FOI 23 279 Documents.pdf

FOI 23-279
Document 1
Arts
of   the
and
Department
the
by
Communications
1982
Act
Development,
Information
of
Regional
freedom
the  Transport,
under
Released  Infrastructure,
Page 1 of 70

Arts
of   the
and
Department
the
by
Communications
1982
Act
Development,
Information
of
Regional
freedom
the  Transport,
under
Released  Infrastructure,

FOI 23-279
Document 2
Pages 2 – 20 deleted
Outside scope of request
Section 22(1)(a)(ii)

Arts
of   the
and
Department
the
by
Communications
1982
Act
Development,
Information
of
Regional
freedom
the  Transport,
under
Released  Infrastructure,
Page 17 of 70

FOI 23-279
Document 2

Appendix B
Copy of written submissions during public comment
period

Arts
of   the
and
Department
the
by
Communications
1982
Act
Development,
Information
of
Regional
freedom
the  Transport,
under
Released  Infrastructure,
Page 18 of 70

Project number P505274  File Supplementary Report_Hobart Airport 2022 Master Plan docx  2022-12-15  Revision 0    21

FOI 23-279
Document 2
Feedback on Preliminary Draft Hobart Airport Masterplan 2022
s47F
  31 October 2022
Notes:
•  This critique follows the structure of the Draft Masterplan and the points are thus
not in order of significance.

•  This draft Masterplan suffers greatly from the lack of an Executive Summary,
making it very hard to critique and to navigate. A lot of detail is quite hard to find
and is not well cross-referenced. Many supporting references are absent
altogether. These all need to be addressed, and links to references provided.

•  I have not corrected typos. Quotes from the Draft Masterplan are in italics.

Section 1. Introduction

P 10. As an immediate neighbour and member of CACG I am pleased to read the final
statement that HIAPL “will continue to work closely with the community to ensure
aircraft operations are carefully managed with consideration to nearby land uses.”
However, I believe that should be extended to include all operations, not just aircraft
operations, ie including business operations.

P 11. “in the region” – HIAPL supports employment and economic prosperity across
Tasmania (certainly, all of Southern Tasmania) and I think this should be explicitly
Arts
stated.
of   the
It is a “key driver” of more than “Tourism, freight and local business sectors” – it
impacts on other sectors such as education, health, scientific and other research and
and
much more, including non-business operations.
The fundamental importance to the Tasmanian economy and society of getting this right
Department
needs to be more strongly emphasised and resonate through the document, in my
the
opinion.
by

Communications
1982
8 year plan for businesses along Tasman Hwy – is the time for planning access to these
now, while the Tasman Hwy widening plans are still a work-in-progress?
Act
Will your business entry come off Pittwater Rd? As drainage off the proposed widened
highway into and flowing along Pittwater Rd is a significant unresolved issue, and some
Development,
of this stormwater will flow into Airport land, it might be a good idea to start planning for
this now. Or would access be better to come off the proposed new signalled interchange?
Information
(These are not covered in S 6 or 7)
of
Regional

Exactly how long a period this draft Masterplan is supposed to be covering is not clearly
freedom
stated up front. Yes it is mentioned in the Foreword but it needs be explicitly stated in
the
this section. Readers should not have to go looking for it.
Transport,

under

1

Released  Infrastructure,
Page 19 of 70

FOI 23-279
Document 2
Section 2. Economic Benefits
P 18 2.1 The “study to quantify the benefits associated with direct impacts and indirect
benefits of the Airport to the Tasmanian economy” is not listed in the References. Why
not? Who conducted this study, is it internal or external, when was it conducted, and is it
publicly available?
Non-inclusion of this reference is a significant oversight as it is important data/
justification.

Table 2.1 The indirect value-added contribution is only just over ½ the direct
contribution. Typically it would be expected that a multiplier/indirect benefit ratio of 4 or
5 times that of direct benefits would apply, not half. I question whether this is correct,
but without the reference, cannot say.

Tourism – where are all the extra tourists to Tasmania proposed to stay? How will this
impact on Tasmania’s existing housing/homelessness crisis? I realise this is outside your
scope but who plans all this? DSG? If so, is HIAPL represented on the Tasmanian
Development/DSG Board? You need to be permanently represented there if not alerady.
Opening the tourism floodgates without the requisite backup facilities and infrastructure
is not good planning, for anyone. It is not sufficient to view this “not our problem”. At
minimum a Govt plan to accommodate and cater for all these extra tourists should be
referenced. Collaborative, open, long-term and overarching planning involving all parties
is required.

Arts
P 19 Antarctic/Southern Oceans Research. Is a research base also planned for HIAPL, as
of   the
well as the aviation operations? If so, where is this on the plans?
and

Other benefits – also likely understated.
Department

the
2.3 Future economic contribution from “planned development of the landside commercial
by
and industrial precincts”. As one immediate neighbour, and having had prior discussions
Communications
with HIAPL about creating a “5 Mile Beach sub-regional tourism attraction area” (for
1982
want of a better description at this point) I believe there needs to be more consultation
Act
with your immediate neighbours about this, so we can also plan, and aim towards
creating something great and synergistic, and not replicate (or adversely impact on)
what each other is doing, or for planning to occur in a piecemeal fashion.
Development,

This includes Mr Greg Casimaty and his team’s proposals for development of his land on
Information
your western side. A strategic alliance would be a win-win-win for us all. It would not be
of
financially beneficial for anyone to end up eg in a competitive war for tenants,
Regional
duplication of consumer/business offerings or other lacks of synergies. This would also
have environmental costs that would conflict with your environmental objectives in
freedom
Section 11.
the  Transport,
For example, as you already know I am creating eco-tourism facilities that include
Milford Forest on your NE boundary, which would hardly be enhanced by, for example, a
under
multi-storey DFO immediately opposite on Pittwater Rd (as a hypothetical example
2

Released  Infrastructure,
Page 20 of 70

FOI 23-279
Document 2
affecting me, and the Milford Forest environment with its Critically Endangered and
Endangered species and listed habitat).

Section 3. National Policy and Regulatory Framework
p. 23 Table 3.1
The EPBC Act 1999 also applies to your freehold land, not just to Commonwealth land,
and this needs to be rectified in your Table.

