helicopter landing site review

29 August 2011 Helicopter Landing Site Review Statutory Planning Systems Reform Department of Planning and Community Development GPO Box 2392 Melbourne Vic 3001 Dear Sir/Madam HELICOPTER LANDING SITE REVIEW Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission on the above matter by 7 September 2011. Given the limited period for consultation, this response is a matter of officer opinion, however it will be presented to a forthcoming Ordinary meeting of the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council on the 12 September 2011 and the Council may wish to make a further response to supplement this interim one. As you might be aware the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council has been active in both investigating the issues involved with helicopter landing sites and in engaging the community, the industry and the government in discussion about the issue. As a matter of background to enhance your understanding about the demand for helicopters and likely off-site impacts and scenarios for improving the situation on the Peninsula I have attached a discussion paper and minutes of a related Council meeting. Overall, it seems that the proposed changes are geared towards deregulating low frequency use of helicopters. This is not supported because firstly, the issue of helicopter use is a complex one with considerable risk to amenity, biodiversity and economic values that deserves a more sophisticated approach and secondly, no case has been made to strategically justify the proposed deregulation. Having said that, it is considered that the complexity of the matter does provide considerable scope for improvement both within and outside the context of the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPPs) and State initiative to tackle these matters is very welcome. The attachment to this letter outlines a detailed response to your proposals within the context of the VPPs that, in summary, proposes:

o A new set of objectives. o Additional exemptions for media purposes. o Additional exemptions for festivals and events. o Deletion of exemptions for commuter, passenger and tourism uses.

o A requirement for a register to assist enforcement and harmonious community relations should your proposed changes be pursued.

o Additional application requirements and a waiver option if appropriate. o Proposes additional decision guidelines. o Technical statutory changes should your proposed changes be

pursued.

It is considered that there is other scope for improvement in the strategic planning of transport in Victoria, in particular a better network of public helicopter landing sites, and that this matter should be referred to the Department of Transport for further investigation and inclusion of any outcomes in the VPPs. A further initiative could see the Department of Transport and Department of Sustainability and Environment cooperating in the licensing of tourist operators using public land (i.e. helicopter landing sites and flight paths to minimise impacts to amenity, biodiversity and safety could be prescribed as a condition of any licence). In further amplification of Council’s position please consider the following matters: 1. The Community supports and values the role of emergency services

and does not oppose in any way the use of helicopters for this purpose. This extends also to the use of private helicopters that are being used as part of a volunteer effort related to search and rescue or bushfire fighting.

2. The Community perceives that helicopters used for commercial or

private purposes present a serious impost on the amenity of the peninsula and that the limited private benefit derived comes at a net loss of community amenity.

3. The perceived loss of amenity for the community arising from

commercial or private use of helicopters extends beyond the immediate area of the helipad or helicopter landing site and affects wide areas of the community under the flight path of the aircraft.

4. There is a lack of scientific study around the subject of helicopter noise

impacts on biodiversity values particularly on significant species of flora or fauna. Not surprisingly the community is concerned about unknown impacts. In this context, the absence of reliable objective scientific information about helicopter impacts will mean continued difficulty for decision makers when they are asked to determine on development applications for helicopter landing sites.

7. The community expects the opportunity through the normal planning

application process to be able to express their objection to proposed sites and in particular the right to appeal to VCAT.

8. There is little understanding in the community about the safety record

of aircraft, particularly helicopters. Similar to the situation in regard to

the impact of helicopters on biodiversity values there is need to improve community understanding of risk and probability of accidents. Until there is an improvement in the level of community understanding the perception that helicopters present an inherent and unacceptable safety hazard will continue and objections will be driven by fear of the unknown.

It would be appreciated if you could take these comments into account. If you have any questions, please contact Roz Franklin, Team Leader Scheme and Systems Review of this office (Phone: 5950 1911 Email: [email protected] ) Yours sincerely Alex Atkins Director Sustainable Infrastructure

mailto:[email protected]

Mornington Peninsula Shire Submission page 4 of 9

Matter for review Mornington Peninsula Shire Council position Rationale for position Definition Helipad Helicopter landing site Land used for the take off and landing of a helicopter.

Supported, but see comment under “permit trigger” below.

Heading Heliport Helicopter Landing Site

Supported.

Purpose To ensure provide an opportunity to consider the effect the amenity impacts of a helicopter landing site heliport or helipad on the amenity of surrounding areas is considered.

Strongly opposed. It is alternatively suggested that the purpose be replaced with the following new provisions: Purpose To regulate the use and development of land for helicopter landing sites. Objectives • To avoid any restrictions on the use of land for helicopter

landing sites for any of the following purposes: - Emergency purposes. - Media purposes but not including regular commuter use. - Events and festivals but not including joy rides. - Agricultural purposes but not including commuter use.

• To encourage the use of public helicopter landing areas. • To ensure that helicopter takeoffs and landings associated

with constructed or frequently used helicopter landing sites have no significant adverse biodiversity, economic, health or amenity effects.

• To mitigate the off-site effects of helicopter use.

