planning expert opinion...airports, is a key consideration for off-airport development. this may...

PLANNING EXPERT OPINION MELBOURNE AIRPORT SAFEGUARDING STANDING ADVISORY COMMITTEE - PART B

Prepared for

AUSTRALIA PACIFIC AIRPORTS (MELBOURNE) P/L31 December 2020

URBIS STAFF RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS REPORT WERE:

Director Michael Barlow

Director Laura Thomas

Project Code P0025544

Report Number Report - Final

All information supplied to Urbis in order to conduct this research has been treated in the strictest confidence. It shall only be used in this context and shall not be made available to third parties without client authorisation. Confidential information has been stored securely and data provided by respondents, as well as their identity, has been treated in the strictest confidence and all assurance given to respondents have been and shall be fulfilled. © Urbis Pty Ltd 50 105 256 228 All Rights Reserved. No material may be reproduced without prior permission. You must read the important disclaimer appearing within the body of this report. urbis.com.au

URBIS

MASAC_REPORT_FINAL

CONTENTS

1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 5 1.1. Guide to Expert Evidence .................................................................................................... 5 1.2. Findings ............................................................................................................................... 7

2. Melbourne Airport ...........................................................................................................................11 2.1. The Role of Melbourne Airport ...........................................................................................11 2.2. Overview of Melbourne Airport’s Development and Planning ...........................................14

2.2.1. Select Committee on Aircraft Noise ...................................................................14 2.2.2. Planning Policies for the Melbourne Metropolitan Region .................................15

3. Planning Framework for Melbourne Airport .................................................................................18 3.1. Melbourne Airport Strategy, 1990 ......................................................................................18 3.2. Planning and Environment Act ..........................................................................................18 3.3. Melbourne Airport Environs Area Strategy Plan, 2003 ......................................................19 3.4. Melbourne 2030 .................................................................................................................20 3.5. Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 ...............................................................................................21

3.5.1. Planning Policy Framework ................................................................................21 3.6. Melbourne Airport Master Plan 2018 .................................................................................22 3.7. Current Statutory Controls .................................................................................................23

3.7.1. Planning Policy Framework - Local ....................................................................23 3.7.2. The Melbourne Airport Environs Overlay ...........................................................25

4. National Airports Safeguarding Framework (NASF) ...................................................................28 NASF Principles .................................................................................................................28 Summary of NASF Guidelines ...........................................................................................28 Introduction of NASF into the Planning Schemes .............................................................29 Mapping the NASF Requirements .....................................................................................30

5. Application of Current Planning Framework ................................................................................39 5.1. Recognition of Airport Safeguarding in Strategic Planning................................................39

5.1.1. Precinct Structure Plan Case Study – The importance of NASF .......................39 5.1.2. OLS Impacts .......................................................................................................44

5.2. Recognition of Airport Impacts In Planning Permit Approvals ...........................................45 5.2.1. Materials Recycling Case Study – The importance of NASF .............................46 5.2.2. Diggers Rest Residential Development Case Study – The impact of noise ......46 5.2.3. Attwood Childcare Case Study – The impact of noise .......................................47

6. Is the Current Planning Framework for Melbourne Airport Working? ......................................49

7. Future Airport Planning Framework ..............................................................................................52 7.1. Overview ............................................................................................................................52 7.2. Melbourne Airport Area of Influence ..................................................................................53 7.3. Melbourne Airport Environs Strategy Plan.........................................................................53 7.4. Create a Planning Practice Note .......................................................................................54 7.5. MAEO/Other Planning Overlays ........................................................................................55 7.6. Referral Authority Status ....................................................................................................56

Appendix A Land Uses in the MAEO Appendix B Australian Standard AS 2021 Appendix C APAM Template for Planning Applications

FIGURES

Figure 1 - Extract from K. O’Connor, K. Fuellhart / The Fortunes of Air Transport Gateways - Journal of Transport Geography 46 (2015) p.168 ............................................................................................................ 12

Figure 2 - Extract from K. O’Connor, K. Fuellhart / The Fortunes of Air Transport Gateways - Journal of Transport Geography 46 (2015) p. 170 ........................................................................................................... 13

Figure 3 – Melbourne Region Framework Plan 1971 ...................................................................................... 16

Figure 4 – Noise Impact Forecasts .................................................................................................................. 31

Figure 5 - Managing the Risk of Wind Shear and Turbulence ........................................................................ 32

Figure 6 - Managing the Risk of Wildlife Strike ............................................................................................... 33

Figure 7 - Managing the Risk of Distractions to Pilots from Lighting ............................................................... 34

Figure 8 - Managing the Risk of Intrusions into the Prescribed Airspace (OLS) ............................................. 35

Figure 9 - Managing the Risk of Intrusions into the Prescribed Airspace (Pans-Ops) .................................... 36

Figure 10 - Managing the Risk in Public Safety Areas at the Ends of Runways ............................................. 37

Figure 11 – Growth Areas Logical Inclusions Review Process, Mapping for Hume Areas (MAEO shown in grey) ................................................................................................................................................. 40

Figure 12 - Lindum Vale PSP & N Contours ................................................................................................... 43

URBIS

MASAC_REPORT_FINAL LAND USES IN THE MAEO 5

1. INTRODUCTION 1. I have been requested by Minter Ellison to prepare an expert planning opinion in response to the

Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding Standing Advisory Committee – Part B.

2. I note that I have previously provided expert planning evidence on development and use proposals in the Melbourne Airport Environs Overlay area for Melbourne Airport. Urbis has also provided advice to Australia Pacific Airports (Melbourne) Pty Ltd (APAM) on development and use applications within the Melbourne Airport Environs Area and development on the Melbourne Airport site.

1.1. GUIDE TO EXPERT EVIDENCE 3. I acknowledge that I have read and complied with the Guide to Expert Evidence prepared by

Planning Panels Victoria. In accordance with this guide, I provide the following information.

Name and Address

Michael Bruce Barlow Urbis Pty Ltd Level 10, 477 Collins Street MELBOURNE VIC 3000

Qualifications and Experience

I am a Director of Urbis Pty Ltd. I am a qualified town planner and have practised as a town planner for over 39 years (including 35 as a consultant planner) and hold a Diploma of Applied Science (Town Planning) from Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology for which I qualified in 1981.

My experience includes:

• 2011 to present: Director of Planning, Urbis Pty Ltd

• 2002 to 2010: Managing Director, Urbis Pty Ltd

• 1990 – 2001: Director of Urbis Pty Ltd (and its predecessors including A.T. Cocks)

• 1985 – 1990: Senior Planner, A.T. Cocks Consulting

• 1982 – 1985: Planning Officer and Appeals Officer, City of Melbourne

• 1981 – 1982: Planning Officer, Shire of Eltham

• 1977 – 1980 Planning Officer, City of Doncaster and Templestowe

I advise on the development of cities; their principal activities and land uses and have extensive experience in strategic and development planning. I have been engaged on a wide range of projects throughout Australia, China and the Middle East. I have particular project experience involving major urban development projects across a range of localities and activities including:

• The analysis of drivers of change in cities and their impacts and influence on industry, employment and economic development, retail and activity centres, residential development strategies and policy, metropolitan growth and urban management.

• The strategic assessment of major infrastructure projects including the Melbourne Metro project, the Westgate Tunnel project, the North East Link project and the Mordialloc Freeway project.

• The preparation of master plans for institutional and educational establishments, airports and new urban development.

• A wide range of international urban development projects including the planning of the new port city serving Shanghai and major city and new town strategies for a number of cities within the Yangtze River corridor, China.

6 LAND USES IN THE MAEO URBIS

MASAC_REPORT_FINAL

• Leadership of the development of a comprehensive Framework Plan for the Emirate of Dubai. This project created a Vision to guide the economic development of the Emirate, an Urban Framework Plan and an Urban Management System for the government of Dubai.

• Advice on new and specialist land uses and development concepts including the ongoing development of major Australian airports, the introduction and impacts of new retail concepts and standalone megaplex cinemas and the introduction of the casino into central Melbourne.

• Major retail developments comprising central city centres, super-regional centres and mixed-use developments.

