PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions-91/)
-   -   Tyabb Airport. (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/622316-tyabb-airport.html)

Sunfish 8th Jun 2019 02:19

Tyabb Airport.
 
Please accept this as a statement of my utter contempt for Mornington Peninsula Shire Council and everything it stands for. Their attack on Peninsula Aero Club and the businesses that rely on Tyabb Airport is gutless, cowardly, corrupt and un-Australian. How long will the industry as a whole, put up with this bullshit?

Shire issues Stop-Work Letters to Tyabb - Australian Flying

IFEZ 8th Jun 2019 05:25

Yep, things have escalated rather quickly. There’s been an uneasy truce over all this for years. How has it come to this all of a sudden..? I guess more will be revealed at the meeting on Tuesday night but this act of bureaucratic bastardry cannot be allowed to continue. Cutting off people’s livelihoods running legitimate businesses is unconscionable conduct at its worst.

As for the rubbish contained in that Facebook page above, it’s so full of blatant lies and misinformation its laughable. ‘Emergency service helicopters can use anywhere to land..’ - No Sh**..! The reason they land at Tyabb is to REFUEL you numb skulls! If the search or rescue is down south it saves them having to go back to Essendon. That time saved may make the difference between life and death for some poor soul.

I hope common sense prevails and this can be sorted out quickly for the club and all the businesses involved.

1a sound asleep 8th Jun 2019 08:03


Originally Posted by IFEZ (Post 10489051)


I hope common sense prevails and this can be sorted out quickly for the club and all the businesses involved.

I think I would continue with business as usual. The council would be very foolish to attempt to physically close down businesses. It would become a multi million dollar mistake

Stickshift3000 8th Jun 2019 08:16


Originally Posted by 1a sound asleep (Post 10489110)
I think I would continue with business as usual. The council would be very foolish to attempt to physically close down businesses. It would become a multi million dollar mistake

I sincerely hope that council get hammered by VCAT; this obviously doesn’t assist business and personnel in the short term.

The complainants - and all shire residents - will likely be footing the bill for this poor council decision via property rate increases in the future.

machtuk 8th Jun 2019 08:22

Remember ALL councils are made up of people, people who can be "bought" so to speak.
From an entire shires perspective aviation related activities are minor, with expanding communities who are NOT aviation minded expect to see more and more of this sort of situation as cesspool Melb and its outer reaches expands!
I wish the flying community there all the best, they'll need it👍

Mach E Avelli 8th Jun 2019 11:05

Presumably businesses located on the airfield hold leases on their hangars etc. Until these run out, Council may find it difficult to force any cessation of activity.
If Council own the land they could carve up the runway meantime to stop flying, but that could be challenged as vandalism, limitation of trade or simply vexatious - a good lawyer would find something, surely.
As for arrogant behaviour by some club members, probably.
The threat put forward by someone in the club newsletter to commence flying early on Sundays as a counter to the mid morning Church Hour curfew being a prime example.

kaz3g 8th Jun 2019 11:24

There is no church..it’s been a cafe for yonks.

the club owns the airport.

tio540 8th Jun 2019 13:35

It would be a shame to see it close.

Here is an idea, why don’t they close all the Centrelink offices? Hooligans, old cars likely to cause accident, no permits for anything, there is better use for the land.

cattletruck 8th Jun 2019 14:31

Caulfield racecourse suffered a similar fate at the hands of the local council (Glen-Eira) after someone discovered that the land was meant to provide unhindered access for the general public - which is difficult to do when there are horses thundering down the track both on race day and training. Even though the race course is already surrounded by public parkland there were pictures in the local rag of protest groups which included councillors standing behind one of a number of locked gates that were locked for logistical reasons (there are so many gates, and the ones that can be monitored are not locked). In the end a compromise was reached to allow the general public to freely access the racecourse parkland whenever a race meeting was not scheduled. Within a year of that decision large tracts of racecourse parkland were soon converted to high density housing.

