My Own Airstrip

[turboplanner]

I put in a DA with my local council for an "airstrip" and a "hangar", both were approved for that purpose. I did not want to have to fight them down the track if I ruffled their feathers, much easier to get the approval then you are in a stronger position legally and to combat any future complaints.Been in operation now a couple of years and no dramas.

Good move Biggles, you now have the power of Existing Use Rights which we've spoken about a few times. If anyone comes in and complains, or if someone wants to change the zoning, they can do what they like, but provided you hold on to your Existing Use Rights they can't budge you.

 

Where people just go ahead and build without putting in a DA, any hostile neighbours have the strategic advantage that you look "dodgy". They don't always win, but you have to argue from a defensive position, and often may have to compromise the operation to avoid being ordered to cease.+

 

 

[David Isaac]

Good move Biggles, you now have the power of Existing Use Rights ....... They don't always win, but you have to argue from a defensive position, and often may have to compromise the operation to avoid being ordered to cease.+

So true Tubz, so true ...

 

 

[biggles5128]

Doesnt apply to ALAs. you can have them next door within reason.Most Council strips are ALAs except I note that Quirindi is licensed, probably only because of a required condition of BAE for the training they conduct there.

The local strip is glen Innes and is licensed , soon to be the home of an international airline pilot training centre so I think my mate may come to a few hurdles being that his strip would effectively be within the circuit area.

 

 

[David Isaac]

The local strip is glen Innes and is licensed , soon to be the home of an international airline pilot training centre so I think my mate may come to a few hurdles being that his strip would effectively be within the circuit area.

Nothing that is not manageable with agreed procedures. He needs to get in early and develop a relationship with the flying ops people. he was there first, so he has some moral rights at the least.

 

 

[rankamateur]

My hangar is 16.00 x 12.49 m! The DA is only required for buildings in excess of 200 sq m. that ended my desire for a 18 x 15 hangar in one phone call. My strip and cross strip are my own concern on my own property.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

mine is 18 x 15 and had dramas here in the bundaberg shire council

 

 

[turboplanner]

My hangar is 16.00 x 12.49 m! The DA is only required for buildings in excess of 200 sq m. that ended my desire for a 18 x 15 hangar in one phone call. My strip and cross strip are my own concern on my own property.

Not necessarily if it has a windsock or aircraft are taking off and the neighbours feel it is impacting on their amenity. They can be quite a distance away too if sensitive to overhead noise. However, no news is good news.

 

 

[boleropilot]

never been good with numbers - the right turn I mentioned when approaching from the NW is about 20 degrees, not 135 - doh !

 

 

[Jackolantern]

Hi Everyone,At some point in the future my missus and I want to own our very own airstrip, not sure where yet but a nice country location on land big enough to be able to create a grass strip, build a hangar and a comfy cottage home. I would also like to put a few old caravans on the property so people who may fly in, could stay overnight. It's been a dream of ours for some time.

There are a few unknowns for us, with regards to the legalities of forming a strip on your own property so I thought it might be a good topic for dicussion, esp from people who have done it already.

 

My main query is, do you need council / local authority approval to make an airstrip on your own property ? One guy I talked to a while ago, said that he put a strip in and then a neighbour complained, then a local council guy came around and said he couldn"t have a strip, this guy (the strip owner) said that "I use my aircraft to enter and leave my property, just as I do my vehicle, it's my right to do that and there is nothing council can do".

 

Does anyone have any experience with this, or maybe can shed more light on the subject.

Hi Ducksrus You article caught my eye. Wondering if you found that block of land with the airstrip you were after?

 

Hi Everyone,At some point in the future my missus and I want to own our very own airstrip, not sure where yet but a nice country location on land big enough to be able to create a grass strip, build a hangar and a comfy cottage home. I would also like to put a few old caravans on the property so people who may fly in, could stay overnight. It's been a dream of ours for some time.

There are a few unknowns for us, with regards to the legalities of forming a strip on your own property so I thought it might be a good topic for dicussion, esp from people who have done it already.

