Modernising Airspace Protection - Public Consultation Paper UDIA (National) Submission February 2017

Transcription

1 INTRODUCTION The Urban Development Institute of Australia (UDIA) is the peak industry body representing the property development industry throughout Australia, acting on behalf of over 2,000 member companies across the country from a variety of fields and professions in the development industry. Established at a state level in 1963, the Institute evolved to become a national body with a number of state-based divisions in UDIA aims to secure the economic success and future of the development industry in Australia, recognising that national prosperity is dependent on our success in housing our communities and building/rebuilding cities for future generations. UDIA welcomes the opportunity to provide this submission to the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (DIRD) on the Modernising Airspace Protection Public Consultation Paper released in November UDIA understands that outdated and overlapping regulatory approaches to airspace protection are failing to provide suitable transparency and accountability for Commonwealth decision making and welcomes the intent to modernise the regulations. However, UDIA has serious concerns that the proposed changes do not take into account the growth of cities, such that the use of airspace has not been optimised and this will lead to reduced economic development, including adverse impacts on the supply and affordability of housing. UDIA gave a similar message to the Department of Infrastructure and Transport (now DIRD) in our submission responding to public consultation on the Draft National Airports Safeguarding Framework on 15 th March 2012 (attached) and we still do not believe the industry has been properly consulted. The Reform Proposal 1 policy objective to create a modern, nationally consistent and transparent airspace protection regime at our major airports is very much needed and the key outcomes are also supported. However, it is very difficult to see how the proposals, as documented, will achieve these key outcomes. The UDIA Submission will focus on the Reform Proposal 1 and the National Airports Safeguarding Framework (NASF) particularly Guideline A, given the significant potential consequences for urban development in cities across Australia. REFORM PROPOSAL 1 It is difficult to see how the detailed proposals in Reform Proposal 1 will achieve a more balanced outcome for protection of airspace that also considers the economic development and growth of cities. UDIA provides the following comments for the four Key Outcomes in Reform Proposal 1: 1

2 1. Prescribe criteria for the establishment of prescribed airspace to clarify what volumes of airspace require protection for the purpose of the safety, efficiency and regularity of aircraft operations. a. It is agreed that the current airspace regulations under the Airports Act 1996 need to be modernised and streamlined to enable the future safe and efficient growth of these nationally important transport hubs in conjunction with facilitating appropriate urban density policies of state, territory and local governments. b. The proposals for prescribing criteria for the establishment of prescribed airspace may perpetuate the protection of non-essential airspace and may further restrict development opportunities which will not impact the safety and regularity of efficient airport operations. c. While prescribing a more consultative process is commended, as it is one of the barriers to accountability and transparency, the technical parameters for prescribing airspace need to be prescribed. The agencies determining airspace bear little responsibility for the impacts on economic development to the affected land, particularly if the effects of the noise impacts are manageable. d. It is recommended that the criteria for prescribed airspace boundaries align with the approach taken by the International Civil Aviation Organisation requirements such as Continuous Descent Approach and Continuous Climb Operations. This is not only safer but it also ensures the prescribed airspace reflects actual flight paths including practical descent and climb profiles that minimises airspace. e. It is recommended that the flight paths which determine the PANS-OPS surfaces could be reviewed and optimised by Airservices, the designer of Instrument Flight Procedures at airports with Air Traffic Control. With the development of new procedures and enhanced aircraft equipment the location of steps and minimum altitudes could be optimised to ensure the airspace requirement is minimised without detriment to the prime operation of the airport runways. f. It is recommended that other surfaces such as the Radar Terrain Clearance Charts (RTCC) are not included in prescribed criteria. If included, this surface would sterlise airspace not required for aircraft operations and may unnecessarily preclude future development. RTCC are used by air traffic controllers to provide vectors under radar control. These are vast areas, based on existing terrain, which do not rely on specific flight paths, but rather areas that an aircraft may travel, if necessary. The areas are not regular and are often a patchwork of islands and channels. If included as part of prescribed airspace, they will unreasonably limit 2

