Personal Story / Actions

I'm Jordan. I have previously lived in Mawson Lakes as a renter in 2014 and 2015. In those years when I lived in Technology Park and The Sanctuary, I didn’t notice too much aircraft noise. Whether this was because I was further away from the training circuits, or the noise was reduced by the properties I was living in, I can't say, but it didn't adversely affect me.

Now that I have returned to the suburb in 2018 as a first home buyer, the constant gut-wrenching noise of the training flights coming from Parafield Airport have made it impossible for me to enjoy my home in peace. I bought with the knowledge that I have lived here before and knew that the nearby airport shouldn't be a problem. I had no idea and no comprehension of the true extent of how loud and frequent the training flights were until after I purchased the house and lived in it for a few months.

Furthermore, a new Master Plan for Parafield Airport was approved the week I purchased my house which approves the almost-doubling of the airport's theoretical maximum flight capacity - something I could not have foreseen. I am now actively trying to find solutions to the issue thousands of people have been suffering from for years; all for the benefit of a few businesses profiting at our expense.

These are the steps I have personally taken and the responses I have received for all to see (items in grey are future actions):

  1. Complained to Airservices Australia multiple times. Requested permanent noise monitoring near Parafield Airport.

    Response #1 (27/09/2018): View the PDF

    Response #2 (15/11/2018): View the PDF

    Response #3 (18/02/2019): View the PDF

    Summary: Airservices Australia say they have no powers to change anything, raising the question of their usefulness / existence.

  2. Contacted West Ward Cr Beau Brug to see what Salisbury Council can do about the issue and was referred to Cr Betty Gill and Cr Steve White who were involved in the Parafield Airport Consultative Committee (PACC). Betty and Steve were not re-elected in the 2018 council elections.

    Response #1 (04/10/2018) from Cr Steve White: View the PDF

    Response #2 (04/10/2018) from Cr Steve White: View the PDF

    Response #3 (05/10/2018) from Cr Steve White: View the PDF

    Response #4 (05/10/2018) from Cr Betty Gill: View the PDF

    Summary: Councillors contacted provided useful information and conceded there isn't anything that Salisbury Council can do. Both councillors on the PACC seemed to see the noise as a non-issue and cited low complaint numbers as rationale for dismissing a mail-out survey on the issue. Extraordinarily, having the problem shift to another area at different times of the year was seen as appropriate to mention.

  3. Developed this website, an affected address map tool and online survey to gauge how local residents see the issue. On-going development of the website and tools as time permits.

    Summary: The issue appears wide-spread and extremely damaging in the majority of the small sample of survey respondents so far. Residents are surprised to see the extent of the issue by using the map tool. Registration of intended to be a one-stop-shop for providing information and updates into what is happening.

  4. Obtained quotes for double-glazing my windows and sound-proofing my home to reduce the impact from the noise.

    Magnetite retro-fit glazing windows quote: ~$15,000.00

    Double-glazing windows quote #1: ~$19,000.00

    Double-glazing windows quote #2: ~$21,000.00

    Double-glazing windows quote #3: ~$33,000.00

    Sound-proofing master bedroom with acoustic roof dampening sheets and acoustic ceiling insulation quote: ~$10,000.00

    Summary: The cost of double-glazing all of the windows in my home or sound-proofing critical areas is exorbitant and completely outside of my budget. There is no guarantee that by making this significant investment the issue will disappear. It will also not address the issue of being unable to use my backyard or open up the house for fresh air, as the noise issue will persist.

  5. Complained to the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman (ANO). Requested permanent noise monitoring near Parafield Airport multiple times.

    Response #1 (27/11/2018): View the PDF

    Response #2 (11/12/2018): View the PDF

    Response #3 (18/12/2018): View the PDF

    Response #4 (04/02/2019): View the PDF

    Response #5 (07/02/2019): View the PDF

    Summary: The Aircraft Noise Ombudsman (ANO) say they have no powers to change anything and were satisfied with the responses provided by Airservices Australia. After an extremely lengthy wait and multiple emails, they see no value in pursuing noise monitoring despite the approved increase in potential flight numbers. They agree that there is an issue with the fraudulent movement numbers reported by Parafield Airport (aircraft movements are only reported during Tower operating hours) and are currently seeking more information on how they can report more accurate numbers. Consistent with Airservices Australia, the ANO's responses raises the question of their usefulness / existence.

  6. Contacted the City of West Torrens, seeking information on how their council facilitated a recent mail-out survey on aircraft noise (article behind pay-wall) to use as a basis for petitioning Salisbury Council to do the same.

    Response #1 (03/12/2018): View the PDF

    West Torrens Aircraft Noise Consultation Survey (03/12/2018): View the PDF

    West Torrens Aircraft Noise Consultation Survey Results (19/12/2018): View the PDF

    Summary: City of West Torrens extremely helpful and timely in their response. Scope of the survey, a template of the survey itself and the survey results provided. The information provided will be useful in petitioning Salisbury Council. Of particular interest is the following statement found on page 12: "A follow up question asked if the owner could go back in time, would they have purchased the property given what they experience now in terms of aircraft noise. Over 50% of the respondents said they may or would have reconsidered."

  7. Contacted the Mayor of the City of Salisbury, Gillian Aldridge, asking if Council would support a mail-out survey similar to that undertaken by the City of West Torrens. I asked if a petition was necessary to action the survey or if the Council would work with me immediately, understanding the issue at hand and the evidence gathered from this website. It took three emails over the course of a month to get a response. The third email CC'd every councillor in the City of Salisbury and I believe if this wasn't done, I would still be waiting for a response.

    Response #1 (31/01/2019): View the PDF

    Response #2 (15/02/2019): View the PDF

    City of Salisbury Council 2017 Parafield Airport Master Plan Submission (31/01/2019): View the PDF

    Summary: The Mayor seemingly had no intention of replying until other councillors were CC'd in on the email trail. She re-iterated information already known, affirmed Council's position of supporting the airport and its operations due to the "economic benefits the community derives from its location", provided Council's submission to the latest Parafield Airport Master Plan and suggested contacting the Parafield Airport Consultative Committee as a mechanism for change (if it worked so well, why is the issue getting worse?). Astonishingly, she also said that it is not appropriate for Council to instigate a petition on my behalf - something that was never asked for and would suggest the Mayor skimmed over the request without actually reading it. Further correspondence obtained after two more emails to the Mayor over the space of a fortnight clarified that Council's position on a mail-out survey is that it would be "inappropriate for the Council to instigate a mail out survey on your behalf or for the purpose you propose".

  8. Petition Salisbury Council to see if they will support a mail-out survey, citing this website and a similar survey recently undertaken by the City of West Torrens as examples and evidence of why it should take place. Query about rate rebates for sound-proofing affected homes and a change to the noise notice provided to new home buyers in the area as it is woefully inadequate.

    On hold until legal advice is sought on Council's position.

  9. Seek legal advice on the possibility of a class action / trespassing airspace / nuisance law. Detrimental health effects on residents, pollution and negative property value influences to be used as justification for compensation / damages.

  10. Complain to state and federal politicians, citing this website and (hopefully) the mail-out survey results as examples and evidence of the issue. Legislative change is required.

  11. Develop online noise monitor to show live noise level monitoring in the Mawson Lakes area.

  12. More to come...