Fairfield Residents Against Airport Noise  -                                           F.R.A.A.N.

                                                                                    P.O. BOX 20, Horsley Park, N.S.W. 2164-ph/fax (02) 9620 1428

BADGERYS CREEK AIRPORT - REASONS AGAINST. version 18. Our "Stick" 17 pgs

As we now know, Kingsford Smith Airport would not be built at Mascot today, but would built at the very least, at Kurnell or another site well away from dense urban development, preferably outside the Sydney basin. Given our knowledge of today’s technology, and knowing that we can even tunnel under the water; knowing that we have the advantage of massive amounts of useable land space well away from large amounts of people, and sites which are not environmentally critical, there is no reason why we must build an airport at Badgerys Creek. Can we afford to repeat the mistake of Mascot again, this time with an even higher human impact? Aircraft from Badgerys Creek can only fly over arable land, our food, our drinking water, our electricity provider, and people. We remind the reader that an airport is a very long term development and operation, which continually expands - any mistakes we make with this decision are long term.

We point out that the proposed "South Creek Valley Sector Development" in the same region was knocked out by a NSW State Government Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process chiefly because of its negative impact on air and water quality. This was a proposal for a very high density urban development, and industrial area. Is the reader aware that somehow this development has reappeared in the Federal EIS for the proposed Badgerys Creek airport? - all is not well with this process.

Earlier versions of this document have been supplied to PPK, (The company contracted by the Commonwealth Government to conduct and prepare an EIS into the proposed Badgerys Creek Airport), along with a far more detailed submission. All issues discussed in this document have been brought to the attention of PPK. You will note however, that very few of the following issues have been addressed in the Draft EIS and it’s supplement, or in the main EIS technical documents, prepared by PPK.


In the event of an aircraft malfunction, and subsequent crash; or continued various pollution impacts from aircraft, and/or from attendant infrastructures, the following critical items must be considered.

West :-

-Warragamba Dam &/or 9000sq.km. direct catchment area. (What lands on the ground goes directly into the water.) The dam stores 2,057,000 megalitres of water, or 4 times the volume of Sydney Harbour.

-Chlorine Gas Storage for chlorine addition to water.

-Mountain range/National Park - rare and endangered flora/fauna.

-Residential suburbs - including many new subdivisions eg. Green Hills Estate - people. -Schools.

-Food farms, vegetables, etc. largest dairy in Aust. supplies approx. 80% Sydney Milk.

-TARA Girl Guides Assoc. camping area.

-Long Bore shooting range at Silverdale (noted in 1992 Parliamentary Standing works minutes as being of real concern - ‘are we going to shoot down aircraft on the approach to the airport?’ but still ignored in new EIS.)

-Warragamba recreation/picnic area accommodates approx. 750,000 visitors per year.

-Bents Basin recreation facility.

-Wallacia recreation area.

-Shopping centres etc.


-No "soft" put down area apart from Warragamba Dam.

-Fog - local dense fog often up until 11am.

-Winds - after fog period, usual extreme high wind period (S-SW-W) for about 2mths.

(Pilots express fear of "wind shear" due to foul wind on lee (east) side of mountains.)

East :-

-Prospect reservoir with chlorine storage and additions facility - new water filter.

-Fleurs radio telescope.


-Food farms, poultry farms etc.

-Shopping centres etc.

-Blacktown Drive In Movie Theatre.

-Released proposed flight paths go over very heavily populated western Sydney.

-Moomba Sydney GAS line, plus subsidiary line.

-Mass movement land slip (Pn Picton) area in Horsley Heights, Abbotsbury and Cecil Hills. Communications towers above Abbotsbury township - Moomba Sydney High pressure Gas pipeline also passes through this land slip land.

-Sydney West electricity POWER transfer station.

-Kemps Creek electricity POWER transfer station.

-Power lines (particularly on ridge tops) -easement between above stations and Sydney.

-Very high orange/white communications tower (and others).

-Highest ridge of land between sea and mountains, east coast.

-Fog - local dense fog often up until 11am.

-Winds - after fog period, usual extreme high wind period (S-SW-W) for about 2mths.

-Largest industrial area in NSW (Smithfield/Wetherill Park), including ICI, BOC gas plant, etc, etc.

- Quarantine station.


-Eastern Creek raceway.

-Horsley Homestead, which has an heritage order.

-Minimal open safe put down area.

-Residential suburbs - including many new subdivisions - eg. Cecil Hills, Hinchinbrook, Abbotsbury, Elizabeth Park - people.

-Hoxton Park airport.

- No "soft" put down area.

South :-

-Overseas Telecommunications Commission.

-Residential suburbs - including new subdivisions eg. Kelvin Park - people.

-Schools, University.

-Camden Airport.

- No "soft" put down area.

North :-

-WATER supply lines, Warragamba to Prospect, then Sydney and suburbs. 2,630 megalitres per day.

-RAAF/RAN munitions dump Orchard Hills. (explosives, shells and missiles).

-Sydney Model Engineers Society - Luddenham Model Park, recreation facility.

-Richmond RAAF airfield.

-Residential suburbs - including new subdivisions - eg. Glenmore Park, Capitol Hill - people.

-Schools, University.

-Sydney’s major western distributing roads ie. Great Western Hwy. & F4.

- No "soft" put down area apart from Prospect reservoir (which if impacted, would cause the wall to collapse).

NB: Several of the above items, if involved with heavy aircraft impact, would result in catastrophic repercussions to the ENTIRE Sydney region, eg. Warragamba Dam wall, Prospect Reservoir, Water supply lines, Chlorine holdings, Munitions dump, Electricity supply stations, Gas line, Industrial areas and large scale pollution to Warragamba Dam and surrounds.

- MOST AIRLINE operators have indicated that THEY DO NOT want to operate from this proposed airport.


