1
0
Opinion: yet another masterful plan for those magnificent men
I spoke at the Central Coast Council community forum prior to the last public meeting for 2023, held on 12 December, to oppose the exhibition of the latest masterplan for the Aircraft Landing Area at Warnervale, and I remain convinced that the plan does not serve the best interests of the community or nature.
By Jacquelene Pearson*
I have been reporting on the fate of the aero club, pilot school and Aircraft Landing Area at Warnervale since I started to work locally in April 2015. Talk about looping the loop. The fate of the ALA, Warnervale Airstrip, Central Coast Airport, or whatever you want to call it, has had more twists and turns than the average air show.
I love flying. I’m happy that we have a 45-year-old aero club on the Central Coast. It is great that there is a successful and profitable pilot school operating from the landing strip. Here’s what I oppose:
- The ongoing neglect of Porters Creek Wetland in favour of the speculative future of airport expansion plans;
- The underwriting of the activities of the airport, past, current and future – not-for-profit and profitable – by Central Coast ratepayers and the constituents of the NSW State Government;
- The lack of evidence in the public domain that there is any demand for a general aviation hub on the Coast;
- The complete lack of detail about the proposed ‘stewardship site’ for Porters Creek Wetland.
The state of play
Mr Hart adopted the staff’s recommendation for the latest airport masterplan to be exhibited from Thursday, 14 December 2023 until 13 February 2024. He said he believed that was plenty of time for the public to make submissions. He added that he would be happy to give the public more time if there was sufficient demand.
The Central Coast is increasingly made up of affordable housing sleeper suburbs for Sydney and Newcastle workers. We have above-average numbers of aged pensioners and young families. Both cohorts are having difficulty paying their electricity bills, filling their petrol tanks and feeding their households right now. Christmas and the summer school holidays are the only break many Central Coast households have all year. Those particularly impacted by this proposal, in the suburbs of Watanobbi and the new housing estates spreading out from Warnervale, are likely to be on holidays for the bulk of the exhibition period.
The exhibition period begins when we are all stressed with end-of-year school activities, organising vacation care, grappling with family Christmas arrangements. It covers the holiday period and ends just as the first 2024 school fee notices and Christmas credit card statements arrive. Clearly, Central Coast Council has planned this exhibition to maximise public participation. It was scheduled for exhibition, according to the council website, during Quarter Three, January to March 2024, so, why the rush?
If you do want to comment on the masterplan but you won’t be able to do so during the exhibition period, please write to Mr Hart and ask for that promised extension of time. You might also want to drop a line to the Member for Wyong and Minister for the Central Coast, The Hon David Harris MP who has publicly backed the masterplan.
The masterplan
Let’s examine the draft masterplan, now on exhibition. The following is a combination of an analysis of the document that is being exhibited and the questions we’d like answered by Dr Alice Howe, Director of Planning and Environment, Mr David Farmer, General Manager, Mr Rik Hart, Administrator and the Minister for the Central Coast, The Hon David Harris MP, who has changed his long-held position and now decided to back a masterplan that was largely the brainchild of the former – discredited and dumped – Coalition NSW Government.
The master plan is a strategic document, but it begs many more questions than it answers. Why the urgency? The need for an airport masterplan has been a prominent agenda item throughout the current administration period, which commenced in 2020. Even in the midst of ‘fixing’ the financial crisis in 2021, when ratepayers were being told services needed to be cut, employee numbers reduced by one third, rates and charges hiked, the staff and Administrator were pushing ahead with plans to spend ratepayers’ money on expanding a facility that already cost ratepayers to sustain. Why?
Why not involve the community earlier? The masterplan document history shows it has been in circulation since June but is only ready for community input now, over the Christmas holiday.
Why is so much important detail missing from the masterplan? The masterplan tells us that “All development on the airport site must consider the findings and recommendations of the ecological assessments undertaken by AEP and de Witt Ecology”. However, Mr Hart has now resolved to exhibit the masterplan without requiring the staff to include the AEP and de Witt Ecology studies.
