridor which will be impacted by this project. The area of reclaimed bush land has had significant positive impact on local residents mental and physical health and is used a lot by bush walkers . It is necessary to have this kind of natural bush land environment when living in the city especially during the period of the Covid 19pandemic.
I am concerned that the impact on the biodiversity of this area has not been properly assessed. Many hundreds of species will lose their habitat. I object that around 54 acres of bush land , habitat for wildlife will be destroyed at the sites in the Willoughby and Manly local government areas.
Excavation of the site could release dangerous contaminants such as pesticides and heavy metals into Middle Harbour from the sediment .Local waterways are at risk from pollutants and increased salinity
I don’t believe public transport has been fully investigated as an ecologically sustainable alternative to the car tunnel, it should be considered.
Wildlife experts should be consulted for the best ways to protect local wildlife if this project goes ahead.The current proposed mitigation measures to protect wildlife during construction are weak.
Bush regeneration should be implemented including three for one tree planting. Independent consultants are required to check water quality in the creek before , during and after the project and this should be available to the public.
If the proposal goes ahead, the construction site in Flat Rock Gully needs to be restored to bush land consistent with the Environmental Conservation zoning of the site and in accordance with the local Urban Bushland Plan of Management and the Flat Rock Gully Reserve Action Plan

To Whom It May Concern,

I wish to lodge my objections to the Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Connection tunnel based on a number of issues not at least including the following points: -

1. The 'Beaches Tunnel' has been declared "Worlds’ best practice' however, this is untrue, as 'world's best practice' would include filtration of the tunnel ventilation/emission stacks. It is clearly stated in the EIS that these will NOT be filtered.

“Members of Parliament should examine their conscience and consider how they would feel if their children or loved ones were exposed to this level of fumes every day. World’s best practice is to filter tunnels” – Gladys Berejiklian

Please practice what you breach Gladys.


2. The non-filtered emission stacks will spew forth the products from the 15km tunnel over suburbs including Cammeray, Crows Nest, North Sydney and Balgowlah, where there is a high concentration of pre-school, primary and secondary schools. The unfiltered stacks are located close to a number of schools, at either end and this is an unacceptable health risk for thousands of school children. Increased car and diesel truck exhaust fumes contain several extremely toxic substances including tiny particles that are hazardous for human respiratory and circulatory health. This effect is heightened in the bodies of young children, thus it is unacceptable that the tunnel emission stacks be not-filtered and located in such close proximity to schools


3. At a projected $15,000,000,000 (plus blow-outs) this project is unjustifiably expensive for the 16 km stretch of road/ tunnel that is outlines. We are waiting for the full business case to be presented to explain and justify this huge amount of tax-payers money being used.

We need the business case is released for public consideration. The business case should evidence the travel time savings quoted, the congestion benefits quoted, should include a revised and fully scoped assessment of impacts to local roads (ie Willoughby, Eastern Valley Way, Military Rd), model various tolling implications and surface road impacts, should include all under-scoped risks (ie contamination, utilities etc), include the costs to mitigate and remediate multiple contaminated sites and in so doing accurately cost the project.

4. The primary dig site at Flat Rock Gully is unsuitable as it will entail digging through layers of decades old dump site contaminated substances. The land contain asbestos, toxic gases and other unknown items that were legally allowed to be dumped there last century. Digging at this site will also release noxious fumes and contribute to unacceptable levels of air, noise and traffic pollution.

5. The numbers of truck movement along Flat rock drive is dangerous for other drivers on the road.
900 additional vehicle movements will be required on Flat Rock Drive - this is a key transport corridor for children accessing North Shore schools and school sport. Given the site is contaminated the conflict between spoil trucks and children is even more concerning for the community. Flat Rock Drive/ Brook St is also a key active transport corridor for children accessing Cammeray Schools due to zoning. This is such a dangerous option and I strongly object to it.

6. 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. Bushland set aside for environmental protection should not be destroyed or disturbed.
7. The proposed coffer dam to go in water off Northbridge is also unacceptable, as is the dredging in that area to make way for the semi-submerged tunnel. The dredging will alter silt-tidal patterns and damage the seagrasses and delicate marine ecosystems located in these waters. Dredging these water will disturb decades old layers of harbour sludge containing toxic sediments. The toxic fallout from digging in these waterways will result in closing down valuable public amenities such as Northbridge Baths. Any risk of contamination to these waterways is unacceptable and thus the tunnel must not proceed through this route.

