Land Use Planning and the Airport Metropolis

LAND USE PLANNING AND THE AIRPORT METROPOLIS

Nicholas J. Stevens

Bachelor Built Environment (Landscape Architecture) Queensland University of Technology

Master (Urban & Regional Planning) Queensland University of Technology

Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the School of Civil Engineering and Built Environment Science and Engineering Faculty Queensland University of Technology Australia

December 2012

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Abstract

Australian airports have emerged as important urban activity centres over the past decade as a result of privatisation. A range of reciprocal airport and regional impacts now pose considerable challenges for both airport operation and the surrounding urban and regional environment. The airport can no longer be managed solely as a specialised transport entity in isolation from the metropolis that it serves.

In 2007 a multidisciplinary Australian Research Council Linkage Project (LP 0775225) was funded to investigate the changing role of airports in Australia. This thesis is but one component of this collaborative research effort. Here the issues surrounding the policy and practice of airport and regional land use planning are explored, analysed and detailed.

This research, for the first time, assembles a distinct progression of the wider social, economic, technological and environmental roles of the airport within the Australian airport literature from 1914 – 2011. It recognises that while the list of airport and regional impacts has grown through time, treatment within practice and the literature has largely remained highly specialised and contained within disciplinary paradigms.

The first publication of the thesis (Chapter 2) acknowledges that the changing role of airports demands the establishment of new models of airport planning and development. It argues that practice and research requires a better understanding of the reciprocal impacts of airports and their urban catchments.

The second publication (Chapter 3) highlights that there is ad hoc examination and media attention of high profile airport and regional conflict, but little empirical analysis or understanding of the extent to which all privatised Australian airports are intending to develop. The conceptual and methodological significance of this research is the development of a national land use classification system for on-airport development. This paper establishes the extent of on-airport development in Australia, providing insight into the changing land use and economic roles of privatised airports.

The third publication (Chapter 4) details new and significant interdependencies for airport and regional development in consideration of the progression of airports as activity centres. Here the model of an ‘airport metropolis’ is offered as an organising device and theoretical contribution for comprehending the complexity and planning of airport and regional

development. It delivers a conceptual framework for both research and policy, which acknowledges the reciprocal impacts of economic development, land use, infrastructure and governance ‘interfaces’.

In a timely and significant concurrence with this research the Australian Government announced and delivered a National Aviation Policy Review (2008 – 2009). As such the fourth publication (Chapter 5) focuses on the airport and urban planning aspects of the review. This paper also highlights the overall policy intention of facilitating broader airport and regional collaborative processes. This communicative turn in airport policy is significant in light of the communicative theoretical framework of the thesis.

The fifth paper of the thesis (Chapter 6) examines three Australian case studies (Brisbane, Adelaide and Canberra) to detail the context of airport and regional land use planning and to apply the airport metropolis model as a framework for research. Through the use of Land Use Forums, over 120 airport and regional stakeholders are brought together to detail their perspectives and interactions with airport and regional land use planning. An inductive thematic analysis of the results identifies three significant themes which contribute to the fragmentation of airport and regional and land use planning: 1) inadequate coordination and disjointed decision-making; 2) current legislative and policy frameworks; and 3) competing stakeholder priorities and interests.

Building on this new knowledge, Chapter 7 details the perceptions of airport and local, state and territory government stakeholders to land use relationships, processes and outcomes. A series of semi-structured interviews are undertaken in each of the case studies to inform this research. The potential implications for ongoing communicative practice are discussed in conclusion.

The following thesis represents an incremental and cumulative research process which delivers new knowledge for the practical understanding and research interpretation of airport and regional land use planning practice and policy. It has developed and applied a robust conceptual framework which delivers significant direction for all stakeholders to better comprehend the relevance of airports in the urban character and design of our cities.

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... ii Table of Contents ...... iv Statement of Original Authorship ...... viii Acknowledgments ...... ix CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Structure of the Thesis By Publication...... 1 1.2 Research Context ...... 3 1.2.1 Background – City Airports to Airport Cities (2006) ...... 3 1.2.2 The Research Setting and Political Background ...... 6 1.3 Research Problem ...... 12 1.4 Research Questions ...... 12 1.5 Research Strategy – Comparative Case Study Approach ...... 14 1.5.1 Brisbane, Queensland ...... 14 1.5.2 Adelaide, South Australia ...... 15 1.5.3 Canberra, Australian Capital Territory ...... 15 1.6 Data Collection & Analysis ...... 15 1.6.1 Geographic information system (GIS) land use analysis (Chapter 3) ...... 16 1.6.2 Land Use Forums - participatory action research (Chapter 6) ...... 18 1.6.3 Semi – structured interviews - qualitative understanding (Chapter 7) ...... 20 1.6.4 Thematic analysis - qualitative analysis (Chapter 6 & 7) ...... 20 1.7 Communicative Planning Theory ...... 22 1.8 Significance of Research ...... 26 1.9 The Airport Metropolis Interface Model ...... 27 1.9.1 Sustainability and the Airport Metropolis ...... 28 1.10 Overview of Thesis ...... 32 1.10.1 Chapter 2: Literature Review - Understanding the Australian Airport Metropolis . 32 1.10.2 Chapter 3: Airport city developments in Australia: land use classification and analyses...... 34 1.10.3 Chapter 4: Airports in their urban settings: towards a conceptual model of interfaces in the Australian context ...... 36 1.10.4 Chapter 5: Managing airport land development under regulatory uncertainty ...... 38 1.10.5 Chapter 6: Land use conflict across the airport fence: competing urban policy, planning and priority in Australia ...... 39 1.10.6 Chapter 7: Stakeholder perspectives on airport and regional land use planning .... 41 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW – UNDERSTANDING THE AUSTRALIAN AIRPORT METROPOLIS ...... 43 2.1 Introduction ...... 44 2.2 Impact of Airports ...... 45 2.3 Airport Ownership ...... 46 2.4 Airport Conflicts ...... 47 2.5 Studying Airports ...... 49

2.6 Integrated Models of Airports as Activity Centres ...... 50 2.7 The Need for a Conceptual Framework ...... 52 2.8 Additional Contextual Literature ...... 53 2.8.1 The National Aviation Policy Review...... 53 2.8.2 Environmental Impact and the Australian Airport Metropolis ...... 55 2.8.3 Airport Ownership ...... 58 2.8.4 Commercialisation and Commercial Development ...... 59 2.8.5 Airport Privatisation ...... 63 2.8.6 Land Use and Compatibility ...... 66 2.9 References ...... 68 CHAPTER 3: AIRPORT CITY DEVELOPMENTS IN AUSTRALIA: LAND USE CLASSIFICATION AND ANALYSES ...... 75 3.1 Introduction ...... 77 3.2 Background ...... 77 3.2.1 Aviation growth in Australia ...... 77 3.2.2 Airport ownership in Australia ...... 78 3.2.3 Airport Planning under the Airports Act 1996 ...... 79 3.2.4 Diversification of airport revenue ...... 80 3.3 Land use analysis: methods and materials ...... 81 3.3.1 Airport study group ...... 81 3.3.2 Spatial analysis process utilised to create land use zoning maps ...... 83 3.3.3 Re-classification of land use zoning ...... 83 3.4 Results and discussion ...... 85 3.4.1 Adelaide Airport (ADL) - RPT ...... 87 3.4.2 Alice Springs Airport (ASP) - GA ...... 88 3.4.3 Archerfield Airport (YBAF) – GA/PT ...... 89 3.4.4 Bankstown Airport (BWU) – GA/PT ...... 89 3.4.5 Brisbane Airport (BNE) - RPT ...... 90 3.4.6 Camden Airport (CDU) - GA ...... 91 3.4.7 Canberra Airport (CBR) - RPT ...... 91 3.4.8 Coolangatta Airport (OOL) - RPT ...... 92 3.4.9 Darwin Airport (DRW) - RPT ...... 92 3.4.10 Essendon Airport (MEB) - GA/PT ...... 93 3.4.11 Hobart Airport (HBA) - RPT ...... 94 3.4.12 Hoxton Park Airport (YHOX) – GA ...... 95 3.4.13 Jandakot Airport (JAD) - GA/PT ...... 95 3.4.14 Launceston Airport (LST) - GA/PT ...... 96 3.4.15 Melbourne Airport (MEL) - RPT ...... 96 3.4.16 Moorabbin Airport (MBW) - GA/PT ...... 97 3.4.17 Parafield Airport (ADZ) - GA/PT ...... 98 3.4.18 Perth Airport (PER) - RPT ...... 99 3.4.19 Sydney Airport (SYD) - RPT ...... 99 3.4.20 Townsville Airport (TSV) - RPT ...... 100 3.5 Conclusion ...... 101 3.6 References ...... 102 CHAPTER 4: AIRPORTS IN THEIR URBAN SETTINGS: TOWARDS A CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF INTERFACES IN THE AUSTRALIAN CONTEXT ...... 104 4.1 Introduction ...... 105 4.2 Airports within the urban context ...... 106 4.3 Changes in airport ownership ...... 107

4.4 Current pressures reshaping the impact of Australian airports ...... 109 4.5 The need for a new conceptual framework ...... 112 4.6 An Interface Model...... 114 4.6.1 Economic Development ...... 115 4.6.2 Land Use ...... 117 4.6.3 Infrastructure ...... 118 4.6.4 Governance ...... 119 4.7 Sustainability and airport development ...... 121 4.8 Conclusion ...... 122 4.9 References ...... 123 CHAPTER 5: MANAGING AIRPORT LAND DEVELOPMENT UNDER REGULATORY UNCERTAINTY .. 131 5.1 Introduction ...... 132 5.2 Development, regulation and risk...... 134 5.3 The privatisation of Australian airports and their planning regime ...... 136 5.4 The National Aviation Review and policy reform ...... 140 5.5 An airport industry perspective ...... 142 5.5.1 The Review Process ...... 143 5.5.2 Post-White Paper ...... 144 5.6 Conclusion ...... 149 5.7 References ...... 151 CHAPTER 6: LAND USE CONFLICT ACROSS THE AIRPORT FENCE: COMPETING URBAN POLICY, PLANNING AND PRIORITY IN AUSTRALIA ...... 155 6.1 Introduction ...... 156 6.2 Airport Metropolis Interfaces ...... 157 6.3 Fractured Policy ...... 159 6.4 National Aviation Policy Review...... 159 6.5 Airport and Regional Case Studies ...... 160 6.5.1 Brisbane, Queensland ...... 161 6.5.2 Adelaide, South Australia ...... 161 6.5.3 Canberra, Australian Capital Territory ...... 161 6.6 Research Approach - Land Use Forums ...... 162 6.7 Methods ...... 163 6.8 Findings and Analysis: Common Stakeholder Themes...... 165 6.8.1 Governance ...... 165 6.8.2 Environment ...... 168 6.8.3 Economic Development ...... 171 6.8.4 Infrastructure ...... 174 6.9 Discussion ...... 176 6.10 Conclusion ...... 177 6.11 References ...... 178 CHAPTER 7: STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES ON AIRPORT AND REGIONAL LAND USE PLANNING 182 7.1 Introduction ...... 182 7.1.1 Background ...... 182

7.2 Methods ...... 183 7.2.1 Semi structured interviews ...... 184 7.3 Research Findings ...... 185 7.3.1 Airport metropolis stakeholder relationships...... 185 7.3.2 Airport metropolis land use process ...... 190 7.3.3 Airport metropolis land use outcomes ...... 194 7.3.4 Ongoing issues for stakeholders ...... 197 7.4 Discussion ...... 198 7.5 References ...... 200 CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSION ...... 201 8.1 Question 1: How has the role of the airport changed in Australia, and what are the implications for cooperative development with the adjacent urban region? ...... 202 8.1.1 Chapter 2: Understanding the Australian Airport Metropolis ...... 202 8.1.2 Chapter 3: Airport city developments in Australia: land use classification and analyses...... 203 8.2 Question 2: How can the complexity of the integrated and reciprocal airport and regional impacts be conceptualised to assist policy, practice and research? ...... 205 8.2.1 Chapter 4: Airports in their urban settings: towards a conceptual model of interfaces in the Australian context ...... 205 8.2.2 Chapter 5: Managing airport land development under regulatory uncertainty .... 207 8.3 Question 3: What are the airport and regional stakeholder perspectives with regard to the potential conflicts and opportunities in the establishing collaborative and cooperative land use planning? ...... 208 8.3.1 Chapter 6: Land use conflict across the airport fence: competing urban policy, planning and priority in Australia ...... 208 8.3.2 Chapter 7: Stakeholder perspectives on airport and regional land use planning . 209 8.3.3 Land Use Planning and the Airport Metropolis (2012) ...... 210 8.4 Knowledge Claims and Impact ...... 213 8.4.1 The interfaces model ...... 213 8.4.2 Citations for publications: ...... 213 8.5 Recommendations for Airport and Regional Land Use Planning ...... 215 REFERENCES ...... 218 APPENDIX 1 – RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS ...... 224

KEYWORDS: ADELAIDE, AIRPORT, AIRPORT METROPOLIS, AUSTRALIA, AVIATION POLICY, BRISBANE, CANBERRA, CONSULTATION, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNANCE, GOVERNMENT, INFRASTRUCTURE, INTERFACES, LAND USE PLANNING, LEGISLATION, NON- AERONAUTICAL DEVELOPMENT, PRIVATISATION, URBAN PLANNING.

Statement of Original Authorship

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made.

Signature:

Date: 11th December 2012

Acknowledgments

This work was carried out with financial support from the Commonwealth of Australia through the Airport Metropolis Research Project 2007 – 2011(LP0775225) under the Australian Research Council's Linkage Projects as an Australian Postgraduate Award Industry scholarship holder.

This independent PhD research represents the land use planning component of the Airport Metropolis Research Project (LP0775225). The research activities and the analysis described within this thesis – geographic information system (GIS) land use analysis, Land Use Forums, semi-structured interviews, and thematic analysis were carried out, by the author, to first inform this research PhD and second, to allow for broader project outcomes and consultation.

I would like to thank the management and staff at Brisbane, Adelaide and Canberra airports for their time and support as research case studies. I would also like to thank all academic and industry partners of the Airport Metropolis Research Project for their contributions and feedback.

Particular thanks to my supervisory team Professor Douglas Baker (Queensland University of Technology); Professor Robert Freestone (University of New South Wales) and Dr Severine Mayere (Queensland University of Technology) for their patience and assurance.

1Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS BY PUBLICATION A thesis by publication results in a different organisational structure compared to the traditional PhD structure, and as such this section will provide an overview of this thesis composition. Figure 1(over page) offers a graphic summary of the thesis chapters, including the title and the key headings.

Chapters 2 - 6 are comprised of the contributing and interdependent journal and conference publications of this thesis. Each chapter is from a discrete publication, the details of which are listed at the beginning of the chapter. Note that the chapters are representative of the actual publications, and as such the figure and table numbering within each chapter is only representative of that chapter, and is not concurrent throughout the thesis.

Due to the nature of the topic, significant background and understanding of the Australian airport circumstance was required for each publication. As such some duplication of material may be apparent within the thesis. For the purpose of efficiency and to endeavour to eliminate unnecessary repetition some sections of these papers have been omitted. Where this is necessary within a chapter, notations will be made to indicate the location and context of the omission. The publications are available in full within Appendix 1.

A further examination of each chapter will be presented in Section 1.10 providing details of: included publications, the methods used, key findings and the relationship of the chapter to the thesis. This section will demonstrate the cumulative nature of the publications in addressing the principal purpose of this thesis: to inform and enhance approaches to land use planning for airports and adjacent metropolitan regions in Australia.

Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 2: Literature Review - Understanding the Stevens, Nicholas J. (2006) City Airports to Airport Cities. Australian Airport Metropolis Queensland Planner, 46(1): 37. Stevens, Nicholas J., Baker, Douglas C., & Freestone, Robert (2007) Understanding the Australian Airport Metropolis. In State of Australian Cities National Conference (SOAC), 28-30 November •Reaserch context 2007, Adelaide: 110 – 120. •Research problem & questions •Airport ownership •Research strategy •Airport conflicts •Research aims and significance •Studying airports •Theoretical approach •Integrated models of airport development •Overview of the thesis •The need for a conceptual framework

Chapter 3: Airport city developments in Australia: Chapter 4: Airports in their urban settings: land use classification and analyses towards a conceptual model of interfaces in the Walker, Arron R. & Stevens, Nicholas J. (2008) Airport city Australian context developments in Australia: land use classification and analyses. In Stevens, Nicholas J., Baker, Douglas C., & Freestone, Robert 10th TRAIL Congress and Knowledge Market, 14-15 October (2010) Airports in their urban settings: towards a conceptual 2008, Rotterdam, The Netherlands: 23pages. model of interfaces in the Australian context. Journal of Transport •Aviation growth in Australia Geography, 18(2): 276-284. •Airport planning under the Airports Act 1996 •Airports within the urban context •Current pressures reshaping the impact of •Diversification of airport revenue Australian airports •Land use analysis: methods and materials •An interface model •Sustainability and airport development

Chapter 5: Managing airport land development Chapter 6: Land use conflict across the airport under regulatory uncertainty fence: competing urban policy, planning and Freestone, Robert., Baker, Douglas,. & Stevens, Nicholas J. priority in Australia (2011) Managing airport land development under regulatory Stevens, Nicholas J. & Baker, Douglas. (2011) Land use conflict uncertainty. Research in Transportation Business & Management, across the airport fence: competing urban policy, planning and 1(1): 101–108. priority in Australia. Urban Policy and Research (submitted). •Development, regulation and risk •Airport metropolis interfaces •The privatisation of Australian airports and their •Fractured policy planning regime •Airport and regional case studies •The National Aviaiton Policy Review •Research approach - land use fourms •An airport industry perspective •Common stakeholder themes

Chapter 7: Stakeholder perspectives on airport Chapter 8: Conclusion - Land use planning and regional land use planning and the airport metropolis Stevens, Nicholas J. (2011) Stakeholder perspectives on airport and regional land use planning.

•Airport metropolis stakeholder relationships •Summary of findings •Airport metropolis land use process •Significance of findings & knowledge contributions •Airport metropolis land use outcomes •Recommendations •Ongoing issues for stakeholders

Figure 1 Land use planning and the airport metropolis thesis structure

1.2 RESEARCH CONTEXT

The first part of this research context presents a publication from 2006 (outside of thesis requirements) which provides an important insight into how the current research was initially conceived. This early commentary is useful in identifying the articulation of the ‘airport city’ construct and the emerging disquiet surrounding airport and regional development.

The second part provides a broader sense of the ‘issues’ which influence airport and regional planning and policy, offering insight into the research setting and political background around which the changing role of airports is occurring.

1.2.1 Background – City Airports to Airport Cities (2006) Stevens, Nicholas J. (2006) City Airports to Airport Cities, Queensland Planner 46(1): 37.

Introduction

The role, scale and meaning of major urban airports worldwide have changed over the past decade as a result of corporate and economic transformation. Modern airports are very different from traditional airports, and the current issues surrounding airport development and expansion need to be defined by an understanding of the complex roles and relationships now associated with airports.

Kasarda (2001) believes airports are the fifth wave of urban development evolving from the history of transport induced urban growth. Major cities developed around seaports and canals for hundreds of years. Railways in the 18th and 19th centuries opened up new lands, followed by the development of highways and freeways in the 20th century. In the 21st century, Kasarda claims that major gateway airports are generating spatial concentrations of commercial activities that are leading to a new aviation linked urban form: the aerotropolis.

What may be easily recognised in Australia is that airports are fast becoming major business centres, underpinned by various privatisation strategies. The Commonwealth government has leased large urban and regional airports to private corporations and syndicates, and since the late 1990s these entities have been well placed to benefit from the business and developer demand for airport-related and broader commercial development. In the process, airports have shifted from ‘public good’ transport interchange nodes to profit oriented commercial ventures where aviation revenue is now only a part of the airport ‘business’. From a wider metropolitan perspective they are emerging as important sub-regional activity centres with growing

complexity of land use, infrastructure, transport, environmental impacts and implications and stakeholder relations.

As a result of such changes, airport impacts now pose considerable challenges for both airport operators and the surrounding urban and regional environment. The airport can no longer be managed in isolation from the metropolis that it serves.

In Australia, issues that are currently being faced include:

• environmental - impacts (space, noise and emissions) and resource use;

• related to infrastructure – inadequate and inequitable provision;

• related to economy – inefficiencies and duplication of commercial investments;

• related to governance - inert decision-making, poor coordination between levels of government, and conflict between jurisdictions;

• related to transport – localised congestion, isolation of planning strategies; and

• related to land-use – conflicts and competition between airports and surrounding urban areas.

Airports Act 1996

Due to lessee arrangements of the privatisation of airports in Australia, airports are presently governed under the Airports Act 1996. This federal legislation sets out the responsibilities and objects of airport development, regulation, ownership and obligations of airport-lessee companies.

Whilst the requirements of the Act are comprehensive, it does not require the airport-lessee company to have explicit regard to state or local planning regulations within their master planning or major development plans. This has resulted in conflict in several cities across Australia.

Under the Act, the Federal Government is the regulatory body for the assessment of airport development. These powers have the potential to affect the very form and function of all cities. In its unwillingness to cede development controls of airports to state and local authorities, the Federal Government has implemented a de facto national urban policy. It is then the responsibility of the Commonwealth to ensure that this opportunity for national urban policy collaboration with the state and local governments is fully explored.

Airport Land Development

Airports cannot profit just by landing planes, and they must have alternate sources of revenue Hooper et al. 2000; Freestone et al. 2006). Therefore, the development of airport lands for non- aeronautical purposes is inevitable. The planning challenge is to affect the land uses at the airport so that the changes harmonise with local and regional planning strategies.

The argument, from the objectors of development on airport land, is that these land uses must be evaluated and assessed under the same state and local planning and development regulations that any other developer is required to follow. The counter argument is that airports have always been under federal legislation as they are areas of national importance for the economic growth of the country. It may stand to reason that the national importance of airports is related to the business of aviation, as global gateways. If airports wish to continue to be regulated by federal legislation, the developments proposed, within their boundaries, must also be of national significance.

Alternatively, it could also be argued that there is a need to plan, zone and designate land use in the local area and region to support and promote the aviation industry. This state and local cooperation may be a means of realising an airport’s full potential as a global gateway and economic generator, rather than land locking and limiting the potential of this multi-billion dollar critical infrastructure investment. It is important to recognise that profitability and survival of the major international airports, in our capital cities, is vital to the economic performance of not just the region, but the entire state and nation.

There is a need to establish research, comment and debate as a means of informing the development of innovative policy and management practices for all stakeholders involved in airport development. Simultaneous consideration of urban issues and institutional responses to airport development are needed from airport-lessee companies, all tiers of government, industry groups, the regional community and importantly, the Planning Institute of Australia. Together they must begin to develop coordinated and cooperative infrastructure, land-use and transport plans for the greater benefit of all, moving away from the current inert and isolated decision making processes.

References

Freestone, R., Williams, P. & Bowden, A. (2006) Fly Buy Cities: Some planning aspects of airport privatisation in Australia. Urban Policy and Research, 24, 491-508.

Hooper, P., Cain, R. & White, S. (2000) The privatisation of Australia's airports. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 36, 181-204.

Kasarda, John D. 2001. “From Airport City to Aerotropolis.” Airport World 6: 42-47.

Airport Cities From the early 1990s the changing role of airports was beginning to be acknowledged in the international

literature (Conway 1993; Kasarda 1991; 1991a; 1996). Airports were increasingly recognised, and valued, as essential and distinct urban economic landscapes within the context of cities. Today, the changing

economic, institutional and developmental role of modern airports has been interpreted as the development of ‘airport cities’ (Blanton 2004; Finavia 2004; Güller and Güller 2003; Kasarda 2001). In essence an airport

city is an aviation interchange with access to global, regional and local markets supported by commercial, industrial and retail services both on the airport and within the region. It is an urban phenomenon that is

spatially much larger and functionally more diverse than a traditional airport.

Conway (1993) argues that airport cities require approximately 50,000 acres of airport related land uses of which at least 10,000 acres would be for airport operation. In context, 50,000 acres would be equivalent to an 8 kilometre radius of airport and urban influence.

As airports have evolved and expanded to accommodate these new roles, regional communities have continued to encroach and intensify, driving the tension and fragmentation between local and global market interests. The capital city airport is intrinsically linked to other global airports, as part of an increasingly vital network under the processes of globalisation. However, they are decreasingly connected to their local environment as they emerge as a global business districts with little in common to the areas which support them. This complexity around ‘glocal’ relationships is identified and amplified in the context of modern airports (de Jong et al. 2008; Ferreira et al. 2006; Graham & Marvin 2001).

In the Australian context the airport city models of on-airport planning focus on the encouragement of

aviation related industry, yet also provide for retail and commercial services that have limited dependence on air transport or aviation. These types of non-aviation development, which draw on metropolitan

customers, have been a cause for regional concern. On-airport shopping centres, factory outlets, hotels and business parks have evolved in a legislative and policy framework outside of state and local government

control and at a pace which regional planning practitioners are not familiar (Walker & Stevens 2008). This changing role of privatised Australian airports is a significant gap in the land use planning and transport geography literatures and is a key focus of this research effort.

1.2.2 The Research Setting and Political Background The neoliberal agenda is (twice) responsible for the complexity, fragmentation and messiness that define the changing role of airports in Australia. First, it is responsible for the global free market economies which have seen airports evolve into significant hub destinations through the movement of people, goods and services worldwide. Second, it is the agenda through which the management, planning and development of Australian airports were privatised to the exclusion of local, state, and territory government decision-making.

When examining neoliberalism within the context of this research it is recognised principally as a mode of regulation which restructured the ownership and management of airports from federal government control to that of private corporations. This research is interested in how these changes in decision-making and the resultant shift in management priorities has resulted in challenges or opportunities for airport and regional land use planning.

Market Forces & Neoliberalism

The common conception of society is to identify three spheres of life: formal government, civil society and the economy (Healey 2010). Through history each has ebbed and waned as the guiding doctrine and there are various arguments for and against a prioritisation of one over the other. What is recognised is that from the 1980s many first world governments sought to move civil society toward a new phase through a raft of austerity measures, redefining the role of government, and recognition of the important role of the global economy (Peck & Tickell 2003). In response governments sought out more proactive approaches and there was a ‘transition from managerial to an entrepreneurial state’ reflecting the economic shift (Healey 2010 p 55). This was the move (or march) towards the neoliberal agenda (Leitner et al. 2007; Peck & Tickell 2002).

There is a vast literature, across all associations of the academy, concerning, discussing and defining neoliberalism – very few are succinct or accessible. However, Lockie & Higgins (2007) in their analysis of neoliberalism and Australian agri-environmental governance provide an overview of the key elements associated with neoliberal agenda:

‘For many critical scholars drawing upon neo-Marxist theories of power, neoliberalism is a powerful mode of regulation associated with the global spread of market-based discourses and practices (e.g., Dicken, 2003; Holton, 1998; McCarthy and Prudham, 2004; McMichael, 2004; O’Riain, 2000). From this perspective, neoliberalism involves a restructuring of state-based regulation in ways that promote privatisation, free trade, deregulation and global competitiveness. Sometimes characterised as a withdrawal of state intervention in favour of ‘market rule’ or ‘jungle law’ (see Peck and Tickell, 1994), it is increasingly recognised that neoliberalism involves complex processes of deregulation and re-regulation; the ‘roll-back’1 neoliberalism of the 1980s—characterised by the Thatcher and Reagan administrations—contrasting with the ‘roll-out’ agenda of the 1990s in which the Clinton and Blair governments in the US and UK sought to provide ‘Third Way’ alternatives to the perceived limits of market-centric neoliberalism (Peck and Tickell, 2002). Far from causing problems or contradictions for the neoliberalist project, Peck and Tickell (2002, p.389) argue that this most recent phase has contributed to “a striking co-existence of technocratic economic management and

1 Characterised by the dismantling of the social project, welfare and union power (Peck & Tickell 1994).

invasive social policies”. In sum, neoliberalism has proved to be a far more durable form of regulation than many predicted’ (p 2).

‘New Labour’ and the ‘Third Way’, as offered under the Blair government, was less of a revolution from Thatcherism as it was an evolution, or indeed an extension of the project and considered to be in the social democratic contradictions of late neoliberalism (Allmendinger & Tewder-Jones 2000; Peck & Tickell 2002). Regardless, the creeping privatisation which accompanies all free market reform is recognised by Miller (2005) in (Leitner et al. 2007) as ‘changing the modes of decision-making’, with ‘market based models of coordination, replacing democratic deliberation’ (p 255). Further, he argues that ‘this has been coupled with a decline of democratic ideology’ [it is] ‘the shift from engaged public citizens with an understanding of mutual obligations to being smart, self-interested, individualistic consumers’ (p 244).

Under neoliberal reforms the failures and mismanagement of public bureaucracy became a rationale for ‘contracting out’ and privatisation (Peck & Tickell 2002). As a consequence neoliberalism and the Third Way have ensured that urban planning decision-making is no longer just the domain of government. There are increased complications as governments undertake variants of privatisation and adopt the principles of the market economy. Healey (2007) identifies that both the neoliberal agenda of small government and the social democratic agenda of citizen participation have encouraged a ‘proliferation’ of partnership agreements, semi-public bodies and contracting arrangements between government, business and the community (p 18). Further that they have ‘helped create diffuse and fragmented urban governance landscapes’, which raises questions about accountability and legitimacy of agendas when the boundary between public and private sectors is so blurred (Healey 2007 p 19). Government no longer appears as the focal point of urban and regional planning but just as one of many players in these network type configurations. de Jong et al. (2008) identifies that as a result planners ‘find themselves in the midst of whirls of complexity and conflict, performing difficult institutional work in building new policy perspectives and ideas through which to attempt to shape key aspects of (spatial) development’ (p 6).

Australian airports & neoliberalism

In the Australian airport context neoliberal ideologies facilitated the decision to commercialise a core group of nationally significant airports through the establishment of the Federal Airports Corporation (FAC) in 1988. The FAC operated its airports along commercial lines utilising the

governance, management and incentive strategies of the private sector as a means of generating profit in what would be preparation for the privatisation of those airports.

The establishment of the Airports Act 1996 may be recognised as one of the most complete case studies of the application of neoliberal ideals to achieve free market controls on public assets (Freestone et al. 2006; Freestone 2010). It also acutely illustrates the impacts of market forces on urban planning: ‘the fast tracking of approvals; use of special-purpose development corporations; insulating critical decisions from community inputs; public-private partnerships; and various forms of entrepreneurial deal-making and private planning’ (Freestone 2007, in Thompson (Ed) 2007 p 84).

The consequences for airport and regional land use planning under the Airports Act 1996 have been significant. The privatisation of the airport included both the aviation infrastructure and the land assets within the airport boundary. As such when the first draft airport master plans were presented2 to the federal government many of the airports outlined their expectations for not only airside aviation expansion but also landside ‘airport city’ developments. Many of these landside proposals had little to do with the aviation function of the airport and consisted of warehouse style retail development and commercial office space (Freestone et al. 2006). The airport lessees argued they had paid a premium for these assets with no restrictions on land use and development other than compliance with the Airports Act, which did not require them to gain local, state or territory government consent.

At the time, the consequences of privatisation, and the impacts of the emerging airport city paradigm, on local and regional land use planning was not well recognised or understood by government stakeholders. Surrounding local governments were largely taken by surprise by these federally sanctioned developments, and worse, they had no avenues for appeal or influence. Local, state and territory governments were not privy to the federal government’s privatisation negotiations and had expected that on-airport development would be predominately aviation oriented. The political fragmentation and indeed mistrust between levels of government has done little to assist the organisation of a shared and coordinated response to on-airport land use planning (Donnet & Keast 2010).

On-airport land use planning and development is recognised as a direct challenge to local and state government decision-making power and their ability to plan urban and regional

2 A draft master plan is required within 12 months after the acquisition or grant of airport lease (Airports Act 1996 Part 5 Division 3/75(1c)).

environments. Local government in particular took exception to their exclusion of airport planning processes. For some it was that on-airport planning was outside of (long planned and community sanctioned) local and regional intent; for others it was the lack of a level playing field for developers within the same regional game; and for others still it was primarily regarding the ‘missing’ revenue from rates and contributions to infrastructure – and for most it was all of these reasons. Airports were challenging the fundamental business of local government in their own backyard and urban and regional decision-making at across all levels of government had changed (Baker & Freestone 2008).

The Airports Act establishes broad requirements for development approvals through the master plan and major development plan processes. However, the criteria used by the federal government for actually assessing individual proposals remains unknown to the airports, local, state and territory governments alike. In 2003 the ability of the federal government and the Airports Act to determine and approve ‘entrepreneurial’ on-airport development was tested in the Federal Court. It was a case closely followed by all airports and represented a test of the legislation to allow airports to develop regionally dependant retail and commercial facilities. In 2005, Justice Cooper ruled in favour of the airports ultimately providing much of the required and desired precedents for all privatised airports to establish their own real estate development agendas (FCA 2005).

A research response and a policy response

It was in response to this changing role of airports and in recognition of ongoing airport and regional conflict that in 2006 and 2007 the Airport Metropolis Research Project was conceived, developed and funded as an Australia Research Council Linkage Project (LP0775225), led by the Queensland University of Technology. This multidisciplinary international research response brought together academia, airport lessees and local, state and federal government stakeholders and policy-makers to address the changing role of airports in Australia. This airport and regional land use planning thesis is part of the broader Airport Metropolis Research Project.

Also in 2007 the federal government announced a policy response to the changing role of airports in Australia by way of a National Aviation Policy Review. This announcement and the consequent development of the first aviation policy for Australia added to both the significance and complexity of the Airport Metropolis Research Project. The review process progressed from

an ‘Issues Paper’ in April 2008 through to a ‘Green Paper’ in December 2008 to a ‘White Paper’ released in December 20093.

The availability of comment, opinion and accusation resulting from the ‘Issues’ and ‘Green’ paper submissions, did little to make the land use planning research task any easier. While the decision-makers and stakeholders familiar with the Airport Metropolis Research Project continued to support the land use research, other key state and local government personnel did require some assurances to the rigour and confidentiality of the research process. Many were cautious in responding to research prior to final policy determinations being made by the federal government. Despite some delays, the policy review process did ensure that research participants were in the most part aware of, and willing to discuss their issues with informed ‘authority’ from both their perspective and that of the opposing view.

Undertaking the land use planning component of the Airport Metropolis Research Project within the context of parallel policy change has allowed for a broader appreciation of the complexity of the issues faced by all stakeholders. It has demonstrated that traditional sectorial and territorial planning does not have the capacity to manage or assist in understanding and reconciling the unique issues and complexities of privatised and public sector airport and regional land use planning.

Following the release of the National Aviation Policy White Paper airport stakeholders are anticipating an increasingly prescriptive approach from the federal government to the means and mechanics of airport stakeholder consultation. However, many of the prescriptive policy directives intended to aid airport and regional stakeholder communicative relations still assume that planning for evolving ‘airport regions’ is clear and unambiguous.

It is argued that this mandated communicative response allows for little innovation in airport and regional dialogue and may present the corporate decision-maker with simply a regulatory requirement (Bengs 2005; Peck et al. 2009; Purcell 2009; Sager 2005).The success and worth of such approaches is yet to be determined, however Innes and Booher (2004) identify that there is a multitude of shortcomings of prescriptive and legally required public participation and stakeholder consultation processes. In recognition of the power relationships and complexities associated with contemporary planning that these methods ‘not only do not meet most basic goals for [public] participation, but they are also counterproductive, causing anger and mistrust’ (p 419).

3 Further detail regarding the National Aviation Policy Review is provided in Section 2.8 and Chapter 5.

The airport metropolis interface model developed and applied within this thesis recognises the need to offer new ways of urban interpretation to ensure joint public and private strategies for spatial development and regional governance are established.

1.3 RESEARCH PROBLEM The changing role of the modern airport has recast the planning and policy frameworks between the airport and the region. Public and private stakeholders are challenged in planning for mutual and cooperative airport and regional development. Australian airport and regional land use planning is occurring in isolation, resulting in incompatible land use and development decisions both on airport land and in the surrounding metropolitan region (Freestone et al. 2006; Spiller 2006).

Cooperative airport and regional development is inhibited under the airport ownership structure in Australia where local and state government control of on-airport development is limited to consultative processes, and no mechanism exists for airport operator input into regional development. Local and municipal governments consider airport commercial and retail development has the potential to impact on the viability of urban centre retailing through the diversion of expenditure, often away from planned and intended centres of employment and commerce (FCA 2005). Airport operators are similarly alarmed by local land use planning for residential development under flight paths as well as high-rise airspace interference. The Airports Act 1996 allows no provisions for either stakeholder to endorse, influence or veto land use planning decisions of the other.

New ‘land use’ planning and policy knowledge is required to better ensure that potential and opportunity for both the airport and the surrounding region is maximised through compatibility and certainty in land use. The reciprocal impacts and influences of on-airport and metropolitan land use are not well recognised by stakeholders and decision-makers.

1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS The changing role of the modern airport has planning and policy implications for airport and regional land use. The purpose of this thesis is: to inform and enhance approaches to land use planning for airports and adjacent metropolitan regions in Australia. To advance the purpose of the thesis the following three research questions will be addressed:

1. How has the role of the airport changed in Australia, and what are the implications for cooperative development with the adjacent urban region?

2. How can the complexity of the integrated and reciprocal airport and regional impacts be conceptualised to assist policy, practice and research?

3. What are the airport and regional stakeholder perspectives with regard to the potential conflicts and opportunities in the establishing collaborative and cooperative land use planning?

These research questions reflect a process of constructing new knowledge to assist in the development of land use planning and policy for coordinated, integrated and compatible airport and regional development.

Question 1 is addressed through a review of the literature regarding national and international airport management and planning. The terms ‘airport city’ and ‘airport metropolis’ are used here to conceptualise the ad hoc and strategic growth of aeronautical and non-aeronautical land developments occurring at, and surrounding modern airports worldwide. The context of the ‘airport metropolis’ may be considered as including the spatial area of influence between and airport and its urban hinterland.

Normative theories of modern airport development are identified and explored to reveal the issues at the core of airport and regional planning. The identification of the airport as a focus for logistics, and as a function of transport based urban development, has been recognised as an ‘aerotropolis’ (Kasarda, 1991). The ‘airfront’ (Blanton, 2004) is recognised as the collection of aviation related industries and services attracted to, and located within, the airport hinterland. While the ‘aviapolis’ (Finavia, 2004) is the marketing and development of an aviation orientated business hub, centred on an airport.

Question 2 is addressed through the identification and assembly of the airport and urban development ‘interface’ issues of economic development, land use, infrastructure, and governance. The developing ‘airport metropolis’ model acknowledges the reciprocal nature of these interfaces and allows the complex issues attached to airport and urban development to better understood. This integrative model recognises the nature and importance of international, national, regional and local drivers of airport and urban growth and the need for sustainable balanced development.

Question 3 is addressed by operationalising the model through a workshop and semi – structured interviews using the Australian case studies of Brisbane, Adelaide and Canberra. Within this context the model will be used as a framework to explore and detail airport and urban land use planning stakeholder perspectives.

1.5 RESEARCH STRATEGY – COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY APPROACH While this research explores issues and opportunities that impact all airport and regional development in Australia, it is also required to identify and evaluate contextual issues which may be specific to a particular circumstance. As such, the research program will, in part, use a comparative case study approach to assist in the understanding of ‘in practice’ airport and regional land use planning. This type of empirical inquiry is useful to provide an investigation of a contemporary issue where the ‘boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident; and in which multiple sources of data are used’ (Yin 2003 p 13).

Brisbane, Queensland; Adelaide, South Australia; and Canberra, Australian Capital Territory were selected as the case study regions as each presents:

1. Significant variance in their airport and regional administrative regimes – Canberra is within a territory governance framework adjacent to the state of NSW; Adelaide is surrounded by multiple local government areas; and Brisbane is within a singular local government area.

2. Acknowledged regional land use planning conflict – each airport has evidenced conflict with adjacent land use planning authorities.

3. The capacity for further on-airport non-aviation land use development – each airport has completed significant on-airport non aeronautical development and has the capacity and intention for further development. Each of the case studies is briefly introduced as follows.

1.5.1 Brisbane, Queensland Brisbane Airport is Australia’s third-largest airport in terms of passenger movements, servicing 18.9 million passengers in 2009–10 (DITRDLG 2011b). Brisbane Airport Corporation (BAC) administers and manages a 2400ha airport site 12 km to the north east of the Brisbane central business district. Brisbane City Council is the sole local government administration which adjoins the airport site and the most directly impacted by the airports operation. The

Queensland state government also plays an important role in regional land use planning and administration through the provision of aviation orientated state planning policy and the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009 – 2031.

1.5.2 Adelaide, South Australia Adelaide Airport is Australia’s fifth-largest airport in terms of total passenger movements, servicing 7.02 million passengers in 2009–10 (DITRDLG 2011b). The airport site is 785ha and located approximately 6 km west of the Adelaide central business district, and is administered and managed by Adelaide Airport Limited (AAL). Four local government areas surround the airport and are directly affected by the operation of the airport. Adelaide airport is within the boundary of the City of West Torrens, while the cities of Holdfast Bay, Adelaide and Charles Sturt are adjacent to the airport. The South Australian state government plays an important role in planning for Adelaide through The 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide (2010).

1.5.3 Canberra, Australian Capital Territory Canberra Airport had a total of 3.26 million passenger movements in 2009–10 (DITRDLG, 2011b). The airport site is 436ha and located 6 km from the Canberra central business district and is administered and managed by Capital Airport Group (CAG). The administrative context for the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) is unique in that there is no ‘state’ government or lower house ‘local’ government - it is a federally administered territory government. Many of the planning approvals for the ACT are managed by the ACT Planning and Land Authority. In addition, the National Capital Authority has planning and approval powers in ‘those areas of continuing interest in the strategic planning, promotion, development and enhancement of Canberra as the National Capital’ (NCA 2010 p 7). The airport is adjacent to the state of New South Wales (NSW) and two local government areas within NSW, Queanbeyan and Palerang are subject to noise impacts from the operation of Canberra Airport.

1.6 DATA COLLECTION & ANALYSIS This research is principally concerned with exploring and analysing airport and adjacent local, state and territory government perspectives and decision-making on airport and regional land use planning relationships, process, and outcomes. It should be noted that this research is not specifically concerned with the operation of the airport as an aviation hub. It is interested in the impacts of on-airport non-aeronautical retail and commercial land uses and neighbouring municipal land use planning. This research seeks to inform and enhance approaches to land use

planning for airports and adjacent metropolitan regions in Australia. In line with this approach the data collection and stakeholder interviews have focussed on the key airport and regional land use planning decision-makers, largely to the exclusion of the airlines and surrounding residents.

In a thesis by publication the expectation is that the methods utilised within each chapter are articulated clearly in the publication. While this is true here, there is value in providing additional background and understanding regarding the selection of methods. This section will highlight and expand on the research methods utilised within the publications presenting them in turn.

1.6.1 Geographic information system (GIS) land use analysis (Chapter 3) From 2005 there was growing evidence (both anecdotal and in the literature) that privatised airports in Australia were undertaking, or planning to undertake, significant on-airport land use development (Ferguson 2007; Freestone et al. 2006; Stevens 2006; Vedelago 2007). To determine the facts, it would be necessary to provide a clearer understanding of the current and intended on-airport land use. At this time there was no means by which a comparative analysis of development could be undertaken as each airport had their own classifications and descriptions for on-airport land use.

Utilising a popular Geographic Information System (GIS) - ArcGIS (ESRI 2008) this research was able to establish, for the first time, a method for the comparative analysis of actual and intended on-airport development across a range of airport contexts. The process of land use classification and evaluation proceeded in 3 stages.

1. The land use information of each airport master plan was geo-referenced (the map image is referenced to a geographical location) in the GIS.

2. A common land use nomenclature was established in consideration of all actual and intended on-airport development.

3. The land uses on each airport were reclassified and mapped into the GIS to allow for the calculation of the total area for each zoning category.

Airport land use geo-referencing

The land use zoning information was obtained from twenty airport master plans submitted to the Australian government as required by the Airports Act 1996. These master plans are

available at each of the airport’s website. Unfortunately the land use zoning information could only be obtained as raster images (dot matrix images composed of pixels). As such, the first step was to geo-reference the land use zoning information in the geographic information system (GIS). Once geo-referenced the raster images were converted into polygon feature classes. This was achieved by manually digitising each of the land use zones to create separate polygons in the feature class. The attributes for each polygon contained the original land use zone information obtained from the master plan image. The use of a manual digitising process was feasible as the number of airports in the study group (20) was small.

Establish a common land use language

Whilst the Airports Act 1996 seeks to ensure a common planning language between airport master plans and their municipal regions, no such land use zoning nomenclature exists nationally. It was therefore necessary to re-classify the inconsistent airport master plan zoning into a common set of zoning categories. The classification categories were informed by the United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) Modified Anderson Classification System (1976; 1997). This system is useful for the interpretation and understanding of urban land use (Ding et al. 2007; Weng 2002). Without such a re-classification the comparison of the respective land use zones would be impossible. The descriptions of the re-classified zoning categories are shown in Table 1 (over page).

Table 1: Zoning Categories

Zoning Category Description Airport Airside Aviation operational areas, terminal and aviation support areas Residential Predominant use is housing Commercial Retail, business, community, leisure, entertainment, recreation, hotels, conference facilities, shopping centres (will largely be non- aeronautical Commercial and Industrial Mixed use commercial and industrial Industrial Warehousing, freight, manufacturing, service orientated businesses (may be either aeronautical or non-aeronautical) RAAF Base Military airbase of the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). The Australian Department of Defence has planning and control of this area Open space and conservation Open areas, nature based recreation areas, protected areas.

Reclassification of airport land use

The final step of the process was to calculate the percentage of total area for each zoning category. The polygon feature class automatically calculates polygon areas as they are digitised. A simple GIS attribute query was written to calculate the percentages from this information. It was then possible to acknowledge and discuss the comparative percentages of landside development, between airports, in addition to presenting the number of standard deviations this figure represents from the mean. This analysis offers an indication of an airport’s development in consideration of the group providing a better suggestion of how the airports actual and intended on-airport development fits within the national profile. Ongoing and longitudinal analysis using this method would be useful to indicate how on-airport land use zoning may change over time as an airport continues to develop.

1.6.2 Land Use Forums - participatory action research (Chapter 6) The use of Land Use Forums, through a workshop approach, is intended here as participatory action research. That is, as a social process of collaborative learning through the investigation of actual practices (Kemmis & McTaggart 2005). When applied in consideration of the communicative action theory underpinning this research, it offers an ‘opportunity to create forums in which people can join one another as co-participants in the struggle to remake the practices in which they interact’ (p 563).

A Land Use Forum was organised and facilitated within each of the case studies with the aim of creating a circumstance in which airport and regional stakeholders could work collaboratively. The airport metropolis conceptual model was operationalised and provided a framework for research and discussion allowing participants to generate information which would ultimately assist the understanding of airport and regional land use planning. This participatory research method is recognised as being able to create: ‘a communicative space in which communicative action is fostered among participants and in which problems and issues can be thematisized for critical exploration aimed at overcoming dissatisfaction, irrationality and injustice’ (Kemmis & McTaggart 2005 p 580).

The purpose of the Forums was fourfold: i) to identify stakeholders; ii) identify the range of views and policy positions; iii) identify key issues, challenges and opportunities; and iv) further foster interaction and relationships with stakeholders.

While the Land Use Forums ultimately served to inform several research areas of the Airport Metropolis Research Project, they were initiated and organised by this author to inform airport and regional land use planning practice and policy. Figure 2 details the organisational process undertaken to facilitate the Land Use Forums.

Figure 2 Land Use Forum organisational process

The dissemination of outcomes; management of staff and co-facilitation of these forums were key responsibilities of this author (Figure 3 & 4). The role of the facilitator in this type of action research is acknowledged as a significant contributor of the success of the research. McTaggart (2002) highlights that the facilitator is not a ‘process consultant’ but moves more towards contributing in the personal and Figure 3 Adelaide Land Use Forum - April 2008 social exchanges that brought participants together. As such, the role of the facilitator cannot be considered as a position of neutrality. This would be unreasonable and undesirable in recognition of the communicative expectation of the forum and the role already played within the organisation, format development, invitation extensions, and ultimately analysis of the data. The facilitator has a Figure 4 Brisbane Land Use Forum - August 2008 social responsibility in assisting change and to view facilitation as neutral

devalues the research and inhibits the acknowledgment of the multiple realities of different participants and observers (McTaggart 2002).

1.6.3 Semi – structured interviews - qualitative understanding (Chapter 7) The semi-structured interview is often used in policy research as this method is considered to provide greater breadth of information than other interview techniques given their qualitative nature (Harrell & Bradley 2009). The key goal of semi-structured interviews is to provide an understanding of the respondent’s point of view. As such it is considered paramount to establish rapport with respondents during the interview process - it is conversational style of interview (ibid).

Between May 2009 and August 2010 a total of twenty four (24) airport and local, state and territory government stakeholder interviews were undertaken within the cases studies of Brisbane, Adelaide and Canberra. The semi-structured interview method was well suited for the exploration of stakeholder perceptions and opinions regarding the complex issues around land use. It allowed for more detailed information and the clarification of answers. From a communicative planning perspective semi-structured interviews are a method which provides for a high validity as respondents are able to talk about issues in depth. Importantly they also allow for other avenues of discussion to be undertaken during the course of the interview as a result of the respondents answers (Barriball & While 1994).

