I’m greatly concerned about Northbridge Sailing Club’s sailing area being greatly compromised. All our sailing courses will be affected by the maritime exclusion zones between Seaforth Bluff and Clive Park associated with the submerged tunnel works across Middle Harbour, and the temporary re-location of yacht moorings into a zone northwest of Seaforth Bluff.

NSC is a significant part of my life. I love sailing, and the works will mean sailing at NSC will become more difficult, less attractive, and even potentially completely infeasible. NSC is a jewel of a club, with an amazing history and a strong community ethos, helping people like myself to sail, a sport which is of particular importance in these Covid-19 affected times, being inherently a socially-distanced, outdoor pursuit that greatly assists with the collective mental health of the community (even in non-Covid times).

The impact on our club and community will be profound. With the sailing degraded we may lose members or be less able to attract new members, which affects the club’s viability. We depend on volunteers for our maintenance and improvements; if membership drops then there is simply less of a critical mass to regenerate the club following the Beaches Link construction.

We request TfNSW minimize the impact of maritime restrictions by urgently consulting in good faith with Northbridge Sailing Club, to help assist in retaining and regaining NSC’s attractiveness/viability.

The Hon Robert Stokes

Minister for Planning Industry and Environment

4 Parramatta Square, 12 Darcy Street,

PARRAMATTA NSW 2150

Attention: Ms Belinda Scott

28 February 2021

Objection to State Significant Infrastructure Application No. SSI-8862

Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Connection

We refer to the above State Significant Infrastructure Application and are writing to object the project and urge you to do the same for the following reasons.

Failure to meet the requirements set out in the Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs)

The State Government has an obligation to be a “model applicant” in submitting any State Significant Infrastructure application. This application does not meet the standard expected of a model applicant.

There are internal inconsistencies within the submitted documents and a failure to meet the requirements of the SEARS. For example, the EIS fails to demonstrate any adequate analysis of “how alternatives to and options within the project were analysed to inform the selection of the preferred alternative / option”, including public transport options. Furthermore, the EIS is littered with numerous mistakes and inaccuracies in the various technical reports.

Notification of the application is flawed and inadequate

The notification of the application was flawed and inadequate. To conduct “community engagement” on an infrastructure project of this size and scope under the cover of COViD-19 demonstrates utter contempt for both the process and the residents, students, businesses and workers affected by the proposal.

The notification period provides too little time for the community to digest and respond to voluminous and technical documents (more than 9,000 pages of EIS). This is the first opportunity that the community has had to understand the specific route, location of stacks and detail of this project.

It is clear that many people significantly impacted by this project are unaware that the consultation was underway and concludes on 1 March 2021.

We, therefore, urge you to significantly extend the notification and community consultation of this application until the COVID-19 pandemic arrangements have been lifted so that you may complete a rigorous and inclusive community consultation.

No travel time benefits – questionable evidence provided

The stated “benefits” are unsupported and have no basis in fact. I object to the project on these grounds.

For example, the EIS claims that there will be a time saving of 56 minutes from Dee Why to Sydney Kingsford Smith Airport. However, Google Maps currently cites the trip as between 47 minutes and 1 hour 15 minutes. To suggest that it would be possible to travel from Dee Why to the Airport (30km) in 19 minutes is absurd.

There are many other such examples throughout the EIS.

Devastating environmental and social impacts of the application on the whole of the North Sydney Local Government Area and I object to the project on these grounds.

Loss of public open (green) space

There is an existing lack of adequate public open space in the North Sydney local government area. The proposal will have a devastating impact on existing public open space (particularly green space) in North Sydney. There will be a permanent loss of 28,896m2 of land in Cammeray Park and the removal of Council’s stormwater harvesting facility.

There is absolutely no need for the proposed WHT/Beaches Link/Gore Hill Freeway Connection Motorway Facilities Buildings to be located on the surface. The proposed location of these facilities will have significant adverse visual impacts and will result in the permanent loss of precious, highly valued public green space.

The proposal will have devastating impacts on public open space, particularly vital urban bushland, in Flat Rock Creek, Middle Harbour, Seaforth and Balgowlah.

The significant permanent loss of public open (green) space in the North Sydney local government area and throughout the tunnel corridor warrants refusal of this application.

Air quality

Existing air quality in the North Sydney Local Government Area is poor – the community health impacts due to the proximity of a highly dense and sensitive population to the existing Warringah Expressway will be adversely and significantly exacerbated if the project proceeds. I object to it proceeding based on the impact on air quality to the local area.

The location of unfiltered ventilation stacks close to pre-schools, primary and secondary schools and hospitals cannot be supported and are grounds for refusal.

