D-Day for Caloundra Airport YCDR
Thread Starter
D-Day for Caloundra Airport YCDR
Surely there can be only one sensible solution to this. Trouble is, politicians are involved.
Caloundra Airport – it’s on again!
Caloundra Airport – it’s on again!
Paul Phelan , 14 April 2010
Tenants of Caloundra airport are gearing up for another fight in defence of their airport, fearing that some Sunshine Coast Regional Councillors (SCRC) are getting too close to the land developers who are pressing for aerodrome closure.
“Recent comments in the media from Councillor Anna Grosskreutz such as: ‘councillors needed to have space before any decision could be made’ and references to ‘helicopters behaving badly’ clearly indicate that she is not a supporter of keeping the airport and is rather trying to undermine our efforts using the aircraft noise issue,” says airport tenant group representative David Miles.
“The fact is that noise complaint statistics confirm there is only a very small number of individuals who complain regularly.”
The looming dispute surrounds the 1992 Deed of Trust signed by the (then) Caloundra City Council before it was amalgamated into the huge local government body that covers the entire Sunshine Coast.
Mr. Miles and his supporters believe the Caloundra Council and the Supreme Court were in breach of the Deed of Trust’s Para H (i) requiring it to ‘create land use zoning around the aerodrome which will prevent residential and other incompatible development in areas which are, or which may be, adversely affected by aircraft noise.’
“Sunshine Coast Regional Council has inherited the responsibility to uphold the content of the Deed of Trust and if they approve Belle Vista 2 [the current development proposal] they will again be in breach of the Deed,” said Mr. Miles, referring to the current development proposal.
“There is also a positive letter today from urging Mayor Bob Abbott to keep his election promise to “save the airport if he had the power” Well he now has that power, he’s an environmentalist, and I think if he really understood the issues he would be supportive of the airport.
“A Caloundra Council decision that was made in (about) 2007 very clearly stated that the Council supported closure of the aerodrome “providing a replacement aerodrome is provided for the existing users to relocate. Now that the State Government has ceased investigating relocation that should mean the 2007 decision defaults to not supporting closure of the aerodrome,” says Mr. Miles.
“Three weeks ago at a meeting at Council, Councillor Anna confirmed that was the decision on the books. At that meeting she claimed no knowledge of the Deed of Trust, even suggesting a cover up. Her position now, only weeks later, appears to be: “It’s (The Deed of Trust) is not worth the paper it is printed on.”
Those words have been repeatedly used by councilors seeking closure of the airport, including former Mayor Don Aldis.
However recent correspondence dated March 2010, from the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Transport, indicates clearly that the Commonwealth recognises the existence of the Deed and of SCRC’s obligations.
The group is also alarmed by the apparent support of town planner Warren Bunker who “appears to be pro airport closure, and is the man whose idea it was in the first place.”
Mr Miles understands that council’s first meeting on the subject is next Tuesday (April 20) with the three people briefing council being Councillor Anna Grosskreutz, Town Planner Warren Bunker, and Deputy Mayor Tim Dwyer.
Paul Phelan , 14 April 2010
Tenants of Caloundra airport are gearing up for another fight in defence of their airport, fearing that some Sunshine Coast Regional Councillors (SCRC) are getting too close to the land developers who are pressing for aerodrome closure.
“Recent comments in the media from Councillor Anna Grosskreutz such as: ‘councillors needed to have space before any decision could be made’ and references to ‘helicopters behaving badly’ clearly indicate that she is not a supporter of keeping the airport and is rather trying to undermine our efforts using the aircraft noise issue,” says airport tenant group representative David Miles.
“The fact is that noise complaint statistics confirm there is only a very small number of individuals who complain regularly.”
The looming dispute surrounds the 1992 Deed of Trust signed by the (then) Caloundra City Council before it was amalgamated into the huge local government body that covers the entire Sunshine Coast.