 

My main query is, do you need council / local authority approval to make an airstrip on your own property ? One guy I talked to a while ago, said that he put a strip in and then a neighbour complained, then a local council guy came around and said he couldn"t have a strip, this guy (the strip owner) said that "I use my aircraft to enter and leave my property, just as I do my vehicle, it's my right to do that and there is nothing council can do".

 

Does anyone have any experience with this, or maybe can shed more light on the subject.

[ducksrus]

Hi Jackolantern, I always thought, if my own strip doesn't work out, the next best thing would be owning a hangar at a nice queit country airstrip, well I have now ticked that box. Having just retired and selling up in the city, I will move to that area and if the right property comes along that is suitable for a strip, I will still do that. It would be somwhere where fliers who are just looking for an excuse to go flying would be welcome and perhaps some basic overnight accomodation, not to operate on a commercial basis, but just for fun.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

ditto Steve :)

 

 

[guerrilla1]

I have to say (sorry guys) but the answers given on this thread regarding the legal position of councils has been a mish mash of of misinformation.I have looked at buying a property and setting up my own airfield several times in three shires and have friends who have been through the mill and can report the following:

 

As far as the legal situation about councils (rural or otherwise) at least in Queensland goes.

 

IF a council ALREADY has in place a By Law that restricts the setting up of a place where you land an aircraft (the name ALA, airstrip airport or whatever will not get you around the rule) then you can not set one up. This is currently the law in the Tablelands Shire in North Queensland . Other shires may or may not have similar by laws. If you think you can get around it by claiming my plane is like my car you can't, that ONLY applies where no by law ALREADY exists.

 

If no by law already exists then you CAN claim the right to enter and leave your property by whatever means is safe. This is certain and was proved in court by Bob Norman in Cairns about 20 years ago when he installed a helipad on an acreage property on the northern beaches area of Cairns.

 

If you are told by a council you can't have one and no by law exists they can still stop you with a court injunction and YOU have to take the council to court. Even if you do win the council may impose heavy restrictions on your usage. Pat English built a strip at Koah in North Queensland (In the Tablelands Shire prior to the no airstrips rule) and although he won, at great cost, he was left with significant restrictions such as daily weekly and monthly take offs and landings, no circuits except for returning or departing from the strip, no usage by other aircraft except in emergencies, provision of records of take offs and landings to the council at regular intervals. It was his "victory" over the council which inspired them to introduce the by law which couldn't stop him but does stop anyone else from having a private airstrip.

The debate on this topic can go back and forth, but the facts are simple.

 

1. Local Governments (Councils) are not Constitutionally recognized, and they have no right or authority to implement or enforce Law. They can try and make life hell, but any good Lawyer (even i laughed typing that) can run circles around them.

 

2. CASA (and where delegated, RAAus) is a Federally governed body (as opposed to State/Local), and therefore would have more information and ability to implement and/or enforce Law regarding airfields/airports/airstrips, than any other department claiming to have an opinion or interest.

 

3. Common sense should be imbedded in any pilot. Use it. If you can't, you shouldn't be flying regardless.

 

Follow ALA guidelines, use common sense, and for the sake of being human a bit of common courtesy re: your neighbors.

 

 

[turboplanner]

1. Local Governments (Councils) are not Constitutionally recognized, and they have no right or authority to implement or enforce Law. They can try and make life hell, but any good Lawyer (even i laughed typing that) can run circles around them.

Local Governments have Local laws which certainly can be enforced through the legal system.

They don't come into play here though. What we have to deal with is the Council Planning Scheme, which in Victoria is part of the State Government Planning Scheme. Other States are likely to be the same as this.

 

If you go on to the State Government's Planning website, each Council scheme should be listed, and will include your location

 

In your location what you are looking for is Uses

 

There are three categories:

 

1. Section 1 Uses (As of Right, no permit needed)

 

2. Section 2 Uses (Where a permit must be applied for and approved by Council, and succeed in QCAT, NCAT, VCAT etc if there is a challenge)

 

In considering a Permit Application, the Council will consider whether the Application is appropriate for the zoning in that area. (For example, in a Farm Zone, a 12 story hotel is not going to get up).

