The suburbs of Wilson, Riverton, Shelley, Rossmoyne, Manning, Salter Point, Mount Pleasant, Applecross, Ardross were quiet neighbourhoods until 2008. Then it changed and we want to support Airservices Australia, the Noise Ombudsman and the Airport in their decision to implement a trial of 12 months to give us some relief (7 out of the 120 planes per day) to get at least partly our lives back.

Until 2008, aircraft leaving from the busiest runway, runway 21 south, were dependent on the pilot where to turn right. This could happen anywhere between Belmont and Booragoon. Residents were not bothered and actually many enjoyed seeing the planes. That year, GPS guided systems were implemented and the planes followed a narrow flightpath. It was tolerable because there were less than 30 planes. There was no consultation whatsoever and the formal review that took place after this (WARRP) concluded that in the future consultation should take place. Too late for us to be of any use.

Then the mining boom came as well as an increase in flights to the Middle East and Asia and caused the number of planes to increase from 30 to 120 per day, 7 of them between 10 pm and 5 am, but far worse, 35 planes between 5 am and 7.30 am. This happened without any form of consultation again. Residents complained and the Share Noise Action Group (SNAG) explained the issue to Airservices Australia, the Noise Ombudsman, federal and state politicians and during the regular meetings as they are publicly held between residents of all Perth suburbs and the authorities. An intensive review of several parts of the current airspace took place.

The outcome of these discussions was that a small improvement for the SNAG neighbourhoods could be found in that at least the 7 planes between 10 pm and 5 am could be diverted over green lands and part of a suburb (Canning Vale) because by the time the planes would hit that neighbourhood they would at least be at 5000 feet (planes cross the SNAG suburbs at 3500 feet and make extra noise because at the same time they make a sharp right bank).

In return Canning Vale would be freed of an equal number of landing planes that currently bother them as they fly at only 2000 feet.

To everybody this proposal was clearly a fair deal, and to equal benefit of both suburbs. Regretfully it was misunderstood in Canning Vale and residents there feel that their high real estate prices may suffer as a consequence. They have started very aggressive action, on social media, as well as to individuals, whereas SNAG has at all times conducted itself in a decent way. Behaving properly and expressing the strong desire to share the noise fairly and equally has always been our driver, and we are of the opinion that we deserve this break, as it is not to the detriment of others.

Some misunderstandings that require correction:

1. Some antagonists of the proposed trial have brought forward that the relief of 7 out of 120 planes is driven by 'rich people in big mansions'. This is of course incorrect as the SNAG neighbourhoods contain for a large percentage pensioners and not double income earners like in Canning Vale in expensive houses.

2. The argument is used that people in the SNAG neighbourhoods bought a house under a flightpath and knew that. This is incorrect. The flightpath in its current form was only established in 2008, when the flightpath was narrowed to a 300 metres on each side path, and nobody I know bought a house under the current noise corridor. It was imposed on us without any form of consultation.

3. The health effects of noise are enormous. A night time reprieve from the 24 hour barrage and in particular the early stress wake up at 5 am is necessary. Canning Vale will never have the rack of FIFO planes every few minutes  at 5 am that is so deleterious to our health. In the proposed plan the SNAG neighbourhoods will still have to put up with these 35 night flights.

4. In the end it would be so much better if neighbourhoods that suffer from noise would be working together instead of antagonising each other. The airport is completely at the the wrong place. Built in the fifties at the fringes of the city, it is now right in the middle of it and should be moved to the shore, like every modern western world city that has sea access has done. 

Airservices Australia are in very applaudable consultation with the Canning Vale residents. We can only look back and regret we did not have that chance at any time in 2008 or thereafter. They have held in early June, 3 meetings to explain the new trial, and still there is misinterpretation and ignorance visible on multiple places on the Internet.

Please sign the petition if you:

1. Support Airservices Australia, endorsed by the Noise Ombudsman, Airport Authorities and Politicians that the trial of 12 months, where 7 of the 120 planes will follow an alternative flightpath, at the same time removing more noisy planes from the suburb that gets these planes at a much higher altitude.

2. Agree with the philosophy that we all profit from Perth airport but that it should not be the residents of the SNAG neighbourhoods that have to bear all its noise consequences, in particular the FIFO flights.

3.Are of the opinion that fair negotiating is a much better way than agressively attack another neighbourhood because they are perceived as being 'rich and living in big mansions', and spreading misinformation.

4. Believe that the airport is in the wrong place and action should be undertaken to move it to a more appropriate place

5. Believe that suburbs of Canning Vale and the SNAG suburbs should work together on this instead of antagonizing each other as in the end we will then both lose.

Thank you for your support

Chairman of the SNAG Actiongroup