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

                  A response heard frequently to questions about flight path routes resulting noise
                  impacts was ‘It’s in all the EIS’. The EIS alone is a document of nearly 3000 pages.
                  Telling residents to go back and have a look through the EIS to find answers to their
                  questions or to verify what they were being told seems an inadequate response from
                  both council and ASA representatives. This is supported by media coverage of the
                  outrage after each meeting. In some cases, the consultant turned their back on the
                  attendee and walked away. This poorly run process for gaining quality information has
                  totally failed.

7.11 Complainants raised a lack of clarity around responsibilities at these sessions.
     There was concern about who could decide the flight paths and to what extent
     Airservices or the Sunshine Coast Council had the final say. One complainant
     reported:

                  At the Verrierdale ‘Drop In’ Airservices Australia stated they take the recommendation
                  from the Sunshine Coast Council on the flight paths and yet the Division 9 Councillor
                  stated it was an Airservices Australia decision. Others also received the same
                  information from Airservices and the Councillor, with one person trying to even have the
                  Councillor meet with Airservices.

7.12 Complainants also raised a lack of clarity about who could decide to extend
     the consultation period with Airservices staff unclear if it was their decision to
     make. One complainant reported that:

                  ASA told residents at the Coolum meeting that they should include a request for an
                  extension in their feedback and it would be considered. At the Verrierdale meeting the
                  following week ASA told residents that they would have to seek an extension from SCC.

                  It is our understanding that ASA is an independent Federal body and should therefore
                  be the decision maker in this scenario, however comments from SCC would suggest
                  otherwise. The question of authority and to whom residents should apply for an
                  extension of the community consultation period is still unresolved with 2 working days
                  left before feedback closes.

7.13 It appears that Airservices underestimated the level of public interest, but
     made a serious effort to allow for the later sessions to manage the larger
     numbers of interested residents arriving at venues designed for smaller
     groups. This included the measures added to Airservices’ website on 10 April:

                  We will be inviting small groups of up to 50 through each venue at one time, which may
                  take up to 30-40 minutes.

                  This will enable us to provide information and take feedback on the proposed flight path
                  designs.

                  At times, there may be a waiting period and we appreciate your patience.

                  If you would prefer to not wait, you can access information and Fact Sheets under the
                  resources tab below, or submit your feedback:

                   Online via https://feedback.emsbk.com/asa
                   By mail to: Feedback c/o Noise Complaints and Information Service, PO Box 211
                    Mascot NSW 1460
7.14 The consultation period concluded on 30 April 2019. Airservices reports that it
     received positive comments and feedback about the value of the on-site
     sessions


Aircraft Noise Ombudsman
Investigation into complaints about the introduction of new flight paths in the Sunshine Coast (April 2020)   Page 20