I object to the tunnel for the following reasons..
- Environmental impact to Middle Harbour, Manly Dam, Burnt Bridge Creek and surrounds, Discharge in Queenscliff Lagoon and Beach
- Lack of full filtration on the ventilation stacks
- Significant construction impact to North Balgowlah - 7 years of construction, 24/7 creating material traffic, noise, dust and pollution
- Destroying the suburb of North Balgowlah with entrances of both sides of the suburb, creation of rat runs through the suburb, reducing usability of wakehurst parkway throughout the construction period
- Reduction in the amount of traffic given the changes to people's working conditions post COVID questions the need to build the tunnel
- $14bn in taxpayers money could be put to far better use across Health, Education and Public Transport and not in order for more cars to be used on the roads.
- People will avoid the tunnel and still use current routes to avoid the expense tolls.

Bay Precinct strongly objects to the Beaches Link project. The estimated cost of this project, in conjunction with the Western Harbour Tunnel, is $14 billion. No business case has been released to the public justifying such major expenditure.
Bay Precinct is the northern Precinct in the North Sydney Council Local Government Area. It extends from the southern perimeter of Tunks Park and Long Bay. The Precinct comprises of about 950 residences.
At a General Meeting of the Precinct on February 15, 2021, attended by 53 residents, this motion was carried (almost all attendees at the meeting raised their hand in support):
Bay Precinct opposes the Beaches Link Tunnel project until such time as:
1. The business case is released for public consideration; and
2. The need for the project, and its superiority over public transport alternatives, has been demonstrated by way of a transparent process involving informed public engagement and consultation, noting that the EIS process has to date failed to evaluate the relative merits of public transport.
Four specific objections are attached to this submission:
1. Loss of public recreation space in the North Sydney LGA.
2. Quality of the built environment in the North Sydney CBD.
3. Traffic problems and pedestrian safety in the North Sydney LGA.
4. Air pollution.
Our community is also greatly concerned by the proposal to construct and operate a Dive Site for the project at the top of Flat Rock Creek Gully, Nothbridge, adjacent to Flat Rock Creek Drive. Bay Precinct is also a member of the Bicentennial Reserve & Flat Rock Gully Advisory Committee. This committee will lodge a comprehensive submission, opposing the Beaches Link project. While the location of the Dive Site is within Willoughby City Council, these submissions document the potential for serious pollution and consequential health and environment impacts for the communities in and around Flat Rock Gully and Tunks Park (Bay Precinct). These concerns should trigger a re-evaluation of the project. As a member of the Bicentennial Reserve & Flat Rock Gully Advisory Committee, this is the link to their submission - https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Q-L7YeI3uXyaj-bM-yl1b__6_gZHUQ0X?usp=sharing. We fully support these objections. Please include them in our submission.
Brian Emanuel,
Secretary

This is submitted on behalf of the resident - not Council's official submission.

Where do I start as there are so many incorrect statements by the RMS, falsehoods or inaccuracies in the EIS, lip-service to true public consultation and a fog created by the EIS and plethora of Appendices and attachments with no hyperlinks???
1. The science put forward in the EIS is at best inadequate or misleading. There are many studies both locally and overseas stating that particle levels less than 10ųm will be concentrated by the 20m high unfiltered stacks as well as in the tunnels themselves. Drivers, passengers and community within a short distance of the stacks will be affected. This will lead to an increase of 2-3 deaths per year plus a substantial effect on developing pregnancies, asthmatic conditions and other lung conditions.
2. Traffic will only improve marginally based on the current design as stated by the RMS in the EIS - 30% in Spitt Bridge traffic initially.
3. Tunnel exit/entry at Seaforth should be relocated to Manly Vale leading down to Kentwell Road to connect with Pittwater Rd and Allambie Road. Much more practical.
4. EIS is incorrect in stating the percentage of open space returned for public use at Balgowlah Holf Course. A significant amount of green space is inaccessible to the public due to the 12 lane roadway, car parks and management facilities. Also the netball courts are not green space. The creek is destroyed as it goes into a canal so all that vegetation is lost which then affects the wildlife corridor onto the golf course.
5. The golf course as a resource for 500 members, 1500 casual players plus public access disappears. As a mental health facility this is one of only two sports thst we're allowed to be used during he Covid crisis. All other clubs in tge area are full so this leaves at least 2,000 golfers without a public course in the area.
6. No-one overseas is buildibg 20m high unfiltered stacks for tunnels of this length. If this area really us safe to live in I challenge ANY government minister or RMS member to live in a house within 100, 200, 500 or even 1,000m of the stacks.
7. This is meant to be a plan for the next 50 years yet it will be full to capacity within years based on RMS estimates.
8. Almost no-one east of the tunnel will use it due to the ridiculously high toll planned and lack of exit points along its length.

More planning, consultation and future proofing is required.

My wife and I wish to strongly object to two aspects of the proposed Beaches Link tunnel which stand to severely disrupt and potentially cause harm to students at the Balgowlah Boys Campus. In doing so we want to make clear that we currently have 3 grandchildren attending the school, two of whom will be severely affected, along with their classmates and teachers, for the entirety of the remaining years of their schooling.
Firstly, the proposed construction zone which is to be positioned directly opposite the school will bring a considerable amount of noise, dust and dirt pollution, and emission fumes from trucks approaching, entering and leaving the site, for what is estimated to be at least 5 years. This is an intolerable situation for children and teachers to endure and hope to receive and provide a decent, safe and worthwhile education, which we submit is the right of every student, regardless of where they live. Why not simply move this construction site a safe distance away?
Secondly, there is an unfiltered emission stack proposed to be situated dangerously close to the school. The justification claim made in the plan that there is no need for filtration, and that in any case it would be unnecessarily expensive to provide filtration, is just plain ludicrous. Where childrens' wellbeing is concerned, surely removing any doubt about the safety of this stack must be paramount? And the expense of filtration of one stack in a $14 billion construction project is hardly going to break the budget.
We feel strongly about this, along with the parents of our grandchildren and the children themselves along with their classmates. We equally strongly urge you to make these changes.
Sincerely
Patrick and Carolyn Penn