Here also the interviewer is acknowledged as active in the research, however the semi- structured method limits the impact of ‘pre judging’ the answers by being tied to a set of definitive interview questions (Harrell & Bradley 2009). It is a flexible and useful method and one that indeed supports the communicative understanding of this research. Perceived weaknesses of this method include that it is time consuming, both in undertaking and data analysis, and that it lacks sufficient consistency. However through the establishment of key themes from the Land Use Forums (Chapter 6) a framework for discussion was created limiting this perceived weakness.

1.6.4 Thematic analysis - qualitative analysis (Chapter 6 & 7) For the analysis and interpretation of both the transcribed workshop data (Chapter 6) and the transcribed semi-structured interview data (Chapter 7) an inductive thematic analysis was

utilised. Broadly, thematic analysis is a qualitative method where through coding and analysing a data set, themes are identified (Boyatzis 1998; Fereday & Muir-Cochrane 2006). It is important to acknowledge that themes do not ‘emerge’ from the data, but that the researcher is indeed active in the process having either outlined specific questions or in this case a research framework around which the data has been collected.

For the research within the following publications the thematic analyses may be described as ‘data driven’ as the coding was not undertaken to identify particular features of the data set. Braun & Clarke (2006) highlight that: ‘A theme captures something important about the data in relation to the research question, and represents some level of patterned response or meaning within the data set’ (p 82).

The process of thematic analysis undertaken for this research was sourced as a step-by-step guide by Braun & Clarke (2006 p 86 - 93) and involved 6 key phases (Table 2).

Table 2: Phases of Thematic Analysis (Braun & Clarke 2006 p 87)

Phase Description of the process

1. Familiarising yourself with Transcribing data, reading and rereading the data, noting down initial your data ideas. 2. Generating initial codes Coding interesting features of the data in a systematic fashion across the entire data set, collating data relevant to each code. 3. Searching for themes Collating codes into potential themes, gathering all data relevant to each potential theme. 4. Reviewing themes Checking the themes work in relation to the coded extracts (Level 1) and the entire data set (Level 2) 5. Defining and naming themes Ongoing analysis to refine the specifics of each theme, and the overall story the analysis tells; generating clear definitions and names for each theme. 6. Producing the report The final opportunity for analysis. Selection of vivid, compelling extract examples, final analysis of selected extracts, relating back of the analysis to the research question and literature, producing a scholarly report of the analysis.

1.7 COMMUNICATIVE PLANNING THEORY

There is an imperative need to understand and indeed to ‘get to know’ both the issues and the motivations of decision-makers and stakeholders associated with airport and regional land use planning. Communicative planning as assessment of relationships is central to the core role of the planner and planning researcher. It is established through accessing the knowledge and identifying the ways and means by which decisions are produced, protected and provided (Forester 1999; Healey 2007).

Drawing on the work of communicative and collaborative theorists this research endeavours to inform and enhance approaches to land use planning for airports and adjacent metropolitan regions in Australia. The use of theory will assist in the establishment and delivery of a collaborative model for progressing airport and regional development, and will also offer a robust guide for the method of this research.

Communicative planning theory is offered as a rationale for the development and establishment of processes that allow for undistorted communication and decision-making free from power manipulation and self-interest (Forester 1989; Healey 1999; Mouat et al. 2011). It is recognised as the right theory when considering the nature of airport and regional land use planning begins from a foundation of distorted, unclear and ambiguous communication and self- interested decision-making from positions of power. Communicative planning is useful in offering advantages to understanding the competing public and private interests around airport and urban land use planning.

The neoliberal agenda has established new partnerships and networks which while promoted as providing market efficiencies are considered less accessible and indeed transparent than the previous central government organisation. They are exclusive in process with limited accountability, creating anxiety and suspicion amongst the broader society and even between levels of government (Mouat et al. 2011; Peck and Tickell 2002). Airport and regional land use planning in Australia requires the identification and understanding of alternate stakeholder positions if possibilities for mutually beneficial airport and regional development are to be revealed.

The research task here is not to calculate the right solution for a problem, but increase stakeholder capacity to define their own problems and work through avenues of response with them (Hillier 2002). Communicative theory will deliver a scaffold whereby power structures

are not overcome but identified and allow for the generation of options (Hillier 2007). Used in this manner it may allow for mutual recognition that the value and success of the airport or the region is, to a large extent, reliant on the success of the other. Importantly, a good collaborative planning process does not necessarily need to result in building of consensus, it may also lead to the building of a policy discourse or a way by which parties learn to understand and respect each other. Further it may lead to stakeholders recognising how power is shared, ensuring the facts and foundations of conflict and opportunity are understood by all (Healey 2001; Hillier 2007).

Spatial governance

A new communicative ‘model’ is required for a better understanding of the manifestation and interpretation of airport and regional land use planning practice and policy. de Jong et al. (2008; 2008a) propose a ‘relational planning framework’ for the management of land use issues in the European airport context. de Jong et al. (2008) argue that not only are joint strategies for spatial development required, but a regional governance approach is necessary - traditional planning allows for little innovation; providing plans, maps and geographic representations to deal with an issue of increasing complexity (p 3). Schaafsma (2008a) in de Jong (2008) also endorses this idea: ‘airport regions are a new reality, often still overlooked by planners and policy makers’ (p 6). Freestone (2010) casts the airport as ‘a new kind of urban space’ (p 129). He contends that much of the future success of airports will ‘rely on the transparency of balanced decision- making and the readiness of state governments to conceive of airport regions as integrated planning entities in their own right’ (p 129).

Healey (1999), in considering institutional analysis and shaping places, offers that: ‘communicative planning theory provides suggestions for the design of intricate governance practices in which creative responses can be encouraged, social learning improved and institutional capital transformed’ (Healey 1999 p 120).

A new model of collaborative practice

The use of communicative planning is foundational in the development and application of a ‘collaborative practice’ airport metropolis interface model. It is intended to allow for the development of a ‘richer and more broadly based understanding and awareness of locality relations and conflicts’ (Healey 1999 p 116). Such a platform will assist in the identification of a network of stakeholders and decision-makers which operate both formally and informally with regards to communication and participation against a backdrop of neoliberal power relations.

It will permit stakeholders and researchers to identify the interrelations, dependencies and potential conflicts between the interfaces of economic development, land use, infrastructure and governance. In recognition of communicative and collaborative practice it may also assist in developing shared responses and responsibilities to resolving conflict and identifying opportunities across stakeholder and decision-maker networks (Booher & Innes 2002). The airport metropolis model developed here is intended to allow for growth and understanding of (often disparate) stakeholder positions. From a network power perspective this is the development of a ‘jointly held resource’, and moving away from the current closely guarded ‘mechanical’ power relationships (Booher & Innes 2002). Presently these individual decision- making resources are closely guarded assets and inhibit the development of shared responsibilities. Further Booher & Innes (2002) recognise: ‘network power emerges as diverse participants in a network focus on a common task and develop shared meanings and common heuristics that guide their action. The power grows as these players identify and build on their interdependencies to create new potential’ (p 225).

However the continued conflict does allow for the agonistic components of the system to emerge and provides important reciprocal insight into motivations and provides for mutual awareness of alternate perspectives (Brand & Gaffikin 2007; Mouat et al. 2011). The airport metropolis model provides a means by which all communicative options of both consensus and conflict may be explored and all stakeholders may recognise their place and power in the dialogue, policy and practice of airport and regional planning.

It is important to note that the model developed within this research, unlike many participatory and consensus building communicative practices and frameworks, is not intended to assist public participation. It is intended to allow stakeholders and decision-makers faced with planning complexities to organise and recognise their own and the places of other agencies, private partners, and industry organisations within the complex and evolving reality of airport and regional land use planning practice and policy. It is a starting point for clarification and discussion; it is not a model of problem resolution but one of identification. To seek to provide the ideal conditions for authentic dialogue is naïve, yet in providing the steps towards participation this research may begin to move beyond the separation that has emerged from the airport and regional planning and policy processes to date.

Contributions to theory

This work makes a significant contribution to the debates on relational forms of governance and the potential of the ‘urban region’ (airport metropolis) as a focus of political and policy attention

(de Jong et al. 2008; 2008a; Healey 2007). There is a need for spatial strategy making focussed around urban areas. The airport metropolis may be placed within the theoretical planning conceptualisations of ‘urban regions’ and the potential of ‘imagined cities’ (de Jong et al. 2008; Healey 2002; 2007; Vigar et al. 2005)

This research also makes a contribution to the knowledge and literature surrounding communicative planning theory and neoliberalism (Gunder 2010; Purcell 2009; Sager 2005; 2011). Indeed, Bengs (2005) in Gunder (2010) contends that:

‘planning theory, and hence spatial planning, is simply ideology facilitating governance motives of neoliberal globalisation, with the concept of ‘bottom-up’ communicative planning being deployed to especially empower key stakeholders in articulating their wants and hegemonically achieving them’. . . ‘the main function of communicative planning theory is to lubricate the neo-liberal economy, and in particular the workings of the real estate market’ (p 330).

Sager’s (2011) comprehensive literature review of neoliberal urban planning policies highlights the spatial consequences, and maps their effects on ‘urban economic development, infrastructure provision, management of commercial areas, housing and neighbourhood renewal’ (p 148). Both the Airports Act 1996 and indeed the recently released National Aviation Policy may be understood to represent neoliberal urban planning policies. Significantly within Sager’s (2011) analysis of ‘Private sector involvement in financing and operating transport’ he details the neo-planning policies for airports and the literature on the privatisation of Australian airports receives significant attention (Charles et al. 2007; Forsyth 2002; Freestone et al. 2006; Freestone & Baker 2010; Hooper et al. 2000; May & Hill 2006).

This work adds also to the long planning tradition of fixity and mobility; land use and infrastructure; and places and flows. That is, the expression of networks and the dynamic understanding around socio-spatial and socio-political relations of space, economy and global governance (Castells 1996; 2002; Healey 2007; Waddell 2002).

This research agenda, like Healey’s (1999) description of the purpose of communicative planning theory seeks: ‘to contribute to transferring governance cultures – to provide concepts, critical criteria and examples of open and participative governance through which conceptions of place qualities can be articulated, debated, disassembled and used to focus and inform initiatives and responses to change’ (p 117).

While future conflict is forecast as inevitable, it is hoped that the model offered here for the conceptualisation of the airport metropolis (airport region) presents a way forward for

understanding, interpretation, and the development of airport and regional land use planning practice and policy.

1.8 SIGNIFICANCE OF RESEARCH This research is significant for three key reasons:

1. This research improves and develops a conceptual model to better assist the interpretation and management of airport and regional development, in consideration of multiple interdependent interfaces: economic development; land use, infrastructure and governance. It is an innovative framework for both research and policy and facilitates, for the first time, the comparative analyses of airport and urban impact across a range of airport contexts. The advancement of the model is a significant knowledge claim and theoretical contribution of this thesis.

2. Through the application and practical development of the airport metropolis conceptual model this research makes a significant contribution to knowledge regarding airport and regional land use planning. The research presents three key issues as contributing to the fragmentation of airport and regional land use: 1) current legislative and policy frameworks; 2) competing stakeholder priorities and interests; and 3) inadequate coordination and disjointed decision-making. The research makes a significant contribution to communicative planning practice through the identification and examination of airport and regional stakeholder perceptions of land use relationships, processes and outcomes to allow for improved understanding, collaboration and cooperation.

3. To ensure validity and grounding of this research, it is important to establish both substantive and procedural theory as a framework for analyses. This research is additionally significant as it makes a contribution to communicative planning theory in offering the conceptual model. Communicative theory has been used to help guide the method of research in addition to providing rigour and identifying the reach of the research findings. A sound theoretical approach has served as a reminder and directed the research towards problems and issues which may otherwise have been overlooked.

1.9 THE AIRPORT METROPOLIS INTERFACE MODEL

Within this research the changing role of the airport and its reciprocal impacts with the surrounding urban area has been conceptualised as the ‘airport metropolis’ (Stevens et al. 2010). The approach is to draw on the meta-concept of interfaces of an ‘airport metropolis’ as an organising device for comprehending the complexity and planning aspects of airport and regional activity centres. Four interface domains are recognised as interdependent and integral to the acknowledgement and development of the airport metropolis: economic development, land use, infrastructure, and governance (Figure 5 over page).

Economic Development occurs at the airport and its host region as a result of airport-centric activities. It is considered important to be able to recognise and understand the range of direct, indirect and induced financial and social economic impacts of the airport and ensure opportunities for regional, national and international benefit are maximised.

Land Use involves the geographical/geophysical resources of the airport and the region. Land use is recognised as having both social and biophysical environmental impacts. The best management of these impacts may be through the use of planning schemes and strategies which incorporate development trends, existing land use patterns, land characteristics, identified human and physical characteristics of the land, and desired and possible future uses. A fundamental relationship is compatibility between airport master planning and land use planning beyond the airport boundary.

Infrastructure includes large-scale installations that connect and service commercial, industrial, residential and cultural nodes of the airport metropolis. Typical elements are roads, railways, utilities, freight and service interchanges, and, of increasing importance, information and communication technology (ICT). Infrastructure is recognised as fundamental for airport efficiency and development capacity, but must be balanced with ensuring regional connections are not made at the expense of local connectivity (Graham & Marvin 2001).

Governance refers to the legislative arrangements and institutionalised processes that have been designed or have evolved to guide the social structures and behaviours of organisations within the airport metropolis. Governance is also recognised as the function or administration of policy and actions of all kinds, and in its many forms has led to the emergence of the variety of models of airport development and operation.

Figure 5 Airport Metropolis Interface Model The airport metropolis interface model provides for an understanding of the influence of airports as urban phenomena and their catchments of influence. The appropriate management, understanding and consequent development of the airport metropolis has direct relevance to the urban character and design of our cities, their liveability, safety and connectivity regionally, nationally and internationally.

1.9.1 Sustainability and the Airport Metropolis The concept of sustainable development and the maintenance of sustainable ecological, social and economic systems are intended as the framework for all tiers of government policy in Australia (Australian Government 1992). More broadly there is an expectation that sustainability will, or indeed has, permeated all private and public decision-making (Gibson 2006; Wiek & Binder 2005). In reality its application and definition are often misused and much maligned. In examining the airport metropolis and more specifically the issues of airport and regional land use planning practice and policy, sustainability requires careful consideration.

How is it possible to balance the expectations of leasehold aviation hubs and multi-purpose regional activity centres with the local needs and aspirations for long term sustainable spatial development? Does the notion of sustainability fit within the discussion of market forces and privatisation?

It has been argued that the objectives of the free market and broader regional sustainability objectives are being driven further apart over time, or indeed splintering (Graham 2001;

Graham & Marvin 2001). Furlong & Bakker (2010) offer the concept of ‘liberal environmentalism’ to assist in understanding of how neoliberal reforms are compatible with environmental management and improvement. Proponents of liberal environmentalism argue that ‘where possible environmental ends are best achieved by market ends’ (p 355). In the local airport circumstance the issues of sustainability may become good business and are levered as part of broader community engagement and ‘good neighbour’ strategies (BAC 2009).

A Sustainable Development Definition

The Brundtland Report (1987) – Our Common Future – identifies that ‘sustainability’ represents an approach to ‘sustainable development’ which reconciles economic, ecological and social equity demands. It provides the following definition for sustainable development:

"Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts:

1. the concept of needs, in particular the essential needs of the world's poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and 2. the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment's ability to meet present and future needs." (WCED 1987 p 47)

In 1992, Agenda 21, was drafted and administered by the United Nations as an outcome of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janerio, Brazil. This resolution was the most significant plan of action for the mobilisation of sustainable development and intended as a global partnership. In response, all levels of Australian government adopted the

National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development, in 1992. This strategy still provides the

broad strategic directions and framework for all tiers of government to direct policy and decision- making and defines ecologically sustainable development as: 'using, conserving and enhancing the community's resources so that ecological processes, on which life depends, are maintained, and the total quality of life, now and in the future, can be increased' (Australian Government 1992).

In the context of this research five sustainability criteria have been identified – economic efficiency; environment; coordination; community; and security. These criteria all surface in various combinations in sustainability studies, but are adopted here from leading practice work established within the Community Research Portfolio of the European Commission. The PROSPECTS (Procedures for Recommending Optimal Sustainable Planning of European City Transport Systems) project is funded under the European Commission’s Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development Programme.

PROSPECTS is designed to provide cities with guidance to generate optimal land use and transport strategies to meet the challenge of sustainability in their particular circumstances. A set of three guidebooks sums up this guidance. The Decision-Makers’ Guidebook (May 2003) outlines the basic principles for Developing Sustainable Land Use and Transport Strategies. The Methodological Guidebook (2003) is designed to support the Decision-Makers Guidebook and covers the principles in further detail. The third guidebook, the Policy Guidebook (2003) presents a range of land use and transport policy instruments that might be used to achieve the objective of urban sustainability (European Commission 2003).

The sustainability objectives of PROSPECTS are organised here into four criteria: economic efficiency, environment, coordination, and community. To these, a fifth is added, security, as a vital consideration given the national importance and international connections of the modern airport region. The rationalisation of these criteria is intended to better represent the requirements of the Australian airport metropolis and offer guidance for both private and public decision-makers to recognise and reflect upon their ongoing responsibilities and aspirations.

1. Economic efficiency is conceptualised as denoting the strategically-focused innovative evolution of economic activity that maintains and enhances a region’s international competitive advantage in high value-adding growth and core industrial sectors and their support industries. 2. Environment embraces the maintenance and enhancement of physical environmental systems in ways that permit productive use for existing and future generations. 3. Coordination denotes institutional evolution mechanisms that permit and facilitate necessary changes in social structures in response to ongoing changes in global, technical and bio-physical environments. 4. Community means resilient social and physical environments that maintain and create interactive and cooperative behaviours that enhance individuals’ senses of worth, place, community and well-being. 5. Security means resources and ongoing capacity to identify assess and respond to possible emergency, crisis, and disaster events with significant potential to disrupt social, economic and bio-physical processes in the region. A principal aim of security at the airside interface is to prevent unlawful activities. Here, the focus shifts regionally to the important nodes and networks of critical infrastructure

servicing and linked to the airport, which are also potential targets for crime and terrorism (Wheeler 2005).

Operationalisation of the criteria

The airport metropolis interface model has proven to be invaluable as a normative framework for articulating the complexities of the broader Airport Metropolis Research Project (LP0775225). In this complex role the model is supported by the sustainability criteria as an evaluation framework for the inclusion of data within the proposed decision support system (Figure 6).

Figure 6 Airport Metropolis Research Design (Source: QUT (2006) - LP0775225 p4/10)

The airport metropolis model has also proved effective as a framework for the analysis of practice and as a substantive basis for airport and regional land use research through Land Use Forums. The model is intended as a robust structure with the ability to be stretched and adapted to different circumstance. For instance it is possible for particular interfaces or sustainability criteria to assume a greater, rather than equal weighting. This capacity allows for enhanced research focus and applicability across the potential range of stakeholders, circumstance and scale.

When operationalising the model during the research case study Land Use Forums (Chapter 4) the land use interface was afforded a greater priority. It was placed as the central circumstance allowing for focused yet distinct evaluations of airport and regional land use planning against

the other interfaces. Additionally the inclusion of the ‘environment’ sustainability criterion allowed for the acknowledgement of the biophysical impacts of airport and regional land use planning, but without the necessity of including the entire sustainability evaluation framework.

The intention was not to relegate the other sustainability criteria to a secondary role, but allow for a prioritisation of land use planning ‘environment’ considerations. The flexibility of the model is such that stakeholders and researchers have the capacity to prioritise any or all of the interface domains, and they may also choose to apply different sustainability criteria relative to the issues at hand.

1.10 OVERVIEW OF THESIS This overview outlines the organisation of the publications (as thesis chapters) in addressing the principal purpose of the research: to inform and enhance approaches to land use planning for airports and adjacent metropolitan regions in Australia. Additionally this overview provides details of the publications, the methods used, key findings and the relationship of the chapter to the thesis.

1.10.1 Chapter 2: Literature Review - Understanding the Australian Airport Metropolis Contributing Publication:

Stevens, Nicholas J., Baker, Douglas C., & Freestone, Robert (2007) Understanding the Australian Airport Metropolis. In State of Australian Cities National Conference (SOAC), 28-30 November 2007, Adelaide. 110 – 120.

• Peer reviewed publication. • Excellence in Research Australia (2010): Conference Ranking ‘A’ (ERA ID 44067) • http://www.fbe.unsw.edu.au/cf/events/arcn/conference2007/SOAC/understandingthe australianairportmetropolis.pdf

Overview:

The research here demonstrates that while the list of airport and regional impacts has grown through time, treatments have remained highly specialised and contained within disciplinary paradigms. This research assembles a distinct progression of central concerns regarding the wider social, economic, technological and environmental role of the airport.

The ownership and management of airports is outlined as a key consideration in their transformation to major urban activity nodes. The research examines the changes in Australian airport ownership; the privatisation process; and highlights the role of land use planning and land use policy as a key source of airport and urban conflict.

The changing role of airports in Australia and overseas is acknowledged and their emergence as important sub-regional activity centres is highlighted. Three different theories of airport and regional development are identified and discussed: aviapolis (Finavia 2004), airfront (Blanton 2004) and aerotropolis (Kasarda 2001). The research identifies that these airport development theories are largely normative economistic conceptualisations and additionally lack explicit acknowledgment of the wider urban system.

The paper outlines the need for the establishment of new models of airport and urban planning and development. It argues that a better understanding of the influence of airports as urban phenomena and their catchments of influence will assist all stakeholders in the management of future growth and associated change. Further, that the appropriate management, understanding and consequent development of airports has direct relevance to the urban character and design of our cities, their liveability, safety and connectivity regionally, nationally and internationally.

Table 3: Chapter 2 Summary Method • Desktop literature review

Key • The treatment of airports within the literature is contained within disciplinary Findings paradigms. • Assembles a progression of central concerns regarding the role of the airport within the Australian literature. • Acknowledges and articulates the broader reciprocal urban impacts of modern airports, detailing current normative models of airport development. • Advocates for new conceptual frameworks for understanding the airport and regional land use conflicts and opportunities.

Cumulative • This chapter provides the necessary base from which the research can progress to in- Impact depth investigations of the changing role of Australian airports. • This chapter establishes that land use is an issue which requires detailed examination for an understanding of the complex roles and spatial interactions now associated with airports.

1.10.2 Chapter 3: Airport city developments in Australia: land use classification and analyses Contributing Publication:

Walker, Arron R. & Stevens, Nicholas J. (2008) Airport city developments in Australia: land use classification and analyses. In 10th TRAIL Congress and Knowledge Market, 14-15 October 2008, Rotterdam, The Netherlands: 23 pages.

• Peer reviewed publication • Since 1997 TRAIL has been the Dutch National Research School in the fields of Transport, Infrastructure, and Logistics. It is a prestigious research collaborative between Erasmus University of Rotterdam, Delft University of Technology, the University of Groningen, University of Twente, Radboud University Nijmegen and Eindhoven University of Technology. • Link: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/17641/1/c17641.pdf

Overview:

This research analyses and details the on-airport land use planning intentions of Australian privatised airports through document analysis of their legislatively required master plans. The conceptual and methodological significance of this chapter is the development of a national land use classification for on-airport development. It establishes these classifications through the application of an international land use classification system for the remote sensing of urban land use - United States Geological Surveys (USGS) Modified Anderson Classification System. Utilising a geographical information system (GIS) this research provides for the first time a means of comparative land use analysis and understanding across the range of Australian airport contexts.

This research offers background to the rapid emergence of Australian on-airport planning for landside retail and commercial facilities and briefly details the two key features of Australian airport planning approvals: master plans and major development plans. All Australian airports which are required to produce master plans under the Airports Act 1996 are included within the study group. The aviation operations for each is detailed, including aircraft movements for the previous year (and where applicable passenger and freight movements). The airports are also classified into their aeronautical function (regular passenger transport (RPT), general aviation (GA) and pilot training (PT) or any combination of the functions).

While there has been ad hoc analysis and media attention of high profile airport and regional conflict there is limited recognition of the extent to which all privatised airports are intending to develop landside assets. By enabling the comparison of on-airport land uses this research offers airport and municipal planners a national reference for identifying the relationships between aeronautical function and on-airport land use planning intention. Significantly it is recognised that the amount of land being zoned for landside development has no relation to an airport’s size (property area, or passenger and freight movement). However it was noted that all of the airports in the study, regardless of aeronautical function, have zoned their land assets with capitalisation of landside development in mind.

Each airport is then detailed in turn and the research offers an indication of an individual airports development in consideration of the group. Thus providing a better suggestion of how an airport’s actual and intended on-airport development fits within a national profile.

Table 4: Chapter 3 Summary

Method • Document analysis of all privatised Australian airport master plans. • Geo-referencing of airport land use features into a Geographical information system (GIS) – ESRI GIS and mapping software. • Establishment of land use classifications through the use of a United States Geological Surveys (USGS) Modified Anderson Classification System.

Key • Establishes a platform for comparative on-airport land use. Findings • The strategy to diversify revenue at Australian airports has resulted in a spate of development activity on airport property.

• The amount of land being zoned for landside development has no relation to an airport’s size. • All of the airports in the study group have zoned their land assets with capitalisation of landside development.

Cumulative • A significant shift towards establishing a substantive basis for broader dialogue Impact between airport and regional planning. • Evidences the anecdotal belief that significant on-airport development for land use capitalisation is occurring nationally. • Strengthens the need for a better framework for interpreting airport and regional impact.

1.10.3 Chapter 4: Airports in their urban settings: towards a conceptual model of interfaces in the Australian context Contributing Publication:

Stevens, Nicholas J., Baker, Douglas C., & Freestone, Robert (2010) Airports in their urban settings: towards a conceptual model of interfaces in the Australian context. Journal of Transport Geography, 18(2): 276-284.

• Peer reviewed publication. • Excellence in Research Australia (2010): Journal Ranking ‘B’ (ERA ID 19644) • http://eprints.qut.edu.au/30001/1/c30001.pdf

Overview:

This paper outlines the more recent history of airports in Australia with a significant focus on the issues of privatisation and urban conflict. It is established that the dominant driver of privatised Australian airports is aeronautical and non-aeronautical development expansionism, assisted in part by the legislative frameworks under which they are managed.

This research details new and significant interdependencies for Australian airport and urban development including: catchments and catalysts for development; stakeholder motivation and community needs; risks profiles associated with airport and regional relationships; and intergovernmental coordination. From this platform the research develops the airport metropolis interface model and delivers a framework for both research and policy. A key strength of the model is the acknowledgement of the reciprocal impacts of economic development, land use, infrastructure and governance interfaces. Each of these interfaces is then explored in detail.

A key goal for the development of this model is to promote, and indeed provide, a balanced and more sustainable approach to airport and regional development. The interface areas are acknowledged as providing a framework for the integration of principles of sustainability, and the research details five (5) criteria: economic efficiency, environment, coordination, community and security.

Conceptually the model provides for broader stakeholder communicative practice and clearer appreciation of the interdependencies of the airport metropolis, allowing for comparative analyses across a range of airport contexts. Its development was assisted by airport and regional stakeholder input, and applied at three case study Land Use Forums in 2008. The

interface model draws from the Australian experience to re-conceptualise the changing and complex role of airports in the urban environment. It has been developed here also as a heuristic device to identify and organise key policy debates and as a potential decision-making tool.

The research concludes by reinforcing that the overriding imperative is to move airport and regional planning beyond the compartmentalise analysis of issues and provide a solution for the recognition of conflict and opportunity through the airport metropolis.

Table 5: Chapter 4 Summary

Method • Desktop literature review. • Airport and municipal document analysis. • Airport Metropolis workshops and Land Use Forums. • Informal communiqué with airport-lessee management. • Informal communiqué with city planning staff.

Key • Continuing compartmentalised analyses of airport and regional impacts. Findings • The changing role of the airport requires new sets of interdependent urban and airport factors to be recognised.

• In Australia the separateness of airport and regional land use planning is entrenched. • Land use both on and off the airport needs to be recognised in view of the issues that arise from the growth of airports as regional and national activity centres. • A greater appreciation is needed of how the airport and region must be considered as united, interdependent and integrated. • There are four key interfaces of the airport metropolis: economic development, land use, infrastructure and governance.

Cumulative • The establishment of the airport metropolis interface model. Impact • Land use is central to the understanding and interpretation of airport and regional development. • Acknowledgment of the National Aviation Policy Review.

1.10.4 Chapter 5: Managing airport land development under regulatory uncertainty Contributing Publication:

Freestone, Robert., Baker, Douglas,. & Stevens, Nicholas J. (2011) Managing airport land development under regulatory uncertainty. Research in Transportation Business & Management 1(1): 101–108.

• Peer reviewed publication. • New Elsevier Journal – This publication offers research on international aspects of transportation management. • http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/22105395

Overview:

This research explores airport managerial perceptions of, reactions to, and engagements with the National Aviation Policy Review process. It highlights that the rise of the airport as a business has not been without risk and no more so than susceptibility to political interference and re-regulation. Regulatory uncertainty, it is argued, adds to the already sizeable airport risk management burden, which includes not only the challenge of planning for aviation, but increasingly the uncertainty of the commercial property markets.

This publication provides a detailed account of the privatisation of Australian airports and the more recent National Aviation Policy Review process. The research focuses on the airport and urban planning aspects of the review and highlights the policy intention of facilitating further collaborative and indeed, communicative processes.

The research seeks to highlight the airport perspective on the review process, addressing key themes of re-regulation: information delays and costs; the statutory fine print; diversity of airports; and non-aeronautical development. The research is based on interviews, undertaken by this author, with senior airport management, government hearings, industry forums and the broader literature.

Four significant findings are presented from this paper. First, while airports have been privatised there continues to be significant government involvement in the oversight roles. Secondly, this ‘management’ has led to the recognition, by the airports at least, that planning and consultation for the master plan is an iterative process. Thirdly, there is resistance by national politicians to recognise modern airports as multi-functional; they are still largely identified and measured by their core aviation role. Lastly and most importantly, is the greater

commitment expected to cooperative and collaborative off airport planning, a direction which is necessary, but requires reciprocation by the surrounding urban and regional stakeholders.

Table 6: Chapter 5 Summary

Method • Review of literature, including transcripts from government hearings and reports; and corporate submissions to enquires. • Industry forums and conferences. • Airport management semi-structured interviews.

Key • Highlights some critical sources of commercial development uncertainty for Australian Findings airports. • Continued significant oversight and regulation of privatised airports by the government. • The planning and consultation for the master plan is considered as an iterative process. • There is political resistance to acknowledge the changing role of airports. • While there is a greater expectation to cooperative off airport planning, there is ongoing and unresolved uncertainty for airports.

Cumulative • This chapter provides an important background for understanding and articulating the Impact airport and urban tension around land use planning. • Through the focus on planning and development regulations for airports the significance of land use as a central issue is emphasised. • It articulates airport sentiment to the National Aviation Policy Review and reinforces the significance (and necessity) of bringing together airport and urban land use stakeholders though Land Use Forums in 2008.

1.10.5 Chapter 6: Land use conflict across the airport fence: competing urban policy, planning and priority in Australia Contributing Publication:

Stevens, Nicholas J. & Baker, Douglas (2011) Land use conflict across the airport fence: competing urban policy, planning and priority in Australia. Urban Policy and Research (submitted).

• Peer reviewed publication. • Excellence in Research Australia (2010): Journal Ranking ‘A’ (ERA ID 5993)

Overview:

Following from the development of the airport metropolis interface model, and in parallel with the National Aviation Policy Review, three Australian case studies (Brisbane, Adelaide, and Canberra) are examined to detail the context of airport and regional land use planning.

Here the interface model is applied as an organising device and a framework for research. The land use interface is placed as the central circumstance in consideration of the interface areas of economic development, infrastructure and governance. Additionally the sustainability criterion of ‘environment’ is included for the determination of the social and biophysical aspects of land use planning.

The methodological approach of Land Use Forums was utilised as a communicative and collaborative approach to bring over 120 airport and regional stakeholders together. In line with planning for collaboration it was also important for this research to incorporate the views of a broad range of stakeholders beyond airport and regional government decision-makers. These full day seminars allowed for all stakeholders to actively participate in the research process and express their views in a facilitated forum.

An inductive thematic analysis of the results identified common themes across the three case study regions around the interface domains. Two significant themes were identified in the consideration of Governance and Land Use - legislation has limited consultation between stakeholders; and there are divergent planning processes and priority between stakeholders. The analysis of Environment and Land Use revealed – ongoing inter-jurisdictional fragmentation of environmental decision-making; stakeholders have independent scope of environmental parameters for consideration; and the current mechanisms for improved land use planning are inadequate. The key theme for Economic Development and Land use was – limited reciprocal acknowledgment of direct, indirect and induced economic impacts. The key themes around Infrastructure and Land Use recognise – disputed impacts on transport infrastructure from development; and inadequate infrastructure coordination between the airport and the region.

In consideration of the interdependencies of the interfaces, it is significant to be able to identify and extract themes which cut across the interface contexts. Three principal concerns are identified as contributing to the continued fragmentation of airport and regional land use planning: 1) current legislative and policy frameworks; 2) competing stakeholder priorities and interest; and 3) inadequate coordination and disjointed decision-making.

Table 7: Chapter 6 Summary Method • Land Use Forums. • Inductive thematic analysis.

Key • There is a level of consistency in the problems faced by stakeholders across the case Findings studies. • The National Aviation Policy Review does little to address the issues raised within this research. • Three principal concerns are contributing to the continued fragmentation of airport and regional land use planning: 1) current legislative and policy frameworks; 2) competing stakeholder priorities and interest; and 3) inadequate coordination and disjointed decision-making.

Cumulative • This chapter brings together the understanding of the airport metropolis and Impact demonstrates the value of its application in the generation of new knowledge. • Through the use of Land Use Forums and thematic analysis this research has revealed significant key themes for further land use planning investigations.

1.10.6 Chapter 7: Stakeholder perspectives on airport and regional land use planning4 Contributing Manuscript:

Stevens, Nicholas J. (2011) Stakeholder perspectives on airport and regional land use planning.

Overview:

The aim of this research is to add finer grained detail to the scaffold of the fragmentary themes identified in Chapter 6 as a means to better inform the actual circumstance of airport and regional land use planning. As such the fragmentary themes are recast and recognised here as resulting from the interdependency of airport and regional stakeholder perspectives on land use planning 1) relationships, 2) processes and 3) outcomes.

Between May 2009 and August 2010 a total of twenty four (24) face to face semi-structured interviews were undertaken with airport and state, territory and local government stakeholders in the three cases study areas – Brisbane, Adelaide and Canberra. The airport and regional stakeholder accounts of their experiences and perceptions of land use planning are the primary source of data for this research.

4 Please note, Chapter 7 is not a publication, and is not required as such, but will be submitted for consideration upon the completion of the thesis.

It is significant to understand the position and outlook of each stakeholder in this process to evaluate opportunities for integrated solutions. The research findings identify areas of common concern as a means to provide a clearer interpretation and possible prioritisation of shared land use planning issues.

Several implications for land use planning communicative practice may be noted from this research for consideration across other privatised airports. First – the federal government’s increasingly prescriptive approach to consultation, as a product of the national aviation White Paper, allows little room for stakeholder or community negotiation or intervention. Second, airports have embraced an array of communication mechanisms and forums for dealing formally and informally with the entire range of stakeholders. Third, is the potential for land use planning relationships, processes and outcomes to become defined by ad hoc and individual interest-based bargaining around rates and infrastructure agreements. And last, is the recognition that effective and appropriate communicative practice (grounded in transparency, accountability and accessibility) has the potential to deliver integrated and coordinated airport and regional land use planning.

Table 8: Chapter 7 Summary Method • Semi-structured interviews • Thematic analysis

Key • Stakeholder relationships have improved over time. Findings • There is a growing federal government expectation of broader community and stakeholder consultation for airport and regional land use planning. • The increasingly prescriptive approach to consultation may inhibit cooperative land use planning. • Early planning interactions were marred in conflict and this has been significant for ongoing relationships. • Land use planning relationships, processes and outcomes may become defined by ad hoc and individual interest-based bargaining. • There continues to be ongoing airport and regional conflict regarding land use planning and transport connectivity.

Cumulative • This chapter represents the fine grained analysis of airport and regional land use. Impact • This work is the result of an incremental and cumulative process of research endeavour and identifies a number of key issues which need to be addressed for the establishment of coordinated and integrated airport and regional land use planning practice and policy.

2Chapter 2: Literature Review – Understanding the Australian Airport Metropolis

Table 7 Statement of Authorship

Contributor Statement of contribution Mr Nicholas Stevens Desktop literature review & acquisition of data Signature: Data analysis Development of the article structure Drafting of the manuscript Conception and design Critical revision for important intellectual content Production assistance, e.g., assembling tables, graphs, figures, photos or other illustrations Development of conference presentation and delivery Submission management and journal liaison

Prof. Douglas Baker Development of the article structure Signature: Drafting of the manuscript Critical revision for important intellectual content Supervision Conception and design Copyediting - grammatical assistance, stylistic suggestions to outline or draft

Prof. Robert Freestone Development of the article structure Signature: Acquisition of data Drafting of the manuscript Conception and design Critical revision for important intellectual content Copyediting - grammatical assistance, stylistic suggestions to outline or

draft

Principal Supervisor confirmation: I have sighted email or other correspondence from all Co-authors confirming their certifying authorship.

April 24, 2012 Prof. Douglas Baker

Name Signature Date

Abstract

In Australia, the role, scale and meaning of major urban airports have changed over the past decade as a result of corporate and economic transformations. Modern airports are very different from traditional airports as they emerge as important sub-regional activity centres. As a result of these changes, airport impacts now pose considerable challenges for both airport operation and the surrounding urban and regional environment. The current issues surrounding airport development and expansion need to be defined by an understanding of the complex roles and spatial interactions now associated with airports. The airport can no longer be managed in isolation from the metropolis that it serves. However, a conceptual framework for understanding regional conflicts and opportunities is yet to be developed. This paper identifies and documents a range of issues and impacts to assist in understanding the changing role of airports in Australia. These various dimensions are conceptualised as interfaces. Interface areas include land use, infrastructure, economics, and governance. The paper provides a conceptual framework for understanding the interfaces that typify major airports, allowing for comparative analyses across a range of airport contexts and to inform policy prescriptions.

2.1 INTRODUCTION Transport infrastructure, and its adequate provision has played a part in urban form since towns were established at crossroads and along ancient trade routes thousands of years ago. Urban growth has continued to evolve from transport induced innovation, seaports in the 18th Century, railways in the 19th Century and highways and freeways in the 20th Century. In addition, transport infrastructure has been the basis for nearly all models of urban progress, from the rail connections of Ebenezer Howard to the highways and the airports atop skyscrapers of Le Corbusier. Harris and Ullman (1945) recognised that ‘changes in transportation are reflected in the pattern of city distribution’ and that ‘airways may reinforce this trend or stimulate still different patterns of distribution for the future city’ (p 3).

Airports are now established as an important component of the transport infrastructure of modern cities and have proven increasingly influential to urban structure, form and development. The reciprocity of impacts between city and airport have evolved in the last 30 years and been amplified under the neo-liberal processes of economic and corporate transformation. Government and corporate strategies of economic development,

commercialisation and privatisation are giving rise to a new form of airport that is far more complex and interactive than the landing fields of the past.

Graham (2003) suggests that airports may be classified according to their economic impact characteristics, outlining six main groups: international gateway airports, national hub airports, regional airports, tourist generator airports, tourist receiver airports, and transit and interline airports. In this paper we are primarily concerned with capital city airports, which may function as international gateway airports and with the ability to generate significant off-airport business, and national hub airports, which may act as airline bases and encourage capital city and hinterland tourism.

The paper provides a review and prospectus of airport issues in Australia. Establishing the complexity of interactions of the modern airport from the outset and more recent commercialisation trends, it then canvasses some of the past literature on airport development to convey a growing awareness of the complexity of the airport phenomenon from the early 20th century. Contemporary ‘integrated’ conceptual models focusing on the airport as activity centre begin to address the reciprocity of the airport phenomenon. This discussion introduces a more holistic schema based on the concept of interfaces. Underlain by notions of sustainability, this model seeks to capture the many urban planning issues which are generated by the modern airport within a simple framework to aid description, understanding and policy responses. It is organised around four fundamental ‘interfaces’ of land use, infrastructure, economics, and governance.

2.2 IMPACT OF AIRPORTS The scale of passenger and freight activity at Australian airports has increased significantly in recent decades and this trend is likely to continue in line with global trends. The expected growth of passenger traffic internationally is forecast to reach 5 billion by 2010, and surpass 9 billion passengers annually by 2025. The highest global passenger growth of 7.9% (2005-10) is forecast for the Asia Pacific region. The global air freight task is expected to outperform the passenger market with a tripling to 214 million tonnes by 2025. The Asia Pacific region is again forecast to grow the fastest averaging 6.5% per annum (ACI 2007).

The changing role and importance of Australian airports, in aggregate economic terms for trade and tourism, is well documented. In Australia (1995-2005), domestic, regional and international air traffic increased by annual averages of 4.6%, 4.1% and 5.9% respectively (DOTARS 2006). In

addition, while only 0.1% of international freight, by weight, was transported by air in Australia in 2003/04, it had a value of $AUD65.5b, representing 26.4% of total freight value (DOTARS 2005). Contemporary models of freight traffic growth predict that the value of manufactured goods traded inter-regionally will increase significantly (ATAG 2005). International tourists, whose expenditures are major contributors to regional economics, typically arrive by air and the presence of an airport is recognised as fundamental for the realisation of regional tourism and economic potential (Bieger & Wittmer 2006). Over the next decade, the number of international visitors to Australia is estimated to grow at 5.6% per annum, to reach around 10 million (TRA 2005).

This sort of growth and its implications for support services and city regions ultimately lies behind the rising importance of airports as an urban phenomenon. Increasingly, airports represent a phalanx of considerations, both intentional and causational, when their impacts on economies, populations, trade, tourism, employment, industry are considered. They are ‘the most intensely geographical manifestations of all the forces of mobility’ (Serebrisky 2003 p 105) and are a dynamic and integral part of the urban fabric. Their management and future development are integrally interlinked with urban and regional land use, infrastructure planning and economic development. The coordination and governance of airports in Australia must be integrated in this larger geographic framework.

2.3 AIRPORT OWNERSHIP Within an increasingly globalised world economy, the ownership and management of airports has been a key consideration in their transformation to major urban activity nodes. Historically, the majority of airports worldwide have been public sector owned and operated. In the United States and Europe, after the Second World War, most major airports were handed over to local and regional municipalities (Graham 2003). In the 1950s and 1960s many countries, including the United Kingdom, transferred ownership to civil aviation authorities. During this time, regardless of ownership structure, airports were managed as publicly owned and controlled utilities with public service obligations and limited priority on commercial or financial management (Humphreys 1999).

The mid-1980s saw fundamental policy changes towards ownership in several countries. Governments faced enormous pressure from tax payers to control deficits. State funding for airports was out of favour and airports were considered a ‘mature’ industry with little development potential (Tretheway 2001). The perceived drain on public resources motivated

some national governments to undertake a variety of strategies to minimise loss and seek a return on decades of unfulfilled investment. The United Kingdom was the first country to introduce a new national policy of privatised airport ownership in 1987. The deregulation of the airline industry proceeded in parallel, and the management of major airports also underwent a revolution. Introduction of commercial objectives by airport operators was considered an efficient way to maximise revenue, improve customer service and quality standards, while reducing risk and dependence on aeronautical revenue alone (Freathy & O’Connell 1999). Initially much of the commercialism was focussed on the airport terminal, providing an array of shopping facilities. Later came an emphasis on full exploitation of the airport site and further diversification of business became apparent.

The post-war devolution of airport ownership was also characteristic of the Australian scene. The Federal Airports Corporation (FAC) when formed in 1988 had responsibility for only 17 airports. The FAC operated on commercial lines utilising the governance, management and incentive strategies of the private sector. The deregulation of the Australian domestic airline industry in 1990 when the Airline Agreement Termination Act came into effect had a catalytic effect in making domestic air travel accessible to the broader public (Quiggin 1997). Consequently, significant increases in airport revenue were generated in the prelude to full privatisation (Hooper et al. 2000; Graham 2003). From 1996 FAC airports were put to tender in a two phase process under the provisions of the new Airports Act 1996. The Federal Government netted billions of dollars in the sale of airport leaseholds. Despite the Asian economic crisis at the time, the price earnings ratios for Australian airports were high because of limited opportunities to purchase international airports in the Asia Pacific region, the high degree of corporate autonomy bestowed, and the significant geographic monopoly power involved (Hooper et al. 2000). Airport operators purchased a wide range of development rights with no restriction on land uses other than compliance with the Airports Act 1996. The government sales team marketed the investment potential and opportunity for revenue from property development, car parking and commercial initiatives (Freestone et al. 2006).

2.4 AIRPORT CONFLICTS State, territory and local governments are ultimately responsible for making and implementing land use planning strategies, frameworks and decisions in their jurisdictions. However, incompatible land use and development decisions in areas surrounding airports have led to increased pressure to place constraints on Australian airports. Recent planning strategies have seen airport regions continuing to become increasingly populated through urban consolidation

strategies. Suburban low density areas, beyond the airport buffer, are now being granted local government approval for medium density development, further adding to the conflict (Uyeno et al. 1993). The source of many complaints may be attributed to poor or inadequate urban and regional planning by past (and present) government stakeholders and airport operators. Historically, many of these conflicts have emerged as residential development has encroached on airports that were ‘out of town’ and air traffic movement has accelerated toward larger and faster aircraft; this has resulted in increased noise, increased frequency of air traffic, and increased airport and surrounding infrastructure use.

Most of the issues surrounding Australian airport development and expansion may be attributed to the insular legislative and policy arrangements under which airports have long been managed. Airport operators and the local and state governments feel that the legislation could go further in representing their respective interests. Stakeholders want the legislation to determine the appropriate roles of government, all tiers, compared to market forces and the appropriate roles for airports compared to social responsibilities. In balance, the yet to be determined solutions to airport and regional conflict, and the assurance that the emerging airports are managed to mutual benefit, are also based in the governance arrangements of legislation, policy and institution.

Airport privatisation was primarily an opportunity to unburden the nation from public sector funding of airport development, yet it has resulted in airport operators wanting highest returns on their investment, and they have been quick to outline expectations for the capitalisation of their land assets in the legislatively required master planning process. Airport corporations recognise that they cannot survive by landing planes, and need to diversify their commercial interests as means of ensuring profitability. These recent commercial developments at airports are another source of conflict within airport regions along with more longstanding concerns about noise, traffic and loss of environmental amenity, often sparked by rounds of airport expansion.

It has been argued in the Federal Court of Australia that non-aviation commercial development at airports, in particular the intention to develop retail shopping ‘was or will be in contravention of various provisions of the Airports Act 1996’ (FCA 2005 p 2). All airport companies in Australia closely followed this court case, as it was considered a test of non-aviation airport development and the strength of the Act to enable such development. The feeling was that should the application succeed in limiting development, the value of Australian airports could be slashed

(Greenblat 2003). This protracted legal battle came to end when Federal Court Justice Cooper dismissed the application, finding in favour of airports in February 2005. This verdict reaffirmed the independence of airport operators to determine airport non-aviation land uses outside of surrounding municipal land use regulation.

2.5 STUDYING AIRPORTS The study of airports as urban and planning phenomena has progressed along with the technological changes which have shaped the airline and airport industries over a century. The below literature review is but a sub-set of a broader suite of technical investigations into airport issues, but a distinct progression is evident from the accommodation of a new transport technology, to the economic, management and legal issues arising, and onto broader infrastructure and environmental impacts. Security and sustainability have been more recent preoccupations. The evolving complexity of issues is most immediately captured in airport design and management manuals (Coles 1929; Richard 1936; Froesch & Prokosch 1946; CAA 1952; Legault 1960; de Neufville & Odoni 2003). Many urban planning, geography and indeed global city texts have surprisingly little to say about airport development and generally shoe- horn it into a narrow transportation planning paradigm. However, the need to appreciate a more complex set of environmental considerations in the broadest sense is evident from the locational conflict and site selection literature of the 1970s (Haggett 1979 p 536-539).

The earliest Australian airport literature documented the military importance of aviation (Harrison 1914). At the time an understanding of airport engineering requirements was rudimentary but progressed rapidly as general standards of airport design and runway construction were refined and developed in parallel with evolving aircraft technology (Arthur 1927; Coles 1929; Cochrane 1947; Loxton 1950). Over time a greater appreciation of management issues in relation to airports as public transport infrastructure developed (Richard 1936; Pitcher 1943; Mayer 1945; Pope 1947). Early town planning interest was muted. John Sulman (1921) briefly dealt with the space demands of modern aerodromes as a form of specialised urban space alongside racecourses, drill grounds, and zoos. Brown & Sherrard (1951) provided a more expansive treatment, emphasising the importance of physical planning, design standards, site selection, and the ‘general effect of an airport on the planning of a town’ (p 118). The significance and influence of airport site selection and its implications in determining adjacent land uses, primarily in relation to the impact of noise and in the interests of safety, were key aspects of early airport literature. The value of adequate transport connections between the airport and town to ensure maximum benefit from the provision of air

services was also recognised. In parallel the problems and costs associated with congestion of airport access due to adjacent built up areas was also appreciated (Brown & Sherrard 1951). The vast distances and continental periphery settlement patterns of Australia quickly highlighted the economic and social significance of airports, tempered by international awareness of growing environmental externalities (Lambert 1953; Rosendahl 1955; Friend 1958; Harvey 1958).

