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

8 Complaints about the process
8.1       At a briefing on 1 May 2019 with senior Airservices officers, the ANO was
          advised that Airservices did not intend to respond to the complaints it had
          received and continued to receive, but had decided to treat all complaints
          received as ‘feedback’.

8.2       The ANO continued to receive many complaints from community members
          that their inquiries and complaints had not been responded to by Airservices.
          On 13 June 2019, after Airservices had published its Summary of Feedback –
          Part One report, Airservices confirmed its processes had given priority to
          reviewing and analysing submissions. It advised:

                  We prioritised producing feedback reports because they will provide a chance for all
                  participants to get a sense of a broader range of ideas and concerns that were raised
                  during the consultation process and an understanding of how this feedback was
                  considered in the final flight path design. Given we are working to the runway
                  development project schedule, and the volume of feedback is significant this is
                  considered the most practical alternative to responding to each submission received
                  during the consultation.

8.3       In August Airservices advised the ANO that it intended to analyse all
          communications from the community to identify complaints and respond to
          them. Airservices advised that this analysis identified something in the order of
          1000 submissions that included complaints and that responses would be sent
          to all complainants identified. From late August through to late September (five
          or more months after complaints were lodged) Airservices sent letters to these
          complainants, acknowledging the complaint, reiterating the consultation
          process, including referral to previously published documents, and recognising
          that:

                  we will not be able to please everyone in this process and there will remain some
                  community members who are not satisfied with the outcome of the proposed flight path
                  designs.

8.4       Complainants expressed disappointment at this response, for example:

                  ASA’s response did acknowledge SCC’s letterbox drops may not have reached all
                  households. ASA’s response also inferred that they are aware of the botched
                  notification process, quote, “We understand that you may not have been aware of, or
                  received late notification regarding, Airservices consultation drop-in sessions.”

                  ASA efforts in this entire process have been woeful and they are hiding behind the
                  pretext of aircraft safety and operations, and bending to the will of the Sunshine Coast
                  Council and airlines whim are only interested in money with little concern or
                  consideration for the impact on residents and the environment whom live in the flight
                  path areas and will be most affected.

                  I must admit I feel completely despondent and that no one in government is listening.




Aircraft Noise Ombudsman
Investigation into complaints about the introduction of new flight paths in the Sunshine Coast (April 2020)   Page 26