The fight to protect Canberra against noise sharing continues…

toriness 8 December 2009 82

Shamelessly cut and pasted from an email from Canberra Airport (and no I am in not in any way shape or form employed by related to mates with or anything to do with Terry Snow):

Today we ask for you to make your voice heard one more time.

The proposal for rezoning the land to the south of Canberra Airport for residential housing (Tralee) is open for public submissions. Join Canberra Airport along with many other concerned citizens and help prevent this rezoning and keep our homes undisturbed by aircraft noise.

Putting forward a submission is easy. You may either send an email to council@qcc.nsw.gov.au with the heading Tralee Rezoning (addressed to the Mayor or the General Manager) or send your submission by mail to:
Queanbeyan City Council
PO Box 90

Queanbeyan NSW 2620

All submissions are due no later than 4:30pm on 22 December 2009.

For further information on the draft rezoning please visit http://www.qcc.nsw.gov.au/page.aspx?page=9718

Many thanks for your consideration of this request – I’m sure that together we can help commonsense prevail.

[Ed] We also got a story in from moneypenny2612 addressing the same topic which I’ve included below.

moneypenny2612
Recently, Rioters engaged in a robust discussion about the proposed Tralee housing development.

Today, Ben Sandilands wrote an interesting opinion piece for Crikey. The edited highlights are:

[T]he reality of Tralee is that because of strict noise rules already applying to aircraft movements over Canberra and Queanbeyan, its rural splendour is the main conduit for flight paths that avoid the built-up areas.Building on Tralee conforms to the institutionalised cretinism of NSW planning’ processes, which is essentially what the federal government, AirServices Australia, Qantas and, surprise, the owners of Canberra Airport have all said.

By creating a situation where noise sharing rules by day and a curfew by night would become inevitable, the Tralee development cuts off the proposed development of curfew-free Canberra Airport as a 24 hours air-freight hub serving Sydney as well as the immediate region.

It also threatens the future use of Canberra Airport by medium-sized new technology wide-body jets to provide Sydney bypass flights to South-East Asia, China, Korea and Japan.

There is, however, a wider issue. Without efficient air transport, no city or region can develop its business, tourism and product distribution to their potential, and thus loses access to future growth in jobs and prosperity.

Queanbeyan risks injuring the city that sustains it.

But this is NSW. Tralee will go most likely go ahead, and Canberra and Queanbeyan will pay an enormous price.

There is more commentary on the always interesting Plane Talking blog (written by Sandilands) about the potential economic dividends for the ACT and Queanbeyan that would flow from expanding and improving the region’s transport capacity. Presumably these economic dividends would far exceed the contributions from aspiring Tralee rate payers?

So, leaving aside the matters of residential amenity that has attracted much RiotACT comment to date, does residential in-fill at Tralee improve the local economy? If so, in what ways and for how long?

Incidentally, the Queanbeyan City Council is consulting the public about the environmental impact of the proposed development at South Tralee – the closing date for submissions is 22 December 2009. Despite claiming that the consultation documents are available online the QCC seems to have forgotten to upload them or has hidden them somewhere even Google can’t find. If any Rioter manages to track down the e-versions, please let everyone know.


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
82 Responses to The fight to protect Canberra against noise sharing continues…
Filter
Order
« Previous 1 3 4 5
willo willo 11:34 am 23 Dec 09

bundyone said :

OK. for all you ppl who say that there is noise at Tralee i say this.

