Javascript is either disabled or not supported by this browser. This page may not appear properly.
F.R.A.A.N. Submission - Final Part 3


Please refer to the next 6 colour plates:

They are;

1) The 70 dbA noise footprints released as part of the KSA "long term operating plan.

- Please note the distance that the zone extends to, particularly as a comparison when viewing the noise impact zone maps. As the reader can see, western Sydney already has a fairly severe impact from aircraft noise.

Would the reader please note too, that a great many of us have loud noise impacts from smaller aircraft, including helicopters, constantly over our heads now. Bankstown Airport is noted as an extra-ordinarily busy airport, in fact unquestionably the busiest in Australia in terms of aircraft movements, operating over western Sydney's heads already.

2) Badgerys Creek option B, 70 dbA noise impact, tan indicating people.

- Note area of exclusion, right side

3) Holsworthy option B, 70 dbA noise impact, tan indicating people.

- Please note that the 747-400 series aircraft has been used as the model, and not the 747-200 series, which is far louder - this EIS was supposed to indicate "worst case".

4) The sleep disturbed people for Badgerys Creek proposals, 2016.

5) The sleep disturbed people for Holsworthy options.

- Please note, the colour purple writing on the page, it indicates "the option or options which are considered to perform best against each criterion are shaded purple." (What criterion? We couldn't find these in the Guidelines)

6) Proposed Flight paths. Pretty turns!

- Since "final" flight paths cannot be advised, and they would certainly change over time anyway - how is it possible for PPK to draw a "red line" around such a large and dense area (Fairfield, Liverpool, Bankstown etc) of population and thus exclude this half million people from the statistical base of the EIS?

- Given that the State Development Department forecast 2.25 million people to live in Sydney's West by 2011, how can it be that Holsworthy option B (in Sydney's south) could sleep disturb 47,000 people in the year 2016, and Badgerys Creek (in Sydney's West) option B only 6,000, and option A only 8,000? Worse, these numbers are presented as "worse case" - only one disturbance within every 5 nights. These numbers don't even reflect the people living near the Badgerys site now, 1999!

(Please note too, that the mentioned area of exclusion for the Badgerys options is included for Holsworthy option B, even though it is only the N-S cross runway that points at them, and at a great distance.)

- Compare the Badgerys Creek Option B map (page 67), areas of tan indicating people (6,000 people sleep disturbed in 2016), against the Holsworthy Option B map (page 68) areas of tan indicating people (47,000 people sleep disturbed). HOW CAN THIS BE?

- Please also note that the option B Badgerys Map shows a red line area of noise impact of 70dBA. This line skirts around the area of Fairfield, Liverpool and Bankstown effectively eliminating about 500,000 people from the data base.

- Please compare this with the flight path map from option A supplied by PPK , and the reader can see that these areas are shown as being overflown by proposed flightpaths.

- The flightpath turns shown would seem to be unreasonably tight, and F.R.A.A.N. feels that these would obviously "open out" considerably over a fairly short period of time, after any commencement of operations from the proposed airport, thus the noise impact would be even greater again.

- In short - who is pulling whose leg?

This is not a game - millions of peoples lives, now and well into the future are at stake here!

People - Development Plans

Right throughout this process (ie. from 1975, then 1985, through to the present day), urban development has been allowed to continue in areas completely surrounding the proposed airport site, never more so than right now as you read this.

Because of the "strategies for dealing with negative perceptions" these people, who have built their "dream homes" in what are naturally beautiful areas, generally did not honestly think that an airport was genuinely "on the books". A great many people have been lied to by hungry real estate agents, by councils, etc., and accidentally by gullible or naive friends, and particularly via mis-informative media.

A great many still do not believe it is genuinely on the books now.

- Why would they? "LandCom" itself, has sold enormous parcels of land in Cecil Hills, in the Liverpool Council area, within 6-7 kilometres of the proposed site. The land was very cheap, which they could afford.

(We know of many of these people who were fooled by being led to believe - by Liverpool Council, and developers - that Hoxton Park Aerodrome, a very insubstantial, small aircraft facility on Cowpasture Road, was the airport to worry about.)

As you read this, builders are building new homes for new families and old, in this area.

- Almost all new homes built have no extra noise insulation in them at all, and AS 2021 (Australian Standards) has proved to be insufficient, even if they have built their homes to that standard, they will still have serious noise impacts, if nothing else. Some of these homes are in extremely high (25) ANEF zones.

Just to indicate how the misinformation is spread; the new 2000 UBD road maps show the proposed Badgerys Creek airport as a one runway airport, or do UBD know something that we, the community (and voters) do not?

The next colour plate, 2 pages on, shows only some of the new developments with land for sale right now - 1999.

- These are development sites about 8 kilometres away from, and virtually directly in line with main runways, Silverdale.

- There are a very great many other developments, in all surrounding directions, being constructed now, very near the site, not shown in this submission. Due to our own time constraints, and the cost of colour plates, - please know that there are magnificent homes (some best described as multi million dollar mansions) being built in "Capitol Hill" at Mt Vernon in the EIS described 20 - 25 ANEC zones, right now.

- The EIS indicates that up to $67 million would be wiped off the value of properties in western Sydney by 2016, if a second International Airport was built at Badgerys Creek.

FRAAN feels that, given the EIS inaccuracy of so much other information, this figure is probably heavily understated, particularly since future housing development is apparently not allowed for in the EIS.

An example of this inaccuracy? - FRAAN is informed by an employee of Sydney Rail (who cannot be named for fear of losing his job) that the rail corridors shown in the EIS are a mis-representation, and are shown too far to the north.

An interesting coincidence is that the road and rail access map shown in the EIS appears remarkably similar to a planning map one of our members remembers seeing in the offices of the Greater Western Sydney Economic Development Board "Planning and Transport Review and Priorities Study" at their offices in Parramatta. This, well before the release of the EIS.

- Please see the attached news article, (2 pages on) which contains a minefield of information. The reader will note that it indicates that the State Development Department forecast 2.25 million people to live in Sydney's West by 2011. It also indicates that there is a process of manipulation of information and people when it states that "the marketing plan includes strategies for dealing with negative perceptions.." Could this explain why signs (in alignment with option A & B) disappear almost as quickly as they are put up? Could it explain why people in the areas in alignment with option A & B have all seem to have met someone who 'knows someone' who has informed them that it would be a waste of time to fight against the proposed airport 'because it will never happen'? Is this why no one knows about the 'Growth Centre' - even though the article alludes to it?

(For interests sake, the article on the same page, comparing the Wilton site with the Badgerys site selection makes interesting reading! Why was Badgerys picked in the first place?)

- Given that the EIS indicates (for example) that for Option A, only 8,000 people would be sleep disturbed by 2016, (worst case) it would appear Western Sydney is expecting an extra-ordinary death toll in the ensuing period between now and 2016, and in the 5 year junction period between 2011 and 2016. (Stress maybe? Plague?)

- In short, these 2.25 million people are simply not represented in this new EIS, realistically neither are the people who live there now.

Please refer to the next two plates. They are;

1) - Housing Developments in Silverdale.

2) - an article from "Australian Aviation" about the selection of Badgerys Creek site vs the Wilton Site.

3) - an article from "The Daily Telegraph" about future growth in Western Sydney - proposed Badgerys Creek airport - land planning and strategy to push the development through.

