DA 47/03 AMENDMENT
L39C Albatross departure: Photo-McKay
L39C Albatross arrival: Photo-McKay
See: http://us.share.geocities.com/l39c2003/internetshort.mpg
for operation over Albion Park
Submitted to
Shellharbour City Council
by
Sonya McKay
DISTRICT No. 47/03 Operation of a L39C Albatros Aircraft from Albion Park at Lot 111, DP 877164, Illawarra Regional Airport, Airport Road, Albion Park Rail
BACKGROUND
The Illawarra Regional Airport is owned by Shellharbour City Council. Development application No. 47/03 was advertised in the Lake Times on 5 February 2003. It was supported by councillors on 12 August 2003 at an Ordinary Meeting of Council. The DA allowed for a 12 month trial period to which the community would be used in an experimental capacity in order to assess the impact of the L39C operations.
The trial allowed for joyflights operated through the use of an L39C ex-military jet aircraft. It provided for six sorties in one day and 15 sorties per week, or 14 movements daily, 44 weekly, and over 2200 annually. The Determination date of consent was 15 August 2003.
AMENDMENT TO DA 47/03 CHANGES DA AND CONSENT FUNDAMENTALLY
A letter, however, was received from Shellharbour City Council dated 12 August 2004. It stated that Council had received amended plans for development application 47/03. Although the letter was headed ‘Development Application No. 47/03 (Pt 2)’ it was not my understanding that the development application was divided into two parts. Nor was this stated in the briefing notes.
The amendment in fact seeks to delete a fundamental part of DA 47/03-Condition 1. Condition 1 is based on a consent period of 12 months only. Condition 1 states:
‘The conduct of the adventure sorties is limited to an initial consent period of 12 months. The consent period will commence on the date of the first sortie and if after this 12 month period, it is intended that the sorties are to continue from the airport, written application, together with payment of appropriate fee must be lodged with council prior to the expiration of this consent. When assessing this application council will be mindful of any problems encountered or complaints received during this initial consent period.’
The condition appears to rely on what ‘written application’ means. Any lay person would take this to mean that TopGun must lodge another ‘development application’, with the appropriate fee, and not obtain a receipt for a proposed amendment which fundamentally changes the basis for consent for DA 47/03. It was my understanding that after discussing this matter with many of the councillors prior to the 12 August 2003 Ordinary council meeting that they would undertake support for the DA on the basis that it related to a 12 month consent period and not an indefinite period of time.
The briefing notes for the DA in fact state that that the DA relies or is based on ‘limited trial period’:
‘The application to conduct adventure sorties from the Illawarra Regional Airport will see the introduction of additional activity at the airport with subsequent limited benefits to the community. The activity will create noise, however, the impact of the noise in comparison to other aircraft including turbo prop and twin engine aircraft which also utilise the airport need to be monitored, consequently it is considered that a limited trial period be supported in order to gauge the full impacts the proposal may have on the locality.
Whichever way Condition 1 is assessed it is impossible to discuss the suggested amendment without discussing the DA itself since condition 1 states:
‘When assessing this application [new written application] council will be mindful of any problems encountered or complaints received during this initial consent period.’
Numerous complaints and problems have occurred within the trial period providing good reason to not only reject the deletion of Condition 1 but also to reject another DA to allow the L39C Albatros ex-military jet aircraft to operate at the Illawarra Regional Airport.