I grew up on the property Tralee so has the rest of my family. In the 100 odd years that my family and the 20 odd years i have been there not once has aircraft noise bothered us or even been an issue. I think what most of you don’t realise is that the planes actually fly over closer to Jerrabomberra not over Tralee. When the planes fly past Tralee you can’t hear them as they are so high and so far away you don’t even realise they are there. If anyone would like to come out there and spend a day there i am more than happy to take you. Just email me at justin.m@bigpond.net.au. I am also going to try to stay on the property somewhere once it is rezoned so i can keep apart of my history at Tralee. All this nonsense about the airport saying it is under the flight path is bull. If you look up the flight path or even fly on a plane out of Canberra Airport you can see out the window at where tralee is. You wouldn’t be able to see it if the flight path was over the top as there is no windows in the floor.

well how about bugger the development……….leave tralee as is and keep ALL your family history…..oh and lease the old speedway back out to someone who will reopen it and restore something else that was a big part of tralee’s ( and the canberra region’s)history?

chrisi chrisi 11:29 am 23 Dec 09

bundyone said :

OK. for all you ppl who say that there is noise at Tralee i say this.

I grew up on the property Tralee so has the rest of my family. In the 100 odd years that my family and the 20 odd years i have been there not once has aircraft noise bothered us or even been an issue. I think what most of you don’t realise is that the planes actually fly over closer to Jerrabomberra not over Tralee. When the planes fly past Tralee you can’t hear them as they are so high and so far away you don’t even realise they are there.

Bundyone,

I realise that you live there and don’t have a problem ‘now’ with planes, but dont you think that’s a little bit near sighted? “There’s no problem now, so lets build anywhere we like”. Sydney has a huge infastructure problem now because of lack of foresight in planning decisions in the past.

In 25-50 years, when your ‘family history’ has long since been chopped up and sold off for a fortune, you won’t care about the problems of having a residential area in Tralee. You… like Ken, have a vested interest in getting this development completed. Now, there’s no problem in people developing property and making cash… I myself do it. But it’s greed plain and simple that dictates the ‘logic’ of building residential under a flight path. That area would be much better suited in light industrial, but of course that won’t yield as much now will it.

Again, let me reiterate… the arguement that VBC and you put forward about inviting people over to look at planes today is pointless. There is no doubt that over the next 50 years that flight path is going to get a hell of a lot busier. Having a clear flight path to an airport will be unique in this country. Greed before logic ‘developing’ needs to be stopped. Greed on the councils seeking revenue increases, and greed on the developers and property owners seeking to make the best profit at the expense of a great number of people in the future. But who cares right? Won’t be your problem.

sloppery sloppery 10:03 am 23 Dec 09

bundyone said :

If you look up the flight path or even fly on a plane out of Canberra Airport you can see out the window at where tralee is. You wouldn’t be able to see it if the flight path was over the top as there is no windows in the floor.

A bizarre, yet strangely compelling argument…

bundyone bundyone 7:18 pm 22 Dec 09

OK. for all you ppl who say that there is noise at Tralee i say this.

I grew up on the property Tralee so has the rest of my family. In the 100 odd years that my family and the 20 odd years i have been there not once has aircraft noise bothered us or even been an issue. I think what most of you don’t realise is that the planes actually fly over closer to Jerrabomberra not over Tralee. When the planes fly past Tralee you can’t hear them as they are so high and so far away you don’t even realise they are there. If anyone would like to come out there and spend a day there i am more than happy to take you. Just email me at justin.m@bigpond.net.au. I am also going to try to stay on the property somewhere once it is rezoned so i can keep apart of my history at Tralee. All this nonsense about the airport saying it is under the flight path is bull. If you look up the flight path or even fly on a plane out of Canberra Airport you can see out the window at where tralee is. You wouldn’t be able to see it if the flight path was over the top as there is no windows in the floor.

farq farq 5:02 pm 18 Dec 09

I’m disappointed that Ken did not come back to refute the points people have raised.

I guess VBC’s position is not strong enough to withstand any more public debate.

I especially wanted to know if Ken would be LIVING out there, or if he had just tried to fool us with some carefully chosen words (lies).

If nothing else the clumsy attempt to put some spin on their position was entertaining in it’s hopelessness.

Gungahlin Al Gungahlin Al 1:45 pm 17 Dec 09

The release of the aviation white paper yesterday has left a number of VBC and Ken Ineson’s arguments looking rather tattered.

