I object to the Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Connection project for a number of reasons:
1. Business case – the complete business case has not been shared appropriately which makes my alarm bells go off. The numbers in the published EIS report doesn’t align with the reality. If improved commute and growth in the area are the drive for the project a more modern solutions needs to be reviewed, not spending $14b dollars to increase the number of lanes. Data from similar projects clearly shows that adding more roads and lanes, will only increase the traffic. Adding more lanes is not a sustainable option to support growth in the area. The recent opening of the new Metro line in the western Sydney shows that if available, people will utilise public transport. Building more private toll roads is simply not the infrastructure that the Northern Beaches residents want or needs.

2. Environmental - it's just inconceivable that this project is still being considered. $14b for two tunnels - why is this money not being invested in sustainable public transport and more important public infrastructure like proofing our city and state for climate change. We don’t want more cars and trucks on the road. We want less - so invest our money in more suitable infrastructure projects.

3. Our health – the proposal to build two un-ventilated stacks in close proximity near schools is pure madness and is something that I could perhaps anticipate in a developing country, but not the 5th richest country in the world. With Sydney enduring days and days of poor air quality, how can you justify enabling even more pollution and emissions?
This entire proposal is just so short-term thinking that will benefit very few people but have a very negative impact for just as many, not taking into account the long-term environmental impact especially around Burnt Bridge Creek

i understand progess is without some pain. but spending billions of tax payers money on a toll road is not the answer. public transportation is what people want then less traffic. the noise and pollution increase direct to my kids school s and home is not acceptable that is asside from the 4 to 6 years of traffic and trucks and mayhem


1. The proposed dam Northbridge is 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.

2. Flat Rock Gully as the primary dig site is unsuitable as it will entail digging through layers of decades old dump site contaminated substances. the land will 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. the numbers of truck movement along flat rock drive is dangerous for other drivers on the road. Flat Rock Gully is home to several protected and endangered species including small bird populations, rock wallaby, powerful owl, lizards and many more creature catalogued by willoughby wildlife group WEPA. Plus the risk of contaminating nearby and downstream flat rock gully native wildlife corridor is unacceptable. Further downstream contamination risk of Tunks park waters is unacceptable and will destroy waterlife and recreational fishing.

government's 'open space' initiative/policy in which it seeks to protect precious open green spaces. This project is in direct violation of the Open Space policy as it will result in bulldozing at flat rock gully . Restoration of the area is not outlined in the current plan.