8. The destruction of green spaces to enable this project to go ahead is a direct contradiction to the NSW Government recently declared new ‘Open space' initiative/policy in which it seeks to protect precious open green spaces, as well as create more open space. The Northern Beaches tunnel is not in certainly not in alignment with this policy as this project will result in, among other things bulldozing at Flat Rock Gully to make way for the dig site and truck turning circle, plus the destruction of golf courses including Cammeray and Balgowlah, and further afield destruction to green spaces from Burnt Creek all the way up to Manly Dam.

9. As well as environmental concerns the project contradicts governments climate change goals: the councils along the route have all declared a Climate Emergency and the State government has committed to the goal of achieving net zero emissions by 2050. There is a strong economic imperative to do so: “CSIRO has estimated that achieving net-zero emissions before or soon after 2050 will deliver ‘higher economic growth’ than more moderate trends (Figure 1). NSW is committed to delivering strong economic growth, and supporting net-zero emissions is consistent with that commitment.” Councils such as Northern Beaches Council have set strong targets around reducing car use in line with this policy. The EIS demonstrates that the reverse will be achieved and this project increases car dependence and trips. With $14bn being allocated to a road option rather than a public mass transit option it is unlikely that there will be a significant mode shift to public transport in future “a shift away from private vehicles requires the provision of convenient, efficient, affordable and appealing alternatives that travellers will choose to take” There is no dedicated bus lane in the tunnel - research shows that where public transport travels at the same or a slower speed as car traffic motorists will choose to drive. The climate impact and sustainability of this corridor needs to be assessed but given the opportunity to travel along established corridors, better avoid complex and contaminated environs and be a far smaller built it is evident that this would be a far more sustainable option than what is currently proposed in and around Flat Rock Gully, Middle Harbour and Manly Dam.

10. The name 'Beaches link' is a misnomer as the tunnel only goes to Balgowlah not to the Northern Beaches. This is false marketing and false representation of a state significant project and as such should be addressed with a name more representative of what it actually is.


11. The project is unethical as it uses public money to create a privately-operated Toll road and as such is not for the benefit of the wider community. The tolls will be too expensive for most and this will encourage rat-racing and more traffic on local roads. Thus the road/tunnel will never achieve its aim of reducing traffic.


12. The original document signed by Mike Baird when he was Premier stated that in finding a solution to traffic congestion along Military Road and this corridor that public transport options NOT be considered. In more recent times consulting groups have advised the NSW Government that a Beaches Tunnel is not the solution for traffic congestion problems, and this could only be achieved via public transport options including a train line from the actual northern beaches through to Chatswood. This project shows a blatant abuse of the investigative process and consultation and any real objective research into the best solution for the traffic congestion problems identified. Unfortunately this project reeks of corruption and government support for major political donors who contribute and unduly influence the best possible outcomes for the public.

13. The plans for the tunnel are less than 50 % complete at this time, therefore the EIS cannot provide a comprehensive impact study, therefore the EIS must be re-done and submitted for further consultation. The EIS is not current and much of it was written before covid therefore the facts and data it contains are irrelevant to current situation eg with respect to travel time data, post covid - there is much less dependency on peak hour travel. Many more people are working from home and will continue to do so as workplaces have become more flexible. Thus a new, up to date post-covid EIS needs to be written and re submitted for community consultation.

I have ongoing objections based on further health and safety issues, biodiversity and environmental issues. The health and safety risks are so significant to humans and wildlife. The EIS has confirmed my fears and I cannot believe our elected government can go ahead with such a project when there is just no justification at all for the $14-15 billion project that has NO business case to support it and no alternatives even considered.

As a 18 year resident of Cammeray, I strongly object to the Beaches Link and Gore Hill Connection. The EIS should be re-issued for public consultation with:
​1) A full Phase 2 Contamination Assessment completed
2) A comparative mass transit alternative assessment
3) A business case which justifies travel times claimed, re-assesses surface traffic impact and includes fully scoped costs

