Advertisement

Canberra Airport’s “law unto themselves” approach to cease?

By 10 April 2008 13

Today (10 April 2008), Infrastructure Australia announced the commencement of the process to develop a National Aviation Policy Statement. Apparently the National Aviation Policy Statement will provide greater planning and investment certainty for the industry and provide clear commitments for users of aviation services and communities affected by aviation activity. So it appears the days where Canberra Airport is able to do what they want to do without consideration of the actions on Canberra (and local region) may be thankfully numbered. For my part I have no problem with the airport continuing to do what an airport is supposed to do – aviation and aeronautical functions. I just look at the office development that has already occurred out at Brindabella park and lament the fact that those facilities could (and should) have been located in the existing town centres.  Submissions are being sought for the preparation of a Green paper and should be sent to the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government by no later than Friday 27 June 2008.

Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government
GPO Box 594, CANBERRA ACT 2601,
Phone: +61 2 6274 6040,
Fax: +61 2 6274 6749,
Email: aviationstatement@infrastructure.gov.au

To save you needing to trawl through 30 pages of the issues paper, some of the more pertinent questions being asked in the white paper that are relevant to the Capital Region include:Airport planning and Development:

  • Are the planning and development mechanisms under the Airports Act working effectively?
  • How can we improve consultation with State and local authorities and with the community?
  • Could the regulatory regime better facilitate genuine long-term co-operation between airport operator companies and state and local governments on land use planning?
  • How can we better integrate investment on airports with the funding and construction of improved road and rail links to and from our airports?
  • What mechanisms might be used to ensure an effective ongoing dialogue between airport operators and their local communities?
  • How should the potential commercial impact for off-airport competition be taken into account in planning on-airport non-aeronautical development?

Aircraft Noise:

  • Could the ANEF system be improved or be supplemented by other planning tools to better explain the impact of aircraft noise? Should State and local governments play a greater role in aircraft noise management? What should be the responsibilities of airports?
  • Should emphasis be given to airport/community partnership approaches, for example, based on locally negotiated agreements rather than generic legislative approaches?
  • Can techniques for sharing information on aircraft noise impact be further developed to improve the supply of information to potential property purchasers and other affected parties?
  • Which airports in Australia need to remain curfew free and under what conditions? Can operations at airports be better managed to ensure the community is protected while at the same time providing for night time access?

Please login to post your comments
13 Responses to
Canberra Airport’s “law unto themselves” approach to cease?
Pandy 8:47 pm
10 Apr 08
#1

I think the CIA is misunderstood.

bigred 10:50 pm
10 Apr 08
#2

But the horse has already bolted me thinks.

sepi 11:21 pm
10 Apr 08
#3

There was something on ABC news tonight about the airport.

The Tralee development’s latest legal case has failed, and the airport has won.
They seemed to say this also meant that the airports NEP noise projection of a plane every 2 minutes has been approved (it is now waiting for sign=0ff from Minister Albanese.

But it was hard to follow exactly what they were on about.

Crikey 9:57 am
11 Apr 08
#4

Sorry, but I love seeing that twat Bob Windell get screwed. Apparently the court cost was over $1 million.

He’ll fu*k up Tralee just like he did Gungahlin.

S4anta 10:08 am
11 Apr 08
#5

Agreed Crikey, Winnell is a goose.

skaboy12 10:48 am
11 Apr 08
#6

The thing I have not understood during the whole Tralee thing is why the ACT and its residents think they should have any say in what we do on our side of the border??

p1 11:00 am
11 Apr 08
#7

Developer loses airport court challenge on the ABC website.

The thing I have not understood during the whole Tralee thing is why the ACT and its residents think they should have any say in what we do on our side of the border??

The same reason there are laws stopping you marring your cousins. In the long run it will just cause trouble for everyone.

Mr Evil 11:12 am
11 Apr 08
#8

“The thing I have not understood during the whole Tralee thing is why the ACT and its residents think they should have any say in what we do on our side of the border??”

Like I’ve said 1000 times before, build Tralee, but every owner/buyer is made aware that living on a flightpath within 5km of an airport is not a good idea and signs a legal document stating that they realise what they are getting themselves into and will not complain or take any action against the airport, ACT or Federal Govt if they have to put up with aircraft sailing over their houses at 3am.

If you are so stupid to buy a house under a flightpath, then live with the consequences of your decisions.

The airport has been their since the 1930s – it’s not going to move!

Mælinar 11:17 am
11 Apr 08
#9

I say phuck them, let the stupid idiots build Tralee. Then when the whingeing starts, we all just go, well duh.

And enshrine the flightpath in legislation so it cannot be changed unless the ACT votes on it, as if that will ever happen.

Mr Evil 11:22 am
11 Apr 08
#10

Another thing people might like to consider is that most air accidents happen during approach or take-off within about 5km of an airport!

Might be a little upsetting having an aircraft land on your roof while you’re watching Australian Idol, ACA, TT or McLeod’s Daughters!

p1 11:33 am
11 Apr 08
#11

Might be a little upsetting having an aircraft land on your roof while you’re watching Australian Idol, ACA, TT or McLeod’s Daughters!

If that was all I was able to watch, I would be praying for a airliner to crash on me!

ant 12:39 pm
11 Apr 08
#12

What people probably don’t realise is, the Airport has declared many areas flight paths. It’s not just that line from Tralee in, but right around the region. After Snow bought the Airport and began doing things, they put out a map with noise zones, basically radiating out from the Airport. Areas miles and miles away from the Airport (in NSW, of course) suddenly found they were in “yellow” zones or worse, “red” zones. Some areas raised a ruckus about this and the Airport changed their map, but there was no consultation or seemingly any kind of sensible discussion about this.

Basically, anywhere around this Aiport seems to be regarded as fair game for flight paths. It’s no good blaming the Tralee developers and saying people are to blame for living under a flight path. That’s the line the Aiport has been pushing, but in reality, thousands more people are affected.

RuffnReady 2:08 pm
11 Apr 08
#13

How does this affect the 24-hour transport hub/2nd Sydney airport proposal.

That simply SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN.

Follow
Follow The RiotACT
Get Premium Membership
Advertisement
The-RiotACT.com Newsletter Sign Up

Images of Canberra

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