Figure 2 gives “indicative” boundary realignment for the runway and an indicative subdivision of aviation lands and employment lands from Porters Creek Wetland. What are the actual boundaries? Again, how can the community be expected to comment when we are not given the facts?
The wetland
The masterplan on exhibition shows a map of a proposed ‘Stewardship Site’ but there is no information, apart from that map, about the future of Porters Creek Wetland. Dr Howe said she wanted feedback on the proposed Stewardship Site as part of the masterplan exhibition. How can the community give feedback when there is no detail?
Porters Creek Wetland is the region’s largest freshwater wetland, a backup water supply during drought and the lungs of the Tuggerah Lakes, Wyong River and Porters Creek catchment. Wetlands are now known to be critical for extracting and storing carbon emissions.
We have been told since 2021 by this council-under-administration, when we realised a Conservation Agreement with the Biodiversity Conservation Trust of NSW (BCT) had been quietly canned by council, that there would be no movement on protecting Porters Creek Wetland until the Airport Masterplan was finalised.
It is on the public record that the Community Environment Network (CEN) had been consistently attempting to inform both Interim Administrator Persson and Interim General Manager Hart, since late 2020 (and has continued to do so since Mr Hart moved to the Administrator’s role), that there was a Conservation Agreement ready for sign-off. Stonewalling and misleading information about the need for further consultation with neighbouring landholders was offered as an excuse for council not finalising the CA. The council didn’t even bother to inform the BCT that it wasn’t moving ahead with the Conservation Agreement.
Two areas colour-coded indigo in the draft masterplan, located to the west and east of the current ALA, have been earmarked as either additional wetland or additional industrial land, pending how much demand there is for this new general aviation hub. This land is zoned C2 – Conservation. That means before it could be used as part of the proposed aviation hub it would need to be rezoned – this would cost public money.
The exhibited document does tell us what the intended land use is for the C2 area west of the runway: “Whilst passenger services at CCA are not envisaged in the foreseeable future (for at least 10 years), it would be prudent to reserve land for this purpose. The Master Plan includes a site for this purpose on the west side of the runway”. It doesn’t look like that current C2 land will be added to the Stewardship Site any time soon.
A 250m public safety area boundary which is supposed to keep foot traffic and aircraft at safe distances from each other would appear to prohibit passive recreation or any recreation in a substantial part of the existing wetland even though passive recreation is a permitted use on C2 land.
Porters Creek Wetland is already suffering death by a thousand cuts. Council has walked away from stormwater management intended to deal with the excess of development already taking place in the wetland catchment. Porters Creek Wetland is classified as operational land which means it could currently be sold off without community consultation. When asked why it cannot be reclassified, Dr Howe told The Point that needed to wait until master planning of the airport was completed. When will Porters Creek Wetland be reclassified as community land?
When will we be given the details of the new Stewardship Site? Does it cover a larger or smaller area that the previous Conservation Agreement? Will it give the wetland more or less protection than the abandoned 2020 Conservation Agreement? If the airport masterplan is going to be a “benchmark for environmentally sensitive and sustainable development in the region” why has it gone on exhibition without releasing the stewardship site information?
The standing resolution on Council’s books is that “Council authorise the Chief Executive Officer to immediately suspend the development of the Warnervale Conservation Agreement and any agreement with the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Trust to permanently protect the Porters Creek Wetland until the Airport Masterplan, plan of Management and a subdivision plan is registered that subdivides the Wetland and surrounding C2 land from the employment land in Warnervale”.
What is the timeframe for delivery of permanent protection of Porters Creek Wetland? It will be another three years before council determines whether future investigation areas are suitable for development or stewardship. It is clear that the current ALA was built on wetland way back in the 1980s. That’s why the water lies around after it rains to the consternation of the pilots and plane owners. We cannot keep losing wetlands if we are possibly to abate the climate crisis and stop species extinction.
Let’s develop a wetland
I remember sharing breakfast with my hubby one morning and trying to work out why Central Coast Council staff were so hell-bent on developing the airport. The only logical answer I could come up with was that they couldn’t see beyond the potential land value of the wetland. I said out loud that it would be completely mad to develop a site the old timers refer to as Porter’s Lake for housing or industrial use. ‘What would happen when it flooded?’ I mused. Then my life partner said, ‘Well what do you think Windsor looked like before it became an urban sprawl?’ Hence I will continue to question whether staff’s commitment to the mission of developing this airport at any cost has anything to do with aviation. Is this not more about a land grab for future development?
