Draft Master Plan for Archerfield Airport - Administrative Appeal Tribunal decision
Thread Starter
Draft Master Plan for Archerfield Airport - Administrative Appeal Tribunal decision
On 8th July 2015 the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) released its Decision and Reasons for Decision in relation to the proceedings the Archerfield Airport Chamber of Commerce brought on behalf of members before the Tribunal in relation to the decision of former Infrastructure and Transport Minister Anthony Albanese to approve the 2011- 2031 Draft Master Plan for Archerfield Airport as the Master Plan.
A copy of the AAT decision can be found here.
http://www.aacci.org.au/pdf/AAC2012_3556.pdf
The AAT has found that there is nothing of substance in the Chamber’s criticism of the Minister’s decision and as such has affirmed the decision was correct. This could lead to the demise of runways 04/22.
A statement of Former Aviation Minister Peter Morris admitted as evidence in the proceedings – which sets out the longevity and seriousness of the Developer lobby activities in long term damage to airport infrastructure can be downloaded here.
http://www.aacci.org.au/pdf/PeterMorris_Statement.pdf
The Master Plan for Jandakot is similarly in proceedings before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in Western Australia by the Jandakot Airport Chamber of Commerce and it is possible that if the Jandakot Master Plan approval is upheld – only 42 percent of Jandakot will be left as aviation/ aviation related and there may be absolutely no prospect of a longer dual parallel 12/30 runway (needed for FIFO operations) ever possible.
Many people on PPRUNE have already identified the downturn of aviation activity at Archerfield and this will only get worse if the 2011-2031 Master Plan is brought into effect and the 04/22 grass runways are lost forever.
The Archerfield CHamber of Commerce Inc is working hard for the Archerfield avaition community to keep the 04/22 runways alive.
If you use Archerfield Airport and want to keep the 04/22 runways for years to come, please have your say in this post.
A copy of the AAT decision can be found here.
http://www.aacci.org.au/pdf/AAC2012_3556.pdf
The AAT has found that there is nothing of substance in the Chamber’s criticism of the Minister’s decision and as such has affirmed the decision was correct. This could lead to the demise of runways 04/22.
A statement of Former Aviation Minister Peter Morris admitted as evidence in the proceedings – which sets out the longevity and seriousness of the Developer lobby activities in long term damage to airport infrastructure can be downloaded here.
http://www.aacci.org.au/pdf/PeterMorris_Statement.pdf
The Master Plan for Jandakot is similarly in proceedings before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in Western Australia by the Jandakot Airport Chamber of Commerce and it is possible that if the Jandakot Master Plan approval is upheld – only 42 percent of Jandakot will be left as aviation/ aviation related and there may be absolutely no prospect of a longer dual parallel 12/30 runway (needed for FIFO operations) ever possible.
Many people on PPRUNE have already identified the downturn of aviation activity at Archerfield and this will only get worse if the 2011-2031 Master Plan is brought into effect and the 04/22 grass runways are lost forever.
The Archerfield CHamber of Commerce Inc is working hard for the Archerfield avaition community to keep the 04/22 runways alive.
If you use Archerfield Airport and want to keep the 04/22 runways for years to come, please have your say in this post.
Thread Starter
Hi Jenna Talia, yes it can be appealed but that would involve the High Court which requires considerable resources. I understand an appeal may be currently being considered.
Thanks pb. In my wildest imagination I couldn't guess what it would cost. A High Court decision will affect all of us using these secondary airports, no matter where due to precedence. If it goes that far, I sincerely hope for success as that would be such a fantastic outcome.
Please keep us updated.
Please keep us updated.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AAT is rapidly becoming irrelevant. Administrative matters should be tested in a proper court of law not an appeals theatre.
How could any person fail to recognize the function of an airport without recourse to the intent of the original taxpayer funded allocation of the land. It would appear the leaseholder has more rights than the owner, who in this case is the taxpayer.
I could be wrong, but can't an appeal be made in the federal Court in lieu of the High Court?
How could any person fail to recognize the function of an airport without recourse to the intent of the original taxpayer funded allocation of the land. It would appear the leaseholder has more rights than the owner, who in this case is the taxpayer.
I could be wrong, but can't an appeal be made in the federal Court in lieu of the High Court?