Tourism. An often put argument is that a second international airport must be sited in our Sydney basin in order to properly service the tourist market. This premise is misguided, since tourists (particularly from Europe and Japan) frequently use airports considerable distances from major cities, and then commute back to that city via fast rail services. Pandering to the comfort of the tourist industry, or the bank account of multi-national companies, or local land developers, can hardly be sufficient reason to place such a massive risk on the health, safety and well being of the entire Sydney population.

Job creation has been touted as a major reason for developing an airport at the proposed Badgerys site. The 1998 Draft EIS indicates that some 63,000 jobs would be created by this airport.

A Federal Airport Corporation document states that: "... there will be jobs for airline staff, in the warehousing, road freight and air freight industries, in catering and accommodation, in the car rental and taxi industries, the fuel industry and in aircraft electronics, vehicle, airfield and building maintenance. The 1985 EIS estimated that these airport related activities could eventually reach between 500 and 900 jobs." (Our emphasis)

We point out too, that many people must necessarily lose their jobs, due to lack of sleep, and/or incompatible business operations (such as chicken/vegetable farms) in relation to being close to the proposed airport. No matter where an airport should be sited, jobs for Australians would be created.

- FUEL requirements must be met by road transport, through populated Sydney regions. Since there is no provision for a pipeline, for at least some period of time after the opening of a proposed Badgerys Creek airport, there would be a period of time when extremely high volumes of fuel, and therefore associated haulage traffic (about 65 - 70 tankers per day), will be evident between the Clyde fuel refineries and the proposed Badgerys Creek airport. In the event of a serious road incident, this would represent an extremely high personal injury risk to a large section of the population, and also a serious environmental risk.

- QUARANTINE WASTE (waste disposed from aircraft whose port of origin is outside Australia) has potentialities of spreading undesirable pests to Australian agriculture (people too?) and must be disposed of in a safe and efficient manner. The only incineration facility for quarantine waste in Sydney was the Waterloo incinerator, which has recently been closed down. Currently, toxic quarantine waste from Kingsford Smith Airport (KSA) is road transported via normal truck to the Castlereagh land fill site. Coupled with a proposed airport at Badgerys Creek, this would mean transporting dangerous waste through enormous areas of populated Sydney .



- FOG - very heavy fogs for extended period of the year. (Older and/or smaller aircraft are not fitted with apparatus to enable them to land at airports heavily affected by fog airports). We also point out that motor vehicles must also negotiate local roads to access the proposed airport site.

- ELECTRICAL STORM - Recently reported that the airport site suffers from higher than normal incidence of electrical storm activity. This is attributed to a geological dyke of iron laden basalt (which is reportedly situated underneath airport location). This could be of particular danger to aircraft on the ground.

- WIND - after fog period, usual extreme high wind period (S-SW-W, "August winds")

- WIND TURBULENCE/ WIND SHEAR - Aust. International Pilots Association reported deep concern over presence of strong turbulence generated on lee side (east) of mountains during strong westerly winds, also thermal activity over the mountains. The incidence and impact of wind shear has not been identified for this airport proposal. Even basic issues such as Radar placement and/or operation have not been addressed in the new 1997 draft EIS summary.

- SYDNEY ELECTRICITY SUPPLY - Essentially the entire Sydney Electricity supply feeds through two major supply stations very local to the proposed site. The Kemps Creek Substation is virtually at the end of the main runways, Option A and B, or the cross runway Option C.

Given that aircraft crashes usually occur at or near the end of runways, this is of particular concern for this proposed site. This would be of particular concern during periods of weather extreme, when aircraft appear to be more susceptible to malfunction, and when there is personal need for electricity, for heating or cooling purposes. Loss of electrical supply to Sydney would also have severe economic impacts for industry etc.

- HIGH TENSION ELECTRIC POWER LINES along a high ridge top in Horsley Park escarpment, and near Mamre Rd. in flight paths. One line to the South West must be moved.

The major Sydney power supply easement is also in extremely close proximity, and in direct alignment with runways, and the NSW supply station is noted to be within the high risk crash area.

- FLIGHTPATH/AIRSPACE CONFLICT - Airports at Mascot (KSA), Bankstown, Camden, Hoxton Park, Wilton, and RAAF Richmond all have aircraft operations which overfly the Sydney region and surrounds.

- CIVIL REACTION - There must be very real risk of property owners and residents, pushed past their ability to cope and with little to lose, taking matters into their own hands and threatening air security.

- BIRD STRIKE - There are a great many ponds, dams and green tree areas in the surround of this proposed airport and/or in direct alignment with the proposed runways. These are the harbour of a great many bird species, along with other flora/fauna, some of which are rare and endangered. There are also common occurrences of high flying carrion, and other high flying water birds. Aircraft impact with large birds frequently causes an emergency situation which causes aircraft to immediately dump fuel and re-land. There are recorded instances of bird strike actually causing aircraft to crash.

- AIRCRAFT POWER AVAILABILITY - We are informed that jet aircraft suffer dramatic power losses at temperatures greater than 29 degrees Celsius. There is concern that heavily laden aircraft may experience difficulty gaining sufficient safe height to satisfactorily clear high land escarpments at the ends of the runways safely. This is clearly shown in the EIS airport planning report via its obstacle limitation surface plans. This also shows that almost all aircraft operations would have to be conducted in and out of the north eastern area of the airport, over Sydney, for options A and B.

- AIRCRAFT CRASH - Although a horrifying thought, given the dense aircraft traffic that would be created over metropolitan Sydney, constantly increasing in volume, and given the other risks incorporated with aircraft flights, to and from a proposed airport sited at Badgerys Creek, we must consider that an aircraft crash at some time during the long term future is entirely possible. We are described as having one of the highest "mixes" of aircraft activity in the world. We have seen major aircraft crashes happen at a horrifying rate around the world recently. This site is surrounded by Sydney’s vital "backbone" infrastructures, very dense areas of population, and potential "targets" which would cause wide spread human fatality in their own right, if impacted by something as volatile as a large aircraft. eg - chlorine holdings at Warragamba, or particularly the small zone which encompasses the NSW electricity supply, gas supply, and water supply pipelines.

