Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Buying off the plan?
View our developments

Airport sees hope of blocking Tralee

By johnboy 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.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
36 Responses to
Airport sees hope of blocking Tralee
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Pandy 9:12 am 01 Jul 09

Webtrack for Adelaide shows landing aircraft do not deviate to noise share: http://adl.webtrak-lochard.com/template/index.html Planes fly over the knob areas of Nth Adelaide with large mansions. So much for the lobbying power in these areas. Curfew in place there but.

sepi 5:08 pm 30 Jun 09

According to the webtrak noise monitor, the noisiest planes in Hackett are the Melb planes – so they aren’t all going past Watson to turn. Cloudy mornings and evenings seem to we worst for noise.

JC 4:33 pm 30 Jun 09

You said it ant, Mr Snow wants to increase useage, but the airlines and freight companies are not that stupid. As for the flight paths, unless a new runway is built then either end of the current flight paths is pretty clear or easily changed so as to not fly over residential area’s until they are high enough to not be a problem. For example how the changed the path of aircraft taking off to the North going to Melbourne. Before Gungahlin they would turn over Watson and Mitchell, now they go futher north before making the turn.

Even with an increase in traffic it should still be possible to do that. But build in the path then their will be calls to share noise, that is when everyone else will cop it.

ant 9:02 am 30 Jun 09

Mr Snow and the crew need to increase usage of the airport. Every minute that there is not an arrival or departure is dead money to them. The airport has skilled people working on this, combing Australia for options, and very actively selling them to potentially interested parties.

Air traffic at the airport is increasing, and will continue to increase as the airport gets more business on board. And these takeoffs and landings will use any airspace they need to use, depending on wind, weather, fog, other traffic, and they will not always stick to their corridor. It’s a nice idea, but it won’t happen. And as more flights happen at night, people in suburbs that thought they weren’t in flights paths will learn otherwise.

Anyone who thinks things will stay as they are now is deluding themselves. Curfew 4 Canberra is right, the time to act is now, not down the track when those contracts are signed.

Thinking that just fighting off Tralee will save Canberra is mistaken. Tralee is a smokescreen.

deezagood 7:52 am 30 Jun 09

sepi said :

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.

That is exactly what happened near Point Cook in Victoria, which was an active Air Force training base, with teeny, tiny little buzz-boxes that were used for pilot training. A whole bunch of people, knowing there was a base there, bought cheap land/houses in the surrounding areas (that were previously paddocks and salt mines) and then started whinging and whining about the aircraft noise. Hello – you bought land near an active Air Force Base that had been conducting flying since early in the century! People don’t think before they buy, go for the cheap land and then when their sleep is affected, start complaining – even though they KNEW what they were buying into. Tralee is a very, very bad idea and if it goes ahead, Canberrans and folks in Jerra/Queanbeyan etc… WILL be negatively impacted.

JC 3:22 am 30 Jun 09

Your last line says it all NICHE.

There is two types of air freight. The round Australia freight that is well catred for by the current system, indeed there is no other viable alternative.

Or international freight, which arrives in bulk on a large aircraft then is split onto smaller aircraft or to road transport. Again it is well catered for.

Canberra isn’t going to become a freight hub of any kind in my life time, and I will bare my arse in Bourke Street if ever we become an international passenger hub.

The best Canberra can hope for in the short to medium term is flights to NZ and parts of the pacific and maybe some flights to Asian hub airports.

johnboy 11:31 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.

JC 11:21 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.

sepi 10:25 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.

ant 10:05 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.

bd84 9:36 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.

Pandy 7:17 pm 29 Jun 09

+1 and CURFEW!!!!

JC 6:28 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.

harvyk1 5:30 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.

MsCheeky 5:28 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.

Mr Evil 5:11 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!

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site