The Purple Summary

 

There are 3 Summarys Now for a 2nd Airport at Badgerys Creek this text, relates to Summary Number1 the first                 Summary produced when Holsworthy was being considered.

Notes regarding this Purple Badgerys EIS summary. (Summary number 1)

The reader should note that this document was withdrawn from general circulation, once the decision was made to dump Holsworthy as an alternative second Sydney Airport site. 

FRAAN did not endorse in any way, the Holsworthy site as a second airport, but rather, views this document as a means of clearly showing the nature and style of serious bias that has been shown throughout the EIS process, towards the construction of an airport at Badgerys Creek.

We had been using this document to describe this bias, at public forums, and feel that this reason, more than any                   other explains the withdrawal of this purple summary - replaced with a new (pale blue) summary.

The Pale Blue (2nd) Summary which had the greater part of the Holsworthy component removed from it as well as many of the most important Badgerys maps (eg. the 7OdBA noise impact maps - which we feel is extremely unfair for people attempting to determine what impact they may suffer, from the new EIS summary).

(July 99 a new Dark Blue (3rd) summary for the Supplement of the final draft thats 3 summarys                                        (Purple, Light Blue and Dark Blue) for the one E.I.S.)                                                                   

The summary and Main report do not reflect many of the negative impacts described in the technical papers of the               EIS either, yet it is the Main report and summary documents, and not the technical papers, that politicians would read to base their decision on.

Pages 13./15. Compare the scales and presentation between the Badgerys options versus that shown for the                     Holsworthy options. (Badgerys options all jammed on top of each other and the choice of scale [20.8ml = 1km]                   not showing surrounding development by virtue that the photo is smaller on page, and shows only the proposed                      site itself) and the Holsworthy options show each individual option, larger photos, and far wider scale                                      [12.6ml =1km] and view - Why a need for such bias?

Page 17. The Purple “dot” future employment area - the ex CSIRO site, 344 hectares sold for $3.5 million, nothing                like local land value, and sold to a “big” developer in the area., and Sydney. He has made it quite clear that he would only accept option A, the 2 runway NE -SW option. 

Who would put an industrial area at the end of runways in the 1990’s - surely now-a-days one would plant trees, or leave parkland, at this type of location, relative to a major runway? 

This really makes ‘option C’ or ‘option B’ unviable, and leaves only “option A” open. (Also see page 51 comment)

Page 21. The only place where one can visually compare the new EIS with the heavily discredited 1985 EIS with                    the new 1997 Badgerys EIS. 

The 1997 ' Option A’ ANEC noise zone is shown no larger than the 1985 ANEF, (ANEF and ANEC are same) even          though the new option A is almost 3 times larger than the 1985 option. 

The then Federal Airports Corporation manager described the 1985 ANEF as ‘seriously understated’.

The new proposal is for a full international airport rather than the original ‘General Aviation” proposal from 1985,                   and the runways are considerably lengthened from the original proposal. (1.8km, 1985 to 4km, 1997).

 How is it possible then, that the ANEC shown for option A now, is effectively no larger than the 1985 proposal ANEF?        Something is VERY wrong.

Pages 24 and 25. Badgerys 7OdBA Noise impact maps. 

See that the ‘red line? noise affected zone runs around some half a million people right side of the page - even though              the runways point almost straight at these people. 

The EIS notes in the technical papers that “final flight paths cannot be advised”, so how can these people be left out                of the statistical base? 

(Shown most dramatically in the comparative assesment section at the rear of this summary.)

Pages 27 and 28. Holsworthy 7OdBA Noise impact maps. 

Now the people avoided by Badgerys 7OdBA noise impact maps, are included, although notice on page 28 that only the       small cross runway from Holsworthy option B is directed at them. 

Compare these with the worst case sleep disturbance numbers shown on pages 45 and 46 for 2016. 

How is it that Holsworthy option B disturbs 47,000 people and Badgerys option A only 8,000, option B only 6,000. 

Again, something is very wrong. Also, what happened to the 2.25 million people predicted to live in Sydney’s west by 2011 by the State Development Department? Plague?

It is worth noting that the quiet 747 - 400 series aircraft was used for noise modeling, whereas the much louder                    747 - 200 series aircraft was used to generate recent noise footprint maps for Kingsford Smith Airport Long Term Operating Plan.’ (LTOP)- The 727 - 200 series aircraft is more likely to use Badgerys Airport given that it is proposed as a freight and general Sydney overflow airport. 

It should also be noted that the Badgerys proposal is designed without a curfew, unlike KSA which is curfew protected          11 pm - 6am, therefore noise impacts from Badgerys will be significantly greater.

Page 51. Environmental Management. Badgerys option C “can reduce visual impact on Kelvin Park” Same “big” developer    who bought the CSIRO site - why isn’t there any reduction of visual impact on other heritage items in the area? 

This developer is chairman of the South West Sydney Regional Development Organization (SWSRDO) and features           powerfully in the Greater Western Sydney Economic Development Board (GWSEDB) which is chaired by Jim Bosnjack. 

Both organizations are strongly pro Badgerys. 

Both Chairmen stand to personally benefit immensely if an airport were to be built at Badgerys Creek.

Did you notice the purple writing on the purple paper in the rear of the book? 

See if you can find out what it means - hint, look for the tiny writing.

Read right through the book and you will find all sorts of serious anomalies.

FRAAN believes that the reader should be very wary of anything presented to them, within the EIS, as being accurate            or necessarily truthful. For instance, fog incidence data was collected from between 9am and 3pm - which is why the             EIS says that there is no fog at Badgerys Creek.

Peter Cork

Chairman: FRAAN.