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

9.5       The consultative process carried out by Airservices in 2019, however, was
          conceived on the basis that the EIS consultations in 2014/15 largely satisfied
          its obligations and no further consultation by it was required with those people
          potentially affected by aircraft noise in the areas covered by the previous
          Sunshine Coast Council processes (the general area). Airservices determined
          to directly consult only those potentially affected in areas where it had made
          modifications to the 2014/15 concept flight path design (the target area).
          “Consultation” with those affected in the general area, described by
          Airservices as a community update program, and in Airservices’ SEP as
          “activities aimed to inform and update the community on the development and
          implementation of Runway 13/31”32, would be the responsibility of the
          Sunshine Coast Council, with Airservices providing support.

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 general as well as the target
          areas. However, Airservices’ decision to only consider varying its final design
          from its proposed design where suggested alternatives were aligned to the
          EIS concept paths meant that “consultation” with those in the general area
          was effectively consultation in name only. The complaints to the ANO
          demonstrate that public anger continued to grow through the process and
          remained after the consultation period had closed.

9.7       Standards of best practice consultation for major infrastructure projects require
          that those consulted have at least some potential to influence the outcome and
          contribute to the final position. The International Association for Public
          Participation (IAP2)’s Quality Assurance Standard for Community and
          Stakeholder Engagement33 adopts the IAP2’s Core Values for public
          participation, state that public participation:

                   is based on the belief that those who are affected by a decision have a right to be
                    involved in the decision-making process
                   includes the promise that the public’s contribution will influence the decision
                   promotes sustainable decisions by recognising and communicating the needs and
                    interests of all participants, including decision makers
                   seeks out and facilitates the participation of those potentially affected by or
                    interested in a decision
                   seeks input from participants in designing how they participate
                   provides participants with the information they need to participate in a meaningful
                    way
                   communicates to participants how their input affected the decision.



32 Airservices Australia, SEP, op. cit, p.6

33 International Association for Public Participation, Quality Assurance Standard for Community and Stakeholder

Engagement, 2015, p. 10

Aircraft Noise Ombudsman
Investigation into complaints about the introduction of new flight paths in the Sunshine Coast (April 2020)   Page 28