Draft Central District Plan - PDF Free Download

Draft Central District Plan Submission_id: 30606 Date of Lodgment: 10 Nov 2017 Origin of Submission: Email First name: N/A Last name: N/A Suburb: Submission content: I completely reject the Greater Sydney Commission's plans for the Central City District, which should be called by its correct name, the Hills Shire. The Greater Sydney Commission and its members have not been elected by the people of New South Wales, let alone by the residents of the Hills Shire. Yet it seems to have taken over the role of the Minister for Planning and the Department of Planning. I have lived in the Hills Shire for 30 years, and was always happy with its laid back, family oriented, 'garden shire' reputation. The Greater Sydney Commission now seeks to destroy the beautiful character of the Hills Shire with massive over-development in the form of high-rise development. High rise development and high density development are completely out of character with the Hills Shire, which already has extensive traffic problems, due to overpopulation. It is notable the State Member for Baulkham Hills, David Elliott, has made statements in the media recently that indicate he rejects the over-development, which is the Commission is planning for the Hills Shire. I commend him for doing this. The Commission also seeks to make life completely untenable for Hills Shire residents by imposing an airport at Badgerys Creek, which unlike Sydney Airport, will not have a curfew, flight cap and noise sharing. In addition, the Hills Shire will be under the flightpaths of both Sydney Airport and

Badgerys Creek Airport. Fifty-five percent of air movements at Sydney Airport are over water. Every air movement at the landlocked Badgerys Creek Airport will be over the heavily populated Western Suburbs, including the Hills Shire. It will be impossible to mitigate noise and pollution over the Western Suburbs from Badgerys Creek Airport. This has been proven by the decibel levels, which have been recorded from flyovers over the Hills Shire to and from Sydney Airport. Up to 76dBA have been recorded in the Hills Shire from these flyovers. The Hills Shire is approximately 32 kilometres from Sydney Airport and 27 kilometres from the site of the future Badgerys Creek Airport. Hills Shire residents can expect aircraft noise ranging from 70 to 80 dba and higher throughout the day and evening when Badgerys Creek Airport becomes operational. Badgerys Creek Airport and the flyovers over the Hills Shire to and from Sydney Airport are two punitive policies, which have been imposed upon unwitting Hills Shire residents and the Western Suburbs in general, and must be abolished immediately if Gladys Berejiklian wishes to retain Government. I have logged flyovers from Sydney Airport over the Hills Shire for more than 12 months. My logs tell me that more than 80 flyovers occur over the Hills Shire each day. What a disgrace! Hills Shire residents and visitors to the area are always exclaiming about the low altitude of these flyovers. I see that you have listed 'Western Sydney Airport and Badgerys Creek Aerotropolis' under the heading 'Productivity'. The project of Badgerys Creek Airport has been rejected by Sydney Airport, because it does not have a business case. Therefore, its multi-billion dollar cost is being imposed on the taxpayer. A project that does not have a business case is unlikely to generate thousands of long-term jobs for Western Sydney residents, let alone be productive. Yet the State Government and the Greater Sydney Commission claims that Badgerys Creek Airport will do just that. The A major motive behind Badgerys Creek Airport and the flyovers is the intention to transfer aircraft noise and pollution from east to west. A second motive is to set up a second airport in the Western Suburbs without restrictions, because the curfew and flight cap at Sydney Airport are impeding

business. A third motive is for vested interests to make billions of dollars out of the construction of Badgerys Creek Airport. It is of great note that the Members of Parliament and their constituents who live close to Sydney Airport and are impacted by it, have been seeking to transfer aircraft noise from east to west for decades. They are the ones who have ensured that Sydney Airport has a flight cap, a curfew and noise sharing, and they will never allow these restrictions to be lifted. They have also made sure that Badgerys Creek Airport has become Federal and State Government policy, and that it will not have the same restrictions as Sydney Airport. The Federal Government has tried to overcome the criticism by Western Sydney residents and several Western Sydney Labor Members of Parliament who contend that they are being discriminated against, because Sydney Airport has restrictions, but Badgerys Creek Airport will not have the same privileges. The Federal Government has attempted to overcome this criticism by claiming that landings and take-offs to the south-west using the 'head to head' mode of operation will form an unofficial curfew at night. Section 2.2.3 "Runway Modes of Operation", Page 43, Draft 2016 EIS includes a number of statements, which indicate that this claim is at the very least misleading. Firstly this section states that in order to 'manage noise impact', take-offs and landings will occur both to the south-west and north -east. The heavily populated areas of Blacktown, the Hills Shire and Hornsby will lie to the north-east of the runway. Section 2.2.3 also states that the mode has not been evaluated, will only be used when it is safe to do so and when air movements are 20 or less per hour. To conclude the Greater Sydney Commissions' plans for the Hills Shire regarding over- development and the 24/7 Badgerys Creek Airport are an unacceptable and unwanted imposition. I do not consider that the Greater Sydney Commission has legitimacy, and, therefore, it has no right to impose its odious policies upon Hills Shire residents. The unwanted policies of the Greater Sydney Commission are having an impact on the Berejiklian Government. Although I am a conservative voter, I for one, will not vote for it at the next State Election. I am very confident that thousands of