- AIR QUALITY - "Few places in the world would be more vulnerable to photochemical smog than Western Sydney." (Prof. F. Bell, Environmental Scientist, 3/1992)

- Warnings of the potential for Western Sydney to become a potential pollution trap were made as far back as 1975. (State Pollution Control Commission 1973) These warnings were ignored.

- "The Western Sydney Region is now at a point of pollution saturation" (N. Child, Environmental Scientist. 12/3/1997)

- We know of the air pollution problems that other "basin" cities (Los Angeles, Tokyo, Mexico and Athens) with geographic and/or meteorological similarities to ourselves have, and the huge costs to human population in terms of health (including fatalities) and economic cost related to air quality. eg; "health costs related to air quality are higher in California than all other 49 States (of the USA) combined." (EnviroData - version 1.5, Nov. 1994)

A proposed airport at Badgerys Creek, along with it’s attendant infrastructure, industrial developments, and massive volumes of associated road traffic must only add an unacceptable increase to the Sydney Basin toxic air quality problem, leading to a replication of the extreme problems experienced by the other "basin" cities noted.

There are a large number of quarries and tips in operation in close proximity to this site, many of which are now (or will in future) be used for landfill by rubbish disposal companies, such as Pacific Waste, Enviroguard, Penrith Waste, and Brandowns, amongst others. Quarries and tips are usually associated with large volumes of dust, and large numbers of seagulls/other birds. Unless cleared, bird life could represent a grave impact risk to aircraft.

We are concerned that there may be a conflict of interest in so much that PPK (formerly Rust PPK) who have been contracted to perform the EIS, is a sister company to "Pacific Waste Management", which is directly near the proposed site. Waste Management Incorporated (WMI) owns both companies.


- AIR POLLUTION - As noted above, air pollution is an issue of critical importance to the Sydney region. The area around Badgerys Creek is already regarded as the worst air pollution region of Australia. There exists an extremely high rate of respiratory and heart/lung ailment and disease in the Sydney basin, particularly in the outer western Sydney region. Air Pollution is attributable to at least 400 human fatalities each year.(Metropolitan Air Quality Study) Recent air and health studies have shown that the Sydney basin is on the verge of a critical air quality crisis. Thus, this reason alone must mean that a development as toxic as an International Airport must not be allowed within the Sydney Basin and Airshed.

- WATER POLLUTION - The Sydney fresh water drinking supply and 9000 sq.km. direct catchment at and around Lake Burragorang (Warragamba Dam) are essential to all residents of Sydney. Without doubt, this is our most precious resource. At a Chamber of Commerce meeting 25.8'95, (then) Minister Brereton stated that operations "in the curfew hours, in the evening hours, operate over Warragamba Dam." EIS supplied flight paths indicate concentrated aircraft activity over the dam, for all options. Runways are also in alignment with Prospect Reservoir. This represents virtually the entire Sydney fresh water supply.

- It has been reported that hydro carbons once mixed with chlorine become extremely carcinogenic. This was indicated in a separate and specialised submission made to the Draft EIS guidelines.

The 1997 Draft EIS summary comments "Analysis carried out for the Draft EIS does not indicate any contamination of Sydney’s water supply or ecological impacts due to aerial pollutants" (Pg 35). Curiously, "Potential to exceed ANZECC guidelines for benzene levels in drinking water" is noted as "low"(Pg 47). There appears to be a conflict within the document on this issue, since the latter statement appears to indicate that there is an indication of contamination of the water supply. Sydney Water advise that the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), not ANZECC, dictate the guidelines for water quality.

- LACK OF SEWERAGE AND STORM WATER PIPELINES - West of Wallgrove Road is not sewered and relies entirely on septic tank, envirocyle or direct runoff which eventually finds it's way into the Hawkesbury/Nepean river system, already at critical pollution levels.

- ROOF WATER CATCHMENTS - There are a great many farmlets and residences west of Kemps Creek whose entire household drinking water supply is dependent on rain water catchment from their roofs. Various aircraft pollutants will put these families and their water supplies at severe risk.

- FOOD POLLUTION over vegetable/food growing areas, also over the major MILK production farm at Luddenham, which is the major supplier to Sydney. This area is essentially one of Sydney’s only major remaining productive arable food growing areas, and currently supplies an enormous percentage (above 70%) of Sydney's fresh foods, including a high percentage of the Sydney broiler poultry and egg supply. The impacts of various pollutants on these areas will obviously have a considerable negative economic flow on effect, to the Sydney community.

- GROUND POLLUTION - Emergency fuel dumping, routine jet engine exhaust emissions.

- LAND SLIP - There is mass movement unstable landslip soil (Pn Picton) along the ridge, above the new suburb of Abbotsbury. (Vibration concerns) The Moomba-Sydney gas pipeline also passes through this.

- WORLD HERITAGE LISTING has been applied for the Blue Mountains area in part, not granted 1999. There is major risk to rare native flora and fauna from noise and pollution.

- RARE AND ENDANGERED FLORA AND FAUNA exists in nearby wetlands, pastures/grasslands and National Parks.

- FIRE HAZARD - Fuel dumping, exhaust emission may contribute a major fire accelerant factor to the Nattai, Blue Mountains, Wollemi and Kanangra-Boyd National Parks, and open rural pastures/grasslands.

- VISUAL POLLUTION - Minor factor, but never-the-less westward of Wallgrove Road is currently visually attractive, as are the night skies. This proposed airport will destroy that. It is mind boggling that the 1997 Draft EIS summary identifies: "can reduce visual impact on Kelvin Park." (Pg 52)? What does this mean? If it meant Kelvin House, then option A and B should have identified Horsley Homestead at the very least. There is no mention of any visual impact on any other area - which there obviously will be.


- MENTAL HEALTH of 24 hr noise affected residents, home owners who have been stripped of their future dream, businesses etc.

