Aldinga Airfield heads to court over EPA licence conditions
Thread Starter
Aldinga Airfield heads to court over EPA licence conditions
Another example of intrusion and intervention by a government department.
From the Adelaide Advertiser:
From the Adelaide Advertiser:
A POPULAR airfield looks set for a courtroom showdown with the Environment Protection Authority over licence conditions that include extended curfews and creating a plan to combat noise complaints.
Aldinga Aviation, which operates Aldinga Airfield, has won a temporary stay against conditions imposed by the EPA, including mandatory recording of all flight data.
The Environment Court has stayed the EPA conditions until a judge can determine whether they are lawful.
The conditions include extending curfew hours for popular circuit flights from 8pm to 8am on Monday to Saturday, from 8pm to 9am Sunday, and banning all circuit flights on public holidays. The EPA has also demanded the operators submit an environmental management plan to combat noise complaints and to maintain records on all flight movements.
However, Aldinga Aviation director Ron Logan said there would be substantial extra costs if the company was forced to maintain flight data. “We are not an Adelaide Airport with big planes and heavy traffic, more than 60 percent of our aircraft have a maximum weight of 600kg and make no more sound than a motorcycle on the street,” Mr Logan said.
“This airfield is not used for passenger transport and jets and the airfield has been there for 40 years.”
Court documents show Aldinga Aviation believes the EPA has overstepped its jurisdiction and was not legally able to impose the conditions. “There is no legal reason why such data should be required ... doing this is an unreasonable, unnecessary and onerous process,” the documents state.
The board also argued that the EPA had no jurisdiction over its operations.
“(Aldinga Aviation) is not undertaking an activity that pollutes or might pollute the environment and in any event, (the company) has taken all reasonable and practicable measures to prevent or minimise harm,” it argues.
The board also said the EPA failed to give proper regard to the “financial implications of the various measures required in the conditions.” There are more than 50,000 takeoffs and landings each year from Aldinga Airfield, which also operates as a flying school.
Mr Logan said he hoped the court would rule that the EPA had no jurisdiction over the airfield. “We believe the legislation was not intended for recreational flying, so the issue is one of jurisdiction,” he said. The airfield, which opened in 1976, has been the subject of numerous noise and safety complaints from local residents.
Judge Susanne Cole suspended the implementation of the conditions until the matter is finalised. The case is listed for a directions hearing next month and is likely to go to trial.
Aldinga Aviation, which operates Aldinga Airfield, has won a temporary stay against conditions imposed by the EPA, including mandatory recording of all flight data.
The Environment Court has stayed the EPA conditions until a judge can determine whether they are lawful.
The conditions include extending curfew hours for popular circuit flights from 8pm to 8am on Monday to Saturday, from 8pm to 9am Sunday, and banning all circuit flights on public holidays. The EPA has also demanded the operators submit an environmental management plan to combat noise complaints and to maintain records on all flight movements.
However, Aldinga Aviation director Ron Logan said there would be substantial extra costs if the company was forced to maintain flight data. “We are not an Adelaide Airport with big planes and heavy traffic, more than 60 percent of our aircraft have a maximum weight of 600kg and make no more sound than a motorcycle on the street,” Mr Logan said.
“This airfield is not used for passenger transport and jets and the airfield has been there for 40 years.”
Court documents show Aldinga Aviation believes the EPA has overstepped its jurisdiction and was not legally able to impose the conditions. “There is no legal reason why such data should be required ... doing this is an unreasonable, unnecessary and onerous process,” the documents state.
The board also argued that the EPA had no jurisdiction over its operations.
“(Aldinga Aviation) is not undertaking an activity that pollutes or might pollute the environment and in any event, (the company) has taken all reasonable and practicable measures to prevent or minimise harm,” it argues.
The board also said the EPA failed to give proper regard to the “financial implications of the various measures required in the conditions.” There are more than 50,000 takeoffs and landings each year from Aldinga Airfield, which also operates as a flying school.
Mr Logan said he hoped the court would rule that the EPA had no jurisdiction over the airfield. “We believe the legislation was not intended for recreational flying, so the issue is one of jurisdiction,” he said. The airfield, which opened in 1976, has been the subject of numerous noise and safety complaints from local residents.
Judge Susanne Cole suspended the implementation of the conditions until the matter is finalised. The case is listed for a directions hearing next month and is likely to go to trial.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose every last one of the noise complaint wingers was totally unaware that there was an airport nearby when they bought their dream block from the nice real estate agent. 
Go sic em...!
Top marks to Aldinga Aviation for biting back.,ok: and not just tugging the forelock.
Bloody un-elected bureaurats think they can impose their will upon we, the people , and do what they like.
Long past time to tell 'em to Foxtrot Oscar
For CAsA its "safety". You can do anything in the name of "safety", never mind the costs and damage to GA.
For EPA its "protection" (racket) for what? Trees? whingers? to stop aircraft drowning out noisy lawn mowers or trail bikes? Any curfews on them?.
They demand an 'environmental management plan'?... demand of them an exposition as to why, when and how,.. and give them a costing for the business to implement such a plan ... and tell them the invoice to do all that will be addressed to them.
Just like CAsA... they IMPOSE.. everyone else has to do the job and pick up the tab as well.
Lets hope Judge Cole gets it right.
Bloody un-elected bureaurats think they can impose their will upon we, the people , and do what they like.
Long past time to tell 'em to Foxtrot Oscar
For CAsA its "safety". You can do anything in the name of "safety", never mind the costs and damage to GA.
For EPA its "protection" (racket) for what? Trees? whingers? to stop aircraft drowning out noisy lawn mowers or trail bikes? Any curfews on them?.
They demand an 'environmental management plan'?... demand of them an exposition as to why, when and how,.. and give them a costing for the business to implement such a plan ... and tell them the invoice to do all that will be addressed to them.
Just like CAsA... they IMPOSE.. everyone else has to do the job and pick up the tab as well.
Lets hope Judge Cole gets it right.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: low and heavy
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good luck Aldinga.
Great little field with quality training and a great atmosphere. Very welcoming to visitors too.
Hope you get the opportunity to tell them all to GET FU*KED!!!
Great little field with quality training and a great atmosphere. Very welcoming to visitors too.
Hope you get the opportunity to tell them all to GET FU*KED!!!