"The Growth Centre" - Gazette 156. - The FACTS.

"The Secret Behind Badgerys Creek"

- This news article on the previous page also introduces a new member to the game; "The Growth Centre." (Although it is not named in the article)

- Please refer to EIS volume 1, page 10-7. (FRAAN made issue about this gazette in our response to the Draft EIS, as well as very often via other methods during the consultation process - PPK chose to ignore this, including in the supplement as well.)

- It is a legislative fete accompli, and specific legislation would now be required to halt it.

- A 'Development Corporation' would control this Growth Centre. The Development Corporation has extra-ordinary powers available to it via the " Growth Centres (Development Corporations) Act."

- The Development Corporation would consist of "not less than 5 people". (section 6.(1))

- It has the power to "demolish or cause to be demolished, any building within or adjoining or in the vicinity of the growth centre, of which it has exclusive possession". (section 8.(1) d)

- It has the power to subdivide or re-subdivide land, and consolidate subdivided or re-subdivided land, vested in the Development Corporation". (section 8. (1) g)

- It has the power to acquire land "by agreement or by compulsory process".(section 9. (1)) - "...... the approval of the Minister shall not be required for a lease of land by the development corporation for a term which is less than three years". (section 11. (2)) ....Etc and etc....

PROBLEM - The 'Growth Centre' is found in the Main report of the Badgerys Creek EIS, vol 1, pg 10-7, but only in a map boundary form.

- There is no discussion indicating the properties or purpose of the zone, anywhere in the EIS to accompany the boundary map.

- It is not present in any form at all in the supplement to the EIS, nor in any one of the on going 3 published EIS summary documents.

- Why is it not properly noted in the EIS, since it will have such a direct bearing on the proposed airport, and it's impacts?

- Why has it been necessary to keep this Growth Centre gazette a secret throughout the EIS?

PROBLEM - This information was provided to PPK, by FRAAN, on a variety of occasions, both formally and informally. There is no excuse for it's exclusion in the EIS or EIS supplement.

PROBLEM - Land which is owned by the Commonwealth Govt. (ie the proposed airport site itself, and RAAF land, and the Kingswood Munitions Dump) has been included in this State Govt. Gazette. Is this legal for the State Govt to Gazette Federally owned land? It appears not.

PROBLEM - It would also appear that the Development Corporation over-rides the powers of local Councils': - Camden, Penrith, and Liverpool. The "Growth Centre - Development Corporation" gazette sets aside an enormous area of land outside and around the proposed airport site. This area stretches from almost to the Great Western Highway to the north, includes Wallacia to the west, includes Camden airport to the south, and stretches across to the Hume highway to the east. It dwarfs the proposed Badgerys Creek airport site, within it, in comparative size

- It does not note that the Growth Centre was first muted in the "State Infrastructure Requirements for Sydney West Airport - Standing Committee on Public Works" (who brought that skeleton out of the closet anyway? - re-activated after 65 years, see page 9 of the report) a report which lends itself towards an enormous industrial/commercial/urban residential development surrounding the airport site. The report itself shows the now gazetted area as "Sydney West in Context" (9 pages in from the rear of the report)

- It was secretly gazetted by the Labor State Government, 20th December 1995 and published 22nd Dec 1995, the Friday before Christmas Monday. (This was an executive ministerial decision only, and was not put before parliament) (The minister at the time was Craig Knowles - ex Mayor of Liverpool Council)

- Why was it necessary to Gazette this land secretly, and why was it not discussed before Cabinet?

- The EIS does not note that the Development Corporation who would control the Growth Centre, would have enormous powers; to quote the "Growth Centres (Development Corporations) Act 1974; "Part 3-Responsibilities, Powers, Authorities, Duties and Functions Of Development Corporations" under section 8 "General Powers": (d) - Demolish or cause to be demolished, any building within or adjoining or in the vicinity of the growth centre, of which it has exclusive possession.(our emphasis)

Nor does the EIS note that the Development Corporation has the power to "acquire land by agreement or by compulsory process...."

This "Growth Centre" is an enormous area of land stretching N-S from Glenmore Park near the Great Western Highway, to include Camden Airport at the South, and W-E from Wallacia (included) to cross the Hume Highway at Glenfield.

PROBLEM - There are two other large land area Growth centres; Albury Wodonga and Bathurst Orange. Both are failures. Why then, go down the path of failure again?

PROBLEM- The people within the area of the Growth Centre have never been formally advised of the re-gazette of their land.

PROBLEM - Many persons and families have built new homes within the area of the Growth Centre since it was gazetted. These people have not been advised of the gazette via their 149 certificates, from Penrith, Camden or Liverpool Councils. FRAAN feels that this must be a breach of applicable law regarding the correct issue of 149 certificates.

PROBLEM - in response to a letter from FRAAN(29/8/1996) to state MP's regarding the Growth Centre, Minister Knowles wrote back to them (29/10/1996) that "the Development Corporation does not have any power over private land holders within it's boundaries...".

- When one considers the Development Corporations Act, this is clearly demonstrated to be untrue.

PROBLEM - Our chairman provided all of this information to Mr R Wainright of the Sydney Morning Herald, on 16th June, 1999 who indicated that he thought it to be a story well worthwhile running. Instead the SMH ran a personal interest story on our chairman July 1, 1999 with a one line comment about the Growth Centre. Thus the genuine nature of the "Growth Centre - Development Corporation" still remains buried. It has been 'buried' by other journalists before as well.

FRAAN is of the opinion that the action of not openly and publicly advising of the size and meaning of the growth centre and development corporation, by the Local and State Government and the EIS, is immoral and wrong, in particular to the people who live within the area of the Growth Centre. They have essentially been deceived, and have not been allowed the opportunity to see the potential massive change of circumstance which could befall them. Many new homes are being built within the area as you read this.

There are families who have already had their land taken before (in some cases twice) by compulsory process. This gazette shows that it could happen to them again.

We feel that this lack of notice in the EIS is a gross incompetence, and what would appear to be a deliberate attempt to with-hold vital information from the public.

- This is not in keeping with the "fair, transparent and honest" process promised by the Government.

PROBLEM - Within the area of the 'Growth Centre' is the 'South Creek Valley Sector', also shown in the EIS vol 1, pg 10-4,. This was a proposal for very large high density housing and industrial development, (with large pockets of 35 homes per hectare) which was knocked out by a 1992 State Government EIS, because of it's negative impact on air and water quality.

- The very fact that it appears to has 'risen like the phoenix from the ashes', in the EIS for the proposed airport is also cause for very great concern, if for no other reason than that the people who would presumably live there seem not to be genuinely factored for the future, in the EIS or it's supplement. What schools would their children go to for instance?

It would appear that the proposed Badgerys Creek airport proposal may be nothing more than an excuse for a massive land grab, and development of an enormous high density urban and industrial development in outer western Sydney.


1) It should be noted that had it not been for a concerned resident ringing FRAAN to ask about this gazette, seen by fluke coincidence, no-one would be any the wiser about this gazette given it's hidden and buried nature since the time of gazettal, and lack of note in the EIS.

2) - The "State Infrastructure Requirements for Sydney West Airport" report leans heavily towards development of a massive industrial and urban development in western Sydney, surrounding the proposed airport site.

