Two articles in CCN 431 deserve attention.
Comments from the Wamberal Save Our Sands Group suggested the sea wall proposed primarily adjoining the houses at the northern end of Wamberal beach should be abandoned in favour of beach sand replenishment.
No amount of sand will have any significant effect when, not if, a serious storm event occurs such as the ones of 1974 and 1978 which caused considerable residential damage.
These events or even more severe ones are not isolated as detailed in NSW government records.
Any sand would be completely useless in such events and washed away.
Even worse, if the storm event breached the dunes it would probably cause damage to the many low lying houses in the area on the other side of Ocean View Dr, most of which are now below the published flood level.
A seawall should protect against a sea intrusion. particularly through the existing vacant block
I well remember the vociferous protests when Gosford City Council constructed a seawall separating Terrigal beach from the slightly higher elevated picnic and walking area.
The cry, supposedly supported by expert advice, was that the wall would cause the southern end of Terrigal beach to lose all its sand.
It just hasn’t happened and the walkway, now extending to Terrigal haven is a delight for tourists and visitors and much used.
The other item given prominence was the proposed upgrade to Warnervale Airport and possible adverse noise pollution.
Apart from the obvious benefits of having an airport capable of handling middle-sized commuter aircraft beside a major road and a useful site for aviation related industry currently hamstrung at Bankstown airport, the noise constraints deserve consideration.
Mid-sized commuter aircraft would not have many operations per day.
They do not need to fly over densely populated areas; to and from Warnervale (rhey) could be expected to fly over the sparsely populated areas to the west of the airfield.
As happens at many airfields around the world, all circuits could be to the west of Warnervale Airfield and not to the east.
These operations would have virtually no impact on suburban areas.
(The same applies to) smaller private aircraft, but if flying locally (they) would need care as to flying procedures and possible restrictions as to airspace used.
RAA aircraft have smaller motors, mostly water cooled and with mufflers fitted to the engines.
(They make) less noise than many cars and meet the strong noise restrictions in most European countries.
(They) could be expected to increase in numbers if Warnervale became more aircraft friendly as proposed.
Pilots are usually environmentally conscious.
Low noise levels from these aircraft would usually (not) be heard from the ground and certainly (would be) less than ambient car traffic.
Usually pilots are club members and conscious of community obligations.
Training aircraft are mostly older, using older non muffler air-cooled motors and probably the largest cause of noise around Warnervale airport due to frequency of operations, although this would need to be confirmed.
Certainly management takes steps to minimise problems.
(It) would be better and much quieter if training operations were mostly undertaken in RAA type aircraft with planes equipped with silenced motors.
Whenever a new proposal is made, good bad or indifferent, it seems that there is always a protest group which finds fault.
This is democracy.
We are fortunate that we have Coast Community News to publish differing opinions which obviates the need of protesters to disrupt traffic or otherwise conflict with public amenity.
Email, Mar 23
Harry Medlicott, Matcham