3 development to the height of the highest current obstacle, whether or not that height would affect aircraft operations. Sydney Example: In Sydney in the last 12 months, a new major potential impediment to Sydney s evolving urban form and development has emerged. It is best illustrated by the response of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to the proposed 366-metrehigh Aspire development in the Parramatta CBD. The proposed height is consistent with Parramatta City s Council vision for the Parramatta CBD to improve upon its regional status and become a genuine alternative to the Sydney CBD to accommodate the commerce, residents and commercial investment of the city. High density construction is also consistent with commonly accepted town planning goals to concentrate activity in centres that enjoy good public transport access, employment and amenities / facilities. However, the proposed height was objected to by CASA, and in this particular instance, it required the involvement of the NSW Planning Minister to resolve the issue. Building height in the Sydney Metropolitan Area is limited by Commonwealth legislation; the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations 1996 (APAR) which restricts building heights to approximately 243 metre (AHD) to accommodate certain flight paths. This restriction includes the height of cranes on top of a building during its construction, which can further limit height. In the case of the Parramatta CBD there are two height controls that impact upon development: the prescribed airspace for both Sydney and Bankstown Airport, which varies but is generally 156 metre AHD; and the Radar Terrain Clearance Charts for Sydney Airport, which varies across the CBD but is about 243 metre AHD. This is not just a Parramatta issue, as similar height restrictions apply in the Sydney CBD. While it is possible for approval to be granted for individual buildings to breach the 156 metre limit, this is a costly, complex and uncertain process that discourages developers from seeking an exemption. However, the relevance and importance of a blanket height limit across Sydney is questionable. 3

4 Figure 1: OLS and PAN-OPS maps (Source: Sydney Airport) Furthermore, experience in cities around the world illustrates that the safety concerns that drive the blanket height limit across cities may be unnecessary. Modern technology, accurate terrain height mapping and more focused flight routes can provide appropriate measures and advice to allow aircraft and helicopter movements in the areas that would otherwise be closed. For example, the photographs below (figure 2) illustrates the ability of London City Airport in 4

5 East London to function efficiently, although it is located only 4.1 kilometres from Canary Wharf, which includes One Canada Square, which rises 235 metres. Figure 2: London City Airport With this context in mind, it is vital that, while the safety of airport operations must not be compromised, common sense must be applied to building height limits in the vicinity of airports. Height limits imposed upon development must recognise the opportunities offered by technology and modern mapping and must not be unreasonable and overly cautious. Important Western Sydney centres of employment such as Parramatta, Penrith, Liverpool, Campbelltown, in addition to the Sydney CBD and any future centre in Western Sydney (e.g. Leppington) should be excluded from flight paths to allow Sydney to continue to grow and flourish. While UDIA recognises that height controls are designed and enforced to safeguard aircraft from collisions during piloting by sight and to facilitate aircraft navigation. UDIA considers a no fly zone to be a suitable alternative to balance the need for continued growth and investment. Recommendations: Create a no fly zone over Parramatta and other major centres to ensure continued sustained growth. Any unreasonable or overly conservative restriction to building heights in identified centres must be avoided. 5