• Major commercial and residential developments in the Melbourne central city area including the CBD, Docklands and Southbank and throughout metropolitan Melbourne.

I provide expert evidence at various forums including the Supreme Court of Victoria, Federal Court of Australia, Land and Environment Court (NSW), the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal and independent planning panels regarding the planning implications and impacts of development.

Expertise to Make the Report

I have expertise in strategic and metropolitan planning and have advised on the development of airports in the Middle East and Australia having regard to their urban contexts and the need to manage potential conflicts between airport operations and surrounding land uses. I have also assessed the impact of use and development applications within the Melbourne Airport Environs Overlay.

Instructions

On 2 November 2020, I was briefed by Minter Ellison with the following instructions:

In your opinion, does Victoria's planning framework as outlined in the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) and Victorian Planning Provisions appropriately:

a) safeguard Melbourne Airport's current operations; and

b) safeguard Melbourne Airport's ability to grow and respond to long-term demand for air services?

In answering this question, please consider the appropriate level of protection which, in your view, should be afforded to major airports as part of the planning process. You may wish to have regard to other safeguarding regimes used by other airports in considering this question.

2. If your answer to Question 1(a) and / or 1(b) is no, what are the weaknesses / deficiencies in the planning framework?

3. Are there any changes you consider ought be made to the Victorian planning framework which would provide an appropriate level of safeguarding for Melbourne Airport's current and future operations?

I confirm that I am the author of this report and have been assisted by Ms Laura Thomas in background research.

The Facts, Matters and Assumptions on which the Opinions are Expressed in this Report

In undertaking my assessment, I have familiarised myself with the Melbourne Airport operations and runway alignment (including the proposed third and fourth runways) and I have had regard to the following documents:

• Submissions to the Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding Standing Advisory Committee

• The Victoria Planning Provisions and its policies, provisions and controls relating to the operation of the airport and surrounding area (including current and former policy positions)

• Planning and Environment Act 1987

• The Melbourne Airport Strategy 1990

• The Melbourne Airport Environs Strategy Plan 2003

URBIS


• Melbourne 2030 – Planning for Sustainable Growth, October 2002

• Green Wedges and Non-Urban Issues, Technical Report 2, September 2000

• The Melbourne Airport 2018 Master Plan

• The Report from the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise, October 1970

• Planning Policies for the Melbourne Metropolitan Region, November 1971

• The Report from the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise, September 1985

• Plan Melbourne 2017-2050

• Various research papers on the role of airports and their impact on urban economies referred to in the body of this report.

• The National Aviation Policy White Paper, December 2009

• The National Airports Safeguarding Framework, May 2012 (including subsequent additions)

The matters addressed within this report fall within my planning expertise. I note in the body of my report where I have specifically relied on supporting documentation prepared by others to assist my assessment of a particular matter.

I particularly note that I have reviewed the evidence of Mr Rob Bullen in relation to the technical matters regarding the use of the ANEF and the N contours in respect to identifying potential noise impacts.

Declaration

I declare that in preparing the material contained in this report I have made all inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and no matters of significance which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from the Committee.

Michael Barlow

Director of Planning – Urbis

1.2. FINDINGS 4. In summary, my opinion is:

Role of Melbourne Airport

• Melbourne airport is a significant direct contributor to the Victorian economy and there is a direct correlation between Melbourne’s growth and that of airport activity.

• Melbourne Airport provides increasing connectivity to the world and more importantly the key economic region of Asia which has an increasing important economic link to the Victorian economy. Melbourne Airport is also a fundamental link for key sectors such as international education and tourism.

• As Melbourne’s and Victoria’s population continue to grow so must the airport to support the increased demand for travel and the growth of economic activity.


MASAC_REPORT_FINAL

• The role and importance of Melbourne Airport to the success of Melbourne and Victoria has been recognised in planning policy and metropolitan planning strategies for many years.

• Planning policy recognises that the 24 hour 7-day operational status is one that significantly benefits Melbourne Airport and must be protected.

• Melbourne Airport must be able to function at an optimum level. This means that a broad range of flight path approaches and departures to and from the airport are not constrained (i.e. reduced usage) by way of impacts on sensitive or incompatible land uses or development.

Need to limit and control development in areas surrounding the airport

• The need to limit the development of sensitive uses in proximity to the airport and particularly in areas affected by noise from airport operations has been recognised from the time that Melbourne Airport commenced operations.

• The planning policy pertaining to the areas around Melbourne Airport have been put in place to achieve that protection and to prevent problems created by siting incompatible land uses close together.

• Unfortunately, since the airport’s establishment in 1970 the surrounding areas have been progressively developed for urban purposes including several residential precincts.

• It was not until the 1990s that the agreed mechanism to define the impact of noise (ANEF contours) was implemented into the land use planning system. Other aspects of the safeguarding of airports were not recognised (or understood) in the land use planning system at that time.

• Despite the work done in 2003 there is not been an evolution in the policies regarding the safeguarding of the Airport.

The Melbourne Airport Environs Overlay (MAEO) control

• The MAEO does not encompass the full geographic area of who may be affected by the airport operations, who may be disturbed and who may, by virtue of their land use, impact the airport.

• The existence of the MAEO has been taken to describe and define the ‘area of influence’ of the airport operations notwithstanding the broader policy requirements for the protection of the airport. That is, if land is outside the MAEO then there is no further need to enquire as to the possible impacts of the rezoning of land for sensitive uses.

• The use of the ANEF/MAEO contours has created a constrained and ‘unrealistic’ approach to understanding the impact of noise on areas around the airport. The noise of airport operations extends well beyond the ANEF contours. This has been recognised in various reports and committee recommendations who have recommended the use of measures beyond the ANEF 20 contour.

• There is a presumption that planning permit applications under the MAEO are conditionally supportable rather there being a clear need and expectation to demonstrate the appropriateness of the use given the Airport context.

• The decision guidelines for the MAEO are limited to noise and density requirements. Other matters relevant to the safeguarding of the airport do not form part of the MAEO purpose, requirements, or decision guidelines.

Regard for National Airports Safeguarding Framework (NASF)

• The National Airports Safeguarding Framework (now a policy guideline in all planning schemes) confirms the appropriateness of noise considerations beyond the ANEF contours and supports the use of the N contours.

• Other than some noise impacts, safeguarding matters for airports long established and reinforced through NASF are not given regard in the current planning controls.

URBIS


• NASF is not being given the regard it was purported to at the time of its introduction to the planning scheme and as a consequence potential impacts of the airport are not being fully addressed when long term land use decisions are being made – particularly with regard to the establishment of new residential communities.

• The safeguarding of the airport is being potentially eroded by individual planning decisions that collectively have or may have a major impact on the long-term operation of the airport – e.g. introduction of curfews or limited use of certain flight paths.

Gaps in the current planning framework for Melbourne Airport

• The current planning framework has several obvious gaps between the policy strategies of:

i. Protecting the curfew-free status of Melbourne Airport and ensuring any new use or development does not prejudice its operation.

ii. Ensuring any new use or development does not prejudice the optimum usage of Melbourne Airport.

and the ‘day to day’ assessment of proposals for rezonings and various use and development planning permit applications. This includes:

i. The lack of a clearly defined and understood ‘area of influence’ arising from the current and future operations of Melbourne Airport. The current MAEO area does not do this and in fact has created a misconception that the airport impacts are confined to those areas only. Further the Melbourne Airport when seeking to advise of potentials impacts and ensure future land owners are aware of these impacts is finding the current planning system lacks the mechanisms to enable this information to be made available to all in a transparent and readily accessible manner.

ii. The outdated Melbourne Airport Environs Strategy Plan. The document in effect created that latest version of the MAEO and like that control principally focusses on the noise impacts within the ANEF contours. The Strategy Plan does not recognise the key safeguarding issues identified in the NASF and there is no guidance as to how those aspects should be dealt with by either direct planning controls or other measures.

iii. Local planning policy for those Councils directly impacted by the Melbourne Airport Environs Overlay is generally limited and does not provide proper recognition of the range and complexity of land use considerations.

iv. The lack of translation of the NASF requirements into the statutory planning framework beyond a single policy reference. As is demonstrated above many of the requirements can be mapped and performance measures can be used (i.e. lighting, wind shear, building obstructions, broader noise impacts, public safety zones).

v. The lack of performance measures to assist in the management of airport noise impacts on residential areas. As outlined above there are noise impacts beyond the ANEF 20 contour but there are no mechanisms in place to enable landowners to understand this (other than by personal experience) and for the planning system to review new developments and require noise attenuation or other measures (e.g. limitations on density) to be put in place.

vi. The lack of status of the Melbourne Airport operator in the planning approval framework. Currently APAM are effectively positioned as an interested party and potential objector in the planning permit approval system. As has been demonstrated in my case study assessment this has led to circumstances where legitimate matters of concern to the operation of the airport have either been ignored or downplayed.