Mr. Miles and his supporters believe the Caloundra Council and the Supreme Court were in breach of the Deed of Trust’s Para H (i) requiring it to ‘create land use zoning around the aerodrome which will prevent residential and other incompatible development in areas which are, or which may be, adversely affected by aircraft noise.’
“Sunshine Coast Regional Council has inherited the responsibility to uphold the content of the Deed of Trust and if they approve Belle Vista 2 [the current development proposal] they will again be in breach of the Deed,” said Mr. Miles, referring to the current development proposal.
“There is also a positive letter today from urging Mayor Bob Abbott to keep his election promise to “save the airport if he had the power” Well he now has that power, he’s an environmentalist, and I think if he really understood the issues he would be supportive of the airport.
“A Caloundra Council decision that was made in (about) 2007 very clearly stated that the Council supported closure of the aerodrome “providing a replacement aerodrome is provided for the existing users to relocate. Now that the State Government has ceased investigating relocation that should mean the 2007 decision defaults to not supporting closure of the aerodrome,” says Mr. Miles.
“Three weeks ago at a meeting at Council, Councillor Anna confirmed that was the decision on the books. At that meeting she claimed no knowledge of the Deed of Trust, even suggesting a cover up. Her position now, only weeks later, appears to be: “It’s (The Deed of Trust) is not worth the paper it is printed on.”
Those words have been repeatedly used by councilors seeking closure of the airport, including former Mayor Don Aldis.
However recent correspondence dated March 2010, from the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Transport, indicates clearly that the Commonwealth recognises the existence of the Deed and of SCRC’s obligations.
The group is also alarmed by the apparent support of town planner Warren Bunker who “appears to be pro airport closure, and is the man whose idea it was in the first place.”
Mr Miles understands that council’s first meeting on the subject is next Tuesday (April 20) with the three people briefing council being Councillor Anna Grosskreutz, Town Planner Warren Bunker, and Deputy Mayor Tim Dwyer.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmm....spoke to a contractor who placed the infastructure drainage for a subdivision in a long time (years) ago. it is on PRIME real estate, the $ will reign supreme. Noticed Grant Kenny speaking to the locals about the noise problems associated with the airport........another excuse to "get rid of it".
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Grant Kenny has serious business interests up there and I wonder what his real motives are.
Of course Anna has run the till down to such a point that the capital of Qld is not Brisbane, its a dollar fifty
and all the monely spent of the study and surveys etc etc, well it could have been spent on YCDR and YCAB and probably bought some land to keep devlopments at a distance.
Just like the desal plants etc..... Would be smarter to extend the Burdekin and build a pipeline, but we seem to have morons in control of the money!
Of course Anna has run the till down to such a point that the capital of Qld is not Brisbane, its a dollar fifty
and all the monely spent of the study and surveys etc etc, well it could have been spent on YCDR and YCAB and probably bought some land to keep devlopments at a distance.Just like the desal plants etc..... Would be smarter to extend the Burdekin and build a pipeline, but we seem to have morons in control of the money!
Thread Starter
Posted by Malcolm-Hood on the Sunshine Coast Daily website:
When Council first decided that Caloundra Airport had to close to make way for low cost housing and more desperately needed shops, the plan was to build a new airport to take it’s place. Of course they could have just summarily evicted all the airport tenants at the end of their leases but they realised that the airport is governed by a Federal Government deed of gift which requires the Council to maintain the site as an airport, hence their warm embrace of the need for a replacement airport. Despite being told that nobody could afford to build a new airport from scratch and despite being told that nobody could afford to pay the inevitable exorbitant rents at such an airport if it were built, Council forged ahead with its plans to close the existing airport.
Now they have discovered that indeed nobody can afford to build a new airport so they are just going to close the existing airport anyway and tell all the tenants to bugger off. To justify this cop-out they claim that the deed of gift is “not worth the paper it is printed on”. This is probably wishful thinking because the deed of gift has never been tested in court but there can be little doubt that it is about to be tested.
