YMEN NDB RWY 26 approach vs. proposed 26-storey building question..

[dsam]

A predatory developer wants to build a ridiculous 26-storey building in suburban Ivanhoe at the top of Melbourne's second highest hill. Residents & Council don’t want it. It tops out around 630 ft. AMSL directly under the CAT A&B NDB approach path (see approach plate with pink line showing location of structure). The structure is 7.2 NM from RWY 26 threshold.

 

Surely CASA, Airservices Australia, and the Essendon airport management would reject this as unsafe, wouldn’t they? Can any YMEN IFR pilots advise me of the likely vertical clearance between this tower’s top and their aircraft’s approach? What are the minimums?

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Surely if the Council doesn't want it then they won't approve it? I'm not sure what vertical distance is required between "terrain" and the track of the approach. It's the Airport owners responsibility to "protect" the flight paths to and from the aerodrome, this is usually done in Council overlays. Is the NDB used? I thought YMEN had an ILS and NDBs are being phased out across the country (not sure if this one is).

 

 

[turboplanner]

If Essendon Airport management and or pilots don't like this, they have the option of writing an objection to Council, then either a Yes or no Council decision entitles them to a VCAT attendance to argue either for or against the outcome against the developer.

 

How would the unstated Council possibly know the site was a significant Navigation site, unless someone with aviation experience sends an email in to them advising the danger of allowing this development.

 

MANY inappropriate developments have succeeded because there was no opposition and the Councillors "just didn't think."

 

If you want to stop this you must contact the Council with an Objection immediately. All objections are logged for Councillors to see. You also need to contact Essendon. You may get a surprise and find they are not interested.

 

 

[dsam]

Perhaps I was too brief. Yes, Banyule Council unanimously voted against the proposal. Yes, Council has my objection including the YMEN approach plates. Yes, Council will contact CASA. Yes, it will go to VCAT.

 

My plan is to tie up and constrain the developer & VCAT in CASA red tape, so nothing tall ever gets built in this residential suburb.

 

I’m looking for “unofficial” real-world experiences here, because I am not IFR (just RA-Aus).

 

Can anyone answer my original questions?

 

What is the typical vertical clearance in this instance? What are the IFR clearance minimums?

 

I’ve included the ILS plate for reference as well, but the NDB looks worse (which is better for my argument). Here the ILS missed approach path looks like a problem too. Advice please?

 

 

 

[facthunter]

Casa or Airservices survey all these approved approaches. Contact with them would be the way to go, and have the highest standing as a statement source. Nev

 

 

[rhysmcc]

I doubt IFR pilots would even know the answer to your question. You may need to contact a Airspace or Procedure designer. Just by looking at the ILS and comparing it to the local ILS in Cairns I would think the "building" would be outside the tolerances of the ILS and thus may not be a factor (it also appears they would be well above it). That said, the council should have an airspace overlay that restricts building heights in relation to the aerodrome, if it's outside (or under) that overlay then it wouldn't conflict with traffic.

 

 

[dsam]

Casa or Airservices survey all these approved approaches. Contact with them would be the way to go, and have the highest standing as a statement source. Nev

I agree Nev. However real-world pilot experiences often differ from black letter regulation. For example, errors in setting QNH, Track errors, Missed approach path vectors, instrument errors, etc. I'd like to empower Banyule Council with some practical examples beyond what CASA might allow. Banyule council's legal team might benefit with such examples in VCAT.

 

 

[turboplanner]

It's good that the Council has rejected the application.

 

The VCAT hearing will be decided on whether the application complies with the Banyule Planning Scheme.

 

If the technical issue is genuine, the best path is to get the Federal Minister to ask the Victorian Planning Minister, Richard Wynne to call it in on safety grounds. He has that power.

 

 

[dsam]

It's good that the Council has rejected the application.The VCAT hearing will be decided on whether the application complies with the Banyule Planning Scheme.

If the technical issue is genuine, the best path is to get the Federal Minister to ask the Victorian Planning Minister, Richard Wynne to call it in on safety grounds. He has that power.

I'm hoping that the strong and independent authority of CASA takes the decision making completely out of the hands of Local & State governments (and therefore VCAT). Even the Federal Government wouldn't contravene a safety directive of CASA. That way, VCAT might only be able to rule on what colour paint is used on a mandated 4-storey building ;-)

 

However if the CASA ruling should go soft on this, I'm looking for real-world experiences to mitigate the overall height of the building during VCAT negotiations. Again, to my original questions... typical clearances, track errors, etc. Thanks for the responses so far.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Here is the Banyule City Council Agenda for the Ordinary Meeting 13 April 2015

 

Planning Number: P1453/14 - 26 story mixed use, 443Upper Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe.

 

The Officer's Report recommended against the proposal and it appears the Councillors agreed. The Officer Recommendation is one of the most powerful persuasion tools at VCAT, because the Officers are professionals.

 

The Officer reasons are on the Council Website under Meetings (no a very user friendly website), so the developer will usually address these reasons if he decides to appeal.

