2020-10-12 GC Agenda - Item 9 - Attachment 1 - Aircraft Noise Ombudsman Report - Investigation

                  Airservices role is to consult with communities where the flight paths differ from the
                  flight paths in the Environmental Impact Statement, [emphasis added] and take
                  feedback on these variations.

7.5       Airservices continued to use its website after the consultation period closed to
          update the public. This included the feedback reports, how it used the
          feedback in determining a final design, the updated TEIA for the final design
          and useful representations of timelines and the potential impacts of the final
          design.

Face-to-face consultation sessions

7.6       Airservices scheduled four on-site community drop-in sessions in locations
          identified as relevant to communities within its target area. It also made staff
          (including senior flight path designers and senior air traffic controllers)
          available to provide technical support to consultations undertaken by the
          SCAEP team that had the stated purpose of updating the community about
          general progress of the expansion project, including the proposed airspace
          and flight paths.

7.7       Complaints to the ANO were critical of the conduct of the sessions, referring to
          issues including:

               No notification or a lack of timely notification about the sessions
               Inconsistency in response and information provided by Airservices and
                SCA/SCC staff
               Lack of access to technical noise specialists
               Lack of clarity about who had responsibility for decisions
               The ‘drop in’ session format meant it was difficult to obtain information
               Airservices representatives appeared unprepared for the number of
                attendees and the level of concern being expressed.
7.8       For example, a Yandina Creek resident said:

                  …residents in [my street] were not supplied with information regarding the proposed
                  changes or information specific to this area. It was only after specific enquiries of the
                  relevant authorities that such information was made available in the past week [writing
                  on 29 April]. This is unacceptably close to the dead line for submission of objections.

7.9       Complainants raised concerns about a lack of access to technical noise
          specialists. For example:

                  A common question at the community consultation sessions was, ’What about the
                  noise?’ and ‘How loud will it be?’ Representatives from both ASA and SCC did not have
                  the knowledge to adequately explain N60, N70, associated dB(A) levels, ANEC and
                  ANEF contours and the potential impacts on residents beneath the flight paths.

7.10 Complainants advised that these sessions did not help them access the
     necessary information:
                  Attendees felt that questions were not fully answered in a meaningful manner to assist
                  them with their decision making.


Aircraft Noise Ombudsman
Investigation into complaints about the introduction of new flight paths in the Sunshine Coast (April 2020)   Page 19