8 December 2009

The fight to protect Canberra against noise sharing continues…

8 December 2009 | toriness

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.

Join the conversation

All Comments

All Comments
Website Comments
Facebook Comments

LatestOldest

willo11:34 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?

chrisi11:29 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.

sloppery10:03 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…

bundyone7:18 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.

farq5:02 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 Al1:45 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.)

chrisi12:49 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

deezagood6:11 am 16 Dec 09

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/airport-curfew-a-passion-for-pm/story-e6frg6n6-1225810752134

another dimension to the airport curfew consideration …

jasmine10:09 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.

edglass8:58 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.

Skidbladnir10:41 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.

GoForIt10:44 pm 10 Dec 09

Before anyone else states the b — obvious, has ANYONE of you so opposed to Tralee actually visited the proposed location?

How about you stop being so clever, just for a few minutes and take Ken up on his offer. Go on, I dare you, I double dare. I bet you won’t, because if you do, then you just may have to admit you where wrong…. go on take some time, give him a call… BEWARE… you just may learn something. Go on BEN S. take up his offer… No didn’t think so…

As for the potential for someone to complain off into the future, maybe, then again, people throughout Canberra’s North have been complaining for years about the airport noise, they even started a campaign to get a CURFEW 4 CANBERRA.

People in the Kingston foreshore WILL complain like all h…, if night flights pick up, a nice still cool night with the noise of those old freighters rolling up, the noise should travel well across the lake, yet the ACT government was quite happy to see the Kingston Lake foreshore developed.

The truth is that the Airport drew the existing ANEF to suit themselves, based the “ULTIMATE CAPACITY” of the airport. Not what it does now, but they effectively said what if… what if… we could push everything into the airport, 27x7x365, every minute, of every hour, of every day, of every week, of the year, ongoing. Then what if we used really old, really noisy plains? What would the ANEF look like? Remember the Airport drew the ANEF no one else, they did it knowing the effect and the purpose of the ANEF. The airport know what the ANEF is used for, it is the ultimate Australian Standard for planning developments that may or may not be effected by some type of aircraft noise.

They drew the ANEF to the “ULTIMATE CAPACITY” of the airport, (by the way, no other airport has ever done that). And now they know that Tralee is still outside of that area that could be regarded as adversely effected by aircraft noise. Tralee is permitted within the standard. That’s what Standard’s do, they provide an agreed line in the sand that everyone can work to.

They continue to complain because that is how they do business and how they attack a competitor.

And, no I don’t work for the VBC, or any other developer or builder, I have no shares in any associated VBC company whatsoever. I just took some time out and decided I wouldn’t believe the airports over the top mis-information… I wanted to find out why the airport was so determined, guess what… I found out.

Go on, you may just lean something too… Just because Terry Snow or Canberra Airport says so, doesn’t make it so.

harvyk11:09 pm 10 Dec 09

Anna Key said :

I assume flight paths are set by Airservices Australia, but when I have flown recently, we seem to have taken off to the south more often, even though there is no wind. Coincidence or another Snow conspiracy???

Coincidence. Where possible planes will take off to the north, however if the winds are in a certain way (eg coming up from the south, blowing to the North) it makes more sense for a plane to take off to the south (facing into the wind) as the speed which it needs to be going to get lift is less.

As for Ken, I’m sorry, but all the airport has to do to make people think that Tralee is not a good idea is to remind them of the Sydney curfew. In this case they have better PR people than you do, and I don’t really think your helping your cause, remember PR is about winning hearts and minds, having a go at RiotACT members because we didn’t instantly jump at your offer is not going to help.

So lets hear some actual facts and figures,
in DB what is the average noise of an aircraft flying overhead? (and don’t forget the nearly daily B767 early morning flight)
what is the maximum noise of an aircraft flying overhead?
What is the lowest altitude you expect an aircraft fly overhead at?
How many aircraft movements are you expecting?
How will you handle if Canberra airport gets it’s wish and becomes a 24 hour freight hub, or actual international airport? (Probably wouldn’t see B747’s or A380’s frequently, but you could see A330’s or B777’s on a frequent basis)
What legal conditions will be placed on the sale of the land to stop noise complaints now and into the future?
You have stated the link to the map is an old zoning map, where is the new one, and to really prove your point, why not include lines indicating the normal flight paths of the planes?
Will you do anything to help reduce the noise?