- PHYSICAL HEALTH of airport affected residents, potentially entire Sydney region. (Water, Air, Stress)

- HOUSE AND LAND DEVALUATION for large numbers of owners in outer western suburbs.

These are properties currently in quiet areas, previously unaffected by any type of detrimental outside influence.

* This area is essentially the last remaining open area left in the Sydney region available for expansion, be it for housing, industry, or food growth. This airport will sterilise ALL of that available land, now, and for the future. Can we afford to sterilise this much available land?

- NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS have been allowed to develop in local areas, some within EIS shown 25 and 20 ANEF zones. These owners have been led to believe that they will not be negatively affected at all by proposed airport. Most have been allowed to construct new houses without any form of noise insulation.

- JOB LOSS - Inevitably there will be many small businesses destroyed (farms, home businesses, owner operators) Also fish hatcheries in flight paths are at risk of being destroyed. No compensation plan has been offered.

- PUBLIC FACILITY DEGRADATION - Schools, disabled and old persons facilities, Hospitals, etc. in flightpaths. Schools in the vicinity of airport flight paths, are identified by world studies, to suffer enormous losses of education value to students.

- The ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES operated trade routes along the waterways in the area. Many other heritage items/areas, have not been identified in this Draft EIS summary.

- TAX WASTE - Vast amounts of public funds have been, and are being spent on planning and construction of a facility that almost certainly will be unable to function effectively, because of site and social constraints. Effectively, tax payers are paying for an EIS, to build an airport. The very same taxpayers whose lives will be destroyed if the proposed airport goes ahead.



Knowing that laws exist to prevent excess noise affects from lawn mowers, cars, trucks, parties, recreation facilities (cite; Luna Park) etc. etc., how could anyone contemplate an airport in a place such as Badgerys Creek, at the foothills of the mountains at the back of the Sydney basin, with all of the people of Sydney between it and the sea?


Original 1985 ANEF Noise Exposure Contours Map. (Kinhill - Stearns)

Australian Noise Exposure Forecast. (ANEF)

- this was commissioned/produced in 1985.

- NO consideration for common meteorological conditions such as temperature inversion had been factored into the 1985 ANEF.

- NO consideration has been made for ground elevation/changes in height above sea level in this map. It is believed to have been generated on the basis that airstrip and surrounding area is exactly flat, and at sea level (S.White, ex-FAC manager has publicly admitted this twice). The map can also be folded in mirror fashion, with contour lines lining up with each other.

- Since many varied maps showing the topography of the area were available at the time of preparation of the ANEF and the EIS, and the hills were already there, the statement on ANEF map that "determination of these variables was based on the best available information at the time of the preparation of the Draft EIS" is untruthful.

As seen from the Sydney 3rd Runway debacle, the ANEF system has proved to be an extremely poor predictor of human discomfort.

*Knowing that the new configuration of this planned airport has increased dramatically, in width, length and direction, the noise footprint from this proposed airport will likewise obviously increase massively, and yet this has not indicated in the new EIS or supplement.

The 1997 DRAFT EIS summary ANEC (Australian Noise Exposure Concept) shows that option A ANEF is barely changed in size (length) from the the 1985 ANEF. Since the proposed Badgerys Creek site has high escarpments on either end of option A and B runways, far higher than the site itself, (which Mr White described would have aircraft fly over them extremely low, so that planes will be able to "duck" into the airport, after coming over the nearby escarpments), it seems incongruous that the ANEC’s for Badgerys are no larger than the earlier small airport proposal. The option A ANEC is barely changed from the 1985 version ANEF.

- The area eastward of Badgerys Creek to Cowpasture Road, and westward to Blue Mountains consists of rolling hills and valleys, natural ampitheatres, that carry and echo sound. These areas display extremely low ambient background noise levels. These are essentially extremely quiet areas, particularly at night, when a single motor vehicle can be heard travelling for considerable distances with ease. This means that sound levels in these areas, in variance with coastal city based airports, will be far more affected by the affects of high levels of loud jet engine noise, and other aircraft, and that created by vehicular traffic etc. attending the airport.

- The inland Sydney Basin, and sub-basins, often suffer from the effects of "Temperature Inversion" and "Mixing Layer" air barrier where sound and pollution are trapped from low altitudes, against the ground. These conditions can cause severe sound reflection. This means that there will be many particular days when sound levels, and pollution levels will be extremely bad, probably intolerable.

- Since this airport is proposed to operate as a non-curfew airport, but is situated at the rear of Sydney, it's suburbs, and at the foothills of the Blue Mountains, aircraft using this proposed airport during these hours will have to fly over huge areas of populated Sydney. Particularly during the night, noise disturbance will affect people far away from the proposed airport. We have been professionally advised that this effect will range to 40km from the proposed airport.

- Most houses in outer western/western suburbs areas are of cavity wall (ie. brick veneer), single story construction, and exposed to noise from all directions. Although few houses have actually been insulated, inner city (near KSA) experience has shown that this style of building is extremely difficult (or almost impossible) and expensive to effectively insulate against noise. New houses in newer suburbs near Badgerys have not been built with effective insulation properties or methodology.

- Flight paths from a proposed airport at Badgerys Creek are likely to change many times in the future, as politics dictates. A 70dBA contour from the "Long Term Operating Plan" for KSA reaches out as far as Horsley Park, some 35km (direct) from KSA. The 1997 EIS summary shows a 70dBA contour terminating some 8km from the end of the runway option A and B, and about 7km option C.

Since this proposed site is at the rear of the Sydney metropolitan area, and at the foothills of the Blue Mtns. and since most airport flight paths from most airports are typically "spaghetti", it seems obvious that the greater percentage of aircraft using a proposed Badgerys Creek airport will necessarily have to fly over huge populated areas of the Western Suburbs, and greater Sydney. This is likely to be at low levels. There have been no figures, volumes, or flight paths given for helicopter traffic and other light aircraft (also very noisy and pollutive) operating from this proposed airport in the EIS.