In recent times, many progressive, enlightened cities would move heaven and earth to attract an aerospace industry to their patch but in Caloundra we have a Council which is determined to get rid of an existing aerospace industry at any cost. That Council should be so dismissive of the airport, its employers and its employees beggars belief at a time when it should be doing everything possible to foster such an industry. Council’s treatment of the airport tenants has been nothing short of shameful. For years since the airport closure was first announced, tenants have been in limbo, unable to expand their businesses to employ more people while watching their businesses devalue to the point where they could not be sold. Clearly the Council just doesn’t care. Caloundra residents should be questioning the motives of their Councillors.
The alleged noise problem could be dealt with easily by a Council with the intestinal fortitude to do so. People who bought their properties before the airport was opened should be offered compensation. People who bought their properties after the airport opened will just have to live with the fact that they have made a poor investment decision, unless of course they were assured by developers with inside information that the airport would be closing. In such a case they too should be offered compensation. It is said that repeating the same mistake and expecting a different outcome is a definition of insanity. So it is with this malaise of allowing residential development near airports and then expecting the airport to move.
Now they have discovered that indeed nobody can afford to build a new airport so they are just going to close the existing airport anyway and tell all the tenants to bugger off. To justify this cop-out they claim that the deed of gift is “not worth the paper it is printed on”. This is probably wishful thinking because the deed of gift has never been tested in court but there can be little doubt that it is about to be tested.
In recent times, many progressive, enlightened cities would move heaven and earth to attract an aerospace industry to their patch but in Caloundra we have a Council which is determined to get rid of an existing aerospace industry at any cost. That Council should be so dismissive of the airport, its employers and its employees beggars belief at a time when it should be doing everything possible to foster such an industry. Council’s treatment of the airport tenants has been nothing short of shameful. For years since the airport closure was first announced, tenants have been in limbo, unable to expand their businesses to employ more people while watching their businesses devalue to the point where they could not be sold. Clearly the Council just doesn’t care. Caloundra residents should be questioning the motives of their Councillors.
The alleged noise problem could be dealt with easily by a Council with the intestinal fortitude to do so. People who bought their properties before the airport was opened should be offered compensation. People who bought their properties after the airport opened will just have to live with the fact that they have made a poor investment decision, unless of course they were assured by developers with inside information that the airport would be closing. In such a case they too should be offered compensation. It is said that repeating the same mistake and expecting a different outcome is a definition of insanity. So it is with this malaise of allowing residential development near airports and then expecting the airport to move.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Jaba
Grant owns Chopperline (poor bugga) and has big $$ in there. He wants to stay put mate. There is "chatter" about relocating the airport but we all know that won't happen. I think (may be wrong) that the ground leases run till 2012 and then its gone. The Council, and i use the term loosely, has the (hidden) agenda. Maybe just maybe the ball game changed with amalgamation???? However the Sunshine Coast Regional Council doesn't want 2 airports.
Take care mate.
Grant owns Chopperline (poor bugga) and has big $$ in there. He wants to stay put mate. There is "chatter" about relocating the airport but we all know that won't happen. I think (may be wrong) that the ground leases run till 2012 and then its gone. The Council, and i use the term loosely, has the (hidden) agenda. Maybe just maybe the ball game changed with amalgamation???? However the Sunshine Coast Regional Council doesn't want 2 airports.
Take care mate.
Also a well known fact that Maroochy (Sunshine Coast) airport doesn't "like" (nothing negative insinuated here - purely logistical) lighties mingling with inbound Airbuses and Boeings.
The biggest issue in previous years was unscrupulous (read as LIARS) real estate agents talking up the location by telling buyers, "The airport is closing in the next year or two." When this doesn't happen, guess who complains.
I personally have even received threatening phone calls at 10pm on a Sunday morning due to "noisy" (a fucking skyfox for Chissake! - No worse than the neighbours whippersnipper) and "too low" aircraft (like they keep an "altitude" gun with them?!?)
Grant Kenny himself has received death threats over this issue.
Interesting aside to this, thanks to the person who decided to conduct night circuits after the 9pm curfew recently and had to be shooed away by one of Kenny's boys. Luckily one of the council inspectors who checked the next morning found it was not a resident aircraft.
