Submissions toward government’s draft impact statement on WSI reveal confusion, anger

Concerned residents of western Sydney have accused the government of glossing over the “profound disruption” they face from the future airport. See their scathing submissions here.

Concerned residents across the city’s western suburbs have aired a laundry list of grievances over draft Western Sydney Airport flight paths – with scathing submissions accusing the government of glossing over a future of “profound disruption” brought on by the looming airport.

With just days left for locals to give feedback on the government’s draft environmental impact statement for Western Sydney airport, submissions have come in thick and fast, suggesting the 25 chapter-long document has sparked more questions than answers regarding the planned flight paths.

First released in October, the draft document details the Albanese Government’s assessment on the impacts of Western Sydney Airport’s preliminary flight paths, categorised by a range of impacts.

Western Sydney International Airport at Badgerys Creek in March 2023. Picture: Nearmap

Submissions seen exclusively by Saturday Xtra reveal sentiment ranging from “confusion, anger and hopelessness” as well as claims residents have found problems with the reports.

One issue raised in numerous submissions was the misleading labelling of day and night flights, with flight paths labelled as “Day” operating until 11pm, only then to be followed by 20 “night” time flights until 5:30am, suggesting a high concentration of flights well past sunset and into the typical sleep hours of 9pm and 6am.

St Clair grandfather Ken Mott complied 38 pages in submissions to what he describes as “a very large, deliberately confusing, promotional brochure for the flight path design”.

Linden Residents rallying against the 24/7 flight paths. Picture: Linden Residents Group

Among Mr Mott’s primary concern is that effects of aircraft noise have been downplayed to suggest only minimal impact and “paint a rosier picture”.

In his submission, Mr Mott pointed out all the noise impacts had been calculated based on average noise levels and did not take into account peak noise levels, the frequency of noise events, or weather and operational limitations.

“Using an average figure for levels of intrusive noise is meaningless, it usually the peaks which draw the most hostile response..people are not woken up at night by average noise.” Mr Mott said.

This concern was echoed by the Blue Mountains Council, which in its own 97-page long submission noted “prediction information is only provided for annual average conditions” not taking into account other times of the year which could cause increased aircraft noise.

A picture based submission responding to the EIS. Picture: Linden Residents

Elsewhere, locals living in towns across the Blue Mountains such as Linden, Woodcroft and Faulconbridge claim the altitude planes would fly over their homes has not been adequately considered when assessing how their communities will be impacted by noise.

Linden resident Krista Forsstrom, who along with her husband has taken time off work to study the entirety of the EIS, says the altitude used in government’s modelling and noise tool refers only to aircraft’s altitude above the runway — roughly 80m above sea level, and not above the places affected.

Ms Forsstrom argued there is a 450m difference between the altitude of the runway and that of Linden — which is 525m above sea level, a variation which suggests much lower, louder planes than indicated, including some flying as low as 1,200 metres.

“When calculating the altitudes of flights above your home you need to take into consideration the runway level and the level of your home, so the actual altitudes of flights over Linden, are between 1,205 -3,060 metres and not what is stated on the noise tool,” she said.

Ms Forsstrom said she felt such significant bits of information are “being hidden in plain sight” from western Sydney residents, who don’t have the time to examine the 5000-page bundle of documents.

“It’s a very technical document which seemingly is meant to be understood by a lot of people who don't necessarily have the time or the capacity to access it and understand it,” she said.

Melissa McIntosh has accused the government of hoodwinking western Sydney about impacts of the flight paths

Lindsay federal Liberal MP Melissa McIntosh is also an open critic of the proposed flight paths, telling The Telegraph there needed to be greater transparency between the government and western Sydney.

“It’s [the EIS] is thousands of pages long so it's really hard for an ordinary resident to absorb what it means, we’re not a community of flight path experts, its not fair to just expect us to understand what’s happening,” Ms McIntosh said.

“There needs to be far more communication and consultation, it not about hoodwinking a community at the 11th hour when they don’t have the time to fight back.”

A Federal Infrastructure Department spokesman told Saturday Xtra that the draft EIS was prepared to thoroughly investigate and analyse the impacts of the flight paths against the community.

The spokesman said the department had prepared extensive materials, including easy-to-read fact sheets, for the community

“The Government has undertaken comprehensive community engagement on the preliminary flight paths and the draft EIS,” he said.

“The department has held 46 drop-in sessions and information stalls as well as held two online webinars.”

Two mail outs were also sent to 2.4 million people across greater western Sydney.

“Noise displayed on the aircraft overflight noise tool was taken from the ground level, including mountains and valleys, and do not mislead the community about potential impacts,” he said.

“However altitudes displayed on the aircraft overflight noise tool are altitudes above runway level which assist users to understand the geometry of flight paths including rates of ascent and descent.

“The outcomes illustrate what the community can expect to experience when operations commence and progressively increase over coming decades.”

The department spokesman argued the “noise contours and metrics provided do not predict an exact level of annoyance for any community or every individual”.

“ They seek to inform community stakeholders about the likely exposure and possible variations.” he said.

Submissions close January 31.