I agree with the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee’s report calling for draft flight plan information to be produced as part of master plans. BAC has chosen not to adhere to the recommendations of this report.

In a number of places, the plan makes negative references of political representatives ensuring the public is informed of possible future flight paths. BAC clearly don’t understand that it is a role of elected representatives to ensure their constituents are made aware of any issues that may affect them.

Clearly, flight paths over residential homes is a matter that should be the subject of political discussion and debate. BAC appears to have a view that flight path issues revolve solely around aircraft noise. While aircraft noise is certainly is important, many residents are also concerned with an increased level of risk of being involved in aircraft accidents. While I accept the level of risk is very low, that risk is clearly greater for people living under flight paths.

Surely residents have a right to know if BAC’s runway plans will result in aircraft flight paths being made over their homes.

Figure 7.5 (page 75) of the draft master plan shows the flight tracks proposed by BAC for calculating the ANEF (Aircraft Noise Exposure Forecast) contours for their proposed runway configurations. Using BAC's 'immediate vicinity' flight paths proposed and current flight paths used at Brisbane Airport for the existing runways, it would not be unreasonable to predict that there will be new flight paths over the suburbs of Hamilton, Ascot, Hendra, Nundah, Wavell Heights, Kedron and Northgate.

This Master Plan should not be considered for approval without BAC nominating possible flight paths associated with their planned runway configuration. Brisbane's residents should also be given an opportunity to comment on them.

Possible new flight paths over Brisbane’s north-east suburbs, using 'immediate vicinity' flight path information provided by BAC.

I continue to call on the BAC to move the proposed parallel runway to the international minimum standard of a separation of 1,525 metres (for efficient and safe parallel runway operations), instead of their preferred 2,000 metres.

A balance needs to be made between BAC’s property development plans, the noise effects on homes in the suburbs of Banyo, Nudgee, Nudgee Beach, Northgate and Nundah and increased operational capacity of the airport.

In my view, significant noise reduction for residents would be effected by moving the runway the 475 metres further to the south-east. While this would reduce BAC’s plans for property development between the two main runways, is not an unreasonable compromise.

The 475 metres of land saved from runway development by this move, would also present a great opportunity to protect large areas of mangroves, wetland habitat, fish breeding habitat and natural areas. It would also provide a more acceptable amenity buffer to Kedron Brook.

The introduction of ODPROPS clearly will benefit Brisbane’s residents in the short term. Simultaneous take-offs and landings to the north over Moreton Bay greatly reduce aircraft noise over residential areas.

BAC correctly identifies reasons when ODPROPS may not be available. These include meteorological conditions (wind direction and strengths) and runway demand level during peak periods.

As wind direction and strength have a clear bearing on take-off and landing directions, BAC should be doing everything possible to ensure the maximum availability of ODPROPS.

Clearly, longer runways will allow greater ODPROPS availability due to the capacity of aircraft to operate at higher 'downwind' conditions. Accordingly, BAC should commit to build any parallel runway to a minimum length of 3,600 metres (not their plan of 3,000m). It is not acceptable for BAC to build a shorter runway, which would severely reduce ODPROPS availability, even in the short term.

There may also be greater ODPROPS availability should the existing main 01-19 runway be extended to the ultimate length of 4,100m.

The construction of a parallel runway and other property developments will place increased demand on local waterways such as Kedron Brook and Boggy Creek during periods of heavy rain. The draft master plan needs more detailed information on what actions BAC plan to attenuate stormwater runoff, to reduce flooding of upstream residential areas.

Adequate stormwater retention on the airport is essential to reduce upstream flooding of residential areas. The construction of the parallel runway will cause massive rapid water run-off.

In particular, Kedron Brook (and its tributaries) is subject to flooding during periods of heavy rain and high tides. Cannery Drain and Pound Creek cause inundation of houses in Northgate and Nundah when Kedron Brook is in a flood. Construction of the proposed parallel runway and associated taxiways adjacent to Kedron Brook will provide an extra 540,000 square metres of hard rain catching surface. The majority of the rain that falls onto this area currently soaks into the ground and later evaporates or slowly finds its way to Kedron Brook. With the construction of this runway, a 25mm downpour would produce 13,500 cubic metres of stormwater. BAC needs to be indicating how this will be managed.

Accordingly I believe the draft master plan is deficient in meeting the Airports Act 1996, Div 3 Airport master plans; s71(Contents of draft or final master plan) (2)(f) and (g) by not providing clear plans for dealing with stormwater retention.

This proposed shopping centre is contrary to good strategic land use planning for the area. Clearly, it is of a scale and nature that will attract custom from local residential areas and traffic from Nudgee Rd, East-West Arterial Road and the Gateway Motorway. This could result is serious detriment to the amenity of residents in Northgate Ward who live on or near the major roads. There is no ability for local residents to either walk to the centre or catch a bus. The only public transport option would be if or when an extra rail station was constructed on the airport rail link.

My understanding is that BAC claims that this shopping centre has already been approved in the 1998 Master Plan and that it has been "subject to the rigorous planning and approvals requirements of the Federal Airports Act 1996" (Courier Mail Thursday Oct 2^nd 2003).

However, the only reference to a retail shopping centre in the 1998 plan can be found on page 143, where BAC lists the types of activities they wish to support in their business zones. I fail to see that a single entry, " shopping centre", could possibly be described as meeting a rigorous planning and approvals requirement.

While the Airports Act 1996 (Div 4 Major development plans), does not specifically require BAC to lodge a Major Development Plan for individual buildings with a construction cost of less than $10m, I believe the intent of this section is to cover proposed centres of this scale. I understand the total development at this site will be in the order of $200m.

Accordingly, I believe the BAC should submit a Major Development Plan (MDP) for Number 1 Airport Drive (separate to this master plan), to address the normal issues relating to a major shopping centre development proposal.

I would not be supporting such a MDP for a major shopping centre at this location. However I would be amenable to a centre that caters for airport passengers, staff and visitors at a location closer to the airport terminal facilities and away from the Gateway Arterial and East-West Arterial Roads.

BAC makes references to many off-airport issues that are the responsibility of the Council and State. In particular they clearly want government support for airspace protection, obstacle limitation, restriction of floodlighting near the airport and land use planning in accordance with their ANEF maps.

At the same time BAC have not indicated any reciprocal responsibilities to adhere to Council and State strategic planning outcomes, compliance with the State’s Environmental Protection Act (EPA) and Integrated Planning Act (IPA) or any Council Local Laws.

I accept that ‘airside’ (aeronautical) areas should continue to be protected by the Crown and be the domain of the Federal Government departments and regulations. However, ‘landside’ (non-aeronautical) areas should be subject to all relevant local laws and regulations.

Accordingly, BAC should commit in this Master Plan, to comply with local and State Government laws for all landside development.

Cr Kim Flesser

Northgate Ward

284 St Vincents Rd

BANYO Q 4014

Wednesday, 8 October 2003.