NOISE
( by Reg O'Reilly)
The consultant refers to a noise management study on page 79, and concludes that aircraft noise does not appear to be a major issue even for those living close to the airport.
It refers to a 'small concentration' of residents in Marcoola Beach for whom aircraft noise causes annoyance.
Since publication of the report the Marcoola Beach Neighbourhood Network has commissioned a survey of directly
affected residents to test the consultant's blinkered acceptance of that earlier report.
The survey achieved an incredible 75% response rate (approx 80 individual replies) and it indicates that noise is so significant that residents are demanding curfews, a moratorium
on further development of pilot training, and no further increase in air traffic until east-west is built.
This indicates that people are not only significantly affected, they are also highly concerned about future growth
in aircraft numbers over their roofs - so concerned that they want development of the east-west runway to be brought
forward to five years.
We are not prepared to allow the number of planes over our roofs to increase three- or four-fold thereby affecting
our quality of life which will plummet along with safety and real estate values
Why wasn't the consultant able to discover this
for its $75,000
fee
when the Marcoola Beach Neighbourhood Network was able to discover it in two weeks for no financial outlay?
Answer
Not having seen the report commissioned by
the Marcoola Beach
Neighbourhood Network, its objectives, methodology, results and conclusions,
we are unable to comment on the findings.
In relation to the Community Attitudes
Survey undertaken as part of the Noise
Management Study, we are able to make the following comments:
Among the objectives of that survey were the establishment of the relative
position of aircraft noise as an environmental issue for residents in the vicinity
of the Sunshine Coast Airport and for those residents that did identify aircraft
noise as an issue, what aspects of aircraft noise were particularly annoying.
The survey sample was of 150 respondents of which 74
respondents were
from the north (in the Marcoola area).
* (At the meeting I called for a show of hands of persons who were consulted and only ONE
raised her hand) *
It was a random survey, not limited
to only North Marcoola and not necessarily limited or relying on those residents concerned enough to register a
response.
The report acknowledges that there
is a small concentration of residents
north of the Airport for whom aircraft noise causes an annoyance.
The survey also indicated that pilot training activities and jet aircraft
movements are those that cause more annoyance, especially at weekends.
The noise management study also involved consultations
with many resident
groups, including the Marcoola Progress Association. Among the
suggestions from the Marcoola Progress Association were that Council
should purchase houses in the most noise affected areas.
The protection for and timing of the development of an east-west runway as a
noise mitigation measure is rightfully a local community issue where the
significant financial costs must be weighed up against the social and
environmental benefits anticipated, particularly for communities to the north
and south of the existing main runway.
I have since seen the list if OFFICIAL Complaints
but I believe there were so few because
PEOPLE DIDN'T KNOW WHO TO PHONE !
Since I gave out the Complaints
Hotline there were as many as 14 in one week.
SHIFT EAST-WEST RUNWAY TO WEST (by Bob McMillan)
It is very important that the people of south Marcoola and Mudjimba, whose lifestyle and real estate are to be
affected by the east-west runway, be compensated. Wouldn't it cost less to shift the new east-west runway slightly
deeper into the cane farms to the west to minimise the level of property resumptions to the east? Sugar cane and
trees are not affected by noise, but this alternative would be more people-friendly, minimising noise problems
and safety issues to the east. Surely it would also be better for the people of Twin Waters and Pacific Paradise
as planes would be at a greater altitude. Why wasn't this alternative considered?
Answer
Fixing the location of future east-west runway was not part of the brief for this
study.
This study adopted the previously identified location but verified the offset
from the existing terminal. Issues to be considered include:
Land availability
Location of Sunshine Motorway (or diversion if necessary)
Terrain to the west with respect to flight paths
Effect on houses between Airport and coast
Fixed wing aircraft movements are forecast to increase by some 50% in the next
15 years. This is well within the capacity of the existing Airport.
ALTERNATIVE FINANCIAL PLAN
(by Jeanette van der Heide)
We have looked closely at the short, medium and long term costings at the back of the report. It appears that construction of the east-west runway will cost approximately $25 million (not including some associated wish-list items which are not essential). However,
upgrades to the north-south runway will also cost $25
million to enable it to cope with the increased demand if the east
west runway is not built! We note that the airport does not cost ratepayer's money, has always serviced its debt,
and pays council for any services. In the past, profit has been re-invested into the airport. This is the first
council that has ever creamed-off profit. This council wants $1 million profit from the airport per year to be
returned to the Council for other purposes - it may even be spent on projects to get Councillors re-elected rather
than invested in the airport to generate business opportunities. The $25 million needed to build the east-west runway could substantially be met by airport
profits, especially since business would increase.
In this way, there would be no additional cost to rate-payers, tourism would increase, residents would have certainty,
and airport revenue would increase due to less restrictions.
Answer
Considerable expenditure is identified in Master
Plan whether the proposed east-
west runway is constructed or not.
Many facilities require expansion/upgrading to meet forecast growth in traffic.
Construction of a new 13/31 runway (2450m long x 45m wide) alone could be in
the order of $25M. However, should a parallel taxiway, new aprons, new
terminal etc be required, a considerably larger cost would be involved.
The actual requirements and cost would be considered in a later detailed study for development of this runway.
Development of a future 13/31 runway would be the subject of a cost/benefit
analysis.
If the 13/31 runway was constructed within the timeframe
of the current Master
Plan (15 years) and Council resolves to minimise expenditure on the existing
runway, the identified $25.5M expenditure on the existing facilities could be
reduced to around $16M.
CONTACT US
Click HERE to leave a message on our Guest
Book right NOW.
If you leave your E-Mail Address we can keep you up to date.
Return to
AIRPORT INDEX PAGE
The NEW All Hours HOTLINE for COMPLAINTS
is
5448 9618
or you can call AirServices Australia through
The Brisbane Noise Enquiry Unit on
1300 302 240