3.1 Commonwealth Framework
P 24 Airports Act 1996 (d) “Reduce potential conflicts between uses of the Airport site,
and to ensure that uses of the Airport site are compatible with the areas surrounding the
Airport”.
To me this statement is very important. As one of your two principal immediate
neighbours, I do not believe there is or has been adequate/meaningful consultation with
us about your proposed developments (despite CACG, of which I have been a member or
over 5 years – that is the wrong forum, especially for commercial-in-confidence, more
localised and business-oriented discussions).
As above, I believe that it is in everyone’s joint interests that our developments are
complementary and enhance the overall 5 Mile Beach/Eastern Cambridge mini-region, as
far as possible do not replicate or conflict with each other, and create something that is
greater than a sum of its parts, which then can become and exciting and attractive
destination to Tasmanians and to tourists, in itself. This is in fact a very significant
Arts
opportunity for Clarence and Southern Tasmania as a whole.
of   the
This is also important environmentally (eg to reduce wastage, increase sustainability,
including financial sustainability) and is also of benefit to Clarence Council and
and
ratepayers. HIAPL has the significant development advantage of not being subject to
local planning constraints etc on Commonwealth land, but in my opinion, this does not
Department
confer a ‘right’ to outcompete other local businesses, which pay rates and thus
contribute significant finances to Clarence Municipality coffers. That to me is not being a
the
good community citizen, as espoused in your objectives.
by
I would therefore like to see regular (eg quarterly) consultation with your immediate
Communications
1982
neighbours on proposed developments/planning commence mandated and be included
as part of this Plan, with a view to working together cooperatively for better outcomes
Act
for all, including other stakeholders and the wider Tasmanian community.

Development,
After all, your new Mission Statement on p 11 is “to connect communities” and what
Information
better place to start than with your own neighbours/local community? Aim 1 (p 11) is to
of
“enhance (y)our role in the community”, ditto. Be the catalyst for better local planning
Regional
and cooperation too, please (which will lead to and accelerate local growth).

freedom
the
This also fits under purpose (a) of the S 70 of the Airports Act quoted on p 24, which is
Transport,
to “establish the strategic development for efficient and economic development of the
Airport over the planning period…” (my underlining). Duplication is not efficient, for use
under
of resources, money, planning time and headspace, or return on investment.
3

Released  Infrastructure,
Page 21 of 70

FOI 23-279
Document 2
P 25 Where is the proposed incoming high voltage from Pittwater Road proposed to be?
Will there be a new high voltage line installed down Pittwater Rd to supply this? This will
potentially have environmental implications for the adjacent Milford Forest, which as you
are aware contains 2 Federally listed Critically Endangered species, other Endangered
Species, and the habitat is listed as Threatened at State level. It may need to be sited
underground.

P 25 Environmental assessment. I would strongly suggest that you consider employing
Van Diemen Consulting Pty Ltd, Envirodynamix, or another consultancy firm for future
work in this area, to maintain a high standard of integrity and independence, including
that of public perception.
Is the current MNES Report by North Barker publicly available? It is also not referenced
in S 14, another significant oversight in this document. There are many members of the
public interested in preserving the environment, and this should be handled openly in my
opinion. As we know from previous experiences relating to flight paths, leaving public
consultation until after decisions have been made is costly, counterproductive, is
destructive to community goodwill and wastes a lot of time and energy.

3.2 State and Local Framework.
This section is admittedly just a statement of the State and Local government legal
environment in which HIA operates. However, it could be much more.
Para 2 states that “This Masterplan must demonstrate consistency with (State and local
planning) provisions in accordance with S 71 of the Airports Act (and) if it is not
Arts
consistent, there must be justification for such inconsistencies”
of   the
In my experience the State LUPA Act fails to achieve its first stated objective as quoted
in this Masterplan: “to provide sound strategic planning and co-ordinated action by State
and
and local governments” (p 26). These are worthy aims but as we know the reality falls
far short, as we have recently and are currently still observing right at the doorstep of
Hobart Airport, with the planning and construction of the Hobart Airport Interchange and
Department
more recently with DSG’s proposal to widen the Tasman Highway to the Airport’s east
the
(which will also impact on Pittwater Rd).
by
Insofar as this LUPAA objective affects Hobart Airport and this Masterplan, sadly I do not
Communications
believe you can take either of these (sound planning or coordination) as givens, and it is
1982
thus poor risk management for HIA to assume so.
Act

I therefore consider HIA needs to take a much more proactive approach to both planning
and co-ordination, and demonstrate leadership and exhibit the highest level of
Development,
transparency and accountability (especially to the public). You can still be consistent with
Information
the aim, but operate at a far more efficient and effective level. This is a big opportunity
of
for Hobart Airport to excel and help improve the local planning climate by good
leadership and example. Be proactive, and as mentioned on p1, if HIA is not represented
Regional
on TD/DSG’s Board as a first step, I believe you should be.
freedom
The third LUPAA objective quoted, concerning the environment, is almost totally
the
meaningless: (to) “ensure that the effects on the environment are considerate of social
Transport,
and economic effects when decisions are made about the use and development of the
land”. In the famous words of Pauline Hanson: “Please explain”? I sincerely hope that
under
this statement is not guiding HIA’s environmental policy, as it is a licence to overrule any
4

Released  Infrastructure,
Page 22 of 70

FOI 23-279
Document 2
environmental impacts with social or economic considerations. Perhaps this needs to be
made clear in this section of the Masterplan, and refer the reader to Section 11 on
Environmental Strategy here.

Ditto the mention of the EMPC Act 1994 and the State Coastal Policy on p 26 – refer to
the relevant parts of Section 11 that (hopefully) covers these.

Southern Tasmania Industrial Land Strategy – here is dated 2013, in the references
2011. Which is correct? This is relevant because in Oct 2012 a Draft for Consultation on
this Strategy was published which included on p 5 an Addendum concerning 2 extra
blocks of land adjacent to the Airport to the east and south which HIA presumably
intends to utilise viz:

“Addendum A potential future industrial site that was only recently identified involves
land at the Hobart International Airport. This land falls under the Clarence Planning
Scheme, unlike most of the current uses of the airport which are on Commonwealth
land. Currently these blocks are not in use*, however, Hobart International Airport Pty
Ltd (HIAPL) has identified that opportunities exist to utilise these blocks for aeronautical
purposes in the future. These uses include: - Antarctic services; - Aircraft maintenance
and hangars; - General Aviation; and - Freight and logistics.

