Aldinga Airfield operations also under theat..

[aj_richo]

Onkaparinga Council re-discovers paperwork from 1977 regarding Aldinga's agreed operations.. bugga!

 

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/souths-only-flying-school-adelaide-biplanes-based-at-aldinga-airfield-in-jeopardy/story-e6frea83-1226464535075

 

 

[turboplanner]

"Onkaparinga city development director Terry Sutcliffe said the council was responding to residents' complaints about the airfield's land agreement being ignored.

 

"'One of those conditions limits flying-school activities to groundbased activities only,' Mr Sutcliffe said. "However, the validity of this and other conditions is being disputed by Aldinga Aviation.

 

"Council is obtaining legal advice on this issue before determining an appropriate course of action.

 

"He said a decision about the airfield was expected in November."

 

You and I are residents - are we aware of the various land agreements with our Council in our area? Ineteresting

 

I wonder who would have signed an agreement for a flying school at an airfield limited to groundbased activities **

 

As for the last two lines - if the airfield is not viable due to this, I wonder what they would have to do with the land????

 

** if there was a typo then, it still should be correctable now.

 

Bizarre story

 

 

[aj_richo]

Very bizarre, I remember going to an airshow on the field around 1980-81.. how did they manage that if the "agreement" was only 3-4 years old?

 

PS the land is close to new developments at Aldinga and surrounds.. its in quite a developer desirable location now that new transport infrastructure is being built nearby.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Best someone goes on a hunt for the originals of the agreement, particularly the original in the hands of the flying school of the day.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Save your breath.

 

http://www.ourairports.com/countries/AU/SA/comments.html

 

 

[turboplanner]

Anyone know the history?

 

 

[peter]

Hi TP, thanks for posting that link, I have read through all those posts and was stunned, amazed and very disappointed in the attitudes of our fellow flyers. I did my TW endorsement over there and my son learnt to fly over there. We both had very good experiences. They have created a very successful flying school. Paying customers vote with their feet (and wallets) and they are very busy which means they must be providing a good service. Having a successful flying school at your airport is a mixed blessing, bringing new people, enthusiasm and extra services but it also means busy runways and busy circuits.

 

Sorry I don't know about the history re the council.

 

Peter

 

 

[turboplanner]

Could their attacker have driven the documents thing?

 

 

[REastwood]

The "legal document" about restricting operations to ground only is just a letter sent to the council, it is not a legal document and this fact has been told to South Coast Aviation, the governing body of Aldinga airfield. It was seized upon by some people who want to restrict movements at Aldinga but they did not read any further to find the true context of the letter. The council themselves operated the airfield for five years after that letter was written and my brother was the owner & CFI of the flying school at that time.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I'm assuming the Council owns the land and is leasing it to the operators and that's what the words "Land Agreement" refer to.

 

There may be two lots of Law:

 

(a) The terms and conditions of the Land Agreement

 

I would imagine that would be similar to an offer and acceptance of that offer process

 

If a letter was sent to the Council describing ground operations only, that could constitute an offer, and if the Council can find a letter confirming it that could be a contract

 

(b) The Planning Zoning, Planning Permit if required and Conditions if listed

 

If a letter was sent to the Council offering ground-only conditions, normally if accepted that would still be appearing in the current documents

 

So while I see what you are saying - this is just a letter - it still could carry some weight

 

In any event, what we do know from the report is there is enough substance for the Council to have gone to the expense of taking legal advice.

 

Even with adverse legal advice this isn't necessarily the end of of it because the lawyer may not be a planning specialist, or the legal advice might have missed a key point or two, which could be resolved in the SA Tribunal (not sure of it's name).

 

And even if the document was judged contractual or a Planning Condition, it clearly contradicts the intent of setting aside the land as an airfield, unless the agreement refers to a small area just big enough for office training, so the intent of the document might come into play

 

Finding a good Planning Consultant for advice is the key.

 

 

[turboplanner]

AdelaideNow is saying the Facebook support group for the Smiths is about 3000, and the poll is running at 94% in favour of them so that's good.

