Melbourne Environs Safeguarding 30 Standing Advisory Committee

Request to be Yes heard?: Full Name: Stephanie Mann on behalf of Pacific () Pty Ltd Organisation: MinterEllison Affected property: , Departure Drive, Melbourne Airport VIC 3045 Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments: Provided by separate email

Submission Cover Sheet

1

APAM MAESSAC SUBMISSION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction and Executive Summary ...... 3 1.1 Summary of Current Issues...... 4 1.2 Melbourne Airport’s submission ...... 6

2. Airport context and the economic benefits of Melbourne Airport...... 7 2.1 History ...... 7 2.2 Legislative framework ...... 7 2.3 Existing operations ...... 8 2.4 Future plans ...... 8 2.5 Passengers per year before COVID-19 ...... 9 2.6 Economic impacts and activity ...... 9 2.7 Employment ...... 10 2.8 Supporting Imports and Exports for ...... 10

3. The Need for Effective Airport Safeguarding, the Cost of Poor Planning and the Melbourne Airport Experience ...... 12 3.1 Overview...... 12 3.2 Why do we need to safeguard our airports? ...... 14 3.3 What are the deficiencies in the existing planning framework? ...... 15 3.4 Community awareness ...... 21 3.5 Local government awareness ...... 22 3.6 Potential costs of those failures? ...... 23

4. Proposed Solutions ...... 26 4.1 Statement of Issue #1 ...... 26 4.2 Statement of Issue #2 ...... 27 4.3 Statement of Issue #3 ...... 30 4.4 Statement of Issue #4 ...... 33

5. Other mechanisms and opportunities to improve airport safeguarding ...... 36

Appendices ...... 38

Appendix A ...... 39 Legislative and policy framework for Melbourne Airport ...... 39 Legislative Framework ...... 39 Commonwealth Legislation ...... 39 Victorian Legislation ...... 43 National Policy Framework ...... 44 Victorian State Policy ...... 47 Melbourne Airport Strategy 1990 ...... 49 Land Use Controls and the Melbourne Airport Environs Overlay ...... 49

2

1. Introduction and Executive Summary

This document is Melbourne Airport’s written submission to the Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding Standing Advisory Committee (Committee). This submission addresses the Committee’s terms of reference as set out in Part B of that document, where, in summary the Committee is to consider and advise upon the planning framework for Melbourne Airport and its environs.

The appointment of this Committee, and the terms of reference which it must address represents a significant milestone in the development of the planning framework for Melbourne Airport. Not since the mid-1990s has an inquiry of this kind been appointed by the Victorian government to specifically consider the interrelationship between planning for the airport and planning outside the airport.

It is vitally important to the ongoing growth of the Victorian economy that the primary aviation gateway can properly function on a 24/7 basis safely and without constraint. Melbourne Airport is one of the most important pieces of infrastructure in the State. It connects Victoria, and in particular – Melbourne to the rest of the country and the world beyond. The ease with which people and goods can access Melbourne from abroad is an intrinsically important part of the Victorian economy – in tourism and trade and commerce more generally.

For an airport be able to provide a high level of service to the economy and to be capable of facilitating growth in the economy, it must be able to respond flexibly to changes in national and international demand and changing operational practices – whether those changes are caused by the type of aircraft that visit the airport, the timing of arrivals or departures, or the routes that Melbourne Airport is able to attract to it as a destination.

It has long been an aspiration at all levels of government that Melbourne Airport at Tullamarine is free to grow and respond to changes and demands, unburdened by the limitations which might be created by the potential for land use conflict that inevitably arises when lower order activities pop up within an area affected by airport activities.

The long-term and effective safeguarding of the airport is of critical importance if the social and economic benefits of the airport to Melbourne and Victoria (both now and in the future) are to be maintained and protected.

The planning framework regulating the development of State controlled lands within which the airport operates is critically important to achieving those objectives. It is essential that the planning framework recognises the importance of the Melbourne Airport. The planning framework must contain control and systems which give proper effect to that recognition to ensure that the operational capacity of the airport is secured, and to prevent development decisions which are inconsistent with the importance of Melbourne Airport the to the strategic objectives of the State. The current planning framework does not achieve this outcome and puts at risk the long term growth of the airport and the benefits which might flow to the State.

In summary, experience with the current planning framework leads Australia Pacific Airports (Melbourne) Pty Ltd (APAM) to conclude that the following refinements to the planning framework should be considered:

• the policy framework safeguarding Melbourne Airport should be further enhanced to clearly articulate the importance/priority of the Airport relative to other planning considerations, and better reflect the significance of Commonwealth airspace regulations in threshold land use planning decisions at State and local level; • a safeguarding framework that adopts effective tools fit for the purpose of managing the land use conflict and prioritises up-to-date technical information relating to the airport; • more targeted planning controls to implement the strategic objectives in the context of development applications that have the potential to prejudice the ongoing operation of the airport is not permitted; and • more effective recognition of the status of APAM in the planning system as the operator of the airport.

3

APAM recommendations

APAM recommends improvements and enhancement to the current planning framework across four key areas. These are outlined in Table 1 below.

Issue Recommendation The Right The airport operator needs consistent, appropriate recognised status in the planning Status process to participate in land use planning decisions proportionate to the scale and importance of the airport. The airport operator should have referral authority status in the planning system. The Right The policy framework should better reflect the critical role of the airport in the Policy metropolitan planning context, to ensure that the weight given to the safeguarding of the airport, as a planning consideration, is greater than the weight given to other lesser considerations. Planning policy should take a precautionary and long-term approach to protection of the airport for the benefit of all Victorians. The Right Good planning policy is not enough, strong and comprehensive planning controls Tools are required to ensure that land use and development, that could prejudice the ongoing operation of the airport, triggers a thorough assessment process against relevant guidelines and standards. Guidelines on their own are inadequate without statutory controls that can prevent inappropriate development from occurring. The Right The safeguarding framework needs to reflect the most up-to-date technical Currency information relating to the airport as well as current practice and demands through regular review and update. There needs to be recognition and acceptance of the changing nature of the airport and its off-site effects, to ensure that the planning framework maintains currency. Table 1: Summary of improvements to Victorian Planning Framework

The recommendations in the table above respond to the issues that APAM has identified with the current planning framework.

1.1 Summary of Current Issues

Melbourne Airport is the gateway to Victoria and critical to the ongoing economic and social development of the State. The long-term and effective safeguarding of the airport is of critical importance if the social and economic benefits of the airport to Melbourne and Victoria are to be maintained. Melbourne Airport benefits from the forethought of planners in locating the airport outside the boundaries of the city, and with significant green wedges to the north and west. This foresight sought to ensure the long-term viability of the airport and its ability to grow.

The principal threat faced by both the State and Melbourne Airport is that the airport fails to achieve is true potential because poor planning decisions facilitate urban encroachment in the vicinity of the airport and under its flight paths. That threat was identified when Melbourne Airport at Tullamarine was first identified as the future for the city. In part, encroachment was the reason to look for an alternative to Essendon. The more recent experiences in Sydney have only confirmed that airport operations and conventional land use activities are incompatible.

The further, continued encroachment of urban growth under or towards Melbourne Airport’s flight paths and aircraft noise contours will increase: − noise and amenity impacts on sensitive land uses; − impacts on airspace and aircraft operations; and − the risk of restrictions on airport operations.

The Commonwealth Government, in its National Airports Safeguarding Framework (NASF), has highlighted the need to improve airport safeguarding measures.

Currently in Victoria, the principal planning tool protecting Melbourne Airport is the Melbourne Airport Environs Overlay (MAEO), which is based on the airport’s Australian noise exposure forecast (ANEF) noise contours. It is now generally recognised that basing land use planning decisions solely on ANEF noise contours, without reference to other information (particularly the actual location of flight paths), is likely to lead to less than optimal outcomes for airports. A proper understanding of what ANEF contours

4

actually mean reveals very quickly that, by themselves, they are a poor tool for the prediction of impacts, and not particularly useful in making long term planning decisions in circumstances where the key inputs that produce the lines on the map are subject to variation over time.

Planning decision-makers have, for a long time, over-estimated the utility of ANEF contours. Current policy thinking reflects that a more nuanced approach to planning decision making is overdue – one that ensures that the planning decision maker does not abdicate consideration of qualitative amenity impacts and long term strategic planning thinking to the outputs of mathematical models which only capture part of the story.

If the planning tools are not effective, then inevitably land use and development will be approved which is inconsistent with the overarching policy objectives. Irrespective of how high minded the policy objectives are, their achievement will come under pressure if there is a ground swell of complaint from land uses that, in truth, were mistakenly approved under the auspices of planning tools unfit for their purpose. Improvements to the planning policies and controls relating to land use and development around Melbourne Airport are required in order to avoid this situation.

It is appropriate to acknowledge that not all growth will lead to impacts on the airport. It is important that airport safeguarding measures do not unreasonably or unfairly curtail appropriate urban growth which does not conflict with airport safeguarding. But given the social and economic importance of Melbourne Airport, planners and the planning system should adopt a precautionary approach to the protection of this nationally significant asset. This is obvious when looking back at the development of Australia’s cities and their airports over the last 80 years.

At present noise complaints arising from operation at Melbourne Airport (averaging 20 complainants per month out of a population of ~5 million people) is remarkably low, and in that way consistent with policy aspirations. It is important to recognise that the full effect of development decisions made in the environs of Melbourne Airport have not yet manifested themselves. APAM is concerned that the cumulative effect of decisions made over the last 10 to 15 years, and other future planning decisions to come, do not result in situations like observed examples both in Australia and globally, where the force and extent of complaints about aircraft noise and airport operations have triggered the introduction of restrictions on airport operations – complaints leading to constraints.

It is presently common knowledge that complaints about aircraft noise (both at Melbourne and other airports) are not confined to the areas delineated by the ANEF contour. The reality is that complaints come from much broader afield. It is also a myth that complaints are only made by people when their sleep is disturbed at night. Curfew free operation of an airport is an important consideration, but aircraft noise during the day, especially frequent noise, is also the subject of considerable complaint. This has been demonstrated time and again at Sydney and Adelaide Airports, where restrictions resulted from significant community opposition.

Constraints such as restrictions on flight paths, aircraft volumes (even during daylight hours) and aircraft types are all potential risks to the flexibility that Melbourne Airport's operations presently enjoy. The introduction of any such restrictions would have significant and far-reaching consequences for both Melbourne Airport, and its contribution to the State economy.

The potential significance of these consequences has been a key driver for APAM engaging with the Victorian planning system in the past. APAM is not a statutory authority, but it is the custodian of an asset which in days gone by was wholly owned by the Commonwealth and, quite independently of its current ownership structure, continues to provide a significant public service.

This submission: − provides context in which the importance of the planning issues to be considered arise; − seeks to articulate the strengths and weakness of the current safeguarding regime; and − explains how the current safeguarding regime might be improved.

5

1.2 Melbourne Airport’s submission

This document comprises 5 parts plus appendices, as set out in Table 2.

Number Chapter Name Purpose 1 Introduction and Executive Provide an overview of the written submission Summary and set out Melbourne Airport’s key arguments 2 Airport context Summarising the key facts and figures of Melbourne Airport’s operation, and setting out the economic relationship between the Airport and Victoria and Australia 3 The need for effective safeguarding There are a number of existing issues with the and the cost of poor planning current planning framework. Examples of where improved safeguarding policy and planning controls is required in order to provide optimal protection for the airport are explored. 4 Proposed solutions Sets out the ways in which the current safeguarding regime can be improved and identifies opportunities through which such improvements can be achieved. 5 Other mechanisms and Explores ways for a more integrated planning opportunities to improve airport framework to be established between all levels safeguarding of Government to enhance compatibility and coordination of land use planning and ensure effective delivery planning policy outcomes into the future. Appendices Appendices Supporting documents referenced throughout Melbourne Airport’s submission including an outline of the legislative and policy framework within which Melbourne Airport operates Table 2: Melbourne Airport MAESSAC Part B submission structure

6

2. Airport context and the economic benefits of Melbourne Airport

2.1 History

Melbourne Airport has been Victoria’s gateway to the world for 50 years. In 1939, the Commonwealth Minister for Defence identified the need for a new airport site for Melbourne to replace . The Tullamarine site was chosen because it offered ample opportunity for long-term growth1. The site was reasonably accessible to the city but far enough away from established areas to be able to operate without constraint of any kind. As Melbourne's footprint has expanded, the site has become surrounded by industrial, commercial and residential estates.

Early plans for Melbourne Airport were based on meeting the long-term needs of international and domestic traffic. Initially, two runways were proposed and constructed. APAM has worked closely with governments since its tenure of management began in order to ensure that adequate safeguards were built into planning legislation to deal with issues around encroachment. The most significant review since APAM’s tenure began took place in 2002 under the Victorian Government's Melbourne Airport Environs Strategy Plan Steering Committee.

In response to long-range passenger and aircraft movement forecasts (1990 to 2050), the Federal Airports Corporation and the Victorian Government jointly developed a long-term strategy for the airport’s development and management – the Melbourne Airport Strategy 1990. Its objectives were to: − maximise the use of Melbourne Airport to achieve the greatest economic benefit for the State, the aviation industry and the airport operator; − ensure Melbourne Airport has the capability required of a major Australian international and by planning adequately for aviation traffic, passenger flows and ground traffic, within agreed social and environmental constraints; − agree on an airport design that balances airside and landside operations; − enable progressive development of facilities (when economically justified) in terms of passenger capacity and/or aircraft operations, passenger convenience and freight movements; and − retain, where practicable, flexibility in the plan to meet changing demands or circumstances within agreed criteria.

The Commonwealth and Victorian governments formally endorsed the Melbourne Airport Strategy in 1990 following a comprehensive community and industry consultation. This Strategy provided a broad framework for orderly airport development, road and rail access and external land-use control to protect the airport’s 24-hour, curfew-free operation. The Strategy formed the forerunner to the current Master Planning process which was adopted through the creation of the Airports Act 1996 (Cth) (Airports Act). A key feature was provision for the future development of wide-spaced parallel north–south and east– west runways to optimise hourly and annual capacities and operational flexibility.

2.2 Legislative framework

Melbourne Airport land is owned by the Commonwealth Government. The Airports Act establishes the regulatory framework for Commonwealth-leased airports.

Under the provisions of the Airports Act, APAM, a subsidiary of Australia Pacific Airports Corporation Limited (APAC), is the ‘airport-lessee company’ for Melbourne Airport. It is responsible for managing the airport for 50 years (from 1997 to 2047), with an option to extend this lease by a further 49 years.

The Commonwealth Government retains ownership of the site and has responsibility for control over land-use planning and development on airport land, including all leased land under the provisions of the Airports Act.

The regulatory framework is explained in more detail in the Appendices of this submission.