The 1960s and early 1970s saw spectacular growth in aviation and airports both through technological advancement and the growing accessibility of air travel to the greater public. The benefit and impact of necessary airport expansion plans and duplications of runways was evaluated, modelled and debated (Moffat 1968; Davidson et al. 1969; Weston 1972; ABTE 1975). By the 1980s, airports were stigmatised as an urban inconvenience and their public costs versus urban impacts were questioned by government and the public alike (Carlton 1978; Holsman & Alexsandric 1977; Seymour 1979; Lucas 1982; Deaves 1986; Thorn 1988). The expansion of the existing airport and aborted development of a second facility in Sydney attracted significant academic interest (Sanders 1991; Adam 1993; Fitzgerald 1998), and by the 1990s the environmental and social disbenefits of airports were a major concern (Vandebona 1997; Lammerts 1996; Fitzgerald 1999). A broader management oriented literature addressed new issues of deregulation and entrepreneurial approaches to airport management and policy (Kunkel 1990; Mills 1995; Truitt & Esler 1996; Forsyth 1997; Quiggin 1997; Kissling 1998; Quinlan 1998; Graham 1999). The nature of privatisation and the capitalisation of development potential of airport lands are contemporary concerns (Hooper et al. 2000; Carney & Mew 2003; Freestone et al. 2006; Spiller 2006).

2.6 INTEGRATED MODELS OF AIRPORTS AS ACTIVITY CENTRES The list of airport impacts beyond the airport boundaries has grown through time, but treatments have remained highly specialised and contained within disciplinary paradigms. Empirical analysis has been generally limited to the isolated evaluation of the components of a complex system. What conceptual advances are evident regarding the changing role and multifaceted impacts of airports in their urban settings?

Airports are increasingly recognised as general urban activity centres; that is, key assets for cities and regions as economic generators and catalysts of investment, in addition to being critical components of efficient city infrastructure. The entrepreneurial idea of the modern airport goes beyond the movement of aircraft towards providing a variety of commercial and

industrial opportunities. This may focus on the encouragement of aviation reliant and related industry but may also provide for the industries of the new economy, or alternatively businesses and services that have limited direct reliance on air transport or aviation at all.

Three models of airports as activity centres have been conceptualised. The ‘aviapolis’ is the marketing and development of aviation orientated and airport-centred business hubs (Finavia 2004). The ‘airfront’ is the collection of aviation related industries and services attracted to, and located within, an airport hinterland (Blanton 2004). The identification of the airport as a focus for logistics, and as a function of transport-based urban development, has been recognised as an ‘aerotropolis’ (Kasarda 1991a).

The ‘aviapolis’ is the development of strategic opportunity to revitalise a city region and adjacent airport. It is intended to function as a mixed use commercial, industrial and residential centre capitalising on the advantages that an international airport may bring. Through cooperative agreement the Finnish government and industry stakeholders were able to establish cooperative administrative arrangements: a district wide comprehensive plan; an economic development and marketing strategy; and a governance framework built around this shared goal (Finavia 2004). The development of the ‘aviapolis’ is the strategic re-organisation of an existing urban area into an aviation orientated business hub, utilising the anchors which exist within the region and maximising their potential. A perceived limitation may be the continued requirements of investment and international marketing, yet the ‘aviapolis’ still provides a model of the integrated planning and development of an airport and its hinterland, functioning as an international activity centre.

Blanton (2004) conceptualises the ‘myriad of commercial, industrial, and transportation facilities and services intrinsically tied to the airport’ as the ‘airfront’. Highlighting regional economic integration, the aim is to understand ‘how planners can shape emerging airfront districts to achieve regional and local objectives’ through a scenario planning approach (p 36). The airfront is not part of the airport, but of the region and recognised as a location of potential and unrealised opportunity. It supports the airport with an array of services based on industrial clustering. The better coordinated planning and development of this airfront provides for economic strengthening and revitalisation of the region for mutual benefit. However, little attention has been given to commercial districts surrounding airports, and few planning authorities understand how to plan development to best leverage this economic resource, let

alone how it may best fit into broader transportation and regional land use planning (Blanton 2004).

Kasarda champions the development of the ‘aerotropolis’, a logistics based model of airport city development (Kasarda & Green 2005; Kasarda 2001; Kasarda 2000; Kasarda 1996; Kasarda 1991a). The aerotropolis is an urban form, centred on multimodal logistics, with an aviation focus, where low weight / high value goods can be moved quickly and efficiently. Companies are able to maintain zero inventories: take customer orders, fly in raw materials, assemble them and fly them out again, at the one airport location (Kasarda 1991b). This ‘industrial/aviation complex’ is intended as an actual metropolis, where the airport and surrounding hotels, retail, distribution centres, light industrial parks, and even some residential zones all serve as a central business district. It is imagined as a ‘centre’ with excellent highway transport links, ‘aerolanes’, to the regional hinterland to ensure the unimpeded flow of goods, services and people (Kasarda 2001). The ‘aerotropolis’ as a freight and logistics model is based in the notion of ‘survival of the fastest (Kasarda 2000). It may well be considered this paradigm presents limitations for tangible implementation where the notions of sustainability and equity in local access are significant. All three descriptive models portray the modern airport as a dynamic new economic engine calling forth the need for new and appropriate planning responses to better seize this potential. However, they are mostly economistic conceptualisations and lack explicit acknowledgement of the wider urban system, neglecting the reciprocity of impacts which may often be considered as a consequence of each other: airport access, regional transport congestion, noise, land use compatibility, economic impacts, airport competitiveness, privatisation, infrastructure capacity, and so on. There is also insufficient weight given to environmental, social and governance issues alongside economic benefits.

2.7 THE NEED FOR A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK It is timely and appropriate that conceptual frameworks for understanding airport and regional conflicts and opportunities are established. The complex issues attached to airports need to be placed within a context which will assist in better understanding the airport’s changing role. Integrative models are required which recognise and attempt to understand the nature and importance of international, national, regional and local drivers of airport growth and the need for sustainable balanced development. It is desirable to have a better means of describing, explaining and ultimately improving corporate, public, and institutional governance processes.

An understanding of the influence of airports as urban phenomena and their catchments of influence will assist all stakeholders in the management of future growth and associated change. The appropriate management, understanding and consequent development of airports has direct relevance to the urban character and design of our cities, their liveability, safety and connectivity regionally, nationally and internationally.

A different set of airport operating environments are created when airports draw on regional catchments of the non-travelling public to generate an increasing proportion of their revenues. We need a greater understanding of what the issues and implications are for airports and their host regions, and how these issues must be considered as united, interdependent and integrated (Stevens 2006).5

2.8 ADDITIONAL CONTEXTUAL LITERATURE6

This section of the literature review provides additional research regarding the National Aviation Policy Review; airport management and ownership; land use compatibility; and on- airport commercialisation. It is considered that these areas are not sufficiently detailed in the previous publication, or within the following chapters. This literature is necessary to provide the reader with an adequate context of airport and regional management and development nationally and internationally.

2.8.1 The National Aviation Policy Review In April 2008, the Australian Government initiated a National Aviation Policy Review. The title would suggest there was a policy under review; the reality was this process established the first ever comprehensive aviation policy statement for Australia. At this time, an ‘Issues Paper’ was released for public comment, followed by a ‘Green Paper’ outlining preliminary proposals (December 2008) and a National Aviation Policy White Paper: Flight Path to the Future (White Paper) with proposed policy reforms (December 2009). The review covered many issues

5 Due to the integrative nature of this research the concluding section of this publication has been omitted for logic and efficiency. The section outlines an emergent version of the Airport Metropolis Interface Model which is comprehensively developed in the Chapter 4. The publication is available in full in Appendix 1.

6 This section of the thesis is additional literature beyond the 2007 State of Australian Cities (SOAC) conference publication.

pertaining to aviation in Australia: safety, security, international aviation, domestic and regional aviation, general aviation, industry skills and productivity, airport infrastructure and noise impacts (Australian Government 2008). Airport and regional (land use) planning challenges were highlighted under ‘airport infrastructure’.

2.8.1.1 Land Use and the National Aviation Policy Following the Green Paper the Australian Government released a discussion paper ‘Safeguards for airports and the communities around them’ in July 2009. This discussion paper was to initiate ‘A clear and coordinated national framework for land use planning and development controls’ (DITRDLG 2009a p 166). The intention was for the Australian Government to work in partnership with state, territory and local planning systems on a national technical rule book for off-airport development to assist in the protection of airspace and to protect the community from operational and catastrophic aviation impacts. Currently (December 2011) in lieu of this framework being advanced the Australian Department of Infrastructure and Transport (the Department) is making formal submissions, on behalf of airports, to regional projects deemed to have the potential to impact the aviation function of the airport.

As a consequence of the White Paper, the Australian Government has initiated two additional reporting requirements and planning guidelines for airports. As of December 2010 all new airport master plans must also detail ‘surface vehicle access plans with measures to mitigate vehicle and traffic impacts’ (DITRDLG 2011, p 1). Additionally, in January 2011, the Department released a discussion draft ‘Significant Impact on the Local or Regional Community Guide’ (DITRDLG 2011). This guide is intended to provide information to both the public and industry stakeholders about whether a proposed on-airport development ‘triggers the significant impact on the local or regional community clause, which is s89 (1) (Na) of the Airports Act 1996’ (DITRDLG 2011, p 2).

While the Department and the White Paper provide ad hoc submissions and guidelines which seek to achieve better planning and integrated development, there remains limited direction on land use coordination between stakeholders (Freestone & Baker 2010). A further analysis of the National Aviation Policy Review is detailed in Chapter 5 - Managing airport land development under regulatory uncertainty.

2.8.2 Environmental Impact and the Australian Airport Metropolis The carbon footprint of aviation has been growing at about 3% each year and is anticipated to continue to grow (Australian Government 2009). Domestic aviation is included in the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) and it is also anticipated that, where possible, airlines will seek to pass the higher cost through (Dwyer et al. 2012)7. As such, it is reasonable to assume that an airlines capacity to sustain profitability is expected to be partially reliant on the aeronautical charges policies of airports. In response the airports may continue to pursue increasing profitability of non-aeronautical revenue streams, in part, through continued on- airport real estate development. However, the direct exposure of airport corporations to the CPRS is minimal and the current environmental reporting regime for airports will remain largely unchanged - Aviation White Paper (2009), Chapter 13, p 203:

Airport operations and infrastructure improvement

Activities directly under the control of airport operators are not a major source of aviation emissions, but even these emissions can be reduced by more energy-efficient designs for airport buildings and by airports switching to alternative lower carbon fuels where possible. Airport operators do have a key role to play in working with aircraft operators and air navigation service providers to improve the efficiency of gate to gate operations. Airports will be strongly encouraged to take a cooperative role in helping to achieve these efficiencies.

This process has already begun with some airports moving to establish programs such as green star rated commercial developments on airport, use of alternate energy sources (such as tri-gen and solar plants), carbon accounting, energy and water audits, recycling, sustainable water management and the creation of bio diversity zones. The Government will encourage airports to include Carbon Reduction Strategies in future Airport Environment Strategies. Further, Airport Environment Strategies will be required to form part of the airport’s Master Plan, ensuring environmental planning is incorporated into the primary planning tool for the airport (p 203).

Australian privatised airports environmental performance is evaluated under the Commonwealth Airports Act 1996 and the Airports (Environment Protection) Regulations 1997. Under Section 116 of the Airports Act 1996 each airport is required to deliver an Airport Environment Strategy (AES) every 5 years. The AES describes the programs, objectives, targets and actions the airport is undertaking for improving environmental performance across issues

7 See Chapter 13 Aviation’s role in reducing global carbon emissions in the Aviation Policy White Paper 2009 for an overview of The Governments policy goal to: Ensure the Australian aviation industry plays an effective role in the reduction of aviation’s contribution to climate change

such as a waste generation, water consumption, water quality, air quality, energy usage, climate change, biodiversity and conservation management and community engagement (Australian Government 2012a). An important distinction is that the AES does not deal with the environmental impacts associated with the operation of the airport as an aviation hub, such as aircraft noise and emissions. Through the AES processes the larger Australian airports have been responding to the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER) Scheme and from the emissions data no Australian airport appears on the Clean Energy Regulators - Liable Entities Public Information Database (LEPID), which indicates the liability of a company under the carbon pricing mechanism (Australian Government 2012c).

The changing role of Australian airports and the mutually reliant relationships they increasingly share with the surrounding region will require careful and cooperative management when considering the array of associated environmental externalities. Individually and collaboratively airports and municipal governments will have to consider the trade-offs between increased expansion, to provide a non-aeronautical revenue stream and regionally, to accommodate urban infill development.

The success of non-aeronautical expansion on the airport, as a retail and commercial destination and key employment centre, is reliant upon the support and patronage of the region. It is therefore important that the true environmental costs of on-airport development be revealed, along with the strategies the airport operators expect to use to mitigate those impacts. The environmental and social costs, in terms of noise (construction), emissions (vehicular), resource use and infrastructure congestion, may be measured through the use of monitoring data at the airport. Where economic, social and environmental factors are included in all consultations and evaluations of airport and regional land use planning, the greater airport metropolis can strive for continuous improvement in environmental performance.

Short 2004, in Freestone 2009, acknowledges that ‘airports are not just nodes in the global network of flows; they are sites of major environmental impact that highlight the tension between international connectivity and local livability’ (p 169). The issue of environmental impact of airports is significant in consideration of expansion intentions, both from an aeronautical perspective, but here specifically from an on-airport commercial urban destination. In both regards the impacts of airport development go well beyond the physical boundaries of the airport (Freestone 2009). It is imperative that the airport planning and the regional urban planning are better coordinated and mutually supportive. Freestone (2009)

details nine fundamental principles that may assist in ensuring airports, and the surrounding region, begin to plan for and support sustainable airport and regional development:

1. realistic economic forecasts as the basis for development and expansion;

2. caution about impacts of new development upon the existing environment;

3. incorporation of aviation into urban and community visions;

4. a shared sense of responsibility and purpose among key stakeholders;

5. a district wide comprehensive plan that provides for organized land use, environmental protection, and multi-modal mobility;

6. an economic development and marketing strategy that defines an airport region and provides tools to attract and retain investment;

7. a governance framework that facilitates coordination of all relevant public agencies;

8. an open dialogue and partnership between airport and wider community; and

9. consistency of relevant plan objectives and territorialities at the airport, local area, region, metropolis, state, and national scales (p 173).

In Managing the Carbon Footprint of Australian Aviation (2012b) the Australian Government outlines the means by which airports may contribute to managing the overall carbon footprint of aviation. Within Section 9, Airport Contribution, a number of strategies are outlined as ways in which airports may assist, through direct control, the carbon footprint and CO2 emissions of the aviation industry:

• building greener commercial buildings on-site, providing ground power and pre- conditioned air facilities for aircraft, and decreasing the fuel consumption of ground- based vehicles;

• generating electricity through solar installations;

• developing ground transport plans for better linkages with off-airport transport systems;

• and preparing carbon footprint reports on airport emissions.

2.8.3 Airport Ownership Historically, the majority of airports, worldwide, were public sector owned and operated infrastructure. The technological advances and the expansion of the aviation industry during WWI and WWII were paralleled by a proliferation of airports. In the US and Europe, after the war, most of the major airports were handed over to local and regional municipalities for ownership, yet still with the proviso of national precedent when required. Some of the airports were owned and managed by consortiums of local municipalities, and some still had both local and national government ownership (Graham 2003). In the 1950s and 1960s many countries, including the United Kingdom, transferred ownership to Civil Aviation Authorities. During this time, regardless of ownership structure, airports were managed as publicly owned and controlled utilities with public service obligations and limited priority on commercial or financial management (Humphreys 1999).

In the 1970s and 1980s the deregulation of airlines saw dramatic increases in passenger numbers, providing new commercial opportunities for airport operators. Many more federal governments began to establish airport corporations as semi-autonomous bodies, as a means to better manage the necessary airport development.

Today, the nature of airport ownership varies greatly from country to country. The majority of airports globally are still public assets, with varying levels of private sector involvement. A number of models of airport administration and operation are documented by Graham 2008; Treathaway 2001; Wells & Young 2004, and summarised in Table 8.

Table 8 Models of airport administration and operation

1. Operation by National Government Department

This was traditionally the most common model, where federal governments owned and operated airports. The airports are the responsibility of a department, typically the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), Ministry of Transport or the military. They may oversee regulation, air traffic control, air navigation and airport operations. Investment in this model is dependent on political process or budget priorities, potentially leading to under investment in airport infrastructure.

2. Operation by Municipal Governments

This is unique to the US and is typically where airports are run by the city as an administrative department, with some setting up boards as an advisory role, but holding very little real power. This model should have high degrees of accountability and transparency, yet in reality very few US airports provide financial statements to the public.

3. Operation by Government Agency

In this model aviation matters are referred to a semi-independent government agency, rather than the

direct responsibility of a department, (CAA), Ministry of Transport or the military. The department is responsible for policy, while the agency is responsible for the day to day regulations and operations.

4. Operation by a Government Corporation

This is the vertical separation of operations from regulatory functions, eliminating conflict of interest. The corporation reports to the department, but is semi-autonomous due to its corportised structure. Airport management by corporation is not uncommon, and was the system in Australia prior to privatisation, under the Federal Airports Corporation (FAC). Airport corporations may be wholly owned by the national government, others are jointly owned by federal and local governments, such as, The Schiphol Group, in The Netherlands.

5. Airport Authority

The term can be ambiguous, but here refers to the governance concept of a private sector corporation, which operates an airport that is not for profit, and as such has no shareholders. They have an independent board selection process which remains in place when there is a change of government, as opposed to the government corporation model, and they have financing that is independent of the government. This model is unique to Canada and was established in the hope airport development would be managed to best serve the region.

6. Private Corporation

This is when an airport is wholly owned, or leased, by a for-profit corporation, with ownership dispersed among a number of shareholders. Private corporations may own airports and facilities outright, or lease the airport on a long-term basis. Leasing usually means that the government still has residual responsibilities, should the corporation fail, and also has implications for land development as the corporation endeavours to capitalise on its investment, and maximise return in the timeframes of a lease.

2.8.4 Commercialisation and Commercial Development In the 1970s and 1980s airports and their management were viewed differently, and the commercial transformation of the airport industry began. The introduction of commercial objectives by airport operators, largely in response to airline deregulation, was considered an efficient way to maximise revenue, improve customer service and quality standards, while reducing risk and dependence on aeronautical revenue alone. Freathy & O’Connell (1999) acknowledge the traditional operational aspects of the airport were now being viewed in consideration of the commercial aspects:

• financial management;

• non aeronautical revenue generation; and

• airport marketing.

The commercial strategies of airports also began to be reflected in the composition of the airport executive. The traditional operational expertise of directors and senior managers was being replaced by a commercial skill set (Graham 2003).

Initially much of the commercialism was focussed on the airport terminal, providing an array of shopping facilities, and it ‘transformed these loss making entities into profitable customer orientated businesses’ (ibid. p 141). The most visible outcome of the commercialisation strategies of airports was the greater amounts of space allocated to retail and concessionaire facilities within terminal facilities. Later, as the potential of commercialisation was recognised there was an emphasis on full exploitation of the airport site and further diversification of business. It is this extension of commercial development, and site utilisation, which now may be recognised at most airports, yet seemingly accelerated under the corporate strategies of privatised airports in the past decade (Freathy & O’Connell 1999; Graham 2008). The privatisation and commercialisation strategies of the 1980s and 1990s gave the airports freedom to develop commercial potential and diversity of revenue, providing for a more business orientated approach, towards land development and property management.

In the United State, European Union and United Kingdom commercial strategies and a more competitive, deregulated, airline industry encouraged airports to start pricing tactics, promotional campaigns, and undertake market research to attract and retain a larger market share of commercial return. There was much data gathering to determine who the users are, what they spend, when and how to better capitalise on the provision of commercial opportunities. It was not long before revenue from commercial sources overtook that from aeronautical sources, the first recorded change occurring at Schiphol airport, in The Netherlands in 1984 (Wells & Young 2004).

2.8.4.1 Three sites of commercial development & four consumers Historically, passengers were the target market for commercialisation strategies, today there is a greater awareness of the ’other’ users of the airport. Here three key sites of commercial development and four key consumers are recognised (Stevens 2006) (Figure 7).

1. The travelling public, passengers;

2. The ‘meeters and greeters’, who drop off and collect the passengers;

3. The employees of the airport; and

4. The regional residents of the airport hinterland. It is possible to recognise three key areas in which commercial development primarily takes place:

1. The airport terminal airside, in departures;

2. The airport terminal landside, including external environs, such as car-parking; and

3. Landside, non-terminal away from the airport complex, yet within the grounds of the airport.

AIRPORT TERMINAL AIRSIDE: Travellers

AIRPORT TERMINAL LANDSIDE: Travellers, Meeters and Greeters, Employees

LANDSIDE NON TERMINAL: Travellers, Meeters and Greeters, Employees,

Figure 7 Commercial development and consumers on-airport (Stevens 2006)

Airport terminals have been commercialised almost universally. Traditionally, commercial services were provided to improve the comfort of the traveller including basic food and beverage services, common waiting areas, information kiosks and some retail and duty and tax free shops. Since the 1980s these facilities have become more specialised, and airport operators have embraced the commercialisation of many parts of the airport. The range of goods and services is now that of major shopping centres offering international brands and an array of local and traditionally national products. The international branding of products is important for the travelling consumer to be able to make price comparisons, and recognise that airport shopping is no more expensive, than elsewhere in the region or in their country of origin (Freathy & O’Connell 1998). Also typically on the airside, are a range of comfort services, such

as bars, lounge areas, email facilities, massages, and hotel facilities such as at Schiphol Airport, The Netherlands; and Abu Dhabi and Dubai in the United Arab Emirates.

Commercial opportunities on the landside of the terminal such as postal services, travel agents, booking tour facilities and money exchange are often acknowledged as value adding facilities which enhance the experience and overall impression of an airport and its region (Graham 2008). They may be considered as providing some service to the users of airports, in all their forms, rather than just opportunities to relieve the public of money. Landside car parking is also a major source of revenue for airports and its provision and even expansion is often pursued as commercial intent. Advertising represents a substantial and flexible non aeronautical revenue sources for airport operators, although its unplanned application or widespread use has the potential to aesthetically devalue the airport (Weake 1999).

Fernie (1995) examines emerging ‘out of town’ retail development such as factory outlet centres and airport retailing. He believes they will have only limited success, partially due to the political hostility to development that could potentially impact on the viability of urban centre retailing. He focuses much of his discussion of airport retailing on the airside traveller market, and recognises the potential for landside terminal expansion and poignantly quoted Chesterton (1993) in posing the question ‘at what stage do landside shops at an airport start attracting local people and divert retail expenditure’ (p 12). He argued that the strategy of the factory outlet locating out of town was because the retailer intends to provide the same urban centre fashion in a factory direct format offering ‘bargains’, which if located near the urban centre would be in direct competition with their own high end stores. He suggested that they would have limited potential constrained ‘by new conditions imposed on their design to prevent them from becoming full scale shopping malls’ (p 10) in direct competition to suburban centres.

In Australia, airport operators have embraced and combined both of these forms of out of town development as a strategic intent, providing for retail and commercial centres that are endeavouring to become the focus of local and regional spending. Furthermore, branding is occurring in a unique way, in that store types are being associated with airport locations. For example Direct Factory Outlets™ (DFO) are now a brand presence at many capital city airports on the Australian East coast including Brisbane, Canberra, Essendon, and Hobart (Freestone et al. 2006).

2.8.5 Airport Privatisation Today the ownership and management of airport lands and facilities is increasingly the responsibility of private companies, often on a leasehold or concessional basis. The structures of private ownership and administration vary globally, yet the common objective is the pursuit of economic return, for stakeholder benefit (Graham 2003; Humphrey 1999).

Humphrey (1999) defines privatisation as ‘the transfer by governments, to private investors, of the assets of publicly owned enterprises so that the new entity gains a legal status that enables it to act as a private company’ (p 121). He also outlines the aims of privatisation

• To improve efficiency;

• Reduce government involvement in industry;

• Reduce subsidies to the public sector;

• Reduce the financial burden on government;

• Provide access to private investment;

• Widen share ownership;

• Gain political advantage; and

• Introduce commercially focussed management (p 122). The mid 1980’s saw a change to the operation of, and policy towards airports. Tretheway (2001) believes that at this time governments faced enormous pressure from tax payers to control deficits, and prioritise spending. Government funding for airports was out of favour and they were considered a mature industry with little development potential. The perceived drain on public resources motivated many national governments to undertake a variety of strategies to minimise loss and in fact seek a return on decades of unfulfilled investment. The United Kingdom (UK) was the first country to adopt new policy towards airport ownership, publicly listing its federal airport system in 1987.

2.8.5.1 United Kingdom Privatisation The first steps towards the privatisation of airports were significant and undertaken as part of economic rationalisation strategies of the Thatcher government in the United Kingdom in the mid 1980s. The 1985 Airports White Paper outlined the policy objectives of the government (Graham 2003):

• To encourage enterprise and efficiency in the operation of major airports by providing for the introduction of private capital; and

• Air transport facilities should not in general be subsidised by the taxpayer or the ratepayer. Airports, whoever their owners, should normally operate as commercial undertakings.

These policies were enacted through the 1986 Airports Act. This Act is considered the beginning of airport privatisation, and was significant in its scale and completeness of the process (Graham 2003). The Act transferred the government owned corportised British Airports Authority (BAA) into a private company, publicly floated on the stock exchange. The seven airports comprising BAA: Heathrow, Gatwick, Stanstead, Prestwick, Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow, were set up as company subsidiaries of BAA. The second part of the Act required that airports with a turnover of more than £1 million in two of the previous three years become companies, although the shares of these airport companies were to be held by the local authority. This ownership structure gave the local authorities the right to sell all or part of their shares to private companies. The Act also gave airport management the power to set airport charges, but these were to be regulated and administered by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), ensuring the commercialisation and possible privatisation of these airports was acceptable to the airlines (Humphreys 1999; Graham 2003). The Act has led to three types of airport ownership structures in the UK:

1. Fully owned by a private company;

2. Commercialised company, part owned by private interest, and part owned by the local authorities; and

3. Commercialised company owned by local authorities alone.

2.8.5.2 Models of Privatisation There are a variety of privatisation models, and the application of a particular one will depend on the strategic objectives of the government seeking privatisation. Graham (2003) identifies 5 models of privatisation:

1. Share Flotation: An airport company’s share capital is issued and traded on the stock market. This may range from a float of 100%, such as the BAA float in 1987, to a partial float. Share floatation transfers effective control to the new shareholders and with it economic risk. Airports will need a track record of profit making to attract suitable investment, and to

qualify for stock market floatation. The new airport operators will also have to endure daily scrutiny of their financial performance, reflected in its share price.

2. Trade Sale: This involves the sale of some, or the entire of the airport, to a trade partner or consortium of partners. Trade sales have to date, involved strategic partnerships, ensuring technical expertise as well as finance. Graham (2003) categorises airports transferred on long term leases as also falling into this category as ‘effectively all control will be transferred from the publicly owned airport to the trade partner’ (p 21). This is the case in the privatisation of Australian airports.

3. Concession: An airport company or consortium will purchase a concession or lease to operate the airport for a defined period of time (Graham 2003). The contract is generally only 20 - 30 years and will involve an initial payment, followed by annual payments or a guaranteed level of investment, over the life of the contract. This arrangement hands over full control, both economic and management to the airport company for a fixed period,

allowing the government greater control than an outright sale of a long-term lease.

4. Project Finance: A company will build or redevelop, usually a specific airport facility, operate it for a period of time, and then return it to the government owner (Tretheway 2001). This method of privatisation may also be recognised as Build Operate and Transfer (BOT). Graham (2003) recognises a number of variations to the BOT concept: Build Transfer (BT), Build Rent Transfer (BRT), Design, Construct, Manage and Finance (DCMF) and Build, Own, Operate, Transfer (BOOT).

5. Management Contract: The management contract offers a model of privatisation where ownership remains with the government, and airport companies take the responsibility for the day to day running of the operation. Investment will normally be the responsibility of the government owner, and the contractor will pay an annual management fee, related to the airport performance (Graham 2003).

Tretheway (2001) highlights some specific airport ownership/operational models currently in use today which are unique in their application:

o Canada: Private not for profit airport authorities leasing land on a long term basis from the federal government.

o Australia: Pure private sector (for profit) operation, but with a long term lease of land from the federal government.

o Chile: Pure private sector (for profit) operation of Santiago’s international terminal via a medium term ground lease. Federal operation of the airfield and domestic terminal.

o Germany & New Zealand: private sector (for profit) operation and ownership of the airport but with local governments as minority investors and no federal government investment.

o New Zealand has a unique situation in that its airport legislation does not require continued operation as airports. Technically, an airport company could convert the land and buildings, to other uses.

2.8.5.3 The Next Step: Global Airport Operators Companies like Schiphol Group, British Airports Authority and Macquarie Airports Group have substantial interests in several international airports, including Australia, in partnership with national companies, and /or local and municipal governments. These companies represent the unique opportunity to move from an airport manager to the ownership, operation or management of a global system of airports. The global branding and planning of facilities may be seen to have advantages for the development of strategic airport cities and global hub locations.

Traditionally some of the benefits of a company embracing global operations is the spread of risk, and the commercialisation of systems of operation elsewhere. This objective of globalisation is diminished in airport ownership because the corporation is operating in a variety of regulatory environments; legislation in one country will almost certainly not be the same in another. The airport industry is also unique in its fundamental political nature, and the fact that it is easily impacted by changes in government policy and the addition or changes to, legislation and regulation (Carney & Mew 2003).

2.8.6 Land Use and Compatibility Compatibility and land use are crucial to the discussion of airport and regional planning. There is a need to match the objectives of the airport operator; the municipal government and importantly the community, by acknowledging that the future growth and prosperity of each is a result of the other (Schalk & Ward 2010).

Within the literature (AOPA 1999; DoT 2002; Schalk & Ward 2010; WSDOT 1999) compatible land uses are considered to be:

• Most commercial industrial uses, particularly those associated with the air transport industry;

• Land use, where the airport creates the demand; motels, warehouses, logistics firms, and any aviation support industry; and

• Open space utilisation through parks, golf courses, plant nurseries, forestry and agriculture.

Incompatible land uses are primarily associated with residential and community development, which may be adversely impacted by an airports operation, and the construction of structures which may impact the operation of the airport, such as high-rise development or tall communications infrastructure. Historically any development which encouraged the gathering of people, such as convention centres, educational facilities, and commercial office space, has also been deemed incompatible, although in consideration of modern building specifications, this is increasingly not the case.

Compatible or even appropriate development at airports is intended to result from the establishment of cooperative and compatible land use plans. In the United States comprehensive stakeholder agreed documents may include (AOPA 1999; DoT 2002):

• The zoning of compatible uses through land designation in town planning documents, which recognise airport regions are suitable for particular land uses. These zonings should have regard to the protection of critical approach and departure corridors within the region, as a direct reflection of current and forecast airport noise overlays. Zoning must also include restrictions to building height and density, preserving areas for future aeronautical requirements.

• Building codes to establish noise performance requirements for the interior noise levels of both new and existing structures on and near airports.

• Disclosure of airport location and potential noise impacts by aircraft traffic patterns by real estate agents and developers.

• In the United States some governments allow the airport to purchase ‘avigation’ easements or development rights to property prior to general sale or from a property owner. This in effect allows the airport to produce noise over the property, and /or give them the right to ensure compatible development of the land, leaving the property owner with all other rights.

2.9 REFERENCES8

Adam, P. (1993) Sydney Airport third runway and environmental assessment issues. -A collection of articles from a joint Coast and Wetlands Society (NSW) and Australian Institute of Biology (NSW Branch) Australian Biologist,6(4), pp. 161-197.

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) (1999) Guide to Airport Noise and Compatible Land Use. http://www.aopa.org/asn/land_use/ (Accessed 25/10/2006).

Airports Council International (ACI) – Europe & York Consulting. (2004) The social and economic impact of airports in Europe. January.

Airports Council International. (ACI) 2007. Global Traffic Forecast 2006 – 2025. ACI Traffic Forecast Advisory Services. ttp://www.airports.org/aci/aci/file/Press%20Releases/2007_PRs/ACI_Forecast_Executive_Su mmary.pdf (Accessed 12/01/07)

Arthur, WE. (1927) Airports and Landing Fields. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,131, pp. 56-67.

Air Transport Action Group. (ATAG) (2005) The Economic & Social Benefits of Air Transport. Air Transport Action Group. Available at http://www.atag.org/files/Soceconomic-121116A.pdf Accessed 21/04/06.

Australia Bureau of Transport Economics (ABTE) (1975) Brisbane airport: economic evaluation of alternative development strategies. Australian Government. Canberra: ACT.

Australian Government. (2009) National Aviation Policy White Paper: Flight Path to the Future. Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (DITRDLG), Australia.

Australian Government. (2012a) Master Plan Amendments – Guidelines, Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (DITRDLG), January 2012. (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/airport/planning/files/Master_Plan_Amendment_ Guidelines_2012.pdf)

Australian Government. (2012b) Managing the Carbon Footprint of Australian Aviation, Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (DITRDLG), November 2012.

8 This reference list is as it appears in the contributing publication. References for the ‘additional contextual literature’ are included in the reference list at the end of this thesis.

(http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/environmental/emissions/files/Australias_ Action_Plan_on_Aviation_Emissions.pdf)

Australian Government. (2012c) Clean Energy Future, Carbon Price, Government Website, http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/500-companies/ (accessed 4th December 2012) Freestone, R. (2009) Planning, Sustainability and Air-Led Urban Development, International Planning Studies, 14 (2): 161 – 176.

Bieger, T. & Wittmer, A. (2006) Air transport and tourism - Perspectives and challenges for destinations, airlines and governments, Journal of Air Transport Management, 12(1), pp. 40-46.

Blanton, W. (2004) On the Airfront, Planning, 70(5), pp. 34-36.

Brown, A. and Sherrard, H. (1951) Town and Country Planning, (Carlton: Melbourne University Press).

Button, K. (2003) The potential of meta-analysis and value transfers as part of airport environmental appraisal, Journal of Air Transport Management, 9, pp. 167-176.

Button, K. & Taylor, S. (2000) International air transportation and economic development, Journal of Air Transport Management, 6, pp. 209-222.

Carlton, A. R. (1978) MANS environment: environmental work of the Major Airport Needs of Sydney Study, Environmental Engineering Conference Sydney 12-14 July 1978: preprints of papers. Barton, A.C.T: Institution of Engineers, pp. 68-72 Australia.

Carney, M. & Mew, K. (2003) Airport governance reform: a strategic management perspective, Journal of Air Transport Management, 9, pp. 221-232.

Charles, P. & Ferreira, L. (2006) Costs of Major Traffic Incidents: Stage 1 report, Prepared for Department of Main Roads, Brisbane, (unpublished).

Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) – United States. (1952) Airport Planning. Washington.

Cochrane, R. (1947) The design and construction of aerodrome pavements,. 51pgs. Department of Works and Housing, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Coles, L. (1929) Design of an Airport - Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science, Michigan.

Davidson, KB; Martin, GC & Morton, AJ. (1969) A traffic prediction model for Brisbane airport, Australian Road Research: 3(10), pp. 24-35, Australian Road Research Board (ARRB), Australia. de Neufville, R. & Odoni, A . (2003) Airport Systems: Planning, Design and Management (New York: McGraw-Hill).

Deaves, S. R. (1986) New Brisbane Airport: environmental aspects and planning. Proceedings of a Short Course on Geological and Environmental Aspects of Coastal Management Programs Held at QIT - Queensland Institute of Technology, Brisbane, Feb 1985, pp. 164-169.

Debbage, K.G. & Delk, D. (2001) The geography of air passenger volume and local employment patterns by US metropolitan core area: 1973 – 1996, Journal of Air Transport Management. 7(3), pp. 159 - 167.

Department of Transport. (DoT) (2002) State of California - Division of Aeronautics, California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, January. (accessed 27/06/2006) http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/planning/aeronaut/htmlfile/landuse.php

Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS) (2006) BTRE Aviation Statistics, http://www.btre.gov.au/statistics/aviation.aspx. (Accessed 27/06/2006) Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS) (2005) Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics, Australian Transport Statistics, June. http://www.btre.gov.au/statistics/general/trnstats05/ATS05.pdf (accessed 27/06/2006)

Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., Spurr, R., & Hoque, S. (2012) Economic Impacts of a Carbon Tax on the Australian Tourism Industry, Journal of Travel Research, Published online before print October 8, 2012, doi: 10.1177/0047287512461568.

Federal Court of Australia (FCA) (2005) Westfield Management Ltd v Brisbane Airport Corporation Ltd. [2005] FCA 32.

Ferreira, L., Stevens, N. & Baker, D. (2006) The New Airport and its Urban Region: Evaluating Transport Linkages, In Proceedings International Conference of Transport and Traffic Studies submitted & accepted for publication, X’ian, China.

Fitzgerald, P. (1999) Sydney airport's third runway: A case study of flawed EIS processes, Urban Policy and Research, 17(2) pp. 123-130.

Fitzgerald, P. (1998). The Sydney Airport Fiasco, (Sydney: Hale and Iremonger).

Finavia (2004) Civil Aviation Administration, Annual Report, Finnish CAA.

Forsyth, P. (1997) Price Regulation of Airports: Principles with Australian Applications, Journal of Transport Research - E. 33(4), pp. 297-309.

Friend, JK. (1958) Two Studies in Airport Congestion OR, – JSTOR 9(3) 234-253.

Freathy, P. & O’Connell, F. (1999) Planning for Profit: the Commercialisation of European Airports. Long Range Planning. 32(6), pp. 587-597.

Freestone, R., Williams, P. & Bowden, A. (2006). Fly Buy Cities: Some planning aspects of airport privatisation in Australia, Urban Policy and Research, 24(4), pp. 491-508.

Froesch, C & Prokosch, W. (1946) Airports - Design and construction (New York: Wiley).

Graham, A. (2003) Managing Airports, 2nd Ed, (Oxford: Elsevier).

Graham, B. (1999). The Geography of Air Transport in Australasia: a Global Perspective, Australian Geographical Studies, 37(2), pp. 105-113.

Graham, S. & Marvin, S. (2001) Splintering urbanism: networked infrastructure, technological mobilities and the urban condition, (London: Routledge).

Greenblat, E. (2003). Factory outlet feud leaves airports up in the air. Age. June 25. Melbourne. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/06/24/1056449242470.html

Haggett, P. (1979) Geography: A modern synthesis, (New York: Harper and Row).

Harris, C.D. & Ullman, E.L. (1945) The Nature of Cities, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, v. 242, Building the Future City, pp. 7-17

Harrison, E. (1914) Military tuition in aviation. Commonwealth Military Journal/Australian Military Journal, v.5 April pp.292-294.

Harvey, WB. (1958) Landowners' Rights in the Air Age: The Airport Dilemma - Michigan Law Review, 56(8) pp. 1313 -1332 – JSTOR

Holsman, A. J & Aleksandric, Vladimir. (1977) Aircraft noise and the residential land market in Sydney, Australian Geographer, v.13 Nov, pp. 401-408.

Hooper, P., Cain, R. & White, S. (2000) The privatisation of Australia’s airports, Transportation Research, Part E: 36, pp. 181-204.

Humphreys, I. (1999) Privatisation and commercialisation changes in UK airport ownership patterns. Journal of Transport Geography. (7), pp. 121-134.

Kasarda, JD. & J. D. Green (2005) Air cargo as an economic development engine: A note on opportunities and constraints, Journal of Air Transport Management, 11, pp. 459-462.

Kasarda, JD. (2001) From Airport City to Aerotropolis, Airport World. 6, pp. 42-47.

Kasarda, JD. (2000) Logistics & the rise of aerotropolis, Real Estate Issues 25(4), pp. 43

Kasarda, JD. (1996) Airport-related industrial development, Urban Land, pp. 54-55.

Kasarda, JD. (1991a) An industrial/aviation complex for the future, Urban Land pp.16-20.

Kasarda, JD. (1991b) The fifth wave: the air cargo-industrial complex, Portfolio: A Quarterly Review of Trade and Transportation, 4(1) pp. 2-10.

Kissling, C. (1998) Beyond the Australasian Single Aviation Market. Australian Geographical Studies. 36(2), pp. 170-176.

Korul, V. (2005) Guide to the implementation of ISO 14001 at airports. Journal of Air Transportation, 10(2), pp. 49-68.

Kunkel, J. (1990) Freeing airline deregulation from government turbulence, Commercial Issues, (4), Spring 1990, pp. 7-10.

Lagadec, P. (2004). Crisis: A watershed from local, specific turbulences, to global inconceivable crises in unstable and torn environments. Future Crises, Future Agendas: An Assessment of International Crisis Research International Workshop, November 24-26, Nice, France.

Legault, AR. (1960) Highway and airport engineering, Englewood Cliffs, (N.J: Prentice-Hall).

Lambert, CR. (1953) Transport needs - northern Australia. 38pgs. Department of Transport, Canberra: ACT, Australia.

Lammerts, D. (1996) Environment management within the Federal Airports Corporation (Australia).International Conference on Environmental Management at Airports: Liabilities and Social Responsibilities. (1995: Manchester Airport), Environmental Management at Airports (1996), pp. 226- 244.

Loxton, HT. (1950) The design and construction of aerodrome pavements; The design and construction of aerodromes, 43pgs. Department of Works and Housing, Canberra, ACT, Australia.

Lucas, A. (1982). Influence of Adelaide Airport and associated jet aircraft noise on surrounding residential property values. Valuer, v.27 July 1982: 247-251.

May, M. & Hill, S. (2006) Questioning airport expansion – A case study of Canberra International Airport, Journal of Transport Geography, 14, pp.437-450.

Mayer, H. (1945) Moving People and Goods in Tomorrow's Cities - The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, v.242, pp. 116-128.

Metropolis International Congress (MIC), 6th (1999) Final Report. Commission 1: Airports and their Surrounding Zones as Catalysts of Metropolitan Development. Barcelona. http://www.metropolis.org/index.php?action=mostrar_contenido&id_seccion=70&template=in terior

Mills, G. (1995) Airports: users don't pay enough: and now here's privatisation, Economic Papers (Sydney), 14(1) Mar 1995, pp. 73-84.

Moffat, DW. (1968) Critical path method in developmental works at Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport (Australia Department of Works): Australian Road Research Board (ARRB) Conference, 4th, Proceedings, 4(1) pp. 425-35.

Pitcher, HE. (1943) The Design of a Municipal Airport. Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science.

Pope, HG. (1947) Terminal Airport Management, Public Administration Review, - JSTOR

Quiggin, J. (1997) Evaluating Airline Deregulation in Australia, The Australian Economic Review, 30(1), pp. 45-56

Quinlan, H. (1998). Air Services in Australia: Growth and Corporate Change, 1921 - 1996. Australian Geographical Studies, 36(2), pp. 156-169

Richard, LF. (1936) Airport Management (London: Pitman & Sons Ltd).

Rosendahl, CE. (1955) Aircraft noise problem in airport vicinities, SAE Technical Papers. Document Number: 550253.

Sanders, W. (1991) "The Viability of a Second Sydney Airport and Capacity of KSA: A critique of the FAC's 'Capacity Gap' Argument", Australian Planner, June, pp. 9-15.

Serebrisky, T. (2003) Market Power: Airports, Vertical Integration between Airports and Airlines, The World Bank Group, Private Sector and Infrastructure Network, March. Note Number 259.

Seymour, R. M. (1979) Re-development of Brisbane Airport, Australian Transport, v.21 Jan 1979, pp. 16- 20.

SGS Economics and Planning. (2003) Economic Impacts of Activity Centre Development at Canberra International Airport. (Prepared on behalf of the Chief Minister’s Department), ACT Government. August.

Spiller, M. (2006). Development on Airport Land, Australian Planner, 43(3) pp. 14-15.

Stevens, N. (2006) City Airports to Airport Cities, Queensland Planner, 46(1) pp. 37.

Sudjic, D. (1995) New landmarks for the modern city: how the airport became the agora, Urban Futures (Canberra), v.19 August 1995, pp. 57-63. Joint OECD/ Australian Government Conference, 'Cities and the New Global Economy' Melbourne.

Sulman, J. (1921) An Introduction to the Study of Town Planning in Australia, Sydney, NSW Government Printer.

Thorn, J. (1988) Airport congestion becoming a major problem around the world, Australian Aviation, (45) July/ Aug 1988, pp. 86-88.

Tourism Research Australia (TRA) (2005) Forecast: Tourism Forecasting Committee October 2005 Forecasts, Tourism Australia: Canberra

Tretheway, M. & Mak, D. (2006) Emerging tourism markets: Ageing and developing economies, Journal of Air Transport Management, 12(1) pp. 21-27.

Tretheway, M. (2001). Airport Ownership, Management and Price Regulation: Research conducted for the Canada Transportation Act Review. InterVISTAS Consulting Inc.

Truitt, L. & Esler, M. (1996) Airport Privatization: Full Divestiture and Its Alternatives, Policy Studies Journal, 24(1) pp. 100-110.

Upham, P. & Mills, J. (2005) Environmental and operational sustainability of airports: Core indicators and stakeholder communication, Benchmarking: An International Journal, 12(2) pp.166-179.

Uyeno, D., Hamilton, S.W., Biggs, A.J. (1993) Density of residential land use and the impact of airport noise, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, (27) pp. 3-18.

Vandebona, U. (1997) Airport location planning and environmental values, Australasian Transport Research Forum, Forum papers, v.21, pp. 281-292.

Washington State Department of Transportation. (WSDOT) (1999) Aviation Division. Airports and Compatible Land Use, February.

Wells, A. & Young, S. (2004) Airport Planning and Management, 5th Ed. (New York: McGraw- Hill).

Western Australian Government Gazette, (2004). (WAPC) -SPP 5.1 - Western Australian Planning Commission – Statement of Planning Policy No. 5.1 Land Use Planning in the Vicinity of Perth Airport. 24 February 2004.

Weston, E. (1972) Measurements of aircraft noise, Sydney Airport, Commonwealth Experimental Building Station (Australia).

Chapter 3: Airport city developments in Australia: land use classification and analyses

Table 9 Statement of Authorship

Contributor Statement of contribution Dr Arron Walker Acquisition of data Signature: Data analysis Development of the article structure Drafting of the manuscript Conception and design Critical revision for important intellectual content Copyediting - grammatical assistance, stylistic suggestions to outline or draft Mr Nicholas Stevens Acquisition of data Signature: Data analysis Development of the article structure Drafting of the manuscript Critical revision for important intellectual content Conception and design Copyediting - grammatical assistance, stylistic suggestions to outline or draft

Principal Supervisor confirmation: I have sighted email or other correspondence from all Co- authors confirming their certifying authorship.

April 24, 2012 Prof. Douglas Baker

Name Signature Date

Abstract

In recent years the Australian air transport industry has experienced unprecedented growth, driven by strong local and global economies. Whether this growth can continue in the face of anticipated oil crises and slowing international economic forecasts is yet to be seen. One thing is certain, airport owners and operators will continue to be faced with a challenging environment in which to do business. In response to these challenges, many airports are diversifying their revenue streams through landside property developments within the airport boundary. This phenomenon is recognised as the development of an ‘airport city’ and has the potential to ensure an airport’s operating future, by means of improving an airport’s profitability making it less susceptible to any downturns in the aviation industry.

Between 1997 and 2002 twenty-two of Australia’s major airports were privatised under a 99 year lease arrangement with the Australian federal government. These leases have given control of all airport development to the lessee, with negligible regard to the planning intent of hinterland municipalities (providing the development complies with the Airports Act 1996). It is evident that Australia’s airport city developments are in part focused on the provision of retail and commercial services for the surrounding population outside of any aeronautical function. It has been argued that these new developments have the capacity to impact the character and progress of local and municipal retail and commercial centres.

The primary purpose of this paper is to identify and categorise the on-airport development which has been occurring at the twenty-two Australian airports which are administered under the Airports Act 1996. The significance of this research is that it will quantify and compare the land area available for landside property development within these airports utilising a common nomenclature. This will allow for comparative analyses across airport type (Regular Passenger Transport (RPT), General Aviation (GA) and Pilot Training (PT)) in relation to the extent and range of development, in addition to allowing airport development intent to be reviewed in consideration of an airports passenger numbers and aircraft movements. This research will assist Australian and international airport and municipal planners in understanding the current extent and category of on-airport land use, allowing them to make better decisions when proposing development both within airport master plans and beyond the airport boundary in local town and municipal plans.

Keywords: Australia, airport city, on-airport development, land use classification

3.1 INTRODUCTION The term ’airport city’ has been used to describe the growth of aeronautical and non- aeronautical land developments occurring at modern airports worldwide. In its purist form an airport city is the strategic expansion of on-site industrial, commercial and retail services and facilities at an airport, with the intention of servicing both the travelling public and the regional customer (Conway 1993; Kasarda 1996; Stevens et al. 2007). 9

Whilst these ‘airport city’ models exist there is very little empirical research into this changing role of the modern airport. Airport corporations, as private companies in Australia, are embracing the concept as strategic intent inducing a range of airport and regional land use impacts and opportunities, yet without explicit acknowledgment of the wider urban system.