 

What is very disturbing is the attacking coming from what appears to be a single source over an accident years ago. Whether this instigated the Council action or not isn't clear, but I wouldn't mind betting that when this person stops the attacks the problems will stop also.

 

 

[cooperplace]

The "legal document" about restricting operations to ground only is just a letter sent to the council, it is not a legal document and this fact has been told to South Coast Aviation, the governing body of Aldinga airfield. It was seized upon by some people who want to restrict movements at Aldinga but they did not read any further to find the true context of the letter. The council themselves operated the airfield for five years after that letter was written and my brother was the owner & CFI of the flying school at that time.

the term "legal document" is not useful. A piece of toilet paper with some writing on it could be a legal document.

 

If I owned this strip I would tell the council that aviation is regulated by the commonwealth, that it has nothing to do with council so they should get lost. The polite way would be to tell them they're acting ultra vires.

 

 

[cooperplace]

I'm assuming the Council owns the land and is leasing it to the operators and that's what the words "Land Agreement" refer to.There may be two lots of Law:

(a) The terms and conditions of the Land Agreement

 

I would imagine that would be similar to an offer and acceptance of that offer process

 

If a letter was sent to the Council describing ground operations only, that could constitute an offer, and if the Council can find a letter confirming it that could be a contract

 

(b) The Planning Zoning, Planning Permit if required and Conditions if listed

 

If a letter was sent to the Council offering ground-only conditions, normally if accepted that would still be appearing in the current documents

 

So while I see what you are saying - this is just a letter - it still could carry some weight

 

In any event, what we do know from the report is there is enough substance for the Council to have gone to the expense of taking legal advice.

 

Even with adverse legal advice this isn't necessarily the end of of it because the lawyer may not be a planning specialist, or the legal advice might have missed a key point or two, which could be resolved in the SA Tribunal (not sure of it's name).

 

And even if the document was judged contractual or a Planning Condition, it clearly contradicts the intent of setting aside the land as an airfield, unless the agreement refers to a small area just big enough for office training, so the intent of the document might come into play

 

Finding a good Planning Consultant for advice is the key.

there's some relevant info here:

 

http://www.onkaparingacity.com/public/download.jsp?id=19835

 

 

[turboplanner]

the term "legal document" is not useful. A piece of toilet paper with some writing on it could be a legal document.If I owned this strip I would tell the council that aviation is regulated by the commonwealth, that it has nothing to do with council so they should get lost. The polite way would be to tell them they're acting ultra vires.

I read the City of Onkaparinga document and it decribes prudent actions taking place by both the City and Aldinga Aviation

 

I wouldn't say this is Ultra Viries action by the Council, and even if it was, it's only a fortnight from being corrected at any time.

 

Planning Matters, which this is, are not Commonwealth Government matters unless the property has a special zoning which gives the Commonwealth planning powers, and the steady rate of Development Applications and Approvals confirms that this is in a Council Planning Zone.

 

One or more permits were issued with Conditions relating to noise control, and they seem to be intimating that these Conditions had not been complied with.

 

If so, it is normal for a Council to issue a notice requiring the permit holder to comply with the Condition within a certain time. If the permit holder has an objection there is a process and if he doesn't there is another process which can end in that permit being cancelled and the land reverted to the use prior to that permit. So, for example if there was a permit for a shed and one condition was that it was to have fire sprinklers, and that was not complied with and the process was exhausted, there would be a demolition order for that shed, not the whole of the property.

 

It would seem to me that during this discussion, someone found a copy of a 1977 document.

 

The fact that this document seems to be lost at the moment is not uncommon.

 

The conclusion that this document, a Planning Permit for hangars etc - a planning document rather than the "legal document" described on the forum post - issued by the District Council of Willunga is still in force through the current Council is consistent with my experience.

 

Those are my comments on the City of Onkaparinga Information sheet.

 

The speculation is: Why would you approve a Permit to build hangars on an airfield and as condition 7 limit flying school activity to on ground movements?

 

Surely if you issued a permit to build hangars (as against Training Rooms), the intent of the hangars was to house Aircraft, and the intent of housing an Aircraft is to keep it in good condition to fly?

