Archive: Helicopter Landing Sites
Last Updated 23/9/11
(19/8/11 - P) No consultation; amenity loses as business wins. These changes go too far. Submissions close 7 September. See original story (below)
Following on from our story yesterday about proposed changes to helicopter landing site provisions, MRRA has received comments putting both sides of the argument (although comments received to date weigh on the side of opposition to the changes).
Click here for more information.
(18/8/11 - P) No consultation; amenity loses as business wins. These changes go too far. Submissions close 7 September.
No-one has a problem with emergency landing, use and take off of helicopters, but should the public be subjected to regular helicopter noise just because someone wants to run a transportation or tourism business, or use private helicopters?
That's what is being proposed in changes to Clause 52.15 in the State Planning Policy Framework of all planning schemes. That means these changes would allow as-of-right helicopter landing sites anywhere in Victoria, without having to consult those affected by helicopter use.
The new 'rules' would allow helicopters to land and take off 1000 metres from 'sensitive' uses (which doesn't seem to be defined) as long as it isn't more than four times in 24 hours or 8 times in a 30 day period, and after 7am on weekdays and 8am on weekends. And that's just without a permit. A permit can still be applied for to expand the use once established.
These rather limp conditions only apply to the landing site, not the flight path.
You can find the new provisions and more information by going to the DPCD website:
Submissions close 7 September.
MRRA Says:
Anyone who has heard a helicopter will know they produce a lot of noise (and vibration), especially in close proximity and when passing overhead.
The biggest change being proposed is allowing helicopters to be used for transportation and tourism without a planning permit. That makes it easier for rich folks to land their private helicopters and for business. Is that sufficient reason to make other people's lives a misery? We don't think so.
One of the major flaws we see with these changes is that the so-called 1000 metre buffer is seen as sufficient separation, and only applies to the landing site, not the flight path, as if the helicopters magically appear and disappear right at the landing site.
The other things that really bother us about these changes is that there is nothing which stops landing sites popping up all over the place, each with 4 trips in 24 hours. Without the need for a planning permit to do this, those affected by the use have no rights to be consulted or to object to something which may change their lives dramatically. And experience tells us that once established without a permit or consultation, the fact that the use already exists will be used to justify getting a permit to expand the use - we've heard it's already there, give us more before.
MRRA will be objecting to these changes, and asking for the transportation and tourism element to continue to be a permit required use, not least to allow affected people to be consulted. In MRRA's view these changes are unjustified, damaging to amenity, and inequitable, yet another example of stripping away the public's right to be consulted about what happens around them. The pendulum swings way too far towards favouring people who won't have to live with the consequences of what they do. Leave the provisions as they were.
We urge YOU to also object, and call for a fairer, more sensible and balanced outcome than the one now being proposed.