Undermine the wetland year after year, keep it as operational land when it should clearly be community land, renege on a conservation agreement, delay even talking about the fate of that agreement, renege on stormwater harvesting in favour of “nature based solutions”, encroach and undermine and, eventually, the wetland will be so degraded it won’t be worth protecting or keeping. Just more land to subdivide and develop – increase council’s rate base and line the pockets of a few more welded-on developers. Hello unsuspecting affordable home buyers, welcome to the new improved Hawkesbury Nepean floodplain of the north under an ever-noisier flight path.
Costs and lost opportunities
How much is all this going to cost and who is going to pay? Former CFO Natalia Cowley “found” $4 million to fund the currently-exhibited masterplan. It’s not clear whether all that money has already been spent on this 52-page document on exhibition. It beggars belief that less than six months after declaring the council was broke Mr Persson as interim administrator and Mr Hart as acting general manager committed to expenditure on yet another airport masterplan whilst stalling and avoiding the need to protect the wetland.
The airport is currently uncertified, having a Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) classification of an Aircraft Landing Area (ALA). The masterplan assumes that it will become a 2B aerodrome. How much will that cost and who will pay?
Those costs will include wind direction indicators, aircraft parking areas, hangar developments, helicopter areas, fencing and preparation of a new ANEF. All these costs are part of Stage 1 of the masterplan, to take place in the next five years. These activities have been placed on exhibition without any indicative costings. How can the community assess value for money without a budget?
Stage 2 – the medium-term part of the masterplan – has no specific timeline (it may move ahead concurrently with stage 1 if the masterplan is adopted). Again, there are no indicative costings but we learn the airport will expand onto the other side of Jack Grant Ave and we have measurements of a taxiway upgrade of 0.4km or 3689.7 square metres.
Then we are told there may be a need for a passenger terminal after 10 years. What are the demand triggers that will determine the implementation and timing of these proposed developments and the public investment required?
The draft masterplan explains that the council will need to “ensure that future taxiway upgrades provide a suitable strength rating for planned design aircraft to avoid pavement concessions and risk of taxiway damage” so this is another cost. Various other facilities upgrades will or may be required over the life of this plan to service the growth of the airport. They include: perimeter road; ARO facilities; Automated Weather Station; Car parking; Helicopter facilities. The exhibited document gives some information regarding the location and staging of these facility upgrades but not a word on cost or how they will be funded.
The development of the Western Precinct (currently zoned C2 Conservation) will require new road access from Sparks Road and will be subject to a future investigation. The design of new facilities, such as new hangar areas, must ensure that private vehicle access to such areas is landside and not airside. More expense?
How will all these activities be funded, exactly? Who will pay and what will it cost? Why should ratepayers be expected to endorse a plan that does not come with any sort of a budget? A detailed business plan after community feedback is not good enough.
We are told the draft masterplan is based on the work of a “range of specialist consultants … based on quadruple bottom line analysis”. Can the community please see the detail of that analysis as part of the public exhibition or is it only available to the select stakeholders?
We are always being reminded that our local government must function like a corporation. Well, corporations always examine a thing called opportunity cost. As residents and ratepayers of this corporation, we are its shareholders. Where’s the dividend? Is this the best possible use of public money in an area slated for substantial development and population growth clearly lagging behind other local government areas for public and social infrastructure? Public transport, public health, public schools could benefit from this investment, not to mention our sub-standard roads and clear per capita lack of community facilities. As an eco-tourism destination, funding for the protection of our natural assets should also be a priority.
No transparency
Council Resolution 1108/20 was passed in the deep dark days of the 2020 cash crisis. It was one of Administrator Persson’s measures to improve financial transparency. It stated that “any motions put before Council for the remainder of this term of Council that have financial implications require the Chief Executive Officer to provide a report on how those additional costs will be met.”
