RE Bankstown Airport
Dear Prime Minister,
Bankstown was originally planned by the Commonwealth Government as an airport site in 1929.
It was not until 1940 with the outbreak of world war two when Australia suddenly realised there was a dearth of airports in Australia from which to defend the country.
The formal proclamation of the Bankstown airfield project occurred under the National Security Act on 7 June 1940. The urgency was such that work began immediately.
By 1942, with the threat of Japanese invasion Bankstown became the main fighter base by the United States air force for the defence of Sydney.
After the end of the second world war Bankstown continued to develop as a training and general aviation airfield and to support various aviation Defence projects. At its height, over eight thousand people were employed directly in support of aviation industries based at the airport.
We were led to believe, when privatisation of secondary airports was first mooted, that the Government recognised, as an industry, aviation was somewhat unique as it required an airport to function. An airport is also necessary for recreational pilots, much the same as boat ramps are needed for boating people.
We were led to believe that protections would be placed in the Airports Act and in the Airport leases that would protect the airports as airports reserved for present and future aviation use and growth.
We were led to believe when privatisation occurred that a fair price would be paid to the Commonwealth basically the people of Australia.
In 2002 the State government of NSW valued the land at Bankstown being in excess of a Billion dollars, yet a large bank purchased the leases for the three airports in the Sydney basin for around two hundred and fifty million dollars, one of which they sold for that amount, basically gaining two airports for free.
Was a fair price paid or were the Australian Taxpayers swindled?
We were led to believe that Bankstown Airport was Commonwealth land therefore State Government fees and regulations could be bypassed, no State government stamp duty was paid on the leases, nor scrutiny by the State government of any development that has occurred and planned in the future.
Were the people of NSW swindled?
We were led to believe that the Airport Act prohibits a trust from owning and airport lease.
The NSW superannuation fund now owns the lease. Is a superannuation fund not a trust?
We were also led to believe that development companies were prohibited from owning or controlling airports. Are ALTIS property partners not a property development company?
Is this not contrary to the ACT?
In the course of various owners’ control of the secondary airports, aviation businesses have been subjected to the predatory behaviour of development sharks with draconian increases in rents, forced to either relocate or close their doors, resulting in ever diminishing aviation activity. In Bankstown’s case a runway and taxiways were closed against safety advice, to facilitate non-aviation development. Fully a third of the airport land has been subject to or slated for industrial development with more to follow according to so called “Master Plans” approved by the responsible minister.
So much for reserving the airport for aviation present or future use. The development sharks make billions at the expense of aviation and the general public.
Bankstown airport since its initial development has been highly contaminated, both from wartime use and in the years after. In their quest for profits the development companies have compounded that contamination by bypassing State EPA approvals on the pretext that Bankstown was exempt as commonwealth land. Large quantities of asbestos contaminated soil was used to build over the floodplain of the runway they closed for industrial development. This reclamation work could also exacerbate flooding upstream in the Georges river as it creates a bottle neck through which floodwater must pass.
Should this occur will the taxpayers be liable for claimed compensation by those affected?
Building very large structures near an Airport was never a good idea. Building them right up to the boundaries of runways is almost lunacy. Large structures generate vortices in the air, even with a fairly gentle breeze they can extend out to a kilometre from the structure. Bankstown is by and large a training airport; very inexperienced pilots learn to fly there in very small aircraft. The closure of the only north south runway in the Sydney basin to facilitate warehouse construction poses a considerable hazard for these trainees. Add in strong vortexes generated by these buildings compounds the safety risk, Bankstown tower now repeatedly warns aircraft of windshear in the touch down zone when southerly winds are blowing.
Could the Airport users and the Australian public be forgiven for imagining some very dodgy practices have occurred in the pursuit of the holey dollar. We may live to regret allowing that to happen, as we did in 1940.
Choc frog - well said TB. Vortex and wind shear analysis is where? Safety case examined where?. About time government took some responsibility for dangerous, uncontrolled development of irreplaceable aviation infrastructure. Bugger it; two Choc frogs - damn the expense.....
