CBR wins in fight against Tralee development

[thewinchester]

Picked up via Plane Talking, NSW Land and Environment rules rezoning process for Tralee, declares invalid:

Canberra Airport claims court win over Tralee flight path housing plan for Queanbeyan
January 13, 2010 – 1:00 pm, by Ben Sandilands

Canberra Airport’s campaign against a housing development that would adversely affect its planned expansion as a 24 hour air freight hub has won a major court contest.

The airport’s owners have issued this statement:

...[in article]

The decision also has implications for developments that could impede both the operation of airports or their complete loss for conversion to retail, manufacturing or even residential precincts in other parts of Australia, including those considered import for general or light aviation users.

 

[Hvr]

I am very glad the developers of Tralee have lost. The CBR AP owners have always made it very clear that they want to greatly expand the AP and get a lot more flights.

Selfish people who want to build nearby and then whinge about noise deserve to be given short shrift. Hope the developers had to pay costs.

 

[markis10]

Sounds like the Snow family have been taking lessons from Westfield on how to keep the opposition on their toes, smacks of double standards when the release cites the importance of general aviation and the need to resist development given the amount of non aviation development that has occurred at CBR since the sale?

 

[markis10]

I am very glad the developers of Tralee have lost. The CBR AP owners have always made it very clear that they want to greatly expand the AP and get a lot more flights.

Selfish people who want to build nearby and then whinge about noise deserve to be given short shrift. Hope the developers had to pay costs.

Have a look at an earlier story (specifically the readers comments) for "the other sides" story, it would not appear to be about noise ......

Canberra Airport expansion threatened by housing development – Crikey

I am a rare user of CBR and dont have much reason to side with either side to be frank, however I dont appreciate the new long walk to pick up my rental car but since CBR is not the only airport to now offer that "enhancement" after development I cannot exactly single them out! However its not exactly a fun walk at night during Winter - GRRRRRR

 

[Hvr]

CBR is my home AP and I have done many a long walk at night to my car in winter. The link mentions that many other places have greater noise. Well I doubt that is a valid argument, just because it won't be as noisy doesn't mean the residents will tolerate it.

And if there are hundreds of noisy planes flying over in the wee small hours then there will be huge complaints. Better to head off the problem now rather than later.

I have no great empathy for the AP owners and think they take lessons from Macquarie in how to gouge dollars from pax, but in this instance I believe they are right.

 

[clifford]

And if there are hundreds of noisy planes flying over in the wee small hours then there will be huge complaints. Better to head off the problem now rather than later.

I have no great empathy for the AP owners and think they take lessons from Macquarie in how to gouge dollars from pax, but in this instance I believe they are right.

Well, I've lived in Canberra for 36 years (and that's not when I was born, either), and I think the Snow's have snowed (greased palms?) the pollies once again.

Hundreds of noisy planes, per night? Hundreds?

Terry Snow would be over the moon and buying his next maxi yacht...

 

[Dave Noble]

Well, I've lived in Canberra for 36 years (and that's not when I was born, either), and I think the Snow's have snowed (greased palms?) the pollies once again.

Yeah... of course.... all due to corruption...hmm

Dave

 

[clifford]

Yeah... of course.... all due to corruption...hmm

Dave

Not possible, of course (you don't live in NSW).

 

[harvyk]

All I can say is it is a win for common sense. Building a development underneath a flight path when the airport has signelled it's intentions of increasing the number of flights overhead is pure madness.

Whilst Snow is not known as the ACT gov't best friend (he is known for using the fact that the airport is not under local gov't control but rather fed gov't control to build additional things which would never normally be given approval) I doubt he did anything to grease the wheels. I also think he hired a better PR person than the village building company. (One of the local canberra based blogs the project manager for tralee came on and used so many weasel words, it's have made a pollie proud, I think it did more damage to their cause than Mr Snow ever could of)

Of course this is my 2c...

 

[jamesatfish]

Glad to hear that sanity prevails at last. We've got plenty of open space around Canberra, so I don't understand how anyone was seriously considering building houses directly under a major flight path when there are plenty of other spaces available.

Of course the fact that Tralee would have been in NSW yet the majority of residents moving there would be working in the ACT might have something to do with it - putting it anywhere else in NSW makes it a longer commute for ACT workers and thus a less desirable place to live.

I don't agree that Snow is in bed with the ACT Government though - if anything they are pretty intense rivals after the Govt screwed the Snows over the Epicenter / DFO debacle. For those who aren't locals, the Govt here auctioned off a major piece of real estate in an industrial suburb near the airport that could only be used for bulky goods retail, adamant that the use clause would not be changed. The Snows and Epicenter (who control DFO) both bid for the site, which ultimately went to Epicenter for well more than a bulky goods site would have been worth. Not long after, the Govt decided to change the lease clause and Epicenter built a DFO factory outlet which directly competes with one that the Snows had built out at CBR a few years earlier.

 

[clifford]

Firstly, let me say that as a Canberra resident of many years standing, and one who reads news articles, I am fully aware that the Snows and the ACT Govt are not in bed together. I was perhaps referring to the federal govt, who did create the CBR airport mess in the first place (and please don't say it was only the previous govt, who the current PM is imitating). Anyone who has to drive past/through it will know what I mean. It's a disgraceful, half-finished, effed-up wasteland.

Having got that out of the way, I note from the following article that it's not the done deal that others may have suggested:
NSW Government to correct planning laws - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation).

And lastly, who are these posters to try and deny additional, much-needed affordable housing for the Canberra community? God knows, it's scarce enough and hugely over-priced at the moment.

And on the issue of living under flight paths, I certainly do and my house was built 35 years ago. All flights departing CBR to the North and then heading for MEL/ADL/PER are routed over the developed towns of Gunghalin and Belconnen, and they can be quite noisy.