MASAC_REPORT_FINAL

Recommended Future Airport Planning Framework

• It is considered that the following changes should be implemented to create a robust and wholistic approach to managing development and use within the airport environs in the planning framework, being:

i. Define a Melbourne Airport Area of Influence that better delineates the area around the airport that is affected by airport operations. The definition of this area should be informed by the OLS and N contours.

ii. Replace the current Melbourne Airport Environs Area Strategy Plan with an updated document that translates the NASF into the land use planning framework.

iii. Create a Planning Practice Note for the Melbourne Airport Environs Area that:

1. Explains the importance of Melbourne Airport and the purposes of the Environs Area – i.e. to protect the constraint free status of the airport and enable its optimum operation into the future.

2. Details each of the NASF matters and how they are to be defined in the planning framework.

3. Provides guidance for the consideration of each of the matters.

iv. Update and extend the Melbourne Airport Environs Overlay (or equivalent controls) to include the N contours and introduce additional controls that:

1. Include the following matters of lighting, wind shear, building obstructions, broader noise impacts, public safety zones.

2. Create four noise impact assessment areas for sensitive uses being broadly equivalent to the ANEF 25 contour and above, the ANEF 20 contour, the N 70 contour and the N 60 contour.

3. Provide detailed performance measures for the assessment of sensitive uses within each of the defined areas.

4. Include density controls within the ANEF contours (i.e. a larger minimum density requirement than 300 sq.m per dwelling) that better match the prevailing urban character of the surrounding areas.

v. Make the operator of Melbourne Airport as a recommending referral authority for matters that are within the Melbourne Airport Environs Area.

URBIS


2. MELBOURNE AIRPORT 2.1. THE ROLE OF MELBOURNE AIRPORT 5. The Melbourne Airport is a key part of the metropolis and State serving as the connection between

the city and the world. The nationwide importance of Melbourne Airport is also highlighted through the Commonwealth Government National Aviation Policy White Paper (2009), which provides a policy framework for Australia’s aviation industry and the development of its airports.

6. Over the past 50 years the level of activity at the airport has grown significantly as Melbourne has grown. In 1985 the airport had approximately 84,500 aircraft movements. In 2016-17 the number of aircraft movements had increased to 239,000 – a factor of 2.8 times. By comparison metropolitan Melbourne’s population had grown from approximately 2.9 million to 4.65 million in the same period – a factor of 1.6 times.

7. The latest Airport Master Plan (2018) forecasts growth in annual passenger movements from 35.2 million in 2016/17 to 67 million by 2038 (including 20m international passengers). In the same period, aircraft movements were projected to increase from 217,550 to 384,000. Similarly, freight movements through the airport has also been experiencing significant growth. It is estimated that 30% of Australia’s air freight goes via Melbourne Airport.

8. It is now well understood that airports also play a substantial role in facilitating and creating economic development of the city and regions it serves. The 2018 Melbourne Airport Strategy sets out the significant economic and social contribution of the airport (see Section 6.2).

9. The role of the airport can sometimes be taken for granted as simply another part of the city no different to other major activities or transport infrastructure. However, as the commentary below demonstrates airports are in fact an essential element of a successful city and the ability of the airport to accommodate growth and operate efficiently will, in part, determine how a city thrives into the future.

10. A significant body of research (Zook and Braun 2005 and 2006, Bowen 2010) has established that the scale and diversity of air services at a city are associated with its rank in global or national hierarchies. Key influences that contribute to a city’s attractiveness include its population size, the range and number of jobs, the diversity of the population (i.e. a greater migrant population generally creates demand for more connections), tourism and more recently international education.

11. Simply put a larger diverse population with good employment prospects generates increasing demand for airline travel. This is evidenced by the numbers set out in Paragraph 6.

12. There is also a correlation between good airport accessibility and the growth of employment. Specific research into Airline Traffic and Urban Economic Development (Brueckner 20031) found evidence on the link between airline traffic and employment in US metropolitan areas.

13. The evidence identified that:

• Good airline service is an important factor in urban economic development.

• Frequent service to a variety of destinations, reflected in a high level of passenger enplanements, facilitates easy face-to-face contact with businesses in other cities, attracting new firms to the metro area and stimulating employment at established enterprises.

• A 10 per cent increase in passenger enplanements in a metro area led to approximately a 1 per cent increase in employment in service-related industries.

• Airline traffic had no effect on manufacturing and other goods-related employment, suggesting that air travel is less important for such firms than for service-related businesses.

14. These outcomes are not to under-estimate the importance of air cargo operations to the city and its ability to serve the region (Asia in the case of Melbourne) which was not measured in these studies.

1 https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098032000094388


MASAC_REPORT_FINAL

15. More recent studies (O’Connor et al 2015, Florida et al 2012 etc.) have also identified that the accessibility provided by airports can have a direct positive impact on the economic performance of cities, particularly ‘secondary gateways’ (e.g. Melbourne vs Sydney).

16. As O’Connor2 observes air travel is critical to the international connectivity of Australia, and airports have a significant effect on the vitality of Australia’s cities. He further notes3 that:

Unlike most countries, air transport is the only statistically meaningful way to reach Australia, so its airport gateways are fundamental to its global connectivity. Furthermore (apart from busy links to some cities in New Zealand) all of Australia’s air links are inter-continental, either to North America, or to Asia and the Middle East (which also serve as stop-overs on routes to Europe).

17. Melbourne’s surge in population and associated economic activity since the early 2000s is linked to the ability of Melbourne Airport to provide the necessary connectivity to its various economic regions including Asia (China, Japan, Singapore India and SE Asia) and the Middle East. Over this time Melbourne Airport’s share of international passengers to Asia has significantly increased as shown below:

Figure 1 - Extract from K. O’Connor, K. Fuellhart / The Fortunes of Air Transport Gateways - Journal of Transport Geography 46 (2015) p.168

18. The comparison between the performance of Sydney and Melbourne as shown in the table below demonstrates the significant change in Melbourne’s urban development over that period time.

2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.06.013 page 164 3 ibid page 167

URBIS


Figure 2 - Extract from K. O’Connor, K. Fuellhart / The Fortunes of Air Transport Gateways - Journal of Transport Geography 46 (2015) p. 170

19. O’Connor4 observes that:

… the growth in Melbourne has been more substantial especially in terms of international traffic share at the airport. Its international market has expanded rapidly, lifting its ratio of international to domestic traffic by 8% points over a period where there has been little change in Sydney. This effectively means that Melbourne has become a more important aviation hub within the country which has strengthened its gateway role.

Its increased aviation importance is matched by competitive gains across the array of variables that shape air travel. Percentage changes in population, producer service employment, international migration and tourism numbers larger than those recorded in Sydney provide a very rich base for expansion in Melbourne’s international air traffic flows, enhanced further by the stronger absolute numbers in the two measures of international trade.

20. This relative decline in Sydney’s performance (albeit whilst maintaining the key gateway role in Australia) is likely due to a range of factors. O’Connor in an earlier assessment of this topic entitled Air Services at Australian Cities: Change and Inertia 2005–20105 commented on the emergence of secondary gateways stating that:

These changes can be associated with shifts in the economic and social circumstances of cities brought about by different networks of production, the emergence of new tourist destinations, and new patterns of demand associated with the global dispersal of family ties. …

Crowding, congestion, and slot limitations at international gateways in high-ranked global cities (allied to the political difficulties of airport expansion) may have stimulated some of this change.