3) - It has not taken into account, powerful earlier Government reports advising of a cessation of urban and industrial development in Western Sydney by 1978.

Cite; 1973 State Pollution Control Commission Report, referred to in the 1992 Professor Bell "Air Pollution Problems in Western Sydney" Report - "..which clearly identified the topographic and meteorological features of western Sydney, that made the area a potential pollution trap....The report suggested that Western Sydney was unsuitable for future extensive urban development, and population growth in the area should be halted by 1978."

Cite; 1990 State Government air quality report (Also referred to in the Bell report) prepared by an international group of consultants "which forecasts dangerously high levels of smog in the Sydney area...." " concerned particularly with road transport planning for the proposed urban development in Western Sydney".

- Both of the above reports were classified as 'cabinet documents' to prevent freedom of information access.

- It should be noted however, that the State Government via it's departments such as the 'Department of Urban Affairs and Planning" (under Minister Knowles) were responsible for supplying significant levels of base information for the EIS.

- Assuming that this "ghetto nature city" should have been developed with the airport proposal (see chapter 7, vol 3 EIS supplement) the people who would live in this area appear to be not represented in any manner. What schools would they use for instance?

FRAAN has researched into who owns what land within the area of the "Growth Centre" and was not shocked to find that an enormous percentage of that land is apparently under the control of various 'investment organisations' etc. The owners of that land appear to be well hidden behind family trusts, and other buried business operations etc. It would take enormous amounts of time and money, in search fees etc. to ever uncover the true identity of the persons who have involved themselves on a greedy self serving 'developmental' money grab. Considering the depth and variety of impact that these people are prepared to serve on the population of Sydney, these people should be ashamed of themselves.

What more can we say?

Please refer to the plate on the next page. It is;

- a copy of the area gazetted by State Govt. 20th Dec, 1995 - known as Gazette 156, supplied under duress (at the time) by the Dept. of Urban Affairs and Planning. Why wont anyone openly admit to this gazette, and the power of the "Development Corporation" who would control it?

- Interesting too, is that the eastern leg of the "Growth Centre" incorporates Prestons, where Liverpool Council (who have displayed extra-ordinary interest in pushing this proposed airport through) is planning a "$400 million industrial development". (Financial Review, 14th February 1998.)

- Likewise interesting is that the (then) State Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning (and ex-mayor of Liverpool Council) Mr Craig Knowles, in response to a letter sent from F.R.A.A.N. to all NSW State MP's, wrote (29 Oct. 1996) ; "The Development Corporation does not have any power over private landholders within its boundaries......"

- This is straight out untrue. The Development Corporations Act 1974 gives extraordinary power to a Development Corporation to "acquire land by agreement or compulsory process" and to "demolish, or cause to be demolished, any building within or adjoining or in the vicinity of the Growth Centre, of which it has exclusive possession." (Our emphasis)

Later in his letter, he indicates that "no areas have been rezoned for residential development which would be affected by aircraft noise levels of 20 ANEF or more.." Again, this is absolutely untrue. Silverdale is within 20 ANEF, as is Capitol Hill at Mt Vernon - both new residential developments.

When asked about danger to the Warragamba Dam wall in the event that an aircraft may crash into it (since flight paths are directed over it), as per the aircraft that went through a block of apartments in Amsterdam, Mr Knowles' letter stated that; "...the dam has no structural deficiency. Recent scientific analysis has provided Sydney Water with a better understanding of the impact of extreme weather conditions on the dam wall....." But we didn't ask about the weather!

The South Creek Valley Sector - Political Controlling Power?

- FRAAN finds it outrageous that in an EIS that has really remained only within the boundary of the proposed airport site itself, suddenly appears the "South Creek Valley Sector". (Main Report Vol 1, pg 10-4) This was a proposed development for high density housing (35 homes per ha) etc, which was conclusively knocked out in 1992 (Liberal State Govt.) EIS because of its negative impact on air and water quality. (How could anyone think to build an airport in the same area then?). This is a proposal also favoured by Liverpool Council in it's time, and the land area owned by business men closely connected to the Liverpool Council, via Regional Development organisations etc., The South West Sydney Regional Development Organisation actually hold organisation meetings in the Liverpool Council building.

The questions beg:

1) how could this South Creek Valley proposal re-appear in this airport EIS?

a) - why did it re-arrive in the 1998 Badgerys Creek airport EIS?

2) Who arranged for it's Phoenix like resurrection?

We remind that this is a proposal for very high density housing development, with pockets of development in the order of 35 homes per hectare, and large areas of industrial development. (This would then be similar in density to Villawood/Wetherill Park [Prospect], Mt Druitt/Tregear[Chifley], Raby/Claymore [Werriwa])

Picture of the Developments Proposed.

* If this were to be a development similar to those noted above (each of which has an extremely high element of resident population 'low on the socio-economic scale' - traditional ALP voters, and areas whose respective Federal and State MP's have extremely high margins) would not this then create a major shift in the balance of power in the State and Federal seats in Camden/Mulgoa and Macarthur/Lindsay towards the ALP? Flight paths from an option A/B alignment in combination with a necessary return to north/south operations from KSA, would impact very heavily on many other Liberal seats in Sydney as well.

- Is this why there were such obvious bias's shown throughout the Fed EIS between Holsworthy and Badgerys, with an obvious bias towards the construction of a Badgerys Creek Airport? Why were so many critically important components of the EIS (for Badgerys) totally avoided in the EIS, or hidden in the technical papers, and not included in the main report, or summary?

- Is this why the ALP so obviously worked so hard to knock out the Holsworthy proposal, but never did anything to knock out the Badgerys Proposal? (Mr Kim Beasley was here in NSW within a fortnight of the Holsworthy announcement - fighting against it. Flyers handed out at anti-Holsworthy rallies had ALP logos on them.)

- Is this why the Fed ALP will not countenance to look at any other site apart from Badgerys Creek, even though there are other sites which clearly out performed the Badgerys Creek site, and such clear evidence against an airport at Badgerys Creek?

- Does this explain why the "beneficiaries" found it necessary to re-print the 'Airplan' flight paths document, with all Badgerys Creek flightpaths and component stripped out of it, and yet distribute it, at least in part, to residents (eg Narellan Vale) who would be at least as badly off , if not far worse, by the Badgerys proposals, than the Holsworthy proposal? (see the member for Hughes - Dana Vale, who helped distribute these documents, and whose office indicated that they had been printed/supplied by these "beneficiaries".)

- Is this why there were so many spurious arguments brought up against Holsworthy, never before brought out as arguments against other developments in the same area.

* eg's; 'danger to Lucas Heights Atomic Reactor' - yet the army has been firing cannon into a site mere kilometers away for many years (at least since the early 1970's);

'desecration of aboriginal sacred sites' - but who ever complained when the navy, and the army, have continually fired shells, as range practice, into the same area for may decades?;

'can't knock down any trees' - yet no one complained when large areas were cleared for other urban developments within the area;

'the loss of a useable coal deposit' - which is "green" coal, and located deep underground, such that underground mining rather than open cut, would be the only acceptable method of recovering that coal (which should be no major problem for an airport high above it), and who ever said that we have any plans to utilize this resource anyway?;

'Major impact on colonies of fruit bats' - which are also highly prevalent in western Sydney, but somehow not regarded as a negative for the Badgerys Proposal?;

'Noise amplification due to temperature inversion conditions' - which are an almost permanent feature of the area surrounding Badgerys Creek. (See EIS supplement vol 3, 9-4 'Frequency of Temperature Inversions')

'Major noise impacts on local communities' - so why are those communities any more or less important than those surrounding the Badgerys proposal?