In relation to my home and circumstances - I have a number of concerns that require addressing:
1/ Construction and Noise Impacts - The construction and having up to 5000 additional vehicles next to my house on Amherst St Cammeray is something we should be aware of if this is happening. At the very least there should be 2 hour parking limits put on the street to stop workers parking on the communities streets, and instead parking in the construction car parks. I do not believe the workers will utilise the public transport and this was referenced in the Online Community Consultation session on 14 January - where the speaker admitted that they could only strongly encourage workers and that some workers would need to drive their cars to site. This will have an adverse impact on not only parking, but the public safety of my children who should be able to walk to and from school in the local area with the movement of heavy vehicles in residential or school zones. This will impact my children for the period of the entire school life and this is likely to impact on their quality of sleep, safety in walking the general area, and therefore their mental and physical health will be adversely impacted. Where is the active transport links during construction in the EIS? Where is the promise that this will happen? In addition, to traffic and noise impacts, there is likely to be damage to my heritage home - was this included in Table 10-13 in terms of the number of heritage items? Where is the scope of protecting our homes or fixing our homes if there is damage? Where can I get access to this information? Why is there no acoustic wall being built around the Cammeray Golf Course or reduce the noise and protect residents and fauna from noise impacts? There should be alternative accommodation during any periods of night construction offered. I request baseline noise level reporting be done at my house so we can determine if there is substantial increases in noise. It should also be communicated during the project when the maximum noise events are to occur. No Communication Plan with residents has been outlined in Chapter 10: Construction Noise (Table 10.7). This is critical to the success of the project - you can create all the plans but if they are not communicated or someone is not appointed to be responsible for that communication, then this is where issues will arise. Where is the avenue for residents to report noise disturbance? This is not outlined anywhere in the massive EIS document.
2/ There will be a loss of green space at Cammeray Golf Club to make way for permanent utility sheds. This is in addition to the Warringah Freeway sheds. How on earth can two projects being planned at similar times not be able to think concurrently as to how the minimal land utilisation could occur? During the online consultation sessions - it was clear that the two projects are not coordinating with each other and as a result, there will be double the amount of land taken at the end of the project.
3/ The Health risk assessment acknowledges construction fatigue, increased traffic and uncertainty as significant stress factors for the population. There are a large number
of plans yet to be finalised, testing to be completed and known geological challenges across this project. The uncertainty created is and will create stress within the
community. Given this is a highly populated residential and school zone all effort should be made to reduce uncertainty and the EIS should be re-issued with more
information. Health Impacts from unfiltered stacks and the impact of the tunnel. The EIS contradicts itself many times in the document - with data that demonstrates increased intersection delays, the potential for toll avoidance and rat running through the area will create poorer local traffic conditions as has happened with Military Rd and Eastern Valley Way in the past. Local traffic will increase poorer air quality in an area that has vulnerable children at schools, parks, homes and hospitals. Children are particularly susceptible to the health impacts of pollution and the program will cut through the largest school corridor in Sydney with over 26 schools impacted. This impact to children's health has not been documented or investigated but the Community Receptor points modelled showed that it does get worse from a pollution level - so where is the evidence of the impact on the children's health. Modelling has been done for buildings at a height of 300m from the stack - but there should be further modelling done for buildings at a lower height (ie. Houses that people live in) and the impact on them up to 1KM away where it is anticipated the pollution will settle.

I am writing to object to the Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Project.

Timing
I also wish to express my objection to the untimely release of the EIS in the holiday period and early stage of return to school. I object to the unreasonably short time for comment and also the lack of availability of hard copies. Expecting the community to read 1200+ pages on a computer screen is unreasonable and discriminates against those who are unable to do so.

Justification
So far there is insufficient justification for this project. It is not a priority for Infrastructure Australia, there is no published Business Case and the NSW Government has declined to provide one.

Selection of dive site
I object to the selection of the top of Flat Rock Gully as the dive site with all the ensuing accompanying risks that will result from choice of this site, instead of using the Baseball Diamond on the western side of Flat Rock Drive. This would have resulted in no alienation of bushland and the many destructive impacts which will result from the Flat Rock site.

Biodiversity
I object to the project because of the impact it will have on the biodiversity of Flat Rock Gull, Clive Park and the waters of Middle Harbour and the disruption it will have on the ecosystems and wildlife corridors, both locally within WIlloughby LGA and the region.
This is very important to me because I was heavily involved in the late 1980s in finally putting a stop to WIlloughby Council’s dumping of fill on the tip site. I was also heavily involved in the establishment of the management plan for the site and as a long-standing member of WIlloughby Council’s Natural Heritage and Bushland Advisory Committee which has advocated for the protection, restoration and management throughout the LGA, including Flat Rock Gully and Clive Park.
Urban bushland is a valuable and diminishing part of our urban environment and Sydney is the only city in Australia to have urban bushland in close proximity to the city centre. It is highly valued by the community for its provision for the habitat it provides for flora and fauna, for passive recreation, for its contribution to clean air, its scenic and landscape values and its contribution to our mental health. These attributes have been well known for a long time and are widely documented. They are also fragile and threatened by ‘death by a thousand cuts’ because of the failure of authorities to consider the cumulative impact of these cuts.

I object to the cursory assessment and treatment of this bushland, and of the waters of Middle Harbour, in the EIS. I find it extraordinary that supposed professionals could suggest that fauna will somehow move away from the construction site. Where to?

