Advertisement

Airport sees hope of blocking Tralee

By 29 June 2009 36

The Canberra Times is reporting that somewhere out there an un-named part of government has released a discussion paper which is saying things Canberra Airport really likes in its ongoing battle against the planned sprawling Tralee development under their southern flight paths.

    The discussion paper, which follows a green paper issued in December to shape a new national aviation policy, suggests avoiding residential and other noise sensitive developments in corridors under flight paths.

    It raises a more conservative criteria for developments under flight paths, particularly in relation to development of greenfield sites or where other options are available. Canberra Airport managing director Stephen Byron said the Commonwealth was sick of residents moving to live under flight paths and complaining about the noise.

It’s good that Steve Byron can speak for the Commonwealth now.

Please login to post your comments
36 Responses to Airport sees hope of blocking Tralee
#1
harvyk13:07 pm, 29 Jun 09

If you actively choose to live under a current flight path, you need to have rocks in your head.

I really hope that Tralee is knocked back, because we all know what will happen, residents move in, realise that planes do make noise, and they will join the “Curfew 4 Canberra” mob.

Curfew 4 Canberra gains more support and the airport – through no fault of it’s own will have to bow to these morons.

#2
ant3:11 pm, 29 Jun 09

People who want to stop planes from flying overhead at 2am are “morons”?

#3
sepi3:15 pm, 29 Jun 09

Whichever side of this debate you are on (curfew 4 canberra OR the airport) building at Tralee seems like a dim idea.

The paper said the buildings will mitigate noise with insulation, double glazing and evaporative cooling. Now for evap cooling you have to have windows open. Is it the noise of the evap cooling that will drown out the planes overhead?

#4
Wraith3:40 pm, 29 Jun 09

People that move in to the flight path of aircraft around an Airport and then try to whinge about the noise are certainly “morons”.

If you don’t like it don’t live there. Another question, why would the Government of the day allow the developers to try to develop the land for residential use anyways? It is only going to end up in this sort of crap argument.

#5
willo3:54 pm, 29 Jun 09

yes knock tralee back……then reopen the world class speedway complex that used to operate there!

#6
harvyk14:01 pm, 29 Jun 09

ant said :

People who want to stop planes from flying overhead at 2am are “morons”?

If you have moved into a place where planes have the potential to fly overhead at 2am (so basically anywhere under an established flight path) and then complain about it, then yes…

#7
VYBerlinaV8_the_one_4:01 pm, 29 Jun 09

Why should the NSW govt be restricted in where it develops? The ACT govt certainly didn’t give any thought to it neighbours when locating the gaol…

#8
toriness4:27 pm, 29 Jun 09

i could care less if tralee was built – so long as the people who buy the houses there realise they are consenting to living under a fixed flight path.

#9
sepi4:30 pm, 29 Jun 09

yep – Trallee is a jusrisdictional nightmare.

Airport – Federals controls (such as they are).

Areas affected when new flightpaths are created to take pressure off Trallee – ACT

Trallee – NSW govt.

NSW govt approved Trallee – they don’t care if the rest of the ACT gets more noise when Trallee residents start complaining.

This would have been an occasion for the Feds to step in, but they just stood back and did nothing. Pity they don’t hold back on other issues when the ACT wants to make laws.

#10
JC4:32 pm, 29 Jun 09

What has the ACT government got to do with this. Steven Byron is from the airprot, which as we all know is a Snow Enterprise.

Regardless of weather the land is in the ACT or NSW it should not be built on if it is under any existing aproach paths. Simple as that.

Oh Willo it would be good to see the speedway back, but the whingers in Jerra might have a thing or two to say about that. They did play a small hand in the demise of the site. (The main reason was a family blue after the death of the owner)

#11
VYBerlinaV8_the_one_4:34 pm, 29 Jun 09

toriness said :

i could care less if tralee was built – so long as the people who buy the houses there realise they are consenting to living under a fixed flight path.

If they build it, there will be noise sharing.