The only information provided by the CEO in relation to the resolution passed to put this masterplan on exhibition was, “the cost of community consultation and aviation market engagement is included in Council’s adopted 2023/24 Budget.” In the interests of transparency the actual costs should be included in the business paper. How much will the short-term proposal to upgrade the ALA to meet CASA standards cost and who will pay?
What are the details of the land swap between Central Coast Council and the Aero Club? The masterplan tells us this long-planned land swap has progressed but, again, what is the bottom-line cost or benefit for ratepayers?
The main increase in use of the ALA between 2018 and 2022 has been pilot training. So who are the major beneficiaries of any airport upgrades? It looks like the private pilot school and the small number of aero club enthusiasts are the big winners while ratepayers and NSW Government grants pick up the tab.
What was the outcome of the RFI conducted in early 2022? Council advertised a Request for Information (RFI) from the general aviation industry about whether it would be interested in using a general aviation hub at Warnervale. The results have never been released. Why not? Why does the council need to conduct a further round of aviation consultation concurrently with the public exhibition if they are sure of projected demand for a general aviation hub? The Your Voice Our Coast website implies the outcome of the RFI is available as part of this consultation. That is not true. We have been given the outcome of the Wolcott community survey with its sample size of around 600 but no insight into the results of the RFI from participants in the aviation industry.
There is a reference to “apron expansion for patient transfer facilities” but what does that mean? The SWOT analysis listed the following “Threats”: flooding, sole anchor tenant, macro-economic conditions and community concern. How will these be addressed?
A look back
Staff have chosen not to give the Administrator or the public the benefit of the ‘background’ of what can only be described as a series of unfortunate airport planning miss-steps dating back to the 1990s. Here are some of the highlights that didn’t make it into the masterplan or the staff report recommending its exhibition over Christmas.
The Former Wyong Shire Council once decided to pay over the odds for land at Kiah Ridge to build its airport. The word “Ridge” in the name may have suggested that the topography was not necessarily suitable for an aviation hub. True to form, however, deals were done, cushy job offers made and then, well, the vision was relocated back to Warnervale and the Kiah Ridge land sold for way less than its purchase price.
The current approved runway is not 1200 metres but under 1000 metres. The pavement length is 1200m, which is confirmed by the markings on the runway pavement. The current runway was unlawfully constructed by Wyong Council and it was punished for doing so. Then the first elected Central Coast Council reinstated the approved length and that resolution has never been correctly rescinded. The masterplan needs to be modified in accordance with legal requirements because even though the photos in the draft masterplan are correct the content about runway length is incorrect.
Then there was the ill-fated contract with an aerospace company, signed off with great fanfare by a NSW Premier, that was going to manufacture and restore seaplanes at Warnervale. The legal and financial consequences of that deal have never been made public. Add to that unlawful tree lopping and the concerted campaign to repeal the Act of Parliament put in place to protect residents from over-expansion of the airport. One asks, what next?
A lot of noise
Here’s a message for all those families who escaped living under or near current or future flight paths in Sydney. If this masterplan goes ahead, you may find yourself living groundhog day. The masterplan notes that “residential developments adjacent to airports and under flight paths may lead to complaints about aircraft” and recommends no such developments within the footprint of an airport. Well, too late for that. Unfortunately there don’t appear to be flight path maps in the exhibited document so it’s difficult to know which suburbs (existing and new) will be impacted and to what degree.
We do have forward thinking council staff though and when the interim Consolidate Central Coast Local Environment Plan (CCLEP 2022) was put together and adopted in 2022 it did include a clause about development in areas subject to aircraft noise. If this masterplan is adopted, one of its recommendations is that N-contours (n for noise) “should be incorporated into the planning framework in a way that gives them proper and appropriate effect, at least as an additional strategic planning consideration over and above the ANEF contours and AS2021.” When will residents already living or planning to buy around the airport have the ANEF countours or have an explanation of AS2021 that they can understand?
The ‘windshear assessment envelope’ which is included in the exhibited draft plan would appear to place substantial limits on what can be built on the general industrial land around the current ALA but there is no real information about future impediments to development included for public consideration. If employment growth on the industrial land is a real priority for council, it needs to better explain how expansion of land use for employment works hand-in-hand with the constraints required for airport safety.
