Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Avani Terraces - Greenway
Life is looking up

Airport future.

By johnboy - 3 December 2008 30

Yesterday the Department of Infrastructure (what used to be Transport) released an aviation green paper.

The exec summary is the best bit to read if you’re short on time but in particular section 8, which I’ve reproduced below.

They plan to stop Canberra Airport developing land willy nilly without reference to local planning controls.

But on the upside for the darkness on the edge of town, the race is now well and truly on to be Sydney’s second airport. This is the other shoe dropping after the very fast train was revived.

Older readers will recall this was all stuff which consumed the Hawke/Keating years. The more things change, the more they stay the same…

    8. Airport investment – planning for responsible growth

    Australia’s major airports are our economic and social gateways to the world. Since privatisation there has been significantly increased investment in airports, with over $2.2 billion invested in new terminals, runways and other infrastructure at the leased federal airports. Further investment in excess of $4 billion is scheduled in the near future. However, concerns have grown about the impacts of airport development on surrounding communities. With the growth of Australian cities, more residents are affected by airport operations.

    The Government recognises the importance of continued investment in aeronautical infrastructure at airports, and is committed to ensuring infrastructure development is responsible. The Government will ensure planning for leased federal airport sites is more integrated with planning for the surrounding areas, and the interests of communities are given proper consideration in planning and development processes.

    There is no intention to over-regulate, or to make the planning and approval process so cumbersome as to deter investment. A coordinated approach to planning brings benefits for both the airport and the community.

    Proposals for non-aeronautical development will be closely scrutinised, recognising concerns that substantial commercial developments on airport land can undermine plans for the development and amenity of surrounding communities.

    Airport sites are scarce and valuable. The Government will make sure planning of the airport site is consistent with its long-term development as an airport, and that planning supports the optimal mix of aeronautical uses.

    The encroachment of city development around airports, particularly the secondary airports at capital cities, has increased the pressure for airport land to be used for other purposes with potentially higher commercial returns. The Government respects the right of the airport operators to a reasonable return on capital invested, but will not support proposals for the site to be used for commercial purposes which prevent the site from reaching its full potential as an airport.

    The Government will also ensure airport infrastructure needs are met well into the future.

    The pressure on Sydney Airport and the demand for aviation capacity in the greater Sydney region is an ongoing cause for concern. Sydney Airport is approaching capacity and there is broad community support for the maintenance of a legislated curfew and cap on movements at Sydney Airport.

    The Government is committed to ensuring future economic activity and growth in the Sydney region is not constrained by the capacity limitations of the Sydney Airport site.

    Sydney Airport Corporation Limited has begun its five-yearly revision of its Airport Master Plan.

    The plan, which sets out the forecast of activity and development at the airport for the next twenty years, will be finalised following consultation with the community, industry stakeholders and government agencies over the coming months.

    This Master Plan process will provide further information about the future patterns of traffic at Sydney Airport and the implications of continued growth for the airport, operators and the community.

    Following the completion of the Sydney Airport Master Plan in 2009, the Government proposes to begin a process to identify additional capacity for the Sydney region, consistent with Government policy of support for a second airport for Sydney.

    The construction of an airport at Badgerys Creek is no longer an option.

    A new level of cooperation is required between federal, state and local government on airport planning and development, with clear consultation and decision-making processes. For airport operators, it is essential that local planning schemes support the development of the airport and prevent development which would impact on current and future operations. In turn, planning authorities are seeking more effective input to airport development processes. The Government proposes to work with state governments to refine proposals for effective working arrangements, including the key initiatives outlined below:

    • establishment of Airport Planning Advisory Panels, drawn from industry, community and government, for each of the major airports, to provide independent expert analysis and advice to the Minister;
    • examining the impact of airport development on surrounding transport and community infrastructure and how the leased federal airports might contribute to this infrastructure;
    • strengthening of the airport Master Planning process to provide greater transparency and certainty about future land uses at the airports;
    • providing a power for the Minister to call for additional detail in precinct plans for areas which have been proposed for non-aeronautical development;
    • a review of triggers for the airport major development process to ensure those developments of most interest to the community are subject to proper consultation;
    • establishment of community consultation groups at each airport to foster effective community engagement in airport planning issues; and
    • establishment of a clear policy on the definition of public safety zone areas around airports, which can be taken into account in local planning.