1 https://www.melbourneairport.com.au/Corporate/Planning-projects/Master-plan

7

2.3 Existing operations

Melbourne Airport is Australia’s second busiest airport. Melbourne Airport's ability to operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week is a powerful and competitive advantage compared with other large Australian airports which are operationally constrained. 24/7 operations offer greater flexibility in scheduling flights and lower the operational costs to airlines by increasing the efficiency of aircraft utilisation. Greater flexibility in the arrival and departure of flights enables time-critical freight to arrive fresh at its destination, and avoids passenger flights being detoured to non-curfew locations.

This flexibility improves Melbourne’s attractiveness as a destination for aviation companies and their travelling customers. Consequently, Melbourne Airport has secured expansion of current services2 and new airlines travelling to new destinations from Melbourne3. Visit Victoria recorded double digit growth in the tourism market in December 2019 facilitated through aviation4. This. has in turn resulted in Melbourne Airport expanding its infrastructure to accommodate this growth.

Victorian exporters of fresh food benefit from the important role that Melbourne Airport’s 24/7 operations play in the movement of freight, allowing their produce to be exported in a timely manner. Constraint free operations support international airlines in particular by providing them greater flexibility to schedule flights, benefiting passengers and exporters alike. This flexibility of operations helps to ensure that the airport remains a strong employer, with forecast growth projections in aviation encouraging an expansion of all employment segments. However, operational constraints on Melbourne Airport have the potential to create risk, particularly for freight dependant sectors of the economy.

2.4 Future plans

There are several developments taking place onsite to comfortably accommodate the airport’s forecasted growth. Since its inception the expansion of Melbourne Airport has contemplated the capacity to expand the existing two configuration to a third and then fourth runway, being an additional north-south and east-west runway.

In 2012, APAM determined that the third runway would be on an east-west orientation. Subsequent to that decision, extensive planning for the introduction of the east-west runway was undertaken. In 2019 the decision was taken that the third runway would instead be built in a north-south direction following changes to NASF Guideline B (which relates to the assessment of windshear) and the provision of new data arising from technology improvements at ’s operations. The east-west runway remains as a future project.

Melbourne Airport is developing an updated Master Plan to reflect the north south orientation consistent with its regulatory obligations under the Airports Act. It is anticipated that the revised Master Plan will receive approval from the Commonwealth Minister in 2022, two years ahead of the normal cycle for Master Plan approval under the Airports Act. The Master Plan process ensures that all levels of government, key aviation stakeholders and the general public will have several points of engagement and consultation.

The key economic drivers supporting the new runway development include:

− The third runway will increase capacity of Melbourne Airport to keep up with Victoria’s growth demands, provide economic benefits to the State and improve traveller experience by creating opportunities to add more destinations and frequent flights. − The 3000m long runway is a critical piece of Victorian infrastructure that will contribute an additional $16.8 billion per annum to gross state product by 2043.

2 https://www.melbourneairport.com.au/Corporate/News/New-San-Francisco-service-launches-thanks-to-Unite, https://www.melbourneairport.com.au/Corporate/News/Melbourne-Airport-celebrates-as-Air-Vanuatu-launch, https://www.melbourneairport.com.au/Corporate/News/Air-Canada-launches-year-round-service 3 https://www.melbourneairport.com.au/Corporate/News/Malindo-Air-takes-off-from-Melbourne-to-Bali-and-b, https://www.melbourneairport.com.au/Corporate/News/Cebu-Pacific-Air-joins-Melbourne-Airport-with-rout 4 https://corporate.visitvictoria.com/resources/victorias-visitor-economy

8

• Importantly, the third runway will support the city’s future population growth by adding much needed capacity. The new runway will ensure flights can depart and arrive on time. The runway will also allow Melbourne Airport to attract more airlines and ultimately new international destinations to Australia’s fastest growing city.

It is not possible to estimate the effect the COVID-19 pandemic has had on growth projections prepared before March 2020. Notwithstanding potential impacts and delays to projects caused by the pandemic, the importance of protecting Melbourne Airport from ad hoc/opportunistic and inappropriate planning decisions, which increase encroachment, remains.

2.5 Passengers per year before COVID-19

While COVID-19 has had an immense impact on the aviation industry in 2020, Melbourne Airport had sustained year on year growth for the preceding decade. The airport is complying with current Commonwealth Government restrictions on domestic and international travel but anticipates that, much like previous aviation downturn events, aviation will return to strong growth in the years following the pandemic.

Melbourne Airport had several of its most successful months in terms of passenger numbers in 2019. In 2018/19, Melbourne Airport welcomed over 38.8 million passengers which was an increase of 1.9 percent on the previous year. It administered 260,000 aircraft movements between the international and domestic markets. 27 million passengers travelled through Melbourne Airport in 2019/20 consisting of 8 million international passengers and 19 million domestic passengers. Before the onset of COVID- 19, Melbourne Airport forecast 67 million passengers and 384,000 movements by 2038.

2.6 Economic impacts and activity

In general terms, airports support a wide range of activity across their own precincts, as well as by contributing to the economic position of the broader area they serve. Retail, office spaces and business parks, logistics, and broader aviation sector activity within airport precincts bring economic activity to the regions where they are located.

Airports also bring benefits well beyond their own site. State wide industries whose growth is reliant upon air freight and international consumers, the ever-expanding Victorian tourism industry all represent activities occur outside of an airport’s core activity or precinct. The airport also facilitating the growth of the Victorian population through migration.

Melbourne Airport makes a significant contribution to the Victorian economy. As a key driver of tourism and trade-based industries that support jobs and create economic growth, Melbourne Airport plays an important role through job creation and connects Victorians to other parts of Australia and the rest of the world. In 2015–16 the economic activity of businesses operating within the airport precinct contributed $7 billion to the Victorian economy5.

Melbourne Airport is also a driver of economic growth across Victoria and the rest of Australia, contributing to $20.7 billion of economic activity across Australia in 2015-16, including $17.6 billion in Victoria, which accounted for almost 7 per cent of Victoria’s total economic activity.

Based upon pre pandemic analysis, by 2037-38 economic activity on the Melbourne Airport precinct was expected to increase from $7 billion to over $12 billion. Over the next decade the economic contribution of the airport to tourism in Victoria was projected to increase by over $5 billion, with international visitor expenditure in Victoria estimated to contribute 68 percent of the overall growth in overnight tourism expenditure for Victoria.

As the impacts of COVID-19 come to be addressed, Melbourne will continue to be a highly attractive location for domestic and international visitors and people migrating from within Australia and from overseas.

5 https://www.melbourneairport.com.au/getattachment/Corporate/About-us/Corporate-Information/Annual-reports/AP003ia-4- APAC-AR19_AW.pdf.aspx?lang=en-AU&ext=.pdf

9

While COVID-19 has had significant impacts on the global aviation industry, aviation is one sector that has demonstrated historically that it recovers quickly after the impact of a health crisis of this kind. Melbourne Airport anticipates a similar recovery and forecasts that growth will resume after the recovery phase. Even if that growth does not occur quickly, the capacity for that growth should be preserved so that when the increased demand arrives, Melbourne Airport has the capacity to cope.

The historical economic benefits and the forecasted growth of the Melbourne Airport mean that planning reform and safeguarding into the future remains a critical element supported by government.

2.7 Employment

The airport precinct is an anchor employer. There are 20,600 full-time equivalent jobs supported on the precinct. It is an important employment hub for the local community, with nearly two-thirds of employees living within the seven surrounding municipalities.

Proximity to Melbourne Airport can create significant benefits for those who are involved in airport- related industries, such as the export and import of goods, while passengers travelling through Melbourne Airport support other industries in the local economy such as hospitality.

There are 237,000 jobs located in the local region surrounding the airport. The most significant industries in the area include manufacturing, retail, transport and warehousing, construction and health care. Around 44 percent of employed people who live in the local region surrounding Melbourne Airport also work in the region.

The airport’s role as an important employment hub is expected to continue over the next twenty years as Melbourne Airport continues to grow. Employment within the airport precinct is projected to increase to 35,000 jobs by 2038.

Most of this increase in jobs will support employment in the local community that surrounds the airport, in industries such as accommodation services, other construction, business services, wholesale trade and retail trade. More broadly, the airport directly and indirectly supports around 170,000 jobs across Australia, almost 150,000 of which are in Victoria, being the equivalent of around 7 percent of all jobs within the State.

2.8 Supporting Imports and Exports for Victoria

Melbourne Airport makes a significant contribution to the Victorian economy, being a critical component of tourism and trade-based industries that support jobs and create economic growth. The movement of airfreight supported more than 31,000 of these jobs nationally, of which more than 28,000 were in Victoria. In 2016–17 Melbourne Airport handled 277,000 tonnes of international air freight worth $16 billion. This represents over 30 per cent of Australia’s international air freight market6.

Approximately 85 per cent of international air freight that moves through Melbourne Airport is carried in the belly of passenger aircraft, with the remainder transported on dedicated freighters. Four international freight airlines currently service Melbourne Airport. Melbourne is also a key domestic air freight hub, with 186,000 tonnes of air freight delivered around the country in 2016–177. Around half of this was transported in passenger aircraft. Air freight that was transported through Melbourne Airport that facilitated $4.3 billion in economic activity nationally, of which $3.7 billion was in Victoria.

A typical daily international flight contributes $109.1 million to the Victorian economy and supports more than 1,000 jobs per annum8. A typical daily domestic service used by interstate visitors adds $16.2

6 https://www.melbourneairport.com.au/getattachment/Corporate/About-us/Corporate-Information/Annual-reports/AP003ia-4- APAC-AR19_AW.pdf.aspx?lang=en-AU&ext=.pdf 7 https://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/231214/sub033-airports.pdf 8 https://www.invest.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/217705/DAE-DEDJTR-Victorian-Airport-Contribution-Executive- summary.pdf

10

million to the state’s economy. As Melbourne Airport continues to grow, so will the economic activity that it generates.

Airfreight has been a critical component of aviation activity during COVID-19 and will remain a key function of the airport through the recovery phase. The ability to ensure curfew free operations post COVID-19 will assist in enabling continued economic viability of the airport and associated industries.

Tourism is a key sector which, while impacted by COVID-19, shows promising capacity for recovery. Historically, tourism has grown each year:

• Melbourne Airport facilitated 29 percent of all international visitor nights to Australia and 21 percent of total visitor expenditure across the country. • During 2015– 16 Melbourne Airport facilitated 71.9 million visitor nights and $8.9 billion in tourism spending in Victoria, supporting 75,100 FTE jobs across the state and another 10,000 throughout Australia9. • International students are a key source of international visitors, representing nearly 30 percent of international visits to Victoria. • In 2016 more than 220,000 international students were enrolled in Victorian education institutions, who contributed an extra $5 billion to the Victorian economy10.

Tourism facilitated by Melbourne Airport is expected to continue to grow. By 2026–27 the contribution of tourism to the economy is projected to almost double, supporting an additional 40,000 Victorian jobs11.

9 https://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/231214/sub033-airports.pdf 10 https://www.business.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/1730337/International-Education-within-the-Visitor_Economy- Report-for-Year-Ending-December-2017.pdf 11 https://my.melbourneairport.com/47081/widgets/250788/documents/108416

11

3. The Need for Effective Airport Safeguarding, the Cost of Poor Planning and the Melbourne Airport Experience

3.1 Overview

Melbourne Airport is the gateway to Victoria and is a major contributor to Victoria's economy through both direct economic activity and its support to various ancillary industries across Victoria's freight, travel and education markets.

The long-term, effective safeguarding of the airport is of critical importance if the social and economic benefits driven by Melbourne Airport are to be maintained.

The most significant issue confronting the achievement of this higher order strategic objective is unprincipled, ad hoc or inconsistent planning decision-making in the areas that either have been, or are likely to be, affected by Melbourne Airport’s future operations.

A lack of clarity in the outcome sought and inconsistency in the application of planning principles can contribute to outcomes which are anomalous, and which could have a lasting effect.

Most planning decisions arise for determination on a case by case, application by application basis.

In that context, individual development proposals can seem small or of little consequence in the broader scheme of things. Personal considerations, subjective judgements about fairness, or skewed understanding of the true policy intent can produce results that are inconsistent with the broad planning policy objectives. These decisions can have a cumulative effect.

Broader strategic planning decisions, such as the release of land for further development, or rezoning applications can be affected if the planning tools used to guide discretion are either not properly understood, or their limitations not taken into account.

Notwithstanding the best intentions of governments, lived experience has highlighted that the optimal long-term protection of Melbourne Airport's constraint-free operations can be easily eroded by the cumulative effect of planning decisions allowing urban encroachment, both directly around the airport and underneath its flight paths.

In addition to being of concern to Melbourne Airport, it should also be of concern generally. The effectiveness of the planning system in warning potential future occupants of the impact of aircraft noise, or of limitations on their capacity to develop land in the way they might hope, is an important tool in managing the expectations of communities and informing potential future investment decisions.

Why would land be rezoned to allow extensive residential development if any such development would protrude into airspace requiring special approval?

In real terms, what is the difference in impact on the amenity of a resident (and their propensity to complain about aircraft noise) if their dwelling is just outside, rather than just inside the MAEO contour line?

In short, how effective are the tools within the planning scheme at achieving the clearly stated policy objectives if reliance upon them produces a false sense of comfort that compliance with them will result in outcomes consistent with policy?

Is there an adequate degree of certainty that the shifting lines of the ANEF contours are a proper basis for the identification of areas that could be affected by aircraft noise?

Historically, there has been a degree of fragmentation between airport planning and the planning for the broader area. There are clear pathways for Melbourne Airport to obtain approvals and to message its future strategic intentions within the Commonwealth legislative framework under the Airports Act.

12

There is not the same clear pathway for that messaging to occur in the State planning framework, or for the impacts of Melbourne Airport’s strategic decision making to be taken into account in the planning for areas around the airport.

There is a need for a greater level of integration between airport planning and planning more generally in the Victorian legislative and planning framework. This need is often evidenced in the management of off-airport activity, which is the source of ongoing concern for APAM.

Melbourne is growing rapidly, particularly within the north-western corridor. The State planning framework, as it stands, does not acknowledge the potential cumulative impact that off-airport operations could have in respect of on-airport operations as time goes on.

As is acknowledged in Melbourne Airport's master planning, and as otherwise generally understood by governments at a high level, the impacts of the airport extend beyond its immediate neighbours. The range of the airport’s noise and airspace impacts in particular, extend over 30 kilometres outside of its Tullamarine location, and into both existing urban areas and greenfield locations. These areas are both subject to continued change and densification.

One of the most significant issues is Melbourne Airport’s lack of visibility over what is occurring within its area of concern and interest.

Notwithstanding that APAM is not a public authority, it has inherited from a public authority, and now manages, an asset of public importance.

APAM is not a referral authority. Under the terms of the MAEO control, it is entitled to notice of planning permit applications, as though it were a third-party objector. Unlike determining or even recommending referral authorities, its position on any application has no statutory significance beyond that of a third- party objector. What is the impact of this?

On land rezoning applications, or proposals which lie outside the MAEO control, but are nonetheless within sufficient proximity to either the Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS), or areas affected by potential noise, there is no formal mechanism for the engagement of APAM in the process. Consequently, matters frequently come to the attention of APAM late and/or accidentally.