21. Florida et al6 undertook a study to examine the role of airports in economic development, focusing on two key things: (1) the likelihood for the region to have an airport in the first place and (2) the effects of airports for regional economic development. In answer to the second question it was concluded:

Furthermore, we find that airports play a significant role in regional economic development. The scale of their effect is similar to that of Human Capital, a factor which the literature identifies as a key contributor to regional development, and greater than High-Tech Industry, which many also think of as an important driver of regional development. We also find that it is not just having an airport but that its size and scale of activities matter to regional development.

My emphasis

4 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.06.013 page 169 5 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-5871.2012.00762.x page 2 6 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-014-0651-z page 14


MASAC_REPORT_FINAL

22. In summary, the current and ongoing role of Melbourne airport is vital in metropolitan Melbourne’s and Victoria’s future. It is evident from the above studies that:

• Melbourne airport is a significant direct contributor to the Victorian economy.

• There is a direct correlation between Melbourne’s growth and that of airport activity.

• Melbourne Airport provides increasing connectivity to the world and more importantly the key economic region of Asia which has an increasing economic link to the Victorian economy.

• Melbourne Airport is a fundamental link for key sectors such as international education and tourism.

• As Melbourne’s and Victoria’s population continue to grow so must the airport to support the increased demand for travel and the growth of economic activity.

2.2. OVERVIEW OF MELBOURNE AIRPORT’S DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING 23. The establishment of a new airport at Tullamarine had its genesis in the late 1930s with the location

at Tullamarine being confirmed in 1959. The acquisition of the substantial site (over 2,000 hectares) included sufficient land to accommodate four runways (with the additional two runways proposed to be located south of the original terminal complex) and other compatible uses that would provide an immediate buffer to the airport operations. It is noteworthy that Tullamarine was the first airport to deliberately plan for ‘landside facilities’ to generate non-aviation business revenues – a concept now referred to as the ‘airport city’ or ‘aerotropolis’.

24. Construction of the airport commenced in the mid-1960s and the airport started international operations in 1970 – domestic operation transferred from Essendon in June 1971.

25. The site for the airport was chosen for its relative proximity to the city (approximately 18 kms) and its separation from the established urban areas of metropolitan Melbourne. This was in recognition of the off-site noise effects that the operations of turbo engine aircraft were creating7. At the time the airport was under construction several other initiatives were influencing the future management of land outside the airport but likely to be affected by airport operations.

2.2.1. Select Committee on Aircraft Noise

26. The House of Representatives appointed a Select Committee on Aircraft Noise in November 1968 with the Committee making its final report in October 1970. The Committee8 discussed the means of attenuating noise impacts and commented as follows (inter alia):

10.1 General

…

Ideally, airports should be of sufficient size and located in such areas that a natural buffer zone of space insulates the neighbouring residential community from noise exposure.

in seeking the most effective method by which the conflict between the requirements of modern air transport and occupiers of nearby land may be resolved, the Committee invariably came back to appropriate land use zoning as the key to the problem.

…

10.2 Land Use Planning

…

The Committee finds that an appropriate land use policy is the most likely answer to reducing noise nuisance. However, insufficient attention has been given by municipal. State and Commonwealth authorities to the zoning of areas in the vicinity of airports to ensure compatibility with civil aviation operations.

7 Commonwealth of Australia - Report from the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise, October 1970 – page 8 8 Commonwealth of Australia - Report from the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise, October 1970 – pages 42

and 43

URBIS


The initiative in this area lies with those responsible for town planning and supervision of urban development, i.e. with State Governments. These authorities must be supported by Local Government authorities in full consultation with the Department of Civil Aviation.

…

Similar extremes of development in airport neighbourhoods in Australia today are exemplified by Melbourne (Tullamarine) Airport with its vast areas of surrounding rural, properties and Sydney Airport in the midst of an intensive residential land use with high population density.

It is not possible to lay down in simple terms a detailed statement for guiding land use policies which can be applied to all communities. State Planning Authorities have indicated that land use zoning should be put into practice immediately at all existing airports to prevent any intensification of the density of residential development.

…

Zoning should have the statutory basis of State Government enactment and not be subject to unco-ordinated change by local authorities.

For example, the present intention enunciated by the Victorian Government in regard to Tullamarine environs needs the backing of legislation to ensure avoidance of later change to incompatible use which would result in the sort of problem that now exists around Essendon, Sydney, and to a lesser extent around Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane and Darwin Airports.

My emphasis

2.2.2. Planning Policies for the Melbourne Metropolitan Region

27. During the 1960s the MMBW undertook the development of a comprehensive metropolitan strategy to guide the future development of metropolitan Melbourne. The report Planning Policies for the Melbourne Metropolitan Region introduced many of the key elements of the urban structure today including the green wedges, urban corridors and special areas such as the Yarra Valley and Dandenong Ranges.

28. The report9 also identified Melbourne Airport as a special area and made specific plans in light of the importance of the airport, stating:

Melbourne Airport

This international airport comprising 5,300 acres lies approximately 10 miles north-west of the city centre and apart from limited urban development around the south-eastern perimeter is surrounded by land in rural use.

It is now clearly recognised that the activities generated by an airport of this size, importance and character, which will intensify as air traffic increases from year to year, are generally quite incompatible with many types of urban development, especially residential and associated uses. Problems of aircraft noise caused both by air movements and ground running, which cannot be avoided if air transport operations are to be successfully and safely managed, have given rise to much distress and annoyance to inhabitants of houses, schools and other institutional uses where these have been permitted to occupy land in proximity to major airports. This is one of the major world problems affecting the operations of the international and domestic air transport industry.

In 1968 the Minister for Civil Aviation and the Minister for Local Government established the Victorian Airfields Committee to examine and report on the land use problems associated with airfields particularly in regard to noise. In a report on Melbourne and Essendon Airports, submitted in 1970 the Committee defined the areas around the airport likely to be affected by high noise levels in the future and indicated that these areas were not suitable for residential development.

The Committee went further and suggested that apart from present urban zoning the wedge between Calder Highway and Mickleham Road containing the airport should be permanently non-urban.

9 MMBW – Planning Policies for the Melbourne Metropolitan Region, November 1971 – page 64


MASAC_REPORT_FINAL

The general recommendations of the Committee were accepted by the Commonwealth and State Governments and they have been followed closely by the Board in defining urban and non-urban zones in the area.

Figure 3 – Melbourne Region Framework Plan 1971

URBIS


29. The resultant Framework Plan clearly shows the airport located within the middle of an extensive non-urban area named Calder. The Calder Highway forms the southern boundary and Mickleham Road the eastern boundary – marked in red in Figure 3. The subsequent amendment to the Melbourne Metropolitan Planning Scheme included provisions to maintain non-urban zones around the airport.

30. Notwithstanding the preparation of the metropolitan plans, the area of Keilor Park (south of the airport) had been rezoned for urban development in 1968 - despite opposition from the MMBW and the Commonwealth.

31. It is to be noted that over the past 50 years there has been a significant expansion of metropolitan Melbourne including changes to the Calder non-urban area, particularly west of Mickleham Road, and the proposed expansion of Sunbury closer to the airport. This has occurred whilst there was policy recognition of the importance of the airport to Melbourne and the need to limit development in nearby areas that would be subject to aircraft noise.

32. The 1985 report10 of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise observed that:

Perhaps the best example of the inadequacy of planning controls and advice is the situation which has occurred in the area surrounding Tullamarine Airport. The previous Committee noted that Tullamarine was surrounded by vast areas of rural property, Despite the deliberate intention to site the airport in a substantially rural area and the detailed planning and the knowledge of the noise problem there is considerable urban intrusion into existing and future aircraft noise impacted areas.

33. These decisions cannot be unmade, they form part of the context within which Melbourne Airport operates today. But the decisions highlight the disconnect between long standing policy aspirations to maintain Melbourne Airport as a constraint free operation and the ‘day to day’ planning of the area around the airport. As a result, there is a significant (and growing) area where residents could be affected by airport operations. This in turn has the potential to undermine the long-term constraint free operations of the airport.