THIS KIND OF BLATANT IGNORANCE OF THE LOCAL REGS (which are published) DOES NOT HELP THE AIRPORT.
Who's got the actual year this airport was opened?
The biggest issue in previous years was unscrupulous (read as LIARS) real estate agents talking up the location by telling buyers, "The airport is closing in the next year or two." When this doesn't happen, guess who complains.
I personally have even received threatening phone calls at 10pm on a Sunday morning due to "noisy" (a f
ucking skyfox for Chissake! - No worse than the neighbours whippersnipper) and "too low" aircraft (like they keep an "altitude" gun with them?!?)Grant Kenny himself has received death threats over this issue.
Interesting aside to this, thanks to the person who decided to conduct night circuits after the 9pm curfew recently and had to be shooed away by one of Kenny's boys. Luckily one of the council inspectors who checked the next morning found it was not a resident aircraft.
THIS KIND OF BLATANT IGNORANCE OF THE LOCAL REGS (which are published) DOES NOT HELP THE AIRPORT.
The alleged noise problem could be dealt with easily by a Council with the intestinal fortitude to do so. People who bought their properties before the airport was opened should be offered compensation.
Thread Starter
Who's got the actual year this airport was opened?
The land on which Caloundra Aerodrome sits was designated as a Landing Ground for Aircraft around 1926 by a Deed of Grant. It was managed and maintained by Landsborough Shire Council, later Caloundra City Council, now by Sunshine Coast Regional Council. There was originally a single 18/36 dirt strip about 500m long with a shallow spoon drain across it at about 400m, (later piped) until mid 1970s. Development of the site started in earnest in the early 1970s, with allocations of council funds often matched by government grants.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This whole preservation of local airport question is a hot topic. YRED was also a beneficiary of Federal grants 50/50 cost sharing with Redcliffe Council.
Was there also a 'deed of grant' issued to them when Fed funding stopped?
I do know that when the subsidy scheme was dissolved, the Feds gave the council a chunk of money to persuade the council to get off the Fed tit.
Was there also a 'deed of grant' issued to them when Fed funding stopped?
I do know that when the subsidy scheme was dissolved, the Feds gave the council a chunk of money to persuade the council to get off the Fed tit.
Thread Starter
Outbreak of sanity in Queensland
From Hansard today Thursday 2 Sept.
Caloundra Aerodrome
Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (9.36 am): I am
pleased today to update the House on the state government’s position on the Sunshine Coast Regional
Council’s proposed relocation of the Caloundra Aerodrome. After considerable assessment, the
Queensland government has formed the view that the Caloundra Aerodrome should not be moved.
This decision provides certainty for the 220 workers and 20 small businesses that are operating at
the aerodrome. I note the nodding from the member for Caloundra. I think he would agree with me that
it provides certainty for all of those businesses and it also provides certainty for the iconic air museum
which attracts thousands of visitors every year.
I know that this is an issue of great importance to the local community and we have listened to
their concerns. Shifting the aerodrome simply does not stack up for the community and it does not stack
up economically. We have looked long and hard at the options on this issue. The studies we have
undertaken reveal that the cost of relocating the facility could easily exceed $100 million. Clearly, in the
current tough economic times, that is a cost that Queensland taxpayers should not and cannot bear.
These studies have also found that the cost to assist the 20 existing businesses, 13 leaseholders
and the air museum to relocate could amount to a further $15 million. Aerodrome businesses, the
museum and the Sunshine Coast Regional Council have sought certainty on this matter. I hope for all of
them that this decision provides that certainty. The decision also provides the certainty the council
needs to finalise the Caloundra south structure plan.
Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (9.36 am): I am
pleased today to update the House on the state government’s position on the Sunshine Coast Regional
Council’s proposed relocation of the Caloundra Aerodrome. After considerable assessment, the
Queensland government has formed the view that the Caloundra Aerodrome should not be moved.