APAM does receive notice under section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) (P&E Act) in relation to approximately 200 applications per year. In circumstances where APAM objects to a proposal that it does know about – a generally uncommon occurrence having regard to the total number of applications - it is often necessary for it to help planning decision makers understand the implications of the policy framework on each occasion.

In part, this is because, while the planning framework identifies the need for planning to take account of the airport, the planning framework does not expressly set priorities or establish a hierarchy of strategic importance.

Consequently, planning decision makers can consider and discard Melbourne Airport’s concerns as merely one matter to be weighed in the balance against other policy considerations. This line of thinking can occur at the junior council officer level but has also emerged in some decisions of the peak planning appeals body in Victoria (being VCAT) evidencing the desirability of a clearer statement of planning priorities.

Difficulties also arise in the implementation of planning policy, for example:

1. If ANEF contours are the statutory tool for delineating the areas to which the overlay applies, but whose limitations are recognised, how are the NASF recommended N contours to be applied? 2. Does everyone administering the planning system truly understand the technical basis of the ANEF contours and their limitations? 3. Airspace control is complex, and the system of administering it, fragmented.

13

3.2 Why do we need to safeguard our airports?

Poor planning of airports and the land around them can lead to amenity impacts on surrounding land uses as well as airport restrictions or closures in the extreme case.

Land use planning for areas around airports, particularly large airports like Melbourne Airport, is therefore of critical importance in order to avoid potential amenity impacts, minimise restrictions on the operation of the airport, and sustain the social and economic benefits for the region.

Melbourne Airport’s constraint-free status means that it is the preferred Australian airport for a number of international carriers which depend on 24-hour schedules to underpin their participation in the Victorian and Australian markets. This equally applies to domestic airlines.

Any reduction in Melbourne Airport’s operating capacity due to the introduction of a curfew or limitations on flight paths and traffic volume will seriously threaten Melbourne Airport’s position as a preferred airport, and will diminish the airport’s social and economic contribution to the local, state and national economies.

The decision to establish Melbourne Airport on the Tullamarine site was made because the site was located close enough to be reasonably accessible to the city, but far enough away from established areas so as to be able to operate without constraint. Indeed, the site was considered to be “one of the best airport sites in the world”12.

Melbourne’s first major airport at Essendon was already constrained in its operation. Less than 50 years later, Melbourne Airport is flanked (at least to the east and south) by various forms of urban development which have the potential to affect its operation, and the encroachment of further development is a constant issue.

Support from Commonwealth policy

The National Aviation Policy White Paper (White Paper) was released by the Commonwealth Government in December 2009 and is as relevant today as it was when released. It looked to facilitate the effective coordination and integration of airport planning with off-airport planning to ensure continued investment in airport infrastructure and transport links. This is ably demonstrated in the following excerpts.

At page 11 of the White Paper it states:

Airports are scarce and valuable transport hubs. In most cases their existence has pre-dated the spread of residential areas and it is not in Australia’s overall national interest for existing airport operations to be threatened by new residential developments on greenfield sites close to airports or under established flight paths. Best practice planning, both in terms of housing policy and aviation policy, should not place residential developments close to airports under aircraft flight paths.

On page 210 of the White Paper it states:

History and experience has shown that aircraft noise does not stop at a contour, and aircraft noise complaints are coming increasingly from areas well outside the 20 ANEF value. Best practice land use planning around airports and flight paths should ideally take into consideration the range of noise information relevant to the local community including the location of flight paths, types of aircraft activity, numbers and timing of aircraft movements, the intensity of noise events from those movements and the comparison to ambient noise levels. The ANEF and the current building standard AS2021 should not be applied by planners in isolation or without merit-based judgement.

On page 212 the White Paper, similar issues are further explored:

12 Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 8/11/1962, page 2223 per Mr Jess (LaTrobe).

14

There is scope to improve the current strategies for assessing and managing aircraft noise around airports and under flight paths. The Government therefore will: 1. work to improve planning controls for land use around airports to supplement the ANEF system with additional tools such as flight path location and activity diagrams, and single event contours based on decibels to assist planners and the public to better understand and take account of aircraft noise exposure patterns; and 2. work closely with state and territory planning agencies to prevent noise sensitive developments, including schools and residences, in the vicinity of airports and under flight paths with increased focus on the preservation of existing greenfield sites and scrutiny of rezoning proposals for industrial and rural lands impacted by aircraft noise.

The White Paper led to the development and adoption of the National Airports Safeguarding Framework in 2012.

Commonwealth, State and Territory ministers agreed to the NASF principles at the Standing Council on Transport and Infrastructure meeting on 18 May 2012. The Principles of NASF acknowledge that it is the responsibility of each jurisdiction to implement the NASF into their respective planning systems, and that each State and Territory will align their respective planning processes with the NASF principles and guidelines, as appropriate.

The details of the NASF are discussed elsewhere in this submission and do not need to be repeated here. However, it is important to recognise that the NASF is based on the fact that responsibility for land use planning in Australia rests primarily with State, Territory and local governments.

3.3 What are the deficiencies in the existing planning framework?

Despite the best intentions of all stakeholders involved in the development of the Melbourne Airport Environs Strategy Plan (MAESP) and associated planning tools (e.g. the MAEO), there are various practical deficiencies in how the Victorian planning landscape actually translates the principles of airport safeguarding into controlling (or otherwise) the way that land is used and developed around the airport.

The following parts of this submission provide a summary and examples where these deficiencies are highlighted.

Lack of appropriate land use controls

The MAEO provides the primary source of land use controls around Melbourne Airport. The two schedules to the MAEO provide for different levels of control depending on a property's proximity to the airport / location under its flight path – but the lines are drawn based upon the ANEF contours alone.

At present, the MAEO includes a limited range of land use controls prohibiting particular uses and otherwise making others require a permit to proceed.

The premise of the control is that these land uses can proceed subject to the provision of appropriate noise attenuation – with reference to Australian Standard 2021:2015.

However, the remit of the MAEO is limited to considering land use having regard to the ANEF noise contours, notwithstanding that: − ANEF is not a measure of actual impact, and in the long term is unlikely to be a barrier to widespread community complaint; − because of the predictive nature of the forecasting, the contours can change – taking areas inside and outside the area of planning scheme control over time– so that a development may be approved because of the location outside of the contour, but then following a revision of the forecasts, it may be within the contour; − the contour lines do not delineate the point between acceptable and unacceptable impacts from aircraft noise; and

15

− the ANEF system gives no weight to the impact of aircraft noise outside buildings – which can itself be a significant source of complaint as the frequency of aircraft movement increase over time.

Aside from there being issues with the choice of the ANEF as the sole noise control through the MAEO, there is also no policy guidance on the:

− expansion of non-conforming land uses; − cumulative impact of densification in new residential areas; and − development in areas subject to prescribed airspace controls.

Status in the planning scheme

Under the planning scheme APAM is only: 1. given notice of permit applications within the MAEO; and 2. in the unusual case of UGZ9 (applying in Hume), provided with "notification" in respect of any application within the N Contours.

The role of APAM in the planning scheme, being the airport-lessee company pursuant to the Airports Act, was considered by the Steering Committee appointed prior to the development of the MAESP in 2003.It was determined at that time that it would not be appropriate for APAM to be elevated to the same status as a "referral authority". APAM believes that it is now appropriate for this to be reconsidered based on the past 17 years of experience.

The airport’s status, or lack of status, has created a number of practical issues for the airport when seeking to identify and manage problematic off-airport applications.

At the time of drafting the MAEO following the recommendations of the Steering Committee in 2002, the main reason underpinning the decision not to make APAM a referral authority was a concern that it was a private company, who may use its statutory powers to serve its commercial ends.

The alternative adopted was to include a requirement in the planning scheme that APAM must be notified in relation to applications within the MAEO.

If the vice sought to be prevented was to avoid APAM using its powers for an ulterior purpose, it would not have been effective. Being provided with notice of an application for planning permit still provided APAM with the ability to participate in the planning process where proposals were advanced within the MAEO, whether for its own commercial gain or not. There was, and has never been, anything to stop APAM from participating as a third-party objector in any planning case to further its own commercial ends.

Even if it had been given the status of a referral authority under the planning scheme, any decision which it might have made in that capacity would have been subject to a merits review at VCAT, and the planning merit of its position tested. A body, even a private company conferred with that power, would need to be conscious of the reputational risk of using that power inappropriately or unlawfully.

There are numerous examples of bodies that are not entirely public authorities that enjoy the status of “referral authority” (e.g. SP Ausnet). There is no barrier to a public authority, or government entity, using their referral authority powers for their own commercial gain: St Edmonds Road Project Pty Ltd v South East Water [2010] VCAT 762.

The concerns expressed at that time in 2002 were understandable. It was the dawn of a new planning system, where the introduction of the new format planning schemes had only been in operation for a short time, and where APAM as an entity had only been in existence since 1999.

With almost 20 years of track record, APAM has never used its position in a planning process to prosecute its commercial objectives. APAM has taken its role as the custodian of Melbourne Airport seriously.

16

In order to provide a consistent and rigorous basis for deciding whether or not APAM will become involved in a planning case, it has developed its own internal matrix setting out the criteria it applies. All criteria are based on planning considerations, and the potential impact of the development proposal on airport operations over time.

While it has not always succeeded in the cases that it has advanced (in part for reasons explained elsewhere in this submission), in none of the planning cases which it has prosecuted could it be said that the airport’s motivation was commercial advantage.

In that same period of time, it has scrambled to keep a pace with changes to planning regulation and development applications affecting the areas which are of interest to it for obvious policy reasons.

Maintenance of development buffers – maintenance of the Urban Growth Boundary and the Green Wedge Zone

The Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and associated Green Wedge Zones (GWZ) play an important role in protecting the airport, by creating physical barriers to urban encroachment around the airport.

As the Committee will be aware, the UGB has not been static.

Since the UGB was introduced in 2002, there have been three reviews of the boundary, the most recent being the Logical Inclusions Advisory Committee review in 2012 (LIAC). Each of these UGB reviews resulted in movement of the UGB under or towards the airport’s flight paths and aircraft noise contours.

Melbourne Airport made detailed submissions to each of the UGB reviews. These submissions focused on the adverse effects of incremental urban encroachment under or towards the airport’s flight paths and aircraft noise contours, including reverse sensitivity effects associated with aircraft noise, potential impacts on prescribed airspace (within the meaning of the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations 1996) and potential undermining of the curfew-free status of the airport.

The submissions emphasised the importance of careful land use planning around Melbourne Airport in order to avoid potential amenity impacts, minimise restrictions on the operation of the airport and sustain the social and economic benefits generated by the airport.

Importantly, LIAC generally agreed with the submissions of APAM at that hearing. That report stated:

“It is unclear to the Committee what planning logic allowed new urban development (such as Hillside [in Melton]) on land surrounding the Airport.”

“Any further encroachment of residential development towards the Airport should be avoided.”

“…given that the ANEF that underpins the MAEO is subject to review, it does not seem a secure basis for determining the extent of urban development near the Airport.”

“The Committee agrees with APAM that aligning the UGB to noise contours is not appropriate.”

“…there is a vacuum between the policy objective of not prejudicing the operations of the Airport, and what this means in terms of restrictions on development”.

The final point, alluding to a policy "vacuum", in APAM's view is still a live issue.

Over APAM’s objection, several changes were subsequently made to the location of the UGB which resulted in movement of the boundary under or towards the airport’s flight paths and aircraft noise contours.

In one area, west of Diggers Rest, the UGB was moved inside the MAEO. This and other changes made to the UGB will inevitably lead to an increased number of people subjected to aircraft noise and associated pressure to constrain flight paths and limit air traffic during certain times. It is critical to the future of Melbourne Airport that this is not exacerbated by further changes to the UGB in the future.

17

Noise controls

Noise impacts are dynamic and change with development of the airport, runway usage and the particular aircraft utilised at any point in time. This is reflected in changing ANEF and N contours over time.

The dynamism of both these controls is reflected in the Melbourne Airport Master Plan, which is updated every 5 years pursuant to the requirements of the Airports Act.

Each Master Plan is required to provide updated ANEF and N Contours, as reviewed and approved by Airservices Australia, to indicate the likely impact of the airport's ongoing operations into the future.

These changes in the modelling of the contours have not manifested themselves in changes to the mapping of the MAEO. The mapping of the MAEO has not been changed since 2007, notwithstanding changes to the forecasts which that mapping is supposed to reflect.

The time lag between forecasting/publication of revised contours, and the amendment of the planning scheme to reflect the position of the contours gives rise to obvious difficulties. Assuming for present purposes that the ANEF contours are, by themselves, an appropriate basis for the application of development permit triggers, where there is a delay in updating the planning control, it is possible that a development which would fall within affected area under the revised contours is processed and approved under outdated information.

APAM has adopted an approach of trying to keep a close watch on permit applications across numerous municipalities, in conjunction with its own noise modelling (including that as shown in the 2018 Master Plan) to establish what properties would otherwise fall within its remit for notification had the overlay been updated.

Where an application is identified not under the MAEO, APAM is then required to lodge an objection as an interested third party, contending that, notwithstanding that the MAEO control does not apply, there is a credible basis for believing that future development on the land in question is likely to be subjected to unacceptable aircraft noise impacts, unless modified or addressed in some way.

In such a situation, APAM regularly confronts the argument that there is no permit trigger for the consideration of airport impacts, and that the amendment of the MAEO is not seriously entertained.

In some cases, APAM has succeed in convincing planning decision makers that the policy framework warrants refusal, but in other cases it has not. Without calling into question the correctness or otherwise of earlier decisions of the Tribunal, it is clear from the reasoning in those decisions that wildly divergent outcomes are open on the policy framework.

All of this begs the question, is a planning trigger based upon the application of moving noise contours an appropriate tool for giving effect the policy framework.

APAM notes that, whilst it has had success in some cases, that success has come only after considerable resources have been expended to convince the Tribunal of what should be obvious (i.e. that a caravan park or a school under the flight path is inconsistent with policy).

This is necessary because the framework and the tools which presently implement that framework send mixed messages to permit applicants and decision makers alike, raising expectations as to the possibilities for the development of land in these areas. Uncertainty or lack of specificity in policy, coupled with an apparently wide planning discretion are the two most common ingredients in anomalous decisions.

