Insurance

[skippydiesel]

Fair comment but again you insist on "muddying the waters" - our friend Rhtrudder talks of 3 friends  flying out of a paddock and if he is as smart as I expect, he will "fly neighborly" avoiding complaints that would bring his activity to the attention of Council ("let sleeping landing grounds lie") and even in the draconian WA, I doubt that flying from your own property is actually a prescribed activity. More likely their concern is noise, damage, pollution of the environment, intensive agriculture, etc which may impact on the neighbors quiet enjoyment of their property/environment causing the neighbor(s) to complain, thus involving council.

 

The reference to profit is simply that an activity that is intended to make a profit may be seen as a business. The conducting of that business is likely to be subject to zoning regulations - involving Council.

 

Responsible behaviour is very much in the "eye of the beholder" and subject to context - in the highly unlikely situation where your council has already prescribed private aviation from a private property, then conducting flying opps from your property would be irresponsible because it is by definition a breach of council regulations.

 

I am not a lawyer however I think it highly likely that under English Common Law (which is the basis for much of Australian Law) the right to quiet enjoyment of your own property exists, in some form or another - this  gives your neighbor(s) the same right(s) hence my  advice  to "fly neighbourly".

 

In my, admittedly limited, experience of Councils, they tend not to involve themselves in the activities of ratepayers (who are not actually breaking any council rules of note) until spurred into action by a complainant  OR some gilt ridden resident asks for a determination (that they didn't have to ask for) on their proposed activities. 

 

Do you think we might have exhausted this argument ???

 

 

[turboplanner]

Every jurisdiction will have a slightly  different approach, however I believe, that in general, you as the owner  have a right to responsible enjoyment of your property. This means if you use a paddock  (do not call it as an airstrip) to come & go by aircraft, ride motor bikes or horses, take off your clothes or whatever and that you do not derive a profit from such activity and that such activity is limited to a small group of friends you will be left in piece. Be mindful of  your neighbours concerns, minimise noise & low flight - if you can avoid overflying neighbours homes, do so. 

 

I hesitate to refer to my home paddock but it has existed as a landing ground for about 25 years now, surrounded by semi rural holdings, on the edge of a large city - no planning permission, no problem or issues of any nature whatsoever - just be sensible and considerate  and you will probably be just fine.

 

Each State has a Planning Scheme with overall values, and that's what give Australia its character, its "looks" and its livability.

 

Each Council has its sub-Planning Scheme, reflecting first the State Scheme, and then overall character of the Council area, and then the segments of the neighbourhood, which can run from CBD, Urban, Peri-Urban, Rural, and then specified areas such as growth corridors where housing and industrial development are encouraged, and protected areas where urban development is not allowed.

 

What you can do in each of these areas relates to Uses

 

Section 1 Use: These are listed for the Planning Scheme which applies to your property.

 

You can build for, construct, or conduct any Use listed in Section 1 without a planning Permit.

 

Section 2 Use: These require a Planning Permit before you start, and the process involved a specified sign to be erectetd on the property, notification of neighbours and anyone else who may be affected, consultation supervised by Council, approval in some case under delegated Officers, but usually by Council Meeting.

 

Prohibited Use: These are listed in the scheme for your address.

 

Your property is probably in the Peri-Urban area, and I checked one scheme and foun "Airfield" was not listed in any of the Use groups. When this happens, the proposed USE is considered to be Section 2, so must go through the advertising, Council consideration route.

 

It's unlikely an airfield in a Peri-Urban area would be approved.

 

If you had applied for a permit for an airfield in the past when the area was Zoned Rural, it possibly  would have been approved, and a permit issued, in which case you would have Existing Use Rights under whatever Peri-Urban zoning applies now, so you may have trapped yourself by calling it a paddock, because you have Existing Use Rights to.....a paddock.

 

As Onetrack has explained, "responsible enjoyment of your property" and "derive a profit" are not mentioned anywhere as Uses.