To Whom It May Concern,
I wish to lodge my objections to the beaches link tunnel based on the following points ; -
1. the EIS is not current and much of it was written before the impacts or opportunities covid created for flexible work, 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. We know post covid public transport usage is -40%, if we fix this first it will help.
2. 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. as plainly stated in the eis, these will NOT be filtered, therefore this plan for beaches tunnel is NOT worlds best practice, therefore, until it can be deemed, "worlds best practice', it should NOT go ahead.
3. the name 'beaches link' is a misnomer as the tunnel goes to Balgowlah. not to the beach. thus, 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.
4. the original document signed by Mike Baird when he was premier clearly stated that in finding a solution to traffic congestion along military rd and this corridor that public transport options NOT be considered. This is a blatant abuse of the investigative process and thus excluded from the start, any real objective research into the best solution for the traffic congestion problems identified. thus, the basis of the project is biased and non-scientific and illogical from the start. therefore, the project needs to stop until a full investigation into public transport options, especially rail from dee why-chatswood can be evaluated and compared to the proposed $15,000,000,000 stretch of road /tunnel that is the .beaches link. also, there has been some mention that Mike Baird was prompted to exclude public transport option from this project plan because large transport companies like Transurban were major political party donors and also may have struck a deal to provide mike board with a post political job within the transport industry, therefore, the project begun with a false and seemingly biased , even corrupt selection process that excluded any consideration of public transport - especially trains in its analysis of best solution to traffic congestion.
5. at $15,000,000,000 this project is unjustifiably expensive for the 16 km stretch of road/ tunnel that is outlines and thus must be analysed further wrt to cost-benefit. however, since the travel data contained within the EIS is out of date by up to 5 years, this is not possible, and thus such expenditure can not be justified.
6. this project is unethical as it uses public money to make a private 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.
7. due to the phenomenon of 'traffic demand' , whereby in the absence of viable public transport options, such a project will only increase car travel and thus any short term reduction in traffic congestion along military rd and similarly congested roads will soon be reversed. thus, this project is ill conceived, short sighted, un ethical and nonsensical.
8. this project actually encourages car travel and further tolling in sydney. major cities around the world have all shown the negative effects of car congestion in their cbds yet this project aims to increase car travel into sydney's cbd. this is irresponsible planning and not in sydney's long term interests.
9. the non-filtered emission stacks will spew forth the products from the 15 km tunnel over the suburbs of cammeray and nearly north sydney where there is a high concentration of preschool, primary and secondary schools. this is unacceptable since the 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.
10. 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 will 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. the numbers of truck movement along flat rock drive is dangerous for other drivers on the road. flat rock gully is home to several protected and endangered species including small bird populations, rock wallaby, powerful owl, lizards and many more creature catalogued by willoughby wildlife group WEPA.
plus the risk of contaminating nearby and downstream flat rock gully native wildlife corridor is unacceptable, plus further downstream contamination risk of Tunks park waters is unacceptable.
11. the proposed coffer dam to go in water off northbridge is 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. the waters have only recently returned to a high state of cleanliness as evidenced by recent sightings of seals and even a whale a few years back. 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, and northbridge sailing club. any risk of contamination to these waterways is unacceptable and thus the tunnel must not proceed through this route.
12. the government has recently declared am 'open space' initiative/policy in which it seeks to protect precious open green spaces. this project is not in alignment with this policy as this project will result in bulldozing at flat rock gully to make way for dig site and truck turning circle, plus destruction of various golf courses eg cammeray and balgowlah.
13. the advertising material and marketing brochures for this tunnel clearly depict a bus travelling through it. however, i was told by an engineer at a northbridge information session at our local golf club that the tunnel would be too steep to allow buses to travel in it. therefore, the promotional material for the tunnel has been misleading and as such, has not been providing accurate information for community consultation. this is highly inappropriate for a state significant project, its false and misleading information and as such, the project should be halted until such time that the EIS traffic data is current, covid-relevant and accurate with respect to whether or not buses will be able to travel in it.
14. the plans for the tunnel are less than 50 % complete at this time, therefore the EIS can not provide a comprehensive impact study, therefore the EIS must be re-done and submitted for further consultation.
15. the prime objective of population growth via immigration must now be re-assessed , given that we are now living with the ongoing threat of covid. therefore, the projected need for the tunnel is lessened and thus the business case weakened in current covid - times. the EIS makes no mention of current work travel time changes due to covid and is thus out-of-date and irrelevant on many counts.
in conclusion i object to this 'beaches Tunnel' project going ahead on several counts. namely the EIS is out of date, the business case doesn't hold up, the primary objective for the tunnel is biased away from public transport options and the project is too expensive and environmentally damaging fro sydney's precious natural habitat and waterways.
i recommend a complete review of the original process in which ALL options are considered and compared to find the best way to approach perceived traffic congestion. i suggest that train options be reviewed and considered as a priority. i recommend an investigation into the original conception of the idea from Mike baird's time as premier and any undue bias towards road/tunnel projects over more viable public transport options, particularly rail. i strongly oppose Flat rock gully as main dig site as it has undergone amazing regeneration the past few decades to the extent that is now a native wildlife corridor of major significance and as such should be protected.
i strongly oppose the high cost of this project , especially when the net outcome of relatively small reductions in travel times data is evident. i recommend that similar traffic travel data outcomes could be achieved by improving current roads and public transport scheduling eg buses and trains, at a fraction of the $15 billion cost. also, if the prime objective is to on sell this road/tunnel to a large transport toll company like transurban - then the basis for this project is unjust as transurban holds a monopoly over tolled roads in sydney and thus there is no assurance of best value spending of public money - this is negligent and irresponsible. this project does not have the best interests of the general public in mind. this project os narrow minded and its focus too short term to have any lasting positive impact.

I object to many aspects of the project
- the degradation of green space and natural beauty and wildlife in the Willoughby / Northbridge area and the site at flat rock gully
- the lack of a mass transit option
- Hazardous waste, toxic fumes and noise pollution
- degradation of middle harbour , impact on water recreation and sport
- no benefit to the neighborhoods bearing the brunt of the impact
- huge financial cost for a project with no business case and not providing scope for future population growth, keeping cars on road instead of a mass transit alternative
- encourages greater greenhouse gas emissions by not providing public transport options
- increases debt and benefits a definite minority of the state population

I strongly object to this project and the way in which it has been undertaken.