6 2. Strengthen the declaration process by establishing a legislative framework to support a transparent and consultative pre-declaration-making process. a. The proposed timing and nature of the intended improved consultation with state, territory and local governments in Reform Proposal 1 will not yield any material change in outcomes. The consultation process described in the consultation paper is not mandatory and it is too late in the process for effective input of stakeholders. The proposed consultation process would occur only just before declaration of the prescribed airspace. The proposed changes are geared towards greater clarity only and any issues raised about the impacts of the draft prescribed airspace on existing land-use planning and building instruments. If these impacts proved to be important, it is not clear if the declaration process would allow for redesign of the airspace at this late stage. Land use planning taken into consideration during the early stages of planning and design of airspace can be achieved without adversely affecting the safety and regularity of airspace. b. It is recommended that public consultation on prescribed airspace declarations should be mandatory. c. It is recommended that consultation with state, territory and local governments occur at the early stage of prescribing airspace changes so as to take into account land use planning and economic development considerations as far as practical without impacting on safety, regularity and efficiency of airport operations. d. It is recommended that the proponent should justify the proposed prescribed airspace in terms of the need, benefit to the community and improvement to safety, efficiency and regularity of aircraft operations. 3. Streamline the handling of applications for intrusions into prescribed airspace to clarify roles and responsibility and avoid any unnecessary steps. a. It is agreed that under the Airports Act 1996, the process for the establishment of prescribed airspace by the operator of a leased federal airport is not clearly defined and should be prescribed in order to provide greater clarity for future land use initiatives on and off airport. b. It is also agreed that the process of prescribing airspace should include greater stakeholder engagement with state and territory urban planners in relation to the potential impact of prescribed airspace on metropolitan building height limits. 6

7 c. However, for developments with buildings at or near the maximum levels, the suggestion that approval for temporary intrusions into airspace would be limited to 3 months, with no extensions granted, is impractical. This timeframe is insufficient for construction of most high rise buildings. A night time curfew restricts construction time and imposes setup/disassembly penalties while the time limit is too short for any large-scale development. Many construction companies are already attempting to meet the requirements and modifying their construction methodology and equipment to suit. However, despite this, recent experience and imposed approval conditions suggest that a more reasonable timeframe would be closer to 9 months. Otherwise the financial penalties further impact on affordability. d. The proposed requirement for approval 90 days before the lodgement of a development application would in most cases, cause difficulties and extra costs for both proponents and Council. It is highly probable that Council may require changes to building envelopes, heights, floor space area or building footprint as part of the application assessment process. Any such changes would necessitate the proponent to re-apply for the temporary intrusion approval and then wait another 90 days before re-submitting the development application or amendments. e. Even in cases where changes are not made during development assessment, this prior approval process will more than double the length of the assessment process for a development as most code assessable applications in Queensland are decided in less than 90 days. The longer application process increases the holding costs of development land unnecessarily. f. The pre-approval for temporary intrusions prior to a development application is impractical as a developer may not have engaged a construction company when they lodge a development application. A development application generally predates the construction plan, and the latter may be amended as construction proceeds. It does not make sense to get an approval when the final plan is not yet available. g. It is understood that the intent of the prior approval for a temporary intrusion prior to lodgement of the development application is to ensure that the proposal will not affect aviation before any further consideration. This intent for an inprinciple pre-approval is valid and not being questioned. However, the timeframe for consideration is excessive. If the airspace is defined and prescribed, then an assessment by CASA and Airservices should be a matter of confirming currency of data, a comparison of position against the prescribed airspace and a report. If the 7

8 airspace is geo-referenced on a map or GIS, this should not take more than 1 day to process plus any queue time. 90 days appears to be excessive. h. It is agreed that the current approval process for temporary intrusions, such as cranes for high rise building construction, is too complicated and difficult to understand both for the Council and proponents. Improving this process would be of significant benefit to both Council and proponents as it would remove the current confusing processes for proponents. i. It is recommended that a construction methodology is required to be submitted with an application for a temporary intrusion to demonstrate that the time of the intrusion is being minimised. Then a permit could be issued for the length of time fit for purpose for the particular project, not an arbitrary time period of 3, 6 or 9 months. 4. Avoid regulatory overlap by replacing legacy regulations under the CA Act, given the operation of the APAR and CASR Part 139. a. Changes to the airspace can take place at any time. Sometimes this is because of changes to a published procedure or because of changes to the ICAO criteria that defines the geometry of the prescribed airspace plans. A 5-year review cycle for prescribed airspace, followed by a month process to progress required changes, yields out-of-date restrictions which are unnecessarily impacting on the development. b. By way of example, Brisbane Airport has produced new prescribed airspace plans approximately every 5 years on average. The currently published ones are dated 2012, and the updated ones that have been worked on since late 2015 are yet to be declared and published. Now in January 2017, some 14 months later (and 5 years after the last plans were published), the updated plans are yet to be declared and published. During that period there have been seven (7) amendment cycles of the PANS-OPS charts published by Airservices Australia in the Australian Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP). This potentially means that by the time the updated declared airspace plans for Brisbane Airport are available, there could potentially have been up to several changes to any given procedure. c. It is recommended that the prescribed airspace plans are reviewed every 2 years. 8