 

Making noise, emitting smells, playing music all come under the category of "Amenity" and it's usually on the grounds of "loss of Amenity" that people start complaining, so Amenity is more a trigger used by complainants.

 

There's a lot of NQR stuff crept into this thread, and since I notice a few "OKs" and "Thanks", I'm cancelling all my suggestions, and reverting to:

 

Public Liability Insurance

 

Give the Insurer a written, detailed description of what you want to do, advise whether the airstrip meets CASA's ALA specification or not, and whether it has a Council permit or not., and anything else you can think of which might lead the Insurer to walk away based on breach of contract.

 

(Better to know now, so you can take action to comply)

 

Public Liability - your obligations

 

Contact a Public Liability law firm, make a list of what you want to do on the property and discuss what your duty of care is on each one - be prepared to get a few surprises.

 

 

[skippydiesel]

I just dont get it -

 

We all know it would be almost impossible, in the Peri-Urban area , (where ever you live) to get Council approval for a new airfield - no one is going this route, so why keep bringing it up?.

 

A paddock, quit possibly used for grazing stock (when aircraft not landing/taking off) is not a development, it's not a road either but unlicensed vehicles and drivers can use it as long as its not open to the public  - why keep pushing the unlikely and very costly approval process?

 

Provided you dont antagonise your neighbours  (unfortunately some may be born with a grudge) there will be no "loss of amenity" complaints - if you are you an advocate of noisy aircraft engines , go use a  public airfield .

 

Now very  much part of the Australian Landscape - yes you can go down the Insurance track and further enrich the lawyers & underwriters (for what  ultimate benefit?) OR you could minimise your exposure by documenting the willingness of your friend to accept responsibility for their own actions & presence on your paddock - now there is an old fashioned concept.

 

I may be totaly wrong but my understanding of the original posts was that this is a low frequency, low impact, nil development activity conducted by friends on a rural/semi rural property  - no problem - dont blow it up into something it is most definitely not.

 

I am a firm believer in begging for forgiveness rather than permission.  Why keep handing authority to third parties and responsibility to underwriters ??

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Are there people who think they are insured when they are not?  For example, I know of a motor-glider which is slightly over weight with two big guys and full fuel.  Not mine and not based at Gawler I hasten to add.

 

Would it be likely that his insurer would not pay out?  Even if the accident had nothing to do with being overweight, or if the accident occurred later in the flight when fuel burn had put the weight back into the legal range? 

 

 

[turboplanner]

I just dont get it -

 

We all know it would be almost impossible, in the Peri-Urban area , (where ever you live) to get Council approval for a new airfield - no one is going this route, so why keep bringing it up?.

 

A paddock, quit possibly used for grazing stock (when aircraft not landing/taking off) is not a development, it's not a road either but unlicensed vehicles and drivers can use it as long as its not open to the public  - why keep pushing the unlikely and very costly approval process?

 

Provided you dont antagonise your neighbours  (unfortunately some may be born with a grudge) there will be no "loss of amenity" complaints - if you are you an advocate of noisy aircraft engines , go use a  public airfield .

 

Now very  much part of the Australian Landscape - yes you can go down the Insurance track and further enrich the lawyers & underwriters (for what  ultimate benefit?) OR you could minimise your exposure by documenting the willingness of your friend to accept responsibility for their own actions & presence on your paddock - now there is an old fashioned concept.

 

I may be totaly wrong but my understanding of the original posts was that this is a low frequency, low impact, nil development activity conducted by friends on a rural/semi rural property  - no problem - dont blow it up into something it is most definitely not.

 

I am a firm believer in begging for forgiveness rather than permission.  Why keep handing authority to third parties and responsibility to underwriters ??

 

There's a saying in public liability: "While nothing happens, nothing happens" it's when someone gets hurt that it all hits the fan.

 

The same thing applies with Planning. Nothing happens until someone notices, or someone buys land nearby, build their dream home, and then kicks up a stink.