And as reported in CT today, Transport Minister Anthony Albanese has had some scathing things to say about the sorts of arguments put here by Ineson:

Mr Albanese also attacked the notion that because planes flew over homes in Sydney and Melbourne they should be allowed to fly over homes in other areas.

“I have a view that’s been expressed before and is in the white paper, where we have greenfield sites under flight paths, then let’s not repeat the mistakes of the past.

“And frankly I’m flabbergasted at the argument that is put up that says planes fly over houses in Sydney or Melbourne, therefore they should be able to fly over residents in other areas.”

It ain’t all the Airport’s way though. Albanese has also ruled out Canberra becoming the second Sydney airport when he discussed establishing a joint committee between Federal and NSW Governments to determine a site. He said and that will be in or near Sydney (not an exact quote but as close as I can remember) “not Canberra, not Adelaide not Perth.” Making it very clear the disdain he has towards the idea of Canberra being close enough to Sydney.

As Curfew 4 Canberra’s Brian Brown also said in CT today, this puts a serious dint in the airport’s quest to become the country’s key freight hub.

(Thanks Deeza for the link – very interesting article.)

chrisi chrisi 12:49 pm 17 Dec 09

jasmine said :

The airport is already there, it is not like it is a plan for a new or first time airport. We know where the airport noise is highest – WHY BUILD ON IT?

Insane yeah?

Just don’t build on an airline flight path – simple. There are plenty of other places around Canberra that have no houses on it. We are in the country afterall.

Commonsense rarely fills the wallet though Jasmine!

Of course it’s commonsense to not build under a flight path, but when you are the land owner and have been pushing/planning on redevelopment for years, of course you are going to do everything to get the deal through.

Forget about future impact. Look at Jerra… they’ve formed an almost para military residents association. Every resident who initially purchased there knew that the Edwin Land Parkway was already assigned to be a future Queanbeyan bypass. What happens? They move in, settle down to the peace and quiet, and proceed to hold local government to ransom to make sure that the bypass doesnt go ahead. Political pressure at its finest.

The exact same thing will happen with Tralee.
You can get every single resident to sign away every right regarding noise, and within 10 years they will have enough political influence to change things anyway.

Ken, is not…. I repeat IS NOT concerned with commonsense planning for the next 20-50 years. He won’t be here! The money VBC will make on this will be long gone. He preaches to us all that “other cities with airports have noise, and Canberra will have less noise than all of them!”. That’s great Ken, but I bet we’ll all have even less noise if we are the ONE city to actually plan for the noise in the future!

Yes, the airport is your competitor. Yes they’ve pushed through developments there that are questionable in my opinion. But that doesnt change the fact that building houses under or near flight paths is a stupid idea. We are the one city with the ability to plan for airport noise and deal with any future concerns NOW. Once voters get under the path, the rest of the region will suffer.

And I don’t care if you live in ACT or NSW. If Tralee goes ahead, the future residents are going to have enormous political influence. Queanbeyan wants it to go ahead because of the huge rates bonanza it will provide. Queanbeyan get the solution they are looking for regarding Jerra and it’s ‘failed’ bypass, because VBC will provide them an alternative one for free. Like Jerra, Tralee will hold council by the jugular and get what they want at the expense of the rest of the town (yes, Jerra doesnt give two hoots on what happens in QBN… as long as those heavy quarry trucks arent going by their houses).

And then residents of Canberra will suffer… because Eden Monaro being the bellweather seat it is, will bend to the whim of those thousands who live under the flightpath, and push through Federal ammendments to have the Federally controlled airport share its noise ‘fairly’.

Who wins? Ken and the VBC, and the politicians who assume office with their newfound voter support. Who loses? Everybody else.