Glen-Eira council is notoriously corrupt, and no doubt someone on the payroll was looking after their developer mates in return for a huge kickback so that they could retire to the Gold Coast and call that "living". At least someone in council (rumour has it the police got involved) managed to get one of the developers to build a multi-million dollar children's playground for not following a transparent tender process.

kaz3g 8th Jun 2019 23:51

Permit history set out in this report to Council

http://www.mornpen.vic.gov.au/files/...c_att_21_1.pdf

LeadSled 9th Jun 2019 06:16

Folks,
A strategy that has proved highly effective in US, re. aircraft noise complaints, is to impose a caveat on a noise complainant's title to the effect that the title is subject to aircraft noise.
Of course, this will notionally reduce the value of the land subject to that title, that has a rather salutary effect in reducing the propensity to complain about aircraft noise, because it results in pressure on the hip pocket nerve, which can be quite painful.
Tootle pip!!

PS: kaz3g,
On the face of it, a reasonably balanced consultants report, but where is the developer money leaning on the council ---- always follow the money.

Sunfish 9th Jun 2019 06:28

The consultants report states that there are "about 100" jobs at the airport but then fails to account for the economic multiplier effect which is usually quoted at about 8 to one. Those one hundred jobs at the airport support 800 service industry jobs in the town, so the net employment loss if it closed is about 900 people.

kaz3g 9th Jun 2019 06:38


Originally Posted by LeadSled (Post 10489632)
Folks,
A strategy that has proved highly effective in US, re. aircraft noise complaints, is to impose a caveat on a noise complainant's title to the effect that the title is subject to aircraft noise.
Of course, this will notionally reduce the value of the land subject to that title, that has a rather salutary effect in reducing the propensity to complain about aircraft noise, because it results in pressure on the hip pocket nerve, which can be quite painful.
Tootle pip!!

PS: kaz3g,
On the face of it, a reasonably balanced consultants report, but where is the developer money leaning on the council ---- always follow the money.

Recent subdivisions in Shepp have all had a condition on titles preventing action for airport noise.

Doesnt stop complaints and doesn’t stop the developers looking to develop the existing site.

Apparently an alternate is still proposed by those with big ideas and their hands in the taxpayers’ pockets but Council has just renewed some hangar leases for 10 years which will see me out.

kaz

Mach E Avelli 9th Jun 2019 09:23

Kaz, if the Club own the airport, how come Council renew hangar leases? Curious is all.
I read the report link you posted. Interesting, and I do wonder whether the Club has met its various obligations and embraced the various recommendations in that study.
It seems inevitable that unless a real effort is made to address the noise issue the war will only escalate. In that case, like acrimonious divorce, the real benefactors will be the lawyers.
Re the “church hour” ; it matters not whether it is now a cafe or a brothel - the undertaking was no flying at that particular time on Sundays.

edit: disregard question about leases - I see you are referring to Shepparton.

machtuk 9th Jun 2019 09:32

No one ever owns any land, the whole of Australia is owned by the commonwealth, we just 'lease' it by paying rates, it can be taken anytime they want!

peterc005 9th Jun 2019 11:00


Originally Posted by machtuk (Post 10489725)
No one ever owns any land, the whole of Australia is owned by the commonwealth, we just 'lease' it by paying rates, it can be taken anytime they want!

No, not really

https://www.austrade.gov.au/land-ten.../freehold-land

allthecoolnamesarego 9th Jun 2019 11:34

There is a petition going around. Pass it on
http://chng.it/fFN2VQh4bx

Squawk7700 9th Jun 2019 11:34


Originally Posted by peterc005 (Post 10489767)

YES... really.

If they want to build a road on it or mine under it, then kiss it goodbye.



neville_nobody 9th Jun 2019 11:55


If they want to build a road on it or mine under it, then kiss it goodbye.
Yes there have been notable cases in NSW and Vic of this happening. In one case the government actually profited from the exercise.

machtuk 10th Jun 2019 07:14

Time for some to watch the best Aussie movie ever. "The Castle"......compulsory acquisition:-) The Kerrigan case, they won but the point is it CAN happen :-)…. I know a family who had their house taken from them (compensation was given) for a new Fwy. then grubby 'Daniel Andrews' killed the E-W link (costing zillions) in Melb. they had no say in the matter, their house was 'compulsorily obtained! So NO ONE owns any land in Australia!


All times are GMT. The time now is 22:02.


Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.