Goulburn Airport Development

[Guest Futura]

After nine years of planning and 17 months of deliberation by Goulburn Mulwaree Council, the proposed Inland City Aeropark was finally granted Development Application Consent at the 18 August, 2009 Ordinary Meeting of Council. The aeropark comprises a total of 30 aviation usage lots, over an area of 72 hectares, with an average lot size of 10,000sqm. Amongst other conditions, the approval requires the developer to upgrade many of the existing airport services and infrastructure, including sewerage, wastewater management and flood mitigation.

 

The aeropark utilised the Fairchild Aerospace Metroliner III as the critical design aircraft, so the aeropark is planned around that aircraft's specs. Twenty metre wide taxiways will afford aircraft access throughout the aeropark, while internal roads will give vehicular access. The developer of the aeropark acted in accordance with the design and plan requirements as contained in CASA's MOS-139 and relied on advices from many well-known Australian aviation experts. Particular attention was paid to the 'wish-list' design suggestions from many aviators currently based at Bankstown Airport.

 

The development offers the only FREEHOLD title general aviation land for sale on the east coast of Australia. Its propinquity to the planned AUD1bn Southern Distribution Hub will ensure the success of the "Aerotropolis" concept (Professor John Kasarda, PhD, MBA, B.Sc, Director, Kenan-Flagler Business School - Father of the Aerotropolis concept) which combines: ROAD, RAIL & AIR. Prof Kasarda kindly contributed an overview to the Inland City Aeropark design and planning.

 

The Hub development requires construction of a major highway interchange, which will upgrade vehicle access from the Hume Highway to the Hub development site, Goulburn Airport and the Inland City Aeropark.

 

Goulburn is now perfectly placed to plan and develop a comprehensive aviation precinct, which will then offer itself as a viable alternative to the Sydney Basin's ongoing general aviation concerns. Inland City Aeropark, the unsuccessful bidder at the Goulburn Airport auction in November 2008, has expressed interest in liaising with Goulburn Mulware Council in the preparation of a 20 year Airport Master Plan and assist with planning of airport operations to ensure a compatible fit between the local community and aviation in general.

 

Construction is expected to commence in early February 2010, with completion in March 2011. Initial cost of the aeropark is projected at $15m, with an end-value in excess of 4180m.

 

 

[68volksy]

I thought use of the Metro would require taxiways a minimum of 53 metres wide in accordance with the Manual of Standards? From discussions with CASA they have not had any input into the design.

 

Also a little concerned about the 34 megalitre dam right under the flight path. Could attract a lot of birds?

 

Seems a pure money grab with no mention or attention paid to the safety of pilots and their passengers.

 

There's 16 freehold lots up for sale at the airport by Council by the sound of things also that already have power and sewerage.

 

 

[flying dog]

OK, I'll bite:

 

What is the asking for a lot?

 

 

[68volksy]

The lots currently available at the airport are between $40-70k depending on size.

 

 

[Guest Futura]

1. MOS139, Sec. 6.3.1.1 - Metro III is code 2B aircraft, with OMGWS 5.4m, min taxiway width requirement is 10.5m (NOT 53m);

 

2. CASA design input, through District Airport Inspector, February 2009;

 

3. Safety concerns are paramount and form integral part of design criteria, with input from Australian aviators and pilots with over 40 years flying experience in all countries around the world. Technical expertise of these individuals and companies is beyond reproach.

 

4. Aeropark development will generate over 3000 jobs through construction and ongoing opportunities and inject over $5m into local economy per annum.

 

 

[68volksy]

1. The section you quote refers to the minimum constructed pavement width of the taxiway. If you look at 6.3.12 you will see that the entire taxiway strip must be at least 21.5 metres either side of the centre line for a "B" aircraft or 26m either side of the centre line for a "C" class aircraft. You have allowed only 10 metres either side of the centre line as the taxiway strip. With the wing span of a Metro coming in at almost 18 metres it's asking for trouble.

 

2. If safety is paramount why is there a detention pond being placed under the flight path?

 

3. What use is flying experience all over the world when you have locals alone with over 50 years flying experience in Goulburn? Coming in to runway 22 with a strong north-westerly blowing over 72 hectares of aircraft hangers will have dire consequences. Anyone with local knowledge could have told you that.