#12
toriness4:36 pm, 29 Jun 09

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

toriness said :

i could care less if tralee was built – so long as the people who buy the houses there realise they are consenting to living under a fixed flight path.

If they build it, there will be noise sharing.

fine, a new flight path coming in low over the middle of queenbean.

#13
VYBerlinaV8_the_one_4:38 pm, 29 Jun 09

toriness said :

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

toriness said :

i could care less if tralee was built – so long as the people who buy the houses there realise they are consenting to living under a fixed flight path.

If they build it, there will be noise sharing.

fine, a new flight path coming in low over the middle of queenbean.

Yeah, right.

If Traless gets built, the ACT will bear its fair share of noise.

#14
monomania4:39 pm, 29 Jun 09

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

Why should the NSW govt be restricted in where it develops? The ACT govt certainly didn’t give any thought to it neighbours when locating the gaol…

Why should the citizens of the ACT be penalised further by more parasitic development in NSW. Not only are we already disadvantaged financially by these leaches we have to put up with their carping criticism.

Sure as eggs if Tralee goes ahead sometime in the future there will be claims for further noise sharing.

#15
Thoroughly Smashed4:45 pm, 29 Jun 09

toriness said :

i could care less if tralee was built – so long as the people who buy the houses there realise they are consenting to living under a fixed flight path.

http://incompetech.com/gallimaufry/care_less.html

willo said :

yes knock tralee back……then reopen the world class speedway complex that used to operate there!

Sheppard Street’s still open, at least it was last week…

#16
Anna Key4:49 pm, 29 Jun 09

Noise sharing is inevitable while Eden Monaro remains a marginal electorate

#17
Skidbladnir4:56 pm, 29 Jun 09

Jurisdictional nightmares on our doorstep would be a nice justification for letting the ACT expand to encompass its own economic zone, instead of having this ‘worst of both worlds’ scenario we keep running into.

#18
Ivan764:59 pm, 29 Jun 09

Tralee is a bad idea and a problem that doesn’t need to exist in the first place.

If this goes ahead we will end up with two likely scenarios, either investors snap up these properties on the cheap with likely rates concessions and rent them out to people desperate to be accepted into any house due to the rental shortage. OR, 1st home buyers desperate to enter the market will purchase them and have to put up with the noise but hey, at least they could afford a home right?

Any kid that has played Sim City knows you don’t put residential areas near airports because the residents complain. Parks, industry & commerce are the way to go….

#19
bendddd5:06 pm, 29 Jun 09

Ivan76 said :

Any kid that has played Sim City knows you don’t put residential areas near airports because the residents complain.

haha – too true.

#20
johnboy5:08 pm, 29 Jun 09

bendddd said :

Ivan76 said :

Any kid that has played Sim City knows you don’t put residential areas near airports because the residents complain.

haha – too true.

But if you play it smart you stick the real nasties right up on the border and shift half the problem onto your neighbour…

Which is exactly what’s happening here.

#21
Mr Evil5:11 pm, 29 Jun 09

The majority of aircraft accidents and/or incidents occur within about 5km of an airport, usually just after takeoff or on approach to land – so if you choose to live on a flightpath close to the airport boundary, then more fool you!

#22
MsCheeky5:28 pm, 29 Jun 09

JC said :

Oh Willo it would be good to see the speedway back, but the whingers in Jerra might have a thing or two to say about that. They did play a small hand in the demise of the site. (The main reason was a family blue after the death of the owner)

I’ve lived in Jerra for about nine years. Have never complained about aircraft noise (quite frankly, it’s not very noisy), and never complained about the speedway (again, it wasn’t noisy).

Of course everyone wants premium amenity in their home, but we’re neighbours here – maybe we should play nice. I don’t have a view on Tralee, but I do have a view on Canberra airport becoming a 24 hour freight hub. It is simply madness.

But if the ACT wants it and will benefit from it, then the ACT should be willing to pay for that benefit, and if that’s in part by distributing some of the noise, so be it. If it’s not ok for residents of Tuggeranong to have aircraft noise, why is it ok for residents of Queanbeyan, (noting that some of Queanbeyan has been there a very long time).