The fact that the proposed new airport will be owned and operated by private owners (likely to be from outside of Australia) could mean that in order to maximise profits, airport size, and air traffic volume will be considerably increased from the original plan. This could also mean far less accountability for noise problems and/or other associated airport problems, without the safeguards afforded people near KSA by current Politics/Government Depts. who supply compensation, insulation etc. We remind that KSA has a curfew, the proposed Badgerys Creek airport is designed, and also lobbied by inner city politicians, to have no curfew.


- Because KSA movements are increasing at a very high rate, the proposed Badgerys Creek airport will not ease current operation volumes at KSA, particularly over the long term.

- Since there will be serious conflict of aircraft airspace in the air over Sydney, some aircraft will necessarily have to remain at very low altitudes to avoid operational conflicts from KSA. We are reliably informed that a proposed airport at Badgerys Creek will force a return to the "Bennelong Funnel" operations at KSA, making the current "long term operating plan" for KSA obsolete.

- Given the extreme fog conditions common to Badgerys Creek, there will often be occasions, particularly during the late night/early morning periods, when aircraft will be unable to land at the proposed Badgerys Creek airport. There are many aircraft that are unable to land in fog bound conditions. This would probably mean that these aircraft will have to land at Kingsford Smith Airport, which rarely suffers from fog restrictions, and that local city residents (and the rest of Sydney) who are currently protected by a night curfew, will find this curfew to be put in severe jeopardy. This will add considerable further pressure to the inner city residents.

This airport, as well as Bankstown airport, are being overloaded by the considerable level of regional aircraft traffic forced to come into Sydney (approx 99,000 per year), because there is no other international or major domestic airport outside of the Sydney basin, for them to be able to use. Although we are unable to learn exactly what the percentage is, we are aware that a vast percentage of these people flying into Sydney, do so simply so that they can carry on their journey in a larger domestic or international aircraft.


- PROPOSED ROADWORKS - the M4, Wallgrove Road, Elizabeth Drive, Cumberland Highway and local roads are currently already at peak traffic flow during particular peak traffic times of day, very often they come to a complete stop. Proposed new roadworks are necessary now, just to accommodate current demands, particularly in view of the enormous new western Sydney housing developments. It would seem that the proposed upgrading of roads would not be adequate to accommodate the massive demand/increase created by the proposed airport.

- TRUCKS - Currently every primary and perishable food producer, every value high producer (such as wines) and general population aircraft user from the whole of the state of NSW, has no choice other than to transport their goods (and themselves) into Sydney via the one road to the north over the Hawkesbury River, the one major road over the Blue Mountains, and the one major road from the South, to access the only international airport available for NSW, at Mascot, Sydney. This not only costs a great deal, but also works towards choking the Sydney roads with massive volumes of heavy vehicles, as well as the considerable extra pollution levels inputted to the Sydney basin by them. Without doubt, this too will be causing an accelerated degrading of Sydney road surfaces because of the constant heavy vehicle traffic forced into using them.

- PROPOSED RAIL LINK - Necessary land resumption for the proposed rail link has not been carried out. The last State Govt. budget does not include any factoring for resumption, or construction of the rail link. There is no efficient public transport system such as light rail shown in any plan for the Sydney area, and particularly for that of the mid or outer Western suburbs of Sydney. As is, current public transport in these areas is deplorable. The 1997 Draft EIS summary shows this proposed rail link to terminate at the airport site, thereby giving no major public transport gain to Western Sydney (Pg 17).



- POULTRY - There is a considerable poultry industry in Badgerys Creek and it’s surrounding suburbs, supplying a vast percentage of Sydney’s broiler chicken, egg production and hatcheries. This is unlikely to be able to continue.

- FARMERS involved with food growing crops will find their crops and therefore jobs at risk.

- FISH HATCHERIES may find their businesses destroyed from routine aircraft fuel and emission fallout, and fuel dumping.

- SLEEP DEPRIVATION - ALL JOBS - People suffering a continued severe loss of sleep are unlikely to be able to work effectively, and therefore risk their job security, and their mental stability.

- COMPENSATION - No compensation plan has been offered for any business operator whose business is detrimentally affected by the proposed airport. No inner city business experiencing loss of profits since the commissioning of the third runway has been compensated for loss.


- BENTS BASIN recreational facility, used by approx. 60,000 people per year will be closed to public access. Other similar facilities could also be closed after the opening of the proposed airport.

- WALLACIA recreational and camping area, local swimming area (also popular with city travellers) will also be affected severely enough to warrant possible closure.

- LONG BORE SHOOTING RANGE - Recreational facility where high powered guns are used. There are also two other shooting facilities nearby: Kemps Creek and Hibertus Club.

- WARRAGAMBA DAM - picnic and recreation area (approx 750,000 visitors per year).

- LUDDENHAM model park and recreation area. This facility operates high flying radio controlled model aircraft, and other radio controlled hobby ground craft.

- PROSPECT RESERVOIR recreational facility may also suffer severely enough to be unuseable.

- TARA GIRL GUIDES recreational and camping area will be rendered unusable. Tents are unable to be insulated.


Continued loss of sleep for a large segment of the population will mean associated mental and medical problems.

- There are many "deep generation" owned properties in the proposed airport area. There are many other new residents of outer Western Sydney who deliberately located in these regions to be AWAY from the city and suburban high pace and noise levels to enjoy an outdoor lifestyle. The operation of this proposed airport will undoubtedly cause huge amounts of anger and bitterness from these people.

- Parents who always believed that they would be leaving future generations a worthwhile inheritance, to be proud of past family generations’ efforts, will be faced with a far less than ideal circumstance.

- Many new home owners have spent their past life savings, and entered into long term future mortgages of 25yrs or more, in order to build and live in their "dream home." Most have large outdoor yard areas, which are used as a major part of this outdoor lifestyle. Many may find that potential loss of value of their investment, and loss of their dream (of a perceived quiet life in a quiet area), to be shattering.

