Submission to The Moorabbin Airport Master Plan Review
From Councillor Rosemary West, City of Kingston                                    

22 July 2009


Introduction

As ward councillor for Moorabbin Airport and its environs since 2003, I wish to make this brief submission to the airport masterplan.  I fully support the excellent submission from the City of Kingston and nothing in this submission should be taken as disagreement with any parts of the City of Kingston submission,

However, in my role as ward councillor I have had concerns expressed to me by and on behalf of a wide range of residents including pilots, airport tenants, nearby residents, community groups and golfers. This has provided me with extra detail and ideas which I request to be taken into account in the master plan process.

I have also represented Council at the Australian Mayoral Aviation Council national conferences in 2007 and 2008 and am aware that AMAC shares our local concerns about the need for proper planning controls to cover the privatised GAAP airports and to prohibit non-aviation-related development on airports.
 

1. Planning controls:

The masterplan correctly cites Section 71 (Part 6) of the Airports Act 1996 which requires that the master plan “must address the extent (if any) of any consistency with planning schemes in force under a law of the State or Territory in which the airport is located”.

The Moorabbin Airport Master Plan is clearly inconsistent with State and Local Planning policy not only in relation to Activity Centre policy but it also fails to comply with the State and local green wedge protection provisions. The whole of the airport is outside the Urban Growth Boundary set by the Bracks Government in 2003 and should therefore comply with Clause 57 of the Planning and Environment Act  (the green wedge core provisions), which apply to Special Use Zones under the State Planning Scheme. One of the stated objectives of green wedges is to protect infrastructure and this is why urban airports have been included in green wedges.

Along with the overwhelming majority of residents who have expressed concerns to me, I have consistently supported the continued aviation role of the airport.  As a city and a municipality, we need our urban airports and should protect and ensure their proper operation.  Hence it is appropriate to have a Special Use Zone to give priority to aviation uses. However those parts of the airport that are not already developed or required for aviation related uses should by and large be zoned Green Wedge zone and non-aviation-related uses should be permitted only insofar as they comply with the GWZ provisions. 

The current masterplan includes far too many inappropriate developments that are inconsistent with the green wedge provisions:  this should be an important part of any review. The proposal for a supermarket and retail complex on the corner of Boundary and Centre Dandenong Roads is an example of such a proposed inappropriate use that has always been opposed by Council,

The review should also include the future current appropriate green wedge uses on the airport such as the Kingston Municipal Public Golf Course and associated nursery and maintenance depot which are proposed in the draft master plan to be replaced by inappropriate, non-airport-related industrial and commercial uses. 

There is strong community concern to back the argument that retention of the golf course, which is the only public 18-hole course in Kingston, should logically be advanced as an appropriate use for its current green wedge location.  We note that a substantial part of the land currently occupied by the golf course is required by Melbourne Water to be retained for flood retention purposes entirely consistent with its use as a golf course. We note also that a proposal to straighten the creek running through the airport could easily be re-oriented to circumvent the fairways, should the golf course be retained.

We note that the Schiphol Airport (near Amsterdam), which is a landmark example of an Aerotropolis  or airport city, consists entirely of aviation-related development. We note also that the Australian Airport Mayors Aviation Council (AMAC) supports the application of proper planning controls to airports and also supports restricting all Australian airports to aviation-related development.

Submissions:

Submission 1. to require proper planning controls to be applied to Moorabbin Airports by adopting one of the models recommended by AMAC and to apply planning controls consistent with State and Local Planning Schemes;

Submission 2.    To require undeveloped airport land not required for aviation uses to be rezoned Green Wedge Zone.

Submission 3. To encourage restoration of the Moorabbin Golf Course under lease to Council.  

•    The balance between commercial profit and community benefit on the airport,  including:

Submission 4: To conduct a public enquiry into these and other matters as a part of this master plan process

•    The impact of the airport’s aviation and non-aviation operations on the surrounding community, eg

Submission 5: That MAC support efforts by Council and community groups eg MARA to develop more effective controls to minimise the impact of noise on the amenity of surrounding residents and to minimise the risk to their safety by: 

Submission 6:  To prohibit training flights in the western circuit (over Mentone and Cheltenham) and to require planes in the eastern circuit to keep to a route over the industrial area and freeway reservation and to avoid training flights over Dingley Village.

-    Traffic impact and noise nuisance caused by B-Double trucks travelling through nearby residential streets and unmade green wedge roads at all hours.

Submission 7:  Cease any further approvals for non-aviation-related development on the airport.

-    The cost and trouble to council to maintain roads and to provide controls on council roads.

2. Aviation safety: 

-    The need for protection of the airport and of aviation safety from encroaching non-aviation-related development. Already one runway has been shortened and its use constrained, to make room for more industrial development.  Pilots who attended delegations to Simon Crean MHR and Senator Mitch Fifield in 2007 told the MPs that while the airport may be technically complying with airport safety regulations, the encroaching development leaves no room for error and hence is impacting on airport safety.  As we know, at least two aircraft have made forced landings on the Kingston Municipal Golf Course while others have come down on other golf courses adjacent to the airport.

