Goulburn Airport Sale

[facthunter]

HOW?

 

How do the councillors ignore the Covenent? Don't you have an ombudsman? and other local Government appeal processes? Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Sorry to hear what happened last night Volksy.

 

However, from what I read of Soilmaster's post, the decision may have been unlawful unless the Planning use is going to be airport use only.

 

While I'm not suggesting anything corrupt has occurred here, it is common in Australia for developers to encourage Councillors to do things which are against the interest of the people, and it's common for Council Officers to hide facts from Councillors.

 

The good guys rarely win if they just rely on their elected Councillors who are just members of the community themselves.

 

However, its certainly not all over yet.

 

In Victoria we have VCAT (Victorian Civil and Administration Tribunal) and any member of the public can object to a Planning decision within 60 days of the Council decision.

 

I'm sure there will be a NSW equivalent so you need to get cracking and find it.

 

The emotion needs to be taken right out of the matter at this point - from here on the decision will be overturned by hard facts alone. The developer can be as beligerent as he wants - it counts for nothing during a hearing.

 

I would very strongly recommend that you hire a Planning Consultant to write the objection and run it. Cost depends on how much rsearch needs to be done, but in Vic might be from $1,000 to $4000.

 

If a decision is handed down that the Use cannot change from Airport Use, then the developer will quickly lose interest.

 

At this early stage you need to find out who the behind-the- scenes players are, and the four Councillors who voted to sell the airport need to be put under scrutiny. It's often possible to extract secrets by asking questions in open Council - even better if a good Councillor asks them.

 

In Victoria, VCAT usually gives greater weight to Council Officers, so if the officers were against this decision they will make good witnesses.

 

In a local planning group here, we've had about a 60% success rate against inappropriate decisions, sometimes against multi million dollar nationals.

 

Finally, anarchy prevails when good men do nothing, so you need ALL local aviators helping, even if it's a donation.

 

Good luck guys

 

 

[68volksy]

Unfortunately the decision to sell the airport is not a planning decision nor are any decisions about the fees and charges or access to the airport.

 

I actually work for a planning consultancy and have used all the planning laws that could be mustered. We can object to the development but unfortunately here in NSW the planning system is vastly different to anywhere else. The objectors very rarely win as the legislation is usually cut and dry with no room for movement. Basically unless he misses something or stuffs up there's nothing that can be done.

 

The Councillors each have their own agenda, some of which have a more ethical basis than others. There is a covenant restricting use to airport use only however there is nothing to stop him putting up a fence and denying access. An airport is still an airport even if no-one uses it... When the proponent asks questions such as "Could I charge fees for taxiway usage?" we got a little concerned.

 

I think it'd be easier to just relocate.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Volksy, you may be right and you may have to relocate. I understand how these things wear you down; still haven't finished with a Vic Gov issue affecting our property after 8 years.

 

I would agree with you that objecting to development once the Council decision is acted on and the land sold gets harder and harder.

 

Where I was coming from is that Use is a planning matter, and it appears from the posts that the current Use is Airport Use only.

 

Any departure from that is a Planning matter.

 

According to Soilmaster there would have to be a default on the Codicil to allow residential/industrial development.

 

If an intent to change the Use has been made public, then I would think the Codicil could be enforced, and the sale stopped, since the Use could not legally be changed.

 

I wonder if the Codicil spells out what happens to the land if the Council defaults on the intent?

 

As you say, the owner could build a fence around it or raise charges to a prohibitive level, but then he isn't getting any interest on his money, and arguably by his actions, both physical and financial is preventing the only permissible use from occurring.

 

 

[Guest Futura]

You may be a little off the track with your concerns about the future of Goulburn Airport, Volksy, and I'm happy, at this point, to declare an interest in the airport's successful future. What if the new owner plans on developing the facility as a more effective aviation infrastructure then what it currently is? What if the facilities on offer at Goulburn are designed so as to give back to the local and future users instead of diminish them? What if no 'hidden agenda' exists?

