P.O. Box 104
Summer Hill NSW 2130
Tel/Fax  :  (02) 99538250 ; 99532250 [Chairman]
Tel/Fax (02) 97989606 [Secretary]

26 October 2000

The Editor
Judith Elen
The Australian
GPO Box 4162
Fax  (02)  9 2 8 8 2 8 2 4;
(02)  9 2 8 8 3 0 7 7

Dear Madam:

The  report,  if true,  that Cabinet has decided to abandon Badgerys Creek
as a site for Sydney's Second Airport is good news [Dennis Shanahan,

While the decision may anger some inner city politicians,  the 30 or so Sydney  community groups represented by SACF Inc,  who have examined the issue carefully,  have come to the conclusion that a second airport at Badgerys Creek  will make matters worse rather than better for most of Sydney's residents, including those in Sydney's inner west and those on the north shore.

One need only examine the flight path patterns in Chapter 20 of the EIS for Badgerys Creek to realise that many of those residents the second airport was supposed to  relieve   will suffer even more if Badgerys were to be given the go-ahead; not to mention the millions of others who will have to suffer additional or new noise and pollution in other areas.

Moreover, Badgerys Creek could never  satisfy the criteria for a replacement international airport at the same time as satisfying Sydney residents affected by noise because,  under the current EIS,
Kingsford Smith Airport is still predicated to grow by up to 380,000 movements per annum by 2010,
that is 36% more movements than today!

As planned,  Badgerys Creek cannot effectively replace KSA because the EIS grossly underestimates the environmental effects with its assumption of a much  lower movement target [245,000] than required to supplant KSA by 2020 [ie ca. 480,000 movements / year].

Furthermore,  a  technical knockout was delivered by Environment Australia when it refused in its Assessment to give Badgerys the guernsey for 24 hour operation.

If Badgerys is to be additional to a still expanding KSA, the resulting environmental effects on the whole of Sydney will be diabolical.

In addition,  the analysis to-date fails abysmally to account for the human environment effect of Bankstown Airport,  which with 400,000 movements per annum is already the fifth most busy small commercial airport in the world.

With Bankstown Sydney already has a Second Airport.

Neither Badgerys nor Bankstown, either together or apart can provide an effective answer to the airport needs of Sydney without further poisoning the residential environment for the majority of Sydney-siders.

Given that the overall decision appears not to be final, and awaits some further analysis by the Department of Transport,  the important thing now is to evolve the right solution, both for the transportation needs of the Sydney Basin,  and for the residential environment.

The SACF Inc in its position paper, "The Way Forward from Sydney's Airports Quagmire",   has already strongly pressed the government and opposition to change their position on Badgerys, because it simply doesn't add up from either an environmental or a transportation perspective.

Instead,  the SACF Inc Forum supports a Second and or Replacement Airport outside the Sydney Basin with,  preferably,  a near southern highlands site and an appropriate fast rail transport link to Sydney. 

Near Southern Highlands sites such as Wilton and Darkes Forest were ranked miles ahead of Badgerys Creek on environmental grounds in the thorough 1985 EIS carried out by Kinhill Stearnes, and perhaps this EIS  should be revisited by our politicians as a source of inspiration.

Yours Sincerely,

Philip S. Lingard

Secretary,  Sydney Airport Community Forum Inc