Northern Sydney's iconic bushland is treasured by so many locals and those who visit. The impacts of this project on bushland and biodiversity are too high. I am particularly concerned about impacts to Manly Dam and adjoining bushland. These areas have extraordinary plant and animal diversity and this must be protected, not eroded through clearing habitat and noise, light and traffic pollution. More tunnels and cars is not the solution. I object to the project and hope it does not proceed. If it does, it must have maximum protections and protect local biodiversity at all costs.

While I do not object to the Beaches Link Tunnel as a whole, I do object to and have serious concerns about the following aspects of the project:-
1) The placement of a link road through one of the few large open green spaces that exist within the Balgowlah local area (Balgowlah Golf Course)
2) The risk that the project as currently designed will result in rat-running and congestion of traffic and parking in local roads around the Balgowlah / Balgowlah Heights area, both during construction and on completion of the project
3) The effects of the tunnel on the air quality and water quality in the local area

More Specifically:

1. Balgowlah Link Road
The Balgowlah Golf Course is a highly valued area of green space that is open to the local community to enjoy. While there are suggestions in the design planning that this space will be passed back to the community, there are no adequate safeguards that the area will be designed to maximise local community benefit. In any case, it is highly doubtful that the area will be valuable as community open space given the presence of a main road running through the middle.
Further, the location and construction of the emissions stacks is a matter of significant concern. The ‘artists impression’ of the stacks in the EIS statement was potentially misleading and not reflective of likely outcomes, when considering other similar historical projects. This failed to provide local residents with a realistic representation of the likely result of the project, and as such feels like an attempt to conceal the negative aspects of the project.
Finally, while I’m sure it is not considered a top priority by the project but the loss of public golfing facilities represents another loss for the local area, and is a general area where Northern Beaches residents are under-served. Local public courses are already crowded, and loss of another facility will serious reduce the ability of local residents to play the game.

Conditions – should the Link Road not be deleted from the design
• Safeguards need to be included in the overall design to guarantee the timely return of the open space to the community, with proper consultation on the final design & layout
• Safeguards need to be included in the overall design to ensure that design of any emissions stack causes minimal visual loss of amenity to local residents, and does not act as a scar on the local skyline. The final design should be reviewed with and approved by the local communities impacted before development commences.
• Loss of the Balgowlah Golf Course should be offset by investment in a new golf facility within a reasonable distance.

2. Traffic Impact
I am surprised that traffic modelling concerning the overall viability of the project has not been re-factored to account for the impact of the global COVID-19 pandemic, which will more than likely alter the way that we live & work forever. The justification for such a large road project surely needs to be reconsidered in the light of these changes to behaviour rather than blindly ploughing ahead without considering new information
Nevertheless, my much greater concern is the lack of obvious safeguards in the plan to prevent local streets around Seaforth and Balgowlah Boys School becoming severely congested and significantly adversely affecting the day-to-day lives of the residents with extra traffic and associated noise and pollution. There are a large number of children in the local area, both attending local schools and residents, and extra traffic needs to be discouraged.
Local beaches are already at capacity – with huge congestion in peak months. The extra traffic in local areas will only further damage the amenity of these beaches to local residents and existing visitors from outside of the local area. It is unclear where the extra traffic will go once it arrives on the northern beaches or where it is expected to park.