-    A great deal of community concern was generated by the recent fatal crash involving trainee pilots in Cheltenham.  There is strong community concern about the potential threat to residential areas posed by the vast and increasing volume of training flights over residential areas, and fears were expressed about what might have happened had the plane that crashed in Cheltenham come down on the nearby school instead of a empty garage. Most people who have expressed concerns about airport noise and community safety want training flights cut back and reorganised so that they do not pass over residential areas.
See Submission 6.
 
•    The need for common planning provisions to provide a “level playing field” for industries established on and off the airport.

2.2    Other more specific planning considerations that need to be taken into account in the master plan  review include: 
•    The need for the airport master plan to provide for the extension of Southern Road
through  the airport.  The diversion of heavy and out-of-hours industrial traffic away from the residential section of Southern Road is designed to protect the amenity of the residents of Southern Road and is consistent with basic good traffic planning provisions 

Provision for the Southern Road has always been accepted by MAC and negotiations for the Southern Road extension through the airport were proceeding, with the airport lessee company insisting on Council and VicRoads agreement to an access road from the airport onto Lower Dandendong Road as a pre-condition for formal approval of the Southern Road extension.  That permission was provided in 2005, but negotiations then foundered on the matter of cost. Council had in 2003 approved a sum of $500,000 subsequently increased to $600,000, as its contribution to the cost of the Southern road extension.

As the cost of the actual Southern roadworks construction through to Second Avenue is estimated at $150,000 - $200, 000, this includes a generous Council contribution to the Grange Road intersection with Centre Dandenong Road.   However,  MAC insisted late in 2008 on Council paying the lion's share – approximately $1.3 million - of the $1.9m estimated cost. 

With the Council term drawing to an end in late 2008 and with no provision for such an amount in the Council budget,  Council had no choice but to break off negotiations in the hope that they could be resumed this year and that MAC might see its way clear to contribute a more equitable amount.  This has not happened, but the $600,000 is still in Council’s budget and Council continues to hope for a positive outcome.

•    the need to consult residents of Bundora Parade, Mentone about: 

 -    proposals for industrial development backing onto their street and for an adjacent proposed road to serve the industrial development which will run very near to the road and for Council to be able to ensure that  their concerns, interests and amenity are taken into account in determining whether or not to approve or to apply appropriate conditions to any planning permits issued in their vicinity. 

-  the need to amend the proposed route of the road through to the airport from Lower Dandenong Road where it passes close to Bundora Parade to provide a more appropriate setback from residences and/or to provide acoustic fencing or other noise control measures to protect the residents’ amenity.

-  the need for continued  pedestrian access to the airport to be provided where the residential section of Bundora Parade meets the airport boundary and for pedestrian crossing sto be provided to allow residents continued access to the playground and remaining open space on the airport. 

•    The need to retain space for joggers, pedestrians, families and dog-walkers in this area, which currently meets some of the need for open space in one of the least well provided parts of Kingston.

•    The need for assessment of any remnant vegetation on the airport under clause 52.17, the Native Vegetation Framework and for approval to be required from Council for the removal or lopping of any such vegetation.

•    Requirements for roads and setbacks to be set back from interfaces with residential streets and green wedge land? (For instance, at Bundora Pde.) 

•    Requirement for tree planting on the airport’s borders to improve the amenity of Lower Dandenong Road and perhaps other boundaries of industrial areas.

3.    Corporate Social Responsibility: 

While we need our urban airports, we also need these airports to display a stronger sense of corporate social responsibility than this airport has since privatisation.  While in public ownership, this airport provided considerable environmental and community benefits and there is no reason why these should so completely be sacrificed.  
 
The Airport master plan says almost nothing with regard to the corporate social responsibility that ought to be exercised by the operator of a public airfield on public land, particularly when the operator has been able to secure substantial profits from the non-aviation related development allowed on the airport so far. 

We support the widely held view that MAC should give more consideration to providing a benefit to the community in return for the handsome profits it has been able to make for its shareholders. For instance, in a speech to Commonwealth Parliament on 6 March 2007, the local Member, Simon Crean MHR stated 

“….. over the past 12 years, since the decision to sell the leaseholds of the 22 federal airports was originally made, non-aviation development has led to a number of issues with land use and planning. Our view is that the issues could and should have been managed with more consultation and, in particular, greater consideration of local concerns and, significantly, greater ministerial accountability. How else does one explain the circumstances of the Perth Airport development which has seen the establishment and building of a brickworks at that airport? Certainly, it would not have been the intention back in 1995, when we were talking about the sorts of expansion envisaged on these leasehold lands, that such a development could have happened. The Minister for Transport and Regional Services should have been more in touch with the public opposition to that development…….. (Mr Crean gives more examples of inappropriate airport development.)

“All of this means, with the public outrage and outcry, that public confidence in the Airports Act has been undermined.”

“………  we have to revisit the act and ensure it meets the original intention. We must strike that balance again—the proper balance between the conflicting interests of airport owners, airport users and the communities in which those airports are located. What is needed is a more robust framework to ensure that the minister takes the local community’s concerns into account in making decisions on airport developments and to rebuild confidence in the system. (my emphasis).