- Is this why the airport information centre at Liverpool was closed after Holsworthy was knocked out of the process, and why no more information on the Badgerys proposal was made easily available to the public?

- Is this why there seems such quietly curious bias in the EIS for options A/B? See non-aboriginal cultural heritage (later discussed) as an example.

- Why has there been such a sly but obvious operation (from within and without) to ensure that the community protest against Badgerys remained fractured, and could never cement together, unlike the anti-Holsworthy protest which was extremely well organized and 'slick'?

- Why was there a need to "slide through" the Growth Centre 'Gazette 156' Growth Centre, by the State Govt. whilst there was still 'tiered' ALP control; ie Federal, State, and surrounding local councils ?

- Why is there such an apparent perceived insistence that only option A, should be "let through", even though it is the most illogical and unuseable proposal of the 3 options proposed?

* Could it be that this is because it is the only proposal which would not direct large volumes of aircraft over the proposed South Creek Valley proposal, thereby rendering it useless and unable to be built?

- There seems no doubt that the 'strategies for dealing with negative perceptions' process has been extremely and particularly active in the communities most likely to be impacted on by the Option A/B proposals; in short virtually no-one (on that alignment) believes that an airport would ever be built at Badgerys Creek - because of 'what they've heard from people who know', or misleading media.

* Is it possible that there is a deliberate process to "knock out" protest from these people, by deceiving them into believing that there is nothing to worry about - so that they won't fight? This would make option A or B look far more attractive, since it would then appear that these communities must actually want the airport development - even though not true.


The Badgerys Creek area has now gained itself notoriety as not only an area to be the site of a second "overflow" airport, of a split hub nature - proven by overseas experience (we cite Mirabel in Montreal Canada as a point in case) to be unworkable, but has also become notorious for other alleged serious political "skull-duggery". This particularly involves the 1995 NSW State Government election.

- There are allegations that an independent candidate (Mr Thompson) who stood for the election on a "no airport at Badgerys Creek" platform was in fact a political plant. It is alleged that his campaign was funded by the Transport Workers Union - an interesting allegation since the winning candidate for the seat was at the time alleged living partner with the secretary of the Transport Workers Union. Mr Thompson's 1,200 odd votes were passed by preference to Ms Beemer who won by a mere207 votes.

- It is alleged that the 217 homes on the site, now owned by Federal Airports Corporation (FAC) via their compulsory acquisition for the site, were suddenly filled with new residents soon before the 1995 State Election. Further, it has been alleged that these new residents were in fact, members of the Transport Workers Union, who boasted locally that they had their food and grog supplied for free.

- The Scallibrini Village, a home for aged and infirm, somehow voted 100% ALP. Surely someone would have wanted to vote differently?

- For some inexplicable reason, the slowest post in NSW was in the electorate of Badgerys Creek, where we had to wait for the postal votes to come in, to determine the winner of the seat. This was the last seat in NSW to be determined, and at the time NSW was a 'hung Parliament' waiting for results of this last seat to determine which party would be the Government in power. The postal votes gave Ms Beemer the winning margin, and Bob Carr stepped forward and took power.

- Apparently the (then) Member for Badgerys Creek, The Hon Anne Cohen, called for a re-count of the vote and this was granted by the Electoral Commissioner. Unfortunately the votes were unable to be counted since the electoral office at Saint Marys then burned down, along with all the votes.

There are other political concerns regarding Badgerys Creek, particularly more recently. When the Holsworthy site was announced as an alternative to Badgerys, an awesome machine came into being to fight against it. The level of organisation was extra-ordinary, as was the entire protest against the site. Within a fortnight, the Leader of the ALP Opposition was here fighting against the Holsworthy proposal.

As an organisation dedicated to fighting against any new airport within the Sydney basin, we have not even managed to get answers to our letters to him. A requirement of the overseeing organisation fighting against the Holsworthy proposal (CRASH - Councils and Residents Against Selection of Holsworthy) a condition of membership and funding was that any organisation fight only against the Holsworthy proposal, and not Badgerys Creek as well.


We are quite well aware that one runway, on the option A alignment has been the preferred option for some time, in fact for many years. This is verified by the single runway on this alignment which has graced our Sydney road maps since 1996 when the FAC and Dept of Transport first supplied this information to the publishers 16th November 1995. We brought the problem of this single runway configuration, not given individual attention within the EIS, and the fact that there are a number of other options supposedly considered, officially to the attention to Universal Press in June 1999. Never-the-less, the new year 2000 UBD road map shows that same single option A runway again. (This is remarkable considering, as noted before, this alignment is the one which is the least safe, and which causes the greatest confluence and problem to other airports within Sydney. This is clearly shown in the EIS supplement, vol 3, chapter 20)

Unlike other areas, we find that our local council area, even though the council opposes the proposed airport in word, is the only council within the alliance of councils to have no signs of protest at it's city boundaries, and few if none within the confines of the city area, apart from the council building itself.

This is unlike the council areas to the north and south of the site who have solid representation by way of signs, erected mostly by the councils, although some by community organisations as well.

Signs within the Fairfield area are almost all our own signs and are self funded, self made, or are 'gleaned' from friends in other council areas, and are erected by us - FRAAN. We have long suffered a continued problem of having our signs removed, often within one day of being erected. Over more recent times, the game has changed, such that our signs are thinned out (during the middle of the night) "two out of five" on a regular basis, over a period of time, obviously so that people do not notice their sudden disappearance, but rather an un-noticeable and gradual disappearance.

Our local Fairfield newspapers are stand outs in their lack of reporting of the impacts of having an airport at Badgerys Creek, or the actions of the council alliance, or ourselves. This is in absolute difference to newspapers in the areas north and south of the site, and further away, which are usually full of anti-airport material, a great deal of which is researched and created by these papers themselves. We very often find that our own media releases are well reported in almost all other papers apart from our own. This is particularly serious given that option A is the preferred option of the beneficiaries, and the ALP (ask Grahame Richardson), and that the Fairfield area is the area which would without doubt be most severely impacted on by Option A or B of this proposed airport.

There have been a number of times when our local papers have reported absolutely spurious mis-information, none more so obvious than the recent front page of the Fairfield Champion August 11, 1999, who ran a front page editorial article totally incorrect in fact. It reported that Fairfield must want the airport, and very seriously understated the number of people attending a rally held at the Marconi Club August 8th, 1999. It also accused us (FRAAN) of peddling misinformation ourselves. We take very serious umbrage at this.

We have had 'bodgy' members join our organisation and attempt to steer us off track, or fail to do important jobs at the last minute. This is the reason why we have now chosen to remain a close knit strong but small organisation, simply because we now know that we can trust and rely on each other absolutely.