 

The Onkaparinga Council by the way very specifically said in their information sheet:

 

"It is important to note at the outset that Council is NOT seeking to shut down the Aldinga Airfield or businesses operating from the airfield."

 

 

[cooperplace]

I read the City of Onkaparinga document and it decribes prudent actions taking place by both the City and Aldinga AviationPlanning Matters, which this is, are not Commonwealth Government matters unless the property has a special zoning which gives the Commonwealth planning powers, and the steady rate of Development Applications and Approvals confirms that this is in a Council Planning Zone.

you make some good points, however it is not just a planning matter, it is also an attempt by council to regulate aviation, and here it is worth reading the Local Government Act of SA, available here:

http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/A/LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1999/CURRENT/1999.62.UN.PDF

 

This act places an obligation on councils to not pass by-laws that overlap with other jurisdictions. Also, nowhere in the act does it give a council the right to regulate aviation. Such conditions previously placed by council as "no gliding without council approval" definitely appear ultra vires because the act doesn't give the council the power to approve gliding. Much of what council is trying to do appears to be outside their area of power, and if I owned this land, I would ask council to point out the relevant provisions of the act.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Cooper that's what Planning Consultants argue at the Planning Appeals Tribunal.

 

You're right the the Council can't regulate aviation per se, but it can lay down Permit Conditions, and if they are passed by Councillors and upheld by the PAT, then (in Victoria) the only further appeal is to the Supreme Court, and that's only allowed to cover procedural mistakes, not hear the case.

 

So from what I've read this case will centre around what's in the 1977 document.

 

 

[cooperplace]

Cooper that's what Planning Consultants argue at the Planning Appeals Tribunal.You're right the the Council can't regulate aviation per se, but it can lay down Permit Conditions, and if they are passed by Councillors and upheld by the PAT, then (in Victoria) the only further appeal is to the Supreme Court, and that's only allowed to cover procedural mistakes, not hear the case.

 

So from what I've read this case will centre around what's in the 1977 document.

Hi TP,

I'm not a planning consultant or lawyer, but I think it might be slightly different here. A planning decision here would be made by a panel that is a creature of local government, with the air of a slight degree of independence because some members of the panel are neither councillors nor council staff. If an applicant to council isn't happy with a council or panel decision, they can go to the ERD (environment, resources and development) court which can and will examine all aspects of the case. At least those presented in evidence to it. I've seen ERD courts give very short shrift to councils, and I know from my own experience that councils in SA are sometimes wary of going to ERD because they know they might lose.

 

There is also the Development Assessment Commission, which has decision-making functions that often seem to overlap with those of councils. DAC, another creature of state govt, arising out of the development act 1993, has roles in assessing non-complying developments, which the airfield probably is. I've seen DAC give rulings that run very counter to the views of councils. ERD could I think re-examine a DAC decision just like it could a council decision.

 

Appeals of these decisions could be made to the SA supreme court which functions I suspect like the Vic. equivalent.

 

Planning law in SA is complicated, unwieldy, expensive and slow. And yes, some lawyers probably make a good living out of this, however someone like the airfield could use this against the council, who won't want to spend money fighting a case they might lose.

 

My guess is the 1992 LMA will carry more weight with DAC and ERD than the 1977 document. No doubt someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I'm not familiar with the various SA bodies, so don't know where this will go, but you're right about Councils.

 

Once the matter gets into the Tribunal they are on an equal status to you

 

The precedence of the 1977 and 1992 documentation will be sorted out, its a matter of whether the airport is fully compliant with all Permits and Conditions or has failed to comply with Permit Conditions, failed to apply for a permit or done something which is prohibited under the scheme.

 

It's not that the Council doesn't like the airfield, it's that if the dissident residents have found a document which indicates the airfield is non-compliant and the Council just ignores that, they are open to losing a Class Action and a big package of Ratepayers funds, so they have to take this action.

 

What's good about this case is the public support campaign with thousands of people leaving no one in doubt that that consider this a valuable asset. It won't help the merits case, but it will make people work that little bit harder to make sure they get it right.

 

If you're a ratepayer, or know one, it might be interesting to drop in to the Planning Department and ask for a copy of the 1977 and other documents which are not confidential - that may make it clearer where this is going.