The land needs to be considered as part of the final industrial land strategy. likely be
considered as Industrial or Particular Purpose Zone” (see https://stors.tas.gov.au/au-7-
0073-00197$stream)

Arts
This would appear to be in addition to the 105 ha of land quoted (p 26) to cater for
of
significant industrial growth in Clarence. Such inconsistencies need to be rectified if this
the
document is meant to inform 8 and 20 year planning.
and
(* it is my understanding that at least part of the eastern block is leased out, including
to Monmouth Pony Club. How long are these lease(s) in place?)
Department

the
P 27 – there is a map Fig 3.1 depicting the “Safeguarding Airports Overlay” but no
by
reference to what this actually means. It would help the reader to refer to the relevant
Communications
sections of this draft Masterplan that (hopefully) discusses this, eg Section 10, and any
1982
others.
Act

P 28 Hobart City Deal 2019 https://www.hobartcitydeal.com.au/home
Development,
Given the broad-ranging but unspecified objectives of this City Deal quoted on p 28,
Information
again I sincerely hope that HIA is represented in this decision making and planning,
of
particularly with regard to the increasing tourist numbers and the pressure this is putting
Regional
on housing supply and affordability, as one example already mentioned that directly
affects the local/Tasmanian community. It would also give HIA the opportunity to lead
freedom
with proactive vision and implement tangible, meaningful outcomes.
the
There are also many synergies with your immediate neighbours that flow from this,
Transport,
which can perhaps best be explored through subsequent regular (eg quarterly)
under
consultation.
5

Released  Infrastructure,
Page 23 of 70

FOI 23-279
Document 2

Section 4 Land Use Plan.
P 31-32 Overview and Managing Land Use
Whatever land use internal zoning gets locked in in the final 20-year Masterplan is going
to be locked in for the next 100 years, if not in perpetuity, especially when the light
industrial and aviation support precincts are developed. I question whether a sufficiently
long viewpoint is being been taken now. The legislation may not require it, but sound
planning does.

Looking at the air traffic modelling for Badgery’s Creek, Hobart Airport is a long way off
needing a second runway; however, it may happen, and the only place to locate it
appears to me to be in a SSW to NNE direction, starting in your SW proposed light
industrial precinct and ending in Milford. This raises the question of the potential need to
acquire parcels of surrounding land now/within the next 20 years (ie as part of this plan)
while it is still possible to do so. Once they are developed, or locked up in some way, this
will be near impossible or hugely expensive.
To my knowledge almost every airport in Australia is currently trying to acquire adjacent
land, often at developed rates per m2, not $ per hectare. This future proofing could
potentially be funded by the Commonwealth should existing owners regard it as too
long-term an investment. The perception is that money is tight (or we might be getting
airbridges?) but that is the whole point of this document – to plan ahead. If it is not
explicitly stated in this plan, even as a potential objective to analyse further, then it
won’t happen.

4.2 and 4.3 Aeronautical development and opportunities
Arts
of
As your report states on p 33, “Aeronautical development at Hobart Airport is closely
the
linked to the economic growth of Tasmania”. While we are coming off a low base,
and
Tasmania’s economy is developing rapidly. Antarctic services will only increase too. At
minimum some overt planning and risk analysis should be made explicit on this, plus
some modelling of the potential benefits to GDP etc. It may ‘never’ happen, but not
Department
planning for it may create significant future issues.
the

by
4.4 Non-aeronautical development
Communications
1982
I have already commented on the need to consult regularly with your immediate
neighbours to the east and west (in particular myself and the Casimaty-led group, also
Act
neighbouring golf clubs) to develop synergies, create a genuine and exciting business
and consumer destination, avoid duplication, wastage etc so, I wont comment further on
4.4: Tourism and Mixed-use precincts 1 and 2, and Light Industrial Precincts, except to
Development,
say that I hope an effort will be made to achieve carbon neutrality in their development?
Information
(I don’t see this mentioned at all, even in Section 11 on the Environment).
of
Are more detailed plans available for these precincts?
Regional
Also note your proposed Tourism Precinct 2 is located on a Threatened Native Vegetation
freedom
Communities Zone (TNVC 2020), which I realise is degraded but should be noted. It is
the
also immediately opposite the same Zoning in Milford Forest, species in which are also
Transport,
Federally listed, so potential impact on these should be taken into account now. We are
currently seeing the significant and avoidable holdups caused by a planning failure with
under
6

Released  Infrastructure,
Page 24 of 70

FOI 23-279
Document 2
the proposed Tasman Highway widening, now in its third year. Lost time costs money, at
least to the private sector.
On your proposed Environmental Precinct to the east (p 37) the purpose of this precinct
is stated “to provide for the management, protection, and continues improvement of
areas that are identified as having environmentally significant biodiversity and cultural
values”.
The wetlands to the south have environmental values and this habitat is also Federally
listed. However much of this zone to the north is (to my knowledge) currently of low
biodiversity and degraded, so is it planned to somehow improve this? There are no
details in this document.
Again, working in conjunction with, instead of in isolation from Milford/myself would add
significant value here, as Milford Forest immediately opposite this Precinct to the north is
the most biodiverse parcel of land in Clarence, and probably in Southern Tasmania, and
working together to eg jointly conserve this area would add significant value to both
parties plus potentially free up more of your own land for revenue-generating activities
(permitted under zoning rules, where applicable) whilst also achieving better
conservation outcomes in the sub-region, and generating good PR. This should at least
be in the plan as a topic to explore.

This section also needs to refer to Flooding under 8.2.

4.5 Non-Aeronautical development opportunities.
This section is devoid of any detail. I would expect that the short-term plans (up to 8
Arts
years) should already be underway? The next draft should include these. It’s difficult to
of   the
comment on generalised statements.
and

Section 5 Air Traffic Forecasts
Department
I note the forecasts in 5.3 (Passenger and aircraft) and 5.4 (Busy hour forecasts) and
the
the impact of COVID on reducing the growth rate from a previous 5.6% to a predicted
by
3.5% from 2023. Had modelling been done on a higher growth scenario? (eg once the
extended runway is built and direct flights from Asia and NZ commence?)
Communications
1982
As these underpin much of the rest of this Masterplan, they are extremely important. I
Act
believe this needs a lot more work.