Dear Prime Minister,
Bankstown was originally planned by the Commonwealth Government as an airport site in 1929.
It was not until 1940 with the outbreak of world war two when Australia suddenly realised there was a dearth of airports in Australia from which to defend the country.
The formal proclamation of the Bankstown airfield project occurred under the National Security Act on 7 June 1940. The urgency was such that work began immediately.
By 1942, with the threat of Japanese invasion Bankstown became the main fighter base by the United States air force for the defence of Sydney.
After the end of the second world war Bankstown continued to develop as a training and general aviation airfield and to support various aviation Defence projects. At its height, over eight thousand people were employed directly in support of aviation industries based at the airport.
We were led to believe, when privatisation of secondary airports was first mooted, that the Government recognised, as an industry, aviation was somewhat unique as it required an airport to function. An airport is also necessary for recreational pilots, much the same as boat ramps are needed for boating people.
We were led to believe that protections would be placed in the Airports Act and in the Airport leases that would protect the airports as airports reserved for present and future aviation use and growth.
We were led to believe when privatisation occurred that a fair price would be paid to the Commonwealth basically the people of Australia.
In 2002 the State government of NSW valued the land at Bankstown being in excess of a Billion dollars, yet a large bank purchased the leases for the three airports in the Sydney basin for around two hundred and fifty million dollars, one of which they sold for that amount, basically gaining two airports for free.
Was a fair price paid or were the Australian Taxpayers swindled?
We were led to believe that Bankstown Airport was Commonwealth land therefore State Government fees and regulations could be bypassed, no State government stamp duty was paid on the leases, nor scrutiny by the State government of any development that has occurred and planned in the future.
Were the people of NSW swindled?
We were led to believe that the Airport Act prohibits a trust from owning and airport lease.
The NSW superannuation fund now owns the lease. Is a superannuation fund not a trust?
We were also led to believe that development companies were prohibited from owning or controlling airports. Are ALTIS property partners not a property development company?
Is this not contrary to the ACT?
In the course of various owners’ control of the secondary airports, aviation businesses have been subjected to the predatory behaviour of development sharks with draconian increases in rents, forced to either relocate or close their doors, resulting in ever diminishing aviation activity. In Bankstown’s case a runway and taxiways were closed against safety advice, to facilitate non-aviation development. Fully a third of the airport land has been subject to or slated for industrial development with more to follow according to so called “Master Plans” approved by the responsible minister.
So much for reserving the airport for aviation present or future use. The development sharks make billions at the expense of aviation and the general public.
Bankstown airport since its initial development has been highly contaminated, both from wartime use and in the years after. In their quest for profits the development companies have compounded that contamination by bypassing State EPA approvals on the pretext that Bankstown was exempt as commonwealth land. Large quantities of asbestos contaminated soil was used to build over the floodplain of the runway they closed for industrial development. This reclamation work could also exacerbate flooding upstream in the Georges river as it creates a bottle neck through which floodwater must pass.
Should this occur will the taxpayers be liable for claimed compensation by those affected?
Building very large structures near an Airport was never a good idea. Building them right up to the boundaries of runways is almost lunacy. Large structures generate vortices in the air, even with a fairly gentle breeze they can extend out to a kilometre from the structure. Bankstown is by and large a training airport; very inexperienced pilots learn to fly there in very small aircraft. The closure of the only north south runway in the Sydney basin to facilitate warehouse construction poses a considerable hazard for these trainees. Add in strong vortexes generated by these buildings compounds the safety risk, Bankstown tower now repeatedly warns aircraft of windshear in the touch down zone when southerly winds are blowing.
Could the Airport users and the Australian public be forgiven for imagining some very dodgy practices have occurred in the pursuit of the holey dollar. We may live to regret allowing that to happen, as we did in 1940.
Choc frog - well said TB. Vortex and wind shear analysis is where? Safety case examined where?. About time government took some responsibility for dangerous, uncontrolled development of irreplaceable aviation infrastructure. Bugger it; two Choc frogs - damn the expense.....