This decision provides certainty for the 220 workers and 20 small businesses that are operating at
the aerodrome. I note the nodding from the member for Caloundra. I think he would agree with me that
it provides certainty for all of those businesses and it also provides certainty for the iconic air museum
which attracts thousands of visitors every year.
I know that this is an issue of great importance to the local community and we have listened to
their concerns. Shifting the aerodrome simply does not stack up for the community and it does not stack
up economically. We have looked long and hard at the options on this issue. The studies we have
undertaken reveal that the cost of relocating the facility could easily exceed $100 million. Clearly, in the
current tough economic times, that is a cost that Queensland taxpayers should not and cannot bear.
These studies have also found that the cost to assist the 20 existing businesses, 13 leaseholders
and the air museum to relocate could amount to a further $15 million. Aerodrome businesses, the
museum and the Sunshine Coast Regional Council have sought certainty on this matter. I hope for all of
them that this decision provides that certainty. The decision also provides the certainty the council
needs to finalise the Caloundra south structure plan.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a little further up the Coast, we need to win the "Battle of Maryborough" too, - with the local amalgamated Fraser Coast Council, - over issuing of leases and the proposal to introduce landing fees.. 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
My good friends ay HBA pointed out quite.....politely....no bluntly that the cost of collecting would far exceed the revenue raised and would ultimately deter folk which would upset local business. That and encouraging some folk to not use their radio properly.
They quickly discovered the locals were telling the truth.
So why would MYB be any better
They quickly discovered the locals were telling the truth.
So why would MYB be any better
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its the waiting game now for the State Govt. Wait until all the leases are due for renewal in 2014 and do what they did at Banky and Archer.........make the rents prohibitive so you either close shop or relocate elsewhere. Wont matter who is in office.....the airport will go.
Yes it is politics, and because the Bligh govt is big time on the nose up here, it will all come to pass after the next State elections.........of course in which the Bligh/Labour Govt will be swept from office in a landslide.
Anyone game enough to wager a drink (or two) on it??
Yes it is politics, and because the Bligh govt is big time on the nose up here, it will all come to pass after the next State elections.........of course in which the Bligh/Labour Govt will be swept from office in a landslide.
Anyone game enough to wager a drink (or two) on it??
Thread Starter
TBM-Legend
You're beginning to sound like a developer. What has happened at Caloundra is a viable aerospace industry has been stuffed around for 10 years while the Sunshine Coast Council and the State Govt dithered. The latest non-decision by the Council was in effect to ask the state govt (again!) to spend millions building something that already exists. For once Bligh got it right. Can we get back to celebrating the survival of an airport? That's a good thing. Right?
PA39
One of the people who fought hardest to retain the airport was the Liberal state member.
Rgds
You're beginning to sound like a developer. What has happened at Caloundra is a viable aerospace industry has been stuffed around for 10 years while the Sunshine Coast Council and the State Govt dithered. The latest non-decision by the Council was in effect to ask the state govt (again!) to spend millions building something that already exists. For once Bligh got it right. Can we get back to celebrating the survival of an airport? That's a good thing. Right?
PA39
One of the people who fought hardest to retain the airport was the Liberal state member.
Rgds
Point is this land was handed to state and then onwards to local government on the proviso that it remained an airport IE FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING OFF AND LANDING OF AIRCRAFT.
If the council breached regulations by encroaching on buffer areas by allowing housing and then gets all these complaints about the noise, why aren't
1) the council
2) the real estate agents who promised the airport was going, or
3) the fools who bought so close (and cheap) to the airport while fully aware it existed
held accountable for their own actions?
You buy near an airport because its cheap, stiff sh.t!
(Preaching to the choir, I know)
If the council breached regulations by encroaching on buffer areas by allowing housing and then gets all these complaints about the noise, why aren't
1) the council
2) the real estate agents who promised the airport was going, or
3) the fools who bought so close (and cheap) to the airport while fully aware it existed
held accountable for their own actions?
You buy near an airport because its cheap, stiff sh.t!
(Preaching to the choir, I know)