Educating the decision makers
Airport users fighting back - editorial
All over Australia, formerly government-owned airports are now under threat of closure at worst, or reductions to their functionality and safety, by the actions of their new owners and the apparent inaction of local, state and federal governments entrusted with their future security, safety and utility. But airport user groups are now fighting back.
Below is a letter from Caloundra airport users to elected members of the Sunshine Coast Regional Council, explaining their legal, moral and community obligations. Despite contracts signed between local and federal governments in the 1992 Aerodrome Local Ownership Plan, various local governments around Australia are busily working with developers to convert airports that are a functional and essential components of the nation’s transport infrastructure, into residential or commercial real estate. Inaction by the federal government is not helping, as this letter makes clear.
A detailed “Bella Vista” development application by Stockland, which came with a half million dollar application fee, actually uses the words: “When the Caloundra aerodrome is closed.” The council at first told aviation businesses that leases would not be renewed after December 2014 and the aerodrome would be “relocated” but there has been no Council resolution to close the airport and no announced revision of council policy, so there is no certainty of tenure beyond the end of 2014. There is therefore no possibility of financing any development in the next four years, and certainly none beyond that either.
And on GAAP airfields the situation is at least as bad and arguably much worse.
The Minister and his Department already possess the tools to bring this situation into line. All that’s now needed is the will to meet their obligations.
Caloundra is only one example, but a good one. We are aware of dozens of other airports whose head-lease owners appear to have plans that would contravene the intent of their ALOP contracts or the Airport Sales Act 1996, and we are assembling documentation wherever it is available.
AviationAdvertiser.com.au is now aiding groups and individuals affected by either inertia or malignant intent, in a campaign to return affected aerodromes to a condition in which their users’ businesses will be viable. The campaign will deal only in documented facts, and we invite your input to pdphelan@aviationadvertiser.com.au.
Here’s what the Caloundra group has to say:
LETTER TO SUNSHINE COAST COUNCILORS FROM CALOUNDRA AIRPORT USERS GROUP
Dear Mayor Bob Abbot
Firstly thank you for taking the time to visit the Caloundra Aerodrome. We enjoyed your visit and hope it was rewarding and enlightening.
After reading the Bellvista 2 Development Application 2010/61-00001 from Stocklands to the SCRC I feel compelled to write to you with the following comments as I now understand the pressure being put on you by both Stocklands and your own planning department.
The application repeatedly refers to “when Caloundra Aerodrome closes” and “when operations cease at Caloundra Aerodrome”. This infers that Stockland has already been provided with assurances to which at the present time, they are not entitled. The resolution back in I believe 2006 was that ” Leases will not be renewed past December 31st 2014 and the Aerodrome will be relocated” as that is now on hold by the State Government there is no CCC or SCRC resolution to close Caloundra Aerodrome.
Regardless of that it is fact that the Aerodrome Local Ownership Plan Deed of Trust signed by the Caloundra City Council 29th June 1992 clearly states in Clause 2 (h) (i) quote shall take such action as is within its power to create land-use zoning around the aerodrome which will prevent residential and other incompatible development in areas which are, or which may be, adversely affected by aircraft noise.
This clause of the Deed alone must make Bellvista and therefore Bellvista 2 unallowable. Although we are aware of various statements in the past originating from both Council staff and Councilor claiming the Deed “is not worth the paper it is printed on”. The undertakings provided in the Deed represent contractual obligations to which Council is bound. The ruling given by Corrs Chambers and Westgarth in 2005 was specific to one clause only and is defined by the instructions given by council staff. “ We are instructed to advise whether an agreement between the Caloundra City Council and the Commonwealth of Australia with respect to the Caloundra Aerodrome might provide any impediment to the Council closing the aerodrome.”
It is very clear that the intent of the Department which prepared the Deeds in 1992 anticipated the future actions which are now being attempted by SCRC and other local government agencies responsible for aerodromes under the Aerodrome Local Ownership plan ( ALOP).
Clause 2 (L) (M) and especially (P) will all be in breach by the Sunshine Coast Regional Council if it indeed votes to close the aerodrome and hand it over to developers.
