[Peetwo]

Is the magic carpet burning?

Got to feel for Heff, frustration is too mild a word.  It is a long, long time to next estimates and he can't really put anyone on oath and cross examine with serious intent of bringing charges.  I reckon he'd have the Murky Machiavellian crew in the box for a long time, thumbscrews would be the least of it.  

Not sure if the Bankstown 'Master plan' will now be executed as the field is once again up for sale.  But close scrutiny of that plan is a shocker; there is a mares nest of 'legislation' to untangle, that of itself in a hellish job; but while that is happening, the conveniently drafted 'approval' clauses which rely simply on the work being completed will steal the march, hard and expensive to start removing completed works.  The seek forgiveness, not permission wheeze is definitely on the marked cards.   The notes below are not finished, I started to do them for estimates; but time beat me.  I'll file them for later, perhaps if Heff gets cranky enough he'll call for some kind of inquiry then it will be worth tearing the AQoN apart.  FWIW notes and stray thoughts - with (maybe) MTF.  You'll need the AQoN to follow my scribbles - 

Careful reading of the AQoN (re Q125) provides an interesting adventure into the word weasels world; it truly does.  If, and it is a big IF, everything is as 'on the square' as represented then the need for extreme, finely tuned, carefully scripted, much delayed explanation would not be needed.  The sheer volume of the answer suggests that the patina of respectability is a carefully applied coat of wax on a mudguard.  

For starters, I would like to see the survey data which defines the slightly glib Americanism 'precinct'; as being a humble 13% of the total area is claimed as the "SWP".  If the provided maps are representative and my high school maths are not rusted solid, I would beg to differ.

Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 (Pages 5 - 6) are representative of a hand tooled, work shop answer. There is just enough 'truth' in there to persuade the reader that it can be skimmed through.  That would be an error as the words avoid conflict, while providing the legal eagles a smorgasbord of choice.  It is all nicely, albeit finely balanced.  But, for my two bob, if I were Heff, I'd be seeking a second opinion; on all of it.

I rather like page 10 – General requirements.  I has a certain, Oh, je ne sais quoi; blithe statements abound, like; that 'borrow' pits must be refilled, furry muff, but fails to state with what or where that fill will come from.  Surface water is all headed down to the water table, even the water from the 'sealed' Asphalt and concrete sections, has to go somewhere and down is the natural path – sooner or later.  Paragraph 9 tickles my fancy – it begs the question – 'but if they are not, what then?, Para 10 same – same; after the party is over, we'll check it out to make certain every little thing is just as it should be; after you have done it.  Can we have an independent civil engineer please, just to be sure; to be sure?

Eventually, you arrive at page 20 – more 'general requirements' and they are general, with enough space to drive a horse cart through, at a gallop.  Civil engineer/pilot mate has a hilarious take on the strikethrough of paragraph 2.  Alas, I regret not for publication.

[the] Airport Building Controller (ABC)

Building and works approvals are issued by the ABC in consultation with the Airport Environment Officer (AEO) and in reference to the provisions of the Airports Act 1996 and the associated regulations – Airports (Building Control) Regulations 1996 and Airports (Environment Protection) Regulations 1997.

o The ABC is contracted to the Department to undertake functions on behalf of the Commonwealth on Commonwealth owned airport land.

o Approvals can be issued with conditions attached, including conditions relating to environmental issues based on specialist advice such as that provided by the AEO.

The ABC works permits (Attachments A and B) note the approvals have ‘effect until’ 23 March and 5 August 2011. This is the date by which works must have ‘substantially commenced’ in order for the permit to remain open. ABC approvals do not expire.

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 has no operation in relation to land use planning and building control on Bankstown Airport. This is the consequence of s 112 of the Airports Act and the Building Control Regulations.

112  Exclusion of State laws
(1) It is the intention of the Parliament that this Part is to apply to the exclusion of a law of a State.
(2) In particular, it is the intention of the Parliament that this Part is to apply to the exclusion of a law of a State relating to:
(a) land use planning; or
(b) the regulation of building activities.

Very interesting "K", by the sound of it you are a lot more 'in the know' on this than most..

Hitch also mentioned this in his weekly wrap:

Bankstown and Camden Airports are back on the market, with the holding company looking to off-load the leases for both. Reports say there was an aborted attempt to sell both back in 2012, but it was canceled when the shareholders decided to hold out for "a better sale environment." So, apparently that's now. There have been reports in mainstream media that the airports are up for sale. That can't happen as the consortium doesn't own the land, just the leases on the land and the development opportunities that brings. It does make you wonder, though, what conditions have changed that make the sale a better option in 2015 than it was in 2012. The more mischevious out there might say the only change is that the consortium is more desperate now.

  
Got a feeling there will be much MTF on this matter....P2