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

1 Executive Summary
Introduction
From 22 April to the end of July 2019, the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman (ANO)
received 299 complaints regarding the proposed flight paths to support a new runway
at Sunshine Coast Airport in May 2020.
The proposed new runway was the subject of an environmental impact statement
(EIS) and associated community consultation conducted in 2014/15 by Sunshine
Coast Council. At that time, Airservices Australia (Airservices) agreed with the
concept flight paths, developed by a private consultant and included in the EIS, but
took no part in the community consultation.
In April 2018, Airservices commenced detailed design work on the new flight paths,
seeking to maintain alignment with the EIS, except where it identified variations that
could reduce noise impacts in some communities to the north-west. Airservices
engaged a consultant to conduct a Targeted Environmental Impact Assessment
(TEIA) of its proposed flight path design. The TEIA recommended implementation of
a community engagement plan that covered all areas predicted to experience future
aircraft noise and gave residents an opportunity to raise concerns.

Community engagement
Airservices determined that it achieved this recommendation through reliance on the
broader community update program being undertaken by the Sunshine Coast Airport
Expansion Project along with its own targeted consultation only with those areas
where its proposed flight paths varied from the concept flight paths in the EIS. There
was no assessment by Airservices of the adequacy of the EIS community
consultations in 2014/15 nor any consideration of population churn or other factors
that may have changed in the community since the earlier consultation.
Airservices’ consultation occurred during a six week period in March/April 2019.
Airservices took responsibility for consultation in areas where the proposed flight
paths deviated from those proposed in the 2014/15 EIS (the target area) and
provided technical support for Sunshine Coast Council which was responsible for a
community update program with the other affected areas (the general area).
The community engagement did not go smoothly, with community awareness of the
flight path proposals and consultation sessions heavily reliant on community
members using their social media and own letterbox drops to reach interested
individuals. Airservices’ early notice of the consultation period had suggested that the
community in all affected areas would be consulted. Some two weeks into the
consultation period, it became more specific that it was only consulting communities
in the target area. This division of responsibilities between Airservices and the
Sunshine Coast Council caused general public confusion about who was responsible
for what. Airservices underestimated the extent of public interest and had to schedule
multiple consultation sessions in groups limited to 50, due to the size of the venues it
had hired. Complaints to the ANO reported no notice or lack of timely notice of
meetings, inconsistent responses between Airservices and Sunshine Coast Council
representatives and lack of clarity about who had responsibility for decisions.



Aircraft Noise Ombudsman
Investigation into complaints about the introduction of new flight paths in the Sunshine Coast (April 2020)   Page 1