My two children aged 5 and 7 will suffer the impacts for years to come. There is not substantial long term modelling on the impact on children. The government does not have the research and what they have is based on short tunnels that are less than 20 years old. Cammeray has over 14kms of tunnels being blown through two stacks. This should not be allowed and they should either be filtered or moved away from such a high population of children.

Traffic impacts

The project fails to provide a sustainable response to metropolitan congestion. The provision of such a tunnel is counter to all reasonable and sustainable transport and traffic planning evidence and principles. The project will result in significant adverse impacts including, but not limited to, significant net additional traffic on Berry Street, Miller Street, Falcon Street and Pacific Highway (south of Falcon Street) as well as significant reductions in levels of service.

The occupation of construction site BL1 (the Cammeray Golf Course construction site) will be extended by 2 years to 7 years in total as a direct result of this project. This will cause significant flow-on impacts on other arterial and local roads in the North Sydney local government area. It will cause rat running all over local Cammeray streets.

I object to the project which will cause rat running on local streets to avoid tolls and get to the entry/exit points. I ask that you reconsider closing off Ernest St, Miller St and Falcoln St to more than one harbour crossing.

Environmental impacts

The proposed submerged tunnel construction method across Middle Harbour requires significant dredging and sediment disturbance of the harbour floor.

The environmental impacts associated with dredging and cofferdam construction in the harbour are significant, unnecessary and will result in adverse and permanent impacts on water quality and marine biodiversity.

As the project facilitates private vehicle travel and will result in induced demand, there will be consequential environmental impacts from increased traffic movements along the tunnel corridor. I object to the project because of its devastating long term environmental impacts.

In short, the proposal will have devastating adverse impacts on the environment including, but not limited to:

· disturbance to the Middle Harbour floor and consequential impacts on maritime ecology and heritage;

· water quality in Middle Harbour and throughout the entire catchment along the tunnel corridor, marine biodiversity, foraging habitat as well as known roosting sites of threatened species;

· loss of Council’s stormwater harvesting and filtration facility in Cammeray Park;

· on-going impacts of “induced demand” as motorists take advantage of increased capacity and the congestion problems, over time, continue to be replicated on an increasing scale leading to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions and particulate matter.

Heritage

The proposal should be refused as a result of the unacceptable and significant impacts upon, numerous Heritage items of State and Local Significance including items of maritime and convict heritage. Further, the proposal will have a devastating impact on a number of items of Aboriginal heritage and numerous other remnant evidence of first inhabitants.

The EIS acknowledges these impacts on Aboriginal heritage and heritage items and proposes inadequate management strategies that cannot be relied upon to protect and preserve heritage along the tunnel corridor.

These alone are grounds for refusal of the application.

Visual bulk and scale

The proposal will result in unacceptable adverse impacts on visual amenity including the provision of large, ugly acoustic screens along the route and the impacts of the buildings to house the on-going operations of the tunnels.

Noise

When you combine the WHT and BL my children will be suffering noise and construction impacts for 10-12 years as will the thousands of children who reside in this area. This will have a genuine negative impact on their schooling and future. I object to the project because it is going to cause ongoing noise pollution.

Conclusion

This application will not deliver any amelioration to traffic congestion and will have devastating environmental, health and social impacts.

In summary, we urge you to refuse the application for the following reasons:

a) the lack of a business case for the project

b) lack of meaningful community consultation

c) the lack of alternative transport options including public transport

d) the lack of filtering in the proposed exhaust stacks

e) significant and devastating loss of public open space and future open space, loss of sporting facilities, loss of trees and canopy, loss of stormwater harvesting and water treatment infrastructure

f) significant adverse impacts on public health and wellbeing, particularly on schools, school children and residents

g) devastating environmental impacts on waterways, reserves, flora and fauna

h) inappropriate and untested mitigation measures

i) significant adverse impacts on aboriginal heritage and maritime environment

There are no tangible public benefits to be gained from this proposal.

For all of the reasons set out above this application should be refused.

Regards,
Samantha

As a local, I object to the development of additional transport infrastructure where the focus on private transport outweighs that of public. We want to discourage private vehicle transport in favour of good, environmentally friendly mass transit and this proposal goes against that.

