Skip to content Skip to main navigation


A consulting company that trust its employees to do great work

Stanhope seeks a second opinion on aircraft noise

By johnboy 21 November 2008 31

Chief Minister Stanhope has made the unusual announcement that we’re paying for an outside expert to double check Airservices Australia’s noise monitoring over Hackett.

    “Some residents are concerned that aircraft noise is exceeding agreed standards,” Mr Stanhope said. “While I understand these claims have been rejected by the Canberra International Airport and Airservices Australia, it’s an area that I believe warrants further investigation and verification.

    “Airservices Australia has advised that it will shortly undertake an aircraft noise study in Hackett and has agreed to make their results available for independent analysis.

    “The study will run for a minimum of six months and I expect a report from the expert within about a month of the final data being made available by Airservices.”

What’s Your opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
31 Responses to
Stanhope seeks a second opinion on aircraft noise
Showing only Website comments
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
sepi 10:06 am 24 Nov 08

Melbourne had the sense to put their airport a long way from the CBD. Hobart’s is miles from town. It is a pity Canberra airport wasn’t built further away, but it was a very small airport when first built.

I think we need to manage the noise vs community amenity issue now, before freight planes all night becomes the norm.

GB 9:08 am 24 Nov 08

ChrisinTurner said :

How many airports have encroached on residential areas?

By expanding flight numbers, using new flight paths and taking on bigger planes, that is precisely what they are doing. We need to decide whether this is, on balance, a good or bad thing.

ant 1:30 am 24 Nov 08

We are not talkign about “flight paths” here, we’re talking about many parts of Canberra AND NSW being affected by increased flights, especially in the early hours. Flights we don’t currently suffer from. And I don’t think hackett is “encroaching” on the airport, it’s been there since at least teh early 60s, if not earlier.

The road in from the airport used to be busy, but it flowed. That all changed suddenly when Snow discovered he could build a CBD out there, without nasty planning impediments. So now we have a gridlocked mess, thanks entirely to that.

So now the federal gov’t is requiring Snow’s activities be justified, planned and any disruptions to other people be canvassed and managed. it’s a bit late, but at least it’s happening.

Noise is a big issue, and having many more planes coming in at ALL hours of the day and night will affect many people. Not just those under “flights paths”, but everyone. Trying to fix it when it’s happening will be ineffective. Time to fix it is before it happens. Maybe Stanhope is remembering what the gov’ts role is… ie not a conduit to feeding money into one person’s pocket at the expense of the population’s living amenity.

ChrisinTurner 12:36 am 24 Nov 08

Very few big cities have curfews on their airports. For example, Brisbane, Melbourne and Perth have none. Just think about it. How many airports have encroached on residential areas? It is always the other way around. People buy cheap land under the flight paths then agitate to get the airport taken away or restricted by a curfew. Back in the 1970’s the Department of Civil Aviation even tried to stop Jerrabomberra being built. Anyone for cheap land at Tralee?

GB 1:28 pm 23 Nov 08

Peachy said :

Surely the fact that we’re a capital city makes a big noisy, 24/7 airport at some point in the future a given?

No enterprise is a given if we decide otherwise. We can choose our future – including the balance between airport convenience and quality of life. For some they are synonymous, but not for most, I suspect.

And there’s no reason at all to think the owners of the airport care about whether it does good.

If they can’t cope with this kind of criticism, they need to set up shop in a level playing field somewhere. And build their own roads.

farnarkler 4:06 am 23 Nov 08

A curfew is the right idea. Bigger cities put up with flights till midnight. Surely those who make the decisions could work it so that international flights (if that ever happens)land or take off at acceptable times. Canberra would really benefit from international flights.

sepi 9:52 pm 22 Nov 08

Perhaps we should bring in a curfew like the big cities have.

Peachy 9:47 pm 22 Nov 08

Surely the fact that we’re a capital city makes a big noisy, 24/7 airport at some point in the future a given? Yes we can plan flight paths and timetables to minimise noise, but the airport will continue to grow as long as Canberra does so at some point people are going to have to start getting used to it.

GB 12:14 pm 22 Nov 08

Yeah, good thinking. Let’s find the noisiest place in the world, and aim to match that. Also we should ban double glazing, because it stops people getting the full effect.

Actually, this could start a whole new school of urban planning – find the least desirable features of each place, and copy them! Let’s have Delhi’s slums and England’s food and China’s air quality! Woo hoo!

ant 11:00 am 22 Nov 08

Sounds lovely, farnarkler, and I can’t imagine why the people of Canberra don’t embrace such a future… aren’t we silly?

sepi 9:55 am 22 Nov 08

This is about planning for the future so we don’t end up like that.

In the CT today the airport is aiming for one plane every 2 minutes at night.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | | |

Search across the site