Basically so far Ken you have placed in a whole lot of fluff stating “don’t worry just trust us” couple with an offer which can not possibly replicate living there 24 x 7 (remember the first flight leaves the airport at around 6:00am), and pulling apart “mis”-information without posting the real information. You guys really need a PR person on board.

Ken Ineson11:40 am 10 Dec 09

There has been an enormous amount of misinformation posted on RiotACT. I will respond to the major concerns that have been raised.

Gungahlin Al has attached an outdated map and hasn’t correctly read the legend. Housing is not proposed in the Poplars. South Tralee is not where Gungahlin Al has described. It is just at the back of Hume and 10 to 12 km from the airport. The proposed housing at South Tralee is not under any current or proposed flight path.

The fact remains that South Tralee easily complies with the most conservative standard for aircraft noise in the world. The owners of Canberra Airport have prepared noise contours under that standard that assume the airport will grow larger than Sydney

There are well over 1 million people living in mostly highly desirable suburbs with more aircraft noise in every city in Australia. Some examples of these are given in the following report http://villagebuilding.com.au/news/documents/WilkinsonMurrayNoiseExposurereport.pdf
Virtually all of those one million people experience more night time noise than Tralee and many are near curfew free airports.

New developments are approved every year without objections in every Australian city in areas with more aircraft noise than Tralee. Examples are in the attached report. Many of these new developments are in a currently rural setting with less ambient noise (other than aircraft) than Tralee. Tralee is about 1 km away from the Monaro Hwy.

The threats of noise sharing and a curfew are just scare mongering by Canberra Airport. If there was any chance of these being implemented in Canberra they would have been implemented many years ago at Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Launceston and all other airports which all have residential areas with more noise than Tralee.

Parking throughout Queanbeyan is free and the same policy will be adopted at Tralee.

Without starting any marketing we already have hundreds of names of people wanting to buy at Tralee. They all say they are not concerned about aircraft noise.

I repeat my earlier unanswered invitation to take anyone who is genuinely interested on a tour of the site. I am disappointed that a few people are prepared to criticise Tralee due to a scare campaign undertaken by a competing developer who also happens to own an airport without first attempting to establish the facts.

Skidbladnir11:02 am 10 Dec 09

My concern is less over today’s flight noise being an immediate issue for those who buy residences there, and more over Tralee becoming a future source of noise complaints and so being a hurdle to economic growth.

outdoormagoo said :

1. Why should NSW get the aircraft noise from YOUR airport??
3. What benefit does Queanbeyan gain from not allowing Tralee to go ahead?? Especially since a lot is gained by allowing it to be approved.

1) Its a regional airport, its not like its economic benefit ends at any particular line on a map. The airport and its economic return-to-region benefits the ACT and surrounding region now, so its growth will be of benefit to you also.
3)
Queanbeyan has homes and business roughly as close to the Airport and Brindabella Park as the ACT does.
Assuming Queanbeyan has a greater share of tradies than Narrabundha, any construction activity at the airport will have boons to the labor force Queanbeyan.

Larger airport – > Larger scope for on-site airport employment (High regional employment, a driver of economic growth and wages)
Larger airport – > Larger demand for purchased services directly by the airport, and associated businesses at Brindabella Park. (greater overall economic output)
Larger airport – > Larger supporting economic activity and value added by having an efficient airport, such as greater deliver times. (boons to regional domestic product)

Every thousand of so flights will put an extra few person-years of labour demand onto your services sector.
Larger airport – > Larger scope for business travel growth, and business services sector.
Larger airport – > Larger scope for leisure travel growth, and tourism services sector.

Reasons like these are why people encourage airport development, but Tralee becomes a hurdle to these gains, by restricting both the size of the airport and the stifling related demand for goods, services, and labour, by limiting its hours of operation thanks to future noise complaints and demands for curfews.