The EIS refers to ‘biodiversity’ only in a limited fashion, concentrating only on Threatened Species, whereas all species require a habitat to survive. No habitat, no species, threatened or otherwise.
There is no indication that serious on-ground surveys by qualified ecologists utilised the detailed information in Willoughby Council’s Urban Bushland Plan of Management.

I also object to the EIS’ conclusion that there is no need for referral to the Australian Government Minister for the Environment concerning these threatened species.

Even more laughable is the proposal outlined in the EIS that there will be an attempt in the 24 hours before construction commences to trap fauna in the area. No thought then for th those to be buried under the bulldozers.

Equally laughable is the suggestion of a ‘Little Penguin spotter’ in Middle Harbour, who will miraculously stop construction.

Biodiversity Offsets
The notion that the loss of this bushland can be compensated for by offsets is completely flawed. Urban bushland is under threat everywhere and it is impossible to find ‘like for like’.
The last resort is for developers to pay money in lieu, the ‘get-out-of-jail-free card’ which can never compensate for what has been lost. And like the bonds deposited by mining companies for future restoration, the amount grossly underestimating the value of the ‘impossible’ restoration..

Post Construction
I object to the suggestion in the EIS that the dive site at Flat Rock Gully could be converted into sporting fields. The site must be fully restored to viable bushland, with seed and cutting material collected well before construction commences. Sufficient funds must be provided to WIlloughby Council for at least 10 years for this purpose. Such funds must also cover restoration of Clive Park and the surrounding foreshore.

Contamination
I object to the project because of the contamination risks to the terrestrial and marine environments.
The construction will involve tunnelling through a historic tip site containing toxic waste, with ensuing risk of dust dispersion and contamination of bushland, local creeks and potentially groundwater.
The EIS reveals the high likelihood of contamination of the waters of Middle Harbour which is still a relatively clean waterway and has become much cleaner in recent years to the closure of industries discharging toxic waste and local government measures to limit particulate pollution and plastics.
The quality of here waters is now such that whales and seals have been sited in the vicinity of the construction site.

I am concerned that the proposed mitigation measure of silt curtains will be ineffective owing to their short depth, insufficient to address the very deep waters of Middle Harbour and the result will be dispersion of sediments containing toxic PFAS chemicals and tributyltin, harmful to marine microorganisms. The curtains may also be damaged by barge movements and boats. I am also concerned that these actions may lead to inadequate flushing of upstream waters.

The EIS also indicates likely deposition of toxic sediment around the foreshore of Clive Park , an area used by animals and humans, particularly children. Sediment and turbidity is also likely to interfere with the use of the popular Northbridge Baths.

Lowering of groundwater resulting from construction may lead to the death of trees along the tunnel route, as well as subsidence, particularly in Clive Park, where it may damage Aboriginal artefacts.

I object to the air pollution which will result from the failure to provide filtration in the ventilation stacks, which are also placed in the vicinity of several schools. Children are known to be more sensitive to air pollution, but this is a matter great concern to me as I suffer from a lung disease. It is recognised that there is no safe figure for air pollution and the government’s protestations that the stacks are world’s best practice do not bear examination.

Impact on Quality of Life
I object to the project because of the inevitable impacts on quality of life of local residents, including noise, dust, traffic movement, disruption to journeys, loss of recreation space, anxiety about cracking of homes and potential loss of property value. Of course this is magnified many times over for those residents whose properties have been resumed.

I object to the project because of the impact on local traffic, on the loss of amenity of local streets which will become parking places for trucks.

I object to the alienation of Flat Rock Drive for the extensive truck movements and the channeling of traffic onto WIlloughby Road. WIlloughby Road is already a busy road and is about to become busier because of the imminent development of the Channel 9 site in nearby Artarmon Road.

I particularly object to the alienation of Flat Rock Drive because it is the shortest route for ambulances from this area to Royal North Shore Hospital. As an older citizen this is of particular concern to me.

I live in Sugarloaf Crescent in Castlecrag which is a dead-end street exiting onto Eastern Valley Way. Wait times to do this are frequently extensive. People wishing to drive to Chatswood, Lane Cove or the Pacific Highway use Mowbray Road. Its intersection with WIlloughby Road, outside WIlloughby Girls High School, is heavily weighted in favour of south-bound traffic. This will be exacerbated once further traffic is diverted from Flat Rock Drive. Further congestion will result as traffic wishing to access Cammeray, North Sydney or the city uses Strathallen Avenue.
Truck movement to Clive Park along Sailors Bay Road will disrupt Northbridge shopping strip, Northbridge Primary School and doctors surgeries.