- Vast numbers of houses will undoubtedly need to have sound insulation installed, particularly in view of the non curfew operation of airport. Inner city experience indicates that this high cost will often have to be borne by the home owner. Qualified installers of sound insulation are scarce. Inner city experience shows that large levels of frustration are caused by the massive disruption of dealing with Govt. agencies and sound insulation contractors. There is also repeat return of contractors to repair damages caused.

- High cost of living in constantly air conditioned housing (since windows and doors cannot be left open) is typically borne by residents.

- There are vast numbers of young families in the outer western suburbs, where mother and children are at home all day. These people will be constantly bombarded by noise. In some cases children will need to be kept inside all day, since parents will be unable to hear if child is in trouble outside.

- Removing the local population’s ability to enjoy outdoor activities such as sporting events, allowing children outside to play, or the humble, friendly backyard barbeque; effectively causing people to be locked inside their own homes, will undoubtedly cause major frustration to these people.

- Removing the ability of this same population to relax, by listening to music or watching TV will likewise cause huge amounts of frustration.

- The immorality of the Federal Govt. and Departments, and large private entrepreneurial business concerns, to threaten to destroy lifestyle, property value, "dream homes" and jobs/businesses; to refuse to supply basic information regarding the proposed airport; previous failure to consult with Western suburbs communities; failure to acknowledge serious concerns regarding the proposed airport; to cause residents to stall from proceeding with future personal plans; to place incredible stress on these people for more than ten years, and to (so far) treat residents of Western Sydney with total disregard, is causing large volumes of anger and frustration, and breaking down the basic belief in the integrity of our political system.


- The EIS commissioned for the 3rd Runway at KSA was shown to be entirely inaccurate, and in part, totally incorrect, even stated, fraudulent. At 2 public meetings held by Fed. E.P.A. (11/2/1996), Mr Barry Carbon (ex Executive Director, Fed. EPA), indicated that there was little if any chance of a new EIS finding against Badgerys Creek being a suitable site for a proposed airport, because of the way that the EIS process works. He also stated that less than 1% of EIS's find against the proposal.

- Impacts indicated by the community for the 1985 EIS were largely ignored. When the opportunity came for community response to the 1985 Draft EIS, these responses were simply placed in a supplement book and noted only in a general fashion. Many of the issues brought forwards then have not been investigated or included in this new 1998 EIS, or its supplement, or have been addressed inadequately.

- PPK, the company currently contracted to do the new EIS, have come under considerable criticism for inadequate EIS's for the Eastern Distributor, and the Orbital Road etc. There is concern over the fact that the parent, WMI, owns the Pacific Waste operation at Badgerys Creek, and that (then) Rust PPK did the EIS for the Pacific Waste proposal. This seems to indicate a serious conflict of interest. We ask then - ‘how is it that PPK could honestly conduct this EIS given their serious conflict of interest?’

- The PPK EIS process for the proposed Second Sydney Airport has been severely flawed. The first proposals document published by them (maps, and the first part of their public consultation/ information process) displays major mistakes; there are no scales, a great many suburbs are omitted around the proposed Badgerys site, the city of Fairfield is missing, a safety clause appearing for Holsworthy does not appear for the proposed Badgerys site, the scales of the two proposed sites are different, suburbs near Holsworthy are shown in large bold type, suburbs (that appear on the maps) near the proposed Badgerys site are in small print, the written information is in a totally different style between the two sites: promises of mailing information to all local residents has not been kept. etc.

1998 Draft EIS summary, 1999 EIS supplement summary.

We consider that as summaries of the Draft EIS and its supplement, these documents should be concise and highly pointed in there delivery and description of the impacts. We consider that any layman should be able to discern the absolute impacts that he/she may be subjected to. If further detail would be required by them, they should be able to gain this by further research into the major EIS document, the supplement or it’s working papers. The summary should be the fine edge of a supposed huge amount of research, and compilation of available reports, capable of informing all who read it, clearly and pointedly.

Rather, these documents abound in generalisations, and simply miss reporting on major possible impacts in a great many instances. We feel a school child from a local school should be able to take the summary home and report to his/her non English speaking parents, what the impact will be on their homes and lives, and or farms/businesses etc. All people in Sydney should be able ascertain what the environmental impacts to the basin in which they live will be, and what other economic impacts might flow on to them etc, clearly and quickly.

We have been continually advised during the process, by PPK, that this EIS would not be presenting information with any manner of bias what-so-ever. Western community based groups and local councils were led to believe that the process of determining which option (if any) was most suitable would be left up to the Government. Now we find in the Draft EIS and supplement summaries, that "The airport option or options which are considered to perform best against each criterion are shaded purple" Purple writing on purple paper.

- The current EIS is severe flawed: eg. travel time is nominated as 74mins from, and 60mins to the proposed site (Pg 52). There are many times when it is entirely possible to take more than 1hr simply to travel between Badgerys Creek and Liverpool Crossroads, via Elizabeth Drive and Copeland St. The M4 comes to a standstill most mornings and afternoons now, during peak.

- Once again, the aerial photographs showing the two proposed sites are in a different scale. The Holsworthy photographs are double scale and show clearly dense urban areas around the proposed sites, whereas the Badgerys photographs show only the proposed airport site itself, with little surrounds, totally omitting the massive areas of urban development very near by (Pgs 13,14, 15). PPK have been asked many times to display all proposed sites using the same scale, and yet they continue to persist in this bias.