The proposed purpose does not take account of the need to regulate helicopter landing sites to avoid or mitigate all of the unacceptable off-site effects of associated helicopter use. These off-site effects potentially include amenity impacts, health impacts, economic impacts associated with businesses that might be adversely affected and biodiversity impacts such as bird roosting and breeding. See the attached discussion paper and report to Mornington Peninsula Shire Council that describes the potential impacts of helicopter use in more detail. The proposed provisions are not designed to achieve a net community benefit. The proposed alternative, or similar is better placed to achieve this

Permit requirement – permit trigger A permit is required to use or develop any land for a

Supported, but some technical change is required. The concept is supported but either of the following two alternatives would be preferable:

It is considered that the proposed wording of the definition and the permit trigger leave some legal doubt as to whether, if challenged in a court of law, its underlying


Matter for review Mornington Peninsula Shire Council position Rationale for position helicopter landing site heliport or helipad even including if it is ancillary to another use on the land.

• Amending the definition to clarify that it includes an ancillary activity of any other use.

• Amending the permit trigger to clarify the matter with wording such as: “A permit is required to use or develop any land for a helicopter landing site or for any other use if that use includes the ancillary use of a helicopter landing site.”

intent would be achieved. Legal advice is recommended on this matter.

Permit requirement –exemption This permit requirement does not apply to:

Opposed. The following additional dot points are recommended: • A helicopter landing site that requires no construction or

carrying out of works and is required for media purposes. This does not include regular commuter use or flight movements within 400 metres of the home of a passenger.

• A helicopter landing site that requires no construction or carrying out of works and is required for an event or festival. This does not include the provision of joy rides and does not apply if the event or festival otherwise requires a planning permit under another provision of this planning scheme.

The preamble needs to be revised to achieve its underlying intent. The following is suggested: “This does not apply to any of the following:”

Overall There has been no strategic justification proposed for the change. Additional exemptions There is a significant public benefit in news coverage provided by the media and this should not be restricted especially given that such coverage is unlikely to be sustained over time in a particular area to the extent that there would be major off-site impacts. Major events and festivals may well involve helicopter activity to lift in a performer or the like and this should be facilitated as it would be a temporary activity. However it would be reasonable to restrict this exemption to only those festivals and events that otherwise do not require a planning permit to allow an integrated assessment where appropriate and avoid the creation of a “small event” loophole. Statutory drafting


Matter for review Mornington Peninsula Shire Council position Rationale for position The construction of the preamble does not achieve its underlying intent.

First dot point • The use of any land for a

heliport or helipad to service a helicopter currently A helicopter landing site that is used by a helicopter engaged in agricultural activity in conjunction with the lawful use of any land for agriculture. This does not include helicopter activity for the carriage of passengers for tourism or transport.

Opposed. There should be no exemption of the carriage of passengers for tourism or transport. An alternative is suggested that: • reinstates the permit requirement for any such ancillary

use; and, • extends the permit requirement to capture ancillary activity

for commuter purposes (i.e. captures the situation where the pilot is resident on the land.)

Helicopter use for agricultural activity focussed on the land such as crop dusting is supported and should not require a permit as it would normally be associated with the primary purpose of the zone. However agriculture can also include ancillary activities that involve tourism or travel to and from a farm. There are also technological advances and skill development such that it is not uncommon for a resident to own and fly their own helicopter. These type of helicopter activities are not necessarily crucial to the primary land use and it is reasonable that they be regulated to minimise off-site effects given that the consequences of those effects may significantly outweigh any benefits.

Second dot point • The use of any land for a

heliport or helipad that is A helicopter landing site that is used by a helicopter engaged in conjunction with emergency or rescue operations.

Strongly supported.


Matter for review Mornington Peninsula Shire Council position Rationale for position • A helicopter landing site

that is only used by a helicopter engaged in the transportation of passengers, including for tourism purposes, provided that: - The helicopter landing

site is more than 1000 metres from the nearest sensitive use that is not associated with the helicopter operation.

- The number of flight movements does not exceed eight in a 30 day period and four in a 24 hour period (for the purposes of this provision the take off and landing of a helicopter are separate flight movements)

- No flight movements take place before 7 am or after sunset on a week day.

- No flight movements take place before 8 am after sunset on a weekend.

- No new buildings or works are constructed.

Strongly opposed. If the provision is to be retained, it is recommended that:

• A “sensitive use” be defined to include such uses as accommodation, equine establishments and sensitive bird habitat areas.

• A provision be included regarding the weight of the helicopter.

• Land owner or occupier must keep a register of all landings and take-offs and make it available for inspection by the responsible authority.

• Land must not be used as a helicopter landing site unless it is registered for such use with the responsible authority.