There is a live question as to whether the MAEO, or any planning control which relies for its operational boundaries upon a contour line which has the potential to shift with every revision of the forecast – is an appropriate planning tool. In the case of the MAEO, the following matters arise:

18

− The overlay only relates to land inside the 20 ANEF contour. As previously noted, experience has shown that aircraft noise effects and complaints are not confined to areas inside the ANEF contours. − A dwelling is allowed on a lot within MAEO1 (inside the 25 ANEF contour) where AS2021 says such a use is “unacceptable”. − Two or more dwellings are allowed on a lot within MAEO2 (between the 20 and 25 ANEF contours) provided there is at least 300 square metres per dwelling, where AS2021 says “some people may find that the land is not compatible with residential or educational uses”. − Within MAEO2 (between the 20 and 25 ANEF contours) residential land may be subdivided into 300 square metre lots, which is considered too high a density for areas where the objective is to limit the number of residents. − The overlay only relates to noise sensitive land uses and does not control potential intrusions into Prescribed Airspace or other potential hazards to aircraft operations covered by the NASF guidelines. − The overlay does not provide adequate control over changes / intensification of existing permissible uses such as schools, aged care facilities and places of assembly (i.e. where the use exists but wants to expand) (e.g. Sirius College expansion, VCAT Reference No. 2483/2017). − The overlay does not prevent expansion of non-conforming uses which have existing use rights (e.g. the Attwood child-care centre proposal, VCAT Reference No. P837/2015).

Further, a density of one dwelling or lot per 300 square metres in MAEO2 is inappropriate if the objective is to minimise noise impacts. This density enables a significant increase in the number of dwellings in existing residential areas.

The current MAEO schedules do not provide for higher density housing in areas strategically identified for residential growth (e.g. around Broadmeadows Activity Centre - refer Hume Housing Diversity Strategy). Increasing density around activity centres and transport hubs is a sensible and appropriate goal and is consistent with State planning policy, including Plan Melbourne. In some circumstances it may be appropriate to allow higher densities in areas affected by the airport’s noise contours, but this should be subject to input from APAM at the relevant time.

It is a matter of considerable concern to APAM that even decisions of the highest levels of government seem to misapply or misunderstand the importance of some of these matters (e.g. 8-20 and 22-28 Phillip Street, Dallas and 32 Green Gully Road, Keilor).

Other aviation uses in the vicinity of the Airport

The current planning controls do not require a planning permit to use land for the purpose of a helipad in close proximity to Melbourne Airport if the exemptions contained in Clause 52.15 of the relevant planning scheme are met.

The controls presently require a planning permit if the landing site is within 1000 metres of a residential property – which is presumably directed to the impact of noise upon residential uses. The controls also require a permit within 200 metres of a shipping channel in the Port of Melbourne.

Aircraft activity in these locations have the potential to impact upon Airport operations and to cause delays at Melbourne Airport. To that extent, use related matters that arise from these activities have the potential to affect the achievement of planning objectives for the airport.

Clause 52.15 contains no provision that invites consideration of the impact upon Melbourne Airport of aircraft (such as helicopters) taking off or landing from private facilities or approaching private helipads through controlled airspace.

This is a considerable deficiency in the current planning framework.

Timeliness

Even assuming that the current planning framework is appropriate and the MAEO should continue to be applied as the principal tool, it is essential that the planning controls are updated to reflect the current

19

position. The 2018 Melbourne Airport Master Plan contained revisions to the mapping which are still not included in the planning scheme. This work is presently under way (by DELWP), but by the time it is completed, there is a real chance that it will already be out of date.

As noted earlier in this submission, the 2018 Master Plan is presently being updated to reflect the decision to progress first with a second north-south runway, rather than the east west runway (as originally contemplated).

As part of the planning scheme amendment process to implement the 2018 Master Plan contour, there remains a significant amount of community consultation still to occur to update the MAEO. By the time that process is introduced, it is likely that APAM would have already prepared the next set of ANEF and N Contours as part of the next Master Plan – meaning that the relevant Planning Scheme Amendment is likely to be, or be close to being, out of date by the time it is approved.

Leaving aside whether constant review of contour lines generated by potentially ever-changing forecasts is a prudent planning tool, if it is to be the tool then there should be better integration between the substantive process undertaken in relation to the updating of the Airport's master plan pursuant to the Airports Act, which involves a significant amount of consultation at all levels of government and is open to public comment, and how that plan, when approved by the Federal Minister is reflected in the Victorian planning framework.

This disconnect in timing and process, and the constant need to review the applicability of permit triggers, along with the potential impact of a confusing and ever-changing set of rules is potentially counter-productive in managing community sentiment – which is the very reason for the existence of these controls.

Other airport issues not addressed – e.g. airspace protection

From a land use planning perspective, one of the most important issues for any airport is ensuring that structures erected in the vicinity of the airport do not create obstacles or hazards for aircraft operations. Obstacles in the vicinity of an airport have the potential to create air safety hazards and to seriously limit the scope of an airport’s aviation operations, particularly the landing and taking-off of aircraft.

While the most critical areas of concern are the immediate approach and take-off areas, it is equally true that objects up to and beyond 20 kilometres from the airport and apparently unrelated to the runway alignment can cause problems for pilots approaching or departing an airport.

In order to protect the airspace at and around major airports in Australia, and control potential obstacles, the Airports Act and the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations 1996 (Cth) enable airspace to be designated as "Prescribed Airspace" if it is in the interests of the safety, efficiency or regularity of air transport operations into or out of an airport for the airspace to be protected. Such designation, pursuant to section 179 of the Airports Act, legally protects the airspace from the intrusion of potential obstacles.

Melbourne Airport’s critical airspace is designated as "Prescribed Airspace" under the Airports Act and is therefore protected by that designation. However, despite this designation, Melbourne Airport is concerned that its Prescribed Airspace is not currently receiving adequate protection in practical terms.

There have recently been instances where potential intrusions into Melbourne Airport's Prescribed Airspace have occurred, or nearly occurred, without meeting the requirements of the Airports Act. In these instances, the potential impact on Melbourne Airport’s Prescribed Airspace was not identified or properly considered during the planning process.

The issue of Prescribed Airspace does not receive any consideration in the implementation provisions of the planning framework. In Victoria, unlike in other States (e.g. ), there is no link between the planning controls and the controls around Prescribed Airspace.

There are no planning controls in place to address these issues around Melbourne Airport.

The MAEO relates specifically to aircraft noise and limiting noise sensitive land uses (e.g. houses) where aircraft noise is a potential problem. The MAEO does not relate to or protect Prescribed Airspace

20

or hazards to aircraft operations. Some airports have Design and Development Overlay controls protecting their airspace (e.g. Essendon), but no such control – or other tool – exists in respect of Melbourne Airport.

APAM has recently attempted to bring these issues to the attention of a Planning Panel when considering Amendment C205 to the Hume Planning Scheme, concerning the preparation of the Lindum Vale Precinct Structure Plan (a piece of land identified for rezoning through LIAC in 2011).

In that case, a significant portion of the land proposed for inclusion in the PSP fell within the Melbourne Airport Prescribed Airspace area – in some instances, with anything over 1 metre in height intruding into the airspace.

It was held by the Panel in that case that the relevant intrusions into prescribed airspace were not a matter for it to consider, and that would be dealt with by the relevant developer(s) at the time it sought building permits relating to the subdivision. This reasoning requires careful consideration. Why isn’t it relevant to consider a possible constraint on the future development of the land? Why isn’t it appropriate to examine whether, from a strategic planning perspective, even if some form of approval could be obtained under relevant regulations, whether or not it is desirable in the first place to examine whether or not development should occur in that location at all?

The rezoning of land creates expectations, both in the minds of owners, but also in the minds of decision makers, that development of some form is acceptable. The rezoning of land can have a tendency to pre-empt the ultimate decision for approval under the regulations, instead of asking the threshold question: is development in this location a sound strategic outcome?

Because of APAM’s status, it does not receive automatic notification of Planning Scheme Amendments as part of the exhibition process. It is up to APAM to identify and assess proposed rezonings to determine whether they fall within prescribed airspace and react appropriately. This is unreasonable and inefficient.

As a further example, APAM recently became aware of a 60 metre high waste to energy facility at 65 Amaroo Road Craigieburn, which APAM was not notified of because the proposal was deemed to be consistent with the zoning of the site. This proposal raised concerns relating to the height of the structure and the potential for plumes affecting aircraft operations.

In 2004/05 there was the case of a gas-fired power station in Laverton North which included two exhaust stacks from which air turbulence could be capable of affecting the normal flight of aircraft operating in the Prescribed Airspace.

The Laverton North facility received a planning permit from Wyndham City Council but there was no prior notification given to APAM. In some circumstances plumes from exhaust stacks are a “controlled activity” under the Airports Act.

Community and council awareness

Generally, it has otherwise been APAM's experience that there is a lack of awareness and understanding of airport operations and their potential impacts at both community and local government level. Clearly, many people who live near to the airport are aware that it exists through the various opportunities it provides for employment. However, people are not often aware when they move into an area that aircraft noise changes over time, and that they may or may not be impacted by it.

3.4 Community awareness

APAM has attempted on numerous occasions (as set out in the appended case studies) to agitate for permit conditions requiring the imposition of agreements pursuant to section 173 of the P&E Act on title to "warn" future residents about aircraft noise, and provide them with the necessary tools to find out more information. A similar process to the section 173 route is utilised in other jurisdictions in Australia, notably in Western Australia through the imposition of mandatory "section 70A agreements" pursuant to their Transfer of Land Act 1978 dealing with aircraft noise.

21

Notwithstanding these attempts by APAM, it has not been found to be appropriate that such a warning should be included on title of the properties the subject of APAM’s agitation. APAM has concerns that this is not assisting the community to obtain further information about the operation of the airport – one of the matters which, in its view, leads to new complaints down the line when new residents are naturally surprised to learn that planes are flying overhead.

Historically, APAM has observed trends which show that, when complaints are made, they are often made by people who live in areas that are not covered by the ANEF (as reflected in the MAEO), or even the N-Contours, as shown in the figure below.

As noted above, APAM's concern is to avoid a situation where communities are taken by surprise. By improving the flow of information about the airport and its operations to the community, APAM considers that the likelihood of complaints ought to decrease, thereby also reducing the chance that constraints will eventuate on the airport's operations. The relationship between complaints and constraints is discussed further in section 4 of this submission.

3.5 Local government awareness

While there is some integration between the Federal and State Governments in terms of managing airport planning issues, it is left to local governments to attempt to interpret and apply relevant controls across a minimum of six municipalities.

APAM's experience has generally been that Council officers are not well-informed about matters relating to airport planning in assessing applications.

This is not the fault of Councils themselves – there is not a significant amount of information available to Council planners relating to airport planning. Additionally, a relatively continual turnover in Council planning staff often results in new planners being exposed to airport issues without relevant training.

It does, however, create further communications issues for APAM when attempting to seek further information about, or object to, a planning permit application due to concerns about its impact on airport operations.

22

Importantly, there is no formal training and / or guidance material available to Council planners regarding airport issues. APAM itself seeks to provide some training courses to Councils on an annual basis, however there is no State Government-led program to either drive or supplement this information.

This is further exacerbated by the lack of any Planning Practice Note or Planning Advisory Note considering airport-related matters, at both strategic and statutory planning level. APAM notes that it has provided drafts of such a note in the past, but they have not been progressed by the relevant Department.

APAM considers that these issues contribute to a general lack of understanding around airport planning, airport safeguarding and its importance. It also contributes to observed inconsistencies in the way that local governments seek to manage APAM's comments when they are made in respect of various planning permit applications. This, in turn, often makes it more difficult for APAM to take the action it needs to when an application does not, in APAM's view, appropriately manage airport-related matters.

3.6 Potential costs of those failures?

It is clear from both local and international experiences that, with increased density in populations around airports and underneath flight paths, the number and frequency of complaints regarding noise is likely to increase.

The reality of communities is that complaints lead to action being taken to mitigate the source of those issues. Some examples of this are as follows:

1. The new western at Badgerys Creek – while this has now moved forward to some extent, there are records in Commonwealth Hansard reaching back to the 1950s discussing the potential impact of a "second Sydney airport" in terms of airport noise and impacts on local communities. The experience in and around Sydney Airport at Mascot over time is well documented and understood – it is a typical example of an airport that has been surrounded by other, often more sensitive developments that have led to significant conflicts between airport operations and the ongoing lifestyle of those communities.

2. – Heathrow is another well-documented example where expanding communities and airport operations have historically collided over time. Aside from curfews and limitations on the types of aircraft that can fly in and out at particular times of the day, Heathrow is also subject to the "Cranford Agreement" – a limitation on its flight paths where inbound and outbound aircraft must avoid flying over / within proximity to the town of Cranford, located near the airport. This agreement was facilitated in direct response to complaints from the local community in relation to aircraft noise. The ongoing expansion of Heathrow has also been curtailed to the extent whether other airports have been required in other parts of London (e.g. City, Stansted, Gatwick) – each of these subject to their own issues, and increasing the overall, fragmented experience of aircraft noise across a growing metropolis.

3. Airport – whilst a relatively new example, has recently opened its second runway to facilitate more aircraft traffic through what is a local example of a rapidly growing city. Even in the couple of months since its opening earlier in 2020, public agitation about the new incidence of aircraft noise in areas affected by the second runway has made it into newspapers and is starting to gain traction. This is likely to increase further following the winding back of travel restrictions as a result of COVID-19 – it is yet to be seen whether this will ultimately lead to further restrictions on the use of those runways, which of course reduces the effectiveness of introducing a second runway in the first instance.

Most typically, these complaints lead to the introduction of night-time curfews preventing flight movements at sensitive hours of the day. Sydney Airport is a clear local example of this in the Australian context – its 11pm curfew, enshrined in legislation, means that any inbound flight arriving after that time simply cannot land. The flight is often diverted to Melbourne Airport as a curfew-free alternative.

The benefits of a constraint-free environment are significant. The greatest benefit that a curfew-free environment provides to Melbourne Airport is that of flexibility – not just for its own business, but the

23

airlines which use it. Passengers benefit, because they can always be guaranteed a at the airport they intended to fly to – there is no waiting for another flight the next morning to get to their ultimate destination. It also increases the attractiveness of Melbourne as a destination for new and expanding airlines, as they do not have to factor in the risk of having a plane fly into an alternative airport due to a curfew – which both reduces their passengers' satisfaction and creates logistical issues.

Perth Airport found that without operational restrictions between the hours of 11.00 pm and 6.00 am over a 25-year horizon, airport operations would account for $43.4 billion in Gross Domestic Product (GDP)13.

Most importantly, however, it is critical to realise that a curfew is not the only cost which can flow from complaints and the outcomes of poor planning.

Put simply, complaints lead to constraints. There are other constraints that may be imposed on the airport as populations grow and non-compatible land uses expand – each of which pose a substantial and real risk for Melbourne Airport over the coming years.

Some of these examples are:

− enforced changes to flight paths (similar to that experienced at Heathrow through the Cranford Agreement), as a result of community opposition to aircraft noise; − limitations on flight volumes during the day, due to the presence of significant, unprotected but sensitive uses beneath flight path areas (entrenched by expansion of those non-conforming uses); − reduction in available airspace for flight movements due to increased presence of built form within obstacle limitation surface areas, therefore reducing the amount of flights which can be accommodated within otherwise approved airspace; − limitations on the types of planes that can fly into and out of the airport at particular times, noting that some aircraft create less noise than others (as is currently the case at Sydney Airport); − intrusion of other risks to flight paths associated with commercial operations (e.g. helicopter operations in and out of nearby industrial areas); and − significant community risks to major expansion projects, even where planned or anticipated – in this case, a third or fourth runway – due to the pure tide of community opposition and political risks associated with approval.