Perhaps, Willo, you’re calling people whingers because you haven’t had anything to whinge about yet. Not living next to a proposed suburban drug rehab, not living near the proposed data centre, not living near Summernats central? Life is comfy, so you don’t need to ‘whinge’? Yet.

#23
harvyk15:30 pm, 29 Jun 09

Mr Evil, I wouldn’t call having planes drop out of the sky much of a danger, how many flights take off and land each day around the world with no problems?

The problem here is surprisingly simple. Developers want money, will do anything to get it, they are then sitting on tropical beach with everyone elses money when the proverbial hits the fan because Tralee residents have had enough of noise.

Don’t think for a second this issue is about aircraft noise. It’s all about a developer getting as much money as they can without considering all the issues. Now whilst I won’t say that Snow is any better than the Tralee developer in terms of money grabbing, they where there first, the place has been established as an airfield \ airport since virtually the birth of Canberra.

#24
JC6:28 pm, 29 Jun 09

MsCheeky said :

I’ve lived in Jerra for about nine years. Have never complained about aircraft noise (quite frankly, it’s not very noisy), and never complained about the speedway (again, it wasn’t noisy).

Of course everyone wants premium amenity in their home, but we’re neighbours here – maybe we should play nice. I don’t have a view on Tralee, but I do have a view on Canberra airport becoming a 24 hour freight hub. It is simply madness.

But if the ACT wants it and will benefit from it, then the ACT should be willing to pay for that benefit, and if that’s in part by distributing some of the noise, so be it. If it’s not ok for residents of Tuggeranong to have aircraft noise, why is it ok for residents of Queanbeyan, (noting that some of Queanbeyan has been there a very long time).

First the speedway has been closed for well over 10 years, so if you have lived in Jerra for 9 it is good you have never complianed about it. Secondly it is Canberra Airport group, ie Mr Snow that wants a 24 hour airport, remember the airport is on Federal land and as Mr Snow has proved time and again he can build what he pleases without little if any say so from the ACT government.

As for noise sharing, do you have any idea how flight paths work? To land they have to line up a fair distance out which for Canberra approaching from the south is just south of Hume. So there is NO option but to fly over Tralee.

Take offs are a different matter, they can turn just after takeoff, but that would see them, if taking off to the south turning over Jerra or turning over the city of Canberra. At present when they take off they remain straight then turn once they are high enough to not annoy anyone or turn over non built up area’s.

If Tralee isn’t built then things can reamin as they are, which is ideal.

The bottom line though is why do we need Tralee? I cannot think of one answer except to fill the coffers of developers and the QBN council. There is no shortage of land elsewhere. That land is away from the current flight paths and away from what is an industrial estate, which has been there longer than residents of Jerra. So just leave the land as a buffer between Jerra and Hume and as a direct flight path for aircraft.

PS. I lived in Franklin Court in Jerra for about 5 years, the noise never worried me at all.

#25
Pandy7:17 pm, 29 Jun 09

+1 and CURFEW!!!!

#26
bd849:36 pm, 29 Jun 09

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

Why should the NSW govt be restricted in where it develops? The ACT govt certainly didn’t give any thought to it neighbours when locating the gaol…

Living close to a jail is actually a very safe place to live, it’s not like the prisoners want to hang out near the place. If any prisoners happen to escape, I doubt the first place on their list to hide would be the closest house, they’d want to get as far away as possible and quickly.

Anyway I have no problems with them building at Tralee, there should be a written proviso that the current and future flight paths of aircraft will not be altered for any reason and there is no right to complain. If you build under a flight path, you get the noise that goes with it. Building Jerrabomberra where it is wasn’t the brightest idea and the Tralee development is just as stupid. The rule should be what was there first takes precedence, and the airport would win in most cases.

#27
ant10:05 pm, 29 Jun 09

There’s some not very nice “I’m all right Jack so screw you” attitudes coming out here.

Once again, Tralee = noise for Canberra/No Tralee = no noise for Canberra is a lie the airport is feeding people, but evidently it’s a very effective lie.

