Advertisement

Airport told by Minister – not good enough

By 21 November 2008 21

Transport Minister Albanese has just released his reasons for rejecting the Canberra Airport Master Plan 2008 (that each airport has to submit on a regular basis). He mainly cites a lack of detail in their submission for rejecting it….

Examples of insufficient information in the 2008 draft master plan include:

  • The draft master plan proposes a freight hub and states “significant night freight operations will commence in the short term”, but the draft master plan does not indicate the potential location of the freight hub, the type of freight envisaged, the buildings and other infrastructure required to operate it, possible traffic management arrangements or the volume of freight that may be processed;
  • There are minimal maps and diagrams to outline the use of the airport land, to show the delineation of aeronautical and other development areas, environmentally significant areas or details of the connections with the surrounding roads; and
  • There is minimal information about how airport and surrounding infrastructure and services will support the airport’s projected growth, with very limited information about terminal redevelopment or other aeronautical developments needed to support that projected growth.
  • The key land use map for the airport in the 2008 draft master plan is an undated aerial photograph that does not show the airport’s intentions for future development including detail such as the approved terminal expansion.
  • There is not sufficient information relating to specific precincts such as land use zones, commercial development land uses and no detail about current and future road works to support airport growth, including works already underway.

It seems that they tried to put in what they thought would be the bare minimum – while still leaving all options open to them if they decide to change their minds on something in the future.

UPDATED: Shane Rattenbury has expressed his joy at Albo’s decision.

Please login to post your comments
21 Responses to Airport told by Minister – not good enough
#1
sepi3:00 pm, 21 Nov 08

They are used to dealing with ACT govt afterall.

#2
ant3:01 pm, 21 Nov 08

I think the airport was used to receiving a rubber stamp on anything it wanted to do. Nice to see the new government doing its job in requiring a bit of that planning stuff to be undertaken.

I imagine Mr Albanese has experienced the disgracful amentity provided by Canberra airport when not in government too, and it evidently made an impression. I imagine the APS staff working on this stuff also get to experience it regularly. I hope this signals that the jig is up.

#3
AG Canberra3:04 pm, 21 Nov 08

Or maybe they have taken enough phone calls from their State premiers about how they are annoyed at having no planning power over the airport sites – and so Albo’ is finally making the operators a bit more accountable.

#4
johnboy3:20 pm, 21 Nov 08

Or maybe Terry Snow’s on the “Enemies list” having done so many deals with the Liberals in the past and having let former young Liberal warrior Steven Byron marry his daughter and run the airport?

#5
sepi3:23 pm, 21 Nov 08

Interesting anyway.

Albo is minister for Marrickville, and I’ve been worried he might be keen to move some of Sydney airport’s noise problems down here.

But maybe not (fingers crossed.)

#6
johnboy3:38 pm, 21 Nov 08

You’ll find a lot of Western Sydney Labor figures bought up a lot of the land around Badgery’s Creek.

They’re still hoping to make a killing from the land being resumed for the airport and they’ve been waiting a long time now.

#7
monomania6:45 pm, 21 Nov 08

Lake George. Technology copes with fog. Fast passenger and commercial trains to Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne and new regional centres between. Smack bang in the middle of the lake but above water. Pisses off only a few people already annoyed by wind turbines. Longest runways in the Southern Hemisphere. Able to cope with the largest civilian or military transport planes from China, the USA, Indonesia, India, Russia, the Federated Sates of Europe etc. Why not hedge our bets and plan for the future. And cut off Snow at the knees, or higher. Very little traffic for Canberra Airport.

#8
Vic Bitterman7:23 pm, 21 Nov 08

Sucked in snow!!!! LOL

#9
ant10:27 pm, 21 Nov 08

Nice idea, monomania, I like it. Bringing the lake level up enough though would be tricky, that lake used to be quite deep over the mine side. Unless they built drainage canals.

It would certainly be an ideal location, for so many reasons.