• The construction of the clause be amended to clarify that all dot points apply. For example, in the preamble, the words: “A helicopter landing site that is only used by a helicopter engaged in the transportation of passengers, including for tourism purposes, provided that:” could be replaced with: “A helicopter landing site that is used by a helicopter engaged in the transportation of passengers, including for tourism purposes but only if all of the following requirements are met:”

Buffer The 1,000 metre buffer requirement, depending on whether accommodation is defined as a sensitive use, would mean that there is virtually no location on the Mornington Peninsula where a helicopter landing area could be established without a planning permit – see attached map. The change would therefore unreasonably raise expectations without being able to deliver the same and the cost involved in its implementation would seem to be unwarranted. Frequency Even though the proposed frequency is relatively low, in certain cases, it is expected that the off-site impacts could be so great that they would outweigh the benefits. In other cases, particularly where seasonality or cumulative impacts associated with helicopter use on different land parcels, whether or not in the same ownership (note: it is also common for one business to operate over multiple land parcels), may result in sustained impacts well beyond the envisaged frequency. Enforcement Planning provisions should be designed


Matter for review Mornington Peninsula Shire Council position Rationale for position and administered to encourage harmonious relations between neighbours and the proposed provisions do not achieve this. Enforcement of provisions would be made difficult without some sort of register that must be maintained and opened for inspection by the responsible authority. The creation of a register that records helicopter landing sites, whether or not they require a permit, would also be a significant advance in encouraging harmonious relations as potential purchasers of land that might be affected by off-site effects could be alerted to the existence of helicopter landing sites that might otherwise by hidden.

Application requirement An application for a helicopter landing site must be accompanied by the following information; • A location plan showing the

site and surrounding uses, including the distance to any sensitive use within 2 km from the proposed take off and landing location.

• Details of the proposed frequency of use.

Supported, but additional requirements are recommended. The following additional provisions are recommended:

• A report from a suitably qualified acoustic consultant that models or measures the likely impact upon nearby sensitive uses.

• A report from a suitably qualified expert that describes the likely impact upon fauna in the area.

If irrelevant or inappropriate given the low frequency of use, any of these requirements may be waived to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

It is important that expert information be provided about any likely noise and biodiversity impacts to enable proper assessment. It is appropriate and in accordance with best practice planning principles to provide an opportunity for a requirement to be waived if its inappropriate given the circumstances of the case.

Decision guidelines Before deciding on an

Supported but additional guidelines are recommended.

Additional decision guidelines are likely to result in more consistent better quality


Matter for review Mornington Peninsula Shire Council position Rationale for position application to use an application to use land or construct a building or carry out works for a helicopter land site, in addition to the decision guidelines in Clause 65, the responsible authority must consider: • Noise control Guidelines

(Environment Protection Authority, 2008)

• Guidelines for the establishment and use of helicopter landing sites, CAAP92-2(1) (Civil Aviation Safety Authority Australia, 1996)

The following additional decision guidelines are recommended:

• Whether any permit should include a load limit on helicopters to minimise off-site noise impacts.

• The proximity of any existing helicopter landing site that is open to the public.

• The need to consider the likely cumulative impact of helicopter landing sites, including the impact of seasonality.

outcomes that are more aligned with the objectives of the provision.

MINUTES OF THE FORWARD PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING HELD – MONDAY, 1 AUGUST, 2005

Mornington Peninsula Shire Council 3

REPORT TO Forward Planning Committee Meeting ITEM NO. 2.1

MEETING DATE Monday, 1 August, 2005

SUBJECT Helicopter Use on the Mornington Peninsula – Review of Stage Two (2) Submissions

PREPARED BY Alex Atkins, Director – Sustainable Environment

AUTHORISED BY Director – Sustainable Environment

FILE NO. 0840/010/010

SUMMARY Following the resolution of the Forward Planning Committee meeting held on 3 November, 2004 public submissions were invited on five (5) locations that may be considered for approval as helicopter landing sites. Articles were placed in Peninsula Wide and individual letters were sent to all properties within eight hundred (800) metre radius of each of the locations nominated. The invitation to comment was also posted on the Shires Web site. Two hundred and seventy eight (278) individual submissions have been received and a petition containing one hundred and ninety (190) signatures opposing the use of the sites in Rye was also received. The largest majority of submissions oppose the establishment of helicopter landing sites at the locations nominated. The minority of submissions received that support the establishment of helicopter landing sites needs to be broken down to enable the comments to be fully appreciated, given that many of these submissions tend to oppose helicopter landing in one location but nominate another location as suitable or preferable. Issues raised in opposing submissions include reference to the potential adverse impact of helicopter use on amenity, landscape and conservation values, safety and property devaluation. Concerns are also raised about the adequacy of the process undertaken by the Shire in giving notice of these sites and the need for any process at all given the very small number of helicopter users that may benefit compared to the wider community who do not require and would not use such facilities. Regrettably some submitters suggest that the process is driven by a hidden agenda or is the result of undue influence exerted on Council by an elite hegemony. It is apparent that many submitters do not recognise that applications may be submitted to use and develop any land in the Green Wedge Zone for the purpose of a heliport or helipad, and that a fundamental purpose of the proposed policy is to identify sites which may have less adverse impact than those which come forward on an ad hoc basis. The submission received from the Department of Sustainability and Environment opposes four of the five sites exhibited on the grounds of potential conflict with the conservation values in the immediate vicinity of the sites. The Department indicates that the sites in Rye may be suitable if the proposed helicopter landing site does not involve removal of native vegetation. Following consideration and assessment of all submissions received it is recommended that Council seek the assistance of the Department of Sustainability and Environment to further examine and refine the site selection criteria for helicopter landing sites with the objective of formulating a planning scheme amendment to provide clear policy direction and decision making guidelines relevant to applications for helicopter landing sites.