(P) shall not, without the consent in writing of the Secretary, close the aerodrome or sell, lease or otherwise dispose of or part with the possession of the land comprised in the aerodrome other than a disposal by way of lease or license under the provisions of clause 2(J), 2(K), 2(L), and 2(M) thereof;
Correspondence attached dates from 2005 to 2010 and clearly indicates neither Caloundra City Council nor the Sunshine Coast Regional Council have at any time sought approval from the Secretary of the Commonwealth Department of Transport and Infrastructure.
“The Aviation White Paper” published by The Commonwealth of Australia in 2009 would indicate to all who read it that approval to close Caloundra Aerodrome will not be forthcoming.
It is a very large document and I urge you to read it, especially Chapter 9 in regards to Airports. www.infrastructure.gov.au. Here are some relevant extracts.
The Government’s aim is to give industry the certainty and incentive to plan and invest for the long term, to maintain and improve our excellent aviation safety record, and to give clear commitments to travellers and airport users, and the communities affected by aviation activity.
Continual investment in and upgrade of the aviation infrastructure at Australia’s airports is needed to continue to drive Australia’s productivity and economic performance. In order to achieve this, airports need to be afforded the best possible planning and consultative framework–to allow for the development of their core aviation business, while encouraging their integration with the communities that neighbor them.
The discussion paper Safeguards for airports and the communities around them signaled that the Australian Government will work cooperatively with the states, territories and local planning authorities to develop a risk-based national safeguarding framework. The framework will ensure an appropriate balance is maintained between the social, economic and environmental needs of the community and the effective use of airport sites. Maintenance of such a balance would surely begin with the enforcement by Government of existing relevant contracts and legislation.
The proposed Planning Coordination Forums for the primary capital city airports will play an important role in the application of a safeguarding framework to off-airport planning. However, safeguarding issues apply not only at the large federal airports, but in respect of large and small airports nationwide.
Dave Miles
Caloundra Airport Industry/Users Group
Business Owner
Lease Holder
0412396740
P.O. Box 84
Moffat Beach 4551 Qld
Well done David Miles, a great letter.
Why did the politicians bother to produce the “White Paper” when they are, as usual failing to act on it. Why are they ignoring the plights of these airports. Bankstown has lost 4 flying schools in the last year. Hawker dehaviland is shuting down. Hawker Pacific just sacked another 30 people. Numerous other companies have cut staff.
How many hundreds of jobs must be lost before they wake up? Where are the pilots and engineers of the future coming from? Where are our political champions? I have sent emails to Anthony Albanese, Daryl Melham, Danna Vale and Allison Megarity. None of them even bothered to respond.
I am disgusted with our whole political system and their lack of will to act, ALL PARTIES.
Unfortunately Clause 2(p) cited in Dave Miles letter no longer applies. Former Minister John Anderson got rid of it in January 2004 on the advice of his department (DOTARS). Now local government can do as it pleases except if it plans to close the aerodrome or if the aerodrome no longer operates as an aerodrome. Then permission of Albanese’s department must be sought.
Anderson asked that a couple of peak bodies representing users be contacted before changes were made but this did not happen. The change went ahead anyway. I guess the department was running the Minister.
What’s interesting about the change is that Minister Anderson and his department did not bring it to parliament yet it involved a major change in policy for regional aviation infrastructure, and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of property. Local government was informed and the developers certainly knew but the GA audience and the public were kept out of the loop.
And look at the timing of the Anderson liberalisation policy……..at the same time as the Making Ends Meet report was released which took an entirely different view. While that report was tabled in Parliament Ministers failed to act on its recommendations which were protective of regional aviation.
Yup, let the free market do as it pleases. Bugger regional aviation infrastructure. Local and state governments will look after it even though they have major conflicts of interest as both owners and consent authorities. Sure they’ll look after it!
There is little doubt Minister Albanese and his department are missing in action.
Richard Gates
President
The Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome Committee Inc
Peter Flanagan,
If these politicians have not bothered to respond, you should take the issue to the ombudsman. Politcians are obligated to respond to you within two weeks. At least force the sods to do that. The problem is that you will get party-political clap-trap as an excuse for a reply; apparently that is acceptable.