 

 

[Matt]

Without being involved or knowing the history, it's interesting to see the negative initial reaction. I would have thought that any investment in aviation infrastructure would be a positive thing. Yes it won't be all good things to everyone (nothing is) but surely this provides Goulburn an opportunity that contrasts the goings on at most of the major airfields around the country.

 

 

[68volksy]

If there had been any chance for a local aviator to have input then I may be a happier man. The Aero Club was not even asked for comment.

 

No-one seems to recognise the fact that Goulburns a windy place. With the amount of wind turbines in a 15 mile radius from the airport you'd think someone might figure it out. The airport was originally designed in the 1920's and further constructed in the 1940's to allow for buildings in the safest place with this wind in mind. I know it's not a consideration for the big boys out there but those of us in smaller planes appreciate as little turbulence as possible on takeoff and landing. The land set aside for safe development is still vacant. Doesn't it make sense to use this up first?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well if it isn't our old mate Futura back to haunt us.

 

I notice he started a new thread after lapsing into silence on the main one.

 

It doesn't surprise me one little bit that the plans don't give aviators much joy.

 

I wish the great Professor Kasarda well, but his Aerotropolis concept has very little to do with aircraft and a lot to do with packing development and profit around existing facilities (which usually offer cheap land and big spaces.)

 

That the big spaces are there for safety reasons usually goes straight over the heads of the developers involved.

 

Call me a country yokel, but when I look at the Southern Distribution Hub website I see an Industrial Development Project.

 

And I don't see the Metroliner as the bulk freight carrier of tomorrow.

 

The words "Distribution Hub" are also interesting.

 

The critical ingredient which forms a freight hub is a demand for equal volumes of freight moving in and out.

 

Simple, I know, but without that ingredient the area is just a destination, and lack of backloading financially cripples the carrier.

 

I couldn't see a Kenworth operator paying half a million dollars for a truck which carried goods to Goulburn but had to run home empty.

 

On a bigger scale, many shipping companies around the world are currently looking at what is going to replace the Post Panamax ships - the ones that Port Phillip Bay was dredged for.

 

opjne likely scenario is that long ocean routes will be handled by much bigger Hubbing ships, but these would hub from Singapore because Australia just doesn't have the two way volume.

 

Take a look at a map, see where Goulburn is and judge for yourself.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Hi everyone, I totaly agree with matt. PS- ITs looks like Grant Kenny and business partners are going to turn Evans Head into a commercial/airpart

 

 

[turboplanner]

Matt and Dazza. It's important that you do read the history and maybe talk to some of the people involved.

 

There's absolutely no point is supporting something if it's going to mean you can't fly there on the grounds of safety and cost.

 

 

[HEON]

Sorry, but was not the concern of multi page thread that the airfield was going to become industrial development?

 

Seems to be a lot of negative comment for the retention of an airfield that from what I have been reading seemed to be on a limited life.

 

 

[turboplanner]

That's how the spin was going, but it was spin

 

 

[68volksy]

There are only 2 Council employees who would rather not have an airport. The rest couldn't care as it doesn't effect them in the slightest.

 

The airport is 80 years young - there's plenty of life in the old girl yet!

 

 

[sain]

An aerotropolis in the middle of what is essentially a rural area. Hmm...

 

To my mind the increased cost of aerial transport over other slower options is not likely to be taken up, especially when you factor in the increased travel time and handling costs for getting the goods into and out of Goulburn in the first place. No offence to Goulburn residents, but what on earth would they produce there thats better shipped by air than by road or train?

 

So what to ship by air (in and out) at Goulburn? Wool? Grain? Mining and Heavy Industry products?

 

Would the reduced (compared to Sydney and Canberra) land prices be enough to attract enough industry and the skilled workers (again, not saying Goulburn doesn't have any, I just don't think they have enough) needed to actually make the air part of an airtropolis worthwhile?

 

Maybe I'm just lacking in vision.

 

Good luck Futura, I hope you do better than I think you will.