The following on-airport land use classification and analyses is part of a larger program of airport and regional research. However this preliminary investigation will begin to assist decision making by providing a national land use classification for airport development, and therein providing a means of comparative analysis and understanding across a range of airport contexts.

The paper is structured as follows: first, an overview of the current growth in the aviation industry in Australia is briefly covered; including a discussion of how airport ownership is structured in Australia. Secondly, we outline the method utilised to review the land use zoning at the Australian airports administered by the Airports Act 1996. This is followed by a discussion of the results for each airport investigated and the implications and intentions for future research.

3.2 BACKGROUND 3.2.1 Aviation growth in Australia In the 10 years from 1995 to 2005 passenger movements on domestic routes have increased in Australia by an annual average of 4.6%. Within the same time frame international passenger movements have increased by an annual average of 5.9%. Importantly in the three years from 2002 to 2005 domestic passenger movements have increased from 50 million to 68 million,

9 Two paragraphs following have been omitted as they again detail the aviapolis, aerotropolis and airfront.

representing an increase of 36%. Each day, well over 100,000 people fly from one Australian airport to another, and almost 50,000 more leave or enter the country by air (DOTARS 2005).

Over the past decade the five major capital city airports in Australia have had significant increases in passenger movement. Sydney, Perth, Brisbane, Adelaide and Melbourne have had a cumulative growth of 55%: in 1997 the total volume of domestic and regional passengers was 52.7 million passengers; by the end of 2006 this increased to 81.7 million people (DOTARS 2007). In addition it is easy to recognise the growing importance of airports as global gateways of low weight/high value and just on time trade. In 2003/04 while only 0.1% of Australia’s total international freight was carried by aircraft this equated to $AUD65.5 billion worth of freight – some 26.4% of the total value (DOTARS 2005). While this feature of the aviation industry provides obvious benefits to airport users, operators and providers, it also presents potential new revenue streams for local industries and state/municipal governments.

3.2.2 Airport ownership in Australia Since the end of World War II, there has been devolution of airport ownership both in Australia and internationally. In Australia, the Federal Airports Corporation (FAC) when formed in 1988 had responsibility for only seventeen airports. The FAC operated on commercial lines utilising the governance, management and incentive strategies of the private sector. The airports operated by the FAC were leased individually on 50-year terms with an option for a further 49 years, and were put to tender in a two phase process. The first phase, May 1997, involving the sale of Brisbane, Perth, and Melbourne airports; the second, March 1998, consisting of Adelaide, Parafield, Darwin, Alice Springs/Tenant Creek, Archerfield, Canberra, Coolangatta, Hobart, Jandakot, Launceston, Moorabbin and Townsville. Sydney’s Kingsford Smith airport was withheld from both phases of sales due to unresolved noise issues and the ongoing debate about the establishment of a second Sydney airport at Badgery’s Creek. In 1998 Sydney Airport Corporation, a state owned entity was established to run the airport, and when plans for the second airport were scrapped it would appear the airport would be privatised. Events of 2001 such as the World Trade Centre attacks and the collapse of the Australian domestic carrier Ansett, again delayed the sale of the airport until June 2002, when a consortium headed by Macquarie Airports Group bought it for $AUD5.6 billion, more than the combined total for all the other airports (Freestone et al. 2006).

The new operators of the airports are bound by the Airports Act 1996, in addition to Federal Government and international regulations that also control aviation. The objectives of the Airports Act 1996 are defined as follows:

• to promote the sound development of civil aviation in Australia;

• to establish a system for the regulation of airports that has due regard to the interest of airport users and the general community;

• to promote the efficiency and economic development and operation of airports;

• to facilitate the comparison of airport performance in a transparent manner;

• to ensure majority Australian ownership of airports;

• to limit the ownership of airports by airlines;

• to ensure diversity of ownership and control of certain major airports; and

• to implement international obligations to airports.

In addition, the Airports Act 1996 outlines the planning and development requirements for these airports through the use of airport master plans and major development plans.

3.2.3 Airport Planning under the Airports Act 1996 Two key features of the airport planning approvals process are master plans and major development plans. A master plan is a long-term land use plan for the whole of an airport site and deals with broader indicative intentions, rather than any detail on individual projects. The master plan is required, under the Airports Act 1996, to relate to a period of 20 years and it must be updated every five years (Freestone et al. 2006). The master plan is a strategic policy document setting out the airport’s agenda for current and future airport management and development. Section 71 of the Airports Act 1996 lists matters that must be included in a draft master plan for an airport, including the airport lessee company’s assessment of future needs of civil aviation and other users of the airport for services and facilities. Under section 79, before submitting a draft master plan to the Federal Minister of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (the Minister), the airport must undertake a formal 90-day public consultation process. Details of the public consultation undertaken, submissions received and details of consultation undertaken by the airport lessee company prior to the formal public consultation period must be included in the draft master plan lodged with the Minister (ibid).

Approval of a master plan does not represent approval to build any specific major development referred to in the master plan. Major development applications must be separately approved. A separate major development plan (MDP) is required for each development that is defined as ‘major’ by section 89 of the Airports Act 1996. This is an extensive definition, and includes development such as constructing a new runway or extending an existing one; constructing a new building wholly or principally for use as a passenger terminal where the building’s gross floor area is greater than 500m2; constructing a new building not used wholly or principally as a passenger terminal, whose construction cost exceeds $AUD20 million; and development of a kind that is likely to have a significant environmental or ecological impact (Hooper et al. 2000). The MDP is required to be released for public comment, be consistent with the intent of the master plan and include an environmental impact assessment.

Any development on airports is only governed under the Airports Act 1996, and as such master plans and MDP’s are submitted to the Federal Minister of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government for approval. That is, Australian airport lessee companies are not required to have due regard to local or state planning regulations. Section 112 of the Airports Act 1996 specifically excludes state laws from applying in relation to land use planning and building activities. It is this fact that has been the source of on-going airport and regional conflict regarding the expansion of retail and commercial development of airport land.

3.2.4 Diversification of airport revenue Airport privatisation was primarily an opportunity to unburden the nation from public sector funding of airport development. It has resulted in airport operators wanting highest returns on their investment, and they have been quick to outline expectations for the capitalisation of their land assets in the legislatively required master planning process. Airport corporations recognise that they cannot survive by landing planes, and need to diversify their commercial interests as means of ensuring profitability. For example, the average net profit margin for the 50 leading global airport groups in 2001 was 11%. The 50 major airlines were -4% in the same period (Graham 2003).

In many models of ‘airport city’ development (Kasarda 1991; Conway 1993; Blanton 2004) landside developments are more often a product of the function of the airport, seeking to internalise the development to assist and encourage the exploitation of the airport and its aeronautical function. This is generally not the case in the Australian context, where the land

side developments are looking externally, beyond the airport perimeter for customers, drawing in a regional catchment of new consumers at the airport.

In Australia, the development of business and technology parks and retail complexes is a preferred commercial strategy at airports where suitable land assets exist, and where landside access infrastructure will allow such development. Although it may be recognised that even without accounting for accessibility, a growing number of regionally focussed airport retail districts are gaining popularity at Australian airports (SGS 2003). It has been argued that this type of on-airport expansion has the potential to impact on the viability of urban centre retailing through the diversion of expenditure, often away from city planned and intended centres of employment and commerce (FCA 2005). Such development is typified by the provision of hardware stores and ‘direct factory outlets’ or a range of retail, clothing, electronics, and speciality stores which one would expect to find within regional centres. Some airports are also developing supermarkets, and taverns (hotels), significantly away from, and with limited access to, the aviation function of the airport. A different set of airport and regional operating environments are created when airports draw on regional catchments of the non-travelling public to generate an increasing proportion of commercial revenue. These regional commercial strategies are recognised as having the potential to imperil airport access as transport connections are increasingly congested with retail and commercial traffic (MIC 1999; SGS 2003). In Australia, an improved understanding of current and intended on-airport land use is necessary if airport and municipal planners are to advance cooperative and compatible development.

3.3 LAND USE ANALYSIS: METHODS AND MATERIALS This section will discuss the rationale of selecting the airports in the study group, and the process utilised to produce the airport land use zoning maps and subsequent spatial analysis.

3.3.1 Airport study group Twenty-two Australian airports are administered under the Airports Act 1996; of these twenty must comply with part 5 of the Airports Act 1996 and produce a master plan which includes land use zoning information. These airports have been deemed significant to the nation and were chosen as the airports of interest for this paper (Figure 1). All of these airports operate under a leased ownership arrangement. This research will indicate if the private companies that leased

these airports have indeed engaged or are intending to engage in property development and to what extent. The airports included in the study are listed in Table 1. Three types of airports were identified in the study group; Regular Passenger Transport (RPT), General Aviation (GA) and Pilot Training (PT) airports. Unfortunately passenger and freight data was not available for all airports listed, however aircraft movement data was available for the entire study group. Table 1 also displays the airport property area in hectares and lists the airport owner information.

Figure 1: Study group within Australia

Table 1: Airport study group

Airport Code Type Passenger Aircraft Freight Airport Owner movements movements movements Property 2006- 2007 2006 - 2007 2006- 2007 Area (tonnes) (hectares) Adelaide ADL RPT 6,181,390 103,028 18,668 785 Adelaide Airport Ltd Alice Northern Territory ASP GA 624,326 22,692 NA 3550 Springs Airports Pty Ltd Archerfield Airport Archerfield YBAF GA & PT NA 119,644 NA 259 Corporation Pty Ltd Bankstown Airport Bankstown BWU GA & PT NA 329,550 NA 313 Limited Brisbane Airport Brisbane BNE RPT 17,379,809 169,296 88,575 2700 Corporation Camden CDU GA & PT NA 10,190 NA 194 Camden Airport Limited Capital Airport Group Pty Canberra CBR RPT 2,687,336 78,484 NA 436 Ltd

Coolangatt Queensland Airports Pty OOL RPT 3,777,856 68,416 2 365 a Ltd Northern Territory Darwin DRW RPT 1,403,685 87,632 327 1540 Airports Pty Ltd Essendon MEB GA & PT 6,883 56,784 NA 305 Essendon Airport Pty Ltd Hobart International Hobart HBA RPT 1,629,417 29,978 NA 499 Airport Pty Ltd Hoxton Hoxton Park Airport YHOX GA NA 40,000 NA 87 Park Limited Jandakot Airport Holdings Jandakot JAD GA & PT NA 387,722 NA 622 Pty Ltd Launcesto Australia Pacific Airports LST GA & PT 995,664 20,322 NA 180 n Corporation Australia Pacific Airports Melbourne MEL RPT 22,156,871 180,814 203,505 2647 Corporation Moorabbin Airport Moorabbin MBW GA & PT 8,676 276,146 NA 294 Corporation Parafield ADZ GA & PT NA 227,910 NA 437 Parafield Airport Ltd Westralia Airports Perth PER RPT 7,977,091 103,976 64,786 2105 Corporation Pty Ltd Sydney SYD RPT 31,016,186 286,342 369,956 905 Macquarie Airports Group Queensland Airports Pty Townsville TSV RPT 1,271,649 60,612 NA 937 Ltd

3.3.2 Spatial analysis process utilised to create land use zoning maps The land use zoning information was obtained from twenty airport master plans submitted to the Australian government as required by the Airports Act 1996. These documents are freely available on the Internet at each airport’s respective website. Unfortunately the land use zoning information could only be obtained as raster images without any geo-referencing information. Consequently, the first step was to geo-reference the land use zoning information in a geographic information system (GIS). Once geo-referenced the raster images were converted into polygon feature classes. This was achieved by manually digitising each of the land use zones to create separate polygons in the feature class. The attributes for each polygon contained the original land use zone information obtained from the master plan image. The use of a manual digitising process was feasible as the number of airports in the study group was small.

3.3.3 Re-classification of land use zoning Whilst the Airports Act 1996 seeks to ensure a common planning language between airport master plans and their municipal regions, no such land use zoning nomenclature exists nationally. It was therefore necessary to re-classify the inconsistent airport master plan zoning into a common set of zoning categories. Without such a re-classification the comparison of the

respective land use zones would be impossible. The descriptions of the re-classified zoning categories are shown in Table 2, whilst the colour representations are depicted in Figure 3.

Table 2: Zoning Categories

Figure 2 Land use zoning legend

The final step of the process was to calculate the percentage of total area for each zoning category. The polygon feature class used automatically calculates polygon areas as they are digitised. A simple GIS attribute query was written to calculate the percentages from this information. The resulting percentages are shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Land use zoning percentages

Land Use

σ )

Zoning

(

ADL ASP YBAF BWU BNE CDU CBR OOL DRW MEB HBA YHOX JAD LST MEL MBW ADZ PER SYD TSV Average Standard Dev Residential 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.55 2.4

Commercial 17 4 0 16 20 5 18 18 4 23 0 0 25 2 7 7 15 3 3 0 9.35 8.4

Commercial 13 0 37 35 25 2 37 0 0 16 34 13 0 0 10 52 8 30 8 7 16.35 15.6 and Industrial Industrial 0 4 6 0 0 0 0 11 1 0 0 0 0 5 7 0 17 0 3 0 2.7 4.5

Landside 30 19 43 51 45 7 55 29 5 39 34 13 25 7 24 59 40 33 14 7 28.95 16.5 Development subtotal Open Space 13 65 2 4 2 25 0 25 3 0 20 27 37 0 21 0 9 14 4 0 13.55 16.2 and Conservatio n RAAF Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 8.45 25.4

Airport 57 16 55 45 53 68 45 46 14 61 46 60 38 93 55 41 51 53 82 2 49.05 20.7 Airside (incl. terminal and aviation spt)

3.4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This section presents the results of the spatial analysis of the land use zoning data. First the overall group result will be discussed and subsequently each airport in the study group will be presented and discussed in turn. The total land use zoning percentages for each airport are summarised in Table 3. The landside development subtotal is the sum of all residential, commercial and industrial development and is shown as the italicised values (shaded row) in Table 3. This subtotal is significant as it represents the proportion of land zoned for on-airport property development (i.e., aeronautical or non- aeronautical). The land use zoning maps for all airports are shown in Figures 6 to 25. All these maps are presented using a common scale (1:40,000) in order to show the relative airport property sizes. The average percentages for the land use zoning categories for the study area (the right-hand column in Table 3) are shown as pie chart in Figure 4. On average, 50% of the airport is utilised for airside activities, 8% for Defence uses, 13% for open spaces and 29% for landside development activities. In addition the

standard deviation was calculated for each zoning category, so as the measure of dispersion could be calculated and discussed for each airport (Table3).

In an attempt to discover relationships between landside development and airport area a scatter plot was produced to compare these two variables. Figure 5 shows the resulting scatter plot. Alice Springs Airport (ASP) (having the largest area) can be seen at the far right and Moorabbin Airport (MBW) is shown in the top left with the largest landside development percentage. From this figure it is apparent that no strong relationship exists between airport area and landside development percentage. For example, BNE and YBAF have very similar proportions of landside development but totally different airport areas. A similar method was used to evaluate landside development percentage against both the number of passengers and aircraft movements at each airport. From these investigations, no clear correlation between variables became apparent.

This result although disappointing was not unexpected. The urban environment has many complex variables and factors which govern the space in which development can and will occur. Therefore it is naïve to think that only variables on airport property would have an effect on landside development zoning. It is highly probably that there is a combination of airport and surrounding urban development factors that are contributing to the proportion of landside development zoning and the discovery of these factors is intended for future research.

Residential Commercial 1% 9%

Commercial and Industrial 16% Airport Airside (incl. terminal and aviation spt) 50% Industrial 3%

Open Space or Conservation 13% RAAF Base 8%

Figure 4: Land use zoning percentages Figure 5: Landside development vs. airport area

In the following analysis of the study group particular aspects of each airports development will be presented in turn. The paper will discuss the comparative percentages of landside development (shaded row Table 3) in addition to presenting the number of standard deviations

this figure represents from the mean. The standard deviation is a measure of the dispersion of the values. It is defined as the root-mean square (RMS) deviation of the values from their mean. If many data points are close to the mean, then the standard deviation is small; if many data points are far from the mean, then the standard deviation is large. If all data values are equal, then the standard deviation is zero.

This analysis will offer an indication of an airport’s development in consideration of the group providing a better suggestion of how the airports actual and intended on-airport development fits within the national profile. This information may be considered useful when evaluating the scope and scale of on-airport development between the different types of airports in the study group; Regular Passenger Transport (RPT), General Aviation (GA) and Pilot Training (PT) airports. Further detailed analyses may be undertaken utilising this method, however for the purposes of this paper only landside development has presented.

3.4.1 Adelaide Airport (ADL) - RPT Adelaide Airport has 30% of its available land zoned for landside development and 57% for airside development (Table 3). The land zoned for landside development represents an x value of 0.063 away from the standard deviation of 16.5, indicating a value very close to the mean for the study group. The airside development x value of 0.38, away from the standard deviation indicates an airside area marginally above the mean for the group. The landside proportion is consistent with the group and shows the extent to which Adelaide Airport intends to pursue its commercial development strategy. The land use zoning for ADL is shown in Figure 6 and the development within these areas is well established. Adelaide Airport has opened two major retail facilities in recent years, a Harbour Town factory outlets centre and an IKEA store, in addition to completing a major upgrade of its terminal facilities that has incorporated an expanded airside retail area occupying around 3400sqm. Adelaide Airport is currently working on expanding the Harbour Town complex, adding a further 18 brand outlets, and a supermarket to serve surrounding residents and airport employees. The proposed extension would add an estimated 4000sqm of brand outlet floor space and 3900sqm of supermarket floor space with construction expected to be complete in late 2008.

Figure 6: Land use zoning Adelaide Airport (ADL)

3.4.2 Alice Springs Airport (ASP) - GA Alice Springs Airport is the largest in Australia in terms of land area with approximately 3,550 hectares as shown in Figure 7 and Table 1. In establishing the original airport site, a large area of land within the boundary was set aside to ensure dust suppression and therein operational safety. Consequently a large part of Alice Springs Airport is unsuitable for development. Longer- term development will be restricted to the north side of the runway, whilst land to the south continues to provide dust suppression. Within the available area, Alice Springs Airport has zoned 19% for landside development as shown in Table 3. This represents an x value of -0.60 away from the standard deviation, indicating that the airports landside proportion is below average for the study group but given the environmental constraints low demand for development it is still significant. Alice Springs is the only airport in the study group to have zoned an area for residential development. In fact 11% has been zoned residential to the north of the property, which is a very significant x value of 4.16 standard deviations from the mean. This unique strategy has not result in any residential development being constructed at this stage.

Figure 7: Land use zoning Alice Springs Airport (ASP)

3.4.3 Archerfield Airport (YBAF) – GA/PT Archerfield Airport is situated in one of Brisbane’s fastest growing industrial areas and as a result has zoned 43% of its available land to landside development (See Table 3). This proportion of land represents an x value of 0.85 standard deviations above the mean, and whilst not the largest value of the group is consistent with the land side development intentions of mixed General Aviation (GA)/ Pilot Training (PT) airports. There is over 75 hectares of undeveloped land on the Airport that is intended to be developed for aeronautical and non- aeronautical purposes as shown in Figure 8. Archerfield Airport’s master plan states that this area is intended for commercial and industrial development and will be progressively developed to underpin the viability of the airport (AAC 2005).

Figure 8: Land use zoning Archerfield Airport (YBAF)

3.4.4 Bankstown Airport (BWU) – GA/PT Bankstown Airport is very similar to Archerfield Airport both in size and in their development philosophy, however with significantly more aircraft movements. Bankstown Airport consists of 313 hectares of land and is approximately 30 minutes drive to Sydney’s Kingsford Smith Airport, Sydney CBD and Port Botany via the M5 Motorway. The proportion of landside development is above average at 51%, representing a significant x value of 1.34 standard deviations from the mean. The land use zoning and master plan intention is for a wide variety of uses from light industrial activities to manufacturing and logistics and is shown in Figure 9. Three separate precincts are planned providing dedicated employment land, industrial facilities and business space. The northern precinct is currently home to the majority of Bankstown Airport’s tenants.

Figure 9: Land use zoning Bankstown Airport (BWU)

3.4.5 Brisbane Airport (BNE) - RPT Brisbane Airport has the second largest airport property size in Australia (2700 hectares) as shown in Figure 10. The land use zonings for Brisbane Airport are shown in Figure 10. From Table 3, it can be seen that landside development has the potential to occupy 45% of the total airport area, representing an x value of 0.97 standard deviations from the mean, placing it within the group of airports with the largest areas designated for landside development. Brisbane airport is well advanced with regard to its on-airport development, including retail facilities such as the Direct Factory Outlet and Woolworths supermarket. Brisbane Airport Corporation Limited acquired Brisbane Airport in 1997. Its vision is to turn a city airport into an ‘airport city’ consisting of seven integrated precincts that together will provide a 1000 hectare, 24 hour global trade and commerce centre, attracting business, jobs and prosperity to Queensland (BAC 2005). In 2008 approximately 320 businesses and nearly 16,000 people work on Brisbane Airport every day. This is forecast to increase to 42,500 people by 2023.

Figure 10: Land use zoning Brisbane Airport (BNE)

3.4.6 Camden Airport (CDU) - GA Camden is a small GA airport of 194 hectares as shown in Table 1. The land use zonings for Camden Airport are shown in Figure 11. From this image it may be see that Camden Airport is surrounded on three sides by a river which limits its potential for landside development. Consequently Camden Airport’s proportion of landside development is low at only 7%, representing an x value of -1.33 standard deviations below the mean. This is a significant value, when considering the general landside development intentions, and x values of other GA and PT airports. The existing businesses at Camden Airport are few and mainly related to supporting general aviation at the airport.

Figure 11: Land use zoning Camden Airport (CDU)

3.4.7 Canberra Airport (CBR) - RPT The land use zoning categorisations for Canberra Airport are shown in Figure 12. At 55%, Canberra Airport has the second largest proportion zoned for landside development, representing a significant x value of 1.58 standard deviations above the mean. Canberra airport has divided the airport into four major precincts: South East, South West, North East, and North West. The terminal facilities and Brindabella Business Park are located within the South West precinct. Since the change of ownership in 1998 Canberra Airport has undergone significant rebuilding of the airport’s infrastructure with an $AUD250 million terminal upgrade and runway extension, together with the simultaneous construction of the Brindabella Business Park, including 20,000sqm of new office space. The number of airport businesses has grown from 70 to 115 and the number of jobs has almost doubled from 1,660 to 3,100. More recently the landside development of the North West precinct has seen the inclusion of ‘out of town’ retailing in the form of a Brand Depot complex which incorporates over 70 retail ‘factory’ outlets and 1,700 free car parks.

Figure 12: Land use zoning Canberra Airport (CBR)

3.4.8 Coolangatta Airport (OOL) - RPT Coolangatta Airport is home to one of the last remaining development land banks on the Gold and Tweed Coasts (Figure 13). The airport has 365 hectares of land and five precincts have been identified for development within the master plan. Coolangatta Airport is serviced by air, road and soon to be completed rail transport making it a prime location for the establishment of logistics based companies. Coolangatta Airport has 29% of its total airport area zoned for land side development, resulting in an x value of 0.03 standard deviations from the mean, representing a development area consistent with the standard of national study group.

Figure 13: Land use zoning Coolangatta Airport (OOL)

3.4.9 Darwin Airport (DRW) - RPT Darwin Airport has 1540 hectares (see Table 1) of which 324 hectares is controlled by Northern Territory Airports Pty Ltd and the remainder controlled by Department of Defence as Royal Australian Air Force base, reducing the amount of land available for development. The land use zoning categorisation for Darwin Airport is illustrated in Figure 14. Darwin has only 5% (Table

3) of total land area zoned for landside development, a significant x value of -1.45 standard deviations below the national study group mean. Darwin Airport has recently negotiated an agreement with the retail developer, Ticor Developments Pty Ltd, to build an $AUD100 million 45,000sqm home and lifestyle retail centre at the airport’s 87ha business park. This business park opened in 2006 with a 14,000sqm Bunnings Warehouse hardware store as the anchor tenant.

Figure 14: Land use zoning Darwin Airport (DRW)

3.4.10 Essendon Airport (MEB) - GA/PT Essendon Airport is within close proximity to Melbourne Airport as illustrated in Figure 15 (Melbourne airport is the coloured area in the upper left of Figure 15). Essendon Airport has a higher than normal proportion (39%) of land zoned for landside development, with an x value of 0.61 standard deviations above the mean. This x value however is low in comparison to the landside development areas of other GA and PT airports (Table 3). The current landside developments include approximately 125 tenants utilising various offices, warehouse and storage. A ‘Direct Factory Outlet’ with bulky retail and a supermarket are situated in the Southeast of the airport. At 305 hectares, Essendon Airport may be considered an example of a small airport adopting a regional retail focussed development philosophy.

Figure 15: Land use zoning Essendon (MEB)

3.4.11 Hobart Airport (HBA) - RPT Hobart Airport has zoned 34% of its 499ha of land for landside development. This figure is marginally above average for the study group (Table 3) and represents an x value of 0.3 standard deviations from the mean. Hobart Airport plans to add around 40,000sqm of regionally focused retail space with a 50-store Factory Outlet complex and a bulky goods centre in the North Western development zone (Figure 16). This development plan gained federal government planning approval in 2007, after reducing the size of the original proposal and is expected to be completed in 2009.

Figure 16: Land use zoning Hobart Airport (HBA)

3.4.12 Hoxton Park Airport (YHOX) – GA10 Hoxton Park Airport is the smallest airport in the group at only 87 hectares (Table 1); however the airport has designated 13% of this land for landside development (Table 3), resulting in an x value of -0.96 standard deviations below the mean. This development area is located in the Western part of the property as shown in Figure 17. The primary aim of their development intention is to facilitate a wide range of activities both aeronautical to non-aeronautical to capitalise on the limited land assets they possess. In review of their master plan Hoxton Park Airport may be considered a leading example of a very small airport with a clear landside development strategy.

Figure 17: Land use zoning Hoxton Park Airport (YHOX)

3.4.13 Jandakot Airport (JAD) - GA/PT As shown in Table 1, Jandakot Airport is the busiest Australian airport in terms of aircraft movements. Jandakot Airport is a major pilot training facility and is situated on 622 hectares. A large area to the north west of the terminals has been zoned for commercial development as shown in Figure 18. This area represents 25% of the area of Jandakot Airport (Table 3), slightly below the study group’s average for landside development, and represents an x value of -0.24 standard deviations below the mean. Despite the airports ongoing use as an important PT airport, it has also focussed primarily on a non-aeronautical regional retail strategy. The development area is known as ‘Jandakot City’ and a number of offices and commercial buildings have been built there since 2006, including a retail homemaker and bulky goods centre.

10 Hoxton Park Aerodrome was decommissioned at 11pm on the 15th December 2008 and the site has been redeveloped as a business precinct.

Figure 18: Land use zoning Jandakot Airport (JAD)

3.4.14 Launceston Airport (LST) - GA/PT Launceston Airport is the second smallest airport in the group with only 180 hectares of land as shown in Table 1 and Figure 19. All the land to the East is required for aviation, aviation support and operational services uses. A smaller than average proportion of 7%, an x value of -1.33 standard deviations from the mean, has been zoned for landside development. This equates to an area of 2.8 hectares proposed for commercial uses however this area remains undeveloped at this time.

Figure 19: Land use zoning Launceston Airport (LST)

3.4.15 Melbourne Airport (MEL) - RPT Melbourne Airport has the third largest airport area of 2647 hectares (Table 1). As indicated in Table 3, Melbourne Airport has zoned 24% of its property for landside development, an x value of -0.3 standard deviations below the mean. The landside development is located in the south eastern corner of the property as illustrated in Figure 20. As of March 2008, Melbourne Airport is investing in an upgrade of its international terminals, spending $AUD330 million over the

next five years. A new passenger concourse of 7000sqm is part of the project along with an entire new international passenger precinct that will add more than 5000sqm of new airside passenger lounge, café, duty free and specialty shop space by 2011. With regard to its landside developments Melbourne Airport has recently gained federal government planning approval to build a 48,000sqm retail centre including bulky goods retailers and a supermarket.

Figure 20: Land use zoning Melbourne Airport (MEL)

3.4.16 Moorabbin Airport (MBW) - GA/PT Moorabbin Airport has the largest percentage of land zoned for landside development with 59% (Table 3) this figure represents an x value of 1.82 standard deviations above the mean and is consistent with x values of GA and PT airport within the study group. It is one of the smallest airports in terms of land size (294 hectares) but is the fourth busiest in terms of aircraft movements (Table 1). As shown in Figure 21 the development zones spread North, South, East and West to maximise the available land. In the Northwest of the airport site is an existing retail activity node with associated car parking. The Chifley Industry Park is situated in the North- eastern area. On the Eastern and South periphery of the airport land a restaurant; landscape garden suppliers and timber sales; Kingston Golf Course and a service station are located. All these existing activities illustrate the maturity of the landside development at Moorabbin Airport and their master plan intent to capitalise on their land assets for regional retail purposes.

Figure 21: Land use zoning Moorabbin Airport (MBW)

3.4.17 Parafield Airport (ADZ) - GA/PT Parafield Airport is a GA and PT airport operated by Adelaide Airports Limited, the airport lessee company for Adelaide Airport. As shown in Table 3, Parafield Airport has 40% of its land zoned for landside development, an x value of 0.67 standard deviations above the mean. The main building area, covering 20 hectares is located in the Northern region of the airport, and primarily accommodates commercial lease properties. The facilities include aircraft hangars, workshops, student accommodation, flying schools and a range of non-aeronautical facilities (e.g. clubs, sporting/recreational reserves), with the control tower located on the Southern boundary. The commercial estate is the most recently developed precinct of the airport, providing approximately 17 hectares of serviced commercial land in the north-east corner of the airport as shown Figure 22.

Figure 22: Land use zoning Parafield Airport (ADZ)

3.4.18 Perth Airport (PER) - RPT The land use zoning of Perth Airport is shown in Figure 23 and as Table 3 indicates a landside area of 33% is available for development from a site total of 2,105 hectares, representing an x value of 0.24 standard deviations from the study group mean. To date Perth Airport’s business park has extensive warehouse and distribution facilities with Coles and Woolworths (retail food companies) both estate tenants. Additionally Perth Airport is home to BCG Pty Ltd Brickworks a facility with the ability to produce 110 million standard brick equivalents annually. This controversial non-aeronautical development occupies 30 hectares and received over 260 public submissions during its initial consultation phase in 2006. As of March 2008, Perth Airport is reviewing development options with passenger numbers last year (2007) up 1 million from 2006 to 8 million. In addition Perth is upgrading a domestic terminal which is expected to provide an opportunity to add further airside retail.

Figure 23: Land use zoning Perth Airport (PER)

3.4.19 Sydney Airport (SYD) - RPT Sydney Airport, Australia’s busiest passenger airport is an example of an airport that has little available land for non-aeronautical related development. The airport is situated on 905 hectares of which 14% has been zoned for landside development (Table 3), an x value of -0.91 standard deviations below the mean. The land use zoning for Sydney Airport reveals that the only major land allocated for commercial development is in the southeast of the property (Figure 24). Sydney Airport has been unsuccessful in obtaining approval from the federal government to develop this land and consequently it remains mostly unimproved at his stage. Sydney Airport has embarked on a terminal redevelopment that encompasses the creation of an airside and landside shopping environment presenting a range of restaurants, specialty stores and general retail. The project will increase the current three food and beverage outlets to nine and extend

the existing 17 specialty retail outlets in the terminal to 42. The $AUD500 million upgrade of the terminal, which is expected to be completed in 2009, will see both airside and landside offer 26 food and beverage outlets and 56 specialty stores. Indeed the popularity of shopping at Sydney Airport has made the retail precinct of Sydney Airport Terminal 1 one of the largest shopping centres by turnover in the Sydney metropolitan region.

Figure 24: Land use zoning Sydney Airport (SYD)

3.4.20 Townsville Airport (TSV) - RPT Townsville Airport operates under a joint user agreement with the Department of Defence and leases 81 hectares of the airport for civil aviation purposes. The remaining 856 hectares are utilised by the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) as shown in Figure 25. As a joint user facility, the responsibility for planning and development of Townsville Airport is shared by both the Department of Defence and Queensland Airports Pty Ltd. From Table 3 it may be seen that the defence use of the airport occupies 91% of total use, with only 7% available for landside development, representing a significantly low x value of -1.33 standard deviations below the mean. Despite the relatively limited space Townsville Airport is home to Australia’s newest aviation business park, the Northern Australian Aerospace Centre of Excellence (NAACEX): a high security, fully serviced aerospace and aviation support precinct and business park. NAACEX will provide a cluster of aerospace and aviation support industries (both commercial and defence) servicing Australia and the South East Asia- Pacific region (QAL, 2007).

Figure 25: Land use zoning Townsville Airport (TSV)

3.5 CONCLUSION In Australia it would appear that the amount of land being zoned for landside development has no relation to an airport’s size (both in terms of property area and in terms of passenger or freight movements). In fact, the strategy to diversify revenue at Australian airports through real estate has resulted in a spate of development activity on airport property. All of the airports in the study group have zoned their land assets with capitalisation of landside development in mind and therein to some extent have embraced the ‘airport city’ concept.

In Australia, there is a perceived disjunction between the airside operations of many airports and the kinds of development being proposed and established within their boundaries. It would appear that a number of the airports studied have adopted a development strategy which focuses on offering retail goods and services for the regional consumer as a means of providing the desired alternate revenue stream. It is this type of federally approved development that is at the core of airport operator and municipal conflict over the establishment of competing retail centres. The medium to long term implications for such development is yet to be established, but what is certain is the continuing discourse between the airport and the region will limit the establishment of cooperative strategies of ‘airport city’ development in the manner of the spatial models discussed.

This work is the first step in providing a clearer understanding of the development intentions of airport operators in Australia, utilising a common land use planning nomenclature. This lack of national consistency regarding Australian airport master planning was one of the foci of a recently released issues paper for the development of an Australian National Aviation Policy Statement by the Federal Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. By establishing a comparative platform for the analysis of on-airport

development both airport and municipal planners may begin to recognise where and how their airport and region fits into the dialogue surrounding land use compatibility. In addition, through the classification of airport operations (RPT, GA, PT) and the analysis of their development intentions, the relationships between aeronautical function and on-airport land use may be better understood. This work will assist both national and international airport and municipal planners in recognising the extent, and type of, actual and proposed on-airport land use in Australia. This will establish a national reference for decision making when proposing development both within airport master plans and beyond the airport boundary in local town and regional plans.

Analyses at this scale can only make assumptions about the relationships between the different zoning categories. Further detailed analyses are required to determine the on-airport and regional implications of the development intentions outlined by the airports in the study group. However, given that most of the commercial and industrial land zoned at these airports is yet to be fully developed, the successes of their zoning strategies may only be evident as more actual development manifests.

3.6 REFERENCES Archerfield Airport Corporation (AAC) (2005) Archerfield Airport Master Plan 2005.

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) (1999). Guide to Airport Noise and Compatible Land Use. http://www.aopa.org/asn/land_use/ (Accessed 25/10/2006).

Brisbane Airport Corporation (BAC) (2005) Brisbane Airport Master Plan 2005.

Blanton, W. (2004) On the Airfront. Planning, 70, 34-35.

Conway, M. (1993) Airport Cities 21, Atlanta, Conway Data.

Department of Transport. (DoT) (2002). State of California. Division of Aeronautics. California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. January. (accessed 27/06/2006) [http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/planning/aeronaut/htmlfile/landuse.php]

Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS) (2005) Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics. Australian Transport Statistics. June., http://www.btre.gov.au/statistics/general/trnstats05/ATS05.pdf accessed on 27 June 2006.

Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS) (2007) AVLINE, Issue 10, July 2007. Canberra, Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS).

Federal Court of Australia (FCA) (2005). Westfield Management Ltd v Brisbane Airport Corporation Ltd. [2005] FCA 32.

FINAVIA (2004) Civil Aviation Administration. Annual Report. Finnish CAA. Freathy, P. & O’Connell, F. (1999) Planning for profit: the commercialization of European airports. Long Range Planning, 32, 587-597.

Freestone, R., Williams, P. & Bowden, A. (2006) Fly Buy Cities: Some planning aspects of airport privatisation in Australia. Urban Policy and Research, 24, 491-508.

Graham, A. (2003) Managing Airports, Oxford, Elsevier.

Hooper, P., Cain, R. & White, S. (2000) The privatisation of Australia's airports. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 36, 181-204.

Kasarda, J. D. (1991) An industrial/aviation complex for the future. Urban Land.

Kasarda, J. D. (1996) Airport-related industrial development. Urban Land.

May, M. & Hill, S. (2006). Questioning airport expansion – A case study of Canberra International Airport. Journal of Transport Geography. 14:437 - 450

Metropolis International Congress (MIC), 6th (1999). Final Report. Commission 1: Airports and their Surrounding Zones as Catalysts of Metropolitan Development. Barcelona. [http://www.metropolis.org/index.php?action=mostrar_contenido&id_seccion=70&te mplate=interior]

Queensland Airports Limited (QAL) (2007) Queensland Airports Limited Annual Report.

Quiggin, J. (1997) Evaluating airline deregulation in Australia. The Australian Economic Review, 30, 45-56.

SGS Economics and Planning. (2003). Economic Impacts of Activity Centre Development at Canberra International Airport. (Prepared on behalf of the Chief Minister’s Department), ACT Government. August.

Stevens, N., Baker, D. & Freestone, R. (2007) Understanding the Australian Airport Metropolis. State of Australian Cities 2007. Adelaide.

Western Australian Government Gazette (WAGG) (2004). (SPP 5.1) Western Australian Planning Commission – Statement of Planning Policy No. 5.1 Land Use Planning in the Vicinity of Perth Airport. 24 February 2004. [http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/publications/policies/SPP/SPP_5_1.pdf]

4Chapter 4: Airports in their urban settings: towards a conceptual model of interfaces in the Australian context

Table 10 Statement of Authorship

Contributor Statement of contribution Mr Nicholas Stevens Acquisition of data Signature: Data analysis Development of the article structure Drafting of the manuscript Conception and design Critical revision for important intellectual content Copyediting - grammatical assistance, stylistic suggestions to outline or draft Production assistance, e.g., assembling tables, graphs, figures, photos or other illustrations Submission management and journal liaison Prof. Douglas Baker Acquisition of data Signature: Development of the article structure Drafting of the manuscript Conception and design Copyediting - grammatical assistance, stylistic suggestions to outline or draft Editorial assistance, e.g., preparing references, fact-checking, labelling illustrations or tables Prof. Robert Freestone Acquisition of data Signature: Development of the article structure Drafting of the manuscript Critical revision for important intellectual content Conception and design Copyediting - grammatical assistance, stylistic suggestions to

outline or draft Principal Supervisor confirmation: I have sighted email or other correspondence from all Co- authors confirming their certifying authorship.

April 24, 2012 Prof. Douglas Baker

Name Signature Date

Abstract

In Australia, airports have emerged as important sub-regional activity centres and now pose challenges for both airport operation and planning in the surrounding urban and regional environment. The changing nature of airports in their metropolitan context and the emergence of new pressures and problems require the introduction of a fresh conceptual framework to assist the better understanding of these complex roles and spatial interactions. The approach draws upon the meta-concept of interfaces of an ‘airport metropolis’ as an organising device consisting of four main domains: economic development, land use, infrastructure, and governance. The paper uses the framework to further discuss airport and regional interactions and highlights the use of sustainability criteria to operationalise the model. The approach aims to move research and practice beyond the traditionally compartmentalised analysis of airport issues and policy-making by highlighting interdependencies between airports and regions.

Keywords: airport; metropolis; interfaces; land use; infrastructure; governance; economic development; sustainability

4.1 INTRODUCTION Airports are a vital component of the transport infrastructure of modern cities and have proven increasingly influential in shaping urban form and structure. The growth of cities has also impacted on airports, their scale and operations (Kasarda, 2001; Schaafsma, 2008). This reciprocity of impacts has intensified in the last thirty years as air travel has expanded and has been amplified through forces of privatisation, corporatisation and globalisation (Graham, 2003). Market forces, corporate strategies and government policies have given rise to new types of airports far more complex and interactive in their metropolitan settings than the isolated landing fields of the past (Conway, 1993; Güller and Güller, 2003).

The resultant changes in Australia’s aviation scene have been profound. Between 1997 and 2002 twenty-two of Australia’s major airports were privatised under a 99 year lease arrangement with the Australian federal government. These lease arrangements, under the Airports Act 1996, have given control of all airport development to the airport-lessee but under an approvals systems controlled by the federal government with consultative reference to the planning policies of state and local governments. Many of these airports have become major business centres and are well placed to advance opportunities for broader commercial

development. In the process, airports have shifted from public good transport interchange nodes to profit-orientated commercial ventures where aviation revenue is only part of airport business. As a result of such changes, and with traditional environmental impacts an ongoing issue, new challenges are being posed for both airports and the surrounding urban and regional environment (Freestone et al., 2006).

Our intent in this paper is to consider ways of looking at the development and impact of airports within their urban and regional context. The paper provides a review and prospectus of airport planning issues in Australia. Canvassing some of the past literature on airport development to convey the growing complexity of airport-city links, it discusses and illustrates some major recent trends and interactions of Australian airports. Their changing ownership has been a critical factor in emergent policy debates. This discussion lays the platform for considering different conceptualisations of the ‘airport city’ phenomenon. Our proposed schema is based on the simple but fecund concept of ‘interfaces’ with the surrounding metropolitan milieu. Underlain by notions of sustainability, this conceptual model seeks to capture the many issues which are generated by the modern airport within a robust framework to aid description, understanding and research applications. Four fundamental interfaces are identified: economic development, land use, infrastructure, and governance. These are discussed and illustrated in turn. The paper concludes by foreshadowing a range of sustainability criteria which may operationalise this holistic approach into an analytical tool.

4.2 AIRPORTS WITHIN THE URBAN CONTEXT The study of airports as urban and planning phenomena has demonstrably progressed in concert with the technological changes which have shaped the airline and airport industries for over a century. The literature remains a specialised niche within a more prodigious stockpile of technical investigations into airport issues, surprisingly so given the increasing interdependence of aviation, urban and environmental issues since the 1960s. A distinct progression over time is nonetheless evident as airports have evolved from their status as a novel transport technology to being mired within a suite of infrastructural, economic, management and legal issues. This evolving complexity of issues is summarily captured in the growing sophistication of airport design and management manuals (Ashford et al., 1997; CAA, 1952; Coles, 1929; De Neufville and Odoni, 2003; Froesch and Prokosch, 1946; Horonjeff and McKelvey, 1994; Legault, 1960; Richard, 1936; Wells and Young, 2004). The need to appreciate a more complex set of environmental considerations in the broadest sense became evident from

the site selection and locational conflict literature of the 1970s (Haggett, 1979). A broader management oriented literature addressed new issues of economic deregulation and entrepreneurial approaches to airport management and policy (Kunkel 1990; Mills 1995; Forsyth 1997; Quiggin 1997; Kissling 1998; Quinlan 1998). More recently, sustainability issues and security have become unavoidable considerations (Charles et al., 2007; O’Malley, 2006; Upham and Mills, 2005; Wheeler, 2005).11

4.3 CHANGES IN AIRPORT OWNERSHIP The nature of privatisation and capitalisation of the development potential of airport lands are now significant contemporary concerns (Carney and Mew, 2003; Freestone et al., 2006; Hooper et al., 2000; Oum et al., 2006; Spiller, 2006). Within an increasingly globalised world economy the ownership and management of airports has been a key factor in their transformation to major urban activity nodes. Historically, the majority of airports worldwide have been public sector owned and operated. In the US and Europe, after the Second World War, most major airports were handed over to local and regional municipalities (Graham, 2003). In the 1950s and 1960s many countries, including the United Kingdom, transferred ownership to civil aviation authorities. During this time, regardless of ownership structure, airports were managed as publicly owned and controlled utilities with public service obligations associated primarily with their transport functions. Commercial and entrepreneurially-oriented financial management had a low priority (Humphreys, 1999).

The mid-1980s saw fundamental policy changes towards ownership in several countries as ‘Thatcherism’, ‘Reaganomics’ and their multinational variants took hold. Governments faced enormous pressure from taxpayers to control deficits. State funding for airports was out of favour and airports were considered a ‘mature’ industry with little development potential (Tretheway, 2001). The perceived drain on public resources motivated some national governments to undertake a variety of strategies to minimise loss and seek a return on decades of public investment. The United Kingdom was the first country to introduce a new national policy of privatised airport ownership in 1987. The introduction of commercial objectives by airport operators was considered an efficient way to maximise revenue, improve customer service and quality standards, while reducing risk and dependence on aeronautical revenue

11 Three paragraphs have been omitted here for efficiency as they detail the academic literature in the Australian context previously highlighted in Chapter 1.

alone (Freathy and O’Connell, 1999). Initially much of the commercialism was focussed on the airport terminal, providing an array of shopping facilities. Subsequently the emphasis shifted to full exploitation of the airport site and further diversification of business, even to off-airport land development.

The narrative above was also characteristic of the Australian scene. The first significant initiative by the federal government to divest itself of direct responsibility for civil airports was the Aerodrome Local Ownership Plan (1958 - 1987) which transferred ownership, operating and maintenance responsibilities of ‘local service’ airports mostly in regional Australia to local government. The second stage was far more decisive and reflected the influence of neo-liberal imperatives in the guise of the Hawke Labor Government’s ‘economic rationalism’ policies (Ryan and Bramston, 2003). This involved the corporatisation of a network of national significant airports through the Federal Airports Corporation (FAC) formed in 1988. The FAC operated on commercial lines utilising the governance, management and incentive strategies of the private sector.

The Airline Agreement (Termination) Act 1990 was another Hawke initiative and effectively deregulated the Australian domestic airline industry which had been structured on a two airline policy since the 1940s. It had a catalytic impact in making domestic air travel accessible to the broader public (Quiggin, 1997). Consequently, significant increases in airport revenue were generated in what amounted to a prelude to full privatisation (Graham, 2003; Hooper et al., 2000). The new Howard Liberal Government continued Hawke’s reformism and from 1996 FAC airports were put to tender under the provisions of the new Airports Act 1996. In a multi-stage process completed in 2002, the government netted billions of dollars from the sale of airport leaseholds. Despite the Asian economic crisis at the time, the price-earnings ratios for Australian airports were high because of limited opportunities to purchase international airports in the Asia Pacific region, the high degree of corporate autonomy bestowed, and the significant geographic monopoly power involved (Hooper et al., 2000). Airport operators also purchased a wide range of development rights with few restrictions on land uses other than compliance with the Airports Act 1996. The government sales team actively marketed the investment potential and opportunity for property development, car parking and commercial initiatives (Freestone et al., 2006).

4.4 CURRENT PRESSURES RESHAPING THE IMPACT OF AUSTRALIAN AIRPORTS The ebb and flow of aviation traffic lies at the heart of airport development issues. The scale of passenger and freight movement at Australian airports has increased significantly in recent decades, a trend likely to continue an upward projection in line with global trends despite recent economic shocks and environmental challenges. The expected growth of passenger traffic internationally is forecast to reach 5 billion by 2010, and surpass 9 billion passengers annually by 2025. The highest global passenger growth of 7.9% (2005-10) is forecast for the Asia Pacific region. The volume of global air freight is expected to outperform the passenger market with a tripling to 214 million tonnes by 2025. The Asia Pacific region is again forecast to grow the most, averaging 6.5% per annum (ACI 2007).

However what if anticipated aviation growth and associated airport revenues fail to occur? Kuhlman (2005) believes that we have already witnessed the heyday of air travel, and recent levels of travel are only due to the fact that there are still enough airline companies competing to keep fare prices low. He argues that as these companies collapse or merge in the face of rising operational costs, the true price of air travel will be reflected in prices affordable only for essential and business travel, despite the rise of low cost carriers. Issues relating to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change also loom large (Macintosh and Downie, 2007). Fuel price volatility and the introduction of an emissions trading scheme only add to the fundamental unsustainability of the industry (Whitelegg, 2005). Australian airports maintain they are relatively modest producers of greenhouse gases and indeed a make distinction between the business of aviation (and associated emissions impacts) and that of airport operation and airport commercial development within their legislatively mandated environmental strategies (APAM, 2008; WAC, 2004).

The dominant driver for Australian airports as business enterprises remains expansionism. Regardless of the uncertainty, Australian airports continue to embark upon major upgrades of aviation infrastructure (for example, Brisbane airport’s second runway, and new terminals at Canberra and Perth airports). These projects reflect the positive projections embodied in economic impact studies undertaken as part of the Major Development Plan process enshrined in the Airports Act 1996. They proceed despite a wider international questioning of airport expansion in the light of potential negative economic, environmental and social externalities and opportunity costs for infrastructure investment (Espey and Lopez, 2000; Graham and Guyer, 1999; Upham and Mills, 2005; Whitelegg, 2005). When considering airports as urban developments, the associated impacts relating to regional congestion, emissions and pollution

also need to be considered. Many Australian airport corporations continue to plan and develop on-airport non aeronautical commercial development arguing that this form of development is necessary to maintain a reliable revenue stream through uncertain times in the aviation industry.

The privatisation of Australian airports was primarily an opportunity to unburden the national government from continued and intensified public sector funding of airport development, a goal that has been spectacularly successful. However, airport operators wanting highest returns on their investment have been quick to outline expectations for the capitalisation of their land assets in the legislatively required master planning process. The rapid development of on- airport land is also partly attributable to price cap regulations imposed on aeronautical charges for the five years immediately after privatisation (Hooper et al., 2000).