But if the under-flightpath land is cheap it will sell to pepole who take Ken & VBC at face value, and if Queanbeyan Council is in need of an influx of ratepayer cash, they’re playing for a very short-sighted gain.

RE Ken’s generous offer of a visit to a greenfields site:
Canberra Airport plans to ramp up scope of operations after the coming development now that their Master Plan is approved, so sending people to stand out in a field while its only a regional airport flightpath, and leaving ~~the marks~~ potential homebuyers to assume that it will stay that way forever is something of a ~~con~~ strange game to play with investors.

Ken:
Even if Tralee home & commercial property buyers are given a caveat limiting on their rights and scopes for complainining about current & future aircraft noise, how enforcable would these contract provisions be (either under ANEF Standards\Planning legislation \ procedures or Aircraft Noise regulations \complaints legislation, whatever process buyers would be forgoing their right to…), and what are the likelyhoods they could be overturned later in courts or by future exceptions in law?

Gungahlin Al4:03 pm 09 Dec 09

Ah the wonders of selective information…

What many people don’t realise in all the talk about Tralee is that it is a scattered and varied beast, as you can see in this map.

Ken Ineson talks about his role as selling Tralee South, and offers tours to experience how wonderfully noise free it is and will be. Tralee South is indeed a fair bit further south and west of the main approach corridor.

But if you subscribe to the “omission is as bad as a lie” thought, then you’d not be pleased to know that Tralee North is completely the other side of Environa, making it a lot closer to the noise impacts that Ken is offering to demonstrate. And then there’s “The Poplars”, or what you might like to call Tralee East, or even Tralee Approach? Or how about Tralee ANEF25?? This is even further north and east, making it slap bang under the approach flight path.

So this house Ken is buying – want to take odds on it not being in The Poplars??

Double Bay? What an absurd comparison. Some people (with a lot of money) would put up with a lot of noise to live close to the Sydney city and harbour. And then there is the ambient noise issue again – a point Ken continues to slide past.

On Sandilands, I don’t hold that Tralee and curfew are linked, and the only way to achieve a curfew is to allow Tralee. What is needed is ministers of transport and planning at state and federal levels with vision beyond the election timetable, or who don’t view noise moved out of their airport-side electorate to “somewhere else” as a “good thing”. With the blinkers off, they could realise that putting a curfew in place early will be beneficial going forward for all due to the known situation and stable investment environment, rather than always having the curfew campaign hanging over it and getting ever more strident as noise inevitably increases.

And not to let the airport off the hook, a note their series of cartoons in the CT today are uncredited and not designated as ads. And let’s face it: it is misleading to imply that neighbours won’t be able to talk with each other because they’ll be wearing ear protectors – everyone knows neighbours don’t talk to each other anyway! 🙂

deezagood1:33 pm 09 Dec 09

outdoormagoo said :

Here are some questions for the Canberran NIMBYs who want an Airport but don’t want the noise. Funny how you all want to positives of an airport, but don’t want any of the negatives.

1. Why should NSW get the aircraft noise from YOUR airport??
2. Why should we care what people in the ACT have to say?? The ACT has never taken anything that people from Queanbeyan have to say into consideration when planning. (eg. the jail)
3. What benefit does Queanbeyan gain from not allowing Tralee to go ahead?? Especially since a lot is gained by allowing it to be approved.

FYI. I want to live at Tralee and I am hoping it goes through. It would provide me with another option to buy a house. I choose to live in Queanbeyan because I do not want to leave NSW. My rego is cheaper, the laws are better and Stanhope has no say over what we do. I don’t suffer as badly from the ‘nanny state’ as ACT residents. Having just had our second child born in the QBN Hospital and having used it in an emergency, I would prefer to go there than either Canberra hospital. Especially after being taken to the Canberra Hospital after a head-on accident and being told I would not be moved to the ward because there were no beds and my family was unable to visit me where I was.

After going to Crace and looking at houses there and also looking at other developments in the ACT, I want Tralee to go ahead even more. Land of a decent size (550m2+ because I want a backyard and eaves on my house) at most places in the ACT was upwards of $280,000 – $300,000. Then it was about $375,000 to build a 4 bedroom house. And at Crace it looks like my only options for any utilities will be ACTEW/AGL/TransACT, all of who provide crap service and crap products at skyhigh prices.