These broader constraints could potentially have a far greater impact on airport operations than that of a curfew, particularly if the also impedes daytime traffic.

Firstly, additional constraints of this nature may prevent Melbourne Airport's ability to both adapt and expand. This would not be in keeping with the designation of Melbourne Airport as a State-significant asset in Plan Melbourne.

Further, the introduction of constraints other than a curfew could mean that there is a risk that Melbourne Airport would be forced to downscale its operations in response to ongoing pressure. This could inhibit or reduce the ability of Melbourne Airport to attract and service the number of carriers and provide the number of services that it could otherwise facilitate.

As noted previously in this submission, one of the greatest benefits Melbourne Airport is currently able to provide to potential users (both airlines and passengers alike) is that of flexibility. Constraints of this type would reduce Melbourne Airport's unique offering – its competitive advantage – that is currently seen nowhere else in Australia, particularly not as proximately to a major capital city.

Often these matters are considered in the context of the potential impact upon the higher order land use, but it should not be forgotten that things like curfews and other restrictions only come about if there are a significant number of people exposed to high levels of aircraft noise and disturbance in the first place. The amenity condition of people forced to mobilise to achieve a reduction in the impact on their lives needs to be significant. Amelioration of the impact is not guaranteed. In the 1990s, the introduction of a curfew was aided by the underlying politics of the electorate where residents had suffered the most.

13 https://www.melbourneairport.com.au/Corporate/Planning-projects/Master-plan

24

It is also conceivable that, notwithstanding extensive community campaigns and protests, no curfew or other measure would ultimately be introduced to ameliorate what these residents regard as insufferable. Alternatively, a “compromise” may be brokered which only goes a small way towards rectifying the situation complained of. Either way, there is a real risk that there will be an insoluble human cost to poor planning decisions in these areas. Such costs will not be reasonably answered by glib statements to the effect that “you moved in here” – simply because when some areas were developed they did not lie within the ANEF contours and now do, or because sitting just outside the contour line does not guarantee no impact.

The role of planning, and government for that matter, is to plan ahead to avoid these situations.

25

4. Proposed Solutions

4.1 Statement of Issue #1

The Right Status The airport operator needs consistent, appropriate recognised status in the planning process to participate in land use planning decisions proportionate to the scale and importance of the airport. The airport is a pre-eminent public asset of State significance generally recognised in State planning policy, and as such the airport operator should be given a greater opportunity to influence land use planning and development around the airport as a referral authority.

Current Framework

At present, the airport is meant to be given notice under section 52(1)(c) of the P&E Act only in respect of applications for a planning permit under the MAEO control, which only covers an area equivalent to land inside the 20 ANEF contour, and to some schedules of the UGZ, but not all.

That notice provides the airport with the capacity to object to the grant of the planning permit, similar to that of an adjoining land-owner.

There is nothing about the position of the airport in the planning scheme which suggests that an objection lodged by the airport has any particular significance.

Similarly there is nothing which expressly prioritises planning outcome in favour of supporting long term planning objectives, over the achievement of other potential community benefits.

The airport receives no special notice in relation to applications outside the 20 ANEF contour (as it appears in the planning scheme from time to time). Indeed, an application for a planning permit just outside the contour is not required to be brought to the airport’s attention.

Notwithstanding that the planning policy framework now embraces the N contours as a relevant consideration in planning matters, there is no mechanism for engaging the airport if land is outside the 20 ANEF contour but inside the N60 contour.

The planning scheme does not afford any special significance to the views of the airport in relation to planning scheme amendments which propose the intensification of land use in areas which may be affected by aircraft noise.

The current controls and policy focus principally, and disproportionately upon aircraft noise impacts from airport operations, largely excluding consideration of the possibility that buildings and works and land uses on private land have the capacity to impact upon airport operations – (e.g. helipad landing sites, or development within the OLS). This means that there is no system in place to filter those applications with the potential to impact airport operations on matters other than noise impact.

In an attempt to ensure that airport related issues are at least given voice, the airport has, to date, been required to bring these matters to light in planning appeals as a mere objector, where the planning framework does not recognise its special knowledge, and in the context of a planning framework which contains ambiguity in the implementation of planning priorities.

Proposed Solution

Notification Requirements

A better system would be to define a physical area of airport interest, in which the airport’s views are required to be sought in relation to planning scheme amendments and permits alike, and where those views are treated as akin to that of a referral authority under the P&E Act.

The area of interest should not be defined by current zoning, or by noise forecast contours which are subject to change over time, but instead by reference to easily discernible physical barriers defined by the operation of the precautionary principle. Within that area the ANEF contours and the N contours

26

should be used as predictive tools to assess impact and consequence for the airport. The area should be defined in three dimensions to include prescribed airspace.

At a minimum, the requirement to give notice under section 52(1)(c) of the P&E Act should extend to all parts of the defined area of airport interest. That said, the better solution is to confer upon the airport the status of referral authority in relation to all areas of interest.

There is no legal impediment to the conferral of referral authority status on APAM under the P& E Act. The Act permits any "body or person" to be nominated as a referral authority.

The situation already exists in relation to pockets of land, but is not consistently the case. Under the schedule to Clause 66.04 of the Hume Planning Scheme, referral of permit applications under local provisions, “Australia Pacific Airports (Melbourne) Pty Ltd” is a “Determining referral authority” for applications under Schedule 4 to Clause 37.01 (which is the Special Use Zone relating to the Corinella Crescent Educational Establishment), provided the MAEO applies to land in that zone.

APAM’s knowledge and interest in the airport is no different to that of the relevant electricity and gas supply authorities, which are, at the same time, referral authorities for subdivision applications under all planning schemes, despite not being public authorities.

Referral authority status is appropriate given the fact that APAM has responsibility under the Airports Act to manage and protect the ongoing operation of the airport, which on any view, imposes upon APAM the responsibility of custodianship of what is, in the overall scheme of things, a public asset of both Commonwealth and State significance.

4.2 Statement of Issue #2

The Right Policy The planning policy framework needs to properly capture and support critical aspects of the Airport’s current and future operations and its off-site effects. The policy framework should better reflect the critical role of the airport in the metropolitan planning context, to ensure that the weight given to the safeguarding of the airport, as a planning consideration, is greater than the weight given to other lesser considerations such as housing supply. Planning policy should take a precautionary and long-term approach to protection of the airport for the benefit of all Victorians.

Current Framework

The current policy framework relating to airports, and Melbourne Airport specifically, comprises: − Melbourne Airport Environs Strategy Plan (MAESP) under P&E Act Part 3C − Planning Policy Framework clause 18.04-1S: Planning for airports and airfields, and clause 18.04- 1R: Melbourne Airport − Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 (Policy 1.1.5 and Directions 1.1, 3.4 and 7.2) − Hume Planning Scheme Municipal Strategic Statement (Hume MSS).

The treatment of the airport in local policy across different municipalities in not uniform.

The manner of implementation of what is contained in the policy framework at State level is not consistently or effectively implemented in the operational provisions of the planning framework.

Some aspects of the planning framework require review.

The MAESP has a special status conferred by Part 3C of the P&E Act and clause 51.04 of all planning schemes.

The strategy was prepared 17 years ago, before the work which produced the White Paper and the NASF.

The provisions of the Act relate only to planning scheme amendments within the area designated as the Environs Area under the plan. The current “Environs Area” designated in the Strategy Plan was declared by the Governor in Council on 2 May 2000.

27

The current declared Environs Area is outdated. The airport's current ANEF and N contours extend outside the declared area in several places. The environs area does not include the airport’s Prescribed Airspace.

Because the MAESP was produced before the development and implementation of the NASF, it does not address wider airport safeguarding considerations as set out in NASF - such as N contours, airspace protection and public safety areas.

Clause 18.04 of the Planning Policy Framework provides only very high-level statements about the relevance of NASF, and no means by which those considerations can be implemented in planning decisions where the land the subject of an application for planning permit lies outside the ANEF contours. This is a curious outcome in circumstances where a core finding of the NASF process was that the ANEF contours alone are inadequate to safeguard airport operations.

Clause 18.04-1R (Melbourne Airport) contains only two sentences, and continues to refer to the 2013 Master Plan, which has been superseded by the 2018 Master Plan. NASF is simply referred to as a background document.

The policy, while in broad terms purports to be generally supportive of the airport’s role, does not provide any real assistance in real-world planning decisions.

The Hume MSS contains a number of statements supporting the safe and efficient operation of Melbourne Airport and its curfew-free status, particularly at Clauses 21.01 and 21.02. At Clause 21.02- 2, Strategy 7.2 states:

Ensure that land use and development protects the airport’s curfew free status and is compatible with the operation of Melbourne Airport in accordance with the Melbourne Airport Master Plan.

Proposed Solution

Strengthened Policy

The current policy framework provides a degree of recognition and support for the role of the airport and its protection. However, the (State/Regional) Planning Policy Framework needs to be explicit in the way in which a planning decision maker is required to approach questions of proposed land use affecting the airport’s strategic operations. This should be achieved by recognising or introducing: − the priority that should be given to airport planning objectives in planning decisions; − tangible implementation of the NASF guidelines; − express guidance as to the role of the N contours in planning decisions; − the role of the UGB and green wedges in safeguarding the airport’s flight corridors; and − protections for Prescribed Airspace, or at the very least recognition that these issues are relevant in strategic planning decision making, and not matters that can be just left to some later time.

These matters are set out in the 2018 Master Plan, particularly in Sections 6, 9 and 17. These policy improvements would properly recognise the importance of the airport in the metropolitan planning context and will also ensure that the full range of airport safeguarding considerations are taken into account in the planning decisions.

MAESP Update

The MAESP must be updated if it is to be at all relevant into the future. Any update must address the full range of safeguarding issues in a comprehensive and integrated way, in accordance with the NASF principles, the NASF guidelines and the current Airport Master Plan. This update should then flow through to an update of the Clause 18.04 policies, Plan Melbourne and local policies in due course.

Consideration should also be given to Part 3C of the P&E Act which should be amended to apply to Planning Permit Applications as well as Planning Scheme Amendments. The declared Environs Area

28

needs to be updated to capture all noise contours and potential future changes to noise contours (refer “The Right Currency” below).

The Environs Area should also capture the airport’s Prescribed Airspace.

Urban Growth Boundary and Green Wedges

A critical policy area that requires improvement is in relation to the role of the UGB and associated green wedges which play an important role in protecting the airport and its flight corridors. The significance of the UGB and the green wedges in airport planning is not well articulated in planning policy and as a result can lead to misapplication by planning decision makers.

The consequence of a movement of the UGB toward current and possible future flight corridors is high. The risk of movement in the UGB is increased if the planning policy framework does not properly articulate the importance of the green wedges in protecting the airport’s flight corridors (refer Logical Inclusions Review).

The role the UGB and green wedges play in safeguarding Melbourne Airport should be expressly recognised in State and local planning policy.

Future reviews of or changes to the UGB and/or the GWZs should only occur after long-term safeguarding of the airport has been properly and fully considered. This is to be compared with the process which involved “Logical Inclusions”.

Policy Best Practice

The abovementioned matters represent minimum level of change which should be made to the policy framework to properly reflect the current strategic aspirations. The changes described above are, in substance, refinements of the existing system, which is the product of an evolution and accumulation of changes over time.

Given the importance of the airport as an asset of national and State significance, refinement of the existing system (acknowledging its imperfections) it is both desirable and appropriate that the policy framework surrounding the operation of the airport adopts best practice.

An example of current best practice is the Queensland Government’s State Planning Policy relating to Strategic airports and aviation facilities. The Queensland policy is a comprehensive airport safeguarding policy. This policy is generally regarded as the best policy in Australia in airport safeguarding. The guidance documents, entitled State Planning Policy – State Interest Guidance Material: Strategic airports and aviation facilities (Queensland Government, July 2017) is best in class.

The guidance document sets out in detail information relating to airports and airport safeguarding, and how this inter-relates to the Queensland planning system. The policy has six parts:

− Part 1: Understanding the state interest − Part 2: Integrating the state interest policies − Part 3: Mapping − Part 4: Applying assessment benchmarks − Part 5: Example planning scheme provisions − Part 6: Supporting information

The policy has 21 appendices that provide the detailed information:

− Appendix 1: General location of aviation facilities − Appendix 2: Aviation facilities—location and type − Appendix 3: Indicative location of strategic airports − Appendix 4: Strategic airport listing criteria and Queensland Government endorsement processes − Appendix 5: Operational airspace

29

− Appendix 6: Obstacle limitation surface and height restriction zones − Appendix 7: Public safety areas (PSAs) − Appendix 8: Guidance on agency roles and contact information − Appendix 9: Airport SPP IMS mapping layers − Appendix 10: Land uses with the potential to adversely impact operational airspace and aircraft safety − Appendix 11: Land uses associated with increases in wildlife strikes and hazards − Appendix 12: Guidance on other statutory approvals required − Appendix 13: PSA – Generally compatible and incompatible uses (new or changed development only) − Appendix 14: Compatible and incompatible land uses within ANEF contours for the purposes of development assessment − Appendix 15: Levels of assessment for development within ANEF contours − Appendix 16: Desirable indoor design sound levels for sensitive land uses − Appendix 17: Mapping update processes − Appendix 18: Guidance on the National Airports Safeguarding Framework − Appendix 19: Matters to consider when designing development in close proximity to operational airspace − Appendix 20: Aviation legislation and regulation − Appendix 21: SPP Interactive Mapping System (IMS) mapping updates and data responsibilities

Appendix 18 provides guidance on how the policy relates to and implements NASF.

A simple comparison between this document and the current state of the Victorian planning framework is instructive.

4.3 Statement of Issue #3

The Right Tools The regulatory tools included in planning schemes need to protect the importance of the airport and need to be fit for purpose – allowing for the airport to change and grow as anticipated by its approved Master Plan. Good planning policy is not enough, strong and comprehensive planning controls are required to ensure that land use and development that could prejudice the ongoing operation of the airport triggers a thorough assessment process against relevant guidelines and standards. Guidelines on their own are inadequate without statutory controls that can prevent inappropriate development from occurring.

Current Framework

The MAEO is the primary planning control in planning schemes protecting the ongoing operation of Melbourne Airport and its 24-hour operation.

The MAEO mapping is derived from Melbourne Airport’s 2003 ANEF contours.

The ANEF / AS2021 system forms the basis of the MAEO.

Experience has shown that aircraft noise effects and complaints are not confined to areas inside the ANEF contours.

At best, the ANEF / AS2021 system sets minimums and, in the end, the system is only intended to mitigate the effect of noise within buildings.

The MAEO does not address wider airport safeguarding considerations as set out in NASF, such as N contours, airspace protection and public safety areas.