9 NASF - Guideline A The Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF) is the agreed method for forecasting noise based on the anticipated mix of aircraft which will be operating up to 20 years in the future. The ANEF is Government endorsed and has been accepted by all States as the measure used for land use planning indicating the type of new development allowed in an area close to an airport. The Public Consultation Paper advises that the National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group at its meeting on 18 May 2012 reviewed the inclusion of the National Airport Safeguarding Framework (NASF) and recommended implementation of NASF into planning systems. However, late last year the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Western Sydney Airport acknowledges the role of AS2021 in land use planning decisions in the vicinity of airports, however it concealed a clear intention to impose NASF as the ultimate planning instrument. The Commonwealth claims credibility for NASF by virtue of its supposed endorsements by State and Territory ministers in The facts suggest this may not be the case. The Communiqué notes a meeting of the Standing Council on Transport and Infrastructure (SCOTI) held in Adelaide on May states that the meeting was devoted mainly to Transport and Infrastructure matters, with a brief mention of NASF at the conclusion. It is claimed the NASF was endorsed subject to reservations from NSW on the ''format'' of Guideline A. UDIA can provide substantive evidence corroborating this lack of support should it be required. The NASF measures noise differently to the ANEF and has far greater impacts on development surrounding airports than the ANEF standard. UDIA supports of the use of the ANEF AS 2021 to address aircraft noise and to inform land use planning and has serious concerns in regards to the proposed introduction of NASF. The presence of two completely different measures will lead to confusion regarding which measure to employ. The NASF consists of a series of guidelines A to F. Guidelines B to F deal with matters such as windshear created by inappropriate buildings, wildlife strikes, wine turbine forms, physical obstacles and lightening distractions. There is broad agreement on these issues. However, Guideline A ''Measures for Managing Impact of Aircraft Noise'' seeks to impose new rules to guide land use planning decisions in the vicinity of airports, which if implemented would replace AS2021 as the universally accepted code for informing such decisions. It will also dramatically reduce the amount of land available for residential development. NASF Guideline A prohibits residential development where a location has either: a) 20 or more daily events greater than 70 db(a); b) 50 or more daily events greater than 65 db(a); c) 100 or more daily events of greater than 60 db(a) d) more than 6 events between the hours of 11pm and 6am of 60 db(a) 9

10 Contour maps plotting these events for the proposed Western Sydney Airport will result in areas which are vastly greater than the permissible contours under AS2021 (as seen in figures 3, 4 and 5). Obviously under NASF substantial areas of land will be sterilised from development. Section and of the EIS propose to restrict residential development around Badgerys Creek in accordance with the NASF. This would result in a potential 10,000 new homes being lost due to land being withheld from noise sensitive developments particularly in major growth centres. At a time when Sydney has a housing deficit of some 7000 homes based on State Government figures, the restriction of land within key growth centres in Western Sydney would further exacerbate the housing shortage. Residential development around all other Australian airports is controlled by the ANEF system as defined by Australian Standard AS Introducing a new method of measuring noise impacts will bring with it inconsistencies to the process and lead to a less transparent system for planning airports. Contrary to statements by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, most State governments have rejected Guideline A of NASF. Under AS 2021, residential development is currently permitted up to the inner solid black line on each map. Under Guideline A residential development is only permitted outside all lines. The UDIA believes that the impact the NASF will have on noise sensitive developments, particularly residential, is unacceptable. The NASF extends into two growth corridors in Western Sydney and will constrain growth in areas earmarked to provide housing for Sydney s growing population. 10