Failure to Consider Alternatives to the Beaches Link Tunnel
I object to the failure of the EIS to examine alternatives such as public transport options. although
consideration of alternatives is a requirement of the SEARS.
I particular the EIS fails to consider the alternative of a public transport route from the peninsula via Roseville Bridge, which would connect with the Metro at Chatswood. Roseville Bridge is already much more congested then the Spit Military Road route.
Professor Peter Newman, transport expert from WA has assessed this route as suitable for trackless trams, a cheaper, quicker and much less environmentally destructive alternate to the proposed tunnel. Even Minister Constance has admitted that trackless trams would have been a better solution than the Sydney Light Rail.
The EIS has also not considered changes to work patterns resulting from COVID-19 and therefore it’s traffic assessments are out-of-date.

I also object to the the tunnel as yet another toll road which will benefit only the private operators and will lead to rat-running through local streets.

Conclusion
I request that an alternative public transport study be carried out before any further planning is done. Only then, if it is clearly and transparently found that this tunnel is the preferred option, should a revised EIS be prepared, with full transparency and calculations, addressing all the shortcomings of the current EIS.

I am submitting my objection to the Beaches Link, together with clear actionable initiatives I expect the Government will adopt to mitigate the impacts, should the project proceed.
I am very conscious of the impacts from WestConnex and expect that the recommendations tabled by the NSW Parliament - Upper House Public, Accountability Committee are adopted with this Beaches Link to 'make life a little easier for those impacted'.
I fully endorse the submission made by the Northbridge Progress Association (NPA) and attach the NPA Recommendations (MY Section 6).
The Sections in my submission to the EIS are included as an attachment.

I object to the project on the following grounds: First and foremost it will cost a very large amount of money, take a very long time to complete and the perceived benefit in terms of reduced traffic congestion will be fleeting at best. Transport experts from UTS estimate that within 2 years traffic congestion will return to the level present before project completion.
I object to the project because there will be an unreasonable level of impact on the quality of life of residents, most of all those under threat of losing their homes through resumption. Many others will be impacted by noise and air pollution during the very long construction period, including endless truck movements removing spoil. These trucks will add enormously to existing traffic congestion, and create significant danger, passing, as they will, by schools and through shopping centres All this for a massive project of very dubious benefit, and for which there is no published business case; the costs far outweigh the benefits.
I object to the project because the tunnels will release all the vehicle exhaust gases from their entire length at the 3 portals, Balgowlah, Seaforth and Gore Hill. While this is extremely detrimental to the local residents, the proximity of these exhaust stacks to schools, Seaforth, Manly West, North Balgowlah and Cammeray primary schools and Balgowlah Boys High, puts the health of thousands of children at risk.
I object to the project because there will be environmental damage to flora and fauna in areas around tunnel construction and roadworks. The inevitable disruption to marine life and tidal flow by the dredging of middle harbour and installation of sections of road tunnels on the harbour floor is of significant concern, & difficult to quantify as little research data appear to be available.
I object to the project because there has been no public transport alternative study. The B line has been successful at relieving congestion, similar projects in developing public transport would be a more effective use of funds with much longer lasting benefits.

Please find attached 20210301 Beaches link EIS submission Sandy Ellison which contains my objections and comments.

We need to allow for more trams to services the northern beaches as the infrastructure is outdated and cities need more public transport options, not just buses and cars. I appreciate the cycle lanes but more infrastructure for this form of transport is paramount in achieving a green city aspect as well having an integrated public transport system.

I am submitting the below concerns in opposition of the proposed development.

1. Pollution
ISSUE: Based on modelling, CR20 Berry Cottage Naremburn is forecast to see an increase in annual average PM10 if all projects proceed. This is a risk to the health of our most vulnerable babies and toddlers.
Between Berry Cottage and the Punch street ventilation outlet is the Naremburn residential area which by default should also expect to see an increase in Particulate Matter. Artarmon public school, Naremburn park and Artarmon park will also be impacted. This is an unacceptable redistribution of pollutants into areas where children and families reside
ASK: Should the project be approved, filtration be added to the ventilation outlet. Additionally, a secondary ventilation site be included to lower toxic output concentrations rather than it all going to a single stack.

2. Operational Noise (please see attached pdf)
ISSUE: Should the project be approved, the Naremburn residential area (NCA32.1) is located less than 200m from the major construction zone has not been considered at all for at-property treatment .
ASK: That the Naremburn residential area (NCA32.1) be made eligible for at-property noise reduction treatment

ISSUE: High noise activities are planned to be from 10:30pm to midnight
This will severely impact the ability for families to commence sleep each night resulting in sleep deprivation, a key contributor to mental health issues
ASK: Any high-noise activity be completed during daylight hours

Thank you