Interestingly, Mr Crean has subsequently indicated that the Moorabbin Public Golf Course ought never to have been included in the airport lease. Certainly I and presumably Mr Crean would consider this another example of the failure to properly balance “the conflicting interests of airport owners, airport users and the communities in which those airports are located” and of the failure to “take the local community’s concerns into account in making decisions on airport developments.”
 
In the attached resolutions, Council has strongly encouraged MAC to consider its Corporate Social Responsibility in relation to the golf course and other matters.  From attendance at AMAC conferences, I am aware that other airports take their CSR more seriously, for instance Brisbane Airport was in 2007 proposing to provide a much needed freeway at its own expense through the airport land.

- a proper balance between private profit and public benefit on the airport, between shareholders’ profits and the community’s interest has been achieved, 
-  the lessee has made a reasonable profit from their original investment in the airport lease.   
-  the lessee has undertaken the spending on infrastructure and airport improvements on which the sale of the lease was supposed to have been based. 


Yours faithfully
 
Rosemary West
Councillor, Central Ward
City of Kingston


Attached please find copies of Council’s resolutions and public statements on this issue.

Motions passed unanimously at the July 2007 Ordinary Meeting of Kingston Council

1. That Council reiterate its strong and consistent concern about:
•    the lack of proper State and local planning controls over the non-aviation-related  development on Moorabbin Airport;  and
•    the fact that this lack of proper planning controls and process will, under current Commonwealth provisions, cause the loss of the Moorabbin Public Golf Course and its replacement by inappropriate industrial and office development.

2. That Council request the Commonwealth Government and Opposition to act promptly to restore proper planning controls and processes to the airport by:
•    requiring all future development to follow the normal process of lodging applications through Council for  assessment in the light of current State and local planning provisions and to make recommendation to the Commonwealth Airports Minister for determination; or
•    implementing any of the Australian Mayoral Aviation Council alternative recommendations.

3. That Council request the Commonwealth Government and the Federal Opposition to require that all future development on the airport should conform to State and Local planning provisions including those relating to uses prohibited in the green wedge.

4. That Council request the Commonwealth Government (as lessor) and Opposition to initiate an enquiry into arrangements at Moorabbin Airport (and perhaps other privatised airports) to cover questions including: 
•    The nature of planning and non-aviation-related development on the airport;
•    The balance between private profit and public benefit on the airport, between shareholders’ profits and the community’s interest, including:
-  Whether or not the lessee has achieved or is likely to have achieved a fair return on their original investment in the airport lease;  
-    Whether or not the airport lessee has undertaken the spending on infrastructure and airport improvements on which the sale of the lease was supposed to be based;
-    Whether the airport lessee’s dealings with their aviation-related business tenants accord with their requirement to maintain an airport; 
-    Whether the closure of one runway and the hemming in of another by factories affect aviation safety.  (If the airport complies with existing aviation safety rules, are they adequate? Optimal?) 
•    The lessee claims to have complied with the Special Use Zone provisions which otherwise might cover an airport. But have they complied with the Green Wedge protection provisions in Clause 57 of the planning scheme?
•     Has the lessee shown appropriate corporate social responsibility to the local community in the light of the profits they have made for shareholders?
•    Will the lessee ensure that the future of aviation-related businesses, aviation safety and the airport’s future are not compromised?
•    Would the Airport lessee consider retaining the golf course under a reasonable rental policy as a matter of corporate social responsibility?
•    Will the airport lessee take a lead in encouraging the adoption of a Fly Neighbourly Agreement to require planes to avoid flying low over residential areas?

5. That Council request our local federal MPs Simon Crean (MHR for Hotham) and Senator Mitch Fifield to support our case with the Airport Minister and Opposition Spokesman and to investigate the possibility of reviewing or introducing legislation or regulations and leasehold arrangements covering the airports operations if this proves necessary and practicable to meet the residents and airport users’ needs with regard to the golf course and other issues.

Motion unanimously passed by Kingston Council, 27 August 2007

“That Council formally write to the Moorabbin Airport Corporation(MAC) requesting that they extend the lease on the Moorabbin Golf Course land and associated maintenance facilities and that this letter include the following points:

a) Council reminds Moorabbin Airport Corporation that they are part of our community and that the community has a very strong interest in preserving the Golf Course as a necessary buffer to the airport as well as a valued recreation open space and community benefit;

b) Council reminds Moorabbin Airport Corporation that this is part of the Kingston green wedge, that much of the development on the airport is in conflict with the State Government green wedge provisions and has little if anything to do with aviation;

c) Until now, Council has accepted the extensive industrial and retail development on other parts of the airport without overt protest, and that we do not think it is too much to ask for the golf course lease to be extended to the term of MAC’s lease from the federal government;

d) While most of our community is happy to have the airport, and understands the need for associated development, over the years residents have had to endure a considerable amount of added traffic and noise as a consequence of the airport and associated development.

e) Council requests MAC to consider that making this land available for continuing lease would be a valued part of their contribution to this community, and a measure of  the  company's Corporate Social Responsibility.”

………………………….