As a resident of the Cammeray community I strongly object to the proposed changes to the area. I feel there needs to more consultation with the community to minimise the distribution in the area and to maintain a peaceful family orientated area. I do not believe enough has been done to think of the environmental impact of the project nor a proper investigation on the effects of the sewage and smoke stacks in the area. I strongly object to this project

Martyn Colebrook
107 Seaforth Crescent
Seaforth
NSW 2092
[email protected]
Mob: 0474 131417


28th February 2021

Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Connection OBJECTION

I strongly object to the proposal for the Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway connection.

There are numerous reasons for objecting, which are covered in depth by other interested parties.

My particular reasons for strongly objecting are as below:
• Disruption. I live at 107 Seaforth Crescent. I bought my house for redevelopment in 2012. It is a particularly difficult site, being a cliff face and then a 35degree slope to the harbour. I commenced construction of my dream home in July 2018. After three years of construction and spending $6m my house is almost finished. I am 66 years of age and intended to live in peace and quiet on the shores of Middle Harbour. Now Transport for New South Wales is proposing to install a coffer dam outside my house. I will be subject to the noise and disruption of eighty eight construction vessel movements a day. The visual impact for my neighbours and myself will be horrendous. The noise of the drilling will reach 76 decibels! The sound of 76 decibels is like sitting next to a TV or a vacuum cleaner at full volume.
How is it that Tfor NSW are allowed to build two massive destructive coffer dams disrupting marine life and destroying sea grass beds yet I am not allowed to have a floating pontoon on the water outside my house, which will not disrupt the sea bed whatsoever?
• Structural damage. Seaforth Bluff is a landslip area. The foundations for my house had to be heavily engineered to counter any potential issues. The digging of the tunnel may affect the stability of the cliff on the Bluff. Some of the rocks are ‘floaters’ and liable to movement. What will Tfor NSW do to mitigate any potential danger? I demand a ‘financial’ bond, as did the local Council to cover the cost of any damage to the nature strip outside my house, during construction. The bond will be the full cost of the reinstatement of my house plus the disruption, which would be approximately $8m.
• Notification. Why haven’t my neighbours or I been directly informed or consulted about these proposals.? When I applied for planning permission to build for my house all of my neighbours were consulted. Why does TforNSW believe they can do as they please without direct consultation?
• Obselescence. Within two years, or less, of the tunnel being built, that too will be congested with cars. Build a road and they will come. One only has to look at the M25 ring road around London, the M6 and M5 motorways, also in the UK, all of which I used to spend many frustrating hours stuck in horrendous traffic jams. That is, until I discovered the joy of trains which I would use by default when I lived in the UK. Europe has the same traffic problem. Try driving in the Netherlands or the Paris ring road.Tfor NSW should look at the examples overseas. If they had, they would not be encouraging the construction of more roads for yet more cars. It simply is not sustainable. People love their cars and so do I but I know that they are not the future.
• Train/metro. The argument for the tunnel in the EIS is that the population is insufficient to financially support a train network in the tunnel. On the another hand the government is planning for massive housing development on the Northern Beaches, another reason why they want the tunnel. These masses could use a train for their daily commute. TforNSW’s argument does not make sense. Sydney/Australia's problem is we need to get used to not using a car and prioritising other forms of transport. Mass Transit for longer distance and micromobility for accessing mass-transit and for local journeys - bikes, bikes, cargo bikes, scooters - even walking. Metro's are both cheaper and more efficient than roads and road tunnels. Metros can move more people per hour than roads and remove traffic from roads, rather than making road traffic worse.
• Cost. We, the people, will pay for the tunnel, through taxes. It will then be sold at a loss to the Toll Road operator who makes the highest bid. The bid will not cover the construction cost because the income derived from the tolls will be insufficient to create a high enough value. The Toll company reaps the profit from the toll fees which should be going back into the pockets of those that funded it.
• Traffic survey. I wonder whether a survey was carried out to find out where the journeys end was for people driving their cars on their daily commute. Apparently 30% of the traffic is created by cars being used for the morning and afternoon school run. The children could and should use buses. Many cars are driven to the city. With Covid and the new way of working, at home, these numbers have reduced significantly. If these people caught a bus, and there are plenty of buses, maybe there is no need for the tunnel, or even a train. Reduce car usage and create a full time bus lane or extend the Metro.
• Boat users. I am a member of Middle Harbour Yacht club and a waterway user. The proposed new tunnel will have debilitating effect on the Club, which is already struggling due to the impact of Covid restrictions. The sediments in Middle Harbour will be disturbed by the construction of two huge coffer dams. The sediment contains toxic waste which has run off from the numerous water catchments that feed into Middle Harbour. The toxic waste is from historic industrial pollution and residential development. The toxic plume will spread as far as the swimming beaches of Clontarf and MHYC beach. Aquatic life will be affected. Transport for NSW say they will provide filtration curtains around the coffer dams to prevent spill. These are been scientifically proven to be ineffective. The spoil extracted from the tunnel dig will be loaded on to barges via the coffer dams. These will be transported to sea where the spoil will be dumped. There will be eighty eight vessel movements per day. How will Transport for NSW guarantee the safety of marine users; sailors, fishing boats, kayakers? How will Tfor NSW guarantee the safety of marine life.
• Parking. A concrete manufacturing plant is proposed for Pearl Bay to service the tunnel. There will be hundreds of workers, all of whom will want to use the already limited parking. There will be even fewer spaces for MHYC members than there are now. How will TforNSW ensure there is sufficient parking for the current users?
• Pollution. Why has TfNSW elected to use unfiltered exhaust stacks to extract car emissions from the tunnel? Are they aware of the amount of pollution they will send into the atmosphere? This is the thinking of a poor third world country twenty years ago, not a modern society which is implicitly aware of the effects of pollution on health. Who will pay the medical bills and the ongoing life support costs for those many affected?
I confirm and reiterate my strong objection to the construction of the Beaches Link Tunnel.