In 2012, LIAC stated:

30

“While the SPPF [State Planning Policy Framework] identifies the airport as a key determination in planning decisions, there is a vacuum between the policy objective of not prejudicing the operations of the airport, and what this means in terms of restrictions on development.”

The current planning controls are concerned only with the noise impacts of the airport on sensitive uses – the reverse amenity issue.

There is no planning control which invites consideration of the impact of land use activities on the airport.

The particular provisions which deal with helipads at Clause 52.15 are concerned with noise impacts on residential dwellings within a certain distance of the landing site. There is no mention of the impact of that activity within the prescribed airspace of the airport. Similarly, there is no mention of consideration of buildings and works within prescribed airspace – all of which have the potential, whether on an individual basis or cumulatively, to affect the operational efficiency of an airport which is intended to grow, and therefore become busier over time.

Proposed Solution

MAEO Provisions

The MAEO provisions need to be amended as follows:

− Minimum subdivision lot size in MAEO2 should be increased to 600sqm; − Dwelling density in MAEO2 should be one dwelling per 600sqm; − New additional dwellings should be prohibited in MAEO1 in accordance with AS2021; − it should reflect a full review of permitted and prohibited land uses in both the MAEO1 and MAEO2; − it should explain the limitations which might affect expansion of existing permissible uses such as schools, aged care facilities and places of assembly; − it should explicitly address the expansion of non-conforming uses; and − it should include provisions dealing with other matters contained in the NASF guidelines.

NASF Guidelines

Other than the MAEO, there are no specific planning controls in Victorian planning schemes relating to airport safeguarding or the NASF guidelines.

The MAEO does not address wider airport safeguarding considerations as set out in NASF, such as N contours, airspace protection and public safety areas.

While NASF is referred to in the Planning Policy Framework of all planning schemes, it is only a “policy guideline” and has unclear status or weight in the exercise of planning discretion.

The NASF guidelines should be given effect in planning schemes. They need to be fully incorporated into planning schemes in some way, for example, through one or more of the following measures, either as a permit trigger in some cases, or as an expressly relevant consideration in applications for planning permit, whether inside or outside the MAEO.

The application of the NASF guidelines in the context of Melbourne Airport is discussed in section 17 of the current approved Master Plan. This includes maps showing the extent of land affected by each of the guidelines.

The mapping or designation of the airport’s area of interest should include the areas identified by the N contours.

Prescribed Airspace

Improvements need to be made to planning schemes to better protect Melbourne Airport’s Prescribed Airspace and control potential hazards to aircraft operations in accordance with the NASF Guideline F: Managing the Risk of Intrusions into the Protected Airspace of airports.

31

One of the key principles of NASF is:

“Governments will protect operational airspace around airports in the interests of both aviation and community safety.”

It is not appropriate or sufficient to leave this objective/principle to approval process under Commonwealth legislation after development has already been endorsed under the State planning framework. Such an approach sends a mixed message – that development in these areas is, theoretically achievable – even when it should, on balance, be avoided.

While the MAEO controls land use in relation to aircraft noise, there is no equivalent planning scheme mechanism in the Victoria Planning Provisions that enables the height of structures or other land use/emissions that may impact on aircraft operations to be considered or controlled.

Similarly, there are no requirements for APAM to be notified of proposals that may affect the airport’s Prescribed Airspace. This is a deficiency that needs to be addressed. This could take the form of a new overlay control or Particular Provision in the Victoria Planning Provisions.

While some airports have the equivalent of Design & Development Overlay controls protecting their airspace, this overlay was not designed for this purpose and has its limitations, particularly given the fact that the airspace surfaces are complex, and some are sloping surfaces, which makes it difficult to apply traditional height limits.

One possible solution is to devise a new purpose-built overlay. A new notice/referral requirement under Clause 66 of the VPPs should also be implemented to ensure APAM is made aware of all proposals that could affect the airport’s Prescribed Airspace.

Melbourne Airport has proposed similar controls in the past. To date, no changes have been made to the planning system.

N Contours

The tendency toward over reliance on the ANEF system in the Victorian planning system is a key concern for the airport.

It is generally recognised that basing land use planning decisions solely on ANEF contours is likely to lead to less than optimal outcomes for airports.

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) commented in the case of Corporation Pty Ltd and Ors v Kingston City Council and Mirvac Victoria Pty Ltd [2000] VCAT 1999/101300, that the “fuzziness” of the 20 ANEF contour created difficulty in accurately defining the limits of the noise impacts, relying upon the commentary in the 2003 MAESP, which explicitly notes that the ANEF 20 contour should not be treated as a hard edge.

N contours can assist because they are devised in a way which make up for the deficiencies of the ANEF system. N contours report noise by the number of single events which is the way a person generally experiences and perceives aircraft noise. They are also arithmetic – for example, all other things being equal, if the number of flights on a flight path doubles, the N contour doubles. The volume of traffic is clearly a factor relevant to the impact of noise.

NASF Guideline A: Measures for Managing Impacts of Aircraft Noise recommends the use of N contours for strategic planning purposes. Furthermore, one of the key principles of NASF is:

“Strategic and statutory planning frameworks should address aircraft noise by applying a comprehensive suite of noise measures.”

The N60/N65/N70 contour system should be incorporated into the planning regime in a way which gives it proper and appropriate effect, at the very least, as an additional consideration over and above the ANEF contours and MAEO. This is particularly important for the consideration of any proposal to alter the UGB, or when zoning changes are proposed near the airport and its flight corridors.

32

For further information regarding Melbourne Airport’s N contours, please refer to Section 9.2.11, Figure 9-12 and Section 17.5.4 of the 2018 Master Plan.

High-density residential development

Given the fact that the current MAEO schedules do not provide for higher density housing in areas strategically identified for residential growth, a new MAEO schedule (eg. MAEO3) which allows appropriately designed high-density residential development in and around designated activity centres should be considered.

In such areas that have been identified in a housing strategy for high-density growth (in and near activity centres), such growth could be allowable subject to design standards that address noise.

Green Wedge Zone

By limiting development in the green wedges around the airport, the GWZ helps protect Melbourne Airport’s flight path corridors from the encroachment of land uses and development which may conflict with current and/or future aircraft operations.

However, the provisions of this zone allow for some uses (eg. primary and secondary schools) which are not considered appropriate in areas affected by aircraft noise. The provisions of the GWZ applying around the airport need to be reviewed to address noise sensitive uses such as schools.

In this regard, reference should be made to the VCAT case in 2016 relating to a proposed school in the Green Wedge Zone north of the airport (200 Wildwood Road, Oaklands Junction, VCAT Reference No. P1261/2016).

Planning Practice Note

At the very least, a Planning Practice Note for airport safeguarding may be appropriate and beneficial.

Airport safeguarding (including the NASF guidelines) is a complex field which would be assisted by the provision of guidance material for planning practitioners.

The Queensland Government’s State Planning Policy – State Interest Guidance Material: Strategic airports and aviation facilities (Queensland Government, July 2017) provides a good example of the information that could form part of a Planning Practice Note.

The Australian Airports Association also has a Practice Note relating to airport safeguarding which may be of interest to the Advisory Committee (https://airports.asn.au/airport-practice-notes/).

4.4 Statement of Issue #4

The Right Currency The safeguarding framework needs to reflect the most up-to-date technical information relating to the airport as well as current practice and demands through regular review and update. The airport is continually growing and changing, and this can change the way it interfaces with surrounding areas and communities. There needs to be recognition and acceptance of the changing nature of the airport and its off-site effects, to ensure that the planning framework maintains currency.

Current Framework

Clause 18.04-1R (Melbourne Airport) currently refers to the 2013 Master Plan which has been superseded by the 2018 Master Plan.

The MAEO currently relates to land within Melbourne Airport’s 2003 ANEF contours. Since the 2003 ANEF there has been new ANEFs created in 2008, 2013 and 2018 in association with each new Master Plan for the airport, none of which are reflected in the current MAEO contours.

33

The State Government has recently announced that it will be updating the MAEO based on the 2018 ANEF.

Under the Airports Act the airport is required to produce a new Master Plan, incorporating updated ANEF contours, every five years.

The airport's next Master Plan is due by 2023. The ANEF associated with the next Master Plan could be different to the 2018 ANEF, which may require consequential changes to the MAEO.

Some properties that are not affected by the 2018 ANEF may be affected by the next ANEF, and vice versa.

Figure 9-5 in the 2018 Master Plan shows a comparison of the 2003, 2013 and 2018 ANEFs.

The State Government has advised that any ANEF changes arising from Melbourne Airport's update of the current approved Master Plan will be considered through future amendments of the MAEO in affected planning schemes following a full planning scheme amendment process including exhibition, public submissions and the like. Such a process can involve notice to over 10,000 properties.

Whilst there are currently no controls relating to the airport’s Prescribed Airspace, it is important to note that the airspace charts are also regularly updated.

Proposed Solution

Master Plan Updates

The current approved Master Plan for the airport reflects the most up-to-date technical information relating to the airport.

Planning and safeguarding should be based on the current Master Plan. Clause 18.04-1R in the Planning Policy Framework should simply refer to the current approved Master Plan for the Airport, so that a Planning Scheme Amendment is not required every time a new Master Plan is approved (every five years).

Whatever the current Master Plan is should be incorporated by reference into the planning scheme once that Master Plan is approved under the Airports Act.

ANEF Changes

Part of every Master Plan review is an update of the ANEF contours for the coming 5 year period.

ANEF contours are dynamic and subject to continual change because they are based upon a forecast annual average day. Because the boundaries of the MAEO control are meant to reflect the location of the ANEF contours, they should change every 5 years as well.

The MAEO boundaries are based upon the 2003 Master Plan ANEF contours.

On the assumption that it continues to be thought to be a good idea to have the MAEO boundary defined by fluctuating mathematically produced forecast noise contours, there should be a system by which these updates can be achieved administratively to ensure currency of the planning framework.

In Western Australia, pursuant to State Planning Policy 5.1: Land use planning in vicinity of , the current ANEF are applied by reference in the policy. In Western Australia the maps are not updated and there is no separate amendment process to the policy when the ANEF is updated from time to time. Amendments to the policy "will occur automatically and concurrently".

It is questionable whether a full-blown planning scheme amendment is effective in giving that notice given the complexity of the issues and the scale of its application. It is also highly questionable whether there is value in the conventional planning scheme amendment process in that, it is not likely that a

34

contour which has been approved by the Federal Minister under the Airports Act could be varied in its application to an individual site through a planning scheme amendment process.

A system of instant recognition of ANEF updates should be considered.

The delivery of effective notice is also an important consideration. In Victoria, notice has been provided using agreements under s173 of the P&E Act, and through particular aspects of approvals. The system is cumbersome and inconsistent. In the case of Amendment C142 to the Hume Planning Scheme, the requirement for such an agreement applied to all of the subject land, part of which was outside the MAEO.

A key feature in Western Australia is that notice on title is given on every property within the ANEF. The notice is added at subdivision, planning approval or building permit stages. Every property in the ANEF must have it added (otherwise approvals are not granted).

All of that said, the fact that the boundary of such an important control varies over time is, at the very least, problematic.

The effect of amendments to the ANEF may include alterations to the areas of land to which the development control provisions apply. Indeed, sometime land at the edges move inside and outside the relevant contour, and as a consequence, at different points in time, the land is subject to different controls.

This is a particularly awkward way of administering a planning framework.

Composite ANEF – Mapping Certainty

The ANEF boundaries move in and out every time there is a new ANEF endorsed, requiring a Planning Scheme Amendment to amend the overlays boundaries. Changes to the MAEO boundaries cause confusion and uncertainty for landowners and planning authorities. Some properties that are not affected by one ANEF may be affected by the next ANEF, and vice versa.

Consideration should be given to the MAEO being based on a composite of all previous ANEFs and the boundaries of the MAEO being defined by fixed geographical features rather than contours produced by mathematical forecasting. Such an approach would mean that the MAEO boundaries would not need to change, even if the ANEF contour changed from one Master plan period to the next.

All land within an area that might be affected by aircraft noise will have notice. The status of that land will not change with each Master Plan – which means that long term plans can take account of the fact that the land is within the "area of interest" of the airport.

35

5. Other mechanisms and opportunities to improve airport safeguarding

Melbourne Airport’s submission has confirmed that land use planning and associated governance are multifaceted and complex in the context of ensuring outcomes for multiple stakeholders. This complexity has demonstrated the need to enhance compatibility and coordination of land use planning to ensure effective planning policy outcomes into the future. Mutually beneficial airport and economic development is necessary and must be cooperatively understood by all levels of Government, stakeholders and communities alike. All stakeholders and indeed the wider community need to support, recognise and understand the importance of airports and the unique development and economic opportunities they provide.

The only way this can be truly reflected is by recognising the need for a more integrated planning framework that acknowledges the benefits and strives to deliver them. Melbourne Airport’s Planning Coordination Forum (PCF) is intended to provide, as the name suggests, coordination between all levels of government in relation to airport planning matters.

The PCF focuses on the strategic partnerships between Melbourne Airport, Commonwealth, Victorian and local authorities and industry to shape the airport’s current and future growth. The forum works to integrate the airport’s long-term planning approach with other relevant urban and regional planning policies to protect its long-term growth and curfew-free status. However, the success of the PCF in achieving these goals has been limited and could be enhanced. The current disparate planning framework and policy lag between jurisdictional layers of planning have been starkly highlighted through examples including the Master Plan five year cycle, and last updates of the MAEOs which were undertaken in 2007 (and which were discussed in some detail in Parts 4 and 5 of this submission).

As previously discussed, the current MAESP was adopted 17 years ago and the current Environs Area that the Strategy Plan applies to was declared by the Governor in Council on 2 May 2000. Despite the fact that NASF was agreed to by the State Government in May 2012, the airport safeguarding framework has changed very little since then. This policy lag indicates that better co-ordination between all levels of government and the airport is required.

There are other jurisdictions which take a different approach to integration between levels of government. An important example of connected planning is the Cities Deals. The Cities Deals form a key delivery platform of the Commonwealth Government’s Smart Cities Plan which was released in 2016 (Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communication). The Western Sydney City Deal, signed in March 2018, is one of 7 agreements made so far between the three levels of government to “jointly invest in city-building initiatives that will improve the prosperity, sustainability and liveability of Western Sydney” (Western Sydney City Deal Annual Progress Report 2020). It brings together resources from the Commonwealth and NSW Governments, and the eight Western Parkland councils to deliver projects that address connectivity, jobs, investment, environmental sustainability, and liveability. At its core is the concept of a shared vision delivered by all three tiers of government.

Over 38 commitments have been agreed as part of this City Deal. Critical to these commitments is the delivery of the Western Sydney Aerotropolis and the Western Sydney Planning Partnership which provides an example of multi-layered integrated planning. This should be investigated further to determine the benefits that might be applied to the Victorian context. The Western Sydney Aerotropolis will provide a hub for industry uniquely placed to take advantage of the new Western Sydney Airport which is to be completed by 2025. These include aerospace and defence industries, pharmaceutical manufacturing and freight and logistics networks.