 

In both cases people start asking for the copies of the approvals, permits, specifications etc.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Are there people who think they are insured when they are not?  For example, I know of a motor-glider which is slightly over weight with two big guys and full fuel.  Not mine and not based at Gawler I hasten to add.

 

Would it be likely that his insurer would not pay out?  Even if the accident had nothing to do with being overweight, or if the accident occurred later in the flight when fuel burn had put the weight back into the legal range? 

 

You'd have to ask an insurance company; if the accident occurred later in the flight with the weight back in range, I'd cop it because structural damage could have occurred earlier, but if the accident had nothing to do with being overweight I'd be objecting.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Thanks Turbs, I actually appreciate your legal comments even if I don't seem grateful.

 

If the illegality contributed to the accident, then obviously the insurance has good reason to not pay out, but what if it had nothing to do with the accident? You yourself would be upset and I agree.

 

As an example, consider worn tyres on a car. In dry conditions, a lack of tread does not increase stopping distance. They use slicks on dragsters because there is actually a better grip. Only if there is water that needs displacing do treads help.

 

So, does a lack of legally required  tread on your tyres invalidate your car insurance even  in dry conditions?

 

 

[onetrack]

Re the motor-glider - It depends on the level of inspection in the accident investigation. If the flown weight can still be accurately calculated, post-crash, and the weight found to be in excess of the MTOW, there's a good chance the insurance company would decline to pay out.

 

The fine print is in the Product Disclosure Statement (PDS) that accompanies your policy. Read the PDS thoroughly and understand it. Many people don't.

 

If there is something you don't understand, clear it up with your insurance company by questioning them on the details.

 

In the case of all insured items of a mechanical nature, you are obliged to keep the mechanical item in good working condition, not operate it beyond its specified operating limits, not change the design or power output, nor carry out other modifications that are not advised to the insurer, that could affect any claim.

 

As regards motor vehicles, operating a motor vehicle with tyre tread below the legal depth is regarded as contributory negligence and can invalidate your insurance.

 

It will also see you declared responsible for any death or injury caused by driving without sufficient tyre tread. A local case, which happened near to me, drives this point home.

 

https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/bedford-crash-driver-james-murray-found-guilty-of-dangerous-driving-ng-b881293263z

 

What may be of interest, regarding insurance policies, is that Public Liability insurance is the only type of insurance, where as the insured, you must admit negligence, to lodge a claim.

 

All other forms of insurance insist, that at no time you are to admit negligence, because that affects your insurers ability to recover costs from the other party or parties involved, and admitting fault often automatically invalidates this form of policy.

 

 

[skippydiesel]

There's a saying in public liability: "While nothing happens, nothing happens" it's when someone gets hurt that it all hits the fan.

 

The same thing applies with Planning. Nothing happens until someone notices, or someone buys land nearby, build their dream home, and then kicks up a stink.

 

In both cases people start asking for the copies of the approvals, permits, specifications etc.

 

This is called jumping your hurdles befor you get to them  - so in this context ,have contingency plans but deal with the future happening when it happens - let's face it the ugly neighbours may never build next door.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Thanks Turbs, I actually appreciate your legal comments even if I don't seem grateful.

 

If the illegality contributed to the accident, then obviously the insurance has good reason to not pay out, but what if it had nothing to do with the accident? You yourself would be upset and I agree.

 

As an example, consider worn tyres on a car. In dry conditions, a lack of tread does not increase stopping distance. They use slicks on dragsters because there is actually a better grip. Only if there is water that needs displacing do treads help.

 

So, does a lack of legally required  tread on your tyres invalidate your car insurance even  in dry conditions?

 

The reason I said to ask your insurance company is because of the complexity or contract obligation, legal position and on this occasion road law, since companies may specify that they don't pay out on unroadworthy vehicles. I haven't heard of a case like you suggest myself, but I've seen contracts where, if you're legally over the State BAL, at the time of an accident your insurance is invalid, so best to ask the Insurer.

 

 

[turboplanner]

This is called jumping your hurdles befor you get to them  - so in this context ,have contingency plans but deal with the future happening when it happens - let's face it the ugly neighbours may never build next door.