#10
heinous8:29 am, 22 Nov 08

Good-on-ya Minister Albanese, make Snow learn that he actually has an airport and not broad acre land ripe for development without planning rule.

#11
ant10:44 am, 22 Nov 08

You watch them, they’ll go into major sulk mode now, and refuse to do things because of this decision and impose new things like closing vehicle access to the front of the terminal and making everyone walk.

#12
el11:27 am, 22 Nov 08

I like monomania’s idea too.

Plenty of space out there for a drag-way, too ;-)

#13
housebound12:38 pm, 22 Nov 08

They looked at Lake George years ago, possibly as part of the search for a 2nd airport for Sydney?? It was deemed too geologically unstable then, and I don’t think that sort of thing changes in a flash.

#14
NickD3:51 pm, 22 Nov 08

I bet this proposal would have been rubber stamped by the previous government…

The only thing which cheers me up when I’m stuck at the increasingly awful Canberra Airport is that the politicians who allowed Snowtown to happen might be stuck in the traffic behind me and that the fiasco helps explain Mike Kelly’s big victory in Eden-Monaro last year.

#15
RuffnReady4:04 pm, 22 Nov 08

So all airports are under federal jurisdiction?

Canberra airport as a proxy second Sydney airport would be a disaster for local residents and for the environment (both pollution and resource depletion). Fight it at all costs.

#16
NickD4:55 pm, 22 Nov 08

RuffnReady said :

So all airports are under federal jurisdiction?

I don’t know about ‘all’, but most of the major airports in Australia are on Commonwealth-administered land and the Commonwealth Govt has planning approval for what goes on there rather than the State and Territory Govts.

RuffnReady said :

Canberra airport as a proxy second Sydney airport would be a disaster for local residents and for the environment (both pollution and resource depletion). Fight it at all costs.

Why is it better for public health to send more flights into the heavily populated Sydney basin rather than the more lightly populated Canberra region? There’s a strong economic and public health case for developing Canberra Airport into the freight hub Sydney needs, but the Airport management is displaying its usual arrogance by trying to railroad this idea through the Commonwealth Government rather than convincing the Canberra community that the proposal has merit.

#17
sepi6:52 pm, 22 Nov 08

People choose to live in Sydney for the amenities and big city lifestyle.

People choose Canberra for other reasons, often involving slower pace and quieter life.

I don’t think we should have to take on their aircraft noise.

#18
ant11:59 pm, 23 Nov 08

Send a few 3am jumbos over, and THEN ask teh community if it has “merit”. Pouring money into the Snow family’s pocket, and sacrificing sleep to do so sounds like a really bad deal to me. If Sydney wants planes, let them build that second airport. Canberra airport is a necessary evil, but it should be a transport station for Canberra and surrounds. Not a freight hub.

#19
farnarkler6:11 am, 24 Nov 08

Surely it would benefit Canberra to be a freight hub. Transport costs would be saved thus imports would be cheaper.

#20
GB9:46 am, 24 Nov 08

farnarkler said :

Surely it would benefit Canberra to be a freight hub. Transport costs would be saved thus imports would be cheaper.

It might, it might not.

Before we give away planning rights and our peace and quiet to Snow & Co, we should find out what benefits there are, and make an informed decision. The rest of us being involved is not in the interests of the airport corporations, so of course they try to avoid scrutiny. And for some reason, some people seem to think the airport corporations have our interests at heart. If that was the case, they would have built their own road, prioritised the terminal building over building a private cbd, and made access and parking easy and cheap.

National coordination of airport planning is a great concept. By having control over airport lands, the feds have the tools at hand. So far, they have not used them well. This is a start.

#21
sepi10:03 am, 24 Nov 08

The freight hub won’t benefit canberra – all the stuff is destined to go straight to sydney on trucks – all we’ll get is noise at night from planes and trucks, and more wear and tear on the roads round the airport.

That’s why they were originally calling it sydney’s second airport. Maybe that concept didn’t sell well – now they are using the freight hub description.

Follow
Follow The RiotACT
Get Premium Membership
Advertisement

Images of Canberra

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