10 Commonwealth of Australia – Aircraft Operations and the Australian Community, September 1985 – page 48


MASAC_REPORT_FINAL

3. PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR MELBOURNE AIRPORT 34. Since the late 1980s planning for the Melbourne Airport has evolved in recognition of the importance

of the airport to the State and metropolis and the need to introduce more effective controls for the development and use of land that may be affected by airport operations. The planning tools that have been employed include:

• Recognition of the airport and its importance in various metropolitan strategies and planning policy settings in Planning Schemes.

• Strategies or Master Plans for the airport that set out the expected development and operations of the airport.

• A strategy guiding development and use in defined areas outside the airport (Melbourne Airport Environs) that are affected by aircraft operations.

• The use of specific development and use controls for locations under the flight paths as defined by the ANEF contours.

35. The following outlines the development of planning controls for the Melbourne Airport environs.

3.1. MELBOURNE AIRPORT STRATEGY, 1990 36. The Melbourne Airport Strategy 1990 in part sought to ensure that there was a collective

understanding of the role and impacts of the airport and the need to appropriately plan for its ongoing operations.

37. The Melbourne Airport Strategy (MAS) was jointly developed and formally endorsed by the Commonwealth and State governments in 1990. The MAS provides a broad framework for airport development, road and rail access and external land use control to protect the airports 24-hour, constraint-free operation.

38. A key feature of the Strategy was provision for future development of wide-spaced, parallel north-south and east-west runways – to provide a total of four runways. The competitive advantages of Melbourne Airport were expressed as:

Operations are available 24 hours a day

The airport can be expanded in a planned, effective manner to meet foreseeable runway, terminal building and aviation servicing requirements well into the next century

The airport is in an ideal geographic location and has significant land available on and adjacent to the airport suitable for promoting the airport as a major freight hub of Australia

The expansion if the airport is not significantly constrained by external land uses (page iv)

39. The MAS led to the formation of the Melbourne Airport Land Use Study Committee which reported in June 1992. The Committee recommended that there should be a margin for error beyond the calculated 20 ANEF contour in defining the least noise affected land and that land use planning around Melbourne Airport should aim to ensure that no constraint is required to be imposed.

40. The Committees recommendations became the basis for the original Melbourne Airport Environs Area controls (Schedules 1 and 2).

41. The MAS continues to inform the development of subsequent Master Plans prepared by the Airport (and noting the master plans are subsequently identified as policy documents in the VPPs).

3.2. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ACT 42. The Melbourne Airport is highlighted as a ‘special case’, not unlike the Upper Yarra Valley and

Dandenong Ranges, in the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

URBIS


43. The amendment to the Planning and Environment Act to provide for the Melbourne Airport Environs Strategy Plan was introduced in 1998. The second reading of the Bill by Mr Reynolds, Minister for Sport11, included the following:

The Melbourne Airport Environs Strategy Plan will help ensure the airport, probably the state's most important strategic site, retains its key competitive advantages of 24-hour curfew-free operation; an integrated passenger terminal complex; large areas of surrounding rural land, allowing minimal impact of aircraft noise on nearby residential areas; enormous potential for expansion with uncongested airspace, unrestricted airfield capacity and a fine weather reputation.

Melbourne is the key freight hub for south-eastern Australia It exports $14 billion worth of goods annually. While most leave via the port an increasing proportion - approximately a quarter by value - leave from Melbourne Airport.

Environmental and urban development pressures during the 1980s saw a joint state-commonwealth working group formed to review the 1960s master plan for Melbourne Airport and to develop the Melbourne Airport strategy. This working relationship established a strong, mutually beneficial foundation between the airport, the commonwealth, state government, municipal councils and the wider community including business, residents and educational institutions.

The introduction in 1992 of the Melbourne Airport environs areas overlay controls over severely aircraft-noise-affected areas in the vicinity of Melbourne Airport has for some years attracted the interest of the commonwealth government as a model to be encouraged nationally. No other airport in Australia has similar provisions in place.

The Melbourne Airport Environs Strategy Plan will build on the effective work which was done at that time. It will also build on the current planning reform work - in particular the Victoria Planning Provisions in relation to the airport and the municipal local policy frameworks for the airport environs.

The bill provides the mechanism to lock in the benefits of this recent work by the preparation of a plan which both houses of Parliament will be asked to endorse. The current planning scheme provisions will continue to apply to the environs area, but any future changes will need to be assessed for consistency with the plan before they proceed. The plan will therefore be to the benefit of the airport and its operations, but also to current and future surrounding owners and occupiers by ensuring that detriment from airport operations is minimised (Hansard, pp 196-197).

44. Part 3C of the Planning and Environment Act (Sections 46R-46Y) now references an approved Melbourne Airport Environs Area Strategy Plan 2003 and requires that an amendment to a planning scheme must not be approved in relation to the Melbourne Airport Environs Area if the amendment is inconsistent with the approved strategy plan.

45. However, the Strategy Plan applies to land only within the ANEF noise contours, so does not address the major land use issue of the rezoning of non-urban land.

46. The Melbourne Airport Environs Area was gazetted on 11 May 2000. It is my understanding that this area only extended to four municipalities: Hume, Brimbank, Moonee Valley and Melton.

3.3. MELBOURNE AIRPORT ENVIRONS AREA STRATEGY PLAN, 2003 47. Following from the change to the Planning and Environment Act, the Melbourne Airport Environs

Area Strategy Plan was finalised in 2003.

48. The Strategy notes as its purpose:

…to provide an updated and progressive framework of planning controls and initiatives to manage the interests of both the Melbourne Airport and the significant airport environs. The current planning controls require updating in several respects;

11 https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/volume-hansard/smaller/Hansard%2053%20LA%20V440%20Sep-

Oct1998/VicHansard_19980903_19980901.pdf


MASAC_REPORT_FINAL

they do not properly reflect the most current information on aircraft noise exposure; the controls require clarification in how they should be applied to different noise exposed areas; and there is a need for more transparent assessment criteria. (page 4)

49. The Strategy Plan itself presents key directions/recommendations of a steering committee and the Victorian Government response to these recommendations. The document is presented as a summary of the committee research with the government agreement or otherwise.

50. The Strategy’s key directions have effectively set the current statutory planning framework that applies to the airport environs today. Notably the Strategy proposed (inter alia):

• That the extent of the control boundaries of the Melbourne Airport Environs Overlay be based on the Ultimate Capacity ANEF.

• That the 20 ANEF be used to define the extent of the Melbourne Airport Environs Overlay controls and that no additional planning controls relating to aircraft noise be applied to areas outside the 20 ANEF.

• That information regarding aircraft noise within 15 km of Melbourne Airport is disseminated to the community.

• That the ‘referral authority’ status of the Melbourne Airport lessee be replaced with a requirement to notify the lessee on planning applications.

• That a set of prescriptive standards be used to guide the implementation of the Overlay provisions.

51. The consequences of this approach are examined at Section 5 of this report.

52. It would appear the recommendations in relation to dissemination of information on aircraft noise to persons within 15km of the airport was supported but there is no evidence that any work has been done in relation to this.

53. I note that a recent addition to the VPPs is Clause 51.04 specifically references the Melbourne Airport Environs Strategy Plan and allows the applicable Councils to include relevant requirements from the strategy plan identified in Part 3C of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

54. Despite the ability to use Clause 51.04 with a degree of specificity, the Planning Schemes of Hume, Whittlesea and Melton for example limit the control to seeking:

To ensure consistency between this planning scheme and the Melbourne Airport Environs Strategy Plan pursuant to the requirements of Part 3C of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

3.4. MELBOURNE 2030 55. In 2002 the then new metropolitan planning policy, Melbourne 2030, reviewed the manner in which

the non-urban areas were being managed (and eroded) and brought the concept of an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) into the planning system. The introduction of the UGB was informed by the Technical Report entitled Green Wedges and Non-Urban Issues which examined the purpose of green wedges and other non-urban areas, how they were being managed and ideas for improvement.

