Cannington Ratepayers Association submission to Mr John Anderson, Minister for Transport and Regional Development.

16 May , 1999

Mr John Anderson
Minister for Transport and Regional Services
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

URGENT

Dear Sir

Draft Master Plan (DMP) for Perth Airport Development
& New ANEF Plan Implications.
SUBMISSION from AFFECTED RESIDENTS

Your pending decision on the DMP as submitted by the Westralia Airports Corporation (WAC) should take into account the following facts.

EFFECTS OF NEW PLAN
The amended plan shows noise contour lines that completely devastate the two developed suburbs of Queens Park and Cannington, and seriously effect the developed suburbs of East Cannington, Beckenham, Langford, Lynwood, Ferndale and Wilson.

The noise expectation of 30+ and 25+ makes Queens Park and Cannington uninhabitable under the Australian Standards.

The noise expectation of 20+ makes the remainder of the suburbs (in all some 30.000 residents) seriously affected, where many properties will require noise insulation and double glazing on the windows.

These noise projections are seriously questioned as not being relevant until ultimate capacity is reached in 2047. There has never been a noise audit conducted in the area (Hansard 12-5-1998 @ P3043), and no audit is contemplated. These ANEF noise projections are manifestly inaccurate and should be re-assessed prior to any decision being made.
The inaccuracies reflecting a lower reading than the true picture are:

1. There are large areas of land outside the indicated contour lines that complain of excessive and regular noise from aircraft.
2. The areas where in some 50 years the map shows will be at a 25 ANEF noise level are currently on a 22 ANE level. This combined with a threefold increase in air traffic projected in the DMP clearly indicates that the extent of the noise footprint will be far in excess of the amended plan.
3. Though newer planes are quieter with the threefold increase in air traffic many of the older planes will be still be in circulation as are the old 50 year old DC3s and the 30+year old 727s still in current usage.

There is an urgent need to conduct an audit in this area so we are all aware of the seriousness of the problem before any planning decision is made. Or approval given to the DMP.

POLLUTION and HEALTH.
Without laboring the issues that have been well documented worldwide and are available on the Net and in the submissions made on the recent Sydney Airport protests, the effect of Noise and other pollution have a detrimental effect on:

Health

1. Pregnant women
2. Elevation of Blood Pressure
3. Loss of Hearing
4. Effects on the immune system
5. Increase in psychiatric symptoms
6. Stress and Anxiety
7. Lack of sleep
8. Children's learning
9. Mortality
10. Interference with communication electronic, speech and scholastic performance (the ultimate cost to society of these issues is immeasurable and should be considered at the planning stage)

By Pollution of the following

• Air (with kerosene and fumes from the many takeoffs and jettisoning of fuel every 2 minutes)
• Noise (with a plane estimated at every 2 minutes)
• Water supply and ground water contamination

Property

• Apart from the drop in property values (two suburbs could be as much as $150M), the vibrations from some of the heavier planes can cause houses to shake, causing tile dislodging, cracking walls and foundation problems

PLANNING Vs APPROVAL
Your letter indicated that the DMP is only a planning tool on land use in and around the airport, and is not an approval to commence or undertake any development.

This is exactly the point of the objections raised. The WAC, want the DMP to be approved to enable site planning based on the second parallel runway, and, on information available to date the consequences of that plan is unacceptable. The Minister would be wrong to approve a plan that is subject to alteration in the future. If the use of the land within and around the airport site is set down and agreed to, it effectively limits the future options available when the operational needs require that the second runway needs be constructed.

A proper public consultation is now required where all the concepts and problems can be addressed, before the Minister, Air Services and the WAC agree on a conceptual plan.

To date there has not been a public consultation. A recent meeting between Mr G Muir the manager of the WAC and the Canning City Council failed to have the WAC accept the need for proper consultation.

NO PUBLIC CONSULTATION.
The Airports Act 1996 requires that there be public consultation prior to approval of a DMP.

This has not occurred as the original DMP enclosed maps that showed little or no effect on the area. This false (?) information was replaced with the amended ANEF ultimate capacity map that reflects the devastation of the suburbs. There was no public consultation on this new map etc. The devastation of this large area is effectively being managed by stealth.

The public and the local councils have a right to proper consultation morally and in law.

The Minister MUST reject the plan to enable the consultation to take place.

NOISE AMELIORATION
Any airport in a residential area must have noise amelioration and controls in place for the protection of the residents. Perth airport has none and none are being recommended. The WAC suggests a toothless review program, post approval of their DMP.

Sydney has ongoing problems, despite their noise controls of curfews and other measures.

Amelioration measures that could be considered include the following:

• Relocation of the Airport

This is not a radical issue as if or when the suburbs become uninhabitable, the cost to the WAC to acquire the two suburbs and compensate other areas compared to the gain made on the sale of their existing land holdings will outweigh the cost of relocation.

• A curfew to allow residents the necessity of their sleep at nighttime.

At present noisy flights at all hours of the night cause houses to vibrate, windows to shake, people and babies to wake, and car alarms to go off. In one house outside the recorded 20 ANE contour line a resident has recorded a noise level of 91dba in his daughters bedroom.

• Greater controls on flight paths

1. Expanded use of other runways to share the noise evenly. (With the thrust technology available modern planes do not need to always takeoff into a gentle breeze)
2. Sharper ascent by planes keeping the noise within the airport boundaries.
3. Greater control over flight paths
4. Placing a runway in another direction and or extending the 06/24 crossover runway.
5. Extending the proposed parallel runway to accommodate larger air craft and thereby allowing flight paths to be places over less populated areas
6. Any other avenues that may come to light with proper consultation.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
There are numerous problems associated with having an airport in a metropolitan area. Before any draft plan is approved the full implications of the present and future damage caused by the aircraft needs to be evaluated by the public and government. To devastate developed suburbs without advising them or giving them an opportunity to comment is a crime against humanity.

All options should be considered for proper planning. At present if this plan is approved the WAC are limiting the placement of any future runways and Airservices Australia are subsequently restricted in where the planes takeoff and land. The noise footprint from this restricted option will ensure Noise and other Pollution blankets the vast developed area causing Health and property damage. The ultimate cost to the community of these problems is currently beyond estimation.

All we ask is that all parties are given a proper consultation before an enlightened decision is made. To approve the plan is a disaster for the area and the public purse. The only beneficiary is the short-term economic gain to the WAC.

The DMP must again be rejected.

Thank you.

Yours faithfully

Mr Hank B Schokker
Vice President and Spokesperson.