 

3. Prohibited Uses - pretty straightforward.

 

2. CASA (and where delegated, RAAus) is a Federally governed body (as opposed to State/Local), and therefore would have more information and ability to implement and/or enforce Law regarding airfields/airports/airstrips, than any other department claiming to have an opinion or interest.

Not in a paddock; the Federal Government usually has to wn or control a property (such as a major city airport), in which case you will see Commonwealth police around the area, and the State and Local Governments will not be involved. e.g. Essendon Airport is leased to an operator by the Federal Government. Even Though Moonee Ponds City Council has voiced its concern about the Lessee's buildings encroaching on flying operations, and beinh unsuitable for that part of the City, that's all it can do, it has no jurisdiction)

 

3. Common sense should be imbedded in any pilot. Use it. If you can't, you shouldn't be flying regardless.Follow ALA guidelines, use common sense, and for the sake of being human a bit of common courtesy re: your neighbors.

This always helps to avoid the building of an enemy army.

While Jaba is no doubt describing things that have happened in the Tablelands Shire, it would be interesting to see exactly what its Planning Scheme says; it might all be explained there.

 

 

[guerrilla1]

Local 'law' as you put it is not Law. They are regulations put in place by Councils, and are not Statutes. Hence why Moonee Ponds have no luck with Essendon. Commonwealth Law will always override local Regulations. Your example further validated my point that council opinion is mute.

 

Although the State Government may make mention to Local Council Planning Schemes, there is no legislative requirement to seek approval for private use, landing and take-off. As a matter of fact, if it is an area zoned rural, rural/residential, agricultural etc (basically you aren't residential and in town) and there aren't built up areas within the ALA required approach areas, there is no leg for Council to stand on at all. A private strip can be used for personal use, with the exception of training, and even allows for agricultural use, if it is considered by the property owner to be an "Ancillary" use of the property.

 

Common sense and common courtesy, combined with good airmanship, should keep you out of trouble.

 

Councils are long spears with blunt tips. But piss off thy neighbor, and the headache won't be worth it.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Local 'law' as you put it is not Law.

Yes it is law; I'll give you an example; a mechanic in City of Greater Dandenong decided to keep a pet sheep, which is not allowed in his zone.

The Council fined him under the applicable local law and told him to remove it.

 

He appealed the Council's decision at VCAT, which upheld the CGD local law.

 

He then went to the Victorial Supreme Court, which upheld the Council's decision.

 

He then appealed against the Supreme Court decision and his appeal failed.

 

He then went to the High Court of Australia which denied him leave to appeal.

 

No Cookies | Herald Sun

 

Just to make it clear; if you want to build an airfield on your property, you'll be dealing with Planning Law, not Local Law.

 

If the Council rejects your application, you can appeal to the State Civil Administrative Tribunal (VCAT etc)

 

If the Council approves your application, any objectors can appeal to the State Civil Administrative Tribunal

 

Either party can appeal to the State Supreme Court, but only on matters where the Tribunal has erred in law (The Supreme Court will not hear the merits of your case again)

 

Your permit is either approved or denied, after that process.

 

Hence why Moonee Ponds have no luck with Essendon.

I got the Council's name wrong, it was Moonee Valley Council; the planning map here shows Essendon Airport Zoned CA (Commonwealth of Australia), and in this zone, the Council has no jurisdiction, so does not make any decisions. Close by you can see a PUZ1 Zone (Public Use Zone) the Council does control this, and you won't get housing or an airfield in this zone.

 

For most of the locations in Australia where someone wants to build an airport, the Zoning is likely to be a derivative of Rural, the Council does make the decision on that zone through the process I outlined above.

 

Although the State Government may make mention to Local Council Planning Schemes, there is no legislative requirement to seek approval for private use, landing and take-off. As a matter of fact, if it is an area zoned rural, rural/residential, agricultural etc (basically you aren't residential and in town) and there aren't built up areas within the ALA required approach areas, there is no leg for Council to stand on at all.