 

 

[Guest Futura]

68volksy,

 

your criticisms of all things aviation in Goulburn seem to be based on the assumption that local aviators weren't consulted in relation to development proposals. Let me assure you that is incorrect. Local aviators, with more local flying experience than the sum total of the aero club members you mention have been involved with planning for almost 10 years - that's the period of time this project has been on the drawing board. In respect to consultation with an aero club, there may well be another aero club at YGLB which has existed much longer that that to which you refer, which may soon be calling for new members. With its own FREEHOLD clubhouse and aircraft on offer, members will have a vested interest in progress and a say in matters of relevance. A function of this aero club will be to keep an open mind towards progress, in a culture of inclusiveness and for the good of Goulburn aviators in general, and not a select few with axes of their own to grind. I might say it takes only a quick inspection of the existing facilities to see that whom ever has used the airport for such a long time and allowed it to sink in to the state of disrepair it is in, doesn't have much to be proud of. Let's hope the future is brighter than the past! I can also assure everyone that a large number of positive and excited Goulburn-based aviators, whose views on progress at the airport are opposite to 68volksy et al, have contacted me with support and encouragement.

 

I posted the earlier information on the aeropark on this site merely as a courtesy to rec aviation and no other reason. As you all know, no one invests large amounts of money into uncertain projects. I have doorknocked general aviation all over the Sydney Basin, with a view to designing a facility that meets the needs. Interest is remarkable, so to the bloggers who have shown concern about the project's viability I say thank you for your expressed concern and assure you all is in hand to take the project forward successfully.

 

I don't intend divulging confidential project information on this forum, suffice to say that development progress will become obvious once construction commences in 2010.

 

 

[robinsm]

Futura, as one of the group you refer to as the "select few with an axe to grind" I resent the implication that we are all negative. The only reason that the new club was started was because there was no other active club to join. Most of its members are only interested in trying to develope aviation in Goulburn. The "local aviators with the large hours" you refer to have been conspicuously absent when requests have been made for ideas to get aviation off the ground in Goulburn. The unsightly areas at the airport are the privately owned areas and the users have no say in how those areas are maintained. The local council is resposible for the lack of facilities, not the users. The New club has offered, and been refused, permission to mow the airfield regularly to save the council money. I will support any organisation that can help develop general aviation in Goulburn as long as it is not to the detriment of the local users. If you can help the local users retain the airfield and enjoy their flying, then more power to you.

 

 

[68volksy]

Futura,

 

Our club was created under a new name primarily because the old Goulburn Aero Club had not operated or lodged annual returns for over 7 years. The Office of Fair Trading advised that the penalties for using this old club would be many. The only other "club" at Goulburn is Tony's Aero Club which is a private company not a club. Anyone who has visited the airport in the past 20 years would know of the history of the clubs that existed and the "Goulburn Airport wars". We were formed as an attempt to rise above the cluttered past.

 

I don't like beating our own drum but if you have not consulted our club regarding this development then you simply cannot say that you have consulted local aviators.

 

Our new club has around 50 members. The years flying that I mentioned relate to half a dozen members of the club who have each been active at Goulburn airport for over 50 years. We have another one of our members about to top the 30,000 hour mark in the next year or so. If you wish to start a new club and attempt to return to the dark days of clubs in Goulburn then it will be on your head. If you feel that trampling over the top of the existing aviators is a better option than trying to work with them then so be it. I will not lose sleep on the matter.

 

We already have a clubhouse and access to well-maintained aircraft so you may need to look deeper into your treasury box if you seek to woo members with trinkets and baubles.

 

Our club exists primarily for the purposes of aviation for recreation. If a developer comes along without consulting us and proposes a development that may have safety consequences or threaten our long-term options for flying then we must speak out.

 

You have chosen the path of trampling those with alternative views. Perhaps if you had contacted us or come to one of the monthly BBQ's in the past 10 years you could have presented us with the positive side and taken away some feedback on our safety concerns.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Might be a good idea to post the airport layout plans here Futura, then everyone could see things like access and so forth, and you might get some support.

 

Looks like there will be a problem with the "professionals" though.

 

The Board of Airline Representatives of Australia, Inc. which represents the Airlines has said:

 

"There are fundamental economical and aviation operational reasons why a site outside the Sydney basin would be unsuitable and, most likely, non-viable."

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

I had my wedding reception at the old Goulburn Aero club many moons ago. As we were both skydivers at the time, we had planned to jump in, but it was too bloody cold, so I cancelled. Should have cancelled the whole wedding, but thats another story. I'm not currently involved in aviation at Goulburn, so I may be out of line here, but I do think you are all over the top here with any negativity. I will support ANY idea that assures the survival and future of an airport, especially one that may just as easily have been turned into more track homes. AS LONG AS.....all users big, and small, have equal access to the facilities at reasonable costs............lets not turn into a bunch of whingers like the yanks or people from Melbourne, Instead lets get behind it and say HOORAH!!!!!!!!! .................................................