We have had, on a number of occasions, a subtle but obviously deliberate process of character assassination, plied upon us. A classic case in point is Mr Wainright's article in the Sydney Morning Herald, (July 1, 1999) where he ran a personal interest story on our chairman, and noted our concern for a 'secret' Government plan for a growth centre around the airport site, without going into detail of the Gazette 156 Growth Centre - the very reason for seeing Mr Wainright in the first place. For the information of the reader, there are people within the area of the 'growth centre' who have had their land taken by compulsory process on two occasions beforehand. (Greenbelt and Badgerys) Our concern was that the people within the area of the growth centre had never been made aware of it, or of the fact that their land could quite possibly be taken by compulsory process, in some cases for a third time.

The alliance of councils employed a PR person (Mr M. Vane-Tempest) from a PR company named Atticus Pty Ltd. Unfortunately it later transpired that this person was and is a member of Anthony Albanese's branch of the ALP. It was this early realisation that forced FRAAN's withdrawal from the community alliance (which we started in the first place), because it was patently obvious to us that the whole focus of the councils (and thereby community organisations now under their control) had steered to knocking out only option C of the various proposals presented, and leaving the door open on option A, the most illogical of the options available, but the only option which by rote of the fact that it has no north/south runways, does not destroy the extraneous plan for a massive ghetto (for that is all that it can be) nature city to the north and south of the site.

From our own point of view, this whole process is probably the greatest orchestrated sham ever foisted on Australia.

next plate; - a copy of a flyer handed out at an anti-Holsworthy Airport Rally at Sutherland, and generally in the southern surrounding communities.

Please note the ALP logo.


How could the publicly owned 344 hectare CSIRO site be sold, and for so little money (one of the owners - Mr R Medich, told us he paid $3.5 mill at a 'South West Sydney Regional Development Organisation' meeting held at Liverpool Council 22 May, 1997) when it was so obviously going to be affected and possibly required by the proposed airport?

a)How could the same site now arrive in this EIS, as a Future Employment area (industrial centre)?

b)Why would any planner place an industrial area directly in line with, and virtually at the end of the runways (for option C or cross runway of option B) of a proposed International airport, if either of these options were ever genuinely to be considered?

- Back in the 1950's planners may have put an industrial area at the end of airport runways, surely though now in 1999, any intelligent new planed airport would never put an industrial area at the end of proposed runways, rather a buffer of trees would be used - or was option C, the only option that really had any chance of being at least partly workable because of it's parallel nature to KSA, never really on the cards?


We are confused. Section 21.6 of the Main report, vol 1, pg 21-11 states that "None of the items would be destroyed under any of the airport options is listed by the National Trust, Australian Heritage Commission, or the NSW Heritage Council."

Immediately below this statement is a table indicating that a maximum of 17 Heritage items will be destroyed by option C. Likewise 13 by option A, and 15 for option B.

As in many other instances, the EIS is difficult to understand sometimes, because of the apparent conflict of information presented within itself.

It seems incredible that any person or group should be prepared to destroy any heritage item around Badgerys Creek, for the place is steeped in rich history. One only has to view the headstones from the relocated "Sacred Heart Parish Church" to realise that.

The tech. book "Non Aboriginal Cultural Heritage, book 12" states on page 8-1, that; "Archaeological resources are irreplaceable. They have the potential to contribute to our knowledge of early history with information that is unavailable from any other source, such as historical documentation."

- It also notes that; "a fundamental principle of heritage conservation is that every effort should be made to retain items of heritage significance."

F.R.A.A.N. points out that eastern Sydney has it's beautiful beaches, beautiful coastline, the sea itself and it's own historic buildings, to be visually and culturally proud of, whereas the far Western Sydney region has beautiful rolling hills with a backdrop of rugged Blue Mountains, National Parks, waterways, and genuinely delightful Australian historical buildings which tell the tale of a hard but good past lifestyle, steeped in differing cultural influence.

Visual Impact.

F.R.A.A.N. finds it stunning that the EIS indicates only Kelvin Park (see summary blue pg61, purple pg52), as being the only "non Aboriginal Heritage" item noted as(option C): "can reduce visual impact on Kelvin Park." It should be noted that this house is owned by the Medich family, major landholders in the area, and who procured the CSIRO site so cheaply, and who also feature so prominently in pro Badgerys Creek Airport organisations. Why are there no heritage items listed for options A/B?

Surely the proposed airport would reduce the visual impact on a wide number of "non-aboriginal cultural heritage" houses. FRAAN finds it extraordinarily curious, that this should be the only house singled out for mention, when the visual impact of every heritage house, or ordinary house, will be reduced.

- The 1985 EIS supplement identified the Horsley Homestead in Horsley Park, as being overflown at a height of 500 ft. The limestone render (which the owner has enormous trouble in maintaining and repairing) is very fragile and prone to lifting off in adverse weather conditions. The homestead is listed as a heritage item by the National Trust, and has been described by Hardy Wilson as being "the pleasantest home in New South Wales." It was built soon after 1831, by George Edward Weston.

There is no mention of this important historical house, at all, in this new EIS and yet it is directly in line with runways from options A/B, 8km from the end of runways, and was noted in the 1985 supplement as suffering a serious impact.

The proposed airport would certainly reduce the visual impact on the house of every member of FRAAN, and some of us would regard our homes as "cultural heritage items" too.


FRAAN considers the impact on the quality of our air to be one of, if not the most important issue associated with this airport proposal. We have all sadly watched our air quality become increasingly worse, with a recent and frightening rapid deterioration. Some of our members have the advantage (if that is what it could be called) to live on (or be associated with) high land in the centre of the Sydney basin. We are horrified to see that not only has the city become enveloped in a constant shroud of polluted haze, such that only the silhouette of the city skyline can be made out, but that the blue mountains to our west, always so startlingly clear and ever-present, has now also disappeared into a porridge of filthy air. This deterioration has been shockingly rapid, and whereas only some ten years or so ago it was a major event that blocked the mountains from view, this has now reversed completely. It now takes some major event (such as extended holiday periods or a very powerful southerly wind) to clear the air to the extent that the mountains can be plainly seen. Even more worrying is the fact that within hours of a new "working" morning, without strong wind, the mountains once again disappear into a porridge of polluted haze.

We have within our local area the highest hill in the Sydney basin - 'Moonrise'. It affords magnificent views of the Sydney basin on a 360 degree basis, and is an extremely spectacular night time view. Several of our members drove up to Moonrise on May 4th, 1999, to see any change in view, since it was after recent winds and storms which help to clear the air and was a moonlit night, with no cloud cover. We were shocked to the core to see that the city skyscape had all but disappeared from view - the city silhouette now being only a hazy outline, very difficult to make out, in a night time sea of polluted haze. Whereas only a year ago one could see into lighted buildings with a pair of binoculars, now one must use binoculars simply to be able to see the lights themselves, even then, unclearly. Please note, this was early May and not yet really cold, so people were not up to this point, using fireplaces to warm themselves.

The EIS technical paper, book 6 page 3-9, notes: "Moussiopoulos et al (1996) reported a study of nitrogen dioxide and ozone impacts due to Athens airport. Athens Airport is to be relocated from Hellenikon, which is within the Athens basin to Sparta, which is outside the Athens basin. Photochemical airshed modelling was carried out for seven different meteorological conditions to assess impacts of the new airport. Athens currently suffers from regular exceedences of their nitrogen dioxide guidelines." "Air quality within the Athens basin would be improved as a result of the airport relocation." [So why wasn't that included in the EIS summary or main report?]

