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

9 Conclusions
9.1       Airservices has an obligation to inform, consult and constructively engage with
          communities potentially affected by proposed flight paths before they are
          implemented. Airservices asserts that it can rely upon consultation undertaken
          by others in an EIS process to meet this obligation. Airservices must, however,
          turn its mind to whether such a consultation was adequate. In this case,
          Airservices took no part in the consultations that occurred as part of the EIS
          conducted in 2014/15 by the Sunshine Coast Council and did not conduct its
          own assessment of that process. It told the ANO that it accepted the approvals
          of the Queensland Coordinator General and the Commonwealth Minister for
          the Environment to be sufficient evidence that an appropriate process had
          taken place.

9.2       Airservices aligned its flight path designs with those in the EIS but also
          proposed variations to reduce overflight of some north-west and north-east
          communities. However, it was not open to further variations in other areas as
          proposed by the community, which could potentially deliver improved
          environmental outcomes. Airservices took the position, as described in its
          Proposed Final Design and Consideration of Feedback Report29:

                  Alternative flight path designs submitted that were outside the approved EIS concept
                  flight paths were not able to be progressed at this time.

9.3       While there had been a consultation process and approvals on the basis of the
          EIS, it was apparent from the EIS documentation that the flight paths it
          contained were concepts and potentially subject to change over time:

                  The changes proposed in this chapter represent the flight paths and airspace currently
                  envisaged by SCA to be adopted for operations on the proposed runway. However,
                  these concepts are preliminary and future developments in aircraft technology and
                  navigation systems, as well as development of the Brisbane basin air traffic
                  management network could result in changes to the proposed airspace. 30

9.4       Airservices’ internal procedure (NOS)31 requires the re-assessment of the
          environmental impact of proposed flight paths if more than 18 months has
          passed since its last assessment. GHD’s TEIA ensured this requirement was
          met. However, the point made in the NOS is that a lot can change over 18
          months, let alone over 4 to 5 years and this applies equally to planning the
          stakeholder engagements as it does to considering the environmental impacts
          associated with a change. The level of population churn in the areas affected
          would have been one relevant consideration.




29 ibid, p. 27

30 Sunshine Coast Council, Sunshine Coast Airport Expansion Project – Environmental Impact Statement, 18

September 2014, p. D2-169
31 Airservices Australia, NOS, op. cit. - see paragraph 2.7 above



Aircraft Noise Ombudsman
Investigation into complaints about the introduction of new flight paths in the Sunshine Coast (April 2020)   Page 27