2020-10-12 General Committee Agenda

GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                              12 OCTOBER 2020


      2.    Review by the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman (ANO)

      The ANO is a statutory review process put in place to independently review complaints about
      the operations of ASA. In recent years, it has prepared a number of quite critical reports
      about how ASA have undertaken reviews of flight paths and their consultation practices. Until
      the Sunshine Coast airport issue arose, the most recent example of a report that was critical
      of ASA related to a review of flight paths at Hobart.

      The ANO has the power to independently review complaints made to it about ASA. However,
      it is important to note that the ANO cannot change a decision of ASA but can only make
      recommendations to the ASA Board, which is common for ombudsman type roles. It is then
      up to the ASA Board to determine whether or not it agrees with recommendations made by
      the ANO.

      There were a large number of complaints made to the ANO by residents regarding the
      process used by ASA to develop the current flight paths. As a Council, we also lodged a
      formal complaint regarding that process and provided the ANO with a series of submissions
      outlining poor consultation processes, inconsistent information and procedural unfairness in
      terms of the process used by ASA to develop the flight paths.

      The ANO released its report in April 2020 entitled – “Investigation into Complaints about the
      Introduction of New Flight Paths in Sunshine Coast”.

      The report was quite scathing of ASA’s processes and consultation. Some of the findings of
      the ANO included:
          ASA targeted consultation to those areas which were not considered under the EIS
           process for flight paths5
          ASA had prepared a Stakeholder Engagement Plan but the final version of that was
           not completed until after the community engagement had commenced6
          ASA published notices in 6 papers advising of the proposed consultation with none of
           those papers circulating widely in the Noosa area and, as identified by the ANO, meant
           that only readers in locations outside the area affected by flight paths were being
           notified by newspaper.7
          ASA underestimating the level of public interest.
          ASA reporting that 24% of submissions received related to noise but in fact, 475 of the
           917 submissions (51%) raised noise as a concern8
          A Stakeholder Roundtable which was held on 5 July 2019 to enable community input
           allowed little time for questions or statements by the community with majority of the
           meeting devoted to presentations by Sunshine Coast Council and ASA.
          a lack of clarity about who had responsibility for consultation – ASA or Sunshine Coast
           Council as the owner of the airport

      The key findings from the ANO included the following:
        “9.6 This apparent division of responsibilities, produced confusion as the process
        continued. Airservices and the Sunshine Coast Council each placed separate public
        notices about upcoming consultation activities and complaints show inconsistent
        information provided at community consultation sessions by representatives of the two
        parties. Airservices did not anticipate the extent of public interest and did take steps to
        respond to the changing circumstances. It also considered the feedback received from

5 refer to paragraph 5.8 of ANO report – page 13
6 refer to paragraph 5.5 of ANO report – page 13
7 refer to paragraphs 6.1 – 6.3 of the ANO report - page 15
8 refer to paragraph 7.20 of the ANO report – page 22


                                                                                    Page 80 of 84