Federal Govt continues to obfuscate decades old airport safety issue? - Part II
Previously from the city of Iron Rings, Hoodwinked pollywaffles and wingnutted obfuscating, self-serving bureaucrats i.e Can'tberra aka 'the land of Nod'..
While digging through the AP shelf-ware archive I came across this seemingly innocuous gem: T Robertson SC - Constitutional Advice
Consequently I read through this long, mostly boring, constitutional law opinion piece by T Robertson SC and a nagging curiosity bump began to develop...
Not being much into either constitutional law or the full blown history of the privatisation of Federally owned airports, I sent this onto Dr RG with the note...
FYI - see attached - was this the real reason why the Sydney Airport DFO was knocked on the head? P2
Dr RG came back with:
...Gentlemen
I had not seen this paper before but am familiar with some of the supporting case law.
I would not be surprised if this was the reason the development was knocked on the head...
..It seems to me that this also has relevance to all ALOP aerodromes covered by a Deed between the commonwealth and local governments, of which there are many...(sic)...In hindsight this opinion also explains why, when I raised the Deed following its 'loosening' by John Anderson dept., a number of solicitors hired by the commonwealth sat in on the conversation. I think they were already aware of this complex and vexing issue and wondered if I was planning to take the argument to this area of the law. Sadly I did not have substantial knowledge of this area of law at the time but a specialist in admin law as it relates to Fed-State matters subsequently told me I would win a case in the Fed jurisdiction if I were to challenge state/local govt planning decisions...
...When I think about it Anderson's department was probably trying to get around this problem without going to Parliament. I have a number of reasons to entertain this view which I won't elaborate here, but will start to put words on paper. By the way Anderson instructed his dept. to consult with other bodies such as AOPA, but the dept failed to do so yet Anderson signed off of on the loosening of policy with regard to the Deeds over all ALOP aerodromes. Did he check?!..
Did he check indeed?? That aside my question on this is if this constitutional legal opinion from T Robertson SC was on solid ground and was pivotal in the decision by former miniscule Mark Vaille to knock the proposed DFO plan(s) for YSSY airport on the head, then why didn't that set precedent on 'other' MDP plans to build shopping centres alongside and/or in the vicinity of busy active runways?
This then got me thinking maybe this MOA does get a mention elsewhere?
So while trolling Google I first refered back to this excellent legal/academic Conversation article: Airport privatisations have put profit before public safety and good planning
&..
So no direct mention there of T Robertson SC memo but you do get a real sense of why the MOA may have been intentionally buried ever since the February 2007 Mark Vaille decision to reject the SACL MDP DFO proposals?
This then led me to this 186 page Carter Newell document: https://www.carternewell.com/icms_docs/1...de_PDF.pdf
Some of the case law in that document is extremely fascinating but still there is no reference to T Robertson SC MOA. Or indeed the 2007 Vaille rejection of the SACL MDP DFO proposals, partly on the grounds of aviation safety:
However there is a brief mention of 'public safety' areas at airports (ref: page 35 & appendix 6) - and from page 86, an informative section under the subheading 'Aerodrome Emergency Plan'.
Still digging, with much MTF...P2
\
"K" - Grist - for the mill (and, put the bloody lids back on the rubbish bins)....
Previously from the city of Iron Rings, Hoodwinked pollywaffles and wingnutted obfuscating, self-serving bureaucrats i.e Can'tberra aka 'the land of Nod'..
(11-21-2018, 09:28 PM)Peetwo Wrote:More crumbs have come to my attention on the road to Federal government purgatory and ticking, runway encroaching, DFO fireball bombs...
Having been tasked by Aunty Pru -
Quote:Senator STERLE—I want to raise with you an article at page 8 of the Australian on
Tuesday where it is reported that the minister has rejected some shops in Sydney airport
because of the fear that it could be hit by a plane. Are you aware of that?
Mr Mrdak—That is correct. The minister has recently rejected a major development
proposal by the Sydney Airport Corporation for a retail commercial development in close
proximity to the runways of Sydney airport...
What perked my interest was Sterlo's reference to the...
"..minister has rejected some shops in Sydney airport because of the fear that it could be hit by a plane.."
A quick Google did not bring up the Oz article but it did bring up a SMH article (or three):
Quote:Airport shopping mall grounded
13 February 2007 — 11:00am
IT WASN'T quite in the jaw-dropping league of unexpected decisions, but the Macquarie Bank empire found yesterday that it's not always going to get its own way over the future of Sydney Airport.
With its influence over the airport already causing the bank some turbulence regarding the $11 billion takeover of Qantas - since rival airlines are not happy it is likely to end up unduly controlling both - the Federal Government showed a surprisingly tough line by rejecting a $200 million plan to build a massive retail centre on land next to Sydney's three runways.
Transport minister Mark Vaile knocked back the proposal on safety grounds because he feared a jumbo jet could plough into the shopping centre if it overshot the third runway.
I haven't been able (yet) to find the basis for the Minister's decision on aviation safety grounds and whether it was because the shopping precinct proposal would impinge on the ICAO Annex 14 defined OLS; or the...
Civil Aviation (Buildings Control) Regulations 1988 (ref Ironbar above or: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/c...cr1988441/ ):
Quote: Wrote:3. Prohibition of the construction of buildings in specified areas4. Prohibition of the construction of buildings of more than 25 feet in height in specified areas5. Prohibition of the construction of buildings of more than 50 feet in height in specified areas6.Prohibition of the construction of buildings of more than 150 feet in height in certain areas
Also refer schedule 6: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/c...edule.html
..., however I can fully understand why Sterlo attempted to garner a 'please explain' on why it was the Minister Mark Vaille rejected the SACL proposal for a shopping precinct onsite at Sydney airport but did not reject the Perth Airport MDP application for a brickworks development proposal within the Federally controlled airspace surrounding the Perth airport.