Development,
Sections 6 Aviation Plan
Information
6.1-6.4 Out of my area of expertise, looks ok though.
of
Regional
6.5 Other aviation uses.
This appears to be the first mention of helicopters. “To meet the forecast demand,
freedom
provision for helicopter operations and parking is expected to be expanded in the short
the
term (up to 8 years).”
Transport,
under
7

Released  Infrastructure,
Page 25 of 70

FOI 23-279
Document 2
However, the report does not say where. This is a significant oversight, especially given
the noise pollution problems caused locally by helicopters. Are they to be relocated to
the aviation support precinct to the east? Or stay where they are?
What are the projected growth rates on helicopter traffic? More information is required.
In Fig 6.5 Hobart Airport 2042 development plan (p 52) there are only 2 entrances
shown into Hobart Airport. This is obviously incorrect. The Tourism/Mixed use precinct to
the NE will need an entrance (presumably off Pittwater Rd?) as will the Light Industrial
and Aviation Support Precincts to the south (and the Environmental Precinct, if this is to
be used for recreation etc). Refer to Section 7.1
Also a second entrance off the Tasman Highway is shown via Back Road. Inspection of
the current roadworks indicated that this wilk be cut off to eastbound traffic (ie coming
from Hobart). It appears that DSG will only allow a LH entrance/exit here (ie catering for
inbound traffic from the Sorell direction). This effectively leave only 1 entrance to the
entire Airport area.
This is a potentially major error/oversight in this Masterplan, and in planning in general.
I question if one entrance is sufficient, especially give the design (tight turning radius,
poor visibility to the right when eastbound to airport etc) and thus the questionable
safety and carrying capacity of the new ‘dogbone’ roundabout. One major accident on
this new ‘dogbone’ roundabout, and the Airport may be effectively isolated for hours.
This question of alternative access (and exit) needs looking at in your 20 year
Masterplan in my opinion.

Section 7 Ground Transport Plan.
Arts
P 55 Objectives. These look fine. Meeting them however is going to be a major challenge
in my opinion. Refer back to my statement about the need for HIA representation on the
of   the
Board of Tas Development/State Growth (or some other high-level forum that can
influence DSG’s decision making in a positive way, which is not easy or fast to change).
and
HIA is a major ‘client’/stakeholder of State Roads in SE Tas, and indeed of the State
Government as a whole, and the need for DSG to be functionally aware of this and
Department
working proactively with HIA is fundamental and critical.
the

by
A key statement (p 55) is “Traffic levels… are also increasing given the growth … and the
Communications
eastern townships of Sorell and Midway Point” (plus expected significant growth in the
1982
Southern Beaches area, not mentioned in the Masterplan). These are now all commuter
Act
suburbs and peak hour traffic at the interchange will still need to be managed relative to
flight arrival and departure times, at least for the next 5+ years until DSG hopefully
complete widening the Causeways and the section between HIA and the start of
Development,
Causeway 1 (which I see in Section 13 is not expected until after Year 8). Traffic backing
Information
up, potentially again to the west of the HIA interchange, will likely continue for at least 3
of
years and possibly longer.
Regional

freedom
7.1 Existing ground transport network
the
External network (p 57) This mentions accesses off Pittwater Rd. They should be on the
Transport,
map in Fig 6.4. As no doubt you are aware, Pittwater Rd is a Clarence Council road and
currently has significant lack-of-proper-drainage issues, with water pooling beside and
under
8

Released  Infrastructure,
Page 26 of 70

FOI 23-279
Document 2
sometimes over the road, and flowing along the road, during and after heavy rain. (DSG
claim this will not worsen after the new Pittwater Rd interchange is built, but in any case
they have handballed this issue to Council.) Significant advance consultation with Council
and probably DSG will be required before you construct new entrances to the precincts
on this side, or before starting planning to utilise them for significant levels of traffic.

7.2 Traffic demand. A massive increase in the number of vehicles movements from
current to 2030 (7 fold) and 2042 (nearly double again) is forecast. Much of this is
stated to be from future commercial development, especially from 2026.

I question the assertion in 7.3 Future ground transport network that “the planned future
development of Hobart Airport is expected not to exceed the 2042 external road
network”. Pittwater Rd capacity will be exceeded well before that. To and from Hobart,
relying on dedicated bus lanes etc still keeps the transport problem on the roads, and
funnels it towards the Tasman Bridge bottleneck, which will only worsen with the
suburban development of Droughty Point etc. There is also no mention of a road from
Cambridge to Brighton, especially for commuting workers and freight etc.

The concepts discussed are traffic solutions, not ‘transport’ solutions. Transport is more
than just cars. Light rail also needs to be considered. Admittedly this is not your
responsibility, but planning for an alternative to more cars (or even more buses) needs
to start now.

7.5 Public and active transport. This refers to the Sorell to Hobart Corridor Plan, which is
Arts
not listed in the References App 14. It needs to be, this can’t be analysed properly
of
without it.
the
If there are to be more frequent buses along a new bus corridor, where is the Airport bus
and
depot/pickup/dropoff to be located? It is not shown on the Ground Transport Plans Fig
7.5 (2030) or 7.6 (2042) or listed in 7.6 Ground Transport Initiatives.
Department

Whose responsibility is planning and funding that? I suggest that you need a person in
the
DSG dedicated to planning HIA’s future transport needs, such is the forecast increased
by
demand (for freight transport also) and the already existing significant constraints, and
Communications
the vital importance of HIA to the Tasmanian economy.
1982

Act
Section 8. Utilities and Services Infrastructure
8.1 Stormwater and flooding. P 65 This also drains into and impacts on the Threatened
Development,
saltmarsh on Milford to the east, not just into Lower Pittwater.
Information
of

Regional
Sewerage. There is an urgent and immediate need to deal with this as it is already
flooding and being discharged into Sinclair Creek and thus into Lower Pittwater after
freedom
major rain events, and which will only worsen as more infrastructure etc is built, both on
the
the Airport precinct and locally.
Transport,
This can’t continue to be ignored (largely by TasWater) or left to after Year 8, as it also
under
impacts on the local oyster industry, and the environment. Presumably as tenants, they
9

Released  Infrastructure,
Page 27 of 70

FOI 23-279
Document 2
have a tenancy agreement with HIA to adhere to, which (I hope) specifies limits to
discharge etc? If not this needs looking at urgently, ie Year 1.