What usually happens is someone grades a "firebreak", "track" or whatever and parks his aircraft in a shed, ignorant ofthe planning scheme requirements. He only uses it about 20 times a year, and nobody really knows it's non-compliant, or does anything about it. Then something happens which brings it to Councils attention, a Compliance Officer visits, photos are taken, statements are taken from the complainants, and the landowner receives a notice to cease operations and demolish the hangar, or it may be suggested he apply for a permit. Then the process I outlined above starts

It's important to understand that emotional freedom campaigns may sway the way some Councillors vote on the night, but the Officers' Report presented to the Council will be based on compliance or otherwise with the provisions of the zone. If the Officers recommend a permit be issued, that's a big bonus for any Tribunal case brought by objectors, becaise the Tribunal usually goves more weighting to the Officers since they are professional Planners. For the same reason, if the Officers recommend againstit, you have a tougher road to hoe at the Tribunal.

 

Having said that, every case is different and there are many surprises.

 

A private strip can be used for personal use, with the exception of training, and even allows for agricultural use, if it is considered by the property owner to be an "Ancillary" use of the property.

An ancillary use is an argument you can put; but it can bite you if it isn't provably true. Many cases are lost because the Use, whether ancillary or not, is not deemed to be appropriate in that particular zone.

Above all else, if the issue is important to you, hire a Planning Consultant.

 

 

[guerrilla1]

No, it’s not. The referendum of 1988 confirmed that. Therefore, the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) and similar which are state Acts are inconsistent with Commonwealth Law, rendering them void where inconsistent.

 

The High Court must not look beyond the Constitution as it has no jurisdiction to do so. So it upholding any Local Government claim to authority is an issue in itself.

 

Mind you, the so-called ‘Honorable Justices’ of that bench are trying to uphold Sue v Hill against Sen. Roberts currently, which only causes a monumental problem for the whole Commonwealth.

 

If s44(1) stands as in Sue v Hill by this current case against Sen. Roberts, when considering s7 of the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 and it’s preceeding Acts, means not one Act by Parliament since Federation is worth the paper it’s written on.

 

Assuming you’re right and Local Law is Law, Local Governments claimed ownership over the water in rivers and estuaries (up until privatisation started in 2014), making them liable for damage by flood, especially where Local Government has allowed or approved Dams or Flood Levy walls etc.

 

A Court such as the High Court making a decision can have the affect of creating Common Law by upholding a councils decision (this is called a precedent), but that does not make Council ‘Regulations’ or ‘By-Laws’ Law.

 

I’m not debating with you as to whether or not it’s worthwhile just doing things thoroughly...however, the claim that local government has the authority to create law is not backed by any legitimate Statute. In England, yes. New Zealand, I have no idea. Australia, most definately not.

 

I had the same argument (with respect to local government authority to make law, not airstrips in particular) when I had a business designing and building container homes. And not one council was successful.

 

An airstrip, if for private coming and going, and as long as it’s not ‘sealed’ is not a fixture to the property. If worried about the hanger/machinery shed issue, put 2 x 40ft container parallel with a roof between. Not a fixture, doesn’t require approval either.

 

I’m not a lawyer and I’m not giving advice, but as a Law student (currently writing a thesis on Constitutional Law) I will stand by my opinion. So much so that I’m in the process of finding approx 150+ acres of which I will be putting in an airstrip, and a hanger. Just to put my money where my mouth is.

 

I’ll be sure to keep you posted.

 

Note: Apologies if the tone of my writing comes across abrupt and arrogant. Though not my intention it’s something I’m often accused of. So please take no offense.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

No, it’s not. The referendum of 1988 confirmed that. Therefore, the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) and similar which are state Acts are inconsistent with Commonwealth Law, rendering them void where inconsistent.The High Court must not look beyond the Constitution as it has no jurisdiction to do so. So it upholding any Local Government claim to authority is an issue in itself.

 

Mind you, the so-called ‘Honorable Justices’ of that bench are trying to uphold Sue v Hill against Sen. Roberts currently, which only causes a monumental problem for the whole Commonwealth.

 

If s44(1) stands as in Sue v Hill by this current case against Sen. Roberts, when considering s7 of the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 and it’s preceeding Acts, means not one Act by Parliament since Federation is worth the paper it’s written on.