 

..also called "winging it", because the Council won't issue a retrospective permit when the brown stuff is flying.

 

 

[skippydiesel]

..also called "winging it", because the Council won't issue a retrospective permit when the brown stuff is flying.

 

In what way?? - no laws/rules broken - just keeping low profile - the worst may never happen (but have a plan just in case)

 

 

[skippydiesel]

The logical extension (extreem to be sure) to some of the opinions/advice is  - check with council/authorities when you  feel the  "call of nature"  coming on - on the off chance someone might just lodge an objection .

 

What ever happened to all that much vaunted Aussie independents . Why- O- why would you ask permission to do something that is not against the law/rules.

 

By asking the question, you place yourself in the hands of a no risk bureaucrat - what do you think the answer will be ????

 

 

[turboplanner]

In what way?? - no laws/rules broken - just keeping low profile - the worst may never happen (but have a plan just in case)

 

What I said was:

 

"..also called "winging it", because the Council won't issue a retrospective permit when the brown stuff is flying."

 

Let's say five years after you started using the paddock as an airstrip more people wanted to live in the district for the lifestyle, buy a few goats/sheep/cows/horses, and they wanted to build the odd house. The Council is then likely to rezone the land to, say Open Living, allowing dwellings to be built. A few houses start to appear, but no one's being disturbed, and so nothing happens.

 

Then a year later someone is given a permit to build under your flight path and goes to the Council complaining about the noise.

 

An Compliance and Enforcement Officer will be assigned the case, and will find out in about 30 seconds that the permits for your property don't include one for Use as an airfield.

 

He can then call in to your place and ask you to cease operations, and give you the options to tell your side of the story.

 

If at that stage you don't have an Airfield Permit, then you can't apply for one under the old Zoning which applied six years before; you have to apply for a permit based on the zonings in force now, which pretty mauch means you're stuffed.

 

That sums up "winging it" and "no restrospective permits"

 

 

[turboplanner]

The logical extension (extreem to be sure) to some of the opinions/advice is  - check with council/authorities when you  feel the  "call of nature"  coming on - on the off chance someone might just lodge an objection .

 

What ever happened to all that much vaunted Aussie independents . Why- O- why would you ask permission to do something that is not against the law/rules.

 

By asking the question, you place yourself in the hands of a no risk bureaucrat - what do you think the answer will be ????

 

It's called Due Diligance these days.

 

 

[skippydiesel]

What I said was:

 

"..also called "winging it", because the Council won't issue a retrospective permit when the brown stuff is flying."

 

Let's say five years after you started using the paddock as an airstrip more people wanted to live in the district for the lifestyle, buy a few goats/sheep/cows/horses, and they wanted to build the odd house. The Council is then likely to rezone the land to, say Open Living, allowing dwellings to be built. A few houses start to appear, but no one's being disturbed, and so nothing happens.

 

Then a year later someone is given a permit to build under your flight path and goes to the Council complaining about the noise.

 

An Compliance and Enforcement Officer will be assigned the case, and will find out in about 30 seconds that the permits for your property don't include one for Use as an airfield.

 

He can then call in to your place and ask you to cease operations, and give you the options to tell your side of the story.

 

If at that stage you don't have an Airfield Permit, then you can't apply for one under the old Zoning which applied six years before; you have to apply for a permit based on the zonings in force now, which pretty mauch means you're stuffed.

 

That sums up "winging it" and "no restrospective permits"

 

Change is inevitable, even a fully compliant whatever is likely to find, over the course of time, that it can no longer be permitted -  so your scenario gives our enquirer 5 years, sound like a good deal to me.

 

 

[skippydiesel]

It's called Due Diligance these days.

 

This is not due diligence,  its quivering temerity - the inability to just accept, that you need not seek the approval of anyone, for an activity that is not prescribed.