8.2 Planned utilities and services infrastructure.
Electricity. As discussed upgrades along Pittwater Rd may need to go underground, at
least at the northern end near Milford Forest.

Flooding (p 66)  Given not only the potential for a sea level rise in the next 40 years, but
also a rise in the water table, and potential flooding from increasing heavy rainfall
events, I suggest that investigating this should happen early on in the first 8 years of
this plan. Ditto sewerage, as above.

Section 9. Aircraft Noise.
I am sure you will get a lot of feedback on this so I won’t add to it, except to say that as
an immediate neighbour, and not under the flight path, current fixed wing aircraft noise
is not a significant issue for me personally or my current businesses.
However what is an issue for me is helicopter noise. We have in the past negotiated an
informal ‘no fly zone’ over the Milford farm and business buildings, and also ‘no low
flying’ over Milford Forest due to the presence there of 3 semi-resident wedge-tailed
eagles, but this is routinely ignored, even sometimes eg at 11 pm. If I complained every
time a helicopter went over my house at low altitude, I would be your most frequent
complainer. It had been agreed that instead, helicopters flew about 200 m offshore from
Arts
Milford, especially when doing training circuits, but this seems to have been forgotten or
of
is routinely ignored. I would greatly appreciate this being reinstated and formalised in
the
this plan, please. (Obviously emergency services helicopters are exempt).
and
This also affects livestock, including horses, especially low-flying helicopters at night.
Racehorses in particular are easily frightened and can injure themselves if they bolt and
Department
run into fences etc. Night flying helicopters should not be allowed over the neighbouring
rural areas. (See 11.11 below)
the
by

Communications
It also needs to be made a lot easier for affected people to lodge noise complaints, with
1982
a link on the home page of your website. Currently it is very difficult and hard to find.
Act

Section 10 Airport safeguarding strategy
Development,
P 79 NASG Principle 2: local Councils also need to be involved in “sharing responsibility
Information
to ensure that airport planning is integrated with local and regional planning”.
of
Regional

Guideline C: Managing the Risk of Wildlife Strikes
freedom
Given the presence of 3 wedge-tailed eagles plus several pairs of white-bellied sea
the  Transport,
eagles in the immediate vicinity to HIA, could artificial intelligence be employed to
monitor them, as it now being done at GoldWind wind farm at Tarraleah? Visual
under
observation and alerts are now proving to be very inadequate by comparison.
10

Released  Infrastructure,
Page 28 of 70

FOI 23-279
Document 2
Black cockatoos in large numbers I presume are also posing a problem, given the size of
these birds, but I’m not sure what you can do about them other than remove some of
the old pine trees in the south of the HIA land (their preferred food) and replace them
with native vegetation.
Not sure if this also covers terrestrial wildlife eg echidnas etc on landing? Im happy to
have these relocated to Milford if required.

Fog 10.2. What do these ‘wildlife buffer zones’ actually mean?

Guideline H: Protecting Strategically Important Helicopter Landing Sites. Where are
these? They are not shown. Impossible to comment meaningfully without this
information.

Guideline I: Managing Public Safety at the Ends of Runway. As much as it is lovely to
have a walking and cycle path at the southern end of the runway at 7 Mile Beach, to me
this area is a significant potential risk. I believe at minimum you need to install
monitored security cameras there. Anyone with a rifle could easily go there and simply
shoot at a plane, fly a drone or point a laser into one, if so inclined. There is no
protection whatsoever, currently, and as there are 2 entrances, escape would eb
relatively easy.

Section 11. Environmental Strategy
Arts
Firstly, I would like to commend HIA for work done and positive outcomes already
of   the
achieved in this area. I agree with the statement on p 85 that you are “demonstrating
environmental leadership” and congratulate you on your 11.3 Key Achievements 2015-
and
21 on p 86.

Department
the
However, 11.2 Stakeholder consultation should have included DPIPWE/DNRE. DSG is not
the State Government’s environmental authority or source of environmental expertise.
by
Communications

1982
Also the not-insignificant matter of overflow sewerage (and grey water?) in the recent
Act
and increasingly frequent significant rain events is not mentioned, and as I have already
raised, needs to be addressed urgently or a lot of this hard-won credibility will evaporate
when the public finds out and out the pollution that is resulting, and the impacts of that
Development,
(eg algal blooms, eutrophication in Lower Pittwater, potential seabird and fish/shellfish
Information
deaths etc) Does your tenant TasWater have a CEMP? Is this monitored, and if so, by
of
whom? Enforced? Are there penalties for breach? Imposed by whom?
Regional

freedom
11.4 Environmental management. I agree with the aim but the objectives also need to
be achieved by better planning, not just eg regulation and enforcement. (eg reduction of
the
duplication of proposed developments, already raised)
Transport,
under
11

Released  Infrastructure,
Page 29 of 70

FOI 23-279
Document 2
Training. This should be extended to cover basic botany, zoology, ecology and the
importance of habitats. Many environmental problems could be totally avoided if more
people (especially engineers, planners and field workers) had this basic understanding.
This also includes in resource prioritisation on p 88.
Indigenous cultural awareness training should also be undertaken for key personnel.
There are courses available.

Management systems and processes. The BA 365 system referred to is not referenced in
Appendix 14 and I doubt many readers would know what this means. Ditto the
Environmental Risk Register. It may well be that making the latter especially a public
document would achieve better outcomes, as you could then draw on free specialist
input.

Monitoring and research. There is a summary of Monitoring in Table 11.2 but no
research, and none in the references. What research specifically?

As we know from recent experience, risk registers and procedures need tightening up.