MINUTES OF THE FORWARD PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING – MONDAY, 1 AUGUST, 2005 Helicopter Use on the Mornington Peninsula – Review of Stage Two (2) Submissions (0840/010/010) ITEM NO. 2.1


BACKGROUND Council commenced its policy development process in July 2003 with a letter being sent to twenty two (22) persons and organisations with an interest in helicopter use on the peninsula. Following the receipt of one hundred and twenty six (126) submissions a discussion paper on “Control and Use of Helicopters on the Mornington Peninsula” was published in September 2003. Comment received from thirty eight (38) individuals and groups on the discussion paper and it was concluded there was general support for the establishment of a helicopter policy and the application of the type of policy controls set out in the discussion paper. A report on the submissions received was tabled at the meeting of the Forward Planning Committee of Council on 3 November, 2004 and it was resolved that Council undertake a further round of public consultation having identified five candidate sites for use as helicopter landing sites and having endorsed the use of Tyabb Airfield for helicopter landings. The sites identified were: • Rye Waste Disposal Centre (or Truemans Road Reserve); • Long Point Reserve; • Dromana (White Hill) Reserve; • Hastings Foreshore Reserve; and • Mount Eliza Regional Park. DISCUSSION Five (5) locations for use as helicopter landing sites were placed on public exhibition by publication of articles in Peninsula Wide, on the Shire Website and by direct mail to two thousand two hundred and seventy eight (2278) properties within an eight hundred (800) metre radius of each of the five (5) locations. Prior to being placed on public exhibition the five (5) locations nominated were investigated and comments received from representatives of the Helicopter Industry Association as to the suitability of these sites for helicopter use from the point of view of helicopter pilots. Discussions were also held with representatives of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, media helicopter pilots, the Police Air Wing and rescue services. Newspaper reports have also appeared in local newspapers circulating in the Shire. Attachment 1 to this report includes copies of these newspaper articles, the Peninsula Wide articles and the letter to residents. It is pertinent to note that amongst the submissions received concern is raised that the publicity given to this policy development process has been inadequate and insufficient to enable Council to confidently assess the community opinions on this subject. Submitters have suggested that before a decision is taken in this matter Council should undertake a more extensive consultation process. In this context a similar concern was raised by residents living in the vicinity of Long Point Reserve at a meeting attended by Cr. Jarman and the author of this report. It is regrettable that amongst submissions there is also a concern that the process being undertaken by Council has a hidden agenda or that it has been instigated as a result of undue and inappropriate pressure applied to Council or Council Officers by an elite hegemony. For the record this process has been carried out with objectivity and independence and there is no hidden agenda or any third party pressure to come to a specific policy position or to approve a particular outcome.



DISCUSSION (CONT’D) As with earlier submissions received there are many issues of concern in the community about helicopter use on the peninsula. The latest submissions received reiterate concerns with the adverse impacts of helicopters on: • The nature of the peninsula and its general ambience and amenity. Many submitters refer to the

tranquility, peace and quiet and the escape that the peninsula provides from the impacts of intense urban areas such as metropolitan Melbourne. Aligned with this concern are questions about the adequacy and effectiveness of supervision or control of sites should they be approved and the ability to enforce the provisions of a Fly Neighbourly Agreement (FNA). A specific submission concerned the potential noise and safety impacts on the Dromana Secondary College that may arise from the use of the proposed site in Dromana;

• Animals, particularly horses and cattle. Many submitters referred to the impact on breeding

stock and the potential safety implications for riders in situations where the ambient noise levels are low and the sudden appearance of a helicopter could lead to a horse being spooked;

• Conservation values associated with sensitive flora and threatened species particularly birds.

The submission from the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) concentrates on this issue and opposes outright four (4) of the five (5) locations because they are in close proximity to sites of conservation significance; and

• Equity in the community. Many submissions suggested that the provision for helicopter use

would have the effect of burdening the many for the benefit of the very few able to afford or access helicopter use. In this context the policy being promoted was seen as elitist.

Other comments contained in the submissions include potential negative impacts on property valuation, and the need to provide additional facilities at the cost of other ratepayers not being helicopter users. For example the suggestion that it would be necessary to construct Long Point Road to service a facility at Long Point Reserve. It is important to note once again that while helicopter use on the peninsula remains controversial it is almost universally agreed that the use of helicopters in emergency response and search and rescue is acceptable and does not require additional control by Council. Similarly this does not require that helipads be provided for the specific use of emergency services. However, it is understood that the State Government Department of Human Services does have a project proposing Design and Development Overlay provisions to protect the functionality of existing helipads servicing Victorian hospitals. Whilst no formal advice has been received about this matter it is expected an amendment may be exhibited by the State Government later this year. The submission received on behalf of the CHOP (Citizens against Helicopters On the Peninsula) organisation supported the policy development process of Council in the following terms: “ It is encouraging that the Shire is progressing in this matter and it appears to us at CHOP that

the five (5) identified landing sites, if they are acceptable to local residents would be and excellent start in the process of controlling the use of helicopters on the Peninsula.”