I plan on sending an email now to go and inspect Tralee and I will advise if the noise levels change my mind. But the noise can’t be any worse than the noise of several thousand whingers in the ACT crying when they don’t get thier own way.

SO again I ask, what the hell is in it for NSW not to approve Tralee, and why should we care what you think.

Great response Outdoormagoo! I don’t necessarily agree with all of your points, but I admire your sass! I do agree that we really are a bunch of whingers here in the ACT 🙂

bd841:31 pm 09 Dec 09

outdoormagoo said :

Here are some questions for the Canberran NIMBYs who want an Airport but don’t want the noise. Funny how you all want to positives of an airport, but don’t want any of the negatives.

1. Why should NSW get the aircraft noise from YOUR airport??
2. Why should we care what people in the ACT have to say?? The ACT has never taken anything that people from Queanbeyan have to say into consideration when planning. (eg. the jail)
3. What benefit does Queanbeyan gain from not allowing Tralee to go ahead?? Especially since a lot is gained by allowing it to be approved.

FYI. I want to live at Tralee and I am hoping it goes through. It would provide me with another option to buy a house. I choose to live in Queanbeyan because I do not want to leave NSW. My rego is cheaper, the laws are better and Stanhope has no say over what we do. I don’t suffer as badly from the ‘nanny state’ as ACT residents. Having just had our second child born in the QBN Hospital and having used it in an emergency, I would prefer to go there than either Canberra hospital. Especially after being taken to the Canberra Hospital after a head-on accident and being told I would not be moved to the ward because there were no beds and my family was unable to visit me where I was.

After going to Crace and looking at houses there and also looking at other developments in the ACT, I want Tralee to go ahead even more. Land of a decent size (550m2+ because I want a backyard and eaves on my house) at most places in the ACT was upwards of $280,000 – $300,000. Then it was about $375,000 to build a 4 bedroom house. And at Crace it looks like my only options for any utilities will be ACTEW/AGL/TransACT, all of who provide crap service and crap products at skyhigh prices.

I plan on sending an email now to go and inspect Tralee and I will advise if the noise levels change my mind. But the noise can’t be any worse than the noise of several thousand whingers in the ACT crying when they don’t get thier own way.

SO again I ask, what the hell is in it for NSW not to approve Tralee, and why should we care what you think.

We don’t care what you think, at the end of the day the airport was there first. Any developments here or over in NSW should be subject to an assessment as to whether the current and future aircraft noise will effect them. Given people like complaining, the people living in the proposed Tralee development will have their panties in a twist when they realise that there is infact aircraft noise. Just look at the people in northern Canberra with theirs in a twist with the slightest bit of aircraft noise, they’re calling for curfews etc.

At the end of the day, I couldn’t care less if the development went ahead, as long as the developers and future residents lose all rights to complain about aircraft noise now and into the future. The residents of other areas of Canberra and NSW should not have to suffer for what may be a development mistake.

On a related matter, I noted the airport (guessing as they don’t claim obvious responsibility) have put some humerous cartoons about the development on a number of pages in the CT today.

outdoormagoo12:33 pm 09 Dec 09

Here are some questions for the Canberran NIMBYs who want an Airport but don’t want the noise. Funny how you all want to positives of an airport, but don’t want any of the negatives.

1. Why should NSW get the aircraft noise from YOUR airport??
2. Why should we care what people in the ACT have to say?? The ACT has never taken anything that people from Queanbeyan have to say into consideration when planning. (eg. the jail)
3. What benefit does Queanbeyan gain from not allowing Tralee to go ahead?? Especially since a lot is gained by allowing it to be approved.

FYI. I want to live at Tralee and I am hoping it goes through. It would provide me with another option to buy a house. I choose to live in Queanbeyan because I do not want to leave NSW. My rego is cheaper, the laws are better and Stanhope has no say over what we do. I don’t suffer as badly from the ‘nanny state’ as ACT residents. Having just had our second child born in the QBN Hospital and having used it in an emergency, I would prefer to go there than either Canberra hospital. Especially after being taken to the Canberra Hospital after a head-on accident and being told I would not be moved to the ward because there were no beds and my family was unable to visit me where I was.