The Western Sydney Planning Partnership was established in 2018 to facilitate an effective planning framework to enable seamless delivery of the commitments through processes including the development and provision of uniform engineering and design standards, common planning assumptions and development of a final Western Sydney Aerotropolis Plan. Importantly, this process is enabling all levels of government to partner together to deliver common solutions to planning issues.

Safeguarding the airport is an ongoing and shared responsibility between all levels of government and the airport. There is support from government for airport safeguarding, but it has become clear that improvements can be made to the coordination framework involving all stakeholders. Melbourne Airport

36

has been working for many years with the Commonwealth Government, the State government, local governments and industry to ensure that the airport’s long-term operation is protected for the benefit of Melbourne and Victoria.

The PCF will continue to play a key role in this regard, however, it is APAM’s submission that additional coordination measures, over and above the PCF are required in order to maximise airport safeguarding and the benefits the airport provides to Victoria.

37

Appendices

a) Legislative and policy framework for Melbourne Airport (annexed) b) National Airports Safeguarding Framework principles and guidelines documents: https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/environmental/airport_safeguarding/nasf/nasf_p rinciples_guidelines.aspx c) Melbourne Airport Master Plan 2018: https://www.melbourneairport.com.au/Corporate/Planning-projects/Master-plan d) Safeguards for airports and the communities around them – Discussion Paper, Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, June 2009: https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/environmental/files/Safeguarding_Discussion_P aper_Jun09.pdf e) Guidance Material for Selecting and Providing Aircraft Noise Information, Department of the Environment and Heritage and the Department of Transport and Regional Services, 2003: https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/environmental/transparent_noise/files/Guidance Material.pdf f) National Aviation Policy White Paper, December 2009: https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/publications/files/Aviation_White_Paper_final.p df g) State Planning Policy – State Interest Guidance Material: Strategic airports and aviation facilities (Queensland Government, July 2017): https://dilgpprd.blob.core.windows.net/general/spp-strategic-airports-and-aviation- facilities-july-2017.pdf

38

Appendix A

Legislative and policy framework for Melbourne Airport

This Appendix outlines the legislative and policy framework within which Melbourne Airport operates. It provides the context for Melbourne Airport’s position with respect to safeguarding and the costs of poor planning which are explored in detail in Parts 4 and 5 of this submission.

Legislative Framework

Whilst Melbourne Airport is predominantly managed through the Airports Act, there are also a number of other Commonwealth and some State legislation that must be either adhered to or considered. An outlined of these legislative provisions is provided below.

Commonwealth Legislation

Airports Act

Melbourne Airport is located on land owned by the Commonwealth Government. The Airports Act establishes the regulatory framework for Commonwealth leased airports, of which Melbourne Airport is one.

APAM is the airport-lessee company for Melbourne Airport and is responsible for managing the airport until 2047 (with an option to extend this lease until 2096).

Under the provisions of the Airports Act, APAM, manages the entire airport site including airside (including runways, taxiways and aprons), terminal and landside precincts (including commercial, retail and industrial developments which do not have a direct role in aviation operations), and the on-airport road network and associated service infrastructure. In addition, APAM is required to develop Melbourne Airport, taking into account anticipated demand, the quality standards reasonably expected of an international airport in Australia, and with good business practices.

Master Plan

Division 3, Part 5 of the Airports Act stipulates that there must be a Master Plan in place for the airport which is approved by the Federal Minister responsible for airports.

Matters that must be set out in a Master Plan include, amongst others, development objectives, future land-use plans, flight paths and noise impacts (including ANEF). Importantly, the Airports Act stipulates that the Master Plan must be updated every five years and covers a planning horizon of 20 years.

The purposes of a Master Plan14 include:

− to establish the strategic direction for efficient and economic development at the airport over the planning period of the plan, i.e. five years;

− to indicate to the public the intended uses of the airport site; and

− to reduce potential conflicts between uses of the airport site, and to ensure uses of the airport site are compatible with the areas surrounding the airport.15

The legislative framework for approval of a master plan is set out in sections 69 to 87 of the Airports Act. In summary, the approval process is as follows:

(a) the airport operator prepares a draft Master Plan which addresses various matters, including:16

14 Defined as a "draft master plan that has been approved by the Minister" – see section 83 of the Airports Act. 15 The purposes are set out in full at section 70 of the Airports Act. 16 The full list of information required by a draft master plan is set out at section 71 of the Airports Act.

39

(i) development objectives for the relevant airport;

(ii) an assessment of the future needs of civil aviation users of the airport, and other users of the airport, for services and facilities relating to the airport;

(iii) the intentions for land use and related development of the airport site, where the uses and developments embrace airside, landside, surface access and land planning/zoning aspects;

(iv) Australian Noise Exposure Forecasts for the areas surrounding the airport;

(v) flight paths at the airport; and

(vi) plans for managing aircraft noise intrusion in areas forecast to be subject to exposure above the significant ANEF levels.

(b) Before providing the draft Master Plan to the Federal Minister, the airport operator must:

(i) provide a copy of the draft master plan to the relevant State Minister, State planning authority and local government authorities for comment. Any comment provided by any of these State bodies must be included with the draft master plan when it is provided to the Federal Minister; and

(ii) provide notice of the preparation of the draft master plan to the general public in the relevant State by form of an advertisement in the newspaper. The notice must state that the public has 60 business days to comment on the draft master plan, and that it is available for inspection. Any comment provided by members of the public must be included with the draft Master Plan when it is provided to the Federal Minister.

Once the Airport Operator submits the draft master plan to the Federal Minister, the Federal Minister has 50 business days to decide whether they will refuse or approve the draft Master Plan. This period may be extended by an additional 10 business days if the Federal Minister provides written notice to the Airport.

As part of this decision-making process, the Federal Minister may request more information / material for the purpose of making their decision on the draft master plan. This has the effect of "stopping the clock" on the passing of time for the Federal Minister to make their decision.

When making their decision, the Federal Minister must take into account various matters. These include the overall purposes of a master plan, the effect of the master plan on areas within and surrounding the relevant airport, the outcome of consultation undertaken when preparing the draft Master Plan, and the views of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and Airservices Australia with regards to the draft Master Plan.

(c) The Federal Minister has three options:

(i) the Federal Minister may approve the draft Master Plan, converting the plan into a final Master Plan from the date of the approval;17

(ii) the Federal Minister may refuse the draft Master Plan. If the Federal Minister refuses the plan, it may direct the airport operator to draft a new draft Master Plan. This must be provided to the Federal Minister within 180 days of the direction being given, unless a longer time is stipulated in that direction;18

(iii) If the Federal Minister neither approves, nor refuses, the draft Master Plan before the expiry of the 50 business day period, the Federal Minister is taken to

17 See section 83 of the Airports Act. 18 See section 81(8) of the Airports Act.

40

have approved the draft Master Plan. The draft Master Plan will convert into a final Master Plan at the expiry of the relevant period.19

(d) Once the final Master Plan has been approved, the airport operator must publish notice of the final Master Plan in a newspaper and make copies of the plan available on its website within 50 business days of the approval.20

If the Federal Minister refuses to approve a draft Master Plan, the airport operator may appeal the Federal Minister's decision to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

Major Development Plan

As Melbourne Airport sits on Commonwealth land, Victorian planning processes (i.e. those under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic)) do not apply to use and development on airport land.

Major development proposals (for example the construction of a third runway) require approval under the Airports Act from the Federal Minister with aviation responsibility.

A “major development plan” (MDP) is a plan which contemplates a major development at an airport, including the development of a new runway, extending an existing runway, altering a runway in a way that "significantly" affects flight paths or aircraft noise, or constructing a new building or terminal.21 The purpose of the MDP is to establish the details for a major airport development that relates to the airport, and is consistent with the airport lease of the airport and the final master plan for the airport.22 The final Master Plan is intended to inform the MDP.

A MDP must be approved by the Federal Minister before the airport operator commences any work in relation to the relevant major development.23

The legislative framework for approval of an MDP is set out in section 88 to 96 of the Airports Act. In summary, the approval process is as follows:

(a) the airport operator prepares a draft MDP which addresses various matters, including:24

(i) the objectives of the relevant development;

(ii) an assessment of how the development will meet the future needs of civil aviation users of the airport, and other users of the airport, for services and facilities relating to the airport;

(iii) a detailed outline of the development;

(iv) whether the development is consistent with the airport lease for the relevant airport;

(v) whether the development is consistent with the final master plan;

(vi) if, and how, the development would likely affect noise exposure levels at the airport;

(vii) if, and how, the development would likely affect flight paths at the airport;

(viii) plans for managing aircraft noise intrusion in areas forecast to be subject to exposure above the significant ANEF levels;

19 See section 81(5) of the Airports Act. 20 See section 86 of the Airports Act. 21 The full list of examples is set out at section 89 of the Airports Act. 22 See section 91(1A) of the Airports Act. 23 See section 90 of the Airports Act. 24 The full list of information required by a draft master plan is set out at section 91(1) of the Airports Act.

41

(ix) an outline of the approvals proposed to be sought under the Airports Act in relation to building matters, if any are required.

(b) Before providing the draft MDP to the Federal Minister, the airport operator must:

(i) provide a copy of the draft MDP to the relevant State Minister, State planning authority and local government authorities for comment. Any comment provided by any of these State bodies must be included with the draft MDP when it is provided to the Federal Minister; and

(ii) provide notice of the preparation of the draft MDP to the general public in the relevant State by form of an advertisement in the newspaper. The notice must state that the public has 60 business days (or less if approved by the Federal Minister) to comment on the draft MDP, and that it is available for inspection. Any comment provided by members of the public must be included with the draft MDP when it is provided to the Federal Minister.

(c) Once the airport operator submits the MDP to the Federal Minister, the Federal Minister has 50 business days to decide whether they will refuse or approve the MDP. This period may be extended by an additional 10 business days if the Federal Minister provides written notice to the airport operator.

As part of this decision-making process, the Federal Minister may request more information / material for the purpose of making their decision on the draft master plan. This has the effect of "stopping the clock" on the passing of time for the Federal Minister to make their decision.

When making their decision, the Federal Minister must take into account various matters. These include the overall purposes of the MDP, the effect of the MDP on areas within and surrounding the relevant airport, the outcome of consultation undertaken when preparing the MDP, and the views of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and Air Services Australia with regards to the MDP.

(d) The Federal Minister has three options:

(i) the Federal Minister may approve the draft MDP, either with or without conditions;

(ii) the Federal Minister may refuse the draft MDP. If the MDP is refused, the Minister must give reasons for the refusal.

The Airports Act requires that the Minister must not approve a draft MDP unless it is consistent with the final master plan for the relevant airport.25

(iii) If the Federal Minister neither approves, nor refuses, the draft MDP before the expiry of the 50 business day period, the Federal Minister is taken to have approved the draft MDP. The approval date for the MDP is taken to be the date of expiry of the relevant period.26

(e) Once the final master plan has been approved, the airport operator must publish notice of the final master plan in a newspaper and make copies of the plan available on its website within 50 business days of the approval.27

If the Federal Minister refuses to approve a draft MDP, the airport operator may appeal the Federal Minister's decision to the Commonwealth Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

25 See section 94(5) of the Airports Act. 26 See section 94(6) of the Airports Act. 27 See section 96(2) of the Airports Act.

42

Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations 1996 (Cth)

The Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations 1996 (Cth) establish a framework for the protection of airspace at an airport and at locations around the airport. Protected airspace is the airspace above two invisible surfaces known as the Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) and the Procedures for Air Navigational Surfaces – Aircraft Operations (PANS-OPS). Both these surfaces are designed to protect aircraft from collision with obstacles. Any activity that infringes an airport’s protected airspace is called a controlled activity. Controlled activity includes both permanent and non-permanent structures, and can also include dust and steam and plumes that cause air turbulence such as from a stack.

Approvals to penetrate controlled airspace are usually referred to airports by local government authorities, as they are required to review any development or building applications for possible infringements into the protected airspace.

Whilst the process outlined above is applied similarly across Australia, the New South Wales Department of Planning, Industry and Environment is developing the Western Sydney Aerotropolis Development Control Plan through the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. This will provide controls which guide development to achieve connectivity, liveability, productivity, and sustainability – including safeguarding the airport operations of Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird) Airport (Airport), through linkage to the Aerotropolis State Environment Planning Policy (State Environmental Planning Policy (Western Sydney Aerotropolis) 2020).

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act) provides a framework for protection of the environment. Section 26 of the EPBC Act, broadly speaking, prohibits a person from taking an action on Commonwealth land which is likely to have a significant impact on the environment, unless that action has been approved by the Federal Environment Minister.

Section 160 of the EPBC Act requires that, before the Federal Minister responsible for airports approves an MDP, he or she must obtain and consider advice from the Minister for Environment as to whether the implementation of the MDP would likely have a significant impact on the environment. If the Environment Minister considers that such an impact is likely, then the Environment Minister may advise the Minister responsible for airports (a) whether to approve the MDP and (b) any conditions that should be applied or other matters that should be addressed in connection with the MDP28.

Airports (Environment Protection) Regulations 1997 (Cth)

The Airports (Environment Protection) Regulations 1997 (Cth) provide for the regulation of aspects of the environment on airports administered under the Airports Act. This includes aspects of air, water and soil pollution and impacts of ground based noise.

Airports (Building Control) Regulations 1996 (Cth)

The Airports (Building Control) Regulations 1996 (Cth) provide the framework for building and construction work on an airport administered though the Airports Act to be approved. An Airport Building Controller ensures that all building works meet appropriate standards similar to a building certifier off airport.

Victorian Legislation

Melbourne Airport is generally required to comply with Victorian legislation where airport activities have the potential to affect specific environmental aspects of off-airport land. While the application of Victorian State laws is excluded with respect to some activities on the Airport land, Melbourne Airport’s field of influence extends to cover and interact with land and land uses that are affected by Victorian planning laws.

28 See section 163, EPBC Act

43

All aspects of land use and development within Melbourne Airports sphere of influence is controlled by Victorian planning law and policy.

Planning and Environment Act and Melbourne Airport Environs Strategy Plan

Melbourne Airport is given particular recognition under Part 3C of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) (P&E Act) which provides for the creation and approval of the MAESP.

The MAESP was approved by the Minister for Planning in 2003.

As a result, amendments to planning schemes in relation to the area defined as the Melbourne Airport Environs Area must be consistent with the approved MAESP (section 46X of the P&E Act).

The principal intent of the strategy is to ensure that Melbourne Airport retains key competitive advantages that flow from 24 hour operation, and to establish the importance of managing the impact of aircraft noise on adjacent residential areas.

The MAESP depends upon the ANEF contour mapping system and primarily relates to land inside the 20 ANEF contour, having little effect outside that contour.

In May 2007, the State Government implemented the MAESP’s recommendations and a new overlay control through Planning Scheme Amendment VC30, which introduced the current MAEO.

National Policy Framework

The National and State policy framework aim to assist Melbourne Airport to operate effectively and without constraints that impact on the airport’s operations and the important role of the airport as a critical state and national asset.