56. The report rightly recognised that one of the roles of the green wedge areas was to provide buffers for major infrastructure such as airports that have off-site impacts. The report12 noted that:

Despite the potential for some conflict, the green wedges provide a significant economic advantage for a range of uses with off-site effects. If these uses have to be relocated because urban development is allowed to develop close by, then additional costs may need to be borne by the community for their relocation. For instance, the cost of relocating sewage farms and airports would be horrendous.

My emphasis

12 Department of Infrastructure – Green Wedges and Non-Urban Issues, Technical Report 2, September 2000 – page 31

URBIS


3.5. PLAN MELBOURNE 2017-2050 57. Plan Melbourne recognises as Places of State Significance Transport Gateways including

Melbourne airport note the purpose of this gateways are:

To secure adequate gateway capacity for moving passengers and freight into and out of Victoria and support future employment and economic development opportunities at major ports, airports and interstate terminals. They will be protected from incompatible land uses but adjacent complementary uses and employment-generating activity will be encouraged (page 15).

58. At Policy 1.1.5 – Support major transport gateways as important locations for employment and economic activity:

Melbourne’s transport gateways and associated road and rail networks are critical to the state’s economy. They provide access to local, national and international markets and are key areas for employment and economic activity.

Melbourne Airport is Victoria’s primary gateway for air passengers and air-freight exporters. It handles around 30 million passengers a year and accounts for almost a third of Australia’s air freight. Melbourne Airport is directly responsible for 14,300 jobs—an employment figure that is expected to grow to 23,000 by 2033. Its curfew-free status is a competitive advantage that must be protected. Additionally, the airport’s central location—between three of Melbourne’s major growth areas—means it is well placed to capitalise on growing labour markets. Together with Essendon Airport’s expanding regional services, this airport corridor has the potential to become one of Australia’s leading transport and logistics hubs (page 34, noting the growth figures are sourced from the Melbourne Airport Master Plan 2013).

59. Direction 1.4 relates to the green wedges and the peri-urban areas and recognises the role these can play in airport safeguarding.

60. Direction 3.4 explicitly discusses the competitive advantage of the constraint free airport:

Improve freight efficiency and increase capacity of gateways while protecting urban amenity

Melbourne has a range of competitive advantages in freight and logistics, including a strong supply of well-priced industrial land, efficient and well-located freight precincts with good transport links, an efficient capital city port with capacity to grow, and a curfew-free international airport.

…

Melbourne must protect its curfew-free airport and support its expansion, support Avalon serving Geelong and western Melbourne, plan for a possible future airport to serve the long-term needs of south-east Melbourne and Gippsland, and provide efficient access to each airport (page 74).

3.5.1. Planning Policy Framework

61. Plan Melbourne’s strategic directions for the airports are given effect in the Planning Policy Framework in Clause 18.04-1S that has the objective:

To strengthen the role of Victoria’s airports and airfields within the State's economic and transport infrastructure, facilitate their siting and expansion and protect their ongoing operation.

62. Strategies to achieve this objective include:

• Protect airports from incompatible land uses.

• Ensure that in the planning of airports, land use decisions are integrated, appropriate land use buffers are in place and provision is made for associated businesses that service airports.

• Plan for areas around all airfields such that:


MASAC_REPORT_FINAL

‒ Any new use or development that could prejudice the safety or efficiency of an airfield is precluded.

‒ The detrimental effects of aircraft operations (such as noise) are taken into account in regulating and restricting the use and development of affected land.

‒ Any new use or development that could prejudice future extensions to an existing airfield or aeronautical operations in accordance with an approved strategy or master plan for that airfield is precluded.

63. Policy guidelines at Clause 18.04 require that planning must consider as relevant:

• National Airports Safeguarding Framework (as agreed by Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers at the meeting of the Standing Council on Transport and Infrastructure on 18 May 2012).

64. Clause 18.04-1R specifically applies to Melbourne Airport and includes the following:

Strategies

Protect the curfew-free status of Melbourne Airport and ensure any new use or development does not prejudice its operation.

Ensure any new use or development does not prejudice the optimum usage of Melbourne Airport.

Policy documents

Consider as relevant:

‒ Melbourne Airport Master Plan 2013 - People Place Prosperity (Australia Pacific Airports (Melbourne) Pty Ltd, 2013)

‒ Melbourne Airport Strategy (Government of Victoria/Federal Airports Corporation, approved 1990) and its associated Final Environmental Impact Statement.

3.6. MELBOURNE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 2018 65. Melbourne Airport is required under the Commonwealth Airports Act 1996 to prepare a Master Plan

every five years. The current Master Plan (2018) is a revision of the previous Master Plan (2013) and maintains the general philosophies and direction of previous plans. The Master Plan presents the vision and intent for a short term (5 years), medium term (5-20 years) and ultimate term (20 years plus).

66. The Master Plan continues to be influenced by the 1990 Melbourne Airport Strategy (MAS) which confirmed the ultimate four runway layout (two wide spaced parallel east-west and two wide spaced parallel north-south) and indicated that the next to be built will be the east-west runway. I note however that whilst the third runaway identified in the 2018 Master Plan is nominated to be the east -west runway, APAM have subsequently indicated they are now planning for the third runway to be in a north-south alignment.

67. The Runway Strategy suggests the potential for limited use of the new east-west runway between 8pm and 6am due to noise impacts on existing residential properties to the east of the airport.

68. The MAS 1990 anticipated the need for the third runway by 2010 and the fourth by 2030. The current thinking by APAM is for the new north south runway to be operational in 2025 and the fourth to be required after 2038. This change in the timing of the new runways can, in part, be ascribed to the fact that aircraft have become bigger and can carry more passengers per flight.

69. The 2018 Master Plan makes the following comments regarding safeguarding the airport:

The capacity of an airport to operate unencumbered is fundamentally dependent on what occurs on the land surrounding it. Safeguarding the operations of Melbourne Airport is an ongoing and shared responsibility between all levels of government and the airport.

The Master Plan describes the objectives of the airport’s safeguarding strategy. It builds on the National Airport Safeguarding Framework, which aims to:

URBIS


• improve community amenity by minimising aircraft noise-sensitive developments near airports including through the use of additional noise metrics and improved noise-disclosure mechanisms

• improve safety outcomes by ensuring aviation safety requirements are recognised in land-use planning decisions through guidelines being adopted by jurisdictions on various safety-related issues. The long-term and effective safeguarding of Melbourne Airport is critical to maintaining the airport’s 24-hour curfew-free status (MAMP 2018, page xii)

3.7. CURRENT STATUTORY CONTROLS 3.7.1. Planning Policy Framework - Local

70. The ‘day to day’ management of the planning controls for the Melbourne Airport environs falls to five Councils (the Cities of Hume, Melton, Moonee Valley, Maribyrnong and Whittlesea) and their respective Planning Schemes. The planning controls consist of the Planning Policy Framework with State and Regional policies referred to above and local policies and the Melbourne Airport Environs Area Overlay controls.

71. The following table summarises the relevant local policies concerning the Melbourne Airport.

Council Area Key Reference to Melbourne Airport in Local Policy Framework

Hume Hume’s economy currently generates $27 billion worth of output and has a significant impact on

Victoria’s economic performance. Hume is home to a number of employment areas including large

strategic employment hubs within and around the Melbourne Airport and along the Hume

Highway, which cater for much of the manufacturing, transport and logistics demands of

Melbourne. Sunbury provides a smaller, but important, role in providing employment and meeting

the economic needs of the wider Macedon Region.

Melbourne Airport is designated as a Transport Gateway and is one of Victoria’s key strategic

assets and economic drivers. Directly employing around 12,500 people, it is one of the largest

employment generators in Melbourne.

Clause 21.01-2 Key Issues and Influences

Protecting the operation of Melbourne Airport

The importance of the Melbourne Airport to the State’s economy, and the accessibility of

Melbourne to global markets, depends upon the continued curfew free operation of the airport.

As the airport continues to grow it will attract significant demand for development in proximity to

the airport. It will also generate an increase in traffic and increased aircraft noise. Council

recognises the need to achieve a balanced approach that protects the curfew free status of the

airport and supports economic growth and businesses, whilst at the same time minimising the

impacts on existing residents.