 

Indeed, the proposed capital expenditure and improvement programme, as outlined by Mr Tzovaras to the local community some weeks ago, will provide much-needed improvement to a rundown airport. The task of funding the improvements was surely too much for a local council to undertake. Aviators should keep an open mind and give consideration to the plans for the new and improved airport - one we will all look forward to flying into and enjoying. As Dick Smith recently commented: ''I can't even get a good cup of coffee when I land at Goulburn, so why would I bother?" The future of Goulburn Airport may now, more so than ever, be assured as a result of private ownership.

 

I look forward to a date to be set in the New Year, where all interested parties will be invited to sit down together and discuss the new airport proposals. At this point, I don't know of any reason why any one current user should feel aggrieved. I look forward to meeting all the aviators who have contributed to this topic on this site soon and assuring them of their continued usage of a renewed Goulburn Airport.

 

 

[turboplanner]

If what you say is true Futura, that's great, but you would appreciate that the aviators would like to see a cast iron guarantee that will occur. Once that's done, the smell will cease, and the support will follow.

 

 

[Guest Futura]

G'day Turbo. Actions will undoubtedly speak louder than words, and in the short term, it will be the actions that will convince aviators and the community in general. Guarantees aren't normally worth the paper they are printed on.

 

General Aviation and rec aviation have been greatly affected of late. The plans for Goulburn Airport will look to rectify that situation. The only way a private airport owner makes profits is by increasing usage, not unfairly increasing user charges, and the way you increase usage is by giving aviators what they want at a fair and reasonable cost.

 

My detailed research into aviation in Australia, conducted over a period of 5 years, confirms that the primary reason why the problems have occurred is a result of aviators leasing land from either the Federal Government or viracious private lessors under exhorbitant terms and conditions, as shown in the Bankstown Airport debacle and the Clambach & Hennessy case. There is a better way forward and that is FREEHOLD aviation land - land owned by the user, where he has all rights as the registered proprietor. Why shouldn't Volksy's aero club or any other user at Goulburn be offered an opportunity to OWN their site. Their rights will then endure and never be taken away from them.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Futura, mate

 

As long as the Use is restricted in accordance with the Codicil and the existing Planning provisions to safe Airport activities at economic costs, and Dick Smith could get a cup of coffee, I wouldn't imagine there would be too many objections, although I can't say whether Volksy would be interested in buying a piece of it.

 

However, if the idea is to make it an "Airpark" with 185 residences etc., or an "Aviation precinct" which includes factories down each side of the runways, then the proponent could be facing a few problems.

 

 

[slartibartfast]

Thanks for the input Futura.

 

The current hangar owners do have freehold title over their plots and will continue to do so, but if they bought the land and built a hangar because there is an airport there, then the runways become inaccessible due to exhorbitant fees or physical barriers, they might find their title is worthless.

 

Do you have inside knowledge that might be shared here, or any undeclared connection to the new owners?

 

What is the way forward Futura? (hehe - Ford Futura - I crack me up)

 

Ross

 

 

[Guest Futura]

You are right there, Turbo - that wouldn't work, and indeed, isn't the way forward. I won't have any problems working with either Volksy or other users in the future in ensuring a viable and effective aero club presence on the airport. Whatever needs to be done to make things work for them has to be done!

 

 

[Guest Futura]

G'day Ross,

 

I can confirm no undeclared interest in Domain Corp, nor any relationship with Mr Tzovaras, at this time. However, I have met with the organisation several times and now fully understand the commercial realities that will dictate the success of their venture. As declared in my first post, I do have an interest in the airport's future success via landholdings and will be working with Domain in the future.

 

Notwithstanding these issues, I can confirm that: no barrier to runway access will apply; no exhorbitant charges will apply. Although, let me say that a fair market charge, in line with other airports, will apply, but I'm certain aviators won't complain about paying fair market costs.

 

Development plans include a sealed tie down area for a minimum of 30 aircraft; increased sealed apron area; more effective security fencing between airside and landside; sealed taxiways to hangars. The airport currently provides only a normal domestic supply of mains power. That will be addressed in the New Year to ensure a commercially rated power supply. The as yet unscheduled meeting with users in the New Year will address concerns that individuals may have in respect to additional and high quality navigation aids and/or any other must haves which will ensure the airport sits at the very top of the list as a preferred landing/takeoff destination. Is it common knowledge that, currently, if you fly into Goulburn after hours, you will likely have to walk about 400m to use a bathroom? Proper facilities need to be provided post haste, as well as a decent coffee for Mr Smith.

