I bet you dont have an incorporated action group after you!!!

[motzartmerv]

I thought I might update you all on the plight of our little flying club and airfield.

 

To keep a long story short, we have had objecters for some time now.

 

The original problem was noise complaints. Until good old science and facts disproved that argument, hands down, you see, we have ways of actually measuring how loud aircraft are..I KNOW, what an age hey??

 

Now the group has incorporated themselves and are taking us, and the local council to the land and envirnoment court, claiming that council granted us consent to operate on false basis.

 

Its mind boggling. Now we have to front up with thousands of dollars, just because this group dispute the DA.

 

Unreal hey.

 

Anyway, they have a Facebook page. I invite you all to comment on the page. No bias, read the arguments for yourself and give your honest opinion. Id love the page to be SWAMPED with positive 'flying' comments.

 

On a personel note. So you know what sort of people you are dealing with, one of these objectors felt the urge, (when the police were removing two deceased crash victims from a wreck,)to yell ovewrt the fence. "It should have been two of the local club members". Im serious. That was heard by several club members and police. Charming people hey.

 

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Jaspers-Brush-Airport-Action-Group/130875137067195?fref=ts

 

check out the page

 

 

[turboplanner]

So there's a DA?

 

Last time we discussed this I thought the field had been there for some years and qualified as an Existing Use right, in which case the group could whistle and scream for 30 years and get nowhere.

 

A new DA if that's what has occurred is strategic dynamite, since Existing Use could be lost, in which case their chances improve massively.

 

 

[ayavner]

f**kwits.... there's always someone....

 

 

[turboplanner]

You gave up the protection of 1 (g) flood prone zoning too?

 

 

[motzartmerv]

So there's a DA?Last time we discussed this I thought the field had been there for some years and qualified as an Existing Use right, in which case the group could whistle and scream for 30 years and get nowhere.

A new DA if that's what has occurred is strategic dynamite, since Existing Use could be lost, in which case their chances improve massively.

Yes we applied for a DA. WE have been given consent to operate. The DA was issued under existing use rights, as an airfireld is not permissible in the zone. But the New LEP does allow for an airfield, and its this that they are trying to stop.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

i am a member of a community action group that is trying to stop a 24 hr mcdonalds.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

No tubz. WE only asked for formalisation of existing operations under existing use rights. The zoneing hasnt changed yet.

 

 

[Ultralights]

pure factual information on that page......

 

 

[damkia]

Well, I guess now that they are an incorporated entity you and your club members can take them on at their own game.

 

Speaking of noise complaints, how many pilots/club members have noise issues with dogs, parties, noisy/nosey neighbours, noisy farm machinery, and other disturbances to their peace and quiet whilst at home? I'm quite sure you could rustle up a few names, and possibly use the existing council bylaws/tenancy laws/and environmental laws with noise logs to approach the anti-airport group.

 

There is also the issue of "retrograde" claims being made. A facility that has been in use for a substantial time with little to no complaints in years gone by, and with full council approval for that activity to take place under all legislative grounds, suddenly without any significant change in operation becomes a "target" of a new group. Why the sudden interest? WHO IS FUNDING THE "COMPLAINTS" (local "Green" group? Local developers? expanse of land for sale in the near future? Council strapped for cash?). More dirt needs to be dug up here...I'm sure there is something else in the background happening.

 

Get the local Media up to speed on some of these points and take them out to the airport and nearby surrounds for a visit during a typical day.

 

Hope these suggestions help...

 

 

[fly_tornado]

If I was you i would door knock the area and get signatures supporting the air field. show that to your mayor. do you how are they getting the money to pay for the legal fees?

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Have you sought the assistance of your State Minister for Sports and Recreation?

 

 

[Ultralights]

the name Sonja isnt mentioned anywhere is it?

 

 

[DCM]

Doesn't this just give you the s&@-s airfield has been there for years and now somebody wants to reinvent the wheel look out for a sneaky housing development or some such

 

As for the bloke yelling over the fence you will always get one ,been in the QFRS (qld firies) for a while and it still amazes me what people say and do a accident sites

 

 

[turboplanner]

Yes we applied for a DA. WE have been given consent to operate. The DA was issued under existing use rights, as an airfireld is not permissible in the zone. But the New LEP does allow for an airfield, and its this that they are trying to stop.

From my experience in Victoria Existing Use rights are inviolate - can't be overturned regardless of what the zoning is. That's why I previously recommended checking that out thoroughly - you can't be dislodged.

 

With a new DA your rights are what's written in the DA, and the previous Existing Use right may have been dissolved with the change, in which case what you have to argue with in the forthcoming case is not as bullet proof.

 

Hopefully I'm wrong in assuming they've managed to cut loose the old Existing Use rights.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

No not at all Tubs. Council issued the DA specifically ON exisiting use rights. The action group are arguing against council belief that we HAD existing use rights.