Airport corporations argue that they cannot survive by handling aircraft movements alone, and need to diversify their commercial interests to ensure continuing profitability. In Australia, the development of airport business parks and retail complexes is a preferred commercial strategy, land stocks and infrastructure permitting (SGS, 2003). Such development is typified by the provision of motor vehicle dealerships, hardware and furniture stores, fast food franchises, and direct factory outlets. Some airports are also developing supermarkets and taverns. This trend to non-aviation uses has been perceived as a commercial challenge to economic activity in the surrounding area; moreover, the traffic generated may place additional pressure on the regional road network.

State, territory and local governments are ultimately responsible for making and implementing land use planning strategies, frameworks and decisions in their jurisdictions, but in the Australian context find their powers do not extend over airport lands which ultimately remain federal territory. Under the Australian Constitution, this status in effect insulates them from compliance with state planning legislation. Australian airports are considered national assets and under the long term lease arrangements all on-airport development is assessed by the Federal Minister of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government in line with the provisions of the Airports Act 1996.

The capacity of airport-lessee companies to provide non-aviation uses on airport land was tested in the courts. In 2003, Westfield Management Ltd filed a writ against the Brisbane Airport Corporation’s (BAC) intention to develop a retail centre within the airport grounds on the basis that such development would be in contravention of the Airports Act 1996 (FCA, 2005 p. 2). Arguments in the Federal Court centred on the land use, planning and building controls

contained in Part 5 of the Airports Act 1996 as they relate to non-aviation related development on airport land. Westfield questioned the status of such a project under provisions for Major Development Plans (MDP) which relate predominately to aviation specific, environmental or airport capacity issues. All airport lessee companies in Australia closely followed this litigation which represented a test case for the legitimacy of non-aviation airport development. The fear that Westfield should succeed in its court action, greatly reducing the value of Australian airports (Greenblat, 2003), ultimately proved unfounded when Federal Court Justice Cooper dismissed the application finding in favour of BAC in February 2005. The case highlighted the changing role of airports and reaffirmed the independence of airport lessee companies to determine airport non-aviation land uses outside of surrounding municipal land use regulation.

Another issue of concern for airport operations worldwide is the encroachment of residential development into approach and departure flight paths. Pressures within urban and regional planning systems to support medium density development are adding further to the conflict between airports and local communities (Uyeno et al., 1993). Amongst major Australian airports the issue has been most problematic at Canberra where the airport is located close to the border between the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) and the state of New South Wales (NSW). While the growth of office and retail space promoted by privatisation has seen the airport factored into the metropolitan spatial plan for the national capital as a mixed-use activity centre, there is no cross-border agreement to bind local and state planning in NSW into an airport-orientated spatial framework.

The dispute between the Village Building Company and Canberra Airport Ltd (CA) centres on a proposed residential expansion of the town of Queanbeyan, just across the NSW border. Village wishes to build a residential subdivision of more than 4000 homes in the new suburb of Tralee on a site which the airport wanted to remain residential-free as part of a proposed 50 year forecast high noise corridor published and endorsed by Airservices Australia (the government corporation providing air navigation and airside aviation services). The developer commenced proceedings against CA alleging that it had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce, in contravention of s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974. The essence of the complaint was that CA had inflated its estimates of future noise levels with a view to inhibit future planning approvals so as to limit possible consequential constraints upon the Airport’s operations. The developers argued that the proposed development fell outside the published noise contours and was therefore well within the land use planning guidelines. Canberra Airport, with the support of Airservices Australia, counter-argued that many complaints about noise still come from residents outside these boundaries and that the development should not

proceed (FCA, 2004 p.1). The public campaign involved full and half page advertisements within the Canberra Times from both parties (May and Hill, 2006). In December 2008 the NSW Government endorsed Queanbeyan's residential and economic strategy paving the way for development at Tralee. Queanbeyan City Council can now rezone the land for residential, commercial and recreational use.

The costly legal disputes at both Brisbane and Canberra Airports highlight the regional conflicts associated with urban development on and surrounding Australian airports, and in particular the fragmentation of decision-making associated with their development. They are symptomatic of a wider set of conflicts implicating airports, councils, state governments and the wider community nationally which have surfaced in two major public hearings on the future of airports. In January 2007 a Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport inquiry into the Airports Act Amendment Bill and subsequently an array of over 200 submissions received in response to the exhibition of an aviation issues paper by the Federal Government in April 2008. The Government’s determination to develop a genuine national aviation policy for the first time takes on board not only the economic, safety, security and environmental issues enveloping aviation globally, but also the obvious disquiet from local and state governments and communities as to the protectiveness of the federal Airports Act 1996 to airport interests (Australian Government, 2008).

4.5 THE NEED FOR A NEW CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Major airports are problematic enough given their uneasy admixture of regional and national economic benefits and localisation of environmental costs. Corporatised and privatised airports inject even more complexity through their ambiguous reconfiguration of private and public values and disbenefits. A better means of understanding and interpreting the perceived, potential, and actual opportunities and impacts between Australian airports and their region is required. In Australia, airports have shifted from ‘public good’ transport interchange nodes to profit oriented commercial ventures where aviation revenue is now only a part of the airport ‘business’. As a result of such changes a range of issues and impacts now pose considerable challenges for both the airport and the surrounding urban and regional environment. A new set of interdependent factors needs to be recognised, including:

• Understanding the catchments and catalysts for industrial, commercial and residential development within airport regions.

• Compatibility of land uses through policy and plans recognising the motivation of all stakeholders and the needs of the broader community.

• Regional direct, indirect and catalytic economic impacts and dependence.

• Recognising and understanding expectations of immediacy and equity in the delivery of goods, services and people.

• Managing the strategic, financial, compliance, economic and operational risks associated with airport and regional relationships.

• Understanding the impacts and trade-offs of increasingly shared decision making through public and private sector partnerships.

• Coordination of three tiers of local, state and federal government policy in consideration of community needs and expectation.

Although the list of impacts and relationships beyond airport boundaries has grown more complex as airports have augmented their historical function, research has largely continued to remain highly specialised and contained within scripted industry paradigms with an unswerving focus on the aeronautical function of airports (Burman, 2008; TRB, 2003). What conceptual advances are evident regarding the changing role and now multifaceted impacts of airports in their urban settings? Airports are increasingly recognised as key assets for cities and regions as economic generators and catalysts of investment, in addition to being critical components of efficient city infrastructure. The entrepreneurial idea of the modern Australian airport goes beyond facilitating the movement of aircraft towards seizing a variety of commercial and industrial opportunities at the hub of a wider land use zone of airport-related development.

Capturing this new turn toward entrepreneurial urban activity centres and offering some relevance to the Australian situation are three generic models of airport development: the aviapolis, the airfront, and the aerotropolis. The evolution of these models is not a result of empirical research; rather they have evolved respectively as descriptive representations from government marketing strategies, observed industry clustering, and projection of existing trends. These models (or variants of them) are nonetheless increasingly being embraced as normative formulae for either airport operators or approaches to regional development. The ‘aviapolis’ is the marketing and development of aviation orientated and airport-centred business hubs (Finavia, 2004). The ‘airfront’ is the recognition of the aggregation of aviation

related industries and services attracted to, and located immediately contiguous to an airport (Blanton, 2004). The ‘aerotropolis’ is the identification of the airport as a trade, logistic and passenger locus for time-sensitive urban development over an extended area (Kasarda, 1991a).12

All three descriptive models portray the modern airport as a dynamic new aviation orientated economic engine impacting beyond the airport perimeter and calling forth the need for new and appropriate planning responses to better seize this potential. However, they are mostly economic conceptualisations with insufficient weight given to environmental, coordination, community, efficiency and security and resilience issues. They only partially acknowledge the wider urban system, neglecting the fuller reciprocity of airport and region. In the Australian context, there is no incorporation of the impacts of on-airport non-aviation commercial and retail development trends, complex structures of spatial governance inimical to sub-regional planning, and insufficient weight given to long established concerns of issues such as transport congestion, noise, and land use compatibility.

4.6 AN INTERFACE MODEL A new framework for research and policy is required to identify and evaluate the changing role of major Australian airports in the regional context. A greater appreciation is needed of how airport and region must be considered as united, interdependent and integrated (Stevens, 2006). An integrative model is required which recognises and attempts to understand the nature and importance of international, national, regional and local drivers of airport and regional growth and the need for sustainable balanced development given new corporate, public, and institutional governance processes.

The approach described here draws on the meta-concept of interfaces of an ‘airport metropolis’ as an organising device for comprehending and recasting the complexity and planning aspects relating to the physical and institutional change associated with Australian airports as urban activity centres. The airport metropolis is the synergistic coupling of core airport functions and airport-orientated activities in a wider region. In the first instance the intention is to provide a robust structure to assist researchers and policy makers to better apprehend airport-regional

12 Four paragraphs further detailing the models of airport development have been removed to avoid duplication.

conflict and opportunity. Issues within identified foci may then be acknowledged through the application of normative sustainability criteria. This will ensure a clearer interpretation of the interactions that typify major airports, allowing for comparative analyses across a range of airport contexts and provide frameworks for research and policy development (Figure 1).

Figure 1: The Airport Metropolis Interface Model

The model recognises four interface domains as integral to the concept of an airport metropolis: Economic Development, Land Use, Infrastructure, and Governance. Each of these interfaces is now discussed in turn, followed by an outline of sustainability criteria which constitute the basis of a means for the operationalisation of the model. The development of the interface areas and the sustainability criteria have been informed by a series of three Land Use Forums held with Australian airport and regional stakeholders during 2008 in Adelaide, South Australia (February); Brisbane, Queensland (August) and Canberra, Australian Capital Territory (December).

4.6.1 Economic Development Airports are widely acknowledged as having significant economic impacts. In Australia, all airports undertake economic impact studies to demonstrate the virtues of strategic airport investment in airport facilities and infrastructure; assess new commercial projects; and as required for regulatory approvals and periodic reporting. It is increasingly important for all

stakeholders to understand the economic impacts an airport may provide as generators of direct, indirect and induced economic activity, and as catalysts in supporting wider business and tourism activity (Graham, 2003; Wells and Young, 2004).

In the analysis and understanding of the Australian airport metropolis it is important to acknowledge the growing influence of perpetuity effects, which may be defined as the economic growth from catalytic impacts that become self sustaining in an airport region (Button and Taylor, 2000). The recognition and encouragement of these effects are central to models of airports as urban activity centres, and in particular, when they are linked to infrastructure investment as a catalyst for higher and specialist economic growth (Button and Taylor, 2000).

Cities with major airports play key roles as points of exchange in the global economy. With a considerable proportion of airline passengers travelling for business, ‘a close relationship exists between business activity on the ground and airline networks in the skies’ (Debbage and Delk 2001, p.159). This has triggered potential land use changes in favour of hotels and convention centres on airport land and within the region, attracting international, national and local consumers. The need to accommodate on-airport and regional commercial development driven by aviation and air transport demand is incontrovertible. In dispute is the development, and economic justification, of on-airport retail and commercial outlets which rely on the regional population for patronage (Brisbane workshop, 2008).

The economic interface recognises airport and regional potential alongside other economic anchors such as universities, hospitals, national parks, arts and cultural centres which provide the intellectual, cultural, natural and civic assets of the region (Adams, 2003; Maurrasse, 2007). Through strategic cooperation, economic benefits may be leveraged for both the airport and the region by nurturing and providing for appropriate commercial development and linkages in line with regional assets (Adelaide workshop, 2008).

When considering the economic development of the new Australian airport metropolis, there is a need to understand the optimal relationship between airport related investment into infrastructure, office space, commercial and retail facilities, and the surrounding region’s present and potential economic prosperity. New models of cooperative governance need to be clearly articulated to establish the optimal capacities and trajectories of airport and regional investment over time (Canberra workshop, 2008).

Through the recognition of the interdependencies of the interfaces we may be better able to determine economic activity and land uses which add more value being located at or near the

airport than elsewhere. All stakeholders need to support, recognise and understand the importance of cooperative airport and regional economic development to foster equity and resilience. The balance of interface dimensions also constitute counterweights by which estimates of the socio-economic value of airport development can be most accurately assessed (Whitelegg, 2005).

4.6.2 Land Use An integrated approach to land use planning for the new airport may trigger economic development and provide focus for the establishment of innovative and entrepreneurial approaches to cooperative governance. However at present the interface divides two separate urban planning systems.

The use of both on-airport and regional land use planning strategies are well documented as a means of minimising and mitigating the negative externalities associated with the operation of an airport (Button, 2003; Graham, 2003). Compatible and coordinated land use is crucial to the discussion of airport and regional planning. While this fact is well documented, its effective integration is exceedingly difficult to establish (AOPA, 1999; Blanton, 2004; DoT, 2002; WAGG, 2004; WSDOT, 1999). The situation is further complicated under the airport ownership structure in Australia where local and state government input into on-airport development is limited to consultative processes and at the same time there are few mechanisms for airport operator input into regional development. Local and state governments may consider airport commercial development to conflict with their strategic intentions, while airport operators may be alarmed at incompatible regional land use trends (May and Hill, 2006). Neither stakeholder is able to formally endorse, influence or veto the land use planning decisions of the other. Airport master planning processes and local government land use planning processes should overlap and recognise that the value of each is increased within a consistent and cooperative framework (Stevens, 2006).

In Australia the separateness of airport and regional land use planning is entrenched. To date, Queensland and Western Australia are the only two Australian states to have drafted specific aviation state planning policies to assist local governments in planning and development near airports. However, their scope is limited and neither demonstrates a true commitment to providing for truly integrated airport and regional land use planning. Through consideration of the interdependencies of the interfaces, we may uncover alternative viewpoints and provide

opportunities which may have been otherwise neglected by dependence on historical practices (Adelaide workshop, 2008).

Cooperative land use interface planning will assist airport master planning to evolve from isolated statements of on-airport development to visions which interconnect with broader statements of local, city, regional and national planning intent. Similarly, state and local land use planning can react to the opportunity that such a model of airport governance presents. For example, urban and regional planners may begin to recast the notion of compatibility and conceptualise air noise contours as not just limiting residential development, but providing a strategic opportunity for other types of compatible (noise tolerant) development benefitting from a near-airport location. This might facilitate the planning of industrial and commercial corridors associated with the airport (Brisbane workshop, 2008).

4.6.3 Infrastructure Infrastructure networks of all kinds determine how a city functions and how it is defined socially, technically and politically. They do not operate in isolation and a change in one is always reflected and reverberated through others (Graham, 2000; Graham and Marvin, 2001; O’Connor, 1998). The airport is dependent on various utility networks (power, water, sanitation, ICT) for its ongoing operation and at the same time is an integral part of a city, regional and national transport infrastructure networks.

Airports require the assurance of continuity in supply chains and generic capacities to withstand disturbance yet remain functional (Ferreira et al., 2006). Strong evidence exists internationally that as airport related networks expand in size and interactive complexity, they become more vulnerable to catastrophic failure which can be often triggered by small and seemingly insignificant disturbances (Lagadec, 2004). For example, traffic incidents on key Australian arterial roads are recognised as having a dramatic impact on access to the airport for air passengers (Charles and Ferreira, 2006). The regional commercial strategies of airports are also recognised as having the potential to imperil airport access as transport connections are increasingly congested with retail and commercial traffic (MIC, 1999; SGS, 2003).

The interface evaluation of transport linkages allows for greater understanding of network wide impacts by all stakeholders. If new and upgraded transport linkages around Australian airports allow the movement of people and goods further and faster, this increases the airport’s catchment. Increased capacity, in turn, may have significant socio-environmental impacts at the

local and regional levels, such as on the availability and value of land. The successful operation of airports hinges on quality land-based regional access (Brisbane workshop, 2008). The effective delivery of the infrastructure network requires a clear understanding of land use activity patterns within the surrounding metropolitan region. Past attempts at modelling the interaction between land use and transportation networks have produced data-intensive models that are nonetheless limited in scope and interaction (Waddell et al., 2007; Badoe and Miller, 2000). Consideration of airport and regional needs requires broad strategic options where the interrelationships between transportation networks and land use activities are modelled through the use of a transportation demand approach used iteratively with appropriate economic development, land use and governance inputs (Brisbane workshop, 2008).

Changes in the intensity of land use and infrastructure may occur very quickly as a consequence of external shocks (such as rising fuel costs), although the planning and the provision of both occur over long time horizons. The extended planning time frame for infrastructure provision and large investment costs pose considerable challenges for coordination strategies. These challenges may be better understood through the interface approach to airport development providing consistency and understanding of the issues by all stakeholders (Adelaide workshop, 2008).

4.6.4 Governance In the interface model, governance covers all aspects of airport operations that are the result of decision-making by both the airport operator (private) and administering authorities (public) including airport ownership; the commercialisation and privatisation of airports; consultative procedures and conflicts; airport and air transport security; legislation and policy; institutional arrangements and public private partnerships. The changing governance structures impacting airport ownership and operations are dynamic and have changed considerably in the past decade worldwide. Oum et al., (2006) provide a comprehensive evaluation of how various ownership forms and institutional structures affect the performance of 116 major airports worldwide. This analysis highlights the sensitivity of airport efficiency and profitability to governance arrangements.

Traditional planning and administration of airports is being challenged where market mechanisms provide public goods. The role of the public has similarly evolved with these market-based reforms from that of participant to consumer (Blanchard et al., 1998). The

interface evaluation of governance issues acknowledges that stakeholder relationships have been recast in the wake of the commercialisation and privatisation of public infrastructure. There has been a fundamental change in the determination of decision-making which many stakeholders (public, private and community) do not fully recognise or appreciate (Canberra workshop, 2008). The emergence of consortiums of diverse interests as global airport operators presents challenges for the management of national assets – especially at the regional and local levels (Brisbane workshop, 2008).

A larger context is required to understand the role of governance and how institutional arrangements need to be fashioned to support the airport metropolis within the region. Carney and Mew (2003 p.221) recognise that although governments want airport operators to bring commercial and strategic orientation to airport management, they ‘often create regulatory and governance structures that inhibit such an approach’. Increasingly important is the need for the legislative logic of privatisation to align with governance models to bring efficiency and equity into capital expenditure. That is, the operational, project and strategic management structure and capabilities of the airport operator should match similar intents of administering legislation and the goals of all stakeholders (Adelaide workshop, 2008).

In Australia, much conflict involving airports may be attributed to the legislative and policy arrangements under which airports are managed. Both the private airport operators and the local and state governments feel that the legislation could go further, albeit in different directions, in representing their respective interests. Both want the legislation to determine the appropriate roles of all tiers of government in relation to market discretion and the appropriate roles for airports in relation to social responsibilities (Brisbane workshop, 2008). The recommendations of the National Aviation Green Paper (November 2008) recognise this need only insofar as airport area advisory panels might better unify decision-making priorities and needs (Australian Government, 2008; QUT, 2008).

Issues of governance are fundamental in considering the changing role of Australian airports, and in particular understanding and addressing present and future economic development, land use and infrastructure conflicts between the airport and the region. Effective governance and shared decision-making through consistent frameworks has the potential to ensure appropriate administration and delivery of those aspects and values of the changing airport that are universally shared and interdependent. The consensual mitigation of negative impacts and promotion of positive opportunity across the interfaces is only possible through improved governance and stakeholder relationships (Canberra workshop, 2008).

4.7 SUSTAINABILITY AND AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT A primary goal in developing the conceptual framework of the interface model for airport regions is to affect management and governance practices to promote a balanced and more sustainable approach to airport development. Sustainability, although a much maligned concept and suffering from manipulation, is beneficial in assisting with establishment of benchmarks and indicators to move forward the normative objectives of the interface dimensions toward operational constructs.

Each of the four substantive interface areas is underpinned by multiple considerations impinging on the functioning and management of the Australian airport metropolis. These considerations influence and impact on the sustainability of the entire urban agglomeration. The interface areas provide a framework for the integration of best practice sustainability principles that can be organised into four criteria: economic efficiency, environment, coordination, and community (May, 2003). To these, we add a fifth, security, as a vital consideration given the national importance and international connections of the modern airport region. A principal aim of security at the airside interface is to prevent unlawful activities. Here, the focus shifts regionally to the important nodes and networks of critical infrastructure servicing and linked to the airport, which are also potential targets for crime and terrorism (Wheeler, 2005).

Economic efficiency is conceptualised as denoting the strategically-focused innovative evolution of economic activity that maintains and enhances a region’s international competitive advantage in high value-adding growth and core industrial sectors and their support industries.

Environment embraces the maintenance and enhancement of physical environmental systems in ways that permit productive use for existing and future generations.

Coordination denotes institutional evolution mechanisms that permit and facilitate necessary changes in social structures in response to ongoing changes in global, technical and bio-physical environments.

Community means resilient social and physical environments that maintain and create interactive and cooperative behaviours that enhance individuals’ senses of worth, place, community and well-being.

Security means resources and ongoing capacity to identify assess and respond to possible emergency, crisis, and disaster events with significant potential to disrupt social, economic and bio-physical processes in the region.

These criteria all surface in various combinations in sustainability studies. Integrated within this framework, they better capture the multivalent nature of the interfaces and the possibilities for grounding them in specific goals and outputs in ways which might be operationalised by decision support system modelling (Wijnen et al., 2008).

4.8 CONCLUSION The interface model presented in this paper draws from the Australian experience to re- conceptualise the changing and complex role of airports in the urban environment. The model is suggested as both a heuristic device to identify and organise key policy debates and a potential decision-making tool for sustainable decision-making. The strength of the conceptualisation of the issues of the airport metropolis as a series of interfaces, and the potential application of cross-cutting sustainability criteria, lies in recognition and examination of the relationships between, and impacts of, multiple systems. Much of the research that might flow from the use of this model will be directed at better understanding of these systems.

The overriding imperative is to move airport planning assessment beyond the compartmentalised analysis of issues and provide a robust solution for the acknowledgement of the conflict and opportunities of the new ‘airport metropolis’ of the early twenty-first century. Our approach will, at the very least, ensure a clearer appreciation, if not interpretation, of the interdependencies that typify major airports, allowing for comparative analyses across a range of airport contexts.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all participants at the above mentioned airport metropolis research workshops: Adelaide, South Australia, 10th April 2008; Brisbane, Queensland, 8th July 2008 and Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, 4th December

4.9 REFERENCES Adam, P., 1993. Sydney airport third runway and environmental assessment issues. A collection of articles from a joint Coast and Wetlands Society (NSW) and Australian Institute of Biology (NSW Branch). Australian Biologist 6(4), 161-197.

Adams, C., 2003. The meds and eds in urban economic development. Journal of Urban Affairs 25(5), 571-588.

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), 1999. Guide to Airport Noise and Compatible Land Use. http://www.aopa.org/asn/land_use/ (Accessed 25/10/2006).

Airports Council International (ACI), 2007. Global Traffic Forecast 2006 – 2025. ACI Traffic Forecast Advisory Services. http://www.airports.org/aci/aci/file/Press%20Releases/2007_PRs/ACI_Forecast_Executive_S ummary.pdf (Accessed 12/01/07).

Ashford, N., Stanton, M., Moore, C., 1997. Airport Operations. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Australia Bureau of Transport Economics (ABTE), 1975. Brisbane airport: economic evaluation of alternative development strategies. Australian Government. Canberra, ACT.

Australian Government, 2008. National Aviation Green Paper: Executive Summary. Canberra: Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government.

Australia Pacific Airports (Melbourne) (APAM), 2008. Melbourne Airport Environment Strategy. Victoria, Australia.

Badoe, DA., Miller, EJ., 2000. Transportation and Land-Use Interaction: Empirical Findings In North America, and Their Implications for Modelling. Transportation Research Part D 5(4), 235- 263.

Blanchard, L., Hinnant, C., Wong, W., 1998. Market based reforms in government – toward a social subcontract? Administration and Society 30(5), 483-512.

Blanton, W., 2004. On the Airfront. Planning 70(5), 34-36.

Brown, A., Sherrard, H., 1951. Town and Country Planning. Carlton, Melbourne: University Press.

Burman, B., 2008. Airport Planning: The Donut Philosophy. PowerPoint Presentation, Adelaide Airport and Regional Stakeholders Workshop, April 2008.

Button, K., 2003. The potential of meta-analysis and value transfers as part of airport environmental appraisal. Journal of Air Transport Management 9(3), 167-176.

Button, K., Taylor, S., 2000. International air transportation and economic development. Journal of Air Transport Management 6(4), 209-222.

Carlton, AR., 1978. MANS environment: environmental work of the Major Airport Needs of Sydney Study. Environmental Engineering Conference Sydney 12-14 July 1978: preprints of papers. Barton, ACT: Institution of Engineers, 68-72 Australia.

Carney, M., Mew, K., 2003. Airport governance reform: a strategic management perspective. Journal of Air Transport Management 9(3), 221-232.

Charles, M.; Barnes, P.; Ryan, N.; Clayton, J., 2007. Airport futures: Towards a critique of the aerotropolis model. Futures 39, 1009-1028.

Charles, P., Ferreira, L., 2006. Costs of Major Traffic Incidents: Stage 1 Report, Prepared for Queensland Department of Main Roads. Brisbane. (Unpublished).

Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), 1952. Airport Planning. Washington.

Cochrane, R., 1947. The design and construction of aerodrome pavements. Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: Department of Works and Housing.

Coles, L., 1929. Design of an Airport. Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science. Michigan.

Conway, M.,1993. Airport Cities 21. Atlanta: Conway Data.

Davidson, KB., Martin, GC., Morton, AJ., 1969. A traffic prediction model for Brisbane airport. Australian Road Research 3(10), 24-35.

De Neufville, R., Odoni, A., 2003. Airport Systems: Planning, Design and Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Deaves, SR., 1986. New Brisbane Airport: environmental aspects and planning. Proceedings of a Short Course on Geological and Environmental Aspects of Coastal Management Programs Held at QIT -Queensland Institute of Technology, Brisbane, February 1986, 164-169.

Debbage, KG., Delk, D., 2001. The geography of air passenger volume and local employment patterns by US metropolitan core area: 1973 – 1996. Journal of Air Transport Management 7(3), 159-167.

Department of Transport (DoT), 2002. State of California - Division of Aeronautics, California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, January. http://www.dot.ca.gov /hq/planning/aeronaut/htmlfile/landuse.php (Accessed 27/06/2006).

Espey, M., Lopez, H., 2000. The Impact of Airport Noise and Proximity on Residential Property Values. Growth and Change 31, 408-419.

Federal Court of Australia (FCA), 2005. Westfield Management Ltd v Brisbane Airport Corporation Ltd. [2005] FCA 32. http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi- in/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2005/32.html?query=Westfield%20Management%20Ltd %20v%20Brisbane%20Airport (Accessed 18/11/2006).

Federal Court of Australia (FCA), 2004. Village Building Company Limited v Canberra International Airport Pty Limited (No 2) FCA 133 http://www.austlii.edu.au/ cgi- bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/2004/133.html?query=The%20Village%20Building%20Comp any (Accessed 25/11/2006).

Ferreira, L., Stevens, N., Baker, D., 2006. The New Airport and its Urban Region: Evaluating Transport Linkages. In Proceedings International Conference of Transport and Traffic Studies, X’ian, China.

Fitzgerald, P., 1998. The Sydney Airport Fiasco: the politics of an environmental nightmare. Sydney: Hale and Iremonger.

Fitzgerald, P., 1999. Sydney airport's third runway: A case study of flawed EIS processes. Urban Policy and Research 17(2), 123-130.

Finavia, 2004. Civil Aviation Administration, Annual Report. Finnish CAA.

Forsyth, P., 1997. Price Regulation of Airports: Principles with Australian Applications. Journal of Transport Research - E 33(4), 297-309.

Freathy, P., O’Connell, F., 1999. Planning for Profit: the Commercialisation of European Airports. Long Range Planning 32(6), 587-597.

Freestone, R., Williams, P., Bowden, A., 2006. Fly Buy Cities: Some planning aspects of airport privatisation in Australia. Urban Policy and Research 24(4), 491-508.

Froesch, C., Prokosch, W., 1946. Airports - Design and Construction. New York: Wiley.

Graham, A., 2003. Managing Airports, 2nd Edition. Oxford: Elsevier.

Graham, B., 1999. The Geography of Air Transport in Australasia: a Global Perspective. Australian Geographical Studies 37(2), 105-113.

Graham, B., Guyer, C., 1999. Environmental sustainability, airport capacity and European air transport liberalization: irreconcilable goals? Journal of Transport Geography 7(3), 165-180.

Graham, S., 2000. Introduction: Cities and Infrastructure Networks. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 24(1), 114-119.

Graham, S., Marvin, S., 2001. Splintering urbanism: networked infrastructure, technological mobilities and the urban condition. London: Routledge.

Greenblat, E., 2003. Factory outlet feud leaves airports up in the air. Age. June 25. Melbourne. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/06/24/1056449242470.html (Accessed 24/5/2006).

Güller, M., Güller, M., 2003. From airport to airport city. Barcelona: Litogama.

Haggett, P., 1979. Geography: A modern synthesis. New York: Harper and Row.

Harrison, E., 1914. Military tuition in aviation. Commonwealth Military Journal/Australian Military Journal 5 April, 292-294.

Holsman, AJ., Aleksandric, V., 1977. Aircraft noise and the residential land market in Sydney. Australian Geographer November, 401-408.

Hooper, P., Cain, R., White, S., 2000. The privatisation of Australia’s airports. Transportation Research, Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 36(3), 181-204.

Horonjeff, R., McKelvey, F., 1994. Planning and Design of Airports, 4th Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Humphreys, I., 1999. Privatisation and commercialisation changes in UK airport ownership patterns. Journal of Transport Geography 7(2), 121-134.

Kasarda, JD., 1991a. An industrial/aviation complex for the future. Urban Land 16-20.

Kasarda, JD., 1991b. The fifth wave: the air cargo-industrial complex. Portfolio: A Quarterly Review of Trade and Transportation 4(1), 2-10.

Kasarda, JD., 1996. Airport-related industrial development. Urban Land 54-55.

Kasarda, JD., 2000. Logistics & the rise of aerotropolis. Real Estate Issues 25(4), 43.

Kasarda, JD., 2001. From Airport City to Aerotropolis. Airport World 6, 42-47.

Kasarda, JD., Green, JD., 2005. Air cargo as an economic development engine: A note on opportunities and constraints. Journal of Air Transport Management 11(6), 459-462.

Kissling, C., 1998. Beyond the Australasian Single Aviation Market. Australian Geographical Studies 36(2), 170-176.

Kuhlman, A., 2005. Peak Oil: The Coming Global Crisis and the Decline of Aviation. Airliners.net. www.airliners.net/articles/read.main?id=81 (Accessed 26/06/08).

Kunkel, J. (1990) Freeing airline deregulation from government turbulence, Commercial Issues, (4), Spring 1990, pp. 7-10.

Lagadec, P., 2004. Crisis: A watershed from local, specific turbulences, to global inconceivable crises in unstable and torn environments. Future Crises, Future Agendas: An Assessment of International Crisis Research International Workshop, November 24-26, Nice, France.

Legault, AR., 1960. Highway and airport engineering. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall.

Lambert, CR., 1953. Transport needs - Northern Australia. Department of Transport, Canberra: ACT, Australia.

Lammerts, D., 1996. Environment management within the Federal Airports Corporation (Australia). Proceedings: International Conference on Environmental Management at Airports: Liabilities and Social Responsibilities: Manchester Airport.

Loxton, HT., 1950. The design and construction of aerodrome pavements; The design and construction of aerodromes. Department of Works and Housing. Canberra, ACT, Australia.

Lucas, A., 1982. Influence of Adelaide Airport and associated jet aircraft noise on surrounding residential property values. Valuer July, 247-251.

Macintosh, A., Downie, C., 2007. A flight risk? Aviation and climate change in Australia. Discussion Paper No 94. Canberra: The Australia Institute.

Maurrasse, D., 2007. City Anchors: Leveraging Anchor Institutions for Urban Success. CEOs for Cities, White Paper. September.

May, A., 2003. Developing Sustainable Urban Land Use & Transport Strategies: A Decision Makers’ Guidebook. European Commission, Community Research Institute for Transport Studies: University of Leeds.

May, M., Hill, S., 2006. Questioning airport expansion – A case study of Canberra International Airport. Journal of Transport Geography 14(6), 437-450.

Metropolis International Congress (MIC), 1999. Final Report. Commission 1: Airports and their Surrounding Zones as Catalysts of Metropolitan Development. Barcelona.

Mills, G., 1995. Airports: users don't pay enough: and now here's privatisation. Economic Papers 14(1), 73-84.

Moffat, DW., 1968. Critical path method in developmental works at Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport (Australia Department of Works). Australian Road Research Board (ARRB) Conference, 4th, Proceedings 4(1), 425-35.

O’Connor, K., 1998. The International Air Linkages of Australian Cities 1985-1996. Australian Geographical Studies 36 (2), 143-155.

O’Malley, P., 2006. Risks, Ethics, and Airport Security. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 48(3), 413-421.

Oum, T., Adler, N., Yu, C., 2006. Privatization, corporatization, ownership forms and their effects on the performance of the world’s major airports. Journal of Air Transport Management 12(3), 109-121.

Queensland University of Technology (QUT), 2008. Towards a National Aviation Policy Statement: Response Paper. Submission to the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering, Faculty of Business. June 2008.

Quiggin, J., 1997. Evaluating Airline Deregulation in Australia. The Australian Economic Review 30(1), 45-56.

Quinlan, H., 1998. Air Services in Australia: Growth and Corporate Change, 1921 - 1996. Australian Geographical Studies 36(2), 156-169.

Richard, LF., 1936. Airport Management. London: Pitman & Sons Ltd.

Ryan, S., Bramston, T., 2003. The Hawke Government: a Critical Retrospective, Melbourne: Pluto Press.

Sanders, W., 1991. The Viability of a Second Sydney Airport and Capacity of KSA: A critique of the FAC's 'Capacity Gap' Argument. Australian Planner June, 9-15.

Schaafsma, M., Amkreutz, J., Güller, J., 2008. Airport and City – Airport Corridors: drivers of economic development. Schiphol Real Estate, Schiphol.

Seymour, RM., 1979. Re-development of Brisbane Airport. Australian Transport January, 16-20.

SGS Economics and Planning, 2003. Economic Impacts of Activity Centre Development at Canberra International Airport. (Prepared on behalf of the Chief Minister’s Department), Australian Capital Territory Government, Australia.

Smith, R., 2000. Boon or Boondoggle? Raleigh Metro Magazine. December http://www.metronc.com/article/?id=529 (Accessed 15/8/06).

Spiller, M., 2006. Development on Airport Land. Australian Planner 43(3), 14-15.

Stevens, N., 2006. City Airports to Airport Cities. Queensland Planner 46(1), 37.

Sulman, J., 1921. An Introduction to the Study of Town Planning in Australia. Sydney: NSW Government Printer.

Taylor, GA., 1914. Town Planning for Australia. Sydney: Building Limited.

Thorn, J., 1988. Airport congestion becoming a major problem around the world. Australian Aviation (45), 86-88.

Transportation Research Board (TRB), 2003. Special Report 272 Airport Research Needs: Cooperative Solutions. Committee for a Study of an Airport Cooperative Research Program. Washington, D.C.

Tretheway, M., 2001. Airport Ownership, Management and Price Regulation. Research conducted for the Canada Transportation Act Review. InterVISTAS Consulting Inc.

Truitt, L. & Esler, M. (1996) Airport Privatization: Full Divestiture and Its Alternatives, Policy Studies Journal, 24(1) pp. 100-110.

Upham, P., Mills, J., 2005. Environmental and operational sustainability of airports: Core indicators and stakeholder communication. Benchmarking: An International Journal 12(2), 166- 179.

Uyeno, D., Hamilton, SW., Biggs, AJ., 1993. Density of residential land use and the impact of airport noise. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 27(1), 3-18.

Vandebona, U., 1997. Airport location planning and environmental values. Australasian Transport Research Forum. Forum Paper 21, 281-292.

Waddell, P., Ulfarsson, G., Franklin, J., Lobb, J., 2007. Incorporating Land Use in Metropolitan Transportation Planning. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 41(5), 382-410.

Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), 1999. Aviation Division. Airports and Compatible Land Use. February.

Wells, A., Young, S., 2004. Airport Planning and Management, 5th Edition. New York: McGraw- Hill.

Western Australian Government Gazette (WAGG), 2004. Western Australian Planning Commission – Statement of Planning Policy No. 5.1 Land Use Planning in the Vicinity of Perth Airport. 24 February 2004.

Weston, E., 1972. Measurements of aircraft noise, Sydney Airport. Commonwealth Experimental Building Station, Australia.

Westralia Airports Corporation (WAC), 2004. Perth Airport Environment Strategy. Western Australia, Australia.

Wheeler, J., 2005. Airport Security & Policing Review: An Independent Review of Airport Security and Policing for the Government of Australia. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

Whitelegg, J., 2005. The economic impact of Bristol International Airport. Lancaster, UK: Eco- Logica Ltd.

Wijnen, R., Walker, W., Baker, D., 2008. Policy Analysis of an Airport Metropolis. REAL CORP 08, Vienna International Airport, May 2008.

5Chapter 5: Managing airport land development under regulatory uncertainty

Table 11 Statement of Authorship

Freestone, Robert., Baker, Douglas., & Stevens, Nicholas J. (2011) Managing airport land development under regulatory uncertainty. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 1(1): 101–108.

Contributor Statement of contribution Prof. Robert Freestone Liaison with the journal editors Signature: Acquisition of data Data analysis Development of the article structure Drafting of the manuscript Conception and design Critical revision for important intellectual content

Copyediting - grammatical assistance, stylistic suggestions to outline or draft Editorial assistance, e.g., preparing references, fact-checking, labelling illustrations or tables Prof. Douglas Baker Development of the article structure Signature: Drafting of the manuscript Copyediting - grammatical assistance, stylistic suggestions to outline or draft Editorial assistance, e.g., preparing references, fact-checking, labelling illustrations or tables Mr Nicholas Stevens Acquisition of data Signature: Data Analysis Development of the article structure Copyediting - grammatical assistance, stylistic suggestions to outline or draft Production assistance, e.g., assembling tables, graphs, figures, photos or other illustrations Editorial assistance, e.g., preparing references, fact-checking, labelling illustrations or tables Principal Supervisor confirmation: I have sighted email or other correspondence from all co- authors confirming their certifying authorship.

April 24, 2012 Prof. Douglas Baker

Name Signature Date

Abstract

Airport development is an inherently risky proposition and regulation can add to uncertainty in the business environment. The privatisation of Australian federal airports between 1996 and 2003 mainstreamed airport development into metropolitan non- residential property markets with all the normal commercial risks including adverse community reaction to the new phenomenon of the airport city because of the attendant environmental, economic and traffic impacts involved. The Australian Government's National Aviation Review in 2008–2009 canvassed this dissent, resulting in a raft of statutory and administrative-based recommendations. Against this backdrop, and drawing on interviews with airport representatives and the deliberations of industry forums, this paper explores the attitudes of airport planning and property managers to the revised regulatory regime announced in the Government's White Paper in December 2009 .It provides a case study of corporate response to several dimensions of uncertainty accompanying regulatory change in the post-privatisation era.

5.1 INTRODUCTION This paper examines managerial responses to increased risks and uncertainties caused by shifting regulatory regimes as airports evolve towards more entrepreneurial entities. The setting is the post-privatisation era for leased federal airports in Australia. The privatisation of Australian airports was guided by light handed regulation to simultaneously ensure both fair trading practices and the maintenance of public welfare obligations. A paradoxical side effect has been for government airport policy and oversight to become increasingly intrusive and complex as it seeks to address legislative ambiguity (Freestone, 2010). From a theoretical standpoint, these contradictory interventions underscore -liberal economic policies at once liberating business from red tape and yet enmeshingthe ﬂaws of it neo further in the bureaucratic obligations and surveillance driven by the political need for public checks and balances (Freestone, 2011). From an airport management perspective, more and more uncertainty is associated with workaday and long-term decision-making.

Australian airports are increasingly obligated to report and detail all on-airport activity beyond that required previously for development, regulatory approvals or operation (McArdle, 2010a). Operators have expressed increased frustration and concern at the regulatory creep level of ‘sovereign risk’ now accumulating since the late 1990s. One critic has identiﬁed a

n be done at the airport (Nancarrow, 2010a). In the

signiﬁcantlyprivatisation constraining era Australian what airports ca are intensively monitored by federal government instrumentalities, notably the Department of Infrastructure and Transport (interested in, t of lease conditions), the Australian Competition and Consumer

amongCommission other (monopolythings, fulﬁlmen power, service levels and car parking charges) and the Productivity Commission (efficiency and micro-economic reform). The Productivity Commission has the more public role and recently commenced a major enquiry on the ‘economic regulation of airport services’ due to report in late 2011 and targeting the pricing of aeronautical and non- aeronautical services, the traditional realm of regulatory review (Forsyth, 2003).

This paper is more directly concerned with environmental planning and development regulations as they impact on the commercial development of airport land. Privatisation created considerable opportunities, if not corporate obligations, to develop non aeronautical sources of revenue. Regulation of relevant planning approvals has been quarantined from state and local controls but has not been immune from community disquiet to non-aviation related commercial development. In 2010 the Australian Government moved to re-regulate this latter aspect of airport operations. This action followed a comprehensive and consultative national review lasting nearly two years and covering many other issues including industry training and enhanced security. The focus of this paper is on how planning problems arising at the interface between airports and surrounding localities were addressed through this process, particularly with respect to non-aeronautical development. The paper explores managerial perceptions of, reactions to and engagements with a review process which was inevitably accompanied by great uncertainty as to the eventual outcomes.

Several key sources have been utilised. A range of documentary evidence has been consulted including government hearings and reports, corporate submissions to public inquiries, industry forums, transcripts of parliamentary proceedings, and policy and industry literature. A series of semi-structured interviews was also conducted between August 2009 and May 2010 with senior executives at three Australian capital city airports. These participants requested anonymity. Accordingly, the airport locations are not revealed and the informants are sourced in the text as Manager 1, 2 or 3. Questions focussed on the establishment, mechanisms, expectations and relationships associated with airport and regional land use planning and development.

The research is divided into four main sections. The first three of these are essentially contextual: an interpretation of the new climate for business-minded property-endowed

airports internationally (Section 2); an introduction to airport privatisation in Australia and the planning regime instituted when the airports were leased (Section 3); and a summary of the timeline for action under the National Aviation Policy Review 2007–09 (Section 4). Section 5 then provides an account of industry perceptions both during the review process and more especially in its wake as the government moved to implement new regulatory requirements and guidelines. This discussion highlights some critical sources of commercial development uncertainty for Australian airports. The conclusion raises broader implications of the analysis.

5.2 DEVELOPMENT, REGULATION AND RISK The modern-day airport has been transformed from a traditional mono-functional provider of airline transport services into a multifunctional marketing enterprise. Jarach (2001) captures this evolution, indeed ‘quantum leap’, towards the ‘airport as a firm’ as embracing an ‘enriched service package’ of multiple products beyond core passenger and freight movements into a raft of commercial, tourist, and logistic services. Fluctuating revenues from ground handling charges have been a major driver for airport managers' exploration of new sources of income. The result has been the rising dependence on non-aeronautical revenues, notably terminal retailing, car parking, car rental concessions, hotels, conference facilities and commercial land development (Doganis, 1992; Graham, 2009). When releasing the 2010 Airports Council International (ACI) Economics Survey, the ACI Director General stated that “non-aeronautical revenues are a vital component in the economics of airports”. The survey results show that through 2009 whilst worldwide non-aeronautical revenues overall declined slightly during the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), they were a significant buffer for airports during the downturn in passenger and freight volumes. Even in this context, real estate development (up 10% from 2008) was the fastest growing source of non-aeronautical revenue (ACI, 2010).

As airports worldwide have shifted from direct public ownership and control, they have assumed a variety of different governance structures. Gillen (2011) identifies and outlines at least seven possible types, each a different sovereign response to dealing with economic costs and benefits, and indeed a variety of interpretations of the overarching goal of efficiency. The outcome has been a significant fragmentation of an industry historically susceptible to political forces (Jarach, 2005). This managerial complexity has been exacerbated by the parallel transitioning toward multimodal service provision with airports inevitably having to confront diverse regulatory regimes. Urban planning rules and guidelines constitute a particular set of regime requirements which presents challenges for airport management regarding central,

municipal and local government expectations not always evident during the more traditional era. In some jurisdictions new rules were put in place at the very time new airport ownership arrangements were mandated (Freestone, 2010). The impact of planning requirements is felt not only on the supply of airside infrastructure but more controversially across various landside developments as airports move to commercialise their property assets in different ways (Lyon & Graham, 2006). The rise of the ‘airport city’ business model has meant more potential conflicts between airports and governments (Baker & Freestone, 2011; Güller & Güller, 2003). Key factors in heightening or ameliorating the challenges involved include the scale of airport operations, the regional economic setting, the commercial attitude of the airport operator, and the supportiveness of the public decision-making environment (Peneda, 2010).

The privatisation process bestowed considerably more discretion on airports as business enterprises. At the same time it has ushered in a far greater level of public scrutiny. Certainly in the Australian context, this has meant additional rounds of re-regulation which have pared back discretionary decision-making in response to community concerns about environment and development issues (Freestone, 2011). Incrementally, as these issues have inevitably been politicised, the trend has been towards more regulatory requirements and hence complexity. In a generic sense, this can be contextualised as the introduction of yet another source of risk into the airport decision-making environment on top of the extraordinary suite of risks already faced (Merna & Al-Thani, 2008). Airports which seek to diversify income streams through commercial development unavoidably find themselves facing uncertainty when subject to the demands and political malleability of the planning system.

The commercial development of airport property faces particular and numerous ‘obstacles’ to development. Jansen (2010) offers an inventory of nearly 100 separate considerations impinging upon the decision-making of airport managers and ranging across diverse and often conflicting domains such as aeronautical requirements; adjoining land use; legal and regulatory requirements; environmental constraints; corporate and shareholder dictates; financial circumstances; infrastructure and service provision; land suitability; corporate social responsibility; project management; and community and government consultation. Regulatory uncertainty, the subject of this paper, adds to the risk management burden. These complexities illustrate the uncertainties of forecasting that challenge the whole master planning approach (Kwakkel, 2008). Moreover, airport land development is subject to not only all the uncertainties of the commercial property market but also airport-specific influences within their institutional context. Airports have typically responded through risk-minimising mixed portfolios of ground rental, joint venture developments and direct investment (Reiss, 2007).

5.3 THE PRIVATISATION OF AUSTRALIAN AIRPORTS AND THEIR PLANNING REGIME The scale of privatisation of Australian airports is acknowledged as unprecedented (Graham, 2008). In 1988 the Federal Airports Corporation (FAC) was created by the Australian (Commonwealth) Government to commercially manage twenty-two nationally significant airports, including all major capital city airports and several regional city and metropolitan general aviation airports. All of these federal airports were privatised in several stages between 1997 and 2003 following passage of the federal Airports Act 1996. The process involved a competitive tendering by private sector operators for leases of 50 years with an option to renew for a further 49 years. The offloading of major expenditure responsibility was driven by several major considerations, including:

• avoiding large capital investments and making resources available for other public programmes;

• increasing economic efficiency in the provision of aviation services, including investment and pricing reforms and removal of cross subsidies between airports;

• improving managerial efficiency and flexibility to reduce costs and increase global competitiveness; and

• removing disincentives to the deployment of new technology and working practices in airport management and operation (TTF, 2007).

Whilst all Australian privatised airports operate under the same federally administered statutory framework, they vary significantly in size and operations. Their major operations have been categorised broadly here as general aviation (GA), pilot training (PT) and international, domestic and regional regular passenger transport services (RPT). Table 1 highlights some of the key features of size and structure of the privatised airports. Common features of all privatised airports are their continued passenger growth and statutory master planning for the capitalisation of land side development (Walker & Stevens, 2008).

Table 1 Federally leased airports in Australia

Airport* Code Type Passenger % Av % of Aust. Aircraft Airport Airport lessee movements annual total movements property company 2009 - 2010 Growth 5 passenger 2009 - 2010 area year from (hectares) 04/05 Adelaide ADL RPT 7,015,509 5.5 5.5 72,378 785 Adelaide Airport (South Ltd Australia) Alice ASP GA & 681,295 1.0 _ 6,652 3550 Northern Territory Springs RPT Airports Pty Ltd (The Northern Territory) Archerfield YBAF GA & PT NA NA NA 142,718 259 Archerfield Airport (Brisbane, Corporation Queensland) Pty Ltd Bankstown BWU GA & PT NA NA NA 367 170 313 Bankstown Airport (Sydney, New Limited South Wales) Brisbane BNE RPT 18,897,115 4.2 14.9 154,299 2700 Brisbane Airport (Queensland) Corporation Camden CDU GA & PT NA NA NA 46,398 194 Camden Airport (Sydney, NSW) Limited

Canberra CBR RPT 3,258,396 5.6 2.6 43,324 436 Canberra Airport (Australian Pty Limited Capital Territory) Darwin DRW RPT & 1,569,007 5.3 1.2 25,471 1540 Northern Territory (The Northern GA Airports Pty Ltd Territory) Essendon MEB GA & PT 20,504 1.1 _ 2,209 305 Essendon Airport (Melbourne, & RPT Pty Ltd Victoria) Gold Coast OOL RPT & 5,186,145 10.5 4.1 35,297 365 Queensland Airports (Queensland) GA Pty Ltd Hobart HBA RPT & 1,855,849 4.0 1.5 14,380 499 Hobart International (Tasmania) GA Airport Pty Ltd Hoxton YHOX GA – NA NA NA NA 87 Hoxton Park Airport Park Closed Limited (NSW) 2008 Jandakot JAD GA & PT NA NA NA 389,466 622 Jandakot Airport (Perth, Western Holdings Pty Australia) Ltd Launceston LST RPT & 1,131,326 3.3 _ 11.905 180 Australia Pacific (Tasmania) GA Airports Corporation Melbourne MEL RPT 25,917,963 5.0 20.4 187,890 2647 Australia Pacific (Victoria) Airports Corporation Moorabbin MBW GA & PT 9,630 _ _ 625 294 Moorabbin Airport (Melbourne, Corporation Victoria) Parafield ADZ GA & PT 437 Adelaide Airport (Adelaide) Ltd Perth PER RPT 9,992,583 8.9 7.9 80,853 2105 Westralia Airports (Western Corporation Australia) Pty Ltd Sydney SYD RPT 34,462,117 4.3 27.1 275,132 905 Macquarie Airports (NSW) Group Townsville TSV RPT & 1,518,369 11 _ 24,565 937 Queensland Airports (Queensland) GA Pty Ltd Source: Adapted from Australian Government (2010) and Walker & Stevens (2008)

*Tennant Creek & Mt Isa airports are not subject to the planning framework in the Airports Act 1996 and have therefore been excluded from this analysis. Also omitted is Hoxton Park (GA) in Sydney which closed in 2008 and has been redeveloped as a business precinct.