 

I wouldn't be colouring the story by suggesting what powers you think VCAT has or has not.

 

 

[facthunter]

I haven't done an NDB approach there since 92 but a cursory look I can't see any problem. That's not what you want to hear. They probably only have to put a winking red light on it. As far as allowing for QNH errors I can't recall any reference to that. ALL your minimums and separation need the CORRECT one, and there are allowable altimeter errors taken into account. They aren't large and are supposed to be checked each landing.

 

The last time I was at VCAT my submission was the same as the councils and I trusted their ability to present it properly. They didn't and a less than desired outcome resulted, largely due to their incompetence. Nev

 

 

[KRviator]

Part 139 MOS is what you want.

 

For a non-precision approach, you must have a 3.3% clear path out to 6,600m, then a 2.5% clear path out a further 8400m, to a total 15km from the threshold, giving an average OLS clearance plane of 1411' AAL at 15km from the threshold, with the splay (angle out the side) being 15%.

 

So, at the extremity of the OLS, you have a 2250m distance off the inbound course (267*) centreline at 15km and a maximum height of 1693' AMSL, call it 1700' for round figures. The outbound course has a MDA of 1900' which looks to be nearly 1500' higher than the highest point in Ivanhoe, according to Google.

 

Of note, the MOS says Airport owners must (I love that word in rules & legislation ) monitor the OLS applicable to the aerodrome and report to CAsA any infringements or potential infringements. Also, CASR 139 requires obstacles above 110m AGL must be reported to CASA, but it doesn't say by whom.

 

 

[turboplanner]

At this stage the project might be dead.

 

It's up to the developer to decide whether to go to Vcat and he has about 90 days to appeal to Vcat.

 

If he does, you are excluded from this process because you didn't submit an objection within the timelines.

 

So if it's an issue then your idea of briefing the Council ( contact the Planning Manager). Or if that fails the Fed Min/ Vic Min call in

 

 

[dsam]

Part 139 MOS is what you want.For a non-precision approach, you must have a 3.3% clear path out to 6,600m, then a 2.5% clear path out a further 8400m, to a total 15km from the threshold, giving an average OLS clearance plane of 1411' AAL at 15km from the threshold, with the splay (angle out the side) being 15%.

 

So, at the extremity of the OLS, you have a 2250m distance off the inbound course (267*) centreline at 15km and a maximum height of 1693' AMSL, call it 1700' for round figures. The outbound course has a MDA of 1900' which looks to be nearly 1500' higher than the highest point in Ivanhoe, according to Google.

 

Of note, the MOS says Airport owners must (I love that word in rules & legislation ) monitor the OLS applicable to the aerodrome and report to CAsA any infringements or potential infringements. Also, CASR 139 requires obstacles above 110m AGL must be reported to CASA, but it doesn't say by whom.

Excellent info KRviator! Thanks for that. It may not be the gazump I was hoping for, but it is all grist for the legal mill to come.

 

FYI, the terrain base at the hilltop site is 327 feet AMSL with the structure top up around 630 feet AMSL. I will digest the references you've given me and use this to whatever advantage I can make of it. Cheers, Dave

 

 

[dsam]

At this stage the project might be dead.It's up to the developer to decide whether to go to Vcat and he has about 90 days to appeal to Vcat.

 

If he does, you are excluded from this process because you didn't submit an objection within the timelines.

 

So if it's an issue then your idea of briefing the Council ( contact the Planning Manager). Or if that fails the Fed Min/ Vic Min call in

Turbs, there were 212 objections from residents, and I made sure that the CASA argument was one of them (and yes, it got to them in time, before council handed down its formal rejection). I don't think the council planning staff fully understood the aviation implications very well when they drafted their formal rejection in the council meeting, so Council didn't specifically mention it on the night of their decision - but then they only had the CASA argument some 12 hours beforehand.

 

To their credit, they've informed me that they are now following up the CASA angle directly with the regulator. I am almost certain that the developer will go to VCAT. Banyule will mount their own legal team - I won't plan to take any formal role, however I will offer advice (for what it is worth), and lobby state and federal ministers beforehand wherever I feel it can help. I've formed a local resident's action group over this issue, and they will lobby similarly. That's where many of the 212 objections came from in the first place.

 

I will encourage Council to use CASA feedback to inform & constrain the local planning overlays, since there are other nearby property sites that might also be subject to predatory developers with "high" ambitions that need to be nipped in the bud.

 

Thanks everyone for your responses so far. Cheers, Dave

 

 

[turboplanner]

OK, sounds good - the objectors do qualify to be heard at VCAT along with Council.

 

You mention overlays - has anyone checked the Planning Scheme for any Overlays? (Department of Planning Transport and Infrastructure) www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/planning

 

There probably isn't an aviation overlay, but worth checking.

 

If the developer lodges an appeal and the objectors decide to appear, the paperwork will usually ask for the grounds.

