[Peetwo]

Second the City of Kingston call for a proper inquiry into Federally leased Airports - 

Ref the 20/20 thread:

Submission 69: Kingston Council (Rating: excellent -   )

Via the 20/20 Inquiry submissions page: 69 City of Kingston (PDF 4481 KB)

‘any related matters’

The Committee are also seeking comment on d) any related matters. Council believes that a more
focused look into the management of federally leased airports is required to review the depletion of
aviation activity on airport land to expedite non-aviation development.

Council respectfully submits this inquiry should consider the amount of non-aviation development
occurring and planned on federally leased airport land.

increase in non-aviation development is seen as a critical factor, inhibiting existing aviation tenants
remaining on airport land into the future, with insufficient regard given to future needs. It is worthwhile the
Committee consider the land use intent in the preliminary draft masterplan for Moorabbin Airport in 2021,
when compared with the level of land set aside and protection for aviation at the time of airport
deregulation, particularly in the context of a large city like Melbourne. This land cannot be replaced
elsewhere limiting the reach of regional Australia into Australia’s biggest cities.

The Airports Act 1996 (the Act) sets out the regulatory arrangements between airports formerly owned and
operated on behalf of the Commonwealth by the Federal Airports Corporation (FAC). It requires, as set
out in Part 1, Section 3 that airports “promote sound development of civil aviation in Australia”.

The Moorabbin Airport is also subject to Part 5 of the Act and the corresponding regulations. As per Part
5, ‘Obligation to use airport site as an airport’. The Airport is declared to be an airport site within the
meaning of Section 5 of the Act and Regulations.

The Lease agreement by the Commonwealth to the MAC over the Airport states that the MAC “must
provide for the use of the [Airport] as an airport” and may “permit the [Airport] to be used for other lawful
purposes that are not inconsistent with its use as an airport”. The legislation that underpins the role of the
Airport clearly seeks to ensure that an efficient and fully functioning airport is provided which gives priority
to its core aviation function.

Council acknowledges that non-aviation development has some role to play in providing sufficient income
for the Airport Lessee Company to ensure sufficient resources are available to maintain the airport.

Consideration must, however, be given to the appropriate balance being struck between development and
the risk of directly undermining aviation.

When the then FAC privatised airports in 1996, from the readings of the Act and the justification for selling
off the leaseholds, it was not the intent of the Federal Government to legitimise business plans geared to
maximising shareholder returns at the expense of the aviation industry.

The privatisation of federal airports was meant to do the exact opposite by assisting in bolstering of the
aviation industry. It is a now a unique situation where privatised airport leaseholders are able to hold
unique and often unregulated monopoly powers which negatively impact the aviation industry and sidestep
State and Local planning powers. Developments (non-aviation) can completely disregard existing
residential neighbours and provide serious negative amenity outcomes with no checks or balances
available. Practical examples are reinforced through Council’s submission to the 2021 preliminary draft
masterplan.

The critical role that Moorabbin Airport, as well as other regional and rural airports, cannot be downplayed.
They are a vital part of the nation’s transport infrastructure. The ongoing viability of Moorabbin Airport is
now being called into question with aviation tenants questioning whether there will be enough space set
aside for aviation both now and into the future.

Following the impact of Covid-19, this industry has been significantly impacted. The classifications of the
runways at Moorabbin are proposed to be reduced, which according to airport tenants will deplete the core
number of aircraft based at Moorabbin.

Tenants are being removed from the site, which has a huge flow on effect to other tenants on site. For
example, where a maintenance company is no longer able to remain on site, this has a huge impact to
operators who rely on that maintenance company to ensure planes do not remain grounded.

Council and the aviation community share the concern that the MAC require much greater regulation to
ensure that they not only provide a safe efficient airport but also do not put warehousing/industrial
developments ahead of the land’s intended purpose.

There is very significant tension between the MAC’s role in managing and future proofing Moorabbin
Airport as an aviation asset, whilst advancing lucrative non-aviation related commercial endeavours.

During the consultation phase of the preliminary draft Masterplan process, Council was contacted by a
number of aviation tenants at Moorabbin Airport who expressed significant concerns for the future of their
businesses. The feedback indicated that existing aviation tenants believe that there is not enough space
for each tenant on the site and that multiple tenants are now competing for the same hanger space.

Noting the extent of land already developed for non-aviation uses, it is critical that existing aviation
operators are provided with the ability to remain on site.

