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

We need to allow for more trams to services the northern beaches as the infrastructure is outdated and cities need more public transport options, not just buses and cars.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.

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

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.

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 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.

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.