DURING THE 12 MONTH TRIAL PERIOD
During the 12 month trial period many personal and communal concerns came to light. On the last day provided to submit documentation to court for Legal Action in the Land and Environment Court numerous departures occurred over Albion Park and the house I was attempting to occupy. This led to the only decision I felt open to me-to submit documentation to the court as necessary to commence legal action. Significant difficulties, however, existed in obtaining specific information from council needed for legal assessment. Detailed information requested was not received from council until legal representation was undertaken late in the court case. This provided a significant detriment to the case due to necessity for evidence to be properly assessed and evidence collated within a comfortable time frame. In addition to this TopGun Flights undertook a notice of motion for security of cost for around $38,000. Council also threatened to undertake a similar motion. This lead to an impossible personal financial situation leading to a discontinuance of the court case. This was the case even after a $10,000 personal injection that was the financial means left to me by my late mother in order to undertake my Masters in Environmental Law degree. Subsequently my ability to continue with my education and obtain some form of career has ceased due to a lack of personal funds to meet the up front fees required at Sydney University. In addition to this severe abdominal pain was encountered prior to court appearances that led to major concern when it was found that I was pregnant. I have tried, particularly since the court case discontinuance to mitigate my stress and the effects on my unborn child through avoiding the house owned by the father of my child. This avoidance cannot continue on an indefinite basis. No one undertakes legal action for no reason!
SOME MAJOR CONCERNS
The reasons for objecting to the amendment to DA 47/03, the trial, and therefore DA 47/03 itself are numerous:
§ 1. AMENDMENT TO DA 47/03 CHANGES DA AND CONSENT FUNDAMENTALLY
As already mentioned, DA 47/03 was consented to under the proviso of a 12 month trial period. To delete condition 1 of the DA changes the DA and its consent fundamentally. A second DA should instead be initiated with the addition of an EIS procedure.
§ 2. COUNCILS OBJECTIVE-CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Councils objective appears to promote the enhancement ‘of infrastructure and scope of airport operations consistent with Council’s Management Plan with input from the Airport Advisory Committee’. This would appear to conflict with any possible opposition within the community to object to such objectives including L39C operations. This, in addition to the fact that Shellharbour Council owns the Illawarra Regional Airport makes it difficult to not to hold the opinion that there is a possible conflict of interest.
§ 3. OPPOSITION NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY
Ø 44 objections and a 14 signature petition in opposition to the DA proposal were submitted to council regarding the original DA compared to 10 letters of support (many of which were from members of the aviation industry in some way).
Ø A significant number of protest leaflets were also received from the community.
Ø During the 12 month trial period complainants have been treated with a lack of respect, seriousness and almost contempt. Those who have been noted as major complainants have been treated differently from others in the community.
Ø Residents have complained about the difficulty they have had in lodging a complaint.
Ø It is a concern that hundreds of aircraft (L39C) noise disturbances have been received from the community that may not be provided the significance that they should. If such disturbances were taken seriously the amendment to DA 47/03 and any other related DA would be rejected.
§ 4. LACK OF EIS PROCEDURES
Ø As far as I am aware no EIS procedure has been undertaken to date. Since residential property exist in the unacceptable ANEF zone an EIS should have been undertaken. It is not good enough to utilise residents as guinea pigs towards a process that has been flawed from the start.
Ø The lessor Statement of Environmental Effects contains numerous flaws outlined in Stephen Coopers memo and does not meet the same standards of an EIS.
§ 5. LESSOR STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FLAWED
Ø Stephen Coopers memo.
Ø SELF REGULATION
* The L39C operations are self-regulated with self-regulated noise complaint assessments.
* There appears to be a lack of respect towards complainants with the operator publicly naming such people as dissidents.
§ 6. ENCROACHMENT OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IMPACT
Ø The 12 month trial period relied on flightpaths on a topographical map that is dated 1986. A substantial amount of development has occurred since this time in Shell Cove and Albion Park, and has begun in Yallah.
Ø During the trial period aircraft noise impacts continued to cause an impact on occupants of nearby properties. As noted in the statement of environmental effects, the peak level of noise for the L39C is 89db for 4 seconds on take off. The aircraft again exceeds 85db on landing. Other aircraft already utilising the airport do not appear to reach this decibel range. The trial period also allows for six sorties in one day or 14 movements (including transit operations to and from Bankstown). For residents in the unacceptable ANEF zone this noise is significant, particularly when added to existing noise levels that it is suggested exceed 80db. For areas both inside and outside the unacceptable ANEF noise zone the noise has been considered an annoyance leading to possible educational, physical and mental health issues.