After going to Crace and looking at houses there and also looking at other developments in the ACT, I want Tralee to go ahead even more. Land of a decent size (550m2+ because I want a backyard and eaves on my house) at most places in the ACT was upwards of $280,000 – $300,000. Then it was about $375,000 to build a 4 bedroom house. And at Crace it looks like my only options for any utilities will be ACTEW/AGL/TransACT, all of who provide crap service and crap products at skyhigh prices.

I plan on sending an email now to go and inspect Tralee and I will advise if the noise levels change my mind. But the noise can’t be any worse than the noise of several thousand whingers in the ACT crying when they don’t get thier own way.

SO again I ask, what the hell is in it for NSW not to approve Tralee, and why should we care what you think.

Ken Ineson10:32 am 09 Dec 09

I am the project manager for the Tralee project.

I am happy to repeat an offer I have made previously to invite readers to inspect Tralee and decide for themselves whether aircraft noise is a problem. Please contact me on kineson@villagebuilding.com.au.

You will be surprised by how little aircraft noise there is at Tralee. It has much less aircraft noise than Double Bay in Sydney.

Many people are not aware that the owner of Canberra Airport is the biggest developer in Canberra and a competitor of The Village Building Co. Their ulterior motive is that they do not want competition from the office park and retail areas that will be built at Tralee.

I am posting the following reponse to the story on Crikey by Ben Sandilands:

“I am the project manager for The Village Building Company’s (VBC) development project at South Tralee.

“In writing his story, Ben Sandilands did not contact VBC or bother to check his facts. Ben Sandilands has used the same language as the owners of Canberra Airport including a number of misleading assertions.

“The owner of Canberra Airport is the biggest development company in Canberra and a competitor of VBC. The Tralee development will include an office park and retail areas in direct competition with the rapidly developing office park and retail precinct at Canberra Airport. The Airport owner has a history of taking aggressive action to stop competitors. Several years ago they delayed the development of a competing Direct Factory Outlet by taking a series of unsuccessful legal actions.

“Local Environmental Studies undertaken by Queanbeyan City Council confirmed that the proposed development fully complies with Australian Standard AS 2021 which is the most stringent standard for aircraft noise in the world. Commonwealth policy states that compliance with AS 2021 protects the community from aircraft noise and ensures the long-term viability of airports. AS 2021 results in a series of ANEF contours around airports that determine appropriate land uses. In calculating its ANEF contours, the owner of Canberra Airport has assumed it will grow larger than Sydney Airport. Tralee still complies with AS 2021 under this highly optimistic scenario.

“Tralee is identified in the 1998 ACT and Sub Region Planning Strategy as the only future urban development area in the south of the Canberra region. This strategy was signed off as a formal agreement by the Commonwealth, ACT, NSW governments and local Councils to guide future development.

“Double Bay in Sydney has more than three times as much aircraft noise as Tralee.

“Developments in areas with much more aircraft noise than Tralee are approved every year around every major airport in the nation including curfew free airports.”

View more conversations

Featured Businesses

Lawyers

Kamy Saeedi Law

When you need a criminal or commercial lawyer, you don’t want to take any chances. You want someone in your corner that you can trust like your life depends on it - because it does.

Find out more

Community Club

Canberra Southern Cross Club

We're proud to give you a place where friends and family can come together for good food and great entertainment.

Find out more

Lawyers

BDN Lawyers

BDN has provided legal services to to Canberra, Queanbeyan and the region for over 160 years.

Find out more

Professional Services

RSM

We share skills, insight and resources, as well as a client-centric approach that's based on a deep understanding of your business.

Find out more

Lawyers

MV Law

Through a spirit of entrepreneurialism, collaboration, and future-forward thinking, MV Law have earned an industry-leading reputation.

Find out more

Electricians

True Connection Electrical

Since 2014, True Connection Electrical have been servicing residential and small commercial clients with reliable, trustworthy and top-quality electrical work.

Find out more