Commonwealth aviation policy

The recognises the need to manage land use planning around airports to avoid amenity impacts and in doing so, protect the operational capacity of airports, given the social and economic benefits they provide.

The National Aviation Policy White Paper was released in 2009 by the then Minister responsible for aviation (White Paper).

The White Paper recognised the need for better integration and coordination between airports and off- airport planning systems so that planning regimes are better placed to respond to population growth and urban congestion and can better support increasingly productive and sustainable cities29.

Critically the White Paper identified that:

− Continual investment in and upgrade of the aviation infrastructure at Australia’s airports is needed to continue to drive Australia’s productivity and economic performance. In order to achieve this, airports need to be afforded the best possible planning and consultative framework–to allow for the development of their core aviation business, while encouraging their integration with the communities that neighbour them.30 − Suitable locations for airports are scarce. In the interests of safety and public amenity there should be minimal development in the vicinity of airport operations. However, there is also a need for airports to be easily accessible to population centres. Inappropriate development around airports can result in unnecessary constraints on airport operations and impacts on community safety. There is hence a need to ensure that construction and development are

29 The White Paper, page 157

30 The White Paper, page 154

44

undertaken in a way that is compatible with airport operations, both in the present and taking into account future growth.31

This rationale behind the White Paper policy framework continues to be relevant and pertinent today.

The White Paper led to the development of the National Airports Safeguarding Framework (NASF).

National Airports Safeguarding Framework:

Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers considered and agreed the Framework at the Standing Council on Transport and Infrastructure meeting on 18 May 2012.

NASF is a collective commitment from governments at State and Commonwealth levels to ensure that an appropriate balance is maintained between the social, economic and environmental needs of the community and the effective use of airport sites.

The NASF sets out principles and guidelines to assist in addressing airport safeguarding issues to better protect the ongoing operations of airports in Australia.

The NASF principles were developed with the aim of “developing a consistent and effective national framework to safeguard both airports and communities from inappropriate on and off-airport developments. There are seven NASF principles:

1. The safety, efficiency and operational integrity of airports should be protected by all governments, recognising their economic, defence and social significance. 2. Airports, governments and local communities should share responsibility to ensure that airport planning is integrated with local and regional planning. 3. Governments at all levels should align land-use planning and building requirements in the vicinity of airports. 4. Land-use planning processes should balance and protect both airport/aviation operations and community safety and amenity expectations. 5. Governments will protect operational airspace around airports in the interests of both aviation and community safety. 6. Strategic and statutory planning frameworks should address aircraft noise by applying a comprehensive suite of noise measures. 7. Airports should work with governments to provide comprehensive and understandable information to local communities on their operations concerning noise impacts and airspace requirements.

The nine NASF guidelines are outlined below.

A. Measures for Managing Impacts of Aircraft Noise: provides guidance and advice on the range of complementary noise metrics that can be used to inform strategic planning and provide relevant and understandable information to communities ensuring they are appropriately equipped with reliable knowledge. B. Managing the Risk of Building Generated Windshear and Turbulence at Airports: predominantly aimed at airport operators but also land-use planners to reduce the risk of building-generated windshear and turbulence. C. Managing the Risk of Wildlife Strikes in the Vicinity of Airports: provides advice to manage the risk of wildlife both on airport, but also in the vicinity of airports, particularly with respect to birds. D. Managing the Risk of Wind Turbine Farms as Physical Obstacles to Air Navigation: with a particular focus on preventing impacts which can occur with wind turbines to navigation, communication and surveillance systems used to manage aircraft as well as preventing risks to low flying aviation. E. Managing the Risk of Distractions to Pilots from Lighting in the Vicinity of Airports: provides planning advice to ensure that airport and surrounding lighting does not impact pilots in aligning aircraft for runway use.

31 The White Paper, page 166.

45

F. Managing the Risk of Intrusions into the Protected Airspace of Airports: provides advice for planners to prevent structures or activities from impacting airspace and in turn safety. G. Protecting Aviation Facilities – Communications, Navigation and Surveillance (CNS): planning advice to planners to ensure CNS infrastructure is not compromised by inappropriate development. H. Protecting Strategically Important Helicopter Landing Sites: provides guidance to State/Territory and local government decision makers as well as the owners/operators of identified strategically important HLS to ensure these locations are not compromised by inappropriate developments. I. Managing the Risk in Public Safety Areas at the Ends of Runways: provide guidance to decision makers on the assessment and treatment of potential increases in risk to public safety which could result from an aircraft incident or development proposal in areas near the end of an airport runway.

Australian Noise Exposure Forecast and contours

The ANEF are forecasts of future noise exposure patterns around an airport.

The ANEF system was developed and first deployed in Australia in the early 1990s. It has been the principle planning tool used to guide strategic and statutory planning decisions concerning land use and development in the airport environs for 25 years.

The Forecasts produce contours lines which map the point of delineation between ANEF forecasts.

The ANEF shows a cumulative noise effect of a full year of operations. Seasonal changes in weather patterns and airline schedules are taken into account in the forecasts.

The resulting contours that are developed are therefore a measure of the total noise exposure over a 12 month period divided by 365 days to show an average annual day.

Importantly, the ANEF contours do not represent the maximum exposure on any day, or the maximum exposure caused by a single aircraft.

It has been widely accepted that the ANEF system does not represent a complete picture of the amenity impacts of aircraft noise.

Further, the forecast noise can change over time (based upon new information and changes to operations) and as a result of the method of calculation – which has the result that the contours can move.

Number-above contours

Having regard to the recognised limitations of the ANEF system, NASF Guideline A Measures for Managing Impacts of Aircraft Noise was developed.

The NASF Guideline A recommends using the ‘number-above’ contour system to supplement the ANEF contours.

The number-above system is a complementary aircraft noise contour system that produces contours showing the average number of aircraft noise events above 60dB(A), 65dB(A) or 70dB(A) per day.

The N-contour system reports aircraft noise in the way that more closely corresponds to the way that a person perceives that noise. as the number of noise events per day above a specified decibel level, rather than the ANEF approach which represents an annual average.

Australian Standard AS 2021-2015

Australian Standard AS2021-2015: Acoustics – Aircraft Noise Intrusion – Building Siting and Construction is incorporated by reference in the regulatory framework and defines areas where construction of certain building types is ‘acceptable’, ‘conditionally acceptable’ or ‘unacceptable’.

Importantly, the Australian Standard was based upon the ANEF, and so the measures of acceptability are referable to the impact of annual average noise conditions.

46

The AS 2021-2015 is reviewed periodically and was last updated in 2015.

There are some interesting departures between the Standard and the planning controls in Victoria.

The AS2021-2015 notes that a dwelling is unacceptable in the 25-30 ANEF, however the MAEO1 allows the possibility of a dwelling within the 25-30 ANEF, provided that it is constructed so as to comply with the AS2021-2015.

A copy of Table 2.1 Building Site Acceptability Based on ANEF Zones from Australian Standard AS 2021-2015 is provided below.

ANEF Zone of Site Building Type Acceptable Conditional Unacceptable

House, home unit, flat, Less than 20 ANEF 20 to 25 ANEF Greater than 25 ANEF caravan park

Hotel, motel, hostel Less than 25 ANEF 25 to 30 ANEF Greater than 30 ANEF

School, university Less than 20 ANEF 20 to 25 ANEF Greater than 25 ANEF

Hospital, nursing home Less than 20 ANEF 20 to 25 ANEF Greater than 25 ANEF

Public building Less than 20 ANEF 20 to 30 ANEF Greater than 30 ANEF

Commercial building Less than 25 ANEF 25 to 35 ANEF Greater than 35 ANEF

Light industrial Less than 30 ANEF 30 to 40 ANEF Greater than 40 ANEF

Other industrial Acceptable in all ANEF zones

Victorian State Policy

State policy seeks to strengthen the role of Melbourne Airport within the State’s economic and transport infrastructure, facilitate its expansion and protect its ongoing operation, ensuring that any new use or development does not prejudice its optimum usage or curfew-free operation.

Policy also seeks to ensure the effective and competitive operation of Melbourne Airport at both national and international levels.32

Planning policy framework

The Planning Policy Framework is contained in all Victorian Planning Schemes includes Clause 18.04- 1S (Planning for airports and airfields).

The Victorian Government introduced reference to NASF as a “policy guideline” in Clause 18.04 of the State Planning Policy Framework in October 2015 (Amendment VC128).

Clause 18.04-1S has the following objective: To strengthen the role of Victoria’s airports and airfields within the state's economic and transport infrastructure, facilitate their siting and expansion and protect their ongoing operation.

Clause 18.04-1S includes the following strategies (amongst others):

32 Clause 18.04-1S and 18.04-1R.

47

Protect airports from incompatible land uses. Ensure the effective and competitive operation of Melbourne Airport at both national and international levels.

Clause 18.04-1S states that the National Airports Safeguarding Framework must be considered, where relevant, before a responsible authority decides on an application or approval of a plan.

Clause 18.04-1R, which relates specifically to Melbourne Airport, has the following strategies:

Protect the curfew-free status of Melbourne Airport and ensure any new use or development does not prejudice its operation. Ensure any new use or development does not prejudice the optimum usage of Melbourne Airport.

Clause 18.04-1R requires consideration of the Melbourne Airport Master Plan (2013) and the Melbourne Airport Strategy (1990) to ensure any new development does not prejudice the optimum usage of Melbourne Airport.

It is important to note that the MAESP is not referenced as a policy document that is required to be considered as relevant despite Melbourne Airport’s significance and reference in Part 3C of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) through the MAESP.

In relation to Green Wedges, Clause 11.01-1R states one of the purposes is to:

Plan and protect major state infrastructure and resource assets, such as airports and ports with their associated access corridors, water supply dams, water catchments and waste management and recycling facilities.

Plan Melbourne 2017-2050

Plan Melbourne provides that Melbourne Airport is designated a Transport Gateway and a Place of State Significance.

In relation to such places, Plan Melbourne Policy 1.1.5 states:

Support major transport gateways as important locations for employment and economic activity.

Melbourne’s transport gateways and associated road and rail networks are critical to the state’s economy. They provide access to local, national and international markets and are key areas for employment and economic activity.

Melbourne Airport is Victoria’s primary gateway for air passengers and air-freight exporters. It handles around 30 million passengers a year and accounts for almost a third of Australia’s air freight. Melbourne Airport is directly responsible for 14,300 jobs—an employment figure that is expected to grow to 23,000 by 2033.17 Its curfew-free status is a competitive advantage that must be protected. Additionally, the airport’s central location—between three of Melbourne’s major growth areas—means it is well placed to capitalise on growing labour markets. Together with Essendon Airport’s expanding regional services, this airport corridor has the potential to become one of Australia’s leading transport and logistics hubs.

Designated ports, airports, freight terminals and their surrounds will be protected from incompatible land uses to ensure they keep generating economic activity and new jobs. Adjacent complementary uses and employment-generating activities will be encouraged.

In relation to role and function of Green Wedges, Plan Melbourne states:

Non-urban land uses in the green wedges and peri-urban areas should be carefully planned and managed to avoid irreversible land-use change and support their ongoing productivity.

48

Melbourne’s green wedges and peri-urban areas support Melbourne through food production, critical infrastructure (such as water supply catchments and airports), sand and stone supply, biodiversity, recreation and tourism.

Protect regionally significant assets such as metropolitan landfills (for example, Clayton South and Wollert), wastewater management facilities (for example, Eastern and Western Treatment Plants), industrial areas and related odour and safety buffers (for example, Dandenong South), airports and flightpaths (Melbourne, Avalon and Moorabbin), and ports (Port of Hastings).

Melbourne Airport Strategy 1990

In response to long-range passenger and aircraft movement forecasts (1990 to 2050), the Federal Airports Corporation and the Victorian Government jointly developed a long-term strategy for the airport’s development and management – the Melbourne Airport Strategy 1990.

The Commonwealth and Victorian governments formally endorsed the Melbourne Airport Strategy in 1990 following a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement involving extensive community and industry consultation.

The Environmental Impact Statement was prepared under the Commonwealth Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 and was subsequently approved by the then Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories on 12 November 1990.

The Melbourne Airport Strategy provided a broad framework for orderly airport development, road and rail access and external land-use control to protect the airport’s 24-hour, curfew-free operation and formed the forerunner to the current Master Planning process.

A key feature was provision for the future development of wide-spaced parallel north–south and east– west runways to optimise hourly and annual capacities and operational flexibility.

These features have provided the basis of every long-term plan for Melbourne Airport since 1990.

Land Use Controls and the Melbourne Airport Environs Overlay

Land use controls were first implemented by the State Government in 1992 – the ‘Melbourne Airport Environs Area’.

The introduction of the VPPs in 1996 introduced the Airport Environs Overlay which was applied to land around the Melbourne Airport based on the 1992 Melbourne Airport Environs Area controls.

In May 2007, a new overlay, the MAEO was introduced into the Scheme, based on the 2003 ANEF contours. These controls, like all planning controls, are a tool by which it is intended to implement the planning policy framework.

The current overlay incorporated some improvements to the earlier provisions. A copy of the MAEO provisions (including the associated schedules) is attached at Appendix C.

The purposes of the MAEO are:

− To implement the Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework. − To ensure that land use and development are compatible with the operation of Melbourne Airport in accordance with the relevant airport strategy or master plan and with safe air navigation for aircraft approaching and departing the airfield. − To assist in shielding people from the impact of aircraft noise by requiring appropriate noise attenuation measures in dwellings and other noise sensitive buildings. − To provide for appropriate levels of noise attenuation depending on the level of forecasted noise exposure.

49

Before deciding on an application under the MAEO, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate:

− The Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework. − Whether the proposal will result in an increase in the number of dwellings and people affected by aircraft noise. − Whether the proposal is compatible with the present and future operation of the airport in accordance with the current Melbourne Airport Master Plan approved in accordance with the Airports Act 1996. − Location of the development in relation to the criteria set out in Table 2.1 Building Site Acceptability Based on ANEF Zones in Australian Standard AS 2021-2015.

The ANEF / AS2021 system forms the basis of the MAEO in that the mapping contours are derived from the Forecasts produced by the ANEF system, which in turn form the benchmark for assessment under the Australian Standard.

The ANEF noise contours have been applied at Melbourne Airport as a basis for determining the areas to be included in the MAEO1 (25 ANEF contour) and MAEO2 (20 ANEF contour).

It is a system which was devised in and has operated in one form or another as a basis for planning impact assessment since the early 1980s.

Importantly, because forecasts vary according to changing information, each iteration of the Master Plan updates the predicted ANEF contours.

In the past, any change to the contours ultimately informs a planning scheme amendment to include the areas subject to the ANEF 25 and 20 contours in the MAEO1 and MAEO2, respectively.

There is inevitably a period of time during which the planning scheme lags behind the production of the new ANEF contours in the Master Plan.

There has been no update to the ANEF contours since 2007.

50

1