DISCUSSION (CONT’D) The CHOP submission also goes on to say: “ CHOP is very supportive of the management controls that are proposed to be put into place

regarding the five (5) sites. We do have serious concerns regarding the difficulty of enforcing a “Fly Neighbourly Agreement”. However, it is certainly better to have a document like that, rather than nothing at all. Perhaps in due course some of the guidelines in the agreement could become actual conditions of flying a helicopter on the Peninsula.”

Many submissions expressed concern about the control of helicopters in flight. It is important to note that the policy development process undertaken by Council is not directed at controlling helicopters in flight and indeed this is outside the jurisdiction of Council. Similarly helicopters landing and taking off from sites outside the peninsula are beyond the scope of this policy and it is not possible that Council ban all non-emergency flights over the peninsula as was suggested by some submitters. Many submissions raised questions about the potential hazards associated with helicopter landing sites and the increased risk to surrounding residents and livestock that may occur as a result of an aircraft accident. The Helicopter Association of Australasia has commented on the safety of helicopter operations in their earlier submission to Council. They stated that: “ While air safety data applicable to both fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft may support the

suggestion that take off’s and landings are the riskiest phases of flight, Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) data on the proximal distribution of helicopter accidents clearly indicates very little risk in the vicinity of an HLS. Historically, less than three percent (3%) of helicopter accidents occur on prepared HLS. Less than four percent (4%) occur within four hundred (400) metres; a little over one percent (1%) occur between four hundred (400) and eight hundred (800) metres; and just under two percent (2%) occur between eight hundred (800) metres and one and a half (1.5) kilometres from the HSL. About fifty five percent (55%) of Australian helicopter accidents have occurred more than 8 kilometres for the helicopter landing site [HSL].

Only about seven and a half percent (7½ %) of helicopter accidents in Australia result in a post-impact fire. The helicopter accident rate in Australia has steadily improved from about forty (40) per one hundred thousand (100,000) flying hours in the early 1970’s down to around ten (10) to twelve (12) per one hundred thousand (100,000) flying hours. Based on data form the Bureau of Transport Economics that translates to a little over eight (8) accidents per one hundred thousand (100,000) departures.”

A more recent examination of the accident history for helicopters undertaken as part of this report preparation confirms that the rate of accidents has continued to decrease. However it is worth noting that the above figures are the total for all helicopter operations. Different operations hold different accident rates. For example, agricultural operations are by far the most hazardous at 34.5 accidents per one hundred thousand (100,000) hours and charter flights are by far the least hazardous type of helicopter operations at 4.5 accidents per one hundred thousand (100,000) hours.



DISCUSSION (CONT’D) The HAA’s earlier submission also states: “ In fact, as best we can ascertain, there has never been a third party fatality or serious injury

caused by a helicopter crash in Australia. There have been accidents involving passengers or crew members being struck by rotor blades (illustrating the need for adequate landing site security) and there have been case of helicopter crashes causing minor property damage (proving there is a theoretical risk that must be addressed). But the risk of helicopter operations in proximity to human habitation must be kept in perspective.”

Another aspect of safety often referred to in submissions was the potential risk to livestock as a result of being spooked by the sudden noise of helicopter use. This risk was highlighted by stock breeders and trainers and in particular horse trainers. The other risk was for horse riders on trails or riding close to landing sites. Interestingly one horse breeder indicated that it was his preference that the helicopter landing site be located on his property so that: “ The flight paths on take off and landing would be controlled so that there would be minimal

disruption to people or livestock and the surprise disruptions that we get today would not occur. We would consider developing such a commercial operation if desirable.”

The use of Tyabb Airfield as a helicopter landing site was referred to in many submissions as meeting all the needs of the peninsula for helicopter landings. Submitters in the vicinity of Tyabb took a different view and opposed the use of Tyabb by helicopters for commuter use. In this regard they also highlighted that Tyabb does not meet the criteria requiring landing sites to be at least five hundred (500) metres from a residential zone as proposed in the draft policy parameters. Reference to Tyabb in the policy development for helicopter use on the peninsula was always a special case given that Council has accepted the continuing use rights for helicopter landings at the airfield which have been occurring for over forty (40) years in some form or other. It should be noted that Council has given consideration to helicopter use at Tyabb at its recent Forward Planning Committee held on 18 July, 2005. At that meeting Council confirmed that helicopter use can continue but that it did not consider it desirable that Tyabb be developed into a major base for commuter flights. CONSIDERATION It is clear the use of helicopters for other than emergency purposes remains controversial. The submissions received in this latest round of public consultation confirm that noise is clearly the major concern and that helicopter use is seen as incompatible with the highly valued “peace and amenity” of the peninsula. Submissions also generally express the view that there is no community benefit to be derived from the Shire facilitating helicopter use on the peninsula. Another common but not unexpected comment is that if a helicopter landing site is to be approved it should be as far away as possible from residential areas. One surprising submission suggested that if the Shire is serious about protecting the “Green Wedge” then it should investigate locating helicopter landing sites within activity centres. The comments received from DSE suggest that the proposed site selection criterion needs to be expanded to take account of potential adverse impacts on conservation values. The nature of the advice contained in the DSE submission is critical to furthering the Shire’s policy development in this area. In particular the comments received from DSE in my opinion make it imprudent for the Shire to proceed with its policy development for two (2) reasons.



