Oh dear, another airfield threatened...

[Chrism]

What more can I say?

 

http://www.wollondillyadvertiser.com.au/news/local/news/general/new-town-on-the-cards/2656043.aspx

 

 

[turboplanner]

All depends on who owns the Airfield

 

If it's a private owner or a club, and they want to keep flying, then Existing Use Rights may well bullet proof them from any changes right up to and including a Van Nuys type citybound airport.

 

I've seen a few airfields un-necessarily lost on this point alone. The strategy of the developer is to invite the airfield owner to participate in his proposal at the planning phase.

 

If he does, the whole development is discussed on the merits and suitability of the uses to each other, giving the airfield and residential proposal equal status, and guess who loses.

 

If the Council owns the airfield, then the users have to convince the Council Planning Officers, CEO, and Councillors of the value to Council.

 

And it's at this time that their relationship with the media becomes critical. Elsewhere today on this sites there are some very derogatory comments against the media, similar to those which Mr Cox might well have read in the past.

 

How different this story would have been if the headline read "Attack on our airfield by National Developers" backed up by "Council shooting itself in the foot says XXXX - the airfield is worth $$$$$$$$$ to the local economy.

 

Several people have made the financial argument on this site, but it has never been developed to its true potential. Just saying it brings in money doesn't quantify it

 

I used to have a lot of problems with Councils relating to noise at our tracks, disturbance late at night, heavy traffic etc until I addressed it by costing up the value to the town of each competitor and spectator.

 

It averaged out to about $150 in today's money. So if we had about 1500 spectators and 100 competitors it gave added value of around $240,000.00 per event.

 

By breaking it down to the local businesses, the Councils could see the value, and we then referred Councils to other Councils who had seen the light and turned things around to a steady growth.

 

Airfields are like Car Rental agencies. When you drive past the local Avis facility in your town it looks small, often tucked away in a side street, but most of them own around 200 cars.

 

Nothing much seems to be happening at the local airfield, but it would be well worth logging who atends and what they do over a few weeks.

 

For example, my first reaction to this one was - "a bunch of skydivers - no local Council is going to care about the recreational luxuries of people from Sydney"

 

But that's a tourist dollar:

 

How much fuel for the aircraft is bought locally per year

 

How many people attend per year

 

How much fuel do they buy in the town

 

How much food do they buy

 

How much do they spend in the pubs

 

What do they spend on accommodation

 

Do they use any taxis

 

and so on

 

and lets say a crop sprayer comes to town to do some paddocks, there will be serious investment there and serious benefit to the people on the land.

 

and so on

 

The time for presentation in Planning Cases is very short, usually two weeks, and you can never pull together this information in that time so the time to be working on it is "always"

 

 

[robinsm]

Wilton is the home for parachuting in the sydney basin. This is attended by many hundreds of people making their first jumps or just participating in the sport they love. It is listed on the sydney vnc as a prohibited area and is reserved for parachutists. The airfield is known and loved by many and I think the parachute fraternity may well be staging their own protests. I do not know who owns the airfield.

 

 

[turboplanner]

If the Council own it and if the developers, and I know the strategies of one of them, have got their stories across to the Councillors and Officers, then as early as the next Council meeting the decision could be made to sell it.

 

Therefore it would pay those who are most affected, if they haven't already, in the next couple of hours to get going with supersonic speed.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Poor picton drop zone, always seems to be in someones sights.

 

It has been a operating drop zone since before i started jumping there in 1975.

 

yes it is now a major player in Sydney's tourisim industry.

 

it supports directly over a hundred jobs either on the DZ or aircraft maintainence facility at bankstown and the sydney booking offices. It is a seven day a week operation, fun jumpers can number a hundred or so on any weekend that spends quite an amount in the town.

 

It is a private airfield on leased land. it's future both land use wise and airspace has been an issue for some time now. Quite often holds to height are experienced. Existing rights good luck with that.

 

 

[turboplanner]

1. I mentioned hours

 

2. Existing Rights apply to the owner of the land - usually no good luck is needed, but it has to be raised very early in the process.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Our drop zone in the hunter has been under threat for over 20 years now by one neighbor and council we now have to operate under a heavy handed DA limited from number of people allowed to stay over night to one closed weekend per calender month, all aircraft have to be under noise limits restricted number of sorties per day, limited to 6 big events per year, we have to maintain road leading into the dz and the EPA run us into the ground, existing rights were very minimally recognised when we went to court. The club owns the land and if we move or are shut down the airstrip goes. We waste an amazing amount of time with council responding to our problem neighbour complaints the last one was to a 'new'noisy big blue plane'. Well the noisy big blue plane had already been legally operating there a year ago before it returned. Letter from council contained threat to be taken to court for breaching DA. Time out to respond including contacting the aircraft manufacturer to obtain the noise reading to once again give to council. Our response to council this time also contained our complaint to the Ombudsman over how council could act on 'a noisy blue plane' that contained no real information of the operation. No response/reply from council at all. Just a time wasting exercise from council and peckerhead neighbour whose grip is he missed out on buying our land twenty years ago. Imagine how much all this has cost us from losing 25% of our operational income to being continually knocked back on improving facilities. Existing rights just allow you to stay they don't allow you to continue to grow at the same rate as the area.

 

 

[turboplanner]

What's DA?

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

developement application.

 

 

[turboplanner]

For the purposes of this discussion let's talk generally because the State Law varies, and the Case Precedent varies and the application varies

 

Existing Use rights for Victoria are shown in the attachment.