I strongly object to this project for the following reasons.
Environmental impact - loss of trees, destruction of Burnt Bridge Creek and surounds - bushland, wildlife .
Traffic increasing not decreasing
Construction impact will impact North Balgowlah with dust, noise, vibration and heavy vehicle traffic in the area and the roads are not made for this additional traffic.
Ventilations stacks are a huge concern and we have so many schools, child care centres in this area and increased level of pollution is a huge worry considering residents already dealing with allergy/respiratory diseases.
Loss of recreational activities

please refer attachment for the topics closest to me. there are other topics, just to mention a few:
- I cannot comprehend how the now "more normal than new" working from home arrangements have not been considered
- The expected toll charges seem extremely high and financially impacting many families - without sufficient alternatives through public transport
- if the tunnel is to support the increase of people living in the Northern Beaches - how is this supported by other infrastructure projects to cope with the addition of more vehicles
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE TRUE CONSULTATION OF THE COMMUNITY AND EFFORT TO EXPLORE ALTERNATIVES

Further to my previous submission,
I would like to specifically call out my objection to any dredging done in and around middle harbour as a result of the projects construction. My children and I regularly frequent Northbridge baths and the resulting contamination from the dredging – due to toxic sediment being stirred up and re-distributed – is projected to make the baths unusable for months if not years. This potential ramification – along with the general devastation to the green areas, waterways, and local flora and fauna, needs to be heavily taken into consideration as it devalues the suburb I live in and personally affects my property price.
Sincerely,
Michael Hearle

The Beaches Link Tunnel is proposed to solve a long term problem that will not exist because of changes to the work/life balance following the broader adoption of Work-from Home (WFH) and investment in WFH Hubs in the northern beaches.
Fewer people will need or want to drive to the city (and beyond) during the morning peak. Many will drive to the office on the days they are required during non-peak times.
As a consequence, there will be a big reduction in the peak morning traffic flow.
• Having more residents in the northern beaches working from home, presents opportunities
to increase local public transport options and active transport possibilities like walking and
bike riding.
• Despite the overall reduction of commuter traffic, induced demand and funnelling effects
will result in more congestion and longer delays on local roads around the tunnel entrances,
eliminating travel time savings in the tunnel.
• The Beaches Link Tunnel will have a disastrous impact on the lifestyle of residents and
during the construction phase and cause long term irreparable damage to our precious
environment and green spaces.
There are better options available, I'm for progress but not at the detriment to our health, our living conditions, sanity and more importantly to the beautiful environment I use every day. Manly Dam must be protected at all costs, the current proposal does not have enough controls and protections to ensure the safety of our waterways and wildlife. Please look to cities like Stockholm, Singapore and see how they have prioritised public transport, pedestrians and cycle lanes.
The Northern Beaches Hospital underpass is a case in point, such optimism for cutting traffic congestion, yet I'm experiencing the traffic queues and delays similar to the disruption caused by the construction period. Please rethink this plan.

I am a parent within the community of North Balgowlah and am very concerned about the proposed changes to our community and surrounds. We moved to this area for the local school, safety and access to green space. We do not want 7 years of construction and increased traffic and noise for an outcome of more cars and no public transport option. The green environment, the animals, habitats and flora and fauna that will be destroyed and the the destruction of manly dam, let alone the impacts it will have on our children with the exhaust fumes and chances of risk with increase traffic on our quiet community 40km streets.
Please consider the local families, the environment and whether this tunnel is really producing the best possible outcome for this area? We appreciate you reviewing our request. Monique

As a sufferer of bronchial problems, and the owner of a property within 350 metres, above a stack, I am concerned with the increased unfiltered concentrated emissions that will affect me, my family and the local community and the long term carcinogenic issues that are unstudied.
As the mother of 3 young children, I am concerned for their safety on the roads in our suburb, including outside our own house, that will see increased traffic during the 7 years construction and as future rat runs as people try to avoid the cost of the tunnel that they will not pay on a daily basis.
I am also concerned about the increased development that will follow in order to justify spending $16 billion +, on a tunnel to a finite peninsular, rather than look at alternative transport solutions. This will result in further destruction of the fragile environment that can’t be replaced.
As a psychologist, I am concerned with the effect that ongoing construction for a prolonged period of time will have on myself, my family and my community through increased stress levels, due to noise, vibration, dust and particles, and inability for traffic to move freely in and out of my community with the excessive 24hr construction schedule.
While transport solutions do need to be found, limiting our options and forcing people who may suffer from phobias, into one of the longest tunnels in the world (& therefore long term effects again untested) is not a great solution. It is a disaster waiting to happen. Let alone the situation it is creating in placing more traffic into a confined space should problems arise.
In a period now, post a pandemic, I am interested to know where this traffic is going. If you look at other major cities of the world, solutions to decrease traffic and concentrate people in a central city are what are required and being looked into. Why are we disturbing and destroying the natural beauty and environment to increase this? Once it is gone, there is no getting it back and as the mother of 3 young children, born on the Northern Beaches but citizens of the world, I find this tragic.