Its a pretty damming judgement. By the sounds of it the Chamber of Commerce's case relied a lot on emotion but had little substantive argument. That style of argument only worked for Dennis Denuto....
and
Regrettably, the Chamber’s written submissions did not address these contentions with the necessary rigour. Those submissions are not easy to understand and range well outside the nine points identified at the start of the hearing. I should say that my task of coming to grips with the Chamber’s arguments has been considerably assisted by the analysis undertaken in the Minister’s submissions. I am grateful for that assistance and that gained from the submissions for the Corporation.
What is apparent is that whilst the Chamber was represented by a solicitor, no independent professional judgement was brought to bear on the relevance of the content of the various witness statements. That deficiency continued with the Chamber’s written submissions – 93 pages of closely typed pages included a number devoted to a discussion (without any conclusion readily apparent) of the validity of the Airports Act. Ultimately, the Chamber’s solicitor, Mr Van Zyl, agreed that I need not concern myself with that particular issue.
Its a pretty damming judgement. By the sounds of it the Chamber of Commerce's case relied a lot on emotion but had little substantive argument. That style of argument only worked for Dennis Denuto....
Absolute nonsense, the judgement is one of the worst I have seen, and virtually completely ignores the whole AACC case, which was a very technical case, some 9000+ pages of transcripts resulted from the efforts of all parties.
This is yet another case that show how hard it is to put quite detailed aeronautical information before a person with no knowledge or expertise in the area.
When the AAT hears medical cases, it is usual to have a bench that includes somebody with medical knowledge, we have had benches with aeronautical expertise, why the AAT chose to run this with a single non-aviation person. I have no idea why.
Yet another case where, with Aviation versus property developers, it is very hard for aviation to win.
That the master plan apparently does comply with the various legislation, and the lease, in the view of the AAT, when to any aviation person it so obviously does not, remains a mystery to anyone with any aviation knowledge, including two former Ministers and a former Senator, all with aviation expertise, in addition to the Expert Witnesses, all well known in the aviation community for their expertise.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 20th Jul 2015 at 10:07. Reason: minor text correction
[QUOTE] It defies logic to suggest that a pilot undertaking a touch and go take-off would require a longer runway than one taking off from a stationary start. /QUOTE]
Considering Runway length was one of the main arguments that statement from the judgement demonstrates an interesting lack of understanding.
Considering Runway length was one of the main arguments that statement from the judgement demonstrates an interesting lack of understanding.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airports are a dying breed. They should be put on the endangered species list. It won't be long until flying into even the most remote airport will be like trying to land in Kai Tak.
Really? You don't think that's getting a little bit hysterical? You are saying that anyone taking money from developers is equivalent to an Australian fighting for ISIS. Get a grip.
It's the Constitution, it's Mabo, it's Justice, it's the Law, it's the Vibe....that's it your Honour it's the Vibe. I rest my case.
https://youtu.be/wJuXIq7OazQ
https://youtu.be/wJuXIq7OazQ
I don't like developer greed impinging on the Aviation uses of Airports but if this was the submission to the ATT then I can see why the result went the way it did. The documents presents a number of facts that are fairly tenuous in regards to what the AAT has the power to do or to the current issue at hand. It reads like a list of issues that the chambers members feel upset about but many are peripheral to what the decision was about. Try to read it without the emotion of being involved and see if you would have agreed with the chamber of commerce position.
Despite what you might think judges and AAT Presidents are generally pretty sharp. They may not know the intricate details of aviation but they can understand the issues that are presented to them. Generally if they make a mistake like the takeoff distance required vs a touch and go it is because it hasn't been explained to them properly.
If you do take further legal action get some good advice and follow it. It is easy for you to be dismissed as an angry mob if you don't present reasoned arguments. You will need help from the politicians so muster public support. Don't publicly argue safety to too much, the public are wary of small aircraft and you dont want them thinking that the best option is to close the airport. But most of all don't give up.
Despite what you might think judges and AAT Presidents are generally pretty sharp. They may not know the intricate details of aviation but they can understand the issues that are presented to them. Generally if they make a mistake like the takeoff distance required vs a touch and go it is because it hasn't been explained to them properly.
If you do take further legal action get some good advice and follow it. It is easy for you to be dismissed as an angry mob if you don't present reasoned arguments. You will need help from the politicians so muster public support. Don't publicly argue safety to too much, the public are wary of small aircraft and you dont want them thinking that the best option is to close the airport. But most of all don't give up.
Generally if they make a mistake like the takeoff distance required vs a touch and go it is because it hasn't been explained to them properly.