 

This is a very important strategic phase. You cannot talk about anything you haven't lodged in your paperwork, yet you don't want the developers lawyers given a month or two's start to rebut your argument, so simple, all encompassing statements are best (you get to put your detailed submission in VCAT).

 

 

[dsam]

Turbs, Council does have a planning overlay, allowing a structure up to 28 metres AGL on that site (not 80 metres like the developer wants). Essendon has published a PANS-OPS Critical Surfaces overlay too. I'm not sure they agree with each other, however. Must do more homework on this.... however CASA should be able to resolve any inconsistencies, and rule according to safety in this case - well... I can hope so anyway ;-)

 

 

[turboplanner]

http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/schemes/combined-ordinances/Banyule_PS_Ordinance.pdf

 

11.02 Urban Growth

 

Both political Parties have, for decades, allowed developers to subdivide outer areas without adequate infrastructure provision, and to land bank – e.g. buy 1000 Ha of farmland but only subdivide around 3% per year, thus creating an artificial price of several hundred thousand dollars which should have been going to infrastructure costs like power, water, sewerage, roads, rail, schools etc.

 

The government these days is in a position where they are forced to cram several million people into the inner suburban areas where there is infrastructure.

 

18.04 Airports

 

18.04 – 2 Planning of Airports: Strategies Para 5 (Essendon)

 

The Banyule Planning Scheme is required to protect Essendon Airport in accordance with this clause

 

http://services.land.vic.gov.au/maps/pmo.jsp

 

DDO5 Design and Development Overlay

 

The Overlay applies to built design – not any Aviation requirement, so I imagine the Applicant will be arguing that given more people have to be fitted in to the existing infrastructure, their height is in line with stated Government objectives, and the Council will be arguing that 28 metres, and with the profile set out in the Planning Scheme is the maximum to avoid loss of amenity and built form for the location.

 

http://services.land.vic.gov.au/landchannel/content/propertyReport?reportNo=1&reporthtml=11

 

DDO5 Design and Development Overlay Schedule 5

 

This is the schedule to Overlay DDO5 (like a specification) where details of the Overlay are spelled out. There is a specific reference to this property.

 

Paragraph 3.2: “443 Upper Heidelberg Road – Height Maximum 28 metres”

 

http://services.land.vic.gov.au/landchannel/content/propertyReport?reportNo=6&reporthtml=51

 

This report says: “This propertyis notaffected by the Melbourne Airport Environs Overlay”

 

This might make your argument problematical

 

443 Upper Heidelberg Rd.pdf

 

443 Upper Heidelberg Rd.pdf

 

443 Upper Heidelberg Rd.pdf

[kaz3g]

If it gets built the tenants will be looking straight into the upper levels of the Austin-Mercy hospital campus. I wonder if the hospital administration has responded?

 

Kaz

 

 

[dsam]

If it gets built the tenants will be looking straight into the upper levels of the Austin-Mercy hospital campus. I wonder if the hospital administration has responded?Kaz

Sadly, it is worse than that. It is much taller, due to the elevated terrain of its base. Worse still, there is a hospital psych unit immediately under the site. The balconies would be overlooking a patient's inner courtyard - many children and adolescents are treated there. A professor from this psych unit was one of the objectors at the council meeting on this.

 

To me, it seems the developer has no soul or conscience, watching their lack of reaction to his plight.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Yes, some of them have no scruples either.

 

 

[Ryanm]

No doubt it will go ahead and they'll "simply" raise the MDA on the NDB approach making it useless!

 

 

[turboplanner]

Not necessarily, with some good strategies; don't forget what my post #18 which refers to the Banyule Planning Scheme:

 

"18.04 – 2 Planning of Airports: Strategies Para 5 (Essendon)

 

The Banyule Planning Scheme is required to protect Essendon Airport in accordance with this clause"

 

My bet is it hasn't been discussed by either party at this stage

 

 

[mothra]

A few informal inquiries tell me this has not been assessed by Airservices.

 

In the normal course of events the developer is required to notify the airport who bring in Airservices to assess if they (the airport) think there is an issue. Airservices can only object, they have no authority here.

 

Ryanm's closing point is right, if something like this does infringe then the procedure gets revised and consequently its usefulness impaired. Worst case its cancelled.

 

 

[dsam]

A few informal inquiries tell me this has not been assessed by Airservices.In the normal course of events the developer is required to notify the airport who bring in Airservices to assess if they (the airport) think there is an issue. Airservices can only object, they have no authority here.

 

Ryanm's closing point is right, if something like this does infringe then the procedure gets revised and consequently its usefulness impaired. Worst case its cancelled.

It's certainly not my intention to spoil things for YMEN aviators. Indeed, I'm hoping to provide input to the state planning minister in support of a respectful planning overlay for aviation purposes in our area - with allied benefit to residential homeowners as well. I'm hoping he is risk-averse to having aircraft wreckage strewn amongst the Austin & Repat hospital sites - not something I like to think about.