Conditions should the link road not be deleted from the final design
• A number of traffic control measures will be required including, but not limited to:
o Preventing access to the Link Road and Tunnel directly from Maretimo Street.
o Turning from Wanganella Street onto Audrey Street, Violet Street, and other local roads which cannot sustain extra traffic and contain large numbers of children must be prevented at all times.
• Proper modelling needs to be carried out to consider the impact on local streets as well as main arterial roads (which the published EIS seems to have ignored)
• Live electronic signage should be available at North-bound exits of the tunnel indicating the amount of available parking in Manly, Clontarf and other local beaches – these are locations which are already at capacity and huge volumes of extra traffic will only damage the local area.
3. Environmental Impact on Air & Water Quality
Despite the numerous claims to have engaged with and listened to the local communities, I remain at a loss as to why there is an ongoing refusal to incorporate air filtration within with emission stacks. Despite promises and assurances around ‘modelling’, this is a repeated area of concern to all local communities within close proximity to these structures, including residential areas, outdoor areas and schools. The unwillingness to take these concerns seriously, and fit filtration to the proposed stacks in line with other similar projects internationally, suggests that community consultation has not been done in good faith.
The environmental impact on Burnt Bridge Creek seems unacceptable – both destroying natural native habitats with dumping activities and long-term reducing the flow of the creek to near zero – this is another significant loss to the local area which is not otherwise being compensated elsewhere in the design.
The plan needs to also include greater security around the impact of toxic waste being uncovered in Middle Harbour – this is an area of outstanding natural beauty and a natural habitat that we simply cannot risk losing under any circumstances.
Finally, the risk of dust clouds, including Silica Dust and Sandstone Dust being created during tunnelling does not appear to have been mitigated seriously in the final design.
Conditions to be attached to the final design
• Air quality filtration must be installed on any proposed emission stacks. This should be considered a non-negotiable aspect of the design.
• The final contracts for the final construction need to include failsafe protections for local waterways to prevent any damage caused by the uncovering of toxic waste or dredging, including harsh penalties for any failures
• Significantly improved safeguards need to be put in place to protect the local area from dust created during tunnelling.

Many thanks

(ALSO ATTACHED:)
Anthony & Sadie Melov
19 Hunter Street
North Balgowlah NSW 2093

1 March 2021

Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE)
Submitted via https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/major-projects/project/10456

EIS Submission – Beaches Link & Gore Hill Freeway Connection (Application No SSI-8862)

Dear DPIE,

We refer to the EIS on exhibition for the Beaches Link & Gore Hill Freeway Connection (the Project).

We are generally supportive of the Project need and related strategic context, but have concerns that arise for two main reasons:
• We reside in North Balgowlah between the two Beaches Link tunnel accesses and associated temporary construction support sites, in Noise Catchment Area 51.1; and
• Our children are, and will be, students at the Balgowlah Boys Campus of the Northern Beach Secondary College (Bally Boys) during the entirety of the 2023 – 2027 construction schedule as currently programmed.

Our specific comments are as follows:
• Construction – Noise & Vibration – Bally Boys
o Bally Boys is located in NCA48.1 and across the road from the proposed Balgowlah Golf Course construction support site (BL10);
o The Noise & Vibration study is > 4000 pages in length but it is fairly clear that noise and vibration will be at least moderately intrusive at Bally Boys, stemming from BL10 and surface works during numerous construction phases (for example, see Table 5-146, Appendix G);
o Proposed surface construction and spoil haulage hours are highly coincident with Bally Boys operating and student commute times;
o In the absence of substantial mitigation, there is high potential for the well-being of Bally Boys students to be materially affected by such noise and vibration for a number of years.

• Construction – Traffic & Transport – Bally Boys
o Peak daily traffic projections of 1,195 light and 495 heavy movements (Table 5-3, Appendix F) are expected at BL10 and the surrounding area;
o The area around Sydney Road and Maretimo Street is already congested;
o In the absence of substantial mitigation, there is a high safety risk for students travelling to and from Bally Boys and the potential for associated noise, vibration and dust to affect students during school time.

• Construction – Reduced Facilities & Amenity – Bally Boys
o Bally Boys has grown substantially to > 1,000 students in recent years and the loss of Balgowlah Oval, even if temporary, will materially impact sporting and physical education activities;
o Vegetation removal near the school will impact student amenity and further exacerbate noise and vibration impacts.

• Construction – Traffic & Transport – North Balgowlah
o As residents of North Balgowlah, we use Judith/Kirkwood Streets (west), Woodbine/Kitchener Streets (east) and Frenchs Forest Road/Sydney Road/Ethel St (south) to enter and leave our neighbourhood;
o All three of these ingress/egress points will be affected by construction works (BL12/13, BL11 and BL10, respectively) and we are concerned that the cumulative impact on traffic movements will be material;
o For example, Kitchener Street is already a relatively busy and narrow residential street so the addition of nearly 30 vehicles during each peak hour time slot (Table 6-39, Chapter 6) will be impactful;
o Furthermore, it seems highly likely that North Balgowlah will become a (even more) substantial “rat run”, creating a safety risk, in particular for Balgowlah North Primary School students on Manning Street and Bardoo Avenue;
o Once we leave North Balgowlah there is additional, cumulative impact likely due to construction activities on the Wakehurst Parkway (BL14) and at the Spit Bridge (BL9).