 

Assuming you’re right and Local Law is Law, Local Governments claimed ownership over the water in rivers and estuaries (up until privatisation started in 2014), making them liable for damage by flood, especially where Local Government has allowed or approved Dams or Flood Levy walls etc.

 

A Court such as the High Court making a decision can have the affect of creating Common Law by upholding a councils decision (this is called a precedent), but that does not make Council ‘Regulations’ or ‘By-Laws’ Law.

 

I’m not debating with you as to whether or not it’s worthwhile just doing things thoroughly...however, the claim that local government has the authority to create law is not backed by any legitimate Statute. In England, yes. New Zealand, I have no idea. Australia, most definately not.

 

I had the same argument (with respect to local government authority to make law, not airstrips in particular) when I had a business designing and building container homes. And not one council was successful.

 

An airstrip, if for private coming and going, and as long as it’s not ‘sealed’ is not a fixture to the property. If worried about the hanger/machinery shed issue, put 2 x 40ft container parallel with a roof between. Not a fixture, doesn’t require approval either.

 

I’m not a lawyer and I’m not giving advice, but as a Law student (currently writing a thesis on Constitutional Law) I will stand by my opinion. So much so that I’m in the process of finding approx 150+ acres of which I will be putting in an airstrip, and a hanger. Just to put my money where my mouth is.

 

I’ll be sure to keep you posted.

 

Note: Apologies if the tone of my writing comes across abrupt and arrogant. Though not my intention it’s something I’m often accused of. So please take no offense.

I'm sure your great extensive knowledge and your position as a law student will be of great comfort to the multiple people whose experience ( which is real and in the public domain) money and outcomes have been the exact opposite of your stated brilliance on the topic.

 

 

[turboplanner]

No, it’s not. The referendum of 1988 confirmed that. Therefore, the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) and similar which are state Acts are inconsistent with Commonwealth Law, rendering them void where inconsistent.

Ah yes, that one.

A friend of mine wrote to the Queen over an issue caught up in that thought process. I thought that was a little over the top, but was surprised when he phoned to say he'd received a letter from the Queen's Principal Private Secretary, assuring him that the Queen had read his letter, and had asked him to write to the Governor-General in response. Unfortunately it wasn't such a positive outcome once it got back to Australia.

 

Effectively the Commonwealth is an association of six sovereign states (countries), and Commonwealth laws are based on what the States agreed to allow it control in the 50 odd years of debate leading up to 1901.

 

The key is that each legal Jurisdiction makes its own laws and doesn't cross over into another Jurisdiction; however, to ensure we have some commonality across the Country, the Federal, State and Territory Ministers for the various departments meet from time to time and make agreements on standards. One of the more recent, and unusal, agreements was an agreement to ensure common transport regulations for trucks. In this agreement a national regulator was set up to come up with new commonwealth regulations, and the States and Territories made an agreement that when a new regulation was agreed upon, it would go into law in the State of Queensland (with the normal checks and balances in the Queensland Parliament, and the other States and Territories would mirror the Queensland Act, and in that way, a truck legal in Queensland would be legal as it drove through every State and Territory.

 

So the Commonwealth was not over-riding individual States rights; they were voluntarily agreeing to a National Standard.

 

In the exercise we are talking about - building an airstrip on a rural property, the Commonwealth has no interest at all and would not be a party to the discussion on whether an airstrip was appropriate or not.

 

Once an aircraft landed there, the operations of the aircraft need to comply with CASA regulations, but that's not related to the planning issue.

 

If worried about the hanger/machinery shed issue, put 2 x 40ft container parallel with a roof between. Not a fixture, doesn’t require approval either.

Depends on the Zone.

My local Council can order removal of containers in the Green Wedge Zone, based on a law to prevent the proliferation of containers used as sheds turning a zone into a mess.

 

A container can also be rejected on this basis in its Green Wedge Zone

 

VICTORIAN PLANNING PROVISIONS

 

Section 70- definitions

 

 

 

Clause 74

 

Store – land used to store goods, machinery or vehicles

 

Store is included in Warehouse

 

Warehouse is a Prohibited Use in the Green Wedge Zone

 

 

Apart from this two containers with a roof between them would be classified as a shed, where the maximum size for a Section 1 Use is 10 square metres, bumping it up to a Section 2 Use, which does require a permit. One of these was recently approved by our local council.