Forget about the fact that this development will put a cap on any future airport expansion or growth (remembering that every growing city needs an aiport that grows with it), which in turn hampers our local economy. Putting houses under a flightpath is greed, plain and simple. Sugarcoat it with studies and assurances, but it doesnt take a Einstien to work out Planes + Houses = Trouble

deezagood deezagood 6:11 am 16 Dec 09
jasmine jasmine 10:09 pm 14 Dec 09

The airport is already there, it is not like it is a plan for a new or first time airport. We know where the airport noise is highest – WHY BUILD ON IT?

Insane yeah?

Just don’t build on an airline flight path – simple. There are plenty of other places around Canberra that have no houses on it. We are in the country afterall.

edglass edglass 8:58 am 13 Dec 09

I don’t have any issues with Tralee. Let Queanbeyan & NSW grow – we need more housing on our side of the boarder.

Fluges Fluges 2:09 pm 12 Dec 09

Oh for goodness sake – ALL Canberran’s who want a good night’s sleep will be adversely affected by a 24-hour freight hub, as will those that live close-by in NSW.

harvyk1 harvyk1 9:57 pm 11 Dec 09

Sepi, the airport is in it completely for selfish purposes, don’t believe otherwise.

It’s just in this instance their concern is justified as in other cities (Sydney and Adelaide) airports have been forced to operated under a curfew due to excessive noise, and they don’t want to take the risk that Tralee could be used in the future by residents to have a curfew imposed.

Check out the maps of aircraft flight plans over Canberra. Over the last 15 years the airport has really done what it can to create a high noise corridor where very few residents live rather than having aircraft come in from all angles.

sepi sepi 7:10 pm 11 Dec 09

It seems that the airport themselves are quite schizophrenic on noise issues.

On the one hand they are overly concerned for future Tralee residents, and also others in Canberra who will be under new flightpaths should Tralee go ahead.

But on the other hand they continue to state that noone in Canberra will get noise over 70DB, and that noise is not a problem in hackett and jerra. mind you they used to say noone in Canberra would get noise over 60Decibells, up until the hackett noise monitor went in recently and proved that hackett already gets over 60DB fairly regularly.

ah well. It is nice that they are so concerned for the Tralee people.

MrPC MrPC 6:35 pm 11 Dec 09

Anna Key said :

So Evil Company No 1 (VBC) is looking at moving a few thousand people under the flight path while Evil Company No 2 (Canberra Airport) want to turn the airport into a massive freight hub. If No 1 wins, we will likely end up with flight paths moved over Tuggers, if No 2 wins, we will see the housing shortage exacerbated and also a large bill to pay for bigger roads, rail etc to support the freight hub, as happened following the development of Snowtown.

But it seems either way, we lose

Option 3: Move the Airport elsewhere, and let Terry Snow develop the runways and terminal buildings into more office space and maybe some housing.

sloppery sloppery 3:32 pm 11 Dec 09

Jim Jones said :

outdoormagoo said :

I would wager that there is more money in Queanbeyan than anywhere in the ACT, especially ‘old money’.

All that “old money” in Queanbeyan – that’s obviously why it’s such a ritzy, upmarket town full of fancy restaurants and expensive hotels.

Not to be overly critical, but don’t assume that people who choose to live simply aren’t wealthy. Of course, most of Queanbeyan is in a similar boat to most of Canberra, but there are no doubt some who have plenty socked away.

A friend of mine’s Father in Law passed away a couple of years ago, and left his old Queanbeyan home to his daughters. Along with the several million dollars of shares and cash noone knew he had…

chewy14 chewy14 2:47 pm 11 Dec 09

Jim Jones said :

outdoormagoo said :

I would wager that there is more money in Queanbeyan than anywhere in the ACT, especially ‘old money’.

All that “old money” in Queanbeyan – that’s obviously why it’s such a ritzy, upmarket town full of fancy restaurants and expensive hotels.

Lots of mattresses filled with $2 notes in Queanbeyan, Jim.