§ 7. OPERATIONS MUST NOT CAUSE A NUISANCE
Geoff Hall, Senior Environmental Officer for Shellharbour City Council, clearly stated that L39C operations if undertaken should occur on a trial basis and that such operations must not cause a nuisance to occupants of nearby properties. This has already occurred and will continue to occur if the L39C operations continue.
§ 8. FULL IMPACT NOT PROPERLY ASSESSED
Ø The DA allows for in excess of 2200 movements annually from an ex-military jet aircraft. This is a significant percentage increase from aircraft movements for the 2001/2002 financial year at 5099 and 2002/2003 financial year at 4403. Even if these numbers only include landings the percentage increase is still significant at around 22 to 25% respectively.
Ø The DA neglects to mention that L39C noise and odour complaints were received on the aircraft simulated trial run even prior to the start of the trial period.
Ø The DA only compared the L39C to one aircraft (Cessna 206). Other aircraft, however, utilize the airport. In addition to this only departures were compared between the two aircraft and not arrivals.
Ø No assessment was made as to whether the airport already posed an impact on residents and additionally whether the L39C would cause a significant increase in such impacts.
§ 9. PROPOSAL EXCEEDS COUNCILS ANEF
The number of daily movements proposed for the DA trial exceeds ANEF movements for corporate jet aircraft. This should be considered a breach of ANEF standards set by councils own report.
§ 10. LACK OF MONITORING
No noise monitoring equipment or control tower existed to oversee the trial period for L39C operations while none will exist in the future.
§ 11. LIMITED CATEGORY AIRCRAFT-SAFETY ISSUES
Ø During the trial period the L39C continued to fly as a limited category aircraft that should not be overflying built up areas due to safety issues. In the past 12 months new residential areas surrounding the airport continued to land lock the airport that will increase the impact on occupants of nearby properties. The L39C will in fact find increasing operational difficulties as this continues due to CASA safety regulations.
Ø The L39C has been part of an Administrative Tribunal Case (Yu v CASA) concerning issues of safety regarding its operations at Bankstown Airport. Because the aircraft is a limited category aircraft it requires CASA approval to operate over the built up area surrounding Bankstown Airport. CASA appear to be enforcing such provisions.
· 12. NOISE PERMIT FLAWS
Ø The department of Transport and Regional Services has permitted the aircraft to operate through a noise permit system without a noise certificate under the grounds that the ‘historical significance of the aircraft justifies it. The department, however, refuse to justify their decision. One of TopGun’s most avid supporters stated in a letter to The Wollongong Advertiser and Lake Times (M Baston, Air Transport Management, The Advertiser, 29 October 2003, pg. 24 & Lake Times, 5 November 2003, pg. 4) that the L39C was not of historical significance. Mauri Baston has been reported to also be a past Civil Aviation Authority and Virgin Blue employee (Laurel-lee Roderick, ‘TopGun Helps Jobs, Tourism’, Wollongong Advertiser, 3 September 2003, pg. 3). This ties in with my direct personal impression that counsel for CASA argued against the L39C being of ‘historical significance’ during Yu v CASA deliberations.
Ø Aircraft, such as the L39C which I assume still does not hold a noise certificate and does not meet chapter 3 standards are meant to be phased out according to Councils own ANEF report.
Ø The Federal Department of Transport and Regional Services need to supply a noise permit to TopGun Flights in order for the aircraft to operate at the Illawarra Regional Airport. The first permit did not allow departures from runway 16 under any conditions as well as stating that there should be no operations on two consecutives days. It was unbelievable that during the 12 month trial period the operator appeared to lobby the department of Transport and Regional Services to change or delete such conditions. Council provided no thought whatsoever to the impact that this would create on the community.
Ø The Federal Department of Transport and Regional Services bases their noise permit for the L39C on alleged community support grounds. This, however, is not true and instead relies on council support. DOTARS has written:
‘I appreciate your concerns. We are aware of the application Top Gun has made to the Council to amend the conditions on the DA.
I understand that the Council's trial ends this month and I presume that it will make a determination on the continuation of the adventure flights on the basis of the outcome of the trial.