• Construction – Local Amenity, Biodiversity & Groundwater – North Balgowlah
o We are active users of local natural areas including Manly Dam, Burnt Bridge Creek and National Park area near the Wakehurst Parkway and so are concerned about impacts on both our amenity and these areas’ biodiversity, including aquatic and groundwater-related risks;
o For example, there is a medium risk that, even once mitigated, construction will result in material baseflow level reductions at Burnt Bridge Creek (Page 34, Appendix C);
o There is also a risk that, even once mitigated, construction will result in impact on wildlife in the area around the Wakehurst Parkway where native vegetation will be removed (> 15 hectares);
o We note that Manly Creek is important to the climbing galaxias and other aquatic species which are sensitive to water pollution and sediments.

• Operations – Transport & Air Quality – General
o We are hopeful that identified air quality mitigation measures are sufficient and assume that the risk may further reduce due to a long-term increase in electric vehicle usage;
o We are hopeful that the Project effectively utilises public transport strategies in a manner which reduces the chances of traffic congestion simply re-emerging in the near future.

We recognise that the Project EIS is one step on the path toward receiving a final Determination and that contractor selection and detailed design have not been completed. To that end, we are hopeful that additional consultation will identify more detail around mitigation of our concerns outlined above. We are particularly supportive of the establishment of a Working Group that involves Bally Boys representatives.

We appreciate the opportunity to make a Project submission and look forward to reviewing the Response to Submissions.

Yours sincerely,
Anthony & Sadie Melov

What is the purpose of the tunnel?

It has been purported as what the community wants because they want to get to the city faster. But the current residents don’t want it. So is this being built so more affordable housing can be built in manly vale and those proposals won’t be objected to as the additional residents and commuters will be mitigated by a tunnel? If the government wants to build more affordable housing in the area, then go ahead and do so. But a tunnel is still not needed. Public transport improvements will be able to handle the increase in resident numbers. There have been arguments Against the a train as the terrain is said to not be able to handle it. But technology and infrastructure has made significant advancements since these options were explored. Technology is improving at alarming rates. This should be investigated further.

I hope that this tunnel is not being pushed through to get other agendas past the public. Please be clear and straight with us. We do not want a tunnel. There are no comments in the EIS about about the need for a tunnel to support the building of additional housing on the area. So if this proves to be the case then the whole process will have been in vein and the government will loose face in the eyes of the voters.

We have a right to have pride in our area and want to keep it special. We welcome foreigners and others to come visit and live here. We are not isolationist. So please stop treating us like we are against this tunnel because we want to keep people out. We don’t. We just want to be respected. The EIS in its length and form do not show this respect. Everything included only proves the point that the impact to nature, people’s physical and mental health, and quality of life are serious. So serious and significant in magnitude that the project should be scraped. Where is the duty of care to citizens and the community who call Thai area home?

People from Cammeray, Frenchs Forest,
and from Manly to Mona Vale do not want this tunnel. But you have not engaged with them in a meaning full and consultative way. Our opinions have been dismissed and belittled by our local member. We cannot gather to protest as COVID-19 limits this. In the final week of the process Facebook removes news from its platform making it next to impasible for the community to mobilise against the proposal and get the word out. And in the final days, the platform itself is shutdown for regular maintenance. Not since I worked in Africa with corrupt governments, have seen such barriers to consultation dismissed as nothing and insignificant towards influencing a result. Ask yourself this, under what conditions would the government scrap the project? If you can’t answer this then this isn’t a Democrat transparent consultation. A true research and consultation process would advise the opppsition of under what conditions a change in mindset would be made. Then it is up to the opposition to try to make those arguments. Not being given this opportunity is disappointing.

Please hear me and others when we say this tunnel reject is negatively impacting the community not just in the future but in the present moment. I strongly object to the tunnel project being progressed. It should be put on hold until other transport options are explored and to see if there is a problem in light of the new environment we live in.