So go figure...

 

[harvyk]

And lastly, who are these posters to try and deny additional, much-needed affordable housing for the Canberra community? God knows, it's scarce enough and hugely over-priced at the moment.

Well I'm one of the people who thinks Tralee should not be developed.

There is heaps of land further south which could be developed quite easily, and whilst still technically under a flight path the planes are high enough that you can't hear them. (I should know, I grew up in that part of CBR and used to go walking about up in the hills near by).

There is also land further south of Lanyon which could be developed, and if it really need to be on the NSW side of the boarder why not north of Hall??? Infact north of Hall (near Dunlop) would be a great place, as it's still close to the CBD.

Furthermore there are pockets of land all over CBR which could be developed. Eg between Wanniassa and Farrer, there is enough room for a whole new surburb there, what about west of Chapman \ Duffy or between Holder and Cook?

Sorry but the excuse of "this is the only place where we can develop" is a complete joke, brought about by the village building co as their way of responding to the airport anti tralee ad's.

 

[ethernet]

I'm in favor of CONDITIONAL development under the path.
1) All double glazing and superior noise insulation - equal or better to the offices built at the airport - Not some cheap cough, slap up project homes.
2) Attachment to the land Title deed saying they are aware of airport noise, and can never complain about same - cause its only going to get worse.
3) With cheap cough residential ruled out, they can build great wall of Mawson flats - should be economical to soundproof too, and fill em up with bogans.

 

[harvyk]

Ethernet, all sales contracts will have a clause preventing the "owners" from making a complaint about the noise.

The problems will start in a couple of years when a few of the houses are sold, and the clause didn't make it's way into subsequent contracts and then people will start complaining. Furthermore there will be renters whom can complain as they will. And besides, how will VBC enforce such a clause in a contract? If you complain or join Curfew4Canberra you forefit you house?

The airport has tried very hard to direct all noise over a corridor which contains very little or no residential housing. The problem is VBC want to build a new development slap bang in the middle of that corridor.

As I pointed out with my post above there is still heaps of land within the ACT and nearby in NSW which is still available for residential development. So why do we need Tralee to be built at all?

 

[markis10]

The airport has tried very hard to direct all noise over a corridor which contains very little or no residential housing. The problem is VBC want to build a new development slap bang in the middle of that corridor.

As I pointed out with my post above there is still heaps of land within the ACT and nearby in NSW which is still available for residential development. So why do we need Tralee to be built at all?

The Airport has no control whatsoever over the flightpaths, its influence/responsibility stops at the fence, so its not possible for it to try hard to direct all noise to a certain area, in fact it clearly assigns that responsilbilty to Air Services Australia, mind you the terrain has quite a lot to do with said flightpaths, particularily in IFR conditions.

The current CBR noise abatement areas were put in place 5 years ago by Air Services Australia, not Canberra Airport, lets give credit where its due, lets also not forget that CBR is only the 15th busiest airport by movements last year, so we are hardly talking massive traffic by comparison to locations elsewhere.

 

[harvyk]

Fair enough, CBR's website at some stage (haven't checked lately) appeared to claim some credit for the corridors. Either way "someone" has moved all flights inbound \ outbound into a corridor which tries to avoid residential area's.

Even with a small amount of air traffic there is still a movement trying to get a curfew slapped onto the place... Check out Curfew 4 Canberra, thus Tralee would give Curfew4Canberra a massive boost, and we would potentially be stuck with the same problems that Sydney or Adelaide currently have to put up with.

 

[markis10]

Fair enough, CBR's website at some stage (haven't checked lately) appeared to claim some credit for the corridors. Either way "someone" has moved all flights inbound \ outbound into a corridor which tries to avoid residential area's.

Even with a small amount of air traffic there is still a movement trying to get a curfew slapped onto the place... Check out Curfew 4 Canberra, thus Tralee would give Curfew4Canberra a massive boost, and we would potentially be stuck with the same problems that Sydney or Adelaide currently have to put up with.

I think you hit the crux of the issue! A curfew is definately not what the airport wants as it reduces revenue potential, while preventing land in nearby areas from being developed adds value to the development at CBR.

I am not a fan of non aviation development on airport land when it infringes with the apron areas, sometimes things go wrong and aircraft end up where they were not intended to be (often in cold/wet environments ), the factory outlet at CBR is a good example of development that is just to close to high speed movements IMHO. Some may say the hangers associated with the RAAF are no different on the otherside, but they are rarely full of people and have rapid egress exits by comparison.

 

[harvyk]

I think you hit the crux of the issue! A curfew is definately not what the airport wants as it reduces revenue potential, while preventing land in nearby areas from being developed adds value to the development at CBR.

The airport makes no effort to hide it's reasoning and that it's main reason against Tralee is that it'll give Curfew4Canberra support, and thus limit the amount of airtraffic which can come into the airport.

VBC say that they also want to build more office space out there which will compete with BBP, but the fact is that BBP already has a sizeable amount of defence out there, and I doubt that Tralee business park will take clients from BBP.

 

[wandering_fred]

Ethernet, all sales contracts will have a clause preventing the "owners" from making a complaint about the noise.

The problems will start in a couple of years when a few of the houses are sold, and the clause didn't make it's way into subsequent contracts and then people will start complaining.

Make it a deed restriction not a sales contract restriction

Fred

 

[harvyk]

Make it a deed restriction not a sales contract restriction

Fred

And enforced how exactly? It may stop people from taking the airport to court for noise, but it can't really stop people from doing things like joining Curfew4Canberra, and given it's in the very marginal "litmus test" seat of Eden-Monaro it wouldn't take too much jumping up and down by the residents to convince the gov't of the day to take some degree of action.