After a decade of privatised airports in Australia, the Tourism and Transport Forum, a major industry lobby group, declared privatisation a major economic success with billions of dollars invested. It describes privatised airports as economic ‘jet engines’ whose collective and cumulative contributions to GDP make them a key sector in the national economy. Australia is said to lead the world in the development of ‘air cities’ (TTF, 2007). The economic indicators for Sydney Airport, the nation's largest, set the pace: over 33 million passengers and nearly 700,000 tonnes of freight per annum; direct or indirect generation of over 200,000 jobs; and a total economic contribution to the national economy estimated at $16.5 billion, or about 2% of the entire Australian GDP. Every Boeing 747 which lands injects an estimated $1.8 m into the Sydney economy (Nancarrow, 2010a). From an on-airport development perspective, three major areas of investment have become evident over the last decade: first, a generally increasing scale of airport operations with growing traffic, the reorganisation of airlines, and the rise of low cost carriers; second, upgrades to passenger terminals; and third, commercial land development (Baker & Freestone, 2011; TTF, 2007). A holistic evaluation of the privatisation experience must incorporate diverse stakeholders including the airlines and the community (Zakrzewski, 2006). But from the airport sector standpoint, the verdict is unequivocally positive and with good reason. Australian airports are highly attractive to investors largely because of the liberal pricing regime in place (Colonial First State, 2010).

The Department of Infrastructure and Transport is responsible for advising the government on the regulatory structure and policy for aviation and the airport industry. It has a raft of oversight functions including airport planning, development and land use; insurance compliance; environment and building control regulation; payment of Government rates and taxes; and monitoring compliance with lease conditions (Australian Government, 2011). The department's key performance targets with respect to regulation include maintenance of a clear and robust regulatory framework supportive of investment in safe, efficient and environmentally responsible aviation infrastructure.

Because airports are sited on Commonwealth land, planning and development issues are administered under Commonwealth law. There were no formal planning requirements in the FAC era although major development were scrutinised under federal environmental assessment legislation. The Airports Act introduced a completely new system whose basic elements remain substantially intact today. The key elements of the planning framework are:

• Master plans: twenty year strategic visions prepared by airports at five yearly intervals;

• Environment strategies: statements for managing environmental issues again updatable every five years, and also requiring the concurrence and ongoing scrutiny of a separate Minister administering the federal Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999;

• Major development plans: required for any proposed work costing more than $20 million (increased from $10 m in 2007) and expected to be in conformity with master plans; and

• Independently-appointed airport building controllers and environmental officers to scrutinise smaller projects and manage day-today activities.

The preparation of Master Plans and Major Development Plans (MDP) provides for public exhibition and commentary of draft plans plus Ministerial assessment and determination. The standard consultation period for Master Plans and MDPs is 60 days with an assessment period of 50 days.

Planning conflicts have arisen primarily because the federal leased airports operate under federal jurisdiction independent of surrounding areas which remain under state and local planning controls. Submissions to a 2007 Senate Standing Committee inquiry (Australian Government, 2007) articulated various community concerns with this disjuncture including:

• Large-scale commercial developments taking place outside normal planning controls;

• Documentation requirements less than for conventional development applications;

• Lack of developer contributions for off-airport infrastructure upgrades;

• Highly flexible and use-inclusive nature of generalised airport master plans;

• Poor community consultation;

• Role of airports as both proponents and approval authorities for some developments;

• Lack of independent reviews or third party appeals; and

• Lack of urban planning expertise at the Commonwealth level.

These and related concerns surfaced through the consultative process attached to the National Aviation Policy Review, described in the next section.

5.4 THE NATIONAL AVIATION REVIEW AND POLICY REFORM The National Aviation Policy Review was initiated following a change in the federal government in November 2007. Following the Westminster tradition, it progressed from an ‘Issues Paper’ (policy concerns) in April 2008 through to a ‘Green Paper’ (policy options) in December 2008 to a ‘White Paper’ (policy directions) released in December 2009. The latter represented Australia's first comprehensive national aviation policy (Australian Government, 2009). Implementation from 2010 has involved a mix of non-statutory guidelines and legislative amendments. The Review had a wide remit encompassing ten key aviation issues: safety, security, international aviation, domestic and regional aviation, general aviation, industry skills and productivity, consumer protection, aviation emissions and climate change, airport infrastructure and noise impacts.

Airport planning issues of the kind canvassed in the previous section were a major focus of the hundreds of submissions received for the Issues and Green Papers. State and local governments complained about the lack of effective integration between federal, state and local planning regimes, the unfair competitive advantage gained by airports conducting non-aviation based activities over commercial rivals subject to jurisdictional planning controls, and master plans and major development plans lacking detail when compared to the documentation requirements for comparable developments outside airports (James & Freestone, 2009). Confining formal consultative protocols to master plan and major development plan processes alone (thereby missing environmental impacts from smaller scale projects) was also seen by state and local governments as unduly limiting (Australian Government, 2010b). Overall, a strong perception developed of airports as privileged development islands overloading local infrastructure and prone to ignoring local and regional planning regimes. The airports disputed many of these claims, as discussed below, and obviously did not remain passive and made representations individually and through peak bodies such as the Australian Airports Association (AAA), a not-for-profit organisation representing nearly 300 airports nation-wide. Through 2009 and 2010 officers from the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government involved airports in additional direct consultations.

Nevertheless, a clear mandate for regulatory reform – and tightening – was established. As the Minister for Transport stated in Parliament, ‘Significant reforms are needed to get the balance right between the need for ongoing investment in aviation infrastructure, community consultation and the integration of airport planning with local, state and territory planning regimes’ (Albanese, 2010a). The airport sector thus faced three years of uncertainty through the

duration of the review process. The crystallisation of policy reforms in the area of airport infrastructure and planning can be tracked through the three key review papers.

The Issues Paper raised numerous questions in four main areas: land use planning and development approvals at major airports; non aeronautical development; “safeguarding” key airport infrastructure; and future airport needs. The Green Paper developed responses within a series of indicative policy pathways for more detailed consideration. A philosophy of balanced planning was espoused, with the report sprinkled with keywords like “new partnerships”, “improved coordination”, “better integration”, and “a greater sense of shared commitment to the development of the airport site”. The thrust was toward forging a consensus in planning between different stakeholders (Freestone & Baker, 2010). The White Paper eventually detailed over 130 initiatives. With respect to airport infrastructure, the key recommendations included:

• more detailed Master Plans, including ground transport plans and airport environment strategies;

• Major Development Plan assessment to encompass proposals considered to have significant community, economic or social impact even if under the threshold of $20 m;

• planning coordination forums for each primary capital city airport to enable airports and governments to more effectively engage on strategic planning issues;

• community consultation groups to ensure that local communities have direct input on airport planning matters;

• prohibition of incompatible developments unless exceptional circumstances exist; and

• an identified list of expert advisors to assist with Ministerial determinations.

To help counterbalance these more stringent requirements, other regulations were relaxed — the necessity for Major Development Plans for high priority, low impact aviation facilities and the length of public exhibition periods for aviation-related proposals already documented and approved in master plans. Implementation would combine a pragmatic mix of both legislative amendments to the Airports Act and other administrative measures such as new guidelines.

In June 2010 the Airports Amendment Bill was prepared to give effect to improved planning and development controls for leased federal airports. The provisions of this Bill required more detailed master plans integrating ground transport plans and airport environment strategies and incorporating more information on non-aeronautical developments, off-airport economic

impacts, and compliance with the employment proposals of relevant state and local plans; clauses to prevent incompatible developments, such as residential developments and schools, on federal airport sites; and a requirement that all developments with a significant economic or social impact on communities must go through a major development plan assessment. Some reform measures, such as requirements for new planning coordination forums and community consultation groups could be dealt with through administrative fiat.

The passage of the Bill through parliament was interrupted by a federal election won by the Julia Gillard-led Labor Party but eventually passed by the House of Representatives in October 2010. The upper house of parliament, the Senate, referred the Bill to a Senate Committee on Rural Affairs and Transport for an inquiry. The result of this inquiry and general parliamentary debate was a series of amendments which in large measure addressed the concerns of the airports. The amendments to the Airports Act were eventually passed in November 2010. Whilst generally welcomed by the broader community, some sections of the aviation industry have been critical at the apparent shift in power away from airports to their neighbours that “opens airports up to significant interference in the development required to support the growth that everyone knows is coming” (Nancarrow, 2010b).

5.5 AN AIRPORT INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE Throughout the review process and into the period of implementation of new policy the airports maintained some consistent positions on planning and land development matters. Individually and collectively they constantly reiterated their contribution to aggregate economic wealth and endorsed the ‘regulation lite’ regime across the board as good for both profit-driven airports and the nation. They asserted the need to harness a range of aeronautical and non- aeronautical revenue streams and reminded parliamentarians of the terms of their leases which effectively encouraged commercial development activities. Various good neighbour consultative initiatives already in place were highlighted along with the need for any policy changes to acknowledge the diversity within the airport sector. Airport corporations remained constantly vigilant in their representations and more than once argued that the aviation industry was economically important enough to warrant its own dedicated federal Minister rather than have these responsibilities within a much wider transport and infrastructure portfolio. There was considerable support for these views from the conservative opposition side of national politics with their parliamentarians similarly maintaining in different forums that airports were vital

pieces of infrastructure that should not be unduly hindered by excessive regulation and higher costs.

The discussion below is divided between the National Aviation Review process proper (2008– 2009) and the ensuing development of specific regulatory reforms (2010). The airports' position was grounded primarily in the demands of rational and competitive economic management. Through the Review period the airports sought to reaffirm their economic standing and desire to effectively maintain the status quo (Section 5.1). When inevitable policy recalibration was foreshadowed, their major effort went into ensuring that new provisions would not prove onerous. Post-White Paper the airports sought to attenuate the uncertainty around any potential for legislative change (Section 5.2).

5.5.1 The Review Process Corporate interests dominated submissions to both the Issues and Green Papers (James & Freestone, 2009). The airports conveyed strong support for continued and singular Commonwealth control over airport planning, and similarly robust opposition to what they perceived as “moving the goalposts”, in particular, the application of untested measures such as mooted new Ministerial “call-in” powers. Airports conceded some scope for better intergovernmental coordination, particularly between Commonwealth and State Governments, but outright opposed the establishment of airport planning advisory panels. They argued that such arrangements were unnecessary when consultative mechanisms were already in place, that such panels might be hijacked by sectional interests, and that overall they would inject yet more uncertainty and time delays into the decision-making process.

Airports highlighted existing complications and sources of delay impacting on their decision- making. A particular concern was the complexity caused by the concurrence requirements of the federal Environment Planning and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 alongside the principal Airports Act. A major theme with reference to off-airport planning was the need for Commonwealth intervention to prevent development which could compromise safe and efficient aircraft movements. Countering community criticism of on-airport development, the airports sought greater coordination of land use planning by state and local authorities to prevent residential creep setting up aircraft noise complaints and over-flight impacts, high-rise encroachment into airspace, and orderly provision of ground transport infrastructure. Some airports recognised a level of uncooperativeness from state agencies with which they had to deal, underpinning general support for better consultative arrangements.

5.5.2 Post-White Paper Reception to the White Paper, released just before Christmas 2009, was somewhat muted across the range of stakeholder interests and marked by little discussion in the media (Freestone & Baker, 2010). Whilst the philosophy of a more balanced planning regime was accepted, just how that might actually work remained to be elaborated. The airports conceded that the projected initiatives could have been way more heavy-handed but maintained deep into 2010 that aviation policy was still “very much a work in progress” (McArdle, 2010a). The General Manager of one capital city airport expressed the general sentiments of the sector: “There's a level of uncertainty around now that's more heightened than it has been previously, so we need some level of certainty about the way the market's going to move for a period of time, in terms of what you can do and what you can't” (quoted in Nancarrow, 2010a, 15).

What remained to be clarified was what reforms might be developed legislatively through regulation versus more discretionary guidelines. Hence, through various industry forums such as AAA, the airports took a pragmatic stance to remain vigilant through to final parliamentary approval of any legislative reforms. Immediately from the release of the White Paper to the passage of the amended Act, their stance was a watchful “the devil is in the detail”. This concern threaded through five interrelated themes of uncertainty which airports sought to attenuate: the overall trend to re-regulation; information and delay costs of compliance; regulatory ‘fine print’; the adaptability of new regulations to diverse business settings; and countering the perception that non-aeronautical development was somehow antithetical to an efficient modern airport. Each is discussed in turn.

5.5.2.1 Re-regulation The first and overall concern expressed by airports was an apparent trend to re-regulation which was not in the spirit of the original policy commitment to a privatised airport sector. The institutional landscape of the late 2000s seemed to them very different from that of the late 1990s.

On the one hand the role of the federal government was more interventionist with legislative requirements becoming more demanding and complex. The AAA Chairman complained about “regulatory myopia” and the turn to “nanny” rules (McArdle, 2010b). One senior executive interviewed highlighted the paradox of privatisation:

The impetus ... was to get rid of the burden, let private enterprise take over and pay for the infrastructure. Today again you have de facto federal government control through the master plan assessment processes. It is a choke point. They intended to free up resources and are again consuming them (Manager 1).

Far from the community perception of privileged precincts governed separately from normal state planning controls, another executive portrayed airports as over-regulated spaces contradictory to the goals:

You actually now have … more Commonwealth officials engaged in the management, running, supervision and regulation of airports than you actually had in the past under the FAC … I am not saying we need to be given free reign but if we could just go back to a slightly less regulated format … we are [among] the most environmentally regulated pieces of land in the country and certainly there is no other asset or piece of land that has master planning at anywhere near this comprehensiveness, or public engagement, or regularity of update … we are an island full of the most hamstrung, difficult, drawn out, anti business, anti investment setup. For an economic driver you have got the worst planning process that makes it harder to invest (Manager 2).

On the other hand, and making matters worse, was the concern that planning reforms were headed towards appeasing and accommodating other political stakeholders who were not exposed to the same economic stakes and risks shared by either the federal government or particularly the airports themselves. The airports have always been concerned with volatility at the local government level from which the Airports Act somewhat insulates them. The problem they have within a new collaborative framework is the possible weight which might be given by both the federal department and the Minister to negative minority submissions.

5.5.2.2 Information and delay costs The concerns expressed above are not purely ideological but relate to a second major issue: the costs of compliance and delay associated with a greater regulatory burden. Several considerations intersect around this theme. One is the view that the increasing level of information required under the new planning regime is unreasonable when the preparation of master plans by capital city airports already costs “in excess of one million dollars in hard cash and … staff hours” (Manager 1). Second is an unrealistic expectation of the detail which can be provided. As one senior executive told a government inquiry, “It is difficult, probably six or

seven years out, to say what the colour and shape of a DB Schenker distribution centre are going to look like when they have not even come to us yet to ask for it” (Woodruff, 2010). Third is the present lack of specificity regarding the new community impact trigger for major development plans and what sorts of development will potentially be impacted. Fourth is a longstanding concern regarding exhibition and assessment periods longer than comparable periods under state legislation and exacerbated by ‘stop the clock’ provisions without transparent guidelines as more information is sought by the regulator.

All these aspects singly and collectively can put breaks on investment and development initiatives. One airport executive outlined his perspective on the uncertainty for continued on- airport commercial development:

I think it goes back to taking away the rights we were sold. I think it is bad for our business because it takes away opportunity, and I also think it is bad for the community because it reduces our economic role. The things that would otherwise naturally be attracted to locate here are forced to go elsewhere and they then have, for their business and operations, a lower quality or operational outcome (Manager 2).

From the airports' viewpoint, compliance costs can place them at a competitive disadvantage relative to off-airport developers. Critical time spent in the approval pipeline can result in commercial tenants being lost. The legitimate concern is that regulatory delays may impact adversely on private investment decisions when compared to more certain timelines under state legislation. The critical issue for airport land development is thus not necessarily either noise or airport operations but timeliness of action relative to competitors.

5.5.2.3 The statutory fine print Related to this sort of micro-regulatory uncertainty through 2010 was a perceived ambiguity in the definition of critical terms and hence the scope of government interference. This came to the fore in the wording of certain clauses in the Airports Amendment Bill 2010. The airports found an ally in a government inquiry among Opposition Liberal/National Party Senators who regarded some proposed legislative changes as hostile to market competiveness. Said one of their number at the Senate hearing into the amendments: “This has been written up by a bureaucrat behind a desk with no practical experience who is stifling investment and is going to get everyone tongue-tied over the legislation by trying to be that prescriptive” (McGauran, 2010).

The AAA variously argued that ill-defined terminology would undermine the confidence of both the community and the airports; that many minor and maintenance projects could conceivably require major development plans; that unreasonable restraints would be placed on certain land uses (notably through the vague definition of an “aviation educational facility”); and that ambiguity would enhance the discretionary power of the Minister. Again, the bottom line was economic and the fear that a lack of clarity would mean greater uncertainty and increased costs for airports. Most of these terminological fears were resolved with minor changes to the wording of the amended Act prior to finalisation.

5.5.2.4 Diversity of airports A fourth and constant reminder to legislators was the importance of recognising the diversity of the airport sector. A frequent refrain was that “it's not a one size fits all” (Manager 3) and that policy must be sensitive to different types and scales of airports. This applied to the capital city and regional airports but was most frequently invoked with the six federally leased general aviation (GA) and pilot training airports in metropolitan areas: Archerfield (in Brisbane); Essendon and Moorabbin (Melbourne); Jandakot (Perth); Parafield (Adelaide) and Bankstown (Sydney). Some of these airports face a more competitive environment than the majors and are much more sensitive to pricing variations. The provisions of the Airports Act mean that they face the same compliance requirements for master plans and major development plans. Heavy preparation costs are more easily absorbed by larger airports whilst the costs of delay can be magnified for the GA airports. The Senate Inquiry was told that the proposed amendments to the Act would increase the cost of running GA airports without increasing the revenue capability and that this would not be sustainable in the longer term. The modest and uncertain return from landing charges from light aircraft and charter businesses for GA airports has been a major impetus for their turn to non-aeronautical commercial enterprises. Essendon Airport is one of the most innovative airports with office buildings, a supermarket, a factory retail outlet, automotive showrooms, a call centre, and even a whisky distillery.

5.5.2.5 Non-aeronautical development As vital as non-aeronautical development may be for GA airports, some within the industry identify a negative stance on the part of the federal government. “There is this covert unspoken agenda that really non-aviation development could be on the nose, could be not approved, so

the uncertainty is you don't really know” (Manager 2). The Government's stance was captured by the Minister for Transport in the debate in the House of Representatives in November 2010 which confirmed the passage of the Airports Amendment Act:

The fact is that when the previous government leased the airports they did not get the planning system around the airports right. That is why we have around Australia at a number of airports non-aeronautical developments which have been prioritised above aviation activity. That has occurred at capital city airports and it has occurred at regional airports. Those airport owners have received a windfall gain from the leasing of the airports in order to engage in other commercial activity. The fact is that this government put in place a system that has ensured that it is not brickworks that are prioritised at airports; it is aviation activity (Albanese, 2010b).

The airports have had to battle this scepticism if not opposition throughout. The AAA has maintained that as expensive and immobile infrastructure within a hyper-mobile industry, airports need “other activities to balance our exposure to airline operational risk” (Nancarrow, 2010a). Their business models are predicated on a balanced portfolio which is unsettled by community, media and governmental circumspection with non-aviation activity. “Those two -aeronautical returns – lead to a balanced returns−theinvestment return aeronautical which givesreturns our and investors the non comfort and certainty that they can invest and make a return on that investment”, according to one operator (Woodruff, 2010) who went onto tell the inquiry into the Airports Act amendments: “We have to look at things as a whole, and I think it is dangerous to isolate particular investments and say, ‘You can't do that but you can do that, because it then leads to an imbalance in returns.”

The anti-commercial development stance not only flies in the face of a global transformation in the nature of the airport (Jarach, 2001, 2005), it runs counter to the expectations embedded in the original acquisition of leaseholds with their prospects of significant future commercial development highlighted in the original marketing campaigns. The sales team at that time emphasised the potential for increased revenue outside the cap on aeronautical products from property development, car parking and other commercial initiatives (Freestone, Williams, & Bowden, 2006; Hooper, Cain, &White, 2000). One manager recalls:

There were plenty of [promises]. Like any sales process where a seller is trying to maximise their profit they don't only have public officials involved, they have merchant bankers whose specialist role is to pump up the volume, and the opportunity. There were brochures, there were presentations, there was articulation about the flexibility,

the development opportunities, both aviation and non-aviation. All of these things quite properly, and not at all improperly, marketed by the vendor. Their strategy was about maximising the price, as it ought to be (Manager 2).

The implication is thus another source of uncertainty for airport managers. This was stated in no uncertain terms by one of our respondents who identified ‘dishonesty’ between the balanced philosophy of the White Paper with respect to aeronautical and non-aeronautical development and the hyper-scrutiny faced by actual projects in practice:

The White Paper says you can do it all, yet there is this hidden agenda that really I think goes back to the fact it is taking away the rights we were sold.... if the government doesn't want us to do non-aviation development any more they should say it is banned and they should compensate us for stealing the property rights that they sold us (Manager 2).

5.6 CONCLUSION The airport business is inherently risky (Graham, 2008). Globally, airports have had to confront a succession of external shocks: terrorism, adverse weather events, and the Global Financial Crisis. Regulation adds to uncertainty. This paper has documented how a major regulatory review in Australia added to the uncertainty for privatised airport decision-making within the bespoke area of planning and development approvals. The National Aviation Policy Review reaffirmed Commonwealth control of major airports and hence the core legislative matrix of the Airports Act originally passed in 1996. The federal government's firm resolve to seek a better alignment between on and off-airport planning was legislated.

The airport sector through its economic strength and lobbying efforts nevertheless made decisive inputs into shaping the eventual national aviation policy. A certain temerity in the White Paper can be seen as evidence of the government listening to airports and not advancing radical strategies in the interests of striking a better balance between the various political, community and private sector stakeholds. As the Government moved to implement major recommendations through 2010, it also rejected two options that would have meant a tighter rein on airports. One was requiring all changes to be gazetted through statutory changes; another suggested accrediting state and territory government planning laws to apply to airports through negotiated bilateral agreements. Both ideas were rejected as involving onerous administration and compliance costs for airports. Regardless, airports know how have to adjust

yet again to new layering of regulatory realities. The prognosis from 2011 onwards is of airports having to “deal with the issues and challenges …[in] … an even more constrained regulatory environment” (Nancarrow, 2010b).

Several broader implications of this study for other privatised jurisdictions as they mature can be noted. One – and this is the paradox of privatisation as a neo-liberal reform – is the seemingly inevitable growing complexity of airport management and development regulation required to address new and unforeseen circumstances (Freestone, 2011).Whilst the ties may well have “progressively loosened” between airports and government (Doganis, 1992, xii), they have certainly not evaporated. Two, is the accompanying extra resourcing of the planning function required. As one airport executive put it, “we all recognise that a master plan isn't a two-year project anymore, it's just ongoing” (Manager 3). Third, is the recognition that corporate and political imperatives will not necessarily align. This is well illustrated in the Australian case by a clear resistance at the national level to recognise the evolution of airports toward multi-nodal, multi-functional hubs (Jarach, 2005). Airports will need to be well organised and ever-vigilant in clearly communicating industry needs and trends to political decision-makers. Fourth, and most importantly, is the greater commitment expected to cooperative, indeed collaborative, off- airport planning, a move that sits well with the direction of both modern urban planning practice (Healey, 1997) and the new creed of corporate social responsibility (Kotler & Lee, 2005).

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the assistance in data gathering of John McArdle, Chairman of the Australian Airports Association (AAA), and Alan Revell, Director of Property for Northern Territory Airports. Without direct attribution, the paper has benefited from attendance at a meeting of AAA members with representatives of the Department of Infrastructure and Transport at Canberra Airport in February 2010, and the Australasian Airports Real Estate Conference at Darwin Airport in August 2010. The paper also draws on an interview with Phil McConnell and Charles Li Petta at Moorrabin Airport in February 2010. The constructive commentaries of two anonymous referees have also shaped the final version of this paper. Research support was provided by the ARC Linkage Grant project, The Airport Metropolis (LP0775225). The views expressed are not necessarily those of the partners or the other persons named here.

5.7 REFERENCES Airports Council International (ACI) (2010). ACI Airport Economics Survey 2010. http:// www.aci.aero

Albanese, A. (2010a). Second reading speech, House of Representatives. Australian Government, Hansard 30 September 2010.

Albanese, A. (2010b). Speech, House of Representatives. Australian Government, Hansard 25 November 2010.

Australian Government (2007). Hearing of the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport inquiry into the Airports Amendment Bill 2006. http://aph.gov.au/hansard Transcript online

Australian Government (2009). National aviation policy White Paper: Flight path to the future. Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Canberra.

Australian Government (2010a). Airport traffic data 1985–86 to 2009–10, Department of Infrastructure and Transport, Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics. http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/91/Files/WebAirport_FY_1986- 2010.xls

Australian Government (2010b). Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (DITRDLG). Annual Report, DITRDLG, Canberra.

Australian Government (2011). Department of Transport and Infrastructure, Airport Planning and Regulation. http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/airport/ planning/index.aspx online, 12 April 2011

Baker, D., & Freestone, R. (2011). The airport city: A new business model for airport development. In R. Macario, & E. Van de Voorde (Eds.), Critical issues in air transport economics and business (pp. 150–164). London: Routledge.

Colonial First State (2010). Flying high: A review of airport regulation in Australia, Infrastructure research note, April 2010. Colonial First State Asset Management, Sydney.

Doganis, R. (1992). The airport business. London: Routledge.

Forsyth, P. (2003). Regulation under stress: Developments in Australian airport policy. Journal of Air Transport Management, 9, 23–35.

Freestone, R. (2011). Managing neoliberal urban spaces: Commercial property

development at Australian airports. Geographical Research, 49, 115–131.

Freestone, R., & Baker, D. (2010). Challenges in land use planning around Australian airports. Journal of Air Transport Management, 16, 264–271.

Freestone, R., & Freestone, R. (2010). Urban planning consequences of airport privatisation: The recent Australian experience. Air Transport Research Society conference, Porto July 2010.

Freestone, R., Williams, P., & Bowden, A. (2006). Fly buy cities: Some planning aspects of airport in Australia. Urban Policy and Research, 24, 491–508.

Gillen, D. (2011). The evolution of airport ownership and governance. Journal of Air Transport Management, 17, 3–13.

Graham, A. (2008). Managing airports: An international perspective (3 rd edition). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Graham, A. (2009). How important are commercial revenues to today's airports? Journal of Air Transport Management, 15, 106–111.

Güller, M., & Güller, M. (2003). From airport to airport city. Barcelona: Editorial Gustavo Gill.

Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. London: Macmillan.

Hooper, P., Cain, R., & White, S. (2000). The privatisation of Australia's airports. Transportation Research Part E, 36, 181–204.

James, P., & Freestone, R. (2009). Planning issues and conflicts in Australian airport regions: A report on submissions to the National Aviation Policy Green Paper. Issues Paper no. 10, City Futures Research Centre. Sydney: University of New South Wales.

Jansen, E., 2010. Obstacles to airport development, ARREC Conference, Darwin, August 2010. (Unpublished conference paper)

Jarach, D. (2001). The evolution of airport management practices: Towards a multipoint, multi- service, marketing driven firm. Journal of Air Transport Management, 7, 119–125.

Jarach, D. (2005). Airport marketing: Strategies to cope with the new millennium environment. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: Doing the most good for your company and your cause. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

Kwakkel, J. H. (2008). The problem of uncertainty in airport master planning, Aerlines 39. E-zine edition. http://www.aerlines.nl/index.php/2008/the-problem-of-uncertaintyin- airport- master-planning/

Lyon, D., & Graham, F. (2006). Managing New Zealand's airports in the face of commercial challenges. Journal of Air Transport Management, 12, 220–226.

McArdle, J. 2010a. Opening address at the Australian Airports Association National Convention, Adelaide, October 2010. (Unpublished)

McArdle, J. 2010b. Circuits and bumps. Challenges for aviation: Airports, airlines and the industry that serves them. Address to the Australian Mayoral Aviation Council Conference (AMAC), Perth, November 2010. (Unpublished)

McGauran, J. (2010). [Comments] Proof Committee Hansard, Senate Rural Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee. Transcript of Evidence. http://www.aph.gov.au/ hansard/senate/commttee/S13353.pdf

Merna, T., & Al-Thani, F. (2008). Corporate risk management (2nd ed.). Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

Nancarrow, D. (2010a). Australian airports convention assesses White Paper. Aviation business. http://www.aviationbusiness.com.au/news/australian-airportsconvention- assesses-white- paper on line, 26 October 2010

Nancarrow, D. (2010b). New airport regulations cater for one-sided ‘green’ agenda. Aviation business. http://www.aviationbusiness.com.au/news/new-airportregulations- cater-for-one- sided-green-agenda on line, 1 December 2010

Peneda, M.J.A. 2010. Critical factors for the development of airport cities. MSc thesis, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade Técnica de Lisboa. (Unpublished)

Reiss, B. (2007). Maximising non-aviation revenue for airports: Developing airport cities to maximise real estate and capitalise on land development opportunities. Journal of Airport Management, 1, 284–293.

Tourism, Transport Forum (TTF) (2007). Assessing the impact of airport privatisation. Prepared by URS, Sydney. http://www.ttf.org.au/Content/airportprivatisation08. aspx

Walker, A., & Stevens, N. (2008). Airport city developments in Australia: Land use classification and analyses. 10th TRAIL Congress and Knowledge Market. The Netherlands: Rotterdam 14–15 October 2008.

Woodruff, C. (2010). [Comments] Proof Committee Hansard, Senate Rural Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee. Transcript of evidence. http://www.aph.gov.au/ hansard/senate/committee/S13353.pdf

Zakrzewski, D. (2006). Airport privatisation — Success or failure. The airport performance scorecard a theoretical assessment tool; Aerlines Magazine. http://www.aerlines.nl/ index.php/2006/airport-privatisation-success-or-failure-the-airport-performancescorecard- a- theoretical-assessment-tool/ Issue 34.

6Chapter 6: Land use conflict across the airport fence: competing urban policy, planning and priority in Australia

Table 12 Statement of authorship

Stevens, Nicholas J. & Baker, Douglas. (2011) Land use conflict across the airport fence: competing urban policy, planning and priority in Australia. Urban Policy and Research (submitted).

Principal Supervisor confirmation: I have sighted email or other correspondence from all Co- authors confirming their certifying authorship.

April 24, 2012 Prof. Douglas Baker

Name Signature Date .

Abstract

Land use planning within and surrounding privatized Australian capital city airports is a fragmented process as a result of: current legislative and policy frameworks; competing stakeholder priorities and interests; and inadequate coordination and disjointed decision- making. Three Australian case studies are examined to detail the context of airport and regional land use planning. Stakeholder Land Use Forums within each case study have served to inform the procedural dynamics and relationships between airport and regional land use decision-making. This paper identifies significant themes and stakeholder perspectives regarding on-airport development and broader urban land use policy and planning. First, it examines the concept of airport and regional ‘interfaces’ and the primary issues that differentiate on-airport land use planning from planning within the surrounding region. Secondly, it details the results of the Land Use Forums identifying key themes within the shared and reciprocal interfaces of governance, environment, economic development and infrastructure. The paper concludes by discussing the relationships between the interfaces and the core issues contributing to the fragmentation of airport and regional land use planning policy.

Keywords: Australia, airport privatization, interfaces, land use planning, land use policy.

6.1 INTRODUCTION The privatization of Australian airports was primarily an opportunity to unburden the nation from public sector funding of airport development. Between 1996 and 2003 twenty-two Australian airports, operated by the Federal Airports Corporation (FAC) were put to tender in a two-phase process. They have been leased individually on 50 year terms with an option for a further 49 years (Hooper et al. 2000).

Since their privatization, Australian capital city airports have emerged as significant sub- regional commercial centers creating their own land use regimes within a policy framework of Commonwealth consent (Freestone et al. 2006; Freestone 2011). While retaining their primary role as critical aviation interchanges, they have also developed a range of profitable terminal and landside retail, commercial and industrial businesses. This changing role of the airport, both in Australia and abroad, has been identified as the development of an ‘aerotropolis’, ‘airport city’ or ‘airport metropolis’ (Freestone & Baker 2011; Güller & Güller 2003; Kasarda 1996; 2001; Stevens et al. 2010). These models of on-airport planning focus on the encouragement of

aviation related industry, yet also provide for retail and commercial services that have limited dependence on air transport or aviation. In the Australian context these changes in airport land use have been a cause for regional concern. They have evolved in a legislative and policy framework outside of state and local government control and at a pace which regional planning practitioners are not familiar (Walker & Stevens 2008).

This research paper documents the results of a series of Land Use Forums attended by over 120 airport and regional stakeholders and decision-makers in relation to the reciprocal impacts of airport and regional land use planning. The paper highlights many of the issues at the core of airport and regional agreement and disputation and builds on the conceptual framework of airport metropolis ‘interfaces’ (Stevens et al. 2010).

First, the paper will outline the concept of ‘interfaces’ and their significant for this research effort. It will then briefly detail the policy context under which privatized on-airport development occurs and examines the land use planning aspects of the 2008 Australian National Aviation Policy Review. The paper will then present three case study regions (Brisbane, Adelaide and Canberra) in addition to detailing the research approach of Land Use Forums. The means by which the interfaces are operationalized is outlined, as is the use of thematic extraction on the resultant qualitative data. The findings and analysis will present each interface domain in turn, identifying the key themes and stakeholder perspectives common to all of the case studies. The paper will then discuss the relationships between the interfaces and the central themes which continue to contribute to the fragmentation of airport and regional land use planning policy.

6.2 AIRPORT METROPOLIS INTERFACES The conceptual model of the interfaces is ‘an organising device for comprehending the complexity and planning aspects relating to the physical and institutional change associated with Australian airports as urban activity centres’ (Stevens et al. 2010 p 280). The framework considers that there are four interdependent interface domains that impact the development of the airport and the region: governance, economic development, infrastructure and land use planning (Figure 1).

Figure 1 The airport metropolis interface model (Stevens et al. 2010 p 280)

A key objective of this research is to apply the ‘interfaces’ as a robust structure to conceptualize and assist in the interpretation of airport and regional planning and development. Within this context land use planning practice and policy relationships will be placed as the central focus in consideration of the three interface areas of governance, economic development and infrastructure. Additionally ‘environment’ will be included for the analysis and evaluation of biophysical and social impacts (Table 1).

Table 1. Airport Metropolis Interface Domains

Land use – Airport and regional statutory and strategic land use planning needs to be recognised in view of the issues that arise from the growth of airports as regional and national activity centres. An integrated approach may provide focus for the establishment of innovative and entrepreneurial approaches to cooperative development. At present the interface divides separate airport and regional planning systems (Stevens et al. 2010).

Governance covers all Infrastructure Economic development Environment embraces formal and informal acknowledges the variety denotes the evolution of the protection and aspects of airport and of physical networks direct, indirect and improvement of bio- regional decision- required for the effective induced economic physical and social making by both the airport operator and and efficient performance activity that is intended environmental systems. regional administering of the airport and the to maintain and enhance Including for example: authorities. Including for region (Stevens et al. airport and regional noise; water and air example: 2010). In the context of competitive advantage. quality; flora and fauna; commercialization of this research there is (Stevens et al. 2010). waste management; airports; consultative primarily a focus on cultural heritage; procedures; legislation transport infrastructures. demographic change; and policy; and institutional social infrastructures and arrangements (Stevens services; and equality in et al. 2010). decision making processes.

6.3 FRACTURED POLICY Compatible, coordinated and integrated land use is crucial to the discussion of airport and regional planning; however in-practice implementation has proven difficult to establish (Blanton 2004; DoT 2002; Graham 2008). In Australia, airport and regional land use planning has been restricted under the present airport policy structure. Airport master planning and development control fall under Commonwealth legislation, primarily the Airports Act 1996. This federal government administered legislation also sets out the responsibilities and objects of airport development, regulation, ownership and obligations of airport-lessee companies. Local and state government control of on-airport development is prohibited and limited largely to consultative processes. Section 112 of the Airports Act 1996 specifically excludes state and local government law from applying in relation to land use planning and building activities. This has led to claims that airport non-aviation commercial and retail development is impacting on the viability of urban center retailing through the diversion of expenditure, often away from intended centers of employment and commerce (FCA 2005). Conversely, few mechanisms exist for airport input into regional planning and development around airports. Airport operators are often alarmed by land use planning for consolidated and greenfield residential development under flight paths and proposed high-rise airspace interference (FCA 2004). Current local, state, territory and commonwealth legislative frameworks allow limited provisions for these mutually dependent stakeholders to endorse, influence or veto land use planning decisions of the other (Stevens et al. 2010).

6.4 NATIONAL AVIATION POLICY REVIEW In April 2008, the Australian Government initiated a National Aviation Policy Review which sought to assist the better integration of privatized airports within the region. At this time, an ‘Issues Paper’ was released for public comment, followed by a ‘Green Paper’ outlining preliminary proposals (December 2008) and a National Aviation Policy White Paper: Flight Path to the Future (White Paper) with proposed policy reforms (December 2009). The review covered many issues pertaining to aviation in Australia: safety, security, international aviation, domestic and regional aviation, general aviation, industry skills and productivity, airport infrastructure and noise impacts (Australian Government 2008). Airport and regional land use planning challenges were highlighted under ‘airport infrastructure’.

Following the Green Paper the Australian Government released a discussion paper ‘Safeguards for airports and the communities around them’ in July 2009. This discussion paper was to initiate

‘A clear and coordinated national framework for land use planning and development controls’ (DITRDLG 2009a p 166). The intention was for the Australian Government to work in partnership with state, territory and local planning systems on a national technical rule book for off-airport development to assist in the protection of airspace and to protect the community from operational and catastrophic aviation impacts. Currently in lieu of this framework being advanced the Australian Department of Infrastructure and Transport (the Department) is now making formal submissions, on behalf of airports, to regional projects deemed to have the potential to impact the aviation function of the airport.

As a consequence of the White Paper, the Australian Government has initiated two additional reporting requirements and planning guidelines for airports. As of December 2010 all new airport master plans must also detail ‘surface vehicle access plans with measures to mitigate vehicle and traffic impacts’ (DITRDLG 2011, p 1). Additionally, in January 2011, the Department released a discussion draft ‘Significant Impact on the Local or Regional Community Guide’ (DITRDLG 2011). This guide is intended to provide information to both the public and industry stakeholders about whether a proposed on-airport development ‘triggers the significant impact on the local or regional community clause, which is s89(1)(na) of the Airports Act 1996’ (DITRDLG 2011, p 2).

While the Department and the White Paper provide ad hoc submissions and guidelines which seek to achieve better planning and integrated development, there remains limited direction on land use coordination between stakeholders (Freestone & Baker 2010). For this research the use of three case studies will assist in the identification of key themes within ‘in practice’ airport and regional land use planning and development.

6.5 AIRPORT AND REGIONAL CASE STUDIES Brisbane, Queensland; Adelaide, South Australia; and Canberra, Australian Capital Territory were selected as case study regions. Each presents: significant variance in their airport and regional administrative regimes; acknowledged regional land use planning conflict; and capacity for further on-airport non-aviation land use development. While the individual case studies are recognized as significantly different in local context, all share common airport and regional land use planning opportunities and challenges.

6.5.1 Brisbane, Queensland Brisbane Airport is Australia’s third-largest airport in terms of passenger movements, where 18.9 million passengers passed through in 2009–10 (DITRDLG 2011b). Brisbane Airport Corporation (BAC) administers and manages a 2400ha airport site 12 km to the north east of the Brisbane central business district. Brisbane City Council is the sole local government administration which adjoins the airport site and the most directly impacted by the airports operation. The Queensland state government also plays an important role in regional land use planning and administration through the provision of aviation orientated state planning policy and the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009 – 2031.

6.5.2 Adelaide, South Australia Adelaide Airport is Australia’s fifth-largest airport in terms of total passenger movements, where 7.02 million passengers passed through in 2009–10 (DITRDLG 2011b). The airport site is 785ha and located approximately 6 km west of the Adelaide central business district, and is administered and managed by Adelaide Airport Limited (AAL). Four local government areas surround the airport and are directly affected by the operation of the airport. Adelaide airport is within the boundary of the City of West Torrens, while the cities of Holdfast Bay, Adelaide and Charles Sturt are adjacent to the airport. The South Australian state government plays an important role in planning for Adelaide through The 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide.

6.5.3 Canberra, Australian Capital Territory Canberra Airport had a total of 3.26 million passenger movements in 2009–10 (DITRDLG, 2011b). The airport site is 436ha and located 6 km from the Canberra central business district and is administered and managed by Capital Airport Group (CAG). The administrative context for the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) is unique in that there is no ‘state’ government or lower house ‘local’ government - it is a federally administered territory government. Many of the planning approvals for the ACT are managed by the ACT Planning and Land Authority. In addition, the National Capital Authority has planning and approval powers in ‘those areas of continuing interest in the strategic planning, promotion, development and enhancement of Canberra as the National Capital’ (NCA 2010 p 7). The airport is adjacent to the state of New South Wales (NSW) and two local government areas within NSW, Queanbeyan and Palerang are subject to noise impacts from the operation of Canberra Airport.

6.6 RESEARCH APPROACH - LAND USE FORUMS The literature has established the shift in airport management and highlighted airport and regional land use conflict (Freestone et al. 2006; Hooper et al. 2000; May & Hill 2006; Spiller 2006) However there was limited academic attention in identifying the key issues faced by stakeholders. The purpose of the Land Use Forums was fourfold: i) to identify stakeholders; ii) identify the range of views and policy positions; iii) identify key issues, challenges and opportunities; and iv) further foster interaction and relationships with stakeholders.

Beginning in 2008, a Forum was held within each of the three case study regions: Adelaide, April 2008; Brisbane, August 2008; and Canberra, December 2008. Collectively, these Forums were attended by over 120 representatives from airports, airport industries, academia, business representatives, government stakeholders, senior policy analysts, and urban planners (Table 2). The Forums provided, for the first time, an open and facilitated means for bringing together airport and regional land use planning stakeholders and decision-makers – many of who are often suspicious and, in some cases, litigious with one another.

Table 2 Total Land Use Forum Attendees

Stakeholder Type Areas of Land-use decision- Attendees Total Interest making powers

and focus13 Brisbane Adelaide Canberra State and territory State and Active Regional 10 4 12 26 governments regional (including strategic departmental planning representatives)

Academia Research and Passive Airport 11 4 8 23 policy and Regional

Airport lessees On-airport Active Airport 12 5 5 22 companies planning and development

Aviation and regional Infrastructure Passive Airport 2 5 8 15 infrastructure and support services and and service providers to the airport Active Regional and region

13 ‘Active’ and /or ‘passive’ refers here to the stakeholder ability to direct land use planning decision- making within their jurisdiction.

Local government Local land use Active Regional 6 7 1 14 (including planning departmental representatives)

Australian Airport Active Airport 1 1 5 7 Government regulatory and (including authority Regional departmental representatives)

Consultancy Airport and Passive Airport 2 2 5 9 regional land use and and Regional infrastructure planning

Industry advocacy Industry voice Passive Airport 2 1 1 4 and government and lobbying Regional

Political (Member of Community Passive Airport 1 1 Parliament) representation and Regional

Total 46 30 45 121

In a timely and noteworthy concurrence the National Aviation Policy Review was announced just after the program of case study Forums were established – adding both significance and value to the research. Much of the government and media focus was on the relationships between airport lessees and adjacent local, state and territory government stakeholders. For this research it was also important to recognize and engage the range of the other significant stakeholder cohorts. The Forums sought to include and incorporate the views of: aviation service providers; freight management and infrastructure corporations; tourism board and council representatives; chambers of business and commerce; members of the emergency services; engineering and airport master plan consultants; energy and telecommunications infrastructure providers and both private and public transportation infrastructure providers. The Forums did not endeavour to incorporate the views of the greater public, but focussed on first establishing the views of academia, industry and government.

6.7 METHODS A workshop and seminar approach was used at each of the three Forums (Jolles 2001). Each commenced by outlining the intentions and expectations of the current research framework. A

number of case study stakeholders then presented their views on airport and regional land use planning and development. Breakout sessions were conducted in four round table groups of up to twelve participants. These sessions examined airport and regional land use planning and policy relationships in consideration of three key interface areas: governance, infrastructure, and economic development, while a fourth group considered land use and environment. In placing land use as the central issue these round table discussions provided focused, yet distinct evaluations of airport and regional land use planning. The use of interfaces provided a clear structure for the Forums and also established a valuable framework for data analysis.

The results of the round table sessions were recorded and collated, with the data then undergoing inductive thematic analysis. Broadly, thematic analysis is a qualitative method where by coding and analyzing a data set, themes are identified (Boyatzis 1998; Fereday & Muir-Cochrane 2006). It is important to acknowledge that themes do not ‘emerge’ from the data, but that the researcher is indeed active in the process having either outlined specific questions or in this case a framework around which the data has been collected. Here the thematic analyses may be described as data driven as the coding was not undertaken to identify particular features of the data set. Braun and Clarke (2006) highlight that ‘A theme captures something important about the data in relation to the research question, and represents some level of patterned response or meaning within the data set’ (p 82).

Transcripts of the workshops were generated from recordings taken at each round table discussions: land use/governance; land use/infrastructure; land use/economic development and land use/environment. For analysis the same sets of round table data from each of the case studies were considered together – for example all of the land use / governance transcripts from each of case studies were viewed as one data set for interpretation and coding. An initial list of codes was then produced by reading the transcribed data, identifying the semantic features.

Working across the data, all stakeholder views were identified and coded. These codes were then reviewed, identifying similarities and allowing for the generation of an initial list of themes. These themes were then reconsidered to ensure that they adequately captured the coded data, and were then further examined against the entire data set. This established if they indeed articulate an accurate representation of the stakeholder agreement or disputation across the three case studies. While the broader themes were now representative of the coded data and entire data set, further analysis was required to generate clear and specific definitions of each theme.

6.8 FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS: COMMON STAKEHOLDER THEMES The results of the Forum series provided a rich resource of stakeholder vision, insight and attitude to airport and regional land use planning. The thematic analysis of the collective workshop data has assisted in identifying common themes of stakeholder agreement and ongoing stakeholder disenchantment. There are several areas where mutual recognition of problems was identified, but the path to resolution remains uncertain when considering divisive stakeholder perspectives. The following analysis will present each interface area in turn, identifying the key themes and stakeholder perspectives common within all of the case studies. It is of course not possible to include all coded responses within this paper, however where appropriate, extracts have been included which reflect the sentiment and responses for a stakeholder group in reference to a key theme.

6.8.1 Governance Governance frameworks are seemingly at the core of the discourse relating to coordinated and cooperative land use in Australia (Donnet et al. 2008). In fact, stakeholder relationships have been recast in the wake of commercialization and privatization of public airport infrastructure (Freestone et al. 2006). There has been a fundamental change in the determination of decision- making which many stakeholders (public, private and community) do not fully recognize or appreciate (Peck et al. 2009). Two key themes have been identified from the analysis of governance and land use planning: legislation limits consultation and divergent planning processes and priority.

6.8.1.1 Legislation limits consultation Across the case studies airport lessees and government stakeholders acknowledge that the key to integrated airport and regional decision-making relies on consultative processes established in good faith. Importantly they also recognize that this has only recently begun to emerge and has been nurtured largely through informal communicative networks outside of statutory consultation processes. Stakeholders across the case studies agree that if they are to achieve higher degrees of cooperation that clear, direct and regular lines of communication (both formal and informal) need to be established across all areas of the airport business and all tiers of government. Separately two state and territory government representatives outlined their perspectives on the consultative requirements for integration:

“We need more effective stakeholder input into the airport and it needs to be a two way street.”

“From a land use planning perspective you need integration, cooperation and, coordination. It is critical, and what you don’t have in around ------airport, is a clear understanding or commitment for the way forward.”