CONSIDERATION (CONT’D) Firstly as has been stated throughout this policy development process that each site would require a planning permit before any of the sites proposed for helicopter use can in fact be used for such a purpose. Given the submission of DSE it is clear that more detailed assessment of the potential impacts of helicopters on natural values would need to be undertaken to support a planning permit application at any of the five (5) sites presently nominated. It is estimated that to prepare such assessments would likely cost within the range of $15k to $20k per site. It should be noted that there appears to be little or no scientific literature on the topic of helicopter impacts on natural values and the absence of established science in this area will affect the scope of studies that needs to be undertaken at any particular site. Secondly the generic nature of the comments received from DSE does not assist the Shire with the identification of alternative landing sites to the current five locations under consideration. In the absence of additional information or assistance from DSE that refines or improves the selection criteria for helicopter sites the process of nominating other potential sites is handicapped because without specific additional advice it is not possible to ensure that future nominated sites will not also fail to meet DSE requirements. Following receipt and consideration of the submission from DSE further advice was sought in regard to the concerns they have regarding helicopter use in the vicinity of sites of natural value and their further advice states: “ The problem the Department has in providing advice and comments on the suitability, or

otherwise, of sites for helipads is the lack of good technical information, particularly in elation to any impacts that helicopter use could have on the environment.”

The second DSE letter goes on say: “ It was not made clear to the Department in your initial letter (i) that you wanted the Department

to provide you with a list of other sites that could be considered for helicopter use and (ii) the number and types of sites (ie joy riding/emergency/media/private) Council wishes to provide on the Mornington Peninsula.

In relation to (i) above:

• The Department has not investigated helicopter use on the Mornington Peninsula and

would be reluctant to nominate other sites on the absence of reasons to justify the site. However, as indicated above the Department is happy to support the current process to identify the sites and notes that any preferred site(s) will need formal planning approval before it can be used as a helipad. While the Department supports the continuing use of existing helicopter sites at the Tyabb airport, Sorrento and Hastings (subject to any necessary approvals), it ay assist the process if figures were provided on the present and proposed helicopter usage for the peninsula and where the centres of demand are likely to be.



CONSIDERATION (CONT’D)

In relation to (ii) above:

• It is likely the Department would take a different approach to siting helipads for emergency use where the use is infrequent and there is little flexibility in applying siting parameters compared to, say, helipads that will be used for joy flights and/or media where the use is much higher and the parameters are generally more flexible. In identifying any future site you may wish to distinguish between the various categories and seek comments including comments on any management controls for each category.

These additional comments do not change the conclusion that the policy development process should be suspended at this time. Attachment 2 is a copy of both DSE letters. Interestingly in a recent decision by VCAT to grant an approval for a helipad in the City of Manningham the tribunal member listed matters that are relevant to the consideration of the application subject to appeal noting the matters listed may be of assistance in similar cases. The VCAT decision is also notable for the observations made about reasonable amenity expectations for residents in the locality of the particular application that has some resonance with the matters raised in submissions to this policy. Attachment 3 is a full copy of the tribunal decision. The policy development process and the consultation carried out with the community have not resulted in a consensus regarding helicopter use. Neither has it addressed all the issues of helicopter use raised when this matter was first brought to the attention of Council in 2003. However it has resulted in some very positive steps forward for a modest commitment of time and resources. In particular it has allowed the Council the opportunity to better understand the issues related to helicopter use on the peninsula and to make the following conclusions with confidence: 1. The Community supports and values the role of emergency services and does not oppose in any

way the use of helicopters for this purpose. This extends also to the use of private helicopters that are being used as part of a volunteer effort related to search and rescue or bushfire fighting.

2. The Community perceives that helicopters used for commercial or private purposes present a

serious impost on the amenity of the peninsula and that the limited private benefit derived comes at a net loss of community amenity.

3. The perceived loss of amenity for the community arising from commercial or private use of

helicopters extends beyond the immediate area of the helipad or helicopter landing site and affects wide areas of the community under the flight path of the aircraft.

4. There is a lack of scientific study around the subject of helicopter noise impacts on biodiversity

values particularly on significant species of flora or fauna. Not surprisingly the community is concerned about unknown impacts. In this context, the absence of reliable objective scientific information about helicopter impacts will mean continued difficulty for decision makers when they are asked to determine on development applications for helicopter landing sites.

5. It would be valuable if DSE could indicate what information should be submitted with

applications for helicopter landing sites so that applicants can better prepare proposals before lodging permit applications. In this regard it is suggested that the Helicopter Association of Australasia should approach the Department of Sustainability and Environment to consider how this information gap can be filled.



CONSIDERATION (CONT’D) 6. It is important that helicopter use on the peninsula be controlled. The introduction of a

management regime and protocols for helicopter use along the lines set out by Council would be welcomed. The idea of a Fly Neighbourly Agreement was also supported but many suggested that the Shire would lack the capacity to adequately enforce such an agreement particularly if it was voluntary and not binding on pilots. It is interesting to note that while many objectors opposed landing sites being located in proximity of their residences many indicated that sites in other locations may be acceptable. Many submitters also agreed that the notion of a network of sites would allow the community to share the impact of helicopters, particularly if the management of use was effectively enforced.