 

 

[damkia]

Retrieval of the individual anti-airport membership with all possible available personal details published to the Facebook page as a word document. People love the "anonymity" of the internet in these sort of "NIMBY" protests, pity Facebook by its nature is NOT a private network and their personal information is after all in the public domain already (legally not an issue if only collecting like data together in one place)...

 

May they all enjoy the spam to follow.

 

Have you thought about contacting Facebook to get the group pulled down in some way?

 

 

[Ballpoint 246niner]

Motz, this just posted on their Facebook page,.....

 

I put up with dogs barking in my estate every night, not during the day when most people should and are working, Airfields, and the pilots have a community right to exercise their activities. They DONT do break ins, don't have loud parties at night, don't, race cars and bikes up & down the streets etc. They provide many people of varied ages the opportunity to share a life dream, to be responsible, to build careers and to contribute in a positive manner to society.

 

Are these attribute and activities we want in our communities, I would hope the answers are unanimously YES. If it makes more noise than the Sunday lawn mowing in your area, then sure address it, but otherwise embrace it- the alternatives you may truly regret, and remember most pilots would be more than happy to share the joy of flight with you, for free, or very little cost, who knows- you just may get to life from a different perspective,

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Thats great BP.. Cheers

 

 

[flyerme]

thats crap.just had a look on FB. wish peeps would just let live for @#$#@ sake..enjoy life ya missrable sons of @#$#@@@..

 

 

[Ultralights]

to add a litle more info, the land the airfield sits on can never be developed, as it is a floodplain, that floods quite a few times every year. it cannot be developed out, it can only be used as it is now, recreational airstrip/paddock for cattle and the occasional duck armada. there is no other reason to shut the place down other than to appease a very vocal small group of whingers.

 

 

[coljones]

The issue is not alternative uses for the airstrip but the quiet enjoyment by the neighbours of their properties - and the improved resale value of the properties. look to a local developer or real estate agent who get paid a percentage on price - better prices better fees. If it is a choice between a green and a developer, the developer will wrap themselves in the flag so fast your head will spin.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

our budget for our legal action is $100k. finding that sort of money isn't easy.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Yes we applied for a DA. WE have been given consent to operate. The DA was issued under existing use rights, as an airfireld is not permissible in the zone. But the New LEP does allow for an airfield, and its this that they are trying to stop.

Could you give me a link to the approved DA?, that should clear up whether the Existing Right still exists, or whether the airport stands on the DA only.

 

 

[turboplanner]

to add a litle more info, the land the airfield sits on can never be developed, as it is a floodplain, that floods quite a few times every year. it cannot be developed out, it can only be used as it is now, recreational airstrip/paddock for cattle and the occasional duck armada. there is no other reason to shut the place down other than to appease a very vocal small group of whingers.

Not correct UL.

 

The land may well be flood prone, but as you might have noticed from the latest Queensland news Councils still issue building permits in flood prone areas.

 

In the south east of Melbourne around 150,000 people are living up to 6 metres below the known flood level of a large swamp.

 

However, when the area is ZONED flood prone, the Council has a legal impediment to issuing permits for dwellings, factories and retail buildings.

 

It appears from what the group is saying that Council has or is rezoning the land from 1(g) flood prone to RU1.

 

If that is the case, then the Council now has the opportunity to develop the land for residential and industrial use, and the airfield no longer has the protection of the "flood prone" zoning.

 

RU1 zoning allows a number of things which would be a DISADVANTAGE to the airfield; RU1 zoning in NSW allows:

 

Permitted without consent

 

Building identification signs, extensive agriculture, home occupations

 

Permitted with consent

 

Agricultural produce industries; agriculture; animal boarding or training establishments, business identification signs, dwelling houses, environmental protection works, extractive industries, farm buildings, forestry, intensive livestock agriculture, intensive plant agriculture, open cut mining, roadside stalls.

 

So there could be some substantial offensive smells, large buildings, large signs creating rotor effects - particularly if the zoning is used to build a bulky good precinct on te outskirts of town, and a lot of residents who will immediately start complaining about loss of amenity.

 

 

[bilby54]

Hey Motz that looks like a neat little airfield you have there.

 

I saw the banner with " THE INTENSIFICATION OF THE JASPERS BRUSH AIRFIELD TO 80 FLIGHTS PER MONTH" Wow, that works out 20 flights per weekend. Including the Q Link Dash 8's, Skytrans Dash 8 and all of the crew change King airs and Chieftans we get that number of aircraft in two days at Roma now.

 

I live at the end of the runway and what keeps me awake is the road trains with no mufflers and exhaust brakes. It is really hard to reason with people that don't want others to bring enjoyment into our lives