    Airports are critical for isolated communities. The Government will provide support for the upgrade of aerodromes to improve safe access to essential air services in remote parts of Australia through the Remote Aerodrome Safety Program.

    Our aviation infrastructure will no longer be viewed in isolation from national infrastructure planning.

    The Government will work closely with Infrastructure Australia to ensure the development of major airports is considered as part of Australia’s broader infrastructure strategy.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
30 Responses to
Airport future.
Gungahlin Al 1:53 pm 03 Dec 08

Or just don’t put residential near the airport and flightpaths in the first place.

That too. I have no sympathy for people who choose to buy near a flightpath. I am only interested in protecting the amenity of Canberra residents living everywhere else in the town. As a former rep of an electorate with a key regional airport, and thanks to old court decisions, exactly the same sorts of building under flightpath issues, Jerra was one of the first places crossed off my list of places to buy when we moved back to Canberra.

Deye your two sentences do not logically link. Don’t fall for the airport spin. That’s what Kate Lundy has done, and it seems to be what Albanese has done. The two issues are only a little related. The curfew though is about far more of Canberra.

A freight hub will negatively affect maybe 40% of all Canberra residents – far more than those near flightpaths. I am amazed that some people cannot conceive of this. Or perhaps you live in Weston or Dunlop?

p1 1:51 pm 03 Dec 08

Except that Canberra and the airport have been co-located since, well, for a long time.

While I agree that it should probably have been possible to leave corridors vacant of housing suitable for flight paths, that really hasn’t happened, and only looks like getting worse.

deye 1:35 pm 03 Dec 08

Gungahlin Al said :

The smart thing to do is to put a curfew in now. It says “Canberra is a quiet place, but the airport is a vital economic and social driver. Therefore the correct balance is to allow full development of the airport during normal trading hours, but the assure the residents a period of respite between 11pm and 6am.”

With a curfew in place early, industry knows exactly where the goalposts are, and will invest appropriately. Early = easy. Late = hard + unfair for residents and businesses.

Or just don’t put residential near the airport and flightpaths in the first place.
A 24 hr hub would be fine.

H1NG0 1:27 pm 03 Dec 08

Can’t they just fly over Queanbeyan? 😛

Gungahlin Al 1:12 pm 03 Dec 08

The statement by Albanese in today’s CT displays a profound lack of long-term vision.

“I can’t see any need for a curfew at Canberra at this stage.”

What? So you wait until businesses have invested heavily in infrastructure based on a curfew-less airport, and wait until everyone starts complaining, and THEN think about putting one in??

That is just dumb and short-sighted.

Albanese needs to recognise that we are not a traffic and industry heavy town, and therefore have very low ambient noise levels. Even a single jet flight after 11pm is sleep disturbing – even out as far as Harrison. The airport is proposing something like 20 N70 jet movements per night in the wee hours. You’ll just get back to sleep, to be woken again.

All. Night. Long. Every. Night.

The smart thing to do is to put a curfew in now. It says “Canberra is a quiet place, but the airport is a vital economic and social driver. Therefore the correct balance is to allow full development of the airport during normal trading hours, but the assure the residents a period of respite between 11pm and 6am.”

With a curfew in place early, industry knows exactly where the goalposts are, and will invest appropriately. Early = easy. Late = hard + unfair for residents and businesses.

caf 12:54 pm 03 Dec 08

ant: The railway between Goulburn and Sydney needs more than just “upgrading” – the essential problem with it is that the route was designed and built in the steam age. The cost/benefit equations have shifted dramatically since that time, such that a completely new alignment is warranted (much like the way that the freeway deviates signficantly from the old highway route).