7. The community expects the opportunity through the normal planning application process to be

able to express their objection to proposed sites and in particular the right to appeal to VCAT. 8. There is little understanding in the community about the safety record of aircraft, particularly

helicopters. Similar to the situation in regard to the impact of helicopters on biodiversity values there is need to improve community understanding of risk and probability of accidents. Until there is an improvement in the level of community understanding the perception that helicopters present an inherent and unacceptable safety hazard will continue and objections will be driven by fear of the unknown. It is suggested that this finding be referred to the Helicopter Association of Australasia.

Having now considered all submissions in full and the additional material referred to above it is recommended that Council should suspend its policy development process for helicopter use at this time but that the following actions be taken: 1. Council continue to seek advice from DSE on how to improve the draft policy for helicopter use

on the peninsula, particularly in regard to the criteria to be applied when selecting potential landing sites. On receipt of this further advice it would be appropriate to prepare a further report to Council to consider if the advice received would justify recommencement of the helicopter policy development process.

2. Suggest to DSE that a planning scheme amendment be prepared by the Department to include

the criteria for selection of helicopter sites identified in the Shire’s discussion paper on helicopter use into the planning scheme. Clause 52.15 of the Victorian Planning Provisions relates to heliports and helipads, with the purpose of providing an opportunity to consider the effect of a heliport or helipad on the amenity of surrounding areas. However, the clause simply states that a permit is required to use or develop any land for a heliport or helipad even if this is ancillary to another use on the land, and does not provide any further assessment criteria. State Planning Policy (18.04) already highlights the objective of facilitating the siting of airfields and airfield extensions, taking into account the detrimental effects of aircraft operations (such as noise) in regulating and restricting the use and development of affected land. Arguably heliports and helipads would fall into the same category. In any event these are matters of relevance beyond the Peninsula and it is therefore appropriate for the Department of Sustainability and Environment, in conjunction with the Department of Infrastructure to take a lead role in developing more effective planning provisions. An amendment could include additional criteria already identified by the department and should extend to setting out decision guidelines to assist the Council as Responsible Authority in the consideration of future applications that may be made for helicopters on private land. In making this request Council should refer to the recent decision by VCAT referred to above which also includes suggestions by the Tribunal member concerning matters considered relevant to the consideration of helipad applications.

Forward Planning Committee Meeting – Monday, 1 August, 2005 Helicopter Use on the Mornington Peninsula – Review of Stage Two (2) Submissions (0840/010/010) ITEM NO. 2.1


CONSIDERATION (CONT’D) 3. Council reaffirm that helicopter use at Tyabb Airfield is an allowable use given the continuing

use rights conferred in the Planning and Environment Act. However consistent with the decision taken at its Forward Planning committee meeting on 18 July, 2005 Council should also restate its position that it is not desirable that Tyabb be developed into a major base for commuter flights and that a more accountable and relevant Fly Neighbourly Agreement be put in place for the airfield.

RECOMMENDATION

1. THAT COUNCIL SUSPEND ITS CURRENT POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES REGARDING HELICOPTER USE ON THE PENINSULA.

2. THAT COUNCIL ASK THE MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT TO SUPPORT

FURTHER SCIENTIFIC STUDY TO DETERMINE ANY MEASURES NECESSARY TO PROTECT INDIGENOUS FLORA AND FAUNA ON THE PENINSULA FROM THE EFFECTS OF HELICOPTER USAGE.

3. THAT COUNCIL ASK THE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY TO

REVIEW ITS NOISE CONTROL GUIDELINES TG 302/92 JULY 1992 IN RESPECT TO HELICOPTERS.

4. THAT COUNCIL SEEK THE ASSISTANCE OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT

IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A STATEWIDE HELIPORT NETWORK. 5. THAT COUNCIL REQUEST THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING, IN

CONSULTATION WITH THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND THE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY, TO REVIEW THE VICTORIA PLANNING PROVISIONS AS THEY APPLY TO HELIPORTS AND HELIPADS WITH THE INTENTION OF:

• ESTABLISHING THE ROLE OF HELIPORTS IN THE TRANSPORT

NETWORK; AND • CLARIFYING WHETHER CLAUSE 18.04 APPLIES TO HELIPORTS AND

SUPPLEMENTING THAT CLAUSE AND CLAUSE 52.15 HELIPORTS TO PROVIDE GREATER POLICY GUIDANCE, IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND DECISION GUIDELINES FOR THE LOCATION AND OPERATION OF BOTH HELIPORTS AND HELIPADS.

6. THAT COUNCIL REAFFIRM THAT HELICOPTER USE AT TYABB AIRFIELD IS

AN ALLOWABLE USE GIVEN THE CONTINUING USE RIGHTS CONFERRED IN THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ACT, AND, CONSISTENT WITH THE DECISION TAKEN AT ITS FORWARD PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING ON 18 JULY 2005, COUNCIL ALSO RESTATE ITS POSITION THAT IT IS NOT DESIRABLE THAT TYABB AIRFIELD BE DEVELOPED INTO A MAJOR BASE FOR COMMUTER FLIGHTS AND THAT A MORE ACCOUNTABLE AND RELEVANT FLY NEIGHBOURLY AGREEMENT BE PUT IN PLACE FOR THE AIRFIELD.



