EIS Submissions Template


The Federal Government's new airport WILL have a huge impact on our lives.

The revelations so far are that there will be no curfew, there will be a concentration of flight path merge points above the lower Mountains, and there will be no rail infrastructure links to alleviate the road congestion exacerbated by the new airport. 

The Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, must do a better job than he has so far in explaining to our community what the impacts of his airport will be on our area.

One information session is not enough.

Moreover, Mr. Turnbull must take on board the concerns and criticisms raised through the public consultation process and he must act on them.

We need to have those who are making these plans and decisions turn up to answer questions at a range of public meetings.

Our community must mobilize to ask these questions and demand straight answers.

Over the past two years I have explained that an airport only had my conditional support if the Abbott/Turnbull Government would:

  • release a new and independent Environmental Impact Statement;
  • provide the public with information about curfews, flight paths and noise impacts;
  • guarantee rail infrastructure and permanent employment opportunities for people in the Blue Mountains & Western Sydney; and
  • provide protection for our World Heritage listed National Parks area & surrounds (preferably with a tick of approval from UNESCO)

On the question of 24/7 flights, in my opinion, I don’t think there should be one rule for the city and one rule for the west.

If Mascot is to retain its curfew then the Turnbull Government's new airport should also have a curfew.

The EIS analysis says very little of any substance about the potential impact on the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area of “aircraft overflight” above our National Parks.

Substantial sections of the World Heritage area and Sydney’s drinking water catchment area will be beneath the new flight paths, so the EIS must address what needs to be done to protect these areas instead of pretending that because the proposed flight paths are “indicative only” it can’t thoroughly analyse those impacts.

We should not have to wait until the airport is up and running to start looking at the environmental impacts – these concerns need to be investigated and addressed now.

I would encourage concerned members of our community to contact our Federal MP, Louise Markus, and make her aware of your views.

Mrs Markus does not live in the electorate she represents.

The proposed flight paths don’t go anywhere near her home in Riverstone.

In fact, when you check her neighbourhood in the Noise Modelling tool on the Western Sydney Airport’s own website, the noise and flight data comes up as N/A or ZERO.

We must let Mrs Markus know what we think of her plan to build an airport on our doorstep.

As a proud member of the Blue Mountains Conservation Society, I would encourage people to also make use of the information provided on their website and Facebook page AND get involved in this campaign.

Our next step is important: work together as a community in the fight for changes to some of these ludicrous proposals.

Let the voices of the Blue Mountains be heard! 


*** To Download my EIS Submission Template, CLICK HERE ***

Showing 3 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Ralf Kluin
    commented 2018-03-12 17:16:25 +1100
    There is no doubt in my mind, Sydney’s metropolitan area (one of the largest in the world) is a huge economic engine driving the nations economy. And whilst Federal & State governments play a ‘macro-economic’ role, the communities living at the micro economic level also play a prime role. After all, it is you and I whom make the nation tick. This is why we’ve as a society major new agreed to make environment-planning- construction law and we use these laws wisely so as to obtain a reasonable and good living outcome. All infrastructure & renewal projects must be consulted. For any government and or private applicant to proceed upon projects by ‘muddying’ process is a stupid and corrupt thing to do. The end the game, when a project is badly designed, this will cost $billions to fix ( health, environment costs blowing out over time) and will cause injuries and death. Based on my research and observation my concern rests on two fundamental issues. 1. Quality of breathable air and 2. The environment – Warragamba Dam its catchment region drinking water – and rain water collected at Badgerys Creek international city airport site, spilling into Creeks then into the Nepean – Hawkesbury River System.
  • Julie Christie
    commented 2015-11-11 17:13:55 +1100
    Some of your arguments are valid but I think that it was unnecessary and irrelevant to put in the comment the Louise Markus does not live in the area. You are now making it political when it is a subject about an airport. If you want to get political Bob Debus lived in Balmain when he held a seat in our electorate. (which by the way is also irrelevant) .
  • Ralf Kluin
    commented 2015-11-06 17:19:28 +1100
    Dear Ms Doyle,

    Thank-you for providing your offices very valuable interactive information regarding the impact of a City Airport to be built at Badgerys Creek, NSW. Its location is west of Sydney, adjacent to the Escarpment of the Blue Mountains, the World Heritage National Park – a dedicated wilderness region and also adjacent to Sydney’s major catchment water supply reservoir. The proposed Airport is an important transport node for Australia connecting with all nations in the world. It will facilitate the outgoing and incoming of many people and much cargo. The issues concerning impacts; noise, air quality, land transport etc require far more serious research. The history concerning the selection for the airport at Badgerys Creek is well documented. However, it must be remembered, the Federal Government gave the impression, to myself, and possibly, to other citizens, Badgerys Creek may no longer be built, so apparent even before the 2013 election campaign.

    Many issues of course may have to be considered, by State and Local Government, and amongst them I would nominate the following:

    1. Noise pollution
    2. Air quality
    3. Water supply – water quality – waste water – storm water – impacts on the entire region Nepean-Hawkesbury system etc
    4. Electric power supply
    5. Road-rail-light rail access – including further upgrades connecting regions West – North – South.
    6.Fuel storage for the Airport
    7. Waste Management, sewer and material waste etc
    8. Hospital facility – quarantine – Animal quarantine etc
    9. Open space and recreation parks etc
    10. Preservation of certain agricultural lands Of course integrating human services into this project is at the heart of its success requiring further urban upgrades, not on a ad-hoc basis, but based on a whole of government approach involving entire local governments, Blue Mountains, Penrith, Liverpool and so on – WSROC transformed into a proper region arm of loan government working directly with State and Federal elected bodies and their employed professional management. It must be remembered that this Airport is a City-Hub connecting Australasia and the world. It will require careful budgeting processes integrating every aspect of its living process.

    I wish you the very best of good planning and representation,

    Ralf Kluin (Dr)