11 Figure 3: Overlay of ANEF and NASF noise contours 11

12 Figure 4: Noise contours from NASF measure will impact on the South West Growth Centre 12

13 Figure 5: Noise contours from NASF measure will impact on the North West Growth Centre The 2012 Draft NASF Guideline A stated that the primary basis for introducing supplementary noise metrics (the NASF) was as a result of complaints. Through extensive research by UDIA NSW in 2012 and outlined in the UDIA National submission on the Draft NASF, it was found that in November ,341 noise complaints were made in the Sydney metropolitan region. However, these complaints were generated by only 3 complainants and UDIA outlined at that time, that to change a successful airport noise regulatory framework based on complaints would be methodologically defective and this remains the case. The impact of NASF at Badgerys Creek is much more significant than the impact of AS Guideline A of NASF would prohibit residential development to outside the N60=6 contour indicated on Figures and This would prevent development in many areas currently identified for residential development including Marsden Park, Austral and immediately to the south of Penrith. 13

14 Recommendations: The removal of every reference to State and Territory support for NASF; there must be a report on the review of AS2021 by Standards Australia; there must be a clear commitment to AS as the basis of residential land use planning in the vicinity of Badgerys Creek Airport; there must be a report on the Standards Australia document specifically designed to describe aircraft noise; the removal of the proposal at page 72 of Chapter 10 to establish a planning body to replace NSW as the consent authority. About The UDIA The Urban Development Institute of Australia (UDIA) is the peak industry body representing the property development industry throughout Australia, acting on behalf of over 2,100 member companies across the country from a variety of fields and professions in the development industry. Established at a state level in 1963, the Institute evolved to become a national body with a number of state-based divisions in All UDIA State Divisions have developed comprehensive strategies to represent the urban development industry at the state level, address the economic conditions and market dynamics facing the industry, and tackle current issues that are of interest to members. What we do We aim to secure the economic prosperity and future of the development industry in Australia as we recognise that national prosperity is dependent on the success of housing our communities and building and rebuilding cities for future generations. UDIA aims to: Promote the achievement of high standards of urban development; Promote respect for the inherited and natural environment while creating quality, dynamic, built environments; Ensure the skills that make up the membership of the Institute will be applied to principles of good planning, efficient land utilisation and sustainability of resources for future generations; Deliver a broad range of ongoing education and research programs to support and assist the industry and for the benefit of others associated with the urban development industry; and Promote a greater understanding in the community of the role and the achievements of the industry. 14

15 Membership UDIA members cover a wide range of specialist and industry fields, including developers; valuers; planners; surveyors; engineers; architects; marketers; researchers; project managers; landscape architects; community consultants; environmental consultants; lawyers; sales and marketing professionals; financial institutions; state and local government authorities; product suppliers; and students. Fulfilling our role With an expanding population, ageing housing stock and ever-changing demography, there is an ongoing need in Australia for the provision of residential, commercial, retail and industrial property in existing and new centres. UDIA s primary role is to ascertain impediments to the efficient and effective operation of the industry as a whole, and to assist in the rectification of those problems. Concurrently the industry strives to deliver outstanding products to consumers, and UDIA assists in the achievement of this objective by providing a comprehensive range of member benefits including education programs, information dissemination, and the holding of awards programs at a state and national level. Steven Mann Chief Executive Officer URBAN DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE OF AUSTRALIA (NATIONAL) Level King Street SYDNEY NSW 2000 T: F: E: udia@udia.com.au Attachments: UDIA National Submission: Draft National Airports Safeguarding Framework 15 March