Table 11.2 Overview of environmental monitoring.
There is mention of weeds, and ‘fauna’ under biodiversity, but none of feral animals,
including cats, roosters and rabbits. Is HIA’s myxomatosis/calicivirus program on
permanent hold? This was very useful as it helped rabbit population control in the whole
Arts
area, including Acton, and I and others in the Acton community would like to see this
of   the
reinstated urgently.
and
Also what is being done about feral cats and roosters on HIA? It is difficult to control
them on Milford if they can simply walk over Pittwater Rd from airport land to replace
ones I remove. These are not in the plan either. Roosters are also a traffic hazard both
Department
on the Tasman Highway and Pittwater Rd.
the

by
Communications
11.5 Biodiversity.
1982
I am encouraged to read “our operations are conscious of the adjacent environmental
Act
land values” however I question if this is being put into place especially with the
immediately adjacent Milford Forest, the most biodiverse parcel of land in all Clarence. I
thank HIA for your repeated commitment in endeavouring to persuade DSG to reinstate
Development,
an access gate and fire/access trail to protect both this Forest and your/their assets,
Information
especially in the event of a wildfire, but I would like to see more consultation about what
of
can be done proactively to assist. Cool burning can no longer be used as a management
tool in Milford Forest due in part to the risk of smoke drift over HIA runway. Can HIA
Regional
therefore assist with alternative management measures (which also help reduce wildfire
risk)? At least some discussion on this would be welcome.
freedom
the
Note that development on HIA land immediately opposite this area will likely be subject
Transport,
to Commonwealth EPBC Act assessment, so better to be proactive now.
under
12

Released  Infrastructure,
Page 30 of 70

FOI 23-279
Document 2
Table 11.3 To my knowledge there is no Tasmania White Gum Wet Forest on HIA land or
in the near vicinity, it is DVC (dry forest).

11.4 Fauna species identified at Hobart Airport Significant omissions from this list are the
Endangered wedge-tailed eagle, masked owl and white bellied sea eagle. They need to
be listed here and plans need to reference them too.

11.5 Black cockatoos and grey currawongs need to be included in the Moderate risk
species list.

P 91 Key potential impact
“Construction and operational activities that have the potential to impact on adjacent
RAMSAR-listed wetland values”. This needs to be extended to those that impact on
Lower Pittwater (which is a shark and ray marine reserve) and the EPBC listed wetlands
on Milford.
It also needs to include activities undertaken by your tenants (including but not limited
to TasWater, as already mentioned).

P 92. The Hobart Airport Weed Management Plan 2020-25 is not in the references and
should be. How can we comment on something that is referred to but not available? For
example, do you have a freesia weed problem? (which is occurring down Pittwater Rd
and spreading rapidly into the important habitat of Milford Forest). Is so, can we
Arts
collaborate to try to eradicate them? Pine tree weeds are another issue.
of   the

and
Ditto HIA’s Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (which should be ‘Hazard and Conservation’
Management). Wildlife are not just hazards. They need protection too.
Department

the
Table 11.6 Condition assessment of the Commonwealth listed Saltmarsh community east
by
of the runway – should be conducted in the next 8 years, before planning for the
Communications
development of that eastern area begins.
1982

Act
11.6 Land mentions “and surrounding” but I do not consider that I am adequately
consulted as an immediate neighbour with a significant environmental land areas
immediately adjacent.
Development,
Information

of
Table 11.7 Strategic land actions. What do the annual tenant audits on TasWater (or
Regional
others affected by excess polluted water discharge) show? (I see these are mentioned in
11.7 and Table 11.8 on p 95)
freedom
As well as monitoring PFAS in Sinclair Creek and Pittwater, you need to be monitoring
the  Transport,
nutrients, bacteria/viruses and other contaminants. Also, how are complaints treated?
under
13

Released  Infrastructure,
Page 31 of 70

FOI 23-279
Document 2
Management actions: groundwater assessment. As groundwater affects me and your
other immediate neighbours, this information should be shared.

11.8 Climate change
The Climate Change Adaptation Plan 2020 is not listed in the references, and there it no
hotlink to view it. This is another significant oversight. I can only assume much of this is
drawn from that plan, but there is no way of telling.
I would be particularly interested to see the sections on bushfires, and projected sea
level and water table increases, especially if/when it affects HIA drainage into Sinclair
Creek.

P 96 Reducing our carbon footprint
Ditto the Carbon Management Plan 2019, which is to “align with the priority areas of
Tasmania’s Climate Change Action Plan (also not referenced nor with a link provided),
and the government’s agenda for action on climate change”. I presume the latter means
the State Govt, and if so, this section needs more detail, as tbh there is little current
evidence that one exists, or if it does, then it is being followed.
A major deficiency in the section is offsets, especially for emissions caused by aircraft.
Almost everything on-ground pales into insignificance in comparison with this. I
understand it is a much broader national and international issue, but we need to start
somewhere, and leadership begins right here in this plan.
I am heartened to see in Table 11.9 Strategic climate change actions “Investigate
Arts
Airport-led passenger offset program options… via QR codes..” As part of this I would
of
suggest looking at an incentivisation program eg with airlines, or State govt etc – even
the
something as simple as “offset your flight and go in the draw to win a flight or
and
Tasmanian accommodation voucher” or etc. It need not be costly but would potentially
increase uptake and awareness, and be good PR. Most people won’t do this unless there
is something in it for them.
Department
In my opinion, local offsets should also be considered (eg on Milford) and these would be
the
tangible for passengers etc, not just something hypothetical that they can’t see/visit. I
by
welcome further discussion on this in the 1st phase implementation of this plan.
Communications
1982
“Investigate actions to guide and influence airport tenants in achieving carbon reduction
from their business operations” I believe the aim for new tenants, particularly for
Act
construction, should be carbon neutrality. They may not achieve it, but they should try,
and HIA is in a position to demonstrate significant leadership on this.
Development,

Information
11.9 Waste.
of
Again your waste reduction measure are to be commended. ‘Waste miles’ needs to be
Regional
considered in its disposal however – how far is waste being transported? This adds to the
environmental problem. Are there better alternatives? With the presumably significant
freedom
quantities of waste being generated per week, could a small, clean waste-combustion
the
electricity generator (as used eg in Denmark) be considered as part of your plan? Or
Transport,
alternative measures?
under

14

Released  Infrastructure,
Page 32 of 70

FOI 23-279
Document 2
11.10 Cultural heritage
Table 11.11 Again working with your immediate neighbours on this (as well as Govt)
needs to be undertaken, including but not limited to cultural burns. (This could be
discussed at regular quarterly meetings if/when set up).

