Brickworks trying to put the brakes on PER expansion

[thewinchester]

Well, as if PER doesn't already have enough problems trying to deliver on necessary improvements to make the airport functionally useful into the future, building magnate Len Buckridge is getting in WAC's way.

Dispute could stop airport extension
BEN HARVEY STATE POLITICAL EDITOR, The West Australian

Plans to expand Perth Airport have hit turbulence, with building magnate Len Buckeridge, who owns a brick factory on airport land, trying to stop a runway extension.

Westralia Airports Corporation wants to put navigation lights on land that Mr Buckeridge leases from it and has earmarked for a factory to make prefabricated houses.

Mr Buckeridge, who owns builder BGC and is estimated to be worth $2.7 billion, lodged a Federal Court writ last week claiming the airports corporation had no right to stop him building the 300m by 90m factory. If the writ is successful, the corporation will need an alternative plan to ease congestion at the airport. Airport operators say a longer second runway will allow more flights.

Now there's a key phrase here - airport land. BGC operates at the benefit of the Federal Government on land specifcally zoned for airport uses. This is not withstanding that their are specific conditions placed on the brickworks which, on plain reading, would suggest that BGC doesn't really have a leg to stand on:

Conditions of Approval for the MDP for the brickworks at Perth Airport
Conditions relating to effect of construction or operation of brickworks on airport operations and air navigation

26. WAC must ensure that the lighting at the brickworks site complies with AsA and CASA requirements. This will include ensuring that there is no impact from the operation of the brickworks on the High Intensity Approach Lighting system that could prejudice safe and effective aircraft operations.

This is not withstanding that Buckridge and BGC knew full well they were building near an airport, and that they'd have to work around futute development and expansion necessary for its effective operation.

Buckridge is in the same class as the NUMPTY's who move near an airport and complain when it gets in the way of their lifestyle. You chose the location, you live with the consequences.

 

[oz_mark]

Buckridge is in the same class as the NUMPTY's who move near an airport and complain when it gets in the way of their lifestyle. You chose the location, you live with the consequences.

Sounds like classic Buckridge to me.

 

[StevePER]

Buckridge is in the same class as the NUMPTY's who move near an airport and complain when it gets in the way of their lifestyle. You chose the location, you live with the consequences.

Agreed, but OTOH why did they let him build a brickworks there in the first place?

 

[thewinchester]

Agreed, but OTOH why did they let him build a brickworks there in the first place?

Commercial imperatives would be my first guess.

In order for the airport to get the funds it needs for future development and expansion, it needs to make effective use of the surrounding lands.

I see the problem, at least from the documents publically available, that WAC didn't make it plain and simple to Buckridge/BGC that their expansion is predicated on the requirement that such activities don't impinge on the needs of the airport - both now and into the forseeable future.

While the plantiff could argue they were not cogniscent of the airports future needs and how that would impact on their proposed and future developments, this information is clearly published in documents predating the brickworks.

Such plans date as far back as 1979, in the Report on the aviation requirements for the Perth region and again in February 1985 and April 1986 by the Department of Aviation in the Perth Airport Master Plan.

Really wish I could get my hands on the writ and applications filed, because I dare say they'd be interesting but rather self-serving filings by a plantiff and legal advisors who don't give a damm about anyone else.

For anyone interested in following the case, it's filled under Federal Court WAD155/2011.

And this won't be the only problem for WAC when it comes to the third runway. Their existing land use along the Horrie Miller industrial precient will throw up a few compensation claims from businesses who've bought land knowing full well it'll be heavily impacted by the future runway. Businesses like AHG who operate a driver training facility will be the first impacted, and no doubt they'll be many more to come.

 

[V1213]

Agreed, but OTOH why did they let him build a brickworks there in the first place?

This has always been controversial. The local authority, who would ordinarily have planning control of the area, did not support the site being used for a brickworks but since it's Federal land BGC were able to get around that. It's really an unsuitable location and the use is conflict with most surrounding uses. There are reasons why we have a State planning system...

 

[medhead]

OTOH the couple of residential leases I've had say that the tenant is entitled to free enjoyment of the land without interference from the landlord, or words to that effect. Can we say that a commercial property lease agreement doesn't contain a similar clause? Landlord erecting massive lights on your leased land might impact free enjoyment....?

On and if this buckridge is the type mentioned, I would think his lawyers would have wrapped up that point good and tight.