With or without Tralee, Canberra *will* get airport noise, especially if the 24 hour freight/international thing takes off.

The airport has cleverly played on the worst in human nature by turning ACT people to fight the Tralee deveopment on its behalf. But even if Tralee doesn’t go ahead, you’ll still get plenty of plane noise.

Desperate people will buy homes there, housing is out of reach of many people so if it’s cheap, they’ll flock to it. the developer knows this. They should build an industrial development there, if they must develop it, and this is probably what will happen in the end.

meanwhile, the lunacy of three governments being involved and none of them doing anything useful is a disgrace. A very large slice of the Canberra workforce lives across the border… for reasons of housing affordability, and also a lot of the rural people who come into Canberra to provide their labour.

The airport affects more than just Canberra but you don’t see the ACT government acting too concerned about that.

I imagine Tralee will be prevented, or they’ll get together and do a few deals, although with Snow and Winnell, I dunno, maybe not.

But rest assured, even if Tralee is stopped, you WILL get noise, and plenty of it. The airport is selling a clever, nasty little lie. Sadly, it’s working.

#28
sepi10:25 pm, 29 Jun 09

I actually thought NSW had approved it and TRalee was a done deal.

No matter what, building under a flight path is just a dumb idea, unless you have absolutely nowhere else to go. You can threaten to make people sign up for the noise, and state that they can never sue etc etc, but give it 30 years and all that will be out the window, and the new generation of people living there will be complaining as loudly as they can.

#29
JC11:21 pm, 29 Jun 09

ant said :

There’s some not very nice “I’m all right Jack so screw you” attitudes coming out here.

Once again, Tralee = noise for Canberra/No Tralee = no noise for Canberra is a lie the airport is feeding people, but evidently it’s a very effective lie.

With or without Tralee, Canberra *will* get airport noise, especially if the 24 hour freight/international thing takes off.

The airport has cleverly played on the worst in human nature by turning ACT people to fight the Tralee deveopment on its behalf. But even if Tralee doesn’t go ahead, you’ll still get plenty of plane noise.

Desperate people will buy homes there, housing is out of reach of many people so if it’s cheap, they’ll flock to it. the developer knows this. They should build an industrial development there, if they must develop it, and this is probably what will happen in the end.

meanwhile, the lunacy of three governments being involved and none of them doing anything useful is a disgrace. A very large slice of the Canberra workforce lives across the border… for reasons of housing affordability, and also a lot of the rural people who come into Canberra to provide their labour.

The airport affects more than just Canberra but you don’t see the ACT government acting too concerned about that.

I imagine Tralee will be prevented, or they’ll get together and do a few deals, although with Snow and Winnell, I dunno, maybe not.

But rest assured, even if Tralee is stopped, you WILL get noise, and plenty of it. The airport is selling a clever, nasty little lie. Sadly, it’s working.

Tell me Ant, where is this noise going to come from? You don’t seriously think anyone is apable of turning Canberra into a 24×7 freight hub? There are other places (Sydney airport being one actually) that fulfills this role already. No one in there right mind is going to double handle goods through Canberra if they don’t have to.

Now even if if they did make it 24×7 and the quantity of movements increased, there is no need to share noise around if the northern and southern approaches were kept undevloped. Planes could come and go, as they do now over relativly undeveloped land, and those who there already brought the land knowing they had planes flying overhead, so more fool them.

So put simply leave the approaches as they are now and there is no need for noise sharing. Build Tralee and other developments under the current flight paths then later, regardless there will be pressure to needlessly share ‘noise’. It is a no brainer I would have though.

#30
johnboy11:31 pm, 29 Jun 09

JC, you forget that almost every truck bringing goods to Canberra goes back empty.

And the landing fees in Sydney are vastly higher.

There is a significant niche to be had here for freight operations taking advantage of the freight backhaul.

Follow
Follow The RiotACT
Get Premium Membership
Advertisement

Are you in favour of Light Rail for Canberra?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

IMAGES OF CANBERRA

Advertisement
Sponsors
RiotACT Proudly Supports
Advertisement
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.