The Sydney basin is just that, a basin extremely similar to that of Athens. A ring of mountains to the south, west and north, surrounding a low "spoon" of low land and open to water on the eastern side, we also have a temperature inversion layer sitting over us for a great part of the year. Air re-circulates within the basin, standing in the low basin at Bringelly, immediately south of the proposed site, overnight. The morning sun acts on the mass, causing it to rise and move into a flow, at the same time becoming a photo-chemical action.

It flows around the escarpment in the middle of the basin, and the natural "gutter" along the base of the mountains, down the flow of air along the Parramatta River and out to sea. In the afternoon the airmass returns, passing over Holsworthy and into the south of the basin, to settle again in the low Bringelly basin at night. During periods of long dry weather without a cleansing wind (usually Southerly) this mass of air may circulate the basin for up to 15 days, intensifying in toxicity on each pass. Inversion temperature layers (which western Sydney is renowned for) also work to entrap pollution underneath it, inside the basin.(Health and Urban Air Conference, Riverside theatre venue, Parramatta, June 3-4 1996, which we attended)

The MAQs (Metropolitan Air Quality Study) released in 1997 identified that at least 400 SYDNEY people die each year, directly because of problems associated with air pollution. That is more than one person per day!

It clearly and scientifically indicates that the air pollution problem in the Sydney basin/airshed has grown into an extremely serious one. Could our political process be stupid enough to repeat the serious mistakes made by the other 'basin' cities such as Athens? We would hope not, after all we try to promote ourselves to the rest of the world as a 'clever country'. Please recall that Athen is relocating it's airport to a site outside it's basin area. This makes our call for an airport outside the Sydney basin a perfectly viable call, and indeed would show us to be seriously remiss in intelligence if we were to duplicate the Athens mistake, given the extremely serious costs in human, environmental and economic terms that Athens has had to pay because of it's air quality problems.

Following is a condensation of a Report written By Prof. F.C. Bell, Bsc MSc PhD MEIA MIAIA March 1992. We have received Professor Bells permission to include his report in our submission. The italics are our own emphasis and square bracketing is our own comment.

- The type of air pollution in Western Sydney of most concern to date is known as 'photochemical smog'. This occurs mainly in summer months with a complex mix of pollutants including ozone, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides. Ozone has been regarded as the most harmful pollutant and it's concentration is used as a measure of the severity of the smog. However, nitrogen oxides (notably nitrogen dioxide) and hydrocarbons are also harmful to human health and there is growing concern about these pollutants in the Sydney area. A recent study by Corbett (1991) has revealed a significant correlation between hospital mortality and elevated levels of atmospheric nitrogen dioxide. Other recent studies have provided evidence of serious carcinogenic effects of prolonged exposure to hydrocarbons.

Ozone in photochemical smog is produced by the action of strong sunlight on high concentrations of nitrogen oxides in the presence of hydrocarbons. In the Sydney region about 80 percent of nitrogen oxides come from motor vehicle emissions [and the EIS indicates about 80,000 vehicles extra per day travelling to Badgerys Creek Airport if it were to be built] while the remainder comes from industrial activities, airport operations, etc....

...It should be noted that ozone is not emitted directly from motor vehicles but may take several hours to form after the nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons have been emitted. During this time the gases may be widely dispersed by atmospheric turbulence and wind. Therefore, unlike some other forms of air pollution, photochemical smog tends to occur throughout a region rather than in local concentrations near the main sources of pollution. Also, before the ozone forms, the precursors may be transported long distances and the highest concentrations of ozone may therefore be recorded in areas remote from the original sources. This tends to happen in the Sydney region where the highest concentrations of ozone often occur in the western suburbs while the main sources of the precursors are in the city and inner suburbs....

....Few places in the world would be more vulnerable to photochemical smog than Western Sydney. It's vulnerability is due to the following factors:

* Western Sydney is in a topographic basin with high land to the south, west and north.

[not reflected in any manner in the EIS!]

* Sydney's pollution is carried into the area by the sea breeze and is trapped by the high land.

* Sydney's pollution has very high concentrations of nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons because of the urban sprawl and general dependence on motor vehicles for transport.

* Sydney is within the worst latitudinal band for photochemical smog, namely 30 to 35 degrees South.

Places within latitudes 30 to 35 degrees are particularly prone to photochemical smog because their weather conditions are dominated in all seasons by subtropical high pressure systems. Also characteristic of these conditions are the light winds and highly stable air that cause trapping and accumulation of pollutants within the surface layers of the atmosphere.

The above influences if the subtropical high pressure systems are modified in the eastern half of Sydney by its proximity to the ocean. The resulting sea breeze, a smaller temperature range and more frequent cloud cover all assist the dispersal of pollutants from their source areas and inhibition of ozone formation. However, in dispersing the pollutants the sea breeze transports them westwards and ozone is still produced in the calmer air of Western Sydney. This process is shown in more detail in Figure 1.

Prof Bell's pollution diagram plate.

- "The vulnerability of Western Sydney to air pollution problems was recognised at least twenty years ago but has been largely ignored by the various State Governments since that time. An article by Joseph Glascott in the Sydney Morning Herald of 29 October 1975 referred to a report prepared by experts of the State Pollution Control Commission (SPCC) in 1973. This clearly identified the meteorological and topographic features of Western Sydney that made the area a potential pollution trap. [Which is exactly what it has become.] The report suggested that Western Sydney was unsuitable for future extensive development and population growth in the area should be halted by 1978. According to Glascott, such a gloomy picture was drawn that the report was kept confidential by the Government of the day...

[FRAAN finds it difficult to understand just how, after a report like this, that Badgerys Creek could have even been nominated as a potential site for an airport in the first place, let alone so much development be allowed in the Western Sydney area since 1978.]

...Further detailed work on air pollution in Western Sydney was apparently not undertaken until March 1990 when studies were commissioned for the proposed development of the Macarthur South and South Creek Valley regions, and also for the Badgerys Creek Airport. This work was sponsored by the NSW Department of Planning and other State and Federal Government agencies associated with the developments. The findings were reported nine months later by Hyde and Johnson (1990) and included the following:

* the data previously published by the SPCC seriously underestimates the current severity of photochemical smog in the Sydney region,

* there are gross deficiencies in the measurements of pollution levels in the Sydney region; in particular there is no regular monitoring for most of Western Sydney;

* ozone was recently measured in Western Sydney to be 0.20 ppm which is 2.5 times the recommended maximum value of 0.08 ppm;

* in the absence of further pollution controls, urban growth during the next twenty years is set to give rises of up to 50% in Western Sydney ozone concentrations.

In concluding that the current severity of photochemical smog had been seriously underestimated, Hyde and Johnson were referring particularly to the smog problem in Western Sydney....

Later in his report Prof. Bell writes: "On the eve of the second summit conference on air quality, the news media referred to a "secret State Cabinet Report" which forecasts dangerously high levels of smog in the Sydney area unless drastic changes were made in road transport planning (Sydney Morning Herald, 24/2/92). The report was concerned particularly with road transport planning for the proposed urban development in Western Sydney. It had been prepared by an international group of consultants including Travers Morgan Pty Ltd, Sinclair Knight & Partners and Booz Allen and Hamilton, commissioned by the NSW Government if 1990. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, the Government decided the report should be confidential and classified it as a Cabinet document to prevent Freedom of Information access.