The airport is currently the largest trip generator outside the Melbourne CBD. However, it suffers

from limited public transport and road connectivity. As the airport continues to grow there will be

an urgent need for better accessibility to the airport from both Sunbury and the Hume Corridor.

Protecting non-urban land

Hume’s non-urban land is primarily zoned Green Wedge. This land provides a permanent break

between the urban areas of the Hume Corridor and Sunbury, creates a distinct rural landscape

character and outlook to the edge of the urban areas, and contains important conservation, natural

resource and landscape features. It also helps protect the curfew free status of Melbourne Airport

by limiting land uses that are affected by aircraft noise.

Hume Corridor

Key issues

Managing significant population growth in the Hume Corridor.


MASAC_REPORT_FINAL


Increasing the number and diversity of jobs in the Hume Corridor.

Providing communities with greater access to higher order facilities.

Protecting and promoting the operation of Melbourne Airport.

Improving the Hume Corridor’s transport network to increase east-west connectivity across the

Hume Corridor and provide greater connectivity to the Melbourne Airport and the Melbourne CBD.

Protecting areas of significant environmental value and improving public access to these places

Objective 7

To reinforce the role of Melbourne Airport as one of Victoria’s key economic assets.

Strategies

Support land-use and development within the airport precinct that is consistent with its specialist

function as a Transport Gateway.

7.1

Ensure that land use and development protects the airport’s curfew free status and is compatible

with the operation of Melbourne Airport in accordance with the Melbourne Airport Master Plan.

Brimbank These multiple transport nodes provide good internal and external connections to central

Melbourne, rural Victoria, the port area, Melbourne Airport and the Hume Freeway and place

Brimbank in an advantageous position with regard to economic and business development

potential.

Development should not impact on Melbourne Airport’s Prescribed Airspace.

Landscaping within the Melbourne Airport Environs Overlay Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 areas

should not be bird attracting and comply with the Melbourne Airport Urban Landscape Plantings

Guide.

Clause 21.06 – Built Environment – Reference Document: Melbourne Airport Master Plan,

Australia Pacific Airports (Melbourne) Pty. Ltd., 2008.

Clause 21.07 – Housing - Objective 2 To protect the operations of Melbourne Airport. Strategy

Limit residential development within the Melbourne Airport Environs Overlay areas and apply the

Neighbourhood Residential Zone.

Investigate mechanisms to control development within the prescribed airspace of Melbourne

Airport.

Clause 21.09 – Industrial Land Use – Reference Document Melbourne Airport Master Plan,

Australia Pacific Airports (Melbourne) Pty. Ltd., 2003

Schedule 6 to the Special Use Zone – Lowther Hall Anglican Grammar School Education Centre

and Sporting Campus - Details of landscaping must be included in the Master Plan and must

exclude potential bird attracting species. The Melbourne Airport Urban Landscape Plantings guide

should be used as a reference to determine appropriate landscape species. The views of Australia

Pacific Airports (Melbourne) must be considered in relation to the landscape species. The views of

Australia Pacific Airports (Melbourne) for applications for use of land as an education centre.

Schedule to the ESO - Within the Melbourne Airport Environs Overlay area, planting should not

include any bird attracting species.

Schedule 11 to the DDO – Brooklyn Industrial and Commercial Precinct - For proposed land use

and development that includes the emission of dust, particles, smoke or gas, above a height of

240m AHD, seek the views of Melbourne Airport.

Whittlesea Further strategic work nominates: Support options for strengthening local planning provisions to

protect Melbourne Airport and manage the impacts on the community. Proximity and access to

Melbourne Airport provides competitive advantages for the municipality.

URBIS



Planning for urban growth and employment aims to safeguard the on-going operation of

Melbourne Airport and curfew free operations.

Melton The proximity of Melbourne Airport provides significant economic opportunities to the municipality.

The need to ensure the airport’s curfew free status is protected considerably restricts development

opportunities within the areas under the Melbourne Airport Environs Overlay. Sensitive land uses

on land affected by the Melbourne Airport Environs Overlay Schedule 1 and 2 need to be

controlled in order to protect airport operations and maintain appropriate levels of amenity for the

Melton community.

Moonee Valley Focus is primarily on Essendon Fields

Note DDO8 – Essendon Airport Obstacle Height Area No 1 (deals with OLS but also building

materials)

Notification Requirements

In accordance with Section 52(1)(c) of the Act, notice of an application under this schedule must

be given to the Essendon Airport Manager unless in the opinion of the Responsible Authority the

proposal satisfied requirements or condition previously agreed to in writing between the

Responsible Authority and the Essendon Airport Manager.

72. Some observations arising from the above:

• All Councils recognise the importance of Melbourne Airport in their local policy statements.

• There is a significant difference between the five Councils in their consideration of the airport – as both a key piece of transport infrastructure and/or a facility with the potential to have land use impacts on the relevant municipality.

• The Airport Master Plan is inconsistently referenced with outdated versions.

• Only the City of Brimbank bring in any of the broader NASF considerations beyond noise, with considerations on bird attracting plants (via ESO), dust particles (via DDO) and the need to restrict intrusions into prescribed airspace (general policy position only).

• City of Brimbank also take a firm policy stance on the use of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone for all land within the MAEO (and without any MAEO1/MAEO2 distinction).

3.7.2. The Melbourne Airport Environs Overlay

73. Land use controls for the areas around Melbourne Airport were first implemented by the State Government in 1992. This first land use control was called the Melbourne Airport Environs Area and was introduced on an interim basis. The control applied only to the (former) municipalities of Broadmeadows, Bulla, Keilor and Melton.

74. The introduction of the Victoria Planning Provisions introduced the Airport Environs Overlay (AEO). The AEO was developed based on the principles of the 1992 MAEA controls.

75. ln May 2007 a new overlay, the Melbourne Airport Environs Overlay (MAEO), based on the 2003 ANEF contours, was introduced into the Victoria Planning Provisions. This overlay incorporated provisions specifically for Melbourne Airport in accordance with the outcomes and recommendations of the Melbourne Airport Environs Strategy Plan 2003.

76. The MAEO is the primary planning tool for consideration of the potential impacts of the Melbourne Airport. The purpose of the MAEO include the following:

• To ensure that land use and development are compatible with the operation of Melbourne Airport in accordance with the relevant airport strategy or master plan and with safe air navigation for aircraft approaching and departing the airfield.

• To assist in shielding people from the impact of aircraft noise by requiring appropriate noise attenuation measures in dwellings and other noise sensitive buildings. ·


MASAC_REPORT_FINAL

• To provide for appropriate levels of noise attenuation depending on the level of forecasted noise exposure.

77. The Overlay is applied in two Schedules. The purpose of MAEO1 is:

To identify areas that are or will be subject to high levels of aircraft noise based on the 25 Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF) contour and to restrict use and development to that which is appropriate to that level of exposure.

78. The purpose of MAEO2 is:

To identify areas that are or will be subject to moderate levels of aircraft noise based on the 20-25 Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF) contours and to limit use and development to that which is appropriate to that level of exposure.

79. The MAEO schedule specifies controls relating to Land Use, Buildings and Works, Subdivision, Decision Guidelines and Notification. The Table at Appendix A provides a summary of the land uses conditionally permissible within each of the Schedules as compared with the Australian Standard AS 2021.

80. Appendix B includes two tables from AS 2021 that identify the acceptability of uses in each of the ANEF contours and the indoor noise performance for various uses. I observe that:

• The notes to the Table 2.1 expresses caution with respect to reliance on the ANEF 20 contour and suggests that assessment for noise impacts can also be carried out for sites outside the contour.

• The two MAEO schedules allow the use of the land for dwellings. I draw attention to the distinction between acceptable and conditionally acceptable and the footnotes Table 2.1 of the Australian Standard at B). Dwellings are noted as unacceptable in the Australian Standard for land in the 25 ANEF and only conditionally acceptable in the 20-25 ANEF.

81. The MAEO schedules outline a range of land uses that are considered ‘sensitive’ to the potential for noise impacts. A number of these uses are prohibited in MAEO1 (including accommodation, education centre, hospital) but conditionally permissible in MAEO2. It appears that a common approach by planners is that permissible uses are acceptable, subject to the noise attenuation conditions applicable under the head MAEO clause.