- The summary indicates that no schools will be impacted by greater than 65dBA in 2016 more than 100 events between 9am and 3pm (Pg 45). If one does the mathematics based on the 7% night flights indicated on page 29, assumed at 360,000 aircraft flights per year, one arrives at a total 69 flights per night, and 986 per day. This then indicates a total of 917 flights for the remaining 16hrs of the day (or 57.3 per hour) Therefore during the six hour period indicated on page 45, schools in direct line with the runways would experience some 344 flights in that time frame. There are currently schools at Kemps Creek, Luddenham, Mt. Vernon, Horsley Park, Silverdale, and Bringelly all within high ANEC zones, and directly in line with the main runways option A and B. We remind the reader that the State Development Dept. predicts 2.25 million people to live in outer western Sydney by 2011.

- As noted above in the "Noise" section , the red 70dBA contour line defined on the maps pages 24-26 terminate in one instance approx 7km from the end of the runway, whereas 70dBA contours (from the Long Term Operating Plan) stretch out from KSA for some 35km.

As previously noted, flight paths from airports constantly change with time. Of particular concern here is the fact that the 70dBA contour line (particularly noticeable on map page 25) skirts completely around some million people. This changes the statistical numbers base of the document dramatically.

This can be clearly exampled by the numbers shown on page 36, indicating how many people are exposed to a greater than one in one million chance of a fatality a year, where Holsworthy numbers are far far greater than that for the proposed Badgerys Creek site. This is also evidenced through the numbers indicated throughout other parts of the document, such as sleep disturbance numbers.

(This is even more curious once one mentally "adds up" the area of tan, indicating people, within the Badgerys 70dBA contours, and compares them with Holsworthy, particularly Holsworthy option B.)

Now we see the above noted area of people (area of tan) excluded from impact from Badgerys, are now partly included, although they are only in alignment with the Holsworthy cross runway, and then at some distance from it. (Eg. Imbalance reflected in numbers displayed pg 45-46, "sleep disturbance - once every 5 nights")

In Parliament 30th Sept. 1997, Dr. Brendan Nelson indicated that he had a constituent from Epping, 25km away from KSA, who was very severely impacted upon by noise from aircraft. That constituent has a curfew! It is sad to see that the same doctor Nelson, now chairman of the politically stacked Sydney Airport Community Forum, is a major proponent for an airport at Badgerys Creek, no matter what cost.

For information purposes, local population numbers are; Fairfield 188,200; Liverpool 103,000; Bankstown 160,000; Penrith 168,000; Blacktown 235,000; Holroyd 79,145; Wollondilly 34,577; Camden 32,000; Campbelltown 143,000; Blue Mountains 72,506 (information provided by the councils).


We regard this EIS as totally invalid for a number of reasons:

- The Draft EIS and supplement summaries do not include any content what-so-ever regarding the no build option. This is a mandatory requirement of the "Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act - 1974" and is also a requirement of the EIS guidelines for Holsworthy and Badgerys Creek.

- The Holsworthy option was dropped out of the process on Sept. 3rd, 1997, thereby effectively denying the public the opportunity to comparatively analyse the impacts of the two proposed sites.

- There has been a clear bias towards the proposed Badgerys Creek airport versus the Holsworthy proposal, by PPK and Government throughout this process.

- A Sydney Morning Herald article dated 27 Sept. 1997 by journalist Mike Carlton, about ex minister for transport Mr John Sharp, states "We bumped into each other at Noosa a few months ago and had an agreeable dinner together. He spent the evening enlisting my support for an airport at Badgerys Creek....". Obviously this meeting was before the announcement to drop Holsworthy from the EIS process. This then makes a mockery of the EIS process since it predetermines the outcome of the EIS and indicates that the proposed airport at Badgerys Creek is a foregone conclusion, well before the release of the EIS itself. We are left to wonder how many other journalists the minister lobbied in this manner.

- A great many legitimate concerns presented by the community, and specialists, have not been addressed.

- As evidenced by the EIS for Warragamba Dam (the finding of which was totally ignored by the current ALP state Govt.), the fact that Ministers can completely ignore the findings of an EIS, and carry on regardless, is of major concern. It begs the question, if this is their attitude, why commission an EIS in the first place?



- Both sides of politics show a willingness to sacrifice the residents of Western Sydney, but protect the residents of the inner city and the North Shore, and particularly Southern residents from a proposed Holsworthy airport.

Eg.1) - a letter from Peter Collins leader of NSW Liberal State opposition, dated 3 Dec. 1996 - "The NSW coalition is of the view that the Federal Government should honour the decision to implement a second Sydney Airport at Badgerys Creek, rather than pursuing other alternatives. We are acutely aware of community concern regarding the Holsworthy site and irrespective of the Federal Government’s decision will fight to ensure that residential amenity for local residents is not adversely affected." In short, he is saying that the southern suburbs are worthy of protection, but the western suburbs are expendable.

Eg. 2) - a letter from Kim Beazley, leader of the ALP Federal opposition, dated March 13, 1997 - "The opposition supports the existing policy of building Sydney’s major airport at Badgerys Creek. Exhaustive studies over several years have proven that in terms of pollution, impact on local communities and accessibility to the city, Badgerys Creek is the best location for a new airport." Hardly surprising, given the apparent lack of quality the current EIS has exhibited regarding the proposed Badgerys Creek airport development. We note too that flyers handed out at an anti-Holsworthy rally at Sutherland, Nov. 24, 1996 contained the ALP logo on them.

- State Govt. Dept. Bias.

The NSW state Government Departments have exhibited considerable bias during the airport battle, in favour of the anti-Holsworthy argument. Eg - State Fisheries indicated that an airport at Holsworthy would impact on fish in the Georges River. No comment however, on the Hawkesbury/Nepean. Likewise, State Dept. of Sport and Recreation indicated that an airport at Holsworthy would severely impact on the O’Hares Creek recreation area. No mention however, on the impact on the many important recreational facilities surrounding Badgerys Creek, as listed above.

We are concerned that essentially, a great deal of the base data supplied for the EIS was supplied by State Government Departments.

- Growth Centre. Gazette 156.

On 22nd December, 1995, (the Friday before Christmas Monday) the State Government, via the Dept. of Urban Affairs and Planning, published a Growth Centre Gazette, known as "Gazette 156."