Air protection in Western Sydney has thus become a very sensitive political issue with a history of neglect and secrecy by all NSW Governments over the last two decades. In an educated and progressive society the public have a democratic right to be properly informed of matters that affect their health and lifestyles. With regard to air quality, this right has apparently not yet been properly recognised by our politicians and bureaucrats."

[ As you read this document, there are multiple millions of dollars of upgrading going into virtually every major Western Sydney road, in fact, all over Sydney. Urban development is forging ahead in western Sydney at a massive rate. This is absolutely and clearly against the recommendation of the noted reports, and is tantamount to public traitor- ship.]


- FRAAN wishes the reader to note the similarity between our basin environment, and others around our world.

Athens has a total population (as at 1994) of 4 million people - we too have 4 million.

- It has an extreme air pollution problem, and as noted in the EIS, it is moving its airport outside of its basin environment. How could we be stupid enough to contemplate an airport in Western Sydney, with such serious air pollution problems already noted - when other basin cities in the world are moving their airports outside of their basin environment because of air pollution problems?

To quote "EnviroData Version 1.5 - November 1994" - a CD computer file that is freely available and often distributed to school children in Australia:

"Air Pollution-Athens." - "In June 1991, 700 people were hospitalized with respiratory problems; on October 1st 1991 SMOG sent hundreds to hospital with heart and breathing problems and the Government banned all private cars and fifty percent of the taxi fleet from the city centre. The ban was re-imposed in January 1992. In October 1992 high levels of carbon monoxide and ozone filled emergency wards with many cases of respiratory distress. Warm weather in January 1993 increased smog levels to the point factories were closed and automobile use banned."

"Between 1961 and 1994 the population of Athens increased 100 percent to 4 million, while the number of cars increased 3,600 percent. Catalytic converters were not required until 1990, and by 1994 were installed on only 30 percent of cars registered in Athens."

- There are remarkable similarities between Athens and Sydney, from its basin environment very similar to our own, temperature inversion problems, cars converting to cleaner systems, and numbers having done so etc.

- This is a clear lesson to Sydney, and yet we choose to ignore the lesson. Do we have a suicide wish?

'EnviroData' regarding Los Angeles- another basin city like our own? Read on;-

"Unhealthy air surrounds Los Angeles two out of three days throughout the year. There are as many as 30 SMOG alerts annually, and health cost related to air quality is higher in California than in all other 49 states combined."

(FRAAN points out that our own Australian Government Standards in regard to acceptable air quality and pollution levels are often far more lax than virtually every other major Government in the world. Health and Urban Air Quality conference - June 3-4, 1996)

Please find below, an article from the NRDC (National Research and Development Council) in the U.S. sourced from the internet. [We have condensed it a little to make it less technical, more relevant to our own situation (eg. we removed the section on application of de-icing chemicals on runways) and therefore more readable - italics and comment in square brackets is our own]

Airports Overlooked As Major Polluters

Air, Noise and Water Contamination Projected To Rise As Air Travel Soars.

NRDC Recommendations: Airports Should Follow Same Rules As Other Major Polluters; FAA Should Replace Air Ticket Tax With Fuel Tax To Encourage Conservation.

Airports Rank as high as smokestack industries in the amount of pollution they release into the environment, yet are excluded from many rules that equally polluting industries must follow, according to a Natural Resources Defence Council report released today.

In examining airport air pollution, for example, NRDC found that Los Angeles International Airport is the second largest industrial smog source in the Los Angeles area, ranking between Chevron and ARCO refineries; Chicago-O'Hare International Airport is the 5th largest industrial source of smog in the Chicago area, ranking between a steel mill, which is 4th, and a power plant, which is 6th, J.F.K. International Airport is ranked 6th and LaGuardia International 8th in the New York city area, rivalling two power plants that are the 7th and 9th largest smog sources; and National and Dulles airports are, respectively, the 4th and 6th largest industrial sources of smog in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area, sandwiched between two incinerators.

"Living near an airport is like have a refinery as a neighbour, only refineries are subject to stronger pollution controls and disclosure requirements," said Jennifer Stenzel, primary author of the NRDC report that analyses pollution from the nation's 50 busiest airports. "Because aviation is the fastest growing mode of travel in the U.S., increasing nearly twice as fast as car travel, these failings must be addressed."

NRDC's report, Flying Off Course: Environmental Impacts of America's Airports, found that airports' most serious impacts were in air, water, and noise pollution, including poor land use decisions that contribute to conflicts between airports and their neighbours. In addition, the report examines aircraft emissions' contribution to global warming.

Among NRDC's recommendations is to replace the 10 percent domestic ticket tax with an aviation fuel tax. This change would have no financial impact on consumers but would provide an incentive for airlines to replace aging and inefficient aircraft with newer, cleaner, quieter and more fuel-efficient planes.

"Rather than tax passengers, we should tax the planes that are the noisiest, oldest, and most polluting," said Daniel Lashof, NRDC senior scientist.

Among Flying Off Course's other major recommendations and findings:

- Aircraft air polluting is increasing. While air pollution from automobiles and may major industries have stabilized or decreased, aircraft continue to emit more smog-forming gases, volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides with each passing year. In 1993, aircraft emitted 350 million pounds of these pollutants during their landing and take-off cycles, more than twice the 1970 total, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

- To reduce toxic airport pollution, airports should have to follow the same reporting requirements as other major polluters...

- To reduce noise pollution, the FAA should recognize how detrimental the loud spikes in noise levels near airports can be...

- To curb aircraft emissions' increasing contribution to global warming, the U.S. should adopt more stringent standards for nitrogen oxides. The U.S. is one of only three countries opposing a worldwide standard that would reduce the impact of aircraft emissions in the atmosphere. The other two countries are Russia and Poland. [why not us?]

Regarding NRDC methodology, the information in Flying Off Course was collected through a nationwide survey of the 125 busiest airports, 46 of which responded. NRDC then conducted in-depth research on the top 50 busiest airports and obtained information through the Freedom of Information Act, where necessary...

Regarding air pollution data, NRDC found that most airports lacked such information. NRDC calculated aircraft emissions at nine representative airports using standard FAA and EPA modelling methods. These representative airports range in size from the nation's busiest, such as Chicago O'Hare and JFK International to smaller airports such as Texas's El Paso International.

NRDC's web site,, carriers Flying Off Course's executive summary and

Appendix C.


Diane Dulken

Ph: 202/289-2405

- Need FRAAN say more than;- "knowing this, who in their right mind would consider to put an airport at Badgerys Creek, or anywhere else in the Sydney Basin?"

We seriously believe that we should be actively seeking ways, today, to lessen our air quality problems, rather than ignoring the constant warnings we are given, and continuing on with processes and developments which worsen this already very serious situation.


Please find following, five colour pages from Australian Geographic, Jan-Mar 1986, Volume 1, no. 1, showing a fantastic eel migration that takes place approximately every 7 years.(permission to copy is included in the appendix)

There are several other species, some now protected or endangered (such as the micro-bat located in the roof cavity of the Badgerys Creek town hall, which would have to be demolished if the proposed airport were to proceed) which appear to be not noted at all in the EIS.