IMO the former Minister's decision also sets a precedent for rejecting the construction of high capacity public shopping precincts in close proximity to Federally controlled/leased airports.
It is therefore deeply disturbing that one year after the former Minister made that decision the ICAO audit team identified a parallel safety issue in regards to...(refer pic)
![[Image: DrrQtQlVAAAh3Uu.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DrrQtQlVAAAh3Uu.jpg)
...and again nearly a decade later...(refer pic)
....and yet despite having a supposedly fully compliant ICAO Annex 19 State safety management system (SSP) this repeatedly ICAO and Minister identified significant safety issue is STILL yet to be effectively risk mitigated by any or all directly interested parties responsible for the effective implementation of the ICAO Annex 19 SSP - PLEASE EXPLAIN??
![[Image: DrC4MctUUAE67m1.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DrC4MctUUAE67m1.jpg)
While digging through the AP shelf-ware archive I came across this seemingly innocuous gem: T Robertson SC - Constitutional Advice
Consequently I read through this long, mostly boring, constitutional law opinion piece by T Robertson SC and a nagging curiosity bump began to develop...
Not being much into either constitutional law or the full blown history of the privatisation of Federally owned airports, I sent this onto Dr RG with the note...
FYI - see attached - was this the real reason why the Sydney Airport DFO was knocked on the head? P2
Dr RG came back with:
...Gentlemen
I had not seen this paper before but am familiar with some of the supporting case law.
I would not be surprised if this was the reason the development was knocked on the head...
..It seems to me that this also has relevance to all ALOP aerodromes covered by a Deed between the commonwealth and local governments, of which there are many...(sic)...In hindsight this opinion also explains why, when I raised the Deed following its 'loosening' by John Anderson dept., a number of solicitors hired by the commonwealth sat in on the conversation. I think they were already aware of this complex and vexing issue and wondered if I was planning to take the argument to this area of the law. Sadly I did not have substantial knowledge of this area of law at the time but a specialist in admin law as it relates to Fed-State matters subsequently told me I would win a case in the Fed jurisdiction if I were to challenge state/local govt planning decisions...
...When I think about it Anderson's department was probably trying to get around this problem without going to Parliament. I have a number of reasons to entertain this view which I won't elaborate here, but will start to put words on paper. By the way Anderson instructed his dept. to consult with other bodies such as AOPA, but the dept failed to do so yet Anderson signed off of on the loosening of policy with regard to the Deeds over all ALOP aerodromes. Did he check?!..
Did he check indeed?? That aside my question on this is if this constitutional legal opinion from T Robertson SC was on solid ground and was pivotal in the decision by former miniscule Mark Vaille to knock the proposed DFO plan(s) for YSSY airport on the head, then why didn't that set precedent on 'other' MDP plans to build shopping centres alongside and/or in the vicinity of busy active runways?
This then got me thinking maybe this MOA does get a mention elsewhere?
So while trolling Google I first refered back to this excellent legal/academic Conversation article: Airport privatisations have put profit before public safety and good planning
Quote:...Planning academics Robert Freestone and Douglas Baker have argued:
Quote:The prospect of market opportunities from property development and commercial initiatives was a key factor in the high prices secured for airport leases.
This process was compromised if higher prices than those justified by leases were reciprocated by commercial approvals. Any future development assessment would be predetermined towards approval. This would prevent fair consideration of objections, resulting in a lack of proper scrutiny in the public interest...
&..
Quote:..Under the Airports Act, Essendon Airports Pty Ltd must prepare a management plan outlining airport development for 20 years. The privatised management of airports inherited the Commonwealth’s constitutional overriding of state and territory land-use planning provisions. Master plans must only address “consistency” with state and local planning schemes.
However, airport lessees are not required to act on submissions. Essendon Airport Pty Ltd gave “due regard to all written comments”, then forwarded submissions and its master plan to the federal government. The Commonwealth approved the plan in 2014 regardless of broader urban planning considerations.
Victorian government planning policy has attempted to concentrate commercial development in mixed-use centres well served by public transport. Essendon Airport is a classic road-based, out-of-centre location. It was not identified as an activity centre in Melbourne metropolitan planning. But, for 30 years, no Victorian government has shown an appetite for curbing out-of-centre development...
So no direct mention there of T Robertson SC memo but you do get a real sense of why the MOA may have been intentionally buried ever since the February 2007 Mark Vaille decision to reject the SACL MDP DFO proposals?
This then led me to this 186 page Carter Newell document: https://www.carternewell.com/icms_docs/1...de_PDF.pdf
Some of the case law in that document is extremely fascinating but still there is no reference to T Robertson SC MOA. Or indeed the 2007 Vaille rejection of the SACL MDP DFO proposals, partly on the grounds of aviation safety:
Quote:Senator STERLE—I want to raise with you an article at page 8 of the Australian on
Tuesday where it is reported that the minister has rejected some shops in Sydney airport
because of the fear that it could be hit by a plane. Are you aware of that?
However there is a brief mention of 'public safety' areas at airports (ref: page 35 & appendix 6) - and from page 86, an informative section under the subheading 'Aerodrome Emergency Plan'.
Still digging, with much MTF...P2
\"K" - Grist - for the mill (and, put the bloody lids back on the rubbish bins)....