 

 

[turboplanner]

The Planning status of the OP Site (not yours Skippy) looks fairly straightforward:

 

https://mapshare.vic.gov.au/vicplan/

 

Type in address

 

Click “Generate a report”

 

That will summarise the Planning status of your property

 

If it’s in the Farming Zone (FZ), on the map where you entered your address, click on the FZ link.

 

That will open up the Campaspe Planning Scheme; Go to Farming Zone (FZ)

 

As far as I can see an airfield is not a Section 1 Use

 

It may be a Section 2 Use under “Leisure and Recreation” in which case a permit Application will be required.

 

It’s not a Prohibited Use

 

A permit Application for Airfield Use, (since it’s not mentioned anywhere else and not prohibited) can be made.

 

 

[NT5224]

Im finding this topic very interesting because Im in a similar situation, just establishing my own private strip and I'd like to think a few fellow aviators might benefit from it. My strip is very similar to that described by the OP, 750m X 60m  and surrounded by low timber. In recently renewing my home insurance I was asked if I had a strip  -as it would effect my home premium.

 

Personally,  Im not too worried about insuring against loss from the strip, its more about personal liability in case  of material damage  to aircraft or  personal injury of anybody using it.

 

It seems a real shame that with airfields and strips being closed down across the country,  those of us who would be prepared to offer access to others have to worry so much about liability. Its enough to make  you want to wind up the drawbridge!!!!

 

Alan    

 

 

[turboplanner]

Im finding this topic very interesting because Im in a similar situation, just establishing my own private strip and I'd like to think a few fellow aviators might benefit from it. My strip is very similar to that described by the OP, 750m X 60m  and surrounded by low timber. In recently renewing my home insurance I was asked if I had a strip  -as it would effect my home premium.

 

Personally,  Im not too worried about insuring against loss from the strip, its more about personal liability in case  of material damage  to aircraft or  personal injury of anybody using it.

 

It seems a real shame that with airfields and strips being closed down across the country,  those of us who would be prepared to offer access to others have to worry so much about liability. Its enough to make  you want to wind up the drawbridge!!!!

 

Alan    

 

It's often blown up into a big thing by people who don't understand it, but it's not that complicated. If you alteady have a farm and other people come on to it or are employed, you're about 90% of the way there anyway.

 

 

[jetjr]

Unfortunately in NSW Councils do have a say on land use - cant stop you building a strip/road etc but can stop you using it as a airstrip

 

Long list of uses in R1 land exempt and requiring DA, "Airports" is now clear in non exempt catagory

 

Some debate if neighbours have to be informed/can object or not. Ill bet they do and will object.

 

 

[rhtrudder]

No problem with the neighbors complaining , same farmer owns land south and north of my strip , and his father flys a jab from his strip due west from mine, mostly dead dairy farms around me so never really a problem. Greg 

 

 

[skippydiesel]

I really feel like I am banging my head against the proverbial brick wall -

 

1. This is NOT a strip, tease, landing,  search or any of them - ITS A PADDOCK !! that a few friends land in from time to time. There may be a shed (NOT A HANGER) nearby that can at a pinch,  accommodates said aircraft.

 

2. Should you venture down the ALA/AirField/Strip rout, be prepared to invest a lot of money & time in the unlikely chance (if you live somewhere in the outer urban sprawl/"peri urban") that you will get approval to construct the same. THEN you will have to meet  the authorities (is ist CASA or CAA?) standards /specifications before anyone can land/take off - bucket loads more dosh. Once you have it up and running there will be ongoing compliance requirements (more $$$) which most certainly will include a hefty annual insurance premium covering the owner & users from all eventualities  (including unwanted pregnancy - FYI that's a joke ).

 

GIVE UP ON THE STRIP !!!!

 

 

[rhtrudder]

Sorry skip, it’s now 2 paddocks with a couple of hay sheds we park planes in. Greg 

 

 

[facthunter]

If you have uninsured workers or a gathering of a few cars from the local car club you NEED PL insurance. I had it here for years. it doesn't send you broke but not having it might. Nev