RECOMMENDATION (CONT’D) 7. THAT COUNCIL IN RECOGNITION THAT THE AFFECTS OF HELICOPTER USE

ARE COMMON TO MANY MUNICIPALITIES REQUEST THE MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION OF VICTORIA TO EXAMINE THE PLANNING AND OTHER RELEVANT REGULATORY PROCEDURES AND PROCESSES ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF HELICOPTER USES ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE FINDINGS OF SUCH AN EXAMINATION BE REFERRED TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT WITH RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION.

Deputations • Mr. Henry Hutchinson, representing Nepean Miniature Aero Sports, Submitter; • Mr. John Flanagan, Helicopter Industry, Submitter; • Mrs. Colleen Toomey, Helicopter Industry, Submitter; • Dr. Ted Crawford, Submitter; PROCEDURAL MOTION Extension to Speaking Time

MOVED: CR. JARMAN SECONDED: CR. GOODREM THAT A TWO (2) MINUTE EXTENSION TO THE SPEAKING TIME BE GRANTED TO DR. TED CRAWFORD, SUBMITTER, IN RELATION TO THE ABOVE ITEM.

CARRIED

• Mr. Vic Jennings, Submitter; • Mr. Michael Hourigan, Submitter; • Mr. Kris Aitcheson, Submitter; • Mr. Nevil Bird, Submitter; • Mr. William Richards, Submitter; • Mr. William Agnew, Submitter; • Mr. David Mayor, Submitter; • Mr. David Ingham, Submitter; • Ms. Judy Pay, Submitter; • Mr. John Devitt, Submitter; and • Mr. Mal Walker, representing Civil Aviation and Safety Authority, Submitter.



COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

1. THAT COUNCIL CONTINUE THE CURRENT POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES REGARDING HELICOPTER USE ON THE PENINSULA, AS FOLLOWS:

A. THAT COUNCIL ASK THE MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT TO

SUPPORT FURTHER SCIENTIFIC STUDY TO DETERMINE ANY MEASURES NECESSARY TO PROTECT INDIGENOUS FLORA AND FAUNA ON THE PENINSULA FROM THE EFFECTS OF HELICOPTER USAGE;

B. THAT COUNCIL ASK THE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY

TO REVIEW ITS NOISE CONTROL GUIDELINES TG 302/92 JULY 1992 IN RESPECT TO HELICOPTERS;

C. THAT COUNCIL SEEK THE ASSISTANCE OF THE MINISTER FOR

TRANSPORT IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE STATEWIDE HELIPORT NETWORK;

D. THAT COUNCIL REQUEST THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING, IN

CONSULTATION WITH THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND THE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY, TO REVIEW THE VICTORIA PLANNING PROVISIONS AS THEY APPLY TO HELIPORTS AND HELIPADS WITH THE INTENTION OF:

• ESTABLISHING THE ROLE OF HELIPORTS IN THE TRANSPORT

NETWORK; AND • CLARIFYING WHETHER CLAUSE 18.04 APPLIES TO HELIPORTS

AND SUPPLEMENTING THAT CLUASE AND CLAUSE 52.15 HELIPORTS TO PROVIDE GREATER POLICY GUIDANCE, IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND DECISION GUIDELINES FOR THE LOCATION AND OPERATION OF BOTH HELIPORTS AND HELIPADS.

E. THAT COUNCIL REAFFIRM THAT HELCOPTER USE AT TYABB

AIRFIELD IS AN ALLOWABLE USE GIVEN THE CONTINUING USE RIGHTS CONFERRED IN THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ACT, AND, CONSISTENT WITH THE DECISION TAKEN AT ITS FORWARD PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING ON 18 JULY 2005, COUNCIL ALSO RESTATE ITS POSITION THAT IT IS NOT DESIRABLE THAT TYABB AIRFIELD BE DEVELOPED INTO A MAJOR BASE FOR COMMUTER FLIGHTS AND THAT A MORE ACCOUNTABLE AND RELEVANT FLY NEIGHBOURLY AGREEMENT BE PUT IN PLACE FOR THE AIRFIELD; AND



COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION (CONT’D)

1. (Cont’d) F. THAT COUNCIL IN RECOGNITION THAT THE AFFECTS OF HELICOPTER

USE ARE COMMON TO MANY MUNICIPALITIES REQUEST THE MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION OF VICTORIA TO EXAMINE THE PLANNING AND OTHER RELEVANT REGULATORY PROCEDURES AND PROCESSES ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF HELICOPTER USES ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE FINDINGS OF SUCH AN EXAMINATION BE REFERRED TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT WITH RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION.

COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: CR. SHAW SECONDED: CR. GOODREM THAT THE RECOMMENDATION BE ADOPTED.

CARRIED

helicopter landing site review

Documents