 

 

[Guest Futura]

You do make a few valid points Volksy, in terms of local user input, and I don't stubbornly hold on to views where reasonable arguments are proffered. I might say that I've had over 50 phone calls and emails from aviators in the last 3 days voicing full and excited support for the aeropark project - a project that has been in planning for the past 9 years.

 

I can understand why a person who drives into the airport at present would be entitled to express the view that the place is rundown and in urgent need of revitalisation, and that revitalisation is going to occur, now that the aeropark is on the way to becoming a reality.

 

Users shouldn't feel intimidated by the aeropark plans, but rather consider the project as a lifeline for the airport, for, without it, the commercial reality is that nothing will happen to the place; it will sadly fade away over the ensuing years from neglect by Council, as they don't have the capital, nor the motivation, to maintain it as a viable entity.

 

As for the concern for the aeropark's commercial viability and attractiveness to general aviation, I can divulge that over 30% of the project is already pre-committed. The overall feeling from GA is one of support. The project will generate in excess of 3,000 jobs. It is estimated that 1,100 of those jobs will be ongoing after project completion - and the bulk will change from jobs to full-time career opportunities; the aeropark will inject over $5m per annum into the local community (that excludes employment dollars). I hope the project will contribute to the area's future success, as it undeniably needs a stimulus.

 

Throughout the airport sale marketing campaign, users voiced their concerns about the airport being sold off and closed, then transformed into an industrial subdivision, or the like. The aeropark will ensure that doesn't happen - the airport's future will be assured and user charges will stay where they should be and not inflate to an exorbitant and unrealistic amount.

 

It is my belief that the aeropark is going to contribute in a safe, responsible way to general aviation's needs and that local users and aero clubs won't be negatived in any way or hindered from enjoying their flying passion and interests.

 

In terms of the airport itself, Inland City Aeropark has sought the opportunity to liaise with Council in the preparation of a 20 year Airport Master Plan, and as a result of the rescission of the now defunct Domain Corporation contract, has once again made a formal offer to purchase the airport, with a view to ensuring the asset's future. Council has declined the offer, at this time, and is now considering its options, amongst which is a proposal to increase user charges - an option which Inland City Aeropark does not support.

 

 

[turboplanner]

In yesterday's news the promoter is identified as Keith Sweeney.

 

For those of us considering purchasing air facilities, can you give us some background on him, particularly his skills at developing airports, and some examples of past successes?

 

Also, I realise you might be reluctant to attach a map on this thread, but can you confirm that all sites will have taxyway/airside access.

 

You will appreciate that we are all very cautious following the collapse of the Domain project, which you were talking up on this site.

 

 

[Guest Futura]

Hi Turboplanner,

 

Keith Sweeney acts as Project Co-Ordinator to Inland City Aeropark.

 

Marketing of the aeropark lots is planned to start after construction commencement, which is scheduled for late January 2010 and will be managed by the appointed Project Marketing agent. All marketing material and additional information will be made available through the agent upon release.

 

Indeed, the Domain contractual non-performance was a disappointment, notwithstanding the capital expenditure that is required at the airport. However, as it now becomes obvious, Domain's inability to settle must be viewed as an indication as to the likelihood of the capital improvements programme ever completing. Ownership of the airport now reverts back to Council, with decisions on the future in their hands.

 

 

[Guest mudjeep]

Has anyone seen any of the promised construction which is due to have started a month ago?

 

 

[soilmaster]

GOULBURN AIRPORT:

 

It is about time the Government came to the understanding that this is infrastructure that just cannot be replaced.

 

How about a proposal for a complex across the M3/ M7 intersection in Sydney's west - this is the same type of interference as that proposed at Evan's Head.

 

The closure/ destruction of Hoxton Park and the North/ South runway at Bankstown are just the same.

 

This is a raw grab for money with an abbregation of responsibility by those who are supposed to properly represent us in the community.

 

If it suits a "Government" to grab for money, they will do so, no matter what the human or other negative costs.

 

A good recent example is the recent "grab for cash" by Goulburn Council and the proposed sale of Goulburn Airport. There is no proper public consultation, just a rush to ignore the deed on the airport, which effectively precludes a sale.

 

Further this airport was placed in Council's hands by a private bequest for proper protection and use of the community, not sale. The same is the case for Evans Head and all airports covered by a Federal Government deed under the ALOP.