Jim Jones Jim Jones 12:47 pm 11 Dec 09

outdoormagoo said :

I would wager that there is more money in Queanbeyan than anywhere in the ACT, especially ‘old money’.

All that “old money” in Queanbeyan – that’s obviously why it’s such a ritzy, upmarket town full of fancy restaurants and expensive hotels.

Skidbladnir Skidbladnir 10:59 am 11 Dec 09

Oh and yes, I have been to Tralee, but not recently.

Skidbladnir Skidbladnir 10:41 am 11 Dec 09

GoForIt:
1) Don’t capitalise random words on RiotACT, it makes you look like a loon. We have a long and proud tradition of being anti-lunatic.

2) ANEF is a planning policy tool, in that it turns the variability of estimated noise impact on a terrain into a line on a map. Airports give an ANEF Practical Ultimate Capacity (ie: Worst Case Scenario for noise) to Airservices Australia.
ANEF is a powerful tool for planning and development types, and as Ken Ineson himself (on behalf of VBC) has said here in a submission to the Department of Infrastructure’s National Aviation Policy, while it is a useful policy tool, strict in its application, but unsurpased in the certainty it provides to its industrial stakeholders, it really isn’t the most commonsense tool for both the great unwashed public, nor the layman, to make sense of the effects of aircraft noise.
I have a hard time making sense of ANEF and planning policy it myself.

Note to both GoForIt and Ken:
For the purposes of someday visiting Ken & VBC onsite at Tralee, I would like to be at least basically informed enough to have a reasonably informative site visit, instead of an overly patronising and one-sided one from Ken.

That said, ANEF is very reliant on airports’ input and Airservices Australia’s oversight, from the both from the public’s perspective and anybody potentially adversely affected by ANEF estimates (such as Ken and VBC) it is hard to tell what facts and future interests CIA’s estimates and assumptions are based on, and there is minimal independent analysis of these ANEF estimates and Practical Ultimate Capacity statemnts made publicly available.
(Seriously, try to find an analysis of either VBC or CIA’s submission into any recent avaition noise abatement policy review, its almost impossible.
Try finding a recent land policy submission from VBC or CIA that isn’t trying to assault the position of the other, its also almost impossible.)

The fact that the two sides of the argument are:
A) An hybrid International Airport – Commercial Space Development corporation which has a planning impact far beyond their defined boundary, which is flexing their local Planning legislation exception status by expanding Commercial Developments at the expense of airport development, and by doing so has become the leading competitor of a land development company and so attracted their ire;
and
B) A corporate land developer who claims to be the underdog and acting in the interests of affordable local housing, while at the same time negotiating cross-border planning issues between State & Territory both with the relevant Governments and also at a Federal level, and further inflaming Federal-State-Terrirtory tensions by exercising political power through direct economic influence and contributions in marginal border electorates;

certainly doesn’t make the issue any clearer to follow.
In fact if CIA had let VBC do all their lucrative commercial development at the airport instead of doing it themselves, there would have been a fairly productive relationship between the two, and this issue probably wouldn’t have ended up in its current state of being a colossal fustercluck.

Gungahlin Al Gungahlin Al 10:37 am 11 Dec 09

Anna Key said :

So Evil Company No 1 (VBC) is looking at moving a few thousand people under the flight path while Evil Company No 2 (Canberra Airport) want to turn the airport into a massive freight hub. If No 1 wins, we will likely end up with flight paths moved over Tuggers, if No 2 wins, we will see the housing shortage exacerbated and also a large bill to pay for bigger roads, rail etc to support the freight hub, as happened following the development of Snowtown.

But it seems either way, we lose

Direct hit Anna.

Which is why we need a government with spine to lop both off at the knees. No residential under flightpaths. A reasonable curfew at the airport. No further office or un-airport-related development on the airport land.

And a second Sydney airport committed to and built pronto – somewhere near – you know – Sydney??

« Previous 1 3 4 5

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site