82. Yet I note that Dr Bullen’s report13 advises below 20 ANEF, where new residential development is considered “acceptable”, less than 12% of new residents will be seriously affected by the noise.

83. In both schedules the density of population is sought to be limited in the following ways:

• Only one dwelling on a lot is permissible in MAEO1.

• Any subdivision of land which would increase the number of dwellings which the land could be used for is prohibited in MAEO1.

• The development of a single lot for two or more dwellings must not exceed a density of one dwelling per 300sqm in MAEO2.

• Each lot must be at least 300sq.m in MAEO2.

84. The Decision Guidelines specify a series of matters that the Responsible Authority must have regard to when deciding on the application, including:

• Whether the proposal will result in an increase in the number of dwellings and people affected by aircraft noise.

85. It is my view that the decision guideline around number of dwellings and people affected by noise is too vague. The question of at what density does it become too many people is not clearly defined. As such it is often difficult for APAM, Responsible Authorities and applicants to agree what an appropriate density may be. I understand this has been a particular concern when assessing applications for new or expanding aged care homes.

13 Dr Rob Bullen – Statement of Evidence, Description of Noise Measurement and Impacts, December 2020 – page 9

URBIS


86. The decision guideline on ‘Whether the proposal is compatible with the present and future operation of the airport in accordance with the current Melbourne Airport Master Plan approved in accordance with the Airports Act 1996’ is so broad as to be of limited usefulness.

87. There is also no framework that recognises the cumulative impact of land use decisions that individually may appear acceptable.

88. In summary, the MAEO control seeks to directly control the impacts of noise on sensitive uses

89. I am instructed that in reviewing the some ~200 planning permit applications notified to them annually APAM have a detailed template they use to work through a range of considerations taking into account the explicit planning overlay requirements but also including matters expressed in the National Airport Safeguarding Framework (NASF). including:

• NASF Guideline A – The proposal is located within the 20-25 ANEF Noise Contours. Is the proposal “conditionally acceptable” according to AS2021 Table 2.1? Is the proposal “unacceptable” according to AS2021 Table 2.1?

• NASF Guideline B – Is there a risk of Building Generated Windshear & Turbulence?

• NASF Guideline C - Is there a risk that the proposal could increase the potential for bird strikes?

• NASF Guideline E - Is there a risk of external lighting being a distraction for pilots?

• NASF Guideline F - Could the proposal affect the airport’s Prescribed Airspace, including construction cranes?

• NASF Guideline I - Is the proposed use/development outside the airport’s Public Safety Zones?

• Is there a risk of smoke or dust causing a hazard for aircraft?

• Is there a risk of glare from roofed areas causing a hazard?

90. I consider the APAM checklist (replicated at C) appropriately considers a range of land use and development matters which have the potential to exert an influence over the safe and efficient operation of the airport.

91. However, as the mapping of the NASF guidelines illustrates (see following Section 4), the buffers for considerations such as wildlife strike, lighting etc extend broadly from Melbourne Airport and well beyond the boundary of the MAEO. This highlights that some land use applications which NASF identifies as potentially impacting the safe operation of the airport will not or may not be notified.

92. Whilst the Melbourne Airport Master Plan clearly outlines considerations under the NASF Guidelines around lighting, bird strike etc, the failure of the MAEO to specifically comment on such issues in the decision guidelines means they are generally not considered by the Responsible Authorities.


MASAC_REPORT_FINAL

4. NATIONAL AIRPORTS SAFEGUARDING FRAMEWORK (NASF)

93. NASF was prepared by the National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group (NASAG). It is a national land use planning framework of guiding principles that each State and Territory will use to align its planning policies with to ensure a more consistent approach.

94. The NASF sets out the following purpose:

The purpose of the National Airports Safeguarding Framework (the Safeguarding Framework) is to enhance the current and future safety, viability and growth of aviation operations at Australian airports, by supporting and enabling:

• the implementation of best practice in relation to land use assessment and decision making in the vicinity of airports;

• assurance of community safety and amenity near airports;

• better understanding and recognition of aviation safety requirements and aircraft noise impacts in land use and related planning decisions;

• the provision of greater certainty and clarity for developers and land owners;

• improvements to regulatory certainty and efficiency; and

• the publication and dissemination of information on best practice in land use and related planning that supports the safe and efficient operation of airports.

NASF Principles

95. The NASF identified seven principles to achieve the objective of developing a consistent and effective national framework to safeguard both airports and communities from inappropriate on and off-airport developments. They are as follows:

• Principle 1. The safety, efficiency and operational integrity of airports should be protected by all governments, recognising their economic, defence and social significance.

• Principle 2. Airports, governments and local communities should share responsibility to ensure that airport planning is integrated with local and regional planning.

• Principle 3. Governments at all levels should align land use planning and building requirements in the vicinity of airports.

• Principle 4. Land use planning processes should balance and protect both airport/aviation operations and community safety and amenity expectations.

• Principle 5. Governments will protect operational airspace around airports in the interests of both aviation and community safety.

• Principle 6. Strategic and statutory planning frameworks should address aircraft noise by applying a comprehensive suite of noise measures

• Principle 7. Airports should work with governments to provide comprehensive and understandable information to local communities on their operations concerning noise impacts and airspace requirements.

Summary of NASF Guidelines

96. The key principles are supported by detailed guidelines that cover the following:

• Guideline A – relates to Managing Impacts of Aircraft Noise. This guideline recognises limitations of the ANEF alone and confirms the merits of utilising a range of noise measures to better inform strategic planning (refer Figure 4).

• Guideline B – Seeks to manage Building Generated Wind Shear and Turbulence at airports. Whilst on-airport developments are more likely to impact Melbourne airport the wind shear assessment envelopes do extend beyond the airport boundary (refer Figure 5).

URBIS


• Guideline C – Managing the Risk of Wildlife Strikes in the Vicinity of Airports is an appropriate land use planning consideration but that fails to be explicitly detailed in the MAEO or elsewhere in the VPPs. The Melbourne Airport Master Plan outlines 3, 8 and 13km buffer zones where the potential for bird strike should be considered in land use planning (refer Figure 6).

• Guideline D - Managing the Risk to Aviation Safety of Wind Turbine Installations seeks to outline the risk associated with wind farms being as they are both tall structures and may not be clearly visible. Note this has not been mapped but NASF notes these may be a concern if constructed within 30km of an aerodrome.

• Guideline E – Managing the Risk of Distractions to Pilots from Lighting in the Vicinity of Airports, is a key consideration for off-airport development. This may relate to sports lighting, transport lighting or illuminated signage in proximity to the airport runway approaches. Again, there is nothing explicit within the VPPs that brings this issue to a responsible authority’s awareness. The Melbourne Airport Master Plan identifies a series of Lighting Intensity Zones where the potential for light distraction may be highest (refer Figure 7).

• Guideline F – Managing the Risk of Intrusions into the Protected Airspace of Airports. This is an issue that the planning system in Victoria has not directly responded to. Airspaces surrounding airports must be protected from obstacles to ensure aircraft flying in good weather during the initial and final stages of flight, or in the vicinity of the airport, can do so safely. This is known as the Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) (refer Figure 8).

• A second level of protected airspace is the Pans-Ops Surfaces (Procedures for Air Navigation Services – Aircraft Operations). When poor weather limits visibility, pilots need to know that the airspace they are flying in is free of obstacles. Pans-Ops provide pilots an identification of intrusions into the airspace (refer Figure 9). To the extent that the OLS or Pans-Ops Surfaces have to be varied to account for new intrusions (either temporary i.e. cranes, or permanent) potentially impacts the safety for pilots and the community.

• Both the OLS and PansOps have differing heights depending upon the distance from the airport and the location relative to the main flight paths and runway configurations. The majority of the areas mapped will have no meaningful impact on land use planning as the height above ground is well beyond any reasonable expectation for future developments.

• Guideline G – Protecting Aviation Facilities – Communication, Navigation and Surveillance. This guideline seeks to ensure a consistent approach to the protecti

planning expert opinion...airports, is a key consideration for off-airport development. this may...

Documents