This basic lack is reflective of the quality of the Flora and Fauna study section of the EIS, which is based on 1985 Data (even though many original guideline submissions called for no part of the old discredited 1985 EIS, to be used as a base for any part of the new EIS) and we feel, reflective of the EIS in total.

It seems incredible that we could consider to allow any poisoning of our water supply (as the EIS states) and threaten such a huge supply of emergency food stock, and the natural "in water" filter species - namely the fish within the lake.

- We believe that the Warragamba dam has been deliberately stocked with trout etc., to keep the water clear, fresh and viable.

We need say no more; please turn the page and enjoy a unique spectacle, not noted at all in the EIS,or the supplement, but which would obviously be seriously damaged or even destroyed by the various impacts of any proposed airport at Badgerys Creek.

Eels migration first page

Eels migration 3rd page

Eels migration 4th page.

Eels page 5


We have seen the federal EIS process let down the communities it is supposed to protect, time over and again. This same company (PPK) have now conducted an EIS on an Atomic Reactor at Lucas Heights, this time with no Auditor. We can see the eels, the Dam, the reservoir, the Chlorine holdings, the electricity, the people and etc that has been missed by the EIS. How could the public ever trust this EIS on an atomic reactor, which we have no chance of really being able to audit ourselves? At the Parliamentary Standing Works Committee Lucas Heights investigation hearings held on 5th and 6th May, 1999 it was apparent that there has once again been another shockingly inadequate EIS performed by PPK.

- There MUST be a change to this process, it must never be used in Australia again until such time as it has been changed.

The Federal Environment protection (Impact of Proposals Act) 1974, is the very foundation stone of the EIS process, and this is where the change must be.

There must be accountability for what has been written, or excluded in an EIS, and there must be an ACT that guarantees honesty and reliability in the process of determining the impact of proposed developments on the environment and on people, now and future - voters.

A gun can be a good thing in the right place; for instance if you are in the bush starving, if hunting vermin, or just technical target shooting, - not in a shopping centre full of people, and that essentially is what this airport would be.

Please do not turn Western Sydney into a ghetto, for if an airport were to be built at Badgerys Creek, this is surely what would happen.

There is a correct time and place for everything, and 1999 and the future, and Badgerys Creek an airport, is not the correct time, nor the place, to build an airport of any kind.



Western Sydney needs a dream, not a nightmare.

On this page and the next, you will find a proposal for the 1770 hectares area of land that we, the community, owns at Badgerys Creek that will create a multitude of jobs. The type of thing that would give us, and all of Australia something to be proud of. (1770 ha - 1770 the year Captain Cook landed here)

- Something to bring us tourists and tourist dollars, and jobs.-

- Something to justify a north/south rail linkup, and the planned new roads.

A high technology environmental resource and research centre for all to use.

- What is it? Something like the

"Cumberland Plains Australian National and World Environment Education Park."

* A world renowned tourist destination with working models of the earths history and evolution, featuring the past, present and future of planet earth.

* A natural history museum annexed to the Australian Museum in Sydney.

* A park to conserve remnant Australian flora and fauna, and a Jurassic Period forest of plants such as the newly discovered Wollemi Pine and other Australian endangered plants and species. Dinosaur footprints and plaques naming them. Holographic images of dinosaurs in the forest walking paths.

* A Natural Australian wildlife habitat for Australian fauna.

* An earth atmospheric science module on pollution and the causes of atmospheric pollution.

*An environmental cinema, with multiple information movies of choice, and environmental audio/visual displays.

* A link to the Hubble telescope and other earth viewing satellites.

* A chemical and environmental database, with computer aided modelling and workstations, for professionals and the public alike.

* A high tech information centre on the Blue Mountains National Park, once world heritage listing is finalised.

* Of course, an aboriginal natural history museum, with live displays and operated by local aboriginal tribes.

- A Truly Australian Park, - an all Australian Park! The only one of it's type in the world!

This is the type of positive development that western Sydney needs, a place where western Sydney people could genuinely find work. A development that western Sydney and all of Australia could be Truly Proud of.

New South Wales started the first national park in Australia and one of the first in the world

- The Royal National Park at Sutherland.

-This proposal would be the first of its kind in the world, and would be unique.

Let this be the next step.

End note.

Please make a decision; this is our last chance to officially make heard our objections to this proposed blight on our lives. Please make a decision on behalf of your community of Australia, and on your own behalf as well, and please ask as many of your friends as possible to understand what this is, and say no to Badgerys Creek Airport and yes to something really positive.

Come on Government! How about an EIS on the "Cumberland Plains Australian National and World Environment Education Park" in Western Sydney, investigated and planned with a new and reliable Federal Government, EIS process?

The "beneficiaries" will still do well out of it as well - we can ALL come out as winners.

Peter Cork

Chairman: F.R.A.A.N.

I must take the opportunity to thank my fellow working members of F.R.A.A.N., and others, for working so hard, and spending so much of their free time, effort and money to combat this proposed airport. A job that simply had, and has, to be done. They have done this out of their own pockets, to fight with passion and care, for what is right.

We remember sadly too, but with fond memory, those who have passed away during this protracted and hard fight - Anne Cork, and Alan Read - amongst others.

PS. Many people in Sydney have suggested that a Royal Commission be conducted into the Badgerys Creek selection and process etc, and also the dealings at KSA.

We would support that motion whole heartedly.


Letter of permission from Australian Geographic.

Burragorang valley photo

What may be the first crash at Kingsford Smith Airport.


A Sacred Heart at Badgerys.

In a grassy paddock (pasture)

aside a dusty red clay road

Well nigh o'er a century ago

A stone is placed

upon another stone

- A church begins to grow.

Then stands there proudly,

all alone.

- A sacred heart

for this working rural town.

Surrounded slowly

by headstones carefully carved

by masons skilled,

and proud.

- Sentinels left

to guard bones and flesh; and memory,

of close knit family and precious friends,

loved one's true.

A sacred place of God and worship,

a sacred place indeed. (Sacred soil)

Years pass by

Then business forces gather and pounce

- An illogical decision is made.

Amidst these people,

the cities power and gas,

and the precious water

A political decision is made.

"This the place

for an airport international."

"This where it will be - we must take the land

from the farming man,

we must knock the little church down."

The heritage of the land was raped,

But the little church stood strong.

And the Government took the land

from the common man - then let him rent it back.

whilst bureaucrats boiled and toiled

to knock the little church down.

- The pastor is a strong man

with pride and honour, and truth.

With passion he defended "the heart",

as he should,

for he was the Shepard of this church.

And the pastor's hair was white now,

the stress had hurt his heart,

when Government forces struck a deal

- to relocate the church.

Stone by stone

the church came down;

the sacred graves were moved

- re-built in a different place,

And then for years and years

the paddocks just stood bare.

Whilst a malignant cancer grew behind,

and politics and greedy local "power men"

plotted and planned an airport;

hence to be more "rich".

- But they are blind.

- "Rich" is the white haired pastor,

who cares for the common man.

- Poor is the greedy man, with one and many zeros

in his precious bank account.

And thus the evil part, is added to this saga

as life has become ugly for Sydney around,

-would be for ever and more, if the airport should be built.

No matter how corrupt and wrong, all is,

the honest truth the power of right, is strong.

In a paddock out near Badgerys

a small stone church

stands proud.

And the sacred heart still beats on.

P. J. Cork.

Jan -1998.