11.11. Local air quality.
“This airport is located in an urbanised area surrounded by a mix of residential,
commercial, industrial and recreational areas”.
This statement is incorrect, it omits rural areas (both ‘rural resource’ and ‘rural living’
zones) and needs to be corrected. This is relevant not only because one of your
immediate neighbours (Milford) is a working farm, it has viticultural and horticultural
activities which need to be considered in discussions on local air quality. Two neighbours
are involved in sheep meat production, and several have racehorses. (Also see sections
on Noise and ground water above.) Any contaminants are a potential issue.

11.12 Ground-based noise.
It should be easier for people to lodge noise complaints (also for aircraft noise, as
above). Noise is not currently an issue except perhaps early morning rabbit shooting on
the runway, but this needs to be monitored. No doubt noise will increase as the site
develops.

11.13 Hazardous substances
Arts
of   the
Management actions. Who conducts the HIAPL environmental audits? Are these
independent? Publicly available? Not specified.
and
They also need to be extended to cover TasWater emissions if they are not already.
What contaminants are in there waste/overflow water going into Sinclair Creek/Lower
Department
Pittwater?
the

by
Section 12. Consultation Strategy
Communications
1982
It is commendable that this process has improved since eg the previous lack of
Act
community consultation re the altered flight paths. This saves a lot of time, money and
angst. However:
P 106 Additional consultation
Development,
All your significant immediate neighbours need to be consulted, not just those invited to
Information
of
HACAG.
Regional

P 106 Submission to the Minister. “the Preliminary Draft Masterplan is amended
freedom
accordingly”.
the

Transport,
I believe this process needs to be better explained and be more transparent and
under
rigorous. Eg Who does this and decides what to incorporate or not? Will feedback such
15

Released  Infrastructure,
Page 33 of 70

FOI 23-279
Document 2
as this be included? Is there another round of public comment, or a period to read it?
(can be shorter). How are issues raised and considered valid to then be dealt with?

Section 13. Implementation Plan.
It is disconcerting to me that what is essentially the ‘guts’ of this Draft Masterplan starts
on p 109, where I imagine a lot of people might not even find it. An Executive Summary
would help this, and also referencing these tables and the actions in the preceding
sections. The Actions should also be numbered for ease of reference.
Most of my comments on this section I have already covered, but I would add that I am
starting to hear discontent from members of the public about:

•  the piecemeal approach to the terminal upgrades, parking etc over the past few
years, and the hope that this might improve;
•  the lack of air bridges; and
•  very recently, about the lack of consideration apparently given to the needs of
long-haul aircraft when the recent works to strengthen the ends of the runway
were undertaken.
Such comments are indicative of limited advance planning, and I hope this Masterplan
will assist in redressing that, and take a longer-term, wider view, and at minimum
recommend performing a risk analysis of the omission of analyses of post-20-year needs
(eg potential second runway, more comprehensive transport solutions, meaningful,
tangible passenger carbon offsets, implications of climate change, risk of
terrorism/security issues etc). Expect – and plan for - the unexpected.

Arts
Overall however I consider this Preliminary Draft Masterplan to be a lot better than many
of   the
others I have seen in the past (ie from other authorities). I don’t see any major short-
term omissions, deliberate or otherwise. It is relatively open and transparent, and
and
community and environment as well as business focussed.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide feedback.
Department
the

by
s47F
Communications
1982

Act
s47F

Development,

Information
of
Regional
freedom
the  Transport,
under
16

Released  Infrastructure,
Page 34 of 70

FOI 23-279
Document 2
SUBMISSION RE HOBART AIRPORT MASTERPLAN 2022:
s47F

Personal Background:
I read with interest and with extreme apprehension your Masterplan 2022 for the next 20 years.
Extreme apprehension because I currently reside under Runway 30 Flight Path and the noise and
sight intrusion, along with total loss of privacy in both my front and back yards, has impacted
negatively 100 % my once quiet,  peaceful, country life style.  Along with these stated negative
impacts the value of my property has been greatly reduced due to the sky highways above my home.
Not only am I directly affected by Runway 30 arrivals but also by departures and by planes tracking
across my land to Dunal ey. These 3 flight paths track directly to waypoint BAVUW which is directly
behind my home.
The expansion you are predicting in both passenger numbers, flight numbers with increases in
freight flights, Antarctic flights, international flights will drastically increase the negative impacts on
my neighbours, myself, the residents of Primrose Sands, Carlton, Dodges Ferry and Forcett.
Approximately  8000  residents  are currently negatively affected and it appears the situation will
drastically deteriorate as Hobart Airport expands.

INACCURATE STATEMENTS IN YOUR MASTERPLAN 2022:
Firstly I would like to state that trying to locate and read the page numbers in your Plan is a trial in
Arts
itself.
of   the
I refer to the following pages:
and
Page 78 states:
Department
“final design and associated airspace was completed in 2019
the
on the same page:
by
Communications
{current flight paths were designed} “in consultation with local communities so that they limit the
1982
noise impact to the maximum extent possible.”
Act
Page 77 states:
Development,
“current flight paths are in affect until 2028”
Information
and while this last following statement on page 71 is not inaccurate, as far as I am aware, it does
of
nothing to encourage support from the community currently affected by the unacceptable flight
Regional
paths.  The statement is:
freedom
“Hobart airport has not been required to develop any plans for the management of aircraft noise
the  Transport,
intrusion over existing residences.”
under
Released  Infrastructure,
Page 35 of 70

FOI 23-279
Document 2
With Airport management issuing these statements how can you hope to obtain the support of the
now negatively impacted communities? You have thrown us to the wolves.  We are of the belief
that Air Services are currently reviewing Runway 30 arrivals and yet Airport management has made
the above statements.  The current situation has left the current affected communities in no man’s
land.  The word coercion comes to the foreground and it is the local communities who are suffering.