Regardless of whether the preliminary draft masterplan for Moorabbin Airport is approved or refused, the
concerns raised throughout this submission are vitally important.

The extent of non-aviation development needs closer examination and the Senate enquiry provides a
useful platform in which to consider the implications of what is occurring at Moorabbin at a broader
national scale.

For the future of our small and medium aviation businesses, as well as residents who are adjacent to our
airports and are impacted by decisions to construct major warehouses immediately adjacent to their
properties without meaningful consultation, we submit that issues associated with the deregulation of
Airports warrants review.

Council would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity and respectfully request the Committee’s
consideration of our submission.

Yours faithfully

Cr Steve Staikos
MAYOR

Referencing the following extract from the Kingston submission:

"..Over the past 12 months the State Government of Victoria, through an Advisory Committee, attempted to
ensure that planning around airports consider the potential safety and amenity impacts on the surrounding communities and that airport operations are protected. The Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding Standing Advisory Committee (MAESSAC) is now trying to determine how the NASF can be implemented into planning schemes in Victoria..."

Doing a Google search for the 'MAESSAC' will lead you to this link: https://engage.vic.gov.au/airport-safegu...-committee

This in turn will lead you to the submissions page: https://engage.vic.gov.au/airport-safegu...ubmissions

Within that link the Kingston Council has 2 submissions but it is to the 1st one to which I want to refer: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/37220/4835

Planning decisions on federal airport land are controlled by the DITRDC so whilst this is outside the
scope of the Committee, Council would like the following noted. It is a difficult task, advising the
community on what one can and cannot do on their property. Speaking with members of the
community, it is often stated to Officers about the ‘fairness factor’ or lack of, when it comes to what
development can occur on private land verse what occurs on airport land. The AEO (whilst an
important tool and Council are not suggesting it be removed), is a restrictive tool which prevents
development on private sites. It is extremely difficult to explain to owners situated (for example) along
Lower Dandenong Road, who are encumbered by the AEO and therefore cannot subdivide, that the
Airport do not have the same restrictions and can therefore build large factories/warehouses metres
from their boundary on airport land (Figure 4) thereby intensifying development (non-aviation).


Figure 4: Lower Dandenong Road looking north towards airport land

Council strongly advocate for appropriate measures and treatments on any development, whether
that be airport land or not, to be consistent and up to date. This includes ensuring that the most up to
date contours are used to reflect the AEO

It is also noted that at the time of writing this submission, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau who
are investigating the 2017 Essendon DFO crash are yet to release their ‘Part B’ report which was
examining the building approval process from an aviation safety perspective, including any airspace
issues associated with the development, to determine the transport safety impact of the development
on aviation operations at Essendon. This report may have implications for the future planning for
Moorabbin Airport and the development of surrounding areas.

With this said, Council makes the above submission to the Committee to consider the planning
controls, and other mechanisms, as the basis of meeting the needs of all stakeholders, while providing
a sound basis for continuing future land use planning around the airport...

Perhaps the above reference to the ATSB Essendon DFO approval process investigation, coupled with the ongoing Vic Coroner's inquest into the crash, explains why the ATSB public release of the final investigation has been deferred (ref: 5 Nov update - https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/inv...-2018-010/ ) yet again?? 

Anticipated completion: 1st Quarter 2022

Finally in reference to the recently released "Aviation State Safety Programme (SSP)
and National Aviation Safety Plan (NASP) consultation – Stakeholder issues and responses" document, I note the following AAA concern:

(NASP) a key airport-related issue is mitigation of risk to air safety through inappropriate development around airports. Government should strengthen linkages between National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group (NASAG) and aviation safety bodies, and improve links from NASAG and National Airports Safeguarding Framework (NASF) into state and territory planning systems to control inappropriate development around airports.

And the Dept/CASA (Dr Aleck) typical weasel worded response:

Noted, no change to NASP required. Government aviation agencies will continue to use NASAG and NASF to promote safety risk mitigations in land use planning around airports. While the Australian Government can continue to encourage uptake, State and Territory Governments decide the extent to which and how specific elements of NASF are adopted in their respective planning controls and legislation.

There are also individual airport committees that can be used to address local safety issues including airport, Government agency and industry representatives. Any serious safety issues can also be raised with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority in terms of compliance with the relevant airport regulations.

 
That's my second...

MTF...P2