 

Generally no one can uproot you as you mentioned

 

But also what you do under the Existing Use cannot be undermined

 

So for example, you have been operating at a certain traffic density and certain ambient noise level under the Existing Use

 

A person cannot come along, complain and have conditions required such as a curfew and reduction of noise because that would infringe on your existing use.

 

On the other hand, if you decide to add a Bistro or something which departs from the conditions of the original permit, or substantially change the operation which adds noise and traffic, you may have to apply for a permit to cover that change and you might or might not get it because the deciding parameter may have changed substantially since your original permit was issued.

 

In that case, if the new Application is approved, newer, harsher regulations only apply to the new use, your original use is protected.

 

Developers are well aware of that, so the usual tactic is to say "We understand what you want, but that's messy, so let's consider it as a complete package. If you fall for that, your Existing use right has gone and the Application for the whole property will be decided on the laws currently applying which may include much lower noise, much stricter drainage, dust control, recycling, handicapped parking spaces and toilets and so on.

 

It sounds a little bit to me as if your field got a new DA

 

I'd be getting an opinion from a Planning Consultant on that one because it's not unusual to find that the Permit Conditions (a) may not be lawful or (b) may not be applied correctly.

 

That may cost you a lot less than the continuing saga.

 

As I mentioned don't go taking this as gospel, you need to get professional advice.

 

Existing Use.pdf

 

Existing Use.pdf

 

Existing Use.pdf

[old man emu]

I'm pretty sure that Wilton airstrip is privately owned, or maybe owned by the parachuting mobs that use it. It's just a bit of a gravel strip, which is OK for the meat bombers to use, but you wouldn't want to operate your own little plane from there.

 

The reported plan is not an attack on aviation, it's just more of the same of what we have had to endure in the Sydney Basin - housing gobbling up productive land. State and Federal Governments of all persuasions have failed to develop regional areas of the State, so that the Sydney megaopolis is sending its tentacles into the countryside which once made the Basin a self-sustaining entity.

 

10,000 houses = 42,500 people. Where is the water coming from to sustain them? Not to mention, where are the jobs to employ them; where is the infrastructure to enable them to move about; where is the open space to let them unwind?

 

The whole idea sucks.

 

OME

 

 

[turboplanner]

That's good news but they would need to move fast

 

Melbourne is the same - more people, didn't build dams and no drainage

 

 

[crazy diamond]

Pretty sure Wilton was owned by Phil Onis?

 

Ozzie when were you actively jumping down there? Were you there in the days of C207 VH FIF and BN-2A VH RTV?

 

 

[David Isaac]

Phil Onis owns the lease doesn't he Steve?

 

 

[crazy diamond]

You may be right, for some reason I recall hearing he owned it, funny I always thought he was related to Graham OnUs, different spelling though :-)

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

For the purposes of this discussion let's talk generally because the State Law varies, and the Case Precedent varies and the application variesExisting Use rights for Victoria are shown in the attachment.

 

Generally no one can uproot you as you mentioned

 

But also what you do under the Existing Use cannot be undermined

 

So for example, you have been operating at a certain traffic density and certain ambient noise level under the Existing Use

 

A person cannot come along, complain and have conditions required such as a curfew and reduction of noise because that would infringe on your existing use.

 

On the other hand, if you decide to add a Bistro or something which departs from the conditions of the original permit, or substantially change the operation which adds noise and traffic, you may have to apply for a permit to cover that change and you might or might not get it because the deciding parameter may have changed substantially since your original permit was issued.

 

In that case, if the new Application is approved, newer, harsher regulations only apply to the new use, your original use is protected.

 

Developers are well aware of that, so the usual tactic is to say "We understand what you want, but that's messy, so let's consider it as a complete package. If you fall for that, your Existing use right has gone and the Application for the whole property will be decided on the laws currently applying which may include much lower noise, much stricter drainage, dust control, recycling, handicapped parking spaces and toilets and so on.

 

It sounds a little bit to me as if your field got a new DA

 

I'd be getting an opinion from a Planning Consultant on that one because it's not unusual to find that the Permit Conditions (a) may not be lawful or (b) may not be applied correctly.

 

That may cost you a lot less than the continuing saga.

 

As I mentioned don't go taking this as gospel, you need to get professional advice.

Basically correct. Inexperienced committee with poor legal advice failed to understand 'existing use'.

 

This flowed right across the whole operation. Working on turning things around but the biggest challenge is getting a young inexperienced committee based on popularity instead of experience is the biggest hurdle. pretty disfunctional.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Have a look at the attitudes shown here -

 

http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/494557-jaspers-brush.html

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Yes have heard about the problems with locals at Jaspers. Seem to remember 'Bowie' has something to do with the place as well now.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well the locals would be fired up after that stunt

 

 

[David Isaac]

NOT real smart

 

 

[turboplanner]

One very important planning issue is called Amenity.

 

Your amenity is affected when your dwelling is subjected to things like:

 

Excessive noise

 

Odours

 

Overspray

 

Dust

 

Excessive foot and road traffic etc.

 

If you have a planning permit and the amenity of neighbours changes for the worse, that's a good trigger for them to bring in the EPA, Council and so on, and at the end of that process you can actually finish up worse off than you were before, particularly if you are a habitual offender, or have demonstrated contempt for the amenity of the other residents.

 

The Fly Neighbourly programs in the US are a great way of sorting out the troublemakers.