GROUND NOISE:
I am not against any form of advancing tourism and growth of a sustainable nature for Tasmania but
ground noise  is a major unacceptable consequence of this growth.  There are many vacant safe
corridors that Runway 30 can be transferred to so perhaps I could suggest that Airport Management
unite with the community to  discuss alternatives with Air Services  in the hope of finding  an
acceptable solution for both Airport advancement and a happy community.
We are approximately 8000  residents who prior to 2017 were never overflown and now are
overflown for 18 hours a day and longer when planes are delayed.  We have a legitimate major
problem. If  the current problem is not addressed  your Masterplan has not mentioned the word
CURFEW.  This may, in fact, be the only solution for the community.

ADDRESS TO FORWARD SUBMISSIONS:

Arts
of
Nowhere in your Masterplan Preliminary Draft did I find either a postal address or an email address
the
to forward submissions to.  Maybe you were hoping this emission would deter persons, particularly
and
current aggrieved community members, from forwarding a submission?
I would appreciate acknowledgement of receipt of this submission.
Department
the
s47F

by

Communications
1982

Act

Development,

Information

of
Regional

freedom

the  Transport,

under
Released  Infrastructure,
Page 36 of 70

FOI 23-279
Document 2
With airport management issuing these statements how can you hope to obtain the support of the
now negatively impacted communities?  You have thrown us to the wolves We are of the belief that
Air Services are currently reviewing Runway 30 arrivals and yet  airport management states the
current flight paths are finalised and in affect until 2028.

In your plan you have not mentioned the magical word “CURFEW.’’

‘

Arts
of   the
and
Department
the
by
Communications
1982
Act
Development,
Information
of
Regional
freedom
the  Transport,
under
Released  Infrastructure,
Page 37 of 70

FOI 23-279
Document 2
Pages 41 – 68 deleted
Outside scope of request
Section 22(1)(a)(ii)
Arts
of   the
and
Department
the
by
Communications
1982
Act
Development,
Information
of
Regional
freedom
the  Transport,
under
Released  Infrastructure,
Page 38 of 70

FOI 23-279
Document 3
s22(1)(a)(ii)
From:
Matt Cocker s47F
Sent:
Wednesday, 26 October 2022 4:36 PM
To:
Erin McGoldrick; Hannah Nolan
Subject:
Fwd: Congratulations

Matt Cocker
Chief Operating Officer
P: 04s47F
E: s47F

6 Hinkler Rd | Cambridge, Tas | 7170  www.hobartairport.com.au

Begin forwarded message:
From: Norris Carter s47F

Date: 26 October 2022 at 14:39:36 AEDT
To: Matt Cocker s47F

Subject: FW: Congratulations

Arts
Feedback on the Master Plan from TSBC
of

the
Norris Carter
and
Chief Executive Officer
P: 04s47F
E: s47F

Department
6 Hinkler Rd | Cambridge, Tas | 7170  www.hobartairport.com.au
the
by
Communications
1982
Act

From: Robert Mallett s47F

Sent: Wednesday, 26 October 2022 2:00 PM
To: Norris Carter s47F

Development,
Cc: s47F

Information

of

Regional

freedom

the  Transport,
under

1
Released  Infrastructure,
Page 39 of 70

Arts
of   the
and
Department
the
by
Communications
1982
Act
Development,
Information
of
Regional
freedom
the  Transport,
under
Released  Infrastructure,

FOI 23-279
Document 4
Assessment – Hobart Airport draft Master Plan 2022
Airports Act 1996 - sections 81(2), 81(3), 81(4), 81(5)

Consultation undertaken
As discussed in the Supplementary Report, HIAPL undertook a public consultation program to provide community
and other stakeholders with information on the contents of the Master Plan.

The public exhibition period was held for 60 business days as required under the Act, from 11 August 2022 to 2
November 2022.

Consultation undertaken on the Master Plan included:
•  Announcement of the pdMP at the Tourism Tasmania Business Breakfast and a presentation at the Tourism
Industry Event;
•  Four public information sessions with a presentation and questions & answer session, held at Hobart,
Dunalley and Sorell as well as one-on-one meetings with members of the community and key stakeholders;
•  Meetings with AusTrade and the Department of State Growth (Tas) to provide a briefing on and discussion
of the Master Plan;
•  Newspaper advertisements including the Mercury, Eastern Shore, Hobart Observer, Tasman and Sorell
Newspapers;
•  Informal consultation including posters at Dunalley petrol stations in response to community request;
printed media, television and radio coverage;
•  Distribution of the pdMP to other key stakeholders including Cambridge Aerodrome, Airlines, Hobart
Airport Tenants and Tourism Tasmania as well as to local, state and federal offices; and
•  Existing channels such as the airport’s website, social media, as well as Hobart Airport’s Community
Aviation Consultation Group and Planning Coordination Forum.
Arts
Themes and issues
of   the
Whilst only three submissions were received, HIAPL addressed the issues based on chapters in the Master Plan, as  and
comments were received with regard to Chapters 1 to 13.
HIAPL’s responses to themes and issues
Department
Section 2 of the Supplementary Report discusses the consultation undertaken and Section 3 outlines the outcomethe s
of the consultation. In subsection 3.3.1, HIAPL first addressed general comments that related to the Master Plan aby s
a whole, and then broke down the issues in relation to each chapter.
Communications

1982
HIAPL justified its position and response to each issue raised. This includes sound, respectful explanations where  Act
HIAPL disagreed with views expressed in the submissions. The position includes appropriate supporting
information, further clarification or justification for changing or keeping sections of the draft Master Plan the same.

HIAPL provided a comment on each issue as to if/how the Master Plan has changed as a result of community
Development,
feedback and where the inclusion of additional information has been added. Where reasonable, HIAPL offered  Information
solutions to the issues raised, such as a commitment to continue with engagement and consultation with adjacentof
landowners.
Regional

freedom
The department considers the dMP adequately articulates the consultations undertaken in the preparation of the
Master Plan and the outcome of the consultations on the pdMP.
the  Transport,

under

Page 5 of Released 7  Infrastructure,
Page 45 of 70

Arts
of   the
and
Department
the
by
Communications
1982
Act
Development,
Information
of
Regional
freedom
the  Transport,
under
Released  Infrastructure,