 

 

[68volksy]

Glad you found us Futura.

 

Dick's definition of a "good" coffee is different than the Aero Clubs unfortunately. If we knew he was coming of course we would have got the Barista in...

 

The major concern of the Aero Club is any further subdivisions or hangers at the airport. Even the existing stage 3 subdivision would be atrociously dangerous for many of our flyers if it were built out with hangers. Even the Corporate Air hanger has put some people off using runway 26 to land on a windy day.

 

The concern with purchasing land is that the airport can change hands at any time. To invest in land at a privately owned airport with the history of Cooma, Bankstown, Canberra, Hoxton Park etc. still fresh in your mind would be a brave move wouldn't it? There's no choice of which runway to use - not much different from someone turning your driveway into a toll road...

 

Anyway, as far as the Aero Club is concerned it is in its best interest to work with whoever owns the airport. My personal opinions will give way to the needs and concerns of our members and friends.

 

I look forward to the meeting in the new year.

 

 

[Guest Futura]

Great news, Volksy! I'm glad you can keep an open mind in respect to the issues, and when we meet, I'm certain your concerns in respect to the way forward, i.e. land values, etc will be put to rest.

 

I am well aware of the safety issues. In that regard, I have, over the last 12 months sought technical advice from many experts, including Col Rodgers, President of AOPA, and many other leading aviation luminaries. I believe safety to be paramount and assure you that every effort will be taken to ensure that Goulburn Airport remains a safe destination.

 

With the families' permission, I look forward to suggesting the renaming of Airport Road to Guthrie-Smith Drive.

 

I look forward to meeting with you in the New Year and seeking your contribution to a very exciting chapter in Goulburn's future development.

 

 

[slartibartfast]

Thanks again Futura.

 

If it all works out as rosy as you suggest, I will be one happy aero-camper.

 

It's not too serious for me as I just rent and could relocate, but I would love to see it develop as you suggest it will.

 

Great for the airport, the flyers and the community.

 

I look forward to meeting in the new year.

 

Cheers,

 

Ross

 

 

[Guest Futura]

Thanks Ross.

 

The proposed meeting will be widely advertised and I'm sure Volksy will encourage attendance and let everyone know of the scheduled date in the New Year.

 

I look forward to meeting you and all other concerned aviators/users.

 

Best wishes.

 

 

[slartibartfast]

Guys and Gals.

 

I draw your attention to Item 3 on page 17 of this document.

 

Looking at this and taking it at face value, the sale of the airport to this mob seems like an entirely positive thing for everyone. The council seems to have covered the bases and the acquirer seems to have a vision and plan for a revitalised airport.

 

From a business perspective, I can't see any value in them pushing existing users out. It has to remain as an airport, so you need a base of users to continue, from which position the investment can grow with their other plans.

 

There's so much drought affected land around Goulburn, I can't see this as a cheap way for someone to get their hands on real-estate. Their plan definitely and logically seems to be to position Goulburn as an aviation hub.

 

The council is concerned about the $65,000 a year maintenance cost, and don't have the resources to do anything about improving the airport to turn a buck. The runways must be resurfaced by next year (they estimate $150,000 expenditure), the buyer is proposing a $25,000,000 capital improvement program over the next 7 years - I can't see why they would knock it back.

 

Surely this is an entirely different kettle of fish to the Hoxton Park land grab?

 

Yeah - I'm an optimist. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

Out on a limb,

 

Slarti

 

 

[Guest Futura]

The insights contained within your post are absolutely accurate, mate. Commercial reality dictates that ALL users need to be satisfied and accommodated after the proposed upgrade to the Goulburn Airport, that's recreational flyers as well as GA.