State, territory and local government stakeholders in each of the case studies questioned the lack of Commonwealth consultation during the privatization process. The lack of detail transferred to the Australian public and urban and regional decision-makers has raised persistent issues about transparency and partiality of both the process and the ongoing federally administered on-airport planning approvals process. One senior local government representative highlighted that: “From the outset the privatization process wasn’t transparent and the ongoing approvals processes by the Commonwealth continue to be ambiguous”. In each case study, there was regional stakeholder anxiety around what may be perceived as the privatization of public interest decision-making. A state government manager highlighted their concern: “Do we understand the implications of a private entity making public interest decisions – but with profit-driven motives”.

6.8.1.2 Divergent planning processes and priority All case study stakeholders appreciate that the processes required for compatible and integrated airport and regional land use planning remain multifaceted and complex. Regional stakeholders concede that the on-airport arrangements for planning and development, under the Airports Act, will continue to have important latent and explicit impacts for urban and regional development, across three tiers of Australian government. Specifically impacts include: the development of commercial and retail ‘centers’ on airport land; and the pace at which this development has been facilitated by federal government approval processes. A local government representative believes: “the airport is developing at its own pace; it has nothing to do with city development”. While a State government planner in the same region highlighted: “There is tension between urban development, urban context, and the airports across Australia”.

Airport lessees in all of the case studies appreciate that on-airport and aviation planning is in the national interest and appropriately the approval processes must continue to be the responsibility of the federal government. They agree that the limited level of local, state and territory government influence on airport planning should remain. Airport corporations will

vigorously oppose any regional interference or further federal oversight when it comes to the development of their landside assets. An airport lessee executive explains:

“Our company, as did the other airport lessee companies paid a lot of money for long term leases of the airports, 10 or 11 years ago. We paid that price based on a certain set of rules. The rules have changed over time, and they could change again, well then there might be compensation issues”.

Airport lessees are also deeply concerned about the explicit impacts of local and regional planning curtailing the aviation function of their assets. In each of the case studies they recognize that urban and regional policy has in the past, and continues to, see airport regions become increasingly populated through urban consolidation and greenfield development. One airport executive recognizes only regional responsibility: “the airport expansion is a great opportunity for ------, but it can only happen if we get the regional land use planning right - so we don’t put people in the wrong spots”. While another is happy to concede there are two contributing factors: “regional urban development and increasing airline traffic together create the problem”.

Some state government representatives consider that cooperative airport and regional spatial planning may support better land use integration: “a recurring theme is cross-border coordination, there is a need for sub-regional planning strategies” and additionally that: “I think the master plan needs to be done not only for the airport but also for the 10km radius that surrounds the airport”.

While many issues relating to governance and land use planning continue to indicate stakeholder difference, propitious aspects are increasingly apparent. Regional stakeholders considered that the airport master planning process is becoming more sophisticated through acknowledgment of urban policy. Additionally airport consultative processes are recognized as increasingly inclusive and as occurring beyond statutory requirements. Airport operators recognize that an increased communicative effort is required if they are to gain community support, one senior executive explains:

“It is a responsibility of us, today’s custodians of the airport, to bring the community with us. We need to listen, we need to hear about the land use issues, and we need to do all of that together as a community. Because if we don’t, the community will bear one side of the debate and the airport will be on the other”.

Stakeholders acknowledge that after more than a decade, some relationships are moving beyond conflict toward increased consultation. While this is established as occurring across all case studies, a variety of structures are currently used to manage consultations both with government and the wider community. This variance regarding community consultation has been acknowledged by the Australian Government through the delivery of ‘Guidelines for Community Aviation Consultation Groups’. These guidelines ‘are a mechanism to ensure appropriate community engagement on airport planning and operations’ (DITRDLG 2011a p 2).

6.8.2 Environment It is clear that the changing role of airports in Australia will ultimately involve their continued expansion as both aviation transport hubs and retail and commercial destinations (AAL 2009; BAC 2009; CA 2009). It is also evident that surrounding urban and regional commercial and residential development will continue to increase and densify (BRC 2010; May & Hill 2006). This mutual escalation of development is associated with an array of reciprocal social and biophysical environmental impacts. Inter-jurisdictional fragmentation in decision-making; independent scope of environmental parameters; and inadequate mechanisms for improved land use planning have been identified as prominent themes from the analysis of ‘land use and environment’ across the Land Use Forums.

6.8.2.1 Inter-jurisdictional fragmentation in decision-making Jurisdictional fragmentation was recognized by many stakeholders as contributing to piecemeal decision-making on environmental issues. However, there was consensus that over time aspects of jurisdictional responsibility are being resolved as stakeholders become increasingly familiar with further environmental management frameworks. One local government stakeholder offered this insight:

“I think within the boundaries of the airport and in the region you can get really good decisions about the management of environmental issues, it is just the cross boundary jurisdictional issues that are most difficult”.

Environmental policy fragmentation was also acknowledged by a state government representative. They highlighted that while important environmental linkages exist there is limited integration or coordination between airport and the region:

“There isn’t any integrated framework which deals with the multiplicity of environmental issues for the airport and the region, there are linkages everywhere and they are not necessarily coordinated”.

In one case study region a local government executive outlines how they are endeavoring to move forward regarding airport and regional land use planning:

“We have informal information sharing around adjacent airport and regional developments - what we are trying to do is make sure the requirements we are asking from one development compared to the other are not too ridiculous”.

Stakeholders agree that the disjuncture on the requirements and considerations for environmental reporting mean that airport and regional environmental management will never be seamless. Nonetheless government stakeholders across the case studies believe that the establishment of state government administered regional planning frameworks may provide the necessary jurisdictional directives and regulation for an increasingly integrated approach to regional environmental management. A local government participant outlined that: “Probably the most appropriate vehicle for airport and regional environmental management would be regional or sub regional planning”. While a state government decision-maker summed up the consensus: “A regional plan, a regional response may be the best method to deal with a lot of these environmental issues”.

6.8.2.2 Independent scope of environmental parameters The shortcomings of jurisdictional administration are again reflected within the second key theme of independent scope of environmental parameters. Not only are many stakeholders seeking direction on who is responsible for what, they are also unclear on ‘what’ requires detailed consideration. The disjuncture on the requirements and considerations for environmental reporting across jurisdictions is a continuing source of frustration for all stakeholders. A state government departmental manager highlights the issue: “The environmental decision-making being made is very fragmentary; part of the problem is the range of stakeholders involved in defining, monitoring and applying the range of environmental parameters”.

The impacts of many environmental externalities are not able to be contained to a particular site or situation. Environmental concerns highlighted across the case studies include storm

water runoff, flood mitigation, and noise. All Stakeholders agree that a clearer direction and awareness of reciprocal and interface biophysical environmental impacts is needed to be included within all strategic planning documentation. An airport executive highlights the issues around water quality:

“The urbanization of the areas around airports is a concern for water quality issues both on and off the airport which require management to not exacerbate on airport issues and this needs to be a significant environmental measure”.

The anticipated cooperative understanding of environmental impacts was also extended to include further consideration of social environmental parameters, and their forecasting, within stakeholder strategic planning. In all of the case study regions, research participants acknowledged that collective and agreed understanding of demographic trends and socio- economic parameters, such as population density, household type and employment may be valuable. Additionally cooperative strategies for a range of expected, challenging and creative economic and environmental scenarios would be essential. A senior local government executive explains:

“The gap is how well airport and regional land use decisions may link into a regional or sub regional framework. Are the decisions made about developments ensuring they are contributing to a greater physical and social environmental benefit beyond their jurisdictions, indifferent or making it worse? And I don’t think we can answer those very well because they are not studied”.

6.8.2.3 Inadequate mechanisms for improved land use planning There are few mechanisms to assist in the mitigation of negative environmental impact and promote cooperative and integrated airport and regional land use planning. However, when considering the airport within its urban context the issue of aircraft noise is one of the foremost concerns. More specifically airport stakeholders were universally concerned about the use of Australia Noise Exposure Forecasts (ANEF) contours as a regional planning tool. Airport corporations recognize that members of the community and local government have been interpreting the boundaries of an ANEF as indicating that there is no noise exposure beyond the contour line, this is not the case:

“We can probably start with better measurement metrics then ANEF. We need a better way to relate to the community and to everyone actual noise impacts”.

“Aircraft noise does not stop at the line on a map, we know that many noise complaints come from beyond the contours. The ANEF is not an effective tool for ensuring a community is not impacted by the operation of an airport”.

In addition, they agree urban and regional stakeholders need to continue to consider airport and regional land use planning as a three dimensional exercise with the detailed inclusion of Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) and Procedures for Air Navigation Services - Aircraft Operations (PANS-OPS) in all strategic land use planning documents. One airport manager recognized that the complexity of these airspace management systems may have limited their more detailed application in a regional planning, but asserts that: “There needs to be the recognition and a discussion around city building heights and a better government understanding of the implications for the airport”.

Across the case studies key points of environmental difference relate largely to the locational context of the airport and region. Each of the case studies has distinct climatic conditions, geography, flora, fauna and regional demographics. These differences are further apparent when considering the detail of the environmental parameters included in off-airport regional environmental strategic planning and the legislatively required Airport Environment Strategies.

6.8.3 Economic Development Results from the Forums highlight that stakeholders recognize it is increasingly important to consider the induced economic impacts of airport and regional land use planning, as a catalyst for broader business and tourism opportunity. Across the case studies a significant and recurring theme within the land use and economic interface is the limited acknowledgment of reciprocal economic impacts. That is the requirement for all stakeholders to recognize the actual and potential reciprocal economic impacts between an airport and the surrounding urban and regional environment.

6.8.3.1 Limited acknowledgment of reciprocal economic impacts Stakeholders agree that airports are significant drivers of local, regional and national economic development by means of their aviation function. However the consensus of airport

stakeholders was that whilst the economic significance of the airport is recognized by governments and business there is not a broader community appreciation of the economic benefits. An airport executive sums up the sentiment:

“In terms of economic development, the role the airport plays needs to be integrated and articulated into a framework so that people can recognize and understand the benefit the airport brings”.

The economic significance of an airport to a region and the argument against constraining airport development is often expressed in hundreds of thousands of dollars and thousands of jobs lost to the regional economy (BAC 2009). With this in mind it is understood that aviation- based airport economic development is unique, and therefore entitled to particular planning and development concessions. However the expectation from regional stakeholders is that on- airport commercial development is not in (economic) conflict with local and regional retail and commercial services. They are cautious of on-airport non aeronautical landside retail and commercial developments which are perceived to draw regional consumers away from existing urban centers. A government representative considered that on-airport development must recognize regional ‘centers’ policy and seek to establish commercial point of difference - “the airport needs to ensure economic development opportunities are diverse and appropriate, looking towards value adding non-aviation development, not regional duplication”. A local government planner confirmed that “In terms of the (commercial) economic ambitions between the airport and the city, there is recognized tension”.

Stakeholders recognize an airport needs to diversify its revenue streams to ensure it is economically resilient and able to withstand unexpected and rapid change in the demand for aviation services. They also acknowledge that mutually beneficial and cooperatively developed airport and regional economic development is necessary. However detailed and cooperative economic planning is difficult to achieve in consideration of commercial in confidence issues and what many stakeholders acknowledge as competing priorities and interests. One airport executive believes regional planning could be more proactive and has been too focused on airport business and indeed missed land use planning opportunities:

“I think what is interesting is to think about what complementary development for the airport, or even competitive development with the airport, has been planned for the land around airports in the region. Probably the great missed planning opportunity is how development occurs around the airport”.

An airport and regional land use planning consultancy representative, who has worked on both sides of the fence, believes that the lack of integrated airport and regional planning and development is a result of differing timeframes and divergent agendas.

“The point really is synchronization – for example at ------airport, after redevelopment you have an airport with aviation capacity beyond regional tourism and transport infrastructure capacity. We need to look at the drivers of a region and synchronize all aspect of airport and regional development. I don’t know how you actually do that because there are different timelines and certainly different agendas”.

A telling difference between the case studies is how the airport is considered within the strategic policy documents of their respective regions. Regional stakeholders struggle to find an appropriate designation for what was once the airport. In Brisbane City Council’s ‘City Plan’ the airport is designated as a ‘Special Purpose Centre’ which allows for much of the retail, commercial and aviation functions which currently exist on the airport. However, the Queensland Governments’ ‘South-East Queensland Regional Plan’ (to which local government planning should be aligned) designates the airport a ‘specialist activity centre’ with a focus on ‘specialised economic activity, employment or education rather than having a retail function’ (SEQRP 2009 p 97). In South Australia the West Torrens City Council has a specific ‘Adelaide Airport Zone’ which considers the airports aviation role, but makes little allowance or acknowledgement of its retail and commercial precincts. Canberra airport has been denoted as an ‘activity node’ in the Canberra Spatial Plan (the ACT Governments strategic plan), yet in the National Capital Plan – which takes precedence over the Spatial Plan – the airport is a ‘Designated Employment Centre’. In more than a decade since privatization urban and regional planners and policy makers continue to struggle with the changing role of airports and the means by which they may be acknowledged, incorporated and included with the broader urban framework.

Despite inconsistency in the designation of the airports, regional stakeholders agree that airport policy recognition has assisted integration. They appreciate that airport master planning is increasingly acknowledging and incorporating off-airport infrastructure and regional land use zoning terminology.

6.8.4 Infrastructure All case study stakeholders acknowledge the effective planning and provision of transport infrastructure is a difficult process compounded by the long lead times and large budgets associated with many of the necessary projects. Disputed impacts on transport infrastructures and inadequate coordination of infrastructure delivery have been identified as key themes across the case studies. Disputed impact relates largely to accounting for the use of a range of infrastructures in consideration of actual and proposed land use both on and off the airport. Inadequate coordination is the recognition of who is responsible for the provision of infrastructure, and when, in light of the demand generated by direct and indirect use.

6.8.4.1 Disputed impacts on transport infrastructures Regional stakeholders have often been critical of airports developing as multi use commercial and retail centers. They believe such developments are contributing to regional road congestion and as such there is pressure for airports to (further) financially contribute to the planning and development of off-airport roadway infrastructure. Airport stakeholders have a different view, as one manager explains:

“Airports will not be contributing to off-airport infrastructure unless they want to. We won’t be forced to. Passengers don’t holiday, do business, or meet families and have their family reunions at airports. They leave the airport and go out in the community where they spend money and share the wealth”.

As outlined here by a state departmental manager many of the state and territory governments are not in the financial position to implement transport infrastructure improvements in the short to medium term:

“I would just like to say that I think the view that the airport shouldn’t contribute to any off-site infrastructure might be fine if you could get government to say ‘ok, we’ll fund it’, but they can’t, the money isn’t there”.

Airport stakeholders believe they have contributed enormously to on-airport infrastructure which is of substantial benefit to the region. An airport manager explains:

“We fund and build a lot of infrastructure on site and that is not well understood. Airports around Australia have invested 100’s of millions of dollars in airport infrastructure just to bring the airports up to a world class standard”.

They also highlight that their infrastructure development has long been planned for and carefully managed in stages, while the regional stakeholders’ ad hoc approach to infrastructure delivery is in fact the cause of much regional congestion. “The airport has a staged development approach, is the surrounding infrastructure keeping pace?”

6.8.4.2 Inadequate coordination of infrastructure delivery How airport and regional transport infrastructure is forecast, managed and financed has been central to much of the airport and regional planning debate. All stakeholders agree these connections are critical in ensuring the efficient use of the airport as a regional aviation hub and economic generator. While they recognize the importance of integrated infrastructure planning, the links between airport and regional land use approvals and the impact on infrastructure demand is not comprehensively sequenced or modeled in any of the case studies. A local government planner offered this vision:

“The vision for infrastructure – an agreed foundation of governance and policy, which is not about control, but is a coordination of growth amongst all stakeholders”.

The negotiation and establishment of infrastructure agreements regarding coordination and contribution equity are considered of high importance by all stakeholders. They agree that there should be no conjecture as to who is responsible for provision and payment of utilities and transport infrastructures. It is recognized that initiation, implementation and integration of this infrastructure needs to be facilitated through appropriate cooperative arrangements, long term planning strategies, effective communication and committed agreements. There is evidence that case study stakeholders are beginning to initiate and negotiate ad hoc planning and agreements for a range of infrastructures through context driven arrangements beyond any statutory responsibility. These arrangements have included in lieu infrastructure contributions, memorandums of understanding, management contracts and construction finance. Airports are cautious here not to be seen to as admitting liability, but just facilitating the required infrastructure to support their core aviation business.

One airport executive instrumental in the establishment of such an arrangement offered this insight:

“Recognition of the complexity and the range of ways that airports are, and may be, involved in funding and constructing infrastructure (within the fabric of a city) are important emergent facts”.

6.9 DISCUSSION The purpose and significance of this research has been to apply the conceptual framework of ‘interfaces’ as a device to assist in the interpretation of airport and regional land use planning and development. In operationalizing this framework the research has provided specific and useful detail to the interface concept. Additionally, this work also makes a contribution to land use planning knowledge as it offers insight into the range of issues at the intersection of private and public land use policy; planning and priority at all privatized Australia airports. It has allowed for focused examinations of stakeholder attitudes and perceptions and resulted in the identification of key airport and regional land use planning themes within the interface domains (Table 3).

Table 3 Airport and Regional Land Use Planning Themes

Land Use & Land Use & Land Use & Economic Land Use & Governance Environment Development Infrastructure

• legislation limits • Inter-jurisdictional • Limited • Disputed impacts on consultation fragmentation in acknowledgment of transport • Divergent planning decision-making reciprocal economic infrastructures processes and • Independent scope impacts. • Inadequate priority. of environmental coordination of parameters infrastructure

• Inadequate delivery mechanisms for improved land use planning

While it is significant to be able to identify these themes across the interfaces it is equally important to consider them in relation to one another. The interfaces framework acknowledges interdependencies and as such the identified themes must also be considered in this way. It is therefore important to identify the underlying issues which capture these dependencies and articulate the principal concerns for airport and regional land use planning.

The collective of identified interface themes will be briefly considered in the context of the broader literature to acknowledge and identify those issues which cut across the interfaces and convey the current circumstance of airport and regional land use planning in Australia.

The changing role of airports in Australia is a consequence of privatization and the adoption of shareholder focused business models - they are now required to be more than breakeven aviation infrastructure installations (Freestone 2011; Hooper et al. 2000). Airports have embraced the notion of an airport city and emerged, in part, as profitable regionally focused industrial, commercial and retail destinations (Güller & Güller 2003; Kasarda 2001). In consideration of all the interface themes this change has resulted in competing priorities and interests between airports and regional stakeholders.

Much past, and present, airport and regional land use planning will ensure that compatible and integrated land use is often not possible (May & Hill 2006). However the better management of reciprocal impacts is achievable where they are supported by effective policy frameworks (Blanton 2004; DoT 2002; Graham 2008). The themes revealed here support a similar position, while adding to the causal understanding of the difficulties faced in the Australian context. The legislation under which Australian airports are managed, and the competing policies for land use planning in the local and regional contexts, presents themselves as significant cross cutting issues.

The identified themes acknowledge a general discord in the coordination and decision-making of airport and regional land use planning. This was also a key focus of the National Aviation Policy Review in addition to being a predominant thesis in review of the emergent literature regarding Australian airport and regional planning (Donnet et al. 2008; Freestone 2011; Freestone & Baker 2010; Stevens et al. 2010;).

The thematic extraction and case study analysis outlined within this paper identified that land use planning within and surrounding Australian airports does not support compatible and integrated land use. In review of the collective themes across the interface domains this research has made it possible to offer three principal concerns which are contributing to the fragmentation of airport and regional land use planning:

1) inadequate coordination and disjointed decision-making;

2) current legislative and policy frameworks; and

3) competing stakeholder priorities and interests.

6.10 CONCLUSION The confluence of aviation policy and urban planning is a result of the role airports are now playing in connecting regional, national and global linkages. Airports are critical infrastructure

in the economy of the 21st century. However their privatization and the legislative and policy arrangements under which they continue to be managed highlights a systemic problem of poor coordination between commonwealth, state, territory and local government planning.

The work reported in this paper demonstrates that there is a level of consistency in the problems faced by cohorts of stakeholders across the case studies. It is important to recognize however that each case study has distinctly different economic, social, environmental, infrastructure and governance and demographic drivers. As such, these regional context factors reveal that much of the effort for cooperative and integrated airport and regional planning needs to be negotiated at a local and regional level.

Whilst the White Paper has forwarded commitments to reinforcing the communicative mechanisms for airport and regional dialogue, there appears to be little in the way of mechanisms for genuine planning assistance, or indeed the provision to any party, other than the Australian Government, significant influence in the planning processes. The future of airport master planning and surrounding urban policy coordination lie within negotiated understanding and agreement beyond statutory and legislative frameworks. The lack of promotion or consideration for the development of regional context driven spatial frameworks within the White Paper is obvious in its absence and in light of this research the fragmentary themes at the root of incompatible land use planning, are yet to be addressed.

6.11 REFERENCES Adelaide Airport Limited (AAL). (2009) Adelaide Airport Master Plan. December.

Australian Government. (2008) Towards a National Aviation Policy Statement. Issues paper. Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Canberra.

Australian Government. (2009) National Aviation Policy White Paper: Flight Path to the Future. Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Canberra, Australia.

Australian Government. (2009a) Discussion Paper: Safeguards for airports and the communities around them. Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Canberra, Australia. June.

Australian Government. (2011) Significant Impact on the Local or Regional Community Guide – Discussion Draft. Department of Infrastructure and Transport, Canberra, Australia. January.

Australian Government. (2011a) Community Aviation Consultation Groups Guidelines. Department of Infrastructure and Transport, Canberra, Australia. February.

Australian Government. (2011b) Avline 2009-10: Statistical Report. Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Canberra, Australia. BITRE.

Blanton, W. (2004) On the Airfront. Planning 70(5) pp. 34-36.

Boyatzis, R. (1998) Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).

Braun, V., Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 pp. 77 – 101.

Brisbane Airport Corporation (BAC). (2009) Brisbane Airport Master Plan. September.

Brisbane Racing Club (BRC). (2010) Brisbane Racing Precinct Master Plan. (accessed 25/08/10) http://masterplan.brc.com.au/masterplan.pdf.

Canberra Airport Pty Limited (CA). (2009) Canberra Airport 2009 Master Plan. August.

Department of Transport (DoT). (2002) State of California. Division of Aeronautics. California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. January. (accessed 27/06/2009) http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/planning/aeronaut/htmlfile/landuse.php.

Donnet, T., Keast, R,.Walker, A. (2008) Fitting airport privatisation to purpose: aligning governance, time and management focus. In: 10th TRAIL Congress and Knowledge Market, 14-15 October 2008, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Federal Court of Australia (FCA), 2004. Village Building Company Limited v Canberra

International Airport Pty Limited [2004] FCAFC 240 (31 August 2004) – Paragraph 9. http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2004/240.html?stem=0& synonyms=0&query="village%2 0building%20company" (accessed 25.07.09).

Federal Court of Australia (FCA). (2005) Westfield Management Ltd v Brisbane Airport Corporation Ltd. [2005] FCA 32.

bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2005/32. html?query=Westfield%20Management% 20Ltd%20v%20Brisbane%20Airport>(accessed 25.07.09).

Fereday, J., Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006) Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1).

Freestone, R., Williams, P., Bowden, A. (2006) Fly Buy Cities: Some planning aspects of airport privatization in Australia. Urban Policy and Research, 24 (4) pp. 491-508.

Freestone, R., Baker, D. (2010) Challenges in land use planning around Australian airports. Journal of Air Transport Management, 16 (5) pp. 264-271.

Freestone, R. (2011) Managing Neoliberal Urban Spaces: Commercial Property Development at Australian Airports. Geographical Research, 49 (2) pp. 115–131.

Graham, A. (2008) Managing airports: an international perspective. 3rd ed. Oxford: Butterworth- Heinemann.

Güller, M., Güller, M. (2003). From Airport to Airport City. Litogama, Barcelona

Hooper, P., Cain, R., White, S. (2000) The privatization of Australia’s airports. Transportation Research, Part E: 36, pp. 181-204.

Jolles, R. (2001) How to run seminars and workshops (2nd Ed). (John Wiley & Sons: New York).

Kasarda, JD. (1996) Airport-related industrial development. Urban Land, pp. 54-55.

Kasarda, JD., (2001). From airport city to aerotropolis. Airport World, 6 pp. 42–47.

National Capital Authority (2010) Business Plan 2010 – 2014. Australian Government, Canberra.

May, M., Hill, S. (2006) Questioning airport expansion – A case study of Canberra International Airport, Journal of Transport Geography, 14 pp. 437-450.

Peck, J., Theodore, N., Brenner, N. (2009) Neoliberal Urbanism: Models, Moments, Mutations, SAIS Review, 29 (1), Winter-Spring 2009.

Queensland Government. (2009) Queensland Department of Infrastructure and Planning. South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031 (SEQRP) July.

Spiller, M. (2006). Development on Airport Land. Australian Planner, 43(3) pp. 14-15.

Stevens, N., Freestone, R., Baker, D. (2010) Airports in their urban settings: towards a conceptual model of interfaces in the Australian context, Journal of Transport Geography 18 (2), pp. 276-284.

Walker, A., Stevens, N. (2008) Airport city developments in Australia: land use classification and analyses, In: 10th TRAIL Congress and Knowledge Market, 14-15 October 2008, Rotterdam.

7Chapter 7: Stakeholder perspectives on airport and regional land use planning

7.1 INTRODUCTION This research examines airport and state, territory and local government responses to airport and regional land use planning relationships, processes and outcomes. The research explores the perceptions of airport and regional stakeholders within three case study areas – Brisbane, Adelaide and Canberra. This study builds on previous case study research from the land use forums that outlined the issues surrounding land use planning presented significant challenges for stakeholders (Stevens & Baker 2011). It is significant to understand the position and outlook of each stakeholder in this process to evaluate opportunities for integrated solutions. Within this context, the research focused on identifying the mechanisms used by, or imposed upon, stakeholders for the consultation, establishment and application of airport and regional land use planning. The research findings identify areas of common concern as a means to provide a clearer interpretation and possible prioritisation of shared land use planning issues.

From a conceptual standpoint the investigation of relationships, processes and outcomes of land use planning remind us of that the core business of planning is communicative practice (Innes 1995). In this circumstance, the present practice may be limited in advancing cooperative, coordinated and integrated planning. This research demonstrates that the communicative turn for the management of reciprocal airport and regional impacts has in the past entrenched the separateness and tension between the stakeholders.

7.1.1 Background The previous chapter (6) explored the nature of airport and regional land use conflict in Australia and identified three cross cutting themes which were considered to contribute to the continued fragmentation of airport and regional land use planning:

1) inadequate coordination and disjointed decision-making;

2) current legislative and policy frameworks; and

3) competing stakeholder priorities and interests.

These themes were identified from the thematic analysis of airport and regional stakeholder land use forums held with the Australian case studies of Brisbane, Adelaide and Canberra (Stevens & Baker 2011). Their identification was facilitated by the operationalisation of the airport metropolis conceptual model as a communicative framework for research. The aim of this current research is to add finer grained detail to the scaffold of the fragmentary themes to better inform the actual circumstance of airport and regional land use planning. As such the fragmentary themes are recast and recognised here as resulting from the interdependency of airport and regional stakeholder perspectives on land use planning 1) relationships, 2) processes and 3) outcomes.

Relationships are taken here to represent the perceptions of airport and state, territory and local government stakeholder interactions. These are the formal relationships established through legislative requirements and negotiated agreements, as well as the informal relationships of information sharing. From a communicative perspective the research is interested who stakeholders consult with, and the means by which they consult.

Processes refer to the mechanisms employed to undertake land use planning at the airport metropolis. Here the research seeks to gain stakeholder perspectives to establish if these processes are resulting in appropriate land use decisions and broader urban development compatibility. The research also explores stakeholder perceptions on the delivery and placement of these processes across airport and regional land use planning practice.

Outcomes identify how stakeholders perceive the consequences of established airport and regional land use planning. The research explores whether effective communication has led to better land use coordination, and identifies the means by which stakeholders seek more equitable planning outcomes. Additionally, stakeholders identify their organisations most significant issues for land use planning and the airport metropolis.

7.2 METHODS Through the use of stakeholder semi-structured interviews this research provides detailed insight into practitioner perspectives on airport and regional land use planning relationships, processes and outcomes in Brisbane, Adelaide and Canberra. The airport stakeholders consist of airport lessee directors, general managers, directors of planning and divisional managers in the land use planning and property portfolios of the case study airports. The regional stakeholders are composed of chief executive officers, general managers, senior planners, development

assessment managers and transport and planning departmental managers of state, territory and local government.

Between May 2009 and August 2010 a total of twenty four (24) face to face semi-structured interviews were undertaken within the three cases studies. Each participant was invited to discuss issues associated with six (6) core questions relating to land use planning relationships, process and outcomes:

• RELATIONSHIPS

1). Which stakeholders do you coordinate with in the development / process of integrated airport and regional land use planning? (+ mechanisms)

2). What is the nature of the relationships between stakeholders (local councils; airport; state government; wider community)

• PROCESS

3). Do you think the current planning system is working? (optimisation of the airport and the surrounding metropolitan area?) - is the system facilitating good land use decision making and compatible land uses?

4). What level of documentation and indeed by whom would you consider that airport and regional land use planning integration could/ should/ may occur?

• OUTCOMES

5). How is the airport/region viewed/considered in airport and regional strategic and planning documents?

6). What are the four (4) most significant airport and metropolitan land use planning challenges (issues and impacts) your organisation is currently facing?

7.2.1 Semi structured interviews The key goal of a semi-structured interview is to understand the respondent point of view. For the communicative planning perspective of this research, this style of interview allows for in depth discussion and provides for high validity as respondents are able to talk about issues in detail. This method also affords the ability to ask spontaneous questions to get to the core of a matter (Barriball & While 1994). Here the use of some standardisation of the questions has increased the reliability of the data.

The airport and regional stakeholder accounts of their experiences in land use planning are the primary source of data for this research. The data was recorded and transcribed, and then returned to participants. This increased the validity of the findings and allowed the respondents to confirm that what has been recorded is what they meant, and also afforded the opportunity

to withdraw statements with which they are not comfortable. While some editing of the responses was carried out by the participants, no statements were withdrawn.

The data from the three cases studies was pooled into airport responses and government responses for thematic content analyses. An initial list of themes was then produced by reading the transcribed data, identifying the semantic features. Working across the data, all interesting aspects were identified and coded. These themes were then reconsidered to ensure that they adequately captured the essence of the data, and were then further examined against the entire data set. This provided for an accurate representation of the stakeholder agreement or disputation across the three case studies. As such the findings reported here are taken to represent collective concerns and specific case study issues identification is minimal. The findings are prioritised around the key land use planning issues of relationships, process and outcomes, any additional sub themes are also identified under these headings.

7.3 RESEARCH FINDINGS 7.3.1 Airport metropolis stakeholder relationships The consensus from case study stakeholders is that airport and local, state and territory government land use planning relationships have improved over time. Regardless many of these relationships continue to be recognised as inadequate for the establishment of integrated and cooperative land use planning. Consultation and communication are central to the ongoing efforts of the federal government in addressing the continued fragmentation of stakeholder relationships.

The case study airports identify an ever increasing inventory of consultations across all tiers of government, the aviation industry, the broader business community and the general public. While many of the consultations are required to fulfil statutory master planning and major development plan requirements, a large number are considered ‘good business’ in maintaining the critical airport relationships and support from industry and community groups. Additionally the airports recognise that ongoing dialogue is necessary to maintain the commercial integrity of the airport and ensure that key regional planning issues are continuously considered by governments. Airport stakeholders identify these issues as including: airspace protection and adjoining land use; maintenance of buffer zones; addressing potential future aircraft noise impacts through the ANEF system; the evolution of the ANEF system and building height protection. One airport manager highlights that:

The consultations (therefore) cover federal, local and state government, the airlines - we could provide you with a suite of those but basically there would be at least 54 essential bodies we must consult with and then there is the general community (###3##).

State, territory and local government stakeholders deal almost exclusively with the airport when considering on-airport planning issues, and do not generally seek to secure a broader consultative representation or dialogue. Much of the necessary consultation for airport planning is instigated by the airports and as such state and local government stakeholders rely on them for ensuring appropriate consultative inclusion. Indeed only three instances of airport planning dialogue between the local and state government (outside of the airport forums) was noted in the research. State, territory and local government have very few established working relationships to present a more united response to airport initiated forums; formal policy or development referrals. In one instance, a senior local government stakeholder detailed the circumstance of government interaction:

So that was a good opportunity (after an airport forum) just to compare the notes on our submission and they did the same. So informally we were able to see what the others wrote, and covered some of the same issues (##2###).

While the governments do not recognise the value in broader collaboration on airport planning issues, the airports are well practised in managing consultation and marketing their leasehold asset.

7.3.1.1 Range of communicative mechanisms Today the airports have an array of consultative mechanisms to manage community and government consultations: airport community forums; airport consultative committees; round tables; business forums; open days; newsletters; e-news; local news media; web portals; and open doors to name a few. All three case study airports consider that they have been actively and appropriately consulting with the public and other stakeholders since the beginning of privatisation, yet acknowledge that some other capital city airports are more recent converts to the broader consultation.

Over time the range of formal consultation and communication assemblies have been expanded, condensed, disbanded and re-established. Each case study airport has regionally specific mechanisms for consultation, but all with the broader intent of fulfilling regulatory requirements and managing those critical regional relations. Many of the forums are inclusive of all tiers of government, while others are conducted as one on one discussion with both industry

and government. Each of the case study airports has successfully established ‘one stop shops’ for dealing with local and state government. These consultative portals allow for a single point of contact with government, most often at the highest levels, as a means of information dissemination and also in recognition of their self-proclaimed role as a ‘key’ customer. Each of the case study airports recognise the benefits of one stop shops, as detailed below:

If you are talking to an agency chief the message is more likely to get down the rungs, they have seniority to pass the message down (##4###).

(the airport is) seeking the higher level dialogue as a key customer in state concerns, requiring higher recognition as the key economic generator for the state (###3##).

they established a one stop shop for us – rather than having to track around 7 or 8 different government agencies, they appointed the Minister as the one stop shop (#1####).

Some government representatives highlighted limitations for them in the one stop approach; despite the convenience it may afford the airports. In some cases, the intention was to provide a whole of department, or indeed whole of government response to airport planning issues and as a consequence, stakeholders acknowledged that compromises are made within and between departmental positions, so as to not appear contradictory. It was agreed by government stakeholders that this approach would appear to favour the airport position in both efficiency and in mitigating the range and detail of issues which required their attention. As one government departmental interviewee noted:

Yes there are conflicting positions within the government from departments (####1#).

Some concern was also raised by government stakeholders about the formalisation of the consultation processes and that the committee structure primarily facilitated the regulatory requirements of airport consultation without a genuine commitment to engage. In one case, the government was surprised to see that the airport had documented four continuous years of airport master plan consultation (occurring 4 times per year). In reality the meetings were for the identification of short to medium term cross border issues; consultation on the master plan had never explicitly been included on any agenda. The government planner felt that there was a significant difference between formulating a position on development and consulting, and consulting to formulate a position on development (###3##).

For many local and state government stakeholders articulating the tension between them and the airport is easily expressed, but it is also apparent that there is significant tension between the tiers of government. Certainly from one local government perspective, the multiple land use

approvals within the same municipality are leading to uncertainty. The state and territory governments recognise they have an oversight role in offering a more holistic regional planning approach to airport development. They also acknowledge the need to be more decisive on broader issues such as the cultural, social, economic, tourism and trade push - pull factors of regional development (including airports) with recommendations and deliberations then flowing to local councils, and informing practice state-wide. The case study airports recognise a stronger relationship with the state and territory governments and consider that to be the primary regional relationship - despite, or possibly because, ‘the states are more hands off than the councils’ (#5####).

The airport relationship with the federal government appears to have suffered over time. For many years following privatisation, they were hands off, and light handed regulation had been the order of the best part of a decade. More recently, and particularly in light of the National Aviation Policy Review, the airports consider the federal relationship as one of ongoing and increasing oversight with the intent to micro-managing the business of airports. Case study airports feel the federal government has been inconsistent in its approach to the assessment and coordination of the airport master plans. One airport official identified it as a consequence of staff ‘churn’ within the department, and that in fact the expertise for airport planning is now held by the airports themselves. He suggested:

The fact is that we have done it before and we know what we are doing, the expertise for planning is now in the airports, there is no expertise in the department (##1###).

The evolving federal government requirements for consultation and master plan presentation are offered as examples of federal policy following airport practice. Despite presenting leading practice airport planning, the airports are frustrated that the onus is on them to change with very little evidence of reflective examination occurring at any level of government.

Local government case study stakeholders feel the federal government is moving in the right direction with the Aviation White Paper. They would in fact like increased consideration of a broader suite of concerns beyond real estate development and commercial economic enterprise. They highlight their accountability to social, cultural and demographic considerations - all of which are considered to be exacerbated by the increasing levels of on- airport development – aviation or not.

It is just about recognition of those other sort of processes, those social processes, cultural processes and issues that we need to be aware of when we’re developing our plans and not

purely driven from an economic perspective when you’re looking at airport land (#####4).

The federal government is seeking to ensure adequate public and industry consultation through increased oversight and regulatory requirements. It cannot however control all airport and regional planning relationships and many stakeholders recognise that some of the most influential interaction, sit well outside of stakeholder and federal government control.

7.3.1.2 Media, politics and personalities A recurring theme identified from the analysis of the interviews was that which relates to the role of the media, politics and personalities in the planning for land use and the airport metropolis. The airports recognise that the role of the media is a significant factor in community attitude towards airports, and as such they invest significant time and money in ensuring the ‘right’ message is presented. Airports agreed that the management of the public profile and the promotion of the benefit of the airport is the role of the airport; they feel they cannot rely on local and state government to advocate on their behalf, despite the broader benefits the airport imparts both on the government and the community. The airports host and attend a range of community forums for consultation and recognise the importance of being ‘good neighbours’. The requirements for these forums were recently formalised as one of the outcomes from the National Aviation Policy Review (Australian Government 2011). The airports agree that for the most part the broader community see the airport development as a good thing; despite the assertion that the majority of the community are unaware the airports have been privatised. Two senior airport mangers offered their perspectives:

You have to bring the community with you, hearts and minds, sponsorships of events, hosting of events (##2###).

We did a survey the other day where we asked - do they know who owns the airport? – Only 50% knew who owned the airport (###1##).

Both airport and government stakeholders acknowledge the political nature of airport planning and the pressures that may be exerted in ensuring its limitation or indeed efficient implementation. The airports highlight the politicising of aviation impacts in election campaigns across the country, most notably within the federal seats of Griffith in Queensland and Grayndler and Eden-Monaro in New South Wales. Where you have three tiers of government coming together, the issue of airport planning and development will always be politically polarising (##7###).

The power exerted by individuals is also offered as a destabilising dynamic by all stakeholders. Those personalities within key decision-making positions are recognised as inhibiting the planning process and potentially eroding any broader goodwill. Indeed, one airport stakeholder offered that the processes and outcomes were always going to be compromises because alignment and decision-making is never ideal when ‘people’ are involved. One airport manager details their experience:

Previously local government wanted to control the airport; it has taken 6 years to get documents of agreement and understanding signed because of one personality (####6#).

Communication and its manipulation can play a significant role in effecting land use planning. In considering airport and regional planning across the public / private divide it is no more pertinent. So despite the recognition that many communicative mechanisms are easily ‘managed’, there is an ever increasing communicative turn in land use planning processes.

7.3.2 Airport metropolis land use process 7.3.2.1 The increasing communicative turn Within all the cases studies it was acknowledged by most of the stakeholders that there is a growing federal government expectation of broader community and stakeholder consultation when undertaking any airport planning and development. As noted by one airport executive:

I think there is an increased expectation from the Commonwealth that the airports will be incredibly comprehensive in their consultation. That has come from statements in the White Paper; a lot of it has come from the State Governments (####2#).

The increased communicative turn by the federal government was no more apparent than the recent National Aviation Policy Review (2008 – 2010) and resulting White Paper (2010). The government stakeholders universally agreed that the communicative focus of the White Paper is heading in the right direction, but is generally only resulting in the dissemination of more ‘information’. They question if there has been an increase or indeed the facilitation of genuine engagement around issue of airport and regional planning.

The general political will is to consult more and provide additional detail across the range of airport planning documents. Airports acknowledge that master plan and major development plan processes are under closer scrutiny with regard to the nature and range of consultations being undertaken. With each new round of planning approvals the consultative requirements are more prescriptive and increasingly onerous (###8##).

The level of consultative detail required for federal government approval of recent master planning documents has been a significant issue for many airports. Indeed the 2009 draft Canberra Airport Master Plan was not approved on the grounds that it lacked sufficient detail with regard to consultation for proposed on-airport development. All case study airport stakeholders assert that the master plan, as a statutory document, should not be detailing specific on-airport planning and is not the place for the itemisation of consultations.

Some cases study airports are documenting all consultations, forums, meetings and stakeholder interactions to evidence their communicative effort, presenting a log of consultations for inclusion within forthcoming master plans and MDP’s. An airport stakeholder explains:

Documentation of the consultation is key to build a log of consultation and feedback - this is the date, the time, this is who, this is what was discussed, this is the outcome, this is where we are heading, and these are the necessary actions (###2###).

Many Australian airports have been privatised for more than a decade and to the frustration of airports the requirements for planning and development continue to be amended. Importantly many stakeholders have reflected that the early planning interactions were marred in conflict and this has been significant for ongoing relationships.

7.3.2.2 The early years of privatisation The delivery of the privatisation process is recognised by all stakeholders as having contributed to many of the past and present airport and regional planning difficulties. One stakeholder succinctly and diplomatically described the early stakeholder interactions as ‘unpleasant’ (##6###). Local government stakeholders highlight the lack of initial broader consultation and program explanation to the public and state, territory and local government as a failing of the federal government. A senior planning manager outlines their position:

If all stakeholders knew what had been negotiated, it may answer some questions. While not agreeing with such a process, it would provide some clarity and transparency to the past and current situation (#1####).

It created perceptions of a lack of transparency in the airport planning process - which continues to persist. Local government also highlight the initial airport lessee consultation processes also contributed to mistrust. More specifically, one local government stakeholder argues that it was the ‘carte blanche’ attitude which many of the airports took with regard to on- airport planning and development that contributed to the mistrust (#1####). Indeed airport

stakeholders admit that the early standpoint of many airports was less inclusive; their position was that they had just paid a lot of money for these assets. We paid a fortune for this airport why shouldn’t we build the DFO - it was in the master plan (####7#).

Government stakeholders highlight that the rapid facilitation of on-airport development and much of its disregard for regional planning was alarming. Airport representatives counter that much of the problem was due to the lack of regard that had been given to the potential for the airport to develop as more than aviation transit hubs and their treatment as ‘black holes’ on local and state government planning. A senior airport planner explains their position:

The master plan hasn’t changed a lot since the 70’s when it was first written, the development was there, but I think people were surprised when development occurred. Equally I think the city and the state had simply ignored the master plan for the airport, well that’s got nothing to do with us (#####8).

Within early airport master plans some of the on-airport development intent was considered by the region as deliberatively exclusive, and indeed a direct threat to city planning. For example, the promotion of the concept of the ‘airport city’ by Brisbane Airport Corporation did not find any support from Brisbane City Council. Despite the application of the concept largely as a marketing tool, the articulation of the separateness, in parallel with the establishment of an on- airport retail centre resulted in the initiation of legal action. The experience set the tone for this airport and government relationship for many years and both sides continue to be cautious in their dealings. It was definitely the case that they thought that vision resulted in some challenge to the CBD. It was not our intent to give that impression (###2##).

From positions of conflict emerged the formalisation of a range of agreements as a means to progress better airport and regional planning. In some case studies they have been long established while in another stakeholders have only recently acknowledged the benefits with regard to development certainty and financial gain.

7.3.2.3 Emerging process of formalised agreements While the early airport and regional land use planning processes were often mutually exclusive, over time all stakeholders have developed arrangements to better assist cooperative planning. Within all of the case study regions, various formalised partnership agreements have been initiated. These predominantly take the form of memorandums of understanding; rates agreements and infrastructure agreements, or a combination of the three. These mechanisms

deal less with consultation and more with arrangements for mutual financial responsibilities and liabilities. In the main they constitute the negotiation of ex gratia rates payments and infrastructure charges agreements and disbursements. Local government managers from two of the case studies explain:

There are also formal arrangements in place with the airport on construction of infrastructure, particularly road infrastructure around the airport. There are agreements in place for contribution, financial contributions and also project management (####4#).

The rates payment agreement is retrospective and ongoing, outside of any major infrastructure agreements and contributions (#7####).

These agreements are recognised by the municipalities as facilitating a better preparedness of the airports to discuss the issues surrounding on-airport development. In some cases these arrangements offer measures to cap on-airport retail and several are tied to infrastructure charges on non-aviation development, while others establish triggers for development tied to the provision of specific access infrastructure. Some also offer agreed rates payment for on- airport non-aviation development; however the definitions of non-aviation development still require agreement. These agreements largely represent a significant and ongoing multimillion dollar windfall to the regions and a level of certainty in regional support for airport development.

7.3.2.4 Is the current system is working? A key ‘land use planning process’ question within the semi-structured interviews asked participants: Do you think the current process for airport and regional planning is working?

The airport respondents indicated that they believed the current system is working; however several acknowledged that there would always be issues in any process that required negotiation. In one case study, the airport master plan is offered as an example of a proactive document which should be considered as the lead document for the region. The airport manager believes the reactive nature of current urban and regional planning may be better served through a focus on the airport as the key economic generator for the city. Airport master planning is based on modern principles; I don’t know if off airport planning has come into the 21st century (####5#).

Local, state and territory governments were, on the whole, less enthusiastic about the current system, to the point that none acknowledge it as providing for optimal outcomes for the city or

the airport. The consensus was that the current airport planning process, under the Airports Act 1996 favoured the airports. The limited consideration of on-airport development impacts on the broader urban area was highlighted as a significant problem by state and local governments. These stakeholders highlighted that there are no requirements for the airport to undertake analysis to identify the impacts of, or indeed the necessity for a particular development. The airport does limited assessment about whether their land uses are going to impact on ones adjacent or surrounding. There’s no evidence of assessment in their master plan (#####8).

State, territory and local government stakeholders largely acknowledge that they will not be granted control of on-airport non-aviation development assessment, but would indeed like to establish land use planning consistency between the airport and the city through engagement. A state government planner explains:

We’ll never get the ideal situation which is that they come under the umbrella of State and Territory planning regimes which is what a number of governments have previously recommended. I think you’ll find most have accepted that it’s not going to happen so we’re looking at what’s the right alternative, which is a more cooperative process (##4###).

The only way forward for improved airport and regional planning will be through improved communication as it is evident that neither stakeholder will ever be granted assessment manager responsibilities beyond their boundaries. As such airport metropolis land use planning outcomes must rely on the production of compatible, coordinated and integrated regional plans and airport master plans

7.3.3 Airport metropolis land use outcomes 7.3.3.1 Improved communication = improved planning A key identified theme from this research is that relating to the ability for improved communication to lead to improved land use planning outcomes. The primary focus for such communicative improvement and integration is identified by all stakeholders as being best facilitated through all levels of strategic and master planning documents. It is recognised that the value of all stakeholder documents is increased where they acknowledge, and where practicable, include the planning considerations of other stakeholders.

In each of the case studies, there is evidence of airport and regional concerns within stakeholder planning documents. This largely constitutes the airport master plan incorporating aspects of the land use planning ‘language’ of the region, and the identification by state and local planning

of the airport as an economic generator or employment centre. While they are by no means planning, cooperatively the mutual recognition of planning intent is agreed as one step in the development of better land use planning outcomes.

The airport and the local government are both commercial entities. While the airports freely admit to a more commercial outlook and philosophy for land use planning and development, they also recognise that local government has commercial interest high on its agenda. Airport stakeholders contend that airport and regional land use planning conflict is largely an issue of development control and lost revenue for the local government.

The local governments do admit to speaking a commercial language and argue that in part, they need to be a commercially focussed organisation if they are to best serve the community. They do however note their broader social and cultural responsibilities in land use planning development and outcomes. The airport is considered to have a narrow focus on maximising economic potential, and a protectionist attitude of the airport as a commercial asset.

The development of airports as mixed use activity centres is broadly acknowledged by the airports as necessary for the viable operation of the airport. It is considered as a ‘risk management strategy’ against sudden or ongoing downturns in the aviation industry as a result of pandemic, terrorist attack, volcanic emissions and industrial actions (##2###). State, territory and local government stakeholders agree that if there is on-airport land which is superfluous to the aviation requirements of the airport, then indeed there should be suitable development to support the viability of the airport as a Commonwealth owned national asset. It is the ‘type’ of on-airport development which is the source of disagreement; more specifically it is the definition of non-aeronautical commercial development. The airports argue there is very little on airports that cannot be associated, directly and indirectly, with the aviation operation of the airport. The provision of support retail and commercial services is an approach required to service the travelling public, their families and friends and the broader airport work force community. One of the case study airport managers outlines their point of view:

You’ve got your supermarket, your tavern, your hotel, recreation facility, childcare facilities. These facilities are just typical of what is demanded by the level of workforce we have in the airport at the moment (####6#).