H1NG0 12:48 pm 03 Dec 08

If you are going to fly to Goulburn, surely Canberra is a better option since we have some form of infrastructure already. The infinately more sensible option of Badgerys Creek was promptly canned by Mr Rudd when he was elected.

ant 12:43 pm 03 Dec 08

Interesting read, thanks for putting that up. I read the long blurb about the undesirability of non-airport-related development on airport land as being squarly directed at Canberra airport. There has been little airport-type development out there since Snow bought it… they made the runway longer, and, um?

When Snow first bought the airport, the stated intention was to develop the airport as a freight hub for the region, and also to develop it as a gateway for international traffic. The proposal was to bring in international flights, espeically when Sydney was shut for curfew, process them at Canberra and then load them on the VFT. Some kind of fast rail link was integral to many of these plans.

I actually think he coudl develop the international flights thing without a train. he could land the jumbos here, process them, and they could be flying on to their destinations in smaller planes. Many destinations don’t have curfews, and new flights could be created. For those heading to Sydney, there’d be a few hours wait. Although the train would have got round the congestion at Sydney problem better.

At some point though, the property development thing took over from the aviation thing, and we’re still reeling on the effects of that. A hitherto busy road is now a blocked-up mess. A bunch of big, grand buildings flanking that funny little airport terminal.

I wonder why Badgery’s is off the plan now? That area was earmarked for an airport.

Goulburn was always mooted as a possible option, and Goulburn was wildly enthusiastic. The only issue would be transport to Sydney… I wonder if they could upgrade the rail line? A decent, modern train would be in Sydney from Gouburn faster than a normal train from Sydney’s West. Especially if it was a transit train, and didn’t stop.

deye 12:37 pm 03 Dec 08

seekay said :

As someone who used to work in the infrastructure and construction sector, take it from me: the VFT was only ever a massive property development scam by the proponents.

They always expected the feds to tip in most of the money. Nation building infrastructure it ain’t.

If it was done correctly it would be.

p1 12:26 pm 03 Dec 08

They already own the land at Badgery’s Creek. Seems to me they could just build the airport their if in fact they actually wanted to build one at all.

johnboy 11:17 am 03 Dec 08

I did wonder when in the history of government there had been a deliberate intention to over-regulate.

A get-out clause like that says to me “we’re going to regulate you into the ground and you’re going to thank us for it”.

housebound 11:07 am 03 Dec 08

If this is the exec summary then the report itself must be turgid indeed. Lots of key words that these spn types use to bore the community into a deep but falsely complacent sleep. For example:

There is no intention to over-regulate …A coordinated approach … Proposals … will be closely scrutinised, recognising concerns … Airport sites are scarce and valuable … planning … consistent with its long-term development as an airport … supports the optimal mix of aeronautical uses.

Who got paid to write this?

seekay 11:01 am 03 Dec 08

As someone who used to work in the infrastructure and construction sector, take it from me: the VFT was only ever a massive property development scam by the proponents.

They always expected the feds to tip in most of the money. Nation building infrastructure it ain’t. I can’t see the Rudd government paying for it.

H1NG0 10:46 am 03 Dec 08

They need to stop filling up the land with businesses and start using it as an airport. One day Canberra will be big enough to justify international flights, but there will be a severe lack of large aircraft parking/terminals. It is the perfect site for “Sydneys second airport” even if it means rediverting cargo to Canberra to make more space for commercial flights to Kingsford Smith Int. With the implementation of a VFT, the airport could be used as a second airport for commercial flights, similar to London’s Stanstead airport. However, none of this will happen because both the ACT and NSW Governments are useless and incompatible.

caf 10:44 am 03 Dec 08

For those doubting that Canberra Aiport + VFT could be a viable second Sydney airport, I would point out that the Narita Express takes 60 minutes to get from the airport to Tokyo station – around the same travel time as a 300 km/h VFT would take to do Canberra Airport to Central.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site