 

 

[David Isaac]

I'm sure your great extensive knowledge and your position as a law student will be of great comfort to the multiple people whose experience ( which is real and in the public domain) money and outcomes have been the exact opposite of your stated brilliance on the topic.

And to your point Jaba, having a constitutional right means little comfort if the path to prove that right involves an expensive legal proces of appeal. Who can afford that these days. The only way our friend in 'The Castle' managed that class act was that he found a generous legal benefactor that took his case on 'Pro Bono'.

I wasn't so lucky many years ago when I took a very large quasy government corporation to the Federal court on a Trade practices Act matter. Even though I technically won the case, it still cost me 600k in cash not including the consequential costs and the outcome was a no win situation for all of us.

 

Consequently you must take a 'commercial' position on these matters and determine; is it worth it. Fighting legal matters on 'principle' is for wealthy naive people. Usually the two aren't mutually inclusive. Smart money doesn't do that.

 

I think flying below the radar with good neighbourly relations is the key.

 

Once you enter the legal arena, justice is only available to those who can afford it.

 

 

[guerrilla1]

I'm sure your great extensive knowledge and your position as a law student will be of great comfort to the multiple people whose experience ( which is real and in the public domain) money and outcomes have been the exact opposite of your stated brilliance on the topic.

Sarcasm noted. Well done on the intellect to put that marvellous retort together by yourself.

 

I stayed I

 

Ah yes, that one.A friend of mine wrote to the Queen over an issue caught up in that thought process. I thought that was a little over the top, but was surprised when he phoned to say he'd received a letter from the Queen's Principal Private Secretary, assuring him that the Queen had read his letter, and had asked him to write to the Governor-General in response. Unfortunately it wasn't such a positive outcome once it got back to Australia.

Effectively the Commonwealth is an association of six sovereign states (countries), and Commonwealth laws are based on what the States agreed to allow it control in the 50 odd years of debate leading up to 1901.

 

The key is that each legal Jurisdiction makes its own laws and doesn't cross over into another Jurisdiction; however, to ensure we have some commonality across the Country, the Federal, State and Territory Ministers for the various departments meet from time to time and make agreements on standards. One of the more recent, and unusal, agreements was an agreement to ensure common transport regulations for trucks. In this agreement a national regulator was set up to come up with new commonwealth regulations, and the States and Territories made an agreement that when a new regulation was agreed upon, it would go into law in the State of Queensland (with the normal checks and balances in the Queensland Parliament, and the other States and Territories would mirror the Queensland Act, and in that way, a truck legal in Queensland would be legal as it drove through every State and Territory.

 

So the Commonwealth was not over-riding individual States rights; they were voluntarily agreeing to a National Standard.

 

In the exercise we are talking about - building an airstrip on a rural property, the Commonwealth has no interest at all and would not be a party to the discussion on whether an airstrip was appropriate or not.

 

Once an aircraft landed there, the operations of the aircraft need to comply with CASA regulations, but that's not related to the planning issue.

 

Depends on the Zone.

 

My local Council can order removal of containers in the Green Wedge Zone, based on a law to prevent the proliferation of containers used as sheds turning a zone into a mess.

 

A container can also be rejected on this basis in its Green Wedge Zone

 

VICTORIAN PLANNING PROVISIONS

 

Section 70- definitions

 

 

 

Clause 74

 

Store – land used to store goods, machinery or vehicles

 

Store is included in Warehouse

 

Warehouse is a Prohibited Use in the Green Wedge Zone

 

 

Apart from this two containers with a roof between them would be classified as a shed, where the maximum size for a Section 1 Use is 10 square metres, bumping it up to a Section 2 Use, which does require a permit. One of these was recently approved by our local council.

Six Sovereign States? Do these states answer to a higher authority? If yes (that’s rhetorical) than they can’t be Sovereign by definition. Or by virtue of the PIP Act 1875 s7, etc etc.