In line with the protection and promotion of airports as national assets, state and territory government stakeholders highlight the recent establishment of the Major Cities Unit within the Department of Infrastructure and Transport. The recent national urban policy initiative - Our Cities, Our Future - and subsequent guidelines have a key focus on infrastructure as the major

driver for urban development. The potential implications for future airport and regional planning are yet to be realised, or indeed acknowledged. A government departmental manager highlights:

The fact that you’ve got a Major Cities Unit and Infrastructure Australia looking at what the urban implications are of certain infrastructure investments should provide for a sharper commonwealth focus on airport development (#####7).

Any guidance on what may be considered as appropriate airport development would be welcomed by regional stakeholders. The definition of what constitutes non aeronautical development is a significant issue for the relevance of infrastructure contribution agreements with local, state and territory governments.

7.3.3.2 Infrastructure conflicts Infrastructure provision and liability is identified by all stakeholders as one of the primary issues contributing to the airport and regional tension. Keys concerns highlighted by regional stakeholders relate to the apparent congestion of road infrastructures from the development of on-airport non-aviation commercial and retail land use. They argue that the regional connections to airports were being obstructed by increased traffic loads and that this imperils and impacts broader roadway networks. Government stakeholders have previously insisted that additional road works would need to be undertaken by the airports and, or they contribute to the maintenance of these connections. Airport stakeholders disagreed and argue that a lack of regional infrastructure investment is the cause of the problem and as such local and state government are responsible. They maintain that they have invested in the airport infrastructure, without regional contributions, and they would not be paying for the infrastructure mismanagement of government. A case study airport general manager notes:

The roads surrounding the airport are state roads, we have voluntarily provided infrastructure support where it is wanted, but we will not be responsible for poor planning by the government and we have made it quite clear that the airport is a conduit for bringing business into the state. The arrivals don’t stay in the airport boundary they go out into the state and conduct business – contributing to the state (####9#).

The airlines do their bit keeping their infrastructure up to date, we do our bit to keep the infrastructure up to date, and the government can do their bit to keep the infrastructure up to date (1#####).

Some airports have indeed contributed to regional road projects both financially and through project management, while others have negotiated infrastructure agreements which allow for

partial financial contributions. In one case study the point was made by a government representative that the key difference between on-airport and regional infrastructure is that airport infrastructure is user pays: the airport aprons, taxi ways and runways are all generating an income, and as such, their provision cannot be compared to the provision of regional road infrastructures. He states,

...they are spending a fortune on infrastructure out there but it’s all about making a profit and at present time, while the public isn’t paying in a very transparent way, there are hundreds of millions of dollars going into infrastructure surrounding the airport which then externalises the cost, particularly for transport task (#7####).

Infrastructure agreements for transport appear to potentially represent a means by which the fair and equitable attribution of use and impact may be negotiated. Further consideration may be required for the inclusion and identification of effective and efficient public transport systems and travel demand management strategies within the periodic renewal of these agreements.

7.3.4 Ongoing issues for stakeholders 7.3.4.1 Airport Stakeholders: Airport stakeholders were universally concerned about two key issues: 1) regional residential development under flight paths impacting the operational capacity of the airport; and 2) the planning and provision of transport connections to and from the airport. It is considered essential by airport representatives that regional planning is in place to ensure the road network had the capacity to support the development of the airport. Additionally, there were several issues regarding the need to ensure consideration is given to mode share and public transport access.

Government intervention and re-regulation is also identified as adding to the uncertainty for airports and inhibiting their ability to invest in the development of the airport. Further that political support is important for what happens at the airport and is vital in providing certainty in the airports investment profile.

Other issues included the lack of understanding by off airport agencies that airports have a robust and legitimate planning regime, and that those plans require detailed consideration when planning off airport. Additionally this planning regime is outlined as offering quality

outcomes for the community through the efficiencies and improved service delivery that planning and development under one owner can offer.

7.3.4.2 Government Stakeholders: The principal issue was identified as the need for airport planning to integrate with the state strategic and local government development planning, both substantively in land use and procedurally with stakeholder input. Further, they identified that consistency is required between the land use definitions and descriptions of airport and regional development - all parties speaking the same planning language with the same planning intent. This was articulated as seeking to establish two documents that are harmonious with one another and provide for appropriate engagement and a clear regional land development strategy for cooperative and compatible development.

The primacy of the airport to provide aviation services is identified as a significant issue, and in that regard, the need for the identification and detailing of complementary developments on- airport to support the airports aviation function.

Transport infrastructure emerged here also as a key issue. The regional perspective is to gain a better insight into the impact of the airport from a traffic management perspective and ensuring ongoing and adequate contributions on a fair user pays basis.

7.4 DISCUSSION The privatisation of airports represents one of the largest private market controls of previously public infrastructure in Australia. It also allows the private management of a piece of infrastructure which, more than any other has the potential to physically, socially and economically impact spatial and urban form. The modern airport is a complex and multi- product private entity that is integrally connected to surrounding land uses. In the past impacts were mainly a result of the airport’s aviation function, however, today the airport has grown into a multi-use activity centre presenting all tiers of government with significant challenges and opportunities.

The privatisation of Australian airports resulted in necessary and significant investment in airport and aviation infrastructure upgrades across the country. It has also resulted in airport

lessees seeking a return on investment through a variety of on-airport real estate development, including: business parks, aviation support services, commercial offices and retail centres.

Many state, territory and local government stakeholders were surprised by the rapid development of these ‘new’ airport land uses, and often the reaction was negative to the airport’s exclusion from local and territory government land use planning process. These early stakeholder interactions unfortunately established much of the basis for the ongoing relationships. The planning and reporting requirements for airports and the consultative requirements between stakeholders has remained largely unchanged. However, overtime airport and regional relationships have improved as a result of stakeholder familiarity with the process and its limitations.

In 2008 the federal government presented an ‘issues paper’ to instigate a National Aviation Policy Review. In 2010 a White Paper of policy directions was delivered, which in part set out ‘initiatives to ensure better planning and integrated development on and around airports’ (Australian Government 2009). Many of the recommendations for airport and regional planning dealt with the process of planning, rather than the product. Major initiatives have had a significant focus on regulating and prescribing communicative processes and mechanisms for consultation, leaving very little room for informal stakeholder interactions. Two such mechanisms for stakeholder and community interactions have been more recently introduced: Guidelines for Planning Coordination Forums and Guidelines for Aviation Consultation Groups. The benefits of the Planning Coordination Forums for the discussion of ‘issues and exchange of information on airport planning and operations and on the implications for the airport of development in the surrounding areas’ may not be recognised in the short term and caution is advised in consideration of the issues raised within this research.

While the federal government seeks increased stakeholder and community consultation, this very approach may potentially lead to further division in airport metropolis land use planning. Purcell (2009) recognises the communicative turn in planning is not always supported as providing the best framework for confronting neo-liberalisation. It has the potential to provide the airport lessees with consultative practices that are widely accepted as ‘democratic’ but do not (or cannot) fundamentally challenge existing relations of power (p 141). Previous research indicates that informal networks, based in good faith have been advancing airport and regional land use planning, albeit on an ad hoc basis (Stevens & Baker 2011).

Several implications for land use planning practice may be noted from this research for consideration across other privatised airports. One – the federal government’s increasingly

prescriptive approach to consultation allows little room for stakeholder or community negotiation or intervention. Consultation is undermined by prescription and potentially only facilitates a democratically ‘legitimate’ process fulfilling statutory requirements. Second, airports have embraced an array of communication mechanisms and forums for dealing formally and informally with the entire range of stakeholders. They recognise the importance of maintaining these communicative relationships for regulatory and public profile purposes and make effective use of a range of media to keep decision-makers and the wider community well informed. Third, is the potential for land use planning relationships, processes and outcomes to become defined by ad hoc and individual interest-based bargaining around rates and infrastructure agreements. These processes are not inclusive or collaborative and indeed involve the shifting of power between stakeholders (Innes 2004). And last, is the recognition that effective and appropriate communicative practice (grounded in transparency, accountability and accessibility) has the potential to deliver integrated and coordinated airport and regional land use planning.

7.5 REFERENCES Australian Government. (2009) National Aviation Policy White Paper: Flight Path to the Future. Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Canberra, Australia.

Australian Government. (2011) Community Aviation Consultation Groups Guidelines. Department of Infrastructure and Transport, Canberra, Australia. February.

Barriball, K. and While, A. (1994) Collecting data using a semi-structured interview: a discussion paper. Journal of Advanced Nursing 19: 328 – 335.

Innes, J.E. (1995) Planning Theory's Emerging Paradigm: Communicative Action and Interactive Journal of Planning Education and Research14: 183 – 189.

Purcell, M. (2009) Resisting Neoliberalization: Communicative Planning or Counter-Hegemonic Movements? Planning Theory 8 (2): 140 – 165.

Stevens, Nicholas J. & Baker, Douglas. (2011) Land use conflict across the airport fence: competing urban policy, planning and priority in Australia. Urban Policy and Research. (submitted).

8Chapter 8: Conclusion

The following conclusion will detail the cumulative impact of the publications and will return to the aims of the thesis to address the significance of the findings. It will also outline the knowledge claims of the thesis and provide recommendations for the consideration of airport and regional land use planning and development. Figure 8 provides an overview of the relationship of the questions to each of the chapter publications.

Chapter 1: Introduction & Background

Question1: How has the role of the airport Chapter 2: Literature Review - Understanding the changed in Australia, Australian Airport Metropolis and what are the implications for cooperative development with the Chapter 3: Airport city developments in Australia: adjacent urban land use classification and analyses region?

Question2: How can Chapter 4: Airports in their urban settings: towards the complexity of the a conceptual model of interfaces in Australia integrated and reciprocal airport and regional impacts be conceptualised to Chapter 5: Managing airport land development assist policy, practice under regulatory uncertainty and research?

Question 3: What are the airport and regional stakeholder Chapter 6: Land use conflict across the airport fence: perspectives with competing urban policy, planning and priority in Australia regard to the potential conflicts and opportunities in the establishing Stakeholder perspectives on airport and collaborative and Chapter 7: cooperative land use regional land use planning planning?

Chapter 8: Conclusion & Significance of Findings

Figure 8 Questions and Chapters

8.1 QUESTION 1: HOW HAS THE ROLE OF THE AIRPORT CHANGED IN AUSTRALIA, AND WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT WITH THE ADJACENT URBAN REGION?

8.1.1 Chapter 2: Understanding the Australian Airport Metropolis The research establishes an overview of the history and key aspects of Australian airport ownership, detailing the privatisation of 22 Federal Airports Corporation (FAC) airports under the Airports Act 1996. The policy and legislative arrangements under the Airports Act covers a range of issues including: the development of civil aviation; comparison of airport performance; ownership of airports and international obligations; and the efficient and economic development of airports. In acknowledging this multi-faceted nature of airports, the research turns more specifically to the examination of land use planning and development under the Act.

The main features of these processes are outlined and are primarily noteworthy for their exclusion of regional planning, and the large degree of airport lessee discretion afforded to on- airport planning and development. Conversely local, state and territory land use planning offers the airports limited opportunities for input. Despite more than a decade of airport and regional planning and development, the research reveals significant communicative short comings across three tiers of planning and infrastructure legislation and policy.

It is significant that this research, for the first time, assembles a distinct progression within the Australian airport literature from 1914 – 2011. From the military importance (1914), to engineering requirements of airport and aviation (1920s); to management and public transport recognition (1930s); urban planning foresight around encroachment (1951); and an understanding of the economic and social advantages for Australia (1950s); to spectacular technological advancement and airport upgrades (1960s & 1970s); then as out of favour urban inconveniences and public costs (1970s & 1980s); to the attention afforded to Sydney airport’s expansion, in parallel with the environmental impact arguments (1990s); deregulation and entrepreneurial management approaches (1990s); while the literature regarding privatisation and commercialisation of airports in Australian may be regarded as contemporary concerns (2000s). While this assembly of Australian airport literature is a significant outcome alone, it also serves to demonstrate and evidence the compartmentalisation of research considerations. In reality the modern airport, as a mixed use activity centre, requires a more complex and multifaceted approach.

Three normative theories of airport and regional development, as activity centres develop the model of the airport in a context that extends it beyond simply air traffic control. The ‘aviapolis,’ as the marketing and development of aviation orientated business hubs; the ‘airfront’, as the collection of aviation related industries and services within an airport hinterland; and the aerotropolis, the transport and industrial / aviation complex servicing ‘just-in-time’ logistics. Significantly the research highlights that while these models acknowledge change; they are largely economistic conceptualisations and lack an explicit acknowledgment of the wider urban system.

This review of the literature sets the foundation, and demonstrates the need, for a broader and as yet unrecognised consideration of airport impacts. An integrated means for understanding and interpreting the changing role of the airport in Australia is required. Here the research argues for a new conceptualisation of the modern airport which will acknowledge the range of local, national and international impacts, allowing all stakeholders to better understand and manage airport and regional conflict and opportunity.

8.1.2 Chapter 3: Airport city developments in Australia: land use classification and analyses The changing role of modern airports is identified from the literature review. Also acknowledged is the significance of on-airport land use and development in facilitating that change at Australian privatised airports. As such this research undertakes an examination of the land use planning intentions of Australian privatised airports. There is anecdotal evidence that suggests airports across Australia are planning for significant on-airport development and are embracing the normative development of ‘airport cities’.

The aim of this research is to empirically establish the on-airport land use planning intentions of Australian privatised airports through the analysis of their legislatively required master plans. The conceptual and methodological significance of this study is the development of a national land use classification for on-airport development. For the first time it is possible to undertake comparative on-airport land use analyses across the range of Australian airport contexts.

The outcome of the research provides on-airport land use classifications and evaluations of development intent. This allows a clearer understanding of the extent to which Australian airports are advancing as multi-use activity centres. This work and its findings are significant as

it enables recognition of airport land use and establishes a substantive basis for broader airport-region dialogue.

There are 22 privatised airports in Australia, of which 20 are required to produce master plan documents; these airports constitute the study group for analysis. The aviation operations for each is detailed - aircraft movements (where applicable also passenger and freight movements) for the previous year - and they are also classified into their ‘type’ (regular passenger transport (RPT), general aviation (GA) and pilot training (PT) or any combination).

Utilising an international classification system for the remote sensing of urban land use - United States Geological Surveys (USGS) Modified Anderson Classification System, it is possible to establish on-airport land use classifications. The land use information from the airport master plans is then digitised into a geographic information system (GIS) and converted into polygon feature classes. It is then possible to calculate the percentage of total area for each zoning category. A measure of each airports landside development intention is compared as a value of standard deviation from the mean. While the results are interesting in providing an overview of development intention there is limited statistical correlation between airports in terms of landside development and airport area, or landside development and passenger or aircraft movements. This is not unexpected in consideration of the complexities of the surrounding urban development and the presence of regional drivers for on airport development. Significantly however it is noted that all of the airports in the study group have zoned their land assets with capitalisation of landside development in mind.

Through the provision of a comparative platform for the analysis of on-airport development this research offers airport and municipal planners a national benchmark and land use interpretation method for determining the relationship between aeronautical function (RPT, GA, PT) and on-airport land use planning intention.

The research establishes that Australian airports are seeking to invest significantly in both airside and landside infrastructure and development. While there has been ad hoc analysis and media attention of high profile airport and regional conflict, there was, until now, limited recognition of the extent to which all privatised airports intended to develop towards the normative theory of airport cities. This work allowed, for the first time, airport and regional stakeholders the ability to comparatively recognise on-airport land use master planning in Australia.

8.2 QUESTION 2: HOW CAN THE COMPLEXITY OF THE INTEGRATED AND RECIPROCAL AIRPORT AND REGIONAL IMPACTS BE CONCEPTUALISED TO ASSIST POLICY, PRACTICE AND RESEARCH?

8.2.1 Chapter 4: Airports in their urban settings: towards a conceptual model of interfaces in the Australian context The research explores the emergent pressures reshaping the impact of Australian airports, including significant economic shocks and environmental challenges. Despite these setbacks it is clear that airports expect continued growth and profitability. The dominant driver of privatised Australian airports is aeronautical and non-aeronautical development expansionism, assisted in part by the legislative frameworks under which they are managed.

The research presents an overview of the Australian Federal Court challenge to this commercial expansion, in what was widely considered a test case for airport development. The ensuing airport victory ultimately reaffirmed and emboldened the capitalisation strategy of retail and commercial on-airport development, and did little for the communicative and cooperative planning relationships between airports and the region. Conversely in the examination of a long running legal dispute between Village Building Company and Canberra Airport, the limitations of airport influence on regional planning are highlighted.

The detailing of these airport and regional conflicts highlight the fragmented decision-making of land use planning when neoliberal imperatives shift airport management from public good to shareholder concern. It is clear within this research that the public private divide is indeed a contributing factor in the breakdown in communicative and collaborative planning relationships.

The research presents a range of new and significant interdependencies for stakeholder consideration in acknowledgment of airports as multi-functional activity centres in Australia:

• Understanding the catchments and catalysts for industrial, commercial and residential development within airport regions.

• Compatibility of land uses through policy and plans recognising the motivation of all stakeholders and the needs of the broader community.

• Regional direct, indirect and catalytic economic impacts and dependence.

• Recognising and understanding expectations of immediacy and equity in the delivery of goods, services and people.

• Managing the strategic, financial, compliance, economic and operational risks associated with airport and regional relationships.

• Understanding the impacts and trade-offs of increasingly shared decision making through public and private sector partnerships.

• Coordination of three tiers of government policy in consideration of community needs and expectation.

Within the complexity around airports, the airport metropolis interface model is presented as a conceptual framework for research and policy. This model is established as an integrative model which recognises and attempts to understand the nature and importance of national, regional and local drivers of airport and regional growth and the need for sustainable balanced development given new corporate, public, and institutional governance processes.

From a conceptual point of view the model is intended as a simple and robust device for comprehending the complexity and planning of airport and regional development. It relies on four ‘interface’ domains to capture the sophistication of the modern airport – economic development, land use, infrastructure and governance. It is proposed that each interface may be supported and refined through the application of five sustainability criteria – economic efficiency, environment, coordination, community and security. This framework is significant as it seeks to deliver a normative understanding of the planning and development of both established and evolving airports in Australia. It is offered as a way forward in collaboration, and provides a necessary focus and structure for airport and regional stakeholder appraisal and discourse around the shared and reciprocal interfaces.

The methodological significance of this construct cannot be understated, as it is this conceptual model, developed with co-authors, that became the focus for a 4 year, $AUD4 million dollar Australian Research Council's Linkage Project: ‘The Airport Metropolis: Managing the Interfaces’ (LP0775225). The advancement of the framework is a significant theoretical knowledge claim of this thesis.

Significantly the development of the framework has been supported by airport and regional decision-makers at three case study land use forums in 2008. This model presents a consistent framework to better apprehend airport and regional management, administration and communication. This model has the ability to explore and interpret those aspects of airport and regional development which are universally shared and interdependent.

The significance of the airport and regional planning research to date was affirmed when the federal government called for submissions to an ‘Issues Paper’ for the development of a

National Aviation Policy in 2008. In doing so the Government acknowledged for the first time the economic, safety, security and environmental issues enveloping aviation globally, and significantly the disquiet from local, state and territory governments; the wider community; and the airports around issues of land use planning.

8.2.2 Chapter 5: Managing airport land development under regulatory uncertainty The development of a national aviation policy during the timeframe of this doctoral research highlights the significance of the research undertaking. Here the research seeks to explore airport managerial perceptions of, reactions to and engagements with the policy review process and the accompanied uncertainty it brings.

The research outlines the context for the changing role of airports from mono-functional providers of air transport infrastructure, to multi-functional marketing enterprises. It highlights that the rise of the airport as a business has not been without risk and susceptibility to political interference and re-regulation. Regulatory uncertainty, it is argued, adds to the already sizeable airport risk management burden, which includes the challenge of planning for aviation and the uncertainty of the commercial property markets.

In a clear statement of intent the Commonwealth Minister for Infrastructure and Transport confirmed, ‘Significant reforms are needed to get the balance right between the need for ongoing investment in aviation infrastructure, community consultation and the integration of airport planning with local, state, and territory planning regimes’ (Albanese 2010 in Freestone et al. 2011 p 104). In light of the established research and airport metropolis framework, this statement and the aviation policy review process are noteworthy indicators of research significance.

Four significant findings are established from this research with respect to the evolution of airport planning and the communicative nature of airport and regional development. First, while airports have been privatised there continues to be significant government involvement in the oversight roles. Secondly, this ‘management’ has led to the recognition, by the airports at least, that the planning and consultation for the master plan is an ongoing, almost permanent process. Thirdly, there is resistance by national politicians to recognise modern airports as multi-functional; they are still largely identified and measured by their core aviation role. Lastly and most importantly, is the greater commitment expected for cooperative and collaborative

off- airport planning, a direction which is necessary, but requires reciprocation by the surrounding urban and regional stakeholders.

8.3 QUESTION 3: WHAT ARE THE AIRPORT AND REGIONAL STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES WITH REGARD TO THE POTENTIAL CONFLICTS AND OPPORTUNITIES IN THE ESTABLISHING COLLABORATIVE AND COOPERATIVE LAND USE PLANNING?

8.3.1 Chapter 6: Land use conflict across the airport fence: competing urban policy, planning and priority in Australia Following from the development of the airport metropolis conceptual framework, and in parallel with the national aviation policy review, three Australian case studies (Brisbane, Adelaide, and Canberra) are examined to detail the context of airport and regional land use planning.

Here the interface framework is applied for the purposes of research as an organising device and the land use interface is placed as the central circumstance in consideration of the interface areas of governance, economic development and infrastructure. Additionally ‘environment’ is included for the determination of the social and biophysical aspects of land use planning.

The methodological approach of Land Use Forums is utilised as a communicative and collaborative approach to bring stakeholders together. As such it is important for this research to incorporate the views of a broad range of stakeholders beyond airport and regional government decision-makers. An important indicator of the significance of this research was the strong attendance by the range of stakeholders. Over 120 representatives from airports, airport industries, academia, business representatives, government stakeholders, senior policy analysts, and urban planners, spent a full day contributing and participating in the research.

The forums allowed for all stakeholders to actively participate in the research process and express their views in a facilitated forum. With land use as the focus the results of the round table discussions are integrated, yet distinct. As anticipated the use of the conceptual framework is valuable in its ability to provide clear structure while acknowledging interdependencies.

The inductive thematic analysis identified common themes across the three case study regions around the interface domains.

Land Use & Land Use & Land Use & Economic Land Use & Governance Environment Development Infrastructure

• Inadequate delivery mechanisms for improved land use planning

The identification of these airport metropolis interface themes is a significant finding from the research. It is these issues which are holding back cooperative and communicative airport and regional land use planning. Further analysis of these outcomes, in recognition of their inherent dependencies as interfaces, has revealed that three principal concerns contribute to the fragmentation of airport and regional land use planning:

1) inadequate coordination and disjointed decision-making;

2) current legislative and policy frameworks; and

3) competing stakeholder priorities and interests.

8.3.2 Chapter 7: Stakeholder perspectives on airport and regional land use planning This research continues to build on the outcomes of previous work, but here presents a finer grained analysis of airport and regional land use planning. The fragmentary themes are reconceptualised and recognised as being a result of and contributing to airport and regional land use planning 1) relationships, 2) processes, and 3) outcomes.

The research utilises a series of semi-structured interviews to secure airport and local, state and territory government stakeholders’ perspectives and perceptions on land use planning within the three case study regions of Brisbane, Adelaide and Canberra.

When considering the current processes for airport and regional land use planning, regional stakeholders universally agree it is failing to deliver coordinated, integrated and compatible land use. Conversely airport stakeholders are, in the main, satisfied with the current legislative mechanisms for airport and regional planning and development. They do however contend that

the federal government is seeking to micro-manage on-airport development processes and are frustrated that the onus for change in land use planning relationships, processes and outcomes is largely directed at them, with limited regional acknowledgement of shared responsibility.

The research indicates that the federal government increasingly requires airports to undertake community and stakeholder consultation in an attempt to improve land use planning processes and outcomes. However it is also recognised that this increasing communicative task has the potential to result in sub optimal outcomes as the airports meet only designated consultative requirements.

The research also reveals that the local, state and territory governments largely rely on the airports for communicative inclusion and are rarely proactive in facilitating broader industry or cooperative inter-governmental dialogue. To this end, it is acknowledged that airport facilitated government ‘one stop shops’ for airport and regional consultation are resulting in compromised positions from some government stakeholders.

In discussion the research presents 4 significant concerns, first – the increasingly prescriptive communicative turn leaves very little room stakeholder negotiation and may lead to compliancy consultation only. Second, airports are effective and efficient communicators and recognise the value in maintaining critical community and industry connections. Third, land use planning relationships, processes and outcomes may become defined by the negotiation of agreements, and finally effective communication does have the potential to deliver better airport and regional land use planning.

8.3.3 Land Use Planning and the Airport Metropolis (2012) Since the inception of this thesis project there has been some seemingly significant changes to airport and regional land use planning process and policy. Importantly the National Aviation Policy processes (2008 -2009) identified the growing tension around the issue and sought to focus on the consultative mechanisms used to articulate stakeholder positions. Consequently the Australian Government has provided both formal guidance and enacted legislation as a means to build better communicative process in the hope of facilitating broader airport and regional cooperative action on land use planning. The formalisation and clarification of both stakeholder relationships and communicative responsibilities has assisted decision-makers in better identifying and articulating their roles and intentions in airport and regional land use planning, however many of the issues at the heart of the problem remain. In 2012 it is still

apparent that the future of airport master planning and surrounding urban policy coordination lie within negotiated understanding and agreement beyond statutory and legislative frameworks. The lack of genuine strategic and long term land use planning cooperation between airports and the surrounding local, state and territory governments continues to be at the root of ongoing incompatible land use planning and development.

On a more positive note, it is clear all stakeholders are learning from mistakes of the past. Airports are less combative in the protection of their economic assets, while surrounding local governments are also increasingly comfortable with the changing role of airports. Over time, as issues of economic, environmental, and social responsibility and liability are resolved, the airports are increasingly recognised and appreciated as regional and national assets, and significant centres of local economic activity. After up to 15 years of Australian airport privatisation there is a broader sense of familiarity with land use planning arrangements and expectations between airports and the adjacent municipalities. Further, much of what is able to be planned on airport is already outlined, and largely debated, in previous and present master plan documents. There remains little of the development ‘shock’ that occurred in the years immediately following privatisation.

Legislative Update (2012)

As a consequence of the White Paper, the Australian Government has initiated two additional reporting requirements and planning guidelines for airports. The Commonwealth Airports Amendment Act 201014 commenced operation on 18 December 2010. The Act includes a new Major Development Plan ‘trigger’ that is activated by any development on leased federal airport land that is likely to have a significant impact on the local or regional community, regardless of size or cost (the ‘community impact trigger’). The purpose of this document is to provide greater detail on development factors that may require the consultation and scrutiny of a Major Development Plan process as a result of the new community impact trigger. In January 2012 the Department of Transport and Infrastructure released ‘Significant Impact on the Local or Regional Community Guide’ (Australian Government 2012). This guide is intended to provide information to both the public and industry stakeholders about whether a proposed on-airport development ‘triggers the significant impact on the local or regional community clause, which is s89 (1) (Na) of the Airports Act 1996’ (Australian Government 2012, p 2).

14 Previously referred to as the Airports Amendment Bill in Chapter 5

Also in January 2012 the Department released ‘Master Plan Amendments – Guidelines’ (Australian Government 2012a). This document provides airport operators with guidance on fulfilling the new requirements for master plans within the Airports Act 1996, including:

• a ground transport plan – these detail the surface vehicle access plans with measures to mitigate vehicle and traffic impacts.

• more detailed information on proposed developments for the next 5-year cycle – here airports are encouraged to provide more detail within precincts to be used for non- aviation purposes;

• incorporation of an environment strategy – previously the airport environment strategy was a separate document, it is now annexed within the master plan document (Australian Government 2012a p 2).

The advancement of these guidelines is a significant step which seeks to establish greater airport and regional coordination, however the onus for change is largely legislated and principally the responsibility of the airport. These prescribed consultative measures ignore the underlying need for mutual and reciprocal cooperation and coordination around issues of airport and regional land use planning and development.

International and Australian Growth in Aviation (2012)

In the Australian context the number of passenger movements through our international and domestic airports is predicted to double to 279 million by 2030. That is, passenger numbers are forecast to increase 3.7% a year from 135 million in 2011 (Australian Government 2012d). For the case study airports this represents an annual growth rate of: Brisbane, 4.2% a year to 45.1 million in 2030; Adelaide, 3.1% a year to 13.5 million in 2030; and Canberra, 3.3% a year to 6.1 million in 2030 (Australian Government 2012d)

Internationally analysis by Airports Council International (ACI) predict year on year global passenger growth rate of 4% between 2011 and 2027 (both international and domestic travel), reaching 30 million passengers each day. These figures in fact represent a predicted slowing in growth from 5% in 2012. The Asia Pacific market is expected to be the largest growth market with a year on year increase of 6% up to 2027, boosted by the continuing growth of China and India (ACI 2012; IATA 2012).

8.4 KNOWLEDGE CLAIMS AND IMPACT 8.4.1 The interfaces model A key knowledge claim for this thesis is the development and proven application of the airport metropolis interface model. It is a robust structure which assists researchers and policy makers to better apprehend the potential conflict and opportunity between a region and any large urban infrastructure installation. Significantly it is these urban anchors, such as airports, ports, hospitals and universities, which are increasingly privatised or are developed as public private partnerships. It is an integrative model which recognises and attempts to understand the nature and importance of international, national, regional and local drivers of regional growth and the need for sustainable balanced development.

The framework is useful because its primary application as four interfaces is uncomplicated, but it remains a useful framework for the interpretation of complex systems. It is additionally valuable because while each interface may be viewed in turn, the acknowledged interdependent nature of the framework does not allow for the compartmentalisation of issues. It is also a functional and communicative framework with the ability to assist multiple stakeholder groups and multidisciplinary practices understand the opportunities and potential impacts between and within these organisations. Within this context, it was actively applied for the research in the Land Use Forums.

The application of the sustainability criteria may provide for a clearer interpretation of the interactions that typify major infrastructure systems. The use of these criteria allows for broader comparative analyses across a range of regional contexts and provides ongoing frameworks for research, policy development and program review.

8.4.2 Citations for publications: In considering the impact and knowledge contributions of a thesis by publication it is important to acknowledge where these publications have been cited. The citation of published works is considered a significant measure of academic contribution.

There have been 5 noteworthy citations for the above publication. Kevin O’Connor (2011 p 1057) recently canvassed the literature with regard to transport geography in Australasia, it was noted that, ‘Airports are beginning to emerge as significant metropolitan nodes in their own right’ (Stevens et al. 2010). Additionally Kivits et al. (2010 p 206) in their analysis of a post- carbon aviation future, noted that the ‘largest positive externality of the airport is its influence as an economic driver for the region(s) around the airport (Stevens et al. 2010) Stokes and Van der Windt (2011 p 72) in their evaluation of linking sustainable planning and sustainable development at Brisbane Airport cited that ‘interfaces between land uses and infrastructure on and off airport and relations with adjoining stakeholders and local government are issues of growing interest (Stevens et al. 2010). Hsu and Prosperi (2011 p 966) in an exploration of polycentricity within metropolitan regions identified ‘a new urban form comprising aviation- intensive businesses and related enterprises extending up to 25 km outward from major airports –that has spawned another thread of clarifications and implications (Stevens, Baker & Freestone 2010). Most significantly the Australian Government Productivity Commission (2011 p 499), in exploring development in proximity to airport land (and under flight paths), said that ‘amongst the major Australian airports the issue of coordination has been most problematic for the Canberra airport (Stevens, Baker & Freestone 2010). Further they highlighted this research publication in a case study analysis of the Tralee development in New South Wales (p 500) and again when discussing Australian state government aviation-specific planning policies (p 500)

1. Australian Government (2011) Performance Benchmarking of Australian Business Regulation: Planning, Zoning and Development Assessments. Productivity Commission Research Report Volume 1. Commonwealth of Australia. April 2011. (http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/108840/planning-volume1.pdf)

2. Hsu, J. and Prosperi, D. (2011) The “Sprawl Repair Act”: Realizing Polycentricity in Metropolitan Spatial Structure. REAL CORP 2011, Tagungsband, Germany, May 18 – 20, pp 965 – 976. (http://programm.corp.at/cdrom2011/papers2011/CORP2011_91.pdf)

3. Kivits, R. Charles, M., Ryan N. (2010), A post-carbon aviation future: Airports and the transition to a cleaner aviation sector. Futures, 42 (3) pp 199-211. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328709001797)

4. O’Connor, K. (2011) Transport geography in Australasia. Journal of Transport Geography 19 1056 – 1058.

5. Stokes, R and Van der Windt, M (2011) Linking corporate sustainability planning and sustainable development at Brisbane Airport, Australia, International Journal of Aviation Management 1(20) pp.70 – 88.

(http://inderscience.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&bac kto=issue,5,8;journal,1,1;linkingpublicationresults,1:122212,1)

This publication work has also been cited by The Australian Government Productivity Commission (2011a p 682). In the Commissions analysis of availability of airport sites for retail, they produced ‘Table H3: Use of airport land for commercial purposes’. The data within this table was sourced from and attributed to Walker and Stevens (2008).

1. Australian Government (2011a) Performance Benchmarking of Australian Business Regulation: Planning, Zoning and Development Assessments. Productivity Commission Research Report Volume 2. Commonwealth of Australia. April 2011 (http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/108857/planning-volume2.pdf)

8.5 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AIRPORT AND REGIONAL LAND USE PLANNING Today despite the introduction of the National Aviation Policy and more than 20 subsequent amendments to the Airports Act 1996, uncertainty and suspicion still remain around approaches to airport and regional land use planning. It may be that changes which have improved the level of certainty and indeed civility between stakeholders have evolved largely from more than a decade of increasing familiarity with working at the interface of airport and regional planning processes. In that time the boundaries and limitations of legislative frameworks and stakeholder relations have been stretched, tested and increasingly codified, while most of the catalytically contentious on-airport development has actually been planned, approved and constructed. Relations have thawed, understandings have grown and a range of ad hoc and incremental negotiations and agreements for financial arrangements and consultative efforts have been effectively established largely outside of albeit informing maturing legislative requirements.

Nevertheless, land use planning will continue to be a policy arena within which airport and regional stakeholders and decision-makers will pitch their battles. The public and private divide in decision-making, motivation and priority will ensure continued airport and regional fragmentation. However through mutual recognition and agreed understanding of policy and

planning positions this thesis argues progress towards proactive and reciprocal economic development, land use, infrastructure and governance benefit may be achieved.

The following recommendations are offered to assist land use planning relationships, process and outcomes:

1. Within each airport region proactive spatial planning frameworks should be initiated and facilitated by state and territory governments in recognition of the airport metropolis. The coordination committees now required of capital city airports are a positive step in this direction, although they are not necessarily spatially framed. Development will be informed by cooperative responses from federal government urban policy, state/territory government strategic planning, local government city planning and airport master planning decision-makers and stakeholders. These context driven agendas will include consideration of economic development, land use, infrastructure and governance issues, impacts and implications.

The existence of the federal government urban policy: Our Cities, Our Future - A National Urban Policy for a productive, sustainable and liveable future, is an important measure for flagging the importance of coordinated action and consistency across the range of decision-makers. It allows for a response to the impact that federally administered airports have on the fabric and design of major Australian cities. Additionally this policy is overseen by the Major Cities Unit and administered by the Department of Infrastructure and Transport allowing for conceivable synergies with airport planning.

2. Through research, a clearer determination of compatible and incompatible airport and regional development must be established. Again, recent federal transport initiatives are exploring the need for closer regulation of land uses in conflict with aviation operations. The wider context being endorsed here requires the identification of all forms of development and land use that are reliant on, or support the aeronautical capacity and aviation function of the airport (directly and indirectly) and also those developments and uses that have the potential to inhibit the aviation integrity of an airport, both directly and indirectly. This will provide the airport; all tiers of government; regional commerce and industry; and the wider community with planning apparatus to best leverage the economic development, land use, and infrastructure opportunities of the airport.

3. In line with the advancement of proactive spatial frameworks (Recommendation 1) and an understanding of compatible and incompatible development (Recommendation 2) a means to enhance on-airport and regional development assessment is also required. As such the final recommendation is for the establishment of collaborative arrangements which will facilitate mutual stakeholder referral on development applications. This would be a transparent cross-referral system whereby airport and regional stakeholders are able to comment upon and make (formal) recommendations regarding the negotiation of land use planning and development intentions of the other in consideration of the airport metropolis.

References

Allmendinger, P & Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2000) New Labour, New Planning? The Trajectory of Planning in Blair’s Britian. Urban Studies 37 (8): 1379 – 1402.

Anderson, J. R., Hardy, E. E., Roach, J. T. & Witmer, R. E. (1976) A Land Use and Land Cover Classification System for Use with Remote Sensor Data, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 964. USGPO, Washington, D.C. 41.

Airport Council International (ACI). (2012) World Report, November. (http://www.aci.aero/media/5a1ce8e8-ffb7-4671-bab9- 84f510528bb8/News/World%20Report/WorldReportNovember2012_pdf)

Australian Government (1992) National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, December. (http://www.environment.gov.au/about/esd/publications/strategy/index.html)

Australian Government. (2009) National Aviation Policy White Paper: Flight Path to the Future. Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (DITRDLG), Australia.

Australian Government. (2011) Significant Impact on the Local or Regional Community Guide – Discussion Draft. Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (DITRDLG), Canberra, Australia, January.

Australian Government. (2011a) Community Aviation Consultation Groups Guidelines. Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (DITRDLG), Canberra, Australia. February.

Australian Government. (2011b) Avline 2009-10: Statistical Report. Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (DITRDLG), Canberra, Australia. BITRE.

Australian Government. (2012) Significant Impact on the Local or Regional Community Guide, Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (DITRDLG), Canberra, Australia, January.

Australian Government (2012d) Air passenger movements through capital and non–capital city airports to 2030–31, BITRE Research Report 133, November, www.bitre.gov.au

Baker, D. & Freestone, R. (2008) Reconciling public and private interests in the planning and development of airports : the Australian experience, 1995-2008. In: International Planning History Society 13th Biennial Conference : Public versus private planning : themes, trends and tensions, 10-13 July 2008, Chicago.

Barriball, K. & While, A. (1994) Collecting data using a semi-structured interview: a discussion paper. Journal of Advanced Nursing 19: 328 – 335.

Brisbane Airport Corporation (2009) Brisbane Airport named finalist for Sustainability Awards 29/04/2009. http://bne.com.au/media-centre/media-releases/brisbane-airport-named- finalist-sustainability-awards

Bengs, C. (2005) Planning theory for the naïve? The European Journal of Spatial Development: 1- 12 (http://www.nordregio.se/Global/EJSD/Debate/debate050718.pdf).

Blanton, W. (2004) On the Airfront. Planning 70(5): 34 – 36.

Booher, D. & Innes, J,E. (2002) Network power in collaborative planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research 21: 221 – 236.

Brand, R., & Gaffikin, F. (2007) Collaborative planning in an uncollaborative world. Planning Theory (6) 3: 282 – 313.

Castells, M. 2002. Local and Global: Cities in the Network Society. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 93 (5): 548-558.

Castells, M. 1996. The rise of the networked society. Blackwell. Oxford.

Charles, M. B., Barnes, P., Ryan, N., & Clayton, J. (2007). Airport futures: Towards a critique of the aerotropolis model. Futures 39(9): 1009–1028.

Conway, M. (1993) Airport Cities 21. Atlanta, Conway Data.

Davies, P. (2006) Interview. In V. Jupp (Ed), The Sage Dictionary of Social Research Methods (pp. 157- 158) Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. de Jong, B., Suau-Sanchez, P. & Dross, M. (2008) Towards a relational planning approach? Case studies in the airport regions of Amsterdam, Barcelona and Munich. 4th Joint Congress of ACSP and the AESOP, Chicago. July. de Jong, B., Suau-Sanchez, P. & Dross, M. (2008a) the underestimated airport region: reflecting on planning policies in the airport regions of Amsterdam, Barcelona and Munich. Aerlines. e-zine edition 41.

Ding, H., Wang, R., Wu, J., Zhou, B., Shi, Z. & Ding, L. (2007) Quantifying Land Use Change in Zhejiang Coastal Region, China Using Multi-Temporal Landsat TM/ETM+ Images. Pedosphere 17 (6): 712 – 720.

Donnet, T. & Keast, R, L. (2010) Beyond airport enclaves: insights for overcoming turf wars. 14th Annual Conference of the International Research Society for Public Management. University of Berne. April.

ESRI (2008) ESRI Geographic Information System and Mapping Software. http://www.esri.com/software/arcgis/

European Commission (2003) PROSPECTS - Developing Sustainable Urban Land Use and Transport Strategies: A Methodological Guidebook. Institute of Transport Economics. European Commission (237pp. http://www.infra.kth.se/courses/1H1402/Litteratur/pr_del14mg.pdf).

Ferguson, A. (2007) Land fight puts focus on airport plans. The Australian. (Canberra, ACT) 23 July: 36.

Fernie, J. (1995) The coming of the fourth wave: new forms of retail out-of-town development. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 23 (1): 4-11.

Finavia (2004) Civil Aviation Administration, Annual Report, Finnish CAA.

Forester, J. (1989) Planning in the face of power. University of California Press: Berkley.

Forester, J. (1998) Creating public value in planning and urban design: the three abiding problems of negotiation, participation and deliberation. Urban Design International 3(1): 5–12.

Forester, J. (1999) The deliberative practitioner: encouraging participatory planning processes. MIT Press: London.

Forsyth, P. (2002) Privatisation and regulation of Australian and New Zealand airports. Journal of Air Transport Management 8(1): 19–28.

Freestone, R. (2010) Managing Neoliberal Urban Spaces: Commercial Property Development at Australian Airports. Geographical Research 49 (2): 115 – 131.

Freestone, R., Williams, P., & Bowden, A. (2006) Fly buy cities: Some planning aspects of airport privatisation in Australia. Urban Policy and Research, 24(4), 491–508.

Freestone, R., & Baker, D. (2010)Challenges in land use planning around Australian airports. Journal of Air Transport Management 16(5): 264–271.

Furlong, K. & Bakker, K. (2010) The contradictions in ‘alternative’ service delivery: governance, business models, and sustainability in municipal water supply. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy.28: 349 – 368.

Gibson, R. (2006) Beyond The Pillars: Sustainability Assessment As A Framework For Effective Integration Of Social, Economic And Ecological Considerations In Significant Decision-Making. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 3: 259 – 280.

Graham, A. (2003) Managing Airports. 2nd ed. Oxford: Elsevier.

Graham, A. (2008) Managing Airports, An International Perspective. 3rd ed. Oxford: Butterworth- Heinemann Ltd.

Graham, S. (2001) The Spectre of the Splintering Metropolis. Cities 18 (6): 365-368.

Graham, S. & Marvin, S. (2001) Splintering urbanism: networked infrastructure, technological mobilities and the urban condition. London: Routledge.

Gunder, M. (2010) Planning as the ideology of (neoliberal) space. Planning Theory 9: 298 – 314.

Harrell, M. & Bradley, M. (2009) Data Collection Methods: Semi-Structured Interviews and Focus Groups. Training Manual. RAND Corporation. U.S. Government.

Healey, P. (1999) Institutional analysis, communicative planning and shaping places. Journal of Planning Education and Research 19: 111 – 121.

Healey, P. (2001) The communicative turn in planning theory. In Campbell, S. and Fainstein, S. (eds) (2003) Readings in Planning Theory 2nd Edition. Blackwell Publishing; Oxford.

Healey, P. (2003) Collaborative Planning in Perspective. Planning Theory 2: 101 – 123.

Healey, P. (2007) Urban Complexity and Spatial Strategies: Towards a relational planning for our times. Routledge: New York.

Healey, P. (2010) Making Better Places. The Planning Project in the Twenty-First Century. Palgrave MacMillan: Hampshire England.

Hillier, J. (2002) Shadows of Power: An allegory of Prudence in Land-Use Planning. Routledge: New York.

Hooper, P., Cain, R., & White, S. (2000). The privatization of Australia’s airports. Transportation Research E 36(3): 181–204.

Innes, J,E. & Booher, D, E. (2004) Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory and Practice 5 (4): 419 – 436.

International Air Transport Association (IATA) (2012) Improved Performance Cushions Fall in Profits - Margins and Profits Remain Weak, Press Release 40, October. (http://www.aci- asiapac.aero/upload/news/362/attectment/507d1e9668035.pdf for ACI Asia Pacific report.)

Kasarda, JD. (1996) Airport-related industrial development. Urban Land : 54-55.

Kasarda, JD. (1991) An industrial/aviation complex for the future. Urban Land:16-20.

Kasarda, JD. (1991a) The fifth wave: the air cargo-industrial complex. Portfolio: A Quarterly Review of Trade and Transportation 4(1): 2-10.

Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (2005) Participatory Action research – Communicative Action and the Public Sphere. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd Edition) (pp. 559 – 603) Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Leitner, H., Peck, J. & Sheppard, E. (2007) Eds. Contesting Neoliberalism: Urban Frontiers. Guilford Press. New York.

Lockie, S., & Higgins, V. (2007) Roll-out neoliberalism and hybrid practices of regulation in Australian agri-environmental governance. Journal of Rural Studies 23 (1): 1 – 11.

May, M., & Hill, S. B. (2006). Questioning airport expansion – A case study of Canberra International Airport. Journal of Transport Geography 14(6): 437–450.

May, A. D., Karlstrom, A., Marler, N., Matthews, B., Minken, H., Monzon, A., Page, M., Pfaffenbichler, P. C., & Shepherd, S. (2005), PROSPECTS - A Decision Maker’s Guidebook. Leeds, UK: European Commission 52 pp. (http://www.iee- library.eu/index.php?option=com_jombib&task=showbib&id=338&return=index.php%3Foptio n%3Dcom_jombib%26amp%3BItemid%3D99999999%26amp%3Bcatid%3D72)

Mc Taggart, R. (2002) The mission of the scholar in action research. In M. P. Wolfe & C. R. Pryor (Eds), The mission of the scholar: Research and practice (pp 1 – 16). London: Peter Lang.

Mouat, C., Legacy, C. & March, A. (2011) The problem is the solution: testing agonistic theory’s potential to explain intractable planning disputes. 6th Interpretative Policy Analysis Conference, Cardiff. June

Peck, J. & Tickell, A. (1994) Jungle law breaks out: neoliberalism and global–local disorder. Area 26: 317–326.

Peck, J. & Tickell, A. (2002) Neoliberalizing Space. Antipode 34 (3): 380–404.

Peck, J., Theodore, N. & Brenner, N. (2009) Neoliberal Urbanism: Models, Moments, Mutations, SAIS Review 29 (1) Winter-Spring 2009.

Purcell, M. (2009) Resisting Neoliberalization: Communicative Planning or Counter-Hegemonic Movements? Planning Theory 8 (2): 140 – 165.

Queensland University of Technology (QUT) (2006) Australian Research Council Linkage Projects (Round One). The Airport Metropolis: Managing the Interfaces. Section E – Project Description, Part 4 Approach and Training. Unpublished.

Robertson, R. (1995) Glocalization: time-space and homogeneity-heterogeneity Glocalization: Time–space and homogeneity–heterogeneity. In Featherstone, M., Lash, S. and Robertson, R. (Eds), Global Modernities. London: Sage. pp. 25–44.

Sager, T. (1994) Communicative Planning Theory. Biddles Limited: Great Britain.

Sager, T. (2005) Communicative planners as Naïve Mandarins of the neo-liberal State. European Journal of Spatial Development. December. (http://www.nordregio.se/EJSD/

Sager, T. (2011) Neo-liberal urban planning policies: A literature survey 1990–2010. Progress in Planning. 76: 147 – 199.

Schalk, S.M. & Ward, S.A.D. (2010) Planners and Planes: Airports and Land-Use Compatibility. APA Planning Advisory Service, Report Number 562. Chicago: American Planning Association.

Spiller, M. (2006). Development on Airport Land. Australian Planner, 43(3) pp. 14-15.

Stevens, N. (2006) The changing role of airports: Issues identification and analysis. (Unpublished Master Thesis). Queensland University of Technology.

Stevens, N., Freestone, R. & Baker, D. (2010) Airports in their urban settings: towards a conceptual model of interfaces in the Australian context. Journal of Transport Geography 18 (2): 276-284.

Tickell, A. & Peck, J. (2003) Making Global Rules – Globalization or Neoliberalization. In Peck, J and Wai-Chung Yeung (Eds) (2003) Remaking the Global Economy: Economic-Geographical Perspectives, (pp163 – 182) Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Vedelago, C. (2007) Airport lands $150m office park project. The Age. (Melbourne, Vic) 31st October.

Vigar, G., Graham, S. & Healey, P. (2005) In search of the city in spatial strategies: past legacies and future imaginings. Urban Studies 42: 1391 – 1410.

WCED (1987) World Commission on Environment and Development A/42/427. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. United Nations. June. (http://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm).

Waddell, P. (2002) UrbanSim: Modeling urban development for land use , transportation and environment. Journal of the American Planning Association 68 (3): 297 – 314.

Weng, Q. (2002) Land use change analysis in the Zhujiang Delta of China using satellite remote sensing, GIS and stochastic modelling. Journal of Environmental Management 64: 273–284.

Wiek, A., & Binder, C. (2005) Solution spaces for decision-making—a sustainability assessment tool for city-regions. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25: 589– 608

9APPENDIX 1 – RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS