Post by corsair67 on Jul 23, 2007 10:50:52 GMT 12
Again: if you buy a house on a flightpath or near an airport - you have no right to complain about noise.
From The Australian.
Land fight puts focus on airport plans
July 23, 2007.
A PROPOSED $2.5 billion property development near Canberra Airport is at the centre of a bitter stoush between one of the country's richest men, Terry Snow; federal government regulator Airservices Australia; property developer Village Building Company; and NSW, ACT and federal politicians.
The case, to be heard in the Federal Court this week, by Village against Airservices Australia has the potential to spoil a relationship between the states and the federal Government over the way property is treated near airports.
It could also throw into question the credibility of Airservices Australia.
But, from a commercial basis, it has the potential to open the floodgates to other property developers to challenge the master plans of commercial airports.
In the past few months, valuations of airports have been going through the roof, and Canberra Airport is no exception. It was bought by Terry Snow in 1998 for $66.5 million. It is now worth more than treble that based on recent valuations of world airports.
Snow, who is valued at more than $600 million on BRW's Rich 200, has built a large business park next to the runway, as well as a discount retail outlet and other properties through the city of Canberra.
Part of the strong valuation of Canberra Airport is that it doesn't have a curfew on when planes can fly. This goes a long way to explaining why Snow is pulling out all stops to prevent this $2.5 billion development at Tralee, near Queanbeyan, NSW. The fear is that if it is built, and its planes are flying at all hours of the night, households will complain and politicians will intervene and put a curfew on the airport.
Canberra Airport chief executive Stephen Byron says as much. He says airport noise causes such strong emotions that it can win or lose a politician his seat. He says Brisbane Airport could have a curfew imposed because Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd can see votes in it.
"We have been campaigning to keep the land at Tralee rural even before Village Building bought the land," Byron says.
So, on the front of Canberra Airport's website, it has launched a petition: "Say No to Noise Sharing".
It says: "NSW Planning Minister Frank Sartor has ignored clear advice from his own Independent Panel of Inquiry, aviation experts, the commonwealth and ACT governments, federal Labor, the airlines and Canberra Airport, and has approved a Residential and Economic Strategy for Queanbeyan which includes thousands of homes under Canberra International Airport's flight paths."
The clock is ticking. On Wednesday, the airport will prepare a report to Airservices as part of a noise impact statement. Later in the year it will submit a master plan, which details its projections for air traffic out to 2050. (Under section 70 of the Airports Act, all privately owned airports have to submit forecasts such as how many planes will fly in and out of the airport for the next 20 years. The master plan must contain a noise exposure level contour plan called ANEF, which is based on anticipated numbers and type of aircraft and time of arrival and departure. Airservices is responsible for endorsing Australian noise forecasts for all airports. This plan is then approved by federal Transport Minister Mark Vaile).
The problem is that Airservices' role in endorsing the ANEF is limited to checking for technical accuracy of noise mapping. It does not test the underlying assumptions. This means an airport can exaggerate its forecasts to prevent new developments being built even in other states.
The question the federal Government needs to ask itself is: did the legislation intend planning issues around Australian airports to be controlled by private operators rather than government?
The answer has to be no. The politics around whether the development should or should not take place is irrelevant here. The situation is such that Airservices needs to be given the power to test underlying assumptions to ensure there is no manipulation of the forecasts to prevent other commercial ventures getting up. In the case of Canberra Airport, Vaile accepted Canberra Airport's master plan in 2005. That plan did not affect the building of the $2.5 billion residential property. The proposed updated version yet to be submitted has set forecasts that will kill off the project.
Village Building wants the development to go ahead because its chief executive, Bob Winnel, says when he bought the land for development it fell outside the airport noise zones.
The politics is even more complex: Village Building's residential land bank is just across the border of the airport in NSW, it is "affordable housing" and Sartor and local mayor Frank Pangallo have given it a favourable response. Sartor doesn't want a potentially good vote-winning project kiboshed by an airport owner in a different state because the legislation is such that airport owners submit aircraft forecasts to the regulator and those forecasts are not tested for accuracy, but can result in building restrictions.
Indeed Sartor is understood to have written to Vaile saying he may review his support for the current system on the basis that it exposes the system to manipulation.
Like any good businessman, Snow is protective of his airport. He has taken legal action against the ACT Planning and Land Authority's decision to approve an EpiCentre development at Fyshwick, near Snow's Brand Depot at Canberra Airport.
The development was won in a tender by Austexx, which operates the fast growing Direct Factory Outlets owned by two other of the country's richest men, David Wieland and David Goldberger. Snow bid for the $39 million Fyshwick site but lost out to Austexx in December 2005 by $1 million. The next round of the legal battle starts in a week.
Despite being embroiled in that action, Snow -- and other airport owners --will be closely watching the legal action Village Building Company is taking against the airport regulator over how it tests the assumptions of airport projections put forward by airport owners.
The reason is simple. Much of the land surrounding the airports is owned by other private parties but the airports have the power, through a government-owned regulator, to stop any residential development that is not their own by providing aircraft forecasts that are so bullish they breach noise laws.
Village Building Company alleges the airport's forecasts are too aggressive.
For instance, it forecasts an average of 780 aircraft movements a day, or 32 an hour, or more than one every two minutes, or some 283,000 annual aircraft movements on one runway. It also forecasts nine Boeing 747s; nine Boeing 777s, 10 Airbus A340s and 10 Airbus 330s landing between 7pm and 7am every day of the year.
Put into context, these estimates are similar in size to those determined by the British Airports Authority for England's Gatwick Airport, which is the busiest and most productive single runway system in the world today. Sydney Airport currently has 285,000 annual aircraft movements, with parallel runways.
The case will be interesting because of the politics. If it gets thrown out, Sartor will have little choice but to challenge Vaile and the federal legislation, and that could open a can of worms for airport owners around the country. If the case is successful, it sets a precedent for other states.
From The Australian.
Land fight puts focus on airport plans
July 23, 2007.
A PROPOSED $2.5 billion property development near Canberra Airport is at the centre of a bitter stoush between one of the country's richest men, Terry Snow; federal government regulator Airservices Australia; property developer Village Building Company; and NSW, ACT and federal politicians.
The case, to be heard in the Federal Court this week, by Village against Airservices Australia has the potential to spoil a relationship between the states and the federal Government over the way property is treated near airports.
It could also throw into question the credibility of Airservices Australia.
But, from a commercial basis, it has the potential to open the floodgates to other property developers to challenge the master plans of commercial airports.
In the past few months, valuations of airports have been going through the roof, and Canberra Airport is no exception. It was bought by Terry Snow in 1998 for $66.5 million. It is now worth more than treble that based on recent valuations of world airports.
Snow, who is valued at more than $600 million on BRW's Rich 200, has built a large business park next to the runway, as well as a discount retail outlet and other properties through the city of Canberra.
Part of the strong valuation of Canberra Airport is that it doesn't have a curfew on when planes can fly. This goes a long way to explaining why Snow is pulling out all stops to prevent this $2.5 billion development at Tralee, near Queanbeyan, NSW. The fear is that if it is built, and its planes are flying at all hours of the night, households will complain and politicians will intervene and put a curfew on the airport.
Canberra Airport chief executive Stephen Byron says as much. He says airport noise causes such strong emotions that it can win or lose a politician his seat. He says Brisbane Airport could have a curfew imposed because Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd can see votes in it.
"We have been campaigning to keep the land at Tralee rural even before Village Building bought the land," Byron says.
So, on the front of Canberra Airport's website, it has launched a petition: "Say No to Noise Sharing".
It says: "NSW Planning Minister Frank Sartor has ignored clear advice from his own Independent Panel of Inquiry, aviation experts, the commonwealth and ACT governments, federal Labor, the airlines and Canberra Airport, and has approved a Residential and Economic Strategy for Queanbeyan which includes thousands of homes under Canberra International Airport's flight paths."
The clock is ticking. On Wednesday, the airport will prepare a report to Airservices as part of a noise impact statement. Later in the year it will submit a master plan, which details its projections for air traffic out to 2050. (Under section 70 of the Airports Act, all privately owned airports have to submit forecasts such as how many planes will fly in and out of the airport for the next 20 years. The master plan must contain a noise exposure level contour plan called ANEF, which is based on anticipated numbers and type of aircraft and time of arrival and departure. Airservices is responsible for endorsing Australian noise forecasts for all airports. This plan is then approved by federal Transport Minister Mark Vaile).
The problem is that Airservices' role in endorsing the ANEF is limited to checking for technical accuracy of noise mapping. It does not test the underlying assumptions. This means an airport can exaggerate its forecasts to prevent new developments being built even in other states.
The question the federal Government needs to ask itself is: did the legislation intend planning issues around Australian airports to be controlled by private operators rather than government?
The answer has to be no. The politics around whether the development should or should not take place is irrelevant here. The situation is such that Airservices needs to be given the power to test underlying assumptions to ensure there is no manipulation of the forecasts to prevent other commercial ventures getting up. In the case of Canberra Airport, Vaile accepted Canberra Airport's master plan in 2005. That plan did not affect the building of the $2.5 billion residential property. The proposed updated version yet to be submitted has set forecasts that will kill off the project.
Village Building wants the development to go ahead because its chief executive, Bob Winnel, says when he bought the land for development it fell outside the airport noise zones.
The politics is even more complex: Village Building's residential land bank is just across the border of the airport in NSW, it is "affordable housing" and Sartor and local mayor Frank Pangallo have given it a favourable response. Sartor doesn't want a potentially good vote-winning project kiboshed by an airport owner in a different state because the legislation is such that airport owners submit aircraft forecasts to the regulator and those forecasts are not tested for accuracy, but can result in building restrictions.
Indeed Sartor is understood to have written to Vaile saying he may review his support for the current system on the basis that it exposes the system to manipulation.
Like any good businessman, Snow is protective of his airport. He has taken legal action against the ACT Planning and Land Authority's decision to approve an EpiCentre development at Fyshwick, near Snow's Brand Depot at Canberra Airport.
The development was won in a tender by Austexx, which operates the fast growing Direct Factory Outlets owned by two other of the country's richest men, David Wieland and David Goldberger. Snow bid for the $39 million Fyshwick site but lost out to Austexx in December 2005 by $1 million. The next round of the legal battle starts in a week.
Despite being embroiled in that action, Snow -- and other airport owners --will be closely watching the legal action Village Building Company is taking against the airport regulator over how it tests the assumptions of airport projections put forward by airport owners.
The reason is simple. Much of the land surrounding the airports is owned by other private parties but the airports have the power, through a government-owned regulator, to stop any residential development that is not their own by providing aircraft forecasts that are so bullish they breach noise laws.
Village Building Company alleges the airport's forecasts are too aggressive.
For instance, it forecasts an average of 780 aircraft movements a day, or 32 an hour, or more than one every two minutes, or some 283,000 annual aircraft movements on one runway. It also forecasts nine Boeing 747s; nine Boeing 777s, 10 Airbus A340s and 10 Airbus 330s landing between 7pm and 7am every day of the year.
Put into context, these estimates are similar in size to those determined by the British Airports Authority for England's Gatwick Airport, which is the busiest and most productive single runway system in the world today. Sydney Airport currently has 285,000 annual aircraft movements, with parallel runways.
The case will be interesting because of the politics. If it gets thrown out, Sartor will have little choice but to challenge Vaile and the federal legislation, and that could open a can of worms for airport owners around the country. If the case is successful, it sets a precedent for other states.
