I am not convinced that this project has taken into account viable public transport options to the Northern Beaches. In my view, there always has to be the best possible public transport options made available to residents before the kind of money that is being spent on this road project is undertaken. This is especially true when the disruption to local traffic, parklands, schools and community is so significant and where the local residents affected by these changes do not benefit in any way whatsoever. The air and noise pollution is also of immense concern.

I believe it is only fair, right and the responsible course of action for the government to provide evidence of the research done into the what public transport options were considered and what the business case is for the Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Connection vs. public transport options such as the metro. Travel time savings and congestion benefits have been quoted in the EIS but the public have not seen any evidence of this. I would also be interested in seeing what public transport options were considered and the business case for rejecting these alternatives for increased road traffic.

I also sincerely believe that there needs to be greater engagement and consultation with the community in every stage of the process, particularly to explain the merit of this project versus any public transport alternatives.

As it seems you are going ahead with the beaches link here are some further points to consider regarding the protection of our local neighbourhood:
* Install a proper street side noise abatement programme for Brook St and Flat Rock Drive. How are people living in these streets or side streets going to cope with noise from the trucks?
* Limit all truck movement to weekday working hours 7am to 6pm and ensure trucks do not use their air brakes otherwise they will be fined.
and ensuring it does not impact homes etc?
* I run a business from home that requires peace and quiet and good access to our residential street. Am I going to be compensated for if I am forced to shut down because of the noise and poor access to our street? Or as I said in my previous submission if our property develops cracks in the walls from underground work?

Please find attached my submission.

Please see objection submission attached consisting of:
Objection Summary dated 1st March 2021
Appendix A - GHD Report to DIPNR - Disposal of Surplus Govt land at Seaforth
Appendix B -Vegetation Assessment -North Seaforth from URS
Appendix C - Peer review letter from Hayes Environmental

- lack of business case
- pollution of harbour as a result of dredging releasing contaminants. This may mean we no longer can safely use beaches such as clontarf, plus 428,000 litres of waste water pumped into Queenscliff each day may make this an unusable area also.
- destruction of habitat - there have been 23 species detailed as under threat in the EIS. Burnt Brudge Creek will probably dry up due to a potential 96% reduction in water flow!
- vibration and construction noise that residents will be subjected to over a 7 year period
- unfiltered stacks. Gladys herself objected to the use of these in the Lane Cove Tunnel, calling the filtration of stacks “ethically right in the interests of health”. Apparently she’s now changed her tune and they’re fine to use here on the northern beaches
- I want the environment to be more heavily considered and a detailed review of the plans to be completed prior to any action being taken
- build the tunnel, sure, but not in a way that has this much damage to the environment in the area