Yours sincerely,


Martyn Colebrook

I strongly object to the Beaches Link EIS for the following reasons

#1 Threat to native habitat and wildlife

390 trees will be removed from Flat Rock Gully

Wildlife corridor will be adversely affected by the Dive Site.
Adverse effect on popular community outdoor recreational activities and access to natural environment.

For 25 years now Cammeray has been home for my family. Together with my family I have been a regular user of Tunks Park and the walking track through Flat Rock Gully, also cycle along the nearby bike track and volunteer in two Bushcare groups with North Sydney Council helping twice every month to care for the nature reserves at Tunks Park and Mortlock Reserve.
We have a strong connection with our local bush reserves which we value and appreciate immensely as a precious and scarce resource for the benefit all the community and the local ecology.
The benefit of that available access to a local safe haven of nature and the outdoors became even more apparent during COVID when it helped so many both physically and mentally through those tough times and continues to do so.

Apart from that however the bushland reserves of Flat Rock Gully are one of the only remaining scarce essential local nature reserves and provide habitat for so many of our native species many of which are threatened specifically by ever diminishing habitats.
Every one of those 390 trees targeted for removal would be providing habitat for something and functioning as a critical component of the fragile local ecosystems and wildlife corridors. It is simply devastating to contemplate the impact this will have on our native wildlife which depend on us to maintain the integrity of the bushland of Flat Rock Gully for their survival. We are regularly fortunate to see all manner of wildlife out along those bush tracks in the trees and the creek. There are also reported to be colonies of species we would rarely see such as wallabies, lyrebirds and powerful owls. The proposed removal of all those trees would be such a profound threat to the survival of our precious local wildlife and bushland which so many have worked hard to preserve and is valued so highly in so many ways by so many of the community.


#2 Health and Safety

A Dive Site to store the spoil temporally removed from the harbour floor in the tunnelling process will be constructed at the top of Flat Rock Creek Gully.
The seabed contains heavy contaminants.
The spoil will be stored at the Dive Site in transit to its destination.
500 square metres of the spoil may be stored external to the Dive Site shed.
An additional 711,000 litres of waste water being flushed down Flat Rock Creek daily.



This is densely populated residential area. I believe the role of government should be to protect our quality of life.
Turning our valued local nature reserve into an open dump for toxic spoil free to blow around the neighbouring homes schools and sport ground is an unacceptable threat to the standard of living any resident is entitled to enjoy in a wealthy first world country which can afford to do better for its citizens.
I firmly believe government should do all it can to protect our community from the danger of toxic contamination , whatever the cost.
What measures are being taken to avoid the dumping of toxic spoil in our parkland? There must be a better way.
What measures will be taken to monitor toxic contamination of our parkland where people , their children and pets recreate?
What measures will be taken to remediate and toxic contamination of our parkland?
What measures will be taken to monitor toxic spill into the creek?
What measures will be taken to monitor and remediate the impact of toxic spoil on the health and safety of the native wildlife?

#3. Noise, Traffic Congestion and Air Pollution

965 extra truck movements per day along Flat Rock Creek Drive to remove the spoil from Flat Rock Gully
Noise and traffic impacts for the duration of the project (to 2028).
Construction and operation of a Coffer Dam on the harbour between Clive Park, Northbridge and Seaforth to receive spoil from tunnelling; then be transferred by barge along Middle Harbour to the Spit Bridge, requiring many more openings of the bridge daily.

This creates an inordinate disruption and pollution of our daily lives.
This is a residential area with a good standard of living. Personally I think our local representatives should not be threatening to transform our peaceful safe neighbourhood into a noisy polluted gridlocked industrial site for most of the next decade. I believe an alternative plan should be sought whatever the cost to allow this project to proceed while respecting the local residents right to enjoy their usual quality of life and ammenities of their

Here is my submission objection for Beaches Link Tunnel.