 

The proposed user group meeting in the New Year needs to have a focus on outlining development plans and workshopping all ideas so that all groups have a say, although in most instances, it's only a perfect world that delivers 100% of the time. Attendees will, however, find a culture of INCLUSIVENESS, not exclusion, from the owner/operator of the facility. When you benchmark the behaviour of BAL in respect to Bankstown and Hoxton Park, you learn what works and what doesn't. Also, from a public relations perspective, the revitalised Goulburn Airport will have an opportunity to show it has its act together and wants to attract new users and generate growth from usage.

 

The new Goulburn Airport wants new and existing users and general aviation. It looks forward to discussing with all and sundry how it plans to accommodate everyone in a successful and revitalised facility that values safety, services and amenities.

 

 

[Ultralights]

please tell me they are thinking of a USA style community air park!

 

 

[Guest Futura]

As in residential-style? Negative.

 

The need in Australia at present is for general aviation & recreational. I don't see a happy mix of resi and GA.

 

 

[68volksy]

Futura,

 

You honestly see a happy mix of Industrial development, the proposed international freight hub and GA/Recreational flyers?

 

Honestly, combining these three things is a recipe for the deaths of ultralight pilots.

 

I'm still not sold on the idea that safe flying at Goulburn can coincide with Massive hangers and jet aircraft.

 

Slarti, the Council failed to mention the $60,000 they receive in income each year from the airport. They also failed to mention that the $65,000 expenditure includes an allowance of $12,000 per year for the runway resealing. They then claim that it will cost an extra $150,000?

 

 

[Student Pilot]

Futura,You honestly see a happy mix of Industrial development, the proposed international freight hub and GA/Recreational flyers?

 

Honestly, combining these three things is a recipe for the deaths of ultralight pilots.

 

I'm still not sold on the idea that safe flying at Goulburn can coincide with Massive hangers and jet aircraft.

Planned right why should it be so dangerous? Lighties doing 500' circuits and bigger stuff 1500'? maybe counter circuits? It shouldn't be an "Either or" choice, we should all work togeather.

 

 

[68volksy]

True we should all work together.

 

I just think it's important that if people are on here singing the praises of $25million airport redevelopments then at least a word of caution should be raised for those of us who fly $25,000 aircraft.

 

Our lives are more important than money.

 

On another point would someone like to propose just what a "fair market charge" for access to an airport that is worth almost $30 million might be?

 

 

[Student Pilot]

On another point would someone like to propose just what a "fair market charge" for access to an airport that is worth almost $30 million might be?

The new owners of Bankstown seem to be setting what they think market prices should be, hopefully this developer might be more realistic, I doubt it.

 

 

[Guest Futura]

True we should all work together.I just think it's important that if people are on here singing the praises of $25million airport redevelopments then at least a word of caution should be raised for those of us who fly $25,000 aircraft.

 

Our lives are more important than money.

 

On another point would someone like to propose just what a "fair market charge" for access to an airport that is worth almost $30 million might be?

Hi Volksy,

 

There are obviously statutory bodies who ultimately make decisions in respect to safety, so the question as to whether GA and RA can co-exist would be taken out of the hands of an airport owner and be addressed primarily by others. However, everyone treats the issue as a paramount concern. I believe that at the right time, the proper decisions will be made to aviation's satisfaction. As I stated in an earlier post, complete harmony only exists in a perfect world.

 

In relation to charges, can I advise the new owner will take possession of the airport in June 2009, as per the contract of sale. That should afford everyone the opportunity to engage in open discussions re all the issues, not just fair market charges, so for now, an open mind might be the most appropriate way forward.

 

 

[68volksy]

It seems plainly apparent that the decisions regarding the future of the airport and its intended usage/charges have been set in concrete. How else could someone say with confidence that $25 million is to be spent on its refurbishment?

 

That's not a small amount in anyones book. My point is that if enough detail and costing has been prepared on infrastruture and facility consruction as there must have been to come up with the $25 million, then there is no doubt in my mind that figures regarding expected costs and estimated usage would also be readily available?

 

$25 million is a lot of money to be throwing into a "If you build it they will come" philosophy.

 

An open mind is one thing but it seems plainly obvious that the future of the facility has already been decided upon. The proponent has made clearly apparent that their is a plan to spend $25 million. What has not been made apparent is what this money will be spent on and how they plan to turn the investment into a profit making venture.