What next?
According to the draft plan, actual implementation and timing of proposed developments and upgrades will depend on demand triggers, an assessment of forecast market conditions, commercial discussions, and approval processes.
Rest assured, this master plan is going ahead. Consultation with the community is only recommended to “further refine the masterplan”. So if market conditions and demand triggers are known, why have they not been shared?
During 2023 consultations have been held with six stakeholder groups including the aero club, plan owners, runway users etc. Residents and ratepayers are lucky last. A town hall style meeting was hosted by the aero club and attended by 40 people in person and another 12 digital attendees. More consultation will take place with the aviation sector while the plan is on public exhibition.
The council has not seen the need for public meetings, information sessions or any other types of consultation during the public exhibition period. It is up to the community to look carefully at this plan and ask questions. Feel free to send us your feedback. We will endeavour to keep you informed over the silly season.
Here’s the link to the consultation.
And here’s what else is on exhibition over the silly season.
For the record
I decided to speak at the community forum held before the public council meeting on 12 December because I joined the Friends of Porters Creek Wetland earlier this year. Having walked around and through the wetland on multiple occasions I realised its ecological importance to this region. It is truly beautiful. The environmental unit within Central Coast Council recognises and does its best to protect this natural wonder. It’s just a shame the property development division appears to be more powerful than those within Hely Street working to protect this region’s natural riches.
I registered to speak at the forum and, as usual, I sent council’s media unit the list of agenda items I wished to discuss with Administrator Rik Hart the morning after the council meeting in our regular 20-minute post-meeting interview. Before I received confirmation that I had been accepted as a speaker, I received a phone call from the media unit stating that Mr Hart would not answer any questions about the airport masterplan agenda item the next morning. It had been decided that, by registering to speak, I had indicated my bias in relation to the agenda item so I could not ask further questions.
I’ve always been completely transparent about my various ‘hats’ but, for the record, I am the sole director of Truepenny Media (TPMTP Pty Ltd) which owns and publishes The Point ESG News Site (www.thepoint.net.au) and various other publications. The ‘E-S-G’ in the name of this news site clearly denotes that we report on Environmental Justice, Social Justice and Good Governance. We are not, nor have we ever pretended to be, a conventional news service. Our duty remains delivery of truth in the public interest and the only market we serve is the concerns of our readers.
Truepenny also delivers bespoke content and communications services to a range of private clients. This is how we subsidise our journalism. We’ve started publishing books and, because I am the main breadwinner in my household, I have a day job*, to which I am extremely committed and which aligns closely to my professional and personal values.
Here I am, an open book as a long-term resident, rate payer, business owner and employee on the Central Coast. I didn’t realise that speaking as a ratepayer at a public forum would make it impossible for me to do my job as an independent ESG news publisher. Lesson learned. Unfortunately, the many questions that I wanted to ask Administrator Hart remain unanswered, which is why I’ve labelled this an opinion piece even though most of the content is verifiable from the exhibited draft masterplan and public domain information.
*Jacquelene Pearson is a casual employee of the Community Environment Network as CEN’s community liaison officer.
Enjoy this article? Explore more of our ESG News below:
Environmental Justice News | Social Justice News | Good Governance News | Climate Change News | ESG Investing News | Housing News | Renewable Energy News | Breaking Central Coast News
Prefer your news delivered to your email inbox?
Click here to subscribe to our free weekly newsletter to stay up-to-date with local, national and global ESG news.
Desperately, exceedingly angry and dumbfounded by this appalling decision of the damned Gauleiter of the Central Coast, Rik Hart, his well paid/overpaid servile lackeys, and his seemingly, new-found, cavelling lap dog, the Member for Wyong and allegedly, the Minister for the Central Coast, David Harris. So angry, so disallusioned as to publicly state, even at the risk of being expelled from the Labor Party, I cannot and will not, while Mr Harris is the Member for Wyong, again hand-out any material on his behalf urging electors to vote for him at any future election he might contest on behalf of the ALP, nor, for that matter, while Chris Minns is the Premier of NSW.