I strongly oppose the project as the EIS has raised many concerns including but not limited to
> The destruction of over 3000 trees, approx 400 will be on Flat Rock Gully where my friend lives and I have enjoyed the ambience of over decades.
>
> The devastating impact on marine & land eco-systems troubles me deeply
>
> In excess of 900 truck movements on Flat Rock Road near by friends home
>
> 4 Unfiltered Smoke stacks next to schools & homes
>
> The project has not assessed the impact of emissions on residents, the environment and its contribution to Climate Change
>
> There hasn’t been a detailed business case presented to fully understand the economic rationale underpinning the project. Will Transurban benefit from this project at the expense of community and environment? This Company is already bleeding the community dry with their excessive Tolls
The construction sites at Balgowlah Golf course, Seaforth and along Wakehurst Parkway will involve the removal of valuable green space and approximately 2500 established trees. Sydney has been de-forested far too much already. Trees are an essential part of our lives and help our wellbeing, stop heat sinks and suck up tons of pollution.
Numerous threatened species including Eastern Pygmy-possums and Grey-headed Flying-foxes will either be displaced or forced to suffer construction noise and contaminated water run-off.
Immersed tunnel tubes in Middle Harbour will threaten seagrass beds and marine species with contaminated sediment.

I urge the NSW Govt to reject this project though I know by the past outcomes that it is a Done Deal.

Please see submission attached.

Good for Manly Inc, formed in 2012, is an incorporated association of residents and ratepayers of the Manly Ward of the Northern Beaches Council. It was formed to enable a more active voice in matters affecting this community.

The Executive of Good For Manly has reviewed the Beach Link Tunnel EIS as well as the Northern Beaches Council (NBC) submission.

We fully support the content of the NBC response with the following additional concerns:

• Given the overall cost of the project, the lack of the inclusion of light rail is considered a major oversight. Surely mass transport facilities, which are sorely lacking in the Northern Beaches area, would be a major contributor to fast, efficient travel for commuters? This would also markedly reduce road traffic congestion for the foreseeable future as well as being more environmentally appropriate.

• Due to COVID restrictions there was no opportunity for face-to-face community consultation was not possible. Future community consultation in the event of there being substantial changes to the design schedule, routing, traffic management arrangements, etc is essential to ensure ongoing community goodwill towards the project.

• There is clearly concern regarding the risk of damage to property in the vicinity of the tunnelling, given the experience of such issues in other tunnelling projects. Arrangements for pre- and post-construction property condition surveys should be widely advertised and all impacted property owners contacted to ensure they are fully engaged. Costs of such surveys, and any required remedial work, should be defined as the responsibility of the project and prompt attention to surveys and remedial work is crucial. Experience shows that members of the public have been very dissatisfied with slow, bureaucratic processes in the event of claims in respect of previous tunnelling projects.

• The same concern relates to noise assessment. The project should define how this will be assessed and managed.

• Given that the proposed ventilation stacks are only presented as illustrative impressions there should be an opportunity to view and comment on the visual impact of the actual design of ventilation stacks as part of the Urban Design and Landscape Plan exhibition.

• Due to the large number of contractors working on the project, specific off-road parking facilities, or a shuttle bus service, should be provided especially in the Seaforth and Balgowlah precincts where street parking is already limited and fully utilised.

• Procedures for complaints should be clearly defined and broadly advertised.

• It is requested that an independent advocate be engaged to act on the community’s behalf and address any problems in a timely manner (eg out-of-hours noise complaints, stormwater run-off), to be located onsite and to monitor compliance in real time.

• The lack of information regarding additional heavy vehicle movements is a major concern along Sydney Rd, French’s Forest Rd through Seaforth Village, residential areas and past Seaforth Public School. Impacts as to noise, pedestrian safety and wellbeing of children have not been adequately addressed. In particular the impacts on North Balgowlah Public, Balgowlah Boys High, St Cecilia’s Balgowlah and St Kevin’s Manly Vale, as well as local pre-schools and child-care centres should be expressly considered.

• Finally, it is a concern that the traffic modelling for this project is based on 2016 survey data. We question the relevance of this data post COVID-19 and request that the modelling be updated to reflect changing working patterns and the reduction in public transport patronage due to both pandemic and bus timetable changes.

Yours sincerely
Candy Bingham
President
Good For Manly
28/2/2021

I am the parent of a boy at Balgowlah Boys High School. I don't believe the assessment takes into account properly the noise and dust pollution that will predominantly occur during the hours at which the boys are at the school. My strong preference is that the school is relocated to North Head for the duration of the works. Please consider the impact on these school children more fully that you currently have in the proposal. As a concentrated population exposed at a key development phase of their lives they are the most impacted from this construction. Yet there appears to be little mention of their existence let alone consideration of impact and compensatory actions.

Regards

Submission attached.