To quote the order: "This order sets aside certain lands in the Sydney area as a growth centre, known as the Sydney West Airport Growth Centre, and constitutes a development corporation, to be known as the Sydney West Airport Development Corporation, to promote co-ordinate, manage and secure the orderly and economic development of the growth centre."

NOTE: The area of the "growth centre" encompasses an area which goes north to almost the M4, south to include the Camden airport, west to the Nepean River and includes Wallacia, and to the east, a large spur crosses the Hume Highway to include Glenfield. This "gazette" was released without great fanfare. In response to a letter by F.R.A.A.N., sent to Minister Knowles (then NSW Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing), and all other state ministers (most of whom forwarded our letter on to Minister Knowles), we received a reply from the minister (dated 29 Oct. 1996) indicating that "the Development Corporation does not have any power over private landholders within its boundaries....."

Unfortunately this does not appear to be correct since the "Growth Centres (Development Corporations) Act 1974 No. 49" clearly states, under "General Powers of development corporation" sect. 8(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;" and later under "Power to acquire land etc." sect. 9(1) "...acquire land by agreement or by compulsory process....."

Knowing that other major gazetted growth centres have not been successful, (see Albury/Wodonga and Bathurst/Orange) we wonder why the need to revisit this nature of development.


Minister Knowles also stated in his letter that "No areas have been rezoned for residential development which would be affected by aircraft noise levels of 20 ANEF or more..." Unfortunately this too is incorrect. Horsley Park is almost completely within the 20 ANEF zone, and was rezoned from 5 acre allotments to 1 hectare allotments, effectively doubling it, there are also new housing developments which have been allowed to develop also eg. Capitol Hill estate.

- "State Infrastructure Requirements for Sydney West Airport" report.

There is concern that - "The Standing Works Committee on Public Works was originally established in New South Wales in 1887. Its operations were suspended in 1930. It was re-activated by Motion of the Legislative Assembly on 25 May 1995.....". - We wonder why the need to "bring the skeleton out of the cupboard". This document is pro-airport, and first introduces the ‘Growth Centre’ although not by that name, neither does it indicate the extra-ordinary power that the "Development Corporation" which would control the Growth Centre, would have over that massive area of land.  ie " ...to acquire land by agreement or compulsory process" (Developments Corporations act, 1974)

- Liverpool Council.

Liverpool City Council has shown extreme bias throughout this process eg. The front page of their EIS draft guideline submission stated "The people of Liverpool say Badgerys Creek Yes (tick) but (cross) No to Holsworthy." (Our bracketing.)

They have continued to release land for urban development along Elizabeth Drive and Cowpasture Road, even though this area is directly in shown flight paths for the airport, and only some 7-8km from the airport site. Worse, is that concerned buyers, when contacting Liverpool Council with concerns about the airport were told to worry about Hoxton Park Airport, and to worry about Holsworthy Airport. They were not told about the proposed Badgerys Creek airport at all - over the hill just behind them. (One of these people subsequently joined our committee.)

Liverpool Council also saw fit to attach "No Holsworthy" labels to the front of PPK information brochures about both airport options.

- "Strategies for dealing with negative perceptions".

- As per the Daily Telegraph article dated Feb. 21, 1996 (see our submission - "People/Housing Developments/plans), regarding the selling of Sydney’s West to the world based around a proposed airport at Badgerys Creek, we note the paragraph which states "The marketing plan includes strategies for dealing with negative perceptions, harnessing resources and attracting business through international marketing, as well as creating an industrial land register." The industrial land register is the Growth Center, the methods for harnessing resources the Development Corporation which has the power to acquire by agreement or compulsory process. We are then left with "strategies for dealing with negative perceptions." This may well be why articles have arrived in local media from Minister Sharp’s office "Airport will not harm us - Sharp" (Fairfield Champion April 9, 1997), why protest signs are removed within several days, why Grahame Richardson’s radio show for a number of years indicated ‘it’ll never happen’ (ie don’t fight) and now very recently, ‘oh well it’s got to go somewhere’; and why there is such a strong rumour mill convincing uneducated Sydney that no-one will ever build an airport at Badgerys Creek etc.

- Preliminary Flight Path Booklet - Airplan and The Dept. Of Transport and Regional Development.

There is real concern drawn to the fact that although the flight path booklets were freely available from PPK, some person, or group of persons saw fit to re-print the booklet, omitting page numbers, and all reference to the proposed Badgerys Creek airport. This is a breach of Commonwealth Copyright Laws.

Worse, is that the office of the Federal Member (Ms. Dana Vale) for Hughes, posted them to a resident of Narrellan Vale; a person who would be far worse affected by a proposed airport at Badgerys Creek, particularly Option C. When Dana Vale’s office was contacted regarding this, we were informed that the booklet had been printed by "the beneficiaries ".

We have shown this document to a professional printer who was sure that the reprinted document had been sourced from original electronic data, and had not been photocopied from the original.

PLANNING MADNESS - Given that the Sydney UBD has consistently shown a single southern runway since 1995, one must ask one self why it is that our State Government, full knowing of this, went ahead and allowed people to build new houses in areas which will obviously be seriously impacted on. We also wonder why this Government has spent far in excess of $100,000,000 of taxpayers money, for the construction of the Kemps Creek high school, the Kemps Creek outdoor Olympic shooting range, the Horsley Park Olympic equestrian centre, and the western Sydney regional park all being built as you read this since these facilities would all be useless to us in the future because of the noise impact from over flying aircraft at low levels. (See high risk crash area or the noise impact maps within the EIS, or the proposed flight paths This represents well over 100 million dollars of our tax money that would be totally and absolutely wasted.

We ask any reader of this document to please consider carefully the implications of an airport at Badgerys Creek, and the damage that it will do to Sydney as a whole. If you should feel that Badgerys Creek airport must not happen, we ask that you please do everything within your power to help stop this development.