 

I’m well aware of how good little boys and girls are more than happy to abide by whatever is told to them by a person waving something with the Regina Crest on it. You are entitled to your opinion, and if you lack the testicular fortitude to do it, don’t.

 

For those that do, and want to land their foxbat or similar at their acreage, they are allowed by law until such times as Commonwealth Statute forbids it, or CASA changes the rules.

 

I had a friend who got charged with driving unlicensed because he didn’t have his wallet on him. Local court upheld it. Didn’t mean he had to go get his learners again or apply for a new license. District court found in his favour on appeal.

 

I was charged with not having a Government Gazette relating to 26m B-Double routes in my truck because it was on my iPad and not hard copy, and attempted to ground my truck. The senior officer overturned the decision and allowed me to go.

 

The problem with law is that strict interpretation has given way to liberal interpretation, to appease the morons coming out of law schools, and poorly educated and over zealous public servants.

 

As I said, I’ll be putting my word where my mouth is, and will update on the progress. My presumption is that you will still argue even if/when I prove my point in “real and in the public domain”.

 

 

[guerrilla1]

And to your point Jaba, having a constitutional right means little comfort if the path to prove that right involves an expensive legal proces of appeal. Who can afford that these days. The only way our friend in 'The Castle' managed that class act was that he found a generous legal benefactor that took his case on 'Pro Bono'.I wasn't so lucky many years ago when I took a very large quasy government corporation to the Federal court on a Trade practices Act matter. Even though I technically won the case, it still cost me 600k in cash not including the consequential costs and the outcome was a no win situation for all of us.

 

Consequently you must take a 'commercial' position on these matters and determine; is it worth it. Fighting legal matters on 'principle' is for wealthy naive people. Usually the two aren't mutually inclusive. Smart money doesn't do that.

 

I think flying below the radar with good neighbourly relations is the key.

 

Once you enter the legal arena, justice is only available to those who can afford it.

Such as Lindsay Fox...

 

 

[turboplanner]

Consequently you must take a 'commercial' position on these matters and determine; is it worth it. Fighting legal matters on 'principle' is for wealthy naive people. Usually the two aren't mutually inclusive. Smart money doesn't do that.

This applies to planning matters also; you have to be pragmatic, however in Planning matters you are dealing with the Civil Administrative Tribunals which are designed for the community.

 

If someone objects to your application after the Council has approved it, they have to put up $800.00 in Victoria, but they can represent themselves, so that's the total cost other than time or travel. The Council defends it's decision, and they may send along a member of Planning staff, a solicitor, solicitor and barrister, all the way up to a team with SC barrister. You can also apply to be heard, and since the other party has paid the fee, it's going to cost you nothing.

 

An application by a property owner for an airstrip on a rural property should come into this category.

 

I think flying below the radar with good neighbourly relations is the key.

In every Council area, unsurprisingly there are lots of illegal operations, from garment manufacture in garages in the Residential Zones to warehousing and manufacture in Rural Zones.You may get away with it for years, but if an incident occurs you have the disadvantage of coming from a position of operating illegally.

 

 

[turboplanner]

As I said, I’ll be putting my word where my mouth is, and will update on the progress. My presumption is that you will still argue even if/when I prove my point in “real and in the public domain”.

I'm not quite sure what your point is, but just to reassure you, hundreds, if not thousands of airstrips have been approved on rural properties around Australia.

 

 

[jetjr]

Did some research on LEP, Local Environmental Plan, in a particular council in regional NSW,. Seems the standard LEP clearly indicates "airstrips" (and they have a pretty solid definition of one) are only allowed on RU1 zoned land at all and even then needs consent and DA etc to achieve that.

 

Key info they want is impacts on environment and neighbours.

 

Many councils have new LEP in last few years so the process is largely untested and no one much knows what pitfalls are.

 

 

[Pominaus]

I'm not quite sure what your point is, but just to reassure you, hundreds, if not thousands of airstrips have been approved on rural properties around Australia.

Thanks for the info! My wife works for council, so I can't say I'm at all surprised about the environmental requirement.

Maybe we'll just have to fly these:

 

New electric aircraft promises ‘disruptive affordability’